Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051354 Ver 2_Other Agency Comments_20120703Strickland, Bev From: Brown, Wyatt Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 9:42 AM To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Smith, Heather Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric; garnett .jeffrey @epamail.epa.gov; Higgins, Karen; Wilson, Travis W.; Sollod, Steve; Adams, Amy; Strickland, Bev; Wheeler, Tracey L SAW Subject: RE: Watts Property Wetland and Stream Restoration Site (UNCLASSIFIED) Thanks Todd Wyatt L. Brown, CPESC,LSS Water Resources Engineer North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 Phone: (919) 715 -1616 Fax: (919) 715 -2001 Please Note by new email address is Wyatt.Brown(a)ncdenr.gov. NOTICE: 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. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [mailto:Todd.Tu well(cnusace.army.mil] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 11:18 AM To: Brown, Wyatt; Smith, Heather Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz Eric; ag rnett .jeffrey(ic,epamail.epa.gov; Higgins, Karen; Wilson, Travis W.; Sollod, Steve; Adams, Amy; Strickland, Bev; Wheeler, Tracey L SAW Subject: RE: Watts Property Wetland and Stream Restoration Site (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, based on responses, let's go ahead a schedule the Watts meeting (Perquimans County) for July 23rd at 10:30 AM on -site. I've attached our letter and the EEP responses for reference. Thanks, Todd Tugwell Special Projects Manager Regulatory Division Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, NC 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.usaee.army.mil/survey.html Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey. - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Tugwell, Todd SAW Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:53 PM To: 'Brown, Wyatt; 'Smith, Heather' Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; eric.kulzLa�ncdenr.gov; _ ag rnett.jeffreykepamail.epa.gov; Karen Higgins (Karen. HiggmsLa,nedenr. gov); Travis Wilson ( travis. wilson(a�ncwildlife.org);'Steve Sollod; Adams, Amy; Strickland, Bev; Wheeler, Tracey L SAW Subject: Watts Property Wetland and Stream Restoration Site (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Wyatt, We have taken a look at the responses to our comments and revisions to the PCN and Mitigation Plan for the Watts Property Mitigation site and still have several concerns regarding the proposal. Most of our original comments remain unanswered, and I believe that at this point we need to set up a meeting between the agencies, EEP and the designers. I know that DWQ also shares our concerns. Mainly, we would like to avoid approving a project that we have problems with just because we are trying to get something out of the site. I think it would make most sense to meet on the site, since some the agency folks, including myself, have not seen it. I'll go ahead a throw out some dates in July and see if we all can agree on a date: July 18 - 20, or 23 - 27. Thanks for working with us on this project, Todd Tugwell Special Projects Manager Regulatory Division Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, NC 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.usaee.army.mil/survey.html Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey. Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Todd Tugwell U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, NC 27587 Re: UT to Little River (Watts), Perquimans County Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Tugwell, Our project review team has completed a written response to the USACE comments. Feel free to contact me with any questions at 919.715.5590 or Heather. C.S itcer.gay. Sincerely, Heather Smith Project Manager cc: Jeff Jurek, EEP Jeff Schaffer, EEP Wyatt Brown, EEP Tracy Stapleton, EEP Jenny Fleming, Ecological Engineering 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? The mitigation plan will be changed to refer to the 2007 update. 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). EEP recognizes that the USACE prefers monitoring of 7 years but doesn't want to commit to 7 years at this time. EEP will evaluate the project site at year 4 and determine if it is ready for closeout with the regulatory agencies. 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." EEP has attempted to obtain an easement /purchase the upstream portion of the watershed twice. The landowner has declined. Raising the elevation of the stream channel would cause hydrologic trespass. The channel elevation is restricted by the upstream elevation of the adjacent landowners ditch and the downstream culvert. 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. Ecological Engineering volunteered to include a cross - section that shows the wetter species extending from the stream channel up the slope a little, and then transition to the Mesic Mixed Hardwood community. They have taken landscape position, hydroperiod, reference data and plant community descriptions into account in their planning. And indeed, this is not Reference Condition. After the upstream landowner decided not to work NCDENR N,or ,i H3roll'Ia 1-co m'tern Erd[Jf'1r`clIIult z;I I`1 "C, €6S2 Mall Servlu Cer, €:lr, (talel<'], KC f N t9- 1651.2 ,+ `il9 i15 -.1 ,76 ,r€rti with us, we changed our plans to Priority 2 because there is still a fair amount of uplift and treatment to be had at this site. Otherwise it will remain a chute for stormwater. The mix of plants listed for the Mesic Mixed Hardwood community includes both wetland and facultative upland species because this is a transition zone from stream /wetland up the slope and then transitioning into the Non - Riparian flat. A mix of facultative wetland and facultative upland species will ensure that the nuances in the transition zone are addressed without breaking it into several tiny planting zones. Also, some species in this transition zone mix are taken from the adjacent reference headwater stream. 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. This project follows the success criteria set forth in the 2007 guidelines for headwater systems. A bed and bank are not expected to form in the valley. Flow of the headwater stream will be documented using a crest gauge and visual observation as mentioned in the 2007 Coastal Plain guidance and vegetation establishment will be monitored. 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. From our internet search, it appears that Juncus effusus has been found to have some limited autotoxic allelopathy, that is, the decaying parts of the plant discourage some reproduction of seedlings of the same plant. However, it is a native wetland species found in most, if not all, of our coastal wetland sites. It establishes well (helping stabilize soil, provide cover and refuge, protecting the soil surface from compaction, diffusing flow, etc.), and is native and appropriate for the site. For these reasons, we do not feel Juncus effusus should be removed from the seed mix. 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. We will remove 0.058 acres of impact from PCN. EEP has been in contact with the DCM representative John CeCe. He is reviewing the potential AEC and will be corresponding with EEP on this issue. EEP will provide email correspondences to the USACE regarding the AEC. NCDENR Nl„ 'O'i H3roll'Ia 1-co m'tern Erd[iJf'1ren'jult [Ii z; 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 Juncias effasus 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 (919) 846 -2564. Sincerely, Digitally signed by TUGW ELL.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).