The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120730 Ver 1_Draft Mitigation Plan Comments_20120910DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF 10 September, 2012 Regulatory Division Re NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the 601 North II Mitigation Plan (SAW 2012 - 00014) 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 ( NCIRT) during the 30 -day comment period for the 601 North I1 Mitigation Plan, which closed on 26' 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 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 construction 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 construction 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, CMgitally vgned by 9975 EV TIER AUTRV 100750 9975 Date 20120910102815 0900 Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Specialist Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished NCIRT Distribution List CESAW- RG/McLendon CESA W- RG- A/Kichefski Jeff Jurek, NCEEP Michael McDonald, NCEEP 7� t •;� ice, -' �� r.:� � rl CESAW- RG /Crumbley DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review August 27, 2012 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(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule NCEEP Project Name 601 North II Restoration Site, Union County, NC USACE AID# SAW- 2012 -00014 30 -Day Comment Deadline August 26, 2012 1 8/14/2012 NC Division of Water Quality, Alan Johnson Are we certain the hydrology will be maintained? How is the companion restoration functioning? it is obvious that the "channel" has been ditched I question if the channel was a true stream channel or a wet draw that was ditched If the stream bed is raised will there be sufficient groundwater recharge to provide the proper hydrology? I am not sure plugging the old channel will provide the hydrology 8/16/2012 Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Michael McDonald Reply to Alan Johnsons Comment from EBX /Atkins- -The predominant source of hydrology is surface water delivered from upstream, off -site reaches of Wicker Branch and UT The drainage areas for Wicker Branch and UT are 0 57 and 0 14 square miles respectively with hydrologic contributions sufficient to maintain intermittent stream channels above the Site The Year -4 (2011) monitoring report for the companion site states that "the restored stream channel has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat and hydrologic functions" Michael Gloden, PWS Senior Scientist - ATKINS 2 8/22/2012 N C Division of Water Quality, Eric Kulz The response to Alan Johnson's comments did not entirely address our concerns For a stream to be at least intermittent, it must have base flow (stream channel Intersects with groundwater) for some portion of the year We have seen on other projects that P1 restoration of an intermittent channel by constructing an offline channel at a higher elevation can sometimes result in removing the groundwater discharge altogether, converting a Jurisdictional intermittent channel into a non - jurisdictional ephemeral feature It should be noted that credit loss (and the potential need for compensatory mitigation) could result if the proposed work results in the conversion of an intermittent stream to an ephemeral feature 3 8/25/2012 U S Environmental Protection Agency, Jeffrey Garnett One of the goals of the project is to "reduce sediment within On -site and downstream receiving waters " 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 No quantifiable performance standards have been presented to directly test sediment load reduction 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, an additional project goal is to "remove non -point sources of pollution associated with pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, and livestock waste " In a fashion similar to the monitoring of sediments, a plan should be put forward to document the reduction of pesticides and nutrients 4 8/24/2012 U S Army Corps of Engineers, Tyler Crumbley 1 ) In section 9 0 and 10 0 (Performance Standards and Monitoring Requirements), the success criteria are proposed to be based on " survival and growth of the preferred suite of species ", but does not indicate in the monitoring requirements that the 260 stems per acre must be live, planted species Please add 2 ) It appears that a Jurisdictional determination was conducted and wetlands identified within the project boundary (sheet 11 of 13 Appendix D) Please discuss the precautions that will be taken avoid negative impacts to those wetlands due to the construction of this project (both during and after) 3 ) Sheet 5 of 13 Appendix D shows several "constructed vernal pools" (also described on sheet 3D in detail) These features appear to be more akin to a BMP, than a true vernal pool constructed in the floodplain There are other sheets that show grading to facilitate flow into these features with no designed outfall shown If they are indeed needed as BMPs within the receiving valley, please discuss the benefits of these features (to prevent headcutting above?) and how they will affect expected overland flow into the restored reaches 4 ) Sheets 6 and 11 depict CMP culverts dust outside of the project boundary Are these future culverts? or will they be installed concurrently with the project? (we are trying to identify potential stressors to the project if they are constructed after the project is complete ) 5 ) Sheet 8 shows a bridge mat (wood) outside of the CE Will this be a permanent crossing feature, or is a culvert planned for permanent access?