20051354 Ver 2_More Info Letter_20120221

Strickland, Bev
From:
Kulz, Eric
Sent:
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:02 PM
To:
Strickland, Bev
Cc:
Lespinasse, Polly
Subject:
FW: Watts Property (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments:
Watts Property Request for Additional Info 20120216.pdf
Bev
For Laserfiche #20051354 v2
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
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tuawell(a)usace.army.mill
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:16 PM
To: Brown, Wyatt; Ellison, Michael
Cc: Wheeler, Tracey L SAW; Adams, Amy; Fritz Rohde (Fritz. Rohde(a)noaa.aov); Becky Fox
(Fox. Rebecca @epamail.epa.aov); Karoly, Cyndi; Cox, David R.; Kulz, Eric; aarnett.jeffrey a epamail.epa.aov; Jurek, Jeff;
Lekson, David M SAW; McLendon, Scott C SAW; Mcmillan, Ian; Mike Wicker (mike wicker@)fws.aov); Pearce, Guy;
Steffens, Thomas A SAW; Sollod, Steve; Wilson, Travis W.; Wrenn, Brian
Subject: Watts Property (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Michael and Wyatt,
I have reviewed the Watts Property Mitigation Plan and have some questions, which are listed in the attached letter.
know that DWQ also has looked at the plan and has similar questions. I'm sending a hard copy as well, but wanted to
get you the letter, particularly given your impending move.
Thanks and let me know how you would like to proceed with this project.
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, INC 27587
(919) 846 -2564

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: http: / /per2 .nwp.usace.army.mil /survey.html Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the
survey.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF February 16, 2012
Regulatory Division
Re: Request for Additional Information for the Watts Property Mitigation Site (SAW- 2005- 11813)
Mr. Michael Ellison
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Dear Mr. Ellison:
Please reference the letter of January 19, 2012, from Mr. Wyatt Brown with the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), which transmitted the Watts Property Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan and associated Preconstruction Notification Application. I have reviewed the Mitigation
Plan and have several questions related to the proposal, which I've listed below.
1. The mitigation plan refers to the 2005 guidance on stream restoration in the coastal plain, and didn't
use the 2007 update. Is there a reason for this?
2. The plan indicates monitoring for both the streams and wetlands will be for 5 years. I understand that
this project predates the 2008 change to 7 years for forested wetlands, but given the length of time that
the site has been in development, I encourage EEP to consider a 7 year monitoring cycle for both
wetlands and streams on this site (see comment 5 below).
3. The mitigation plan shows that the site will be graded down to the bed elevation of the central ditch
rather than filling the ditch to bring the site up. Because of this, the site will be sloped toward the ditch,
and much more earthwork will be required, with excavation of up to 3 feet in some areas based on the
grading plan. As we all know, we have historically had many problems with excavation, particularly
with vegetation growth. Also, the sloped site will tend to drain the wetlands that would normally be
expected develop next to the restored stream. Why was the site not brought up to the existing grade,
which would have eliminated these concerns? Inclusion of a vegetation vigor performance standard
may be appropriate given the extent of grading. I would suggest the following standard, which is based
on a 7 year monitoring cycle, but this can be adjusted if necessary:
"Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at year 7 in sites located in the
coastal and piedmont counties and 8 feet in height in each plot at year 7 in the mountain counties (as
defined in the 2003 SMGs). If this performance standard is met by year 5 and stem density is
trending toward success (i.e., no less than 260 five year -old stems /acre) monitoring of vegetation on

the site may be terminated provided written approval is provided by the USACE in consultation with
the NCIRT."
4. The plan shows that upland vegetation will be planted along the restored stream, but having an upland
boundary next to a 10 to 15 -foot wide coastal stream is not a reference condition. Ideally, these areas
should return to wetland and should be planted in riparian wetland vegetation even if they are not
monitored or receive wetland credit.
5. The stream monitoring as proposed in the plan is not sufficient to demonstrate a stream has developed
in the bed of the channel, particularly since this channel will count toward restoration credit. We are in
the process of revising the guidance for streams on the coastal plain again, and have dealt with this same
issue on other mitigation sites. Attached are some proposed performance standards that could be added
to the mitigation plan to help address our concerns (see attached). Please note that these standards were
originally developed for a 7 year monitoring cycle, and I believe it would be better to implement these
over 7 years, but they could be adapted for a 5 year period, if necessary.
6. The mitigation plan includes Juncus effusus in the wetland seed mix, which may have allelopathic
effects on planted species and should be removed from the seed mix if possible.
7. The PCN lists impacts to wetlands (0.058 acres) for planting trees, which is not a regulated activity.
These impacts should be removed from the PCN.
Please keep in mind that Section 332.80)(2) of the Mitigation Rule states "if a DA permit is
required for an in -lieu fee project, the permit should not be issued until all relevant provisions of the
mitigation plan have been substantively determined, to ensure that the DA permit accurately reflects all
relevant provisions of the approved mitigation plan ". Accordingly, the concerns which have been
identified in this correspondence must be addressed prior to our verification that impacts associated with
your mitigation project are authorized by NWP 27.
Thank you for working with us to address these issues. Please contact me if you have any
questions about this letter, or if there is any additional information you need. I can be contacted at
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
�- -_- � Digitally signed by
y o,� TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048429293
Date: 2012.02.16 13:12:04 - 05'00'
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
Wyatt Brown, NCEEP
Amy Adams, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
CESAW- RG- W/Wheeler
NCIRT Distribution List

Performance Standards for Coastal Streams on the Watts Property Site
Stream channels associated with the project that do not involve construction of pattern, dimension, and /or profile
were generally designed in accordance with the USACE guidance for stream restoration in the Coastal Plain.
Development of the streams in these systems will be achieved through the reestablishment of braided stream
morphology through passive measures, including ditch filling, and natural progression of the stream through
historic sloughs, braids and channels. These stream systems shall be subject to the performance standards listed
below:
1. Under normal climatic conditions, continuous surface water flow within the valley or crenulation must be
documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days within each monitoring year during the
prescribed monitoring period (7 years). Additional monitoring and /or analysis may be necessary in the
event of abnormal climactic conditions. Documentation of flow shall be accomplished using flow meters
and photographic evidence of observed flow taken from fixed photo stations located along the path of the
flow.
2. Evidence of channel formation within the valley or crenulation must be documented through the
identification of field indicators on an annual basis in accordance with the following schedule:
a. During monitoring years 1 through 4, the preponderance of documented field indicators must
demonstrate the accumulation of flow within the topographic low -point of the valley or
crenulation. Documented indicators may include any of the following indicators or any of the
indicators listed in part b:
i. Presence of litter and debris (wracking) indicating a surface water flow;
ii. Leaf litter disturbed or washed away;
iii. Matted, bent or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) indicative of surface
flow;
iv. Sediment deposition and /or scour indicating sediment transport by flowing water;
v. Water staining due to continual presence of water;
b. During monitoring years 5 through 7, the preponderance of documented field indicators must
demonstrate the accumulation of flow within the topographic low -point of the valley or
crenulation (documented by the field indicators listed in Part A) and the development of a
primary path of flow, stream channel, or ordinary high water mark. Documented indicators may
include any of the following:
i. Formation of channel bed and banks;
ii. Sediment sorting indicated by grain -size distribution within the primary path of flow;
iii. Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks;
iv. Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and /or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
hydrophytes)
v. Development of channel pattern (meander bends and /or channel braiding) at natural
topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems;
vi. Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow;
vii. Changes in soil characteristics (when compared to the soils abutting the primary path of
flow).