20181029 Ver 1_USACE Notice of Intent to Approve SAW-2018-01162_20200508

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 12:22 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B; Kim Browning;
Bowers, Todd; Byron Hamstead ([e-mail]); Leslie, Andrea J;
McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Wilson, Travis W.
Cc: Tsomides, Harry; Wiesner, Paul; Baumgartner, Tim; Bradley Breslow
Subject: [External] Notice of Intent to Approve/ NCDMS Monkey Wall Mitigation Site/ Mitchell
Co./ SAW-2018-01162
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo -Monkey Wall_SAW-2018-01162.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Happy Friday,
We have completed our review of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the NCDMS Monkey Wall Mitigation Project
(SAW-2018-01062). Please see the attached memo, which includes all NCIRT comments that were submitted
site during the review process along with additional comments provided by Wilmington District staff following
our review.
We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period, and determined that the concerns
raised are generally minor and can be addressed in the final mitigation plan. Accordingly, it is our intent to
approve this Draft Mitigation Plan (contingent upon the attached comments being addressed in the Final
Mitigation Plan) unless a member of the NCIRT initiates the Dispute Resolution Process, as 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 May 22, 2020). Please notify me if you
intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.
Provided that we do not receive any objections, we will provide an approval letter to NCDMS at the conclusion
of the 15-day Dispute Resolution window. This approval will also transmit all comments generated during the
review process to NCDMS, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan to be submitted with the
Preconstruction Notification Application for NWP 27. All NCIRT members will receive a copy of the approval
letter and all comments for your records.
Thank you for your participation.
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105 1 Wake Forest, NC 27587 1 919.554.4884 x60

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Browning
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
May 8, 2020
SUBJECT: Monkey Wall Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received during 30-day comment period in accordance
with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule in response to the Notice of NCDMS Mitigation Plan
Review.
NCDMS Project Name: Monkey Wall Mitigation Site, Mitchell County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2018-01162
NCDMS #: 100069
30-Day Comment Deadline: April 24, 2020
DWR Comments, Mac Haupt:
1. DWR appreciates the review from DMS staff prior to IRT review. In this case there seemed to
be quite a few comments. DWR will follow up on a few of their comments and RES's responses:
a. Comment #3- DWR is concerned about moving the stream credit above the JD origin. As
will be stated several times, the main concern about this project will be maintenance of
appropriate flow.
b. Comment #11 and comment #15- one response states that cattle will be removed so no
fencing is needed while comment #15 states that cattle have the ability to access this
reach but will not because it is steep. If any cattle are adjacent to the easement the
project needs to be fenced.
c. Comment # 33- DWR is also concerned with the wetlands adjacent to the stream
channels constructed, both in terms of wetland drainage (more about that later) and
maintenance of appropriate channel characteristics.
d. Comment #34- DWR has noted recently on older projects (10-15 years old) the continued
presence of fescue. DWR recommends treating the fescue before planting the trees.
e. Plan sheet comment-2nd bullet- DWR is also concerned about the potential for piping and
loss of channel stability if the log cascade structures are not installed properly.
2. The central issue at this site will be flow. Table 6 shows the DWR stream determination scores,
and while all the reaches made intermittent, they just made it.
3. Section 7- Mitigation Workplan- Reach G2- DWR does not think the upper portion of reach G2
will have the appropriate flow or show the relevant channel characteristics. DWR believes there
will be at least 300 linear feet of stream credit at risk on this reach.
4. Figure 12- DWR likes the planned wetland monitoring gauge in wetland WA.

5. Design sheet 6- DWR believes it will be very important to properly fill and pack the relict channel
since it is adjacent to the newly constructed channel. In addition, the old channel is downslope
from the wetlands and if the channel is not filled correctly, groundwater will be lost through this
relic channel and it will essentially be acting like a ditch and drain the adjacent wetlands.
6. Design sheet 7- this is the reach that DWR believes is most vulnerable to losing flow. Similar to
the comment above, DWR believes it is critical to fill the relic "channel" correctly or it may cause
flow to enter the relic channel and thereby reduce flow to a channel that is already intermittent
at best.
7. Design sheet P1- please limit the Ash planting percentage to 5%. In addition, to make up for
the 10% needed DWR recommends that the tree species selected is an appropriate mountain
species, something other than Tulip poplar or Sycamore.
8. Design sheet D3- in order to alleviate problems of the previous two comments, DWR strongly
recommends closely adhering to 12 inch compacted lifts shown in the channel backfill detail.
NCWRC Comments. Andrea Leslie:
1. There are Brown Trout in Big Rock Creek, and in -stream activities should be avoided during the
Brown Trout moratorium (October 15 — April 15).
2. There is a robust Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, US Federal Species of
Concern, NC Special Concern) population in Big Rock Creek. In order to minimize impacts from
sedimentation to this population, it is extremely important that excellent erosion and sediment
control be practiced on -site.
3. We recommend supplementing the woody species planting list with some additional understory
species.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Reach G2: The formation of stream channel characteristics and flow is a concern in the upper
section of this reach being daylighted. Please revise Section 8.1.2 performance standard to
include maintaining an OHWM and that the channel will be jurisdictional at the end of the 7-year
monitoring period. A minimum of 30-days flow must be documented every year of the monitoring
period.
a. Please move the flow gauge closer to the top of this reach. It is also advisable to have
photos/video footage to document flow.
2. When submitting the PCN, please include an estimate of the number of trees, or acres, to be
cleared for the NLEB 4(d) Rule.
3. Please place a veg plot in the planted area of WA, random is fine.
a. Will FACW species be planted in this area since it was not identified as a different
planning zone?
4. Tables 1 and 16: footnote indicates that Section 7.7 contains explanation of credit adjustments.
I believe this should read Section 7.4.
5. Section 7.5: The area under the utility easement should receive a credit reduction using the
Buffer Credit Calculator, despite the fact that these areas will be protected in an easement, the
areas will not be maintained in a permanent buffer due to utility maintenance/access, plus these
areas are designed with ford crossings, which are deductions using the Calculator. Please revise
the credit calculator and associated asset tables.
6. Sections 3.2.4 and 9.5 do not address invasive species. Please update accordingly and ensure
that invasives are reported each year in the plot data.
7. Section 3.3: With pastures directly east and west of the project, and no assurance that
Environmental Banc & Exchange will be the perpetual landowner of the property surrounding
the easement, there is concern that future landowners may use the existing pastures adjacent
to the CE for cattle. Livestock exclusion should be considered in future risks and uncertainties
since the easement boundary is not being fenced.

8. Section 3.4.2: Should this read "...are classified as A/B-type... ?"
9. Section 5: the first paragraph has fragmented sentences. Please correct
10. Section 5.2: Other potential items to discuss in this section is the potential for road widening,
maintenance along the southwest side of the easement; the effect of utility line maintenance on
the riparian buffer; invasive species; adjacent landowner encroachments; hydrologic trespass
near WA.
11. With the small watersheds, flow is a concern for this project, especially near the upper reaches
that appear to be an old landslide area. Documentation of flow will be closely monitored for this
project.
12. Section 7.2.1: Sweetgum and red maple will not be counted towards vegetative success. It is
anticipated they will occur naturally because they are high dispersal species.
a. Any planting that occurs after April 30 will likely not count towards a full year of vegetative
monitoring.
b. Please reduce the amount of Ash planted to less than 5%.
13. Section 7.2.2: Please confirm that fescue will be treated prior to planting.
14. Section 7.3: Areas where existing stream channels are abandoned and partially filled and left for
habitat diversity and flood storage: Please ensure these areas are designed so that they are not
inundated year-round and should ideally dry up toward the end of spring to ensure that predatory
fish species do not live within the pools. The maximum depth of ephemeral pools should typically
be between 8 and 14 inches, with very gradual and wide side slopes to promote easy access by
desired species. These areas should not be so numerous that they leave gaps in the tree
canopy.
15. Section 8.1.4: Please clarify if permanent cross section will be used for the digital image stations,
or show photo points on Figure 12.
16. Section 8.1.3: The ER should be no less than 1.4 for B channels and 2.2 for C/E channels.
Please update Table 17 as necessary.
BROWNING.KIMB Digitally signed by
BROWN INGXIMBERLY.DANI
ERLY.DANIELLE.1 ELLE.1527683510
527683510 Date: 2020.05.0812:11:05
-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division