20070747 Ver 1_More Info Received_20080912

=F=ral
Strategic Partner
Friday, September 05, 2008
Mr. David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Ms. Jennifer Derby
Acting Chief Regulatory Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Program Manager
401 Oversight Express Review Program
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE: Response to IRT Comments Dated August 14, 2008
Proposed Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank Site
Craven County, NC
NCDWQ # 07-0747, EPA/ACE ORM ID SAW-1999-11312
Dear Madams & Messrs;
n R@IMUb?
L/ D
SEP i 2 2008
WETLANDS AND STORE 7F BRANC!i
This letter serves as a formal response to the IRT comments issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACE) and the balance of the IRT by incorporation into Mr. Lekson's letter dated 14 August, 2008. This
letter is not meant to be an exhaustive response to IRT comments but will address those items already
completed and indicate other items in process of being completed which will be forwarded to the IRT
on a rolling basis. We are confirming our desire to attend an IRT meeting and understand that David
Lekson may be close to securing a date. We also plan to continue working hand in hand with DWQ staff
and intend to meet with Mr. Eric Kulz prior to a full IRT meeting to address the States technical concerns
to advance a more detailed and mutually acceptable design for presentation to the IRT.
New Jersev
1930 East Marlton Pike
Suite 016
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
856-489.4018
Fax [phone]
North Carolina
1001 Capability Drive
Research Bldg. 1, Suite 312
Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC27606
919-831-1234
Fax [phone]
Maryland
726 Second Street, Suite 3B
Annapolis, MD 21403
410-268-7422
Fax [phone]
www.>treenvestus. coal
This letter is presented in comment and response format and address in order ACE, EPA and DWQ
comments.
1.0 Department of the Army, Regulatory Division Letter Dated 14 August 2008
1.1 The subject plan is a conceptual document. Although it may have merit there is not
enough specific information in the subject plan for the IRT to approve commencement
of construction.
1.1.1 The plans submitted were not intended to be construction documents and it was
assumed that both state and federal permits are required to authorize the
proposed construction. We were not planning to prepare construction level
drawings until we have iRT consensus on the proposed design. We will work
with DWQ initially to jointly develop a more detailed design that we will then
present to the full iRT. Once we have IRT consensus we will then prepare full
construction drawings and submit them to the IRT and State and Federal
permitting authorities along with the supporting permit applications including
but not limited to 404 and 401 applications.
1.2 Additionally, issues related to jurisdictional determination and permitting must be
addressed prior to moving forward.
1.2.1 We are working with the DWQ Washington Regional Field office on a stream
determination associated with our proposed stream restoration and anticipate a
final JD within the next few weeks. We are not aware that any additional
federal JD is required to either advance the design, amend the existing MB/ or
prepare and submit permit applications. Please clarify?
1.2.2 As referenced in 1.1 above we will prepare and submit the applicable permit
applications and associated design/construction drawings once consensus is
reached on the proposed design with the iRT.
1.3 Address the main factors of failure and earlier Scott Jones comments on Phase II plans.
1.3.1 Earlier Scott Jones Comments dated June 15 2007 are summarized below and
addressed herein.
1.3.1.1 Hydrologic trespass issues also raised by USFWS and USACE with
neighboring property owners.
We have already approached Weyerhaeuser. They are aware of the scope of
our project. Weyerhaeuser is willing to sign an agreement stating that they
currently do not withhold flow nor will they in the future. This project will not
negatively impact upstream or downstream users. This project will provide
greater residence times and detain greater volumes of water then the existing
condition. This project will also result in significant improvements to
downstream water quality as a result of the proposed change in use and the
nutrient transformation and retention capabilities documented to occur from
projects of this nature.
1.3.1.2 DWQ request for additional supporting data to determine accurate
location of proposed stream threads.
Historic aerial photos showing distinct vegetation zones and reflecting water in
the images along distinct stream threads meandering through the forested
wetland, soils with large buried woody debris indicating inundated areas,
rounded quartz pebbles in soil borings, and current location of the central main
ditch (which has permanent water even during drought conditions) connecting
to an historic VDAR signature all strongly suggest historic zero order stream
channels existing on the proposed mitigation site.
1.3.1.3 DWQ suggested the use of reference reaches in proximity to Flat
Swamp including a detailed analysis of the reference reaches relative to the
proposed design.
As discuss in the Phase 11 plan, the riparian headwater system for FSB will most
closely mimic a reference riparian headwater system located in the Croatan
National Forest. This reference area was chosen for the Flat Swamp Stream
restoration project because of its similarities in topography, soils, vegetation,
landscape position and watershed size. The site is located at the headwaters of
an unnamed tributary to Brice Creek approximately six miles south of New Bern
and 23 miles southeast of the FSB. Characteristics at the reference site resemble
those of a poorly defined headwater system.
More detailed data from the reference reach including valley slope, swale cross
sections and slope relative to the proposed design will be collected to aid with
the final proposed design and will be included in the Final Plan.
1.3.1.4 The stated goal of the 12,300 stream mitigation units for this project
are preliminary and will ultimately be determined on the sites ability to support
the restored system.
This comment is well understood and acknowledged herein. As stated in the
preceding lines within this paragraph the headwater stream restoration
considered the interagency guidance on Coastal Plain Stream Restoration. We
are continuing to revise this design in cooperation and coordination with DWQ
and in accordance with this guidance and other recent publications on
headwater stream and wetland systems in NC. We recognize that the
"restored" headwater system will need demonstrate flow criteria and other
measurable benchmarks as agreed upon with the iRT. We are working with
DWQ and the balance of the IRT to develop these success criteria in addition to
providing additional reference reach documentation, updated water budget
analysis, and HEC RAS modeling of existing and proposed conditions.
1.3.1.5 Responses to comments 1-8 as follows;
1. We are aware that man-made drainage features may be
jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA. We are in the process
of obtaining a stream determination from the Washington Regional
Office of DWQ.
2. More recent comments from ACE and EPA also suggest using the
wetland assessment methodology for North Carolina developed by
the interagency task force. The new submission will address this
comment.
3. Will a federal JD be required to supplement the pending DWQ JD?
Please clarify if this will be required for the requested MBi
amendments including proposed stream restoration or if this can be
dealt with prior to submitting permit applications?
4. We have acknowledged the need for more detailed, attainable
reproducible, measurable goals and success criteria in this June 15
comment letter as well as more recent comments from the iRT. We
are in the process of developing more detailed objectives and
measurable success criteria and will continue to coordinate this
effort with the IRT.
5. Discernable stream valleys on topo or LIDAR? We feel the evidence
is strong that historic streams occurred on the site knowing that this
site has been graded and field cells crowned so current LIDAR
imagery does not reveal strong signatures extending into the
historic headwater reaches. Valley slope diminishes rapidly in
headwater, zero order stream systems and is amplified at this site
this site due to extensive grading, leveling, and modification of the
natural topography.
6. Soil Sampling data? As discussed in the plan, soils were sampled in
the vicinity of historic stream channels as evidenced by aerial
photography, water signatures, and stream vegetation breaks.
These streams were georeferenced and identified in the field using
VRS survey equipment. The soil association present consist of soils
typically poorly drained and found in broad interstreom flatwoods
locations and along slow moving coastal plain streams. Soil
sampling in the vicinity of these historic channels contained large
buried woody debris indicating inundated areas and rounded quartz
pebbles in lower horizons.
7 Minor grading is proposed to construct ditch plugs, fill lateral
ditches, and excavate stream valleys and swales Given the size (386
acres) and nature of the project we deemed this to be minor. We
will provide volumes and acreages in later documentation and on
the plans.
8. Functional uplift projected for this project will be clearly identified.
This will include the delta between existing and proposed water
quality functions. We have numerous sources of water quality data
for this site including current and past fertilizer inputs and
extrapolated runoff rates.
1.3.2 We assume that the main factors of failure are connected to existing and
proposed hydrology and hydroperiod. A comprehensive water budget was
prepared and submitted with our Phase I approval documents. The main
hydrologic inputs and outputs were considered both with and without the
stream component during the preparation of our Phase li documentation. The
addition of a zero order headwater system does influence the design and
requires consideration and calculation to ensure proper hydrology and
relationships between the riverine and palustrine components of the project.
This design was also prepared in consideration of the Information Regarding
Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina (USACE,
NCDENR, Dec. 1, 2005) and in coordination with Mr. Kris Bass of the Stream
Restoration Institute which is ongoing. We are in the process of modifying the
original water budget to include proposed hydroperiod for the polustrine and
riverine components of the project. We are also in the process of preparing a
HEC-RAS model of exsting and proposed hydrologic and flow conditions for the
proposed headwater channels. We are optimistic that the results of the water
budget and HEC-RAS models will give the iRT a higher level of comfort that 1)
there will be sufficient hydrologic inputs to support the wetland and stream
components of the project and 2) support our conclusion that this system will
support base flow characteristic of a zero order, coastal plain stream system.
1.4 The plan should present specific, measurable and attainable success criteria and
monitoring protocols.
We will base our success criteria and monitoring protocols on data from the
characteristics of our reference reach stream and associated bottomland
riparian wetland community and headwater wetlands. We will address both
design and success criteria specifically for stream hydrology/hydroperiod,
overbank flooding, headwater wetland hydrology and riparian wetland and non-
riverine wetland tree survival. Where feasible, and appropriate we will measure
channel dimension, pattern, profile, and BEHI (bank erosion hazard index) at a
number of cross sections in each restored stream thread to ensure the design
reflects approximate diffuse, braided geomorphology found at the reference
reach site in Croatan National Forest. We will also base our success critera on
the restoration of a bottomland riparian wetland community as noted in
Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North
Carolina (USACE, NCDENR, Dec. 1, 2005). We will develop an as-built survey
and plan view of the restored stream threads and valleys as well as document
each cross section with photo plots. For measuring hydrology and flow we will
install a combination of flow meters, staff gauges, sand plates, and automatic
recording wells to demonstrate intermittent annual flow in each stream thread.
Photo documentation will corroborate these data. Vegetation will also be
monitored for success and we feel has been adequately described in the
submitted plan. Hydric soils must be present to ensure successful wetland
restoration and we will document the existence of hydric soils as part of our
success criteria.
1.5 Present a final mitigation plan that encompasses both Phase I and Phase II. Update the
Phase I plan in accordance with the current state of ecological restoration bmp's and
science.
1.5.1 We will combine the Phase i and Phase 11 plans and reports to present one
complete project. The Phase 11 plan was designed in accordance with the
current state of restoration ecology science and best management practices
gbincluding the Information Regarding Stream Restoration with an Emphasis on
the Coastal Plain. The Final Plan will show all the restoration components of the
project and their interactions. It will be evident that eliminating the lateral
ditches across the site and restoring the hydrology to the original braided
headwater system will be accomplished in concert with the restoration of
adjacent riverine and polustrine wetlands. We agree combining these reports is
prudent and will give a better understanding of the project and the relationship
between proposed ecosystem restoration components.
2.0 U.S. EPA Region 4 Letter to David Lekson, Undated
2.1 Phase II does not indicate the specific changes that may be needed to the Phase I
wetland mitigation plans, Phase I vs. Phase 11 timing of construction, highlight the
specific changes required to the Phase I plan.
2.1.1 We will combine the Phase i and Phase 11 plans and reports to present one
complete project. We have already considered how the Phase I and Phase 11
elements will interact including proposed hydrologic inputs and outputs. A
detailed set of plans and supporting documentation will be submitted to the iRT
for review upon completion. We then hope to discuss this new combined plan at
the pending IRT meeting.
2.1.2 Phase I and Phase II can be constructed independently of one another where
Phase 11 would be constructed after Phase I in order to facilitate the
establishment of the projected hydroperiod. However, it is our intent to
construct both Phases simultaneously as one whole and complete project for
ecological and logistical reasons.
2.1.3 As stated in 2.1.1 we will highlight the specific changes required to modify Phase
I as the iRT now understands it in order to facilitate Phase l1 but this will now be
presented as one complete project in one single phase.
2.2 MBI Amendments
2.2.1 We agree with the EPA's assessment of advantages associated with amending
the existing MBi and we fully intend to do so in accordance with 33 CFR 325 &
332 and 40 CFR Part 230.
2.2.2 We will further clarify the differences between proposed state and federal credit
values to ensure that they are accounted for separately and that there is no
"double dipping." These include State Nitrogen offsets and Stream Buffer
Credits and federal/State SMU's and WMU's.
2.3 Recommend that the sponsor use the NCWAM wetland types for all descriptions of the
project and revise the mitigation plans and MBI to reflect the new wetland type names.
1.1.1 We will revise accordingly and utilize the latest version of NCWAM.
2.4 Stream Buffer Width and Statements on the Plans that a Minimum of 50' buffer will be
provided on all restored stream channels.
2.4.1 We have provided a minimum of 50 feet of buffer measured landward from the
top of bank (TOB) on either side of each proposed stream channel (surface
water). We are also aware that due to the proximity and overlap between
riparian buffers that this may lead to greater buffer widths when combined and
measured as a headwater complex.
2.4.2 We will clearly indicate all proposed buffer boundaries and widths on the plans
and note that a minimum of 50 feet of buffer will be provided in accordance
with the Neuse Buffer Mitigation Rules. 1SA NCAC 029.0242 and criteria set
forth for zero order stream restoration in Information Regarding Stream
Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina (USACE, NCDENR, Dec.
1, 2005)
2.5 Stream monitoring protocols and demonstration of flow
2.5.1 The ACE also requested more specific monitoring protocols and measurable
success criteria and we have addressed that above. We are not opposed to
considering the inclusion of macroin vertebrates as part of our monitoring
protocol to show use by those species typically found in zero order headwater
systems. However, we do not anticipate colonization by m acroin vertebrate
species typically found in perennially flowing stream systems and would need to
come to consensus on a species list that we would anticipate to find in these
systems or found in our proposed reference reach.
2.5.2 We are preparing a new water budget and a HEC-RAS model to support the
anticipated hydroperiod that shaped our design. This will be submitted in our
updtaed report to the IRT. We are also aware of the State's post construction
flow measurement requirements which we are also hoping to partially address
in the preconstruction phase by preparation and submission of the water budget
and HEC-RAS model.
2.6 Open Water Bottomland Swamp Community, open water area minimization.
2.6.1 This comment is noted and we have and will continue to make every effort to
minimize the open water element of this project. Our intention is to have these
low depressional areas forested with appropriate tree species that thrive in
seasonally inundated areas. This feature is being designed to be permanently
saturated and seasonally inundated. We will revise the descriptions in the text
and labels on the plans. All areas will support tree growth such as cypress and
swamp tupelo in the lowest and wettest areas.
2.7 Herbicide Application
2.7.1 We acknowledge the EPA's concerns over using herbicide to control invasive
exotic vegetation. We will eliminate the use of herbicide where possible and use
methods such as hand pulling and mechanical removal where feasible. As such
use of an herbicide such as Rodeo, formulated for use in aquatic environs, has
been used as an effective primary eradication method with methods such as
hand wicking and hand pulling as a long term maintenance measure.
2.8 Success Criteria
1.1.1 We will address both design and success criteria specifically for stream
hydrology/hydroperiod, overbank flooding and riparian buffer tree survival. We
will also outline and seek approval for the quantitative means and methods used
to demonstrate success. As stated above we also intend to submit an updated
water budget addressing both the riverine and palustrine elements of the
project as well as a HEC-RAS model for proposed conditions that will model in-
channel flows and overbank flooding. Information Regarding Stream
Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina (USACE, NCDENR, Dec.
1, 2005)
2.9 Detailed Design Drawings
2.9.1 We acknowledge both the EPA and ACE'S request for more detailed design
drawings. As stated above we intend to advance the restoration design in
coordination with DWQ and the balance of the IRT the in an iterative process.
We will prepare and submit construction level drawings and permit applications
once we obtain consensus on the final design from the IRT.
3.0 DWQ Comment Letter Dated 29 July 2008
3.1 Evidence supporting historic presence of zero order stream system seems inconclusive.
Using the guidance document information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer
Coastal Plain of North Carolina (USACE, NCDENR, Dec. 1, 2005) as well as other
recently published data concerning headwater streams and headwater wetlands
in the lower coastal plain, we believe the site supports the historic presence of a
zero order stream and headwater wetland system. We feel the evidence is
strong knowing that this site has been graded and field cells crowned so current
LIDAR imagery does not reveal strong signatures extending into the historic
headwater reaches. Valley slope diminishes rapidly in headwater, zero order
stream systems and is amplified at this site this site due to extensive grading,
leveling, and modification of the natural topography. However, historic aerial
photos showing distinct vegetation zones and reflecting water in the images
along distinct stream threads meandering through the forested wetland, soils
with large buried woody debris indicating inundated areas, rounded quartz
pebbles in soil borings, and current location of the central main ditch (which has
permanent water even during drought conditions) connecting to an historic
LIDAR signature all strongly suggest historic zero order stream channels existing
on the proposed mitigation site. Also, interviews with local farmers and land
developers intimate with the project site confirmed that this area was
characteristic of a headwater stream/wetland complex.
3.2 Stream Creation vs. Stream Restoration
3.2.1 We respectfully disagree that what we propose is anything but stream
restoration. It would be nearly impossible to recreate the exact position of
historic headwater features that naturally meander within their respective
floodplains. That should not imply however that these threads did not
historically exist on this site as detailed in 3.1.1 above. Thus supporting our
position that this is restoration and that the location of proposed threads were
designed to work within the confines of the overall site,project and existing
conditions. We will also ensure that the restored streams are designed in
occordace with the characteristics of the reference reach and zero order stream
restoration guidance referred to herein. This includes setting and clearly
identifying a minimum of 100-acres of tributary area per stream thread as
measured from the point of origin.
3.2.2 It is precisely due to the significant, on and off site, hydrologic and topographic
manipulation referred to in paragraph 3 that underwrites the value of restoring
the proposed zero order stream system from both an ecological lift and water
quality enhancement standpoint.
3.2.3 We are amending the original water budget to include the riverine elements of
this project. This amended water budget will assess all of the proposed
hydrologic inputs/outputs for both palustrine and riverine project
elements.... and 2) a HEC-RAS analysis of pre and post construction conditions
which will model predicted flow conditions under various storm events both
channelized and bankful discharge events.
3.3 Topographic fall across the site and sub-watershed sizing.
3.3.1 It is estimated that topographic fall across the site will create a slope of greater
than 0.5116, more than enough to ensure flow from the west side of the project to
the east, outlet side. Flow directions have already been determined for all
existing perimeter and lateral ditches and this data confirms the minimal slope
necessary for stream flow exists on site.
3.3.2 Sub-watershed size was presented as a DWQ concern during recent field and
office meetings held with Eric Kulz. We understand the proposed draft minimum
sizing criteria supported by DWQ based on current stream origin assessment
research at South Creek for zero order stream systems and are now analyzing
our design based on these data. Data on the specific size of each sub watershed
will be provided and meet the state's current research guidance. The results of
our analysis will be discussed thoroughly with DWQ will influence the ultimate
number of threads proposed, and will be presented in our final report and design
drawings to the IRT.
3.4 Demonstration of Flow and use of ditches as a direct hydrologic input
3.4.1 We acknowledge that this is an important qualifying criteria for the SMU's and
Neuse Buffer designations and a concern of all IRT members.
3.4.2 We are going to develop water budgets and HEC-RAS models to support our
anticipated riverine hdyroperiod. We will also develop a set of post
construction, quantitative measuring protocols to demonstrate flow
characteristic of the headwater system designed.
3.4.3 We will clearly demonstrate through textural descriptions, design drawings,
engineering models and then post construction how water carried in perimeter
ditches will be used a hydrologic input for both riverine and palustirne elements
of the project as well as the balance of the proposed inputs for project.
3.5 Ditch discharge to the proposed stream channels.
3.5.1 We have modified the design to address this DWQ concern such that the lateral
ditches no longer discharge directly to the proposed stream threads. Nearly all
lateral ditches will be filled or plugged to minimize discharge into proposed
restored stream threads. Our intention is to maximize hydrological retention
and enhance base flow of restored streams. If necessary in the final design, we
will present a detailed design and discussion of how the lateral ditches will
function as a hydrologic input and output and relate to the proposed restoration
elements.
3.6 Proposed Credit Values
3.6.1 We have proposed several credit values on this site including Neuse Stream
Buffer, Neuse Nitrogen offset, WMU's and SMU's. We are also aware that this
presents a complex accounting exercise to ensure that there is no "double
dipping." We will amend the previously submitted credit ledger and tie it into an
explicative plan that clearly defines the areas proposed for each credit type
proposed. Detailed plan figures will illustrate each potential maximum credit
value for the project and as it relates to the proposed credit ledger. All values
will be accounted for and deducted accordingly in a systematic and orderly way.
3.7 IRT Meeting and Plan Discrepancies
3.7.1 We propose to continue working with DWQ to advance the project design prior
to a pending IRT meeting. We also embrace and would like to schedule in
advance a meeting with the IRT as suggested in Section 1.0 and 2.0 above. We
hope to arrive at a consensus on the design, credit types and final credit
allotments per DWQ comments prior to the IRT meeting and consensus on a
final design as a result of the IRT meeting.
3.7.2 We feel that all of the proposed project elements will function as one whole and
complete system and will not work at cross purposes. We hope to substantiate
this through continued coordination with all members of the IRT and will
demonstrate this through the updated plan and report submissions alluded to in
this document. The updated plans and report will also address any
discrepancies in the plans or reports.
We understand David Lekson has been circulating dates and hopefully we will be meeting on October
14 in Washington, N.C. to discuss this response as well as any additional data or plans we submit prior
to that meeting. We look forward to continuing cooperative discussions in order to advance this
regionally significant restoration project. If you have any questions please contact Scott Frederick at
919-368-2029 or Doug Lashley at 410-268-7422.
Respect ully,
J
Doug Lashley, anaging Member
GreenVest Flat Swamp,LLC
?* -4" ??
Scott Frederick, El, NCLSS
Soil Water and Environment Group, PLLC