20081090 Ver 1_More Info Received_20081021

rt C_ Lu-Cd #4108
r4l;J
,Lcos stem
PROGRAM
21 October 2008
Cyndi B. Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Re: Peeler Creek Restoration Site, Davie County
DWQ #08-1090
Dear Ms. Karoly,
Please find below the responses to comments, dated August 4, 2008. We have provided written responses
to each comment in bold.
• The soils in the proposed wetland restoration area are mapped Chewacla. Section 5.7 of the
restoration plan references Figure 6, which is to show Soil Units 1 and 2 determined during a soil
characterization study. These units are not shown on Figure 6; therefore, this figure should be
resubmitted with the available soils data.
Response: Figure 6 will be amended as requested.
Since there are issues involved with wetland restoration in Chewacla soils, the availability of
wetland mitigation credits at the project site will not be finalized until the commenting agency
members of the PACG-TC have an opportunity to consider the soil characterization information.
If the restoration is pursued in the meantime, it is at the risk of receiving a reduced amount of
wetland credit.
Response: Understood.
Based on topography and soils data provided in the restoration plan, it is expected that wetland
restoration may occur well beyond the easement boundaries. Please verify that if the restored
wetlands extend into privately-owned land adjacent to the conservation easement, the landowners
will not seek to drain those wetlands. Ideally, the entire extent of restored wetlands feasible at
this site would be put into a conservation easement.
Response: The landowner understands that wetlands will extend beyond the conservation
easement in the area of the relocated channel. He would not allow this additional land to be
placed into the easement. He is a forester and would like to have the additional wet area to
plant Cypress Trees. He currently has a Cypress plantation on the south side of the
proposed conservation easement.
• Again, we need to see the extent of Soil Units 1 and 2, but it appears that hydrologic success
criteria are probably appropriate. They should be clarified to read that the targeted percentages
are based on consecutive days of saturation or inundation during the growing season. Vegetation
criteria are appropriate. The status of volunteers, including invasive species, should be included
in the annual monitoring reports. In addition, Section 8.4, Is` sentence, should be revised to say
that all success criteria (not just vegetation) must be met in order for the project to be deemed
successful.
Response: Requested changes will be incorporated.
A&AA
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
The reference wetland is a linear ditch in the historic flowpath of Peeler Creek. It may be an
acceptable hydrology reference, but since it is located in a fallow field with no canopy layer, it is
obviously not an appropriate wetland vegetation reference.
Response: This area will not serve as the wetland vegetation reference. The vegetation will
be based upon the appropriate suite of species noted in the appropriate Schafle and Weekly
vegetation community.
The fact that one of the landowners (Concord United Methodist Church) has not yet agreed to
allow a conservation easement on their property is a concern. Another concern is the presence of
a cypress plantation immediately adjacent to the conservation easement. I would recommend
fencing the easement to prevent encroachment on the restored wetlands.
Response: The section of the project below NC Hwy 801 shown on restoration plans 16, 17,
& 18 has recently been dropped from the project due to construction budget constraints.
The easement will be fenced to exclude cattle.
• Based on the description of the tributary and the DWQ stream form completed by the consultant,
Tributary 1 may be an intermittent stream. DWQ does not currently require mitigation for
intermittent streams. Credit generated through the restoration of intermittent streams can only be
used as compensatory mitigation for impacts to intermittent streams.
Response: Please refer to the attached memorandum dated August 28, 2006.
DWQ is awaiting scheduling on a N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC), Water
Quality Committee's session docket to present research on the importance of intermittent streams
and the need to require mitigation for intermittent stream impacts. Should the EMC pass DWQ's
requested requirement for intermittent stream mitigation, demand for intermittent stream credits
should increase in the future.
Response: The tributary has to be tied into the new stream location. The tributary is
being tied into at the shortest distance within the existing channel that gives adequate
elevation to bring the channel through the existing floodplain.
If you have any additional questions or comments, feel free to contact me at 919.715.1324.
Sincerely
Toni Wyche Jones, El
Review Coordinator
cc: Central Files
Eric Kulz - DWQ Wetlands & Stormwater Branch
Harry Tsomides - EEP ARO
Becky Ward, PE - Ward Consulting Engineers
North (arolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 16S2 Mail Service (enter, Raleigh, N( 27699-1652 1
A CDENR
919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
August 28, 2006
Memorandum
To: Suzanne Klimek, Ncosyste Enhancement Program (EEP)
From: Coleen Sullin
Subj: Policy Regar ng Mitig Credits for Intermittent Streams
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
f, 4
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) position in
regards to providing mitigation credits for the mitigation of intermittent streams. It is the
Division's current policy to provide mitigation credits on a 1:1 basis for intermittent stream
mitigation up to the total amount of mitigation that has been required by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) for impacts to intermittent streams in projects for which EEP is charged with
providing the mitigation. These intermittent stream mitigation requirements will be in addition
to all perennial stream mitigation requirements that the EEP is required to provide to satisfy
DWQ's perennial stream mitigation requirements on a 1:1 basis.
The Division has hired a temporary employee, Sean Doig, who is presently researching the
files of DWQ, the EEP, and the Army Corps of Engineers to try to determine the extent of
intermittent stream mitigation that has been required to date by the ACOE. This research is
expected to be completed by the end of September.
The Division of Water Quality will continue to work cooperatively in the future with the EEP to
equitably resolve the issue of allowing intermittent mitigation to provide credit for impacts to
other than intermittent streams. The Division anticipates that this resolution will become a part
of the ongoing discussion regarding the EEP "flexible mitigation" concept that is presently
being drafted.
If you have any questions about this policy, please contact Tom Reeder at 733-5083 extension
528.
Cc: Paul Rawls
John Dorney
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699.1617 Phone [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterqualitv.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
N?y?et?Caro ina
?vatara)
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50°1. Recycled/100% Post Consumer Paper