20200021 Ver 1_Plan Review Approval Letter SAW-2020-00049_20210513

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 3:44 PM
To: Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B; [e-mail];
Merritt, Katie; Bowers, Todd; Wilson, Travis W.; Munzer, Olivia; Haywood, Casey M CIV
(USA); Kevin Yates; Reid, Matthew; Wiesner, Paul; Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); Lastinger, James C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] Approval Letter/ NCDMS Bull Chute Mitigation Site/ Randolph Co./
SAW-2020-00049
Attachments: Approval Letter_NCDMS Bull Chute_SAW-2020-00049.pdf; Draft Mit Plan Comment
Memo_Bull Chute_SAW-2020-00049.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 Bull Chute 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 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.
Respectfully,
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1

May 13, 2021

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Bull Chute Mitigation Site / Randolph
Co./ SAW-2020-00049/ NCDMS Project # 100137

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 Bull Chute Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed
on April 4, 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 Ronnie Smith, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:

NCIRT Distribution List
Matthew Reid, Paul Wiesner—NCDMS
Kevin Yates—Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC

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

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:

CESAW-RG/Browning April 27, 2021

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Bull Chute 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: Bull Chute Stream and Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site, Randolph County,
NC

USACE AID#: SAW-2020-00049
NCDMS #: 100137
30-Day Comment Deadline: April 4, 2021

WRC Comments, Olivia Munzer:

1. Make sure plants are in the correct community type. For example, willow oak (FACW) may
struggle in a Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest. According to Natural Communities of NC, oaks that
you should consider for this community include chestnut oak, white oak, and northern or
southern red oak.

USACE Comments, Kim Browning:

1. The correct USACE ID for this project is SAW-2020-00049. Please correct the cover sheet.
2. Appendix I: Please also include the wetland credit release schedule.
3. Figure 6A, page 29 and Sheet E13: The marsh treatment BMP at the top of UT4B should not be
located in an existing or proposed wetland. This applies to all treatment areas.
4. Figure 10: Please add veg plots to UT4 and UT3 to the areas where the historic dams were.
5. 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. Photos of existing conditions would
also be beneficial.
6. Section 3.5.3: This section should be expanded to describe those areas proposed for wetland
enhancement, reestablishment and rehabilitation, to include existing vegetation, hydrology,
invasives, etc.
7. Sections 4.2 & 8.7: The natural communities document used is the 3rd approximation
(Classification of the Natural Communities of NC, Schafale and Weakley, 1990). There is a
more recent document – the 4th approximation (Guide to the Natural Communities of NC,
Schafale, 2012) that is more appropriate to use when identifying natural community types.
1. Tables 12A & 12B discuss the functional uplift potential and references NCSAM/WAM, including
the water quality and habitat 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. It is appreciated
that NCSAM/WAM was used to establish current conditions of the site and the potential for
functional uplift.
8. Please include the site photographs that were included in the Categorical Exclusion document
in the mitigation plan.
9. Section 7: Please include any correspondence with NC Wildlife Resource Commission in this
section as well as in the Categorical Exclusion Documents.
10. Recommend that you add additional mid-story species to the planting list. Also, please include
temporary and permanent seed mix.
11. Section 8: Significant disturbance from livestock grazing and cattle access to site streams is
mentioned as a stressor; Livestock exclusion or removal from the property should be mentioned
as part of the Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan. As written, it’s unclear how this will be
achieved. Table 14 discusses livestock removal from the property, so it’s unclear why
fence/gates are being installed, as discussed in Section 8.8.
12. Section 8.6: Is compaction from past agricultural use and livestock a concern?
13. Table 17: Please list the proposed growing season to justify using soil temperature and bud
burst.
14. Table 18:
a. The wetland hydrology performance standard should be measured annually.
b. Any volunteer species on the approved planting list must be established for at least 2
years to count towards success and will be subject to the average height standard.
c. 30 consecutive days of surface flow is only applicable to intermittent streams and should
be a minimum standard, not a goal.
15. Page 39: A discussion on potential future land use should be added to the Development/Logging
section given that 60’ wide crossings were planned for the intent of future subdivision
development.
16. Section 9.2.2: It is unclear where ephemeral pools will be located and how many are planned.
Ephemeral pools should be 8-14” depressions that dry up yearly so that predatory species
cannot colonize, and should not be so numerous that trees do not grow in large areas of the
buffer.

DWR Comments, Erin Davis:

1. Page 1, Section 1.3 – Please include a discussion of past/historic onsite and adjacent area land
use.
2. Page 7, Section 2 – This section mentions potential development trends and land use changes.
Have local/regional agencies and/or planning documents been consulted? Are there any
anticipated land use changes adjacent to the project site?
3. Page 11, Section 3.4 – Please provide more detail on existing stream conditions by reach.
Including a few photos would be helpful for this review.
4. Page 15, Section 3.5.3 – Approximately 3 acres of the project easement is not proposed for
planting. Please identify existing dominant species in these areas. Please also include a list of
invasive species observed onsite.
5. Page 26, Section 7 – DWR considers easement breaks as project constraints to be listed in this
section as they fragment the project site and reduce the potential uplift.
6. Page 28, Section 8.1 – Please confirm that wetland reestablishment, rehabilitation and
enhancement are considered primary activities designed to restore site streams.
7. Page 29, Piped Channel Crossing – Did the landowner give a reason why four 60-ft crossings
are needed? Are all crossings proposed for agriculture use?
8. Page 30, Table 14 – Descriptions for UT-2, UT4C, UT6 include conducting minor bank
stabilization where necessary. However, these reaches are shown primarily outside of the
proposed limit of disturbance lines on the design sheets. If work is proposed, even if not credit
generating, please show for permitting purposes.
9. Page 32, Section 8.7.1/Figure 9/ Sheet P01 – Please include a list of any temporary and
permanent seed mixes proposed for application within the conservation easement.
10. Page 34. Table 15 – DWR appreciates the inclusion of the RFE in Section 4.2; however, only
tulip poplar and black willow have been included in the planting plan. Are more of the RFE
species already present onsite?
11. Page 37, Section 9.1 – Based on the drainage areas and IRT site walk observations, DWR has
a general concern about stream flow duration for this project. Monitoring data for the areas we
are most concerned with will be captured by the proposed surface flow gauge locations.
12. Page 37, Table 18 – Please clarify that the wetland hydrology is an annual success criterion.
13. Page 37, Section 9.2 – DWR appreciates the inclusion of this section. Please note that some of
the listed actions will require IRT review as adaptive management and may need USACE/DWR
permit authorizations.
14. Page 39, Section 9.2.2 – As noted, IRT consultation and approval will be necessary if any future
earthwork is proposed. Depending on the depth of proposed ephemeral pools, the credit ratio
may change to reflect wetland creation.
15. Page 40, Table 19 – Should the 30-day consecutive intermittent stream flow performance
standard be included in the success criteria column?
16. Page 41, Section 10 – Please confirm whether the provider or DMS is the point of contact to
notify the IRT of any site issues.
17. Figures – Can the property boundaries please be shown on one of the included figures?
18. Figure 8B – Please make sure information provided in figures is consistent with design sheets
(e.g. drop structure detail).
19. Figure 8C, Reinforced Riffle Step – Please identifiy where this feature is proposed on the plan
view drawings. Please specify stone size. And what necessitates stone placement to top of
bank? DWR is concerned whether bank armoring is warranted.
20. Figure 10 – The scale of monitoring icons makes it a bit challenging to determine if they will be
located entirely within or only partially within some of the wetland features. Please make sure
that wetland enhancement credit areas are adequately represented with monitoring locations to
support achievement of required success criteria.
21. Appendix B – In the future, DWR would like more detail included in the site soil investigation,
including a map indicating all soil check locations. (Note that Appendix D did not include wetland
determination forms with soil data.)
22. Detail Sheets – Please add typical details for bare root & live stake plantings.
23. Sheet 02B, Marsh Treatment Area – Please provide the max. depth proposed for the deep pools.
Please provide stone size and percent composition of riprap outlet, if an alternative non-
hardened stabilized outlet is not feasible.
24. Sheet 02E, Floodplain Interceptor – DWR has seen a few very different details using this title.
Please confirm that the hatched area represents only soil and matting material.
25. Sheet 05 – Add a callout for UT 2 “start enhancement II” station. Should the LOD lines along
UT2 connect if the pipe/tile is proposed for removal?
26. Sheet 08 – Are the bold dash lines parallel to sections of UT5 LOC lines?
27. Sheet 21 – What is the minimum distance from proposed UT7 and UT3 bankfull lines to the
easement line? Are any construction activities proposed outside of the project easement?
28. For clarification, please identify what is to be removed in callouts (e.g. drain tiles, pipes).
29. Is the difference between the limit of construction and limit of disturbance lines where excavation
is proposed? I noticed that there are callouts to fill existing channel sections located between
these two lines, but not if the existing channel is within the LOC lines. Does this mean that
existing channel within the LOC will automatically be backfilled? If there are any existing channel
sections proposed to remain open, please add callouts. Also, is surface roughening proposed
for wetland areas located between the LOC and LOD lines?
30. DWR appreciates that proposed haul roads are primarily located outside the project easement.
31. There are no meander bend bank treatments proposed for stabilization or habitat (e.g. brush
toe, boulder toe, vegetated/live lift). Are there any concerns about long-term bank stability? Is
sufficient instream habitat enhancement expected from proposed step and vane structures?
32. Lack of large woody debris was noted in Table 12C, DWR encourages adding LWD to stream
and wetland project features for habitat enhancement.
33. DWR appreciates efforts made to enhance the project with the extension of the easement to
include stream origins, existing wetlands, reach UT4C and multiple BMPs.

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. Table 1/Page 3: Due to the lack of proper riparian buffer width and that most of the channel
appears to lie outside of the conservation easement, I recommend no credit for UT 7.
2. Table 4/Page 7: The JD dated May 27, 2020 DA# (SAW-2020-00650) does not match the
project DA# (SAW-2020-00049). Please provide a reason for this discrepancy.
3. Table 6/Page 10: Can the sponsor provide an estimate of how much reduction (tons/year) in
site erosion and sediment contribution will result from the mitigation activity?
4. Section 3.4/Page 11: Please include a narrative description of each existing stream broken
down by reach as well as each wetland included within the project boundary. Recommend
adding photos of each reach and wetland, as well as stressors (eroding and unstable banks,
lack of riparian vegetation, livestock damage from trampling, equipment compaction, etc.) to
aid in the analysis of the existing site conditions.
5. Section 3.4.5/Page 14: The narrative here leads one to conclude that UT 4 is the discharge
of the site, when it appears that UT 4 ties into UT 1 and then discharges from the site.
Recommend adding the cumulative discharge with the combination of UT 1 and UT 4
drainages as they leave the site just below the confluence.
6. Section 4.1.2/Page 17: Recommend specifically naming the Bull Chute Reference Reach as
UT3B rather than the “wooded section of UT 3”. This will clarify the reach in question.
7. Section 4.1.2.1/Page 18: Are bedrock steps present within UT 3B reference reach common
to other streams in the Bull Chute site?
8. Section 4.2/Page 18: Recommend using Schafale 4th Approximation (2012) in addition to or
to supersede Schafale and Weakley 1990 community description.
9. Table 12C/Page 25: Recommend changing “remove livestock from the property” to
“excluding livestock from the conservation easement by fencing” to avoid ambiguity that the
cattle will be removed from the adjacent pastures as a continued land use. Since cattle are
expected to occupy the adjacent pastures, pollution sources will be reduced but not
altogether eliminated from the streams and wetlands. Recommend adding fencing to the
objectives since it is a vital component of livestock and equipment exclusion.
10. Section 7.0/Page 26: Recommend adding landowner constraints since there are currently 4
60-foot crossings proposed and some sections of streams are not being adequately
contained within the conservation easement boundaries (UT 7, UT 3A). These are
specifically mentioned in Section 8.1.1 as piped channel crossings and easement breaks.
11. Section 8.1.1/Page 29: Please provide justification for having 60-foot wide stream crossings
and easement breaks. The gates are only 12 feet wide, so the extra width does not seem to
be necessary especially if only being used for cattle.
12. Section 8.1.1/Page 29: The outfall of UT 1 is noted as the site discharge.
13. Table 14/Page 30: Recommend breaking down the mitigation activities per individual reach
as the approach varies especially with regard to UT 3. Priority 2 restoration is mentioned
here and was not included in the previous narrative. Also recommend changing the “remove
livestock from the property” language per the comment above (#9).
14. Section 8.7/Page 32: Schafale and Weakley 1990 is listed here and Schafale 2012 should
also be used and/or cited as it appears in the references section.
15. Section 8.8/Page 35: Excellent description of fencing installation and location. This illustrates
the need to be clear in the rest of the document that livestock will be fenced out and not
"removed from property" as stressors to the site will continue and only offset by the 50+ foot
buffer vegetation and lack of direct input. I concur with the recommended offset of 2 feet to
allow for landowner maintenance.
16. Table 18/Page 37: Recommend including the dates of the growing season listed in Table 17
and the number of consecutive days to meet the 12% of the growing season.
17. Section 9.2.3/Page 39: Recommend adding a percentage of the planted acreage threshold,
that if exceeded (20%), to notify the IRT for approval and subsequent remedial monitoring of
vegetation.
18. Figure 4B/LIDAR DEM MAP: Elevation legend is missing. Recommend adding existing
wetlands to the map.
19. Figure 6A/Restoration Plan: Recommend adding “no credit” to UT 7 description box.
20. Sheet 21/Plan and Profile: Recommend changing “Enhancement III” to “Enhancement II”
where it occurs. Recommend breaking UT 3 into Reaches UT 3A, B and C where appropriate.
21. Sheet 22/Plan and Profile: Recommend changing “Enhancement III” to “Enhancement II”
where it occurs.
22. EPA appreciates the approach of including the origins of UT 4C, UT 5, and UT 6 within the
conservation easement even if no credit will be generated.

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division