20120396 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20120621

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:55 AM
To: Dennison, Laurie; Mcmillan, Ian; Strickland, Bev; Homewood, Sue
Subject: FW: Notice of Intent to Disapprove Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project Creek, Surry
County (SAW- 2011 - 02257) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Plan Review Memo 20120529.pdf; NCIRT Mitigation Plan
Review Process for NCEEP Projects.pdf
Hey Even-one:
Just an update to make sure -, e are all on the same page.
Please see Todd's note belo-, . I don't know where this stands with USACE, but should -, e put this on hold? It is still listed as
"Received" in BIMS, and I think ,, e are past 60 days.
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Program Development Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone] Please note this is a ne,,N- phone number effective May 10, 2012
Fax: [phone]
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records La-w and may be disclosed
to third parties
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [mailto: Todd. Tug-, ell a usace.army.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:03 PM
To: Matthe-, s, Monte K SAW, Gibby, Jean B SAW, Basinger, Corey, Home-wood, Sue, Marella_Buncick a f,N-s.gow Fritz
Rohde (Fritz. RohdeIdnoaa.gov) Crumbles, Tyler SAW, Karoly, Cyndi, Cox, David R., Kulz, Eric,
garnett.jeffre5'a epamail.epa.gow Jurek, Jeff, Higgins, Karen, McLendon, Scott C SAW, Mcmillan, Ian, Wilson, Travis W.
Cc: Cahill, Julie, Mcdonald, Mike
Subject: Notice of Intent to Disapprove Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project Creek, Surry County (SAW- 2011 - 02257)
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
The 30 -day comment review period for Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project in Surry County closed on May 29, 2012
(follo-wing an extension). All comments that N ere posted on the Mitigation Plan Revie-,v Portal during the revie-,v process are
attached for your records. We have evaluated the comments generated during the revie-,v period, and determined that there -were
significant concerns raised regarding some parts of the draft mitigation plan. Accordingly, -, e do not intend to approve the
Draft Mitigation Plan as proposed. Any NCIRT member -who has concerns regarding this decision may initiate the Dispute
Resolution Process, 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 28, 2012). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the
Dispute Resolution Process.
Prodded that no NCIRT member initiates the Dispute Resolution Process, I NN -111 notify NCEEP of this decision at the
conclusion of the 15 -day Dispute Resolution -, indo-, . Should NCEEP decide to move fonvard -with the project, -, e -will -work
-with NCEEP to revise the Draft Mitigation Plan to address identified concerns. The revised Draft Mitigation Plan -will be

reposted to the Mitigation Plan Revie-w Portal for NCIRT revie-w and comment using the same procedures used during the first
revie- w. You -will be notified -when the plan has been reposted for revie- w. Please let me kno-w if you have any questions.
Thanks for your continued participation in this process,
Todd Tug-well
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
(919) 846 -2564
We -would appreciate Sour feedback on ho-w -, e are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Surrey is located
at: http:// per2. mvp.usace.army.mil /sur-,-ey.html Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugvvell, Todd SAW
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:28 AM
To: Monte Matthe- ws (Monte.K. Matthew -s�a;savv- 02.usace.army. mil); Gibby, Jean B SAW; Marella Buncick
( Marella Buncick a fvv- s.go-,-) Fritz Rohde (Fritz. Rohde a noaa.gov) (Corey. Basingerldncdenr.gov) Crumbley, , Tyler SAW;
Cyndi Karoly (c5-ndi.karol5-'ci' ncdenr.go -,-) David Cox (da -,-id.cox'ci ncvv- ildlife.org); erie.kulz'crncdenr.gov,
garnett .jeffrey'depamail.epa.go-,- Jeff Jurek (jell jurek a ncdenr.gov) Karen Higgins (Karen. Higgins a ncdenr.gov) McLendon,
Scott C SAW; Mcmillan, Ian; Pearce, Guy; Travis Wilson ( traiis.vvilson'dncvv- ildlife.org); Wrenn, Brian
Subject: Notice of NCEEP Mitigation Plan Revie-w - Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project Creek, Surry County (SAW -2011-
02257) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
The below- referenced Draft Mitigation Plan has been posted by NCEEP on the Mitigation Plan Review- Portal. Per Section
332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review- period -will remain open for 30 calendar days from this email notification.
Please post comments by 5 PM on the 30 -day- comment deadline shown below--. 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 (show- -n below- -) may not be considered. This comment
period may be extended at the request of NCEEP if they determine that additional time is necessary to make changes to the
Draft Mitigation Plan. Please note that NCEEP may also post response to the comments on the portal, as -well.
At the conclusions of this comment period, notification -will be prodded to NCEEP and the NCIRT of the District Engineer's
intent to approve or disapprove this project. More information, including instructions to access and use the portal, and a floe-
chart detailing the process are included in the document attached to this email notice.
NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review- Portal Address: http: / /portal.nedenr.org/ group /eep- irt/mitigation- plan- re-,ieNN-
Project Name: Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
County: Surn-
30 -Day Comment Start Date: April 12, 2012 30 -Day Comment Deadline: May 11, 2012
Questions may be addressed to Todd Tug-well -with the U.S. Army- Corps of Engineers at the address and number below--.
Todd Tug-well
Special Projects Manager

Regulator- Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Arm -,- Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
(919) 846 -2564
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
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 /Tugwell May 29, 2012
SUBJECT: 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(8) of the
2008 Mitigation Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project, Surry County, NC
30 -Day Comment Deadline: May 29, 2012 (originally May 11, 2012, but NCEEP agreed to an 18-
day extension)
1. Todd Tugwell, USACE, May 25, 2012:
• Stream preservation ratios are proposed at 5:1, which appear to be high for some of the
proposed streams where buffers are not mature or have been logged recently, such as
much of Barn Trib.
• The description of the approach to each tributary needs to be further clarified so that
each reach is addressed separately to describe the conditions, objectives, and activities
proposed to correct the conditions. These descriptions should provide a justification for
the credit ratios, since the ratios for several of the streams appear higher than justified
by the proposed activities, with Enhancement I ratios of 1:1 and Enhancement II ratios
of 1.5:1. The justification for these ratios, which should be based on the proposed
ecological uplift, needs to be explicitly explained in the mitigation plan under the
description for the proposed actions to be taken on the associated reach. In particular,
the reaches listed below do not appear to justify the proposed credit ratio:
• Moores Reach 1 is listed as El with a ratio of 1:1, yet much of the upstream portion
of this reach has vegetation on both sides and during the site visit, no cattle access
to this section was noted. In general, the wooded portion of this reach was in
decent condition, with enhancement potential limited to providing breaks in the
berm along the north side of the channel and planting /preserving a full buffer.
• Moores Reach 3 is listed as E1 with a ratio of 1:1, but several long stretches of the
channel do not appear to be proposed for any modification.

• The planting plan includes Juglons nigro, which can have an allelopathic effect on
surrounding vegetation. We recommend this species be removed from the planting list.
• The design discharge for the proposed channels is substantially higher than the regional
curve predicts. Justification for this was provided in the mitigation plan, which stated
that "As noted in the previous section, the design cross sections will accommodate
sediment storage within the channel on point bars and /or in lateral bars upstream of
vane structures. This stored sediment is available for transport during large flow events,
which promotes long -term stability and sediment transport equilibrium." (Section 7.3.3,
Page 26) We are concerned that constructing a larger channel cross section than is
appropriate for the drainage area just to make room for sediment could restrict the
access of the channel to the floodplain and lead to channel instability. Also, if the
source of excess sediment is not address, sediment inputs to the system will continue
even once the additional cross sectional space has been filled with sediment. Please
provide additional justification to address these concerns.
• The plan states "For practical purposes based on available stone and log sizes, the step
height was capped at 16 inches." (Section 7.3.4, Page 27) We believe that 16 -inch steps
will potentially cause both aquatic passage limitations and structural instability. Please
consider revising or provide more detail to explain why this is not possible.
• Table 11 on Page 30 identifies the proposed success criteria (performance standards) for
the project. The proposed standards are much more comprehensive than what is
required by the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Many of the standards do not
appear to be enforceable or able to demonstrate the proposed ecological service
enhancement. Additionally, many of proposed standards are not supported by any
monitoring requirement. In particular, the stated success criteria are of concern:
• For the riparian buffer habitat density and diversity states " <20% non - native species
at year 5, based on measurements of aerial extent ", which can be interpreted to
mean that up to 20% aerial coverage of an invasive species is acceptable.
• For the maintenance of stable channel bed and banks, the standards allows up to a
20% change in both cross sectional area and width -depth ratio in single year, which
may be a substantial change, particularly on a large stream.
• For thermal regulations, the project is unlikely to result in a change to water
temperature, so any standard for thermal regulation is likely to fail. Additionally,
taking two temperature measurements over the course of 5 years is not sufficient to
make a determination that the project has reduced water temperature.
• For filtration of runoff, "evidence of floating debris or fine sediment on buffer
vegetation at least twice by year 5" is more a measurement of overbank occurrence
than runoff.
• The use of level spreaders is proposed in the plans and is briefly discussed on page 27,
but no explanation is provided to demonstrate the need or benefit of these structures.
See additional comments by NCDWQ.
• The site vicinity map (Figure 1) appears to show Barn Trib as a restoration reach, while
Table 4 shows Barn Trib as an enhancement I reach. It would also be helpful if the plan
set and Figure 1 would identify the proposed type of work for each reach.

• Please provide information on the potential impact (fill, drainage, etc.) to existing
wetlands located adjacent to Moores Fork. See additional comments by NCDWQ.
NCEEP Response: None
2. Travis Wilson, NCWRC, May 29,2012:
• Oversizing channel dimensions to promote sediment deposition in the channel is risky
and often leads to buried channel features and habitat. If appropriate, assess the
potential to promote sediment deposition in the floodplain by lowering the bankfull
elevation.
• Several success criteria are problematic: 20% variance for stability is generous and could
identity instability, temperature measurements are inconclusive and unnecessary, and
20% allowance for non - native vegetation is too high specifically since removal of these
species is a design objective.
• Furthermore we concur with comments provide by NCDWQ and USACE.
NCEEP Response: None
3. Sue Homewood, NCDWQ, May 10, 2012:
• The Division will need more detailed justification for credit ratios that are proposed for
the highest end of the typical ranges.
• The Division would like to see the proposed credit ratios called out on the plan sheets
for each reach /tributary.
• The Division requests details on whether work on Moores Fork 2 at Station 33 +00 and
MF3 at Stat 44 +00 can be done with minimal disturbance to adjacent wetlands.
• The Division will need a detailed construction sequence on how work will be
accomplished on the Silage Trib. The Division is concerned about efforts to restore the
Silage Trib without addressing the nutrients entering the channel from the adjacent
Silage runoff.
• The Division does not recommend use of a concave level spreader, and strongly
recommends against the use of a level spreader across swales, draws or channels that
will re- concentrate the stormwater.
• The Division is not comfortable with 20% invasive coverage by aerial extent as a
performance standard.
NCEEP Response: None

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW -RG /Tugwell June 13, 2012
SUBJECT: NCIRT Mitigation Plan Review Process for NCEEP Projects
From: Todd Tugwell, USACE NCIRT Chair
To: North Carolina Interagency Review Team and North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
As the chair of the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is
required by the 2008 Final Mitigation Rule to provide the NCIRT with an opportunity to comment on proposed
mitigation plans. In order to achieve this review for all North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
( NCEEP) projects instituted after the approval of their new instrument (July 28, 2010), we have established a
Mitigation Plan Review page on NCEEP's portal. This process has been set up to comply with the timeframes
established in 33 CFR Section 332.8(g)(2) of the Mitigation Rule, which explains the Streamlined Review Process.
Review of proposed mitigation plans will now precede NCEEP's submittal of permit applications, which will allow
the USACE and NCIRT to comment on and, if necessary, modify mitigation plans before permits are issued. This
process will be routinely updated to include improvements and comply with changes in the regulations.
For all Draft and Final Mitigation Plan and PCN submittals, NCEEP should submit a paper copy of the mitigation
plan and PCN, and a digital copy (disc containing PDF files of all materials) to the Corps mitigation office and the
appropriate Corps Field Office county representative. Paper and electronic copies should also be provided to
the appropriate NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Office, as specified by NCDWQ.
The following procedure has been set up for NCIRT review and comment for proposed NCEEP Mitigation Plans:
1. Obtain an NCID - If you do not already have an NCID, you will be required to get one in order to review the
plans. Process for obtaining an NCID:
A. Go to NCID registration website - https:// ncidp .nc.gov /pmf /Registration.htmI
B. Under User Type, select Individual User
C. Under Account Type, select Individual Account
D. Complete Registration
2. Once you have obtained an NCID to get access to the Mitigation Plan Review Portal, you will need to email
Eric Ellis with NCEEP with your NCID, and Eric will add you to the list of approved portal users. Eric's address
is [e-mail]. Please note that this step is necessary for external users (including Corps and other
Federal employees) as well as any state employee who already has an NCID. This step will provide access
control to the Mitigation Plan Review Portal. If there are other members of your agency who may be
designated to comment on mitigation plans, they must also email Eric so that they can gain access to the
site. Please provide us (myself or Tyler Crumbley) with these names also, as we will be establishing email
distribution lists for different regions /counties. Lastly, if you do not want to continue to receive these
emails, please let us know and we will remove your name from the distribution lists.

3. Once NCEEP is ready to submit a Draft Mitigation Plan for review, they will provide us with an email
notifying us that a plan has been posted for review. We will send out an email to all NCIRT members (using
regional distribution lists) with instructions and timeframes for conducting the review. Attached for your
use is a flow chart detailing this process.
4. The address for the review portal is: http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /group /eep -irt /mitigation -plan- review
A. Draft Mitigation Plans will be posted on the left side of this page, and a may be searched by name.
Clicking on the name of the plan will open the plan for viewing or printing. The plan may also be
downloaded and saved.
B. Once the plan is reviewed, post comments on the right side of the page by choosing the Project Name
from the drop -down box, enter your agency name, and your name in the Reviewer box. After entering
comments in the comment area, click on the submit button to submit the comments to the site.
C. Comments from other NCIRT members are shown at the bottom of the page and may be sorted
according to the headers shown. Please note that comments all are posted in one box, so you may have
to scroll the page to the right to see the entire comments. Alternatively, you may click on Excel View to
download an excel file containing all the posted comments.
D. NCEEP is expected to post responses to comments on this page as well, so if you post a comment you
may want to check back for a response from NCEEP. The responses from NCEEP that get posted on the
portal will be coordinated so that only certain individuals will post response (e.g., Project Mangers). This
is necessary to provide consistency and reduce the number of posts for a given project.
E. This portal will list multiple Draft Mitigation Plans at any given time, but plans will be removed once the
comment period is complete or a plan has been withdrawn. Final Mitigation Plans will be posted on
NCEEP's portal on the documents page. A link, entitled "Project Documents" has been added to the
Mitigation Plan Review page for convenience.
5. Reviewers will have 30 days to review the Draft Mitigation Plan and post comments on portal. An extension
to this timeframe may be requested by NCEEP if they or their providers need more time to accommodate
necessary changes to the Draft Mitigation Plan based on comments they have received. Additionally, NCIRT
members may also request an extension to this timeframe, but NCIRT extension requests must be approved
by NCEEP. Comments will be immediately available on the portal to both the NCEEP and all NCIRT members.
We will attempt to resolve minor issues within the 30 -day process if at all possible. NCEEP may also post
comments on the portal to address certain concerns /comments or to commit to addressing concerns in the
Final Mitigation Plan. NCEEP may choose to withdraw Draft Mitigation Plans from the portal based on
comments received during the 30 -day comment period. Any withdrawn mitigation plans must restart the
review process from the beginning. If plans are withdrawn by NCEEP, we will notify the NCIRT that the
mitigation plan is no longer available for comment.
Please note that the posted Draft Mitigation Plan will not be updated to reflect changes based on the
comments, so be sure to review comments made by other NCIRT members and by NCEEP to see if an issue
has already been addressed. Also, if you have a concern regarding a project that is serious enough that you
would consider initiating the Dispute Resolution Process described in Section 332.8(e) of the Mitigation
Rule, please be sure to state this in your comment. Comments should be made only by specific individuals
identified by the NCIRT members to conduct these reviews on behalf of their agency. This is critical to keep
the process moving and to keep agency comments consistent. If there are others who you would like to
comment on a particular plan, please let us know. PLEASE DO NOT SEND THESE EMAILS OUT TO OTHERS IN
YOUR AGENCY FOR THEM TO MAKE COMMENT WITHOUT FIRST DISCUSSING THIS WITH ME. COMMENTS
COMING FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT DESIGNATED AS THE NCIRT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THEIR AGENCY
MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED.

6. At the end of the 30 -day comment process (or the end of the extension) and within 60 days of sending out
the initial email beginning the review, we will review the comments and provide the NCIRT members with a
notice of our intent to approve or disapprove the mitigation plan. NCEEP will be copied with this notice.
Once we have notified the NCIRT of our intent to approve or disapprove a project, NCEEP may not withdraw
plans from this process.
7. If the NCIRT reviewing agencies choose to do so, they have 15 days from this notification to start the dispute
resolution process. This process is intended to address major concerns with mitigation plans, and can only
be initiated by a letter from senior official of the agency. Please do not initiate this process without trying to
resolve concerns during the 30 -day comment period first. If the dispute resolution process is initiated
during this step, we will follow the procedures outlined in Section 332.8(e) of the Mitigation Rule, in which
case the following steps will be delayed until the resolution of this process.
8. At the end of the 15 -day dispute resolution notification period (or following the completion of the dispute
resolution process), we will provide NCEEP with notice of approval or disapproval of the mitigation plan,
with a copy provided to all NCIRT members. This notice will include all comments generated during the 30-
day comment period, and it will identify all issues that must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. Any
major issues that were not resolved during the comment process may lead to disapproval. If a project is
disapproved, the issues or concerns will have to be addressed and the project must be resubmitted for
review, starting the process over.
9. NCEEP coordinates with the mitigation provider to finalize the mitigation plan and incorporate the
comments /concerns.
10. NCEEP submits the Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27 Preconstruction Notification Application (PCN) application
along with the Final Mitigation Plan to the USACE mitigation office (myself and Tyler Crumbley) and NCDWQ
(and DCM if appropriate) for 404 /401 /CAMA approval. If it is determined that the project does not require a
Department of the Army permit, NCEEP must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a
copy of the approval letter, to the USACE mitigation office at least 30 days in advance of beginning
construction of the project. The following apply to permit applications submitted for NCEEP projects:
A. NCEEP must be listed as the permit applicant.
B. Full- delivery providers or contracted design firms may be listed as authorized agents.
C. The application and mitigation plan must be submitted by NCEEP, not the providers.
D. The permit application must include a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan and a copy of the mitigation plan
approval letter identifying all the required modifications to the mitigation plan, including references to
where the comment responses are addressed in the mitigation plan (page number and paragraph or
figure). Failure to include the approval letter will result in the permit application being returned to
NCEEP.
E. USACE review will focus primarily on the applicability of NWP 27. This review will also verify that any
comments provided in the approval letter are addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan, which is why it is
critical to identify the location that comments are addressed in the mitigation plan. Failure to
adequately address concerns included in the approval letter may result in a delay in the issuance of the
NWP 27 until those concerns are adequately addressed, or the inclusion of permit conditions in the
permit authorization to address the stated concerns.

11. NWP 27 authorization is verified; project construction can begin. NCEEP is responsible for ensuring
compliance with the permit conditions, including returning the Post- Construction Compliance Form
(attached to the permit) at the completion of the authorized work.
Approval of the project and /or issuance of the permit authorization does not guarantee that the project will
generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. Unforeseen issues may arise during construction or
monitoring of the project may require maintenance and may lead to reduced credit.
For questions regarding this process, please contact me at 919 - 846 -2564 or todd.tugwell @usace.army.mil