20140727 Ver 1_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20151112

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
November 10, 2015
Regulatory Division/1200A
Action ID: SAW-2014-01246
Mr. Jack Garvey
Hanson Aggregates Southeast, LL.0
2 101 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 100
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
Dear Mr. Garvey:
fW, W(`
Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army
authorization to discharge fill material into 2,523 linear feet of stream and 0.04 acre of wetlands,
associated with the expansion of the Hanson Aggregates Crabtree Quarry. The Crabtree Quarry
project site is located at 5 100 Duraleigh Road, Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina.
Your proposal was advertised by public notice on August 28, 2015. Comments in response
to the notice were received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC),
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resource (NCDCR.), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and two adjoining property
owners. 'The comments received are enclosed for your information. Please provide written
responses to the comments Submitted by the adjoining property owners and the NCWRC.
In addition to conducting a public interest review which balances the reasonably expected
benefits against the reasonably foreseeable detriments, all Clean Water Act Section 404 permits
must meet guidelines for the specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material under
CWA Section 404(b)(1). These comments are being submitted pursuant to the Clean Water Act
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230).
With respect to the project purpose, its analysis is a critical first step in the Corps permitting
process. The Corps is responsible in all cases for independently defining the project purposes
from both the applicant's and the public's perspective. Initially, the Corps evaluates a project's
"basic purpose" to assess whether the project is water dependant. Once the Corps has determined
the water dependency of the project, it no longer considers the basic project purpose, but
analyses practicable alternatives in light of the "overall project purpose". The overall project
purpose must be specific enough to define the applicant's need, but not so restrictive as to
preclude an analysis all reasonable alternatives.
Printed on 0 Recycled Paper

-2-
The project purpose stated in your application is "to expand the existing pit to allow for
mining operations to continue through either February 4, 2052, or the removal of 30 million tons
of aggregate (whichever comes first)". In considering the overall project purpose, we have
determined that this project purpose is too narrowly defined and precludes the analysis of
potentially practicable alternatives at other locations or alternatives at the existing mine. The
basic purpose of this project is to mine construction grade aggregate. Accordingly, this activity is
not considered water dependent. We have also determined that the overall purpose of this project
is to mine construction grade aggregate in order to supply the surrounding market need on a
long-term basis, in a systematic and cost-effective manner.
In addition, with regards to the alternatives analysis, an alternative is considered practicable
if it is available and capable of being done after a thorough evaluation of costs, existing
technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose. In those circumstances where the
activity associated with a proposed discharge for a special aquatic site does not require access, or
proximity to, or siting within the special aquatic site in question to fulfill its basic purpose (i.e., is
not "water dependent"), practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are
presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. Furthermore, where a discharge
is proposed for a special aquatic site, all practicable alternatives to the proposed discharge which
do not involve a discharge into a special aquatic site are presumed to have less adverse impact on
the aquatic ecosystem, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.
In regards to an offsite alternative, you state in your application that there are "no known
available sites in the market to open a new quarry". You describe the market area for the
Crabtree Quarry as the "Wake County and Triangle" area. Please explain what efforts have been
undertaken by Hanson Aggregates to locate and extract similar deposits within this market area.
It may be helpful to create a map that shows the extent of the market area, the location of the
Crabtree quarry, and the location of other similar quarries within or in close proximity to the
market area. The market area map can be used with geologic, cadastral, land use, zoning, and
other types of maps to support your claims that there are no known sites to open a new quarry in
this market. It would also help support your argument that closing the Crabtree quarry would put
Hanson Aggregates at a competitive disadvantage in this market because of transportation costs.
In regards to mining south of Crabtree Creek, we understand that Hanson Aggregates
entered into a settlement agreement with the City of Raleigh which precludes Hanson
Aggregates from expanding the Crabtree mine south of Crabtree Creek. This information should
be included as an onsite alternative. Please explain in detail in the alternative analysis why this
onsite alternative is not practicable in light of the overall project purpose. You should also
explain why it is not practicable to expand the existing pit to the south through the equipment
yard, processing plant, and primary crusher to further avoid impacts to waters of the United
States.
Printed on G) Recycled Paper

-3-
With regards to the maps included with the alternatives analysis, the future stockpile area is
shown to the northeast of the existing pit. However, the current equipment yard is identified as a
future stockpile yard in the drawings attached to the settlement agreement. Please explain this
discrepancy.
Finally, I have evaluated the conceptual compensatory mitigation plan included in your
application. The proposed compensatory mitigation ratios appear to be similar to what is
normally required for such impacts and is acceptable for our evaluation of your application.
After reviewing the conceptual stream relocation plan, we have determined that the proposed
stream relocation corridor is too narrow and does not contain appropriate vegetative buffers.
Accordingly, the proposed stream relocation is not an acceptable form of onsite permittee
responsible mitigation and should. be removed from the compensatory mitigation plan. However,
if the permit is issued, it is our expectation that the applicant would utilize natural channel design
when relocating this channel to minimize adverse impacts associated with the project. Please
revise your mitigation plan accordingly and submit the final mitigation plan. A final mitigation
plan is required. before we can make a decision on the individual permit application.
The information requested above is essential to the expeditious processing of your
application; please forwarded this information to us within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.
If you do not submit this information with 30-days your application will be administratively
canceled. Cancellation of your application does not preclude you from reopening the application
at a later time, provided you submit the items listed above.
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at [phone]
extension 31 or David. L. Shaefferausace. armv.mil.
Sincerely,
David L. Shaeffer
Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Field Office
Printed on G Recycled Paper

-4-
Copies Furnished:
Bob Zarzecki
Soil & Environmental. Consultants, PA
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Ms. Jennifer Burdette
401 /Buffer Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
NCDENR — Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
I
Printed on G Recycled Paper
4?0/
5

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
October 2, 2015
David Shaeffer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Wedand Impacts for the Crabtree Quarry Expansion, 5100 Duraleigh Road, Raleigh, SAW 2014-01246,
Wake County, ER 15-2051
Dear Mr. Shaeffer:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill - Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environi-nentaLreview Ca ncdcr.,o,()v. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax:[phone]-6599

United States Department ofwi-11hefinterioi",
I !SIT AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh E8 Field Office
Post 8D§ou Box 33726
Ru)uicyh' D7oft6 Carolina 27636-3726
September }8.2O]5
David Shaeffer
U.S. Arnny Corps ofEngineers, WibningtouI}istdot
lluloigb Regulatory Field ()Dioo
333| Heritage Trade Drive, Suite lO5
\YakoFuscot^I���2?�87
Re: Hanson Aggregates Southeast, LLC/8AW'2O|4'O|246/WokoCounty
Dear Mr. Shaeffer:
FIELD OFFICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the project advertised in the above
referenced Public Notice. The project, oo advertised iu the Public Notice, io expected to have minimal
adverse ioopuc(o to fiab and wildlife resources. Therefore, v/o have no objection to the activity as
described io the permit application.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act ofl973,as amended, (ESA) and based onthe
information provided, and other available information, it appears the action is not \ikc\n to adversely
affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. Wo believe that the
requirements of section 7 /cJ(2)of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please remember that
ob|igotionsuudertboE8/\znosthere0000ideredif.(l)oovvinfbonuiiouidcotifieeimpootso[ibia
nc{inu that may affect listed oyeoiou or critical habitat in u manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may bo affected hy the idondfiodaction.
For your convenience u list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species ioNorth
Carolina is now uvai}ab!o or. oor:/pbsdoa1 <}urxcbpa'-1contah':1,u
complete and updated list of federally protected species, and a list of federal species of concern
known k) occur in each county ioNor1bCarolina.
Tlie Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, y)eunu contact John Ellis u1 /914\ 856-4520,
extension 26.
Rblccrukc
P. enjamin.
Fie d Supervisor
p,
cc ]NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, (7A
WRC, Raleigh

Shaeffer, David L SAW
From: Gorrison.Gobhela[gabriela.garrison@nowiN|ife.org
Sent: Monday, September 28.20153:06 PN1
To: Shaeffer, David LSAW
Subject: OEXTERNALVVRCCommantaforSAW-2O14'O1246
Attachments: VVRC Comments—Corps #SAW-2U14'O124S_Hanaon Crabtree Quarry Exponokon.pdf
Hi David,
I have attached comments for the Crabtree Quarry Expansion project - #SAW-2014-01246.
Hope you're well,
5abrieIa Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
SandhiIls Depot, P.O. Box 249
Hoffman' N[ 28347
Office and Cell: 918-409-7350
BIockedwww.ncwiIdIife.org /BIockedhttp://www.ncwiIdIife.org/>
cid:3651F083-0E6C-4F9B-A3[F-4EFEFlD84E0B <BIockedhttp://twitter.com/ncwildlife>
cid:3[665F[5-[88E-49FA-A646-3[AB[55390AE <Blockedhttp://www.facobook.com/paDes/N[-WiIdIife-
Resources'[ommission/1699861430O8O99?ref=tn_tnmn>
cid:E69A2340-8B5F-477F-9D[4-97E[85AB94D6 <BIockedhttp://instaQram.com/ncwiIdlife>
cid:D09520E9-8B86-4D30-B[07-D599D37[E79E
xBlockedhttp://www.youtube.com/user/N[WR[?blend=2&ob=vlden-mustangbase>

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.

0 North Carolina Wild1^fe Resources Commission p-1
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
T0: David Shaeffer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
OSAnny Corps ofEngineers
FROM: (}obdcluOurdsoo
�
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator v
Habitat Conservation
DATE: September 28,20l5
SUBJECT: Public Notice for Hanson Aggregates Southeast, ILC for Expansion of Crabtree Quarry`
Wake County, North Carolina. Corps Action ID #: SAW-2014-01246
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC\9QC) have reviewed the subject
document. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act ofl977(as
umondod), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (4QStat.40|,aaamended; l6LT.B.C.66l'667a) and North
Carolina General Statutes (O.S. 1I3-131 ctaeg.).
The applicant proposes to expand the existing mine pit to allow either for the continuation of mining '
operations through February 4,2052or the removal of30 million tons o[ aggregate; the pit expansion
would increase the pit from 40 acres to 6Oacres. The pit would expand northward, resulting inthe
construction ofthe Northern Boundary Berm, o permanent overburden storage area. The anticipated
construction would impact 2,523 linear feet o[headwater streams. 0f the projected stream ukaoue|
impacts, l,l26 linear feet would he piped under the proposed Northern Boundary Berm, l,]90linear
feet would be excavated for the d pit expansion and 2O7 linear b:nt would be temporarily
impacted as transition areas. There would also be 0.04 acre of wetland impacts. The applicant
proposes to relocate approximately 950 linear feet (of the 2,523 linear feet of proposed stream
impacts) around the pit using natural channel design techniques. Mitigation for the project includes
payment into the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Crabtree Creek and ununnamed tributary to Crabtree Creek in the Neuse River basin flow through the
site; Richland Creek flows along the site boundary. There are records for the following rare, aquatic
species in Crabtree Creek: the federal species of concern and mbatc-oodoogorud, Atlantic plgtuc
(FuoopmuiomoxonA; the state threatened, triangle floater(J6omidom/o uxdu/otm)aod crocpor(Str^phitur
mnou/m/a,); 1beato1o'opecix] concern, notched rainbow (BYlomucono&'/cta); and the s\u1u-aigoifiouot|y
rare,, Carolina ladle crayfish (Cam6urux&cvidi). Io addition, the Significant Natural Heritage Areas —
Crabtree Creek/Ebenezer Church Road Slopes and Crabtree Creek Aquatic Habitat — are located
downstream of the site.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]

Page 2
September 2X,2Ol5
Crabtree Quarry Expansion
Corps Action ID No.: SAW-2014-01246
Should the permit be issued, we offer the following recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife resources.
Maintain a minimum I 00-foot undisturbed native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and
minimum 50-foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands that remain onsite. Maintaining
undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas will reduce impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources, water quality, aquatic habitat both within and downstream ofthe project area. In addition,
these buffers will provide au adequate travel corridor for wildlife species. Whereas, u grassed buffer,
particularly fescue, is a vegetated buffer but will not provide the necessary and highly valuable
functions oo discussed for forested buffers. Sediment and erosion control structures should helocated
outside of these buffers,
2. Consider using seed mixtures (e.g. native warm season grasses) and native obzuhu/treemthat are
beneficial 10 wildlife bz the relocated channel. An exact seeding mixture would need bo take into
account soil types, moisture, pB and degree mfs\opoofarooutobeatabi\izud. Additionally, itwould
be advisable to use the substrate from the impacted channels in the relocated channel. YVo refer the
applicant toJason Allen, District Wildlife Biologist o1(336) 524-9801 for additional information and
ideas oo reclamation for wildlife.
Sediment and erosion control measures should hoinstalled prior tn any land clearing c«construction.
The use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose-weave netting that is
made nf natural fihormaterials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt
fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it impedes the
movemuo|of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have detrimental
effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs and
clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Ifl can be of ftirtheressistance`
please contact ne at(9lN409-7350m

Shaeffer, David L SAW
From: Robin VViebksr-NO/V\Federal [e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, .20151(l43AM
/o: Shaeffer, David LSAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Hanson Aggregates Southeast LLC2U14-01246;No staffing Letter
Attachments: No-Stof5ng_No'EFH_Pnaneni14Sepl2O15doox
Administrative Assistant
Habitat Conservation Division Atlantic Branch
PHONE: 843 762'8604
[e-mail]

September 14, 2015
(Sent via Electronic Mail)
Colonel Kevin K Landers Sr,Commander
D.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
09 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-|398
Dear Colonel Landers:
NOAA`sNaticnal Marine Fisheries Service (NMF0revimwed the projects described iu the public
notice(s) listed below.
Based on the information in the pub] onotice(s), the proposed project(s) would NOT occur in the
vicinity of essential fiabhabitat (R;0) designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council or
NMPS. Present staffing levels preclude further analysis of the proposed activities and no further action
is planned. This position is neither supportive of nor in opposition to authorization of the proposed
work.
NOTICE NO. A
APPLICANT N
NOTICE DATE D
DUE DATE
2014-01246 H
Hanson Aggregates Southeast, LLC A
August 2G,2O]5 S
September 28, 2015
Please note these comments do not satisfy your consultation responsibilities under section ?ofthe
Endangered Species Act ofl973,as amended. lf the activity "may effect" listed species mcritical
habitat that are under the purview of NMFS, consultation should be initiated with our Protected
Resources Division at the letterhead address.
Pace Wilber (for)
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

Shaeffer, David L SAW
From: maicom]
Sent Tuesday, September 22.2O151U:34AM
To: Shaeffer, David Lbxvv
Subject: [EXTERNAL) SAW-2014-01246
Mr. Shaeffer,
I am writing to oppose the expansion of the Crabtree Quarry. I oppose the expansion for the
following reasons:
-the relocation of various un-named streams may adversely affect Crabtree/Richlands [reek and
the wildlife associated with it (although it has been stated this is not the case)
-it may affect drinking water sources as stated in the notice
-it may affect the expansion of the Crabtree [reek West Trail of the proposed Qreenway
expansion
-the quarry is an eyesore and reduces local property values
-noise pollution also affects the local community
-commercial traffic in and out of the quarry is loud, dirty, and dangerous (drops debris in
the road and is a collision hazard)
Current blasting has affected me personally in the following ways: cracked foundation/shakes
entire house, awakens sleeping children, scares visitors, and debris from the dump trucks has
damaged my personal vehicles, as well as cause problems with the safe entrance and exit of
Duraleigh Square property.
The future expansion, if approved, would have a more significant impact on the residents on
Delta Lake Drive and residents west of the quarry. The proposed berm will not reduce the
noise of blasting!
In conclusion, the best reason to deny Hanson Aggregates an extension is because we (Raleigh
residents) are able to obtain the same resources from other quarries. There are many quarries
outside of Wake county that can provide us with the same resources.
If this quarry were essential, meaning we need it to survive, I would support its expansion.
However' the quarry does not benefit the majority of residents in the area' and people are
our most precious resource. Please protect us!
Thank you for your efforts regarding this matter.
Kevin D. [ox
336.429.0835

Shaeffer, David L SAW
From: ne232 oom]
Sent: Wednesday, September 2l2O158:53P/N
To: Shaeffer David LSAW
Subject: NAL] Crabtree QuonyExpanoizn(SAW-2O14'O124G)
Attachments: DVVO_8tream Mitigation Requirements &4Oi VVQC & Isolated Wetland ProQnamn.pdf
Dear Mr. Shaeffer - I'm writing 10 express concern regarding stream impacts associated with
the proposed quarry expansion. My primary concerns regarding the proposed alternative are
outlined below. Please let me know if these questions will he addressed as part of this
Public Comment period' and if I will be notified whether these concerns have been addresses
with a written response.
Blockedht1p://www.saw.usace.army.miI/Missions/ReguIatoryPermltPro&ram/PublicNotices.aspx
— This proposed alternative has the largest impacts to streams and wetlands of all the
proposed alternatives. The avoidance and minimization mentioned in the Public Notice seems
difficult to accept, particularly in context of the intent of the Clean Water Act to protect
our nations water quality.
— This project will impact several headwater stream systems that drain directly to Crabtree
Creek. As you're probably aware of, headwater streams serve important physical, chemical, and
biological functions that have a significant impact on the ecological integrity of downstream
waters (see attached DWO paper),
-- The impacted streams are rated as nutrient-sensitive waters by DWR (formerly DW0) and are
governed by the Neuse River Nutrient Management Strategy. Page l of the attached DWQ document
states ''that "–if the nutrient reduction functions of headwater streams were removed ... it
would be nearly impossible to successfully implement a nutrient reduction strategy in a
watershed" How will adverse impacts from increased sedimentation (which is correlated with
increased phosphorus levels due to binding) be mitigated for, particularly when a large
amount of stream will be piped and put into a trapezoidal channel, which increases erosive
flows along stream systems and the riparian buffers will be destroyed? Furthermore, less
natural infiltration of s1ormwater would seem to increase flooding downstream adjacent to the
flood-prone Crabtree Valley Mall. Was this taken into consideration?
— According to Natural Heritage Program (NHP) mapping, the impacted streams are up-slope,
and drain directly to a Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNUA) and then to Crabtree [reek'
which is also designated as an aquatic SNHA.
BIockedhttps://ncnhde,natureserve.or8/con1ent/map. According to 2012 NHP GZS data, there are
two records of rare aquatic species in Crabtree [reek adjacent to the quarry near the
Duraleigh St bridge.
Thank You'
A Davis
Concerned Citizen

NC Division of Water [)U8lih/
November 14.2OO8
y8[8iOn 2.0
Executive Summary
The Division of Water Quality's 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated
VV8t|end rules require stream mitigation to replace unavoidably impacted streams (15A
NCAC 2H .0506(b)(6) and 2H. 1305 (c)(0). respectively). The 401 Certification rules do
not specify stream mitigation ratios while the Isolated Wetland rules specify o 2:1 atnsann
ratio if impacts exceed 15U linear feet. For the 4O1 rules, the general water quality
standard of protection of aquatic life use (15A NCAC 2B.0211(1)) also applies.
Therefore, the 401 rules require replacement of the aquatic |iha use ofa stream when
impacts are unavoidable. Presently, DVVO only requires mitigation for perennial stream
impact. Mitigation for intermittent streams has not been required since it has not been
clear to what extent intermittent streams have aquatic life uses. However based oOe
five-year effort to monitor aquatic life uses across the state (summarized in this report), it
is now clear that intermittent streams do support aquatic life uses in N.C. Therefore, the
Division proposes to modify our compensatory mitigation policy, after appropriate public
notice and comment, to require compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable loss of
intermittent streams. In addition, the net statewide stream impact (impacted stream
length minus mitigated stream length) has been negative in N.C. for many years. This
fact also supports the need for DWQ to require additional stream mitigation when
appropriate.
Proposed policV
Kis proposed that intermittent streams Le mitigated for at the same rate (11) aa
currently required for perennial streams for the 401 Certification Program. As noted
be|ow, mitigation to isolated streams (streams that OO underground for more than e few
feat before resurfacing) is required at 2:1 ratio and this policy will not change that rule
(15A NCAC 2H .1305 (C) (0)).K8itiy3tionwiU oonhDU8 not to be required for projects vvith
impacts tO less than 15O feet 0f intermittent and perennial streams. |n addition, DVVO
will accept mitigation sites that involve intermittent streams asadequate intermittent
stream mitigation 8S along ae the required mitigation ratios are met. However, m/edOnot
intend to require restoration of intermittent streams to compensate for intermittent
streams impacts. Our goal is to nap|eoe the aquatic life use lost through intermittent
stream impacts and restoration of perennial streams provides replacement of that use.
Aguatic life value of intermittent streams in North Carolina
Water quality value of intermittent streams
Intermittent streams are defined as streams that, during o year ofnormal rainfall,
have water in them for several months, but also are dry for some period of time'. In
forested catchments, the intermittent segment of a stream is usually relatively short (less
than 100 feet). However in developed watersheds and regions where rapid runoff
occurs (e.g. the Triassic Basin and Eastern Slate Be|t), intermittent segments can be
1 Definitions of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams are those used in 15A NCAC

St nd
longer. Headwater streams /1 and 2 Order, intermittent and p8[8nnie|\ drain 55-0596
of a watershed (Gregory, in USFWS 2000) so they are very important conveyances of
water and chemical constituents (nutrients and sediment). The small size of the stream
ensures olarge amount of water-sediment contact, which removes nitrogen from runoff
via nitrification and denitrification by bacteria in the sediments (Mulholland et al 2001,
Peterson et al 2001). This increased contact also allows a higher rate of adsorption of
phosphorus to soil particles in the headwater stream bed than in larger streams (James
Gregory, personal comm.). Sweeny (USFWS 2000) has calculated that if the nutrient
reduction functions of these headwater streams were removed (e.g. by cu|v8rting the
etnaam)' it would be nearly impossible to GuoceeSfU>|y implement nutrient reduction
strategy in a watershed. Wallace (USFWS 2000) has also found that these headwater
streams are a major SOurueoforganiCCarbon(food)to8quaboeonSystenns.Uptoh8|fOf
the organic carbon flowing through aquatic ecosystems originates as leaf litter in
headwater streams that has been broken down and converted to more usable forms of
carbon by the bacteria, fungi and invertebrates in these headwater streams.
Monitoring Methods
Biological sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates occurred three times per year
in the ephemeral, intermittent and perennial stream reaches in each of 15 study
catchments across the state (Figure 1). Sampling times were selected to capture
seasonal differences as well as varying flow conditions: (1) May - when base flow is
decreasing due to increased evapotranspiration, (2) September — when base flow is at
the seasonal low in perennial streams and has stopped in intermittent streams, and (3)
late February — when base flow is near the seasonal high in both intermittent and
perennial Str88nnn.
Different macroinvertebrate sampling methods were employed depending on the
presence or absence of water in the stream reach being sampled. Irrespective nfwater
level, an area of2O0Cnozof the stream bed was collected to8depth 0f1Ocm. This
method was dubbed the Box Core or the Quantitative method, The invertebrate
community was separated from the sediment by elutriation through a 300 micron mesh
screen in the field and the sediment was returned to the etnsombed. K1ocnoinvartebnates
were returned t0the laboratory for sorting enumeration and identification.
Wet sampling (i.e., when there was water in the channel) consisted of two
samples in addition to the box core described above, and were kept separately from that
quantitative sample. Two sweeps were taken with a dip net - one |ne pool, one ina
riffle, if the features existed. Additionally 1O rocks were washed down and sieved
through a3OO micron mesh net to collect attached invertebrates. These samples were
returned tothe laboratory in 70Y6 ethanol, where sorting and identification took place.
Aquatic life and intermittent streams /n the Piedmont
|n20U1.DVVQ received o grant from the EPA to document the aquatic life
inhabiting intermittent streams. /nitie||y, eight headwater atroanna in VV@ko County parks
were monitored for flow permanence and the presence or absence of aquatic life.
Ephemeral, intermittent and perennial stream segments were identified using DVVQ's
stream identification form. A stratified random sampling design was used to select four
sites to be sampled in each stream: one in an ephemeral (stormwater-d riven) reach, one
2

in an intermittent, and two in the perennial, usually one close to the perennial origin anU
one further down stream.
Figure 1. Map of Study Sites
Physiographic Provinces
MIDDLE AND UPPER
COASTAL PLAIN
NORTH CAROLINA CENTER FOR
osomx^,nmmponm^,mma*w«�mo � 50 50 100 Miles A
Augurt 1997
EVVATER
In the summer of 2002, when sampling started, the State was experiencing the
height of the worst drought in over 50 years (10/2DO1-9/2UU2S3 inches below normal at
RDUeirport). Perennial streams, which citizens had not seen go dry in2U years, were
without water. The drought broke that fall and 20O3 was o much wetter than normal year
(+16.9inches)' which recharged the groundwater significantly. Consequently, the
perennial and intermittent segments stayed wet all year. Finally, 2004 was a year of
slightly above normal rainfall (+3.9 inches) and most perennial streams contained water
all year while most intermittent segments were dry again.
Figure 2 shows how stream headwaters respond to changes in groundwater level
due b} drought. With 2OU4aaa baseline, during drought (20U2). the groundwater levels
fall and the origin of the stream moves downslope — intermittent segments become
ephemeral and barely perennial segments become intermittent. During wet years
(2003), groundwater levels recharge to the point where the stream origin moves upslope
of the baseline — lower ephemeral sites become intermittent and intermittent sections
become perennial.

Figure 2. Seasonal Aquatic Abundance in Eph8nlen3|' Intermittent and Perennial stream
Figure 3 shows the Average Tox8 Richness ( ly)forEphwmena[
Intermittent and Perennial stream segments for summer, winter and spring 2002-2004.
This graph demonstrates that intermittent segments support significant levels of aquatic
life, even when the stream ia dry (summer of2OO2 and summer 2UO4). |n nearly all
cases, intermittent stream segments in the Piedmont have more aquatic life and 8
greater number of aquatic species than ephemeral reaches, but less than perennial
S8gnn8ntS. Recovery from the 2OU2 drought can be seen iO all reaches through spring
2003. However, recovery was less in perennial segments (30-50% increase) than in
ephemeral and intermittent reaches (more than 500% increase) where drying was more
severe. Seasonal patterns (recruitment in winter and spring, and stress-related
depressions in taxa richness and abundance in summer) were more obvious in perennial
reaches than intermittent and ephemeral segments. Periodic drying seems tobeo
larger Si^Sosor than seasonal changes in these upstream segments. |t appears tOtake
nearly two years for the abundance of aquatic organisms in8segment that has dried to
return to |ava|o comparable to segments that never dried. In 8ddihOn, reduced habitat in
intermittent segments appears to limit the number of different species relative to
perennial segments. Over the course of this study, ephemeral segments averaged 8.4
aquatic species and 70 aquatic individuals per site, intermittent segments had an
average 0f22 species and 101.9 individuals per site and perennial sites averaged 32.S
species and 313.0 individuals per site for each evaluation. Intermittent stream segments
in the Piedmont have more than half (5896) Of the aquatic abundance and two thirds
(67%) of the aquatic diversity of small perennial streams.
Figure 3. Seasonal Aquatic T8x8 Richness in Ephemeral, Intermittent and Perennial
stream segments.
Aquatic TaxaRichness
M
INN
M

Most tex8in ephemeral reaches are terrestrial: ants, spiders, millipedes,
earthworms and terrestrial fly larvae. The few aquatic tax8 present are mostly small,
elongate, diptor8/Uy\larvae that survive in the damp spaces between the sand grains in
theaine8nnbed. Intermittent stream segments have e much more even mix ofterrestrial
and aquatic species, with the composition shifting as the water table rises above the
stream bed or falls below it. When the water table is above the elevation of the stream
bed, the stream is wet and short-lived aquatic species, such as amphipods, isopods,
winterstonefliSs. diving beetles, and varinuSdipt8ran (fly) |arvme, dominate the
community. Most of these aquatic organisms are also found downstream in the perennial
reaches since only o few species (e.g. the dipnranDasvhe/e and the larvae ofthe
aquatic beetle /feVchUo) live only in the intermittent segments. These observations are
similar to those of Boulton and Lake (1992); del Rosario and Resh (2000); and Feminella
(1986) who found that rather than being discrete communities, biota in 8phamena|,
intermittent and perennial segments mostly are distributed along a gradient —the more
tolerant or drought resistant the species, the further up the Ephemeral
/Intermittent/Perennial (E/I/P) continuum it can be found. This community continuum
shifts up and down the stream depending on the season and the wetness or dryness of
the year. Terrestrial species, as listed above, dominate the community when the water
table falls below the surface of the Str8ambed and the intermittent segment dries Up.
Species living downstream in perennial reaches include nearly all of the species found in
intermittent segments, plus a suite of species that require water year around to complete
their life cycles. These groups include meyOi8S. stoDefl|es (non-winter), n8ddisf|i8S`
dobsonflies, dragonflies, damselflies, some beetles (riffle beetles and water pennies),
most mollusks, larval salamanders and fish. This group Of organisms has been used to
refine OVVQ'e definition of perennial atnaannS.
Aquatic life and intermittent streams /n the mountains
Intermittent stnsanne are the exCeotinn, rather than the rule in undeveloped
oo1ChmnntS in the mountains. Most streams in the mountains, as well as some in the
piedmont, start ea perennial springs. Some, usually short, intermittent segments do
exist, and are formed from two very different sources: wet weather springs and overland
runoff from development.
Two wet weather springs were located and monitored for one year inthe
mountains. Data from the spring off the Blue Ridge Parkway, in K8C[}ovve|| County, is
typical. Figures 4 and 5 are the tox@ richness and abundance (neSp8Ctive|y) 8taD
intermittent segment and two perennial segments. The trend with wet weather springs is
similar to that of piedmont intermittent systems that are more surfaoevv8taFdriv8n.
When the segment iedry, there is little aquatic life in the segment (mostly dipterantoxa
between the sand gnains\. When water ie flowing /n the reach, the abundance ofaquatic
life is comparable to down-stream perennial reaches, even if the diversity is about half of
that in perennial at/e8rna.
Two streams arising from overland flow were sampled, one near Asheville, in
Buncombe county, and one in the Uwhonia mountains in Montgomery county. Data
from these sites (Figures 6 and 7) show a similar pattern, but with more aquatic life, as
compared to the Wake County (pied00nU streams (Figures 2 and 3). AainPiedmont
streams, there was little aquatic life in ephemeral segments, with increasing numbers of
species and individuals as the stream develops throughout the short intermittent reaches
(o the perennial. The main difference between Mountain and Piedmont ie how quickly
the streams become perennial, and how much aquatic life these streams support. In the
Piedmont perennial 6tnaama. aquatic life included 19O-45U aquatic organisms from 22-45

species. In Mountain streams, perennial streams supported 200-1200 aquatic
organisms from 22-70 species.
Figure 4. Taxa richness at sites off the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Stream Points
Figure 5. Aquatic abundance at sites off the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Aquatic Abundance
Stream Points
Figure 6. Taxu Richness of Mountain Streams.
Mountain Total Aquatic Taxa by Stream Points
80
SO
.2 40
--
20 47�
8 10.25 21 24 20.5 3525 40.5
Stream Segment Points
rel
—*—Blue Ridge and Chapin
Q/O3
Blue Ridge and Chapin
3/04
-+m—B|ue Ridge and Chopin
G/O4 |
Aquatic Taxa Richness
0 9/03
ga
p Erg
Intermittent Upper Perennial Lower Perennial
Stream Points
Figure 5. Aquatic abundance at sites off the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Aquatic Abundance
Stream Points
Figure 6. Taxu Richness of Mountain Streams.
Mountain Total Aquatic Taxa by Stream Points
80
SO
.2 40
--
20 47�
8 10.25 21 24 20.5 3525 40.5
Stream Segment Points
rel
—*—Blue Ridge and Chapin
Q/O3
Blue Ridge and Chapin
3/04
-+m—B|ue Ridge and Chopin
G/O4 |

Figure 7. Aquatic Abundance in Mountain Streams.
Mountain Total Aquatic Abundance by Strea
Points I
—*—Blue Ridge and
Chapin 9/03
Blue Ridge and
Chapin 3/04
—*�-BlUe Ridge and
Chapin 6/04
Aquatic life and intermittent Streams in the Coastal Plain
Most streams in the coastal plain have been ditched sometime in the 350 years
Europeans have been settled in the area. Cf the few natural streams vvo could find,
many natural headwater streams in the coastal plan start as a broad wetland until a
feature OD the |endSCepa' usually two heoa close together, constricts the wetland, flow
begins and a channel is formed, however a few, mostly in the Sandhills, start as springs.
Most of the observations of headwater streams in the piedmont and mountains apply to
the coastal plain 8awell. The percent of aquatic toxa't8xa richness and aquatic t8xa
abundance all increase with stream permanence. Aquatic taxa with life cycles ofayear
or more are rare in streams scoring less than 30 points, except when the etnaann starts
as spring, when a perennial stream can score aslow as 17 points.
Figure Oioo graph Of the aquatic abundance for the first year of study inthe
coastal plain. K demonstrates the same pattern observed in mountain and piedmont
streams — that fewer aquatic texa can survive in st[eGrna as they dry. The other
interesting observation is that it appears that intermittent segments in the coastal plain
actually support more aquatic live then small perennial segments. This may bean
artifact of a single year of sampling, or it may reflect the opportunistic nature of many
intermittent species that can quickly reproduce and maintain high numbers while there is
water to support them.
Summary of Biology
Figure 0is8 summary of the average number Vfaquatic species in ephemeral,
intermittent and perennial stream segments regardless of season or eooregiUn. Despite
large error bars around the intermittent and perennial segments, mostly due to variability
from wet and dry years, the pattern of increasing aquatic life in streams 8Swater
duration increases. Ephemeral channels have approximately 1O-20%Of the aquatic life
(taxa richness or abundance) in perennial streams, while intermittent streams have 50-
70% of the aquatic life of perennial streams.

Figure 8. Aquatic Abundance of Coastal Plain Streams 2007.
Coastal Aquatic Abundance
Stream Points
Figure 9. Summary of Total Aquatic Taxa for all Seasons and EoorogiUDS
-
�°
50
=
�=
�
20
°
"
Mitigation in other States
A survey was conducted to see which, if any, other states require mitigation for
intermittent streams. |f other states were successfully requiring mitigation for intermittent
streams, we could learn from them mitigation methods that did or did not work well.
Table iaolist of the seven states that responded to our survey. All 0f the responding
states treat intermittent and perennial streams the oonn8 in terms of requiring mitigation.
South Carolina defers to the Corps concerning when impacts require mitigation. All
other states make their determinations independent nf the Corps. South Carolina and
Georgia have no minimum threshold of impacts, below which mitigation is not required.
North Carolina has a threshold of 150 feet and Virginia has a threshold of 300 feet. The
other states in this survey (Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio and Oregon) all base their
mitigation on a calculation of the lost ecological or functional values of the stream.
�

Table 1. Mitigation for Intermittent Stream Loss in Other States.
State NC SC VA GA KY TN OH OR
Tma|ntennittent&
Perennial same? N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Require Mitigation for
Intermittent? N° Y° Y Y Y Y Y Y
Threshold (ft) 150 O 300 O @ @ @ @
*Determined by Corps for both intermittent and perennial
@ Depends on functional value of resource lost
Stream impact versus stream mitigation in North Carolina
The Annual Reports of the Wetlands Restoration Program and the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program provide the best measure of the current status of stream impact
versus mitigation in NC. These reports (now all done by the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program) compile all known stream and wetland impacts as well as the known
compensatory and non-compensatory mitigation done in NC by fiscal year. Table 2
summarizes the data from these reports.
These reports clearly show that there has been a large net loss of stream length
inNC over the past seven years. While Table 1 shows that, on average, only 40Y6ofthe
stream length that is impacted is replaced by mitigation, this does not include EEP non-
regulatory mitigation which usually adds 15-40% to mitigation totals annually.
Unfortunately, EEP stopped tracking this separately in 2004 SO they could not be
factored into this table. This pattern is fairly constant over the last nine years and does
not show any sign uf approaching obalance. |n other words, the goal of "no net loss Uf
streams" ie not being achieved in North Carolina. To achieve n0 net loss ofstreams,
either fewer stream impacts will need to be permitted or more mitigation will need to be
required nrboth. All of the stream impacts examined above have gone through the
404/401 permitting process and are therefore, arguably, unavoidable.
Table 2:Summary of stream impact versus mitigation by state fiscal year inNC(feet)
Fiscal
Years
Impacts
Mitigation
Net Loss
%
mitigated
1999-2000
169,937.00
85,378.00
-84,559.00
50%
2000-2001
216,880.60
78,881.25
-137,999.35
36%
2001-2002
208,588.90
86,680.40
-121,908.50
42%
2002-2003
280,732.00
132,749.00
-147,983.00
47%
2003-2004
279,083.80
124,923.80
-154,160.00
45%
2004-2005
465,483.80
186,060.00
-279,423.80
40%
2005-2006
259,165.82
139,488.50
-119,677.32
54%
2006-2007
234,978.16
92,510.80
-142,467.36
39%
2007-2008
1 401,847.04
82, 549.00
-319,298.04
21%
Total 2,516,697.12 1,009,220.75 -1,507,476.37 40%

Recent Mitigation.(2004 and 2005)
A 20% subsample of permits issued in2OO4 and 2O05 was taken to provide o
more precise analysis (Tables 3 and 4). All impacts in this subaennp|ecome from DVVOs
paper files, Basinwide Management System (BIMS) or Corps of Engineers mitigation
records. Appropriate project impoCteandnoitig8honr9quinenoontSwenooroasCheoked
with EEP data and files. Perennial impact values include all perennial impacts, whereas
intermittent impact values are only for projects (argorthon15Ofeet'whinhwou|drequiro
mitigation under this proposed policy. Intermittent impacts nf smaller size are not
included to facilitate an analysis of the cost of implementing this policy change.
Patterns of impact were very different between 2OO4 and 2OO5. While DOT
perennial impacts declined 62% between 2004 and 2005, the rate of mitigation for these
streams remained stable (70-70%). Dn the other hand, non-DOT perennial impacts rose
nearly 40% from 20U4to20O5, but the rate Of mitigation doubled from 4UtO8O96. For all
perennial impacts, in 2004 DOT created 0196nfthe impacts and paid 8S96ofthe
mitigation. |O20O5. both the perennial impact and mitigation were about evenly split
between DOT and non-DOT projects.
Table 3. Summa of stream impacts in 2004 (from a 20% subsampl ).
There was also a large amount of between-year differences in impacts and
mitigation to intermittent streams. |n2OU4' the DOT was responsible for only 1O%ofthe
total intermittent impacts while non-DOT projects oCCountedfortheoth9r72%. The
Corps required mitigation for only 1/3 of these impacts — none from DOT and for 40% of
the non-DOT impacts. In 2005' impacts to intermittent streams approximately doubled.
However the rate 0f DOT impacts was little changed /1U%in20O4tn2396iD20D5\. The
rate of mitigation for intermittent stream innp@oto (8496 overall) was much higher in 2005;
3O96 for DOT (up from OY6in20O4) and S7?6 mitigation for non-DOT projects (Upfronn
40Y6in2004). It is unlikely that these differences are due to accounting discrepancies,
since the same method was applied by the same person and all values came from the
same Corps database. |t therefore appears that the between year differences in
intermittent impacts and mitigation rates are real, which makes for large between-year
differences.
Table 4. Summa of stream impacts in 2005 (from a 20% subsample).
Perennial
al
JPerem_ia
Intermittent
Intermittent
Imoacts
IMitigation
1%
Impacts
Mitigation 1%
DOT Impacts
183,000 138,800 76
4,100 0 0
Non-DOT Impacts
43,000 17,400 40
19,100 7,600 40
Total
226,000 156,200 691
23,300 7,600 33
There was also a large amount of between-year differences in impacts and
mitigation to intermittent streams. |n2OU4' the DOT was responsible for only 1O%ofthe
total intermittent impacts while non-DOT projects oCCountedfortheoth9r72%. The
Corps required mitigation for only 1/3 of these impacts — none from DOT and for 40% of
the non-DOT impacts. In 2005' impacts to intermittent streams approximately doubled.
However the rate 0f DOT impacts was little changed /1U%in20O4tn2396iD20D5\. The
rate of mitigation for intermittent stream innp@oto (8496 overall) was much higher in 2005;
3O96 for DOT (up from OY6in20O4) and S7?6 mitigation for non-DOT projects (Upfronn
40Y6in2004). It is unlikely that these differences are due to accounting discrepancies,
since the same method was applied by the same person and all values came from the
same Corps database. |t therefore appears that the between year differences in
intermittent impacts and mitigation rates are real, which makes for large between-year
differences.
Table 4. Summa of stream impacts in 2005 (from a 20% subsample).
Cost of Policy implementation.
While there is great variability in intermittent impacts and mitigation rates
between years, these values can allow a range of values for what implementing policy
10
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent
Intermittent
Imoacts
IMitigation
1%
Impacts
Mitigation 1%
DOT Impacts
69,300 54,100 78
10,900 4,100 38
Non-DOT Impacts
68,800 55,000 80
37,000 35,900 97
Total
1 138,100 109,100 791
47,900 40,000 8
Cost of Policy implementation.
While there is great variability in intermittent impacts and mitigation rates
between years, these values can allow a range of values for what implementing policy
10

can cost, and what U can achieve iO terms of meeting @nu net loss goal for stream
impact, at least until developers and engineers adapt to the new policy and additionally
minimize perennial mtne8rn impacts. With the new po|ioy. DOT would be required to do
an additional 4.100—O.80O feet (mean 5'45O feet) of stream mitigation credit per year,
while non-DOT projects wou|dbarequiredt000nduotfronn1`1O0-11.50Ufnet(nnean
0'3UOh*8Uuf additional streannnnifigetionannually. Therefore, this 11,75O(ounoof
mean values) feet of additional otn*ann mitigation could rnok8 e significant improvement
toward balancing stream impact and mitigation in North Carolina.
Summary
It -------o clear that intermittent and perennial headwater streams are very valuable in
terms Ofpollutant (nutrients, sediment, etc.) [ernovG| and carbon (food) inputs that
support aquatic life throughout the length of the stream, Finai|y, from this study, itisalso
clear that intermittent streams in North Carolina have significant aquatic life.
Furthermore, the State is losing these Stne8nns at faster rate than mitigation can
replace them with present policies. Requiring mitigation ataono'to-0nm ratio will bee
positive step toward achieving the goal of no net loss of streams in North Carolina.
References
Boulton, A.J. --�and P.S. Lake. 1992, The ecology oftwo intermittent streams in Victoria, Australia.
II.Comparisons of faunal composition between habitats, river and years. Freshwater Biology
27:9S-121.
Del Rosario, R.B. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Invertebrates in intermittent and perennnial streams: is
the hyporheic zone a refuge from drying? J. N. Am Benthol. Soc. 19(4): 680-696.
Feminella, J.W. 1996. Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in small streams
along a gradient of flow permanence. J.N. Am. Bonthoi Soc. 15(4):G51-GG9.
Mulholland, PJ..Jl,Tank, D.PW.Sanzono. B.J. Peternon.W.VVo|heim. J.R. Webster and J.L
Meyer. 2001. Ammonium uptake length in a small forested stream determined by 15N tracer
and ammonium enrichment experiments. Verh. Internat. Varoin.Limnoi27:1320-1325.
Peterson, BJ, VKN1.VVo|heim, P.J. Mulholland, J.R.VVebater. J.L. Meyer, JLTank, E. N1odi,
W.B. Bowdon, H.K8.Va|ett,A.E. Hemhey.VKH. McDoweU.W.K. Doddo, GK Hamilton, S.
Gregory, D.D.NlorraU.20O1. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds byheadwater
streams. Science 2Q2:OG-0O.
USFWS. 2000. The value of headwater streams: results of a workshop, State College
Pennsylvania, April 13, 1999. State College PA.
CC: GmgThorpe — D[>T
Suzanne KU0ik—EEP
Jimmie Overton - Environmental Sciences Branch
Dave Penrose —NCSU.Bio and AgEngineering
Scott McClendon — U8 Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
TomVVo|bo[n — UG EPA Region 4
l|