20201094 Ver 1_Approval Letter SAW-2018-00449_20201130

Strickland, Bev
From:
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Monday, November 30, 2020 4:20 PM
To:
Baumgartner, Tim
Cc:
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Davis, Erin B;
Wilson, Travis W.; Leslie, Andrea J; Hamstead, Byron A; Bowers, Todd; Reid, Matthew;
Wiesner, Paul; McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Smith, Ronnie D CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA); King, Scott ([e-mail]); Clemmons, Micky
Subject:
[External] Approval Letter/ NCDMS Blair Creek Mitigation Site/ Clay County/
SAW-2018-00449
Attachments:
Approval Letter-NCDMS Blair Creek_SAW-2018-00449.pdf, Draft Mit Plan Comment
Memo -Blair Creek SAW-2018-00449.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]
Mr. Baumgartner,
Attached is the Blair Creek Mitigation 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. If no permit is required to construct the project, please submit a
copy of the Final Mitigation Plan to our office at least 30 days prior to beginning construction. 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.
Thanks,
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
November 30, 2020
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Blair Creek Mitigation Site / Clay Co./
SAW-2018-00449/ NCDMS Project # 100047
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 Blair Creek Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on October 11, 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
USACE Mitigation 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,
BROWNING.KIMBER Digitally signed by
LY.DANIELLE.15276 BROWN ING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE.
1527683510
83 510 Date: 2020.11.30 15:29:14-05'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Ronnie Smith, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Matthew Reid, Paul Wiesner—NCDMS
Scott King —Michael Baker Engineering Inc.

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
November 9, 2020
SUBJECT: Blair Creek 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: Blair Creek Mitigation Site, Clay County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2018-00449
NCDMS #: 100047
30-Day Comment Deadline: October 11, 2020
WRC Comments, Andrea Leslie:
1. The 1990 third approximation of the Natural Communities of North Carolina is used to develop
a planting plan — the most recent fourth approximation (Schafale's 2012 Natural Communities of
NC) should be used instead. We recommend finding a nearby reference reach and wetland for
the vegetation community and using these to tailor the planting list.
2. The planting list includes Yellow Birch, which is a higher elevation species, and we recommend
replacing this with Sweet Birch. Willow Oak, Overcup Oak, Cherrybark Oak, and Swamp
Chestnut Oak are all piedmont species, and unless they are found in the area, they should be
replaced with montane species.
3. Silver maple exists on site and as it will likely come in on its own, we recommend that it be
eliminated from the plan or kept to a very small proportion (5%) of planted stems on site.
EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
1. This site has many good features and I have no issues with the stream restoration approach
in general. However, one of the biggest shortcomings of the site plan is the width of the
riparian zone and lack of wetland inclusion which severely limits the site functional uplift
potential. Understandably, due to either cost or landowner constraints, the provider is
adhering to the minimum standard of a 30-foot wide riparian buffer, however there are many
reasons why this minimum width is ecologically unsuitable for this site.
2. The 30-foot wide buffer (based on top of bank) creates some issues with continued
connection and protection of adjacent wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands outside of the CE will
remain under threat of agricultural use and runoff which will diminish the functional lift of the
wetlands being enhanced or restored within the CE.

3. A wider riparian buffer of 50 feet would be less susceptible and more effective to deal with
nutrient rich runoff from the adjacent agriculture fields. It would also increase the
effectiveness to filter runoff from livestock if the landowner decides to introduce them to the
fields.
4. The thin riparian buffer width is more susceptible to invasive species encroachment as the
border to interior area ratio remains small and easily invaded.
5. With a wider riparian buffer, more of the adjacent wetland function can be enhanced and
protected by the stream restoration work to restore floodplain connectivity to those wetlands
currently outside the proposed CE.
6. A wider riparian buffer would be more resilient to beaver encroachment. The provider has
stated that beaver and dams will be removed during the monitoring period. This is
understandable to allow the streams to stabilize and vegetation to thrive without the
continued threat of herbivory from beaver. Stream credits can also be released for mitigation
purposes during this period. However, beavers will almost certainly return to the site following
the monitoring period and continue to be an issue into long-term management. I recommend
that the provider consider a site plan that will be more beaver resilient beyond the 7-year
monitoring period. This would include adding a significantly wider riparian buffer to the
streams and a wider conservation easement to include more existing and potential wetland.
7. The site plan would be enhanced by wider riparian buffers in including the adjacent existing
wetlands and by planting the hydric soils contained in the lower field between the North Fork
Lower Reach and the South Fork of Blair Creek. According to the soil survey and associated
borings there is significant potential for restoring wetland function to this area (Arkaqua loam
mapping unit). Converting this area into wetland and inclusion in the conservation easement
would make the site more resilient to flooding either by storms or by backwater from Blair
Creek caused by beaver.
8. Page 3-5: Recommend including mention of the on -site rain gauge as it was on page 7-4.
9. Page 6-4: Where are riparian buffers "in excess of 30 feet" on R1 other than on the inside
bends of the restored meandering stream? Riparian buffer width should be determined based
on stream belt width which is barely established by the site plan. I recommend a minimum of
a 50-foot riparian buffer based on restored stream beltwidth. This will also allow random
placement of square 10 x 10 m vegetation plots in any location within the conservation
easement.
10. Page 6-5/Table 6.2a: The contributing drainage area is listed (erroneously) in square miles
and not acres.
11. Page 6-6: Sinuosity would not be constrained to 1.14 if the conservation easement was wider
and the riparian buffers were 50 feet wide from the stream beltwidth.
12. Page 6-6: Where are riparian buffers "in excess of 30 feet" on R2 other than on the inside
bends of the restored meandering stream? Riparian buffer width should be determined based
on stream belt width which is barely established by the site plan. I recommend a minimum of
a 50-foot riparian buffer based on restored stream beltwidth. This will also allow random
placement of square 10 x 10 m vegetation plots in any location within the conservation
easement. A wider buffer will enhance the beaver resiliency of the lower end of R2 as well.
13. Page 6-7/Table 6.2b: The contributing drainage area is listed (erroneously) in square miles
and not acres. Recommend a proposed Bank Height Ratio of 1.0.
14. Page 6-8: Where are riparian buffers "in excess of 30 feet" on R3 and UT1 other than on the
inside bends of the restored meandering stream? Riparian buffer width should be determined
based on stream belt width which is barely established by the site plan. I recommend a
minimum of a 50-foot riparian buffer based on restored stream beltwidth.
15. Page 6-13: 1 recommend expanding the conservation easement to include adjacent
wetlands, hydric soils with wetland inclusion and buried hydric soils. Less than half of the
existing wetlands in the vicinity (in the floodplain) of the site are being protected by the CE.

None of the proposed wetlands included in the CE for credit have an upland buffer
component and many have boundaries that extend well outside of the proposed CE.
16. Page 6-15: Planting dates are well defined and suitable. Recommend not planting beyond
the date listed unless an emergency situation exists and proper MY1 monitoring can continue
180-days post planting.
17. Page 6-16: Excellent planting list with lots of diversity. Recommend remaining flexible with
species and percentages in case primary desired species are not available at planting.
18. Page 6-18: Recommend designing a site that can accommodate beaver or make it resilient
to beaver activity rather than making it a site constraint.
19. Page 7-3: Make sure that vegetation plot species are noted in the baseline/as-built report
following planting to determine that the desire species were installed and at the proposed
percentages.
20. Page 8-1: Recommend adding a basic measurement of large woody debris in each restored
reach to demonstrate that the goal of improving aquatic habitat is being achieved. No
connection to performance standards is recommended at this time but some data to
demonstrate that the objective of "increasing woody debris" is carried out and that the
functional lift of aquatic habitat is realized.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Section 3 — I may have missed it, but please discuss the pond east of R1 and any hydrologic
connection it may have with the project. If there is a connection, please discuss how it will tie-in
to the proposed restoration approach in Section 6.0. Is this feature the same as the old quarry
discussed in the IRT meeting minutes?
2. Page 3-7, Section 3.1.2 — Was there discussion with the utility company about the feasibility of
relocating the utility line to run along the driveway in an effort to reduce site fragmentation and
increase the potential functional uplift?
3. Page 3-6, Section 3.1.2 (and Section 4.0) — Is any DOT work anticipated in the vicinity of the
project? Regarding future potential watershed and adjacent area land use changes for design
consideration and encroachment risk, consultation with local/regional planning documents
and/or agencies is encouraged.
4. Page 6-5, Table 6.2a (and Table 6.2b) — Should the drainage area units be square miles rather
than acres?
5. Page 6-18, Section 6.8 — Please provide more discussion regarding beaver activity. Based on
past activity, this is significant concern in maintaining long-term function uplift. Please identify
specific risks and potential damage to the project related to beaver activity. Was beaver
resiliency a design consideration? Have there been long-term management discussions with
the landowner(s) and stewardship?
6. Page 7-3, Section 7.2 —
a. DWR does not support early termination of monitoring activities.
b. Please identify the specific overstory species being requested for exemption of the vigor
standard. DWR is ok exempting the shrub species proposed.
7. Page 8-2, Section 8.0 — 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.
8. Page 10-1, Section 10 — DWR recommends annual inspections to confirm compliance with
easement conditions.
9. Figure 4 — What does the blue diamond indicate?
10. Figure 11 —
a. DWR requests an additional veg plot and groundwater well within the proposed wetland
rehabilitation area.

b. Based on the figure scale and icon size, it's difficult to determine approximate distances
from the proposed well locations to easement boundary and stream bank lines. Since
wetland credit extends from easement boundary to stream bank, DWR requests that a
representative number of wells be located close to the easement boundary and stream
bank edges.
c. Please indicated proposed fix photo points. In addition to veg plots and cross sections,
DWR requests photo points at the proposed stream crossings.
11.Appendix K — Why weren't pre -construction baseline groundwater wells installed in proposed
wetland credit areas as Mac suggested? With over two years between the post contract walk
and draft mitigation plan submittal, it would have been helpful data to have for this review.
12. Sheet 1-A — Please update the legend symbols to be consistent with provided details (e.g. log
jam).
13. Sheet 2 — Please indicate where bankfull benches are proposed and confirm that all
constructed benches will be greater than 30 feet wide as noted. Proposed wetland credits
generated within the bench areas are being requested, correct? Beyond berm removal, what is
the anticipated cut to create the benches?
14. Sheet 2A —
a. Anecdotally we have been seeing some sills/steps with drops where aquatic passage is
a concern. During construction please continue to have aquatic passage as a
consideration in structure installation.
b. Please call out the proposed location(s) of the plunge pool.
15. Sheet 2D —
a. The permanent stream crossing does not show the floodplain pipes as described in the
plan. (Same for Sheet 2F Boulder Headwall)
b. Please call out the proposed location(s) of the outlet protection.
16. Sheet 2E — Based on the fence and gate details, I'm assuming that at least a section of the
project will be fenced. Please provide a proposed fencing plan with approximate gate
locations.
17. Sheet 2G — Please include a typical detail for the proposed log cross vane.
18. Sheet 4 —
a. Can the proposed wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation and enhancement areas
please be shown on a separate sheet set. It is difficult to see the existing contour,
proposed contour and limit of disturbance lines under all of the hatching.
b. The existing field ditches/swales indicated on Figure 4 are not shown on the design
sheets. Please provide call outs and/or shading to indicate proposed filling. Also, please
callout of the removal of the old bridge.
19. Sheet 6 — There appears to be a 6-inch PVC pipe entering the conservation easement (likely
from the adjacent pond). Please confirm that pipe will be removed from the easement. Also,
please indicate any proposed grading or treatment/structure for handling flow from the pond
within the project area wetland and stream.
20. Sheet 8 — Please confirm the constructed riffle is sufficient bed stabilization for the utility
easement break. A stabilized access path and/or bank treatment are not necessary to allow for
vehicle crossing?
21. In reviewing the IRT meeting minutes, DWR appreciates the inclusion of wetlands in the
project's functional uplift. However, based on the existing wetland and extended hydric soil
areas adjacent to the project, it's seems a lost opportunity that the buffer/CE wasn't widened to
capture more wetlands and reduce or eliminate the sinuosity constraint noted for Reach R2.

USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. In areas proposed for wetland rehabilitation along Reach R1 where the proposed functional uplift
is to improve groundwater hydrology through priority 1 stream restoration and vegetation
establishment, please place a wetland gauge in the rehabilitation area. Additionally, in order to
show functional uplift there should be pre -construction groundwater wells installed to show
baseline data and justify improved groundwater hydrology.
2. Please move one of the veg plots to the wetland rehabilitation area along Reach R1.
3. Section 3.2.3: The claim that the project will restore resource function such that features are
rated as "high" in their respective assessments is admirable, but I think it should be a goal, rather
than a statement. It will be interesting to see the results of the functional assessment at project
close-out.
4. Section 6.8: 1 appreciate the inclusion of this section and the thought that goes into it. There is
significant concern regarding the potential for beaver to impact the site given the recent beaver
activity.
a. Given that there are currently field drains in adjacent wetlands, is there concern that the
landowner will ditch/drain adjacent to the newly restored wetlands in the event that the
agricultural fields become too wet to farm? This is particularly of concern due to the
amount of wetlands adjacent to the conservation easement that were not captured in this
project.
b. I would also add discussion regarding culvert/bridge replacement on the upstream
reaches of R1 and R2.
c. Utility line maintenance would also be helpful to include in this section.
5. Section 7.2: Vegetation monitoring will take place for seven years.
a. It's acceptable to exclude the understory/shrub species from the height standard;
however, the overstory species will still be subject to the vigor standards. Additionally,
vegetative success will be measured based on the planted species. You may evaluate
additional plant community indices, but the success of planted stems will be used to
measure success.
6. Figure 11: Please indicate the location of the rain gauge mentioned on page 7-4.
7. Table 81., page 8-2: Please add a height standard of 7' for MY5 and 8' for MY7 for vegetation.
8. Design Sheet 1A: General Note 3 should be corrected from 2019.
9. Is the utility crossing a ford crossing with pipes under? RCP pipes were mentioned but it was
unclear if both crossings were culverts.
10. Page 6.6: Will the farm path within the buffer be removed and planted? If so, a veg plot should
be in this area to address compaction concerns.
Digitally signed by
BROWN ING.KIMBERLY. BROWNINGAMBERLY.DANIELLE.
DA N I E L L E.15 2 7683 510 1527683510
Date: 2020.11.12 13:24:37-05'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division