20181033 Ver 1_USACE Notice of Intent to Approve_20190905

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 3:14 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B;
Wilson, Travis W.; Merritt, Katie; Byron Hamstead; Bowers, Todd; Jones, M Scott (Scott)
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Steve Kichefski; Brown, David W CIV USARMY CESAW
(US); Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); Leslie, Andrea J; Price, Zan (George)
Cc: Wiesner, Paul; Furr, Benjamin; Smith, Christopher; Smith, Ryan
([e-mail]); Baumgartner, Tim
Subject: [External] Notice of Intent to Approve / NCDMS Owen Farms Stream and Wetland /
Transylvania County / SAW-2018-01165 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo -Owen Farms_2018-01165.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
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
Good afternoon,
We have completed our review of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the NCDMS Owen Farms Mitigation Project (SAW-2018-
01165). 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
September 20, 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)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

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
September 5, 2019
SUBJECT: Owen Farms 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: Owen Farms Site, Transylvania County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2018-01165
Q nyZA I I 11111
30-Day Comment Deadline: August 25, 2019
NCWRC, Andrea Leslie:
1. We appreciate the provider's consideration of NCWRC's recommendations made in the field and via
email earlier in 2019. One of these recommendations is to rescue any stranded aquatic animals (including
fish, salamanders, and crayfish) in sections of channel that will be abandoned. It is important that this
rescue operation be performed as soon as the flows are diverted from the old channel, and animals should
be netted, placed into a bucket, and transported downstream of the impact area.
2. If hellbenders are seen on site, place into a bucket and transport downstream of the project area. Please
notify Lori Williams ([e-mail]) and Andrea Leslie ([e-mail]) if
hellbenders are seen and/or moved.
3. The 130 ft section of the West Fork French Broad River that will be under a powerline will have pattern,
profile, and dimension restored, but the plan notes that this will not be planted. We ask that at a minimum,
the banks be planted with livestakes so that a narrow shrubby buffer can be established. This should help
ensure longer term stability of this section of channel.
4. We ask that the streamside woody species list be expanded to include tree and shrub species seen on site
and just upstream/downstream of the project — this would include rhododendron, dog hobble, and other
species. Do not include black walnut, however.
5. Please inform Andrea Leslie at least 2 weeks before project construction begins.

DWR Comments, Mac Haupt and Erin Davis:
1. HDR's response to the DMS comment letter included a response to Appendix J which was concerning
Buffer calculations. DWR would like to see the spreadsheet table showing the footage above the minimum
and the footage below the required. In addition, DWR would like to know what is the percentage of the
buffers on site that are less than the minimum.
2. One of the issues regarding this site will be the appropriate ratios for several of the enhancement reaches.
Especially since Table 3 shows three of these reaches with Overall NCSAM ratings of High (UT I, UT2a,
and UT6). While UT6 is preservation, the other reaches are proposed enhancement reaches and some
discussion of appropriate ratios will follow in other DWR comments later in this document.
3. DWR does not recall UT3 from the site visit, but given the fact this reach originates from a wetland
spring/seep, the provider should be warned that constructing single thread channels in and from these
areas have shown a propensity for evolving into wetlands versus showing channel -like features.
4. Section 5.6- DWR and the IRT take notice when significant grading is planned for wetland re-
establishment or rehabilitation. While the plan states that spoil is to be removed at varying depths (3 to
11 inches), any grading of 12 inches or more will result in the wetland approach being classified as
creation.
5. Section 5.8- DWR suggests that the provider add verbiage that states some of the wetland restoration areas
which may exhibit a Bog complex may have more herbaceous vegetation that may persist through the
monitoring period. However, DWR would like to emphasize that these areas should be kept to a minimum.
6. Table 13- DWR and the IRT are recommending that all Ash species be removed from planting plans
because of the Emerald Ash Borer.
7. Section 6.1- The 30-day flow requirement is for intermittent streams only. Perennial streams are expected
to have near continuous flow.
8. Section 6.3- the wetland performance criterion should be 12% based on the soil borings from the Licensed
Soil Scientist. While the site may be mapped as Rosman (which is not a hydric soil series), the borings
showed a hydric soil with the associated taxonomic subgroup (Fluvaquentic Humaquept) which
corresponds to the Ela soil series in the October 2016 Mitigation Update. Please update Table 14 to reflect
this required change.
9. Table 15- DWR will be recommending the addition of 3 groundwater wetland gauges and we will specify
the location when the Design sheets are reviewed. This table will need to reflect the change in number of
gauges.
10. DWR is very concerned about the 15 foot minimum benches proposed for many sections of the West Fork
of the French Broad. DWR noted but does not agree with the response letter to DMS regarding this matter.
DWR strongly recommends for a stream of this drainage area that the floodplain benches be at least 2
times bankfull width. Particularly of interest are the bench widths on the meander bends where much of
the flow energy vectors are directed.
11. Design sheet 2D- DWR is concerned with the Floodplain Interceptor typical. Basically this looks like a
rip rapped stream bank. DWR will need to know where these are planned for, or where the designer thinks
they may occur. Typically, we do not allow stream credit where banks are total rip rap.
12. Design sheet 5: DWR is concerned about several issues on this sheet:
a. The bench widths are not adequate for the meander bend at station 20+00. Even though there is
channel fill on the inside of the bend with presumably a wider bench, the energy vectors from the
flow are still directed primarily at the outer bend, especially the lower third of the meander bend.
b. In addition to the above, the UT5 confluence is located at the lower end of the meander bend and
appears to be stepped down to the riffle. DWR believes this portion of UT5 is at a high risk for
stability.
c. UT4 also has its confluence in virtually the same area. Does the Designer believe there is enough
of a riffle to dissipate the energy from the two confluences in addition to West Fork of the French
Broad as well?

d. To further exacerbate the above, a wetland is adjacent to the streambank on stream left just below
the confluence of the two aforementioned tributaries. The wetland drainage toward the streambank
will put lateral hydrologic pressure on the streambank and likely result in increased risk for
streambank stability.
e. We looked for but could not find the profile representation of the lower end of UT5 where it has
its confluence with the main stem. Was this included in the design sheets?
13. Design sheet 6- the bench widths are not adequate in the areas near station 28+25 to the next cross vane.
14. Design sheet I I- DWR recommends an additional wetland gauge be placed on stream right (20 feet
beyond the bench cut, dotted line?) at station 16+00.
15. DWR recommends another gauge in W3 below the powerline.
16. Design sheet 12- DWR recommends an additional wetland gauge be placed on stream right at
approximately station 10+75.
17. Stream reach ratios: DWR has the following recommendations regarding the appropriate ratios on the
following stream reaches:
a. UT1- DWR believes this tributary should be at least a 4:1 ratio if not higher. As you may recall,
this is the tributary where we had a lot of discussion regarding the initially proposed 2.5:1 ratio.
Our recommendation is based on the existing vegetation (mostly vegetated overstory), lack of a
minimum required buffer, and minimal impact from cattle, and an Overall High rating from the
NCSAM assessment.
b. UT2A- this reach was ranked as an Overall High by your NCSAM assessment. Given that the
reach is wooded with perhaps moderate cattle impact, DWR recommends a ratio of 3:1.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. The USACE ID for the cover page is SAW-2018-01165.
2. Please change the colors of the stream preservation and Enhancement II (2:1) on figure 17. It's very
difficult to discern the difference between the two shades of green.
3. It's noted that there are several crossings, both culverts and fords. Please include who will be responsible
for the culvert maintenance in the monitoring section, and how cattle will be excluded from these
crossings.
4. There are several reaches of stream restoration proposed that will impact existing wetlands. Please
describe how you will ensure that no functional loss/loss of waters occurs. Please include wetland gauge
data in the monitoring reports annually.
5. 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.
6. Please depict photo points/digital image stations on Figures 11. If the fixed cross-section locations are to
be used, please describe that in the text.
7. Please discuss how fescue will be treated in conjunction with buffer establishment.
8. UT4A: The majority of this reach (about 400 LF) will only have fencing and possible supplemental
planting, while the bottom 71 LF of this reach will require channel work to tie into UT4. 3.5:1 is more
appropriate for the 400' reach, and 1.5:1 is acceptable for the 71' at the confluence.
9. UT2A, UT2B, UT2 upstream of the crossing, UT7B: These areas are more appropriate for 3.5:1 or 4:1
due to some existing buffer which will require only supplemental planting and cattle exclusion.
10. Section 5.6.1: Please specify the amount of spoil that will be removed from W5 to ensure that this area is
appropriate for wetland re-establishment rather than wetland creation. Typically any removal over 12"
garners a 3:1 ratio.
11. Please explain what you plan to stabilize the banks/floodplain with in restoration areas that fall under the
powerline easement.
12. Please include an estimate of trees to be cleared in the PCN in relation to NLEB habitat.
13. Credit Release: NCDMS has recently requested that all previously mentioned As -Built reports will now
be referred to as Record Drawing. Please verify this with DMS and correct as advised.

14. UT 1: Please specify how much of this reach doesn't meet the minimum buffer width, and specify of
overall buffers on site that do not meet the minimum width exceed 5% of the total easement.
15. Section 6.1, Stream Dimension: The 20% variance over as -built conditions is only applicable to individual
bank pin measurements in the guidance. Bankf it cross -sectional area must not increase by more than 15%
over the duration of the monitoring period.
a. Please remove the statement "Therefore, more leeway on pool section geometry is expected."
16. Crossings shown on UT 1 and UT2A seem like they could potentially be moved to the top of the reach and
outside the easement. Please justify current placement. These two reaches also scored high on NCSAM,
please justify the EII ratio proposed aside from cattle exclusion.
17. Section 6.1, Hydraulics: 30-days consecutive flow is only applicable to intermittent streams.
18. Section 6.2: Please remove the statement "Or a species included in the Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina descriptions for proposed vegetative communities at the site." NCIRT
2016 guidance should be used.
a. Any corrective measures or remediation proposal should be proposed to the IRT through an
Adaptive Management Plan for IRT review and approval.
19. UT2 and UT2A: There is currently a beaverdam affecting the hydrology of Wetland 1. What is the
anticipated effect of beaver on the stream channels and buffer of these reaches?
20. Veg Plots should be located in all wetland areas proposed for re-establishment (1:1).
21. It is recommended to cap the proposed percentage of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) to be planted
at 5% since emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) has the potential to impact long-term tree density
and canopy cover.
22. Table 14: Performance standard for flood attenuation should be four bankful events in separate years.
a. Please include a vigor standard for riparian habitat.
23. Table 15: Please include culvert/crossing maintenance.
24. General comment regarding fencing: Please depict all existing and planned fencing on the plan sheets.
Additionally, it is recommended that gate access is provided to the easement for annual monitoring and
Long Term Management.
BROWNINGNM Digitally signed by
BROWN INGXlMBERLY.DANI
BERLY.DANIELLE ELLE.1527683510
Date: 2019.09.05 14:58:20
.1527683510-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division