20200018 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20211118

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
November 18, 2021
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Laurel Valley Mitigation Site / Burke
Co./ SAW-2020-00053/ NCDMS Project # 100140
Mr. Paul Wiesner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Mr. Wiesner:
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 Laurel Valley Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on October 7, 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 contact me at Kim berly.d.brown ing(a-)usace.army.mil or [phone].
Sincerely,
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Harry Tsomides—NCDMS
Eric Neuhaus—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
October 27, 2021
SUBJECT: NCDMS Laurel Valley Mitigation Project - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation
Plan Review, Burke 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-2020-00053
NCDMS #: 100140
30-Day Comment Deadline: October 7, 2021
USEPA 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. General:
o I am somewhat disappointed that Wildlands is taking a "mountain" approach to
requirements for site design and monitoring. Granted, Burke County is a "mountain"
county per the 2016 Guidance. However, aside from the county in which this project is
located, there are no other indications that this is a mountain type of site. The stated
ecoregion is Northern Inner Piedmont, the elevation is well below 1,500 feet, the
topography appears to be gently rolling hills, the slope of the streams is less than 2%
across most of the project, all reference streams are located in the North Carolina
piedmont and the design curves used are mainly Piedmont. I understand the IRT brought
this up when considering buffer widths and the landowner was not interested in providing
more acreage for establishing 50-foot-wide riparian zones. Wildlands has proceeded to
develop a site that follows the 2016 Guidance for mountain projects.
2. Section 3.1/Page 19 Watershed Conditions:
o Based on the status of East Prong Hunting Creek (EPHC) as a Water Supply IV water
and the proximity of potential livestock operations I recommend wider riparian buffers to
provide more protection for these waters in the face of runoff from cattle.
o Is the historic flow of UT1 the basis for returning the stream to its tie-in with East Prong
Hunting Creek?
3. Section 3.3.1 /Page 23: UT1
o Is there anymore information on the inactive quarry at the origin of UT1 ?What was mined
and is there any mine spoil causing water quality issues for UT1?

o More information on the rerouting of UT1 Reach 2 and its current state as it leaves the
site would be helpful.
4. Section 4.2/Page 29:
o If Wetland F is positioned to continue providing hydrology to the offsite (and disconnected)
portion of UT1, I recommend adding a gauge to monitor to ensure UT1 Reach 2 continues
to provide hydrology to Wetland F.
5. Table 11 /Page 32:
o Recommend adding some language to address the rerouting of UT1 — Reach 2 as it
pertains to alleviating stressors.
6. Section 6.2/Page 32:
o All reference reaches are located in the Piedmont physiographic region supporting my
conclusion that this is not a "mountain" stream.
7. Section 6.6.3/Page 38:
o "...Wetland F along the left floodplain of the stream that receives hydrology from UT1
during flooding events. The priority 1 design will provide hydrology to these adjacent
wetlands." Will this be verified by any monitoring?
8. Section 6.7/Page 39:
o Recommend expanding the riparian buffers to 50 feet from the stream beltwidth. I know
this is highly unlikely to change but I needed to get this recommendation on the record.
9. Table 18/Page 44:
o Vegetation Performance Standards: For the reasons stated above, I recommend the
sponsor consider using Piedmont performance standards for vegetation growth at MY 5
and MY 7. Some flexibility should be considered for monitoring plots located in Priority 2
floodplains due to know difficulty in establishing vegetation in those areas.
10. Table 19/Page 45:
o I recommend adding some monitoring wells to confirm the wetlands currently on -site
maintain their hydrology following the extensive stream works within wetlands adjacent
to UT 1 and EPHC.
11. Section 11.2/Page 47:
o I recommend additional buffer credit only if based on minimum buffer width of 50 feet.
Application of the minimum standard is just that, a minimum, and is not suitable for a
Piedmont stream site regardless of the county name. Ecologically, this is not a mountain
site. I don't have issues with the calculation or desire for additional credit and this is taking
advantage of a site that should have wider buffers but does not.
WRC Comments, Andrea Leslie:
1. Wildlands is using natural community types from the 1900 Third Approximation of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina reference. As we've commented before, the more recent 2012
Fourth Approximation should be used to determine community type.
2. We appreciate the diversity of species presented in the planting plan. We call out a few plant
choices and other issues here:
a. Ulmus rubra (Slippery Elm) is included in the planting plan. (Note — in the planting plan,
it is called Ulmus fulva and sometimes Ulmus rubra, but it appears that rubra is the
specific epithet used in most references.) Is this a substitute for American Elm?
American Elm is found in many wetland communities of NC, but Slippery Elm is not — in
fact, it is an upland elm that is found on sites with basic soils. It doesn't seem like an
appropriate substitute.
b. River birch is included in the planting plan. Is it found in nearby sites? If it isn't, we
encourage it to be eliminated. At the very least, we ask that river birch and boxelder be

kept to a small percentage of the stems planted (currently, they each range from 10-15%
of the stems planted — this should not be increased).
c. The Open Area Buffer Planting list includes species that range from being FACW to UPL,
which is fine. However, we strongly recommend that during the time of planting, that
stems be sorted and planted in appropriate areas on the site (not just mixed up and
planted indiscriminately). More attention to where particular species are planted should
allow for better success and a more appropriate community.
d. Black gum is included in the wetland planting list — this is primarily an upland species,
and it is unclear why it is included. If planted, it should only be in drier areas of the site.
It would be more appropriate in the riparian planting plan.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. DMS comment page 3, bullet #3 — DWR echoes DMS' question/concern. We appreciate the
discussion on the issue included in Section 4.2. At minimum DWR requires installation of a
gauge or trail camera in Wetland F to demonstrate a sustained hydrologic connection during the
project monitoring period. For the 401 application, please clearly describe the rationale for the
stream relocation, and effort to be made to reduce the risk of any loss of state water resources
as well as how that will be assessed/monitored.
2. Page 9, Section 3.3.2 — Was NCWAM completed for wetland areas proposed to be impacted?
3. Page 12, Section 4.3 — Due to the proposed stream relocation/realignment through existing
wetland areas, DWR requests a re -delineation of wetlands onsite during monitoring year 7.
4. Page 18. Section 6.5 — The nearby quarry is described as abandoned and earlier as inactive.
Please confirm the status of the quarry and discuss potential effect(s) on the project.
5. Page 22, Section 6.7 — Please briefly describe the proposed utility easement planting shown on
Figure 10.
6. Page 27, Table 18 — DWR is ok with the proposed Wetland Planting Zone vigor standard.
7. Page 28, Table 19 — Please differentiate between fixed and random veg plots proposed per
reach. DWR recommends a few random plots be included in the monitoring plan. Also, DWR
requests that the overall trend in species survival of planted stems be tracked in the Partially
Vegetated Planting Zone.
8. Figure 2 — Please callout the approximate locations of existing ditches/drainage outlets
referenced in the text.
9. Figure 9 — Please show existing wetlands.
10. Figures — Please include a LiDAR figure in the final mitigation plan.
11. Design Sheets 2.1.1 — 2.3.4 —
a. It was really helpful to see all of the existing tree points along each reach. Was there a
minimum diameter threshold for a tree to be plotted? Also, for trees proposed to be saved
along the streambank, was direct and/or indirect construction impacts to critical root
zones a consideration?
b. Will all abandoned channel sections be backfilled to surrounding surface grade? (with the
exception of the proposed floodplain pool)
12. Sheet 2.1.3 — Are there any concerns about the long term stability at the UT1 confluence with
the tributary angling toward the EPHC left bank brush toe treatment?
13. Sheet 2.2.1 — Please add callouts with station numbers of where stream credit begins and ends,
and add a sheet match line.
14. Sheets 5.3 & 5.6 — Please confirm that the proposed outlet stabilizations and channels do not
include rock placement.
15. General comment — I noticed multiple topics the IRT have been bringing up were captured in the
plan. I liked the site -specific discussions in the site constraints, hydro trespass and project risk
& uncertainties sections, as well as the Table 2 land use classification breakdown and
paragraph -table -photos combo per reach in the existing conditions section. The proposed

species diversity, multiple planting zones, detailed invasive treatment plan, fencing plan and
floodplain pool detail were all good to see included.
USACE Comments. Kim Browni
1. The Corps agrees with EPA's comments regarding the Piedmont references for both stream
design and planting plan development. Given that this site is located in the Piedmont
physiographic region, and has been designed as such, the vegetative performance standard for
height success criteria would be more appropriate as 7 feet at MY5 and 10 feet at MY7. Please
adjust the vegetation performance standard in Table 18.
a. Unfortunately, the designation as a mountain county and the Piedmont physiographic
region were not discussed at the IRT site visits in 2019 and 2020, and we realize that the
easement boundaries, and associated buffer widths, have already been determined at
this stage of the plan development; however, we agree that wider buffers on portions of
this site would have been beneficial.
b. This situation is similar to the discussion we had during the review of the Huntsman site.
Moving forward, the IRT would like to be notified at the Technical Proposal stage if you
propose to use Piedmont references, and associated vegetative success standards and
buffer widths, in a mountain county.
2. Section 3.3: I appreciate the detail provided that describes existing stream and wetland
conditions. This is very helpful for the review and to demonstrate the potential functional uplift.
It would be helpful to include a photo of the preservation reach for contrast.
3. Section 3.5: Please confirm that the utility easement along the northwest side of the property
that is within the conservation easement is not included in the wider buffer credit calculation. I
also have concerns that the fencing and vegetation within this utility easement may be
jeopardized if/when utility maintenance is required. It is not standard to include existing
easements within the CE.
4. Section 3.5: It was noted during the IRT site visit that the culvert at the upstream end of East
Prong Hunting Creek is perched and there are no plans to replace it (as described in Section
6.6.1). Will this perched culvert be an obstruction to aquatic passage? Or will Priority 2
restoration address this concern? Please clarify in Section 3.5.
5. Table 8, page 11 and Appendix 5: Please include a copy of the Phase I Survey and all
correspondence in the final mitigation plan for Section 106 documentation.
6. Appendix 5: The Cherokee Nation responded to the public notice for this project on May 4, 2020.
Their response is attached. Please include this in the final mitigation plan and update the AIRFA
section of Appendix 5.
7. Section 4.2, page 12: Re -aligning UT1 to drain to East Prong Hunting Creek will likely cause
less base flow, and less storm flow to the adjacent property. To address IRT concerns, a gauge
will need to be installed, close to the conservation easement boundary in Wetland F, prior to
construction to monitor hydrology and ensure minimal negative impact (and hopefully positive
impact) to existing wetland hydrology. Additionally, please add a photo point near the easement
boundary that captures the wetlands along the field, which are off site. These wetlands were
relatively low quality, and the site is likely to yield more, higher -quality wetlands.
8. Section 4.3: Stream relocation is estimated to impact existing wetlands within the easement.
Though it is anticipated that the total wetland acreage, and quality, will likely increase as a result
of stream restoration, the Corps must still ensure that there is no net loss of wetlands as a result
of ecological restoration. If you do not plan to install gauges on all wetlands within the easement
and monitor hydrology, please plan to reverify the extent of jurisdiction at the end of the
monitoring period to document that wetland acreage was not lost.

9. Section 5: Please clarify which project outcomes are verifiable through measurement and/or
visual assessment, and which outcomes are implied (i.e., will you be measuring biological
uplift?).
10. Section 6.6.3: There is concern that UT1 Reach 2 across the floodplain will accumulate
sediment and have problems maintaining a channel. An additional cross-section should be
added to this reach, downstream of the ditch.
11. Section 6.6.4, page 22: The lower section of UT2 that is anticipated to be slightly entrenched
and may have a BHR above 1.0. This section will need to be assessed and conditions
documented during monitoring. If the channel becomes more entrenched, an additional cross-
section in the lower section of this reach may be requested, particularly if aggradation occurs
as described in Section 6.8.
12. Section 6.8: Please add a discussion on the corrective measures that will be taken if the lower
reaches of UT1 and UT2, in the floodplain of East Prong Hunting Creek, do accumulate
sediment. It would also be advisable to discuss the possibility that UT1 may revert back to its
current preferential flow path, and how that will be addressed. The corrective measures should
really be addressed in Section 10 (Adaptive Management), but it's acceptable to include them
in this section.
13. Table 18: At least two random plots should be added annually to gain a better overall picture
of vegetative success. Additionally, at least twice during monitoring, the partially vegetated
planting zones should be captured in monitoring data.
14. Table 18: Given the recent Technical Workgroup Discussion regarding pebble counts, do you
want to include this as a performance standard?
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division

GWY,O DAP
CHEROKEE NATIoN°
P.U. Box 948 • Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918-453-5000 • www.chei-Ace.org
May 4, 2020
Kim Browning
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Mitigation Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: SAW-2020-00053, Laurel Valley Mitigation
Ms. Kim Browning:
Office of the Chief
Chuck Hoskin Jr.
PHncipal Chief
Bryan Warner
Depiso, Principal Chief
The Cherokee Nation (Nation) is in receipt of your correspondence about SAW-2020-00053, and
appreciates the opportunity to provide comment upon this project. Please allow this letter to serve
as the Nation's interest in acting as a consulting parry to this proposed project.
The Nation maintains databases and records of cultural, historic, and pre -historic resources in this
area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project's legal
description against our information, and found no instances where this project intersects or adjoins
such resources. Thus, the Nation does not foresee this project imparting impacts to Cherokee
cultural resources at this time.
However, the Nation requests that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) halt all
project activities immediately and re -contact our Offices for further consultation if items of cultural
significance are discovered during the course of this project.
Additionally, the Nation requests that the USACE conduct appropriate inquiries with other
pertinent Tribal and Historic Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not
included in the Nation's databases or records.
If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[e-mail]
918.453.5389

From: Davis, Erin B
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] Approval Letter/ NCDMS Laurel Valley Mitigation Site/ SAW-2020-00053/ Burke County
Date: Monday, November 22, 2021 7:57:32 AM
Attachments: Approval Letter Laurel Valley SAW-2020-00053.pdf
Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo NCDMS Laurel Valley SAW-2020-00053.pdf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachments
DWR#: 20200018 v.I
Doc Type: Mitigation Evaluation
-----Original Message -----
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) [mailto:Kimberly.D.Browning(c)nsace.arniv.mil]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 1:38 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood(ousace.army.mil>; Davis, Erin B <erin.davis(0ncdenr.gov>;
Wilson, Travis W.<travis.wilson(oncwildlife.org>; Youngman, Holland J <[e-mail]>; Leslie,
Andrea J<andrea.leslie(oncwildlife.org>; Merritt, Katie <katie.merritt(0ncdenr.gov>; Bowers, Todd
<bowers.todd (0epa. gov>
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul
<[e-mail]>; Tsomides, Harry <[e-mail]>; Eric Neuhaus
<[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Scott.Jones( usace.army.mil>
Subject: [External] Approval Letter/ NCDMS Laurel Valley Mitigation Site/ SAW-2020-00053/ Burke County
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to Report Spam. <mailto:report.spam(cr)nc. go
Good afternoon Paul,
Attached is the NCDMS Laurel Valley 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