20160849 Ver 1_SAW-2015-01816 (Draft Mit Plan Comments)_20200124

Strickland, Bev
From:
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Friday, January 24, 2020 12:28 PM
To:
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.;
Steve Kichefski; Bowers, Todd; Merritt, Katie; [e-mail]; Crumbley,
Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Jones,
M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:
[External] Draft Mitigation Plan Comment Memo/ SAW-2015-01816/ Upper Rocky
UMBI/ Mecklenburg Co.
Attachments:
SAW-2015-01816 (Draft Mit Plan Comments).pdf
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
For your records...
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105 1 Wake Forest, NC 27587 1 919.554.4884 x60
BUILDING STRONG (r)
-----Original Message -----
From: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US)
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:09 PM
To: [e-mail]; Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Cc: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: IRT Comments on Draft Mitigation Plan (SAW-2015-01816_Upper Rocky)
Importance: High
am
Attached are the Upper Rocky Draft Mitigation Plan (SAW-2015-01816) IRT comments. You may proceed with
developing the final mitigation plan for the Upper Rocky Mitigation Site provided you adequately address all
comments/concerns in the enclosed memo. Please ensure that each member of the IRT is provided a copy of the Final
Mitigation Plan. In addition, please submit your Nationwide Permit 27 application after approval of the banking
instrument, for review and approval prior to discharging fill material into waters of the United States.
Feel free to contact me with questions as you preparing the final plan submittal. This electronic copy is your official
Department of the Army Notification; no paper copy will be mailed.

Thanks,
Bryan Roden -Reynolds, WPIT
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
Office: [phone]
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Roden-Reynolds
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
January 23, 2020
SUBJECT: Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and Draft Mitigation Plan
Review, Mecklenburg County, NC
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received from the NCIRT during the 30-day
comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.
USACE Action ID#: SAW-2015-01816
30-Day Comment Deadline: November 16, 2019
USACE (Kim Browning)
General Comments
1. The labels, colors and reach names used in this draft mitigation plan are completely
different than those used during the prospectus stage. Please use consistent labeling
throughout the life of the project.
2. (Wetland re-establishment): Please incorporate similar language as used in the
Scarborough response letter regarding the inclusion of coarse woody debris throughout
the wetlands for habitat, and to help store sediment, increase water storage/infiltration,
and absorb water energy during overbank events. "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."
3. The Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI): The Corps representatives are
Scott McClendon and Bryan Roden -Reynolds.
4. There is extensive earthwork required on this site which will likely result in overly deep
floodplain pools. The inclusion of vernal pools is acceptable, and should be 8-14"
depressions that dry up annually so that predatory species cannot colonize.
5. For Reach R2, please show the existing road right-of-way boundary line. Recommend a
50-ft setback of the proposed easement from the existing road edge to avoid potential
future transportation/culvert easement encroachment requests. This also applies to the
proposed greenway that bisects this reach.
6. Reach R3 should be connected with Reach R6 near the bottom of the beaver dam, or
into the beaver area, and not parallel in the floodplain.
7. The proposed easement should not include the area where the proposed greenway will
be located. Please adjust the easement boundary, especially where W4 is located. This
area will be functionally compromised due to fragmentation and should not be included

for credit. Additionally, please confirm the construction easements for the greenway and
adjust the easement accordingly to prevent future encroachments. The slopes along the
stream where the greenway is proposed will likely require some cut -fill to get a level trail,
which would likely require more space.
8. Is the purpose for the easement break that bisects W5 a sewer line? As proposed, this
area will also be functionally compromised due to fragmentation and should be removed
from the easement.
9. During the IRT site walk, appropriate approaches for R5 were discussed. Restoration
should not be proposed for the entirety of R5 as shown. The middle section should be
preservation based on current conditions. Assuming this is the Ell section, please justify
the need for enhancement rather than preservation.
10. There are concerns about how you will manage beaver on some portions of the site,
while allowing beaver to remain in the wetlands on other portions of the site. Please
discuss the feasibility.
Draft Plan Specific Section Comments
1. In Section 1.1, please provide the conservation easement acreage.
2. Section 1.3, states that "site protection through a 44.2-acre easement, while the UP2S
calculation is for a 43 acre easement." Please clarify.
3. In Section 3.1.4, please provide a summary or table to show the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Methodology/North Carolina Wetland Assessment Methodology
(NCSAM)/(NCWAM) current functional assessment results.
4. In Section 3.7, beavers should be discussed as a potential site constraint.
5. Within Table 7 (Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits), the ratio for R5 should be 2.5:1.
Therefore, please revise Table 7.
6. In Section 5, are you seeking the additional 2% credit for water quality monitoring and
benthic monitoring? If so, please specify in this section and add a column in Table 7 to
show how the additional credits are calculated.
7. In Section 5.2 (Credit Release Schedule), do you anticipate receiving all of the wetland
preservation credits with the first 15% credit release? If so, please specify in Table 9.
8. In Section 6.2.1, please clarify what work will be done when discussing "Enhancement
Level II practices."
9. Section 6.2.3, states planting completion at the end of May which would put the 180-day
vegetation monitoring in late November. However, monitoring should not be performed
after leaf drop. Planting beyond March 15th is not recommended and may result in an
extended monitoring period being required. Additionally, bare -root seedlings are
significantly more prone to root shock if not planted in the dormant season. Container
trees/shrubs can handle the transition better and so planting in April should yield higher
survival rates. Therefore, revisions to the planting schedule may be needed.
10. In Section 8.1 (Stream Hydrology), the wording in this section is confusing. Suggest re-
wording to something similar to this: Four bankfull flow events must be documented
within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull events must occur in separate
years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull events have
been documented in separate years.
11. In Section 8.1, The Corps suggest adding a performance standard regarding Visual
Inspections or Digital Image Stations. These could be used to subjectively evaluate

channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, riparian vegetation success, and
beaver activity. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of
the riparian vegetation. Images should indicate the absence of mid -channel bars or
excessive erosion.
12. Section 8.1 stated several areas were noted to contain extensive privet, autumn olive
and kudzu. The Corps recommends a performance standard be added that addresses
invasive control with levels no more than 5%, and no tolerance for kudzu. This will need
to be maintained offsite as well. In addition, please add kudzu to the Invasive Species on
page 13 (Invasive Species Vegetation).
13. For Section 8.2, The Corps suggest restating that your hydrology standard will be at
least 12%, rather than 10-12% because as it reads, you may not be meeting
performance standards if you exceed 12%.
14. Regarding the additional anticipated wetlands along R5 (in Section 8.2 Wetlands), do
you have well data to show the pre -data? We recommend installing groundwater gauges
now, prior to construction, in order to establish baseline data. Please revise the
monitoring map to include the location(s) of the pre-construction/baseline monitoring
wells.
15. In reference to Stream Monitoring (Section 9.1.1), the IRT prefers the use of pressure
transducers, rather than crest gages. Therefore, please update the mitigation plan
accordingly.
16. The third paragraph of Section 9.3 (Vegetation Monitoring) states: "Volunteer species will
be noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be evaluated with IRT on a case -by -
case basis." Please note that volunteer species will only be counted towards success if
they are on the approved planting list.
17. Within Table 19 (Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary), the hydrology performance
standard of 30-days only applies to intermittent streams. In addition, the hydraulics
performance standard should specify BHR that does not exceed 1.2. Therefore, please
revise Table 19 accordingly.
18. In Section 10, the Corps appreciate the inclusion of the UP2S engagement letter and
corresponding cost spreadsheet. The Corps recommends to add a line -item for signage
as it would be beneficial to the mitigation plan.
19. Please provide an itemized list of monitoring tasks/costs to demonstrate how you
estimated the amount for the monitoring financial assurances. This information would be
added to Section 12 (Financial Assurances).
20. Depicted on Design Sheets 9, 10, 11..., several "floodplain pools" are shown on the
design sheets in the location of the existing channel. There is concern that there are so
many, they run parallel with the proposed channel, and the depth is not clear. Are these
intended to be vernal pools? There is no typical for these included in the Details section.
These pools are in areas that are supposed to be planted riparian buffer. The Corps has
concern that there will be a lot of open water, deeper than vernal pools, in areas that
should contain vegetation.

DWR (Mac Haupt
1. DWR likes the fact that water quality sampling will be taking place on this project as
stated in Section 3.4 (Aquatic Resource Health and Function).
2. Within Table 3 (Reach Watershed Drainage and Jurisdictional Status for Project
Reaches), DWR is concerned with the drainage sizes of some of the proposed reaches,
particularly R5a and R8. DWR likes the fact that flow gauges are being placed on these
reaches. R2 and R7a are other reaches to watch and perhaps monitor the flow.
3. In Section 3.6.3, DWR likes the extensive soil work done on the property, however,
DWR does not typically endorse the usage of the non -intentional erosional deposition
for claiming historic hydric soils. There are numerous areas in the piedmont which may
have been wetlands 100-150 years ago, but with the cropping techniques of the times,
mid 1800s thru early 1900s, resulted in buried wetlands (see Stanley Trimble, 1974 and
2008). In cases where the deposition is more recent and not as deep, DWR may
consider the removal of the deposition, if there is a documented hydric soil profile (i.e.,
not just indicators, but a series profile) below the deposition.
4. Section 3.7.3, discusses areas where the proposed greenway is within the easement;
DWR would like to see a buffer width analysis to see what the affect it would have on
the stream credit.
5. Within Table 11 (Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root and Live Stake Plantings), please
limit the planting of Green Ash to no more than 5% due to the emerald ash borer.
6. In Section 8.2, DWR believes the wetland performance criteria should be 12%. First, we
appreciate the fact that not only did you include pre -construction data but you included
data from the Monteith project. Some of the data from certain gauges is surprising given
our impressions from the site visit, most notably Gauges 8-11. Only Gauge 8 showed
wetland hydrology, while the area where all these gauges looked jurisdictional. In
addition, the gauge data at Monteith, while somewhat inconsistent showed significantly
wet hydroperiods. Lastly, given the fact that so many streams will be raised in the areas
of proposed wetlands, DWR believes there will be ample hydrology to sustain at least a
12% hydroperiod.
7. Within Table 19 (Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary), the flow standard of 30 days is
only applicable to intermittent streams. Therefore, please revise Table 19 accordingly.
8. The Adaptive Management Plan (Section 11) should include some specific
details/narrative for the management of beavers, since beavers are already located
within the project easement. Therefore, please update the Adaptive Management Plan
accordingly.
9. Depicted on Design Sheet 3, the stream banks for the riffle typicals are steep. DWR
recommends a flatter slope for these stream banks.
10. DWR believes that R3 should not run parallel for over 500 linear feet to other streams
as designed, as depicted on Design Sheets 9 and 10. On Figure 2 (USGS Map), shows
R3 connecting much farther upstream. In addition, Figure 4 (LiDAR Map) show a flat
floodplain where R3 is likely to connect to R6. DWR believes the confluence would be at
either station 17+00 or the next constructed riffle just before the confluence with R4.
11. As depicted on Design Sheets 11 and 12, the greenway will likely impact a significant
amount of wetlands and riparian buffer.

12. Depicted on Design Sheets 19-20, it appears that R3 is labeled as R1. Please correct or
clarify.
13. DWR would like a stream gauge placed at station 16+50 (see Design Sheet 23).
14.Overall comment on Design Sheets: The edge of the cut fill slopes occur at the edge
(10-15 feet) of many meander bends. DWR is concerned with the amount of floodplain
access at these meander bend edges.
15.Overall comment on Design Sheets: On Design Sheet 2, you labeled the legend icon as
water quality treatment feature, while it appears throughout the design sheets they are
labeled as floodplain pools. The IRT considers floodplain pools to have specific
construction depths (that allow them to dry out), while water quality treatment features
may not. The typical is labeled as a water quality treatment feature. DWR hopes that
each feature does not have a 4 foot wide rip -rap outlet as shown. Please clarify.