The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130653 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20140123Strickland, Bev From: Kulz, Eric Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 3:45 PM To: Strickland, Bev Subject: FW: Muddy Run II Mitigation Plan ADDENDUM posted on Portal for Review- SAW- 2012 -01387 / EEP # 95354 (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: Muddy Run II Mitigation Plan Review Memo.pdf 13 -0653 Eric W. Kulz Environmental Senior Specialist 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit NCDENR - Division of Water Resources - 1650 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 Phone: (919) 807 -6476 Water Quality Permitting Section E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW [ mailto: Tyler.Crumbley(@usace.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:17 AM To: bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW; Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick(@fws.gov); McLendon, Scott C SAW; Cox, David R.; Jurek, Jeff; Pearce, Guy; Sollod, Steve; Wilson, Travis W.; Emily Jernigan(@fws.gov; Kathryn Matthews(@fws.gov; Montgomery, Lori; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW; Miguez, Kristin; Bailey, David E SAW; Sugg, Mickey T SAW; Shaver, Brad E SAW; Beter, Dale E SAW; Gregson, Jim; Baker, Virginia; Chapman, Amy; Homewood, Sue Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW Subject: Muddy Run II Mitigation Plan ADDENDUM posted on Portal for Review- SAW- 2012 -01387 / EEP #95354 (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, NCEEP has posted an Addendum to the Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland restoration project in Duplin County. Attached are the comments from the original posting and previous field visit. As described in the email below, the changes to the Mitigation Plan are a result of landowner negotiations on one parcel. The changes include decreased belt width and sinuosity for an approximate 500 LF of headwater valley restoration (Reach 1) and 850 LF of priority 1 restoration (Reach 3A upstream). USACE is seeking comment from the NCIRT regarding the proposed changes to the Mitigation plan. *Please limit your comments to the changes proposed in the Addendum only *. Once the comment period has concluded, a response letter will be provided to NCEEP along with the comments. When posting comments please indicate if your concerns are great enough that you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process described in Section 332.8(3) of the Mitigation Rule. Comments posted after the 30 -day comment deadline (shown below) may not be considered. 1 NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal Address: http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /group /eep- irt /mitigation -plan- review Project Name: Muddy Run II Plan ADDENDUM EEP -IMS# 95354 SAW 2012 -01387 County: Duplin River Basin: Cape Fear HUC: 03030007 Assets: 4.92 Riparian WMUs, 10,486 SMUs (9,727 R, 707 E1, 718 E2) Provider: EBX EEP Project Manager: Kristin Miguez * *30 -Day Comment Start Date: 23 January, 2014 ** * *30 -Day Comment Deadline: 22 February, 2014 ** Questions may be addressed to Tyler Crumbley with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the address and number below. Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Division Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, NC 27587 (919) 846 -2564 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Schaffer, Jeff [ mailto :ieff.schaffer(@ncdenr.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:37 PM To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW Cc: Miguez, Kristin; Baumgartner, Tim; Pearce, Guy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Muddy Run II Mitigation Plan ADDENDUM ( #95354) posted on Portal for Review Todd and Tyler, EEP's Muddy Run II Mitigation Plan ADDENDUM has been posted to the portal for IRT review. The addendum provided by EBX details changes resulting from landowner negotiations on one parcel. The changes result in 105 fewer SMUs than the contracted amount of 10,375 SMUs (10,486 SMUs in the IRT- approved mitigation plan). N Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 CESAW -RG /Crumbley 26 July, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Muddy Run II- NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review Purpose: The comments and responses listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. NCEEP Project Name: Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Duplin, NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01387 NCEEP #: 95354 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 24 July, 2013 1. Eric Kulz; NCDWQ, 22 July, 2013: • The plans for the project show a number of ditches that enter the conservation easement. According to the plans, flow from these ditches will be converted to diffuse flow through the use of earthen level spreaders. The plans show for live stakes to be installed on the level spreaders. Earthen level spreaders have been show repeatedly to fail, even with maintenance. The DWQ BMP Manual has discontinued including earthen level spreaders as approved stormwater structures. In addition, the proposal to install live stakes will result in concentrated flow as water will flow around the stems of the trees, likely increasing the erosion of the downstream face of the level spreader. Can the ditches instead be directed into wetland floodplain pools as on other EEP projects? 2. T. Crumbley; USACE, 24 July, 2013: • As discussed during the field visit on 5 September, 2012, please ensure that all filled ditches be plugged and compacted to prevent scour and settling. • Also per the field discussion on 5 Sep 12, there is a concern by members of the IRT of possible tree mortality on Reaches 1, 2, and 3 due to the plugging of the ditches and the additional water within the reaches and adjoining forested lands. • In general, the USACE does not support relocation of streams into areas that were not historically stream channels and is concerned over the amount of grading and excavation in the Goldsboro soil on reaches 3a and 3b across the upland ridge to the west. The proposed channel must maintain sufficient flow through this area to remain jurisdictional and become a higher functioning system. The work proposed shall in no way reflect a guarantee of credit generation if the performance standards and success criteria are not met throughout the monitoring period. Additionally, effects from the dewatering of the current features must be considered in the final mitigation plan and the subsequent application. • Pg. 54, 7.2.1 provides a reference to proposed "macro- topography" features. Please ensure that these features end up vegetated and do not result in ponded areas with open water dominating. • Reach 3c currently flows through or adjacent to, existing jurisdictional wetlands. Please provide a discussion on the impacts to and protection measures for existing wetlands (high visibility fencing, avoidance). Impacts to existing wetlands need to be accounted for in the final mit plan and ensuing NWP application, including explanations on how the impacts /losses will be replaced.