20160372 Ver 2_Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary (from Andrea H)_20180628

Strickland, Bev
From: Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 3:17 PM
To: Merritt, Katie
Subject: [External] FW: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
Attachments: image004.png; image002jpg
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>
They should have copied you - see below. I threw out T -1b and T -1A had more wetland characteristics than stream but
since they had a JD on that reach, I let it go. I also wanted them to take out the small stream section below the last road
crossing - it lacked buffer on one side and it's so short, it doesn't really add value to the project. The reason the bank is
eroded below the culvert is because - it's below the culvert!! And they don't plan to replace the culvert so I don't see any
point in adding this piece to the project. However, I think Todd just told them they could get full credit for this small
section.....
Andrea W. Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone]
-----Original Message -----
From: Tim Morris [mai lto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 3:03 PM
To: Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Adam Spiller <[e-mail]>; Kristin Knight -Meng
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
Andrea - thank you for meeting with us on short notice on Monday (6-25) to view the stream features that were
questioned during the IRT in-house review. Specifically we looked at T1A and TIB as well as T-3. This email summarizes
our discussions in the field.
T1 -A - This was an active seep area that was flowing at the time of the site visit. ACOE expressed concern that because
of the limited flow, this tributary could become more wetland -like than stream -like in its post restoration condition. KCI
will address this concern in the response to comments.

TI -B - This tributary was another seep area that was not flowing at the time of the site visit. Since it was not flowing and
did not appear on the JD map, KCI agreed to remove this feature from the plan. TIB was likely picked up during the
assessment phase as a seep and survived the design process erroneously. Removal of this feature will reduce the overall
credit yield by 26 credits.
T-3 - This feature was flowing at the time of the site visit. ACOE expressed concern that the area in and around the old
pond bed, although manipulated, was stable. KCI indicated that the floodplain bench of the main channel would require
all the spoil from the pond to be removed. That accompanied with the fact that the T-3 drainage pattern was un -natural
(directed upstream to Stony Fork) and the channel was improperly sized resulted in the restoration call for T-3 through
the pond. After looking at the channel upstream of the pond, ACOE agreed with the E1 call, but asked that additional
justification be provided in the Mitigation Plan, including cross sections and sizing justification. KCI will provide this data
to substantiate the R and E1 calls for T3. Below is a close up of the planform for T-3 (page 6 of the design plans). The
dotted line below shows the extent of the floodplain grading.
Stream buffer issues at the bottom of the project - KCI also discussed (but did not visit) the end of the project where
there is a short (75') section of stream with less than the minimum buffer on the left bank. The written IRT comment
asks why we couldn't stop the project at the culvert instead of having a short section of narrow easement below the
culvert.
I looked back at the design and confirmed that there is no design reason why we could not stop at the culvert. There are
some badly eroded sections below the culvert that are within the easement that we feel should be addressed, especially
the tight right-hand meander that we plan to stabilize with a soil lift. That is the reason we pursued credits in this
section. KCI purchased excess buffer width on most of this project with the intent of providing two main benefits to
the project. In addition to providing more buffering capacity, the wider buffers would also allow a broader treatment
envelop for the extensive privet stands that dominated the understory, especially in the area of the stream valleys. We
anticipated that the excess credit that we could generate using the expanded buffer guidance would offset the
additional acreage encumbered in the easement, however we did not anticipate that Contract issues would not allow us
to recover credits from the purchase of the wider buffers. We have run several versions of the buffer guidance during
the assessment and design phase of this project. These methods show excess credit yields of 145 to 463 credits due to
the expanded buffer. The most recent method provided by the IRT (using the DMS' GIS tool) yields the least number of
credits (145). Since we can't recover these credits contractually we would request that we be able to utilize these
credits to cover the narrow buffer area at the bottom of the project. In the past the IRT has been lenient on the
terminal ends of easements where they come to a property line at an angle (as an example). I guess what we are asking
for is leniency for this downstream section with the knowledge that the excess buffer in other areas of the project could
more than offset any deficiencies at the end of the project. Any feedback on this issue would be appreciated prior to
providing our formal response to comment letter to the rest of the IRT.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

INCOMING DRAINAGE
i END
SF3
GRADE INNER BANK
AT 3: SLOeE\

BEGIN GRADE SOIL PILE TO FILL
TRI83 EXISTING PONOEO AREA
_ C
_ONSFRVAIIOtt