20130411 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20130916

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:54 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Lower Swepsonville (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: image001 Jpg; IRT Comment Response Memo - Lower Swepsonville.pdf
13 -0411
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Resources
Compliance & Permitting Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
- Water Quality Programs Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater -
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: Williams, Andrew E SAW [mailto: Andrew .E.Williams2(@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 9:40 AM
To: Bryant, Shari L.; Kulz, Eric; 'Fritz Rohde'; emily -jernigan(@fws.gov; Bowers, Todd; Hall,
Dolores; Matthews, Kathryn; Homewood, Sue
Cc: Gibby, lean B SAW; John Hutton; Tugwell, Todd SAW; McRae, Sarah; Wilson, Travis W.,
Brown, Thomas L SAW
Subject: FW: Lower Swepsonville (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
IRT Members:
John Hutton has provided a response to our comments on the Draft Prospectus for the
Swepsonville Dam Removal Project. The response is attached to this email.
Please take a look at this attachment to see if you agree with the direction he is proposing
to take with regards to your specific comments. If you see a potential problem please let me
know by September 27, 2013 (about 2 weeks). Please let me know if this timeframe is too
restrictive.
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
919 - 554 -4884 extension 26
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: John Hutton [ mailto : -jhutton(@wildlandseng.com]
1

Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 11:18 AM
To: Williams, Andrew E SAW
Cc: Mike Fowler
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lower Swepsonville
Andy,
Please see the attached comment response memo for Lower Swepsonville Dam. Sorry for the
delay on getting this to you. Please let me know an expected timeline for IRT review. We
will edit the prospectus accordingly following IRT feedback.
Thanks.
John Hutton
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5605 Chapel Hill Road
Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Office: 919 - 851 -9986
Cell: 919 - 723 -8203
www.wildlandseng.com <http: / /www.wildlandseng.com />
Description: cid :image005.ipg(@01CCA2F1.2CCAD490
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

5605 Chapel Hill Road • Suite 122 • Raleigh, NC 27607 • Phone: 919 - 551 -9956 • Fax: 919 - 551 -9957
MEMORANDUM
To: Andy Williams
Company: USACE — Raleigh Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Address: Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
From: John Hutton
Date: August 22, 2013
Mike Fowler, Wildlands
Cc: IRT Members
Re: Lower Swepsonville Dam Mitigation Bank — Responses to Agency Comments on
Draft Prospectus
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) submitted a draft prospectus for the proposed Lower
Swepsonville Dam Mitigation Bank (Bank) to the Inter - Agency Review Team for review and
comment in April 2013. The stream mitigation bank is proposed on the Haw River, in Alamance
County, North Carolina. The main components of the stream mitigation bank are removal of the
Lower Swepsonville Dam, restoration of shallow water habitat on the previously impounded
reaches of the Haw River, Big Alamance Creek, and several smaller tributaries whose lower
reaches are also impounded due to the dam.
On May 13, 2013, the USACE facilitated a meeting of the IRT where Wildlands presented the
information contained in the draft prospectus and existing site photos for the proposed Lower
Swepsonville Dam Mitigation Bank. Detailed notes from that meeting were distributed by the
USACE. Following the May IRT meeting, each agency submitted comments on the draft
prospectus. This document summarizes the agency comments, and provides a response from
Wildlands to each comment.
COMMENTS FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE)
Comments on Items Needed for a Complete Prospectus
1. There needs to be information addressing the topic of "Assurance of Sufficient Water
Rights to Support Long -term Sustainability of the Mitigation Bank ". I realize that this
may not be as pertinent as in other areas of the country, but it remains a requirement
for a complete prospectus. Please include this as a stand -alone section.
The proposed bank lies on the main stem of the Haw River, with a drainage area of over
800 square miles, and on one large perennial tributary. The Lower Swepsonville Dam
Site is located on a single parcel owned by one landowner, Swepsonville Hydro, LLC. The
sponsor of the Bank has a signed option agreement for the general project area and a

Memorandum of Option is recorded at the Alamance County Register of Deeds. The
option agreement allows Wildlands to restrict the land use in perpetuity through a
conservation easement. We believe these two factors will provide adequate assurance of
sufficient water rights to support the long -term sustainability of the bank. Wildlands will
add a section to the Final Prospectus that explains this assurance.
On page 4 is Section 2.3 entitled "Need and Feasibility of the Mitigation Bank ".
According to the 2008 Rule, this should include the 'Technical Feasibility' of the
proposal, and I do not see any reference to this within the prospectus. Dam removal
projects contain several technical challenges (sediment release, draining of wetlands,
etc.) that you should be considering early in the process. Please describe these in as
much detail as possible, and your initial assessment on how you will deal with these
challenges. The USFWS has provided us with two (2) documents regarding accumulated
sediment at the proposed site. These documents are entitled, "Preliminary Sediment
Survey, Haw River Dams, Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina, 2008" and
"Haw River Sediment Quality Assessment, July 2011." If you do not have a copy of these,
please let me know. Furthermore, you may also want to include in this section a
discussion of the Upper Swepsonville Dam and the Waste Water Treatment plant
located on Big Alamance Creek. Also, please see item #4 below for more information.
We will provide a statement of qualifications for dam removal for Wildlands Engineering
with the Final Prospectus. An outline of our approach to deal with the technical issues
listed above within the proposed Bank limits will be added to the "Need and Feasibility of
the Bank" in the Final Prospectus.
We have obtained copies of the two reports referenced above that provide an
assessment of the quantity and quality of accumulated sediments. We will summarize
the findings of these reports in the Final Prospectus.
We have also obtained a copy of the NPDES permit for the South Burlington Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) that discharges effluent into Big Alamance Creek. We will
summarize the permit conditions and the information provided in the last two annual
monitoring reports for the WWTP operations in the Final Prospectus.
Wildlands Engineering is working with American Rivers to remove the Upper
Swepsonville Dam. We will provide a summary of that status of that project and its
anticipated schedule for removal in the Final Prospectus.
3. Please include an Agent Authorization form from the property owner which authorizes
you to act on their behalf. You may also want to include written permission from the
property owner(s), allowing the US Army Corps of Engineers access to the property for
the purpose of conducting jurisdictional determinations and other permitting activities.
An Agent Authorization Form will be provided with the Final Prospectus.
USACE Comments on Items Needed for the Initial Evaluation of the Proposed Bank
4. Section 1.3, Bank Objectives - While the 2008 Dam Removal Guidance has been
rescinded, several of the procedures within it can be used to help structure your
proposal. For example, I suggest that you reword and restructure your bank objectives
2

to match those deemed applicable within the 2008 Guidance because those objectives
reflect successful targets identified years ago by the resource agencies.
We will reformat this section of the Final Prospectus to align with the objectives stated in
the previously rescinded dam removal guidance document that are addressed by the
Bank:
• Water Quality
• Establishment of Appropriate Aquatic Community
• Rare, Endangered, and Threatened Species
• Wooded Buffers
• Human Values
• Sediment management plan
5. Table 1, Bank Goals and Methods of Achievement - Under the section "Improved water
quality and decreased stream temperatures ", thermal stratification is mentioned in the
context that it negatively affects water temperature and dissolved oxygen within the
impoundment and downstream of Lower Swepsonville Dam. It is unclear if this is a
general assumption or if you are referencing site specific data. Please cite your source
and expand this discussion.
The North Carolina Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ) operates an ambient water
quality monitoring station (B1960000) at the confluence of Big Alamance Creek and the
Haw River. Several other water quality and benthic monitoring stations have been
established upstream of Lower Swepsonville Dam on the Haw River and its tributaries.
We will add a summary of existing water quality and benthic data collected within and
near the Bank site to the Final Prospectus.
We are currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include
pre- and post - removal monitoring to document the geomorphic, water quality, and
biological conditions at the Bank site. The water quality and biological monitoring will
focus on aquatic surveys (e.g., fish and benthic macroin vertebra tes), temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll a. We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre -
and post - removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final
Prospectus. The results of the monitoring program will be reported in the Draft
Mitigation Plan submittal to the IRT.
6. Section 2.1, Ownership Agreements and Long -term Strategy - states that a Conservation
Easement will be recorded for the limits of the Bank. Please clarify that the long -term
holder of the easement will be an entity approved in advance by the IRT. Also please
provide information regarding a Long -term Management and a Maintenance Plan.
Finally, please provide a detailed drawing showing the current ownership limits of the
bank site.
Wildlands will be the owner of the conservation easement until the end of the
monitoring period. After that time, it will be transferred to a non - profit land
conservation organization. The long -term owner of the conservation easement, their
qualifications, and their experience as long -term stewards of conservation easements
will be provided to the IRT for approval.
3

The draft and final Mitigation Plan will contain a long -term management plan. One
important component of that plan will be the long -term maintenance plan.
Figure 5 — Conceptual Map in the Draft Prospectus provides a depiction of the current
ownership limits at the Bank site. We will add another figure to the Final Prospectus
that provides a large -scale map of the ownership limits.
Section 2.3, Need and Feasibility of the Mitigation Bank - In this section you mention
that there are five freshwater mussels and two freshwater fish which are present in
Alamance County as State protected species. Based on our discussion in the March 13,
2013 pre - application meeting, representatives from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission (NCWRC) indicate none of these are known to be in close
proximity to the proposed site. A recommendation was made to establish if there is a
reasonable expectation for these target species to return to the site if the project is
completed. I recommend that you address this issue in the Final Prospectus. If
additional coordination with NCWRC is needed, I will be glad to assist and /or
participate, if necessary.
We will coordinate with NCWRC to gain information on the current populations and
distribution of these state listed species, and also describe in the Final Prospectus the
potential of these species becoming re- established within the Bank limits. We are
currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include pre- and
post - removal aquatic surveys for fish and freshwater mussels in the vicinity of the dam
to determine whether any of these species are present. We will add a brief discussion of
our proposed pre- and post - removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work
Plan in the Final Prospectus. The results of these surveys will be reported in the Draft
Mitigation Plan submittal to the IRT.
8. Ajurisdiction wetland determination will need to be conducted. Any wetlands found
upstream of the dam will need to be identified within this section and the technical
feasibility for their protection from draining (or other impacts) will need to be assessed.
Any wetland impacts that cannot be avoided will need to be addressed thru a
compensatory mitigation plan.
We will perform a jurisdictional determination of wetlands adjacent to the Haw River,
Big Alamance Creek, and on each tributary affected by the impounded water. The
primary source of hydrology will be identified for each wetland area, and mitigation
measures will be developed for any wetlands that may be negatively affected once the
impoundment is drained. This information will be provided in the draft Mitigation Plan.
You state that the water quality within the impoundment upstream of the dam varies
seasonally with low dissolved oxygen, elevated fecal coliform levels, stratified
temperatures, and critically high chlorophyll a levels during the summer due to warmer
temperatures and lower river base flow. You go on to state that the removal of the dam
will significantly improve water quality within this reach and also to downstream
reaches. Since this is a run -of- the -river dam, retention times were not long enough to
significantly impair water quality; however, this is unclear. As stated in previously,
(Prospectus comment #2 above) please provide additional information regarding other
4

known causes of the poor water quality (WWTP, upper dam, etc.) and the potential
improvement in water quality based on the removal of only the dam.
NCDWQ's ambient monitoring program includes an ambient monitoring station at the
confluence of the Haw River and Big Alamance Creek (Station B196000). We will obtain
the data from this station and summarize it in the Final Prospectus.
We are currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include
pre- and post - removal monitoring to document the geomorphic, water quality, and
biological conditions at the Bank site. The water quality and biological monitoring will
focus on aquatic surveys (e.g., fish and benthic macroin vertebra tes), temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll a. We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre -
and post - removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final
Prospectus. The results of the monitoring program will be reported in the Draft
Mitigation Plan submittal to the IRT.
10. Section 3.2, Baseline Conditions - Please include a section on soils. This will be helpful
with items such as potential stream bank failure, nearby hydric soils, etc.
We will add a discussion of the local soil conditions to the Final Prospectus.
11. Section 3.2.1, Existing Streams - Please describe any current county /state buffers on
these streams. Also, please include a more detailed map showing each tributary. After
the jurisdiction determination is complete, USACE and DWQ stream forms (completed
upstream of the impoundment) should be included to describe the anticipated return of
functions.
We will provide an up -to -date map showing the extent of protected buffers within the
Bank limits and upstream /downstream of the Bank for the Final Prospectus.
Wildlands will also provide a more detailed map of the perennial tributaries affected by
the impoundment, with completed USACE and DWQ stream forms, for the Final
Prospectus.
12. Section 3.2.4, Biological Assessment - See #7 above. Additional coordination with
NCWRC and USFWS regarding reasonable expectation for any target species to return to
the site would be beneficial.
We will add a discussion on the coordination that will occur between Wildlands, the
USACE, and the USFWS, and the documentation that will be required in the Final
Prospectus.
13. Section 4.0, Mitigation Work Plan - I think most of this can be expanded upon and
moved to the Technical Feasibility section described above.
We will move the relevant text to discussion on Technical Feasibility in Section 2.3 in the
Final Prospectus.
14. Section 5.0, Determination of Mitigation Credits - Similar to what was discussed in #4
above, the use of the rescinded Dam Removal Guidance may help structure your credits
into a format where you can earn credits based on achieving each objective of the bank.
Some of the final numbers may change depending on the limits of the impoundment as
5

confirmed during a future site visit. In addition, the IRT will be discussing this soon so
that a decision can be made on credit generation prior to a Final Prospectus - the results
of this discussion may also affect your credit amounts. Also, please remove the
language referencing previous discussions with the Corps (the 15% reduction) as it
creates some confusion on what has been discussed.
We will restructure the calculations of potential mitigation credits to correlate to the
goals of the Bank, as discussed under Comment #4 above. The final determination of
credits will be based on confirmation of the limits of the impoundment on the Haw River,
Big Alamance Creek, and each of the perennial tributaries, and on further discussions by
the IRT. We will also remove the 15% reduction in credits based on previous discussions
with the USACE.
15. 1 would like to see a preliminary monitoring plan included within the prospectus -
possibly within the Technical Feasibility section. Also, someplace within this document
there should be a brief statement about the financial assurances you are planning. For
example, I hope you are planning on a bond to cover the removal of the dam,
restoration of the site, monitoring, etc. Since this is such a big project, some preliminary
information on this is warranted.
We are currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include
pre- and post - removal monitoring to document the geomorphic, water quality, and
biological conditions at the Bank site. The water quality and biological monitoring will
focus on aquatic surveys (e.g., fish and benthic macroin vertebra tes), temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll a. We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre -
and post - removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final
Prospectus. The results of the monitoring program will be reported in the Draft
Mitigation Plan submittal to the IRT.
We will also add a discussion on the financial assurances to Section 6 - Maintenance and
Long -term Sustainability in the Final Prospectus.
16. Lastly, we do not know what type of DA permit this project will require. As Jean stated
in the meeting, if an Individual Permit is required we will need to issue a second Public
Notice unless you can provide all the applicable information we would need for a permit
decision within the Final Prospectus. We can talk further about this if necessary.
It is our preference to provide all of the necessary information for the USACE permit in
the Final Prospectus. As we finalize the Prospectus, we will coordinate with the USACE to
determine what additional information is needed.
COMMENTS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY (NCDWQ)
17. Due to the presence of dams both upstream and downstream from the proposed
mitigation bank reach, and the water quality within the Haw River and Little Alamance
Creek due to upstream land use, the potential for improvement of aquatic function
appears limited. Of particular concern is the dam immediately upstream from the
proposed bank reach (Upper Swepsonville Dam). During the presentation it was noted
that this dam may be removed by American Rivers. If this dam is not removed, the
viability of this site to generate compensatory mitigation is in question.
6

Wildlands is currently under contract with American Rivers to remove the Upper
Swepsonville Dam which is located at the upstream end of the impoundment created by
Lower Swepsonville on the Haw River. De- construction of this dam is slated for
September 2013. Together with removal of Lower Swepsonville Dam, this will create 16
miles of unobstructed flow along the Haw River and restore 2 miles of shallow water
habitat along Big Alamance Creek. Current obstructions along the Haw River in the
vicinity of Lower Swepsonville Dam include Glencoe Dam located north of Burlington,
Upper and Lower Swepsonville Dams, and Saxapahaw Dam just north of the town of
Saxapahaw. Removal of the two Swepsonville Dams will open the Haw River up for fish
passage from Glencoe Dam downstream to Saxapahaw Dam.
18. If the proposed bank is to move forward, monitoring needs to be designed to
demonstrate uplift, such as:
a. Improvement of water quality /303d issues could be demonstrated by
conducting Chlorophyll a sampling and macrobenthos sampling and biotic
index /bioclassification calculation. Ambient water quality in the Haw River may
limit significant improvement of the benthic community which would indicate
an improvement of aquatic function.
b. Restoration of natural flow regime (lentic to lotic system) could be
demonstrated through macrobenthos, mussel and fish surveys, with the same
potential limitations as described above.
NCDWQ's ambient monitoring program includes an ambient monitoring station at the
confluence of the Haw River and Big Alamance Creek (Station B196000). We will obtain
the data from this station and summarize it in the Final Prospectus.
We are currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include
pre- and post - removal monitoring to document the geomorphic, water quality, and
biological conditions at the Bank site. The water quality and biological monitoring will
focus on aquatic surveys (e.g., fish and benthic macroin vertebra tes), temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll a. We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre -
and post - removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final
Prospectus. The results of the monitoring program will be reported in the Draft
Mitigation Plan submittal to the IRT.
19. Lack of protection /control over the riparian areas is a concern. Unlike the proposed
Hoosier Dam project, protection of riparian buffers on the main stem and tributaries of
the proposed bank are less likely, which may reduce the viability of the site as a
mitigation bank, when added to other issues of concern.
We will provide an up -to -date map showing the extent of protected buffers within the
Bank limits and upstream /downstream of the Bank for the Final Prospectus.
20. The tributaries are a concern. Intermittent vs. perennial determinations should be
performed. Uplift in tributaries needs to be demonstrated (see above). There is the
possibility of downcutting based on observations along the former Carbonton Dam
impounded reach, which would negatively affect the aquatic function and potential
uplift in these tributaries. Separate goals and monitoring protocols may be warranted
on the tributaries.
7

We will complete a determination of perennial versus intermittent for each of the
tributaries and provide copies of the completed data sheets in the Final Prospectus.
Potential restoration or stabilization measures needed to restore shallow water habitat
and prevent degradation of the tributaries will be discussed briefly in Section 4 —
Mitigation Work Plan in the Final Prospectus.
21. Research must be done into whether there will be any effect on the Burlington WWTP
outfall or permitted discharge volumes
The City of Burlington operates a municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
approximately one mile upstream of the Lower Swepsonville Dam. The WWTP has a
permit from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality ( NCDWQ) to discharge up to
12.0 million gallons per day (MGD) of treated process- contact and domestic wastewater
into Big Alamance Creek approximately 0.5 mile above its confluence with the Haw
River. The Draft Permit, NC0023876, was issued on March 28, 2013, the final permit has
not been issued.
The NCDWQ permit has incorporated annual load limits placed on this WWTP under the
Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rule, which are not affected by the presence of the
Lower Swepsonville Dam. The permit also requires comprehensive monitoring for
physical parameters, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and organic compounds in the
effluent and at four instream monitoring sites. The transport factors for total nitrogen
and total phosphorus are consistent with other WWTPs that discharge into free flowing
reaches on the Haw River. Therefore, we do not expect the removal of Lower
Swepsonville Dam to affect the discharge volume or pollutant limits for the WWTP.
22. Crediting — generation of credit should be tied to demonstration of project goals and
objectives (improvement of aquatic function), examples of which were provided above.
Of particular concern is crediting on the tributaries, which may not show the amount of
uplift expected in the main stem. Crediting should also reflect the amount of protected
buffer along the main stem and tributaries, particularly in light of the potential for the
repeal of the Jordan Lake Buffer Rule.
We understand that the final determination of credits will be based on confirmation of
the limits of the impoundment on the Haw River and each of the perennial tributaries,
demonstration of success meeting the goals of the Bank, and on further discussions by
the IRT. We also understand that the number of credits on the tributaries may be tied to
the establishment of buffers along each tributary. We will provide an up -to -date map
showing the extent of these protected buffers within the Bank limits and
upstream /downstream of the Bank for the Final Prospectus.
23. Sediment —The watershed upstream of the Lower Swepsonville Dam includes a number
of historical and current industrial facilities and developed areas. Sediment quantity,
and particularly quality, are concerns. Assessment of sediment is necessary to
determine if contaminated sediments are present. Depending on the results of the
assessment(s), a sediment management plan, and possibly sediment removal, may be
necessary.
M

We share your concern about the potential negative effects of the sediment captured
within the impoundment. We have obtained copies of previous sediment surveys
conducted at this dam site by the USFWS: (1) Preliminary Sediment Survey for Haw River
Dams, dated August 2008, and (2) Haw River Sediment Quality Assessment, dated July
2011. These studies indicated that a limited amount of fine sediment has settled above
Lower Swepsonville Dam, primarily along the river channel margins. Analysis of the
sediment samples did not indicate widespread or significant toxicity issues.
We will perform a detailed bathymetric survey of the impoundment to verify that the
extent and depths of sediment buildup upstream of the dam are still consistent with
these studies. Wildlands will also engage Tom Augspurger with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) for input on the need for additional sediment sampling and analysis.
This information will form the basis for the Draft Sediment Management Plan that will
be submitted to the IRT for approval.
24. Evaluation of the upstream watershed should be conducted for potential impacts to
wetlands that may be altered /drained by the dam removal and subsequent lowering of
the water level.
We will perform a jurisdictional determination of wetlands adjacent to the Haw River,
Big Alamance Creek, and on each tributary affected by the impounded water. The
primary source of hydrology will be identified for each wetland area, and mitigation
measures will be developed for any wetlands that may be negatively affected once the
impoundment is drained. This information will be provided in the draft Mitigation Plan.
COMMENTS FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
25. The South Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located within the
impoundment of the dam in Big Alamance Creek. The Service is concerned about
potential ramifications to the WWTP's NPDES permit limits, as well as potential water
quality and sediment impacts from the WWTP. We recommend that the facility's NPDES
permit be examined to determine whether the permit limits were formulated assuming
impoundment of Big Alamance Creek, or low flow of the stream. The Service's 2011
sediment quality assessment indicated acutely -toxic contamination downstream of the
WWTP. The sediment removal management plan for the mitigation bank should include
sediment testing within the impoundment and consultation with the resource agencies
to determine whether sediment should be removed.
The City of Burlington operates a municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
approximately one mile upstream of the Lower Swepsonville Dam. The WWTP has a
permit from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality ( NCDWQ) to discharge up to
12.0 million gallons per day (MGD) of treated process- contact and domestic wastewater
into Big Alamance Creek approximately 0.5 mile above its confluence with the Haw
River. The Draft Permit, NC0023876, was issued on March 28, 2013, the final permit has
not been issued.
The NCDWQ permit has incorporated annual load limits placed on this WWTP under the
Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rule, which are not affected by the presence of the
Lower Swepsonville Dam. The permit also requires comprehensive monitoring for
9

physical parameters, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and organic compounds in the
effluent and at four instream monitoring sites. The transport factors for total nitrogen
and total phosphorus are consistent with other WWTPs that discharge into free flowing
reaches on the Haw River. Therefore, we do not expect the removal of Lower
Swepsonville Dam to affect the discharge volume or pollutant limits for the WWTP.
We share your concern about the potential negative effects of the sediment captured
within the impoundment. We have obtained copies of previous sediment surveys
conducted at this dam site by the USFWS: (1) Preliminary Sediment Survey for Haw River
Dams, dated August 2008, and (2) Haw River Sediment Quality Assessment, dated July
2011. These studies indicated that a limited amount of fine sediment has settled above
Lower Swepsonville Dam, primarily along the river channel margins. Analysis of the
sediment samples did not indicate widespread or significant toxicity issues.
We will perform a detailed bathymetric survey of the impoundment to verify that the
extent and depths of sediment buildup upstream of the dam are still consistent with
these studies. Wildlands will also engage Tom Augspurger with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) for input on the need for additional sediment sampling and analysis.
This information will form the basis for the Draft Sediment Management Plan that will
be submitted to the IRT for approval.
26. At the May 13, 2013 meeting, the sponsor indicated that more conservation easements
may be purchased along the impoundment. The Service recommends that in order to
receive credit for the approximately 2,570 linear feet of tributaries proposed, the
tributaries should be protected with conservation easements and a 50 -foot forested
buffer on each side of the channel. We also encourage the establishment of 50 -foot
forested buffers and conservation easements on as much of the Haw River main stem
and Big Alamance Creek as possible. Even with forested buffers and conservation
easements, the Service would be concerned about allowing 1:1 credit ratios for tributary
reaches that are deeply incised. We look forward to viewing the impounded areas and
discussing potential credit ratios at that time.
We understand that the final determination of credits will be based on confirmation of
the limits of the impoundment on the Haw River and each of the perennial tributaries,
demonstration of success meeting the goals of the Bank, and on further discussions by
the IRT. We also understand that the number of credits on the tributaries may be tied to
the establishment of buffers along each tributary. We will provide an up -to -date map
showing the extent of these protected buffers within the Bank limits and
upstream /downstream of the Bank for the Final Prospectus.
Potential restoration or stabilization measures needed to restore shallow water habitat
and prevent degradation of the tributaries will be discussed briefly in Section 4 —
Mitigation Work Plan in the Final Prospectus.
27. In general, the Service does not have concerns with structuring available credits around
goals of the project (reestablishment of flow, water quality improvement, fish passage,
etc.). However, we caution that all goals and success criteria should be quantifiable and
reasonable, and the amount of credits offered for reaching the goals should be
10

appropriate for the level of effort and measured level of improvement. We look forward
to discussing potential goals, success criteria, and available credits.
We will reformat the goals of the Bank in the Final Prospectus to align with the
objectives stated in the previously rescinded dam removal guidance document:
• Water Quality
• Establishment of Appropriate Aquatic Community
• Rare, Endangered, and Threatened Species
• Wooded Buffers
• Human Values
• Sediment management plan
We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre- and post - removal monitoring
program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final Prospectus. As suggested, we
will organize the components of our monitoring program to address the goals from the
rescinded dam removal guidance and corresponding success criteria.
The final determination of credits will be based on confirmation of the limits of the
impoundment on the Haw River, Big Alamance Creek, and each of the perennial
tributaries, and on further discussions with the IRT.
28. The Service anticipates that the mitigation plan will include, at a minimum, proposals for
monitoring of water quality, sediment quantity, quality, and movement, vegetation
recruitment and invasive plants, shoreline stability, fish passage, and habitat quality. In
addition, remedial plans should be included, should the provider fail to meet stated
goals and success criteria, or if adverse impacts are discovered.
We are currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include
pre- and post - removal monitoring to document the geomorphic, water quality, and
biological conditions at the Bank site. The water quality and biological monitoring will
focus on aquatic surveys (e.g., fish and benthic macroin vertebra tes), temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll a. We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre -
and post - removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final
Prospectus. The results of the monitoring program will be reported in the Draft
Mitigation Plan submittal to the IRT.
As suggested, we will organize the components of our monitoring program to address
the goals from the rescinded dam removal guidance and corresponding success criteria.
A more detailed summary of the proposed pre- and post -dam removal monitoring plan,
success criteria, and potential adaptive management measures will be provided in the
Draft Mitigation Plan submitted to the IRT for review.
COMMENTS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION (NCWRC)
29. Section 2.3, Need and Feasibility of the Bank (p. 4): The Sponsor indicates there are five
freshwater mussel species and two freshwater fish designated as protected species in
Alamance County, and removal of the dam will increase habitat for these fish and
mussel species. Although there may be records of these species in Alamance County,
there are no records of any protected species upstream or downstream of the dam in
11

the Haw River or Big Alamance Creek. Therefore, it is unclear how removal of dam
would benefit these protected species. Surveys are needed in the Haw River and Big
Alamance Creek to determine if any of these species are present today.
However, even if protected (listed) species are found upstream or downstream of the
impoundment, the City of Burlington's Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant is located
on Big Alamance Creek near the confluence of the Haw River. Aquatic species,
particularly freshwater mussel species, are very sensitive to chlorine and ammonia
concentrations found in effluent from wastewater treatment plants. Therefore,
depending on the instream waste concentration found in Big Alamance Creek, the
effects of the effluent from this wastewater treatment plant may significantly limit re-
colonization of protected species within the mitigation bank area.
We will coordinate with NCWRC to gain information on the current populations and
distribution of these state listed species, and also describe in the Final Prospectus the
potential of these species becoming re- established within the Bank limits. We are
currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include pre- and
post - removal aquatic surveys for fish and freshwater mussels in the vicinity of the dam
to determine whether any of these species are present and have the potential to
recolonize the Bank area after dam removal. We will add a brief discussion of our
proposed pre- and post - removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work
Plan in the Final Prospectus. The results of these surveys will be reported in the Draft
Mitigation Plan submittal to the IRT.
With regards to the South Burlington WWTP, we have obtained a copy of the NCDWQ
permit (NC0023876, issued on March 28, 2013). The permit requires comprehensive
monitoring for physical parameters, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and organic
compounds in the effluent and at four instream monitoring sites. We will obtain records
from the monitoring program to compare ammonia and chlorine concentrations to
published limits for viability of sensitive aquatic species. We will coordinate with WRC to
determine the likelihood of recolonization of the listed species.
30. Section 2.3, Need and Feasibility of the Bank (p. 4): The Sponsor indicates that the dam
represents a significant blockage to migration and movement of non - protected fish and
other aquatic species on the Haw River. Although the dam does create a migration
barrier, there are dams downstream and upstream of this dam; therefore, the benefits
of removal as related to aquatic species migration may be limited.
Wildlands is currently under contract with American Rivers to remove the Upper
Swepsonville Dam which is located at the upstream end of the impoundment created by
Lower Swepsonville on the Haw River. De- construction of this dam is slated for
September 2013. Together with removal of Lower Swepsonville Dam, this will create 16
miles of unobstructed flow along the Haw River and restore 2 miles of shallow water
habitat along Big Alamance Creek. Current obstructions along the Haw River in the
vicinity of Lower Swepsonville Dam include Glencoe Dam located north of Burlington,
Upper and Lower Swepsonville Dams, and Saxapahaw Dam just north of the town of
Saxapahaw. Removal of the two Swepsonville Dams will open the Haw River up for Fish
passage from Glencoe Dam downstream to Saxapahaw Dam.
12

31. Section 2.3, Need and Feasibility of the Bank (p. 4): The Sponsor indicates that water
quality in the impoundment varies seasonally and releases from Lower Swepsonville
Dam during this season can degrade water quality downstream in the Haw River. This
section of the Haw River is not on the 2012 303(d) list of impaired streams. Data is
needed to identify the water quality benefits that would result from removal of this
dam.
We are currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include
pre- and post - removal monitoring to document the geomorphic, water quality, and
biological conditions at the Bank site. The water quality and biological monitoring will
focus on aquatic surveys (e.g., fish and benthic macroin vertebra tes), temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll a. We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre -
and post - removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final
Prospectus. The results of the monitoring program will be reported in the Draft
Mitigation Plan submittal to the IRT.
32. Section 3.2.4, Biological Assessment (p. 6): The reservoir is relatively shallow, and it is
unclear whether removal of the dam would significantly alter the aquatic community
upstream of the dam. Data is needed to show the upstream aquatic community (i.e.,
benthic mac roinvertebrates, fish, and mussels) is comprised of lentic species and
removal of the dam will restore a lotic aquatic community. Also, exotic aquatic or
terrestrial plant or animal species that may be present within the mitigation bank, or
that may be introduced to the mitigation bank by removal of the dam should be
identified.
We will coordinate with NCWRC to gain information on the current populations and
distribution of these state listed species, and also describe in the Final Prospectus the
potential of these species becoming re- established within the Bank limits. We are
currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include pre- and
post - removal aquatic surveys for fish and freshwater mussels in the vicinity of the dam
to determine whether any of these species are present and have the potential to
recolonize the Bank area after dam removal. We will add a brief discussion of our
proposed pre- and post - removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work
Plan in the Final Prospectus. The results of these surveys will be reported in the Draft
Mitigation Plan submittal to the IRT.
We will add a brief discussion of the long -term maintenance plan to Section 6 -
Maintenance and Long -term Sustainability in the Final Prospectus. A more detailed
maintenance plan, including invasive species control, will be included in the Draft
Mitigation Plan that will be submitted to the IRT for approval.
COMMENTS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES, STATE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
33. There are no recorded archaeological sites or historic properties in the project vicinity,
but the document states that a Phase I cultural resources investigation is anticipated to
be undertaken. We concur with this recommendation and look forward to review of the
document. The investigation should include background research documenting the
history of the dam, also known as the Puryear Mill Dam, the associated Puryear Mill,
13

and the power generating facilities, as well as a pedestrian survey of the project area of
potential effect (APE). Special emphasis should be placed on locating evidence of the
facilities dating from the early 1800s.
We will ensure that the Phase 1 cultural resources survey adequately researches the
history of the dam and includes a pedestrian survey of the project area of potential
affect.
34. Two copies of the resulting cultural resource report, as well as one copy of the
appropriate site forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as
they are available and well in advance of project implementation.
We will forward two copies of the resulting cultural resource report and one copy of the
appropriate site forms as soon as the Phase 1 cultural resources survey is completed.
14