FW: DWR comments on the Revised Three Creeks Draft Mitigation Plan

Baker, Caroline D
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:40 AM
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: DWR comments on the Revised Three Creeks Draft Mitigation Plan
Laserfiche Upload: email
DWR#: 20200002
Doc Date: 3/17
Doc Type: Mitigation — Mitigation Information
Doc Name: General topic of email title
Thanks,
Sue Homewood (she/her/hers)
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Sue. Homewood(@ncdenr.2ov
336 813 1863 mobile
919-707-3679 office *new*
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 2:23 PM
To: Davis, Erin B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(US) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Hamstead, Byron A
<byro n—ha mstead @fws.gov>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: DWR comments on the Revised Three Creeks Draft Mitigation Plan
Folks,
Folks had a lot of good comments, some of the comments below are the one's I believe were not addressed adequately:
1. A couple of folks commented on the changing watershed. I believe there was verbiage in the mit plan which stated
that they did not believe significant changes would occur in the near future. However, on page 4 it is stated, "The
project area has seen a 20-23% population growth since 1995... and expects a 9.2% increase from 2020 to

2030".Given the project's location very close to the Triad, DWR believes there will be sufficient changes to the
project's watershed.
2. In Section 8.5.2 it was stated that a Sediment Transport Capacity assessment was not performed because of the
stability of the watershed. DWR believes that because this is an alluvial channel with a sand bed stream and the
likelihood of a changing watershed that a sediment capacity analysis should have been performed.
3. DWR concurs with COE's statement (Kim's comment #2)concerning the parallel streams.
4. The site proposes significant areas of wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation and enhancement; therefore, the
plan should include significant hydric soil investigations to support the wetland proposals. The soil report does not
provide enough information to adequately support the proposals given. The report states that there 75 soil borings
but only 5 borings were included with profiles. Each boring should either have a profile or give the wetland
indicator status, or depth to hydric indicator. DWR recommends the provider obtain at least 10 detailed soil
profiles with wetland indicator status (e.g., F3) on each wetland polygon (1-5).
Thanks,
Mac