20131087 Ver 1_USACE Comments_20131118

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 7:54 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Poplin Ridge- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan Review - Poplin
Ridge Stream Site / Union County / (SAW- 2012 - 01079) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: IRT_Plan Review Comment Memo-Poplin Ridge.pdf
13 -1087
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: Monday, November 18, 2013 8:50 AM
To: bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Burkhard, Michael W; Krebs, Rob; Sollod,
Steve; Cox, David R.; Wilson, Travis W.; ]ones, Scott SAW; Kichefski, Steven L SAW; Wicker,
Henry M ]R SAW; Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick(@fws.gov); Pearce, Guy; fritz.rohde(@noaa.gov;
Mcdonald, Mike; Wiesner, Paul; Baumgartner, Tim; Norton Webster (norton(@ebxusa.com); Ward
Marotti; Elliott, William A SAW
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: Poplin Ridge- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan Review -
Poplin Ridge Stream Site / Union County / (SAW- 2012 - 01079) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
The 30 -day comment review period for the Poplin Ridge Stream Mitigation Project (SAW 2012 -
01079)(EEP# 95359), closed on 14 November, 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 (utilizing the
excel option). We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period, and
determined that the concerns expressed 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 2 December, 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
1

addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All NCIRT members will receive an electronic copy of
the 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 15 November, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Poplin Ridge- 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: Poplin Ridge Stream Mitigation Site, Union County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01079
NCEEP #: 95359
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 14 November, 2013
1. Paul Wiesner, NCEEP, 17 October, 2013:
• 1 missed this in the initial review, but it needs to make it into the final document. The
credit release schedule in document is incorrect. The Poplin Ridge project was
instituted after Nov. 7, 2011. The final Poplin Ridge mitigation plan should utilize the
credit release schedule for projects instituted after Nov. 7, 2011 per the most recent
EEP template: NCEEP Mitigation Plan Template_version 2.2—adopted 8 June 2012
2. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 14 November, 2013:
• 1) The report states that utility (electric) easement crossings will be planted with shrub
and herbaceous vegetation. In addition, these easements will be mowed or treated
with herbicide periodically by the utility. As such, the streams within these corridors will
never meet performance standards for vegetation, and will have degraded function
(thermoregulation, nutrient input, LWD input). Credit should be adjusted for each of
these stream segments to reflect the reduced functional uplift, as consistent with
IRT /USACE adjustments on other similar sites.
• 2) Figure 23 identifies the utility crossing over the northern portion of UT2 -4 as a 30-
foot ROW claimed by Union Power Cooperative. The crossing over the lower portion of

UT2 -4 is labeled as "Unknown right -of -way claimed by Union Power Cooperative ". The
width of the ROW should be verified by the utility company to ascertain that it is indeed
a 30 -foot easement and not a wider area which can be maintained.
• 3) A utility easement enters the conservation easement along UT1 -4. The width of the
remaining area that will be forested is unclear in the plans. While buffer /conservation
easement width was added on the opposite side of the stream, the functional uplift to
this portion of the stream may be affected depending on the forested width. Please
provide the width from top of bank of the area to be planted in trees at this location.
3. T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USACE, 14 November, 2013:
• A brief discussion on impacts to existing wetlands is presented in the Draft plan, but any
impacts (eg. filling, draining, converting) to current waters of the U.S. (streams,
wetlands and open waters) must be accounted for and discussed in the Pre -
Construction Notification (PCN) and the loss or conversion of those waters must be
replaced on -site. (the conversion of ponds to stream is considered an impact, but the
functional uplift provided allows for this conversion to be conducted under NWP 27.
These impacts do, however need to be accounted for in the PCN).
• Please discuss in further detail any required maintenance of the diffuse flow structures
shown on Design Drawing #s 12, 15, 23, and 24.
• Section 9, pg. 67. Performance Standards: It is stated that the Performance Standards
will be consistent with published federal rules, but additional District /EEP guidance must
also be adhered to. Specifically the "Ecosystem Enhancement Program Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and Wetland Mitigation" Dated
November 7, 2011. (Section IV C.) *All monitoring and performance standard
requirements need to comply with this EEP /District guidance unless the project was
instituted prior to the release of this guidance*
• Under normal project review processes, a Jurisdictional Determination would have been
submitted concurrently with the Draft mitigation plan. Since no determination was
submitted, please be advised that linear footage and credit amounts may be subject to
change, dependent upon the results of said determination.
• The upstream reach of UT1 and UT1 -13 are proposed for Preservation. In areas where
work conducted will result in functional uplift (eg. wider buffers, stabilization, or
invasive control) the mitigation plan should identify these areas as Enhancement at a
5:1 ratio. If none of these activities will occur then the Preservation ratio should be
reduced, unless justification for Preservation at a 5:1 ratio, with consideration of factors
mentioned in the District stream preservation guidance, is provided.

/s/
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist,
Regulatory Division