20071392 Ver 1_Restoration Plan Review_20070920

NC Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
September 20, 2007
Memorandum
To: Eric Kulz
From: Tammy Hill
Subject: Response to comments on Cat Creek PCN & Restoration Plan (DWQ# 20071392)
Wetland fill removal issue:
Yes, there has been discussion about the impact of fill on restoration vs. creation. However, the
USACE guidance (No. 02-2) doesn't include anything about fill in its definitions of various wetland
mitigation types (attached). The difference, per this guidance, is whether or not a wetland
historically existed on the site.
Wetland restoration and enhancement activities detailed in the Plan appear to be over hydric soils
with 0 to >24 inches of fill, so the issue warrants discussion among the PACG-TC.
If it is critical to EEP to have dependable values for the projected wetland mitigation credits at this
project, then the mitigation acreage detailed in the Plan should be divided into appropriate
categories, based on USACE definitions and approval by the PACG-TC, prior to committing
construction dollars. Otherwise, the values will be decided by the PACG-TC through the
monitoring and closeout processes, and may be lower than initially projected.
Other comments:
P. 47, Wetland planting list: Do not plant red maples! They will move in on their own. And if
black willows are to be used as live stakes along the adjacent stream, then it is not necessary to
plant them in the wetland. Focus on species without a local seed source.
The buffer width issues you brought up are important. We still don't have a mechanism to reduce
or increase stream credit based on buffer width, do we?
My conclusion:
The buffer and etland issues are pr ably not big enough to warrant an official letter, but may
be worth a ca to Salam to discuss. 1
1
~~J~
1~
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
h tt p : // n cwa to rq u a l ity . o rg /wetland s

;,,,; RE~IlLATORY Gl~lDANCE
US Army Corps ~ ETT E R
of Engineers®
No. 02-2 Date: December 24, 2002
SUBJECT: Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation Projects for Aquatic Resource Impacts iJuder
the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
1. Purpose and Applicability:
a. Purpose: Under existing law the Corps requires compensatory mitigation to replace
aquatic resource functions unavoidably lost or adversely affected by authorized activities. This
Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) clarifies and supports the national policy for "no overall net
loss" of wetlands and reinforces the Corps conunitmen~ to protect waters of the United States,
including wetlands. Pennittees must provide appropriate and practicable mitigation for authorized
impacts to aquatic resources in accordance with the laws and regulations. Relevant laws,
regulations, and guidance are listed in Appendix A. This guidance does not modify existing
mitigation policies, regulations, or guidance. However, it does supercede RGL 01-1 that was issued
October 31, 2001. Districts will consider the requirements of other Federal programs when
implementing this guidance.
b. Applicability: This guidance applies to all compensatory mitigation proposals
associated with permit applications submitted for approval after this date.
2. General Considerations: Districts will use watershed and ecosystem approaches when
determining compensatory mitigation requirements, consider the resource needs of the watersheds
where impacts will occur, and also consider the resource needs of neighboring watersheds. When
evaluating compensatory mitigation plans, Districts should consider the operational guidelines
developed by the National Research Council. (2001) for creating or restoring ecologically self-
sustaining wetlands. These operational guidelines, which are in Appendix B, will be provided to
applicants who must implement compensatory mitigation projects.
a. Watershed Approach: A watershed-based approach to aquatic resource protection
considers entire systems and their constituent parts. Districts will recognize the authorities of, and.
rely on the expertise of; tribal, state, local, and other Federal resource management programs.
During the permit evaluation process, Districts will coordinate with these entities and take into
account zoning regulations, regional council and metropolitan planning organization initiatives,
special area management planning initiatives, and other factors of local public interest. Watershedl~
will be identitied, for accounting purposes, wing the U.S. Geologic Survey's Hydrologic Unit
Codes. Finally, applicants will be encouraged to provide compensatory mitigation proojects that

1: Establishment (Creation): The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics present to develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site, where a wetland did not
previously exist. Establislunent results in a gain in wetland acres.
2. Restoration: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site
with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former or degraded wetland. For the
purpose of tracking net gains in wetland acres, restaration is divided into:
a.) Re-establishment: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a farmer
wetland. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former wetland and results in a gain in
wetland acres.
b.) Rehabilitation: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historic functions of a degraded
wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does nat result in a gain in
wetland acres.
3. Enhaneernent: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a
wetland (undisturbed or degraded) site to heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or to
change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for
specified purposes such as water quality improvement; flood water retention, or wildlife habitat.
Enhancement results in a change in wetland function(s) and can lead to a decline in other wetland
functions, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. This term includes activities commonly
associated with enhancement, management, manipulation, and directed alteration.
4. Protection/Maintenance (Preservation): The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline
of wetland conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This term includes the purchase of land or
easements, repairing water control structures or fences, or structural protection such as repairing a
barrier island. This term also includes activities commonly associated with the term preservation.
Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland acres and will be used only in exceptional
circumstances.
L Preservation Credit: Districts may give compensatory mitigation credit when existing
wetlands, or other aquatic resources are preserved in conjunction with establishment, restoration,
and enhancement activities. However, Districts should only consider credit when the preserved
resources will augment the functions of newly established, restored, or enhanced aquatic resources.
Such augmentation may be reflected in the amount of credit attributed to the entire mitigation
project. In exceptional circumstances, the preservation of existing wetlands or other aquatic
resources may be authorized as the sole basis for generating credits as mitigation projects. Natural
wetlands provide numerous ecological benefits that restored wetlands caiu~ot provide immediately
and may provide more practicable long-term ecological benefits. lfpreservation alone is proposed
as mitigation, Districts will consider whether the wetlands or other aquatic resources; 1) perform
4