20190157 Ver 1_eApproval Letter SAW-2019-00125_20200730

Strickland, Bev
From:
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, July 30, 2020 12:33 PM
To:
Baumgartner, Tim
Cc:
Dow, Jeremiah J; Jeff Keaton; Crocker, Lindsay; 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)
Subject:
[External] eApproval Letter/ NCDMS Perry Hill Site/ Orange County/ SAW-2019-00125
Attachments:
eApproval Letter -Perry Hill_SAW-2019-00125.pdf, Draft Mit Plan Comment
Memo -Perry Hill SAW-2019-00125.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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Mr. Baumgartner,
Attached is the Perry Hill Mitigation Site Draft Plan approval letter and copies of all comments generated
during the project review. Please note that this letter approves the Draft Mitigation Plan provided that the
Final Mitigation Plan adequately addresses all comments on the attached memo. Please provide a copy of the
Final Mitigation Plan when you submit the Preconstruction Notice for the NWP 27. Also, please ensure that a
copy of the Final Mitigation Plan is posted to the NCDMS project documents so that all members of the IRT
have access to the Final plan.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the process or the attached letter.
Respectfully,
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)

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
July 30, 2020
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Perry Hill Mitigation Site / Orange
Co./ SAW-2019-00125/ NCDMS Project # 100093
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the Perry Hill Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed
on June 10, 2020. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns
have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached
comment memo, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit,
you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the
project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in
the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not
satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan,
but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation
credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the
project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions
regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation
Rule, please call me at 919-554-4884, ext 60.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by
BROWN ING.KIMBERLY. BROWN I NG.KIMBERLY.DAN I ELLEA 527
DANIELLE.1 52768351 0 683510
Date: 2020.07.30 12:29:03-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Jeremiah Dow, Lindsay Crocker—NCDMS
Jeff Keaton—WEI

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