20200369 Ver 1_Approval Letter SAW-2020-00455_20210728

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 1:40 PM
To: Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: Ray Holz; Wiesner, Paul; Reid, Matthew; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US);
Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd; Munzer,
Olivia; Youngman, Holland J; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA);
Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] Approval Letter/ NCDMS Wits End Mitigation Site/ SAW-2020-00455/ Union
County
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_Wits End SAW-2020-00455.pdf; Approval
Letter_NCDMS Wits End SAW-2020-00455.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.
Tim,
Attached is the Wits End 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.
Thanks,
Kim
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 July 6, 2021

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Wits End 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: Wits End Mitigation Site, Union County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2020-00455
NCDMS #: 100164
30-Day Comment Deadline: May 27, 2021

WRC Comments, Olivia Munzer:

1. I have concerns for the number of crossings.
2. Table 18. Seed Mix. Several of the species listed in the Permanent Seed Table are non-native
or do not occur in the southern Piedmont region such as Agrostis gigantea, Agrostis stolonifera,
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum, Chrysanthemum x superbum, most Gaillardia species,
Cosmos bipinnatus, Consolida ajacis, Rudbekia amplexicaulis, Penstemon digitalis, and
Verbena hastata. Consider native seed mixes for Piedmont.

EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:

1. Table 5/Page 6: Excellent inclusion of wider than minimum riparian buffers to not only capture
adjacent floodplain wetlands but a design that provides a suitable upland buffer to those
wetlands.
2. Section 3.2/Page 10: Can the sponsor make the claim of sediment reduction of 200 tons a year
similar to the reduction of nutrients claim in Section 3.3? Table 7 seems to allude to the possibility
that this can be added to the narrative in either Section 3.2 or Section 3.4.
3. Section 3.3/Page 11: Can the reductions in nutrients claim be broken down into the phosphorus
and nitrogen components?
4. Section 3.5/Page 14: Narrative on soils and hydrology of the Waxhaw Branch floodplain is
excellent. Due to the timing of this report, data from 2021 was not yet available however I would
encourage the sponsor to provide the IRT with up to date groundwater data as soon as available.
This will give the IRT time to evaluate the proper hydroperiod for Waxhaw Branch wetlands and
establish a more accurate estimation for consecutive days of saturated conditions within 12
inches of surface performance standard.
5. Table 9/Page 15: Recommend adding data from 2021 as soon as available to verify or readjust
the performance standard for consecutive days/% of growing season for the re-established and
enhanced wetlands to meet. The high percentages of growing season based on the gauge
summary may justify a higher than 8% of the growing season performance standard. The WETS
data in Appendix C can support a lower percentage but was not included in the main document
and does not include early March when conditions are likely to be wetter.
6. Table 16/Page 21: Recommend adding the height requirement for planted trees at year 5 and 7
(7 and 10 feet respectively).
7. Table 16/Page 21: I am concerned that the 8% growing season threshold is too low for the
expected hydrology in the reestablished wetlands based on the data provided in Table 9 and the
2016 Guidance. Recommend supplementing this document with 2021 data as soon as it
becomes available to make a more accurate estimation of the appropriate criteria. I think that a
10-12% threshold may be more suitable for this site based on the 13-16% of 3 of 4 site gauges
found in Table 9; understandably new data may tell another story with conflicting conclusions.
8. Section 7.1/Page 22: Recommend adding a mention that the site will be Priority 1 restoration
with the exceptions of Priority 2 and tie in locations to be consistent with Figure 6 Restoration
Plan Map.
9. Section 7.1/Page 23: Recommend adding the number and location of the forded and piped
channel crossings. I am curious about the equipment crossing located almost adjacent to the
ATV trail that crosses UT 2 and the need for both crossings.
10. Table 17/Page 24: UT-4 Restoration mentions P2 stream restoration. See comment above about
Priority 2 exceptions to the P1 approach.
11. Table 19, Figure 8 and Sheet P01: The planting plan densities (two versions) are slightly different
especially with the addition of more Ilex opaca in Sheet P01. The acreage of the Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest is different between the two versions. Recommend updating and aligning the
Planting Plan Table 19, Figure 8 and Sheet P01.
12. Table 21 and 22/Page 29-30: The listed growing season of March 1-October 22 would likely
support the 10-12% growing season performance criteria for hydrology based on data from
Table 16.
13. Section 8.2.3/Page 32: recommend adding a threshold for supplemental planting where
corrective action needs to be taken and when IRT approval would be required.
14. Table 23/Page 32: Will deep ripping of floodplain soils risk interrupting the restrictive layer or
properties found in the Cid or Secrest soil series?
15. Table 23/Page 32: Recommend adding the marsh treatment BMPs (UT 2 and Waxhaw Branch)
to the Objectives for Water Quality.
16. Figure 6: Can the two forded crossings along UT2 be co-located?
17. Figure 6: For UT 3 Upper there is a phrase “Construct a piped stream crossing at the tie with UT
3A”. A similar phrase is found for UT 3A as well. Please clarify or remove these statements as
there does not appear to be a proposed crossing at this location.
18. Figure 8: Recommend adding Wetland Indicator Status for the tree species as shown in Table
19.
19. Sheet C28 (and others): Recommend adding the marsh treatment BMPs that are not currently
included with the stream restoration plans illustrating steam structures, stream features, limits of
construction and limits of disturbance.

DWR Comments, Erin Davis:

1. Page 1, Section 1.3 – Please include a discussion of current adjacent area land uses and any
foreseeable changes in surrounding land uses within the project watershed.
2. Page 6, Section 3.1 – DWR appreciates the thoroughness of the site soil investigation,
including both field data collection and research reporting components.
3. Page 11, Section 3.4 - Please provide more detail on existing stream conditions. While Table 4
provides an overall summary, it doesn’t identify why multiple approaches are proposed for
each stream. DWR would welcome the inclusion of drone and ground photos of existing site
conditions. These items are helpful in our review.
4. Page 15, Section 3.5.1 – Please include any available data for 2021 in the final mitigation plan.
5. Page 19, Table 13 – One of the RBRP goals notes rapid urbanization of the area, was this a
consideration in stream design resiliency?
6. Page 22, Section 7.1 – Please note sections of proposed Priority II restoration.
7. Page 22, Dam Removal – DWR appreciates the discussion provided and proposed use of a
filter bag during dewatering to limit turbidity and water quality impacts.
8. Page 23, Instream Structures – Was project location and flow regime a consideration in
determining grade control material? Are there any long term stability concerns with using all
wood grade control structures on intermittent streams (UT1, UT2, UT3, UT3A, UT4 and UT5)
in the slate belt? DWR has observed decomposition of log structures on intermittent reaches in
the slate belt during the monitoring period on other projects.
9. Page 23, Crossings & Rd/Paths – Can you please summarize the number of crossings
(including type and width), number of easement breaks (including width), and number of ATV
paths (including length and width within CE).
10. Page 23, Table 17 – Please confirm streamside planting is proposed for Waxhaw Branch
Downstream.
11. Page 24, Table 17 – Please confirm there a proposed piped crossing at the UT-3 and UT-3A
tie in.
12. Page 25, Section 7.3 – Please verify that reestablished wetlands will be jurisdictional (as
currently defined).
13. Page 25, Section 7.3 & 7.4 – DWR encourages adding wood to wetland areas as habitat
features.
14. Page 26, Table 18 – Please confirm the asterisk note applies to all “species” headers.
15. Page 27, Table 19 – Please verify proposed species percentages are consistent with both
Figure 8 and Sheet P01.
16. Page 28, Section 7.7 – DWR is concerned about potential encroachment tied to
use/maintenance of the ATV paths proposed within the project easement. We are glad that
these trails will be marked. However, we suggest using “no mowing” signs (or similar) instead
of the standard easement signs along the trails to avoid confusion of internal and external
boundary lines.
17. Page 28, Section 7.8 – Please identify invasive plant species that have been observed onsite.
DWR is particularly concerned with the presence of Bamboo onsite as it spreads via rhizome.
If possible, DWR requests this species be treated prior to construction to reduce the risk of
spreading through grading and soil stockpiling activities.
18. Page 28, Section 7 – Please include a brief soil restoration subsection addressing wetland and
floodplain bench grading, compaction, planting medium/top soil, etc.
19. Page 28, Section 9 – DWR recommends adding a sentence to this section stating that success
criteria and monitoring will be completed in accordance with the 2016 NCIRT Guidance.
20. Page 29, Table 21 – Will a rain gauge be installed onsite? If an offsite source is proposed,
please identify the location and distance to the project site.
21. Page 32, Section 8.2.3 – As currently designed, all wetland credit areas will be planted to
become forest community types. No shrub or herbaceous dominated areas are anticipated in
any of the pond bottom areas? If there is the chance of habitat variability, DWR suggests
adding a brief discussion to Section 8.2.3 on how this may be addressed during the monitoring
period.
22. Page 32, Table 23 – Should project goals be the same as those listed in Table 16? Also, what
are “academic goals”?
23. Figure 9 –
a. DWR requests the groundwater gauge south of UT3 Upper be shifted from east to west
of the two ponds (wetland enhancement areas).
b. DWR requests a veg plot within the proposed planting area at the downstream end of
Waxhaw Branch.
24. Detail Sheets – Please add a typical detail for bare root and live stake planting.
25. Sheet 02B, Marsh Treatment Area – Please provide stone size and percent composition of
riprap outlet, if an alternative non-hardened stabilized outlet is not feasible. Please include a
note on whether the feature is designed to require long term maintenance. Also, please identify
the max. depth of the proposed deep pools.
26. Sheet C05 – The permanent ATV channel ford appears to be wider than the 10 LF of no-credit
noted in Table 1.B. Please confirm. (Same question for UT1 Sheet C26 & UT2 Sheet C29)
27. Sheet C13 – Please provide context for the impervious dike callout (e.g. removal, installation,
to remain).
28. Sheet C16 – Please confirm that hatching and callouts for filling existing channels in not shown
on sheets within the limits of construction line because of general proposed grading activities
within these areas. All existing channels will be backfilled, correct?
29. Sheet C25 – Was DOT consulted to determine if any roadway/culvert improvement projects
are planned for Snyders Store Road?
30. Sheet C27 – Are proposed contour lines anticipated to follow the same sinuous pattern of the
limits of construction lines?
31. Sheet C39 – What does the black line and two dashed lines crossing the easement near Sta.
15+50 indicate?
32. General Design Questions –
a. There are multiple stream segments that go a distance between cross vane structures:
Waxhaw Branch Sta. 3+30 to 6+60 (~330’), 30+40 to 41+40 (~1,100’), and 43+90 to
52+60 (~870’); UT4 0+00 to 3+40 (~340’). Are there any concerns with long term stream
stability in these segments?
b. There are no meander bend bank treatments proposed. Are there any concerns about
long-term bank stability?
c. Is sufficient instream habitat enhancement uplift expected from proposed log vane/cross
vane structures? DWR encourages adding woody instream habitat features.
33. DWR appreciates efforts made to enhance the proposed project by capturing the major
floodplain through wider buffers, providing wetland buffers, adding several BMPs and
minimizing the number of external easement breaks.

USACE Comments, Kim Browning:

1. Figure 10, Stream Buffer Credit Adjustment: Please provide the actual spreadsheet that was
used to calculate the additional buffer credit. The inset table does not show how many exempted
terminal ends and crossings were accounted for. Were the ATV trails included as crossings or
just clipped out of the credited area? A map of the ideal buffers should also be included. Lastly,
will the BMPs be planted as part of the buffer? If not, these areas should be removed from the
buffer calculation.
2. Figure 8 and Design Sheet P01: Please include the wetland indicator for each species.
3. Figure 9: Please show the BMPs on this figure.
4. Table 1.B, page 3: Please confirm that the crossing on UT2 R1 is proposed as a pipe. It appears
to be listed as a ford on Design Sheet C29.
5. The location of the marsh treatment areas should be shown on the design sheets. It’s preferable
that rock outlets not be used unless necessary due to stability of steep slopes. Please confirm
that the treatment areas will not be placed in existing or proposed wetlands.
6. Section 3.4: This section should be expanded to include a narrative with more detail of existing
conditions, and broken out to describe each reach separately. Existing vegetation, including
invasive species, should be listed. Photos of existing conditions would also be beneficial.
7. Table 10: The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial forest is listed as the reference forest ecosystem;
however, only four species from this Table are proposed to be planted on site. Suggest adding
additional species from the target ecosystem to the planting list. Additionally, please provide a
similar table for the Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory forest.
8. Page 23: There is concern regarding the maintenance of the ATV trails/crossings and the
potential for encroachment. Is trail maintenance anticipated, and who will be responsible?
9. Is there a reason why UT3 and Waxhaw Branch run parallel before the confluence? Does
topography prevent joining the two reaches further upstream?
10. Page 24: There is concern that the wetlands and vegetation proposed on UT4 will suffer as a
result of priority 2 restoration activities. Please ensure that veg plots and gauge data capture
these areas.
11. Page 26: The more recent Schafale (2012) Fourth Approximation is more appropriate to use.
12. Table 19: Several FACU species are proposed to be planted in areas proposed for wetlands;
likewise, FACW Winged elm is proposed for upland areas. Please confirm species
appropriateness.
13. Table 22: The wetland soils performance standard should be revised to include soil profiles
annually, at least in monitoring years 4-7.
14. Table 22: The groundwater gauge data provided as a supplement to the draft mitigation plan
suggests that gauges 2, 3, 4, and 5 already meet 8% hydrology performance standard. Given
that gauges 4 and 5 are located in preservation wetlands and currently show 14-17% hydrology,
I agree with EPA’s comment #12. The hydrology performance standard should be 10% in order
to show functional uplift.
15. Section 8.2: I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this section. I would encourage this level of
consideration on future projects. It would be beneficial to add a section on ATV path
maintenance/encroachment.

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division

July 28, 2021

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Wits End Mitigation Site / Union Co./
SAW-2020-00455/ NCDMS Project # 100164

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 Wits End Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed
on May 27, 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.

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

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,

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:

NCIRT Distribution List
Matthew Reid, Paul Wiesner—NCDMS
Raymond Holz—RS