20190158 Ver 1_Notice of Intent to Approve_20200625

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 5:13 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers,
Todd; Merritt, Katie; [e-mail]; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Hopper, Christopher D CIV
(USA); Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Munzer, Olivia
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay; [e-mail]; Ray Holz; Baumgartner, Tim
Subject: [External] Notice of Intent to Approve/ Brahma Site/ Alamance Co./ SAW-2019-00126
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_Brahma_SAW-2019-00126.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 Brahma Mitigation Project (SAW-
2019-00126). 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 8, 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 24, 2020
SUBJECT: Brahma 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: Brahma Mitigation Site, Alamance County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2019-00126
NCDMS #: 100092
30-Day Comment Deadline: May 20, 2020
DWR Comments, Mac Haupt:
1. Section 1.3- Please be sure to design the appropriate sized bmp to treat the water coming from
the chicken houses. In addition, if waste management changes at the property, the Adaptive
Management Plan should include measures to treat the water at various drainage swales that
enter the project.
2. Table 7- Reaches UT3 and UT6 show very small drainage areas. These two tributaries will be
at risk for maintaining appropriate channel features. DWR does appreciate that flow gauges will
be installed on these reaches.
3. Section 8.1.1- DWR likes the inclusion of the marsh treatment areas. This property will likely
need these treatment areas for upcoming development. DWR believes some of these marsh
treatment areas may need to be larger than others. In the future, DWR recommends laying out
more specific details in the plan sheets given the contributing drainage area.
4. Section 8.2-UT1 B- existing conditions- this reach does not appear to have a sinuosity of 1.33.
5. Table 14- DWR requires that no more than 5% of the site should be planted in Green Ash.
6. Table 17- DWR concurs with the wetland performance criterion of 12% saturation within the
growing season.
7. Design sheet 5- DWR requires a wetland monitoring gauge at station 8+00 on stream right
approximately 40 feet out into the floodplain.
8. Design sheet 6- DWR requires a wetland monitoring gauge at station 13+25 on stream right
approximately 60 feet out into the floodplain. Also, is there supposed to be another marsh
treatment area (or two?). It appears that on the Monitoring Plan, Figure 10A, shows 3 marsh
treatment areas.
9. Design sheets 16 and 17 (perhaps others)- DWR notes some overlap of the wetland re-
establishment and enhancement credit areas with marsh treatment areas. These areas should
not overlap, given the construction, excavation and outlet (rip rap) construction.

10. Design sheet 19- for reach UT6, DWR believes that stream credit should not initiate until station
1+00 or even farther down. DWR believes this upper reach will be at risk for maintenance of
appropriate channel flow.
WRC Comments. Travis Wilson:
1. For stream crossings it would be beneficial to have the culvert invert elevations labeled on the
plans
2. It would be beneficial to including a cross section detail specific to each culverted stream
crossing. That will allow a better assessment of the culvert sizing and configuration within the
crossing
3. Planting plan has green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) at 10% . Due to the increasing presence
of Emerald Ash Borer the amount should be reduced to a maximum of 5%
EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
Note: It is understood that site visits have been made by IRT members during the development of site
feasibility to provide mitigation credit. In that regard, I feel it necessary to denote that I have not been
on -site during this process and that my comments may reflect a lack of on -site observation and
evaluation. The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following
site -specific comments as they pertain to the Brahma Final Draft Mitigation Plan dated April 2020. Page
numbers refer to the entire pdf document offered for review:
1. Section 1.4/Page 13 Project Components and Structure:
a. Proposed activity for the site is summarized here and refers to Table 1 and Figures 6A
and 6B. Several errors were noted throughout the document that do not match the totals
for wetland activity listed here and will be addressed below.
2. Section 3.5.1/Page 25 Hydrological Characterization:
a. Wetland acreage activity totals do not match Section 1.4, Table 1 or Figures 6A and 6B.
The listed totals do match Figures 10A and 10B. Please confirm and correct.
3. Table 9/Page 27 Reference Forest Ecosystem
a. Recommend referring to this list to choose an alternate to planting Fraxinus
pennsylvanica and for a suitable understory species such as Carpinus caroliniana.
4. Section 6.0/Page 29 Functional Uplift and Project Goals/Objectives:
a. "One marsh treatment area will be installed." The location of this singular marsh
treatment area is unknown and there are a total of 12 MTAs shown Figures 6A and 6B.
5. Table 12C/Page 32 Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals and Objectives.
a. "Install one marsh treatment area" The location of this singular marsh treatment area is
unknown and there are a total of 12 MTAs shown Figures 6A and 6B.
6. Section 8.1/Page 34: Stream Design
a. "Construction of a marsh treatment area" The location of this singular marsh treatment
area is unknown and there are a total of 12 MTAs shown Figures 6A and 6B.
7. Section 8.1.1/Page 35: Stream Restoration
a. Is it possible to get the crossing on UT2 moved upstream to avoid wetland and riparian
zone impacts/interference near the confluence with UT1?
8. How do the eleven shallow marsh treatment areas differ from the singular MTA referenced
above?
9. Recommend mentioning the new poultry house outfall protection/treatment if the purpose is
related to these MTAs.
10.Section 8.2.1/Page 36 UT1
a. There are only 3 reaches on UT1 (A-C).
11. UT1 C is listed for Enhancement treatment when it should be Preservation.

12. Section 8.3/Page 42 Wetland Reestablishment
a. Recommend adding livestock removal and fencing out as part of wetland
reestablishment.
13.4.481 acres of wetland reestablishment does not match Section 1.4, Table 1 or Figures 6A and
B.
14. Section 8.4/Page 42 Wetland Enhancement
a. 3.715 acres of wetland enhancement does not match Section 1.4, Table 1 or Figures 6A
and B.
15.Section 8.6.1/Page 43 Planting Plan
a. Explain if there are to be two target communities or three? This cites floodplain (Piedmont
Alluvial Forest), upland slopes (Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest) and then there is the
"streamside assemblage" which is basically the PAF at a quadruple density. Monitoring
for each plant community or landscape position should be ensured. The DMOHF
community type is not represented in the planting plan or Figures 9A and B.
16.Table 14: Recommend restricting or removing Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) from the
planting list due to potential for emerald ash borer infestation.
17. Table 17/Page 46 Success Criteria (Wetland Hydrology)
a. Recommend adding the growing season listed in Table 16 (March 1- October 22) and
number of days to achieve the 12 percent of the growing season just to remove any
ambiguity.
18. Section 9.2.3/Page 47 Vegetation Contingency
a. Recommend denoting when supplemental planting will occur (Dec -Mar) to avoid planting
in May (or later) situations. Denote how long monitoring of supplemental planting will
occur before success is achieved.
USACE Comments, Kim Browninq:
1. On future projects, please keep the same stream and wetland labels throughout the life of the
project. It's difficult to refer to notes from the technical proposal and compare them to the JD
and mitigation plan when labels change. It appears that UT1 was split into UT1 and UT7 after
the IRT site visit.
2. Figure 9A and Table 14: Please limit Green Ash to no more than 5% of the planted species due
to the Emerald Ash Borer.
3. UT4: Though this reach is planned as Ell, during the IRT site visit we discussed that this should
be treated as a headwater valley and awarded credit based on valley length. Page 28 indicates
that this reach is a wetland. Please verify that valley length was used to calculate credits.
Additionally, this reach will need to meet headwater stream performance standards in order to
receive stream credit.
4. Please add a veg plot on UT6 where the pond sediment is to be removed, random is fine.
5. UT2: During the IRT site visit this reach was noted to be intermittent and likely dry during summer
months. Please install a flow gauge in the upper third of this reach, Providing photo/video
documentation of flow on intermittent reaches will be helpful.
6. Table 4: Please add reach summary data for El and Ell reaches.
7. Section 4.2 and Table 9: Please note that although the reference forest ecosystem and the
Schafale and Weakley references list sweetgum as a reference species, sweetgum will not be
counted towards meeting vegetative success criteria.
8. During the IRT site visit it was mentioned that new chicken houses were planned on the property.
Please ensure that the conservation easement does not allow for chicken litter to be spread in
the buffer.
9. The NCSAM/WAM summary tables 12A and 12B are helpful. It would be helpful to include
NCSAM data for all reaches to show the current functional assessment.

10. Section 8.1.1, Marsh Treatment Areas: Please ensure that these BMPS are placed outside
jurisdictional features. It appears that several of these marsh treatment areas will be placed
within wetlands. This is acceptable provided that they remain wetlands when the work is
complete. Otherwise please remove these areas from wetland credit and account for the loss in
the impact tables.
11. UT3: The figures show a pipe under the road that will be upgraded and is outside the easement.
If it is simply a replacement and you are not proposing to make it longer or place it in a new
location, then it would be exempt. Please note that crossings in new locations on existing
tributaries will require a separate permit.
12. Page 26: UT1 C Mitigation treatment should read Preservation.
13. During planting, if species substitutions occur due to availability or refinement, please red -line
the As -Built and MYO report if substitutions occur.
14.Table 17: Continuous surface flow for at least 30 consecutive days is only applicable to
intermittent streams.
a. Volunteer stems that are included in the planting list may be counted after two years.
b. Recommend adding a performance standard for visual monitoring, to include permanent
photo points (depicted on monitoring map).
15. Section 9.2: 1 appreciate the thoughtfulness of this section. It may be beneficial to add discussion
on other potential risks, such as adjacent development or logging, beaver, or road/culvert
maintenance.
16. Please provide a brief description on where the spoil from the bond bottom will be spread, and
the method of fescue removal.
Digitally signed by
BROWN INGXIMBERLY• BROWN ING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE.
DAN I ELLE.15276835101527683510
Date: 2020.06.24 17:08:04-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division