20181031 Ver 1_Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Round Hill Branch Mitigation Site/ SAW-2018-01168/ Buncombe County_20220725

Hamilton, Ryan
From:Davis, Erin B
Sent:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 12:24 PM
To:Hamilton, Ryan
Subject:FW: \[External\] RE: Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Round Hill Branch
Mitigation Site/ SAW-2018-01168/ Buncombe County
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Laserfiche Upload: Email
DWR#: 20181031 v.1
Doc Date: 7/25/22
Doc Type: Mitigation Information
Doc Name: Same as email subject

From: Adam Spiller <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:16 AM
To: Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>;
Haywood, Casey M CIV MVP <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>;
Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Youngman, Holland J
<[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Fennel, Tommy E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Harmon, Beth
<[e-mail]>; Stanfill, Jim <[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>;
Tommy Seelinger <[e-mail]>; Kevin O'Briant <[e-mail]>; Alex French
<[e-mail]>; Kristin Knight-Meng <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] RE: Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Round Hill Branch Mitigation Site/ SAW-2018-01168/
Buncombe County

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Good morning Kim,

Thanks for providing these comments, we appreciate the feedback. Most of this will be addressed in the MY01 report.
Please see the responses in blue below.

Give me a shout if there are any additional questions.

Thanks!
-adam

Adam Spiller
Regional Practice Leader – Natural Resources

KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA
4505 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27609
[e-mail]
1

o: 919.278.2514 | m: 919.475.3696
www.kci.com

From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 1:51 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV MVP <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Youngman, Holland J
<[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Fennel, Tommy E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Adam Spiller <[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Round Hill Branch Mitigation Site/ SAW-2018-01168/ Buncombe County

Good afternoon Paul,

The 15-Day As-Built/MY0 review for the Round Hill Branch Mitigation Site (SAW-2018-01168) ended June 25, 2022. This
review was done in accordance with Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. All comments received from the
NCIRT are incorporated in the email below. Please address IRT concerns in the MY1 Report. There were no objections to
issuing the initial (30% ) credit release of 642.600 SMUs. Please find attached the current signed ledger. The IRT is not
requesting a site visit at this time.

USACE Comments, Kim Isenhour:
1. What is the total area of floodplain scour that you refer to as vernal pools that enhance ecological function to
the site? Will these areas be planted with herbaceous cover to prevent further scouring, and will these areas be
re-planted with woody species as described in the final mitigation plan?
We don’t have an exact measurement of the scour area but it is less than 0.01 acres. It is anticipated that the
herbaceous plants currently growing in the area will colonize this area before the end of the first growing season.
Because the site had not yet been planted at the time of this scour event, no woody stems were damaged during the
event and no re-plant is currently planned.
2. Please inform the IRT once the fencing encroachments have been resolved.
The IRT will be notified once these encroachments are resolved.
3. Although the snow-covered photos are aesthetically pleasing, please provide photos that show the condition of
the buffer and stream banks in future reports.
While we typically try to avoid doing fieldwork in the snow, it was unavoidable in this case. We will make an effort to
avoid this for future projects and will provide supplemental photos for MY01. A video of a drone flight of the site, taken
in November 2021 can be found here: https://youtu.be/4AINxWWJGXo
4. Please provide an additional photo for the crossing where photo point 1 is located, from the perspective of
looking upstream at the crossing (position yourself near STA 14+00). Both photos of this crossing show the gates
open, so livestock access to the ford crossing is a concern.
An additional photo point will be added starting with MY01.

NCDWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. DWR was glad that the two easement dispute areas were identified early. We encourage making every effort to
resolve these issues prior to the 2023 credit release meeting.
2. DWR requests photos of the floodplain scour area and the drainage swale feature be included in the MY1 report.
These will be included in the MY01 report.
3. Please show all existing wetland areas within the project easement on future CCPV figures.
These areas will be included in the MY01 CCPV.
2

4. Given that the as-built survey was performed in May 2021 and long. profile surveyed in August 2021, it would’ve
been helpful to include supplemental non-snow covered project photos in the MY0 report. Please make a note for
future projects.
See response to USACE comment 3 above.
5. DWR appreciated that DMS’ site visit comments (and KCI’s responses) were included for this review.
DWR is ok with the proposed credit release. No site visit requested.

USEPA Comments, Todd Bowers:

* There were a few, relatively minor deviations from the original design plans; primarily these were due to
adjustments due to bedrock encountered during construction.
* Many planted species were not identified during vegetation monitoring due to monitoring during dormancy.
This resulted in fewer species than planted noted on some of the veg plots. No comment as this will be corrected in the
coming MY survey.
* No adaptive management plan needed at this time.
* No issues of conservation easement encroachment however there are two areas where fencing and
conservation easement boundaries are being actively addressed with the adjoining landowners.
* I recommend adding the pool adjustments made (due to bedrock) to the longitudinal profile for comparison of
design and actual. Noted locations at T1 (sta.10375), and missing pools on RHB (stas. 1080, 1290 and 1340).
* I noted a slight discrepancy in the stream credits calculated in Table 1. The As-Built length of streams is 2,242
feet and the length of streams removed for credit due to crossings is 114 feet. This results in a final credit amount of
2,128 cool SMUs. It appears that the stream segments removed from credit are tallied from the Original Mitigation Plan
lengths (2,256 – 114 = 2,142). Recommend KCI take another look at these totals and correct if necessary.
Credit lengths are generally calculated using the approved mitigation plan lengths unless there is significant deviation
found during the as-built survey.

Overall, I am very satisfied with the report and the work that KCI has completed at the site. Having not been able to visit
this location, I really appreciated the detailed ground-level stream and veg plot photos to illustrate the amount of work
implemented. I recommend the appropriate credit release (Milestone 2) for cool stream mitigation units for this
monitoring milestone. I have no other substantial comments at this time.

Please reach out with any questions.
Respectfully,
Kim

Kim (Browning) Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers l 919.946.5107

3