The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120773 Ver 1_Approval Letter and Comments_20120910Strickland, Bev From: Kulz, Eric Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 8:00 AM To: Strickland, Bev Subject: FW: Approval of NCEEP Mitigation Plan (Jacobs Landing 2012 - 01006) (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: Jacobs Landing (2012- 01006) Approval Letter and Comments.pdf For Laserfiche 412 -0773. I -will print for myself. Eric W. Kulz Environmental Senior Specialist N.C. Division of Water Quality Program Development Unit 1650 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 Phone: (919) 807 -6476 Please note this is a ne,,N- phone number effective May 10, 2012 Fax: (919) 807 -6488 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: Crumbley, Tyler SAW [mailto: Tyler. Crumble< a'usace.army.mill Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:27 PM To: Klimek, Suzanne Cc: Garnett .Jeffre -,-:crepamail.epa.Qoi; Karol -, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW; Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick a'fws.Qoi) McLendon, Scott C SAW; Mcmillan, Ian; Wilson, Travis W. Cox, David R.; Krebs, Rob; Jurek, Jeff; Pearce, Guy; Ellis, Eric; Jones, Amanda D SAW; Kichefski, Steven L SAW; Sollod, Steve; Daniel, Deborah A.; Mcdonald, Mike; Tug-well, Todd SAW; Crumble-, Tyler SAW Subject: Approval of NCEEP Mitigation Plan (Jacobs Landing 2012 - 01006) (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Suzanne, Attached is the approval letter for the Jacobs Ladder mitigation project, along -with all the comments that ,, ere generated during the IRT's revie-w of the project on the Mitigation Plan Revie-w Portal. This letter approves the mitigation plan, but also identifies several minor concerns with the mitigation plan that must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. When the permit application is submitted for Nationwide Permit 427 authorization, a copy of this letter should be included along -with a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan. Also, please ensure that the Final Mitigation Plan is posted to NCEEP's documents portal so that all members of the IRT have access to the final plan. Please let me kno-w if you have any questions about the process or the attached letter. Regards, Tvler Crumblev Regulatory Division Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, NC 27587 (919) 846 -2564 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF 7 September, 2012 Regulatory Division Re: NCMT Review and USACE Approval of the Jacobs Landing Mitigation Plan (SAW 2012 - 01006) Ms. Suzanne Klimek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 Dear Ms. Klimek: The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCMT) during the 30 -day comment period for the Jacobs Landing Mitigation Plan, which closed on 23 August, 2012. These comments are attached for your review. Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan. However, the minor issues with the Draft discussed in the attached comments must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter and a summation of the comments addressed. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning constriction of the project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during constriction or monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call us at 919- 846 -2564. Sincerely, Digitally signed by CRU M BLEY.TYLER.AUTRY.1 00750 9975 Date: 2012.09.07 14:13:31 - 04'00' Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Specialist Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished: NCIRT Distribution List CESAW- RG/McLendon CESAW- RG- A /Kichefski Michael McDonald, NCEEP Deborah Daniel, NCEEP REPLY TO .ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 CESAW- RG /Crumbley August 24, 2012 SUBJECT: NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review Purpose: The comments 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: Jacobs Landing Stream Mitigation Site (EEP -IMS# 95024) USACE AID #: SAW 2012 -01006 30 -Day Comment Deadline: August 23, 2012 1. 8/22/2012- N.C. Division of Water Quality; Eric Kulz: This project consists of a significant amount of Priority 2 Restoration. Our mitigation study revealed a lot of problems with P2 sites in the Piedmont, specifically related to vegetation survival and growth. The Provider needs to provide more details on topsoil management and addressing potential compaction and fertility /organic matter issues. 2) The plan shows a number of drainage ditches entering the easement from pasture areas. The plan proposes to stabilize with riprap and discharge directly to the stream. These discharges may include cattle waste and have the potential to compromise water quality and reduce the potential for the project to provide uplift. Routing of this runoff to floodplain wetland pools for retention /infiltration should be considered, as NCEEP has been using these on projects for a number of years. 2. 8/22/2012- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Jeffrey Garnett: I agree with both points made by Eric Kulz. With the amount of excavation involved with Priority 2 restoration, the Provider should present a soil management plan. This should primarily include the stockpiling of topsoil and redistribution of it on top of other fill. The mixing of soil layers could prove detrimental to vegetative success. Additionally, the plan calls for at least four reconstructed culverted crossings. I request that the Provider submit detailed plans of culvert installations that adequately ensure that passage for aquatic life is achievable. Finally, one of the goals of the project is to "reduce the sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek." Monitoring channel forms over the first five years of the bank only serves as a surrogate that sediment loads are decreasing. The assumption is being made that improving the channel will reduce sediment loads, but no quantifiable way to test this is being presented. The Provider should develop a quantifiable plan to directly measure success of the project goal. For example, simple turbidity measurements could be taken on a regular basis (during base flows and bank full events) both upstream and downstream of the site. These measurements should be taken before restoration, during restoration, and for a minimum of five years post- restoration in order to document achievement of the goal. 3. 8/23/2012 -U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Tyler Crumbley and Todd Tugwell: a. Please ensure that the performance standards for channel dimension [(as described in Sections 9 and 10 of the document (pgs. 34 -37)], are in accordance with the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines (1 cross - section per 20 bankfull width lengths) and that the performance standard for Bed Materials is instituted to show a change to a pre- determined desired composition, rather than purely an evaluation of sediment transport. b. Where possible, easement crossings should be made at a perpendicular angle. Exception 1 on easement B could be modified to reduce loss of the buffer. Additionally, it appears that the dirt path crosses through the conservation easement (Sheet 1 of 1, Final Plat).