20190866 Ver 1_MP Approval Letter SAW-2019-00836_20210407

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 4:12 PM
To: Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: Aaron Earley; Shawn Wilkerson; Wiesner, Paul; Reid, Matthew; Youngman, Holland J;
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Bowers, Todd; Haywood, Casey M CIV
(USA); Wilson, Travis W.; Davis, Erin B; Merritt, Katie; Leslie, Andrea J; McLendon, C S
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] Approval Letter/ NCDMS Huntsman Mitigation Site/ Wilkes County/
SAW-2019-00836
Attachments: Approval Letter_Huntsman_SAW-2019-00836.pdf; Draft Mit Plan Comment
Memo_Huntsman SAW-2019-00836.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 Huntsman Draft 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 Pre -Construction 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.
Regards,
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
April 7, 2021
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Huntsman Mitigation Site / Wilkes
Co./ SAW-2019-00836/ NCDMS Project # 100123
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 Huntsman Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed
on March 19, 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,
Digitally signed by Kimberly
Kimberly Danielle Danielle Browning
Browning Date:2021.04.07 16:07:07
-04'00'
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
Aaron Earley, Shawn Wilkerson—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 March 23, 2021
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Huntsman 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: Huntsman Mitigation Site, Wilkes County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2019-00836
NCDMS #: 100123
30-Day Comment Deadline: March 19, 2021
WRC Comments, Andrea Leslie:
1. The planting plan includes silver maple, which generally is found on very large alluvial systems
(see https://authl.dpr.ncparks.gov/flora/plant list.php). We recommend eliminating this species
from the planting plan.
2. There are separate planting lists for shaded riparian buffer zone and open riparian buffer zone.
The maps provided show only a small portion of the site on UT 2 would be planted with the
shaded zone list. The shaded list has 7 subcanopy species, and the open list has 2 species,
both of which would be only planted in the wetter portions of the site.
3. We would like to see greater emphasis on shrub/subcanopy species across the site — can some
of the species specified for the shaded zone be brought into more of the site? Can American
beech also be brought in as component across the site?
4. Persimmon and sourwood are to be planted on the wetter portions of the site; this doesn't make
sense for these species, which are usually found in dry areas.
5. It appears that the plan doesn't address issues with aquatic organism passage with the culvert
on Ingle Hollow Road, which is unfortunate. Is there any way that Wildlands could address this,
and if not, can the plan describe why this cannot be addressed?
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Figure 9: The legend shows a stream gauge but I cannot locate it on the map.
2. Figure 9: Please place a veg plot north of North Little Hunting Creek Reach 2, south of Ingle
Hollow Road, in the steeper area near the road (the FcC2 soils) —random is fine.
3. Design Sheet 4: There is a Note under the Open Riparian Buffer Planting Zone that indicates
that optional transplants to be used at Engineer's discretion. If this occurs and the transplant

species differ from those on the approved planting list, please red -line this as a change to the
planting plan on the As -Built. You may contact WRC/USACE for species appropriateness.
4. Sections 3.5 & 6.8: With four crossings, plus a road crossing, this site is somewhat fragmented.
It would have been preferable to co -locate the two crossings on North Little Hunting Creek.
Additionally, I have concerns about the utility crossing on UT1 with the unconsolidated pond
bottom. Were efforts made to relocate this utility line along Ingle Hollow Road?
5. UT2: Please describe future land use activities by the landowner in the drained pond bed south
of the poultry houses. It is understood that this area will be planted in pasture grass; However,
there is concern that future agricultural activities in the unconsolidated pond bed, adjacent to the
conservation easement, may affect the project negatively.
6. I appreciate all the detail and photo documentation in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4.
a. Are the chicken houses actively used? If so, does the landowner spread the chicken litter
on the pastures? It would be beneficial to include information regarding the nutrient
management of the site, and any current spreading setbacks. Will there be a risk of runoff
from the chicken houses entering the buffer since it's such a narrow area?
7. Appendix 11: Please show the different buffer width zones in different colors on the Buffer Credit
Calculation Map. For example, 30-50' in red, 50-75' in yellow, 75-100' in green, etc. Typically,
it's easier to compare two maps, one showing the ideal buffers, and one showing actual buffers.
Additionally, please confirm that the internal crossings were deducted as a credit loss; It's difficult
to tell with the map provided.
8. Section 5.0 & Table 11: I appreciate 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. Additionally, the culvert on Ingle Hollow Rd appears
to be an impediment to aquatic species migration, which is stated as an expected outcome in
the section discussing improving instream habitat.
9. Section 6.6: Thank you for the detail in the section regarding stream design implementation. I
would encourage this level of detail in future projects.
10. Stream relocation is estimated to impact existing wetlands within the easement. Though it is
anticipated that the total wetland acreage will likely increase as a result of stream restoration,
the Corps must still ensure that there is no net loss of wetlands as a result of ecological
restoration. If you do not plan to install wetland gauges and monitor hydrology, please plan to
reverify the extent of jurisdiction at the end of the monitoring period to document that wetland
acreage was not lost.
11. The Corps agrees with EPA's comments below regarding the Piedmont references for both
stream design and planting plan development. Given that this site is located in the Piedmont
physiographic region, and has been designed as such, the vegetative performance standard for
height success criteria would be more appropriate as 7 feet at MY5 and 10 feet at MY7.
a. Unfortunately, the designation as a mountain county and the Piedmont physiographic
region were not discussed at the IRT site visit in 2019, and we realize that the easement
boundaries, and associated buffer widths, have already been determined at this stage of
the plan development; However, we agree that wider buffers on portions of this site would
have been beneficial.

EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
Note: It is understood that site visits have been made by IRT members during the development of site
feasibility to provide mitigation credit. In that regard, I feel it necessary to denote that I have not been
on -site during this process and that my comments may reflect a lack of on -site observation and
evaluation.
1. Overall, in regard to riparian buffers throughout this site: I am disappointed to see such thin
vegetated riparian buffers in many locations on this site. The sponsor has developed a plan that is, I
believe, erroneously based on mountain topography, habitat, and physiographic region. This site, while
located in a county deemed as "Mountain" per the 2016 Wilmington District Mitigation Banking
Guidance, does not display any characteristics of a mountain stream. All characteristics of this site are
piedmont in scope such as slope, topography, forest community type, elevation and stream thermal
regime (warm). The site sits well within the elevation of a normal piedmont location (<1,500') and has
gently sloping, rolling topography. The sponsor has used piedmont references to both design the
streams and develop the planting plan towards a Piedmont Bottomland or Piedmont Alluvial Forest
community. The sponsor states clearly that this site is located in the Piedmont physiographic region
and does not provide any information that would lead one to conclude that this site has any
characteristics of a mountain location. Based on the information provided, I can only conclude that the
sponsor has approached the site development as a mountain stream based solely on the name of the
county, Wilkes. While Wilkes is considered a "mountain" county, the application of mountain stream
performance criteria should not be based solely on the county name. Other supporting information
based on ecological characteristics should be provided to conclude that this site qualifies as a mountain
stream, which I believe this site does not. If the sponsor can provide more compelling information to
the IRT as to why this site should be considered a mountain site, then I encourage them to do so;
otherwise a piedmont approach is deemed most suitable.
2. Section 3.1/Page 2: Based on the conclusion above and information provided by the sponsor I
have to stress that the suitable approach, as far as appropriate buffer widths and the corresponding
conservation easement size, should be based on piedmont, not mountain, performance standards.
3. Section 3.1/Page 2: Continued livestock operations ("actively grazed pasture") as adjacent land
use justifies a wider riparian buffer to treat diffuse overland runoff for fecal coliform, nutrients, and
sediment.
4. Table 2/Page 3: Sponsor clearly indicates this a piedmont site based on the physiographic
province and ecoregion.
5. Section 3.4/Page 12: Recommend addition of "to treat diffuse overland non -point source fecal
coliform, nutrients and sediment from adjacent livestock pastures" to the need for planting a riparian
buffer.
6. Section 3.5/Page 12: If the site valley width allows for the appropriate pattern and dimensions to
restore stable functioning streams, then it seems logical to assume that a wider, appropriately sized
riparian buffer can also be designed; with the exception being around the poultry house adjacent to
UT1.
7. Table 11/Page 15: Recommend adding some language to address a goal of treatment of diffuse
overland agricultural runoff.
8. Section 6.7/Page 30: Recommend planting a riparian buffer of 50 feet based on the designed
stream beltwidth rather than top -of -bank approach for reasons stated above.
9. Section 6.7/Page 30: Recommend adding a citation (Shafale 2012) for the referenced vegetated
community types.
10. Section 6.7/Page 30: Recommend anticipated bare root seedling planting density (680
stems/acre?).
11. Section 6.7/Page 30: Recommend citing the source for the dormant season planting dates of
October 28 to April 7. I recommend setting an earlier planting date (March 15) to ensure the dormant

period is achieved and that 180-days will be available before the MY1 data on vegetation is gathered
in the fall.
12. I recommend that the sponsor develop a site plan that has minimum riparian buffer widths no
Tess than 50 feet based on the stream meander belt width (not top of bank) per the 2016 Guidance.
This will allow for natural variation in long-term stream migration within an appropriately sized buffer
and easement boundary.
13. Table 24/Page 32: Recommend using the Piedmont vegetation performance standard of
success of 8 feet at MY5 and 10 feet at MY7 as this is not a mountain site.
14. Section 11/Page 36: The restrictive covenant excluding cattle along North Hunting Creek
upstream of the site is an excellent benefit and was noted.
15. Section 11/Page 36: The sponsor has calculated additional stream credit based on exceeding
the 30-foot buffer width from top -of -bank. While this would normally be appropriate in a mountain setting
with adjacent forested land use, the continued presence of livestock adjacent to the site should be
cause for consideration of a wider 50-foot buffer with additional credit not provided until buffer widths
exceed 75 feet from the normal wetted perimeter for piedmont streams per the 2016 Guidance.
16. Table 28/Page 37: Recommend calculating credit gain and loss based on piedmont stream
criteria.
17. Appendix 11: Recommend recalculating the buffer credit gains and losses based on a piedmont
stream rather than a mountain stream. I understand that based on the conservation easement currently
in place, the sponsor will likely lose some stream credit following corrected buffer width calculations.
18. The inclusion of LiDAR imagery would have been particularly useful especially with regard to
UT2 and its proposed restored location.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. DWR appreciated all of DMS' comments and WEI's responses. Overall, we're pleased with level
of detail provided in the plan, including the summary tables and discussion of past and future
watershed conditions, project risks and uncertainties, soil restoration, invasive treatments, etc.
2. Page 12, Section 3.5 — DWR would just note that vegetative maintenance within the two utility
corridor areas could affect potential functional uplift.
3. Page 27, Section 6.6 — In general the proposed bench widths are narrower than DWR would like
to see across the proposed C4 reaches. While the design constraints are noted, this is a concern
for long term bank stabilization as well as maximization of the system's functional uplift.
4. Page 30, Section 6.7 — DWR maintains that March 15th should be the planting target end date,
but we would not request a postponement of MY1 monitoring if planting is completed by the
proposed April 7th dormant season end date.
5. Page 31, Section 6.8 — Why is the landowner installing additional fencing? Will this occur during
project construction? Are the areas called out on the fencing plan?
6. Page 37, Table 28 — Why is there a reduction in stream footage for Trapper Tributary?
7. Figure 8 — It appears that the easement area along the floodplain south of North Little Hunting
Creek (more so along Reach 2) was reduced from what was shown in the technical proposal.
Please provide an explanation. With an approx. 2 sq. mile drainage area, the additional
floodplain protection would have enhanced the functional uplift along the reach. Ideally, the
easement would have captured the floodplain out to the FEMA line shown on Sheet 3.1.
8. Figure 9 — DWR requests one additional permanent veg plot in the floodplain north of North Little
Hunting Creek Reach 2.
9. Figures — Inclusion of a LiDAR figure would be helpful for this project review.
10. DWR appreciates efforts made to enhance the proposed project, including capturing some
stream origins and wetlands, expanding some buffer areas, collocating crossings and making
most internal to the CE, adding BMPs, removing drain tiles and intercepting with ephemeral
pools, and adding the restrictive covenant area connected to the site. Really DWR's biggest

concern with the long term success of the project is the minimum buffer widths along UT1 and
south side of North Little Huntington Creek.
11. Sheet 4.0 —
Sourwood has the wetland planting asterisk but also has an Upland indicator status. Please double
check. Also, American hornbeam has an FAC indicator status.
a. DWR encourages integrating some of the subcanopy and shrub species listed in the
shaded planting zone table into the larger site planting area. If not during the initial effort,
then perhaps as part of a supplemental planting effort during monitoring period.
12. Sheet 6.5 — Just an educational inquiry, why are base logs incorporated into the brush toe for
the smaller tributaries but not North Little Huntington Creek?
KimberlyDanielle Digitally signed by Kimberly
Danielle Browning
B row n i n Date: 2021.03.23 16:34:46
y-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division