The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20141024 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20141217 December 17, 2014 Regulatory Division Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the UT to Town Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan; SAW-2013-01280; NCEEP Project # 94648 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 UT to Town Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan, which closed on October 31, 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, which is considered approved with this correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached comment memo, which 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. Issues identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document. 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. REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 Thank you for your prompt 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, Todd Tugwell Special Projects Manager Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished: NCIRT Distribution List CESAW-RG-R/Elliott TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048429293 2014.12.17 12:37:53 -05'00' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: CESAWͲRG/TugwellDecember2,2014 MEMORANDUMFORRECORD SUBJECT:UTtoTownCreekͲNCIRTCommentsDuring30ͲdayMitigationPlanReview PURPOSE:ThecommentslistedbelowwerepostedtotheNCEEPMitigationPlanReviewPortal duringthe30ͲdaycommentperiodinaccordancewithSection332.8(g)ofthe2008Mitigation Rule. NCEEPProjectName:UTtoTownCreekStreamandWetlandRestorationProject,Stanly County,NC USACEAID#:SAWͲ2013Ͳ01280 NCEEP#:94648 30ͲDayCommentDeadline:31October,2014 ToddBowers,USEPA,17Oct,2014: 1.TheapplicanthasomittedtheCreditReleaseScheduleforwetlandandstreamcredit units. 2.Recommenda7Ͳyearmonitoringperiodforvegetationinthoseareaswhereforest wetlands(headwaterorbottomlandhardwoods)arebeingestablished.Thisisper guidancedatedOctober10,2008titledRevisedCreditReleaseScheduleforForested Wetlandsandinaccordancewith33CFRPart332,CompensatoryMitigationforLosses ofAquaticResources. 3.WhileIagreecompletelywiththeamountofextracreditgeneratedbytheextrabuffer widthsalongReaches1Ͳ3,Iwouldlikesomeclarityonhowtheextrawidthwas calculated.Wasitfromperpendicularlinesfromvalleycenterline,topofbank,or streambeltwidth.Irecommendtheuseofbeltwidthforsinuousstreamssuchasthisto determinebufferwidthaverages. 4.Recommendafigureormapshowingtheareaswhereupland,riparian,andforested wetlandplantingswilloccur.Vegetationplotsestablishedformonitoringshould adequatelycovereachofthesedifferentvegetationcommunities. 5.Page3Ͳ8:ErrorinfootnotesforReach2inTable3.4.Needtoaddfootnotes3and4 whereappropriate. 6.Page7Ͳ23:Existingconditionsstatethat“wetlandsareextremelyimpaired”yetthey scoredHightoMediumpertheNCWAMevaluations.Cantheapplicantpleaseprovide clarityinthissituation? 7.Page7Ͳ30and31:StreambuffervegetationreferstoTable7.6.Thisshouldbecorrected toTable7.7. 8.Page7Ͳ32:Table7.7inConstructedWetlandsthelatinnameforsweetflagisshownas Nyssasylvatica.ThisshouldbecorrectedtoAcoruscalumus. TravisWilson,NCWRC,30October,2014: 1.WhileWRCagreeswiththeincorporationofthetwowetlandBMPsintotheplan,the designasshownaswellasthesteeptopographyonreach7giveconcernthatthesewill functionmoreliketraditionalstormwaterretentionbasinsandlikelyrequireroutine maintenance.ThedesignandlocationoftheseBMPsshouldbesuchthatlittletono maintenanceisrequired. GinnyBaker,NCDWR,31October,2014: 1.NotateonFigure6thatareaupstreamofReach4,5,and7isnonͲcreditedpreservation asnotedonpg7Ͳ5inNotessection. 2.Wetlandindicatorstatuslistedonpages7Ͳ31and7Ͳ32shouldbeupdatedtocurrent NationalWetlandPlantListfortheEMPregionfor2014whichdoesnothave“+”and“Ͳ“ designations.Pleasecorrectthefollowing:LiriodendrontulipiferatoFACU,Quercus phellostoFAC,AlnusserrulatatoOBL,SambucusCanadensistoSambucusnigraFAC, NyssasylvaticatoFAC,HibiscusmoscheutostoFACW,ElymusvirginicustoFACW, TripsacumdactyloidestoFACW,CoreopsislanceolatatoFACU,Dichanthelium clandestinumtoFAC.http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/viewer.html# 3.DWRwillrequireinourpermitconditionsthatamonitoringgagebeplacedatthehead ofandlowerendneartheconfluenceforallintermittentstreamsthataretobe restoredwithPriority1techniquesthatwillraisethestreambedandpotentiallyreduce baseflow.Reach7. 4.Avegetationmonitoringplotshouldbeadded(ormovedinto)theenhancementarea. 5.DWRrecommendsusingburlap,ormorenaturallightweightcorefibermaterialthat woulddegradequickerratherthangeoͲtechfabricforsoilliftsandgradecontrol/cross vanesetc. 6.DWRrecommendsleavingsomeofthestumpageonsiteratherthancompleteremoval duringgradingprocesstopromoteregrowth. 7.DWRrecommendstheuseof“screenings”fromrockquarryforuseinrifflepoolsand backfillingcrossvanes,etc.Thismaterialfillsthegapbetween#57stoneandsand/soil mediums. ToddTugwell,USACE,2December,2014: 1.Themitigationplanindicates5yearsofmonitoringforbothstreamsandwetlands, howeverwehavemovedto7yearsofmonitoringforbothpertheNCEEPguidancefrom 2011,andearlierforforestedwetlands.Pleaseupdatedtheplantomeetcurrent monitoringtimeframesorprovidejustificationastowhyonly5yearsofmonitoringis proposed. 2.Theplanindicatesthatareasproposedforwetlandcreationwillhavetobegradedto exposeburiedhydricsoils,howeveritisnotclearhowmuchgradingisrequired,only thatitmaybemorethan12inches.Pleasenotethatextensivegradingtocreate wetlandscanresultinsoilsthatarecompactedandhavelowvegetationgrowth,which isoneofthereasonsforthelowerratioforwetlandcreation. 3.Table7.5appearstobeincorrectlyreferencedinthediscussiononpage7Ͳ24astable 7.4.Thistableshowscurrenthydroperiodsgenerallyabove20%ontherestoration areasonsite,yettheproposedperformancestandardisonly9%.Pleaseconsidera higherperformancestandardforrestorationareas,supportedbythereference conditionandexistingconditionsonthesite. 4.Bufferwidthsonthesiteareproposedtobewiderthanthestandard50feet,and additionalcreditisrequestedbasedondraftguidanceputoutforpublicnoticebythe Districtin2010.Wehaveagreedtoincreasedcreditforwiderbuffersincertain situations;howeverseveralrequirementshavegenerallyappliedtothis.Tobeginwith, additionalcreditsshouldnotbeprovidedinareaswherethewiderbuffersarealso generatingwetlandcredit,whichappearstobethecaseonpartsofthissite. Additionally,basedoncommentsreceivedfromthepublicnotice,wehaverevisedthe drafttablesassociatedwithwiderbuffers,whichcanbesuppliedtotheproviderupon request.Themodifiedtablesdonotprovideforextracredituntilthebufferisa minimumof75’inwidth(inpiedmontandcoastalcounties),additionallythepercent increaseincreditisgreaterthaninthedraftguidanceusedbytheproviders.Also,the calculationsprovidedinFigure8arenotsufficienttodeterminehowtheincreaseswere determined(e.g.,howaveragefloodplainwidthsweredetermined).Finally,thereare somesegmentswithinthesereachesthatappeartobeatorbelow50feetinwidththat wereaveragedintothesegmentandnowarereceivingadditionalcredit.(seestations 22+00to23+00,and36+30).Ifadditionalcreditswillberequestedforwiderbuffers, pleasecoordinatewiththeDistricttodeterminetherequirementsforthis. 5.WedonotobjecttoincreasedstreamcreditfromtheconstructionofBMPsontwoof thetributaries;however,itisnotcleariftheseBMPswillresultinthelossofexisting jurisdictionalstream,orwhetherachannelwillbemaintainedthroughtheBMP.How arethesestructuresproposedtobenefittheproject,andhowwasitdeterminedhow manycreditsshouldresultfromtheadditionofthesestructures? Todd Tugwell Special Projects Manager Regulatory Division TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.10 48429293 2014.12.02 13:41:05 -05'00'