The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20131087 Ver 1_IRT_Revised Plan Review Comment Memo_20140522i REPLY T O ATTENTION OF: CESAW- RG /Tugwell DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Poplin Ridge- NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review 21 May, 2014 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. Please note that this is the second review. Due to a change made to the project following the first review and plan approval, the site was reposted. Comments noted below also include those generated during the initial review of the project, as noted by the date of the comment, and they may have been addressed in the most recent version of the Mitigation Plan but they are provided here to provide a complete record of the comments generated during the review process. NCEEP Project Name: Poplin Ridge Stream Mitigation Site, Union County, NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01079 NCEEP #: 95359 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 7 May, 2014 Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 16 April, 2014: 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. A utility enters the conservation easement and runs parallel to 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, and hence the credits, may be affected depending on the forested width. 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 14 November, 2013 (These comments are from the initial review.) 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. Crumbles 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/ Todd Tugwell Special Projects Manager Regulatory Division