20120064 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20130918

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:34 PM
To: Johnson, Alan
Cc: Strickland, Bev
Subject: Your Comments on Crooked Creek - Union County (12 -0064)
See my comments on your comments below:
Doing a cursory review of Crooked Creek:
1) 1 can't find any summary by what they mean Enhancement and Enhancement 11? Is that just fencing? Is that
plantings? Is it removal of invasives? There was a site meeting on 5/31/12 (1 couldn't make it) in which they
discussed the UTs. Enhancement 11 is proposed which will involve cattle exclusion /fencing, expansion of the
buffers out past 50 feet and removal of invasives.
2) Tributary #1 is restoration, but it seems to me they are bucking the topo (compare topo map to proposed trib #1
restoration plan). Currently the stream is (was) turned to flow along the fence line and then left to meander on
toward Crooked Creek. They turn it out into what is to be restored wetland and flow on towards Crooked
Creek. Based on the topo, it seems the initial turn out from the fence make sense, but then it should reconnect
at the bottom of the fence line following the topo. I kind of see what you are saying. Not sure what the
condition of the lower UT1 is in the woods. Interestingly enough, looking at the soil survey (photo from 1990 ?),
it actually shows the trib going diagonal across that field in the approx. location of the proposed restored
channel. However older aerial photos show the trib in its current alignment, although there is a wet signature in
a 69 photo in the field along the proposed path of the restored UT1. I will try to get Periann to pull up a LiDAR
and see what it shows. If the LiDAR is inconclusive, I will pose the question to EEP and the provider.
3) There is a ditch they plan to fill to restore the wetland, but at the same time Trib #1 replaces the ditch flowing
through the wetland the want to restore? The restoration proposed is P1, so the restored channel should be at
a higher bed elevation than the ditch. Raising the bed elevation and filling the ditch should hopefully raise the
GW to a level sufficient to meet the performance stds. It is a bit of a risk, but it has been done in the past.
4) They also cut off the current trib #1 and then create a "cut over" to crooked creek. I don't quite understand the
whole "cut over" thing. I am going to ask about that.
5) They mention berms which have caused problems with the stream. Would that not be simple enough to cut
gaps in the berm to allow storm flow to move in and out of the channel? I Agree. They really did not address the
berms other than mentioning their existence. I will ask about those.
So please send any additional comments by tomorrow afternoon, or at the latest, Friday morning, so I can get them on
the portal. I will be out all of next week on EEP closeout visits.
`7110 M,
ARMIATTA '.M
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Programs
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater - Compliance & Permitting Unit
1650 MSC

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

Strickland, Bev
From: Kukz,Eho
Sent: Wednesday, September 18.201310:38AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FYV: mitigation plans Crooke Creek
Eric VV.Ku|z
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Resources — VVaterCWa|ity Programs
Wetlands, Buffers,Stormvvater Compliance 6> Permitting Unit
165OIVIS[
E-mail correspondence toondƒrom this address may besubject to the North Carolina Public Records Low and may be
disclosed to third parties
From:]ohnson Alan
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:45 AM
To: Kubz,Ehc
Subject: RE: mitigation plans Crooke Creek
Doing a cursory review of Crooked Creek:
1\ |can't find any summary by what they mean Enhancement and Enhancement ||? |sthatjustfencing? Is that
plantings? |sit removal ofinvasives?
2) Tributary #1 is restoration, but it seems to me they are bucking the topo (compare topo map to proposed trib #1
restoration plan). Currently the stream is (was) turned to flow along the fence line and then left to meander on
toward Crooked Creek. They turn it out into what is to be restored wetland and flow on towards Crooked
[reek. Based on the topo, it seems the initial turn out from the fence make sense, but then it should reconnect
3\ There is a ditch they plan to fill to restore the wetland, but at the same time Trib #1 replaces the ditch flowing
through the wetland the want torestore?
4) They also cut off the current trib #1 and then create a "cut over" to crooked creek.
5\ They mention berms which have caused problems with the stream. Would that not be simple enough tocut
gaps in the berm to allow storm flow to move in and out of the channel?
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 7:51AM
To: ]nhnson,Alan
Subject: RE: mitigation plans
These are the preliminary reviews for the EEP review portal, so no application yet. I have not been to either site.
Let me know if you have comments and | will enter them all asDVVRcomments. Due date is9/25 for [[#2 and 1O/1for
Wicker Br.

Eric VV.Ku|z
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Resources — VVaterCWa|ity Programs
Wetlands, Buffers,Stormvvater Compliance 6> Permitting Unit
1650 MSC
E-mail correspondence toondƒrom this address may besubject to the North Carolina Public Records Low and may be
disclosed to third parties
From:]ohnson Alan
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 4:08IPIVI
To: Kubz,Ehc
Subject: mitigation plans
| have Crooked Creek #Z and Wicker Branch Final mitigation plans inoffice. Did you ever go take a look at the site. |
don't think | went tothese.
Have they submitted a formal application?
Alan
Alan Johnson
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Div. of Water Resources
610E. Center Ave, Suite 301
Mooresville, NCZO11S
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 unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.