20110260 Ver 1_More Info Received_20110629 (32)

t?lc
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Department of Environment, Health & Safety
r,wniciN.M f'NT. 1120 Estes Drive Ext., CB# 1650
HEALTH & SAIJ:TY Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-1650
June 29, 2011
Mr. Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Reference: Response to May 31, 2011 UNC North Comments Received
SAW-2010-01840
Individual Permit Application for Carolina North Project
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Orange County
North Carolina
Dear Mr. Williams:
On May 31, 2011, the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) provided the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH or University) the public
comments resulting from the USACE Public Comment period (April 8 through May 9,
2011) for the UNC-CH Carolina North Individual Permit Application. Below are the
comments in italics followed by the University's responses to those comments.
1. Simonsen Comment re: Stormwater and Flooding Issues: Mr. Simonsen stated "I don't
know if you can do anything about the situation at the southern end of the Airport property.
My wife and I own KALAMANI and the property at 216 Barclay Rd. The university and the
town of Chapel Hill appear to drain a lot of water down toward our property so as to
completely flood the property at times. "
UNC Response to Simonsen Comment: Mr. Simonsen's property is located at a
low point where stormwater run-off forms a stream that has been identified and
mapped by the Town of Chapel Hill (TOCH) Stormwater Management Division as an
intermittent stream. The Carolina North (CN) development will not increase the run-
off to Mr. Simonsen's property.
Where the intermittent stream formed by stormwater run-off crosses the property, the
stream's drainage area is approximately 20 acres and is composed of forested
University property south of Estes Drive that is not part of the Carolina North (CN)
Project (40%); residential area and residential streets (30%); CN property (20%); and
Estes Drive North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) right-of-way
(10%).
As part of the CN Development Agreement (DA), the University is required to meet
stormwater management criteria that address the volume and peak flow of runoff
from each point where stormwater runoff leaves the CN property. These criteria
prevent additional runoff from impacting downstream properties. For each Site
Development Permit (SDP) at CN, the TOCH Stormwater Management Division will
review the University's stormwater plans and calculations for compliance with the
stormwater management criteria.
2. North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) provided seven (7)
recommendations regarding further efforts at avoidance and minimization to terrestrial
and aquatic resource impacts that should be addressed.
NCWRC Recommendation 1: "Maintain a 100 foot undisturbed, native, forested
buffer along perennial stream, and along intermittent streams and wetlands.
Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas will minimize impacts to
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources, water quality, and aquatic habitat both
within and downstream of the project area. In addition, wide riparian buffers are
helpful in maintaining the stability of stream banks and for treatment of pollutants
associated with stormwater runoff. Whereas, a grassed buffer, particularly fescue, is
a vegetated buffer but will not provide the necessary and highly valuable functions as
discussed for forested buffers. "
Page 2 of 16
We have also referred Mr. Simonsen's comments to the TOCH's Stormwater
Management Division.
UNC Response: The University recognizes the value of undisturbed, forested buffer
along streams and wetlands and has planned the CN site to minimize disturbance of
streams, wetlands and buffers. Also, buffers on the site are protected as follows:
CN is located in the Jordan Lake watershed, and, as a State property, it has been
subject to the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy rule 15A North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) 02B .0267 "Protection of Existing Riparian Buffers"
(Jordan Buffer Rule) since August of 2009. The Jordan Buffer Rule requires a 50
foot buffer on perennial and intermittent streams and specifies the allowable
vegetation management in Zone 1 (0-30 feet) and Zone 2 (30-50 feet). Per the Jordan
Buffer Rule, forest vegetation must be protected and maintained in Zone 1. More
details on the Jordan Buffer Rule can be found here:
http://reports.oab.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-
%20environment%20and%20natural%20resources/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20manaaement/subchanter°o20b/ 15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0267
.pdf
As part of the CN DA, the University agreed that development at CN would be
consistent with the TOCH Resource Conservation District (RCD) regulations in effect
as of the date of the DA. The RCD regulations are the TOCH's buffer controls and
are detailed in the TOCH Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO). For
intermittent streams and perennial water bodies, the RCD extends 50 feet from the
stream bank. For perennial streams, the RCD extends 150 feet from the stream bank
or to an elevation 3 feet above the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater. Uses
within the first 50 feet of buffer are most limited, protecting existing vegetation.
Table 3.6.3-2 of the LUMO describes the permitted uses within each zone of the RCD
and can be found here:
http://Iibrary.municode.com/HTML/19952/level3/CO?APXALAUSMA?ART3ZODI
USDIST.html#CO APXALAUSMA ART3ZODIUSDIST 3.6OVDi
NCWRC Reeommendadon 2: "Protect all remaining wetlands and streams on the
site by placing them in a permanent conservation easement to prohibit filling,
draining, flooding, and excavation. "
UNC Response: According to the terms of the DA and subject to any required State
of North Carolina approvals, the University will place approximately 311 acres of CN
property, which includes many streams and wetlands, into permanent conservation
protection.
NCWRC Recommendation 3: "Culverts should be designed to allow passage of
aquatic life. "
UNC Response: New culverts at CN will be designed to allow passage of aquatic
life per the culvert burial requirements from the USACE. These culvert burial
requirements were stated in a January 18, 2011 letter from Mr. Andrew Williams of
the USACE as follows, "For all box culverts and for pipes greater than 48 inches in
Page 3 of 16
diameter, the bottom of the pipe must be buried at least one foot below the bed of the
stream unless burial would be impractical and the Corps of Engineers has waived this
requirement. For culverts 48 inches in diameter or smaller, the bottom of the pipe
must be buried below the bed of the stream to a depth equal to or greater than 20
percent of the diameter of the culvert."
As stated in the University's response to Mr. Williams, dated February 16, 2011, the
culvert burial requirements described above will be met for the one proposed new
culvert that will convey Stream 14A under the proposed railroad spur (see Figure C-6
in the Individual Permit (IP) application). At all of the proposed culvert extensions,
the requirements will be met when possible and practicable. All of the proposed
culvert extensions occur on the upstream sides of existing NCDOT culverts. If the
existing culvert meets the pipe burial requirements described above, the proposed
upstream culvert extension will meet these requirements as well.
In cases where the existing culvert invert, or bottom of culvert, was placed at the
existing channel bottom on the upstream end, meeting the culvert burial requirement
will not be practicable and the inverts of the proposed culvert sections will need to
match the existing upstream inverts. Since the streams are low gradient, it is unlikely
that the requirement for burying could be met by installing the upstream culvert
extension at a low slope. Replacing the entire pipe is beyond the scope of the
University project and is not considered a practicable alternative for these existing
NCDOT culverts. Though not meeting the requirements for burying the invert, the
proposed upstream extensions to existing NCDOT culverts will continue to pass low
stream flows, will not restrict the movement of fish and other aquatic life more than
the current conditions.
NCWRC Recommendation 4: "Locate sewers and other utilities as far away from
steams as functionally possible and minimize stream crossings. It is preferable that
sewers be located outside the riparian buffers as detailed in #1. "
UNC Response: The University has located any proposed new sewers and other
utilities as far away from streams as functionally possible and has minimized stream
crossings. The only utility impacts to the 50 foot Jordan Buffer are at perpendicular
crossings.
Stream and buffer impacts due to sanitary sewer scalping force mains and an electric
duct bank are shown in Figures C-9, C-10, and C-14 of the IP application. These
impacts have been minimized by using perpendicular crossings, by calling for the
grades to be returned to original elevations after installation, and by siting adjacent to
existing impacts from road crossings. Other utilities have been located outside of the
50 foot Jordan Buffers.
There is one location where a proposed utility is planned parallel to a stream, and is
within 100 feet of the stream, though outside of the 50 foot Jordan buffer. A gravity
Page 4 of 16
sanitary sewer and a sanitary sewer scalping force main are planned parallel to
Stream 2.
NCWRC Recommendation S: "For greenways, porous pavement materials are
preferred over asphalt. Porous pavement facilitates infiltration of stormwater as
opposed to the direct runoff produced from asphalt. "
UNC Response: The University has evaluated permeable pavement as a possible
surface material and stormwater best management practice (BMP) for greenways.
The analysis concluded that permeable pavement is not the most suitable technique
for addressing runoff from a greenway at the CN site due to the low infiltration
capacity of the underlying soils and the difficulty of preventing the permeable
pavement from clogging.
This conclusion is consistent with the permeable pavement siting considerations
contained within Chapter 18 of the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) Stormwater BMP Manual, located at the following
link: http://ncdenr. rot, v/c/document library/get file?uuid=c2917ea9-e620-48e6-beec-
a6fafc4be47d &groupId=3 8364
NCWRC Recommendation 6: "Use landscaping that consists of non-invasive native
species. Using native species instead of ornamentals should provide benefits by
reducing the need for water, fertilizers, and pesticides. "
UNC Response: Native plantings will dominate the CN landscape. The University
recognizes the benefits of reducing the use of water, fertilizers, and pesticides, and the
use of native plants supports a University goal of connecting the existing native forest
into and through the developed portion of the campus. One example of proposed
native planting is the proposed stormwater wetland. This is a constructed system
within the developed area that mimics the function of a natural wetland. It serves
multiple purposes including educational/research opportunities, enhanced habitat, and
stormwater treatment. Due to programmatic and aesthetic requirements in some of
the developed area, open spaces may also include non-native plantings such as lawn,
and other non-invasives.
NCWRC Recommendation 7; "Sediment and erosion control measures should be
installed prior to any land clearing or construction. These measures should be
routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt and sediment loads can
have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of
spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species. "
UNC Response: The project will obtain an Erosion and Sedimentation Control
permit from the NCDENR Land Quality Section. The project will install, inspect and
maintain appropriate best management practices to protect aquatic resources and
comply with permit conditions.
Page 5 of 16
3. Ms. Julie McClintock, representing the Non-Governmental Organization, Friends of Bolin
Creek, provided comments via electronic mail dated May 9, 2011. Specific issues
mentioned in this correspondence are as follows:
Friends of Bolin CreeklMeClintock Comment ]. The letter from Mr. Andrew
Williams, USA CE Regulatory Project Manager, dated Tuesday, May 31, 2011
summarized the first comment requiring response as follows: "The wastewater reuse
portion of the project, including impacts associated with the route of the force main
and the pump station location. "
The full comment text from the Friends of Bolin Creek is "Waste water reuse project.
The project is described in the application as creating unavoidable impacts. A water
reuse project, while laudable, is not necessary infrastructure and would come at a
high financial cost while causing damage to area creeks. The route of a force main
on C-9 would unnecessarily cross and disturb a main section of Bolin Creek. 14 B is
an example of a stream that originates north of Bolin Creek, flows through a forested
upland area to a culvert under Estes Drive, which would also be impacted by this
project. Even if this expensive and voluntary project were to be undertaken, locating
the pump station as sited on map C-9 is not the only feasible location. "
UNC Response: In this comment the Friends of Bolin Creek and Ms. McClintock
express concerns about the stream and wetland impacts and the cost associated with
the proposed water reuse project. This response addresses only the stream and
wetland impacts. First, the sanitary sewer scalping force main routing and associated
stream and wetland impacts are discussed. Second, the pump station location is
discussed. Third, the idea of voluntary water reuse is addressed and reclaimed water
is compared to other water supply options for CN.
The University studied alternatives for sanitary sewer scalping force main routes for
the purposes of minimizing impacts to wetlands and waterways. The feasible
alternatives were developed based on projections about non-potable water demand,
on-site rainwater and sewage volumes available for non-potable water production and
the sewage flows in Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) sanitary sewers
near the site. The selected routes shown in the University's IP application are those
that meet the requirements and have the least impacts to streams, wetlands and
buffers.
Stream and buffer impacts due to the proposed sanitary sewer scalping force mains
are shown in Figures C-9 and C-10 of the USACE IP application. These impacts
have been minimized by using perpendicular crossings, by designing for the grades
and stream bottoms to be returned to original elevations after installation and by
siting the crossings adjacent to existing impacts from road crossings.
Several potential pump station locations were considered for the sanitary sewer
scalping force main prior to selecting the site shown in Figure C-9. The site shown in
the IP application was chosen because the location: is adjacent to the OWASA Bolin
Page 6 of 16
Creek Interceptor; does not impact perennial, intermittent or ephemeral streams; is
outside of the 50 foot Jordan Buffer; is outside of the 100 foot buffer zone of the
TOCH RCD; is above of the 100 year Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) floodplain; does not require the extensive grading that would be required at
other sites; requires minimal clearing to provide access from a public right-of-way; is
not immediately adjacent to residential property; and is owned by OWASA and
would therefore not require property acquisition or easements.
The Friends of Bolin Creek and Ms. McClintock refer to the water reuse project as
voluntary; however, the University's involvement with reclaimed water is no longer
voluntary. The CN DA with the TOCH requires that "A comprehensive, holistic
approach shall be employed at the Carolina North Project that includes water
reclamation strategies for buildings, landscape, and all other water users on the site"
and that "All buildings constructed at the Carolina North Project pursuant to this
Agreement shall be designed, constructed, and operated to include water-reclamation
and water-reuse."
On the State level, North Carolina General Statute G.S. 143-355(1) requires that
public water suppliers, such as OWASA, include their current and future plans for
water reuse in their annual Local Water Supply Plans. As OWASA's largest
customer and primary non-residential water user, the University is the key participant
in plans for water reuse. Water reuse systems reduce the demand for water from
reservoirs or groundwater sources. Use of reclaimed water can postpone or eliminate
a community's need to develop new water supply sources (e.g, new reservoirs and
new water intakes) or to build water treatment facilities. These statements can be put
in local context by reviewing the OWASA Long Range Water Supply Plan, dated
April 8, 2010. While the proposed reclaimed water line in the University's IP
application would result in small stream and buffer impacts to Bolin Creek, the
project is potentially preventing far more significant impacts to streams, wetlands,
and buffers associated with other options for meeting the community's future water
supply needs.
Friends of Bolin Creek/McClintock Comment 2: The letter from Mr. Andrew
Williams, USA CE Regulatory Project Manager, dated May 31, 2011 summarized the
comment requiring response as follows: "Sewell [sic] School Road Bike Lanes,
including the Town of Chapel Hill approval for minor modifications to reduce
jurisdictional impacts for these lanes and the effect of any permitted impacts on an off
road bike path described in the Development Agreement between UNC and the Town
of Chapel Hill. "
The full comment text from the Friends of Bolin Creek is "Sewell [sic] School Road
Bikelanes. The application states that two off-road bike lanes will be built along
Seawell School Road. This appears to be inconsistent with the statement on page 36
of the application that states that the Town of Chapel Hill approved a minor
modification to the Development Agreement to allow placement of a sidewalk and
bicycle facilities along the east side of Seawell School Road, thus reducing the impact
Page 7 of 16
to perennial and intermittent streams. We want the assurance from the applicant that
approving this permit will retain the ability for the University to build at an off-road
bike path along Seawell School Road as described in the Development Agreement. "
UNC Response: We are unaware of any requirement in the DA for the construction
of an off-road bike path along Seawell School Road. Section 5.8.18 of the DA reads:
"Bicycle Improvements. Bicycle facilities shall be built in existing right-of-way or on
University property. Bicycle facilities shall be provided on the following streets. The
locations are:
1) Both sides of Estes Drive from Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. to Seawell
School Road; and
2) Both sides of Seawell School Road between Estes Drive and Homestead
Road. "
Minor Modification 2010-2 to the DA approved on August 12, 2010, allows the University to
meet the requirement of Section 5.8.18 by locating the bicycle facilities in an off road multi-
use path along one section of Seawell School Road in order to avoid impact to streams 5B
and 14A. Along the rest of Seawell School Road bicycle facilities will be located on both
sides of the road. The minor modification request to the TOCH, which includes a map of
Seawell School Road, may be seen at: bttp://www.ci.cha el-
hill.nc.us/Modules/ShowDocumcnt aspx?documentid-6837
Friends of Bolin Cree&VcClintock Comment 3: The letter from Mr. Andrew
Williams, USA CE Regulatory Project Manager, summarized the comment requiring
response as follows: `Impacts of Bolin Creek from the Carolina North Project,
including effects of proposed transit improvement and increased impervious surfaces
on the Bolin Creek and Booker Creek watersheds. Additionally, concerns are
expressed for Stream 5A and the effectiveness of the proposed stormwater facilities. "
The full comment textfrom the Friends of Bolin Creek is "Impact on Bolin Creek
from Carolina North project. The application seeks to address impacts on streams
and wetlands outside the development footprint with the goal of minimizing those
impacts. Yet many of the transit improvements and additional impervious surfaces of
the new campus will cause significant impacts to the Bolin and Booker Creek
watersheds. For example, Stream 5A is described as inconsequential, but is a high
value tributary as it flows toward Bolin Creek. We are concerned about the effectives
of stormwater facilities to actually prevent increased flow through protected buffers
and into perennial and intermittent streams such as 5A. The Jordan Lake rules
mandate that even activities outside the protected buffer are not allowed to cause
hydrologic impacts to the buffer and stream. Stormwater facilities should exceed
minimum standards to ensure that buffers and streams are protected even in unusual
storm events. "
Page 8 of 16
UNC Response: This response will focus on the points specifically referenced by
Mr. Williams. First, the effects of transit improvements and other increased
impervious area on the Bolin and Booker Creek watersheds will be addressed.
Second, Stream 5A will be specifically discussed. Third, the effectiveness of the
proposed stormwater facilities to prevent increased flow through buffers and into
streams is presented. This response will also address a fourth item not mentioned by
Mr. Williams, but was included in the full comment text, i.e. the comment that
stormwater facilities should exceed minimum standards.
The University will address the impacts of additional impervious cover within the CN
development area and outside the development footprint (e.g. transit improvements
required by the DA) by meeting or exceeding minimum stormwater management
performance criteria related to water quality, peak discharge, and runoff volume as
described in Section 3.0 of the Stormwater Concept Plan (Appendix F of the IP
application). The University and the TOCH established performance criteria for
stormwater management at CN in the DA. Additionally, State stormwater
management criteria are applied through the Jordan Buffer Rule diffuse flow
requirement and the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy Rule 15A NCAC 02B
.0271 "Stormwater Requirements for State and Federal Entities" (Jordan New
Development Rule and Jordan Existing Development Rule).
The Friends of Bolin Creek and Ms. McClintock expressed a specific concern that
"Stream 5A is described as inconsequential, but is a high value tributary as it flows
toward Bolin Creek." Stream 5A is not a tributary of Bolin Creek; it is a tributary of
Crow Branch and Booker Creek, located adjacent to the pre-regulatory TOCH
landfill.
The University will prevent increased flow to streams and buffers by meeting or
exceeding the stormwater management performance criteria from the Jordan Buffer
Rule and in the DA with the TOCH. The University's stormwater facilities will be
effective by requiring designs based on the most recent version of the NCDENR
Stormwater BMP Manual and more stringent requirements in the University's Design
and Construction Guidelines section titled Stormwater Performance Criteria, Design
Standards, and Procedures.
The NCDENR Division of Water Quality (DWQ) provides two options for meeting
the diffuse flow requirement in the Jordan Buffer Rule: a level spreader with a
vegetated filter strip or stormwater BMPs that remove at least 30% of the Total
Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP). Stormwater BMPs that remove at least
30% of the TN and TP, such as bioretention and stormwater wetlands, are the most
appropriate means to meet the diffuse flow requirement at CN and are shown in the
Stormwater Concept Plan.
The University will also meet the stormwater runoff volume and peak runoff rate
performance criteria established in the DA with the TOCH. Additionally, the
University stormwater staff is engaged in the professional stormwater community and
Page 9 of 16
keeps abreast of research regarding stormwater management facility performance and
design. The University's Stormwater Concept Plan is based on performance criteria
and stormwater facility designs that reflect the leading edge of the stormwater
profession.
Stormwater facilities at CN will exceed minimum standards as compared to other
development in Chapel Hill by controlling peak discharge at additional design storms,
by exceeding the Jordan New Development Rule requirements and addressing the
Jordan Existing Development Rule on-site and by being a part of a robust stormwater
program.
The stormwater performance criteria in the DA with the TOCH requires that peak
post-development stormwater runoff rate not exceed the peak existing conditions
runoff rate at the 1-year, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and 50-year frequency, 24-hour
duration storm events. The TOCH LUMO only applies this requirement to the 1-
year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency storms; thus, the University has agreed to
stormwater standards that exceed those applied to other development in the TOCH.
The Jordan New Development Rule requires stormwater treatment to reduce TN and
TP at development sites that increase impervious area but not at redevelopment sites
that reduce impervious area. Some sites'at CN will be redevelopment that reduces
impervious area, so TN and TP reductions are not required at those locations.
Meanwhile, the Jordan Existing Development Rule requires State entities, including
the University, to decrease existing TN and TP loads to Jordan Lake but provides
many options, including purchasing off site credits. As one strategy to meet the
Jordan Existing Development Rule, the University decided to require redevelopment
sites that reduce impervious area to reduce the TN and TP loads through on-site
stormwater treatment. Though these TN and TP reductions are required for the
Jordan Existing Development Rule, minimum standards will be exceeded to the
benefit of the Bolin and Booker Creek watersheds because these reductions will occur
at CN rather than in another part of the Jordan Lake watershed.
The University holds a stormwater permit from NCDENR similar to the permits held
by local governments. The University's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requires
that the University review stormwater plans; inspect erosion and sediment controls at
construction sites; train staff about pollution prevention; find and fix pollution
sources; map the stormwater system; and maintain, inspect, and indentify ways to
improve existing stormwater facilities. The University is required to have this
NPDES permit; however, this robust stormwater program distinguishes the University
from those who only are required to meet minimum standards for development in
TOCH or elsewhere.
Friends of Bolin Cree&McClintock Comment 4: The letter from Mr. Andrew
Williams, USA CE Regulatory Project Manager, dated May 31, 2011 summarized the
comment requiring response as follows: "Concerns that the Chapel Hill Stormwater
Page 10 of 16
Management staff has not assessed or commented on the stream impacts of the
proposed project. "
The full comment text from the Friends of Bolin Creek is "The University, further
states that throughout the permit application process, the University communicated
with other agencies and with the Town of Chapel Hill and OWASA. We are
concerned that the Chapel Hill Storm Water Management utility has not assessed or
commented on the many miles of streams affected by Carolina North. "
UNC Response: The University is subject to multiple regulations at the local, state,
and federal levels. This IP application specifically addresses regulations
implemented by the USACE and DWQ. The TOCH was provided with a copy of the
IP application, a meeting was held with TOCH staff and TOCH staff were able to
review and comment on the IP application if desired. Additionally, the TOCH will
conduct separate reviews regarding streams, buffers and stormwater management.
This IP application was submitted to USACE and DWQ to address impacts to streams
and wetlands. At the beginning of the process, staff from USACE and DWQ visited
the site and determined which streams and wetlands were under their respective
jurisdictions. The USACE implements the federal permitting that is called for in
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. DWQ implements the associated state-level
certification that is called for in Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The DWQ 401
Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetland Permit also include reviews of
isolated wetlands that are not in the USACE jurisdiction, State-level buffer
regulations, diffuse flow requirement, and other State-level stormwater management
requirements. Under the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy, DWQ has
jurisdiction for the Jordan Buffer Rule because the University is a State entity.
As part of the CN DA, the University agreed that development would be consistent
with the TOCH RCD regulations as of the date of the DA. In a separate effort from
the USACE and DWQ site visits, the TOCH Stormwater Management Division has
conducted an assessment of the streams at CN that will be used to apply the TOCH
RCD regulations. The TOCH RCD regulations are not addressed in the IP application
to USACE and DWQ. The TOCH staff will review for compliance with the TOCH
RCD rules on a project by project basis.
The TOCH Stormwater Management Division will also conduct reviews of the
stormwater management at CN. Per the DA, the University is required to submit a
stormwater concept plan with the first SDP application. The University intends to
submit the Stormwater Concept Plan that is included in Appendix F of the IP
application. The TOCH Stormwater Management Division will also review for
compliance with the stormwater management criteria in the DA on a project by
project basis.
4. Willardson Comment re: NCEEP Mitigation: The letter from Mr. Andrew Williams,
USA CE Regulatory Project Manager, dated May 31, 2011 summarized the comment
Page 11 of 16
requiring response as follows: "They requested a public hearing regarding the proposed
payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) for the
compensatory mitigation of streams and wetlands impacts by this proposed project. While
the decision to hold a public hearing resides with the Corps of Engineers, you must provide a
response regarding you decision to mitigate through the NCEEP. Also, please be aware that
there is an approved mitigation bank located within the Cape Fear watershed, cataloging
unit 03030002 (which is the watershed of your proposed impacts) that has additional stream
and wetland credits released since receipt ofyour application. The bank is operated by
Restoration Systems, Inc. and you can contact them at 919-334-9119. "
UNC Response: On April 10, 2008 the US Environmental Protection Agency and
the USACE published new wetland mitigation regulations in the Federal Register (33
CFR Parts 325 and 332 and 40 CFR Part 230). These regulations state that the most
preferred mitigation option is purchase of mitigation bank credits, which are usually
in place before the activity is permitted. In-lieu fee program credits are second in the
preference hierarchy, because they may involve larger, more ecologically valuable
compensatory mitigation projects as compared to permittee-responsible mitigation.
Permittee-responsible mitigation is the third option.
In addition, the 2008 regulations say that state agencies may choose between
purchase of mitigation bank credits and in-lieu fee program credits as their first
option. There is currently one mitigation bank available to supply mitigation credits,
however, they do not have credits sufficient to satisfy the CN impacts. Therefore, the
University as a state agency, may choose where mitigation credit is purchased, from
either a mitigation bank or NCEEP (in-lieu fee), based on availability and the lowest
cost to state taxpayers.
5. USA CE Comment in text of letter: "Furthermore, we are still evaluating the proposed
phases of this project and may require additional information regarding the proposed phases
as well as additional coordination with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. "
UNC Response: The University acknowledges the comment above, and will respond to
additional requirements for information upon request.
6 USA CE Comment in text of email: `Also, we have reviewed the alternatives analysis provided in
your application and will need additional clarification regarding the impacts for Plan "Revised
2007" as shown on Table D-5 on page 37 of your application. These impacts do not match the
proposed impacts of the permit application. The "Revised 2007" impacts are 2.32 acre of
wetlands and 203 linear feet of stream, while the permit application requests impacts to 2.412
acre of wetlands and 552 linear feet of stream. "
UNC Response: The information listed in Table D-5, Summary of Impacts for
Carolina North - Avoidance and Minimization in the row entitled "Revised 2007 (on
947-acre site only)" lists the wetland impacts as being 2.32 acres and the stream
impacts as being 203 linear feet.
Page 12 of 16
Based on the information listed in Table D-6 Wetland Impacts Within the
Approximately 947-acre Carolina North Boundary, the wetland impacts in Table D-5
should be listed as 2.397 acres, not 2.32 acres. However, Table D-6 has a typo in it.
The impact shown for Wetland T(5) is shown to be 0.14 acres and it is actually 0.014
acres, as depicted in the corrected table below.
Wetland Area
acres Impact
acres
A 0.861 0.099
Al 0.403 0
B 0.25 0
B1 0.041 0
C 1.64 0
C1 0.243 0
D 0.03 0
D1 0.041 0
E 0.02 0
F 0.57 0
G 0.16 0
H 0.22 0
T 1.34 0
J 0.01 0
K 0.36 0
L 0.24 0
LA 0.03 0
N 0.14 0
O 0.72 0
P 0.06 0
0.04 0
R 0.04 0
S 0.28 0
T 5 0.02 0.014
U 0.01 0
V 0.47 0
W 0.14 0
X 0.03 0.143
XA 0.025 0.025
XB 0.06 0.06
Y 0.13 0.13
Z 1.214 1.214
AA
' 0.014 0.014
t
E 0.572 0.572
T
ta1s 1OA2493 2.271
Page 13 of 16
So the total acreage of wetland impacts within the approximately 947-acre boundary
is actually 2.271 acres. The remaining offsite impacts are as follows:
Wetland Impact (acres.,
2 0.005
3 0.011
6 0.037
17 0.023
18 0.065
TOTAL 0.141
So the corrected wetland impacts in Table D-5 (2.271 acres) plus the offsite impacts (0.141
acres) total the wetland impacts listed for the entire project in the permit application (2.412
acres).
To recap the stream impacts, Table D-5 Summary of Impacts for Carolina North - Avoidance
and Minimization lists stream impacts inside the 947-acre site only as being 203 feet. This is
correct. However, there is a typo in Table D-7 Stream Impacts Within the Approximately
947-acre Carolina North Boundary. The impact listed for Stream 1 is 32 feet, and it should be
31 feet, per Figure C-13 of the application. When the Stream 1 impact is corrected to 31 feet
as shown in the revised Table D-7 below, then the total impacts in Table D-7 agree with the
203 linear feet listed in Table D-5.
Page 14 of 16
Stream length (ft) Impact (ft)
Bolin Creek 6,821 0
Crow Branch 5,508 72
1 325 31
3 425 0
4 370 0
5A 245 100
5B 125 0
8 494 0
12A 232 0
14A 2,546 174*
16 1,881 0
19 449 0
20, 247 0
21 131 0
22 932 0
23 1,086 0
24 1,312 0
25 1,017 0
26 2,057 0
27A 1,823 0
27B 1,054 0
Totals 29,079 203
*classified as unimportant, by USACE
no impact
Stream 14A, listed in Table D-7 above, was deemed "unimportant" by the USACE.
While impacts to this stream must be reported, they do not require mitigation. If the
174 feet of impact to Stream 14A are included in Tables D-5 and D-7 for stream
impacts, the total stream impact would be 203 + 174 = 377 feet.
The impacts to streams outside the approximately 947-acre boundary are as follows.
Stream Impact linear feet)
2 27
8 47
13 60
14B 20
Bolin Creek 21
TOTAL 175
When the 175 feet of impacts outside the boundary are added to the 377 feet of
impacts inside, then the total is 552 linear feet, as reported in the permit application.
Page 15 of 16
If you have any questions regarding this submittal or need additional information, please
contact me at [phone] or Jill Coleman at [phone].
Sincerely,
Sharon A. Myers, L.G.
Environmental Compliance Officer
Cc: Ms. Jill Coleman
Mr. Daniel Elliott
Ms. Mary Beth Koza
Mr. Ian McMillan
Mr. Kevin Nunnery
Mr. Bruce Runberg
Ms. Anna Wu
Page 16 of 16