20120064 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20130930

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 2:13 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Crooked Creek #2- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan Review -
Crooked Creek #2 / Union County / (SAW- 2011 - 02201) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Review Comment Memo - Crooked Creek #2.pdf
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Resources
Compliance & Permitting Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
- Water Quality Programs Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater -
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, September 30, 2013 2:12 PM
To: Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW; Marella Buncick ( Marella Buncick(@fws.gov);
McLendon, Scott C SAW; Cox, David R.; Wilson, Travis W.; Baumgartner, Tim; Pearce, Guy;
Ellis, Eric; Sollod, Steve; Elliott, William A SAW; Fuemmeler, Amanda J SAW; Krebs, Rob;
bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Cahill, Julie; Matthews, Kathryn; Emily Jernigan(@fws.gov
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: Crooked Creek #2- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan
Review - Crooked Creek #2 / Union County / (SAW- 2011 - 02201) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
The 30 -day comment review period for the Crooked Creek #2 Stream Mitigation Site (SAW 2011 -
02201)(EEP# 94687), closed on 25 September, 2013. 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 15 October, 2013 *. Please notify me if you intend to
initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.
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
1

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 30 September, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Crooked Creek II- 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: Crooked Creek II Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Union County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2011 -02201
NCEEP #: 94687
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 25 September, 2013
1. T. Crumbley and T. Tupwell, USACE, 18 September, 2013:
• Please see the attached meeting minutes from 31 May, 2012. These minutes provide
the original comments from the initial Portal Postings which appear to have been
addressed in the reposted Draft plan. No additional comments at this time.
2. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 19 September, 2013:
• 1) What is the rationale for the proposed location of UT1? Review of available aerial
photos and LiDAR give no indication that UT1 formerly flowed along that path. The
LiDAR clearly shows the current location of the lower portion of UT1 through the woods.
Are we sure this is not the original location of this feature? Also, the field through
which the proposed UT1 channel is routed is very flat. Will the slope sustain flow?
• 2) Are there any plans regarding the overflow ditch along the western property
boundary? Will it be filled? Will removing the connection with UT1 result in
flooding /hydrologic trespass issues on the adjacent property to the west?
• 3) The original mitigation plan (January 13, 2012) shows Reach A of Crooked Creek
proposed for Enhancement II, and Reach B proposed as preservation. The current plan
shows all of Crooked Creek proposed for Enhancement II. Why the change? Do cattle

currently have access? Please explain the change in approach and the rationale for
doing so.
NCEEP Response to DWR, 25 September, 2013:
• This is to address Eric Kulz from 9/19 1) A spoil berm exists along the left top of bank of
the existing UT1 channel; indicating that the channel was excavated at some point. The
surveyed topo shows that the proposed path of UT1 lies within the low point of the
valley. The downstream section of UT1 is heavily influence by the overflow channel from
Crooked Creek. Will the slope sustain flow? We performed sediment transport
calculations on the proposed channel slopes to make sure we will not create an
aggradational channel.
• 2) We plan on connecting it to Crooked Creek as shown by the overflow connector (red
dashed line) on Figure 12 in the mit plan. Will it be filled? Only the section downstream
of the overflow connector. Will removing the connection with UT1 result in
flooding /hydrologic trespass issues on the adjacent property to the west? The overflow
connector will allow the flow regime to remain unchanged and avoid flooding concerns.
• 3) Based on a May 31, 2012 field meeting, the Corps (Todd Tugwell, Tyler Crumbley,
Steve Kichefski) agreed with NCEEP that Enhancement II is feasible for the entire length
of Crooked Creek since we will be excluding cattle, doing invasive removal, and planting
riparian buffer. Do cattle currently have access? They were excluded when NCEEP
purchased the property a couple of years ago. Please explain the change in approach
and the rationale for doing so. We originally were proposing spot treatment (bank
grading, in- stream structures, riffles) along Crooked Creek Reach A. Due to the large size
of Crooked Creek, spot treatment would be costly and risky while leaning towards
Enhancement I. NCEEP and the Corps agreed to do nothing in the Crooked Creek
channel.
3. Orignal Posting by T. Tugwell on 26January 2012:
• The existing conditions (Figure 8) on the site do not match the results of the on -site
jurisdictional determination conducted by Mr. Steve Kichefski with the Asheville Field
Office. Specifically, the eastern -most tip of Wetland CC should be shown as open water
rather than a wetland. This area is also shown in photo 8 in Appendix C of the Draft
Mitigation Plan.
• It is not clear from the Concept Plan (Fig. 11) shows wetland enhancement areas and
restoration areas as overlapping. Please update maps and ensure that these areas are not
double- counted.
• No plans are presented for the stream enhancement work along Reach A or UT 2.
Please provide more detail of proposed enhancement activities, including typical installation
techniques, location, and number of structures.
• During the initial field review of the site on July 6, 2011, we expressed concern that the
area is primarily shown as being underlain with Chewacla soils, which are frequently not

wetland and are should not be treated as restoration. The Draft Mitigation Plan states in
Sec. 4.3.3 that all soil core data is included in Appendix B, but only data from the WEI soil
borings was included. Please provide the other soil boring data. It is not clear whether the
WEI borings were conducted by a licensed soil scientist or not — please clarify. Based on a
review of the soil boring data provided, we concur that the area shown as Wetland
Restoration Zone A has a profile consistent with a former wetland soil, including lower
chroma and mottling. However; the area identified as Wetland Restoration Zone B has
higher chromas and does not appear to be a former wetland soil. Additionally, the Draft
Mitigation Plan states that this area is "to be monitored for wetland restoration credit at
the discretion of EEP ". Based on information presented, this area is not available for
wetland restoration credit. Additionally, the portion of Wetland Restoration Zone A within
the Badin channery silt loam series does not appear to have soils consistent with drained
wetlands. Accordingly, this area should also be removed from the restoration area. The
plan may be modified to include these two areas as wetland creation.
• During the field review of the site, we indicated that information regarding the water
budget should be included in the mitigation plan due to concerns that the proposed work
would not provide sufficient hydrologic modification to support the proposed wetland
restoration /creation. The Draft Mitigation Plan includes modeling data to support the
proposed work, but the modeling appears to be based on only two wells — GWG4 and
GWG6. Both of these wells are outside of Wetland Restoration Zone A. Furthermore, the
graphs for these two wells included in Appendix B suggest that neither location would have
met the minimum hydroperiod to be considered successful (or jurisdictional) based on
simulated data from the 2011 growing season. This contradicts the interpretation of the
modeling results presented in the Draft Mitigation Plan, Sec. 4.3.2. Please provide
additional information explaining how the site will meet the stated hydroperiod, including
information provided by wells GWG1 and GWG3.
• The Draft Mitigation Plan indicates that the target community is a Piedmont Bottomland
Forest (Shafale and Weakley, 1990), and that the target hydroperiod (performance
standard) is 6.5 %. According to the plan, this target is based on what the modeling
indicates can be achieved, rather than what is appropriate for the target community.
Bottomland forest wetlands should have a higher hydroperiod, ranging between 9% to 25%
of the growing season. Please reassess the proposed hydrology performance standards.
Note that the growing season may be assessed based on soil temperature in accordance
with the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, July 2010), but this will require additional monitoring of soil
temperature.

4. Orignal Response from Julie Cahill, NCEEP, 27 January, 2012:
Due to the significant nature of the USACE posted comments 1/26/2012, EEP is going
to take this document off the Portal and suspend the review process while we work
with the designer to address these comments.
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist,
Regulatory Division

I L D L A D
r N G 1 N E E RING
MEETING NOTES
PROJECT NAME: Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DATE: May 31, 2012
LOCATION: Project Site
TOPIC: USACE Meeting
SUBMITTED BY: Aaron Earley
ATTENDEES:
NAME
GROUP
Todd Tugwell
USACE
Tyler Crumbley
USACE
Steve Kichefski
USACE
Julie Cahill
NCEEP
Mike McDonald
NCEEP
Tracy Stapleton
NCEEP
Melonie Allen
NCEEP
John Hutton
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI)
Aaron Earley
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI)
NOTES:
Attendees walked the site, tested soils, and discussed issues related to wetlands and streams. A
summary of the discussions related to each restoration component of the project, along with
immediate action items, are presented below:
1. Wetland Zone A:
Todd agreed that restoration for Zone A is feasible (preferably at 7.5 %). He said that
USACE will look closely at Zone A during the monitoring period. It was also discussed
that perhaps some data from nearby /similar reference sites be pulled to validate the
suggested performance standards on a target hydroperiod. USACE would like to see the
modeling inputs and outputs for the ditch effects.
ACTION: WEI will revise the model based on effective ditch depth and a restored UT1
(depending on whether the adjacent property owner is agreeable — see note 4).
2. Wetland Zone B:
Based on several factors, Todd determined that restoration is not feasible. Zone B can
be creation at 3:1. Additionally, well #6 should be disregarded as it is installed in a ditch.
ACTION: WEI will look at the topo and determine the grading options to achieve
creation. WEI will discuss these options with EEP and revise the mitigation plan and
construction documents accordingly.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone 704 - 332 -7754 • fax 704 - 332 -3306 • 1430 S. Mint Sheet, 9 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

IL D LA D
r N G 1 N E L RING
3. Crooked Creek:
Attendees agreed that removing cattle, expanding the buffer, and removing invasive
species justifies Enhancement II for Reach A and Reach B.
ACTION: WEI will revise mitigation plan and construction documents to eliminate
proposed in- stream structures and bank grading from Reach A and change Reach e from
preservation to Enhancement 11.
4. UT1:
EEP wants to reconsider restoring UT1 from Highway 218. The hydrologic benefit of UT1
on the wetlands need to be determined. John offered to speak to adjacent property
owner on EEP's behalf.
ACTION: EEP will decide who will approach the adjacent property owner. If he is
agreeable, then WEI will proceed with modeling a restored UT1 with respect to the
wetlands.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone 704 - 332 -7754 • fax 704 - 332 -3306 • 1430 S. Mint Sheet, 9 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203