20120916 Ver 1_USACE Intent to Approve_20121102

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:28 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Intent to Approve NCEEP Mitigation Plan (UT to Mill Swamp Stream and Wetland
Restoration Project) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: UT to Mill Swamp Mit Plan Review Comments.pdf
12 -0916. I have already printed my copy.
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,,N- and may be disclosed
to third parties
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Crumble -, Tyler SAW [mailto: Tyler. Crumble< a'usace.army.mill
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 2:52 PM
To: Garnett .Jeffre -,-:crepamail.epa.Qoi; Karol -, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW; McLendon, Scott C SAW; Mcmillan, Ian;
Cox, David R.; Jurek, Jeff; Pearce, Guy; Ellis, Eric; Sollod, Steve; Baffle -, David E SAW; Sugg, Mickey T SAW; Beter, Dale E
SAW; Mike Wicker a';ffiN -s.Qoi fritz.rohde arnoaa.Qoi Gregson, Jim; Miguez, Kristin; Timpy, David L SAW
Cc: Tug-well, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW
Subject: Intent to Approve NCEEP Mitigation Plan (UT to Mill S- amp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project)
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
The 30 -day comment review period for the Draft UT to Mill Swamp Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (SAW 2011 -
02193)(EEP -IMS4 95019), closed on 02 November, 2012. All comments that -were posted on the Mitigation Plan RevieN
Portal during the re-,ie,,N- process are attached for your records. Additionally, comments can be revie- wed on the Mitigation Plan
Revie-,v Portal. We have evaluated the comments generated during the revie-,v period, and determined that the concerns raised
during the revie-,v are generally minor and can be addressed in the final mitigation plan. Accordingly, it is our intent to approve
this Mitigation Plan unless a member of the NCIRT initiates 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 17 November, 2012). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.
Prodded that -, e do not get any objections, -, e -will provide an approval letter to NCEEP at the conclusion of the 15 -day
Dispute Resolution -, indo-, . This approval -,Hill also transmit all comments generated during the revie-'v process to NCEEP, and
indicate -what comments must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All NCIRT members -will receive a copy of this letter
and all comments for your records.
Thank vou.
Tyler Crumblev

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

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW -RG /Tugwell November 2, 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: UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project, Onslow County, NC
1 ITT WT&I1 :i��e \�i�a►Ii�i�iQi7►�i Ie?
30 -Day Comment Deadline: November 2, 2012
1. Todd Tugwell, USACE, November 2, 2012:
• The plan calls for the creation of microtopography within the wetland area and
"adjustments to drainage patterns as necessary to restore historic channel patterns"
(Sec. 7.1.2). It is not clear if this applies to the proposed wetland area or streamside
area upstream of the wetland. Please clarify what is meant by microtopography and
what types of adjustments are proposed. During our field visit on 7/26/2011, what
appeared to be relic channels were noted in the field, but the plan also calls for letting
the stream create its own pattern in this area, rather than restoration.
• We continue to have concerns regarding the survival of the mature vegetation in the
streamside area adjacent to the existing ditch which will be rehydrated by the work.
During the preliminary meeting, we discuss monitoring the vegetation for mortality
caused by the changes to the groundwater. This is particularly important since this area
will not be planted, instead relying on the existing trees to provide forest cover.
• There is no discussion of monitoring hydrology changes within the streamside area
other than in the restored wetlands. During the field meeting, we indicated that
restoring hydrology to this system accounts a substantial part of the uplift provided by
the site, justifying the credit yield even though the site won't be planted. We expect
that the site will have improved hydrology and more frequent floodplain interaction, but
monitoring wells area needed in this area (along reaches UT 1a and UT 1b) to
demonstrate this. Ideally, transects of wells perpendicular to the valley flow would be
installed to demonstrate the changes. Even though it is not proposed that this area

result in the generation of wetland credit (primarily because a coastal headwater
approach is used), we still expect wetland hydrology to be returned to the site.
• The plan indicates that "up to four (4) groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to
evaluate groundwater hydrology ". Enough wells should be installed to be sure to
provide thorough coverage of the wetland and provide the ability to extrapolate the
data in the event that the wetland fringe is not meeting success criteria. Ideally, the
wells should be installed in a transect to demonstrate groundwater hydrology
perpendicular to the flow of the valley.
• The hydrology performance standard is stated as "when the site is saturated within 12
inches of the soil surface for fourteen (14) or more consecutive days during the growing
season, during a period when antecedent precipitation has been normal or drier than
normal ... for a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 or 50% of the monitoring time frame
(USACE, 2010 and 2005) and /or for 12% of the growing season ". The 12% standard is
appropriate for the proposed wetland type, but the language essentially means that the
minimum standard is equivalent to 5% of the growing season, which is not sufficient.
• The adaptive management plan should be updated to more clearly address potential
problems that the site may experience, including the potential for beaver activity on site
and the possibility that the mature trees experience mortality due to the changes to the
hydrology.
NCEEP Response:
2. Eric Kulz, NCDWQ, October 26, 2012: Generally looks like a good stream /wetland site. Only
comments are:
• Please include a USGS topographic map with all mitigation plans,
• Please clarify Table ES.2. Existing wetland acreage is 6.8 acres but design is for only 4.0
acres. Is this project proposing permanent impact /loss of 2.8 acres of wetland?
3. Response by Kristen Miguez, NCEEP, October 26, 2012: These comments are in response to
Eric Kulz's comments dated 10/26/12:
• Figure 2.2 includes a USGS topographic map with hill- shading in the background. We will
add a note on the figure to clarify or turn off the shading to avoid any confusion.
• The 6.8 acres existing wetland acreage shown in Table ES.2 is actually the hydric soils
boundary delineated per the soils investigation. Baker did not identify existing 1D
wetlands in that area that met USACE criteria (see Section 17.5); therefore, there are no
wetland impacts onsite and the number should be changed from 6.8 AC to 0.0 AC. We
will add more language in the document to further clarify.