20160406 Ver 1_Notice of Intent to Approve Draft_SAW-2016-00873_20170720

Strickland, Bev
From:
Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, July 20, 2017 5:10 PM
To:
Bowers, Todd; Wells, Emily; Matthews, Kathryn; Homewood, Sue; 'Ken Riley - NOAA
Federal'; Wilson, Travis W.; Haupt, Mac; Poupart, Jeff, Higgins, Karen; Bailey, David E
CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); McLendon, C
S CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Wicker, Henry M Jr CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Gledhill-
earley, Renee
Cc:
Schaffer, Jeff, Baumgartner, Tim; John Hutton; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(US); Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Chris Roessler
Subject:
Notice of Intent to Approve Draft Mitigation Plan/Buckwater Mitigation Site/Orange
Cou my/SAW-2016-00873
Attachments:
Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_Buckwater Mitigation Site -Orange
Cou nty_SAW-2016-00873.pdf
0
The 30 -day comment review period for Buckwater Mitigation Site (USACE AID SAW -2016-00873, DMS Project # 97084)
closed on July 1, 2017. All comments that were posted on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the review process
are attached for your records. Additionally, comments can be reviewed on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal (utilizing
the excel option).
We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period, and determined that the concerns raised are
generally minor and can be addressed in the final mitigation plan. Accordingly, it is our intent to approve this Draft
Mitigation Plan unless a member of the NCIRT initiates the Dispute Resolution Process, as described in the Final
Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Section 332.8(e)). Please note that initiation of this process requires that a senior official of the
agency objecting to the approval of the mitigation plan (instrument amendment) notify the District Engineer by letter
within 15 days of this email (by COB on August 4, 2017). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution
Process.
Provided that we do not receive any objections, we will provide an approval letter to NCDMS at the conclusion of the 15 -
day Dispute Resolution window. This approval will also transmit all comments generated during the review process to
NCDMS, and indicate comments that must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All NCIRT members will receive a
copy of this letter and all comments for your records.
Thank you for your participation,
Andrea W. Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 107
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone] x 59

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Hughes
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
July 20, 2017
SUBJECT: Buckwater Mitigation Site - 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: Buckwater Mitigation Site, Orange County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW -2016-00873
NCDMS #: 97084
30 -Day Comment Deadline: July 1, 2017
Mac Haupt, NCD WR, July S, 2017:
1. DWR requires that the mitigation plan state that the standard monitoring schedule for
this project is 7 years (as per the 2008 Federal Mitigation Rule and the most recent
IRT Mitigation Guidance, October 2016).
2. Given the project's location in the Saint Mary's Road Rural Historic District, is there
another underlying easement associated with the project area?
3. DWR would like to see a draft construction sequence submitted with the design
sheets. In addition, DWR would like a separate construction sequence to describe the
method for the dam breach and the stream construction sequence in the relict pond
bottom.
4. Given the abundance of wetlands on this project, it is important for Wildlands to
make sure that the stream construction does not result in a loss of wetland function.
DWR recommends the placement of several gauges in areas adjacent where the
stream will be constructed through wetlands. Also, Wildlands should conduct
another delineation after year 4 or 5 of monitoring to determine the net wetland result
from the project (DWR realizes that there will be wetland/relict channel areas
generated from the new channel construction). Below are areas that DWR
recommends placing a gauge where the stream channel is being constructed through
wetlands and may affect adjacent wetlands:

a. Buckwater Reaches 3 & 4
b. Reach T1
c. Reach T6
d. Reach T4
station I11+00
station 119+00
station 121+00
station 125+00
station 207+50
area near crossing
414+50
5. The section of Reach T6 from 515+00 to 517+50 is moved upslope considerably, it
would seem this could be a risk to drying out the channel/hyporheic zone, what is the
primary purpose of this relocation? Cut/fill balance?
6. The tie in for Reach 7A to Reach 7 also goes through a considerable amount of
upland, what is the primary purpose of this relocation?
7. Reach T8 has a considerable amount of channel work. Why was this labeled as
Enhancement I versus Restoration? Also, T8 appears to be a Reach that may lose
water because of all the channel manipulation, Wildlands should take channel design
measures to reduce the possibility of the channel drying out.
Todd Bowers, USEPA, June 28, 2017
1. Figure 13 should be corrected to "Buckwater Creek" instead of "Martin Dairy"
2. Unclear on 5 or 7 year monitoring period. Section 9.0 Performance Standards states
that "streams will be evaluated throughout the seven-year post construction
monitoring." The proposal to terminate monitoring of the streams and/or vegetation
at year 5 is stated as an option. Appendix 10 shows a 5 -year monitoring and credit
release schedule. I am under the impression that this mitigation plan is a revision to
the In -Lieu Fee Instrument and falls under the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidance and
NOT the October 2016 Guidance. This may be the cause of confusion and a
correction may be warranted. EPA recommends the sponsor highly consider the 7 -
year monitoring strategy due to the size and complexity of the project as stated in
Section 9.0, however the IRT can approve an early closeout if all monitored
parameters are within expected tolerances. Either way there should be no ambiguity
of the monitoring period and performance standards in order to minimize any
confusion during the closeout phase prior to long-term management.
3. All the figures display inconsistent conservation easement boundaries. An example is
the main powerline corridor extending north -south across Buckwater Creek and T4.
Some maps/figures show an unbroken CE and other show CE breaks along the
powerline easement. Please correct.
4. Section 3.4/Page 11: No description of the Stream T4C depicted in the site
maps/Figure 3 -Sheet 3. Is this due to it being effectively removed by P1 restoration of
T4?
5. In the description of T613, the stream above the project area (outside of the easement)
is "stable but receives runoff from the agricultural fields." EPA recommends that a
BMP strategy be devised to treat or control the agricultural field runoff before it
enters the stream in order to prevent degraded water quality issues due to fertilizers,
pesticides and/or pathogens in T6 and thus Buckwater Creek within and downstream

of the project. EPA also recommends a similar approach on the head of T7 that also
receives agricultural runoff.
6. Section 7.0/Table 7: Mitigation Goals and Objectives (page 22): Recommend revising
two of the stated goals. The goal of "Exclude cattle from project streams" is
essentially the same thing as the objective of "Install fencing around conservation
easements adjacent to cattle pastures" in other words; exclude cattle. The goal in this
case would be better represented by "Improve streambank stability, eliminate hoof
sheaf stress/erosion on streambanks and minimize fecal coliform inputs to the water
supply." Same goes for the vegetation goal of "restore and enhance native floodplain
and streambank vegetation" which also is restated in the objective. The goal in this
case may be better stated as "Improve streambank stability, improve stream
temperature regulation, provide a source of organic material and streamside habitat."
7. Table 16/Page 45: See comment on Mitigation Goals and Objectives above.
8. Appendix 10/Page 1: Recommend adding a footnote to explain the differences in
released credit percentages and recommend adding a MY7 row to Table A in the
event that MY 5 Performance Standards are not met.
9. Section 8.3.2/Page 29: The description for T6 -R3 states that "Wildlands now
proposes Enhancement 1 for this reach" and then goes on to describe restoration via
P 1 and P2 methods. Paragraph 3 on Page 40 also states that "continuing P 1
restoration from T6 -R3" is proposed from "the restored T6 -R3 channel." Recommend
correction and clarification of the approach to be used on T6 -R3.
Andrea Hughes, USACE, July 13, 2017
1. 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. You must identify all wetland areas and clearly depict the area and amount of
each wetland impact on the design plans submitted with the PCN. The Corps concurs
with DWR comment #4 and requests placement of gauges in the locations noted
above.
2. The Corps concurs with DWR comment 3 above. Pursuant to 33 CFR 332.4, the
draft mitigation plan must include written specifications and work descriptions
including construction methods, timing, and sequence.
3. Page 29, Section 8.3.3 states that T5R1 is an enhancement reach. The tables on pages
37 and 50 indicate that T5 is proposed for priority restoration. Please clarify.
4. Page 43, Performance Standards: remove language regarding early termination of
monitoring.
5. Page 45, Monitoring Plan: modify the sentence regarding closeout monitoring to state
7 years beyond completion of construction.
6. Page 46, Monitoring Components: modify the chart to show the required monitoring
period is 7 years with visual monitoring for stream parameters in years 4 and 6.
7. Pages 45 and 46 chart, the vegetation performance standards should be modified to
show 320 stems/acre at year 3, 260 stems/acre at year 5, and 210 stems/acre at year 7.
The site protection standard should include a statement regarding upholding the terms

of the recorded conservation easement. Performance standards for cattle exclusion
should be modified to demonstrate fencing is maintained and cattle are not accessing
the mitigation site. Also, please add a standard that all intermittent reaches proposed
for restoration as well as areas proposed for relocation through uplands (to meet
buffer widths) must demonstrate a minimum of 30 days continuous flow on an annual
basis during the monitoring period.
8. Page 47, if the landowner is responsible for long term maintenance and repair of
fencing then a paragraph should be added to the conservation easement identifying
their responsibilities:
Long -Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term management
activities associated with fencing. These activities include the maintenance and/or
replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic resource functions within the
boundaries of the Protected Property are sustained.
9. Appendix 10, Credit Release Schedule: Please modify the schedule to reflect the
table below:
Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Streams
Credit
ILF/NCDMS
Release
Release Activity
Interim
Total
Milestone
Release
Released
1
Site Establishment (includes
0%
0%
all required criteria)
Completion of all initial
physical and biological
2
improvements made
30%
30%
pursuant to the
Mitigation Plan
Year 1 monitoring report
demonstrates that
3
channels are stable and
10%
40%
interim performance
standards have been
met
Year 2 monitoring report
demonstrates that
4
channels are stable and
10%
50%
interim performance
standards have been
met
Year 3 monitoring report
demonstrates that
5
channels are stable and
10%
60%
interim performance
standards have been
met
6.
Year 4 monitoring report
5%
65%(75%--)
demonstrates that

**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bank full event performance standard has been met.
10. Please include information regarding potential blasting and/or tree removal with
the PCN. If project construction requires vegetation removal, please provide the
acreage.
HUGHES.ANDREAN
ADE.1258339165
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division
Digitally signed by
HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DOD, ou=PKI,
ou-USA, cn-HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
Date: 2017.07.20 16:24:17 -04'00'
channels are stable and
interim performance
standards have been
met
Year 5 monitoring report
demonstrates that
7
channels are stable and
10%
75%
interim performance
(85%')
standards have been
met
Year 6 monitoring report
demonstrates that
8'
channels are stable and
5%
80% (90%")
interim performance
standards have been
met
Year 7 monitoring report
demonstrates that
9
channels are stable,
10%
90%(100%-)
performance standards
have been met
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bank full event performance standard has been met.
10. Please include information regarding potential blasting and/or tree removal with
the PCN. If project construction requires vegetation removal, please provide the
acreage.
HUGHES.ANDREAN
ADE.1258339165
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division
Digitally signed by
HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DOD, ou=PKI,
ou-USA, cn-HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
Date: 2017.07.20 16:24:17 -04'00'