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.