20200035 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan Review_20211014

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
October 13, 2021
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Liberty Rock Mitigation Site /
Randolph Co./ SAW-2020-00047/ NCDMS Project # 100135
Mr. Jeremiah Dow
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Dow:
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 Liberty Rock Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on September 10, 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.brown ing(a�usace.army.mil .
Sincerely,
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Lindsay Crocker—NCDMS
John Hutton, Angela Allen—WEI

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Browning
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
September 24, 2021
SUBJECT: Liberty Rock Mitigation Project - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan Review,
Randolph 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-2020-00047
NCDMS #: 100135
30-Day Comment Deadline: September 10, 2021
USFWS, Kathy Matthews:
1. The applicant's response to our concerns for stringent erosion and sedimentation controls is not
sufficient. In response to our concerns, the applicant simply states "Wildlands will receive all
necessary erosion and sediment control permits prior to constructing the project." That really is
the minimum for any project, and we would like to have the opportunity to review the controls
that they propose in future design phases. NCWRC should also be provided the opportunity to
review and make recommendations on specific controls.
2. The logistics of mussel relocation in the plans are confusing and do not provide enough
details. The plans state that mussels will be salvaged and placed in a cooler with aeration, and
then moved to the upstream relocation reach or to the newly restored reach of Rocky
River. However, the last page of the 12/15/2020 Technical memorandum states that mussel
relocation will take place during Pre -construction. There will be no new reach of Rocky River at
that time. Salvaged mussels should not be handled or held any longer than absolutely
necessary, and should not be relocated to a new stream reach that has not equilibrated. At
least two weeks prior to the proposed first salvage date, the applicant or contractor should
provide a more specific mussel salvage and relocation plan for review and
approval. Information to be provided includes all methods and information on timing, including
the maximum length of time that individuals are proposed to be held, and lat/long, photos, and
habitat descriptions of the proposed relocation area(s).
3. The logistics of mussel relocation is further complicated by the lack of information on the order
of construction. We assume that the new channel will be constructed in the dry, and water will
not be turned into it until after it is relatively stable. When will the mussels be relocated, just
prior to the entire construction effort, or prior to dewatering of the old channel, or both? Some
of this is usually general knowledge for the IRT, but it is important for us to get it all spelled out.

USACE, Kim Browning:
1. Appendix 1, Mussel Survey Report: In the Technical Memo Review that I sent January 5, 2021,
USFWS, WRC, USACE and DWR all requested a copy of the Mussel Surveys as they become
available. It would have been beneficial for the IRT to review the survey dated February 2021
and provide feedback on the proposed stream design prior to receiving the draft mitigation plan
and 60% drawings.
2. Section 3.5: The Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) was listed as being identified on the initial
mussel survey conducted in February 2020; however, this species was not listed in the
correspondence the IRT received from WEI April 29, 2020, which included correspondence from
Brena Jones. Additionally, the Savannah Lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) was not listed as being
identified, but it was stated that there was the potential for them to be present.
a. After discussion with Wildlands, this section contained incorrect aquatic species survey
data. It was noted that no federally listed species were identified on project reaches.
Attached are the survey results. Please update section 3.5 in the final mitigation plan.
3. Section 3.4.3:
a. Pre -construction groundwater wells 1 and 7 currently have 100% hydroperiods. Do you
anticipate that these areas will develop into more of an herbaceous wetland or open
water? I'd like to see random veg plot data for these areas during monitoring.
b. During the site visit we discussed that the rehabilitation areas may be eligible for a 1:1
credit ratio; however, since the hydroperiods already exceed the proposed 12%
performance standard, I agree with the proposed 1.5:1 ratio since livestock exclusion and
vegetation establishment are the sources of functional uplift near gauges 1, 2 and 7.
c. Additionally, the text reads that GW7 recorded hydroperiods of 100% and 44.7%. 1 believe
it was meant to read that GW2 recorded a 44.7%
4. Section 6.7, page 20: "It is likely livestock removal will promote some level of functional uplift" is
a rather vague statement. Are the wooded wetland areas highly degraded? To further enhance
this area, please add a few shrub and/or herbaceous species to increase diversity.
5. Section 6.7, page 21: Wehadkee and Roanoke soils are listed in this section, but Figure 5 doesn't
list Roanoke. I trust that the soils descriptions listed in section 3.4.2 are accurate since historic
soil surveys were not mapped on a small scale. Please ensure that well data captures both types
of soils.
6. Section 6.8.2: Eradication of pasture grasses should be discussed in this section.
7. Section 6.9: All mussel relocation should be done in coordination with WRC's Central Aquatic
Wildlife Diversity Research Coordinator, Brena Jones.
8. Section 6.10: This section states that there are no internal or external easement breaks. Design
Sheet 5.6 shows a detail of a ford crossing. Please confirm that a ford is not proposed.
9. Section 8, page 24: If the documentation of soil temperature data and vegetative indicators
suggest that a modified growing season is warranted, please notify the IRT in the annual
monitoring report. Additionally, if the growing season is extended at the beginning of the
monitoring period, it must also be extended at the end.
10. Table 16, page 24: A performance standard should be added that specifies that mussel surveys
will be conducted, and provided to the IRT, in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. While project
credits are not associated with the findings, the surveys and accompanying reports are required;
therefore, the statement on page 25 in Section 9 and Table 17 should be modified to reflect this.
11. Concur with DWR comment #13.
12. Figure 11: Please show the location of the rain gauge.
13. Design Sheet 0.2: The Project overview sheet numbers don't match the stream plan and profile
sheets. For example, Sheet 1.1 should be labeled sheet 1.01.
14. Design Sheet 3.1: River Birch, Sycamore and Boxelder are larger system species and account
for 40% of the proposed species for the buffer planting zone and 37% of the wetland planting
zone. I understand they have a high survivability and high growth rates, and are more readily

available; I'm curious if the increased use of Boxelder recently is due to Green Ash no longer
being an option?
DWR, Erin Davis:
1. Page 5, Section 3.4.1 — DWR appreciates the detail provided in this section, particularly the
reasoning behind the assessment locations and subsequent scoring.
2. Page 8, Section 3.4.2 — Is there data available (e.g. boring map and logs) from the WEI
supplemental/expanded soil investigation. Also, please confirm the LLS investigation date, the
Appendix 1 LLS sealed report is dated August 2019.
3. Page 19, Rocky River Reach — The narrative mentions approx. 70 feet of bank grading at the
end of this restoration credit reach, but no callouts are shown for this section on Sheet 1.07.
Please make sure to show all proposed work for the reach on the final design sheets.
4. Page 20, Mica Creek — During both design and construction, please consider aquatic passage
in the structure drops.
5. Page 21, Section 6.7 —
a. Please call out on Figure 3 which existing wetlands are relic channel features.
b. The existing/proposed landscape variability described in the text is difficult to see in
Sheet 2. Is it possible to add callouts or bold some contour lines on Sheet 2 to better
show the habitat diversity?
c. Please explain why the 12 percent hydroperiod performance standard is appropriate
and will demonstrate functional uplift for the wetland rehabilitation credit areas given
that the existing hydrology groundwater wells both recorded 100 percent hydroperiods.
6. Page 21, Section 6.8.1 —
a. Please include at least one regional vegetative reference community or explain why a
reference community is not available/applicable for this project site.
b. A reminder that planting should be completed by March 15t" and any extension request
needs to be approved by the IRT and may involve a postponement of the MY1
monitoring period.
7. Page 21, Section 6.8.2 — DWR appreciates the site specific discussion in this section. Past
WEI mitigation plans have included a site specific invasive management plan appendix, which
DWR considers a useful resource.
8. Page 22, Section 6.10 —
a. Not sure if this is a question for Section 6.7, Section 11 or this section, but what if the
wetland credit areas trend wetter than expected? Is there a risk that some of the
wetland credit areas develop into open water, herbaceous or shrub wetland types rather
than bottomland hardwood forest? Is so, please address.
b. There was no discussion in Section 3.1 of watershed land use/cover changes over time.
Have county/local planning resources been consulted for potential future watershed
changes? Are there any proposed DOT projects in the vicinity (e.g. road widening,
culvert maintenance)?
c. Please expand on your discussion of risks associated with presence of parrot feather for
long-term site management and functional uplift.
d. The last sentence references Section 10. Please highlight where in Section 10 the
maintenance activities associated with the identified risks and uncertainties are
discussed.
9. Page 24, Section 8 — Will an onsite rain gauge be installed? If not, please identify the proposed
rainfall data source location and distance from the project site.

10. Page 24, Table 16 — Please clarify that the wetland hydroperiod is an annual standard. And
please confirm that "average precipitation" is equivalent to "normal rainfall".
11. Page 24, Section 9 — Please remember to include soil profile data near all groundwater wells in
the MYO Report. DWR also requests the inclusion of red -line drawings in the as -built submittal,
including the planting plan and any species/quantity changes. If species substitutions are
necessary, DWR encourages the provider to consult with the IRT prior to planting. Also, please
confirm with DMS on the Closeout Report references.
12. Page 26, Table 18 — DWR would like to see two of the fixed plots changed to random. And
please note that in addition to the reference photos, there will be photo points at each cross-
section and veg plot.
13. Page 27, Section 11 — As discussed during the IRT site walk, DWR is concerned with the
tributaries sustaining channel features long-term in the Rocky River floodplain. Please take into
consideration that any channel maintenance or adaptive management activities should be
limited to within the first three years of the monitoring period so the IRT can evaluate how
these features are trending (stream/wetland) and the associated functional uplift.
14. Figures — Inclusion of a LiDAR figure would be helpful for this project review.
15. Figure 11 — In this particular situation where concave relief areas are mentioned but are
difficult to see on figures/sheets, DWR is ok with field shifts of groundwater well locations out
of depression areas as long as it's noted in the MYO Report.
16. Sheet 2 — If there is any wetland grading proposed beyond the installation of wetland plugs,
existing channel backfill and surface roughening, please provide a wetland grading plan
sheet/figure. It would also be helpful to see a cross-section across the wetland credit areas
with the new Rocky River channel configuration (similar to cross -sections included in WEI's
Banner Farm mitigation plan).
17. Sheets 5.3 — 5.6 — More of an educational inquiry than concern, but why do some structure
details callout woven filter fabric and others callout non -woven filter fabric?
18. Sheet 5.5, Lunker Structure Detail — Is there a live stake or bank planting component with this
structure? DWR requests a photo of an installed lunker structure in the MYO report.
19. Sheet 5.6, Wetland Plug — Understanding that individual plug width will vary, what are the
proposed minimum and average plug widths for this site?
20. DWR truly appreciates the efforts made to enhance the proposed project, including capturing
the origins of two tributaries and the full floodplain of Rocky River with wider buffers, and
creating a continuous site without easement break or stream crossing fragmentation.
WRC. Olivia Munzer:
1. Page 9, Section 3.5: Existing Mussels Survey, it is stated that during the preliminary mussel
survey, we identified two state endangered species and one state threatened species. Please
clarify that these species are known to occur in the watershed because it can be misinterpreted
that we found them at the site.
2. In regards to the planting plan, I would like to see more flowering herbaceous species in the
wetland seed mix to increase diversity. The species listed, bur marigold and/or swamp
sunflower, are also in the riparian seed mix and plugs. If you are doing flowering herbaceous
plugs, I would prefer a milkweed or other pollinator species typical of the vegetation community
but not already in the planting plan. Also, redtop panicgrass is more of a southern Coastal Plain
or Sandhills species. The preference would be a species that commonly occurs in Randolph
County. Please do not use tall fescue or orchardgrass as they are invasive and/or non-native
species.

WRC, Brena Jones:
1. Section 6.9: The language about placing mussels in the newly constructed reach should be
removed as that channel will take time to stabilize. I would recommend that it state that mussels
will be relocated to either upstream habitats or to another appropriate habitat within the same
basin. This would allow us the flexibility to place them somewhere else if we find a better option
in the meantime. I don't think this would prevent later efforts to manually introduce animals to
the new reach at a later time when it is deemed stable.
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
September 22, 2021
US Army Corps of Engineers — Regulatory Division
Attn: Kim Browning
RE: Liberty Rock Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan
Randolph County, NC
Dear Ms. Browning,
Wildlands would like to make a correction to our submitted Mitigation Plan for Liberty Rock Mitigation
Site dated June 22, 2021. Section 3.5 on page 9 stated that during a site visit by the Wildlife Resource
Commission and SEPI they encountered endangeered and threatened mussel species (Atlatic pigtoe,
Savannah lilliput, and brook floater). This is incorrect and error on the part of Wildlands. No endangered
specis have been found on site. Below are listed the dates of mussel sampling along with the species
found.
February 28, 2020. Olivia Munzer (e-mail correspondence to IRT)
• 3 crayfish species
• 3 native snail species
• 3 native mussels including Eastern Creekshell (Villosa delumbis), which is significantly rare
• Potential habitat for Carolina Creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) and Savannah Lilliput (Toxolasma
pullus)
October 9, 2020: Olivia Munzer and SEPI (email correspondence to IRT)
• Eastern Creekshell (Villosa delumbis)
• Notched rainbow (Villosa constricta)
• Eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata)
• Florida pondhorn (Uniomerous carolinianus)
• Eastern Floater (Pyganodon cataracta)
February 12, 2021: SEPI (Report dated February 2021, Appendix of Mitigation Plan)
• Eastern Creekshell (Villosa delumbisl
• Notched rainbow (Villosa constricta)
• Eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata)
• Florida pondhorn (Uniomerous carolinianus)
• Eastern Floater (Pyganodon cataracta)
Sincerely,
Angela Allen, Project Manager
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

From:
Davis. Erin B
To:
Baker, Caroline D
Subject:
FW: [External] Approval Letter/ NCDMS Liberty Rock Mitigation Site/ SAW-2020-00047/ Randolph County
Date:
Wednesday, November 3, 2021 9:24:01 AM
Attachments:
Approval Letter Liberty Rock SAW-2020-00047.odf
Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo NCDMS Liberty Rock SAW-2020-00047.pdf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachments
DWR#: 20200035 v.1
Doc Type: Mitigation Plan Review
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
[mailto: Kimberly. [e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:03 AM
To: Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; John Hutton <jhutton@wild landseng.com>;
Angela Allen <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>; Jones, Brena K.
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Gledhill-earley, Renee <renee.gledhill-
[e-mail]>; Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd
<[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Approval Letter/ NCDMS Liberty Rock Mitigation Site/ SAW-2020-00047/
Randolph County
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 Jeremiah,
Attached is the NCDMS Liberty Rock 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. Additionally, please ensure that a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan is posted to the
NCDMS projects page 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
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers