20171293 Ver 2_Initial Evaluation Letter SAW-2017-01462_20201113

1
November 15, 2017
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review of the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus:
Gideon Site (SAW-2017-01462), Compass Point Site (SAW-2017-01465), Green Mesa Site
(SAW-2017-01466), Twiman Site (SAW-2017-01467), and Scout Site (SAW-2017-01469).
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Attention: Ms. Cara Conder
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Dear Ms. Conder:
This letter is in regard to your prospectus document for the proposed RES Yadkin 01
Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of the
mitigation sites listed below:
Corps Action ID Site Name Easement
(ac)
County Stream/Receiving
Water
Latitude (ºN) Longitude (ºW)
SAW-2017-01462 Gideon 8.6 Surry Mill Creek 36.3967 -80.8584
SAW-2017-01465 Compass
Point
13.73 Yadkin Yadkin River 36.2696 -80.6384
SAW-2017-01466 Green
Mesa
19.96 Yadkin N. Deep Creek 36.2132 -80.7181
SAW-2017-01467 Twiman 32.06 Yadkin N. Deep Creek 36.2130 -80.6902
SAW-2017-01469 Scout 14.0 Davie Hauser Creek 36.0322 -80.5166
The Corps determined the prospectus document was complete and issued a public notice
(P/N # SAW-2017-01462) on September 6, 2017. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the
views of interested State and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or affected by
the proposed work. In addition, the Corps and members of the Interagency Review Team (IRT)
conducted field reviews of the proposed mitigation sites on October 16 - 18, 2017. Attached are
comments received in response to the public notice from the North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission, and a field visit memo incorporating comments from the attending IRT members.
The Corps has reviewed the information provided and considered the comments received
in response to the public notice and the field site visits. We have determined that the proposed
mitigation bank appears to have the potential to restore and protect aquatic resources within the
Upper Yadkin 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101 of the Yadkin River Basin.
Therefore, the bank sponsor may proceed with preparation of a draft Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI).
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
2
We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United States. If
you have questions concerning the path forward for the proposed mitigation bank, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone] extension 59.
Sincerely,
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
HUGHES.ANDREA.W
ADE.1258339165
Digitally signed by
HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
ou=USA, cn=HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
Date: 2017.11.15 11:25:11 -05'00'
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
MEMORANDUM
TO: Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Andrea Leslie
Habitat Conservation, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
DATE: 26 October 2017
SUBJECT: Comments on RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Davie, Yadkin and Surry Counties
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed
the final prospectus for the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Site. NCWRC staff
attended site visits with regulatory agency staff October 16-18. The prospectus proposes stream
restoration, enhancement, and preservation on over 29,800 feet of stream to net over 18,000
SMUs in the Yadkin River Basin (03040101).
The bank includes five sites, and general comments on each site follow:
x Gideon Site. Located on a 76-acre parcel and sandwiched between two Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) sites, this agricultural site will involve restoration, enhancement,
and preservation on 4,092 ft of Mill Creek and unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Mill Creek,
netting 2,664 SMUs. The site is less than a mile upstream of the Mitchell River, which
serves as habitat for Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa, US Federal Species of Concern,
NC Endangered). Excellent erosion and sediment control is especially important at both this
site and the adjacent DMS sites to minimize impacts to this mussel.
x Compass Point Site. This site is located on a 209-acre parcel in agricultural and forestry
uses. It was recently logged. The project will involve restoration and enhancement on 5,024
ft of UTs to the Yadkin River, netting 3,709 SMUs. The downstream end of the site is at the
confluence with the Yadkin River, and protection and enhancement of riparian habitat at this
location is especially ecologically beneficial, as it will provide a wildlife corridor that is
connected to the Yadkin River. We recommend that the landowner expand the forested
riparian area along the Yadkin River, as well. Two rare mussels [Creeper (Strophitus
undulatus, NC Threatened) and Brook Floater] are found in the Yadkin River in the vicinity
RES Yadkin 01 Mitigation Bank Page 2 October 26, 2017
Davie, Yadkin, Surry Counties
of the project, and erosion and sediment control is especially important at this site to
minimize impacts to these species.
x Green Mesa. This site is on a 273-acre parcel in agricultural use, and project activities
include restoration, enhancement, and preservation on 7,776 ft of UTs to North Deep Creek,
netting 3,531 SMUs. The old dam structure downstream of the present dam may serve as bat
habitat, and NCWRC biologists may perform bat surveys there in 2018.
x Twiman. This site is comprised of 10 parcels totaling 266 acres in agricultural use, and
project activities include restoration, enhancement, and preservation on 10,477 ft of UTs to
North Deep Creek, netting 5,766 SMUs.
x Scout. This site is on two parcels totaling 522 acres in agricultural use, and project activities
include restoration on 2,467 ft of Hauser Creek, netting 2,467 SMUs.
Detailed comments on the mitigation approach are captured in RES staff’s October 16-18 site
visit summary. NCWRC staff has reviewed this summary and has provided comments on it in a
separate email.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact Andrea Leslie at [phone] or at [e-mail].
ec: Travis Wilson and Oliva Munzer, NCWRC
MEMORANDUM
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NC IRT
FROM: Cara Conder, Brad Breslow- RES
DATE: 11/14/2017 (revised)
RE: RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Bank IRT Site Visits
Attendees: Mac Haupt (NC DWR), Kim Browning (USACE), Andrea Leslie (NCWRC), Olivia
Munzer (NCWRC), Cara Conder (RES), Brad Breslow (RES), David Godley (RES)
Dates: October 16, 17, and 18, 2017
Gideon Site – 10/16/17
The Gideon Site is located between two disjunct portions of the recently contracted DMS Little
Sebastian full delivery site. While each project could be developed independently of the other,
the combined easements will result in a much larger contiguous protected corridor and high-
quality aquatic habitat.WRC mentioned that there are known occurrences of the brook floater
(Alasmidonta varicosa) in the Mitchell River, approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the
project area which RES mentioned in the Prospectus. Connecting the Gideon and Little Sebastian
Sites offer opportunities to create and protect habitat for the State protected species. IRT
members agreed the Gideon site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios
will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below.
x DWR requested that RES determine the potential wetlands on site. RES is currently
delineating the site.
x MC3-A: Group agreed to restoration at 1:1 ratio as originally proposed in prospectus.
RES explained that cows have full access and the landowner has historically moved the
channel. RES affirmed that construction sequencing would harvest native bed material
when possible (e.g. cobble). The crossing will be a culvert.
x JN5 – Group thought that Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio would be more appropriate
approach for this reach instead of Enhancement II. Enhancement measures will include
grading banks, installing grade control structures (including at the tie-in with MC3-A),
planting the buffer, and cattle exclusion.
x JN4 – Similar to JN5, the Group thought that Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio would be a
more appropriate approach for below the crossing. Enhancement measures will include
removing pipe in old channel, fixing current culvert, grading banks, installing grade
control structures, planting the buffer, and cattle exclusion. Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio
is the approach for above the crossing and includes cattle exclusion and light
supplemental planting.

x MC3-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1, but the Group agreed to
change the approach to Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio because of channel condition and
cattle access. Enhancement measures will include planting the buffer on the left bank and
cattle exclusion.
x JN6-C – RES originally proposed restoration on this reach and Group agreed to that
approach. However, proposed alignment and restoration approach will need to be dictated
by topographic survey data. RES is in process of data collection, including delineating
slough feature. WRC suggested fencing slough area if not in alignment of proposed
restoration area. Barns will likely be removed and the culvert at the driveway will be
reset to improve hydrologic connection to JN6-B.WRC Comment: At the break between
JN6-B & JN6-A, there is an old road that is eroding. RES agreed to stabilize this road.
x JN6-B – RES originally proposed Enhancement II on this reach. DWR did not agree to
2.5:1 ratio due to buffer being intact, but does agree this reach should be part of the
overall project. The consensus was Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of
removing the crossing and cattle exclusion.
x JN6-A – RES originally proposed preservation on this reach. Group agreed to including
this top part of the reach as preservation. The JD will determine the limits.
Compass Point Site – 10/16/17
IRT members agreed the Compass Point site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final
credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are
below.
x DW6: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio. WRC and DWR
recommended more of an Enhancement I approach (ranging from a 1.5 to 2 ratio), which
would include bank work (spot stabilization), riparian buffer planting, and livestock
exclusion.
x DW1-A: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio and Group agreed, with the
exception being the upstream most portion that ties into DW6. Group agreed that a mix of
Enhancement I and II would be best approach on the first 250 feet of DW1-A.
x DW2: Group agreed to Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio as originally proposed in
prospectus. RES confirmed that cows have access. Enhancement measures will include
planting the riparian buffer and cattle exclusion. DWR and RES agreed to installing a
stream gauge midway on the reach to monitor hydrology.
x DW1-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio. Group discussed
Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio with enhancement measures including a combination of
bed and bank work, complete riparian buffer planting, and cattle exclusion. DWR
Comment: there was some discussion of E1, however, if that ratio is proposed vs the E2,
then the work needs to be justified in the mit plan. For the reach DW1-D, DWR believes
while it is a benefit to have a corridor connect to the Yadkin River, however, the ratio
that is appropriate would be no better than 7.5:1.USACE Comment: This will transition
from restoration in DW1-A at bedrock point. Buffered on one side, some areas do need
bank shaping. EII only if the banks are addressed. The existing road may cause the buffer
to be pinched to less than 50' at the end of the reach.
x DW1-C: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. This reach has patches of high
quality bed material including cobble and bedrock. Group agreed a Priority II Restoration
approach, including benching to aid in floodplain connectivity, would be the best
measure.
x DW1-D – RES originally proposed Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio on this reach. WRC
wants to see this reach protected and included in the project. DWR and USACE
recommended a 7.5:1 ratio. The approach will be cattle exclusion and installing a boulder
grade control structure below the limits of restoration on DW1-C. WRC Comment: We
support the protection and riparian buffer enhancement of this reach, which would protect
a riparian corridor that would connect the Yadkin River to the site.
Green Mesa Site – 10/17/17
Overall the site has clear potential for functional uplift, but there are a few notable constraints
including powerline easement and a large pond that will remain (landowner will not allow pond
to be part of project). Because the pond will remain in place, RES and USACE discussed
potentially retrofitting the riser structure to include a bottom pond drain to release cooler water.
IRT members agreed the Green Mesa site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final
credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are
below.
x FF4 and FF1-D: RES originally proposed restoration at a 1:1 ratio. The approach is a mix
of Priority I and II restoration with potential for enhancement level I above the powerline
based on bedrock in the channel. USACE said clearly justify rationale for restoration
measures.
x FF1-C: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio. DWR and USACE
stated if channel was left in place and enhancement II approach was taken that it was
likely for no credit to be given due to powerline and lack of buffer near the road. Group
discussed starting restoration immediately below Baptist Church Road and RES agreed
this was best option if feasible.WRC Comment: There was discussion of raising the bed
elevation to lessen the DOT culvert perch. The discussion on lower FF1-C being too
close to the road also applies to upper FF1-D. Turning the channel into the field
upstream of where it turns now could allow R credit for both.
x FF1-C (below pond): RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an
approach of cattle exclusion, buffer planting, and tying into the restoration area. There is
a large stone wall in this reach with a culvert that might need to be retrofitted (if
possible). Group agreed the best approach is probably to leave the wall in place and credit
the enhancement at 3:1.USACE Comment: I agree with your summary for both areas
above and below the pond. It's recommended that SHPO review this area (and the area
where the other historic wall is in the buffer in FF1-A).
x FF5: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, invasive species treatment, and supplemental planting on right bank. DWR
stated there is no cattle pressure and there is decent buffer on the banks, but invasives are
problematic (high density of privet). WRC would like some of the black walnut removed
and those areas replanted with a more diverse mix of native hardwood vegetation.
USACE and DWR suggested a ratio of 7.5:1; however, if buffer planting and easement
was extended to at least 100 feet a higher ratio could be approved.
x FF3-A: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of
cattle exclusion and buffer planting. During the site visit RES suggested enhancement I at
a 1.5:1 ratio with an added measure of bank stabilization to reduce shear stress and in-
channel erosion. WRC agreed to rationale for enhancement I approach, but DWR stated
that there isn’t much work needed on this reach and a ratio of 5:1 is likely most
appropriate (see FF3-B below).DWR Comment: I had FF3A and B combined at a ratio
of 7.5:1.WRC Comment: We did not agree with the E1 approach, as this reach has a
stellar riparian forest; definitely agree on an E3 approach here, as light tough is needed
and riparian area is too nice to justify getting heavy equipment to address channel
erosion.USACE Comment: Widening the buffer and invasives control are necessary
here. My notes indicate a ratio of 5-7:5:1, depending on justification of functional uplift.
The historic house in the buffer should be addressed.
x FF3-B: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and light supplemental planting. IRT suggested combining FF3-A and FF3-B
into one reach and having the entire crediting approach be enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio.
This area might be generating wetlands that RES would not be claiming credit. RES is
currently delineating the site.DWR Comment: I had FF3A and B combined at a ratio of
7.5:1.USACE Comment: Widening the buffer and invasives control are necessary here.
My notes indicate a ratio of 5-7:5:1, depending on justification of functional uplift,
especially considering these enter the pond. A narrative of historical farming practices
would be beneficial.
x FF1-B: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio and Group agreed and
stated to justify the uplift in the mitigation plan.WRC Comment: There is evidence of
beaver here.
x FF2: RES originally proposed preservation and Group agreed to a 7.5:1 ratio with an
approach of fencing where needed.DWR Comment: DWR could go with 7.5:1 on the
preservation (FF2) but would like to see the reach extended above the crossing at the top
and fenced out.WRC Comment: There was a discussion on preserving a little more
above the fence line and whether the old road would be planted/fenced. There was a
question on the location of the property line and end of preservation.USACE Comment:
Channel in good condition, USACE feels preservation at 10:1 is appropriate. The
discussion of 7.5:1 would be entertained if the upstream portion excluded cattle, as well.
x FF1-A: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of
cattle exclusion and buffer planting. While there might be some opportunities for bank
work, the group agreed that the enhancement II approach was best based on the amount
of bedrock in this reach.
Twiman Site – 10/17/17
IRT members agreed the Twiman site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit
ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below.
x TC2-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement I at 1.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, and bank stabilization. Group agreed to this approach.
x TC2-B: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. Group generally agreed with this
approach, but did note there is a section of potential enhancement I below the pond. Upon
further data collection/analysis, RES will determine the best approach for this section of
TC2-B. WRC Comment: The group discussed establishing the break between EI and R
at the bedrock nickpoint.
x TC1-A: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. Group agreed to this approach.
x TC3-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, invasive species treatment and spot stabilization. Group
agreed to this approach with a ratio ranging from 2.5 to 3 to be justified in the mitigation
plan.
x TC1-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. IRT suggested restoration as the approach. RES is open to
examining restoration along this reach based on watershed size and design discharge.
DWR Comment: these reaches should be restoration. If RES decides that restoration not
feasible then the ratio for enhancement would be greater than 5:1, could be as high as 8:1.
Planting outer 20 feet just does not do a lot for this system.USACE Comment: This
channel is incised, poor substrate, no buffer, channelized, with an available floodplain.
USACE & DWR feel restoration is appropriate.
x TC4: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. IRT suggested restoration as the approach. RES is open to
examining restoration along this reach based on watershed size and design discharge.
DWR Comment: these reaches should be restoration. If RES decides that restoration not
feasible then the ratio for enhancement would be greater than 5:1, could be as high as 8:1.
Planting outer 20 feet just does not do a lot for this system.USACE Comment: This
channel is incised, poor substrate, no buffer, channelized, with an available floodplain.
USACE & DWR feel restoration is appropriate.
x TC5-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, and minor spot stabilization. IRT suggested a lower ratio of
3:1 in some areas based on existing buffer condition. RES recommends potentially
splitting the reach into different treatments based on level of intervention and will justify
rationale in mitigation plan.
x TC7: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, invasive species treatment and spot stabilization. Group
agreed to this approach with a ratio ranging from 2.5 to 3 to be justified in the mitigation
plan.USACE Comment: 3:1 ratio would be more appropriate.
x TC6: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. This reach is in a deeply formed gully, but is currently
stable with the exception of multiple headcuts at the top of the reach. DWR suggested
“filling in” the reach to bring the bed up and credit as restoration with a 1:1 ratio. RES
expressed concerns with filling in the gully because thee stream might lose jurisdictional
status after construction with such a small watershed (roughly 20 acres). DWR Comment:
Reach TC6 may not be a creditable reach. While I feel that the only beneficial treatment
would be filling like a RSC approach it is likely the stream would lose flow. Planting the
outer 20 feet for this reach would not be creditable enhancement either.USACE
Comment: I would question whether there would be flow if the bed was raised with
restoration. USACE would not release credit if the restored channel was not
jurisdictional. The channel is part of the larger system, and the lower portions of this
reach would benefit from cattle exclusion. I would suggest a lower EII ratio of 5-7.5:1.
x TC5-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. IRT agreed that this is an appropriate approach, but RES
needs to clearly justify the rationale for the enhancement on this reach.DWR Comment:
IRT suggested 7.5:1, would consider 5:1 if justified in mit plan. WRC Comment: RES
will need to address the issue of cattle accessing land via passage under the bridge and
the associated erosion.USACE Comment: USACE and DWR agreed that 7.5:1 would be
more appropriate, unless 5:1 can be justified.
Scout Site- 10/18/17
The Scout Site is located just upstream of the lower portion of the recently contracted DMS
Mockingbird Site. While each project could be developed independently of the other, the
combined easements will result in a better project and most importantly provide the opportunity
to add over 2,000 linear feet of priority I restoration and limit the amount of priority II
restoration on the Mockingbird Site. IRT members agreed the Scout site is acceptable for
compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation
Plan. Reach specific comments are below.
x HC3: Group agreed that restoration at 1:1 ratio is the best approach for this reach and
including it will improve the development of the Mockingbird project. USACE
commented that a hunting blind within the proposed easement area will need to be
removed. There is an existing crossing that will be removed as part of the design. RES
also showed a tributary that was not included in the prospectus that would be eligible for
potential restoration credit at the tie-in with HC3, but would more likely be Enhancement
II for the rest of the reach.