The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140153 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20140331Strickland, Bev From: Kulz, Eric Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 10:44 AM To: Strickland, Bev Subject: FW: Approval Letter: NCEEP Mitigation Plan- Owls Den Stream and Wetland / Lincoln County / SAW 2013 -00717 / EEP# 95808 Attachments: eApproval Letter-Owls Den-2013-00717-with Comments.pdf 14 -0153 Eric W. Kulz Environmental Senior Specialist 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit NCDENR - Division of Water Resources - 1650 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 Phone: (919) 807 -6476 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, March 31, 2014 9:44 AM To: Baumgartner, Tim Cc: bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; ]ones, Scott SAW; Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick(@fws.gov); McLendon, Scott C SAW; Cox, David R.; Sollod, Steve; fritz.rohde(@noaa.gov; Wilson, Travis W.; Emily ]ernigan(@fws.gov; Kathryn Matthews(@fws.gov; Beckwith, Loretta A SAW; Cranford, Chuck; Wicker, Henry M ]R SAW; Brown, David W SAW; Wiesner, Paul; Mcdonald, Mike; Homewood, Sue; Baker, Virginia; Basinger, Corey; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW Subject: Approval Letter: NCEEP Mitigation Plan- Owls Den Stream and Wetland / Lincoln County / SAW 2013 -00717 / EEP# 95808 Mr. Baumgartner, Attached is the approval letter for the Draft Mitigation Plan on Owls Den Stream and Wetland mitigation 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 Draft plan that should be addressed in the Final 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 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 REPLY TO ATTENTIONOF: 31 March, 2014 Regulatory Division Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Owls Den Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW 2013 - 00717; EEP IMS 495808 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 Owls Den Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 13 March, 2014. 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 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 CRU M BLEY.TYLE R.AUTRY. 1007509975 Date: 2014.03.31 09:37:42 - 04'00' Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Project Manager Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished: NCIRT Distribution List CESAW -RG /Wicker, H. CESAW -RG -A /Brown, D. NCEEP /Wiesner, P. REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 CESAW- RG /Crumbley 14 March, 2014 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Owls Den- 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: Owls Den Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Lincoln County, NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2013 -00717 NCEEP #: 95808 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 13 March, 2014 1. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 20 February, 2014: • In the areas of the site slated for wetland reestablishment, the Catena soils reports describe a hydric soil layer beneath "fill ". Data from the reports indicate as much as 33 inches of "fill" over the hydric soils. DWR questions whether this is fill or naturally- occurring non - hydric floodplain soils, and if these areas should instead be considered creation rather than reestablishment. • The planting plan includes red maple. Red maple is a prolific volunteer species that has naturally established itself at most of the mitigation sites visited. Please omit this species from the planting plan, or at most, reduce it from 15% to 5% of the total planted stems. 2. Todd Bowers, USEPA, 6 March, 2014: • Overall Wildlands presents a very robust and thorough mitigation plan with an impressive amount of physical, hydrologic and biological baseline data to support the likelihood that this project will be successful. This mitigation plan sets the bar high for other projects of similar complexity. • Update NCDWQ to reflect change to NCDWR with the exception of citiations. • Project Goals: There is no goal pertaining to the reestablishment of aquatic fauna such as benthic macroinvertebrates, amphibians, crayfish etc. I'm not suggesting that we put this under the auspices of performance standards (yet) but we need to start including biologics as a specific goal of these types of projects in order to carry out the Clean Water Act's purpose of maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters of the United States. It would be a shame if all this habitat constructed was just to look pretty and nothing was living in it. We should begin to verify that indeed habitat is being utilized for the purpose intended and if we are to state that improving ecological function is a goal then we need to know the fauna side of the ecology is present (or not) in order to verify bona -fide ecological improvement. The biology scores from the stream quality assessment worksheets are rather low and I would like to see an improvement noted in future stream assessments following the restoration. • Section 13.3 Wetlands: Performance standard should be presented in days of the defined growing season for Lincoln County. Previous mention of this on page 22 defined 8.1 percent of the growing season from March 28 to November 4 (222 days), is 18 days. This is plain language that leaves little room for ambiguity and should be restated on page 50. • Trees Planted: The assemblage of trees designated for wetland and riparian bare root planting (pages 345 -9 /Sheets 4.1 -5) includes red maple (Acer rubrum) at 15 %. 1 would recommend that if red maple needs to be included (and I don't think it does based on its ability to rapidly volunteer open sites) that its proportion be lessened to no more than 5% of all species planted. 3. T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USACE, 13 March, 2014: • Pg. 52; Section 14.2.2 Pattern and Profile: While multiple longitudinal profiles are not required throughout the monitoring period (unless problems noted), at least one should be submitted with the As -Built to verify construction in accordance with the plans. • This mitigation plan is very thorough and captures all updated Mitigation Plan components including updated monitoring requirements. The District has no further comments at this time. Digitally signed by CRUM BLEY.TYLER.AUT RY.1007509975 Date: 2014.03.31 09:38:59 - 04'00' Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Division