20130957 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20131101

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 8:38 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Approval Letter: NCEEP Mitigation Plan- Tributaries of Wicker Branch / Union County / SAW
2013 -01680 / EEP# 95022 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Approval Package Tributaries to Wicker Branch-SAW 2013- 01680.pdf
13 -0957
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources -
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
Water Quality Permitting Section
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, November 01, 2013 8:36 AM
To: Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW; Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick(@fws.gov);
McLendon, Scott C SAW; Cox, David R.; Wilson, Travis W.; Pearce, Guy; Sollod, Steve; Elliott,
William A SAW; Fuemmeler, Amanda J SAW; Krebs, Rob; bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Cahill, Julie;
Matthews, Kathryn; Emily Jernigan(@fws.gov; Mcdonald, Mike; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW; Kichefski,
Steven L SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW
Subject: Approval Letter: NCEEP Mitigation Plan- Tributaries of Wicker Branch / Union County
/ SAW 2013 -01680 / EEP# 95022 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Mr. Baumgartner,
Attached is the approval letter for the Tributaries to Wicker Branch Restoration project,
along with all the comments that were generated during the IRT's review of the project on the
Mitigation Plan Review Portal.
*Please note that this approves the Draft mitigation plan, but also identifies concerns with
the plan that should be addressed in the Final mitigation plan.
When the permit application is submitted for Nationwide Permit #27 authorization, a copy of
this letter should be included along with a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan. Also, please
ensure that the Final mitigation plan is posted to NCEEP's documents portal so that all
members of the IRT have access to the Final plan.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the process or the attached letter.
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Division
1

Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
(919) 846 -2564
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTIONOF: I November, 2013
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Tributaries to Wicker Branch Draft Mitigation Plan;
SAW 2013 - 01680; EEP 495022
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
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 Tributaries to Wicker Branch Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on 5 October, 2013. 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 with the Draft as 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,
Digitally signed by
CRUMBLEY.TYLER.AUTR
, °_ Y.1007509975
Date: 2013.1 1.01
07:58:35 - 04'00'
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW -RG /Wicker
CESAW- RG- A /Kichefski
Jeff Jurek, NCEEP
Paul Wiesner, NCEEP

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
8 October, 2013
SUBJECT: Tributaries to Wicker Branch- NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments 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: Tributaries of Wicker Branch Restoration Project, Union County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2013 -01680
NCEEP #: 95022
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 5 October, 2013
1. Eric Kulz, NCDWQ, 1 October, 2013:
• The project proposes to use level spreaders constructed with a wooden lip to intercept
ditch flow into the easement. Level spreaders require periodic maintenance in order to
maintain diffuse flow. Typically, such ditch flow is routed to floodplain pool wetlands as
noted on other projects reviewed recently. Please discuss why floodplain pool
wetlands are not being proposed.
*Response --- Julie Cahill, NCEEP, 3 October, 2013:
• In response to Eric Kulz comment on 10/1/2013 - The use of earthen berm /level
spreaders to create diffuse flow from the ditches was a suggestion made by the USACE
during a site walk held with and EEP in August of 2011. On these tributaries the
floodplains are, for the most part, narrow and thus floodplain pool wetlands were not
considered due to lack of adequate space. Creation of the floodplain pool wetlands
would likely require some excavation into the valley slopes adjacent to the stream
channel, particularly on Tributary 3.

2. T. Crumbley and T. Tupwell, USACE, 4 October, 2013:
• Pg. 13, Table 1. Summary of Proposed Mitigation Credits: If Enhancement level II work
is proposed for reach 113, please change the Mitigation Type for this reach from P to Ell
in the table, amend the footnote #1, and also ensure the proper monitoring and credit
release schedules are adhered to as discussed below.
• Pg. 44, Tributary 2: As stated in the Draft mitigation plan, the proposal to perform
restoration activities on Trib. 2, was discussed in the field in August of 2011 and
subsequently determined to be unsuitable for credit generation. Therefore, the
proposal to utilize Trib. 2 to offset credit losses from the failure of other restoration
reaches should also be dropped. The proposal for acquisition of the conservation
easement surrounding this feature was to provide habitat connectivity, reduce sediment
and nutrient inputs, and provide uplift to the restored sections of Trib. 1A and the
project as a whole, and not to generate credits on Trib. 2. In general, any work
proposed in a mitigation plan that is proposed to generate mitigation credit must be
justified in the mitigation plan. Project closeout is not the appropriate time to propose
that work conducted on a site be awarded mitigation credit as this does not allow for
appropriate comment by the IRT during plan review or monitoring of the project during
the prescribed monitoring period.
• Sections 9 (Performance Standards) and 10 (Monitoring Requirements): These sections
should be revised to meet the requirements of the guidance that was in place at the
time project was instituted, particularly the performance standards for hydrological
success of the streams. As written currently, the reaches "should show no radical
change" during the monitoring period. These standards should contain the
dimensionless ratio thresholds provided in the document.
• Sheet C -3, Tributary 3: The reach of stream between the two existing wetlands is
proposed for enhancement level I, and the plan proposes the excavation of several
pools in the bottom of the stream to "promote enhancement of habitat ". This reach
was noted during the field review as a reach that did not need modification due to the
fact that it is already relatively stable and not incised. The proposed pools would occur
on a straight reach of channel, and there is concern that these would not be the normal
locations for pools to occur. There is also concern that these pools will fill in with
sediment if constructed as proposed in the plan. Based on the supporting information,
this level of intervention does not seem to be supported, nor does the proposed
enhancement level I ratio. Please provide justification as to why this approach is
needed as opposed to simply replanting at an enhancement level 11 ratio.
Digitally signed by
CRUMBLEY.TYLER.AUTRY.100
L J L —wv 7 7509975
Date: 2013.11.01 07:59:03
- 04'00'
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist,
Regulatory Division