Mag: RS Dam Removals Restoring Life to Once Drowned Rivers

Written by:

02.9.2011 Posted in Dam, dam removal, interesting articles, lowell dam, milburnie, Milburnie Dam removal, Neuse River

Wildlife in North Carolina recently published an article on a subject dear to the Swamp Merchant’s heart. Lynette Batt of American Rivers has written a wonderful piece on the benefits, history, and challenges of dam removal in the Old North State. RS’ removal of the Carbonton and Lowell dams figure prominently in the article. We were particularly gratified to see crack river ecologist and RS contractor Tim Savidge, of the Catena Group, quoted regarding the terrific ecological results from the two projects. Both of our removals have resulted in the recolonization of formerly stagnant, deep water impoundments with federally endangered river species. The staggering ability of these rivers to renew themselves (with a little help from RS) is a story that cannot be told too many times:

Savidge notes that “the removal of the Carbonton Dam has resulted in recolonization of the former impoundment by a number of rare freshwater mussel species such as the yellow lampmussel, Savannah lilliput and notched rainbow.” He reports another major success for a federally endangered species, the Tar River spiny mussel, which was found in August 2010 in the former impoundment of the Lowell Dam on the Little River. That makes it the second endangered species found in any stream restoration site in North Carolina.
— Quoted in “Removing Dams, Restoring Rivers”

Removing Dams Restoring Rivers-Feb 2011- FINAL

Ecosystem Marketplace: Mitigation Bankers Say Army Corps Not Following the Rule

Written by:

10.15.2010 Posted in Army Corps of Engineers, In-Lieu-Fee Mitigation, interesting articles, National Mitigation Banking Association, NC Ecosystem Enhancement, NCEEP, new federal mitigation rule, wetland mitigation, wetland mitigation bank

From Hannah Kett and Ecosystem Marketplace

According to law, if you damage a wetland in the US, you must restore a comparable piece of property in the same watershed. A 2008 regulatory rule says wetland credits from a mitigation bank should be your first option. Mitigation banks, however, say this isn’t happening, and they want the Army Corps of Engineers to tell them why. The Corps says it’s just trying to be flexible – and promises more transparency in the future.

29 September 2010 | In April, 2008, wetland scientist Rich Mogensen read “The Rule” and speculated that the number of wetland mitigation banks in the United States could triple from 500 then to 1500 right about now as a result of its issuance.

Officially titled the Compensatory Mitigation Rule for Losses of Aquatic Resources, the Rule was jointly issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (with a push from Congress), and it declared that anyone who damages a US wetland should look first to mitigation bankers to compensate for the damage before exploring other alternatives.

National Mitigation Banking Association letter to Army Corps of Engineers regarding the implementation Fede… (more…)

N&O: Residents argue that removing Milburnie Dam would ruin scenery

Written by:

04.22.2010 Posted in dam removal, interesting articles, natural history, Neuse River, stream restoration

Page A-1
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 05:36 AM
In Fight Over Dam Sides Ask: What’s Natural?

RALEIGH For more than a century, Milburnie Dam has stood 16 feet high in the middle of Raleigh, a stone wall that interrupts the Neuse River like an aquatic comma. Above it, motorboats troll through deep water; below, fishermen wade around a pounding waterfall.

Now a Raleigh firm that does environmental work wants to tear out the privately owned dam and let the Neuse flow freely, removing the only man-made obstacle between Falls Lake and Pamlico Sound. Doing so, they say, would bring shad and other fish further upriver and improve the water quality by speeding up a slowed-down Neuse.

In Fight Over Dam Sides Ask: What’s Natural?
(more…)

Great Idea: Oyster Banks as Water Quality Mitigation in Chesapeake bay

Written by:

01.11.2010 Posted in interesting articles, natural history

It’s not not every day that you come across an excellent common sense idea addressing one of the most vexing problems in your industry; in this case, how to efficiently and reliably remove pollution from the Chesapeake Bay. Paul Calamita, an environmental attorney in Richmond, Virginia, had a letter in today’s Baltimore Sun [Bay needs more oysters, not more enforcement] suggesting that the deliberate and regulated banking of oyster restoration to improve water quality could be employed to  yield “Oyster Credits”  representing improvement in water quality.  These credits could then be used as currency in water regulation.

Entrepreneurial Oyster Farming in Xiamen, China

(more…)

SwampGate: Purchasing nutrients from a wetland bank prohibited by EEP's own rules

Written by:

12.8.2009 Posted in 401 Water Quality Certification, double dipping, In-Lieu-Fee Mitigation, interesting articles, NCDWQ, NCEEP, north carolina, stream restoration, Swampgate, Uncategorized, wetland mitigation bank

As an informational update on the brewing controversy concerning the state paying twice for work done once, “Stories from the Field” offers a snippet from the EEP‘s own rule book.  The rule specifically and unequivocally prohibits the dual use of a single mitigation site for wetland and nutrient mitigation, as was done at least once by a private contractor, and perhaps many times by the rule maker themselves:

Ecosystem Enhancement Program:

2.0 DEFINITIONS AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS TO GENERATE RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION CREDITS.

2.9 Wetland and Buffer Mitigation. Wetland mitigation may not overlap with riparian buffer mitigation. When wetland mitigation is implemented in a riparian zone using buffer restoration techniques that could also generate riparian buffer mitigation, a decision must be made as to which type of credit will be claimed from the project. A specific area on a project can generate either wetland mitigation credits or riparian buffer mitigation credits. Portions of a project can be designated as generating riparian buffer mitigation credits and portions generating wetland credit, but these areas cannot overlap.

2.10 Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation. Nutrient offset mitigation is required to be stand alone mitigation in order to generate nutrient offset mitigation. Any area being used for nutrient offset mitigation cannot be used to generate stream, wetland, or buffer mitigation credits. Similarly any area being used to generate riparian buffer mitigation credits cannot be used to generate nutrient offset mitigation.