20181034 Ver 1_Notice of Initial Credit Release - NCDMS UT to Rush Fork_20221007

Baker, Caroline D
From: Davis, Erin B
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 5:47 PM
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS UT to Rush Fork/
SAW-2018-01171/ Haywood County
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20181034 v.1
Doc Date: 10/7/22
Doc Type: Mitigation —Mitigation Evaluation
Doc Name: General topic of email title
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 2:40 PM
To: Clemmons, Micky <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>;
Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J
<[e-mail]>; McHenry, David G <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY
CEMVP (USA) <[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Fennel, Tommy E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Tommy.E.Fennel @usace.army.mil>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Harmon, Beth
<[e-mail]>; Stanfill, Jim <[e-mail]>; McKeithan, Katie
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS UT to Rush Fork/ SAW-2018-01171/ Haywood 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 afternoon all,
The 15-Day As-Built/MYO review for the UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Site (SAW-2018-01171) ended September 21, 2022.
Per Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review followed the streamlined review process. All comments
received from the NCIRT are incorporated in the email below. There were no objections to issuing the initial 30% credit
release of 1,060.076 cold stream mitigation units. Please find attached the current signed ledger. No site visit is
requested at this time.
Todd Bowers, USEPA:
Overall, the Site looks great, appears to be performing as intended, and is on track to meet stream and vegetation
success criteria. All red -line deviations of the vegetation planting and site construction plans (structure mods, fencing
gates and substitute species) were all minor in nature and noted.
The following items or highlights from the As -Built Condition Assessment were noted:
1. There appears to be a minor error in stream photos with Photo 47 differing from the location noted on Figure
3c.
2. Planted species substitutions are suitable with only a very minor reduction in site diversity.
Overall, I am very satisfied with the report and the work that Baker has completed at the site. Having not been able to
visit this location, I really appreciated the detailed ground -level stream feature photos to illustrate the grading, planting,

monitoring equipment and features implemented. I recommend the appropriate credit release (Milestone 2) for cold
stream mitigation units for this monitoring milestone. I have no other substantial comments not requesting a site visit at
this time.
Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1. DWR appreciated all of DMS' comments and Baker's responses.
2. Regarding the BMP partially located outside of the easement, DWR's preference would be to have the entire
BMP within the easement, and we would support an easement modification request to capture the feature within the
project area. However, we do acknowledge that the final mitigation plan figures do show the BMP extending beyond the
easement line and are glad that the feature perimeter is fenced. If the situation remains as -is, we recommend clear CE
boundary signage and early communication between Stewardship and landowner on long-term maintenance and
fencing.
3. Redline Sheet 4 appears to show the UT2 culvert pipe and riprap extending into the easement. I'm not sure if
this is the same area DMS referenced in their comments. If not, please discuss a proposed resolution.
4. Photo Point 23 — Please confirm the culvert upstream of UT4 was properly embedded as per the 401 water
quality certification.
5. DWR appreciated the planted species diversity and good report photos.
Dave McHenry, NCWRC:
Please provide some history on the culvert un NC 209 (UT 1 Sta 28+90) with the "plunge pool" detail. It was not
backwatered, and not designed to, even though the culvert bisects the site. The grades were raised/set above the
inverts on the culverts that were installed elsewhere. I realize the 100-200-foot reach below NC 209 is outside of the CE
possibly because of concerns about possible chronic influence of the culvert and likely future road maintenance. And,
the culvert is about 3%.
Thanks and have a good weekend,
Kim
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107