20120064 Ver 1_Staff Comments w/ attachments_20130930

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 8:33 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Approval Letter: NCEEP Mitigation Plan- Crooked Creek II / Union County / SAW 2011 -02201 /
EEP# 94687 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Approval Package Crooked Creek 11-SAW 2011- 02201.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: Friday, November 01, 2013 8:32 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; Sollod, Steve; Elliott,
William A SAW; Fuemmeler, Amanda J SAW; Krebs, Rob; bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Cahill, Julie;
Matthews, Kathryn; Emily Jernigan(@fws.gov; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW; Kichefski, Steven L SAW;
Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW
Subject: Approval Letter: NCEEP Mitigation Plan- Crooked Creek II / Union County / SAW 2011-
02201 / EEP# 94687 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Mr. Baumgartner,
Attached is the approval letter for the Crooked Creek #2 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 plan that should be addressed in the Final mitigation 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
Regulatory Division
1

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
ATTENTIONOF: I November, 2013
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Crooked Creek 42 Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW 2011-
02201; EEP IMS 494687
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 Crooked Creek 42 Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 25
September, 2013. 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 prompt 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.AUTRY
.1007509975
`.j Date: 2013.11.01
07:56:56 - 04'00'
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW -RG /Wicker
CESAW- RG- A /Kichefski
NCEEP /Julie Cahill

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
Digitally signed by
CRUMBLEY.TYLER.AU
TRY.1007509975
Date: 2013.11.01
07:57:35 - 04'00'
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