20130412 Ver 1_More Info Received_20130617

I � 042
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
joO, Chapet IIitl Road Suite 122 Raleigh. SC z -ho -- Phone: 91y- 8,�L-C)Q80 Fax: yiy- •S,i -yU8,
MEMORANDUM
To: Monte Mathews
Company: USACE —Raleigh Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Address: Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
From: John Hutton
Date: June 17, 2013
Mike Fowler, Wildlands
Cc: IRT Members
130 of Chatham, LLC
Re: Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank — Responses to Agency Comments on Draft
Prospectus
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) submitted a draft prospectus for the proposed Hoosier
Dam Mitigation Bank (Bank) to the Inter - Agency Review Team for review and comment in April
2013. The stream mitigation bank is proposed on the Rocky River, in Chatham County, North
Carolina. The main components of the stream mitigation bank are removal of the Hoosier Dam
(also known as Woody Dam), restoration of the previously impounded reach of the Rocky River,
and restoration of several tributaries whose lower reaches are also impounded due to the dam.
On May 13, 2013, the USACE facilitated a meeting of the IRT where Wildlands presented the
information contained in the draft prospectus and existing site photos for the proposed Hoosier
Dam Mitigation Bank. Detailed notes from that meeting will be distributed by the USACE.
Following the May IRT meeting, each agency submitted comments on the draft prospectus. This
document summarizes the agency comments, and provides a response from Wildlands to each
comment.
COMMENTS FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE)
Comments on Items Needed for a Complete Prospectus
1. 1 may have missed this in the prospectus, but there needs to be information addressing
the topic of "Assurance of Sufficient Water Rights to Support Long -term Sustainability of
the Mitigation Bank ". I realize that this may not be as pertinent as in other areas of the
country, but it remains a requirement for a complete prospectus. Please include this as
a stand -alone section.
The proposed bank lies on the main stem of the Rocky River, with a drainage area of
over 200 square miles, and on six perennial tributaries. Also, the sponsor of the bank has
purchased the dam, power facility, the parcels that contain the dam structure, and all
associated rights. We believe these two factors will provide adequate assurance of

sufficient water rights to support the long -term susta►nability of the bank Wildlands will
add a section to the Final Prospectus that explains this assurance
On page 4 is Section 2 3 entitled "Need and Feasibility of the Mitigation Bank"
According to the 2008 Rule, this should include the 'Technical Feasibility' of the
proposal, and I do not see any reference to this within the prospectus Dam removal
projects contain several technical challenges (sediment release, draining of wetlands,
etc ) that you should be considering early in the process Please describe these in as
much detail as possible, and your initial assessment on how you will deal with these
challenges Please see item #6 below for more information
We will provide a statement of qualifications for Wildlands Engineering and Schnabel
Engineering with the Final Prospectus An outline of our approach to deal with these
technical issues within the proposed Bank limits will be added to the "Need and
Feasibility of the Bank" in the Final Prospectus
Please include an Agent Authorization form from the property owner which authorizes
you to act on their behalf You may also want to include written permission from the
property owner(s), allowing the US Army Corps of Engineers access to the property for
the purpose of conducting jurisdictional determinations and other permitting activities
An Agent Authorization Form will be provided with the Final Prospectus
USACE Comments on Items Needed for the Initial Evaluation of the Proposed Bank
4 The first paragraph on page 1 (above the Introduction) contains a reference to "Section
62 1 -44 15 20 of the Code of Virginia" Please remove or replace
This reference will be removed
Section 13, Bank Objectives - While the 2008 Dam Removal Guidance has been
rescinded, several of the procedures within it can be used to help structure your
proposal For example, I suggest that you reword and restructure your bank objectives
to match those deemed applicable within the 2008 Guidance because those objectives
reflect successful targets identified years ago by the resource agencies
We will reformat this section of the Final Prospectus to align with the objectives stated in
the previously rescinded dam removal guidance document that are addressed by the
Bank
• Water Quality
• Establishment of Appropriate Aquatic Community
• Rare, Endangered, and Threatened Species
• Wooded Buffers
• Human Values
• Sediment management plan
Table 1, Bank Goals and Methods of Achievement - Under the section "Improved water
quality and decreased stream temperatures ", thermal stratification is mentioned in the
context that it negatively affects water temperature and dissolved oxygen within the
impoundment and downstream of Hoosier Dam It is unclear if this is a general
2

assumption or if you are referencing site specific data Please cite your source and
expand this discussion
The North Carolina Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and cooperating agencies do
not operate a water quality monitoring site near the bank site Several water quality and
benth►c monitoring stations have been established upstream of Hoosier Dam on the
Rocky River and its tributaries We will add a summary of existing water quality and
benthic data collected within and near the Bank site to the Final Prospectus
We are also developing a monitoring program for 2013 to document the water quality
conditions at the Bank site The results of our monitoring program will be reported to
the IRT
Section 2 1, Ownership Agreements and Long -term Strategy - states that a Conservation
Easement will be recorded for the limits of the Bank Please clarify that the long -term
holder of the easement will bean entity approved in advance by the IRT Also clarify
that the Long -term Management (to be detailed in the Mitigation Plan) will also contain
a Maintenance Plan Finally, please provide a detailed drawing showing the current
ownership limits of the bank site
The long -term owner of the conservation easement, their qualifications, and their
experience as long -term stewards of conservation easements will be provided to the IRT
for approval
The draft and final Mitigation Plan will contain a long -term management plan One
important component of that plan will be the long -term maintenance plan
Figure 5 — Conceptual Map in the Draft Prospectus provides a depiction of the current
ownership limits at the Bank site We will add another figure to the Final Prospectus
that provides a large -scale map of the ownership limits
8 Section 2 2, Proposed Service Area - It is understood that this proposed bank occurs in
the Cape Fear 03030003 HUC and (if approved) would be available to offset impacts
within this 8 -digit HUC Within the Draft Prospectus, you have also requested a service
area expansion into portions of the upper Cape Fear 03030004 1 realize that the 2008
Mitigation Rule allows for an expanded service area when needed for the economic
viability of certain banks However, I have to balance your request against previous
service area determinations made on similar type banks within this region For
example, the Carbonton Dam removal also occurred within the 03030003, and to the
best of my knowledge did not request an expanded Service Area Please realize that a
final decision on your service area has not been made at this time - I simply want to
show that this is a complex issue that will need to be discussed with the IRT I suggest
we roll this discussion into the other large -scale decisions, such as the limit of
impoundment and overall credit determination, which will be made within the next few
weeks and prior to your submittal of a Final Prospectus
Our proposed service area for the Bank includes a portion of the Upper Cape Fear
03030004 for three reasons (1) that portion consists of areas within the Piedmont
physiographic region and excludes the Sand Hills and coastal plain, (2) this area is not
currently served by an established stream mitigation bank, and (3) it will help maintain
3

the economic viability of the Bank We understand that defining the service area for the
Bank can be a complex issue, and welcome future discussions to finalize the service area
along with the final credit determination
9 Section 2 3, Need and Feasibility of the Mitigation Bank - The Cape Fear shiner is listed
within this section as an overall need for this bank I agree that there appears to be a
potential to benefit this species However, the "USFWS 1988 Cape Fear Shiner Recovery
Plan" states that the only strong population of this protected fish is below the Hoosier
Dam This places a great amount of weight on the technical feasibility of controlling
sediment during the removal of this dam This may require a preliminary sediment
assessment, toxicity test, and detailed work plan regarding sediment I will not be in
favor of pursuing an instrument for this bank without some assurance that important
downstream resources will be protected Therefore, I strongly recommend that you
place this information within your Final Prospectus I'm happy to meet with you and the
USFWS to determine the appropriate level of detail needed
We share your concern about the potential negative effects of the sediment captured
within the impoundment, known as Reeves Lake We have obtained copies of previous
sediment surveys conducted at dam sites on the Neuse and Haw Rivers for guidance We
will also perform a detailed bathymetric survey of Reeves Lake to determine the extent
and depths of sediment buildup upstream of the dam Wildlands will also engage Tom
Augspurger with the U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for input on the Tier 1
protocol to determine the extent, quality, and potential risks associated with the
sediment contained within Reeves Lake This information will form the basis for the
Draft Sediment Management Plan that will be submitted to the IRT for approval
10 Continuing with Item #6, a jurisdiction wetland determination will need to be
conducted Any wetlands found upstream of the dam will need to be identified within
this section and the technical feasibility for their protection from draining (or other
impacts) will need to be assessed Any wetland impacts that cannot be avoided will
need to be addressed thru a compensatory mitigation plan
We will perform ajurisdictional determination of wetlands adjacent to Reeves Lake on
the Rocky River and on each tributary affected by the impounded water The primary
source of hydrology will be identified for each wetland area, and mitigation measures
will be developed for any wetlands that may be negatively affected once Reeves Lake is
drained This information will be provided in the draft Mitigation Plan
11 Finally, you state that Reeves Lake is identified as 303(d) due to chlorophyll a You go on
to state that the removal of the dam will significantly improve water quality within this
reach and also to downstream reaches Since this is a run -of- the -river dam, I had
assumed that retention times were not long enough to significantly impair water quality
- but I may be incorrect Can you give additional information to show that the dam is
the reason for the poor water quality (i a are there any nearby point- source
contaminants, estimated retention times, etc )
NCDWQ's ambient monitoring program does not include a monitoring site near Hoosier
Dam or within Reeves Lake The closest monitoring site is Station B6000000 located at
NC 902, which is approximately 75 miles upstream of Hoosier Dam However, Reeves
4

Lake was added to the final State 303(d) list for 2012 due to a standard violation of
chlorophyll a, but was not listed for 2010 The data to support its designation as
Category 5 impaired water is not readily available from the NCDWQ web site A search
of the STORET database did not result in water quality monitoring data that supports the
303(d) listing We will contact NCDWQ to obtain the data that indicates Reeves Lake is
impaired, and summarize the data in the Final Prospectus
We are developing a monitoring plan for 2013 that will include water quality monitoring
during the summer of 2013 This data will also be made available for review by the IRT
12 Section 3 2, Baseline Conditions- Please include a section on soils This will be helpful
with items such as potential stream bank failure, nearby hydric soils, etc
We will add a discussion of the local soil conditions to the Final Prospectus Schnabel
Engineering will also perform soil bonngs and analysis at the dam site, along with a
geotechnical and slope stability evaluation
13 Section 3 2 1, Existing Streams - Please describe any current county /state buffers on
these streams Also, please include a more detailed map showing each tributary After
the jurisdiction determination is complete, USACE and DWQ stream forms (completed
upstream of the impoundment) should be included to describe the anticipated return of
functions
130 of Chatham, LLC continues to purchase conservation easements and property along
the Rocky River We will provide an up -to -date map showing the extent of these
protected buffers within the Bank limits and upstream /downstream of the Bank for the
Final Prospectus
Wildlands will also provide a more detailed map of the six perennial tributaries affected
by Reeves Lake, with completed USACE and DWQ stream forms, for the Final Prospectus
14 Section 3 2 2, FERC License - Please clarify that surrendering Exemption #3586 does not
carry a FERC requirement for removal of the dam and powerhouse
We will clarify the conditions that have to be met to surrender the FERC license in the
Final Prospectus
15 Section 3 2 4, Biological Assessment - This proposal may trigger Formal Consultation
with the USFWS At that time, a Biological Assessment (BA) would be required It may
be best to expand this section by stating that you will work with the Corps and USFWS
on any required consultations, and that an official BA will be prepared at the proper
time Asa side -note some of the information requested above ( #6) will lend itself to
the Section 7 consultation Giving as much information as you can, as early in the
process as possible, will help out with the consultation in the long run and will probably
save some time
We will add a discussion on the process that will need to be followed under Section 7
consultation with the USFWS to the Final Prospectus The discussion will describe the
documentation that will be required and coordination needed between Wildlands, the
USACE, and the USFWS

16 Section 4 0, Mitigation Work Plan - I think most of this can be expanded upon and
moved to the Technical Feasibility section described above
We will move the relevant text to discussion on Technical Feasibility in Section 2 3 in the
Final Prospectus
17 Section 5 0, Determination of Mitigation Credits - Similar to what was discussed in #2
above, the use of the rescinded Dam Removal Guidance may help structure your credits
into a format where you can earn credits based on achieving each objective of the bank
Some of the final numbers may change depending on the limits of the impoundment as
confirmed during a future site visit In addition, the IRT will be discussing this soon so
that a decision can be made on credit generation prior to a Final Prospectus - the results
of this discussion may also affect your credit amounts Also, please remove the
language referencing previous discussions with the Corps (the 15% reduction) as it
creates some confusion on what has been discussed
We will restructure the calculations of potential mitigation credits to correlate to the
goals of the Bank, as discussed under Comment #2 above The final determination of
credits will be based on confirmation of the limits of Reeves Lake on the Rocky River and
each of the six perennial tributaries, and on further discussions by the IRT We will also
remove the 15% reduction in credits based on previous discussions with the USACE
18 1 would like to see a preliminary monitoring plan included within the prospectus -
possibly within the Technical Feasibility section Also, someplace within this document
there should be a brief statement about the financial assurances you are planning For
example, I hope you are planning on a bond to cover the removal of the dam,
restoration of the site, monitoring, etc Since this is such a big project, some preliminary
information on this is warranted
We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre- and post- removal monitoring
program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final Prospectus We will also add a
discussion on the financial assurances to Section 6 - Maintenance and Long -term
Susta►nab►l►ty in the Final Prospectus
19 Lastly, we do not know what type of DA permit this project will require As Jean stated
in the meeting, if an Individual Permit is required we will need to issue a second Public
Notice unless you can provide all the applicable information we would need for a permit
decision within the Final Prospectus We can talk further about this if necessary
It is our preference to provide all of the necessary information for the USACE permit in
the Final Prospectus As we finalize the Prospectus, we will coordinate with the USACE to
determine what additional information is needed
COMMENTS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY (NCDWQ)
20 Due to the presence of critical habitat upstream and downstream for T &E species, the
location appears favorable for a mitigation bank The potential for improvement of
aquatic function is likely However, monitoring needs to be designed to demonstrate
uplift, such as

a Recolonization by Cape Fear Shiner and /or other species using same habitat
could be demonstrated by performing pre and post removal fish surveys
b Improvement of water quality /303d issues could be demonstrated by
conducting pre and post - removal Chlorophyll a sampling, macrobenthos
sampling and biotic index /bioclassification calculation
c Restoration of natural flow regime (lentic to lotic system) could be
demonstrated through pre and post - removal macrobenthos, mussel and fish
surveys
We are currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include
pre- and post- removal monitoring to document the geomorphic, water quality, and
biological conditions at the Bank site As suggested, we will organize our monitoring
elements to match the goals from the rescinded dam removal guidance to demonstrate
success in meeting these goals We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre- and
post- removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final
Prospectus
21 DWQ acknowledges the fact that some riparian buffers will be placed within
conservation easements, and we feel that this enhances the viability of this project as a
mitigation bank We have a particular interest in establishing and protecting riparian
buffers along the tributaries, as the buffers have a greater positive effect on water
quality than on the main stem due to the ability to create a closed canopy, which
provides shading /temperature moderation, organic matter, and large woody debris
130 of Chatham, LLC continues to purchase conservation easements and property along
the Rocky River and its tributaries We will provide an up -to -date map showing the
extent of these protected buffers within the Bank limits and upstream /downstream of
the Bank for the Final Prospectus
22 The tributaries are a concern Intermittent vs perennial determinations should be
performed Uplift in tributaries needs to be demonstrated (see above) There is the
possibility of downcutting based on observations along the former Carbonton Dam
impounded reach
We will complete a determination of perennial versus intermittent for each of the
tributaries and provide copies of the completed data sheets in the Final Prospectus
Potential restoration or stabilization measures needed to restore shallow water habitat
and prevent degradation of the tributaries will be discussed briefly in Section 4 —
Mitigation Work Plan in the Final Prospectus
23 Crediting — generation of credit should be tied to demonstration of project goals and
objectives (improvement of aquatic function), examples of which were provided above Of
particular concern is crediting on the tributaries, which may not show the amount of uplift
expected in the main stem Crediting should also reflect the amount of protected buffer
along the main stem and tributaries, particularly in light of the potential for the repeal of the
Jordan Lake Buffer Rule
We understand that the final determination of credits will be based on confirmation of
the limits of Reeves Lake on the Rocky River and each of the six perennial tributaries,
7

demonstration of success meeting the goals of the Bank, and on further discussions by
the IRT We also understand that the number of credits on the tributaries maybe tied to
the establishment of buffers along each tributary As stated previously, 130 of Chatham,
LLC continues to purchase conservation easements and property along the Rocky River
and its tributaries We will provide an up -to -date map showing the extent of these
protected buffers within the Bank limits and upstream /downstream of the Bank for the
Final Prospectus As 130 of Chatham continues to protect and preserve additional
riparian buffers within and directly adjacent to the Bank, this information will be
provided to the IRT
24 Sediment — While the watershed upstream of the Hoosier Dam appears to be mostly
undeveloped, sediment quantity and quality is a concern Assessment of sediment is
recommended (at least Tier 1) A sediment management plan will likely be necessary to
protect critical habitat downstream
We share your concern about the potential negative effects of the sediment captured
within the impoundment, known as Reeves Lake We have obtained copies of previous
sediment surveys conducted at dam sites on the Neuse and Haw Rivers for guidance We
will also perform a detailed bathymetric survey of Reeves Lake to determine the extent
and depths of sediment buildup upstream of the dam Wildlands will also engage Tom
Augspurger with the U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for input on the Tier 1
protocol to determine the extent, quality, and potential risks associated with the
sediment contained within Reeves Lake This information will form the basis for the
Draft Sediment Management Plan that will be submitted to the IRT for approval
25 Service area —The requested service area includes the HUC in which the proposed bank
is located (03030003), plus the next downstream HUC (03030004) In the past the IRT
has approved multiple HUCs for several banks (Stone Farm, Barra Farm, Hoffmann)
However, given recent legislation requiring the use of banks before accessing EEP,
adding a second eight -digit HUC could confuse the hierarchy requirements (e g for an
impact in 03030004, does the bank, located within 03030003 with a service area
including 03030004 get precedence over an EEP site in 03030004?) DWQ does
acknowledge the location of the proposed mitigation site near the downstream end of
03030003 If it is decided that the service area can include both 03030003 and
03030004, DWQ recommends the following exceptions be considered for discussion
a The Randleman portion of 03030003 be excluded from the service area
b The Coastal Plain portion of 03030004 be excluded (mitigation in Piedmont
ecoregion only)
Our proposed service area for the Bank includes a portion of the Upper Cape Fear
03030004 for three reasons (1) that portion consists of areas within the Piedmont
physiographic region and excludes the Sand Hills and coastal plain, (2) this area is not
currently served by an established stream mitigation bank, and (3) it will help maintain
the economic viability of the Bank We understand that defining the service area for the
Bank can be a complex issue, and welcome future discussions to finalize the service area
along with the final credit determination
E:3

COMMENTS FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
26 During the draft prospectus review meeting, Enlily Jernigan expressed the Service's
concerns with removing the sizeable dam in such a sensitive area for the Cape Fear
Slliner, and numerous other At Risk and rare species The concerns primarily stem from
the lack of available scientific data in regards to the exact quantity and quality of
sediments and nutrients the dam is holding back, and how the release of the
impounded water and sediments could potentially negatively affect the downstream
ecosystem as a whole Specific concerns are for the potential impacts to the Cape Fear
shiner and its designated downstream critical habitat associated with the dam removal
In addition to the Cape Fear shiner, there are several Federal At Risk`species that live
downstream of the Hoosier Dam including Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), brook
floater (Alasmidonta varicose), and the Septima's clubtail (Gomphus septima) North
Carolina rare species found downstream of the dam include the panhandle pebblesnail
(Somatogyrus virginicus), notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), triangle floater
(Alasmidonta undulate), Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), eastern creekshell
(Villosa delumbis), and the creeper (Strophitus undulates) As discussed during our May
13, 2013 meeting, the Service recommends the sponsor request to begin the formal
consultation process, as the proposed activities may affect the Cape Fear shiner, and
may adversely modify the designated critical habitat downstream of the dam location
This process will be the most appropriate avenue to adequately address all of the
potential concerns in addition to the desired species benefits associated with this
proposed project
We will add a discussion on the process that will need to be followed under Section 7
consultation with the USFWS to the Final Prospectus The discussion will describe the
documentation that will be required and coordination needed between Wildlands,
USACE, and the USFWS
27 The Service is pleased to see mention of a sediment management plan in the Hoosier
Dam draft prospectus A sediment management plan should be based on site - specific
assessment of sediment quantity and quality It should discuss how sediment is to be
managed before and during the removal, and include the anticipated impacts of
sediment movement post - removal (on upstream and downstream sediment loading,
bank stability, and water quality), particularly as related to Cape Fear shiner habitat Any
proposed mitigation measures and monitoring should also be included
We share your concern about the potential negative effects of the sediment captured
within the impoundment, known as Reeves Lake We have obtained copies of previous
sediment surveys conducted at dam sites on the Neuse and Haw Rivers for guidance We
will also perform a detailed bathymetric survey of Reeves Lake to determine the extent
and depths of sediment buildup upstream of the dam Wildlands will also engage Tom
Augspurger with the U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Input on the Tier 1
protocol to determine the extent, quality, and potential risks associated with the
sediment contained within Reeves Lake This information will form the basis for the
Draft Sediment Management Plan that will be submitted to the IRT for approval
9

28 Wildlands Engineering indicated that more conservation easements are in the process of
being acquired along the impounded area, and the Service supports these conservation
efforts The Service recommends that in order to receive credit for the approximately
6,365 linear feet of tributaries proposed, the tributaries should be protected with
conservation easements which include a 50 -foot forested buffer on each side of the
channel We also encourage the establishment of 50 -foot forested buffers and
conservation easements (preferably on both sides) on as much of the Rocky River
mainstem as possible Areas with no easements or easements on only one side of the
river should be credited at a different ratio than those with easements on both sides
due to the reduced degree of protection Even with forested buffers and conservation
easements, the Service would be concerned about allowing 1 1 credit ratios for
tributary reaches that are deeply incised, or observed to be lacking in desired natural
aquatic functions We look forward to viewing the impounded areas, reviewing the total
property easement acquisitions and discussing potential credit ratios after the
scheduled June 19, 2013, site visit
We understand that the final determination of credits will be based on confirmation of
the limits of Reeves Lake on the Rocky River and each of the six perennial tributaries,
demonstration of success meeting the goals of the Bank, and on further discussions by
the IRT We also understand that the number of credits on the tributaries may be tied to
the establishment of buffers along each tributary As stated previously, 130 of Chatham,
LLC continues to purchase conservation easements and property along the Rocky River
and its tributaries We will provide an up -to -date map showing the extent of these
protected buffers within the Bank limits and upstream /downstream of the Bank for the
Final Prospectus
29 In general the Service does not have concerns with structuring available credits around
goals of the project (reestablishment of flow, endangered species habitat improvement,
water quality improvement, fish passage, etc ) However, we caution that all goals and
success criteria should be quantifiable and reasonable, and the amount of credits
offered for reaching the goals should be appropriate for the level of effort and
measured level of improvement We look forward to discussing potential goals, success
criteria, and available credits in an effort to retain consistency with other proposed dam
removal projects
We will reformat the goals of the Bank in the Final Prospectus to align with the
objectives stated in the previously rescinded dam removal guidance document
• Water Quality
• Establishment of Appropriate Aquatic Community
• Rare, Endangered, and Threatened Species
• Wooded Buffers
• Human Values
• Sediment management plan
We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre- and post- removal monitoring
program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final Prospectus As suggested, we
10

will organize the components of our monitoring program to address the goals from the
rescinded dam removal guidance and corresponding success criteria
30 The Service anticipates that the mitigation plan will include, at a minimum, proposals for
monitoring of fish passage and habitat quality for the Cape Fear shiner and other rare
native aquatic species, water quality sediment quantity, quality and movement,
vegetation recruitment and invasive plants, and shoreline stability We recommend
using appropriate native vegetative species that would benefit the Cape Fear shiner and
the Rocky River system, such as American water willow (Justicia americana), when
preparing the replanting component of the mitigation plan In addition remedial plans
should be included, should the provider fail to meet stated goals and success criteria, or
if adverse impacts are discovered
We are currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include
pre- and post- removal monitoring to document the geomorphic, water quality, and
biological conditions at the Bank site As suggested, we will organize our monitoring
elements to match the goals from the rescinded dam removal guidance to demonstrate
success in meeting these goals We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre- and
post - removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final
Prospectus As suggested, we will organize the components of our monitoring program
to address the goals from the rescinded dam removal guidance and corresponding
success criteria
A more detailed summary of the proposed pre- and post -dam removal monitoring plan,
success criteria, and potential adaptive management measures will be provided in the
Draft Mitigation Plan submitted to the IRT for review
COMMENTS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION (NCWRC)
31 Section 13, Bank Objectives (p 2) The goals or objectives for the project should follow
the general criteria detailed in Determining Appropriate Compensatory Mitigation
Credit for Dam Removal Projects in North Carolina
We will reformat the goals of the Bank in the Final Prospectus to align with the
objectives stated in the previously rescinded dam removal guidance document that are
addressed by the Bank
• Water Quality
• Establishment of Appropriate Aquatic Community
• Rare, Endangered, and Threatened Species
• Wooded Buffers
• Sediment management plan
32 Section 2 2, Proposed Service Area (p 3) The Sponsor is requesting the proposed
service area for this mitigation bank include Cape Fear HU 03030003, and the urban
growth areas of Cape Fear HU 03030004 The Sponsor indicates these two HUs have the
same physiographic characteristics, and the HU boundary is arbitrary While we
recognize there may be similarities between the two HUs, we continue to believe the
service area should be designated based on the location of the mitigation bank (i e ,
11

Cape Fear HU 03030003) However, we are not opposed to a case -by -case evaluation to
use credits outside of the service area
Our proposed service area for the Bank includes a portion of the Upper Cape Fear
03030004 for three reasons (1) that portion consists of areas within the Piedmont
physiographic region and excludes the Sand Hills and coastal plain, (2) this area is not
currently served by an established stream mitigation bank, and (3) it will help maintain
the economic viability of the Bank We understand that defining the service area for the
Bank can be a complex issue, and welcome future discussions to finalize the service area
along with the final credit determination
33 Section 2 3, Need and Feasibility of Mitigation Bank (p 4) The Sponsor states the 2012
303(d) identifies Reeves Lake as "water quality limited" due to chlorophyll a and
releases from Hoosier dam during summer can degrade water quality downstream in
the Rocky River and Deep River Although Reeves Lake (Woody's Dam Reservoir) is on
the 2012 303(d) list of impaired streams for a standard violation (chlorophyll a), it is
unclear whether there is data to support releases from the dam during the summer
degrades downstream water quality It will be important to define the specific water
quality improvements that will be accomplished by removal of the dam, and to collect
pre - removal (baseline) and post - removal data to show water quality was improved The
pre - removal and post - removal survey designs should be coordinated with the IRT prior
to data collection to ensure appropriate data is collected to document success criteria
have been met Also, in addition to collecting data in Rocky River, data should be
collected in any tributaries where mitigation credit is sought
We are currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include
pre- and post- removal monitoring to document the geomorphic, water quality, and
biological conditions at the Bank site As suggested, we will organize our monitoring
elements to match the goals from the rescinded dam removal guidance to demonstrate
success in meeting these goals We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre- and
post - removal monitoring program to Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final
Prospectus
A more detailed summary of the proposed pre- and post -dam removal monitoring plan,
success criteria, and potential adaptive management measures will be provided in the
Draft Mitigation Plan submitted to the IRT for review
34 Section 3 2 1, Existing streams (p 5) If the success criteria for the tributaries will include
channel stability, then stream geomorphology data should be collected immediately
after the reservoir is drawn down for use as pre - removal (baseline) data
We will complete a determination of perennial versus intermittent for each of the
tributaries, complete a geomorphic assessment, and provide copies of the completed
data sheets in the Final Prospectus Potential restoration or stabilization measures
needed to restore shallow water habitat and prevent degradation of the tributaries will
be discussed briefly in Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final Prospectus
35 Section 3 2 4, Biological Assessment (p 6) Although benefits to aquatic species likely
will occur by removal of the dam, it will be important to define the specific changes that
12

will occur in the aquatic community including benthic macroinvertebrates, fish and
mussels The pre - removal (baseline) and post - removal survey designs should be
coordinated with the IRT prior to data collection to ensure appropriate data is collected
to document success criteria have been met Data should be collected in Rocky River
and in any tributaries where mitigation credit is sought
We are currently developing our monitoring program for the Bank, which will include
pre- and post- removal monitoring to document the geomorphic, water quality, and
biological conditions at the Bank site As suggested, we will organize our monitoring
elements to match the goals from the rescinded dam removal guidance to demonstrate
success in meeting these goals We will add a brief discussion of our proposed pre- and
post- removal monitoring program to Section 4 = Mitigation Work Plan in the Final
Prospectus
A more detailed summary of the proposed pre- and post -dam removal monitoring plan,
success criteria, and potential adaptive management measures will be provided in the
Draft Mitigation Plan submitted to the IRT for review
36 All surveys should be conducted by biologists with both state and federal endangered
species permits Also, exotic aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal species that may be
present within the mitigation bank, or that may be introduced to the mitigation bank by
removal of the dam should be identified
We agree that all surveys for rare, threatened, and endangered species will be
conducted by personnel qualified and permitted to identify those species
37 Section 4 0, Mitigation Work Plan (p 7) The Sponsor indicates de- watering of Reeves
Lake will occur in mid to late fall We recommend the lake is drained slowly over a
period of about one month and during the cooler months of the year This will minimize
impacts to downstream aquatic resources At some point more details will be needed to
describe how the impoundment will be drawn down and the proposed drawdown
schedule that includes the release flow (cubic feet per second, cfs) for the impounded
waters Also, minimum flows downstream of the dam should be maintained during the
entire dam removal process to minimize impacts to aquatic resources
Prior to removal of the dam and restoration of the Rocky River, our team will complete
the following engineering tasks
• Structural and geotechnical evaluation of the existing dam structure and
powerhouse facility
• Hydraulic evaluation of the dam under a range of flow conditions
• Floodplain impact evaluation
• Demolition plan
• Sediment management plan
An outline of our approach to deal with these technical issues within the proposed Bank
limits will be added to the "Need and Feasibility of the Bank" in the Final Prospectus
38 Section 4 0, Mitigation Work Plan (p 7) The Sponsor indicates a sediment removal plan
will be developed when the water levels drop to match the historic river levels Prior to
13

draining the reservoir we recommend the volume of sediment behind the dam is
calculated A Tier 1 assessment should be performed to determine the likelihood of
contaminants in the sediment If contaminants are likely present, then a Tier 2
assessment with should be performed prior to any sediment disturbing activities The
volume, level of contamination, and potential risks to downstream aquatic resources
will determine how the sediments should be managed If sediments are contaminated,
then sediments should be removed and disposed of in an approved upland disposal site
If the sediments are not contaminated, then depending on the volume of sediment it
may be possible to manage the sediments to allow for a slow, downstream release
We share your concern about the potential negative effects of the sediment captured
within the impoundment, known as Reeves Lake We have obtained copies of previous
sediment surveys conducted at dam sites on the Neuse and Haw Rivers for guidance We
will also perform a detailed bathymetr►c survey of Reeves Lake to determine the extent
and depths of sediment buildup upstream of the dam W►Idlands will also engage Tom
Augspurger with the U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for input on the Tier 1
protocol to determine the extent, quality, and potential risks associated with the
sediment contained within Reeves Lake This information will form the basis for the
Draft Sediment Management Plan that will be submitted to the IRT for approval
39 Section 4 0, Mitigation Work Plan (p 7) The Sponsor indicates the project will restore
shallow water habitat for Cape Fear shiner along 6,365 linear feet of six tributaries
affected by the impoundment Generally, restoration of the tributaries following dam
removal is not as effective as restoration of the main channel where the dam was
located Pre - removal and post - removal data will need to be collected in each of the
tributaries to document success criteria were met in each tributary The Sponsor
indicates efforts will be made to preserve the existing forested riparian buffer along
Rocky River
130 of Chatham, LLC continues to purchase conservation easements and property along
the Rocky River We will provide an up -to -date map showing the extent of these
protected buffers within the Bank limits and upstream /downstream of the Bank for the
Final Prospectus
We will complete a determination of perennial versus intermittent for each of the
tributaries, complete a geomorphic assessment, and provide copies of the completed
data sheets in the Final Prospectus Potential restoration or stabilization measures
needed to restore shallow water habitat and prevent degradation of the tributaries will
be discussed briefly in Section 4 — Mitigation Work Plan in the Final Prospectus
A more detailed summary of the proposed pre- and post -dam removal monitoring plan,
success criteria, and potential adaptive management measures will be provided in the
Draft Mitigation Plan submitted to the IRT for review
40 Section 5 0, Determination of Mitigation Credit (p 8) The mitigation credit for the
project should follow the general criteria detailed in the document Determining
Appropriate Compensatory Mitigation Credit for Dam Removal Projects in North
Carolina, including identifying the specific details within the rare, threatened and
endangered species criteria Also, the success criteria for determining credit for each of
14

the tributary streams should be identified since these may vary from the success criteria
for Rocky River and even among tributaries
We understand that the final determination of credits will be based on confirmation of
the limits of Reeves Lake on the Rocky River and each of the six perennial tributaries,
demonstration of success meeting the goals of the Bank, and on further discussions by
the IRT We also understand that the number of credits on the tributaries may be tied to
the establishment of buffers along each tributary As stated previously, 130 of Chatham,
LLC continues to purchase conservation easements and property along the Rocky River
and its tributaries We will provide an up -to -date map showing the extent of these
protected buffers within the Bank limits and upstream /downstream of the Bank for the
Final Prospectus As 130 of Chatham continues to protect and preserve additional
riparian buffers within and directly adjacent to the Bank, this information will be
provided to the IRT
41-Section 6 2, Long Term Management Provisions (p 9) The Sponsor indicates invasive
species will be managed annually or less frequently as needed to ensure the long term
survivability of the planned native vegetation community Note that invasive species
also may include aquatic plant or animal species
We will add a brief discussion of the long -term maintenance plan to Section 6 -
Maintenance and Long -term Sustainability in the Final Prospectus A more detailed
maintenance plan, including invasive species control, will be included in the Draft
Mitigation Plan that will be submitted to the IRT for approval
15