20190862 Ver 1_Notice of Intent to Approve SAW-2019-00832_20210114

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 4:27 PM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B;
Bowers, Todd; Hamstead, Byron A; Wilson, Travis W.; Munzer, Olivia; Merritt, Katie
Cc: Matthew Harrell; Raymond Holz; Phillips, Kelly D; Wiesner, Paul; grant lewis;
McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Baumgartner, Tim
Subject: [External] Notice of Intent to Approve / NCDMS Nesbit Mitigation Site / Union Co /
SAW-2019-00832
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_Nesbit_SAW-2019-00832.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 Spa m.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Good afternoon,
We have completed our review of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the NCDMS Nesbit Mitigation Project (SAW-
2019-00832). Please see the attached memo, which includes all NCIRT comments that were posted on the
DMS SharePoint site during the review process along with additional comments provided by Wilmington
District staff following our review of the IRT comments.
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 January 29, 2021). 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
January 14, 2021
SUBJECT: Nesbit Mitigation Project - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received during the 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: Nesbit Mitigation Site, Union County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2019-00832
NCDMS #: 100121
30-Day Comment Deadline: January 6, 2021
WRC Comments, Olivia Munzer:
1. Stringent sedimentation and erosion control to reduce any impacts to mussels downstream will
be essential.
EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
1. Section 3.2/Page 7: Be sure to include contingencies in the adaptive management plan should
unknown areas of bedrock be encountered.
2. Section 3.3/Page 7: While I agree that mitigation of site streams will reduce bank erosion rates
and sediment loading of receiving waters, how much is the restoration efforts expected to reduce
the rate? Will erosion rate be reduced to zero with restoration/enhancement efforts? Can this
information be updated in the As-Built/MY 0 report?
3. Section 3.4/Page 8: The nutrient load (nitrogen and phosphorous) reduction associated with the
cessation of land use activities is based on the entire 18-acre site conversion. How much of the
18-acre site (stream banks and channel and forested areas) is not currently in row crops? How
many acres of actual land are being taken out of row -crop production? What percentage of the
total nutrient input to the streams be reduced? Is the 360 Ibs of N and P per year reduction a
significant amount? What is the expected result of indirect nutrient removal due to a functioning
vegetated riparian zone?
4. Section 3.5/Page 8: There seems to be missing individual narrative descriptions of Glen Branch
and the unnamed tributaries that would normally be presented in this section. The network of
tributaries around Glen Branch have undergone significant change and alteration in the past 10
years and some additional information would be helpful to assess the current stressors as well
as past manipulation of waters feeding into the site.

5. Section 7/Page 17: The road (Nestbit Road) at the downstream terminus of the project is the
major constraint to the project as far as further activity is prevented beyond this point and could
be a source of encroachment in the future. Also, may want to mention that bedrock may
necessitate changes to the design if encountered during construction.
6. Table 19/Page 25: Recommend adding the number of consecutive days needed to meet the 12
percent of the growing season success criteria.
7. Table 20/Page 26:
a. Accolades to the site sponsor for including monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates even
without credits tied to the monitoring.
b. Recommend adding the rain gauge (shown on Figure 10) as the method of monitoring
rainfall data at the site.
C. Recommend the sponsor provide additional detail as to what constitutes "poor" growth to
necessitate the random plots.
d. In lieu of "poor" growth, I recommend 20% (3 plots) of all plots be located randomly each
year for vegetation monitoring.
DWR Comments. Erin Davis:
1. Page 1, Section 1.3 — Please include a discussion of past/historic onsite and adjacent area
land use.
2. Page 5, Section 2 — This section mentions watershed development pressures. Was a changing
watershed a consideration in site design? Have local/regional planning agencies/documents
been consulted? Are there any anticipated land use changes adjacent to the project site?
3. Page 6, Section 2 — Please clarify what is meant by the statement "requiring minimal long-term
management" regarding site stream and wetland resources.
4. Page 8, Section 3.5 — Please provide more detail on existing stream conditions. While Table 4
provides a general reach summary, it doesn't identify why multiple approaches are proposed
for each stream (e.g. why is UT1 broken into four reaches and three different approaches?).
Please also provide more context for the noted wetland clearing and include a reference to
presence of beaver.
5. Page 8, Section 3.5.2 — All reaches are classified as unstable, even proposed El reaches?
Also, which reaches are characterized by sand substrate?
6. Page 17, Table 14 — What are the artificial barriers listed as functional stressors?
7. Page 18, Section 7 — DWR considers stream crossing easement breaks as project constraints
to be listed in this section as they fragment the project site and reduce the potential uplift.
DWR does appreciate that the project only proposes one easement break.
8. Page 19, Section 7.4 — Were increased wetland hydrology and potential beaver presence
considerations in the risk of trespass and landowner ditching outside the easement? DWR
would have liked to see a buffer between wetland credit areas and the easement boundary.
9. Page 19, Section 7.5 — A utility right-of-way abuts the south easement boundary. Are there any
concerns with maintenance (e.g. mowing, spraying) along the conservation easement?
10. Page 20, In -stream Structures — DWR is slightly concerned with all wood grade control
structures on intermittent streams in the slate belt due to observed decomposition during
monitoring periods on other projects. Was project location and flow a consideration in
determining grade control material? As shown on design details, footer logs will be critical
structure components.
11. Page 20, Marsh Treatment Area — Please specify that no long-term maintenance is needed for
this feature. Also, please discuss alternatives to a riprap outlet. DWR prefers not to have a
hardened outlet unless no feasible alternative can maintain a stable connection.

12. Page 21, Drop Structure — Please clarify "drop structure may be constructed out of large
cobble". What's the alternative? How does this relate to the information provided in the Drop
Structure Detail?
13. Page 21, Table 16 — Please provide a brief description of the proposed floodplain interceptors
to go along with the Detail (e.g. purpose, material, any long-term stabilization risks).
14. Page 22, Section 8.3 — Is any wetland grading proposed? If so, please identify areas that will
be excavated beyond 12 inches. Also, ephemeral pools are noted in the text but not shown on
the draft design sheets. If construction of ephemeral pools is proposed, a typical detail (with
max. depth indicated) and approximate locations should be included in the final mitigation plan.
15. Page 24, Table 17 — The elm and hickory species in the planting list differ from RFE Table 9. Is
this due to availability? Also, please indicate if any of the species will be installed as live
stakes. And include a native permanent seed mix(s) in the final mitigation plan.
16. Page 24, Section 8.5.2 — Table 4 indicates 15% invasive site cover, what species are present?
I have a field note about parrot feather onsite, which can be extremely difficult to manage.
What is the proposed treatment plan for this species?
17. Page 24, Section 9 — Please add a sentence to this section stating that success criteria and
monitoring will be completed in accordance with the 2016 NCIRT Guidance.
18. Page 25, Table 18 — DWR understands that the macro sampling is not proposed for credit, but
please provide a brief description to accompany the table listed action.
19. Page 25, Table 19 — Please clarify that the surface flow criteria is for intermittent reaches and
that the wetland hydrology is an annual criterion.
20. Page 26, Table 20 — DWR requests a flow gauge at the top of UT2 Reach 2.
21. Page 27, Section 9.2 — DWR appreciates the inclusion of this section. Please note that some
of the listed actions will require IRT review as adaptive management and may need
USACE/DWR permit authorizations.
22. Page 27, Section 9.2.2 — As noted, IRT consultation and approval will be necessary if any
future earthwork is proposed. Depending on the depth of proposed ephemeral pools, the credit
ratio may change to reflect wetland creation.
23. Page 27, Section 9.2.3 — Again, DWR appreciates this discussion. We recommend an
additional sentence addressing any identified cause for observed veg issue(s) (e.g. beaver
trapping, pine thinning, soil amendments, additional signage for encroachments, landowner
discussion on herbicide overspray).
24. Page 28, Section 9.2.4 — DWR recommends higher sign posts or PVC extensions be
considered along the easement boundaries that abut row crop if corn will be in rotation,
particularly given the irregular shape of the project easement.
25. Page 28, Section 10 — Please specify DMS as the point of contact to notify the IRT of any site
issues.
26. Figure 9 — DWR appreciates the planting zones level of detail provided.
27. Figure 10 —
a. Based on the icons size it's a bit difficult to determine how many plots and gauges are
within each restoration type area. Please make sure to have at least 2 gauges and plots
within the wetland rehabilitation areas. DWR requests that a representative number of
gauges be placed streamside and near the upland edge, since these are the zones that
we are most concerned with meeting the minimum hydroperiod performance standard.
b. Please show or note fix photo points at all veg plots, gauges, cross -sections and stream
crossings.
28. Figures — DWR would welcome the inclusion of LiDAR and historic aerial figures, as well as
drone and ground photos of existing site conditions. All of these items are helpful in our review.
Also, can a property boundaries layer please be added to a figure.
29.Appendix B — Since this was requested during the IRT site walk, DWR would like more detail
included in the site soil investigation in the final mitigation plan, including a map indicating all

soil check locations. Representative soil profile photos are also helpful. (Note that Appendix D
did not include wetland determination forms with soil data.)
30. Sheet 01 A —
a. Please identify locations where the floodplain interceptor is proposed on the plan
sheets.
b. Is the step pool structure synonymous with the proposed drop structure? The details
appear different.
c. Please include the icon for channel fill. Please confirm that hatched channel fill areas
will be completely backfilled to grade. Also, on the plan sheets it appears that sections
of existing channel and ditches will remain open (areas not hatched). Please confirm.
DWR requests that these areas have a max. open depth of 14 inches. If this request is
not feasible, please provide a justification as to why.
31. Sheet 02, Riffle Rip Rap — Please provide approximate percent composition of Class A, Class
B and smaller stone.
32. Sheet 02B, Marsh Treatment Area — Please provide the max. depth proposed for the deep
pools. Please provide stone size and percent composition of riprap outlet, if an alternative non -
hardened stabilized outlet is not feasible. Will the associated outlets extend beyond the drawn
marsh treatment areas on the plan sheets? Are marsh treatment areas proposed at all points
where ditches connect to the project? Can ditch locations please be called out on plan sheets?
33. Sheet 02C, Reinforced Riffle Step — Please identified where this feature is proposed on the
plan view drawings. Please specify stone size. And what necessitates stone placement to top
of bank? DWR is concerned whether bank armoring is warranted.
34. Sheet 02E — Please make sure to enter the two blank minimum values.
35. Sheet 04 — DWR appreciates that existing and proposed wetlands are mapped on the design
sheets. However, the hatching makes it difficult to view elevation data. Please improve the
visibility of existing and proposed contour lines. Also, please update wetland "enhancement"
note to "rehabilitation" on all plan sheets.
36. Sheet 07 — Please confirm that the easement is proposed to be partially fenced, some sheets
have fence line callouts and some don't.
37. Detail — Please add a typical planting detail.
38. General Design — There are no meander bend bank treatments proposed for stabilization or
habitat (e.g. brush toe, boulder toe, vegetated/live lift). Are there any concerns with long-term
bank stability, particularly within a developing watershed?
USACE Comments, Kim Browninq:
1. The correct USACE Action ID for this project is SAW-2019-00832. Please correct the cover
page.
2. Page 8: The text describes all reaches as being unstable but Ell is planned on two reaches.
Please correct the contradiction.
3. A flow gauge should be placed on UT-2 at the beginning of the restoration reach. There are
concerns with this tributary maintain flow.
4. 1 appreciate the marsh treatment areas planned; however, these treatment areas should not be
placed in existing or proposed wetlands. On Figure 6 it appears that two of these BMPs are
located in proposed jurisdictional areas on Glen Branch upstream of UT-1. Please confirm that
these treatment areas will not be constructed in proposed wetlands.
5. Section 3.6.1 and Appendix K: Given that wetland gauges 1 and 2 already meet hydrology
performance standards, rehabilitation is not appropriate in these two locations since functional
uplift cannot be demonstrated. Please change these areas to wetland enhancement at 2:1.
a. After a discussion with RS on January 8, 2021, it was discovered that beaver were
trapped near gauges 1 and 2 which contributed to the increased hydrology. If you can

demonstrate that the hydrology is in fact not meeting performance standards prior to the
final mitigation plan, these areas may be credited at the rehabilitation ratio of 1.5:1.
6. UT1 Reach 1 is proposed for a 2.5:1 ratio, which is consistent with our notes from the July 2019
site visit, so why not list it as an enhancement II ratio, rather than El?
7. Table 1: The wetland rehabilitation section lists 2.46 existing acres but only 1.789 acres
proposed in the plan. Do you anticipate a loss of wetlands? Additionally, I can't figure out how
you came up with 1.193 mitigation credits based on a 1.5:1 ratio.
a. This table will need to be updated when you address comment #5 above.
b. The existing acres of 2.46 is not consistent with Section 1.4 or Table 4.
8. Section 3.5: This section should be expanded to include a narrative with more detail of existing
conditions, and broken out to describe each reach separately. Photos of existing conditions
would also be beneficial.
9. Section 3.6: This section should also be expanded to include a more detailed narrative of existing
wetland conditions. Will you be proposing wetland rehabilitation based on restoring an
appropriate plant community and elevating the water table? Will wetland re-establishment only
be proposed within areas clearly delineated as having drained hydric soils?
10. Are photo -points located at all cross -sections? If so, please also include a photo point of the
crossing and at the top and bottom of the project.
11. Table 14 discusses the functional uplift potential and references NCSAM/WAM, including the
water quality and habitat uplift. These are benefits that are presumed and will not be measured
by monitoring. Unless you intend to demonstrate actual uplift in these areas, I recommend that
this section be reworded that uplift in these areas is implied.
12. It would be beneficial to add some coarse woody debris to the depressional areas in the buffers
and throughout the adjacent wetlands for habitat, and to help store sediment, increase water
storage/infiltration, and absorb water energy during overbank events.
13. Section 7.5: While no utilities are located on the site, there appears to be a power line at the
downstream end of the project. Is there an appropriate setback from the utility corridor?
14. Page 22: Ephemeral pools should be 8-14" depressions that dry up yearly so that predatory
species cannot colonize, and should not be so numerous that trees do not grow in large areas
of the buffer. Additionally, please indicate the number and location of these areas.
15. Section 8.5.2: Several invasive species were identified during the IRT site walk. These species
should be listed in this section.
16. Section 9.1: Wilmington District guidance requires a macroinvertebrate reference location be
sampled for comparison purposes.
17. Table 19: 30-days consecutive flow is only in relation to intermittent streams.
18. Figure 10: It's difficult to tell from the map because the icons for groundwater gauges are so
large, but please make sure that there is a well located in the wetland rehabilitation area (near
the area where Gauge 1 was located for pre -data).
19. Section 9.2: 1 appreciate the thoughtfulness of this section. It may be beneficial to add beaver
to this section since they are already on -site.
BROWNING.KIMBER Dlgltallysignedby
LY.DANIELLE.15276 BROWN ING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE.
1527683510
83510 Date: 2021.01.1416:22:09-05'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division