20140041 Ver 1_Corps Approval Mitigation Plan_20140204

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:09 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Approval Letter: NCEEP Mitigation Plan- Little Pine Creek III / Alleghany County/ SAW 2012 -01299
/ EEP# 94903 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: eApproval Letter-Little Pine 111_2012- 01299.pdf
,,.
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: Monday, February 03, 2014 10:29 AM
To: Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: 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; Shawn Wilkerson; Christine
Blackwelder; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: Approval Letter: NCEEP Mitigation Plan- Little Pine Creek III / Alleghany County /
SAW 2012 -01299 / EEP# 94903 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Mr. Baumgartner,
Attached is the approval letter for the Draft Mitigation Plan on Little Pine Creek III
mitigation project, along with all the comments that were generated during the IRT's review
of the project on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal.
*Please note that this approves the Draft mitigation plan, but also identifies concerns with
the Draft plan that should be addressed in the Final plan.
When the permit application is submitted for Nationwide Permit #27 authorization, a copy of
this letter 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 letter.
Tyler Crumbley
1

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
ATTENTTIONT OF 3 February, 2014
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Little Pine Creels III Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW
2012 - 01299; EEP IMS 994903
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 Little Pine Creels III Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on
16 January, 2014. 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 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
CRUMBLEY.TYLER.A
UTRY.1007509975
Date: 2014.02.03
10:22:50 - 05'00'
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW -RG /H. Wicker
CESAW -RG -A /McCormick
NCEEP/ Harry Tsomides

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(8) 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. Crumbley, USACE, 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. Digitally signed by
CRUMBLEY.TYLER.
AUTRY.1007509975
Date: 2014.02.03
10:23:14 - 05'00'
/s/
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist,
Regulatory Division

i,
I Ls D L I/'�V��* DS
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 whetherthere would be any issues to fencing out the cattle
along UT2 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 2.5:1.0. 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