20181274 Ver 1_Notice of Intent to Approve_20200625

Strickland, Bev
From:
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, June 25, 2020 3:15 PM
To:
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Leslie,
Andrea J; Steve Kichefski; Byron Hamstead (byron_hamstead @fws.gov); Bowers, Todd;
Merritt, Katie; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA); Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Haywood,
Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc:
Phillips, Kelly D; Wiesner, Paul; Jeff Keaton; Baumgartner, Tim
Subject:
[External] Notice of Intent to Approve/ NCDMS Lyon Hills Site/ SAW-2018-01784/
Wilkes County
Attachments:
Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo -Lyon Hills_SAW-2018-01784.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Good afternoon,
We have completed our review of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the NCDMS Lyon Hills Mitigation Project (SAW-
2018-01784). Please see the attached memo, which includes all NCIRT comments that were submitted site
during the review process along with additional comments provided by Wilmington District staff following our
review.
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 July 10, 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
June 25, 2020
SUBJECT: Lyon Hills 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: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site, Wilkes County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2018-01784
NCDMS #: 100085
30-Day Comment Deadline: May 24, 2020
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Please include photos of culverts/crossings in monitoring reports.
2. Please show location of existing wetlands on Figure 8.
a. Please add a veg plot to the wetland area along UT1.
b. It is preferred to move the crossing on UT1 out of the wetland, closer to the confluence.
3. UT1: The neighbor's existing spring box drainage pipe, and its discharge into the channel, is not
permitted within the conservation easement. Please remove.
4. During planting, if species substitutions occur due to availability or refinement, please red -line
the As -Built and MYO report if substitutions occur.
5. Table 5 lists five existing invasive species. Please include a performance standard addressing
the control of invasive species to less than 5% of the conservation easement.
6. Section 3.4: Please update with PJD received June 11, 2020. Also, please add discussion
regarding work that will be done on (UT1) the adjacent landowner's property in connection with
this project.
7. UT4: There is concern that raising the channel bed at the upper end will cause loss of flow.
Please add a gauge in the upper 1/3 of the reach.
8. Recommend removing silver maple from the planting list, as it can be invasive.
9. Section 6.7: Please add the target community type and planting window.
10.On future planting plans, please add a column that designates whether the species is FAC,
FACW, etc.
11. Section 3.8: 1 appreciate the thoughtfulness of this section. It may be beneficial to add discussion
on crossing and culvert maintenance, especially the ford.
12. Table 20: Since several of the reaches are designed as B type channels, please include a
performance standard of ER no less than 1.4 for B channels.

13. Please provide a brief description on where the spoil from the bond bottom will be spread, and
the method of fescue removal.
14. Section 6.6: An overall discussion regarding the different types of BMPs proposed, materials
used, approximate depth, vegetation (if any), and necessary maintenance would be helpful since
these features are within the easement boundary.
USACE Comments, Casey Haywood:
1. Table 1 Project Information, Project Coordinates- please annotate degrees with symbol
2. Table 2 Add the "0" at the beginning of the 8-digit HUC so that it reflects 8-digits
3. Section 3.1 paragraph 2, 3rd to last sentence "The other tributaries have small watersheds the
are contained within the project site and adjacent parcels." Please change "the" to "that".
4. Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use- Land use source- National Land Cover
Database 2011 (NLCD 2011), Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) consortium; why
not use the most up to date 2016 NLCD database? Is it much different than 2011?
5. Section 3.4 mentions evidence of prolonged saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil
profile; were groundwater gauges installed? Please provide this data if it is available and
reference it within the document.
6. Section 3.6, 1st paragraph, Table 6 is highlighted
7. Section 3.7 paragraph 2 typo "These project components are described in Section 4 in terms of
goals, objectives, and outcomes for the project and in in greater detail as the Section 6 in the
project site mitigation plan."
8. Section 3.7 last paragraph, "There is little concern that if the site is properly constructed and
maintained that the project goals will not be met." Will or will not be met? Is this a typo?
9. Section 5.2 last paragraph, typo "Wildlands has acquired a temporary construction agreement
with this landowner who is please that the project will involve fixing the headcut."
10. Section 6.6 "The upstream end of the reach will tie into an existing culvert and the bed will
be raised somewhat but kept low enough in the valley to allow for neighbor's existing spring
box drainage pipe, which currently discharges to the channel, to remain in place
approximately 65 downstream of the culvert." Please add distance, is it 65 feet?
11. Table 19 Determination of Credits indicates a bridge crossing on Hanks Branch, reach
2; however, this is not noted in Table 6: Easement Breaks and Crossings. Additionally, Table
19 does not note the internal culvert crossing on Hanks Branch reach 3 as noted in table 6.
Are there actually 7 crossings on this site or six? Is there a reason they are not shown on both
tables?On figure 8 Concept Map it shows the crossing on Hanks Branch reach 3 but not on
reach 2.
12. Section 12.0 References; please reference the use of the National Land Cover Database
2011 (NLCD 2011) and any other documents mentioned in the document.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. DWR appreciates the high connectivity of the site, as well as the inclusion of stream origins and
addition of BMPs. Also, the mitigation plan format made for an efficient review, including the
concise text, descriptive tables and photos. The discussions on risks and uncertainties and soil
treatment of bench cuts were good to see.
2. Page 1, Table 1 - On the DMS comments page 2, a response states the easement area as
20.29 acres. Table 1 specifies 20.72 acres. Please confirm.
3. Page 9, UT3 - Please include a sentence on the existing condition of UT3 Reach 4.
4. Page 11 & Page 25, UT 4 - The IRT meeting minutes mention a dewatered pond bed within
UT4 Reach 1. Is this the area mapped as Wetland Y? Is working within the relic pond bed
sediment a concern?

5. Page 17, Section 5.1 - More than 0.35 acres of wetland is proposed to be permanently impacted
by the project, primarily along UT1. The proposed UT1 crossing spans a wide area of existing
wetland. Please include an explanation for why this crossing couldn't be located further upstream
to reduce wetland impacts.
6. Page 18, Table 10 - Please add "replanting buffer" to Sparks Creek and Hanks Branch R1. Also,
please add a row for UT3 Reach 4.
7. Page 24, UT1 - Can you briefly describe the condition of the existing culvert that UT1 will tie into
(e.g. adequately sized, perched, partially buried).
8. Page 25, UT4 Reach 1 - Echoing DMS question, with the UT4 DWR Stream ID Form score
close to the perennial/intermittent threshold, is there a concern that raising the bed will alter the
flow regime from perennial to intermittent? DWR may request a flow gauge following the post -
construction review.
9. Page 25, UT5 - Has the existing pond sediment been assessed? How will the sediment be
handled/reused onsite?
10. Page 26, Hanks Branch - The IRT meeting minutes' note creating floodplain benches on both
sides of Reach 3. Please explain why only a right side floodplain bench is now proposed and
how this effects the potential functional uplift.
11. Page 27, Table 19 - The IRT meeting minutes note "improving the buffer by planting native
trees" along UT2. However, the existing conditions section describes a mature canopy and Table
10 does not mention replanting. DWR supports a 3.1 ratio for UT2 based on existing conditions
and potential functional uplift.
12. Page 29, Section 10 - Please define the max. duration between "periodic" inspections.
13. Figure 6 - Please indicate any existing culvert crossings.
14. Sheet 1.04 - As DMS noted, please address the callout "avoid existing water line". Please
assess the condition of the pipe and remove from the easement if possible.
15. Sheet 1.08 - Table 10 notes wood being added to Hanks Branch R2, please callout these areas
on the design sheet. Also, do the "remove tree" callouts indicate hazard trees not located within
the proposed grading areas?
16. Sheet 1.09 - Can you please explain why the proposed rock outlet is necessary.
17. Sheet 1.14 - It would help our review to see the existing channel area proposed to be filled as
a shaded feature on the plan view sheets.
18. Sheets 1.21-1.23 - Please assess the banks along UT3 Reach 2 and Reach 3 that have callouts
to "repair trampled stream banks per Engineer's direction" and include specific proposed
actions/features in the final design plan.
19. Sheet 2.00 - Either on the design sheet or in the mitigation plan text, please indicate that the
proposed BMPs are designed to not require long-term maintenance.
20. Sheet 2.01 - Please confirm that the proposed rock sill is being installed over existing bedrock.
21. Sheets 2.02 & 2.03 - These BMPs are described as ponds in Section 6.6. Are they designed to
wet year-round? They are not included in the planting plan, but please confirm at minimum the
side slopes will be vegetated. DWR would like to see planting within the BMP ponds if possible.
22. Sheet 3.0 - Please consider a wetland planting zone replacement species for American Holly,
which is FACU. Also, have you had success planting Helesia tetraptera in restoration wetland
areas? I was not able to identify its wetland indicator status.
23. Design Plans - Please include an overall fencing plan indicating existing and proposed fencing
and approximate locations of anticipated gates.
WRC Comments, Travis Wilson:
1. 1 like the site -specific culvert crossing details shown in the back of the plans. They were also
depicted in the plan view, however they were not identified in the plan profiles. For review

purposes it is beneficial to record the culvert invert elevations on the profiles as well as the road
crossing elevation.
2. "Outlet stabilization" is shown for each outlet in the plan view detail. A note should be included
in this detail to embed the stone into the stream bed substrate. Any outlet protection should
function more as an armored plunge pool or bedrock and not a rip rap dissipater pad.
BROWNING.KIMB Digitally signed by
BROWN ING.KIMBERLY.DANIEL
ERLY.DANIELLE.1 LEA527683510
Date: 2020.06.25 15:05:43
527683510-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division