20140335 Ver 1_SAW-2014-01711_comment_responses_20150720

DEPARTMENT OF THE
ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS
OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON
AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH
CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW -RG /Hughes
M
ay 5, 2015
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Aycock Springs - NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCDMS Mitigation Plan
Review Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g)
of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.
NCDMS Project Name: Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Project, Alamance County,
NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2014 -01711
NCDMS #: 96312
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 12 April 2015
Ginnv Baker, NCDWR, 9Anril, 2015:
1. Please provide a figure that shows approximately where the 14 proposed vegetation
monitoring plots and the proposed stream cross - sections will be located.
Figure 10 Monitoring Plan has been added to the list of figures. Vegetation plots, stream
cross - section approximate locations, and gauges are depicted on the figure.
2. It would also be helpful to provide an aerial figure that indicates the
perennial /intermittent classification and an aerial figure that indicates the type of
mitigation proposed for ease of reference and project review.
Figure 4 Existing Conditions has split intermittent streams from perennial streams. All
intermittent streams are proposed for restoration. During the IRT walkthrough of the
site, everyone agreed that the intermittent streams were short enough and degraded
enough to warrant restoration.
3. UT3 is an intermittent channel that will be restored with Priority 1 restoration. Detailed plan
sheets that show the existing and proposed profile grade were not included in the Aycock
Springs Draft plan therefore it was not possible to determine if the channel bed will be raised
when an off -line channel is built. If P1 restoration will raise the stream bed NC DWR will require
a monitoring well to be installed at the upper end of UT3 to ensure baseflow hydrology is
maintained for 30 consecutive days during a normal precipitation year.
A surface watering gauge will be installed in UT 3. The gauge is depicted on Figure 10
Monitoring Plan.

Andrea Huahes, USACE, 24 April, 2015:
1. During the 9 April 2014 site meeting, a possible violation was discovered at the top of the
project in a proposed wetland /stream restoration section. The provider was advised to submit a
separate NWP /ATF from the landowner for the impoundment that included engineered
construction plans with a low -flow orifice. The provider was also advised to provide a narrative
of actions associated with the violation in the draft mitigation plan. The plan did not include
the requested information.
Text was added to the Executive Summary and Table 1 including the following "Prior to Site
selection, the landowner received a violation for unauthorized discharge of fill material into
Waters of the United States. Fill resulted from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam,
including widening the dam footprint, dredging stream channel, and casting spoil material
adjacent to the stream channel on jurisdictional wetlands. Prior to restoration activities the
landowner was required to obtain an after - the -fact permit to resolve the violations of Section
301 of the Clean Water Act (Action ID:SAW- 2014 - 00665). In addition, stream reaches and
wetland areas associated with the violation have been removed from credit generation (see
Figure 6A [Appendix A] — UT 4 begins credit generation at Station 01 +07)."
Similarly, text was added concerning the violation along UT 3 including "Prior to Site selection,
the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to clearing of trees adjacent to
streams draining to Jordan Lake (NOV- 2013 -BV- 0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122
linear feet of UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio of 1.5:1. On -site visits conducted with USACE
representatives determined that the functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be
satisfactory to generate credit at this ratio."
2. Concerning the approved JD, according to information provided in our database, the site
contains 14 wetlands. Figure 4 identifies 13 wetlands. Please provide a revised map.
The 14th wetland area is located in a portion of the project that was removed along Travis Creek.
This section of easement was not obtained due to legal aspects beyond our control. Figure 4 has
been updated to include the wetland, with a note that indicates it is not in the project area.
3. The draft mitigation plan includes changes to the proposed easement boundaries and
proposed treatments /mitigation credits. Specifically, figure 6B indicates that Travis Creek
(Station 07 +87 to 13 +71) has been removed from the project and a portion of Travis Creek
beginning at Station 13 +71 has been changed from Enhancement I and II to Restoration.
Regrettably, the landowner did not have clear title to the parcel along Travis Creek between
station 07 +87 and 13 +71. We tried, unsuccessfully to rectify this situation; however, we are not
able to place this reach under conservation.
During our IRT walkthrough, we discussed changing the lower reaches of Travis Creek (in the
relict pond) from Enhancement I to Restoration due to the significant channel alteration required
to stabilize the stream. In addition, during detailed studies for the project we identified relict
channel features in wooded areas behind the existing pond. The relict channel offers the most
functional benefits to the site and downstream receiving waters, as we are now restoring the
channel to its historic location, rather than restoring the channel in sediment and backfill within
an abandoned pond.

4. Please note that typically we do not recommend inclusion of Acer rubrum in planting plans
as this species may currently be present onsite. At this time we are not asking that the
species be removed from the planting plan on page 28, however please be aware that
adaptive management may be required if Acer rubrum is determined to be a dominant species
at any time during the monitoring period.
Acer rubrum will not be planted in the site, or will be planted at the risk of potential adaptive
management requirements.
5. The mitigation plan indicates that you propose to extend the growing season for wetland
hydrology success criteria from April 17- October 22 to February 1- October 22. Please be
aware that if you plan to extend the growing season to meet success, you must provide a
chart of daily soil temperatures for the extended time period February 1- April 16 in the annual
monitoring reports.
After discussion with the USACE, text was added to the mitigation plan that bud burst and field
logs of date and soil temperature will be included in the annual monitoring reports. Text was
added indicating that the growing season will be initiated each year on the documented date of
biological activity. In addition, "daily' soil temperatures will not be required for the site.
6. As mentioned during the 9 April 2014 site visit, we request that a surface water gauge be
installed in UT 3 in order to demonstrate sufficient flow throughout the monitoring period.
A surface water gauge will be installed at the site, as depicted in new Figure 10 Monitoring Plan.
7. Please remove the last sentence in the first paragraph under Section 8.0 on page 29 of the
mitigation plan. Monitoring requirements and success criteria for all mitigation sites must meet
the standards outlined in the latest guidance provided by the Wilmington District Corps of
Engineers. Typically monitoring requirements are not included as a special condition of the
permit. Our guidance documents are provided on the RIBITS website.
Text was altered to reference the USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines for monitoring and
success criteria. Please note that a Monitoring Plan (Figure 10, Appendix A) has been added to
the report that outlines our monitoring strategy.
8. Please provide a map depicting all proposed monitoring locations including permanent
vegetation plots, groundwater and surface water gauges, crest gauges, cross - sections, bank
pins, water quality and aquatic biota sampling points.
Figure 10 Monitoring Plan has been added to the list of figures. Vegetation plots, stream
cross - section approximate locations, gauges, and benthic macroinvertebrate sample
locations are depicted on the figure.
9. Monitoring reports must be submitted for seven consecutive years. Years 4 and 6 may include
photo documentation for stream stability in lieu of data collection. Wetland hydrology
monitoring is required for seven consecutive years.
Section 8.0 Performance Criteria, Paragraph 2 has been amended with the statement
"Monitoring reports for years 4 and 6 will include photo documentation of stream stability
and wetland hydrology monitoring data."
10. Longitudinal profiles must be submitted with an as -built survey in the baseline (post -
construction) monitoring report.
As -built measurements will include a longitudinal profile. Annual monitoring will not include
longitudinal profile data unless monitoring demonstrates channel bank or bed instability, in
which case, longitudinal profiles may be required by the USACE along reaches of concern to
track changes and demonstrate stability.

11. Bank height ratio (BHR) and entrenchment ratio (ET) should be provided in the monitoring
reports in addition to 1) cross - sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4)
maximum depth, and 5) width to depth ratio.
Section 8.1 Streams has been amended to include bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio.
12. Table 6 indicates a proposed BHR design range of 1.0 -1.3 for stream restoration areas.
Typically BHR should not exceed 1.2 at any measured riffle cross - section during the
monitoring period. Please explain why the stream restoration design plans propose bank
height ratios of 1.0 -1.3.
Proposed values for bank height ratio have been change to a range of 1.0 to 1.2.
13. The JD approval date shown on page 9 of the mitigation plan is incorrect. The correct date is
16 September 2014.
Section 5.1 Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands on page 19 of the mitigation plan states that
approval documentation for the JD is September 16, 2014.
14. All temporary and permanent impacts to existing wetlands and streams must be accounted
for in the PCN and the loss or conversion of those waters must be replaced on -site. Please
include a map depicting the location of all impacts with the PCN.
Impacts to existing wetlands and streams will be included in the PCN. We expect to increase
the length /area and function of streams /wetlands through this project.
HUGHES.ANDREA. Dlgltfly Signed by
HUGH ES.AN DREA. WADE.1258339165
DN: c US, O U.S. Government, 1-DOD, Ou=PK1,
WADE.1258339165 Date 2015.050516:02 0- 0400'ADE 1258339165
Andrea Hughes
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division