20161200 Ver 1_Intent to Disapprove SAW-2019-01363_20190906

Strickland, Bev
From:
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Friday, September 06, 2019 9:38 AM
To:
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B;
Wilson, Travis W.; Merritt, Katie; [e-mail]; Bowers, Todd; Williams,
Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA);
Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA)
Cc:
Allen, Melonie; Baumgartner, Tim
Subject:
[External] Notice of Intent to Disapprove / NCDMS Millstone Creek Site / Randolph
County / SAW -2019-01363 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments:
Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo -Millstone Creek_SAW-2019-01363.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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,
The 30 -day comment review period for the Millstone Creek Mitigation Project (SAW 2019-01363) closed on August 25,
2019. The comment period included an IRT site visit conducted on August 15, 2019. All comments received during the
review process are attached for your records.
We have reviewed the draft mitigation plan and all comments generated during the review process, and determined
that the mitigation project, as proposed, is missing necessary information in order to perform a technical review of the
project design; therefore, the potential to provide appropriate compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by
Department of the Army (DA) permits cannot be determined at this time. Accordingly, it is our intent to disapprove the
Millstone Creek Mitigation Project unless a member of the NCIRT initiates the Dispute Resolution Process, as described
in the Final Mitigation Rule (33 CFR 332.8 (e)). Please note that initiation of this process requires that a senior official of
the agency objecting to the disapproval of the draft mitigation plan (instrument modification) notify the District
Engineer by letter within 15 days of this e-mail (by COB on September 21, 2019). Please notify me if you intend to
initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.
Provided that we do not receive any objections, we will provide a letter at the conclusion of the 15 -day Dispute
Resolution window notifying NCDMS of our decision. All NCIRT members will receive a copy of the 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
September 6, 2019
SUBJECT: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received during 30 -day comment period in accordance with
Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule in response to the Notice of NCDMS Mitigation Plan Review.
NCDMS Project Name: Millstone Creek Site, Randolph County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW -2019-01363
NCDMS #: 204
30 -Day Comment Deadline: August 25, 2019
DWR Comments, Mac Haupt and Erin Davis:
Note: The following comments are based on an initial review of the draft mitigation plan. Comments do not reflect
discussions from the August 15th site visit (e.g. credit ratios, RSC flow risk, wetland boundary) or technical review
of the project design. DWR will provide additional comments after review of the updated draft mitigation plan.
1. Please include page numbers consistently throughout the document.
2. Please review section numbers and update as appropriate (e.g. Section 4.2, Section 10.3.1).
3. Section 2.2 — Thereare three tributaries classified as intermittent based on the completed DWQ field forms.
However, Table 3 identifies the flow regimes as perennial and Section 4.2.1. notes the perennial channels
would likely be intermittent post -restoration. Please update any inconsistencies and include additional
discussion on the existing and proposed/expected flow regimes.
4. Section 3.1.4 — A plant community classification should be included for the wetland area identified in
Figure 9.
5. Section 10. 1.4 — Please change from two to four bankfull events to be documented in separate years during
the seven-year monitoring period.
6. Section 10. 1.6 — Please change the monitoring period from 5 to 7 years in the first sentence.
7. Section 8.5.2 — Please include a list of potential tree and shrub species and estimated quantities (or
percentages). Species not included may not be counted towards the vegetation performance criteria. Please
also include a list of seed mix(s). The planting window should be noted as November 15 — March 15.
8. Table 17 — Include a row for the 6-18 inch zone since vegetation will differ from the 0-6 inch zone and
18-36 inch zone (open water).
9. Table 19 — Please include four bankfull events criteria and MY7 10 -foot veg vigor criteria.
10. Table 21— Please include a minimum of two veg plots within the proposed wetland area; one in each level
type (rehabilitation/enhancement and re-establishment).

11. Figure 2 — Please show only delineated wetland feature(s) on the existing site resources map (do not
include re-establishment area).
12. Figure 14 - The legend lists the jurisdictional wetland as 1.07 acres; however, Sections 1 and 4.2.4 state
the jurisdictional wetland area as 1.159 acres. Please confirm and update.
13. Figure 19 — Please remove the comment box shown within the easement area. The two wetland legend
items do not match text or other figures in the acreage amounts or term enhancement; please confirm and
update.
14. Figures — Please confirm the jurisdictional status of the channel below the wetland area and update all
relevant figures.
15. Sheet 4.5 - Please confirm that the UTB R2 outfall area within the wetland boundary was not included in
the wetland credit acreage.
16. Sheet 5.5 — Delete blank Note 25. A number of sod mat harvest areas are shown on Sheet 4.4, please
include a detail note describing the sod mat and top soil harvesting process (e.g. max. depth, topsoil
backfill, seeding).
17. Detail Sheet - Please include planting related details (e.g. live stake, tublings, plugs, bare root and
container planting).
18. Appendices — Please include completed NC SAM and NC WAM forms.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning, Todd Tug -well:
1. The USACE ID for the cover page is SAW -2019-01363 and the DWR ID is 20161200.
2. Sectionl0: All Performance Standards should be updated to follow the 2016 NCIRT Guidance.
3. Table 23, Determination of Mitigation Credits: Credit ratios will be re-evaluated after reviewing the
revised Draft Mitigation Plan.
4. There is concern that some of the tributaries proposed for RSC would lose jurisdiction after being filled.
Please clarify in the text how these areas will retain bed and bank single -thread features.
5. The wetland at the bottom of the project needs to be re -verified to determine the extent of the boundary.
6. Please describe how you plan to avoid impacts to functioning wetlands during restoration. It is
recommended that groundwater wells be installed, and monitored annually to ensure no functional loss.
7. Please justify the proposed ratio for the wetland rehabilitation area.
8. The proposed ratio for the enhancement reach is questionable. Please clarify the proposed activities
involved.
9. Please verify that the additional monitoring that is proposed to be paid for with federal funds will be
separated, and no credit can be claimed for these activities.
Digitally signed by
BROWN ING.KIMBERLY• BROWNING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE.
DAN I ELLE.152768351O 1527683510
Date: 2019.09.06 09:09:20 -04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division