20180196 Ver 1_Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo SAW-2018-00424_20190627

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:30 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B; Matthews,
Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Wicker, Henry M Jr CIV USARMY CESAW (US);
McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Wilson, Travis W.;
[e-mail]; Bowers, Todd; Twyla Cheatwood; Merritt, Katie; Sullivan,
Roscoe L III CIV (US); Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Wells, Emily N
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff, Baumgartner, Tim; [e-mail]; Chris Roessler
Subject: [External] Notice of Intent to Approve/ Catfish Pond Mitigation Site/Durham
County/SAW-2018-00424 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo -Catfish Pond_SAW-2018-00424.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Good morning folks,
We have completed our review of the Draft Mitigation Plan for the NCDMS Catfish Pond Mitigation Project (SAW -2018-
00424). Please see the attached memo, which includes all NCIRT comments that were posted on the DMS SharePoint
site during the review process along with additional comments provided by Wilmington District staff following our
review.
We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period, and determined that the concerns raised are
generally minor and can be addressed in the final mitigation plan. Accordingly, it is our intent to approve this Draft
Mitigation Plan (contingent upon the attached comments being addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan) unless a member
of the NCIRT initiates the Dispute Resolution Process, as described in the Final Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Section 332.8(e)).
Please note that initiation of this process requires that a senior official of the agency objecting to the approval of the
mitigation plan (instrument amendment) notify the District Engineer by letter within 15 days of this email (by COB on
July 10, 2019). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.
Provided that we do not receive any objections, we will provide an approval letter to NCDMS at the conclusion of the 15 -
day Dispute Resolution window. This approval will also transmit all comments generated during the review process to
NCDMS, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification
Application for NWP 27. All NCIRT members will receive a copy of the approval letter and all comments for your records.
Thank you for your participation.
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105 1 Wake Forest, NC 27587 1 919.554.4884 x60
BUILDING STRONG (r)

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

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
June 26, 2019
SUBJECT: Catfish Pond 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: Catfish Mitigation Site, Durham County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW -2018-00424
NCDMS #: 100039
30 -Day Comment Deadline: June 12, 2019
Mac Haupt, NCD WR:
1. DWR would prefer the PJD/JD be complete by the draft Mitigation Plan review stage, however, we realize
sometimes the PJD does not get finalized until the permit review stage. If this is the case, the applicant
must realize further changes may be recommended to the Mitigation Plan at this late stage, and until said
changes are documented, the permit review cannot proceed.
2. Section 6.3- the text refers to "small wetland features along most of the Catfish Pond streams", DWR
believes that the wetlands on site make up a rather significant portion of the total easement (16%).
3. Section 8.4.5- While a lower design discharge may have been utilized for the channels adjacent to the
wetlands on Reach UTI, DWR will still require the installation of several gauges along this reach to
document maintenance of wetland hydrology and increased overbank flooding.
4. Table 16- please revise the table to incorporate wetland monitoring gauges. In addition, DWR
recommends these gauges be downloaded at least quarterly.
5. Table 18- Project Asset Table- During the site visit there were discussions of the appropriate enhancement
ratio of several tributaries, namely; Catfish R1 -R3, UT2 and the Mountain Tributary. The discussion was
mainly based on less evidence of cattle usage in these areas. Table 13 lists cattle access as the primary
source of stressor/impairment. At the wrap up discussion, DWR pointed out the desire to include some
wetland areas adjacent to UTI Reach 1. DWR was willing to accept the E2 ratios for the above reaches
if the Provider agreed to protect the wetland areas and drainages that were currently not included in the
proposed easement. While Wildlands did include a portion of the wetlands that were not initially in the
easement, DWR believes there should have been more wetland areas included in this area.
6. Wildlands April 23, 2019 letter to Jeff Schaffer- A Terracell was mentioned in comment #27. During
review of Design Sheet 0.2 DWR did not see a mention of Terracell, please confirm that a Terracell will
not be used on this project.

7. Design Sheet 2.10- DWR could like to see a design sheet that shows all the newly captured wetland area
adjacent to UT 1.
8. DWR requires that three wetland monitoring gauges be placed at the following locations on UTI; station
212+00 stream right, station 213+25 stream right, and station 215+00 stream right.
9. DWR recommends the addition of a vegetation plot (fixed or random) in the planted areas along the
following reaches: Catfish Reach 3, Catfish Reach 7, and the Mountain Tributary.
10. Design Sheet 6.3- DWR recommends that the log sills extend at least through the bankfull elevation in the
streambank (section A -A'), and preferably 2-3 feet beyond the bankfull point.
Katie Merritt, NCDWR:
General comments:
1. A concept plan is provided on Figure 8. Please revise this plan to show where buffer mitigation and/or
nutrient offset are also being generated.
2. IRT field notes 2/23/18 stated that the field ditch along UTI near Reach 2 would be buffered and would
eliminate the need for a BMP to control runoff. This plan doesn't show the Ditch being buffered all the
way up and there is no proposal for a BMP. Please explain how diffused flow of runoff through the newly
restored riparian area is to be maintained by the inclusion of this ditch.
3. Section 4.1 —
a. USFWS had concerns about sediment impacts from this site on aquatic species. Please indicate
how sediment impacts to the stream will be prevented during construction.
b. WRC letter dated 3/21/18 requested biodegradable erosion control measures that are wildlife
friendly. Explain how this request is being acknowledged.
Kim Browning, USACE:
1. Plan Sheet 2.12: Is inserted upside down, and it states that the reach -wide treatments include fencing,
treating invasives, supplemental buffer planting, and spot repair on eroded banks, but it appears that PI
restoration is planned on this reach (UTI Reaches 2 and 3). Please justify why this is restoration at 1:1 if
restoration is not actually planned, or correct the treatments statement.
2. Plan Sheet 5.0: The list of planned species to be planted is not legible.
3. Section 5.1, Hydrology: This section states that hydrology function is expected to remain functioning,
though restoration on UTI reach 2 and on Catfish Creek reach 4 will impact existing wetlands. Though
wetland credits are not being sought on this project, and it's anticipated that raising the streambed will
improve adjacent hydrology, please provide assurance that wetland function in these areas will not be lost
by installing monitoring gauges.
4. Section 5.2: The narrative states that UTI R4 and Catfish Creek R7 are fully functioning. If this is the
case, what is the functional uplift?
5. Section 8.3.1: Please explain how the dam removal will be treated, and how the pond bottom sediment
will be handled.
6. Section 9.2: Please add a vigor standard of 7 feet for year 5.
7. The letter from the NCWRC mentions the possible presence of rare aquatic species. Please coordinate
with Dr. Tyler Black prior to project commencement.
8. The letter from the USFWS requested an approved erosion and sediment control plan. Please provide in
the final mitigation plan.
BROWNING.KIM Digitally signed by
BROWN INGXIMBERLY.
BERLY.DANIELL DANIELLE.1527683510
E.1527683510 Date: 2019.06.27
09:23:02 -04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division