20130865 Ver 1_USACE Email_20130916

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:26 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Best- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan Review - Best Site Stream
and Wetland / Duplin County/ (SAW- 2012 - 01384) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Mitigation Plan Review Memo_Best.pdf
13 -0865
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Resources
Compliance & Permitting Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
- Water Quality Programs Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater -
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, September 13, 2013 8:32 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: Best- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan Review - Best
Site Stream and Wetland / Duplin County / (SAW- 2012 - 01384) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
The 30 -day comment review period for the Best Stream and Wetland Restoration project (SAW
2012- 001384)(EEP# 95353), closed on 11 September, 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
expressed 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 28
September, 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
1

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 an electronic copy of
the 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 12 September, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Best Site- 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: Best Site Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, Duplin County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01384
NCEEP #: 95353
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 11 September, 2013
1. David Bailey USACE, 16 August, 2013:
• Note that a final JD has not been approved nor requested for this site. A final JD could
affect wetland restoration /enhancement targets, particularly in the NE corner of the
project area.
2. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 6 September, 2013:
• The site appears to be a good candidate for a mitigation site. Stream valleys are well -
defined and slopes should support stream flows. DWR has no issues with this site.
3. Kristin Miguez, NCEEP, 11 September, 2013:
• In response to David E. Bailey's comment on 8/16/2013 - EBX has now requested a JD
for this project, and the site visit is scheduled for 10/8/2013.
4. T. Crumbley, USACE, 11 September, 2013:
• Pg. 50, Table 17: Credit Release Schedule (Streams): Paragraph 6.2 States that a 15%
credit withholding shall occur prior to demonstration of 2 bankfull events within
separate years of the monitoring period, but those credit withholdings are not shown in
Table 17. Please revise.

UT1 & W1: During Field discussion on 4 SEP 12 it was agreed that wells should be
installed and a pressure transducer should also be installed to determine the amount of
flow and length /time of flow of the stream and to determine success of the proposed
work on both stream and wetland.
Please allow for replanting /vegetation management activities particularly on UT1,
Wetland W1 and UT4, due to increased hydrology and possible mortality of existing
trees (mostly poplar). There was also a suggestion in the field on 4 SEP 12 to install
wells in the headwater section of UT4 to monitor hydroperiod and wetland baseline
conditions. Please advise if this will occur in final mit plan.
A perched /eroding culvert on UT 4 exists currently. This is slated for relocation in the
valley to allow for access within the headwater portion of this system. In the field on 4
SEP 12, it was discussed to possibly install more than one culvert on this system due to
the proposal for multithread channels above and below the crossing. Please further
address the proposed action on this crossing.
Pg. 68 Wetland W1: The proposal for berm construction to artificially retain water and
provide "...an ideal point for a beaver dam" is a concern for us. Please be aware that
complete inundation sufficient to retard plant /tree growth or create areas of open -
water may be considered unsuccessful and not receive full credit for wetland or stream
restoration.
• Pg. 83, Section 9.2 Performance Standards for Wetlands: It is stated that no WETS table
exists for the County and that gauge data will be compared to reference wetland well
data, but no reference wetlands were identified in Section 7.1.2, Pg. 56. We believe a
target of 5% hydroperiod for riparian wetlands is too low (barely jurisdictional). Please
review and revise this section of hydrologic performance standards on riparian wetlands
or provide additional justification for the proposed standards.
/s/
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist,
Regulatory Division