20180066 Ver 1_Intent to Approve_20201208

Strickland, Bev
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 10:02 PM
To: Davis, Erin B; Leslie, Andrea J; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd; Hamstead, Byron A;
Gledhill-earley, Renee; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning;
Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA);
McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA)
Cc: Bradley Breslow; Matt Butler
Subject: [External] Intent to Approve the RES French Broad 05 UMB: Dead Oak Mitigation Site
(SAW-2018-00095)
Attachments: SAW-2018-00095_DeadOakDraftMitPlanCommentResponses_Sept2020.pdf;
SAW-2018-00095_DeadOakMitigationPlanCoverpage.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to Report Spa m.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Good afternoon,
Attached are the response to comments for the RES French Broad 05 UMB: Dead Oak Draft Mitigation Plan
(SAW-2018-00095) and a cover letter, dated September 30, 2020, describing some revisions to the project
(changes to crossings and the non-standard buffer adjustment calculations). These two documents and the
revised final mitigation plan dated September 2020 have been uploaded to the RES French Broad 05 UMB:
Dead Oak Mitigation Site bank folder in RIBITS (see the link below) as one combined document. Feel free to
contact me with any questions or if you are unable to access the file.
https:Hurldefense.com/v3/_https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=107:278:9482592806273::NO:RP,27
8:P278_BANK _ID:4911_;! !HYmSToo!KB7RVOTj_ak2-
W38TmGOigERtblF3pGfxDN6otM6rsYZvHp_pGwa9s7FidOTNst-DBU$
We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period for the Draft Mitigation Plan, as well as,
the cover page, and determined that all issues have been adequately addressed. Accordingly, it is our intent
to approve the RES French Broad 05 UMB: Dead Oak Mitigation Site unless a member of the NCIRT initiates
the Dispute Resolution Process, as described in the Final Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Section 332.8(e)). Please
note that initiation of this process requires that a senior official of the agency objecting to the approval of the
mitigation plan (instrument modification) notify the District Engineer by letter within 15 days of this email (by
COB on December 22, 2020). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.
Provided that we do not receive any objections, we will provide approval to RES at the conclusion of the 15-
day Dispute Resolution window.
Thank you for your participation.

Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure
we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
https:Hurldefense.com/v3/_http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0_;! !HYmSToo!KB7RV0
Tj_ak2-W38TmGOigERtblF3pGfxDN6otM6rsYZvHp_pGwa9s7FidOTvlMbmF8$ to complete the survey online.

MEMORANDUM fires
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 919.770.5573 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NCIRT and NCDMS
FROM: Matt Butler — RES
Brad Breslow — RES
DATE: September 30, 2020
RE: Response to Dead Oak Stream Mitigation Project NCIRT Comments during Mitigation
Plan Review
USACE Action ID #SAW-2018-00095
General RES Comments:
RES was successful in removing two easement breaks from the project since the submission of the Draft
Mitigation Plan. The first was a crossing on FC2-A that the landowner agreed to remove. The second was a
break to allow for future logging opportunities on FC2-B. RES will be placing an additional 8.26 acres of
forested area into easement that would have, in the future, been logged. This area on the right bank of FC2-B
also abuts a portion of the Sandy Mush protected area.
1. Page 9, Section 3.4.1 — Under subsections FC1/SM2 (except FC1-A), FC2/SM2 and F3, please
include a description of existing conditions for each reach that supports the associated proposed
mitigation approach (e.g. degradation, lack of bedform diversity, incision, bank instability). Since
reach width, depth and drainage area is summarized in Table 6 (which is appreciated!), it isn't
necessary to restate under each subsection.
RES has removed the duplicative statements in the reach conditions of Section 3.4.1, since they are
summarized in Table 6. Also, reach subsections were revised to include descriptions characterizing
the channel conditions as relates to mitigation approach.
2. Page 20, Section 4.1 —
a. Figures 6 and 7 indicate 5 existing crossings, please note which 2 crossings will be
eliminated. Typo correction: a ford crossing is proposed for FC1-A, not FC1-C.
There are five existing crossings, as indicated on Figure 6 and 7. Two crossings will be
removed entirely on FC2-A and FC7-C. There are a total of five planned crossings. This
entails the relocation of four crossings and the installation of one. Section 4.1 has been
revised to state "There are five planned agricultural crossings, four existing crossings will be
relocated and one crossing will be installed (Figure 7). The crossings are planned on FC1-A,
upstream of FC2-A, FC4-B, FC5-A, and FC7-A. The existing crossing on FC7-C will be
removed entirely. The crossing on FC2-A will be relocated above the reach in Wetland F.
Each of the crossings will occur at easement breaks. The crossings on reach FC4-B and FC5-
A, are proposed for fords. The crossings on FC1-C and FC7-B is proposed for culvert
installation. "

The typo has been revised to state "The crossings on reach FC4-B, and FC5-A, are proposed
for fords.".
b. Since this section discusses of proposed work, please include a brief description of the
proposed utility relocation. Also, please confirm whether there will be any overlap of
NCDOT or utility easements within the site. If so, please clearly indicate overlap areas on the
design sheet(s).
Section 4.1 was updated per the comment. The relevant FC7 plan sheets were updated to
clearly show the proposed OHE line, and Sheet F2 (Utility Relocation Plan) was added to
show the relocation plan in its entirety.
3. Page 26, Table 9 — Should physicochemical/water quality sampling (not tied to specific success
criteria) also be included under Level 4 Physicochemical Function as mentioned on page 24?
This should have been in Table 9 and was left out by mistake. This has now been added to Table 9 in
Section 6.
4. Page 27, Section 7.1.1 — Were onsite or offsite reference reaches considered in determining stream
restoration design?
Design parameters from both on -site and off -site reference sites were considered; however, the design
was ultimately based on hydraulic modeling, empirical relationships and on -site constraints.
5. Page 28, FC2-A — Is the existing farm path mentioned the same feature as the soil roadbed labelled on
Sheets S7-S18? Please provide more information on the proposed walking trail, including maximum
width and callout location on the design sheets. If the proposed walking trail overlaps the existing
roadbed, DWR would like the access width reduced to inhibit motorized vehicles.
The existing farm path and the soil roadbed reference the same feature throughout the project. No
formal walking trail is to be constructed or maintained within the easement; however, the landowner
does plan to access and occasionally walk throughout the easement by foot. In areas where the
easement will border active and maintained pasture areas, the fence will be installed 1 foot off the
easement line.
6. Page 28, FC3-A — The IRT previously expressed concern about the channel incision along this reach.
If bank instability and sedimentation persists during monitoring, adaptive management action may be
warranted.
To address this comment, RES has added the following statement to Section 9.4: "If bank instability
and sedimentation occurs during the monitoring period, adaptive management action may be
warranted".
7. Page 29, FC4-13 — Is the ford installation new or an upgrade of an existing crossing?
The ford installation references an upgrade to an existing ford; description revised accordingly.
8. Page 29-30, FC5-A & FC7-C — What is meant by "increasing flow diversity"?
Increasing flow diversity is meant to characterize the increase in changes in water depths and
velocities as a result of varying channel roughness (substrate size, drops, etc.) and slopes. While these
reaches are plane bed channels and will not have typical riffle/pool bedforms, diversity will be
achieved through the installation of larger bed materials and wood.
9. Page 35 — Please reference the planting window specified in the 2016 NCIRT Mitigation Update
Guidance.
Two sentences have been added to Section 7.3.1, to reference the planting window specified in the
2016 NCIRT Mitigation Update Guidance„ stating: "It is anticipated that the vegetation
planting/replanting will be conducted between November 15 and March 15, per the October 2016

USACE/NCIRT monitoring guidance. However, if the Project completes construction after March 15,
the site will be planted no later than April 30.".
10. Page 35, Table 13 — Since black cherry is not a characteristic species of the Montane Alluvial Forest,
were other species such as yellow poplar, musclewood or pawpaw considered?
Those species were considered, however due to limited availability of those species, RES has not
proposed to plant them. Black cherry was chosen, both as it is a common species in Buncombe
County, NC and it is a soft mast tree that provides pollinator wildlife benefits.
11. Page 36 — Will fescue be treated before or during site construction? DWR recommends early
treatment based on observations of fescue impeding buffer vegetation establishment and vigor.
RES understands DWR's concern with fescue. RES treats fescue, and other invasive species prior to
planting. The following sentence has been revised to Section 7.3.2 to clarify: "Several species will be
treated for as part of the plant community restoration, and those will include Chinese privet, Oriental
bittersweet, princess tree, kudzu, multiflora rose, and fescue. Species treatment will take place prior
to planting."
12. Page 38, Table 14 — Table 1 includes a distinction between total proposed stream length and total
credit generating stream length, should a similar distinction be made in Table 14?
This distinction has been added to Table 14 in Section 7.5.
13. Page 41, Section 8.2 — You may want to rephrase the second sentence to not restrict the age of the
trees counted. Supplemental plants can count towards success in Years 5 and 7 as long as they are
present for the prior two growing seasons.
Section 8.2 has been revised to not restrict the age of trees counted. Additionally, the sentence
regarding volunteer species has been revised to state the following: "Volunteer trees will be counted,
identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards
the success criteria of total planted stems until Years 5 and 7, as long as they were present for the
prior two growing seasons.".
14. Page 42, Section 9.2 — DWR appreciates the inclusion of problem area descriptions and photos, if
applicable. Please consider time of year in selecting representative photos (i.e. visibility of channel
features and flow). DWR also requests visual monitoring photos at proposed crossings.
RES understands DWR's concern with time of year considerations regarding photo selections. Thus,
a sentence has been added to Section 9.2 stating "Time of year will be considered when selecting
representative photos, and those photo dates will be documented in the monitoring report".
Additionally, RES agrees with DWR in regard to visual monitoring photos at proposed crossings and
has added this to the monitoring plan.
15. Page 43, Section 9.5 —
a. Based on a 15-acre proposed planted area, there should be a minimum of 15 veg plots
monitored. Please include an additional 2 plots.
As stated in the section 9.4 Vegetation Monitoring, the vegetation monitoring plots will be a
minimum of 0.02 acres in size. Our plots are 100 meters squared and are therefore 0.0247
acres. Two percent of 15.13 acres is .0.3026 acres, divided by our 0.0247 plot acres gives us a
total of 12.2458 plots, which is where the 13 plots came from.
b. Please notify the IRT if construction planting is anticipated to occur after March 151. If
construction planting is not completed by April 30'h, monitoring for Year 1 should be delayed
until the following growing season.
RES will notify the IRT if construction planting is anticipated to occur after March 15'h
Additionally, RES has added the following statement to Section 9.5 regarding year 1
vegetation monitoring: "If site planting is not completed by April 30th, monitoring Year 1
may be delayed until the following growing season"

16. Page 45, Table 16 — Under Geomorphology, BHR is not a visual monitoring metric, please correct.
Also, in addition to inspecting signage, please inspect fencing and crossings for possible damage.
The monitoring metric for BHR should have been cross section surveys. This has been revised in
Table 16.
17. Page 44, Section 9.6 — Has a macroinvertebrate monitoring reference location been identified? If so,
please provide a description in this section.
A macroinvertebrate monitoring reference location has not been identified.
18. Page 44, Section 9.7 — In the baseline monitoring report, please also include a redline drawing
comparison of as -built survey to mitigation plan design.
The following sentence has been revised in Section 9.7: "The report will include all information
required by IRT mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, redline drawing comparison of as -
built survey to mitigation plan design, photographs and sampling plot locations, gauge locations, and
a description of initial species composition by community type."
19. Figure 10 — For clarity, can all three sections of reach FC2-B please be labelled.
This has been revised, and all three sections of Reach FC2-B are labeled in Figure 10.
20. Sheet F1 —
a. Will the FC4 and FC5 crossings be used for livestock transport? Based on the proposed
fencing plan, it's difficult to see the access route that they would be used for.
These two crossings will not be used for livestock transport but for landowner access only.
b. Please include approximate locations of anticipated gates, particularly access points for the
proposed walking trail.
Sheet F1 has been updated to show approximate gate locations.
21. Sheet 22 — Please confirm whether stone toe protection or a stone sill is proposed across the
confluence of FC11 and FC7-C.
A rock sill is proposed on FC7-C, just upstream of the confluence with FC11. Stone toe protection is
proposed along the right bank of FC7-C and through the confluence with FC11. This stone toe will
act as grade control as FC11 ties into FC7-C.
Steve Kichefski, USACE:
Section 4.1 (page 20) & Table 8 (page 22):
a. You mention 2 new crossings in Section 4.1 but the table only lists one at FC7 A, verify and
update the other new crossing. is the break between FC2-B and SM2 the fixture crossing?
How is the pasture currently accessed across FC7-A?
This section has been revised based on easement adjustments and this comment. Section 4.1
has been revised to state "There are five planned agricultural crossings, the five existing
crossings will be relocated (Figure 7). The crossings are planned on FC1-A, upstream of FC2-
A, FC4-B, FC5-A, and FC7-A. The existing crossing on FC7-C will be removed entirely. The
crossing on FC2-A will be relocated above the reach in Wetland F. Each of the crossings will
occur at easement breaks. The crossings on reach FC4-B and FC5-A, are proposed for fords.
The crossings on FCI-C and FC7-B is proposed for culvert installation."
b. Ensure the PCN includes crossing details such as existing and proposed conditions (culvert
size, ford length, etc.).

The PCN will include the existing and proposed crossing conditions.
2. FC2-A (page 28): Clarify the comment here and in other reaches about a walking trail. Is there
to be a maintained trail within the CE? If yes, more specifics need to be provided prior to IRT
approval and it will need to be more clearly discussed in the mitigation plan, on figures, in the
CE, etc.
A maintained trail is not proposed within the easement. See response to Comment #5 above.
3. FC2-13: It seems this reach is proposed to receive the equivalent of the highest ratio for
preservation even though it is not high -quality preservation and there seems to be minimal
uplift. Provide more detail as to the uplift proposed for this reach. Is it also proposed to receive
additional credit for non-standard buffer widths?
FC2-13 is proposed for Enhancement III at a ratio of 5:1, RES believes this comment is meant for
Reach SM2. In regard to SM2, the uplift is that RES has secured a 300-ft buffer along this reach.
This would be considered high -quality preservation, as described in the Sandy Mush Management
Plan. Additionally, Sandy Mush generated 10:1 along these reaches by protecting one -side of reach
out to 300 feet on one side. By securing the left bank of SM2, this reach would be eligible for 5:1
credit, however RES is proposing a ratio of 10:1, for protecting once side of the reach. Furthermore,
Reach SM2 is not eligible to receive additional credit for the non-standard buffer adjustment, as
described in Section 7.5.1, Section 7.5.3, and seen in Figure 11.
4. Will all fencing and roads be removed from the CE areas, including non-credit reaches? Since
it was a concern of multiple IRT members during both site visits, provide a better description
and location of existing roads and how they will be removed and stabilized within the CE (or
any locations that will remain).
All fencing will be removed from within the easement areas, and all roads and/or paths located within
the CE areas will be abandoned and planted. Any roads/paths within the CE that are actively eroding
will be first stabilized through grading before planting.
5. Section 7.5.3 (page 39): Additional coordination was done for this project regarding the
addition of I -sided buffers along the Sandy Mush Game Land (SMGL) portion of the property.
In particular, the IRT supported giving some credit for Reaches SMI-A, SMI-B, SMl-D and
SM2 in part, due to the increased project connectivity and the past project acceptance (and
sometimes credit issuance) for the buffer on the other side of these reaches in the SMGL. The
general acceptance of these I -sided reaches was factored into the decision (and ratio) to allow
them to earn credit. In fact, the SMGL portion along SMI-A did not receive any credit at all.
Clarify whether additional credit is being sought for these reaches based on non-standard buffer
width calculations.
Clarification has been added to Section 7.5.1 and Section 7.5.3. The following language was added
"Reach SMI-A is subject to the non-standard buffer adjustment, as SMGL received no credit on this
reach (Section 7.5.1). Additionally, no credit will be lost in the minimum buffer zone (0-30 ft) along
SMI-A, where the proposed easement of the Project is contiguous with the SMGL (Figure 11).
However, SMIB, SMI-D, and SM2 are considered ineligible for the non-standard buffer adjustment
calculation, (Figure 11), since SMGL did receive credit on these reaches for high -quality preservation
(Table 15). "
6. Section 12 (page 49): The itemized list of the proposed stewardship endowment could not be
found in Appendix C and will need to be provided.
The endowment calculator provided by the long-term steward has been added to Appendix C.

7. Plan Sheet 23: Will the dissipater basins proposed on these two streams be located in
jurisdictional stream channels (it is unclear from the detail in the pjd)? Within NCDOT ROW?
The design appears to be essentially preformed scour pools and more detail will need to be
provided in the PCN to ensure appropriately justified and sized. Are the existing culvert outlets
perched?
Riffle grade controls and not scour pools will be installed at the culvert outfalls of reaches FC 10 and
FC 11. Since the culvert at the upstream end of FC 10 is perched, a riprap pad will be installed as
needed to stabilize the slope from the culvert invert down to the channel. Part of the proposed work
along each reach will occur just inside the ROW associated with Marshall Road. Sheet S23 and
associated details have been revised accordingly.
8. Plan Sheets 19-23: Will any remaining OHE be left within the CE? Provide more detailed
discussion of the utility line relocation within the mitigation plan.
The existing OHE scheduled to be relocated will be abandoned and removed from within the CE. See
response to NCDWR comment #2.b.

fires
September 30, 2020
Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Todd Tugwell,
Kimberly Browning, & Casey Haywood
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Ste 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Erin Davis
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Todd Bowers
USEPA, Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Andrea Leslie & Travis Wilson
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Rd. Building B
Marion, NC 28752
Re: Dead Oak Final Mitigation Plan Submittal (SAW-2018-00095)
Dear Sir/Madam,
On behalf of Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) & Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (a RES affiliate), I
am pleased to submit the Final Mitigation Plan for the Dead Oak Site, an instrument modification of the RES French
Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank. A prospectus was submitted in January 2018, put on public notice on January
29, 2018, and issued an initial evaluation letter on July 26, 2018. The draft mitigation plan was submitted in January
2020.
The attached plan includes minor modifications from the draft mitigation plan to incorporate suggestions from the
IRT Draft Plan Comment Memo dated on August 12, 2020. The minor alterations and updates are detailed below:
• The final mitigation plan presents 6,464.332 SMUs (6,346.201 in the draft mitigation plan);
• The project conservation easement has been increased to 41.58 acres because of a successful negotiation with
the primary landowner about removing an easement break on reach FC2-B that would have allowed for future
logging activity. This also increases the area of the project that abuts Sandy Mush Game Lands (SMGL);
• An agricultural crossing was relocated from reach FC2-A to outside of the easement above reach FC2,
removing an additional easement break;
• Reaches SM1-B, SM1-D, and SM2 were considered ineligible for the non-standard buffer adjustment
calculation since SMGL did receive credit on these reaches for high -quality preservation, and RES will be
completing the high -quality preservation of the reaches by protecting the right bank of these features;
• RES has supplied an updated JD with an updated aquatic resource inventory table and Waters of the US Map
based on survey data.
We look forward to discussing this project with you in more detail as your review progresses.
Sincerely,
Matt Butler
Project Manager
res.us