20190603 Ver 2_IRT Review of Folly Swamp Mitigation Bank Dec 18_20201124

Strickland, Bev
From:
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 24, 2020 12:35 PM
To:
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B; Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY
CESAW (US); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Bowers, Todd; Wells, Emily N; Wilson,
Travis W.; Dunn, Maria T.
Cc:
John Hutton; Chris Roessler
Subject:
[External] IRT Review of Folly Swamp Mitigation Bank Dec. 18
Attachments:
FollySwamp Wildlands Response to IRT Comments_20Nov2020.pdf, Figure 4A LIDAR
Map.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
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]>
Hey folks
Please reserve Dec 18 at 9:00 am for a TEAMS call to discuss the Wildland's Pasquotank Folly Swamp bank.
WEI has prepared a response to comments (attached) and will provide a zoomed -in version of the lidar map at
the meeting. Chris will send the meeting link closer to Dec 18. If you can't attend the meeting, feel free to pass
along any comments/concerns to Kyle prior to the meeting. Please forward this to anyone I may have left off,
and reach out to Kyle or me if you have any questions.
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-----Original Message -----
From: Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 7:52 AM
To: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Hutton <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Wildlands' responses to IRT MP comments
Hi Kyle and Kim-> It's taken some time, but we've given careful consideration to the IRT comments and have
developed responses that aim to address the concerns.
Please take a look at the attached. We'd be glad to forward to the other IRT members if you like. As you
suggested, we agree that having a conference call is a good next step.

Please let us know when would work for you and perhaps other IRT members. During the call we can sketch
out a path forward and what needs to be done along the way.
Don't hesitate to contact us if you have any thoughts or questions.
Thanks very much, Chris
Chris Roessler I Senior Scientist/Project Manager
0: 919.851.9986, x 111 M: 919.624.0905
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.<Blockedhttp://www.wildlandseng.com/>
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

Figure 4A LIDAR Digital Elevation Map
WILD LANDS Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
G I N EE RI N G 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
November 20, 2020
Mr. Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Field Office
RE: Response to IRT comments on Draft Mitigation Plan Submittal
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site, Gates County, NC
Pasquotank River Basin - 03020105
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02026
Dear Mr. Barnes,
Wildlands received comments from you dated September 22, 2020 on the Folly Swamp draft mitigation
plan submitted on June 22, 2020. Though Wildlands and the IRT have communicated a good bit about
this project and have made significant progress, more work is clearly needed to reach consensus. We
would like to start our letter responding to IRT comments with an introduction aimed at addressing
some of the bigger issues. After that, we will respond to the individual comments, at times referring to
this introductory section. We agree that a conference call would be helpful after the IRT has had an
opportunity to read and consider this letter.
To begin, we acknowledge that the ideal restoration scenario for a canal system in the lower Coastal
Plain, such as Folly Swamp, would be to start in the headwaters with a Priority 1 approach. We looked
diligently for that scenario but do not believe it exists in the Pasquotank. It is especially challenging to
find a degraded site that is not near any development. Through many letters, calls, and site visits, Folly
Swamp became the best candidate. For the Folly Site, we did our best to include the parcel upstream
from the current start on the Folly Ditch. However, the landowners prefer agricultural land use and had
no interest whatsoever in a conservation easement. Even if they had, however, there is the issue of
needing a FEMA no -rise certification. Houses along Savage Road are already at flood risk, so raising the
100-year flood elevation is not a viable option.
We realize that the IRT does not necessarily concern itself with these matters, and that is
understandable. What we would like to communicate though is that we believe we will provide stream
restoration credits that fully satisfy the most important criteria:
• Stream dimension, profile, and pattern will be fully restored.
• Our designs have wide floodplains with typical entrenchment ratios (ER) ranging from 3.5 to 8.0.
The max ERs range from 8.6 to 21.9. This is significant and shows that we are striving to create a
suitable floodplain, not just the minimum.
• Wetlands will likely be created on the new floodplains. The sitewide floodplain area is designed
to increase by 14.3 acres. Wildlands proposes to install groundwater gages to show where post
construction wetland hydrology is present while not requesting wetland credit.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

What we understand is missing from the IRT's ideal Coastal Plain restoration site is an extensive stream
and wetland complex. But because no such stream and wetland Site could be identified, we are
proposing to provide high quality stream credits.
Based on past experiences with Priority 2 projects in the area, we recognize that tree growth has not
been successful (e.g., Duke Swamp). Again, this is an understandable IRT concern. Wildlands is prepared
to go to significant lengths to ensure that tree growth meets mitigation guidance performance
standards. More specificity is provided in the individual responses below related to planting.
Concerns about the role of the Gates County Drainage District #1 (DD) have been heard. We attempted
to address this in the Prospectus. To be clear, what they can provide long-term is what Wildlands would
do during the mitigation monitoring period; specifically, remove significant debris blockages causing
offsite flooding from the channel. This will effectively provide longer term maintenance of lotic
conditions in the project area. Additionally, the DD will adhere to the terms of the conservation
easement by limiting its work to restoring natural topography or drainage patterns. The Drainage
District will also adhere to DWR's General Water Quality Certification 4134 requirement of notification
for any repairs that result in change from the approved plans. The Drainage District has very limited
funding and views this project as way to reduce their maintenance requirements. As such, their only
interest is to prevent flooding outside of the CE, and any maintenance would be focused on the
approved plans.
The IRT made several comments about desiring additional conservation easement, especially on P2
reaches. We have had conversations with the landowners and propose to add buffer in locations shown
on the attached figures. We think these areas provide additional meaningful benefit to key project areas
and the landowners are preliminarily amenable to these modifications.
Finally, we hope that most of you recognize Wildlands' efforts to build and deliver top quality projects.
We have added a stewardship team of five employees to bring an extra level of attention to our projects
in the monitoring phase. The stewardship program focuses on identifying and addressing problems on
mitigation sites related to vegetation growth, invasive species control, and stream stability.
All of this is to say that we would like to have the benefit of your doubts. If the Folly Swamp sites do not
meet performance standards, then that is a time to withhold credit. In the meantime, please consider
our case for approving the crediting we propose in the draft mitigation plan.
We hope that these responses begin to address the IRT's comments and we look forward to working
with you and the IRT to more fully resolve differences in the next stages.
Sincerely,
John Hutton, Vice President, jhutton@wildlandsen�.com

w
Ir.
L-A
Rea *2
Reach 1
r
2016 Aerial Photography

FEW,
4 I s i9

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
November 20, 2020
Mr. Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Field Office
RE: Response to IRT comments on Draft Mitigation Plan Submittal
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site, Gates County, NC
Pasquotank River Basin - 03020105
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02026
Dear Mr. Barnes,
Wildlands received comments from you dated September 22, 2020 on the Folly Swamp draft mitigation
plan submitted on June 22, 2020. The comments were constructive and will improve the mitigation plan.
This letter provides our responses to those comments. Edits will be made to the final mitigation plan.
We would like to schedule a conference call with the IRT once this response package has been reviewed.
Folly Swamp Draft Mitigation Plan Comments
Kim Browning, USACE
1. Page is The Wildlands Pasquotank UM81 is associated with the Folly Swamp Mitigation Site and
has the some USACE Action ID (SAW-2018-02026). All future sites under this UM81 will be
assigned separate IDs.
Understood.
2. Figures 1 & 2: One of the parcels appears to be in a different HUC (03010203) than the Service
Area identified for this project. Please confirm the service area and parcel location.
This is the Powell parcel that extends into the 03010203 HUC. It is also where the drainage has
been re-routed to flow to Powell Branch. This is described in the IRT Field Meeting Notes from
May 13, 2019 on page 223 of the mitigation plan PDF (Appendix 5 — Regulatory
Correspondence).
3. Page 4: The agreement with the Drainage District is concerning and it is not appropriate to
include a reach that is subject to maintenance and/or hand snagging. Please confirm that the
area of Folly Swamp that is included in this project is not subject to maintenance by Drainage
District #1. The initial evaluation letter dated December S, 2019 addressed this and requested
this concern be resolved prior to finalizing the plan for this bank. The response to comments in
the Prospectus did not resolve this issue.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

a. Since there are portions of Folly Swamp (Ditch) that are not included in the project but
will meet the project reaches, will the confluences be subject to drainage maintenance?
Powell, Morgan, Greene, and Barker Branches all would apply. The easements should be
set back and not include the areas subject to drainage maintenance.
Wildlands included the draft Drainage District agreement in the Prospectus and received
the following comment from Kim Browning:
The discussion on Drainage Districts is of concern, and until we have a signed agreement
from them stating that channel maintenance will not occur on Folly Ditch, or any of the
project channels, 1 am hesitant to continue to the Final Prospectus stage of this Bank.
However, this comment was repeated from the site visit and we took it to mean that we
had satisfied the requirement. The agreement says that Wildlands will clear flow
obstructions during the monitoring period and afterwards it is left to the DD. "This
should be done with chain saws and hand labor to the extent possible. This can be done
without contacting the long-term manager provided heavy equipment or motorized
vehicles are not used."
Wildlands and the DD are amenable to changing this agreement. As discussed in the
introduction, focusing on sticking to the approved plans and restoring natural
topography and drainage patterns, per the conservation easement, in order to clear
blockages that cause flooding that threatens Savage Road and structures is the goal of
the DD's involvement.
4. Page 1: The introduction lists this bank as the "Wildlands Pasquotank 05 UMB" while the cover
page omits "05". Please be consistent throughout the document with the naming convention.
Will do.
5. Please update Table 1 with the some easement acres listed in the Site Protection Instrument.
Will do. (50-acre in Intro text, versus 50.65 in SPI)
6. It would have been preferable to capture as much of Jordan Branch as possible to help filter the
agricultural runoff. Additionally, increasing the width of the buffers site -wide is recommended,
especially since the restoration is likely to create wetlands. In order to restore this site to its
original function, the channels should be raised and the buffers increase considerably. There is
concern that adjacent landowners will ditch alongside the project easement if saturated
farmland becomes an issue.
This is discussed in the introduction. We've had conversations with the landowners and propose
to add buffer in locations shown on the attached figures. We think these areas provide
additional meaningful benefit to key project areas and the landowners are preliminarily
amenable to these modifications.
7. It would be helpful to include a Lidar map of the site to help determine the appropriate width of
the necessary floodplain and buffers.

11 a•
8. As discussed during the Site visit, the Priority 2 approach provides very little functional uplift to
this system. To be considered restoration, you should be restoring the system to its original state,
which is not what you are proposing. With almost 50% of the project proposed for P2, 1 would
agree to a reduced ratio of 1.3:1 on P2 sections because that would be required to do full P1
restoration and restore the system to its original function, and P2 approach provides limited
functional uplift.
Discussed in letter introduction. What we ask is a chance to receive 1:1 credit even on P2
sections if we meet performance standards. We would like to focus the discussion on
performance standards. And please consider the probable formation of wetlands throughout
much of the 14.3 acres of new floodplain.
9. Page 1: Please include the site location and directions in the Introduction.
Will do.
10. Since many of the reaches contain a sidecast berm, please be sure to include these areas in
random veg sampling due to compaction concerns. We will also be concerned with veg
establishment in the areas where a priority 2 cut is created due to compaction and low pH.
Will do on including veg plots in those types of areas.
11. There is concern that the confluence of Greene Branch with Folly Swamp exhibit more wetland
characteristics than single thread channel. 1 was glad to see a flow gauge and photo point in this
area.
Sounds good.
12. It's really concerning that the 1.59 acres above Greene Branch will not be planted because this
will add agricultural runoff to the proposed headwater wetland area. Additionally, since the
ditch is being plugged and re-routed, there is potential for ag field to be become too wet to farm
and what is to prevent the landowner from ditching or installing tile drainage just outside of the
drainage easement restriction area?
We increased this area to address this comment previously. There is good slope on this ditch
and we will include an emergency spillway with the culvert crossing, decreasing the likelihood of
drainage problems. Additionally, Barker Branch is the neighboring drainage and it is included in
the project.
13. Section 3.4: Livestock access, especially on Greene Branch, should be discussed in this section.
Also, where does the runoff/effluent from chicken houses drain?
We will add livestock access discussion. Chicken houses have dry litter and that is removed for
application on other farms as fertilizer.

14. Section 3.5: The unfiltered runoff and sediment from adjacent agricultural fields would be
considered a constraint to functional uplift as well.
Wildlands will add BMPs in several locations where ditches run into the mitigation reaches,
including Jordan Branch, the ditches into Morgan Branch, and the ditch into Powell Branch. The
proposed upper reaches of Barker Branch and Greene Branch act as BMPs.
15. Please show the locations of the vernal pools on Morgan Branch on Figure 8.
N•
16. Page 25: Regarding the project design being based on the backwater effects of beaver on Folly
Swamp, do you anticipate that this backwater will remain into perpetuity and eliminate the need
for connecting grade at the confluence? And what about the effect of the backwater on
vegetation establishment?
Yes, this has been the condition for a number of years and we expect it will continue. There are
too many beaver in the Great Dismal Swamp to control them on the downstream end of Folly
Ditch. The confluence of Barker and Folly is approximately 4,000 feet upstream of the Wildlife
Refuge. Past attempts to control beaver at the edge of the swamp have failed and are not
planned to continue (personal communication with the Drainage District). The vegetation should
be fairly wet tolerant but we don't expect it to be very different from the current condition,
which is not inundated and has relatively limited wetlands.
17. Page 26, first paragraph: Is the valley cut being created as a pilot channel?
This is referring to Barker Branch. We are following the headwater guidance by creating a valley
to avoid backwater within the easement. We wouldn't call it a pilot channel, which would be
smaller and more defined.
18. Design Sheet 1.04: What is the line labeled SAF? 1 couldn't find it in the legend. (silt fence?)
Safety fence to keep construction vehicles out of JD wetland area. Will add to legend and
details.
19. Section 6.6.2: Please explain how th epond within the conservation easement will be handled
(filled, legacy sediment, left alone, etc).
The pond will be filled except for the spring that is within it and an outlet channel connecting
the spring to the restored stream.
20. Section 6.8: If a new culvert is being installed in an area that did not previously have a crossing, a
Department of Army Permit may be required for this crossing as it would not be covered under
the NWP-27. Please include this in your final impact and ePCN.
21

We are not planning any culverts where there previously was none. All three crossings are in
locations where there are existing culverts. The break in the CE on Powell Branch is for a power
utility; we will not be adding a culvert here.
21. Table 21, Photo Documentation: It would be to your benefit to add photos of the headwater
valley areas to help show flow.
We will provide photo documentation of flow during quarterly site visits. Vegetation is likely to
obscure daily flow photos.
22. Table 21, Wetlands: Please add that the wetland areas will be re -verified to ensure no loss of
wetland acres during MY5.
No problem, we can do that.
23. Page 30: While it is anticipated that the bed material will move over time and some pools may
fill in, the contributing sediment from surrounding agricultural land continues to be a concern.
Recommend adding performance standard for bedform diversity.
We can add a performance standard that deeper pools will remain below a majority of grade
control structures in proposed pool locations. Pools do not persist in relation to pattern in sand
bed systems.
24. Appendix 1: Will the 1.59 acres of the CE on the Barker parcel be monitored by the Long Term
Steward, UP2S.
Yes, this is why Kyle Barnes wanted a conservation easement on this area, so that it will have
long term stewardship. This area will not be planted but the long term steward should ensure
drainage alteration isn't conducted.
25. There appears to be a lot of sinuosity in the headwater valley of Greene Branch.
We will make sure the credit reflects straight line valley length.
26. Note: 1 have not received the UMBI because it was not included in the hard copy.
Will make sure you have that. It is in the last pages of the mitigation plan PDF (behind the
appendix).
27. General note: I do not believe the site, as presented, will provide enough functional uplift to
produce appropriate compensatory mitigation credits. The narrow buffers, priority 2 approach,
fragmented project, potential for drainage district maintenance, and limited functional uplift all
contribute to the site's shortcomings. 1 recommend that Wildlands provide a response to
comments and provide to the IRT for review, and a conference call is likely warranted. A revised
DRAFT mitigation plan is likely in order for IRT review prior to moving to the Final Mitigation Plan
stage.
This general comment is addressed in the indroduction.

Todd Tugwell, USACE
Overall this site should be a bigger wetland/stream system, and it has the potential to cause a
lot of the surrounding area to wet up, which could cause problems. It would really have
benefitted from much wider buffers and the inclusion of wetlands. Wetlands would presumably
develop using the coastal headwater approach.
We believe wetlands will form along the streams and not cause drainage problems outside of
the conservation easements. This comment is discussed in the introduction.
It is not appropriate to include bends in your calculation of valley length. Please confirm that you
are measuring the headwater valley by the center of the valley, in a straight line.
Though there is very little sinuosity in Barker Branch, it does use the centerline length. We will
correct that to only credit straight line valley length.
3. At the upper end of Green Branch there is only a drainage easement (though the maps show it as
a conservation easement).
It is effectively a conservation easement that serves to prevent drainage alteration. The
difference is that the conservation easement will have long term stewardship. This was added at
Kyle Barnes's request.
4. There are several areas where ditches extend a long way upstream of the restoration reaches,
which is definitely not ideal from a hydro trespass standpoint, but also because there will be so
much untreated ag land drainage to the site.
This is discussed in the introduction. We can add treatment features where there are not
jurisdictional channels, such as Jordan Branch and ditch to Morgan Branch. Upper Barker
Branch, where we are not seeking credit, effectively serves as a treatment area. Also, the
designs have been developed to prevent upstream hydrologic trespass issues.
5. The parcels are also so broken up (several with additional crossings) that it limits the values as a
watershed -scale project.
There are not additional crossings from what are now present. The easement break on Powell
Branch is simply for the power utility corridor. Wildlands is not adding a culvert.
With the exception of Powell Branch, each project area is at least 3,000 feet. The collection of
these adds to the Great Dismal Swamp ecosystem with the Folly Ditch corridor, which is
undevelopable, serving as a connecting feature.
Kyle Barnes. USACE
1. The plan doesn't adequately address how the existing wetlands adjacent to Folly Swamp and
Jordan Branch will not be reduced in size by either being drained or filled.
11

The plans show very limited impact to this area with safety fence to protect untouched wetlands
from construction traffic. A paragraph in Section 6.6.1 explains how we avoided impacts to the
greatest extent practical. A gauge will be placed here to determine the project's effect on
wetland hydrology. Additional wetlands will likely be created on the new Folly Swamp floodplain
and Wildlands will install gauges to demonstrate this. And those will be delineated during MYS.
Also, see Section 4.3 401/404 on page 12.
2. There is concern that Folly Swamp is still part of a drainage district easement and has a
significant upstream watershed. There is a high potential that this reach will require
maintenance due to the increasing frequency of storm events and high prevalence of beaver.
As described in the introduction, the Drainage District will help the project's sustainability by
removing blockages that may lead to deviations from the approved plans. They are on board
and have limited budget, so there is no incentive to do more work than is needed to prevent
flooding of structures.
3. As stated by most of the IRT the amount of P2 in this project is concerning and allows for very
little functional uplift.
Wildlands has heard those concerns and listed functional uplift provided in Sections 3.4, 5.0, and
6.7. Also the introduction to these responses aims to further address these concerns.
4. The limited amount of upstream control is a concern. In areas such as Powell Branch upstream
neighbors can re-route the watershed flow if hydraulic trespass becomes an issue.
There should not be an issue of upstream hydraulic trespass as a result of this project. For
Powell Branch, hydrologic trespass would mean Savage Road has been impacted. The design has
been developed to keep flooding during typical rainfall events (i.e., not tropical storms, etc.)
within the conservation easement. Additionally, Powell Branch was considered jurisdictional
downstream from the area you mention (i.e., small channel in the woods).
Erin Davis DWR
1. Page 4, Section 3.3 —What are the conditions of the culverts under Hobbs Lane and Savage
Road. Are any NCDOT projects planned for either roadway?
The culverts are in acceptable condition and are not perched or set low. An NCDOT project on
Hobbs Lane is very unlikely given there are just a handful of residences on it and it dead ends at
the Great Dismal Swamp about 2,000 feet from Morgan Branch. Savage Road has a bit more
traffic but not a lot.
2. Page 4, Section 3.3.1—In the third paragraph, please reference the agreement signed by the
Drainage District on May 8, 2019.
Will do.
3. Page 9, Section 3.3.2 —Was NCWAM completed for potential jurisdictional wetlands onsite? If
so, please include field forms and rating sheets in the appendices.

We have not previously done NCWAM forms for stream mitigation projects. We could do them
if the IRT thinks it is important.
4. Page 10, Section 3.5 —It seems this section is addressing both site constraints and "risks and
uncertainties". It may be helpful to have a separate risks and uncertainties section.
a. Were either existing culvert tie-ins or hydrologic trespass concerns site constraints that
factored into the Priority 2 approach? DWR prefers the P2 approach be limited to
confluences and transition areas as it hinders the extent of potential functional uplift.
Hydrologic trespass concerns and FEMA no rise certification were definitely factors for
the Priority 2 approach on Folly Ditch and Powell Branch. Morgan, Greene, and Barker
Branches use P2 mostly as DWR prefers. In fact, most of Morgan, and all of Greene and
Barker are essentially P1.
b. Additionally, DWR considers crossings and easement breaks as site constraints since
fragmentation impacts the site's potential functional uplift. Please include a discussion
on the coordination completed to minimize the quantity and width of proposed stream
crossings. Of particular concern is the impact of an easement break segmenting a
coastal plain headwater valley (Barker Branch).
We discussed not having an easement break here but the landowner insisted on having
one for ease of farm use and the existing road. Other crossings are also existing and the
landowners requested that they to be maintained.
c. Would the Drainage District's maitenance of Folly Ditch be considered a site constraint?
Are there any concerns about future encroachments based on adjacent land use?
We don't think so. We consider the Drainage District's maintenance to be a benefit. This
assumes they follow the signed agreement and there is every reason to think they will.
No, no concerns about future encroachments based on adjacent land use.
d. DWR appreciates the discussion of Priority 2 restoration concerns on vegetative success
and stream relocation concerns on existing wetland hydrology.
Thank you. Wildlands is determined to make this work through planning and
implementation.
5. Page 13, Table 5 — Should cattle exclusion be rephrased to livestock exclusion to account for the
sheep pasture. Also, how are you planning to "manage" nutrient and fecal inputs and "control"
sediment inputs?
Sure, we'll call it livestock exclusion. The idea is that without livestock getting in channels,
erosion will be reduced. And by putting a buffer between the stream and livestock, nutrients will
be managed.
6. Page 14, Section 6.2 — The text states that eight reference reaches were used; however, Figure 9
shows 10 sites and Table 8 identifies 14 reaches. Please confirm.
E3

The text should state fourteen reference reaches and Outland Branch and Silver Springs Road
should be added to the figure. Note that there are now four sites in one callout on Acorn Hill
Creek.
7. Page 22, Section 6.6 —First sentence, there are no enhancement approaches proposed.
Reference to enhancement approaches has been removed.
8. Page 22, Section 6.6 —Has the amount of available onsite woody material for proposed stream
stabilization and habitat structures been evaluated? If necessary, will offsite woody material be
sourced to complete construction of all of the structures shown on the plan design sheets?
Wildlands plans to acquire some amount of logs from offsite to supplement what can be
obtained onsite.
9. Page 22, Section 6.6 — Please briefly discuss the project's spoil disposal plan.
Added: "Cut soil will be disposed of in nearby areas that are not jurisdictional wetlands nor
adjacent to existing streams." We do not plan to move it off of its parcel of origin but DEMLR has
said that they do not view this as a mining operation. They requested that we show on the SEC
plan set where it will be disposed of and include measures to show it won't run off -site.
10. Page 23, Section 6.6.1 (also Sections 6.6.2 & 6.6.3) — For the last sentence in the section, please
consider rephrasing "except for livestock exclusion" as this sentence can be misinterpreted.
Removed 'except for livestock exclusion' in those sections.
11. Page 24, Section 6.6.4 — In the prospectus, Greene Branch was divided into three reaches and
Reach 2 (515 LF) was proposed for Enhancement 2. What facilitated the change in approach?
Enhancement 2 infers relatively stable existing conditions. Does this area warrant full
restoration?
Really, what changed from the Prospectus is that Pollo Branch was dropped as an Enhancement
2 reach (Table 5 and Figure 8 of Final Prospectus dated July 2019). This was dropped because it
was determined to be a linear wetland in the jurisdictional determination. We showed upper
Greene Branch to be treated with the Coastal Plain Headwater Approach, as it is now.
12. Page 25, Section 6.6.4 — "Gentle swales" are mentioned in the text but are not identified on the
design sheets; please show on the final plans. Also, please note that if the gentle swale is within
the headwater valley it may be considered a pilot channel and DWR will want to see cross-
section(s) added to the monitoring plan.
The typical cross section for the Barker gentle swales and the grading plan will be included in the
newer set of construction plans. The swales are not pilot channels, which would be a smaller
defined channel.

13. Page 27, Section 6.7 — DWR appreciates the discussion on soil restoration. Can you please
confirm that the ramial wood chips will be layered above the soil and not mixed with the soil
during the ripping process.
The mitigation plan says that we may do this. The problem is obtaining suitable brush material
for this purpose. If it is implemented, the wood chips would be layered above the soil.
14. Page 27, Section 6.7.2 — Please indicate if fescue will be treated prior to or during site
construction. DWR recommends early treatment based on observations of fescue impeding
planted vegetation establishment and vigor.
There isn't much fescue area but Wildlands will treat these areas prior to or during site
construction.
15. Page 27, Section 6.8 — Please confirm that the fencing type specified is appropriate for both
cattle and sheep.
The fencing will be appropriate for cattle and sheep.
16. Page 27, Table 19 — Please add to the table the crossing on Powell Branch.
This is not a crossing as no culvert or ford will be installed. It is simply an easement break for the
powerline.
17. Page 30, Section 8 — DWR appreciates the wetland groundwater gauges will be installed in
existing wetlands. We request that the gauge shown on Figure 10A be shifted closer to the
relocated Folly Swamp channel (within 30 feet of the streambank). Also, in the January 6, 2020
response to comments letter, it was stated that a redelineation of wetlands would be completed
in MYS. Please include this activity in the Section 8 wetland discussion.
Wildlands will shift the gauge and redelineate the wetlands.
18. Page 30, Section 9 — The December 18, 2018 meeting minutes state that pre- and post -
construction benthic macroin vertebrate and amphibian surveys would be conducted. However,
this activity is not included in the mitigation plan. DWR sees value in this data collection.
Wildlands will add these.
19. Page 31, Section 9 — DWR had previously recommended the use of trail cameras combined with
flow gauges to document headwater flow. This is still a DWR recommendation.
Our monitoring group thinks that the camera's view of the water flow would be obscured by
vegetation. We suggest that we take photos on quarterly site visits.
10

20. Page 34, Section 11— Please note that DWR's General Water Quality Certification 4134 requires
notification for any repairs that result in change from the approved plans.
We acknowledge this and will add a sentence to this effect.
21. Figures 3A & 3B —Are there any existing stream crossings? Is so, can they please be called out?
They are all existing stream crossings. We can add callouts. Utility crossing of Powell Branch is
not also a stream crossing. The upper Folly existing crossing is off the sheet view area and is not
labeled for that reason. Lower Folly, Barker, and Greene existing crossings are labeled on the
plans.
22. Figures 3A, 6, 7, 8A & 10A — There appears to be an additional conservation easement boundary
line along Folly Swamp between Jordan Branch and Savage Road. Please confirm.
That is correct. We would have ended up with a landlocked piece of property so we included
that in the conservation easement. This area has mature oak trees that will be beneficial for
recruitment.
23. Figure 10B — Please shift the flow gauge on Barker Branch to near station 701+50 and on Greene
Branch to near station 502+00. DWR requests another gaug%amera point near 709+00.
We believe the flow gauges are in the correct location to measure flow, where it will be
concentrated coming out of a pipe. Otherwise, it'd be too easy to miss the flow or have the
camera's field of vision be obscured by vegetation. We can take photo points of locations
downstream to show channel formation progress.
24. Figures — can a LiDAR map of the project area please be included.
Wildlands will add this.
25. Sheet 0.3 — None of the plan sheets have callouts identifying existing channels or ditches to be
filled and/or plugged. Please include a typical detail for channel fill/plug. If plugging, identify the
minimum length; and if partial filling, identify the maximum depth from ground surface to
remain open.
Wildlands designers have been moving away from showing channel plugs on most projects
because they aren't necessary. Because of the Folly reaches have low slope, true channel plugs
are not needed on this project. We will clarify which ditches are being filled.
26. Sheet 1.01— The design sheets don't show any proposed grading, which made review very
difficult, particularly in the proposed Priority 2 restoration areas and coastal headwater valley
areas. In the final design sheets please show proposed contours and extent of cut/fill areas.
We don't typically include proposed grading in the mitigation plan but are far enough along to
include it in the next mitigation plan submittal.
11

27. Sheet 1.02 — There are a total of nine existing ditches that are proposed to tie-in to restoration
channels.
a. First, were each of these ditches assessed for expected storm water volume in
considering where and how they tie-in to the restoration channels? It appears only two
of the ditches have structures proposed at the tie-ins. Each ditch tie-in should be
monitored for signs of instability; photo points may be helpful.
We did not calculate stormwater volumes but stably tied the ditches to the restoration
channels by combining existing and proposed conditions with best professional
judgment. We can add photo points at the ditch tie ins.
b. Second, were any of these areas considered for possible BMP locations? It's concerning
that all of the water from these nine ditches will be bypassing the restored riparian
buffer, which his supposed to be reducing sediment, nutrient, and fecal inputs.
We are adding BMPs to the base of Jordan Branch and the ditches entering Morgan
Branch and Powell Branch.
28. Sheet 1.04 — Please include culvert type and dimensions in callout. Also, please callout all
easement breaks (internal and external) on the profile views. And please include a typical culvert
crossing detail.
We will add information on proposed culverts on plan sheets and easement breaks on profiles.
A typical culvert crossing detail will be added to the new set of plans.
29. Sheet 1.12 — Please callout the proposed culvert under the travel way on Jordan Branch.
OK.
30. Sheet 1.14 — Please indicate the extent of all roadway right-of-way boundaries.
OK.
31. Sheet 1.15 — Please clarify "pond to be removed". Will this area be filled to match surface grade
or is this a proposed vernal pool area?
This area will be filled and an outlet channel will be connected from the pond spring to the
restored stream channel.
32. Sheet 1.20 & 1.22 — The plan narrative mentions small channels draining from the proposed
vernal pools to the restoration channel. Please show the approximate location of these
connection channels. Also, please include a typical vernal pool detail indicating the maximum
depth of surface water, which should be no deeper than 12-14 inches to allow for seasonal
drying.
12

These will be added.
33. Sheet 1.27— The plan narrative mentions that there is livestock along Greene Branch and Barker
Branch. No existing or proposed fencing is shown on the design sheets. For these reaches, please
include proposed /existing fence lines and approximate locations for gates.
We will add the fencing plan to the next mitigation plan submittal.
34. Sheet 1.29 — Please include a typical detail for the rock floodplain outlet specifying stone size.
We will add this.
35. Sheet 1.29 — Typically a headwater valley and single -thread channel are two different
approaches, so the section title is confusing here. 1 think this would be better termed as a pilot
channel. It appears this type of channel is proposed in two transition areas (-20 feet before and
after the culvert crossing and —200 feet of the easement boundary along Folly Swamp). Why is it
also proposed for a 73 foot section in the middle of the headwater reach? If a pilot channel is
proposed for a section longer than 500 feet, DWR will require at least one cross section to be
monitored.
Wildlands is doing this for specific purposes. First, to transition the flow into and out of a
culvert. This isn't completely unnatural because headwater streams go back and forth between
more and less defined channels. It'll also help us measure flow. Second, the grade dropping to
Folly Ditch is steeper and a single thread channel should both be able to maintain itself as well
as be more stable with structures included.
36. Sheet 1.32 — Please callout the culvert crossing as existing or proposed. Can the width of the
easement break be identified? Is it wide enough to not be at risk of encroachment?
All of the proposed culvert crossings are in locations of existing culverts. We are replacing the
culverts in all cases. The crossings will be wide enough to avoid encroachments.
37. Sheet 1.33 — Why is there a zig-zag (non -technical term) in the center -line between Station
507+00 and 507+50, if this reach is a headwater valley approach?
That is what the existing topography does; this line follows the low point of the valley. We will
be sure to credit at straight-line valley length, however.
38. Sheet 1.38 — What happens when Greene Branch and Barker Branch intersect the conservation
easement boundary? Neither channel appears to continue beyond the wetland. Figure 8B
appears to show both channels connecting with Folly Swamp. Can this connection please be
shown on the design sheets and Folly Swamp call out?
Both Greene Branch and Barker Branch will stably connect to Folly Ditch. We will look to make it
more clear where the wetland boundary is in relation to the Folly Ditch TOB.
39. Planting Plan
13

a. DWR understands that quantity substitutions may be necessary based on the nursery's
species available. However, we request that no species account for more than 20 percent
in either planting zone 4 or 5 in order to promote diversity within the designated
community type.
We will follow this guidance. 17% is the highest in the current plan set.
b. It would be helpful for review to have the wetland status indicator included in the tables.
We can include the wetland indicator status in the tables.
40. General comment — DWR appreciates the work Wildlands has done to document preliminary
flow, as well as, mesaures taken to extend and widen easement areas. However, DWR still
considers the project's functional uplift potential to be limited by the disconnection of the stream
reaches and conservation easements, amount of Priority 2 restoration, and flow concerns
associated with the low slope, small drainage areas (the 30-days consecutive flow requirement is
a minimum threshold, it should not be the goal).
This comment is discussed in the introduction. It's not clear how many consecutive days of flow
will be achieved, but it should be well above 30 days based on our preliminary monitoring.
Travis Wilson, WRC:
Although there are circumstances on projects where Priority 2 restoration is necessary it is
preferable to limit the amount of P2 approach due to the limited uplift provided and potential for
problems with establishing adequate vegetation success. In low slope swamp stream systems
like the drainages here it is probable the recognized functional uplift will be even lower with a P2
approach, and approximately 50% of this project is currently designed as Priority 2 credited at a
1:1 ratio. 1 believe the IRT should have some additional discussion on this topic to determine if
it's appropriate.
This comment is discussed in the introduction.
2. Tributaries Greene, Barker and Morgan have small drainage areas for low slope streams to form
flow paths. Various portions of these channels are shown as head water and P1 intermittent. The
sponsor proposed to install flow gauges to capture 30 consecutive days of flow in these reaches.
A) Trail cameras should also be used to capture this information. WRC would like to see both
consecutive and cumulative days captured. B) the 30 day flow requirement is an accepted metric
in the Coastal Plain Headwater Wetland guidance, however it is not intended for use in
intermittent streams. Intermittent streams should dry seasonally therefore exhibiting flow for
much longer durations than a headwater wetland. 90 consecutive days of flow for intermittent
reaches would be more desirable to show success.
Discussed above, our monitoring group does not think trail cameras will be productive. We
would be glad to share the flow gauge results, including consecutive and cumulative days of
14

flow. Also, as Mac Haupt has said, 30 days is the accepted standard published by the IRT. We
think, based on previous monitoring, that these sites will do a good bit better.
The final planting plan should include a more comprehensive list of potential species and percent
to be planted. This list should also include possible alternate species and maximum planting
percentage in case availability is an issue. Along with a detailed description or figure depicting
vegetation planting zones i.e.: planting inside the P2 cut v/s outside, riverine swamp forest v/s
headwater wetland, etc.
Wildlands will include a list of alternate species and will not exceed 20% on any one species in
zones 4 and 5. The planting plan shows the target planting areas you describe. We believe that a
wetland and floodplain planting zone and a buffer/upland planting zone is sufficient to cover the
site hydrology and further splitting things would not produce a better result.
Todd Bowers, EPA:
The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following site -specific
comments as they pertain to the Folly Swamp Draft Mitigation Plan dated June 2020:
1. Page iii: The list of Tables needs a complete revision. Many tables in the document are not
labeled in sequence and some are missing from the list.
We will review this table list.
2. Section 1/Page 1: Name of the bank should be "Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation
Bank" to match the rest of the document and the Public Notice issued on August 22, 2019.
Will do.
3. Table 2/Page 3: HUC for Pasquotank 05 watershed should be 03010205.
This will be corrected.
4. Section 3.3.1/Page 4: Refer to written correspon dance that demonstrates the Drainage District is
in favor of restoring Folly Swamp at the upper end.
Will do.
5. Section 3.4/Page 10: It may be helpful to emphasize the connection to and extension of Folly
Ditch/Swamp and expansion of the Great Dismal Swamp. This is perhaps the biggest ecological
benefit of the project and while the Folly Ditch itself may not be worked on for restoration
purposes, the aquatic passage corridor is greatly improved by this project and its components.
This may justify further work in this vicinity as many other ditches/tributaries along Folly Swamp
could use functional uplift of both streams and wetlands.
Thank you. This is a good point that we will incorporate in the mitigation plan.
15

6. Section 3.5/Page 10: The vegetation and planting plan referenced as Section 3.7 should be
Section 6.7.
If priority 2 restoration risks incurring a floodplain where vegetation struggles to thrive, the
sponsor could consider shifting the 50 foot riparian zone from the top of stream bank (bankfull)
to begin at the edge of excavated area and expand the CE for those reaches accordingly.
Did the sponsor consider a plan that incorporated rather than excluded beaver? If this site is an
open invitation for future beaver activity, then a long-term management plan should address
this eventually.
Data on riparian buffer and floodplain area are provided in the introduction. Wildlands will do
what is necessary to make vegetation thrive. The proposed riparian buffers will be sufficient to
meet the IRT guidance for coastal plains.
No, we did not consider a plan that incoporated beaver. We have not heard IRT support for that
before. The long term management plan for beaver will be up to the landowners. If hydrologic
trespass becomes an issue because of beaver, they will be removed. The Drainage District is one
vehicle for accomplishing beaver and dam removal.
7. Section 4.3/Page 12: Recommend shifting Greene Branch to limit impact on existing wetlands
with an opportunity to expand protection with a corresponding increase in CE area adjacent to
Folly Swamp/Ditch.
We will look to add the acre between the proposed CE and existing Greene Branch ditch.
8. Section 6.1/Page 14: Does Wildlands have examples of successfully using the Coastal Plain
Headwtaer approach to restore a site in North Carolina? The examples given in the Design
Approach Overview include two projects (Falling Creek and Grantham Branch) that do not have
CPH in their mitigation plans. The Watts DMS site appears somewhat useful but new relevant
monitoring reports are lacking, and this was a mostly perennial system confined with an
established wetland so comparisons should be made with caution (not -so -good example indeed).
No information on Hell Swamp CP site was available on RIBITS.
We looked at examples of coastal plain headwater reaches in the field and found Hell Swamp
and Sage Gut examples to be the best. Our designers made notes on the channel shape and
vegetation growth. Those mitigation plans are not available to the public, including Wildlands.
Wildlands thought that the Watts DMS site was a good example of what not to emulate. It has
considerable rilling, poor channel formation, and limited vegetation growth. We looked for as
many as we could find.
9. Section 6.5/Page 21: Recommend caution when using log sills for threshold structures or grade
control in intermittent systems.
The drops on the woody riffles and sills is minimal and what would naturally provide grade
control on streams like these. Wildlands will plant livestakes and trees at the structure tie in
points in order for them to assume grade control if the structures rot. The degradation process
will be at least slowed by the intermittent nature of the channel.
16

10. Section 6.6.1/Page 23: It is stated that the excavated floodplain for Folly Swamp will be from 125
to 175 feet in width. This amount of manipulation and a wide area needed for this stream to
flood into and meander may be justification for a much wider riparian buffer in this area of Folly
Swamp. Recommend considering buffer extending at least 75 feet from the edge of the
anticipated belt width of Folly Swamp. * Good attention to soil pH (Bladen Series) and
treatments to raise pH are noted.
Part of the excavated floodplain will be riparian buffer beyond the meander bends but we
typically have buffers that slightly exceed the regulatory requirement of 50 feet. Several
suggestions have been made for wider buffers. This one is the largest and not necessary to filter
runoff or buffer the stream channel.
11. Section 6.6.3/Page 24: Use caution with woody structures/riffles and log sills in Morgan Branch
due to intermittent flow anticipated. * Will work be done on the culvert upstream of the start of
the Morgan Branch P2 restoration? This culvert's condition and its effect on Morgan Branch is
unknown.
The drops on the woody riffles and sills is minimal and what would naturally provide grade
control on streams like these. Wildlands will plant livestakes and trees at the structure tie in
points in order for them to assume grade control if the structures rot. The degradation process
will be at least slowed by the intermittent nature of the channel.
12. Section 6.6.4/Page 25: Given that vegetation is already well established along Green Branch
Reach 1 and the CPH approach is being used on the upper portions, 1 have to conclude that this is
work more suited to Enhancement of aquatic resources and should therefore be credited as such
in 2.5:1 range. The functional uplift here is limited to fencing and grading of an intermittent
channel. *Recommend moving the lower portion of Green Branch Reach 2 further upstream
along Folly Ditch in order to lessen the impact of existing wetlands and protect the function of
the existing wetlands with a wider easement. This will expand and protect the riparian zone
along the right bank of Folly Ditch as well. * At a minimum Greene Branch outlet into Folly Ditch
should be separated from Barker Branch by 100 feet so that individual stream buffers do not
overlap.
Bear in mind that we are restoring drainage area to Greene Branch and adding an easement that
restricts drainage alteration above it. Reach 1 is clearly ephemeral now and we are proposing to
make it a headwater stream.
Rather than change the alignement, which follows the lowest elevations through the wetland,
we propose to add an acre of conservation eastment between the existing ditch and the current
CE.
13. Section 6.6.5/Page 25: Recommend lower credit for the CPH approach sections along the upper
intermittent portions of Barker Branch where minimal grading will occur.
We are proposing no credit for the upper portions of Barker Branch where minimal grading will
occur. Substantial grading begins well above the starting point for proposed credit.
17

14. Section 6.8/Page 27: "Table 19" — Crossing location for Greene Branch should be 518+31. This
will match the location on "Table 14". * Powerline crossing of Powell Branch (shown in "Table
14") is not noted in "Table 19".
The table numbers will be corrected in the next iteration. The Greene Branch crossing location
will be changed. We didn't include Powell Branch as a crossing because no culvert or ford will be
installed there. It is simple a break in the conservation easement for the utility easement. This
was realigned during the design stage to be perpendicular to the conservation easement
because they were replacing poles in this area.
15. Section 7.0/Page 28: Recommend that buffer widths start at the stream's constructed beltwidth
or in the case of P2 restoration, the top of constructed floodplain terrace. This will allow for
ample risk of meander drift, poor vegetation growth near P2 excavated area and lessen the risk
of hydrologic trespass due to beaver activity. * Recommend credit of 2.0 for CPH construction of
Barker Branch and 2.5 for CPH construction on Greene Branch. Based on the functional uplift of
such small streams of low flow and established vegetation, full credit for these sections seems
unjustified. The performance standards for these reaches' dimension parameter are also not
worthy of full credit as they seem to be based mostly on visual evaluation of qualitative
standards.
Several suggestions have been made for wider buffers. This one is the largest and not necessary
to filter runoff or buffer the stream channel. Credit ratios have been established for CPH
implementation and Wildlands is following those.
16. Section 8.0/Page 29: More precision and definition is needed for performance standards of the
CPH reaches. Without quantitative measurements, the qualitative standards should be more
precise such as what constitutes evidence of stability, concentration of flow, and development of
stream bed and bank. Qualifiers such as clear signs of sorting of sediments, leaves washed from
the channel, no plants growing in the channel, erosive features that are carving a channel, wrack
lines in the floodplain would all be examples of detailed standards that can be recorded.
Recommend adding a rain gauge to the project site (any location) in order to monitor
precipitation in order to determine if a "normal" year for rainfall is attained. This is crucial in
determining if intermittent streams meet the 30-day flow requirement in a "normal" year. * If
lateral migration is a feature of some of the constructed streams, then the sponsor should
consider wider buffers in order to capture some of this natural variability and minimize risk to
adjacent landowners.
Wildlands will complete the DWR stream form annually on the CPH reaches to assess the
suggested measures.
Wildlands has had very poor results with rain gauges. We typically use the nearest USDA rain
gauge and this has been acceptable to the IRT. Anthony Scarbraugh cited a new rainfall report
app that the Corps is using called Antecedent Precipitation Tool. According to Anthony, this tool
is key to evaluating "typical year" pursuant to the new rule [33 CFR 328.3(c)(13)]. Wildlands will
evaluate this tool as an alternative to the nearest USDA gauge.
18

17. Section 9.0/Page 32: Recommend adding precipitation as a parameter; to be monitored by an
installed rain gauge or equivalent. * Recommend at least 4 randomly located plots for
vegetation monitoring to have at least plot in each restoration area.
See response above regarding use of the Antecedent Precipitation Tool. We will follow the
established vegetation requirements for mitigation sites.
18. Planting Zone 1 should be considered along ditches that intercept with Folly Swamp within the
conservation easement. Locations at 106+40, 120+00 (Jordan Branch), 124+60, 127+30, 133+50,
141+00 along Folly Swamp are examples.
Wildlands will add livestakes along the ditches that intercept Folly Swamp within the
conservation easement. We'll plant them lighter than Planting Zone 1 to prevent backwater
effects but we will plant them.
19. What is the purpose of building/moving the travel way that parallels the left bank of Folly
Swamp? Does the Drainage District require continued access for maintenance to this part of Folly
Swamp?
A travel way is necessary on the upper portion (upstream from CE crossing) to provide deeded
access by Bavarian Timber Company to its property. The travel way will not be elevated
downstream from this crossing. However, the travel way will provide separation between the
agricultural field and the CE.
20. Recommend developing an alternate species list to be considered in the event that some
preferred species are not available at the time of initial site planting. The incorporation of
understory species such as the ones included in the shrub layer are encouraged.
Wildlands will do this.
We hope that these responses begin to address the IRT's comments and we look forward to working
with the IRT to more fully resolve differences in the next stages.
Sincerely,
John Hutton
Vice President
jhutton@wildlandsen�.com
19