20140041 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20140121

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:50 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Little Pine III- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan Review - Little Pine
III stream and wetland / Alleghany County / (SAW- 2012 - 01299) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Comments Draft Mitigation Plan Review Memo_LittlePinelll.pdf; LPinelll- Meeting Minutes- 2012- 08- 15.pdf
REEP001111
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 Permitting Section
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, January 17, 2014 10:10 AM
To: Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW; Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick(@fws.gov);
McLendon, Scott C SAW; Cox, David R.; Wilson, Travis W.; Pearce, Guy; Schaffer, Jeff; Sollod,
Steve; bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Matthews, Kathryn; Emily Jernigan(@fws.gov; Wicker, Henry M JR
SAW; fritz.rohde(@noaa.gov; Basinger, Corey; Homewood, Sue; Chapman, Amy; Baker, Virginia;
McCormick, Tasha L SAW; Tsomides, Harry; Mcdonald, Mike
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW; Shawn Wilkerson; Christine Blackwelder
Subject: Little Pine III- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan
Review - Little Pine III stream and wetland / Alleghany County / (SAW- 2012 - 01299)
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
The 30 -day comment review period for the Little Pine Creek III Restoration Project (SAW 2012-
01299) (EEP# 94903) closed on 16 January, 2014. 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 (utilizing the
excel option). 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 31 January, 2014 *. 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 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 17 January, 2014
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Little Pine Creek III- 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: Little Pine Creek III Project (DBB), Alleghany County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01299
NCEEP #: 94903
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 16 January, 2014
1. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 13 January, 2014:
• The project proposes as one of its stream reference sites the Glade Creek site, which is
an EEP restoration project. We don't feel it is appropriate using a constructed channel
as a reference, particularly one that has been constructed recently and is in year 2 of
monitoring.
• A portion of UT4 is located on the property line and as such, only has a conservation
easement along one side of the stream. This portion of UT4 should be not receive
mitigation credit.
• According to the report, a portion of the easement along UT2A has not yet been
acquired. This should be acquired prior to completion of the final mitigation plan and
submittal of 404/401 permit applications.

2. T. Crumbles USA CE, 14 January, 2014:
• The main concerns addressed during the field visit on 15 August, 2012 have been
resolved in the Draft mitigation plan. The use of bank pins for pre -data is laudable and
the monitoring and performance standard plans appear correct and appropriate.
• The District does however, concur with the comments provided by NCDWR on 13
January, 2014 and will expect those concerns and items to be addressed in the Final
Mitigation Plan and corresponding PCN.
/s/
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist,
Regulatory Division

r
ly y
W I L D L N D S
E:NGINN E I_RI N
MEETING NOTES
PROJECT Little Pine Creek #3 Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
NAME:
DATE: August 15, 2012
LOCATION
TOPIC:
SUBMITTED
BY:
ATTENDEES:
Project Site
Field Meeting
Matt Jenkins
NAME
GROUP
Tyler Crumbley
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Sue Homewood
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
Marella Buncick
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Harry Tsomides
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP)
Shawn Wilkerson
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI)
Matt Jenkins
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI)
The following items were discussed during the site walk:
1. Discussed the overall background of the project according to Figure 6 of the Concept Plan
(enclosed) including the closed easements with Jeff Anders as well as the option agreements
with the Edwards and Huber properties.
2. Marella discussed whether or not there was any potential for restoring /enhancing wetland
habitat for bog turtle as well as creating potential oxbow wetland structures at the lower end
of UT2.
3. After walking the lower portion of UTz, it was agreed upon that Enhancement I was an
appropriate approach for this reach.
4. Tyler felt that Enhancement 11 would be more appropriate for the entire lower length of UT2A
due to the channels established bench and lack of incision.
5. It was agreed upon that the entire wooded length of UT2A and UT3 exhibited suitable channel
stability and forested habitat to be considered for preservation (5.o:1.o ratio due to high quality
nature of streams and width of buffer).
6. Matt and Tyler discussed the option to receive a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on
the entire project site (from Tasha McCormick - USACE); a Final JD would be requested during
the 404/401 permitting phase of the project.
7. Although it was not included in the Preliminary Concept Plan, the upstream portion (start of
jurisdiction) of UTz was viewed. WEI will be in further discussion with EEP as to whether or not
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone 704 - 332 -7754 • fax 704 - 332 -3306 • 1430 S. Mint Sheet, 9 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

this portion of stream will be included in the project. If this area is to be included, Tyler
requested that Matt do an additional JD walk and revise the JD figures to include this area, if
necessary.
8. It was discussed that Enhancement II would be performed on the streams surrounding the
Wetland BB complex. Log structures may be used to provide bed stability in this area.
9. Shawn and Harry discussed as to whether there would be any issues to fencing out the cattle
along UTz early and whether or not full credit would still be received if the project were to be
delayed for a year or so and the area was allowed to grow over. Tyler confirmed that full credit
would still be received. Shawn thought that fencing could be a constraint to construction and
felt it would be best to wait until then.
1o. The USACE discussed how to handle restoration /enhancement approaches along the upper
portion of UTz. Since the area is comprised of pieces of Enhancement II, Enhancement I and
Restoration, rather than breaking these sections out, call the entire reach Enhancement I at a
ratio of 1.5:1.0 - 2.0:1.0. Credit ratios will be proposed in the mitigation plan based on the
amount of actual improvements designed.
11. Tyler, Harry, and Shawn reviewed the middle Enhancement II portion of UTz located within
the wider easement area. It was mentioned that in mountain streams with wider easement
areas placed on them, a higher ratio of 2.2:1.0 may be received as opposed to 2.5:1.o. Credit
ratios will be proposed in the mitigation plan based on the easement width and past
precedent. Tyler was to provide an easement width /credit table to Harry.
12. Restoration and Enhancement II was agreed upon for UT213 as shown in the concept plan.
13. The agricultural ditch leading to Wetland FF was discussed as a potential option for
Enhancement II. DWQ and USACE both agreed that the best approach would be to fence out
cattle and plant the area, performing little to no stream work. The crossing would be
maintained at an easement break. WEI will discuss this reach with EEP and whether or not it
will be included in the project.
14. Harry brought up concern about a steep gully located near Wetland GG and whether or not this
area could be included in the project to provide stabilization or construct treatment for storm
runoff from this feature. WEI will discuss this area with EEP in further detail.
15. Little Pine Creek was walked and it was agreed that a restoration approach for most of Little
Pine Creek was appropriate, particularly if a Priority 1 can be achieved by catching grade on the
new section of Eddy Edwards land just upstream.
16. Harry addressed the option of maintaining existing alignment of Little Pine, stabilization
through bio- engineering, and working within the existing channel. We agreed we would
discuss the final approach with NCEEP as we enter the design phase of the project.
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Page 2