20190863 Ver 1_MP Approval Letter SAW-2019-00833_20210311

Strickland, Bev
From:
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:04 AM
To:
Baumgartner, Tim
Cc:
Reid, Matthew; Wiesner, Paul; Jake McLean; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(US); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd;
Youngman, Holland J; Munzer, Olivia; Merritt, Katie; Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:
[External] Approval Letter/ NCDMS Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site/ SAW-2019-00833/
Gaston County
Attachments:
Approval Letter -Oak Hill Dairy SAW-2019-00833.pdf, Draft Mit Plan Comment
Memo -Oak Hill Dairy SAW-2019-00833.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 Oak Hill Dairy 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
March 11, 2021
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site /
Gaston Co./ SAW-2019-00833/ NCDMS Project # 100120
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 Oak Hill Dairy Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on February 18, 2021. 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,
Kimberly Ddnl2lleDigitallysignedbyKimberly
y Danielle Browning
Browning Date: 2021.03.1108:56:35
-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
Jake McLean—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
February 23, 2021
SUBJECT: Oak Hill Dairy 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: Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site, Gaston County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2019-00833
NCDMS #: 100120
30-Day Comment Deadline: February 18, 2021
WRC Comments. Olivia Munzer & Travis Wilson:
1. I'd like to see more forbs (i.e., pollinator species) in the seed mix.
2. Cherrybark oak isn't known west of Mecklenburg. Consider an alternative
3. In the buffer, the soil moisture may not be wet enough for OBL species, such as tag alder, and
even some FACW trees, such as swamp chestnut oak
4. Seems like a high % of sycamore
5. Since the target communities include mesic-oak-hickory, add some hickories, white oak, scarlet
oak, etc.
6. Do not plant tall fescue or orchardgrass as these are invasive sp.
7. That specific rye (Secale cereale) is allelopathic.
8. HDPE is shown for one of the culverts; WRC prefers the use of CMP or RCP for this type of
crossing.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Design Sheet 4.2: The legend of symbols does not include the triangles shown on the drawing.
I assume these areas are the BMP planting call -out.
2. UT1 B, page 20: Given that this reach has a Medium NCSAM score, a 15 ft buffer on one side,
intermittent cattle access and contains kudzu, preservation is not appropriate for this reach. A
lower level of enhancement at 8:1 would be more appropriate. Please update credit tables.
3. Section 3.3 is very helpful in understanding current conditions. The inclusion of photos in section
3.3.2 would be welcome, to include photos of the berms that have been built up as a result of
dredging.

4. Section 5.0 & Table 15: 1 like the wording of the goals and objectives in this section; However,
Table 15 discusses the functions supported, including the physiochemical and biological 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.
5. Section 6.6.9 and Design Sheet 6.3 discusses replacement of culverts. On Sheet 2.15 it appears
that these crossings are outside the project area. Please note that if a new culvert is being
installed in an area that did not previously have a crossing, is outside the project easement, or
if the culvert will be larger and therefore have a larger impact, a Department of the Army Permit
may be required for this crossing as it would not be covered under the NWP-27. Since it appears
that these culvert replacements are an integral part of the design for UT2 and UT3, USACE
considers these part of this project; therefore, you may submit the NWP-14 permit application
along with the NWP-27 if it helps expedite the permitting process. Or as an alternative, you may
submit the permit for the culverts to the Gaston County USACE PM.
6. Pages 8, 11 & 16: It's concerning that runoff from the dairy waste lagoon and cattle feedlot
currently outlet directly into the stream. The addition of the BMPs will be important for filtering
runoff (thank you for the detail in Section 6.8). Is there currently a potential violation of State
water quality rules? Without touring the dairy operation it's difficult to discern whether the BMPs
will address the underlying problem. Although the lagoon has only over -topped the dam once, a
grassed waterway seems inadequate to filter the runoff from the lagoon and adjacent fields.
Additionally, does the landowner spray the adjacent fields with lagoon nutrients? A more
thorough explanation of land use practices would be helpful to understand the operation better.
If the fields are sprayed, please include a waste management spray map to ensure that proper
setbacks from the buffer and stream are being implemented.
a. Page 36 states that it may take several years to a decade before BMP capacity is reduced
such that performance suffers. Once the site is transferred to Stewardship, will the
landowner be responsible for maintenance of the BMPs? Please address this in Section
9.
7. Section 3.3.1: Why are UT2 and UT3 not being proposed for credit? Is it because there is a
concern with channel instability with flood events?
a. Due to concerns with aquatic species passage, the use of RCP is preferrable to HDPE.
8. Section 6.7: As a follow-up to our phone conversation February 5, please provide an updated
Figure 9 showing the different wetland approaches. Additionally, please label the wetlands to
coincide with the Soils Investigation Map in Figure A.
9. Thank you for the updated grading sheets and revised boundaries as a result of our phone
conversation; However, some of the follow-up email was a bit confusing, especially the
discussion of the map. We acknowledge that some changes were made to address concerns
but didn't necessarily change all the areas we discussed. Please include this correspondence
and updated figures in the final mitigation plan. If monitoring data suggests that the wetlands are
not on a trajectory for success, we may require a reverification of jurisdictional limits in MY7,
prior to the final credit release.
10. Please include an additional wetland gauge and veg plot in the creation area around the vicinity
of UT3.
11. Table 29: Several areas were noted to contain invasive species, such as Chinese privet,
bamboo, Japanese honeysuckle, Japanese knotweed, English ivy, marsh dewflower, multiflora
rose and kudzu. Please include a performance standard that addresses invasive control with
levels no more than 5% of the easement, and no tolerance for kudzu. This will need to be
maintained offsite as well.
12.Appendix 10: If BMP maintenance is anticipated, please update this section.
13. Figure 11: Please correct the Wetland Rehabilitation ratio from 1:5 to 1.5:1.

EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
1. Section 3.2/Page 5: Arundinaria gigantea, giant cane, was noted on -site. Was there any
discussion or consideration of transplanting this species and using it some locations such as in the
vicinity of UT2, UT3 or within the BMPs?
2. Section 3.3/Page 13: The NCSID form for UT113 "upper" only scores 15.5 here for the
"intermittent" portion. This is below the score of 19 normally utilized to denote intermittent streams.
Please note if best professional judgement if the score is to be overridden.
3. Section 4.0/Page 17: Is there a Clean Water Act Section 402 NPDES permit associated with the
adjacent cattle operation?
4. Table 16/Page 20: Preservation is the proposed approach for UT1 B and the mitigation activities
associated with this reach are quite extensive. How is preservation justified? I am also concerned with
the rather narrow buffer along the right bank that I am unclear as to how this was derived as appropriate.
5. Table 16/Page 21: Please add ratios for wetland re-establishment and creation.
6. Section 6.6.8/Page 31: The 15-foot easement for UT1 B is only for minimum crediting. At 10:1
this needs to be reduced further (30%?) to account for the thin buffer along the right bank. I remain
dubious about crediting this mostly intermittent reach at the preservation ratio even at 10:1, however
since UT 2 and UT3 are being built for no credit this may provide balance in crediting for the site. I may
have missed some discussions with the IRT that could shed light on this.
7. Section 6.9/Page 37: Please correlate the target community types with the Planting List Planting
Zones of Table 28.
8. Table 30/Page 42: 1 am a bit uncomfortable with no monitoring proposed for UT2 and UT3 even
if no credit is being sought. These reaches should have some minimum amount of monitoring (initial
longitudinal profile would be a good start; visual assessments are a must) to ensure they are stable
and not contributing any adverse effects towards Oak Hill Creek. I also recommend including a
monitoring component to ensure the BMPs are functioning as proposed.
9. Table 32/Page 45: Reiterating my misgivings for 10:1 preservation credit for an intermittent
stream with thin riparian buffer.
10. Figure 9: Please add ratios for wetland re-establishment and creation. Please add ratios for
stream work. The ditch legend color differences are not readily apparent on the map.
11. Appendix 10: Recommend adding BMPs to the maintenance plan even if they will likely not need
any upkeep to keep them functioning properly.
12. General Note: Are the fences for the site to exclude cattle corresponding with the conservation
easement boundaries? Are fences to be installed along the internal crossing boundaries as depicted in
Sheets 2.2 and 2.10?
13. General Note: recommend adding a legend for BMP planting zones and providing a species list
for these zones.
14. Sheet 4.1 Planting List: Recommend adding target plant communities to correlate with planting
zones. Recommend adding plant list for the BMP planting zone.
DWR Comments. Erin Davis:
1. DMS Comments Page 2 — DWR shares DMS' concern about the 10-ft building setback from the
proposed easement. Have there been discussions with the landowner and DEQ Stewardship
specifically regarding this deviation from the recommended 15-ft setback and any implications
for long-term management/potential future encroachment requests?
2. DMS Comments Page 5 — DWR recommends adding a few alternate species to the planting list
for review and approval in the Final Mitigation Plan, particularly if they are a "more suitable plant
species for a community".
3. Page 2, Section 3.1 — DWR appreciates the level of detail provided, including descriptions of
historic, existing and future watershed land use.

4. Page 12, UT1 — DWR supports removal of black walnut clusters onsite since we have observed
projects where they have inhibited the establishment of high restoration value planted species.
5. Page 16, Section 3.5 — DWR appreciates the level of detail provided in this section, as well as
efforts made to have the stream crossings as internal easement breaks, collocate crossings and
remove one of the OH utility lines. Please confirm that the sewer easement can be internal to
the project. Also, is there any anticipated NCDOT maintenance for the culverts under Roy Eaker
Road and Robert Road?
6. Page 27, Section 6.5 —Again, DWR appreciates the site specific discussion presented, including
bank slope adjustment and wetland credit area setback in anticipation of levy formation.
7. Page 31, Section 6.6.8 — Based on the UT1 B reach description on Page 13, DWR does not
believe the reach reflects the high quality condition appropriate for preservation credit. Given the
current reach condition and potential uplift from the work proposed, DWR would support an
enhancement credit ratio of 8:1.
8. Page 31, Section 6.6.9 — DWR would not oppose crediting the proposed UT2 and UT3 extension
reaches since it will result in additional instream habitat and the work is associated with restoring
Oak Hill Creek to its proper valley position. If credit is pursued, additional baseline information
and proposed monitoring should be included in the Final Mitigation Plan. Also, please note that
depending on the final UT2 and UT3 culvert design (location and total impact), a separate 401
Water Quality Certification may be needed to cover the proposed work.
9. Page 35, Section 6.7.5 —
a. Was levy formation resulting in reduced overbank flow a consideration in proposed
wetland design and proposed uplift? Does the setback of the wetland credit areas take
into consideration the drainage effect along proposed Priority 2 stream sections?
b. Also, similar to P2 bench cuts, DWR is concerned with soil development and associated
vegetation establishment in proposed wetland grading areas. Please include a discussion
on soil restoration addressing compaction and poor soil quality.
c. Based on DWR's field notes from the IRT site walk, we questioned whether UT1/Wetland
2 was eligible for reestablishment credit based on current soil characteristics. Based on
the bright soil color and lack of indicators observed, we felt that creation was a more
appropriate credit type. Additionally, a substantial area of this wetland is proposed to be
graded beyond 12 inches. DWR supports the hillside toe area associated with the F3
indicator borings as reestablishment, and the remaining area as creation.
d. DWR also has concerns with the potential functional uplift associated with Wetland 4,
given that it is adjacent to an enhancement I reach with a P2 section (hydroperiod
concern) and a substantial area will be graded beyond 12 inches (veg establishment
concern).
10. Page 36, Section 6.8 — Given the adjacent land use, the proposed BMPs are critical project
features. DWR appreciates that the easement was expanded to accommodate BMP 2. Please
clearly state if the designed BMPs will require maintenance beyond the monitoring period. If so,
consultation with DEQ Stewardship is needed.
11. Page 37, Section 6.9 — In addition to early successional species, DWR would like to see the
inclusion of climax species from the selected target communities in the planting plan.
12. Page 39, Section 6.10 — DWR values the addition of this section. DWR is also concerned with
the presence of so many invasive species onsite, particularly bamboo, kudzu and Japanese
knotweed. Please expand on your discussion of risks associated with these invasives for site
management and long-term functional uplift.
13.Appendix 8 — We appreciate the level of detail provided for the proposed species treatments.
Bamboo, cattail and marsh dewflower were also mentioned in the plan narrative, please add
these species to the appendix table.
14. Figure 11 —

a. DWR understands that 16 veg plots are proposed to cover the 19.9 acre planted area.
However, we request two additional permanent veg plots: 1) within the UT1 Reach 1
wetland creation area and 2) within the Wetland 4 (Oak Hill Creek Reach 1).
b. DWR requests photos of the BMP inlets and outlets in the as -built and MY1 report.
15. Sheet 2.2 & 2.10 — Please callout proposed easement breaks and show culvert locations on
profiles.
16. Sheet 2.4 & 2.8 — Please add a callout for the BMP outlet structure.
17. Sheet 2.8 — Does the rectangle grading line along the UT1 left bank near Station 208+50 denote
a concentrated flow connection? Do you anticipate any riprap placement in this area?
18. Sheet 3.1 — 3.4 — Please add callouts for existing ditches and known drain tile locations. If
possible, please also call out approximate locations of proposed wetland ditch plugs.
19. Sheet 4.1 —
a. Based on past projects, has there been any concern with seeding Polygonum
pensylvanicum due to its height (up to 4 FT) and establishment rate inhibiting/ competing
with planted woody stems?
b. DWR requests that no species (excluding live stakes) account for more than 20 percent
of a specified planting zone in order to promote diversity (e.g. Sycamore).
20. Sheet 5.4 — DWR appreciates the inclusion of the Floodplain Roughening detail, including the
callout for LWD placement.
21. Sheet 5.6 — Wetland Ditch Plug — Does this detail also apply to existing/relic channel plugs? If
channel plugs are proposed, we would like to see approximate locations shown on the plan view
drawings.
22. Design Plan — Please include an overview fencing plan showing proposed fence and existing
fence to remain, as well as approximate locations of anticipated gates.
Digitally signed by Kimberly
Kimberly DanielleDanielle Browning
Browning Date: 2021.02.23 13:09:25
-05'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division