20170537 Ver 1_Response to Comments_20180329

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: March 19, 2018
RE: Response to Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site (Neu -Con UMBI) Draft Mitigation Plan
Comments
USEPA Comments:
1. Section 2/Page 2: Goals and Objectives.
a. Please include the programmatic goals that are being addressed by this project such as providing
SMU/WMUs to be applied as compensatory mitigation for permitted activity/impacts to waters of the US
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Added "This project is intended to provide Stream Mitigation Units to be applied as compensatory
mitigation for unavoidable authorized impacts to waters of the US under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and support the overall goal of "no net loss" of aquatic resources in the United
States. " to section 2.
b. Recommend referencing the Neu -Con 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.
Added "This mitigation plan is in accordance with the Neu -Con Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation
Bank (SAW# 2016-01986) pursuant to 33 C.P.R. 332.8(a)(1) to provide compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts separately authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act
permits. " to Section 1.
c. The Goals and Objectives as presented are not very specific, lacking in measurable metrics and redundant.
The project goals are, in general, poor examples of statements that justify the project need and effort
required to restore the lack of stream or wetland function that the project is designed to provide. For
example, the goal of "Invasive species treatment" is an action that would support a goal of "Increase plant
species diversity and eradicate invasive exotic species within the project boundaries" which addresses the
function of a properly vegetated riparian buffer. This is further exemplified with the objective "Treatment
of exotic invasive species" that is just restating the (albeit poor) goal stated above.
The goals and objectives were revised in this section to address this comment.
d. The goal of "improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat' is too vague and does not address any particular
species that an objective would work towards. Are fish, mussel or macroinvertebrate species of interest?
This should be stated so that objectives can be applied to meet the goal of improving habitat or lifting the
habitat function for a particular species or suite of species. The objective of "addition of large woody
debris, etc' is appropriate for such a goal that would desire to improve macroinvertebrate habitat. If the
goal is improved habitat for mussels, this objective may not be suitable and should be omitted.
The goals and objectives were revised in this section to address this comment.
e. Goals should be general enough to describe the impairment/impairment or end -point functional lift that
successful project implementation will provide. For example, a functional lift goal of "Increase water
quality (list specific parameters to improve or minimize nutrient/sediment/pollution runoff) discharged
from the streams leaving the site" would be supported by objectives such as "stabilizing streambanks and

restoration of riparian vegetation to provide a suitably wide buffer to filter runoff'. Objectives should
explain how the project will be completed to meet the stated goals and improving target functions.
Objectives should be quantifiable and tied to performance standards. Be sure to also tie in how preservation
objectives will address project goals.
The goals and objectives were revised in this section to address this comment.
f. The objective of "restoration, enhancement and preservation of bottomland hardwood wetlands" would
support an appropriate project goal of "Increase residence time and minimize hydroperiod peaks of water
during flood events" or "raise the local shallow water table to develop hydric soils and maintain wetland
characteristics of both restored and enhanced wetland areas". These types of objectives are relevant to the
functions of wetlands that are being addressed.
The goals and objectives were revised in this section to address this comment.
2. Section 2.3/Pages 12-14: Site Photographs should reference a map or figures in which they are located. I was
unable to find such a map within the document. Please remove or correct Photos of "Reach C", "TH1", and
"TH2".
The site photograph captions have been updated to reflect the comments.
3. Table 6/Page 17: Please include the Bank Height Ratios for each Reach since the only BHR provided is for
Reach HB2 in the narrative.
Table 6 and The Morphology Table have been updated per the comment.
4. Section 4.2.3.2/Page 17: The last line references "71-12". Is this the ditch that will be filled?
Yes. This is the ditch that will be plugged as seen in Figure 12. Any mention of TH2 has been removed from the
channel morphology descriptions as it is not classified as a stream reach but as a ditch.
5. Section 4.2.3.6/Page 18: Provide the flow regime for HF2 (intermittent) in the description and note that the
ditch above the reach is non jurisdictional.
Updated as requested.
6. Section 4.2.4/Page 19: I still have some misgivings about using a stream (1-1132) that only received a "Good"
rating and is in need of enhancement as the sole reference stream for the project. Recommend that RES consider
using other reference condition streams off -site in conjunction with HB2 to allow for natural variation in
similarly sized upper Coastal Plain streams.
While the overall reach is slated for enhancement measures and only received a "Good" rating, the particular
portion of the reach that was selected as the reference reach was determined by the professional engineer to be
stable, the appropriate size, and is ideal in both geomorphology and habitat to validate the channel design for
this project. Please also see the response to the USACE comment #6.
7. Section 4.3.1/Page 21: The date of the JD notice is August 18, 2017 per the documents of Appendix B.
This has been updated per the comment with the exception that the year is 2016 per the JD notice in Appendix
B.
Table 8/Page 22: Recommend the sponsor provide NCWAM scores to provide a wetland functional condition.
Since this project was initiated in September 2016 NCWAM scores were not required at this time. According to
the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update which states "requirements of
this document do not apply to mitigation sites that were imitatedprior to the date of this guidance" (October
24, 2016). Since this project was "initiated " August 2016 (as defined as the date when the District is in receipt
of a complete prospectus for new mitigation bank, a complete proposal to modify an existing mitigation bank,
or a complete DA permit application that includes a proposal for PRM). However, NCWAM results have been
included in Section 4.3.1 EXISTING WETLANDS.
9. Section 5/Page 25: Once again these are weak objectives and do not match the ones provided in Section 2. See
notes above pertaining to goals and objectives. Table 5 would be more effective if the current functional score
or category (Functioning, Functioning -at -Risk, Not Functioning) were given for each reach. A final or
anticipated functional score should also be provided to illustrate the potential for functional lift.

Section S FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL has been updated and extensively modified to directly
correlate project goals, functional improvements, monitoring, and success criteria.
10. Table 1 l/Page 26: Reach TH3, proposed for undergoing Enhancement Level II work, is being given credit for
restoration. In my review of the comments and responses to the Draft Mitigation Plan, I found a similar
comment to which a document pertaining to a site visit on August 12, 2015, is referenced. I was not able to
locate this document in Appendix B, where it was listed to be. Therefore, I remain concerned about the ratio of
1:1 to be applied to this reach. I am also concerned as to why this reach is not undergoing restoration level work
since it is a "straightened perennial ditch located in an active pasture". Please provide additional information to
justify this approach. The narrative on Page 33 is somewhat helpful but only details a less than full restorative
effort.
See the comment and response to the USACE comment 7f below for further information about the justification
of enhancement with the ratio of 1:1 instead of restoration. As stated below, The USACE determined that TH3
was intermittent and did not require restoration but could benefit from enhancement activities with additional
credit by utilizing the W13 as additional enhancement to TH3. In response to comment 7f, it has been
determined that W13 above TH3 will not be considered for wetland credit but will be protected wetland that
will provide additional credit for TH3 and W13 will not receive credit. Therefore, TH3 will remain
enhancement 77 with a ratio of 1:1.
The reference to a site visit on August 12, 2015 was removed as this document is not found in the appendix.
11. Section 8.1.1/Page 29: Citation for Schafale and Weakley should read "1990" instead of "2003" assuming the
Third Approximation is being used per the References Section 14.
This citation has been updated per comment.
12. Section 8.1.1. /Pages 29-30: I remain concerned with the use of a single, impaired reach as the only reference
site to inform the restoration effort of the entire project. Section 8.1.1.7 even states that other locations for
reference riparian community vegetation were more appropriate for this site.
As stated above, although the overall reach only received a "Good" rating, the portion of the reach that will be
used as reference reach is not impaired and represents an appropriate habitat for the reference reach as
determined by the professional engineer.
13. Section 8.2.1/Page 30 and Figure 10: Remove references to Enhancement Level III for stream mitigation work
as this is not being proposed. It is also very unclear where the breaks for H132 are on Figure 10. It appears that
the H132 extends from the confluence of HB 1 and HF 1 and ends at the confluence of the unnamed ditch and
H133 per Figure 7. It is a bit clearer in the narrative at the end of page 31 and 32 where the breaks occur.
Updates have been made per the comment. The Enhancement Level III has been removed from Figure 10 and
reach break marks have been added to Figure 10 to provide clarity as to the location of reach breaks. For
clarity, Reach HB2 is only 392 linear feet and is only composed of the section that is being enhanced.
14. Section 8.2.I/Page 33: Justify the mitigation ratio of 1:1 for the Enhancement Level II work being proposed for
Reach TH3. Documentation of the August 12, 2015 site visit was not included in Appendix B per the table of
contents.
Based on comments from both USEPA and USACE wetland credit has been removed from the area above TH3
and willprovide additional enhancement measures for Reach TH3 which accounts for the ratio of 1:1. See the
comment and response to the USACE comment 7f below for further information about the justification of
enhancement with the ratio of 1:1.
The reference to a site visit on August 12, 2015 was removed as this document is not found in the appendix.
15. Section 8.2.3.I/Page 37: Inconsistency between second paragraph and Table 13 pertaining to the use of
Liriodendron tulipifera in the Proposed Planting list. Remove tulip/yellow poplar from Table 13 and Planting
Table on Sheets P 1 and P2.
The Yellow Poplar/Tulip Poplar ` Liriodendron tulipifera " was removed from the planting list in both the Table
13 and in the Planting Tables on sheets PI and P2.

16. Table 13/Page 37: List includes Nyssa biflora while the planting list on Sheets P 1 and P2 lists Nyssa sylvatica.
Various confusion surrounds the use of either species or whether the proper nomenclature is Nyssa sylvatica
var. biflora. Recommend consistency with use and choosing a cultivar that is FACW.
Updates have been made in response to the comment. The planting list on sheets PI and P2 are now consistent
with Table 13 and list "Nyssa biflora" instead of `Ayssa sylvatica ".
17. Section 8.2.3.1/Page 37:
a. There is inconsistency between the species being used for live stakes. The list in the third paragraph, Table
13 of page 37 and the live stake list of Sheet D2 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.
Updates have been made in response to the comment. The only species that will be used for live staking are
cottonwood and black willow and therefore the planting lists in Table 13, sheets PI and P2, and the notes
in D2 are all consistent in their mention of these two species.
b. The spacing for live stakes is inconsistent with the live stake plan of D2 (one -foot spacing v. three-foot
spacing min.).
Updates have been made to the Mitigation Plan to make it consistent with the live stake plan found in D2.
The live stakes will be spaced three feet apart with alternate spacing vertically.
18. Table 13/Page 37: 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 to truly approximate a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp forest. 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 as per the comment above.
Although it may be optimal to plant higher diversity of an understory at the start, it has been found with past
experiences that complications arise with the survival and growth of understory species in full sun. Therefore,
this planting plan that has been used as common standardpractice for pervious permitted mitigation sites,
relies on the surrounding forest to provide adequate recruitment over time to help augment the planted
understory and eventually increase the diversity in the future forest structure.
19. Section 8.2.4/Page 38: 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.
These updates were made per the comment. Additional details on the type and specific locations of the Diffuse
Flow Structure were added to the mitigation plan. The detailed illustrations are found in D4 and were
referenced in the Best Management Practices (BMPs) section (Section 8.2.4).
20. Table 16/Page 41: Vegetation shear stress range is erroneous. Seems that it should be 0.2 to 1.7 lbs/ft^2.
Updated
21. Table 18/Page 43: Recommend adding an approximate distance between conservation easement boundary
signs.
Updates were made per comment. The line "Conservation easement boundary signs and a marker will be
placed at every corner and will be placed at a minimum of every 200 feet on long boundary lines. "
22. Section 10 and 11/Page 44 and 46: Recommend adding a citation for the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Updated
23. Section 10.2/Page 45: Recommend adding a height requirement (7 feet) at Year 5 for overstory planted trees.
Recommend setting an exception for height requirement for understory trees or shrubs added to the planting
plan in order to promote diversity in riparian forest structure.
Updated
24. Section 11.4/Page 47: Recommend adding 2-3 gauges to monitor wetland hydrology in the enhancement (EII)
areas.
Wetland gauges are distributed throughout the wetland restoration and enhancement areas and the location of
gauges can be seen in Figure IL Wetland preservation areas will not be monitored for hydrology.

25. Figure 11/Sheet M1: Vegetation plots, crest gauges, and stream cross sections do not match in number or
location.
Updates were made per comment. MI was updated to reflect what was in Figure 11.
26. General Comment: What is the purpose of the conservation easement outcropping in the vicinity of UT-4? That
work, if any, is being proposed for UT-4? Will this location be included in wetland enhancement or the use of a
BMP to diffuse concentrated flow?
The purpose of the conservation easement outcropping in the vicinity of UT-4 is reflected in the Bank Parcel
Development Plan. The intention is that this area will be used for buffer credit with the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources. This location is not included in the wetland enhancement and a diffuse flow
structure is not proposed since the feature will be buffered. The channel features being buffered and the
confluence will be incorporated with the stream restoration as detailed in sheet 7 in Appendix E.
USACE Comments:
1. The explanation is acceptable. In the future, when changes are made to easement boundaries, resource types and
amounts, or proposed treatments, the document should note these changes and provide an explanation.
Thank you for comment and this will be done in the future.
6. We still have concerns regarding the use of HB2 as a reference reach based on the description provided in Section
4.2. The plan should include a complete data set of the ratios associated with the section of HB2 proposed as
reference.
As stated in the response submitted to the IRT in the Memo dated October 6, 2017, the portion of reach HB2 that
was selected as a reference location within the proposed Enhancement Level H reach is positioned between the two
restoration reaches and was selected and used as a reference because it is located in the project catchment, exhibits
lateral and vertical stability, has bankfull indicators occurring near the existing top of banks and has a vegetated
buffer. For the purposes of channel design, the section of the reference reach on HB2 has been determined by the
professional engineer to be an appropriate reference reach because it is stable and shows no evidence of incision or
erosion in the portion that will be used as the reference and is ideal in both geomorphology and habitat to validate
the channel design.
7.d. We continue to have concerns with this proposal. According to the pre -prospectus documents at the time of the
August 2015 site visit, HF1 was not included in the proposed project and we did not discuss creating a channel
through an existing forested wetland to accommodate the proposed alignment of HB 1. According to the USGS topo
and existing aerials, no channel currently exists in this area and it does not appear that HF 1 should connect to HB 1
at the proposed location. Constructing a channel through the existing forested wetland would result in adverse
impacts to the existing wetlands and potentially affect the wetland hydrology.
These concerns were discussed with the professional engineer and it was determined that the design to construct the
system in this manner would results in the most hydrologic function and stability, however, due to the lack of an
obvious relic channel feature the credit will be changed from restoration to preservation and become a 10:1 ratio.
Te. During the site visit on 2/l/17, the upper portion of HF2 (ditch) was reviewed and it was determined that if the
feature was not jurisdictional, then it would be filled to improve hydrology to the adjacent wetlands. If this area is
subject to cattle encroachment, then a 3:1 ratio for cattle exclusion and wetland planting is typical. Regarding cattle
exclusion, will fencing be included for the entire mitigation boundary? If not, a figure should be included to depict
areas that will be fenced.
Fencing will be provided where necessary to exclude livestock from conservation easements. Areas not currently in
use by livestock do not require fencing. Figure 10 has been updated to depict the conceptual design of where
fencing is intended to be added.
7.f. During the site visit on 8/12/15, W13 above TH3 was proposed as restoration for 2 existing ditches and TH3 was
proposed as restoration. The Corps determined that it was not feasible to conduct restoration on the 2 existing ditch
features. TH3 was determined to be intermittent and did not require restoration but could benefit from enhancement
activities (E1). The sponsor did not want to remove W13 from the project so there was discussion regarding fencing
out cattle and planting the W 13 area and conducting enhancement activities along TH3 but receiving additional
credit for TH3 by utilizing the W 13 area as a BMP. No wetland credit was proposed. Since the W 13 area is now
proposed for wetland credit rather than as a BMP and TH3 is proposed as enhancement II (fencing and planting

only), TH 3 should receive enhancement credit only. If the lower end of TH3 will not require planting, then the
reach should be broken up into EII and EIII or an appropriate ratio applied to the entire reach. There is no
justification for a 1:1 ratio.
Per the comment, it was determined that W13 above TH3 will not be considered for wetland credit but will be
protected wetland that willprovide enhance drainage for TH3. Therefore, W13 will not receive any wetland credit
and TH3 will remain enhancement II with a ratio of 1:1 per direction from the IRT.
7.g. Since this area is proposed for hydrologic improvement and plantings, the sponsor should propose monitoring
(gauge, additional vegetation plots) and performance standards.
The monitoring plan was adjusted so that a wetland gauge will be included below the farm pond. However, the
performance standards would remain the same. Although the area is already a jurisdictional wetland, the same
performance standards for hydrology would be use. As for the vegetation monitoring, there are already two
vegetation plots proposed in this area that would be meet requirements.
Th. The pond removal area is depicted as wetland enhancement on Figure 10. Per the comment above, this area
should include hydrologic and vegetation.
As shown on the monitoring plan in Figure 11, the area where the pond removal for Wetland W4 and ditch plugging
for Wetland WS will include hydrologic and vegetation monitoring.
9. Stream performance standards should include specific quantitative criteria (BHR, ET) or no more than 10%
variance from design ratios.
Text was updated to Section 11 to address the concern that there should be no more than 10% variance from design
ratios with the caveat that some variance and channel adjustments are expected due to streams being dynamic
systems.
11. See 7f above.
Addressed above.
14. Since the site will receive credit for fencing out cattle, the long term management should address the party that
will be responsible for long term maintenance, repair and replacement of fence structures and funding for these
activities. If the land owner will be the responsible party, the conservation easement must include language
documenting the land owners responsibilities.
Fencing is outside of easement and is the responsibility of the underlying land owner for future maintenance.
During the monitoring period RES will provide / maintain fencing but after closeout the underlying owner will be
responsible for the fence maintenance. Language within the conservation easement states that the landowner will be
responsible for livestock and therefore this responsibility is made clear.