20181096 Ver 1_DWR comments Draft MP_20190717

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:56 AM
To: Steve Kichefski
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B; Leslie, Andrea J
Subject: [External] comments on the Hair Sheep Draft Mitigation Plan (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: DWR comments on the Hair Sheep Draft Mitigation Plan -May 28, 2019.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hey Steve
I don't have a lot of time to review this one, but I do have a few comments to pass on since the deadline was May 16.
1. Section 7.0: the stream hydrologic performance of 30 -days continuous flow is only applicable to intermittent streams.
2. Section 12.4: the credit release schedule is based on the DMS schedule. This site should use the Bank Credit Release
Template.
3. A step pool and BMP (RSC) is planned on Trib 1. Please ensure that the BMP is not in jurisdictional waters, and that
since it's within the easement boundary that any necessary maintenance is discussed in the plan, if any is required.
4. Please address how existing pasture grasses will be treated within the buffer for vegetation establishment.
5. Please ensure that wetland monitoring gauges are installed in existing wetlands (WA, WB, WC) where stream
restoration will bisect these wetlands to ensure that functional loss does not occur. At least one veg plot should be
placed in this area.
6. Some concern about Trib 2-1 being more wetland like. I'd like to see a statement in the performance standards
regarding maintaining jurisdictional stream features.
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 (r)
-----Original Message -----
From: Haupt, Mac [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 5:01 PM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Steven.L.Kichefski @usace.army.mil>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J
<[e-mail]>

Subject: [Non-DoD Source] DWR comments on the Hair Sheep Draft Mitigation Plan
Steve,
DWR comments are attached...
Thanks,
Mac Haupt, LSS
Stream & Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
"Please note my phone number has changed"
Office: 919 707-3632
Mobile: [phone]
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Please deliver packages to office 942-D
512 N. Salisbury Street, Suite 942-P, Raleigh, NC 27604
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

DWR comments on the Hair Sheep Draft Mitigation Plan
May 28, 2019
1. Section 6.4- Reach T2- DWR will require a couple of gauges be installed in the areas where the
stream channel is being constructed through the wetlands. Once the Design Sheets are
reviewed there will be a recommendation for their placement.
2. DWR likes that there are no crossings on this mitigation site.
3. Section 7.0 Performance Standards- the stream 30 -day flow requirement pertains to
intermittent streams only.
4. Table 11- please be sure to add the wetland hydrologic monitoring to this Table.
5. Design Sheets- sheet 6, in the future please set up your design sheets with the plan view on top
of the profile view so we can compare the bed form changes with the stationing. On the current
design sheets, for example sheet 7, we cannot tell exactly where station 26+00 starts, and
where is the midpoint or 26+50 defined on the sheet? DWR will need to see some revised or
clarified stationing in order to recommend placement of wetland monitoring gauges.
6. Design sheet 7- DWR recommends a minimum of 10 feet of floodplain bench behind the
meander bends for Reach T2.
7. DWR would like to emphasize that in the future, this type of project may not be approved given
the total reach lengths and project fragmentation.