20161044 Ver 1_PCN Submittal_20180226

D# * 20161044
Version* 1
Select Reviewer:* Mac Haupt
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/26/2018
Type of Mitigation Project:*
fJ Stream PF Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a f Yes r No
New Site? *
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Lin Xu
Email Address:* [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing (DWR) ID#:* 20161044
(nun-bers only... no dash)
Existing Version:* 1
(nun-bers only)
Project Name:* Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
County:* Yadkin
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plan
File Upload: Approval Letter—Lone Hickory_97135_YadkinCo_2017.pdf
124.76KB
LoneHickory _97135_MP_2017.pdf
70.06MB
LoneHickory Mitigation Plan IRT Comment Response_2017-12-08.pdf
200.73KB
401 PermitFee-LoneHickory.pdf
39.97KB
LoneHickory401 COffice.pdf
39.38KB
LoneHickory401 Winston.pdf
35.66KB
LoneHickoryPCN.pdf
1.27MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lin Xu

Signature:*

November 30, 2017

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan;
SAW-2017-00100; DMS Project #97135

Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Dear Mr. Baumgartner:

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 review for the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on November
13, 2017. These comments are attached for your review.

Based on our review of these comments and the provider’s response, we have determined that no
significant concerns have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved
with this correspondence. However, several issues were identified, as described in the attached revised
comment memo, which must be appropriately addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.

The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
application for Nationwide permit (NWP) approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified in the attached memos must be appropriately 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.

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have questions regarding this letter,
the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please contact Andrea
Hughes at [phone] extension 59.

Sincerely,

for
Henry M. Wicker, Jr.
Deputy Chief, Regulatory

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:

NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner, NCDMS

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Browning November 14, 2017
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Lone Hickory Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan
Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Review
Portal during the 30-day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008
Mitigation Rule.
NCDMS Project Name: Lone Hickory Mitigation Site, Yadkin County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2017-00100
NCDMS #: 97135
30-Day Comment Deadline: November 13, 2017
Mac Haupt, NCDWR, November 13, 2017:
1. DWR questions whether there is enough hydraulic energy that supports constructing a channel at
the toe of the slope for tribs UT2B and UT2A. In addition, it would seem historically at this
landscape position there would be a toe of slope wetland that then may transition to a single
thread channel.
2. DWR notes that on Figure 11.1 that there are stream gauges planned to be installed on tribs
UT2A and UT2B. DWR would like those gauges installed no further down than mid reach.
DWR recommends the placement of the gauge for UT2A just before the proposed wetland
polygon on Figure 11.1.
3. In Section 4.0, the functional uplift is discussed based on the Stream Pyramid. While the
discussion was fine, given the fact that there seems to be a lot of potential for functional uplift,
DWR recommends that the measurements are performed related to the Quantification Tool to
provide more quantifiable evidence of the actual uplift. If discussions of the Stream Pyramid are
undertaken, DWR likes to see the Quantification Tool and the tables included in the Mitigation
Plan (for future projects).
4. Section 7.2.2, Groundwater Modeling, discussed the approach for determining the wetland
hydrologic performance criteria. DWR accepts the 9.2% wetland saturation standard arrived at
from modeling, other site data and discussions with the IRT on-site. DWR would like to caution,
however, that when grading the wetland site that no more than 12 inches of cut is taken, anymore
would result in wetland creation rather than re-establishment.
5. Page 40 (first paragraph) references Table 22 and should reference Table 21.
6. Section 8.0, Performance Standards, references the April 2003 USACE Stream Guidelines as the
basis for the guidance of the performance criteria. This document should have referenced the
October 2016 Mitigation Update from the IRT. While DWR realizes the project was initiated
before the 2016 Guidance came out, the Mitigation was written and finalized well after that date.
7. In the Monitoring Components Section, Table 23, I believe there should be 15 total plots.
8. Buffer width calculations-DWR would like Wildlands to perform the buffer width calculations
based on the new method.
9. There appears to be a significant impact on current jurisdictional wetlands for the upper reach of
UT1. DWR realizes that this is the old pond bed where the headcut is currently active. DWR
would like to know what steps will be undertaken to minimize the effect on the wetlands or will
there be other measures to offset the loss other than the proposed wetland re-establishment.
10. On the Design sheets for UT1 DWR noted several areas of high slope with long riffles and no
grade control structures (stations 116+00, 121+00, and 125+00). One riffle starting at
approximately sta 120+25 is about 170 feet long. One concern is that there will be a lot of rock in
the channel and the other concern is of stability given the slope and length. DWR would like a
justification for this approach for these areas.
11. DWR would caution the design of the meander at sta 307+50 along UT3. The design ratio of
curvature seems pretty tight for this meander and DWR would ask that Wildlands look again at
this section.
12. DWR noted that for UT1, all of the grade control structures involve rock or log sills at the end of
a type of constructed riffle. In addition, for the typicals shown on Design sheet 6.3, neither the
log or rock sills show footers. DWR is concerned with the ultimate stability of these structures in
these high gradient environments. Is Wildlands discontinuing the use of rock cross vanes? How
have these structures performed on other projects?
13. DWR was not able to attend the July 19, 2016 site visit to see the entire site. DWR would
appreciate if you could send some photos of reach UT1, particularly reach 2A and 2B. Given the
amount of bedrock on this reach, it would be nice to see some evidence of the incision, stream
banks or bedform to justify moving the channel.
Kim Browning, USACE, November 13, 2017:
1. UT2A and UT2B—The field notes from July 19, 2016 indicate the concern for lack of flow and
creating a possible wetland complex. Flow monitoring/gauges needed.
2. Figure 2 Site Map and Figure 6 Concept Map show a channel labeled as UT2C. While Figure 8.1
Concept Map and Figure 11.1 Monitoring Plan shows the same channel labeled UT2B.
3. Section 4 Functional Uplift Potential, page 15: The functional pyramid is cited to show existing
conditions for each category, and was used to describe the functional uplift potential of the
project, which is appreciated. Please note that the functional pyramid and QT tool have not been
approved for use in determining success for mitigation projects. No standards for collection
protocol are addressed in the plan, nor are score sheets, sampling location and number of samples
discussed.
4. Section 7.7.1, page 37: NRCS stands for Natural Resources Conservation Service. Please correct
the text in the last paragraph on the page.
5. Section 8.0 Performance Standards, page 41: The plan states, “Wildlands may propose to
terminate stream and/or vegetation monitoring after five years.” The monitoring program should
be implemented for 7 years.
6. Page 40: The text references Table 22, but the table is labeled Table 21.
7. Section 8.2 Vegetation, page 42: Please include a discussion on vigor (vegetation height).
8. Section 8.3 Wetlands, page 42: The text reads, “If a gage does not meet the performance standard
for a given monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed and the hydrograph will be
compared to that of the reference wetlands." Please keep in mind that performance standards for
wetland hydrology must be met.
9. Section 7.6, pages 35-36: The removal of existing dams is discussed. Please expand on your
description on how the existing pond bed will be handled, and where the sediment will be spread.
10. Section 12.0, page 48: the first paragraph references Table 27. I believe this was meant to be
Table 26.
11.Section 8.0, Performance Standards, references the April 2003 USACE Stream Guidelines;
however, Section 12.0, Determination of Credits, references the October 2016 USACE guidance
for Additional Credits for buffers. While the USACE encourages establishing buffers that exceed
minimum standard widths, it would be preferable if only one guidance document was referred to
for consistency.
Kim Browning
Mitigation Specialist
Regulatory Division
BROWNING.KIMBERLY
.DANIELLE.152768351
0
Digitally signed by
BROWNING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE.1527683510
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
ou=USA,
cn=BROWNING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE.1527683510
Date: 2017.11.14 15:47:40 -05'00'