The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130596 Ver 1_COE Review_20130726Strickland, Bev From: Kulz, Eric Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:56 AM To: Strickland, Bev Subject: FW: Intent to Approve NCEEP Mitigation Plan- Stanley's Slough (Sections I and 11) / Northampton County/ (SAW- 2012 - 00810) (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: Stanleys Slough I and 11 Mitigation Plan Review Memo.pdf 13 -0596 Eric W. Kulz Environmental Senior Specialist N.C. Division of Water Quality Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater - 1650 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 Phone: (919) 807 -6476 Compliance & Permitting Unit 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, July 26, 2013 9:50 AM To: bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW; Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick(@fws.gov); McLendon, Scott C SAW; Cox, David R.; Baumgartner, Tim; Pearce, Guy; Ellis, Eric; Sollod, Steve; Gibby, Jean B SAW; Wilson, Travis W.; Emily Jernigan(@fws.gov; Kathryn Matthews(@fws.gov; Montgomery, Lori; Brown, Thomas L SAW; Biddlecome, William J SAW; fritz.rohde(@noaa.gov; Smith, Danny; Smith, Heather; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW; Tim Morris; Joe Pfeiffer Cc: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW Subject: Intent to Approve NCEEP Mitigation Plan - Stanley's Slough (Sections I and II) / Northampton County / (SAW- 2012 - 00810) (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, The 30 -day comment review period for the Stanleys Slough (I and II) Stream and Wetland Restoration project (SAW 2012- 00810)(EEP# 95356), closed on 17 July, 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 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 10 August, 2013). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process. 1 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 N REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: CESAW -RG /Crumbley DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 26 July, 2013 SUBJECT: Stanley's Slough I and Stanley's II- 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: Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Northhampton County, NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01082 NCEEP #: 95356 and 95358 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 17 July, 2013 1. Eric Kulz; NCDWQ, 2 July, 2013: Our only comment involves what appear to be field ditches discharging via " "stabilized drainage outfalls" (these appear to resemble riprap dissipator pads) into the conservation easement. It is unclear if these are discharging to wetland retention depressions, or if the water discharged from the ditch will flow directly to the restored stream. Most recent projects where ditches were required to discharge to the stream, the flow is routed to wetland depressions for treatment prior to entering the stream channel. 2. Tyler Crumbley USACE, 3 July, 2013: • On pg. 27, Section 7.1 and pg. 36: please insert "live planted stems" at the appropriate # /acre and remove the word "mature" from the survivability discussion. • Please review and correct the indicator statuses of the species proposed (eg. Tulip poplar, and American holly) • In addition to the gauge locations shown on pg. 215, please show the proposed locations of vegetation monitoring plots in Final Mitigation Plan. • As discussed during the field site visit on 6 Sep, 2012, there is a lack of OHWM indicators at the head of T2 (only present in ponded /ditched area). We still have a concern about the size of the contributing watershed to this feature, especially since the hydrologic contributions from T1 will be diverted into the relic channel in the woods and not to T2. It is understood from the review of the Draft mit plan (Section 10, pg. 37) that these headwater features will have gauges installed within the braided channels along with visual documentation of surface water flow for 30 consecutive days. Please be advised that if T2 or T1 does not meet the 30 day flow requirement, or exhibit a prevalence of OHWM indicators as defined in RGL 05 -05, these areas may be removed from stream credit generation.