20200016 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan Approval_20210908

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 8:16 AM
To: Phillips, Kelly D; Jeff Keaton
Cc: Wiesner, Paul; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Haywood, Casey M CIV
(USA); Davis, Erin B; [e-mail]; Bowers, Todd; Merritt, Katie;
[e-mail]
Subject: [External] Approval Letter / NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch / Montgomery Co. /
SAW-2020-00051
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch_SAW-2020-00051.pdf;
Approval Letter_NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch_SAW-2020-00051.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.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Good morning Kelly,
Attached is the Cross Creek Ranch Draft Mitigation Plan approval letter and copies of all comments generated
during the review process. 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. Additionally, 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.
Respectfully,
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Browning August 18, 2021
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Project - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan
Review, Montgomery County, NC
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.
USACE AID#: SAW-2020-00051
NCDMS #: 100138
30-Day Comment Deadline: July 14, 2021
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Figure 10: Crossing 2 is listed as an internal crossing. Since a utility line will be co -located with
this crossing, it's more appropriate to make this an external crossing considering the utility
company already has an easement in this area. All existing utility easements, primary roads (i.e.,
NCDOT, city/county roads), maintained residential driveways, greenways, or access corridors
reserved for future development should be excluded from the conservation easement. Setbacks
may be required for some of these crossings to account for future maintenance or widening. If
future development is anticipated, Crossing 1 should also be external to the easement.
2. The IRT site visit notes indicate that you agreed to move Crossing 1 on UT1 B to the top of that
reach adjacent to the conservation easement boundary to reduce fragmentation.
3. Please make sure to capture the wetland rehabilitation areas with random veg plots during
monitoring; particularly, the pond bottom area.
4. Section 6.8 and Appendix 5: the PJD completed November 2020 lists the pond as a wetland
feature. Typically, re-establishment should only be proposed for areas that are not currently
wetland; however, in a situation where open water exists and the dam is not currently breached,
re-establishment at 1:1 is appropriate.
5. Section 6.8: The plan should specifically address how the pond dam will be dewatered and
removed, to include considerations that ensure undesirable species are removed from the pond
or prevented from accessing downstream reaches. A discussion on the pond bottom sediment
removal and relocation should also be included.
6. Section 6.8: The fringe wetland areas upstream of the open water portion of the pond that is
proposed for removal should consider the loss or degradation of these areas. We anticipate that
more wetlands will be restored on site than will be negatively affected; however, any loss of
wetlands should be accounted for in the PCN.
7. Table 4: Big Branch received an NCSAM rating of High, yet it is proposed for restoration. Is this
correct?

8. Page 20 & Table 18: Based on 2020 gauge data, three of the wells already meet the proposed
performance standards. Additional data would have been helpful to determine baseline
conditions. Wetlands proposed for re-establishment or rehabilitation must demonstrate
measurable hydrologic uplift. The Corps supports a 12% hydroperiod for wetlands proposed for
re-establishment, and 11 % for rehabilitation.
9. Section 6.9: Please include the proposed planting dates and growing season.
USACE Comments, Casey Haywood:
1. Section 3.5. The overhead powerline that parallels NC-73 at the upper end of Big Branch, is the
setback from the utility corridor adequate to avoid future encroachments or maintenance of the
utility corridor?
2. Section 6.6 Stream Design Implementation. Please add a discussion on the proposed
enhancement II work that will be done on Clarks Creek.
3. Section 6.8 Appreciate the level of detail in this section. Existing wetlands (A, B, D, E, F, G, H,
and Q) are proposed for rehabilitation based on hydrologic uplift- how will this be demonstrated
given only wetland Q had a pre -monitoring gauge and not any of the others?
4. Section 6.9 What (if any) reference(s) were used to help determine appropriate species for the
proposed for piedmont/mountain alluvial forest and piedmont/mountain bottomland forest
community types? Recommend adding these to the narrative and reference section. Also, if you
are using the Natural Communities of NC, please use the most recent version of the document -
Guide to the Natural Communities of NC, 4th Approximation, Schafale, 2012.
a. The narrative suggests that the project is targeting piedmont/mountain alluvial forest and
piedmont/mountain bottomland forest community types. Please clarify if the intent is to
establish these two distinct target communities on the project or if they were used to
develop a single target community. If two distinct target communities are proposed, the
planting design sheets should reflect those communities as separate planting zones.
b. Section 3.4 listed black walnut as a prominent native canopy species on site, do you
anticipate that this will cause any issues with the establishment of planted species?
c. Please state when planting will be performed in the narrative. March 15th should be the
planting target end date.
5. Section 6.11 Project Risk and Uncertainties: Appreciate the discussion and consideration given
to surrounding land use changes and development pressures. It's unfortunate that UT1 B was
not able to be relocated to the top of the reach as discussed during the site visit. In Section 3.5
it stated that the property owner wants the crossing at UT1 B to be usable for a public road in the
future if the property is ever subdivided; is there intention to sell the property for future
development? If so, recommend adding this to the discussion in this section.
6. Section 7, Table 18, footnote 1: Update to "All volunteer stems or supplemental plantings must
be present in the plot data for two years to be included as meeting the established vegetation
performance standards and must be a species from the approved planting list."
a. Also, please add a footnote stating "Any single species can only account for up to 50%
of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot. Stems in excess of 50% will
be shown on the monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate success."
7. Section 8, Table 19: Please update the performance standard column for "Restore wetland
function and hydrology" to be consistent with the performance standards outlined in Table 18.
8. Figures: Recommend adding a LiDAR map.
9. Design Sheet 3.0. Appreciate the level of detail on the planting sheets and the inclusion of the
wetland indicator statuses.
a. Zone 5- Tall fescue and orchardgrass are invasive species. Are there other species that
can be considered in lieu of these?

DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Page 2, Section 3.1 — Please add on to the last sentence in the section, any review/analysis of
potential future watershed conditions beyond project closeout. Were local/regional planning
resources consulted?
2. Page 14-15, Tables 11-14 — Please make sure the DA acre values are consistent between all of
these tables and Table 5 (e.g. Big Branch, UT1 Reach 1, and UT3 Reach 1).
3. Page 18, UT3 — DWR is concerned with flow in the UT3 restoration reach and recommends a
flow gauge and/or trail camera to document perennial flow. If restoration of this reach results in
a shift to an intermittent flow regime, DWR will require a flow gauge be installed within the upper
1/3 section of the reach.
4. Page 19, Section 6.7.3 — Since the 2020 data for gauge 3 already meets the proposed
performance standard, DWR requests any 2021 data be provided for consideration or that the
performance standard for Wetland 2 shift to 12% to demonstrate hydrology uplift resulting from
the proposed project.
5. Page 21, Section 6.9 — Can a map please be provided to show where the existing bottomland
forest and alluvial forest communities are within the project site? Why are the communities
described as "piedmont/mountain" — are both community types present onsite? Are the onsite
communities reference quality, or was an offsite reference site consulted to develop the
proposed planting plan?
6. Page 21, Section 6.8 —
a. Please include a brief description on how the pond will be dewatered and how pond
bottom sediments will be addressed during construction.
b. Is the existing wetland fringe delineated and located within the proposed wetland credit
area? If not and the fringe is expected to be a wetland loss, how will it be accounted for?
c. DWR encourages the placement of large woody debris for habitat enhancement within
wetland restoration areas.
7. Page 22, Section 6.11 — Since the landowner is requiring an easement break width to
accommodate a potential future public road for a subdivision, please address the risk of adjacent
development on the long term stability of the project.
8. Page 22, Section 7 — Please note that wetland restoration credit areas must also meet vegetation
performance criteria. Also, please remove the "up to" phrase from the last sentence.
9. Page 24, Table 19 — Is there a goal/objective that the bankfull events performance standard
applies to?
10.Appendix 7 — DWR appreciates the level of detail provided in the invasive vegetation
management plan.
11. Sheet 1.1.1 — 1.1.5 —All of the Surveyed/Not Surveyed callouts are a bit confusing, particularly
in how they relate to the associated profile views. I understand that only some of the banks were
surveyed because of the bank grading is being proposed. However, how was the linear footage
for the stream credit total calculated if the centerline of the existing channel wasn't surveyed?
12. Sheet 1.1.5 — Are both of the existing drainage paths shown within the CE stable?
13. Sheet 1.2.4 — It appears there is an existing small channel that intersects the proposed outer
meander near Sta. 214+00. How is this side channel being addressed to avoid erosion behind
the brush toe?
14. Sheets 1.4.1 & 1.4.2 — Is stream credit being requested for the proposed rock pipe outlets within
the CE?
15. Sheet 3.0 —
a. DWR appreciates the inclusion of herbaceous plugs for the wetland planting zone to
enhance species diversity. Anecdotally, we have been concerned with Juncus effusus
forming monocultures in wetland credit areas based on recent site visit observations.
b. Please note that permanent native seeding will occur within the CE Limits of Disturbance.
16. Sheet 6.05 —

a. Is eight feet long enough for a ditch plug to limit flow when channel plugs are typically 25-
50+ feet long?
b. What is the purpose of the non -woven filter fabric lining the ditch plug? (educational
inquiry only)
17. Sheet 6.10 — Please note that the DEQ Water Quality General Certification No. 4134 General
Condition #11 specifies that 20% of the culvert diameter for culverts less than 48 inches shall be
below the elevation of the streambed to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life.
Kimberly Danielle Digitally signed by Kimberly
y Danielle Browning
Browning Date: 2021.08.18 18:12:59
-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
September 7, 2021
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site /
Montgomery Co./ SAW-2020-00051/ NCDMS Project # 100138
Mr. Kelly Phillips
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Phillips:
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 Cross Creek Ranch Draft Mitigation Plan,
which closed on July14, 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 email me at Kimberly.d.brownin.(@usace.army.mil .
Sincerely,
Kimberly Danielle Digitally signed by Kimberly
Danielle Browning
Browning Date: 2021.09.08 08:03:05 -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
Jeff Keaton—WEI