The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120102 Ver 1_Sent_Approval Letter Draft MP_SAW 2012-00230_20121003Strickland, Bev From: Kulz, Eric Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:32 PM To: Strickland, Bev Subject: FW: Approval of NCEEP Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW 2012 - 00230 - Byrds Creek (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: Sent—Approval Letter Byrds Creek Draft Mitigation Plan—SAW 2012- 00230.pdf For laserfiche 12 -0102 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: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:07 PM To: Klimek, Suzanne Cc: Tug-well, Todd SAW; Crumbles, Tyler SAW; Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW; Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick a'f- ws.Qoi) McLendon, Scott C SAW; Mcmillan, Ian; Cox, David R.; Jurek, Jeff; Pearce, Guy; Ellis, Eric; Garnett.Jeffre< ,-repamail.epa.Qoi- Sollod, Steve; Gibby, Jean B SAW; Mike Wicker ;a'ffi ws.Qoi Matthe- ws, Monte K SAW; fritz.rohde a'noaa.Qoiv Smith, Danny; Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW; Sugg, Perry Subject: Approval of NCEEP Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW 2012 - 00230 - 13yrds Creek (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Suzanne, Attached is the approval letter for the Byrds Creek mitigation project (SAW 2012 - 00230), along -with all the comments that -were 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 3 October, 2012 Regulatory Division Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Byrds Creek Mitigation Plan; SAW 2012 -00230 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 Byrds Creek Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 15 September, 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 as discussed in the attached comment memo 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 addressed comments. 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 me at 919- 846 -2564. Sincerely, Digitally signed by C RU M B LEY.TYLER.A UTRY.100750 9975 Date: 2012.10.03 11:53:08 - 04'00' Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Specialist Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished: NCIRT Distribution List CESAW- RG/McLendon CESAW- RG- R/Alsmeyer Jeff Jurek, NCEEP Perry Sugg, 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 17 September, 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: Byrds Creek Restoration Site, Person County, NC <IeTOWe� 1: i ��e \�i�a►I �> i i �►� Z 7►I e i 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 15 September, 2012 1. 9/14/2012 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Eric Alsmeyer: • 1 did not see any information in the document addressing the mitigation plan's impacts to Wetland BB, which is bisected by the relocation of South Branch, Reach 1, Sheet 2.8. Will the restoration effectively drain the wetland area? Will it cut off hydrology to either of the remaining wetland polygons? How will the wetland be affected by the buffer plantings? 2. 9/15/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection ARencv: Jeffrev Garnett: • 1 question the need for priority one restoration reach SB1. I have not had the opportunity to visit the site, but dimensions seem to indicate that the stream channel is in relatively good shape and does not warrant full restoration (ER > 12.4; width to depth ratio > 6.2; bank height ratio = 1.0). The existing stream channel is an E5 and the proposed channel is an E4; the minimum proposed ER is 7.0, while the existing minimum ER is 12.4. According to the numbers, it does not seem that enough lift is occurring (and is needed) for P1 restoration of SB1. • It seems that no livestock fencing will be placed on the Homeplace and Bradsher properties since no livestock is currently grazing there. In the event that livestock are reintroduced to the properties, the provider should guarantee that fencing will be erected to keep livestock out of the easement. • Goals of this project are to "create and improve aquatic habitat, reduce sediment inputs from streambank erosion, and improve water quality..." No quantifiable performance standards have been presented to directly test for these parameters. Monitoring channel pattern, profile, and design over the first five years of the bank only serves as a surrogate that sediment loads are decreasing, and the assumption is being made that improving the channel will reduce sediment loads. 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. Similarly, macroinvertebrate sampling would help to verify an improvement in aquatic habitat. 3. 9/17/2012 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Todd Tugwell: • Several wetlands are located within the proposed stream corridor that may be impacted during construction, including a wetland that will be crossed by the proposed stream alignment. (See Sta. 20 +00 on Sheet 2.1 and Sta 29 +00 on Sheet 2.7) All impacts to wetlands along the project corridor should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Existing wetlands should be fenced off to prevent unintended impacts. Additionally, all wetland impacts need to be accounted for in the permit application. • The stream crossings should be designed to meet the current regional nationwide permit conditions, which include standards for culvert embedment. The crossing at Sta. 35 +00 is proposed at 6" of embedment depth, but regional conditions require 12" for culverts of 48" and greater. Please check culvert crossings against the regional conditions and revise if necessary. • The proposed easement crossing located approximately at Sta. 38 +50 is located at an angle to the stream channel, reducing the amount of stream located in the easement and setting the stage for potential impacts to the buffer if the road to the crossing is not aligned /constructed properly. Please consider relocating this crossing if possible, and make sure to clearly identify the locations of the easement in this area to prevent unintentional encroachments.