20130817 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20130726

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 10:11 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Intent to Approve with Comments / NCEEP Mitigation Plan -Muddy Run II / Duplin
County / (SAW- 2012 - 01387) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Muddy Run II Mitigation Plan Review Memo.pdf
13 -0653
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater -
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
Compliance & Permitting Unit
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: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:58 AM
To: bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW; Marella Buncick
( Marella Buncick(@fws.gov); McLendon, Scott C SAW; Cox, David R.; Baumgartner, Tim; Pearce,
Guy; Ellis, Eric; Sollod, Steve; Gibby, Jean B SAW; Wilson, Travis W.;
Emily Jernigan(@fws.gov; Kathryn Matthews(@fws.gov; Montgomery, Lori; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW;
Miguez, Kristin; Bailey, David E SAW; Sugg, Mickey T SAW; Shaver, Brad E SAW; Beter, Dale E
SAW; Gregson, Jim
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: Intent to Approve with Comments / NCEEP Mitigation Plan -Muddy Run II / Duplin County
/ (SAW- 2012 - 01387) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
The 30 -day comment review period for the Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration project
(SAW 2012- 01387)(EEP# 95354), closed on 24 July, 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 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 10
August, 2013). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.
1

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 26 July, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Muddy Run II- 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: Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Duplin, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01387
NCEEP #: 95354
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 24 July, 2013
1. Eric Kulz; NCDWQ, 22 July, 2013:
• The plans for the project show a number of ditches that enter the conservation
easement. According to the plans, flow from these ditches will be converted to
diffuse flow through the use of earthen level spreaders. The plans show for live
stakes to be installed on the level spreaders. Earthen level spreaders have been
show repeatedly to fail, even with maintenance. The DWQ BMP Manual has
discontinued including earthen level spreaders as approved stormwater structures.
In addition, the proposal to install live stakes will result in concentrated flow as
water will flow around the stems of the trees, likely increasing the erosion of the
downstream face of the level spreader. Can the ditches instead be directed into
wetland floodplain pools as on other EEP projects?
2. T. Crumbley; USACE, 24 July, 2013:
• As discussed during the field visit on 5 September, 2012, please ensure that all filled
ditches be plugged and compacted to prevent scour and settling.
• Also per the field discussion on 5 Sep 12, there is a concern by members of the IRT of
possible tree mortality on Reaches 1, 2, and 3 due to the plugging of the ditches and the
additional water within the reaches and adjoining forested lands.

• In general, the USACE does not support relocation of streams into areas that were not
historically stream channels and is concerned over the amount of grading and
excavation in the Goldsboro soil on reaches 3a and 3b across the upland ridge to the
west. The proposed channel must maintain sufficient flow through this area to remain
jurisdictional and become a higher functioning system. The work proposed shall in no
way reflect a guarantee of credit generation if the performance standards and success
criteria are not met throughout the monitoring period. Additionally, effects from the
dewatering of the current features must be considered in the final mitigation plan and
the subsequent application.
• Pg. 54, 7.2.1 provides a reference to proposed "macro- topography" features. Please
ensure that these features end up vegetated and do not result in ponded areas with
open water dominating.
• Reach 3c currently flows through or adjacent to, existing jurisdictional wetlands. Please
provide a discussion on the impacts to and protection measures for existing wetlands
(high visibility fencing, avoidance). Impacts to existing wetlands need to be accounted
for in the final mit plan and ensuing NWP application, including explanations on how the
impacts /losses will be replaced.