20200588 Ver 1_USACE Meeting Notes_20200204

Action ID: SAW-2019-02248
Project Name: Meshad Property Norton Ridge Road
Date: 4-Feb-2020
Summary of Comments/Additional Information Need
I. Overview of Impoundment Impacts
There are no permanent natural impoundments of cold water stream systems in NC and building a
dam will have adverse effects on these streams. Fundamentally, the data or impounding structure
is a barrier that interrupts the natural stream dynamics. The impoundment that forms behind the
data results in loses of riverine characteristics and impacts indigenous aquatic species that depend
on the existing cold water stream habitat for their survival.
• General Water Quality Impacts
➢ Greater surface area of impoundment and release of waters downstream result in higher
water temperatures within the impoundment and in waters downstream.
➢ Loss of turbulent flow reduces dissolved oxygen concentration.
➢ Water in the impoundment will stratify which will further reduce dissolved oxygen.
➢ Metals and organics pollutants will become concentrated in fine sediments trapped in
impoundment.
• General Habitat Impacts
➢ Cool and warm water aquatic species become profuse in the impoundment and often
the impoundment becomes unsuitable for native cold water aquatic species.
➢ Native aquatic cold water species below the data in the downstream stream reach
become reduced.
➢ Aquatic species access to habitat becomes blocked or fragmented.
➢ Natural flow regime become modified.
➢ Sediment substrate become trapped in the impoundment and the natural substrate is
buried in the impoundment.
➢ The channel substrate in the stream reach below the dam becomes "sediment -starved"
and the stream bed will start to erode to replace sediment being trapped in the
impoundment.
➢ The majority of beneficial nutrients, including leaf/woody debris,transported by the
streams entering the impoundment become trapped in impoundment.
II. Review of UA Impacts 143.0'0111CI.41,., o1'r
_• What are the total impacts to WoUS7 _ APq ,— 4. be
• Impacts are to UTs of Norton Prong, S1 and S3.
w0i deer-�/1
III. Review of Proposed Stream Restoration
• The proposed work would be relocation of Sl/S3 to the north side of proposed pond.
• The work would not restore Sl and S3 within their natural channel alignments, nor provide an
overall ecological aquatic uplift.
• Proposed work would keep the UA pond at its current footprint.
• Impacts to WoUS would be same as total impacts of UA, with additional impacts to S3.
• Will the located stream "hold" at this proposed location.
• As presented, this work will need to be. authorized under a permit.
Page I of 4

IV. Items Needed as Remedial Measures of the UA
• A detailed accounting of all grading, filling, flooding, and/or mechanized land clearing that has
occurred in WoUS at the property during the last 24 months. This accounting must disclose in
detail the length and/or area of WoUS affected by grading, filling, mechanized land clearing,
and/or flooding, and the date the work was conducted
• A statement regarding your intention to resolve this matter either through full restoration of the
impacted streams and open waters or permitting, or a combination of permitting and
restoration. Do note, activities conducted in areas outside of the DA jurisdiction and the
unauthorized activities conducted within WoUS at the property does not imply that the Corps
will necessarily approve the impacts to WoUS or any future proposal to impact WoUS on this
property.
• Submittal of a request for jurisdictional determination of the entire 5.47 ac. tract (PIN 7541-
75-3732)
• Submit this information by February 28, 2020
V. Permit Option Overview
• Purpose and need of pond
• Impacts for pond will be cumulative with impacts to Norton Prong for installation of culvert
• Based on total impacts for pond, cumulative impacts, and quality of aquatic resources in the
Highlands -Cashiers Area, the permitting route would be an IP
• Permit application will need to include an alternative analysis.
➢ Under the Section 404(b)(1), the alternative analysis requires the applicant to
demonstrate there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed discharge that would
have a less adverse effect on the aquatic environment. Noncompliance with this
requirement is sufficient basis for the Corps to deny the project permit. Also, the
unavailability of practicable alternatives does not necessarily result in issuance of a
permit. Compensatory mitigation cannot be used to satisfy the alternative analysis.
➢ The applicant must demonstrate to the Corps that the proposed project is the least
environmental damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) to achieve the project's
purpose. The 404(b)(1) guidelines requires selecting the LEDPA, provided it does not
result in greater adverse environmental consequences. No discharge of dredge or fill
material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge
which would have less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the
alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences.
➢ Alternatives must be practicable, feasible, and accomplish the project's purpose and
need.
➢ An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done taking into
consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose.
Alternatives do not need to be owned, possessed, or controlled by the applicant. An
area not presently owned by the applicant which could reasonably be obtained, utilized,
expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the purpose of the proposed activity should be
considered.
➢ Alternatives not involving discharges into special aquatic sites are presumed available
and have less adverse impact on aquatic ecosystem, unless clearly demonstrated
otherwise. Special aquatic sites are sanctuaries and refuges; wetlands; mud flats;
vegetated shallows; coral reefs; and riffle and pool complexes.
➢ The analysis must include the no action alternative, the proposed project, and a
sufficient number of alternatives to demonstrate the applicant has considered
Page 2 of 4

alternatives to the proposed project which may impact more or less aquatic resources.
The analysis should clearly state each alternative and document the rational and
findings of each alternative. Each alternative should state the extent of impacts to
aquatic resources, effects to federally protected species and historic properties,
estimated cost, and summarize the construction methodology and logistics.
➢ Based on the submitted information for the proposed project, the Corps assessment of
the property, and familiarity of the area in the vicinity of the proposed project, there are
several alternatives present within and in the vicinity of the project area. For example,
on -site alternatives could be construction a pond in 1) only the areas west (upgrade) of
the approximate location of historic data of existing pond (O W 1); 2) the area south of
S1; and 3) in an area north Sl and east of S3. Off -site alternatives could be use of
Cashiers Lake, Lake Glenville/Thorpe, and Lake Sequoyah.
➢ .The alternative analysis would include a discussion of how each alternative impacts
water quality and habitat (see I above).
Submit a draft mitigation plan for review.
Provide a description of activities to be taken to minimize adverse effects and avoid significant
degradation to aquatic resources and the environment. This should include:
➢ Construction methods and project design measures
➢ Use of appropriate and best management practices
➢ Construction sequencing and timing of on -site operations
➢ Erosion and sediment control measures and maintenance of these structures
➢ Storm water controls
➢ Source and type of fill materials
➢ Location of fill discharge
➢ Controls, technology, and methods to be used for placement of the fill material and
to limit the dispersion of the material
➢ Actions taken to limit the degree or magnitude of the effects to plants, animals, and
humans
➢ How effects will be rectified by repairing and restoring
Provide an evaluation and discussion of the pre-UA conditions of the aquatic resources
proposed to be impacted and how these resources will change based on the proposed project.
If choosing the permit option, then an application with supporting plans, drawings, and
narratives need submitted by March 31, 2020
VI. Stream Restoration Option Overview
• Develop a corrective action plan addressing the unauthorized activities. This plan, at a minimum,
shall contain:
➢ Detailed narrative describing the unauthorized activities and the resulting impacts to
jurisdictional streams and wetlands.
➢ Measures to be taken in order restore the stream bed, banks, and adjoining wetlands,
including a planting plan.
➢ Photos documenting impacts to streams and wetlands.
➢ Schedule for implementation of the corrective action plan.
➢ Professional restoration over -site and submittal of weekly status reports during
performance of corrective actions.
➢ Reporting of corrective action results.
Page 3 of 4

➢ Twenty-four (24) months of monitoring of the stream restoration work in order to
ensure the banks and bed are stable and reporting of the monitoring activities after
the monitoring period ends.
• If choosing the stream restoration option, then the corrective action plan is to be submitted to
the Corps, DWR, and WRC by March 13, 2020, for review and approval by the agencies prior
to undertaking the actions outlined in the plan.
Page 4 of 4