20190159 Ver 1_Notice of Intent to Approve_20201016

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 2:01 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Davis, Erin B;
Merritt, Katie; [e-mail]; Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA); Gibby,
Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd
Cc: Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Dow, Jeremiah J; Crocker, Lindsay; Bradley Breslow; Jamey Mceachran
Subject: [External] Notice of Intent to Approve/ NCDMS Strawberry Hill Mitigation Site/
SAW-2019-00124/ Johnston Co
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo -Strawberry Hill_SAW-2019-00124.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Happy Friday,
We have completed our review of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the NCDMS Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project (SAW-
2019-00124). 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 October 31, 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

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
October 16, 2020
SUBJECT: Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project - 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: Strawberry Hill Mitigation Site, Johnston County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2019-00124
NCDMS #: 100094
30-Day Comment Deadline: September 26, 2020
USACE Comments, Kim Browninq:
1. Credit Release Schedule: The IRT will review the Record Drawing/As-Built reports according to
the 2008 Mitigation Rule's streamlined review process prior to approving the initial credit release.
Please alter the statement regarding credits being released by DMS without prior written
approval of the DE.
2. Please include the PJD signed by Samantha Dailey in the final mitigation, and please note that
the PJD was done under the incorrect USACE ID. You will need to submit the aquatic resources
upload sheet with the ePCN so I can process the 404 permit and associate the aquatic resources
with the correct Action ID.
3. Cover Sheet: Please correct the USACE Action ID to SAW-2019-00124.
4. Design Sheet D3: Hay bales for toe protection seem a little risky if the system does not stay
inundated. I understand that RES has successfully used this design in other states on low
gradient systems with heavy live -staking. I am open to the use of new/different techniques and
ultimately it is up to RES to demonstrate success and stability.
5. Please use something other than smooth -walled culverts to help with aquatic species passage.
6. Please place a veg plot near the stage recorder on JH1-B to capture the area of buffer planted
in Cowarts Loamy sand (CoB), near/in Wetland C.
7. Figure 9: Please also include fixed images at the crossing and culverts.
8. Page 12 indicates that RES will maintain the culvert crossing through the completion of
monitoring, then transfer the responsibility to the landowner. The maintenance plan (G1)
contradicts this. Please check for consistency.
9. What is the potential for road/culvert maintenance on Brogden Rd and Yelverton Grove Rd?
Please discuss whether you reached out to DOT for potential future road maintenance to prevent
the possibility of future encroachments.

10.Although wetland credits are not being sought, stream restoration will occur through existing
wetlands on site. It is not anticipated that overall wetland acreage will be lost, in fact it's likely
that wetlands may increase on site due to raising the channel. During monitoring year 5 please
re -verify the limits of jurisdiction to ensure that there was no net -loss of wetlands in -lieu of
installing monitoring gauges.
11. Page 27, Digital Images: "Longitudinal images should not indicate the absence of developing
bars within the channel..." I think the word "not" should be removed.
12. Section 7.2: Please add stem density of 260 trees per acre at year 5. Please note that volunteers
will only be planted if on the approved planting list.
13. Design sheet D2 shows a detail for woven wire fence. Is fencing being installed? If so, please
show on the design sheets.
14. Please note that a Notice of Intent to Approve this Draft mitigation plan does not approve the
Buffer Plan.
WRC Comments, Travis Wilson:
1. Sec 6.4 Vegetation and Planting Plan: states that natural regeneration of Red Maple may be
counted toward success. Early successional pioneering species such as Red maple and Sweet
gum should not be counted toward success. This seems to be corrected in section 7.2 where
success criteria states "planted stems" will be counted
2. Sec 7.1 Surface Flow: says intermittent streams will be monitored using pressure transducers
and data loggers to demonstrate a minimum of 30 days consecutive flow. The 30 day metric
was established to show success in the Coastal Plain Headwater guidance and was not intended
to demonstrate success for intermittent flow. Intermittent streams only dry seasonally and
therefore should have flow or the presence of water for periods much longer than 30 days. A
Minimum of 60 consecutive days of flow should be required, it is also recommended that
cameras are also used to monitor flow for both consecutive days as well as cumulative days.
3. The culvert located between station 23+13 and 23+74 should be redesigned to a more
appropriate structure for the designed channel dimensions. As designed the 2 lines of 24" HDPE
would result in an excavated dimension of approximately 5' wide at the base (this accounts for
an approximation of 12" of material between pipes for stable installation). As designed the base
of the riffle cross-section is 3 feet therefore this design will over widen the channel at this location
as well as split the flow between two smaller structures. Additionally, HDPE is the least preferred
of all hydraulic structure materials. The smooth walls do not provide any roughness and will not
hold substrate material. In smaller streams such as this reach a single Hydraulic structure
should be sized similar to the dimensions of the designed cross-section to carry base flow and
if necessary incorporate additional structures to carry higher flow events.
EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
1. 1. Cover Page:
■ Need to update correct Corps DA number.
2. Pages 6, 8 and 10:
■ Are there any ramifications or notices of violation associated with the clearing
of forest or vegetation up to the edge of JH1? Has the landowner been more
receptive than usual to restoring the streams and riparian buffers due to any
perceived illegal activity?
3. Table 9/Page 16:

■ Under Physiochemical category objectives, recommend adding in -stream
structures that promote mixing and oxygen entrainment.
■ Under Physicochemical measurement methods, recommend adding visual
monitoring of in -stream structures for proper placement and/or operation.
■ Statement under Biology needs to be reworded.
■ Under Biology measurement methods, recommend adding visual monitoring
and vegetation plots. The as -built survey is just a snapshot of the project at
construction completion and is not indicative of any biological uplift as the site
is essential raw and devoid of life other than planted species in the riparian
zone.
4. Section 6.1/Page 17:
■ The watershed downstream and waters classification of the reference stream
seems to be irrelevant information pertaining to the restored stream watershed.
Recommend removing the paragraph describing waters downstream of Buffalo
Creek.
5. Section 6.2/Page 18-19:
■ Recommend caution when installing log structures in an intermittent channel.
It is understood that these channels are likely better characterized as perennial
so this comment may not be relevant in that case.
6. Section 6.4/Page 23:
■ In Table 14 please provide an alternate species list if the proposed list items
are not available or a plan to allow for as many species as possible without a
single species to be > 20%. Recommend one or two understory or subcanopy
species to enhance site vegetation diversity.
■ Recommend moving the latest planting date up to April 15 in order to ensure
planting while still partially dormant and to allow a full 180-days before MY1
vegetation survey (last day is November 1) with some buffer time built-in.
7. Section 6.6/Page 25:
■ Recommend adding the NCIRT to the review and approval process of credit
determination in addition to the Corps.
8. Section 8.5/Page 30:
■ Recommend adding an actual date (November 1) to the leaf drop criteria for
last sampling to reduce ambiguity.
DWR Comments. Erin Davis:
1. Page 4, Section 3.1 — The "6% Residential" is repeated.
2. Page 6, Section 3.3 — Please expand on the future land use discussion to include potential
adjacent land use changes. Consultation with local/regional planning documents and/or
agencies is encouraged.
3. Page 7, Section 3.5 — Please reference NCSAM ratings and include the assessment and scoring
sheets in the appropriate appendix.
4. Page 10, Section 3.6 — Please reference NCWAM ratings and include assessment and scoring
sheets in the appropriate appendix.
5. Page 11, Section 3.7 —
a. What is the condition of the DOT culverts? Is any DOT work anticipated in the vicinity of
the project?
b. The proposed stream crossing for landowner access includes a 32-foot culvert within a
61-foot easement break. Please provide a justification for the extended easement break.
If it is in anticipation of a potential future land use change, it should be discussed in
Section 3.3.

6. Page 18, Section 6.2 — 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?
7. Page 23, Section 6.4 and Page 27, Section 7.2 — Note that only volunteer species that are
included on the approved mitigation plan plant list may count toward the vegetation performance
standard. DWR does not support adding red maple to the project's approved plant list.
8. Page 25, Section 6.5 — Please describe how the site's total wetland area will be maintained and
no net loss of wetland will be documented (e.g. re -delineation between MY5 and MY7).
9. Page 27, Section 7.1 — As this is a smaller site that is fragmented by 60-ft and 95-ft easement
breaks requiring Priority 2 restoration on a single intermittent stream segment, DWR is
concerned about the overall functional uplift. Connectivity to wetlands and potential
enhancement of those features is a valued project benefit. However, DWR requests that
cumulative days' flow be tracked and reported annually during the monitoring period as another
parameter substantiating functional uplift for this intermittent -only stream segment site.
10. Page 29, Section 8.2 — Please include photo points at proposed stream crossings.
11. Page 30, Section 8.6 — In the baseline monitoring report, please include red -line drawings
showing construction deviations from the final mitigation plan design sheets, including species
substitutions and/or quantity changes.
12. Page 32, Section 9 — Please specify DMS as the point of contact to notify the IRT of any site
issues.
13. Page 32, Section 10 — Please define the max. duration between "periodic" inspections.
14. Figure 9 — Please show existing wetlands on this figure, as well as future CCPV figures.
15. Sheet E1 — Please include roadway and utility easement boundary lines.
16. Sheet D2 — Channel Backfill — For proposed partially filled channel areas, please indicate the
maximum depth from top of bank to be filled.
17. Sheet D3 — Regarding the Hay Bale Toe, DWR is concerned about the use of this material for
long-term bank stabilization and/or habitat. Please provide more information about this technique
(including photos over time) and situations/places it has been successfully implemented. Also,
please provide adaptive management strategies for dealing with potential bank instability issues
in these proposed treatment areas for this site. What are the benefits to this technique compared
to a brush toe or coir log toe?
18.Appendix C — Please include a location map for the proposed reference site.
19.Appendix A — Please note that DWR did not review the "Appendix A — Buffer Mitigation Plan" as
part of this IRT task. DWR will be providing comments separately for the draft Buffer Mitigation
Plan.
BROWNINGAMBE Digitally signed by
RLY.DANIELLE.152 BROWN INGXIMBERLY.DANIELLE
.1527683510
7683 510 Date: 2020.10.16 13:54:10-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division