20160847 Ver 1_Memo_Dairyland Final Submittal_20171101

M E M O R A N D U M
fires
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: North Carolina Interagency Review Team
FROM: BRAD BRESLOW, DANIEL INGRAM- RES
DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2017
RE: Response to Dairyland Mitigation Site (Cape Fear 02 LIMBI) Draft Mitigation Plan
Comments
Listed below are comments provided by the NCIRT regarding the Dairyland Draft Mitigation Plan and
RES' responses:
General comments from RES:
- Based on comments from the IRT, the first 200 LF of UT2 were changed from Restoration to
Enhancement I, reducing the total credit yield of the site by 80 SMUs.
- The Draft Mitigation Plan had listed the planted acreage at 21.9 acres, but during the
development of the final plan set RES realized this acreage still incorporated planted area from
reach HB -3 which was removed from the project. The new planted acreage of 17.6 acres
requires a total of 15 veg monitoring plots. Sheet MI has been updated to reflect this change.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments:
1. Page ii: The project area is listed as 28.6 acres. According to page 13, Section 3. 1, the total
protected acreage is 33.1 acres. Please clarify.
The table on page 13 has been updated to reflect a total protected acreage of 28.6 acres.
2. Page 7, Project Goals: Please note for future reference that the goals and objectives should
address the specific impairments such as floodplain access/connectivity, lateral or vertical instability, etc.
Goals and objectives for future plans will be directly tailored to specific impairments and measurable
functional parameters.
3. Page 13, Site Protection: The first paragraph states that upon approval, a copy of the land
protection instrument will be included in Appendix A. The model easement template provided in
Appendix A does not represent the current Wilmington District easement template. The current template
is provided on the Ribits website under Bank and ILF establishment. Please see a copy of the attached
template.
Appendix A has been updated to include the current Wilmington District easement template from the
Ribits website.

4. Page 19, Section 4.4.1: This section states there are two 80 foot easement breaks proposed for
crossings at Dairyland Road. Table 10 indicates a 60 foot stationing break between HBI and H132 and an
81 foot break between W l and W2.
Page 19 has been updated to reference one 60 foot break for a farm crossing and one 80 foot break for
the crossing at Dariyland Road.
5. Page 24, Credit Release Schedule: Credit releases are based upon the approved mitigation plan
with the exception of the areas located in the ponds proposed for removal. These areas should be
measured using channel centerline. Please reference Corps comments dated December 20, 2016.
Section has been updated to state that credits will be based on approved mitigation plan with the
exception of the pond removal restoration areas, which will be measured using channel centerline during
the as-built survey.
6. Page 24, Credit Release Schedule: Regarding Release Milestone 5, the interim release should be
10% rather than 15%.
The credit release schedule has been updated.
7. Page 25, Subsequent Credit Releases: The second credit release is also contingent upon IRT
review and approval of the baseline report and survey.
Subsequent Credit Releases text has been updated.
8. Page 22, Mitigation Credits:
a. Regarding the additional buffer widths, the only information provided includes Figures 11 and
I IA. We are unable to verify the adjusted SMUs with this information due to the numerous buffer width
changes. Please provide a larger depiction of Figure 11 with the reaches broken out and labeled (HB-2a,
etc).
Figure 11 has been updated with reach breaks broken out so that the adjusted SMU breaks can be more
easily verified in conjunction with the calculations provided in Figure IIA.
b. Regarding UT 2, Figure 11 depicts the area in the pond bed as restoration (Station 200-700), dam
breach area and tie in (approx. Station 700-1000) and channel restoration (Station 1000-1174). The only
work proposed in the initial 200 feet is the removal of an 18" CMP and planting. Please explain the
justification for the 1:1 ratio in this area.
The ratio for the first 200 feet of UT2 has been changed from 1:1 to 1.5:1 to reflect an Enhancement I
level of intervention. Enhancement I modifications include bank grading (dimension), culvert removal
(profile/dimension), the installation of grade control structures (profile), and riparian planting. Based on
the level of intervention, RES believes 1.5:1 is an appropriate credit ratio.
C. Regarding the dam breach area of UT 2, based on the design plans, it appears that the dam will be
breached rather than removed. In the past we have noted issues on sites where only a small portion of the
impoundment structure was removed since this restricts full access to the floodplain. We recommend
removal of as much of the structure as possible.
Plans have been revised to show a minimum 50ft floodplain in each overbank through the existing UT2
dam.

d. In addition, the plan does not address removal of sediments in the pond bottoms. What are you
plans to address this issue?
The development of a plan to address sediment removal from the pond bottom will be a staged process
that begins with the draining of the ponds and the dam breach in the winter of 2017. Once the ponds are
dry enough to work in, soil samples will be taken and an updated topographic survey of the pond bottoms
will be conducted. After updated data collection, RES will determine what actions (e.g. sediment
removal, soil amendments, etc) need to take place to restore the pond bottom and establish appropriate
riparian vegetation.
e. It appears that the pond removal area of HB2 will retain the existing "bowl" shape. Since this
area is includes additional buffers, we have concerns regarding survival and vigor of the buffer restoration
areas. Please advise if you intend to grade these areas or if soil amendments are proposed.
The existing bowl shape will not be maintained. Once the pond has dried, topography of the pond bottom
will be obtained to design the channel and the banks so that a natural shape will be achieved.
9. Page 39, Adaptive Management: The maintenance plan references road crossings within the site.
Please advise if there are existing roads/road crossings within the mitigation bank boundaries that will be
maintained.
There are no existing roads/road crossings within the mitigation bank boundaries that will be maintained.
That language was removed from the table.
10. Page 40, Performance Standards: Under Cross Sections, please change the bankfull requirements
to 4 bankfull events in separate years.
Updated.
11. Page 43, Long Term Management: Please provide information regarding the long term
management funding including an itemized annual cost accounting, total amount of funding, and the
manner in which this will be provided.
Appendix A has been updated to include an engagement letter from UP2S which contains itemized annual
cost accounting, the total amount of funding, and the manner in which the funding will be provided.
12. Page 45, Financial Assurances: Please provide a statement from Unique Places to Save
indicating their agreement to receive the funds in the event of default to ensure the work is completed.
Please provide a draft copy of the financial assurance document for review and approval by our Office of
Counsel.
As the bond obligee for the construction and monitoring phase of the Dairyland Stream Mitigation
Project, UP2S agree to abide by the terms of the bond agreement(s) in the event that Resource
Environmental Solutions fails to perform or no longer exists. This statement is included in the
engagement letter provided in Appendix A.
13. Please provide a separate map depicting the monitoring locations.
The monitoring locations are included in the plan set on MI.
NC Division of Water Resources Comments:
1. Pond design areas

a. DWR believes the stream reaches located in the pond bottoms show an overall better design.
b. However, DWR believes that RES needs to stress removal of fines/muck (in the construction
sequence) where constructing new channel to the contractor, and combine some of the muck with upland
(dam removal portion?) soil to construct channel.
RES will stress the problems associated with the deposition on the pond bottom with the contractor. The
development of a plan to address sediment removal from the pond bottom will be a staged process that
begins with the draining of the ponds and the dam breach in the winter of 2017. Once the ponds are dry
enough to work in, soil samples will be taken and an updated topographic survey of the pond bottoms will
be conducted. After updated data collection, RES will determine what actions (e.g. sediment removal,
soil amendments, etc) need to take place to restore the pond bottom and establish appropriate riparian
vegetation. Note 8 has been added to sheets S3, S4, S7, and S8.
c. DWR has concerns regarding the inlet and outlet structure designs for reach UT2. As stated in previous
meetings and on-site, the IRT would prefer that as much of the dam is removed as practicable. It appears
at the outlet of UT2 there is about a 30 foot floodplain on each side of the stream before the side slopes
begin. DWR recommends at least a 50 foot floodplain width on each side of the stream.
Plans have been revised to show a minimum 50ft floodplain in each overbank through the existing UT2
dam.
2. Reach WF2
a. The design sheets for the W172 reach state that it is a preservation reach, while the other tables
throughout the document refer to this reach as E3.
The design sheets have been updated.
b. Assessment method vs NCSAM
i. DWR has concerns with the Channel Stability Assessment results. Both WF1 and WF2 are rated
as good. While their score differs significantly. When you consider several important channel
characteristics of the method (Avg bank angle, bank veg protection, bank cutting and mass wasting) W172
is the 2nd worst scoring reach.
With any rating system, there are high and low ends of each rating. WFI is on the better end of "Good"
and WF2 is on the worse end of "Good". While their characteristics vary greatly on some fields the
overall rating looks at all of the parameters not just four of the thirteen parameters. It is adapted from a
bridge based channel assessment and with that adaptation there is possibility of error. However, the
adapted Channel Stability Assessment has been used frequently in the past by RES to assess stability.
ii. DWR recommends running NCSAM on reach WF2.
NCSAM was not the standard while the field work was being completed. The adapted Channel Stability
Assessment has been used frequently in the past however RES will transition to using NCSAM as the main
channel assessment method on future projects.
C. DWR is still concerned that reach W172 is more Restoration/EI than E2. There were restoration
vs E2 discussions regarding this reach during the May 2, 2016 site visit. Some of the cross sections in the
mitigation plan also support this recommendation as well.

RES had originally pursued Enhancement I on this reach. During the site visit on May 2, 2016 it was
discussed that Restoration would be the preferred level of intervention, but if that was not feasible then an
Enhancement III approach would make most sense. RES explored Restoration potential for the reach, but
based on topographic limitations and landowner negotiations, it was deemed unviable for offline
restoration. Therefore, based on input from the IRTT. RES determined an EIII approach provided the best
opportunity for ecological uplift.
3. Reach UT 1- there were some comments during the field visit that the upper portion of this reach
may be more wetland -like than stream. Being an E2 reach, DWR is advising that RES keep a close watch
on this reach regarding wetland vs stream issues.
RES will put a pair cross sections on UTI to monitor whether UTI behaves similar to a stream or a
wetland.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Comments:
1. Section 1/Page 7: Goals.
a. Please include the programmatic goals that are being addressed by this project such as providing
Stream Mitigation Units to be applied as compensatory mitigation for permitted activity/impacts to waters
of the US under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Updated.
b. Recommend referencing the RES Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank by name within the
Restoration Project Goals especially since this site is operating within the bounds of the MBI for the bank
and will be combined with other sites within the watershed to provide stream and wetland credits for the
bank.
Updated.
2. Section 2.4/Page 11: Site Photos of HB -1 upstream view is the same photo as HB -1 downstream
view. It appears the downstream view of HB -1 is erroneous.
Updated.
3. Section 3.1/Page 13: Please correct the name of the mitigation bank from "Cape Fear 02 UMB" to
"RES Cape Fear 02 UMB".
Updated
4. Section 4.1.1/Page 14: The total area drainage area of 674 acres is for the Watery Fork catchment
only and does not apply to the Hudson Branch portion of the project (144 acres). This may be confusing
and I recommend splitting the drainage areas and catchment descriptions to reflect this.
Updated.
5. Section 4.2.6/Page 17: Last paragraph alludes to "five of eight" stream reaches. This should be
corrected to "three of six" per Table 6 on Page 18 since HB -3 was removed from the mitigation plan.
Updated.
6. Section 4.2.7/Page 18: Just to be clear, the riparian zones were only disturbed by row -crops and
not cattle egress or access to the streams?

Correct.
7. Section 4.4.1/Page 19: The constraints listed need to be updated with the removal of HB -3 from
the project and with a crossing at the HB-1/HB-2 break.
Updated.
8. Section 5.1/Page 22: It may be more accurate to state that additional credit was not generated
until a stream is at least 75 feet inside the edge of an "easement boundary" instead of "buffer" since the
calculation used is based on easement boundary location and not existing buffer vegetation.
Updated.
9. Section 7.1.1/Page 26: Citation for Schafale and Weakley should read "1990" instead of "2003"
assuming the Third Approximation is being used per the References Section 14.
Updated.
10. Section 7.2.1/Pages 29-30: Recommend including some discussion on the BMPs being proposed
for use in diffusing concentrated flow and which reaches will receive this treatment. The
restoration/enhancement plans for HB -1 and UT -2 do not illustrate any use of a BMP at the head of the
channel within the conservation easement (S 1 and S7). The plans for UT -1 (S6) also do not illustrate
potential BMPs at the head of a couple of side channels nor is there a description within the enhancement
approach for this reach.
There will not be any BMPs used on-site at Dairyland.
11. Section 7.2.1.3/Page 32: Section 8.2.1.2 should read: 7.2.12.
Updated.
12. Section 7.2.2.1/Page 33:
a. There is inconsistency between the species being used for live stakes. Table 14, the list in the
second paragraph of page 33 and the live stake list of D2 of Appendix D do not match. I do not think
there is any problems with any of the particular species chosen as they all respond similarly to bare stream
bank conditions.
Updated.
b. The spacing for live stakes is inconsistent with the live stake plan of D2 (one -foot spacing v. three-foot
spacing min.).
Updated.
13. Table 14/Page 34:
a. Recommend adding some diversity in understory trees. I don't have any serious issues with the
planting plan as it is presented and I understand the need for working with fast growing readily available
species. However, for the sake of diversity in future forest structure I recommend adding a few understory
species such as Lindera benzoin and Carpinus caroliniana to truly approximate a Piedmont Alluvial
Forest. I did see that Asimina triloba was included in the P2 planting plan, however this was not listed in
Table 14. I also recommend that some of the species be exempt from the 10 -foot performance standard if
they are to be used to diversify the understory component.

Asimina triloba has been added to the list in Table 14. Based on the current full -sun condition of the site,
the planting plan was designed to be consistent with the October 2016 guidance and to provide the most
likely opportunity for success. If the site was composed of a more diverse landscape (i. e. some wooded
areas proposed for planting), RES would have developed a planting plan to incorporate understory
species.
b. Recommend having a back-up list of potential suitable canopy species to implement in the event
the chose species are unavailable. Suitable canopy species for a Piedmont Alluvial Forest include Juglans
nigra, Celtis laevigata, and Carya ovata. Sweetgum and red maple, while part of the natural alluvial forest
community found nearby are expected to naturally, and in some cases, may aggressively regenerate on-
site.
Based on availability of stock and familiarity with nurseries in the region, RES has a list of acceptable
"back-up " species that may be used for the Dairyland Site.
14. Section 7.2.3/Page 34: Please include more detail on the types and specific locations of the BMPs
being proposed as part of this mitigation plan. I also recommend including detailed illustrations within the
design plan sheets that can be referenced here.
There are no BMPs proposed for Dairyland Mitigation Site. This paragraph was removed.
15. Section 9.2/Page 40: Recommend including a vegetation plot in the vicinity of UT -1 since there is
some areas being planted and enhancement level credit is being sought for this reach. Also recommend
referencing M1 of Appendix D which shows the proposed vegetation plot locations.
Vegetation plot added to this area. Sheet MI is referenced in Section 10.
16. Recommend removing cross sections for HB -3 from Appendix C.
Updated.