20140422 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20140725

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 12:36 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Notice of Intent to Approve NCEEP Draft Mitigation Plan with Comments /
Hudson Property Mitigation Project / Beaufort County / SAW - 2012 -01394
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo-Hudson Property_SAW- 2012- 01394.pdf
14 -0422
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:39 AM
To: Schaffer, Jeff; Smith, Heather; Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Marella Buncick ( Marella [e-mail]); McLendon,
Scott C SAW; Cox, David R.; Wilson, Travis W.; Pearce, Guy; Sollod, Steve; bowers.todd @epa.gov; Matthews, Kathryn;
Emily Jernigan @fws.gov; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW; fritz.rohde @noaa.gov; Baker, Virginia; Scarbraugh, Anthony;
Biddlecome, William J SAW; Steffens, Thomas A SAW
Subject: Notice of Intent to Approve NCEEP Draft Mitigation Plan with Comments / Hudson Property Mitigation Project /
Beaufort County / SAW- 2012 -01394 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
0
The 30 -day comment review period for Hudson Property Mitigation Project (USACE AID SAW- 2012 - 01394, EEP Project #
95361) closed on 8 June, 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 raised 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 Aug 9, 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 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 a
copy of this letter and all comments for your records.
Thanks for your participation,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager

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

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW- RG /Tugwell 25 July, 2014
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Hudson Property - 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: Hudson Property Mitigation Site, Beaufort County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01394
NCEEP #: 95361
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 8 June, 2014
Todd Bowers, USEPA, 7 May, 2014:
1) Overall this is a very robust and thorough mitigation plan with an impressive amount of
physical, and hydrologic baseline data to support the likelihood that this project will be
successful. Page numbers refer to the pdf document pagination.
2) Update NCDWQ to reflect change to NCDWR with the exception of citations.
3) Exhibits C -K do not denote the Reaches 1 -5 on the map. No diagram of the Reaches was
illustrated until the appendices. Recommend mapping these within the main body of
the MP for clarity.
4) Executive Summary (page 3):
a. Project size is listed as 13.4 acres. This matches the rest of the document with
the exception of page 126 that lists the project size as 12.6 acres.
b. Unclear on how many SMUs are to be generated. Most of the document states
2,700 SMUs but several tables refer to 2,891 If of restored reaches.
c. Where on the site is there a third order tributary? Only assumption made is that
one of the upper reaches (Reach 1) is a second order stream by the time it enters
the site. This would make the confluence with Reaches 2 -4 third order however
there is no discussion to support this assumption.

5) 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 NC DWQ Stream ID form are rather low (as expected for agriculture ditches)
and I would like to see an improvement noted in future stream assessments following
the restoration.
6) Page 9: Need a citation for the NC DWQ Stream ID Forms Version 4.11
7) Page 11: Using the same NCDWQ Stream ID score for all five Reaches is inappropriate
especially with reaches that have a wide difference in watershed sizes.
8) Page 12: Stream Mitigation Credits in Table 3 is listed at 2,904 which neither matches
2,700 SMUs or 2,891 If of streams restored.
9) Page 12: Restoration Approach in Table 3 does not match Priorities listed on page 126,
which lists all at Priority 1. Reach 1 appears to be P1 but Reaches 2 -4 appear to be PIII
based on the provided plans (no lift, no shift, floodplain lowered to meet stream).
10) Page 14, 6.2: Only 10% of a site's total stream credits should be withheld until two
bankfull events in separate years has occurred. Table 4 on the previous page has this
approach correct.
11) Page 14, 7.1: Restoration of Reaches 2 -4 description seems to be that of a PIII and not a
131 /II approach.
12) Page 14: Was any plant community data recorded for the reference reach and if so, is
that data being utilized to develop a planting guide?
13) Page 15: Where are the reference areas used to select vegetation?
14) Page 15: Citation for "Dominant Plants for Major Wetland Types" is needed.
15) Page 15, 7.2: All other discussions for channel design only refer to C type and not Bc. Is
the reference to Bc only for those locations where slope may exceed 2%?

16) Page 15: No mention of plant community or benthic marcroinvertebrates for Reference
Reach. Was a NCDWQ Stream ID form used on the reference reach?
17) Page 16, 7.2: discussion centers around the C5 -C6 channel design. Higher slope in some
reaches is discussed but B channel type is not mentioned.
18) Page 18: Table 5 has a total reach length of 2,891 ft.
19) Page 19: Table 6 may want to mention beavers as this is a very real possibility
(anticipated activity) for needed repairs.
20) Page 19, 9.1.1: "Surface water flow must be documented to occur at least 2 times per
year for 4 years out of the 7 -year monitoring period ". This seems like a strange metric
for a 3rd Order perennial stream. Please explain rationale for this particular
performance standard.
21) Page 20, 9.2.1: Please define "accelerated" in terms of erosion.
22) Page 21, Table 7: Cite the version of the CVS Protocol you are using. (2008 ?). 1 am aware
that the 1998 Peet et. al. paper on the method is being used but it was not cited either.
23) Page 22, 10.4: Please define "excessive" in terms of scour or erosion.
24) Page 24, 10.7: Cite the version of CVS Protocol being used.
25) Page 26, 14.2: References need to be alphabetized and cross checked for use within the
document.
26) Page 76: As noted before,using the same NCDWQ Stream ID score for all five Reaches is
inappropriate especially with reaches that have a wide difference in watershed sizes.
27) Page 126: 12.6 acres of land for the project may be erroneous (13.4 acres listed in much
of the rest of the document) see previous comment.
28) Page 126: Clarify which priority restoration type is being used for each reach. There is
some inconsistency with the rest of the document. See previous comment.
29) Page 177: Recommend limiting sweetgum and red maple components of the planting
plan to a combined maximum of 15 %. A 27% planting rate for known aggressive
volunteer species seems excessive.
Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 21 April, 2014:
1) Based on a field visit and USDA soil mapping, it appears unlikely that all of the features
proposed for restoration were streams, as no alluvial soils are present on site. All

features on the site appear to have been excavated to groundwater. While reaches 2/4
and 5 may have been a stream, it is likely that reaches 1 and 3 were ephemeral swales.
Site soils along all proposed restoration features are Craven fine sandy loam, which is
described as "gently sloping, well- drained soils on ridges in uplands ". The only soils
exhibiting hydric characteristics on the site are within the excavated channels. In
addition, the watershed size for reach 3 (26 acres) is extremely small to support a
stream.
2) Should this project go forward as proposed, DWR will require groundwater monitoring
wells installed in the thalweg near the top and bottom of reaches 1, 2 and 3. The wells
shall be equipped with continuous — reading gauges capable of documenting sustained
flow for at least 30 days during years with normal rainfall (demonstrating at least
intermittent stream status).
3) In addition, All features on -site must be evaluated by DWR Washington Regional Office
personnel for applicability of the Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules in order to generates
riparian buffer credit.
4) Review of the proposed planting list revealed that sweetgum and red maple are the two
species to be planted in greatest numbers. It has been our observation that these
species volunteer prolifically and based on research conducted by DWR on older
mitigation sites, they will become major canopy species over time through natural
processes. Planting of these species will result in the site becoming dominated with red
maple and sweetgum by the end of the monitoring period. Please remove these species
from the planting list.
Todd Tugwell, USACE, 25 July, 2014:
1) Section 10.7 Vegetation Planting Monitoring Requirements, Page 18, states that
vegetation monitoring plots shall make up a minimum of 1% of the planted portion of
the site with a minimum of 4 plots. The EEP standard per the November 7, 2011
document Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or
Wetland Mitigation is 2% of the planted portion of the site. Please check the applicable
EEP monitoring requirements to ensure you are including the correct standard.
/s/
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division