20190868 Ver 1_Approval Letter SAW-2019-00909_20210107

Strickland, Bev
From:
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Wednesday, January 6, 2021 3:29 PM
To:
Baumgartner, Tim
Cc:
Crocker, Lindsay; Dow, Jeremiah J; John Hutton; McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(US); Davis, Erin B; Merritt, Katie; Wilson, Travis W.; [e-mail];
Munzer, Olivia; Bowers, Todd
Subject:
[External] Approval Letter/ NCDMS Dynamite Creek/ SAW-2019-00909/ Rockingham
Co.
Attachments:
Approval Letter -Dynamite Creek_SAW-2019-00909.pdf, Draft Mit Plan Comment
Memo-NCDMS Dynamite Creek_SAW-2019-00909.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
Report Spam.
Mr. Baumgartner,
Attached is the Draft Dynamite 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.
Very Respectfully,
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
January 6, 2021
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Dynamite Creek Mitigation Site /
Rockingham Co./ SAW-2019-00909/ NCDMS Project # 100125
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 Dynamite Creek Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on November 28, 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,
BROWN ING.KIMBERL Digitally signed by
Y.DANIELLE.1527683 BROWNING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE.
1527683510
510 Date: 2021.01.06 15:13:04-05'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Ronnie Smith, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Jeremiah Dow, Lindsay Crocker—NCDMS
John Hutton—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
December 10, 2020
SUBJECT: Dynamite 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: Dynamite Creek Mitigation Site, Rockingham County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2019-00909
NCDMS #: 100125
30-Day Comment Deadline: November 28, 2020
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Figure 2: Please call -out the area on Dynamite Creek where the relic dam was located as the
potential for legacy sediment in this area is a concern.
2. Figure 10: Please include a fixed photo point at the utility crossing and the downstream end of
the project culvert.
3. Table 5: Thank you for including this table. This baseline data is helpful when demonstrating
functional uplift during monitoring.
4. Page 12, Table 6: The first and last goal are redundant "Protect high quality stream resources
and Protect the project site..."
1. Sections 3.5, and 4.0 discuss the reduction of bacterial loading downstream as one of the two
main functional uplifts. This is a benefit that is presumed and will not be measured by monitoring.
Unless you intend to demonstrate actual uplift in this area, I recommend that this section be
reworded. The same is true for the project goal to exclude livestock from streams (Table 6),
which state that its expected outcome is that inputs will be reduced; however, there is no
proposal to actually measure or demonstrate this to be the case. Please reword these sections.
5. When comparing Tables 3 and 9, it's interesting to note that reaches 3 and 6 scored a High SAM
score but are proposed for restoration. I do recall the condition of the channels from the IRT site
visit and I don't question the proposed approach, I just wanted to point out that observation.
6. Table 4: It would be helpful to incorporate the NCWAM ratings.
7. Section 6.7: Different target community planting zones should be specified, similar to the
different planting zones described on Design Sheet 3, since reach 7 is appropriate for bottomland
hardwoods and the majority of the other reaches are in uplands.
8. Section 6.8: Is there potential for utility line maintenance? I recall this area being very steep, and
eroded.

9. Section 7.0: 1 don't recall a discussion regarding a wetland rehabilitation ratio of 1.3:1, in fact my
notes indicate that the majority of the wetlands would be more appropriate for enhancement. I
would agree to a 1.5:1 ratio for the rehabilitation area. Please adjust Table 16.
10. Please confirm the depth of the vernal pool within the CE.
11. Please note that photos and cross -sections along Reach 7 will be looked at closely to ensure
that this reach is maintaining a channel.
EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
Note: It is understood that site visits may have been made by IRT members and other project managers
during the development of site feasibility to provide mitigation credit. In that regard, I feel it is necessary
to mention 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 Dynamite Creek Draft Mitigation Plan dated October 2020:
1. Section 3.5/Page 10: Livestock exclusion is mentioned but the method is not well
addressed in the document and proposed fencing is not shown in the design sheets.
Recommend adding exclusion details (complete livestock removal or fencing or a
combination) and updates to the design sheets.
2. Section 6.6.7/Page 22: Recommend expanding the discussion for grading between the
conservation easement and the farm road culvert at the terminal end of the project if
known. It should be known at this point if grading is needed or not to tie the project into
the culvert which will not be removed or replaced.
3. Section 6.6.9/Page 22: Recommend adding the number of consecutive days needed to
meet the 12 percent of the growing season success criteria. This comment applies to
Tables 17 (Performance Standards) and 18 (Monitoring Plan) as well.
4. Section 6.7.1/Page 23: What are the plant community targets for the stream riparian zone,
wetland reestablishment and wetland restoration areas? No reference forest or
community type is noted in this section. Discuss the designated Zones (provide a
narrative) for planting (Riparian Zone, Wetland Zone, streambank zones) as displayed in
planting plan of Sheets 3.0 and 3.1.
5. Table 18/Page 27: Provide a definitive answer to the objective of livestock exclusion if it
is to be fencing, removal or a combination of both.
6. Table 19/Page 28: In footnote 5, please reword the vegetation monitoring requirement.
The statement should be "in years 4 and 6, vegetation will be only monitored visually"
Current wording alludes that vegetation will not be monitored visually in other years.
7. Appendix 1/Figures 7 and 10: Excellent legend color scheme! The only color notably
absent is orange, however there is no Enhancement II work, so this is expected.
DWR Comments. Erin Davis:
1. Page 9, Section 3.4.3 — DWR appreciates the inclusion of baseline groundwater gage data.
2. Page 11, Section 3.6 — DWR appreciates that the number of crossings is limited, and that the
landowner access crossing is proposed as a narrow, bridged internal crossing.
3. Page 20, Section 6.6 — Exclusion of cattle is listed as the first project goal and as such a
minimum level of detail regarding how this will be accomplished should be included in the
approved mitigation plan. Please include a concept fencing plan showing existing and
proposed fencing in the final mitigation plan. Please also show approximate locations of
anticipated gates or note that adequate safe site access for regulatory staff will be addressed
and shown on the MYO submittal.

4. Page 22, Section 6.6.9 — On Sheet 2.1 the proposed pools are identified as "vernal", which is a
habitat feature that seasonally dries. The elevation table lists a cut depth of up to 4 feet.
Please confirm that these features will seasonally dry. If not, DWR recommends planting
obligate herbaceous plugs and shrubs that can tolerate the designed inundation level. DWR
does not support wetland rehabilitation credit for the two pools that are not located within a
delineated drained hydric soil/appropriate wetland restoration area. DWR would support the
one pool located within an appropriate wetland restoration area if it is vegetated.
5. Page 23, Section 6.7.1 —
a. Planting Plan - Please identify and describe target community(s) or reference site
community(s) (including location map). DWR would expect that the buffer target
community along Reach 1 — 6 would differ from the wetland target community along
Reach 7. Also, this section mentions planting only successional species. DWR would
like to see a mix of successional native species and appropriate climax species based
on the designated target community(s).
b. Soil Restoration — Please call out soil restoration of priority II bench cuts.
6. Page 24, Section 6.8 — Related to the frequent, large storm events, have you evaluated the
risk of alluvial deposits from the Dan River re -burying hydric soil in wetland credit areas?
Currently, wetland restoration credit areas extend to the stream top of bank. Should there be
offset?
7. Page 24, Section 7.0 — Regarding the proposed alternate wetland rehabilitation ratio of 1.11,
DWR supports the application of the standard wetland rehabilitation ratio of 1.5:1.
8. Page 25, Table 17 — Please clarify that the wetland hydroperiod is an annual standard.
9. Page 27, Table 18 — Please confirm whether veg plots will be monitored annually.
10. Page 29, Section 11 — Please include the NCIRT in the adaptive management planning
process.
11. Figure 10 — DWR requires a minimum of one additional groundwater gage within the wetland
rehabilitation credit area. 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, as these are the areas DWR is most concerned about
meeting the minimum hydroperiod standard.
12.Appendix 6 — Depending on the area and volume of alluvial deposition to be removed, an
adaptive management plan review by the IRT may be warranted.
13. Sheet 3.0 — Overall, DWR appreciates the level detail (multiple planting zones) included on the
planting plan. I would just ask to consider one or two more understory/shrub species for the
wetland planting zone.
14. Design Sheets — Please show bench/floodplain grading extents, in particular for the priority II
areas along Reach 2 and Reach 6 noted in Section 6.6. Also, if channel grading is proposed
downstream of the conservation easement as part of this project construction, please show on
design sheets and include in the ePCN project impacts table (possibility noted in Section
6.6.7).
15. Details — Please include channel fill and plug details. Has available onsite material been
calculated? Will offsite material need to be sourced? DWR shares WRC's concern noted
during the site walk, that if the old channel is not fully filled and plugged streamflow may persist
along the hillside toe path (upper reaches).
Digitally signed by
BROWN ING•KIMBERLY• BROWN INGXIMBERLY.DANIELLE.
DAN I ELLE.1527683510 1527683510
Date: 2020.12.10 17:13:19-05'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division