20130865 Ver 1_USACE Approval_20131010

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:59 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Approval Letter: NCEEP Draft Mitigation Plan / Best Site Stream and Wetland / Duplin County /
SAW- 2012 -01384 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Approval Letter-2012-01384-Best Site_EEP.pdf
13 -0865
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources -
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
Water Quality Programs
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, October 10, 2013 2:57 PM
To: Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Tugwell, Todd 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.; Pearce, Guy; Sollod, Steve; Gibby, Jean B SAW; Wilson, Travis W.;
Emily Jernigan(@fws.gov; Kathryn Matthews(@fws.gov; Schaffer, Jeff; 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; Daniel Ingram
Subject: Approval Letter: NCEEP Draft Mitigation Plan / Best Site Stream and Wetland / Duplin
County / SAW- 2012 -01384 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Tim,
Attached is the approval letter for the Best Site Stream & Wetland Restoration project Draft
mitigation plan (EEP# 95353). Also attached are all the comments that were generated during
the IRT's review of the project on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal.
*This letter approves the mitigation plan, but also identifies several minor concerns with
the draft mitigation plan that must be addressed in the Final Plan.
When the permit application is submitted for Nationwide Permit #27 authorization, a copy of
this letter and all correspondence regarding the updated jurisdictional determination should
be included along with a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan. Also, please ensure that the
Final Mitigation Plan is posted to NCEEP's documents portal so that all members of the IRT
have access to the final plan.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the process or the attached.
1

Thank you.
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

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTIONOF: 10 October, 2013
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Best Stream and Wetland Project Draft Mitigation
Plan; SAW 2012 - 01384; EEP 495353
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 Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Draft Mitigation
Plan, which closed on 11 September, 2013. 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. However, the minor issues with the Draft as discussed in the
attached comment memo 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 and a summation of the
addressed comments. 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.

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,
Digitally signed by
,t CRUMBLEY.TYLER.AUTRY.1
�! 7 007509975
Date: 2013.10.10 14:54:04
- 04'00'
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW -RG /Wicker
CESAW -RG -L /Bailey
NCEEP- Kristin Miguez

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