20180795 Ver 1_eApproval Letter SAW-2018-01170_20191112

Strickland, Bev
From:
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 12, 2019 3:41 PM
To:
Baumgartner, Tim
Cc:
[e-mail]; Ray Holz; Dow, Jeremiah J; Bowers, Todd; Tugwell,
Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.;
Homewood, Sue; Merritt, Katie; [e-mail]; David.E.Bailey2
@usace.army.mil; Munzer, Olivia; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA);
McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:
[External] eApproval Letter NCDMS Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Site/
Rockingham Co/ SAW-2018-01170
Attachments:
Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo -Slingshot Creek_2018-01170.pdf; eApproval
Letter -Slingshot Creek_2018-01170.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Flag for 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]>
Mr. Baumgartner,
Attached is the Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Draft Mitigation 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 Pre -Construction 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.
Thanks,
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: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 4:00 PM
To: [e-mail]; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
sue. [e-mail]; Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Bailey, David E

CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>;
Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: worth@ restorationsystems.com; Ray Holz <[e-mail]>; Schaffer, Jeff
<[e-mail]>; Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>; Baumgartner, Tim
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Notice of Intent to Approve/ NCDMS Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Site/ Rockingham Co/ SAW-2018-
01170
Good afternoon,
We have completed our review of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the NCDMS Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site (SAW-2018-01170). Please see the attached memo, which includes all NCIRT comments that were
received during the review process.
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
November 12, 2019). 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 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)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
November 12, 2019
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Slingshot Creek Mitigation Site /
Rockingham County / SAW-2018-01170/ NCDMS Project # 100058
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 Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on September 25, 2019. 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,
BROWN ING.KIMBERLY Dlgltallyslgnedby
DANIELLE.152768351 BROWN ING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE.
1527683510
0 Date: 2019.11.12 15:37:30-05'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Jeremiah Dow— NCDMS
Ray Holz, Worth Creech—RS

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
October 28, 2019
SUBJECT: Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland 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: Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Site, Rockingham County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2018-01170
NCDMS #: 100058
30-Day Comment Deadline: September 25, 2019
DWR Comments, Mac Haupt and Erin Davis:
1. This site is in the Jordan Lake watershed, are there any plans to pursue riparian buffer or nutrient offset
strategy?
2. The number of crossings for the size of the site is a negative aspect of this site. Is there any way at least
one crossing could be removed?
3. Section 3.5- DWR noted that there is only one soil profile boring listed in the Appendix. Given that this
site has wetland restoration credit, a much more thorough soil characterization will need to occur before
DWR will approve the proposed wetlands in this mitigation plan. During the site visit, DWR field notes
stated that many of our soil cores did not see lower chromas required for hydric soils.
4. Section 8.1.1- Outfall Structures- DWR does not support the use of the Terracell drop structure. DWR
prefers the utilization of natural materials in the channel bed. Moreover, DWR does not believe the slope
change is so drastic that the artificial structure is warranted.
5. Section 8.3- Wetland Restoration — the plan states that, "...the construction of ephemeral pools will add
an important component to groundwater restoration activities. These activities will result in the restoration
of 1.02 acres of jurisdictional ....riverine wetlands." DWR would like to stress that if ephemeral pools
are counted as wetland restoration then they will need to be constructed so that there is periodic drying.
6. Table 14 Planting Plan- DWR is recommending a cap of 5% in the planting of Green Ash due to the green
ash borer.
7. Table 16- Monitoring Table-DWR requires a stream gauge on UT3 in the upper third of the reach.
8. Table 16- DWR likes the fact that benthic macroinvertebrates will be monitored.
9. From a landscape position standpoint, DWR would rather not have mitigation sites draining (in close
proximity) into ponds or lakes.
10. Figure 5B- there are areas which appear to be in green where the current channel exists. Are these areas
meant to be proposed for wetland restoration credit? If these areas are proposed for wetland credit, DWR
believes restoration credit may not be appropriate.

11. DWR notes that there were no photos of the site in the mitigation plan. It is often beneficial in the review
of the document to have the photos, especially if it has been awhile since the site visit. In addition, DWR
would like to see photos associated with the cross sections (Appendix B) if at all possible.
12. Design sheet 2C- shows an engineered riffle with rip rap being placed on the bank slope. DWR does not
approve of rip rap being placed on the banks.
13. Design sheet 4- DWR needs to see a scale on these sheets. Also, the thick dashed black line, is that limits
of disturbance? DWR prefers that significant markings on the plan view be clearly labeled.
14. Design sheet 8- DWR does not believe the utilization of a Terracell structure is warranted when the rest
of the project was using log cross vanes.
15. Design sheet E2- What activities will be done to return the areas utilized as haul roads back to natural
conditions?
16. What percentage of this project has less than 50 foot buffers?
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. The correct USACE Action ID is SAW-2018-01170. Please correct the cover page.
2. Please depict photo points/digital image stations on Figures 10. If the fixed cross-section locations are to
be used, please describe that in the text in section 7.1.
3. Section 8.3- Wetland Restoration — The inclusion of ephemeral/vernal pools is acceptable, and should be
8-14" depressions that dry up yearly so that predatory species cannot colonize.
a. This section also discusses filling drainage ditches. If ditches are to be filled, please show these
areas on the construction plans, and the length of the ditch plug.
4. It would be beneficial to add some coarse woody debris to the depressional areas in the buffers and
throughout the adjacent wetlands for habitat, and to help store sediment, increase water
storage/infiltration, and absorb water energy during overbank events.
Please discuss how fescue will be treated within the buffer establishment area.
6. UT3- should have a flow gauge in the upper third of the reach.
7. Section 7.0- Potential constraints... the last sentence is unclear.
8. Table 1- Are additional credits for macroinvertebrate sampling being sought? If so, please clarify this
table.
9. Table 16- Will fixed photo points be monitored annually? If so, please indicate if they will be at all cross -
sections, or depict on monitoring map.
10. Table 17 Success Criteria —Streams, please add a statement (regarding UT3) at least 30-days continuous
surface water flow for intermittent streams.
11. Stream restoration will bisect existing wetlands where Slingshot Creek intersects with GA Wetland, and
where UT intersects with GE Wetland. At least one wetland gauge should be installed in wetland GE to
ensure no functional loss.
12. Figure 3 in the JD —All streams are referred to as Troublesome Creek. Isn't this Slingshot Creek? Was
this what it was called when proposed as a bank site? Please use consistent labeling throughout the review
period, and it's especially important for the PCN to track impacts.
13. When submitting the PCN, please include an estimate of the number of trees, or acres, to be cleared for
the NLEB 4(d) Rule.
14. Table 14--Please confirm that one target community is being proposed for the entire Project Site (stream
side, wetland, and upland areas). If multiple planting zones are proposed, please show zones on a
figure/design sheet and reference in the planting table.
BROWNINGNM Digitally signed by
BROWN INGXlMBERLY.DANI
BERLY.DANIELLE ELLE.1527683510
Date: 2019.10.28 15:43:52
.1527683510-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division