20190157 Ver 1_Notice of Intent to Approve SAW-2019-00125_20200713

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:18 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B; Haywood, Casey M CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA); Bowers, Todd; Wilson, Travis W.; Munzer, Olivia; Merritt, Katie;
[e-mail]; Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA);
Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: John Hutton; Dow, Jeremiah J; Baumgartner, Tim
Subject: [External] Notice of Intent to Approve/ NCDMS Perry Hill Site/ Orange County/
SAW-2019-00125
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo -Perry Hill SAW-2019-00125.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Good afternoon,
We have completed our review of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the NCDMS Perry Hill Mitigation Project (SAW-2019-
00125). 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 29, 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

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
July 13, 2020
SUBJECT: Perry Hill 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: Perry Hill Mitigation Site, Orange County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2019-00125
NCDMS #: 100093
30-Day Comment Deadline: June 10, 2020
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Design Sheet 4.0, Planting Plan: Please remove red maple from the wetland planting list.
a. It would be helpful if the planting tables included a column to show the wetland plant list
indicator (FACW, FACU, etc.).
2. Please maintain the same stream and reach names throughout the life of the project. It is difficult
to refer to field notes when reach names change from the technical proposal stage to the draft
mit plan stage.
3. Section 1: In future mitigation plans, please indicate the temperature regime for credits (cold,
cool, warm).
4. UT1: Given the small watershed size and the amount of agricultural sediment entering the
system, there is a concern that raising the channel will result in a loss of jurisdiction in the upper
portion of this reach. There is also a concern that the channel near the confluence with Perry
Branch may fill in and become more wetland like.
5. Please place a veg plot in Wetland Q.
6. Please include photo points at crossings.
7. Section 7.7.1: Please address how fescue will be removed.
8. Section 7.8: Please add discussion on potential short-term and long-term effects for beaver,
utility line maintenance, livestock encroachment, adjacent logging or development, etc.
9. Is there a section on the functional uplift potential, or discussion of NCSAM ratings?

DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. DWR appreciates that the site's conservation easement was extended to include many of the
stream origins and riparian wetland areas.
2. Page 8, Section 3.5 —
a. Please reference the NCSAM evaluation of existing stream conditions.
b. Perry Branch Reach 1 states that the reach is a headwater system originating onsite
immediately down valley of a wetland. Later, under Section 4.0, it states that an offsite
pond regulates discharge to this reach. This was confusing during my initial read through.
Can the Section 3.5 existing conditions description please be rephrased or elaborated on
in order to clarify and connect to the Section 4.0 discussion.
3. Page 24, Section 7.6 —
a. Has the amount of available onsite woody material for proposed stream stabilization and
habitat structures been evaluated? If necessary, will offsite woody material be sourced to
complete construction of all of the structures shown on the design sheets?
b. During the IRT site meeting, it was requested to investigate whether the Perry Branch
crossing could be relocated to the downstream end of project adjacent to the powerline.
Please provide an explanation as why relocating this crossing is not feasible.
4. Page 25, Section 7.7.1 —
a. Please reference the planting window specified in the 2016 NCIRT Mitigation Update
Guidance.
b. Please include a brief description of the headwater forest target community type.
5. Page 25, Section 7.7.2 — DWR appreciates the discussion of invasive species management,
including that multiple species will be treated prior to construction. Will fescue also be treated
prior to or during site construction? DWR recommends early treatment based on observations
of fescue impeding planted vegetation establishment and vigor.
6. Page 26, Section 7.8 — It appears that the large pond upstream of Perry Branch Reach 1 is
located on an adjacent parcel controlled by a different landowner. DWR considers the pond's
connection to the project a potential risk for sediment loading, if for example the pond breaches
during a super storm event.
7. Page 27, Section 8.3 — Please also reference Table 21, which includes visual assessment of the
easement perimeter/fencing and signs of livestock encroachments.
8. Page 27, Section 9.0 — In the baseline monitoring report, please include red -line drawings
showing construction deviations from the final mitigation plan design sheets.
9. Page 28, Table 21 —
a. Please reference the vegetation vigor performance standard.
b. Please reference the 30-day consecutive flow performance standard for intermittent
reaches.
10. Page 30, Section 10 — Please specify an expected maximum duration between "periodic"
inspections.
11. Page 30, Section 11 — DWR's General Water Quality Certification 4134 requires notification for
any repairs that result in a change from the approved plans.
12. Figure 9 — Please show existing wetlands and label project reaches. Also, DWR requests photo
points at the proposed crossings.
13. Sheet 1.1 —
a. The DMS response letter indicates that the embankment around the relic pond at the top
of Perry Branch will be regraded. Can a callout for this activity please be added, as well
as the estimated proposed grading limits.
b. There appears to be a drainage path from the adjacent wetland to the channel just
downstream of the Station 130+00 bank treatment. Is this area currently stable? Are there
any concerns of head -cutting?

c. Please indicate approximate locations for proposed channel plugs. Also, it would help our
review to see the existing channel areas proposed to be filled as a shaded feature on the
plan view sheets.
14. Sheet 1.9 —
a. The UT1 and Perry Branch tie-in is proposed to shift approximately 100 feet downstream
and immediately adjacent to the proposed ford crossing. Are there any concerns about
long-term stability with this design?
b. Please note in the Station 134+134 callout that it is the end point of Perry Branch stream
cred it.
15. Sheet 4.0 —
a. Please remove Red Maple from the Wetland Planting Zone list.
b. DWR understands that quantity substitutions may be necessary based on the nursery's
species available. However, we request that no species account for more than 20
percentage of a specified planting zone in order to promote diversity within the designated
community type.
16. Sheets 4.2 & 4.3 — For the proposed culvert crossings, will the fencing overlap the culvert or will
cattle have access to the stream upstream and/or downstream of the culvert within the easement
break?
17. Sheet 5.14 — Please include a callout for the black bar icon.
18. Sheet 5.2 — DWR recommends the use of footer logs on all log sill structures.
19. Sheet 5.8 — Please confirm whether vernal pools proposed for this site.
BROWNING.KIM Digitally signed by
BROWN INGXIMBERLY.
BERLY.DANIELL DANIELLE.1527683510
E.1527683510 Date:2020.07.13
17:13:06-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division