Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20131295 Ver 1_USACE MP Approval_20140203DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 REPLY TO ATTENTIONOF: 3 February, 2014 Regulatory Division Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Foust Creek Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW 2012 - 01908; EEP IMS 995715 Mr. Tim Baumgartner North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 Dear Mr. Baumgartner: The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) during the 30 -day comment period for the Foust Creek Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 11 January, 2014. These comments are attached for your review. Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan. However, the minor issues with the Draft as discussed in the attached comment memo must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter and a summation of the addressed comments. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at 919- 846 -2564. Sincerely, EhjLbraftjhof e!cz! DSVN CNFZJ ZNFSB VISM11861::86! EbJ !3125/13/14! 1:;39;42!.16(11( Tyler Crun�bley Regulatory Specialist Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished: NCIRT Distribution List CESAW -RG /H. Wicker CESAW- RG -R /A. Williams NCEEP /Perry Sugg REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 CES4W- RC�Crumbley 13 January, 2014 ME]VIORANDUM FORRECORD SUBJECT: Foust Creek- NaRT Comments During 30-day Mitigation Plan Review PURPOSE The comments listed below were posted to the NCB Mitigation Plan Review Flortal during the 30 -day Comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. NCB Project Name: Foust Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Alamance County, NC USAC E AI D#: SAW -2012 -01908 NCB #: 95715 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 11 January, 2014 1. 94 Y1 �J b/ 51 v $ \A W1 • Minutes from a site visit on 12/11/12 indicate that a jd was necessary for the wetlands and UT1. The mitigation plan indicates that a jd request was submitted to the US-ACE but there is no indication that the USACE has determined that the wetland delineation as proposed was accurate. Therefore a determination of wetland rehabilitation versus wetland re- establishment and appropriate Credit amounts Cannot be accurately reviewed/ evaluated. Also, the minutes indicate that there was no flow at the upper end of UT1 and a j d was necessary • Assuming thejd Confirms UT1 isjurisdictional, the plan proposes to restore this feature using a P1 approach. As has been previously noted, constructing a new Channel at a higher elevation for the purpose of reconnecting the stream to its original floodplain has the potential to remove the intermittent Connection of the stream and groundwater, eliminating base flow and Creating an ephemeral feature. The proposed restoration of UT1 should include installation of two groundwater monitoring wellswithin the thalweg of the Channel. One well should be located near the upper end of UT1, and the other should be installed near the lower end of the reach. The wells should be equipped with continuous-read gauges that will be able to monitor groundwater levels and demonstrate that the restored feature exhibits base flow for at least some portion of the year (most likely in the winter /early spring) during a year with normal rainfall conditions. Well data should be provided annually in monitoring reports to demonstrate that intermittent aquatic function has been maintained in the restored channel. • American holly and ironwood were identified at most of the vegetative reference sites and are not noted in the planting plan. These understory species should be added. 2. Q /'n Ln�-f -9$ \D8WI 0 • It ■mW L'Tb/ 5i v f I' s■(I Par Gds A16 4'j fAm kI6 no ji 5s1's L's'O j$jj1 There is concern from the NaRT on the possibility of raising the bed elevation of intermittent streams (particularly UT1) above the water table thereby degrading it from intermittent /jurisdictional statusto ephemeral. • There is also concern that all of the areas identified as wetland restoration currently contain jurisdictional wetlands and may be more appropriately categorized as Enhancement, rather than restoration. Although this has been accounted for in the Draft mitigation plan, a finalized jurisdictional determination will be required in the Final mitigation plan to determine accurate credit potentials. The District will not approve the Final mitigation plan and credit totals, or verify usage of a NWP until the wetland boundaries have been verified by US4CE Feld Office staff. Ej hj ibrm!tj hof e!cz! DSV N QKFZ0.PfvFSBV t.SZ/2 . p� a• r 11861:: 861 EbC1.3125/13/1411: /S/ .16(11( Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Specialist, Regulatory Division Qaj &W-44a JUXb■ {J& a i§I§d6 +bm&f 12/11 /20121RTsitewalk, 2:OOpm Attendees: NCEEP Wildlands Engineering Guy Pearce John Hutton Ferry Sigg yawn Wilkerson Christie Corson Jeff Shaffer DWQ Amy Euliss USNCE Todd TugwelI Tyler Crumbley John Hutton provided a brief overview of the project and the group began by walking RW4 and the section of Foust Creek downstream of Show Camp Fbad (see attached map). W 'A.r Qai e6'rtSA-f O6gO* oif ■o0 / iJwm4- 41 Primary design approach for this portion of the channel and the associated riparian wetland will be restoration . - The group discussed whether the existing swale represented the historic channel alignment or wasjust an excavated ditch to drain seepage. This discussion was incondusive. The group was in agreement that restoration was the correct approach to the incised stream channel with frequent bank erosion and poor quality habitat. yawn mentioned that bedrock downstream of the culvert provides grade control which should allow for a Priority 1 approach to restoration but there will be some Priority 2 to meet the downstream invert elevation. Tyler thought some of the wetland soils showed a Chroma 3 matrix as opposed to Chroma 2 indicated in the soils report. The matrix was mixed and difficult to interpret but included significant percentage of reduced manganese. He felt the soilswere borderline hydric but wantsto see well data and modeling resultsto support the restoration call. - It was noted that the wetland boundaries as shown in the proposal map did not match the updated boundaries from the soil scientist report. John agreed that some mapping was not updated and final mitigation plan boundarieswould be adjusted to reflect actual soil conditions. - Tyler and Todd mentioned that minor grading (lessthan 1 ft) could be used to develop some additional wetland creation acreage between the mapped hydricsoilsand the stream restoration section. Q s primary design approach for thiswill be Fbstoration. - UT1 was flowing at the downstream end and not flowing at the upstream end of the project limits. Todd said that ajurisdictional determination will need to be made to ensure that the reach as at least intermittent. He agreed that with a 160 acre drainage area, it would most likely be considered jurisdictional. - Assuming that the stream is determined to bejurisdictional, Todd agreed with the call of restoration due to the degraded nature of the stream channel. John discussed the existing access easement that is deeded along the top of the stream bank and that Wildlands option agreement givesthem the ability to move this easement in order to achieve a 50 ft buffer. Cai �C/'rss� ■�A■I'" s ■CLL�sI'( ■ i .�JE(3sv -i Proposed design approach involves Enhancement 11. yawn explained that the upper end of this enhancement 11 reach would involve mainly removing cattle and restoring the buffer while the section just upstream of the bridge crossing would involve more intensive bank stabilization work. Todd and Amy generally agreed with this approach and suggested that Wildlands should analyze channel dimension throughout this reach to confirm that an Enhancement I was not warranted due to channel incision. yawn mentioned that the crossing near the upstream end would be moved up to a property line outside of the easement and that the bridge would remain in place and be excl uded from the easement. yawn also mentioned that there is a reference quality reach of Foust Creek immediately upstream of the project. This reach will be assessed as potential for obtaining reference information during the design phase. W JT W J A.r W �sj:roposed as riparian wetland restoration. Tyler agreed that soils generally exhibited a matrix of chroma 2 as indicated in the soil report. He felt that the soils in RW 1 -3 were more definitively hydric than those in RW4. Tyler and Todd expressed some concern that certain areas were alreadyjurisdictional. John stated that one of the initial steps in the project would be to obtain ajurisdictional determination on the site. Any wetland areas that were delineated asjurisdictional will receive credit on an enhancement basis. Caj eb ws :a 4 f i vr;e(dAi 6 f §rd6■,� yawn, Todd, and EEP staff walked this section as.bhn and Tyler looked at wetlands. yawn discussed the fact that while this section of channel was not significantly incised, bank erosion was prevalent throughout the reach, substrate was poor due to heavy sedimentation, habitat availability was poor, and the channel was overly wide with frequent mid - channel bars. Fbstoration was considered the best approach to generate the best ecological lift. Todd agreed with this approach and assessment of the channel condition. The meeting adjourned approximately 4:00pm.