Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180199 Ver 1_Notice of Intent to Approve_20200611Strickland, Bev From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:52 PM To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B; Bowers, Todd; Wilson, Travis W.; Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA); Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); kathryn_matthews@fws.gov; Merritt, Katie Cc: Kayne Vanstell; Catherine Manner; Crocker, Lindsay; Baumgartner, Tim Subject: [External] Notice of Intent to Approve/ NCDMS Buffalo Creek Tributaries Site/ Johnston County/ SAW-2018-00425 Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_Buffao Creek Tribs_SAW-2018-00425.pdf External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to report.spam@nc.gov Good afternoon, We have completed our review of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the NCDMS Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project (SAW-2018-00425). Please see the attached memo, which includes all NCIRT comments that were submitted site during the review process along with additional comments provided by Wilmington District staff following our review. 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 (contingent upon the attached comments being addressed in the Final 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 June 26, 2020). 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, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification Application for NWP 27. All NCIRT members will receive a copy of the approval letter and all comments for your records. Thank you for your participation. Kim Browning Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105 1 Wake Forest, NC 27587 1 919.554.4884 x60 BUILDING STRONG DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: CESAW-RG/Browning MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD June 10, 2020 SUBJECT: Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan Review PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received during 30-day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule in response to the Notice of NCDMS Mitigation Plan Review. NCDMS Project Name: Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Site, Johnston County, NC USACE AID#: SAW-2018-00425 NCDMS #: 100042 30-Day Comment Deadline: May 10, 2020 DWR Comments, Mac Hauat: 1. Section 2- Watershed Approach- this section mentioned an area being developed into a subdivision on stream right near the bottom of MS-R2. One of the Figures (7e) shows a stormwater pond built at the edge of the development, please make sure the designer is aware of where the outlet will drain into the conservation easement and take the necessary design steps to account for the stormflow input. 2. Section 3.1.4- Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Aquatic Habitat-DWR likes the fact that monitoring of macrobenthics will occur. 3. Table 8- Existing Channel Morphology Summary- DWR notes that all the R tributaries have small drainage areas. DWR noted that stream gauges will be placed on R4 and R6. Does WLS have any concerns regarding the stormwater ponds regulating the flow for R4 and R5? Please realize that if DWR notes any flow issues at any time during the project construction or monitoring phase, we may require more flow gauges be installed on the other tributaries (R3 and/or R5) as well. 4. Section 3.4.5- Jurisdictional WOTUS- and Section 6.4- Wetland Design Approach- and Appendix 9- after review of the document, discerning the initial amount of jurisdictional wetlands seemed to be a major issue. Recalling the site visit, it seems there were more jurisdictional wetlands than represented on the second PJD. While we did not recall as many wetlands as represented on the first PJD. In addition, evidently the Technical Proposal showed more rehabilitation/enhancement wetlands as well. DWR accepts the current approach, however; it did raise red flags as to how many jurisdictional wetlands were on site initially. With the concerns about the status of the current wetlands and the proposed wetland re-establishment, DWR will be reviewing closely the wetland gauge (see comment #8) data. 5. Section 6.5.2- Planting Material and Methods- DWR expects the site to be planted by March 15. If planting is desired to be done at a later date, the IRT should be notified. Planting at the end of May will not be accepted. 6. Section 8.2.1- Hydrologic Monitoring-DWR prefers pressure transducers to crest gauges to monitor overbank flooding. Especially with this project where the stream channel is expected to be lifted and the flood frequency increased, we would like to see a more accurate form of measurement utilized. 7. Section 8.3 and 8.4 Wetland and Vegetation Monitoring- DWR requires more wetland gauges be installed on this project. Given the back and forth regarding the PJD, more gauges are essential to confirm the extent of the wetland re-establishment proposed. There should be at least nine wetland gauges. DWR requires the addition of 5 more wetland monitoring gauges. In addition, there should be more vegetation plots. Currently you are showing 5, none are located at the bottom of MS-R2. DWR recommends at least 8-10 vegetation plots. Please note, some of these can be random plots. 8. Photos- from the photos it seems a new (large) culvert was installed. DWR is hoping your designer was in touch with these folks regarding the desired culvert invert elevations. 9. Appendix 3- Typically, DWR likes to see the final conservation easement before final approval of draft mitigation comments. 10. Design sheet 3- DWR is not crazy about the streambank slopes shown on your typical cross sections. The slopes seem abit steep, I believe we made this comment previously. 11. Design sheet Typicals- DWR did not find the vernal pool typical. 12. Design sheets 8-12- after review of these sheets, it appears that the channel bed is being raised 2-3 feet. Is this correct? DWR is expecting significantly increased overbank flooding to increase the hydrology of the adjacent wetlands. 13. Please realize any cut over 12 inches adjacent to the channel area will result in a change of wetland approach from re-establishment to creation. USACE Comments, Kim Browning: 1. On future projects, please keep the same stream and wetland labels throughout the life of the project. It's difficult to refer to notes from the technical proposal and compare them to the JD and mitigation plan when labels change. 2. Reach R5: Is a BMP being planned to address the runoff from the sheep pen upstream at the school? 3. Reach MS-R2: There is some concern with the loss of slope and sedimentation. Please include fixed photo points along this reach to document stream channel characteristics. 4. Section 6.5: Please identify the target community types. 5. Section 6.5.2: Please reference the planting window specified in the 2016 NCIRT Mitigation Update Guidance. 6. Table 20: In regard to the note indicating species substitutions may occur due to availability or refinement, please re -line the As -Built and MYO report if substitutions occur. 7. Please place a veg plot in W3. Additionally, please add random plots along reaches R6 and R5. 8. Reach R4: Given that this reach is currently ephemeral, it's suggested that additional photos or video footage be submitted during monitoring to supplement flow data. 9. Section 3.4.5: When submitting the 404 permit applications, please submit that through DMS. The PJD should be submitted to Chris Hopper in the Raleigh Regulatory Office 10. Section 3.1.4: I'm pleased to see that benthic monitoring will occur. Please indicate the location of sampling on Figure 10. Additionally, if you plan to request additional credit for this monitoring, please adjust the credit tables accordingly. 11. Please add a section regarding potential future risks and uncertainties, such as adjacent development or logging, beaver, sewer/water line maintenance, beaver impacts, road/culvert maintenance. 12. Section 7.1 Stream profiles, vertical stability, floodplain access section: This standard should apply to all reaches where the channels were adjusted to reference conditions through design and construction, to include both restoration and El reaches. a. Page 47, first paragraph: please QA this paragraph for wording. 13. Section 8.1: Please show the location of the fixed photo points on Figure 10. If cross -sections are to be used for photo points, please indicate in the text. Additionally, it would be helpful to have photo points at crossings to show the condition of the culverts. Digitally signed by BROWN ING.KIMBERLY. BROWN ING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE.152 DANIELLE.1 52768351 0 7683510 Date: 2020.06.11 14:43:58-04'00' Kim Browning Mitigation Project Manager Regulatory Division