20141024 Ver 1 _ApprovalLetter_FinalMP _20141230

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF: December 17, 2014
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the UT to Town Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Plan; SAW- 2013 - 01280; NCEEP Project # 94648
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
( NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team ( NCIRT)
during the 30 -day comment period for the UT to Town Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan,
which closed on October 31, 2014. 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 appropriate USACE field 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 call me at
919 - 846 -2564.
Sincerely,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW- RG- R/Elliott
TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048429293
2014.12.17 12:37:53 - 05'00'

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW- RG /Tugwell December 2, 2014
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: UT to Town Creek - NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal
during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation
Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: UT to Town Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, Stanly
County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2013 -01280
NCEEP #: 94648
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 31 October, 2014
Todd Bowers, USEPA, 17 Oct, 2014:
1. The applicant has omitted the Credit Release Schedule for wetland and stream credit
units.
2. Recommend a 7 -year monitoring period for vegetation in those areas where forest
wetlands (headwater or bottomland hardwoods) are being established. This is per
guidance dated October 10, 2008 titled Revised Credit Release Schedule for Forested
Wetlands and in accordance with 33 CFR Part 332, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses
of Aquatic Resources.
3. While I agree completely with the amount of extra credit generated by the extra buffer
widths along Reaches 1 -3, 1 would like some clarity on how the extra width was
calculated. Was it from perpendicular lines from valley centerline, top of bank, or
stream beltwidth. I recommend the use of beltwidth for sinuous streams such as this to
determine buffer width averages.
4. Recommend a figure or map showing the areas where upland, riparian, and forested
wetland plantings will occur. Vegetation plots established for monitoring should
adequately cover each of these different vegetation communities.
5. Page 3 -8: Error in footnotes for Reach 2 in Table 3.4. Need to add footnotes 3 and 4
where appropriate.

6. Page 7 -23: Existing conditions state that "wetlands are extremely impaired" yet they
scored High to Medium per the NCWAM evaluations. Can the applicant please provide
clarity in this situation?
7. Page 7 -30 and 31: Stream buffer vegetation refers to Table 7.6. This should be corrected
to Table 7.7.
8. Page 7 -32: Table 7.7 in Constructed Wetlands the latin name for sweetflag is shown as
Nyssa sylvatica. This should be corrected to Acorus calumus.
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, 30 October, 2014:
1. While WRC agrees with the incorporation of the two wetland BMPs into the plan, the
design as shown as well as the steep topography on reach 7 give concern that these will
function more like traditional storm water retention basins and likely require routine
maintenance. The design and location of these BMPs should be such that little to no
maintenance is required.
Ginny Baker, NCDWR, 31 October, 2014:
1. Notate on Figure 6 that area upstream of Reach 4, 5, and 7 is non - credited preservation
as noted on pg 7 -5 in Notes section.
2. Wetland indicator status listed on pages 7 -31 and 7 -32 should be updated to current
National Wetland Plant List for the EMP region for 2014 which does not have " +" and
designations. Please correct the following: Liriodendron tulipifera to FACU, Quercus
phellos to FAC, Alnus serrulata to OBL, Sambucus Canadensis to Sambucus nigra FAC,
Nyssa sylvatica to FAC, Hibiscus moscheutos to FACW, Elymus virginicus to FACW,
Tripsacum dactyloides to FACW, Coreopsis lanceolata to FACU, Dichanthelium
clandestinum to FAC. http: / /rsgisias .crrel.usace.army.mil /nwpl static /viewer.html#
3. DWR will require in our permit conditions that a monitoring gage be placed at the head
of and lower end near the confluence for all intermittent streams that are to be
restored with Priority 1 techniques that will raise the stream bed and potentially reduce
base flow. Reach 7.
4. A vegetation monitoring plot should be added (or moved into) the enhancement area.
5. DWR recommends using burlap, or more natural light weight core fiber material that
would degrade quicker rather than geo -tech fabric for soil lifts and grade control /cross
vanes etc.
6. DWR recommends leaving some of the stumpage on site rather than complete removal
during grading process to promote regrowth.
7. DWR recommends the use of "screenings" from rock quarry for use in riffle pools and
backfilling cross vanes, etc. This material fills the gap between #57 stone and sand /soil
mediums.
Todd Tugwell, USACE, 2 December, 2014:
1. The mitigation plan indicates 5 years of monitoring for both streams and wetlands,
however we have moved to 7 years of monitoring for both per the NCEEP guidance from
2011, and earlier for forested wetlands. Please updated the plan to meet current

monitoring timeframes or provide justification as to why only 5 years of monitoring is
proposed.
2. The plan indicates that areas proposed for wetland creation will have to be graded to
expose buried hydric soils, however it is not clear how much grading is required, only
that it may be more than 12 inches. Please note that extensive grading to create
wetlands can result in soils that are compacted and have low vegetation growth, which
is one of the reasons for the lower ratio for wetland creation.
3. Table 7.5 appears to be incorrectly referenced in the discussion on page 7 -24 as table
7.4. This table shows current hydroperiods generally above 20% on the restoration
areas on site, yet the proposed performance standard is only 9 %. Please consider a
higher performance standard for restoration areas, supported by the reference
condition and existing conditions on the site.
4. Buffer widths on the site are proposed to be wider than the standard 50 feet, and
additional credit is requested based on draft guidance put out for public notice by the
District in 2010. We have agreed to increased credit for wider buffers in certain
situations; however several requirements have generally applied to this. To begin with,
additional credits should not be provided in areas where the wider buffers are also
generating wetland credit, which appears to be the case on parts of this site.
Additionally, based on comments received from the public notice, we have revised the
draft tables associated with wider buffers, which can be supplied to the provider upon
request. The modified tables do not provide for extra credit until the buffer is a
minimum of 75' in width (in piedmont and coastal counties), additionally the percent
increase in credit is greater than in the draft guidance used by the providers. Also, the
calculations provided in Figure 8 are not sufficient to determine how the increases were
determined (e.g., how average floodplain widths were determined). Finally, there are
some segments within these reaches that appear to be at or below 50 feet in width that
were averaged into the segment and now are receiving additional credit. (see stations
22 +00 to 23 +00, and 36 +30). If additional credits will be requested for wider buffers,
please coordinate with the District to determine the requirements for this.
5. We do not object to increased stream credit from the construction of BMPs on two of
the tributaries; however, it is not clear if these BMPs will result in the loss of existing
jurisdictional stream, or whether a channel will be maintained through the BMP. How
are these structures proposed to benefit the project, and how was it determined how
many credits should result from the addition of these structures?
--�-� TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.10
V,{ 48429293
2014.12.02 13:41:05 - 05'00'
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division