20140547 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20140108

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:02 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: 601 East- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan Review - 601 East /
Union County/ (SAW- 2013 - 00265) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: 601 East Mit Plan Review Memo.pdf
13 -0185.
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, January 06, 2014 10:56 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.; Pearce, Guy; Sollod, Steve;
Kichefski, Steven L SAW; Krebs, Rob; Mcdonald, Mike; Elliott, William A SAW; Fuemmeler,
Amanda J SAW; Wiesner, Paul; Wilson, Travis W.; Homewood, Sue; Baker, Virginia; Chapman, Amy;
Wicker, Henry M JR SAW
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: 601 East- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan Review - 601
East / Union County / (SAW- 2013 - 00265) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
The 30 -day comment review period for the 601 East Stream Restoration Project (SAW 2013 -
00265)(EEP# 95756), closed on 3 January, 2014. 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 21 January, 2014 *. 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 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 6 January, 2014
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: 601 East- 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: 601 East Stream Restoration Project, Union County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2013 -00265
NCEEP #: 95756
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 3 January, 2014
1. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 19 December, 2013:
• As stated for previous projects, DWR continues to have concerns regarding restoration,
particularly P1 restoration, on incised intermittent channels (project proposes 350 LF of
P1 on Reach 1a). Our concern remains that constructing an offline channel at a higher
elevation can sometimes result in removing the groundwater discharge altogether,
converting a jurisdictional intermittent channel into a non - jurisdictional ephemeral
feature. It should be noted that credit loss (and the potential need for compensatory
mitigation) could result if the proposed work results in the conversion of an intermittent
stream to an ephemeral feature. DWR wants to ensure the written record for this
project includes our concern.
2. T. Crumbley USACE, 2 January, 2014:
• The District concurs with the comment provided by NCDWR with regard to Priority 1
restoration on incised intermittent channels. During the field meeting on 29 January,
2013 several issues with the project were discussed:

a. There was concern from NCIRT on disconnecting the intermittent section of Reach
1a (above cross - section #1) from the groundwater source. It was stated that credits
will not be generated on reaches that have been converted from intermittent to
ephemeral.
b. It was suggested by the NCIRT to quantify the on -site sediment loss /bank erosion
prior to restoration and potentially tie a performance standard to incorporate on-
site reduction versus watershed input.
c. USFWS suggested planting dense shrubs along with trees on the outside /around the
BMP on ephemeral section of Reach 1a to prevent additional rill or gully formation.
Specifically utilizing species that will attenuate sediment.
d. USFWS also suggested that a neotropical migrant bird study be conducted prior to
construction.
• 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).
• Section 9, pg. 46. Performance Standards: Should reference 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*
/s/
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist,
Regulatory Division