20130455 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20130606

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 12:33 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Comments From Mitigation Plan Review - Twin Bays Restoration Project; Duplin County
(SAW- 2012 - 01385) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Twin Bays Mitigation Plan Review Memo - Copy.pdf
For Laserfiche 13 -0455
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater - Compliance & Permitting Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
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: Thursday, June 06, 2013 12:16 PM
To: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW;
Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick(@fws.gov); McLendon, Scott C SAW; Cox, David R.; Jurek, Jeff;
Pearce, Guy; Ellis, Eric; Sollod, Steve; Gibby, Jean B SAW; fritz.rohde(@noaa.gov; Wilson,
Travis W.; Emily Jernigan(@fws.gov; Kathryn Matthews(@fws.gov; Schaffer, Jeff; Miguez, Kristin;
Bailey, David E SAW; Sugg, Mickey T SAW; Beter, Dale E SAW; Montgomery, Lori; Tim Morris;
Gregson, Jim
Cc: Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: Comments From Mitigation Plan Review - Twin Bays Restoration Project; Duplin County
(SAW- 2012 - 01385) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
The 30 -day comment review period for the Twin Bays Restoration project (SAW 2012- 01385)(EEP#
95363), closed on 5 June, 2013. 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. We have evaluated the comments generated
during the review period, and determined that the concerns raised during the review can be
addressed in the final mitigation plan. In the event that these comments are not
sufficiently addressed in the final mitigation plan, special conditions (including additional
performance standards) may be added to the permit to ensure that the issues raised by the IRT
have been addressed. 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
1

email (by COB on 21 June, 2013). 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,
Tyler Crumbley
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
N

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW -RG /Crumbley 5 June, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Twin Bays- NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
Purpose: The comments and responses 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: Twin Bays Restoration Site, Duplin County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01285
NCEEP #: 95363
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 5 June, 2013
1. Eric Kulz, NCDWQ, 8 May, 2013: The mitigation plan acknowledges that the ditch that is to
remain open along the southern property boundary will have an effect on the hydrology of
the site, but the various figures and wetland restoration totals do not take this effect into
account. Some reduction of wetland credit is likely. The proposed placement of hydrology
gauges should be adequate to determine this effect.
2. T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USACE, 4 June, 2013:
• The goals and objectives for this project are specific, related, and appropriate for this
site.
• Please review the indicator statuses of red maple, tulip poplar and water oak in section
7.1 Pg 18 of the plan. Insert "live, planted stems" at 210 /acre and remove the word
"mature" from the survivability discussion.
• Sec. 7.3, Proposed Conditions: Please remove the area directly adjacent to open ditch
(-76' based on modeling) from the acreage calculation at south portion of the site.
Move paired wells back to the edge of potential wetland (i.e. 75' from ditch).
• Sec. 9.0 Vegetation Success, Criteria for meeting performance standards should also
include the terms "live, planted stems" criteria for success.