20110645 Ver 1_USACE Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_20140818

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 3:16 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Notice of Intent to Disapprove NCEEP Draft Mitigation Plan with Comments / East
Fork Pigeon River Mitigation Project / Haywood County / SAW - 2010 -01783
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_EFPR_SAW- 2010- 01783.pdf
11 -0645
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:09 PM
To: Fritz Rohde (Fritz. Rohde @noaa.gov); Chapman, Amy; Baker, Virginia; bowers.todd @epa.gov; Crumbley, Tyler SAW;
Karoly, Cyndi; Cox, David R.; Emily Jernigan @fws.gov; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW; Higgins, Karen;
Kathryn Matthews @fws.gov; Marella Buncick ( Marella [e-mail]); McLendon, Scott C SAW; Wilson, Travis W.;
Wicker, Henry M JR SAW; Wiesner, Paul; Brown, David W SAW; Beckwith, Loretta A SAW; Cranford, Chuck
Cc: Wiesner, Paul; Baumgartner, Tim
Subject: Notice of Intent to Disapprove NCEEP Draft Mitigation Plan with Comments / East Fork Pigeon River Mitigation
Project/ Haywood County/ SAW- 2010 -01783 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
0
The 30 -day comment review period for East Fork Pigeon River Mitigation Project in Haywood County closed on July 19,
2014. All comments that were posted on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the review process are attached for
your records. We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period, and determined that there were
significant concerns raised regarding some parts of the draft mitigation plan.
In particular, the concerns related to changes in the mitigation plan addendum regarding the proposed crediting
methodology for the site, which requested enhancement credit at a 3:1 ratio for portions of the site with mature
vegetation where invasives treatment was the only proposed activity. (The original mitigation plan proposed to credit
these areas as preservation at a 5:1 ratio.) Neither the addendum nor the original mitigation plan provided any
discussion of the functional uplift to be provided through the invasives control. Additionally, no performance standards
were established for the invasives control, and the monitoring proposal was inadequate to demonstrate successful
eradication. Lastly, there was no discussion regarding the long -term maintenance of the site and if and how invasives
would be continually treated.
It should be noted that performance standards and long -term management of invasives are not typically requirements
for mitigation sites, even though controlling invasives is a routine maintenance activity on most mitigation sites. What
sets this project apart is that the treatment of invasives is identified as the sole source for functional improvements on
this site in areas that are already forested. The mitigation plan needs to be modified to address these issues and explain
why treating invasives on the site justifies the requested credit and how the uplift will be documented. Alternatively,
please modify the addendum to treat these areas according to the credit structure proposed in the original mitigation
plan (i.e., preservation at a 5:1 ratio).

Accordingly, we do not intend to approve the Draft Mitigation Plan as currently proposed. Any NCIRT member who has
concerns regarding this decision may initiate 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 September 3, 2014). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.
Provided that no NCIRT member initiates the Dispute Resolution Process, I will notify NCEEP of this decision at the
conclusion of the 15 -day Dispute Resolution window. Should NCEEP decide to move forward with the project, we will
work with NCEEP to revise the Draft Mitigation Plan to address identified concerns. The revised Draft Mitigation Plan
will be reposted to the Mitigation Plan Review Portal for NCIRT review and comment using the same procedures used
during the first review. You will be notified when the plan has been reposted for review. Please let me know if you have
any questions.
Thanks for your continued participation in this process,
Todd TugwelI
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

i
REPLY T
O
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW -RG /Tugwell August 13, 2014
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands - 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(8) of the 2008 Mitigation
Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: East Fork of the Pigeon River Wetlands, Haywood County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2010 -01783
NCEEP #: 94203
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 19 July, 2014
1. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 18 July, 2014:
• It is unclear how much of the wetlands had either planting or treatment (or both) and
how much of the site was strictly preservation. Technically areas where no activity took
place should be credited a 5:1, while the planting and invasives treatment would be at
2:1. Crediting the entire site at 3:1 may be the easiest way of determining the credits,
and the overall credit would probably not be much different than if the individual
acreages were credited differently.
• Does EEP have stream and wetland restoration assets in this HUC? It would not be ideal
if the majority of the mitigation EEP provides in this HUC would be in the form of stream
preservation and WL enhancement /preservation, as neither replace all aquatic function
lost to impacts.
1. Travis Wilson, NCWRC, 18 July, 2014:
• WRC does not have any specific concerns with the addendum to East Fork Pigeon River
Mitigation Site.
2. Todd Tugwell, USACE, 13 Aug, 2014: The original mitigation plan for the site was
prepared in 2011 following email correspondence with our office about the best
approach for the site. In that earlier correspondence, I indicated that I had concerns

with invasive removals as the main form of functional uplift and requested that the
mitigation plan adequately document the functional benefit provided by the treatment.
I also indicated that monitoring activities and performance standards needed to be
included to demonstrate that invasives have been removed, and that we would like to
review the mitigation plan even though no permits are required for the project. I am
not aware that we were provided with a copy of the March 2011 mitigation plan until
we received the addendum — the review of the addendum was our first opportunity to
review of the original mitigation plan that I know of. Based on this review, I have the
following concerns:
• Neither the addendum nor the original mitigation plan provides any discussion
related to the functional uplift that will be provided by conducting the invasives
removal. How will this treatment provide an uplift to the aquatic functions provided
by the existing wetlands on the site (hydrology, water quality, and habitat) and how
is that uplift tied to the proposed credit?
• No performance standards have been provided for the enhancement activity. What
are the metrics by which we are to determine that the site has been successfully
treated? Is there a proposed standard for how many invasives and what species
may be present to consider the site successful? Normally, this may not be required,
but because the removal of invasives is one of the primary activities proposed to
generate credit, it should be supported by some performance standard.
• What are the long -term management plans to ensure that the functional uplift
remains? Will the site continue to be treated once it is determined to be successful?
This relates to the temporal uplift of function that is to be provided by the treatment
— if invasives are back on the site 5 years after closeout, what is the point of
providing credit for invasive treatment? Again, this is normally not a requirement of
mitigation plans, but other sites do not identify invasive treatment as the primary
means of function uplift.
• The original mitigation plan asset table separated areas to be planted from those
only to be treated. The plan stated that 5.64 acres were to be planted, and the total
credit generated by the site was proposed to be 4.5 WMUs. Based on the
addendum, only 2.26 acres of the site was actually planted, yet the addendum now
requests more WMUs than the original mitigation plan (4.65). If the original
crediting structure was used, the site should produce less credit that originally
proposed, not more. What accounts for the proposed increase?
• The plan proposes to include 3 vegetation plots using CVS protocols, which would
cover approx. 0.5% of the 13.95 acres of the site (assuming 10 m X 10 m plots). The
2011 mitigation plan indicates that the plots will be used to monitor both the
survival of the planted stems as well as the success of the invasives treatment, but it
does not seem that a 0.5% coverage would be adequate to achieve this. The

mitigation plan also states that the monitoring period will run for 7 years, but the
addendum indicates there are an additional 5 years of monitoring proposed. Have 2
years of post- treatment monitoring already been conducted? If so, please post the
monitoring reports to the NCEEP website.
/s/
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division