20180785 Ver 1_USACE Notice of Intent to Approve SAW-2018-01160_20200130

Strickland, Bev
From:
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, January 30, 2020 4:08 PM
To:
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B;
Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd; Merritt, Katie; Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); [e-mail]; Wells, Emily N; McLendon, C S CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA); Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Gibby, Jean B
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc:
Crocker, Lindsay; Dow, Jeremiah J; Baumgartner, Tim; Tim Morris
Subject:
[External] Notice of Intent to Approve/ NCDMS Hip Bone Creek Site/ Chatham Co./
SAW-2018-01160
Attachments:
Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo -Hip Bone Creek_2018-01160.pdf, 20180920
_RaICOE_WellstoBrowning_LTRSNT_HipBoneCreekMitigationSiteSAW-2018-01160.pdf
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]>
Good afternoon,
We have completed our review of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the NCDMS Hip Bone Creek Restoration Site (SAW-2018-
01160). 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
February 14, 2020 ). 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
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Browning
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
January 30, 2020
SUBJECT: Hip Bone Creek Restoration 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: Hip Bone Creek Restoration Site, Chatham County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2018-01160
NCDMS #: 100059
30-Day Comment Deadline: January 15, 2020
DWR Comments, Mac Haupt & Erin Davis:
1. Page 6, Section 3.1 — In addition to identifying the streams as headwater systems, it's important
to note their origins as downstream of farm ponds.
2. Page 8, Section 3.1.2
a. It would be helpful see property boundaries in the vicinity of the project. Could a tax parcel
layer please be added to Figure 2 or a zoomed out Figure 5?
b. What are the anticipated future land uses for the project watershed?
c. Please include a discussion of existing vegetation within the project site, in particular the
species composition of the forested areas along the upper T1 and T3 wetlands.
d. Please discuss any site constraints (e.g. existing utilities, existing crossings/paths). Are
the existing stream crossings fords or culverts? Does the electrical line crossing the top
of T3 have an associated easement?
3. Page 12, Section 3.1.3
a. Besides Chinese privet, what other invasives have been documented on site?
b. In this section T2 is identified as a linear wetland; however, the JD lists it as a 368 linear
foot non -wetland water. Please confirm this feature type.
c. Please include a table or brief discussion of the NC SAM, NC WAM and DWQ Stream Id
form results.
d. Side note, it was confusing having the appendices referred to as sections within the plan
narrative.
4. Page 18, Section 4.0 — Please state what assessment method was used to determine that "all
stream channels have low functional values".
5. Page 20, Section 6.0 — It would be helpful to have the information in paragraph two stated earlier
in the document, perhaps in the Introduction.

6. Page 20, Section 6.1 - Flow is a general concern for this project. In particular, whether flow will
be sustained in the upper 300-foot section of T1 Reach 1 that is proposed to be raised 1-2 feet.
7. Page 20, Section 6.1 — Since establishment of vegetative cover and vigor can be a challenge on
Priority 2 restoration banks/benches, please include a discussion on how the soil restoration will
be addressed during construction and reference potential adaptive management.
8. Page 21, Section 6.2 — In order to justify a 2.5:1 ratio, please include bank grading in list
proposed work (as noted on Design Sheet 9).
9. Page 21, Section 6.3 — Given that multiple wetland restoration areas abut the proposed
conservation easement boundary, is there a concern about hydrologic trespass?
10. Page 21, Section 6.4 — The number of crossings for the project size is concerning. Fragmentation
impacts the potential functional uplift.
a. Four of the five crossings are proposed to be 30 feet wide. However, the lower T1 crossing
is proposed to be 60 feet wide. Can this crossing width be reduced to 30 feet? If not,
please explain why.
b. The T3 crossing is located approximately 150 feet north of the proposed conservation
easement boundary. Can this crossing be relocated south of the easement boundary? If
not, please explain why.
c. Will the proposed crossings be gated and/or will the proposed fencing overlap the culvert
to limit livestock access to the stream?
11. Page 23, Section 6.6 — Sheets 3 and 4 Details for proposed riffle enhancement, riffle grade
control, and stabilized rock outlet differ from text included in this Section. The details have 30%
native stream material while the text states 10%. The details do not include class 1 stone while
the text does. Please make text and details consistent.
12. Page 26, Section 6.8
a. Please include native seed mix composition (species, quantity, wetland status).
b. Please identify target communities.
13. Page 30, Vegetation Performance — Note that only volunteer species that are included on the
approved mitigation plan plant list may count toward the vegetation performance standard.
14. Page 30, Stream Hydrologic Performance — Please rephrase: The project streams must also
show a minimum 30 days' continuous flow days within each calendar year.
15. Page 31, Section 8 — For installed gauges and wells, DWR recommends quarterly data download
and inspection to reduce the risk of data loss due to instrument malfunction.
16. Page 31, Vegetation Monitoring — Currently there are no wetland gauges or veg plots located
within any of the proposed wetland rehabilitation areas or wetland enhancement areas to
illustrate functional uplift. DWR requests two additional wetland gauges be located within
proposed rehabilitation areas. Also, DWR would like to see at least two of the random veg plots
be located annually within the proposed wetland rehabilitation planting areas or enhancement
supplemental planting areas.
17. Page 32, Visual Assessment — Please include photo locations at all crossings.
18. Please add a Maintenance Plan as a new section or appendix summarizing the types of issues
that may arise during monitoring and how those issues would be addressed, including invasive
species treatment. DWR recommends a minimum annual treatment of Chinese privet.
19. Figure 9 — The flow documentation stations on T3 and T1 are very close to the stream reach
start points. DWR requests these stations be shifted north approximately 50-75 feet.
20. Sheet 1 — The Sheet 1 table does not match the Table 11 values under the Existing
Footage/Acreage and Mitigation Credits columns. Please update.
21. Sheet 2 — Please add buried log sill and buried brush material icons to the project legend, as
well as detail sheets.
22.Sheet 3 — DWR appreciated the riffle grade control note to include woody debris to enhance
habitat.
23. Sheet 4 — Please add a culvert crossing detail.

24. Sheet 4 — Please confirm that the water quality treatment area will be self-sustaining and requires
no long term maintenance. Also, will this treatment area be seeded and planted?
25. Sheet 4 — The Project Legend includes channel filling. Please include a channel fill detail. If
partial filling is proposed, please indicate the maximum depth from top of bank to be filled. Also,
the plan narrative references "plugging surface ditches". Please confirm whether ditches will be
plugged. If plugs are proposed, please include a detail identifying the minimum plug width (DWR
recommends a minimum of 50 feet) and whether a restrictive material core will be used.
26. Sheet 9 — Please show floodplain grading extents associated with notes along T3 and T3-1.
27. Sheet 13 — Please show a wetland planting zone and include seed mix information.
28. Sheet 13 — What does "per design representative guidance" refer to?
29. Sheets 15 & 16 — Please show anticipated gate locations.
30. For future site submittals, please show the plan view and corresponding profile on the same
design sheet.
31.Append ix/Section 12.2 Soil delineation and Borings - The title reflects that a hydric soil
delineation was completed, please show these boundaries on the included figure. While
sufficient representative boring logs were submitted, it's assumed that additional sample points
were taken in the field to delineate the hydric soil boundaries (i.e. more than one sample point
per wetland area). In the future please, show all sample point locations on the associated soil
report figure.
32.Append ix/Section 12.2 Groundwater Data — Please shift labels to align with corresponding lines.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. The correct USACE Action ID is SAW-2018-01160. Please correct the cover page.
2. General Plan Comments:
a. Please include a maintenance section with monitoring. For example, crossings, fence,
invasives... and who will be responsible.
b. This mitigation plan seemed to differ from the NCDMS template, and was difficult to
follow at times. Also, the appendices were included as Section 12, which was confusing.
3. When submitting the PCN, please include an estimate of the number of trees, or acres, to be
cleared for the NLEB 4(d) Rule.
4. Please label wetlands on Figures 8 and 9 to match the JD map. The asset tables should
correspond to these labeled areas.
5. Table 4 and Page 21: Please describe the level of microtopography in regards to surface
ponding.
6. Page 18, last paragraph: "The consideration of future impacts to the areas that could limit
functional uplift opportunities..." Please explain what considerations were given, such as utility
installation through the easement, crossing failures, adjacent land development, pond dam
breeches, etc.
7. Page 21: In wetland rehabilitation areas, if hydrology and vegetation are proposed to be
enhanced, functional uplift should be demonstrated by additional gauges and veg plots.
Additionally, wetland enhancement areas should demonstrate functional uplift. Removal of
debris and invasive treatment is expected on all reaches, so perhaps a discussion of the NCSAM
functional assessment rating as LOW for habitat might be justification.
8. Page 26: Please list herbaceous seed mix and address how fescue will be treated/removed.
9. Section 7.0-Vegetation Performance: Please add 320 steams/acre for monitoring year 3.
a. Volunteers may only count towards success if they are in the approved planting plan.
10. Section 8-Veg Monitoring: Please add veg plots to wetland rehabilitation areas (random plots
are fine).

11. Wetland rehabilitation/reestablishment—It would be beneficial to add some coarse woody
debris to the depressional areas and throughout the wetland for habitat, and to help store
sediment, increase water storage/infiltration, and absorb water energy during overbank events.
12. Page 32: Wetland hydrologic monitoring: Please add wells to all wetlands that propose
hydrologic uplift and update Table 14 as necessary.
13. Page 32: Please depict fixed photo points on Figure 9.
14. Please include the approved map for the PJD.
Digitally signed by
BROWNING•KIMBERLY• BROWN INGXIMBERLY.DANIELLE
DAN I ELLE.1527683510.1527683510
Date: 2020.01.30 16:01:03-05'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 20, 2018
Kim Browning
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Mitigation Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Hip Bone Creek Mitigation Site / SAW-2018-01160/ Chatham County
Dear Mrs. Browning:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the project advertised in the above
referenced Public Notice. The project, as advertised in the Public Notice, is expected to have
minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Therefore, we have no objection to the
activity as described in the permit application.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and based on the
information provided, and other available information, it appears the action is not likely to adversely
affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. We believe that the
requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please remember
that obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information identifies impacts of this
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed
or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North
Carolina is now available on our website at <http://www.fws.gov/raeigh>. Our web page contains a
complete and updated list of federally protected species, and a list of federal species of concern
known to occur in each county in North Carolina.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Emily Wells at [phone],
extension 25.
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin,
Field Supervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh