20180198 Ver 1_Notice of Initial Credit Release_20210827

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 9:02 AM
To: Dow, Jeremiah J; Jason Lorch
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay; Baumgartner, Tim; Harmon, Beth; Stanfill, Jim; Tugwell, Todd J CIV
USARMY CESAW (US); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Davis, Erin B; Merritt, Katie;
Wilson, Travis W.; [e-mail]; Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Gibby, Jean B CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Sassarixa Swamp/
SAW-2018-00432/ Johnston County
Attachments: Sassarixa Swamp_100040_NS 01_STR_Initial Release KB.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.
Good Morning all,
The 15-Day Record Drawing review for the Sassarixa Swamp Mitigation Site (SAW-2018-00432) ended August 24, 2021.
Per Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review followed the streamlined review process. All comments
received from the NCIRT are incorporated in the email below. Please address IRT concerns in the MY1 Report and
provide a response to comments. The IRT would like to visit this site in 2022. There were no objections to issuing the
initial 30% credit release of 2,585.595 warm SMUs. Please find attached the current signed ledger.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Table 1: T1 R4, T1A, T1B and T1C are listed as Ell at 2.5:1 and part of the rationale for this ratio was livestock
exclusion and understory planting. Were these areas planted? If so, with what species? The IRT agreed to a 4:1
ratio during the draft mitigation plan review but ultimately accepted 2.5:1 based on increasing understory
diversity and livestock exclusion.
2. The final mitigation plan planting list included 10% cherry bark oak in the floodplain and wetland planting zone.
This is not listed in the MVO report; which species were increased as a substitution?
3. In future monitoring reports it would be helpful to include planted stem percentages in Table 6.
4. Please include photo points of all crossings in future monitoring reports.
5. Sediment is observed in the channel in several sections of T2 in the photos and on the video. Do you anticipate
that this will be flushed out of the system and form more defined channel features? The area where the pond
was removed appears to be trending towards developing wetland features.
6. Please verify that a flow gauge was installed on T3. I was able to spot the gauge on T2 in the photos but photo
point 24 didn't capture the gauge.
7. Is the large amount of rock observed in the video at the upper end of T2 the BMP shown on Sheet 1.25? I noted
that the PCN included impacts for grading wetland GG, but the design sheets show the BMP in the wetland,
which would be considered a permanent impact. Treatment features should not be placed in jurisdictional
features.
1

8. In future monitoring reports please provide an estimate of how many of the mature trees that were still present
after construction have died. I'm curious about the effects of construction equipment and tree survival.
9. A lot of mature pine was noted in the video that will serve as a seed source in the buffer. Please explain how this
will be addressed if pine volunteers dominate the site.
10. Was there only one random veg plot? I'd like to request one be located along T5 near cross section 8
DRW Comments, Erin Davis:
1. DWR appreciated the discussion of the storm damage and Old Olive Road sediment source during construction. It
was important to have that context given what was shown in the photos, video and restoration profile sheets. The
excess sediment is concerning. Just a reminder that any channel maintenance activities should be proposed within the
next two years, since the IRT wants to see the trajectory (stream/wetland) the credit features are trending through the
second half of the monitoring period.
2. It was noted that sections of T2 and Sassarixa Creek Reach 2 were stable and didn't require construction of
approved design structures. Since these areas were in backwater during construction, how was stream stability
assessed? Do these areas still appear stable under summer baseflow conditions?
3. Sheet 1.25 shows two pipes, please confirm these structures were removed.
4. Sheet 5.9 has a note that an area was not fenced because of the swamp. Please confirm whether the terminal
boundaries of T4 and T5 were fenced as shown.
5. Looking at the video, it appears there are mature pines present within and/or adjacent to the site. Has a pine
management strategy been developed for the monitoring period?
6. Just to confirm, the video segment (9:30) of T2 is showing coir logs installed at the top of slope along the terrace?
Please contact me with any questions.
Have a good weekend,
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2

Mitigation Project Name Sassarixa Swamp Mitigation Site USACE Action ID 2018-00432
DMS ID 100040 DWR Permit 2018-0198
River Basin Neuse Date Project Instituted 1/10/2018
Cataloging Unit 03020201 Date Prepared 8/3/2021
County Johnston Stream/Wet. Service Area Neuse 03020201
Kimberly Danielle Browning
Digitally signed by Kimberly Danielle Browning
Date: 2021.08.27 08:41:50 -04'00'
Signature of Official Approving Credit Release
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are released during the first milestone (Site Establishment).
2 - For NCDMS projects, the initial credit release milestone occurs when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been approved by the NCIRT and
posted to the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria are met:
1) Approval of Final Mitigation Plan;
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property;
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan;
4) Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA permit issuance is not required.
3 - A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankful event performance standard has been met.
Credit Release Milestone
Warm Stream Credits
Project Credits
Scheduled
Releases 0/0
Estimated
Scheduled
Release #
Proposed
Released #
Not Approved
# Releases
Approved
Credits
Anticipated
Release
Year
Actual
Release
Date
1 - Site Establishment
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 - Year 0 / As -Built
30.00%
2,585.595
2,585.595
0.000
2,585.595
2021
8/3/2021
3 - Year 1 Monitoring
10.00%
861.865
2022
4 - Year 2 Monitoring
10.00%
861.865
2023
5 - Year 3 Monitoring
10.00%
861.865
2024
6 - Year 4 Monitoring
5.00%
430.932
2025
7 - Year 5 Monitoring
10.00%
861.865
2026
8 - Year 6 Monitoring
5.00%
430.932
2027
9 - Year 7 Monitoring
10.00%
861.865
2028
Stream Bankfull Standard
10.00%
861.865
2025
Totals
2,585.595
Total Gross Credits
8,618.650
Total Unrealized Credits to Date
0.000
Total Released Credits to Date
2,585.595
Total Percentage Released
30.00%
Remaining Unreleased Credits
6,033.055
Notes
Contingencies (if any)
Page 1 of 2

Mitigation Project Name
DMS ID
River Basin
Cataloging Unit
County
Project Quantities
Sassarixa Swamp Mitigation Site
100040
Neuse
03020201
Johnston
USACE Action ID
DWR Permit
Date Project Instituted
Date Prepared
Stream/Wet. Service Area
Mitigation Type
Restoration Type
Physical Quantity
Warm Stream
Restoration
4,662.000
Warm Stream
Enhancement II
9,861.000
Warm Stream
Preservation
1,570.000
2018-00432
2018-0198
1/10/2018
8/3/2021
Neuse 03020201
Debits
Warm Stream
Restoration
Credits
Warm Stream
Restoration
Equivalent
Credits
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
8,461.650
157.000
Released Credits
2,538.495
47.100
Unrealized Credits
0.000
0.000
Converted Credits
0.000
0.000
Owning Program
Req. Id
TIP #
Project Name
USACE
Permit #
DWR Permit
#
DCM Permit
#
Remaining Balance (Released credits)
2,538.495
47.100
Remaining Balance (Unreleased credits)
5,923.155
109.900
Total Remaining Balance (Released and Unreleased credits)
8,461.650
157.000
Page 2 of 2