HomeMy WebLinkAbout20130250 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan Review_20130312Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Extension on Mitigation Plan Review- Norkett Branch Restoration Project; Union County (SAW- 2012 - 01082) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Norkett Branch Mitigation Plan Review Memo.pdf
For Laserfiche 13 -0250.
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater - Compliance & Permitting Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: (919) 807 -6476
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW [mailto:Tyler.Crumbley @ usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, 3une 28, 2013 2:23 PM
To: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; bowers.todd@epa.gov; Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Montgomery, Lori; Burkhard, Michael W; Krebs, Rob;
Sollod, Steve; Cox, David R.; Wilson, Travis W.; 3ones, Scott SAW; Kichefski, Steven L SAW; Wicker, Henry M 3R SAW; Marella
Buncick ( Marella Buncick@fws.gov); 3urek, 3eff; Pearce, Guy; fritz.rohde@noaa.gov; Mcdonald, Mike; Wiesner, Paul; john
Hutton; Emily Reinicker; Fuemmeler, Amanda 3 SAW; 3ohnson, Alan
Cc: Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: Extension on Mitigation Plan Review - Norkett Branch Restoration Project; Union County (SAW- 2012 - 01082)
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
In response to comments posted by the USACE /NCIRT, the mitigation provider (Wildlands Engineering, Inc,) will be submitting
a revised Non - Standard Buffer Width methodology and credit adjustment proposal. Due to the amount of proposed adjusted
credits and complications involved in determining these adjustments (methodology), the USACE is proposing to extend the
review period for this project. Currently it is within the 15 -day dispute resolution window for IRT members (no responses
submitted), but we would like to put that on hold to allow for the provider to submit a revised buffer width proposal for
NCIRT review.
Thank you,
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
(919) 846 -2564
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW
Sent: Friday, 3une 14, 2013 10:49 AM
To: bowers.todd@epa.gov; Cyndi Karoly (cyndi.karoly@ncdenr.gov); eric.kulz@ncdenr.gov; Lori Montgomery
(Lori.Montgomery @ ncdenr.gov); michael.burkhardoncdenr.gov; Rob Krebs (Rob.Krebsoncdenr.gov); Steve Sollod
(Steve.Sollod@ncmail.net); David Cox (david.cox@ncwildlife.org); Travis Wilson (travis.wilsononcwildlife.org); 3ones, Scott
SAW; Kichefski, Steven L SAW; Wicker, Henry M 3R SAW; Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick@fws.gov); 3eff 3urek
(jeff.jurek@ncdenr.gov); Pearce, Guy; fritz.rohde@noaa.gov; 'Mcdonald, Mike (mike.mcdonaldoncdenr.gov)'; Paul Wiesner; Tim
Baumgartner (tim.baumgartner @ ncdenr.gov); john Hutton; Emily Reinicker; Fuemmeler, Amanda 3 SAW; 3ohnson, Alan
Cc: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW
Subject: Comments From Mitigation Plan Review - Norkett Branch Restoration Project; Union County (SAW- 2012 - 01082)
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
4
The 30 -day comment review period for the Norkett Branch Restoration project (SAW 2012- 01082)(EEP# 95360), closed on 13 3une,
2013. All comments that were posted on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the review process are attached for your
records. Additionally, comments can be reviewed on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal, We have evaluated the comments
generated during the review period, and determined that the concerns raised during the review can be addressed in the final
mitigation plan. In the event that these comments are not sufficiently addressed in the final mitigation plan, special
conditions (including additional performance standards) may be added to the permit to ensure that the issues raised by the
IRT have been addressed. 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 29 3une, 2013),
Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process,
Provided that we do not get any objections, we will provide an approval letter to NCEEP at the conclusion of the 15 -day
Dispute Resolution window. This approval will also transmit all comments generated during the review 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.
Thanks for your participation,
Tyler Crumbley
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
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
3
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW- RG /Crumbley 14 June, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Norkett Branch- 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(g) of the
2008 Mitigation Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site, Union County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01082
NCEEP #: 95360
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 13 June, 2013
1. Eric Kulz, NCDWQ, 30 May, 2013:
• 1 discussed this project with Alan Johnson at the MRO, and his comments are also
included. We were kind of concerned about the size of the riffle material proposed for
the smaller tribs. It was hard to tell exactly, but it looked like they are proposing riffle
gravel /cobble salvaged from elsewhere on the site for the riffles in UT2 and UT2A (as
opposed to "chunky riffles "), which was indicated on Figure 5.1 to be in the 6" diam.
range. The existing D50 for UT2 is 0.2 ", and the D84 is 1.8" (no pebble count data for
UT2A) so that does sound a little large. The largest D50 found at the site is about 0.3"
and the D 84 is 1.12 ". So the proposed riffle material does seem a bit large for the
smaller tribs. No pebble count data were identified for the reference reaches. We
acknowledge that research done /observations made on small natural (e.g. not restored)
Slate Belt streams by both EEP and DWQ over the years suggest that surface flows in
these streams (and even larger 2nd /3rd order streams), naturally dry up, often leaving
pools with water and riffles with sub - surface /hyporheic flow only. However, we
recommend that you consider sizing the riffle materials down in the smaller tribs, and
seed with coarse sand /fine gravel as well to try to maintain flow over the riffles rather
than through.
• 1 also have a question regarding the substrate for the SPSC, which proposes a substrate
material of sand and wood chips. As occurs in bioretention cells, we would expect that
the wood chips decompose and subsidence occurs. Will this result in undercutting
and /or undermining of the rock structures comprising the step pools, thus limiting their
function?
• Finally, Alan indicated there was a cattle "wallow" in a wetland on UT 2. How will this
area be addressed, and are there other areas where concentrated flow from areas
where livestock congregate currently occur? How will these be addressed (if present)?
NCEEP Response: Paul Wiesner, 3 June, 2013: These comments are in response to Eric Kulz's
comments dated 5/30/13: The riffle details on Sheet 5.1 were meant to indicate a 6 -inch deep
layer of substrate, not a 6" particle size class, for the tributaries. Norkett Branch will have a 12-
inch deep layer of substrate. The wording on the details will be revised for the final mitigation
plan to make this more clear. The 6 -inch deep layer of tributary riffle substrate will be
comprised of native material found on site, and so will include the 0.2" to 1.2" range coarse
substrate sizes sampled in the existing streams but will also have larger rocks as well as on site
soils and sands mixed in. Based on our experience with other project sites in the slate belt, we
have been able to successfully harvest coarse material on site for riffle construction during the
necessary channel and floodplain grading activities. The well - graded mix comprised of a wide
range of small to large particles seems to work best to keep water on the surface. This well -
graded mix riffle is in contrast to the earlier generation of structures built from one consistent
class of quarry stone. The SPSC woodchip /sand mixture adheres to the standard design detail
and specification for this type of BMP. Our understanding was that the IRT wanted to
implement two different BMPs side -by -side on the site for long term evaluation. We expect
that as sediment is filtered by the BMP and settles within the channel, this collected volume
could offset wood ship subsidence. There is an existing wallow in Wetland I (wetlands are
labeled on Figure 7 of the report). This area is also shown on Sheet 2.14 of the plan set, in the
right floodplain near proposed Station 311 +40. The area will be placed under protection with a
conservation easement, planted, and fenced out from future cattle access. We think that this
area will stabilize over time with cattle exclusion and planting. Other areas where concentrated
flow enters the floodplain from outside the conservation easement, such as in the left
floodplain near Station 301 +50 (Sheet 2.12) or Station 310 +50 (Sheet 2.14) will benefit from the
proposed vernal pool installation. Vernal pools will be approximately 12" to 18" deep and will
intercept agricultural runoff for storage and treatment prior to the runoff reaching the project
streams.
2. T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USACE, 12 June, 2013:
• Pg. 27 -28, and Plan Sheets: Please provide a discussion on the impacts to and
protection measures for existing wetlands (high visibility fencing, avoidance). Impacts
to existing wetlands need to be accounted for in the final mit plan and ensuing NWP
application, including explanations on how the impacts /losses will be replaced.
• Pg. 35, For increased credit on buffers wider than standard width, please provide an
additional discussion and the proposed credit amounts to be included in the final
mitigation plan on a figure that demonstrates where the wider buffers will be located.
• Pg. 36, As per the correspondence provided from previous IRT review (email dated 3,
April, 2013), we agree with the proposed BMP credit calculations, but would like to
remind NCEEP that this approach was conducted and reviewed only for this particular
site and any future proposals will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis.
• Pg. 53, Sec. 11.0, The mitigation plan states: "If all performance criteria have been
successfully met and two bankfull events have occurred during separate years,
Wildlands may propose to terminate stream and /or vegetation monitoring." This
statement must be amended to state that this may only be proposed after year 5, and
IAW the Early Closure Provision in the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation, Nov. 7t", 2011.
• Pg. 54, Sec. 11.1.2- The As -Built survey should include a longitudinal profile.