The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130595 Ver 1_COE Review_20130726Strickland, Bev From: Kulz, Eric Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:55 AM To: Strickland, Bev Subject: FW: Intent to Approve NCEEP Mitigation Plan- Upper Silver Creek / Burke County / SAW 2010 -02157 (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: Upper Silver Creek Mitigation Plan Review Memo.pdf For laserfiche 13 -0595 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: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:39 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.; Jurek, Jeff; Pearce, Guy; Ellis, Eric; Sollod, Steve; Gibby, Jean B SAW; fritz.rohde(@noaa.gov; Wilson, Travis W.; Emily Jernigan(@fws.gov; Kathryn Matthews(@fws.gov; Montgomery, Lori; Kichefski, Steven L SAW; Fuemmeler, Amanda J SAW; Beckwith, Loretta A SAW; Cranford, Chuck Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW Subject: Intent to Approve NCEEP Mitigation Plan- Upper Silver Creek / Burke County / SAW 2010 -02157 (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, The 30 -day comment review period for the Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration project (SAW 2010- 02157)(EEP# 94645), closed on 12 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 9 August, 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 1 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: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 CESAW -RG /Crumbley 25 July, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Upper Silver Creek- 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: Upper Silver Creek Mitigation Site, Burke County, NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2010 -02157 NCEEP #: 94645 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 12 July, 2013 1. T. Crumbley, USACE, 2 July, 2013: • 1 made a typographical error on the Jurisdictional Determination forms for the project. The correct Action ID is SAW- 2010 - 02157. Please note and revise on future references to the project. • Table 5.2 and subsequent discussions (Section 8.3) on monitoring provide a 5 yr schedule for "non- forested" wetland and riparian vegetation monitoring. Please explain if these areas are supposed to non - forested, and if so, why. If these areas are supposed to be forested, monitoring schedules should be conducted for 7 years rather than 5. The associated credit release schedules and monitoring activities should also reflect the 7 year requirement as well. • On pg. 8 -1, Section 8.1.2 the proposed number of cross sections per reach will rely on EEP guidance for baseline monitoring. Please ensure that the number of cross sections is at the minimum required in the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines, and that the proposed locations of those cross sections are noted on the final version of the Mitigation Plan and the As -built surveys. • Section 8.2: Please ensure that the proposed location of the groundwater monitoring wells and vegetation plots are shown on the final Mitigation Plan and the As -built surveys. • On pg. 8 -3 a 12.5% hydro - period is proposed as a performance standard, but then it is later stated that if below- average precipitation occurs then a 7% standard will be implemented. Additionally, the actual measured data suggests that a hydro - period closer to 20% exists on -site for particular wetlands, but no final standard is proposed. Please better define the hydro - period standard for each wetland type. • The wetland components on the left (west) side of the stream propose wetland credit generation all the way up to the stream bank. Please note that if those areas fail to meet jurisdictional status, they may be subject to removal from the approved restoration areas. • 16.5.2: On PCN, please provide further discussion on 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. • Wetland areas slated for Restoration credit that will have overburden removed (even if less than 12 ") may be subject to credit adjustment if hydric soil profiles are not quickly (within monitoring period) reformed /returned as expected on restoration sites. • The areas of "non- riparian" credit generation should be revised and considered to be "riparian ", as the entire project is within a geomorphic floodplain (according to USGS Topographic Quad 1:24,000) and not within the NCWAM definition of a "seep ". 2. Eric Kulz, NCDWQ; 2 July, 2013: • DWQ is concerned regarding the removal of surficial soils to expose "relict" hydric soils, especially in light of the fact that there are currently jurisdictional wetlands at the existing ground surface elevation. Areas considered restoration should be limited to minimal soil removal. Performance standards should include a hydric soil component; if these areas are truly relict surficial wetland soils then hydrologic restoration should result in fairly rapid development of current hydric soil characteristics (e.g. redox concentrations in living root channels). • The entire conservation easement appears to be located within a valley feature, as opposed to on a slope or an interstream divide. DWQ believes all proposed restored /enhanced /created wetlands on the site should be classified as riparian. • On page 5 -2, Table 5.2, the required monitoring period for forested wetland mitigation sites is seven years, not five. The proposed wetlands are forested wetlands, not non - forested as the table indicates. Please revise.