20130412 Ver 1_Prospectus Comments_Hoosier Dam_20140410

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
April 10, 2014
Mr Thomas Brown, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Division
U S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Subject: Wildlands Engineering, Inc Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Dear Mr Brown.
13-6912
No? 7 v ade
3n13, 3
The U S Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information concerning the above
referenced project (Action ID• SAW- 2013 - 00753) based on the description in the public notice,
the mitigation bank prospectus, and other available information; and expects it will have minimal -
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources as a whole The Corps has preliminarily stated
that this project area has species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (PL 93 -205) that may be affected by the proposed actions, specifically the
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) The Service and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
jointly worked on surveying efforts in this area involving the Cape Fear shiner, and the species
was found to be present within the past year The Corps has also stated within the public notice
that they will work with the Service to address concerns related to the listed species in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) through the
appropriate consultation process.
The Service is supportive of the sponsor's conservation minded proposal, and looks forward to
reviewing and discussing appropriate upcoming aquatic surveys and the detailed sediment
management plan associated with the efforts to remove the Hoosier, previously known as
"Woody's" Dam, on the Rocky River of Chatham County, North Carolina. The Service has
noted that the public notice includes the sponsor's six main ecological objectives of the dam
removal which are to. 1) improve local water quality; 2) restore appropriate flow regime and
aquatic community; 3) restore habitat for federally protected aquatic species; 4) restore passage
for aquatic species; 5) preservation and restoration of wooded buffers; and 6) benefit
downstream water bodies These main objectives have the potential to greatly assist the re-
connection and restoration of the downstream natural habitat of the Rocky River and its
tributaries with the upstream areas beyond the impounded reaches. These objectives appear to
be well aligned with the overarching goal of enhancing the recovery efforts for the federally
endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), and re- connecting the designated Critical
Habitat in this area

The Service appreciates the efforts to incorporate our comments from the May 23, 2013 draft
prospectus review letter into the current prospectus We understand some of the items we are
concerned with will be addressed in the Mitigation Plan. These comments are re- stated below to
emphasize their importance as the process moves forward. They are as follows:
1. During the draft prospectus review meeting, Emily Jernigan expressed the Service's concerns
with removing the sizeable dam in such a sensitive area for the Cape Fear shiner and numerous
other Federally At Risk and State rare species The concerns primarily stem from the lack of
available scientific data in regards to the exact quantity and quality of sediments and nutrients
the dam is holding back (NPDES discharges, runoff, etc ), and how the release of the impounded
water and sediments could potentially negatively affect the downstream ecosystem as a whole.
Specific concerns are for the potential impacts to the Cape Fear shiner and its designated
downstream Critical Habitat associated with the dam removal. In addition to the Cape Fear
shiner, there are several Federal At Risk species that live downstream of the Hoosier Dam
including: Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masons), brook floater (Alasmldonta vartcosu), and the
Septima's clubtail (Gomphus septima). North Carolina rare species found downstream of the
dam include: the panhandle pebblesnail (Somatogyrus virginicus), notched rainbow (Villosa
constrieta); triangle floater (Alasinidonta undulata), Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana);
eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis); and the creeper (Strophitus undulates) As discussed
during our May 13, 2013 meeting, the Service recommends the Corps request to begin the
consultation process, as the proposed activities may affect the Cape Fear shiner, and may
adversely modify the designated Critical Habitat downstream of the dam location depending on
the actions taken. This process will be the most appropriate avenue to adequately address all of
the potential concerns in addition to the desired species benefits associated with this proposed
project.
2. The Service is pleased to know the prospectus states that a sediment management plan will be
established in the Mitigation Plan, and will be developed such that the risk of short-term impacts
to sensitive aquatic communities downstream is minimized, and long -term impacts are avoided
altogether. A sediment management plan should be based on site - specific assessment of
sediment quantity and quality. It should discuss how sediment is to be managed before and
during the removal and include the anticipated impacts of sediment movement post- removal (on
upstream and downstream sediment loading, bank stability, and sediment and water quality),
particularly as related to Cape Fear shiner habitat. Any proposed mitigative measures and
monitoring should also be included.
3. The Service applauds the Bank Sponsor's initial efforts to acquire the majority of the Rocky
River mainstem and associated tributary buffers, and encourages these efforts to continue to
incorporate additional buffers along the entire project reach; as it will benefit the Cape Fear
shiner's habitat and additional aquatic and terrestrial species as a whole Wildlands Engineering
has indicated that more conservation easements are in the process of being acquired along the
project reach, and the Service supports these conservation efforts The Service recommends that
in order to receive credit for the approximately 6,365 linear feet of tributaries proposed, the
tributaries should be protected with conservation easements which include a buffer on each side
of the channel; preferably a 300 -foot forested buffer wherever this is possible We also
2

encourage the establishment of 300 -foot forested buffers and conservation easements on as much
of the Rocky River mamstem 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, or observed to be lacking in desired natural aquatic functions. We look
forward to viewing the impounded areas, reviewing the total property easement acquisitions, and
discussing potential credit ratios.
4. In general, the Service does not have concerns with structuring available credits around goals
of the project (reestablishment of flow, endangered species habitat improvement, 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 appropriate for the level of effort and measured level of improvement. We look forward to
discussing potential goals, success criteria, and available credits in an effort to retain consistency
with other proposed dam removal projects.
5. The Service anticipates that the Mitigation Plan will include, at a minimum, proposals for
monitoring of fish passage and habitat quality for the Cape Fear shiner and other rare native
aquatic species, water quality, sediment quantity, quality, and movement, vegetation recruitment
and invasive plants, and shoreline stability We recommend using appropriate native vegetative
species that would benefit the Cape Fear shiner and the Rocky River system, such as American
water willow (Justicia americana), when preparing the replanting component of the mitigation
plan. In addition, remedial plans should be included, should the provider fail to meet stated goals
and success criteria, or if adverse impacts are discovered.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comment on this proposed action.
We look forward to future coordination and opportunities for input If you have any questions
concerning these comments, please contact Emily Jernigan at (919) 856 -4520, Ext. 25, or by e-
mail at <Emily_Jemigan @fws.gov >.
Sincerely,
Pet enjamin
Field Supervisor
cc,
Todd Bowers, USEPA
Rosemary Hall, USEPA
Sue Homewood, NCDWQ
Eric Kulz, NCDWQ
Dolores Hall, NC Office of State Archaeology
Shari Bryant, NCWRC
3