20190049 Ver 1_Notice of Intent to Approve_20201113

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 1:59 PM
To: Munzer, Olivia; Wilson, Travis W.; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis,
Erin B; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Hamstead, Byron A; Bowers, Todd
Cc: McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Reid, Matthew; Wiesner, Paul; Eric Neuhaus; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); Shawn Wilkerson
Subject: [External] Notice of Intent to Approve/ NCDMS Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site/
SAW-2018-02062/ Buncombe Co.
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo -Carpenter Bottom_SAW-2018-02062.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]
Happy Friday all,
We have completed our review of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the NCDMS Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Project (SAW-
2018-02062). Please see the attached memo, which includes all NCIRT comments that were submitted during the review
process along with additional comments provided by Wilmington District staff following our review. Carpenter Bottom is
located in Catawba 03050102 but credits will be used in the Cat 03 ESA ( Cat 03050101; Cat 03050102; Cat 03050103).
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 November 27, 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
November 13, 2020
SUBJECT: Carpenter Bottom 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: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site, Buncombe County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2018-02062
NCDMS #: 100090
30-Day Comment Deadline: October 25, 2020
USACE Comments, Kim Browninq:
1. The ratio for the preservation area would be more appropriate as a low-level enhancement area
since it is proposed for cattle exclusion and invasive treatment. The lack of a wider buffer also
warrants a lower ratio. Wider buffers, measuring at least 100 feet in width, are generally required.
An enhancement I II ratio of 8:1 would be more appropriate for this area.
a. Do the buffers meet the minimum width on reach 2? They appear to be narrow in one
section, especially on the eastern boundary.
2. Livestock exclusion is mentioned as a way to gain functional uplift throughout the plan but it's
unclear how this will be accomplished without fencing, especially given the fact that multiple
landowners are involved. Will existing fence on adjacent properties be the main way to exclude
cattle? This seems risky for future encroachments.
3. Please include a veg plot in the wetland rehabilitation area near GWG 5 (wetland N).
4. It would be helpful to show the existing farm roads on Figure 3 since these areas will be a
concern due to compaction. Please put at least one mobile veg plot in one of these areas.
5. Page 3: Please correct "30530.230" cool stream credits.
6. There is concern that wetlands may extend beyond the conservation easement, into adjacent
farmland. A potential risk is that the adjacent landowner may ditch or tile the wetland adjacent
to the CE.
7. It would be helpful to include the NCSAM/WAM results in Tables 5 and 6.
8. Tables 9 and 17 state that livestock fence will be installed as needed. This is inconsistent with
other sections that state that fence will not be necessary because cattle will be removed.
9. Section 8.0: The IRT does not support terminating monitoring after 5 years. 7 years is required.
10. Section 8.1.1: The ER for C type streams should be no less than 2.2.

11. Section 8.2: Please remove the section that discusses inundation and a decreased vigor
standard. If tree height is a concern during monitoring this can be addressed in an adaptive
management plan. Additionally, please correct Table 17.
12. Section 8.5: The Corps supports benthic and water quality monitoring on this site.
13.Appendix 14: I'm a little confused why you ran the buffer tool and actually lost credits. It looks
like the only place where you have less than 50 ft is at the end of the Carpenter Branch R2, and
this appears to be less than 5% of the total length. Please confirm. By using the buffer tool you
get penalized for the crossing as well.
WRC Comments. Travis Wilson:
1. The vegetation portion of the mitigation plan identified a target community but did not include a
comprehensive list of species representative of that community. A target community species list
should be included in the mitigation plan and the planting plan should reflect that list of species.
2. The Draft mitigation plan did not include details for the design of the culvert crossing. This
information should be provided prior to the final mitigation plan in order to review adequate size,
configuration, and structure type.
3. The target community identified should not have vast areas of inundation that would affect vigor.
There may be a mosaic of depressional areas that would have longer periods of inundation
potentially affecting some species vigor and that can be described in the mit plan, but I don't
agree with adjusting the success criteria.
EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
1. General:
• 1 would like to commend the site sponsor and landowner for protecting the headwater wetlands
and streams by livestock exclusion without the need for fencing. Limiting livestock access to site
streams or drainages is crucial in protecting stream stability and minimizing harm to water quality
downstream.
• Recommend expanding the conservation easement to include upland buffers for the restored
wetlands at the headwaters of Carpenter Branch where feasible. Some of the wetlands may extend
well beyond the currently proposed conservation easement boundaries and without additional
protection these wetlands may experience degradation if the adjacent aquatic resource is not protected.
• I found it very helpful to name the main tributary of the site as Carpenter Branch and not just
another UT.
• 1 am confused on the presence/absence of fencing across the site. Correspondence and some
of the mitigation plan states that fencing is not needed as all cattle will be removed by the landowners.
Other parts of the document clearly state that fencing will be a site objective to meet the livestock
exclusion goal. The entire document needs to be edited to provide consistency one way or another,
however total cattle exclusion without the need for fencing is the preferred approach.
2. Section 4.1/Page 10:
• Recommend adding livestock exclusion as a method to provide potential functional uplift of the
site wetlands.
3. Section 4.5/Page 11:
• Recommend adding livestock exclusion as a method to provide potential uplift to stream
channel geomorphology.
4. Section 5.3/Page 13:
• Fencing is mentioned as method of improving the wetland function via removing livestock and
will be denoted in final plans. This is adding to confusion of the presence/absence of fencing on -site.
5. Table 9/Page 15:

• Livestock fencing is listed as an objective for livestock exclusion goal. Recommend
clarifying/correcting this inconsistency.
6. Section 7.1 /Page 16:
�etailed
Recommend adding "decommissioning farm roads" as part of the design approach. The
plan sheets show these roads to be removed in detail.
• Cattle exclusion is mentioned but the method is not addressed.
7. Section 7.4/Page 20:
• Relatively low design discharge (14 cfs) justification for Carpenter Branch Reach 1 was noted.
8. Section 7.6 /Pages 23-24:
• Livestock exclusion along entire reach of Carpenter Branch, UTs and headwater wetlands is
mentioned but the method remains unknown.
9. Section 7.7.3/Page 25:
• EPA appreciates the breadth and timing of the six groundwater gauges installed as well as the
data included to confirm presence/absence of potential wetland hydrology in the locations proposed for
wetland restoration. This is excellent baseline data that clearly demonstrates the potential of this site
to provide quality wetland function.
10. Section 7.8/Page 28:
• Recommend moving the last date for planting to be no later than April 15. This gives a two -
week buffer period to properly conduct a vegetation survey that should be completed by November 1
of MY1. Giving a six -week extension to the planting season also unnecessarily increases the risk of
mortality for first year bare -root seedlings and saplings so I highly recommend that Wildlands avoid
going beyond March 15 as little as possible.
11. Section 8.2/Page 30:
• Recommend adding November 1 as last date for vegetation sampling.
• Recommend adding the estimated number of vegetation plots in total and in the three planing
zones to be monitored for performance. Please update the monitoring figure to include all planting
zones (wetland re -habilitation zone does not appear to be monitored in Figure 10).
12. Section 8.5/Page 31:
• Wildlands has stated in correspondence that are not seeking the bonus credit from water quality
monitoring but this is an excellent site to demonstrate uplift since much of the headwaters are
encompassed and there is a high quality area (CB preservation) that is a good source for benthic
macroinvertebrates to move upstream/migrate from. An extra 24% of stream credits may offset those
lost to less than 50-foot width riparian buffers.
13. Table 17/Page 30:
• Inconsistent approach to cattle exclusion (fencing) is listed as an objective here.
14. Section 10/Page 35:
• No livestock, fencing or crossings are proposed for the project. Clarify if necessary but I believe
this is the preferred approach according to correspondence from Wildlands.
15. Section 12/Page 36:
• Add language to address the potential for water quality sampling and the additional potential
credits that may be generated by such action if pursued.
16. Planting Plans:
• Add the wetland indicator status for each species proposed for planting in the wetland zones.
• Recommend adding alternative species that may be considered if the primary chosen species
are not available at the time of planting in either the riparian or wetland zone.
DWR Comments. Erin Davis:
1. Page 5, Section 3.2 — DWR appreciates that Gaston County planning documents were
reviewed for this plan.
1. Page 7, Section 3.4 — Please reference NCSAM ratings and include the assessment and
scoring sheets in the appropriate appendix.

2. Page 15, Table 9 (also Page 32, Table 17) — Based on the response to DMS comments, fence
installation is not proposed for this project. Please update objective descriptions in both tables.
3. Page 24, Section 7.7 — Please confirm whether a total of 8.8 acres or 10.2 acres (page 3) of
historically altered wetlands are proposed to be restored.
4. Pager 25, Section 7.7.2 — The soil investigation notes the depth to hydric indicators is less than
10 inches onsite. Is grading proposed within wetland credit areas? If so, will any of these areas
be graded beyond than 12 inches?
5. Page 26, Section 7.7.3 — Section 8.3 lists the performance standard hydroperiod based on the
IRT 2016 guidance. However, based on the pre -construction baseline site data and reference
wetland data, what is the designed target hydroperiod (range) for the proposed wetland
community?
6. Page 28, Section 7.8 —
a. This section only mentions planting early successional species. DWR would like to see
a mix of early successional native species and appropriate climax species based on the
designated target community.
b. It is noted that ripping may be performed in haul road and stockpile areas, but of
specific compaction concern to this project is the decommissioning of farm roads that
crisscross the easement both in wetland and stream buffer areas.
7. Page 28, Section 7.9 — If cattle will be removed fully from the properties by the property
owners as mentioned in the response to DMS comments, then please identify the primary use
for the proposed culvert crossing. Will it still function as an agriculture crossing?
8. Page 30, Section 30 — DWR does not support the requested reduced vigor standard due to
inundation without additional information. Based on your modeling and reference wetland data,
what is the expected inundation period? If the inundation period is expected to be long enough
to stunt vegetation growth, shouldn't this also be reflected in the target hydroperiod duration
performance criteria? A request for a reduced vigor standard may be a more appropriate
discussion during adaptive management planning, unless the proposed wetland restoration is
designed to have prolonged inundation based on the wetland target and reference
community(s).
9. Page 31, Section 8.5 — DWR supports benthic and water quality monitoring at this site.
10. Page 33, Table 17 — See DWR comment #8 regarding vigor. Also, please provide more
information about the shaded plantings. Is supplemental understory/shrub planting proposed?
If so, please distinguish supplemental planting areas from full planting areas on a figure or
design sheet.
11. Page 34, Table 18 — Please add a stream gauge on UT2, as mentioned in Section 8.1.3.
12. Page 35, Section 10 — In an effort to reduce the risk of encroachment, signage spacing and
visibility will be important given all bends/corners along the proposed CE and multiple property
owners.
13. Figure 10 —
a. DWR requests the flow gauges on UT 3 and Carpenter Branch be shifted upstream
near the proposed photo points (approximately two-thirds the way upstream of the
confluence).
b. Please shift a permanent veg plot from the wetland re-establishment area to the wetland
rehabilitation area.
c. DWR requires a minimum of one additional groundwater gage. Please place the
additional gage near the wetland re-establishment/rehabilitation line east of UT2. DWR
requests an additional groundwater gage near the right bank photo point along
Carpenter Branch. It appears that of the originally proposed nine gages, six are located
approximately 50 feet from the easement boundary. DWR requests that at least half of
the total gages be placed within 50 feet of the easement boundary, since this is the area
DWR is most concerned with meeting the minimum hydroperiod performance standard.
d. Please include a photo point at the proposed crossing.

e. Please add a note regarding the four random veg plots to be monitored.
f. Please show or note that photo points will be taken at cross sections, veg plots and
gauge locations.
14. Sheet 2.1.1 — It would help our review to see the existing channel areas proposed to be filled
as a shaded feature on the plan view sheets, or for callouts be added. If ditch/channel plugs
area proposed, please identify the approximate locations. Also, please provide detail(s) for
ditch/channel filling and plugs.
15. Sheet 2.1.5 — Please call out culvert removals and show proposed culvert and easement break
lines on profiles.
16. Sheet 2.4.1 —
a. Will the pipe above the proposed BMP be removed?
b. What is the adjacent 50-ft existing easement line for?
17. Sheet 3.0 — Please confirm that the structure entering CE from west will be removed; please
add a callout identifying what it is.
18. Sheet 4.0 —
a. DWR understands that quantity substitutions may be necessary based on the nursery's
species available. However, we request that no species (excluding live stakes) account
for more than 20 percentage of a specified planting zone in order to promote diversity
within the designated community type.
b. It would be helpful for our review to have the wetland indicator status included in the
tables.
19. Sheet 6.1 — Rock sill — DWR does not support seeding banks with pearl millet or fescue.
20. Sheet 6.7 — Based on the material size it appears that the "rock toe" will be a riprap toe. Please
explain why this stabilization treatment is proposed rather than a stone/boulder toe for the four
stream bank areas called out.
21. Sheet 6.2 — DWR likes the level of detail provided for the vernal pool typical, including the
LWD callout.
a. Please consider a max. depth of 14 inches if a pool isn't expected to seasonally dry at
18 inches.
b. Were options evaluated to create a stable connection between pool and stream without
adding riffle material? Please callout riffle material size.
c. No vernal pools were called out on plan view sheets, if the proposed locations are to be
determined during construction please make sure to include callouts on the redline
record drawings.
22.Appendix 7 — In future project plans, DWR would request at least 1-2 additional representative
boring logs be provided based on the wetland credit area proposed and landscape features.
23.Appendix 13 — The IRT meeting minutes mentioned the possibility of extending the CE width
along a section of Carpenter Branch. What happened to this discussion?
BROWNING.KIMBE Digitally signed by
BROWNING.KIMBERLY.DANIELL
RLY.DANIELLE.152 E.1527683510
Date: 2020.1 1.13 13:40:12
7683510-05'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division