20181029 Ver 1_eApproval Letter SAW-2018-01162_20200527

Strickland, Bev
From:
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Wednesday, May 27, 2020 3:32 PM
To:
Baumgartner, Tim
Cc:
Bradley Breslow; Wiesner, Paul; Tsomides, Harry; 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.
Subject:
[External] eApproval Letter/ NCDMS Monkey Wall Mitigation Site/ Mitchell Co./
SAW-2018-01162
Attachments:
eApproval Letter -Monkey Wall_SAW-2018-01162.pdf, Draft Mit Plan Comment
Memo -Monkey Wall_SAW-2018-01162.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Mr. Baumgartner,
Attached is the Monkey Wall Mitigation Site Draft Plan approval letter and copies of all comments generated during the
project review. Please note that this letter approves the Draft Mitigation Plan provided that the Final Mitigation Plan
adequately addresses all comments on the attached memo. Please provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan when you
submit the Preconstruction Notice for the NWP 27. If no permit is required to construct the project, please submit a
copy of the Final Mitigation Plan to our office at least 30 days prior to beginning construction. Also, please ensure that a
copy of the Final Mitigation Plan is posted to the NCDMS project documents 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.
Respectfully,
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
BUILDING STRONG

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
May 27, 2020
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Monkey Wall Mitigation Site / Mitchell
Co./ SAW-2018-01162/ NCDMS Project # 100069
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the Monkey Wall Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on April 24, 2020. 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, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached
comment memo, which 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. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. 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 919-554-4884, ext 60.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by
BROWN ING•KlMBERLY• BROWNING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE
DAN I ELLE.1527683510 .1527683510
Date: 2020.05.27 15:26:10-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Harry Tsomides, Paul Wiesner—NCDMS
Brad Breslow—RES

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