20180181 Ver 1_MP_FINAL_IRT Response Letter_20191122

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
(919) 614 - 5111 1 waterlandsolutions.com
November 22, 2019
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
Attn: Samantha Dailey
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: WLS Responses to NCIRT Review Comments Regarding the WLS Neuse 02 Umbrella
Mitigation Bank (UMBI) Final Mitigation Plan Approval for the Scarborough Mitigation Project,
USACE AID# SAW-2017-02527, Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020202, Wayne County, NC
Dear Ms. Dailey:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to provide our written responses to the North Carolina
Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) review comments dated November 81h, 2019 regarding the Draft
Mitigation Plan for the Scarborough Mitigation Project. We are providing our written responses to the
NCIRT's review comments below, which includes editing and updating the Final Mitigation Plan and
associated deliverables accordingly. Each of the NCIRT review comments is copied below in bold text,
followed by the appropriate response from WLS in regular text:
USACE Comments (Kim Browning):
1. The credit tables for wetlands on Figure 10, table 9 and the cover sheet of the design sheets
don't match. Response: The credit tables on Figure 10 and 9 did match, but the credits on the design
cover sheet were slightly off (0.02 ac) for the proposed wetland credits/areas. The credit table has been
removed from Figure 10 and Table 9 and the design plan cover sheet now match what is represented in
the mitigation plan table 9.
2. Design sheet 20 shows a permanent ford crossing on UT1A near the confluence with UT1-R1,
but the width is not specified, nor is this depicted on figure 10. Stream crossing areas need to be
removed from the creditable length. All asset tables should be adjusted accordingly. Further, if
the crossing is to remain within the easement boundary, please discuss the maintenance during
monitoring, and during long-term stewardship. Response: The ford stream crossing has been
removed from the design sheets and the project has no permanent stream crossings in the easement
boundary.
3. If the crossing remains within the easement boundary, funds for maintenance in the LTM plan
should be accounted for. Response: The ford stream crossing has been removed from the project and
there are no permanent crossings in the easement boundary.
4. SHPO identified a previously recorded archaeological site, 31WY221, in the southeast corner of
the subject parcel. Please include the location of this on the design sheets to ensure that it
remains outside the area of impact. Response: The location of recorded archaeological site 31WY221
has been added to Design Sheet 47. As SHPO stated in their February 2019 letter, ground disturbing

activities will not take place in the immediate vicinity and the project should have no effect on any
historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register. This archaeological site is located outside
the proposed conservation easement and will remain outside the area of impact.
S. Figure 10: Please provide separate maps for proposed conservation measures (Concept Plan
Map) and monitoring practices (Monitoring Map). Response: We have included a separate map (see
Figure 11) depicting the proposed monitoring features. For consistency and clarity, all future submittals
to the IRT will follow this format.
6. The design sheets show a typical for a water quality treatment feature, but it's unclear where
this is located on the project. If located within the conservation easement please discuss whether
this BMP will require maintenance during monitoring/LTM, and that it's located outside of
jurisdictional features. Response: The Water Quality Treatment Feature is not being installed at
Scarborough and has been removed from the Design Plans (Detail Sheet 5).
7. Page 10 of the UMBI, NMFS contact is Twyla Cheatwood, NOAA Fisheries Service-HCD, 219 Ft
Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29412 (she prefers electronic submissions). Response: The UMBI for
the NOAA contact has been updated.
8. Section 2.3: Does the approved conservation easement language allow for maintained access
roads? The IRT does not approve of maintained roads or trails within the easement. Access roads
are not consistent with the template easement language and would send a mixed message to
property owners who are told that they cannot mow within the easement. Additionally, if access
roads were located within the easement, long term maintenance would need to be considered.
Response: The access roads/paths have been removed from the easement area and the associated
design plan sheets and figures have been revised to take these paths out of the easement. The original
intent of these paths was to have some non-mitigatable and non -jurisdictional areas that could be
mowed/maintained to allow access for monitoring the 231-acre conservation easement.
9. It appears that not all existing wetlands are accounted for on Figure 10. This is a consideration
in areas where existing wetlands exist and P1 stream restoration is proposed. Wetland 6 and
Wetland 4A intersect areas of UT113 and UT1A proposed for restoration. Wetland gauges should
be placed in these areas to ensure that no functional loss occurs. Response: All existing wetlands
are shown on Figure 7, while Figure 10 illustrates the proposed stream and wetland mitigation types.
For proposed coastal headwater restoration streams (UT1-111, UT113, UT2, and UT3) the clipped -out
areas on draft Figure 10 is 50 feet from the centerline because those wetland areas cannot be claimed as
wetland credit. In the final Figure 10, these areas are now labeled as `no credit existing wetlands'
(Coastal HW). A wetland gauge has been placed in Wetland 6 and Wetland 4A in the areas proposed for
stream restoration as shown on Figure 11.
10. Please place at least one permanent veg plot along UT1-R3, especially in areas where a P2 cut
will occur. Response: All of UT1-R3 is P2 restoration and there are 7 vegetation plots proposed on this
reach. These vegetation plots will be used for both DWR and USACE monitoring reports/success criteria.
11. Section 3.6.3: There is some concern for hydrologic trespass to occur along Casey Mill Road.
The bordering roads are not much higher than the existing ground elevation which could present
serious flooding issues, especially with P1 restoration proposed. Response: Following completion
of the preliminary hydraulic and hydrologic modeling effort, potential flood inundation areas were
mapped to estimate the pre- and post -restoration flood limits and profile elevations using multiple
recurrence intervals and discharges estimates (bankfull, Q2, Q5, Q10, Q25, Q50, Q100) across the project
area. A flood model was developed for proposed conditions using GeoHECRAS by comparing the existing
terrain from detailed field survey data, including road culvert information, with the proposed design

surface. The inundation mapping and digital terrain model required adjustments and refinements to
reduce flood flow discrepancies and were incorporated into the final design geometry. As part of the
hydrologic trespass analysis, estimated peak discharges (using published USGS and NCDOT data) for
both existing and proposed conditions were compared to the flood model inputs/outputs. The flood
model suggests that upstream elevations will not negatively impact site hydrology or increase flood
levels at existing road elevations. A majority of project site owned by the Sponsor is located in a FEMA
100-year mapped floodplain area. A hydraulic analysis is typically required to obtain a "No-Rise/No-
Impact" certification and a critical step to understanding the impact of various flood flows as they relate
to the existing FEMA floodplain limits and the potential for hydrologic trespass and flood impacts to
adjacent property and public roads. Based on coordination with the Wayne County local floodplain
administrator, the project will require floodplain development permit, but will unlikely require a
LOMR/CLOMR following construction due to no property structures or changes to Base Flood Elevations
(BFEs). In addition, given the increased floodplain capacity, storage and attenuation from the P2
floodplain bench excavation along lower UT1-R2 and UT1-R3, the project will likely improve site
hydrology and self -mitigate any flood concerns associated with the existing culverted crossings along
Casey Mill Road and Pecan Road (above UT113). Please refer to Appendix C for Hydraulic Analysis output
summary for the project site.
12. Section 3.7.3: Please remove the statement "Any future stream crossing locations will be
strategically located to access the interior property during the monitoring period and long-term
stewardship..." If stream crossings are proposed or anticipated, those areas should be included
on Figure 10 and on the design sheets. All crossings should be removed from the creditable area.
Response: This language has been removed from the final mitigation plan and there are no stream
crossings proposed in the conservation easement boundary.
13. Table 4, page 23: BHR should not exceed 1.2 for P1 restoration reaches. Response: Table 4 and
all references to restored BHRs has been updated in the document.
14. Functional Uplift Potential is described by the Stream Functions Pyramid SQT tool, which is
helpful information, but it would be beneficial to have this information tied in relation to the
NCSAM forms, since it is the approved stream assessment method for the Wilmington District, to
show the current functional assessment and room for functional uplift. Response: WLS appreciates
USACE's comment regarding our use of the stream quantification tool (SQT) to consider functional lift
for the project. Although there are similarities between the NC SAM and the SQT assessment methods
and functional summaries (i.e. LOW—NF, MEDIUM —FAR, HIGH—F), NC SAM and the SQT methods were
not originally developed for determining mitigation success and credit calculations on constructed
stream sites. While we understand the current SQT (0.0) has not yet been formally approved by the
USACE for determining credit, the SQT does require a more robust data collection and analysis effort
and will help determine the highest level of restoration potential and associated lift that can be achieved
for the project, considering site constraints and existing conditions. We share the interest to find a
correlation of the NC SAM assessment compared to the SQT throughout the project, even with the
limitations of using the SQT for determining functional uplift and success in smaller headwater
catchments (zero order streams).
15. Additional information is needed in order to determine a 3:1 ratio on Upper UT2, as
presented. It appears to be fully buffered and surrounded by wetland preservation, one log riffle
and approximately 125 LF of channel work to tie into the lower end. There are no records of
ratios being discussed. As proposed a ratio of 4 or 5:1 would be more appropriate. Response: WLS
reviewed the IRT correspondence and prospectus site meeting minutes and could not find a record of
proposed ratios for upper UT2. During the IRT site visit, NCWRC noted that removing spoil piles and
filling deep depressional areas within the floodplain would provide habitat value (i.e. herpetological)
and natural flood storage. The IRT generally agreed that minimal channel disturbance and Enhancement

Level II approaches were most appropriate for upper UT2. As described in Section 6.2.3, Enhancement
Level II is proposed in the upper section since the existing channel will only be filled to an elevation
sufficient to connect the headwater channel to its historic floodplain further downstream. Small
overburden areas and remnant spoil piles will be removed, and this less invasive approach will extend
the wildlife corridor throughout the entire riparian valley, while providing a hydrologic connection and
critical habitat linkage within the catchment area. Based on this approach and IRT recommendations,
WLS has revised the proposed credit ratio from 3:1 to 4:1 and adjusted credit determination summary
on Table 8 and design plan cover sheet accordingly.
16. Section 5.2: Please note that credit releases are based upon meeting all performance
standards, not just wetland hydro -period, for example. Response: WLS understands this and
adjusted the language to read "as well as meet all performance standards" in reference to the wetland
hydroperiod sentence.
17. The bench widths don't appear to be adequately designed on the P2 portion, typically they
are at least two times bankfull width. Response: The floodplain bench or belt widths along UT1-R2
and UT1-R3 range from approximately 40 to 90 feet (-4X to 9X the bankfull width) which are within
common design Meander Width Ratios for Rosgen 'C5' stream types. We have adjusted/widened the
floodplain bench widths approximately 5-10 feet along many of the outer meander bends to reduce
storm flow energy near the toe of slopes to avoid the potential for excess scour and erosion.
18. Page 35, last sentence: A final letter from SJAB should be included in the final mitigation plan
prior to approval. If the planned planting list is altered after approval of the final mitigation plan,
an updated list should be provided to the IRT for approval as an addendum to the approved plan.
Response: WLS sent SJAFB a memo in June 2019 regarding the project and proposed plant
species/mature heights (in Appendix G) and SJAFB did not have any issues with the plant list provided.
WLS met with SJAFB personnel in June 2019 to discuss the project and ensure that the mitigation
activities are compatible with safe flight operations. Email correspondence from SJAFB has been
included in the final mitigation plan and any future correspondence regarding plant list approval and
project approval will be provided directly to Sam Dailey. SJAFB has verbally stated they did not have
concerns with proposed tree heights as the base runway elevation is well above the site elevation, and
all proposed tree species' maximum heights are well below the 150-foot Inner Horizontal Surface
Requirement. Based on the SJAFB response, we do not anticipate any changes to the plant list that would
require another review by the SJAFB and addendum to the approved mitigation plan.
19. General Comment on Wetland re -establishment —It would be beneficial to add some coarse
woody debris to the depressional areas and throughout the wetland for habitat, and to help store
sediment, increase water storage/infiltration, and absorb water energy during overbank events.
Response: WLS appreciates this comment and agrees that coarse woody debris (CWD) serves an
important functional role when restoring stream and wetland systems as described in Sections 6.2.6 and
6.5.2. These features will mimic small floodplain pools which include CWD within the wetland areas that
will provide habitat structure and complexity across the Project. We have added language in these
sections describing examples of CWD such as tree throws, snags, and stumps and included general
locations/distribution on the design plan sheets.
20. Section 8.1: All four bankfull events must be in separate years. Response: Revised language in
Section 8.1 Stream Hydrology monitoring states: "Four (4) separate bankfull or over bank events must
be documented within the seven-year monitoring period and the stream hydrology monitoring will
continue until four (4) bankfull events have been documented in separate years. In the event that less
than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits is at the
discretion of the IRT."

a. BHR should not exceed 1.2 (also on Table 20). Response: Table has been revised.
b. Channels classified as intermittent should have at least 30-days consecutive flow,
and all single -thread channels should maintain jurisdictional features (bed, bank).
Response: WLS understands this guidance and have included this detailed information in
Section 9.
21. Section 8.2: 30-days consecutive flow must be documented. Response: 30 consecutive days
has been added to Section 8.2 and Section 9 also elaborates on this Performance Standard.
22. Section 8.3: I would suggest restating that your hydrology standard will be at least 12%,
rather than 12-16% because as it reads, you may not be meeting performance standards if you
exceed 16%. Response: This section has been updated to "The performance standard for wetland
hydrology will be at least 12 percent in the lower elevations (i.e. floodplain areas) and 10 percent along
the ridges and levees where hydric soils transition to upland areas (See Figure 7 and 11)"
23. Flow gauges should be placed in the upper 1/3 of intermittent reaches. Response: Flow gages
will be placed in the upper 1/3 of intermittent reaches as shown in Figure 11 (Reaches UT1-111, UT1B,
UT2, and UT3).
24. Section 9.3: Volunteer species are only counted towards success if they're species on the
approved planting list. Response: Revised language in Section 9.3 states "Volunteer species will be
noted and if they are on the approved planting list and meet success criteria standards, they will be
counted towards success criteria. Other species not included on the list may be considered by the IRT on
a case -by -case basis."
25. Table 21: A detailed list of monitoring practices should be provided and itemized. Response:
An itemized list of monitoring tasks/costs has been provided below Table 21 in Section 12. The
monitoring financial assurance is for monitoring and maintenance and those costs are included as well
in Table 21.
26. The Long -Term endowment fund does not seem to be adequate for 256 acres. The letter from
UP2S has a different amount than the attached endowment table. Response: The most recent
easement area is approximately 231 acres. The letter in the draft mitigation plan was for $37,171.43 and
was dated January 2019 and was for one parcel. As the project progressed the easement area increased
and endowment table that was provided at a later date had $41,200. Appendix D of the Final Mitigation
Plan has an updated letter and endowment table from October 2019 with matching fees of $46,200.
UP2S increased the endowment fee in October 2019 after a meeting they had with the USACE. The
opportunity for violation is based on land -use and number of landowners and this easement is all owned
by one landowner, with no crossings or breaks in the easement. Also, UP2S combines their endowment
proceeds and uses the power of a larger fund to help defend their easements. They do not have separate
investment funds/legal funds for each easement, and this is a common practice of land trusts to pool
their stewardship and legal defense funds. Also, UP2S will be participating in the Terra Firma insurance
program with LTS to help insure their easements for legal defense purposes, thereby taking some
pressure off their endowment funds.
USACE Comments (Sam Dailey):
1. The mitigation bank/easement acreage should be provided in the background information.
Response: The easement acreage has been added to Section 1.1 Background.
2. Page 7, Section 1.3 - States "site protection through a 239-acre conservation easement in

excess of 50 feet from the top of the restored streambanks, will protect all streams, wetlands and
aquatic resources in perpetuity." In Appendix D, the UP2S Annual Monitoring and Legal Defense
Endowment indicates the Scarborough Expanded acreage is 256 acres. Further, Appendix I, page
4, Section 1.2 states "the project area is comprised of 2 easements and is approximately 253
acres." Please clarify which acreage is correct. Response: 239 acres was the proposed easement
acreage in the draft mitigation plan. In the final mitigation plan the easement acreage is 231 acres due to
taking the proposed access paths out of easement. In Appendix D the 256 acres was the easement area at
the time the letter and endowment table were provided. Appendix D has been updated to reflect 231
acres, which was the easement area as of November 2019. Appendix I is the Buffer Plan from June 2019,
which also had a previous acreage of 253 acres. The total easement acreage is subject to be revised until
the final mitigation plan and easement deeds are finalized.
3. Page 28, Section 5.2 Credit Release - States "10% of SMCs will be withheld until four bankfull
events, in separate monitoring years, have been documented." Page 49, Section 8.1, Stream
Hydrology states "four separate bankfull or over bank events must be documented within the
seven-year monitoring period. At least two bankfull events must occur in separate years.
Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull events have been
documented in separate years." As also indicated in DWR comment 17, please update all bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Response: Section 8.1 has been updated per USACE (Kim) #20
comment and DWR comment #17.
4. Appendix F - Please include the original submittal date and revised date on Figure 4 -
jurisdictional Waters Map. Please also note that the PJD will be approved in conjunction with the
UMBI/bank approval. Response: For clarification and per USACE request, we are including three maps
for Figure 4 in Appendix F with dates from the original PJD submittal in March 2019, the revised June
2019 submittal, and a November 2019 submittal to account for DWR comment #2 about labeling all
ditches. Also, Section 3.1.3 has been updated to note the PJD will be approved in conjunction with the
UMBI/bank approval.
S. Appendix G - Please provide correspondence/meeting notes between WLS and Seymour
Johnson AFB indicating their cooperation/approval of the project. Response: As described in
USACE (Kim) response comment #18, meeting notes and email correspondence indicating SJAFB
cooperation of the project is provided in Appendix G.
6. UMBI: Please reference my August 12, 2019 email regarding the WLS Neuse 01 UMBI. The
comments provided in that email should be applied to the WLS Neuse 02 UMBI. I've attached that
document for your reference. Response: Per your request, these updates have been made to the WLS
Neuse 02 UMBI.
DWR Comments (Erin Davis, Katie Merritt, Mac Haupt, and Anthony Scarborough):
1. Page 14, Section 3.4.1 - The bottom paragraph notes that the NCDWQ stream scores were
verified on -site by USACE and DWR. However, there are discrepancies in the stream statuses for
multiple reaches presented in Table 2 compared to the DWR Determination Letter dated
February 7, 2019. Based on DWR's evaluation UT113 and UT3 were identified as ditches and UT1-
R2 and UT2 were identified as intermittent streams. DWR is concerned about post -construction
flow for UT113 and UT3, pending review of the 2019 flow gauge data. Response: Table 2 and the
following paragraph have been revised to show the DWR stream evaluations from January 2019 site
viability letter (UT1B and UT3 are called ditches and UT1-R2 and UT2 are classified as intermittent).

Pre -restoration flow gauge data from March -November 2019 are provided in Appendix B and suggest
continuous flow during the growing season. WLS understands DWR's concern regarding post -
construction flow duration for UT1B and UT3. Flow gauge data will be provided in each monitoring
report to document flow hydrology of each headwater stream system.
2. Page 21, Section 3.7.3 - Appendix F Figure 4 does not show all ditches within the Project Site.
Please include a separate updated figure. Is there a ditch along the northern easement
boundary? Response: Appendix F Figure 4 has been revised to show all the ditches within the Project
Site. We have included a separate Figure 14 to show all the ditch locations and proposed fill areas.
There is not an existing ditch along the northern easement boundary and that is a farm path.
3. Page 20, Section 3.6.1 - Please note the 60-foot Casey Mill Road right-of-way since it bisects the
Project Site. What are the setbacks from the easement boundary to existing culverts? Response:
We have added language to Section 3.6.1 noting the existing 60-foot ROW that bisects the project site
between UT1-R2 and UT1-R3. The conservation easement boundary ends at the existing ROW line and
both ends of the existing pipe culvert located entirely within the existing ROW and setback
approximately 9 feet from the proposed easement boundary.
4. Page 21, Section 3.7.3 - Based on the LiDAR signatures it appears there could be at least one
pipe crossing the northern easement boundary, please confirm. If so, will the structure be
maintained under the proposed access path? Response: Based on the topographic survey and
subsequent field visits, WLS has not identified any existing pipe crossings along the northern easement
boundary, particularly under the access path near the top of UT3 catchment area. If any pipes (buried)
or structures are discovered during construction, WLS will ensure flow conveyance will be maintained
under the access path outside of the conservation easement.
S. Page 22, Section 3.7.4 - Please confirm that only one permanent stream crossing is proposed.
Response: The only permanent stream crossing is located at the existing culvert crossing at Casey Mill
Road between UT1-R2 and UT1-R3.
6. Page 23, Table 4 - The performance standard for bank height ratio is not to exceed 1.2 (NCIRT
2016 Mitigation Update). Please update the Hydraulics (Level 2) Functional Design Objective.
Response: Table 4 has been updated accordingly.
7. Page 27, Section 5.1 - Please confirm whether the proposed Water Quality Treatment Feature
was included in the proposed wetland re-establishment acreage total. Response: The Water Quality
Treatment Feature is not being installed at Scarborough and has been removed from the Design Plans
(Design Sheet 5).
8. Page 29, Section 6 - DWR reiterates concerns discussed at the IRT field meeting as to whether
the upper portions of UT3, UT113, UT1A and UT2 will develop headwater stream features and
maintain fluvial processes. We believe these reaches may be at risk for potential stream credit.
Response: WLS understands this concern and recognizes the potential stream credit risk if the upper
headwater reaches do not develop/maintain fluvial features. Since the initial IRT prospectus field
meeting, WLS has collected seasonal flow data and visited the project site multiple times with both
DWR and USACE staff. After observing seasonal flow rates/depths and per USACE/DWR input, there
are multiple hydrology sources flowing from the bluff area that will likely support headwater stream
processes. The exact point of flow origin in CP headwater stream systems (zero order) can be difficult
to predict or even migrate over time, however, we are confident in the proposed restoration approach.
Given the amount of on -site hydrology and proposed ditch plugging/filling, we expected that restoring
UT1-R1 and UT113 as separate systems, rather than converging both UT-R1 and UT113 into one tributary

(as previously discussed with the IRT), will likely result in a higher functional benefit to the headwater
stream and wetland complex.
9. Page 34, Section 6.2.4 -
a. Recommend renaming section to avoid confusion regarding "buffer" and to be
inclusive of wetland planting areas. Response: This section has been renamed
Revegetation Plan.
b. The planting zones identified as "headwater riparian, riparian, and
transitional/upland" do not match the Figure 10 legend items as noted or the
Revegetation Plan (Sheets 25-29). Please use target communities for mapping
proposed planting zones in the Revegetation Plan instead of buffer preservation,
enhancement and restoration categories. Response: Figure 10 illustrates proposed
stream and wetland mitigation types/approaches, not a site -specific planting plan. Section
6.2.4 has been revised to reference the Revegetation Plan Sheets (in Appendix A) that show
the proposed planting areas. For clarity and consistency, the proposed planting areas in this
section have been revised to match the Revegetation Plan Sheets.
c. Also, please confirm the reference communities and target communities. Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp is listed with Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood on page 34
and Cypress -Gum Swamp on page 35. Response: Section 6.2.4 has been revised to list
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp and Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood communities.
10. Page 36, Table 12 - DWR requests capping the proposed percentage of green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica) to be planted at 5% since emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) has been
detected in Wayne county and has the potential to impact long-term tree density and canopy
cover. Response: WLS understands this concern and agrees with this comment. The planting list has
been revised and green ash will not exceed 4% of proposed species planting.
11. Page 36, Section 6.2.5 - Completion of planting at the end of May would put the 180-day
vegetative monitoring in late November. DWR would question the validity of MY1 vegetative
survey results if performed after leaf drop. Planting beyond the IRT 2016 guidance date of
March 15th is not recommended and may result in an extended monitoring period being
required. Response: WLS understands that the IRT prefers that trees be planted between November to
March. The IRT guidance also requires that vegetation and plots must be established 180 days prior to
initiation of the first year of monitoring, which could allow planting in May. WLS will do their best to
plant trees between November to March. If WLS plants in May, we understand that the IRT will review
closely the survivability of the trees and reduced survivability could result in an additional year of
vegetative monitoring.
12. Page 38, Section 6.2.6 - Please provide more information on the proposed tree throws. How
extensive is the proposed distribution? Response: The proposed tree throws features will be
incorporated as coarse woody debris (CWD) in small floodplain depressions and wetland areas to
provide habitat structure and complexity across the Project. We have added language and a literature
reference in this section describing examples of CWD such as tree throws, snags, and stumps and
included general locations/distribution on the design plan sheets.
13. Page 40, Section 6.2.7 - Limited beaver activity is noted, please provide more information on
the current/past beaver activity and any management efforts. Response: The current beaver
activity is limited to two small dams across UT1-R2 and UT1-R3. According to the previous landowner,
past beaver activity across the farm fields/ditches has been limited due to the ongoing dam removal and

lack of desirable/abundant woody trees on the property. Any existing beaver dams will be removed
during construction and managed during the monitoring period as described in Section 7, Table 19.
14. Page 46, Section 6.5.3 - Are all five permanently proposed access paths from the northern
easement boundary necessary? Since access paths will be permanent, please include a detail in
the design plan. Response: The proposed access paths are to aid in monitoring a 231-acre site where
the main parcel is completely contiguous. The access paths were proposed in non-mitigatable and non -
jurisdictional areas; however, per Kim's comment the IRT does not allow access paths in the easement
boundary. We have removed all access paths from the easement boundary and have revised our
easement boundary to take some of these proposed paths out of the conservation easement.
15. Page 47, Section 6.5.1-
a. Please include a figure showing all ditches proposed to be plugged, filled or partially
filled. Response: Figure 14 has been included to show all ditches and proposed fill locations.
b. Please note that for proposed Priority II stream reaches, soil amendments may be
needed on benches and banks to support the establishment of vegetation. DWR has noted
that Priority II reaches are prone to low stem density and vigor and bare ground.
Response: WLS agrees with this comment and will incorporate soil amendments as needed. In
accordance with the technical specifications, the contractor shall apply all soil amendments,
such lime and fertilizer, as specified by soil test results along with temporary and permanent
seed and mulch immediately prior to installing erosion control matting.
16. Pager 47, Section 6.5.2 -
a. Please identify potential bioremediation techniques proposed as stream improvement
features. Response: 'Bioremediation' has been removed from this sentence as no
bioremediation techniques are being used.
b. Please include a brief description of the proposed Water Quality Treatment Feature
(Sheet 5). Is this feature proposed to reduce the risk of hydrologic trespass east of the
easement boundary? Response: The Water Quality Treatment Feature is not being installed at
Scarborough and has been removed from the Design Plans (Design Sheet 5).
c. Please locate any proposed vernal pools on the project design plan. Response: We have
replaced the reference to vernal pools as 'depressional areas' in the final mitigation plan. As
described in this section, the wetland grading activities will create these depressional areas with
seasonal inundation. However, proposing vernal pools without defining specific areas,
distribution and functional/ecological objectives (i.e. hydroperiods for successful amphibian
breeding) can be misleading as just creating areas with permanent pools.
17. Page 49, Section 8 -
a. Stream Hydrology - Please update all bankfull events must occur in separate years.
Response: Section 8.1 has been updated per USACE (Kim) #20 comment.
b. Stream Profiles - Please update the BHR shall not exceed 1.2 along restored stream
reaches. Response: BHR has been revised to 1.2.
c. Continuous Flow - Continuous surface water flow must be documented to occur every
year for at least 30 consecutive days. Response: This section has been revised to note

that it is 30 consecutive days.
18. Page 50, Section 8.3 - DWR recommends a 10 percent minimum wetland hydroperiod
performance criteria for the ridge and levee areas. Response: Section 8.3 has been revised to have a
10% minimum hydroperiod for the ridge and levee areas.
19. Page 51, Section 9.1.1 - DWR would prefer both crest gauge and automated photography
documents of flood flow, or the use of pressure transducers. Response: WLS will use pressure
transducers for both flow gauges and crest gauges. Figure 11 shows the proposed locations of these
gauges.
20. Page 52, Section 9.1.3 - Continuous surface water flow must be documented to occur every
year for at least 30 consecutive days. Please update the first sentence to reflect this requirement.
Response: This sentence has been revised to "Monitoring of stream flow will be conducted every year to
demonstrate that the restored stream systems classified as intermittent exhibit surface flow for a
minimum of 30 consecutive days throughout some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall
conditions."
21. Page 56, Table 20 -
a. Hydraulics (Level 2) - Please include photo loggers and change BHRs to less than 1.2.
Response: This section of table has been revised to: Maintain average BHRs less than 1.2 and
ERs at 2.2 or greater and document out of bank and/or significant flow events using pressure
transducers or photo loggers & crest gauges.
b. Geomorphology (Level 3) - Please note vegetation vigor requirement. Response: Vigor
has been added to the requirement.
22. Figure 1 - Please include property boundary/tax parcel lines. Response: Property boundary
lines have been added to Figure 1.
23. Figure 10 -
a. Please include the permanent stream crossing. Response: The stream crossing has been
removed from the project and the only existing stream crossing is at Casey Mill Road.
b. DWR prefers flow gauges be installed within the upstream 1/3 length of a reach, thus
would like to see gauges on UT113 and UT3 shifted slightly upstream. Response: These flow
gauges have been shifted upstream to upper 1/3 as shown on Figure 11.
c. There are no veg plots or groundwater gauges in any of the 7.9 acres of wetland
enhancement areas. Please include representative monitoring stations within this
mitigation type area or shift the plot and gauge on the W4A wetland boundary to within
the enhancement area. Response: The vegetation plot and gauge that was bordering W4A has
been shifted to the west to be more inside the wetland enhancement area.
d. Placement of groundwater gauges within relic ditch paths is not recommended.
Response: WLS agrees that is not a desired placement of groundwater gauges. Figure 11 shows
the revised Proposed Monitoring Features and no groundwater gauges are located within relic
ditch paths.
e. Please include an additional 3-4 groundwater gauges closer to the proposed wetland

perimeters and easement boundaries. DWR feels these areas are underrepresented.
Response: Figure 11 has three additional groundwater gauges closer to the wetland perimeters
and easement boundaries.
f. Please include veg plots within the transition/upland areas that are proposed for
planting. Response: The transition/upland areas that are non-mitigatable areas are not being
planted and the Design Plans have been updated to reflect that change in the final mitigation
plan. Figure 10 did not have those areas being planted. The non -mitigation areas will not be
planted and no additional vegetation plots will be added in these areas.
g. On future monitoring plan figures, please show a distinction between the wetland areas
delineated for the 10-12% and 12-16% hydroperiods indicated on the Soils Report Figure
3. Response: WLS will delineate these areas on future monitoring figures, but has also
delineated the 10% hydroperiod and 12% hydroperiod wetland areas on Figure 11.
24. General Design Plan Comment - Please include existing wetlands on plan view sheets.
Response: Existing wetlands have been included on the plan view sheets.
25. Sheet 2 - Please confirm whether there is any fencing existing or proposed for the project
area. If not, please update the legend. Response: No fencing is proposed for this project and there is
no existing fencing. The legend on design plan sheet 2 has been revised to remove the fencing symbol.
26. Sheet 4 - The Log Vane detail indicates a footer log as optional. DWR recommends the use of
footer logs to aid in long-term bank stability. Response: All logs used for in -stream structures, such
log vanes and log weirs, that are <24" diameter will be footered as shown on detail sheet 4 (Appendix A).
Any logs >24" diameter are considered optional as they do not typically require footers in these smaller
low gradient stream channels.
27. Sheet 5 - Please confirm that the Water Quality Treatment Feature requires no long-term
maintenance. Will this feature be planted with wetland stems and/or plugs or seeded only
(with species that can tolerate 18-inch inundation)? Response: The Water Quality Treatment
Feature is not being installed at Scarborough and has been removed from the Design Plans (Detail
Sheet 5). For future reference. the typical water quality treatment features WLS incorporates in the
designs do not require any long-term maintenance.
28. Sheet 6 -
a. Please include stone type/size for the Constructed Stone Riffle. Response: The proposed
stone sizes (NC DOT Class 'A' and 'B') for constructed riffles has been added to detail sheet 6.
The stone sizes/gradations are typically included in the technical specifications for NC DEQ-
DEML E&SC permit approval. Constructed riffles are proposed at the culvert location(s) to
provide a stable tie into the existing bed elevation.
b. Please confirm whether the Channel Block will have a restrictive material core (clay
composition). Response: Yes, the channel block and ditch plug will have a restrictive core with
clay content as described in the technical specifications.
29. Sheet 7-Log Step Pools are not shown on the plan sheets, please confirm and update the
legend and detail sheets accordingly. Response: Log step pool detail has been removed from the
detail plan sheets.

30. Additional Details - Please include details for ditch filling, bare root planting, and live stake
planting. If partial ditch filling is proposed, please indicate the maximum depth from top of bank
to be filled or minimum percentage of ditch to be filled. Response: Details have been included for
ditch plugging/filling, bare root planting, and live stake planting.
31. Sheet 9 - A temporary stream crossing is shown in an area that appears to be located in a
wetland restoration/enhancement area. Please confirm this crossing is over an existing ditch
that is not proposed to be filled during construction. Response: The temporary stream crossing has
been removed from the wetland area and the only existing crossing is located at Casey Mill Road ROW.
32. Sheet 10 - Please confirm the type of structure proposed at Station 27+50. Response: There is
no structure proposed at Station 27+50. In -stream structures along the headwater reaches generally
include log riffle and log weirs for bedform and habitat diversity.
33. Sheet 12 - DWR is concerned about the bench widths proposed for UT1-112 and UT1-113. DWR
recommends that floodplain benches be at least two times bankfull width. Particularly of interest
are the bench widths on the outer meander bends where much of the flow energy vectors are
directed. Response: Please refer to USACE (Kim) response comment #17. We understand this concern
and have adjusted our bench widths accordingly. The floodplain bench or belt widths along UT1-R2 and
UT1-R3 range from approximately 40 to 90 feet (-4X to 9X the bankfull width) which are within
common design Meander Width Ratios for Rosgen 'C5' stream types. We have adjusted/widened the
floodplain bench widths approximately 5-10 feet along many of the outer meander bends to reduce
storm flow energy near the toe of slopes to avoid the potential for excess scour and erosion.
34. Sheet 13 - DWR suggests shifting the UT2 to enter UT1-112 at a riffle rather than a pool, or
include a toe protection measure at 32+08. Response: The UT2 confluence with UT1-R2 transitions
from a riffle to pool as shown on the design profile and grading plan. This area has a very low channel
gradient and is a logical tie in given the existing ditch locations and elevations. We have added toe wood
protection measure at approximate station 32+00.
35. Sheet 15 - Was a toe protection measure considered for the first bend after the culvert
crossing near Station 58+25? Response: Yes, we have added a toe protection measure/symbol at
approximate station 58+25 as shown on the channel block detail sheet 6.
36. Sheet 27 - Please confirm graded area along the easement boundary is the Water Quality
Treatment Feature. Please add the Water Quality Treatment Feature as unique legend item and
include on a Plan and Profile or Grading Sheet. Also, indicate the location of the proposed outlet
channel shown on the detail. Response: The Water Quality Treatment Feature is not being installed at
Scarborough and has been removed from the Design Plans (Design Sheet 5).
37. Appendix F - Please include the revised June 2019 PJD application package and USACE's PJD
Approval in the Final Mitigation Plan. Response: Appendix F was the revised June 2019 PJD package.
The cover letter is from March 2019, but the figures and table had been updated post site visit. Appendix
F now has three maps for Figure 4 - the March 2019 submittal, June 2019 submittal, and the November
2019 based on adding one more ditch (D27) to the jurisdictional features per DWR comment #2.

Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Kayne M. Van Stell
Vice President, Ecosystem Design Services
Water and Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: kaynePwaterlandsolutions.com