20181034 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan Review_20210419

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 3:13 PM
To: Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: Wiesner, Paul; King, Scott ([e-mail]); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (US); Bowers, Todd; Davis, Erin B; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Leslie, Andrea
J; Youngman, Holland J; Merritt, Katie; Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA);
McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); Brown, David W CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] Approval Letter/ / NCDMS UT to Rush Fork / Haywood Co / SAW-
2018-01171
Attachments: Approval Letter_UT to Rush Fork_SAW-2018-01171.pdf; Draft Mit Plan Comment
Memo_UT to Rush Fork_SAW-2018-01171.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 UT to Rush Fork 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.
V/R,
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 19, 2021
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Site /
Haywood Co./ SAW-2018-01171 / NCDMS Project # 100068
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 UT to Rush Fork Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on March 28, 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 Danielle Digitally signed by Kimberly
y Danielle Browning
Browning Date: 2021.04.19 15:08:14
-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Ronnie Smith, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner—NCDMS
Scott King —Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

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 30, 2021
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Project - NCIRT Comments during the 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: UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Site, Haywood County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2018-01171
NCDMS #: 100068
30-Day Comment Deadline: March 28, 2021
WRC Comments Andrea Leslie:
1. As noted in my response to an earlier scoping letter, a trout moratorium does not apply for this
project.
2. I am glad to see culvert specifications include floodplain culverts. The plan set shows site -
specific culvert specs. For culvert on UT 1, Reach 1, floodplain culverts are noted. However,
they are not noted for the culverts on UT 1, Reach 4 or UT 3. Is this because there will be no
floodplain culverts? Seems more important for the larger channel of UT 1, Reach 4.
3. The planting list includes canopy and understory species, and in general the list includes a nice
mix of rich cove/riparian species found in this general area. However, both river birch and
sycamore are much more typical of larger systems, and we recommend eliminating these
species from the planting plan. Red maple is included at 5% of the wetland canopy species list,
and we recommend eliminating that species, as it will very likely volunteer into the site.
4. The plan notes that the existing riparian community is degraded; thus there is no on -site
reference. We recommend informing the planting plan with by finding nearby riparian/wetland
community reference sites.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Table 6.7: Since red maple is a pioneer species that is more shade tolerant and longer lived than
the usual early successional species, please remove red maple from the planting list as it will
likely occur naturally.
2. Please move the fixed veg plot on UT1 (just south of UT4) slightly south to encompass the
existing wetlands.

3. General note: Please do not use green lines on the figures to show streams; It's very difficult to
differentiate the line from the pasture in the background.
4. Figure 11: Please mark locations of photo points, to include crossings and culverts. If cross -
sections are to be used as fixed photo points, please footnote the Figure.
5. Section 3.2: Please include a discussion on biological and cultural resources, and summarize
any agency responses.
6. Section 4: Since this proposed site is adjacent to forested areas, consideration should be given
to the possible future conversion of that land to agricultural use and/or timbering. The addition
of wider buffers would have been beneficial, especially in upper UT3 and UT1, given the slope
of the surrounding forested property. The potential for adjacent timbering would also be helpful
to describe in Section 6.7.
7. Section 6.1: Please include a map that shows the reference sites in relation to the project site.
You can add these locations to Figure 3 if you prefer.
8. Reach UT3: Please ensure there is a photo point between stations 19+20 and 20+60 in the area
where the stream becomes braided, as single -channel formation will be a concern.
9. Section 6.2: I appreciate the detail of the existing conditions and proposed approaches. The
section describing UT1-R2 indicates that a few locations along the right bank are vertical and
will be sloped and stabilized. Please indicate the general area of these on Figure 4, Existing
Conditions & Features.
10. Section 7.1.1: The 30-days of consecutive flow is only applicable to intermittent streams (UT2 &
UT4). Since UT3 is perennial, it is expected to have flow throughout the year. I believe the flow
gauge on UT3 was requested to document flow in the area that flattens out (comment #8 above).
Additionally, UT4, though a very short reach, should have some sort of documentation of flow
(whether through a gauge, video or photo) due to its designation as intermittent and the small
drainage area. Please revise the performance standard for Bankfull Events and Flooding
Functions.
11. Section 7.2: The minimum height standard at monitoring year 7 should be 8 feet, excluding the
understory/shrub species.
a. Regarding the statement, "While measuring species density and height is the current
accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation success on mitigation projects, species
density and height alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health...." If
monitoring suggests that the vegetation is not on a trajectory for success, an adaptive
management plan should be submitted that may include the evaluation of native volunteer
species and additional plant community indices.
12. Section 7.3: 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. Please plan to reverify the extent of jurisdiction at the end of the
monitoring period to document that wetland acreage was not lost. Thank you for including this
section and the forethought put into it.
13. Section 7.1.2 & Table 8.1: Please note that UT4 is proposed as a C-type channel.
14.Sheet 9: It's unclear on the drawing where existing wetlands are. Please clarify this layer
throughout the plan sheets. Additionally, please confirm that the entirety of the BMP will not be
placed in a jurisdictional feature.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Page 6-10, BMP Subsection — A revegetation plan is referenced. Please confirm whether the
BMP will be planted/seeded with species proposed for the larger site planting plan or if additional
species are proposed specifically for this area. Also, please state whether there is an expectation
of long-term maintenance for this BMP design.

2. Page 6-17, Table 6.7 — DWR appreciates the diversity of canopy and understory/shrub species
proposed. Since it is a common volunteer species, please remove red maple from the plant list.
3. Page 7-3, Section 7.2
a. The mountain counties tree vigor performance standard applies to this site, so the
average tree height in Year 7 should be 8 feet.
b. Please confirm that only native herbaceous species will be seeded/planted within the
conservation easement.
4. Page 8-1, Table 8.1
a. Please note that bankfull events are to occur in separate years.
b. Please include the vegetation vigor performance standard.
5. Page 8-2, Table 8.2 — DWR requires that at minimum a photo point be included along UT4 to
document that channel features are maintained. DWR may request a gauge or cross section be
added during monitoring in order to support restoration credit if we observe evidence of instability
or characteristics trending towards a wetland feature.
6. Figure 11 — DWR is concerned with the number of mature black walnut proposed to remain
within the 300-ft Enhancement II section of UT1 Reach 2. Given that vegetative success is a
significant component for Ell credit, DWR requires an additional veg plot in this area to document
density, vigor, diversity standards are met within the vicinity of the black walnuts.
7. Sheet 1-A — Was the "WLB" wetland jurisdictional boundary line show on the plan sheets? If so,
please make more visible. If not, please add.
8. Sheet 2B — Is this Rock Dam being proposed as a permanent structure (different from the
Temporary Rock Dam on Sheet EC-2)?
9. Sheet 2E — Please include a detail for the proposed stormwater BMP.
10. Sheet 3 — No. 15 notes no roughening of any areas not excavated. Please confirm that any
disturbed areas compacted during construction or previously used as farm roads will be de -
compacted before seeding and planting.
11. Sheet 4 — DWR appreciates the inclusion of notes relating to invasive treatment and topsoil
application. Please confirm the minimum topsoil layer depth as either 8 inches or 6 inches (Sheet
1-A #7).
12. Sheet 5 — Does the culvert under the adjacent gravel road extend into the conservation
easement? If so, the landowner needs to be aware that maintenance coordination with DEQ
Stewardship may be required.
13. Sheets 4 & 5 — Please show/callout all proposed stream enhancement construction work areas,
including bank grading, along UT1 Reach 2 and UT2.
14. Sheet 6 — Please confirm that no structures or bank treatments are proposed for UT4 and that
the restoration reach has been designed for Tong -term stability as shown on the plan sheet. As
noted in the above comment, design sheets should show all proposed work. The Mitigation Plan
Table 3.1 identifies this reach as a Cb stream classification, correct?
15. Sheets 4-8 & 11 — No existing channel fill or channel plugs are shown on these plan sheets.
Please confirm that all the associated stream reaches will be restored/enhanced completely in -
place.
16. Sheets 17-19 — The planting plan shows the entire conservation easement area will be seeded,
mulched and planted with lives stakes or bare root trees. The Mitigation Plan Table 3.1 indicates
that 7.3 acres of the 8.26 easement with be planted and Page 7-2 notes that plots won't be
placed in undisturbed wooded areas onsite. Please make a distinction on the planting plan or a
separate figure of areas to be fully planted, partially planted (understory), and not planted.
17. DWR appreciates efforts made to enhance the proposed project, including additional fencing of
the upper UT4, installing and fencing a BMP on UT3, collating of the utility and farm access
crossing, and additional non-credit work to stabilize stream sections within road/utility ROWs.
Kim Browning Digitally signed by Kimberly
Mitigation Project Manager Kimberly Danielle Danielle Browning
Regulatory Division Browning 04'00?021.03.3016:35.24