20120748 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20120807

2 0120748
Kulz, Eric
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:11 AM
To: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; 'Tugwell, Todd SAW'
Cc: Wilson, Susan A
Subject: Junes Branch - Jackson Co.
Tyler /Todd:
I entered new comments based on a conversation with the designer, as follow:
"I had a productive and interesting discussion with Grant Ginn regarding Bumgarner Branch. The design dimension for
this reach is supported by the regional curves, and the proposed design is supported by DWQ. DWQ maintains the
recommendation that the permanent seeding mix consist of native riparian species, and not the list proposed in the
draft plan."
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Program Development Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone] Please note this is a new phone number effective May 10, 2012
Fax: [phone]
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

1 . 2 0 7 4 co" 4 111A
COM J/JJ IL Pam -L
W I have questions regarding the the rationale and explanation for P1 restoration of Bumgarner Branch
Reach 1a. The designer states that due to livestock and herbaceous vegetation on the banks the
stream bed is narrow. It is not excessively incised and has connection to its floodplain. I have not been
able to find the bank height ratio in the report. It says that the channel will widen and become unstable
and overwiden once cattle are excluded and woody vegetation replaces herbaceous vegetation. This
appears contrary to generally- accepted stream assessment and restoration principles.
The permanent seed mix consists of white clover, orchard grass, creeping red fescue, Korean lespedeza,
and birdsfoot trefoil. All but red fescue are exotic and are not listed as noxious, but the USDA plants
database says they all have the potential to become weedy or invasive. DWQ recommends using a
native riparian seed mix, a number of which are available through native plant nurseries.
The following is a response from the project designer (Wolf Creek Eng.) to DWQ's 7/24/12 comments:
�r5 �b� 4� The reviewer states that he is unable to find the bank - height- ratios, however, the bank - height- ratios are
w,tated in Section 2.2.6 of the narrative. Specifically for the reach in question in paragraph 4 under the
"Bumgarner Branch" subsection of 2.2.6, the report states that the bank - height- ratios range from 1.1 to
1.5. Additionally, the field data collected for this project can be found in Appendix C4. Specifically, the
table titled "Site Assessment Calculations" has data collected on the upstream end of Bumgarner Branch
(Section Numbers 6, 7 and 16 and designated in the "Reach" and "Location" rows as "Bumgarner -U /s of
road ", "Bumgarner -mid horse pasture" and "Bumgarner -u /s end ") indicates bank - height- ratios of 1.5, 1.1
and 1.5.
The reviewer states that the report claims the channel will "overwiden once the cattle are excluded" and
that this is "contrary to generally accepted stream assessment and restoration principles." First, there is
no claim in the report that the channel will "over- widen," simply that the width of the bed of the channel
will increase from its present excessively narrow width of approximately 3 ft. to a more geomorphically
stable width of at least 8 ft. As stated in the report, this projected dimension is based on data collected on
reference and naturalized streams in the surrounding watersheds and in the mountain region. Data on
more than 30 locations were collected for this project and is depicted in the graphs in Appendix C1. The
concept that a stream will widen from an unsustainably narrow condition to a more appropriate width is
neither novel or contrary to generally accepted stream principles. Perhaps what is an encumbrance is the
idea that exclusion of livestock will facilitate this process or that the presence of livestock perpetuates the
existing condition. However, experience and observation suggest that the presence of livestock can
prevent the natural succession from herbaceous vegetation to woody vegetation and without the
presence of woody vegetation the herbaceous vegetation will provide a denser ground cover. In some
cases, as in the present situation, this denser ground cover can temporarily retard soil erosion. As stated
paragraph 3 of Section 7.2.1 of the report, this is demonstrated immediately upstream of the site where
livestock access is restricted, woody vegetation in the form of privet and alder have become established,
and the channel bed has widened to 6 ft. with every indication that it will widen further.
The reviewer states that the permanent seed mix contains exotic species.
The seed mix included in this project is not the standard native mix that we have used in the past. This
seed mix was directed by EEP on our last EEP project (Middle South Muddy Creek). There were no
unusual soil conditions on that project so my understanding was that this was the preferred seed mix by
EEP and was therefore carried over to this project. If this is not the case we would recommend a
permanent seed mix containing Broom Sedge, Deer Tongue, Switch Grass, Indian Grass, Eastern Gama
Grass and Joe -Pye -Weed.
The following is a response from the project designer (Wolf Creek Eng.) to USACE's 7/25/12 comments:
We will revise the performance standards to be consistent with the 2003 SMG and include a statement in
the narrative to indicate the intended compliance.
All buffer widths have been checked to be 30 ft. or greater. We can revise the alignment at the lower end
Jy ���

of Doris Branch to provide slightly more'than
30 ft. if required, however, given the small size of this stream it is unlikely that channel pattern
adjustments will occur following construction.
The structure that appears in Figure 7 to be inside of the easement no longer exists. This is simply an
outdated aerial image. If necessary we can photoshop this structure out of the image.
There is no need for the construction activities to impact the wetlands. We will add a statement to the
report narrative, Section 7.2.2, indicating that the wetlands will be protected from construction activities
and final construction plans will indicate locations for protective fencing around these sensitive areas.
The performance standards included in Section 9.0 of the Draft Mitigation Plan are generally more
specific than required by the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines (SMGs). Additional standards have been
included that may result in situations determined to be unacceptable during review of the monitoring
reports or at project closeout, such as the standard that the Entrenchment Ration remain below 1.3.
Another example is included under "Surface Water Hydrology" where it states that the surface water
gauge must achieve bankfull or greater elevations at least twice, but it does not indicate that these events
must occur in separate years, as required by the SMGs. Please note that the project will be held to the
currently accepted performance standards as stated in the 2003 SMGs, and the project should state so in
Section 9.0.
Forested buffer widths along the channel appear to be less than 30 feet in some areas (see Sta 111 +50
on Doris Branch), and just over 30 feet for much of the rest of the project. Be verify that buffer widths are
wide enough to meet the minimum standard for mountain counties (30 feet minimum) after project
construction and anticipated channel adjustments have occurred.
Based on a review of Figure 7 and Preliminary Construction Plans (Site Plan aerial image), there appears
to be a structure that extends into the proposed Conservation Easement area. Please verify whether this
structure is located in the proposed easement and revise the plan if necessary.
Wetland areas located within the project boundary should be protected from impact by construction traffic
by fencing. If impacts to wetland are anticipated, be sure that all impacts are avoided where possible and
minimized where unavoidable. The Preconstruction Notification (PCN) application must account for all
temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands.
Please note that due to the location of this project, additional information regarding potential impacts to
resources protected under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, beyond what is listed in
the Categorical Exclusion Checklist included in Appendix A, will be required during the permit review.
This information should be included in the PCN application, but does not have to be included in the Final
Mitigation Plan.