20131295 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20140113

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 12:42 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Foust Creek- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan Review - Foust Creek
Site Stream and Wetland / Alamance County / (SAW- 2012 - 01908) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Comments-Draft Mitigation Plan Review Memo_Foust.pdf
13 -1295
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: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:48 AM
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;
Schaffer, Jeff; Sollod, Steve; bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Matthews, Kathryn;
Emily Jernigan(@fws.gov; Beter, Dale E SAW; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW; fritz.rohde(@noaa.gov;
Sugg, Perry; Gibby, Jean B SAW; Williams, Andrew E SAW; Basinger, Corey
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: Foust Creek- Intent to Approve with Comments- NCEEP Mitigation Portal Plan Review -
Foust Creek Site Stream and Wetland / Alamance County / (SAW- 2012 - 01908) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All,
The 30 -day comment review period for the Hopewell Stream Mitigation Site (SAW 2012 -
01908)(EEP# 95715), closed on 11 January, 2014. 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 28 January, 2014 *. 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.
1

*This approval will be contingent upon NCEEP /Wildlands obtaining a 7D for the wetland areas
proposed for credit generation. The letter will also transmit all comments generated during
the review process to NCEEP, and indicate what comments must be 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 13 January, 2014
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Foust Creek- 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: Foust Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Alamance County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01908
NCEEP #: 95715
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 11 January, 2014
1. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 02 January, 2014:
• Minutes from a site visit on 12/11/12 indicate that a jd was necessary for the wetlands
and UT1. The mitigation plan indicates that a jd request was submitted to the USACE
but there is no indication that the USACE has determined that the wetland delineation
as proposed was accurate. Therefore a determination of wetland rehabilitation versus
wetland re- establishment and appropriate credit amounts cannot be accurately
reviewed /evaluated. Also, the minutes indicate that there was no flow at the upper end
of UT1 and a jd was necessary
• Assuming the jd confirms UT1 is jurisdictional, the plan proposes to restore this feature
using a P1 approach. As has been previously noted, constructing a new channel at a
higher elevation for the purpose of reconnecting the stream to its original floodplain has
the potential to remove the intermittent connection of the stream and groundwater,
eliminating base flow and creating an ephemeral feature. The proposed restoration of
UT1 should include installation of two groundwater monitoring wells within the thalweg
of the channel. One well should be located near the upper end of UT1, and the other
should be installed near the lower end of the reach. The wells should be equipped with
continuous -read gauges that will be able to monitor groundwater levels and
demonstrate that the restored feature exhibits base flow for at least some portion of
the year (most likely in the winter /early spring) during a year with normal rainfall

conditions. Well data should be provided annually in monitoring reports to
demonstrate that intermittent aquatic function has been maintained in the restored
channel.
• American holly and ironwood were identified at most of the vegetative reference sites
and are not noted in the planting plan. These understory species should be added.
2. T. Crumbley, 10 January, 2014:
• As noted by NCDWR's comments and the field discussion held on 11 December, 2012:
There is concern from the NCIRT on the possibility of raising the bed elevation of
intermittent streams (particularly UT1) above the water table thereby degrading it from
intermittent /jurisdictional status to ephemeral.
• There is also concern that all of the areas identified as wetland restoration currently
contain jurisdictional wetlands and may be more appropriately categorized as
Enhancement, rather than restoration. Although this has been accounted for in the
Draft mitigation plan, a finalized jurisdictional determination will be required in the Final
mitigation plan to determine accurate credit potentials. The District will not approve
the Final mitigation plan and credit totals, or verify usage of a NWP until the wetland
boundaries have been verified by USACE Field Office staff.
/s/
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist,
Regulatory Division