Notice of IRT Adaptive Management Plan Review_ NCDMS Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site_ Chatham County_ SAW-2014-00736

From: Davis. Erin B
To: Baker. Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] RE: Notice of IRT Adaptive Management Plan Review/ NCDMS Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site/
Chatham County/ SAW-2014-00736
Date: Monday, December 12, 2022 2:42:24 PM
Attachments: MudLickCreek IRT Ada ptiveManaaementReauestMemo 2022.pdf
Adaptive Manaoement Plan Guidance 20210928 .pdf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachments
DWR#: 20141127 v.1
Doc Date: 11/22/22
Doc Type: Mitigation — Remediation Plan Review
Doc Name: General topic of email title
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 1:27 PM
To: Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Allen, Melonie <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd
<[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Notice of IRT Adaptive Management Plan Review/ NCDMS Mud Lick Creek
Mitigation Site/ Chatham County/ SAW-2014-00736
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,
The 15-day comment review period for the NCDMS Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Adaptive
Management Plan (SAW-2014-00736) closed on November 12, 2022. Per Section 332.8(o)(9) of the
2008 Mitigation Rule, this review followed the streamlined review process. NCDMS requested to
supplementally plant 2.04 acres of 9.6 total acres or 21% of the planted area this winter at Mud Lick
Creek. The MY4 report indicated 4 vegetation plots failed due to herbaceous competition and
sweetgum. Additionally, during the 6/4/2021 credit release site visit, the IRT noted several areas of
low stem densities and/or low vigor and many plots had evidence of deer browse. All comments
received during the review process are below.
1. Erin Davis, DWR: DWR concurs with all of EPA's comments below. Additionally, we request
green ash be removed from that supplemental planting list. Please either include an
additional species or adjust quantities of other species listed.
2. Todd Bowers, EPA: The need and approach for supplemental planting with mitigation
plan approved species is well demonstrated. The only issue I have is coming up with an
new monitoring scheme for the Mud Lick Creek site. I recommend an annual monitoring

plan that contains a couple more veg plots in the larger of the supplementally planted
areas to ensure the additional trees along with those established are progressing
toward success; at least to the third year criteria before final closeout. If interim success
is not met then additional monitoring (beyond MY7) and possibly another round of
planting and additional monitoring may be needed.
• Proposed species are approved.
• Recommend additional veg plots (2) to monitoring larger areas that received
supplemental planting.
• Monitor new areas/veg plots for 3 years to include MY5, 6, and 7.
• Full closeout if performance standards in new veg plots meet third year
performance (>320 stems/acre) at MY7.
• If trend is not towards success at MY7, extend monitoring period and do not
close out until all areas/veg plots are meeting performance criteria.
3. Travis Wilson, WRC: WRC requests an additional year of vegetation monitoring.
4. Kim Isenhour, USACE:
a. Was the beaver dam removed, and did it affect the vegetation in plot 10?
b. What are the pink lines on the stream bank near veg plot 3?
c. Why is the area around plot 10 not being replanted?
d. Are soil amendments needed? It's difficult to know the source of the low stem density
without more information.
e. It would have been helpful to include the reach names on the map and a soils map. For
future submittals, please follow the attached Adaptive Management Plan Guidance.
f. When deer browse has been an issue on past projects, such as Vile Creek, alternative
species were proposed that seemed to survive. Was this considered?
g. The Corps concurs that an additional year of vegetation monitoring should occur in
MY6, to include two additional plots. Prior to close-out, the Corps requests transect
data in several of the replanted areas to assess overall vegetation success.
Please reach out with any questions.
Have a nice Thanksgiving,
Kim
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107