20201357 Ver 1_Draft Mit Plan Comments SAW-2020-01540_20210616

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 5:04 PM
To: Catherine Manner; Adam McIntyre
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Davis, Erin B;
Wilson, Travis W.; Munzer, Olivia; Bowers, Todd; Youngman, Holland J; Hamstead,
Byron A; Merritt, Katie; McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Jones, M Scott
(Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA);
Brown, David W CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] WLS Catawba 01 UMBI - Starker Mitigation Site Draft Mit Plan Comments/
SAW-2020-01540/ Catawba County
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_WLS Cat01-Starker_SAW-2020-01540.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 Spam.
Catherine,
Attached are the WLS Catawba 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Starker Site Draft Mitigation Plan IRT comments. You may
proceed with developing the final mitigation plan for the Starker Mitigation Site provided you adequately address all
comments/concerns in the enclosed memo. Please ensure that each member of the IRT is provided an electronic copy
of the Final Mitigation Plan and comment responses. In addition, please submit your Nationwide Permit 27 application
after approval of the banking instrument for review and approval prior to discharging fill material into waters of the
United States.
Feel free to contact me with questions as you preparing the final plan submittal. This electronic copy is your official
Department of the Army Notification; no paper copy will be mailed.
Regards,
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
G
,P REPLY TO
of ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Browning June 16, 2020
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: WLS Catawba 01 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and Starker Mitigation
Site Draft Mitigation Plan Review, Catawba County, NC
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received from the NCIRT during the 30-day
comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.
USACE AID#: SAW-2020-01540 30-Day Comment Deadline: April 27, 2021
Kim Browning, USACE:
1. UMBI: The correct agency representatives are
a. Corps: Kim Browning, Wilmington District Mitigation Office, 3331 Heritage Trade
Drive, Suite 105, Wake Forest, NC 27587
b. USFWS: Replace Claire Ellwanger with Holland Youngman
c. NMFS: Replace Ken Riley with Twyla Cheatwood
2. S100: During the IRT site visit rehabilitation was discussed for Wetland A, with wetland
enhancement inside the wood line. I would welcome the inclusion of this area in the
mitigation plan for credit, particularly since Section 6 refers to wetland enhancement as
being one of the critical benefits of stream restoration, provided a wetland gauge be
installed prior to construction to document existing conditions and demonstrate
functional uplift.
3. General: I appreciate the level of detail and site -specific information provided.
4. Section 3.6.2: Please discuss the survey results for the dwarf -flowered heartleaf.
5. Section 4 and Table 7 references the stream functions pyramid and function -based
goals as a way to measure functional uplift. Physiochemical and biological functions are
benefits that are presumed and will not be measured by monitoring. Unless you intend
to demonstrate actual uplift in biology and water quality, I recommend that these
sections be reworded to state that uplift in these areas is implied.
6. Table 7: The landscape connectivity benefits related to biology are listed as "...the
restored stream bed will allow animals to have easier access to a drinking water
source." It's not appropriate for livestock to use the mitigation site streams as a source
of water. It would be more appropriate to discuss aquatic species in this section.
7. Table 8: Why are the proposed credits approximately 300 LF less than the existing
length? Is this to account for stream crossings? The areas that are not credited but are
park of this project should be listed as non -credited LF in this table.
8. Sections 6.3 and 9.1.3: Is a rain gauge proposed to be installed on site to demonstrate
normal rainfall conditions? If so, please indicate its location on Figure 10. Additionally,
obtaining precipitation data from the Oxford RS is acceptable, but should that data not

be available, we feel that the Hickory Airport Station that is 12.5 miles away is too far to
accurately represent site conditions.
9. Section 6.3.1: Development within the watershed is a major consideration for this
project and it's understood that increases to runoff patterns were accounted for when
considering higher/steeper discharge curves and additional grade control structures.
Were allowances for increased floodplain width and storage considered. 100-150 ft
buffers would be beneficial on this site.
10. Section 6.4.1: Please include the location of the reference sites used. Additionally, add
a figure that shows the location of the reference sites in relation to the project site.
11. Section 6.5: Please show these water quality treatment areas on Figures 9 & 10 and
verify that they will not be placed in jurisdictional waters.
12. Table 16 and Design Sheet 3A: The Note indicates that species may change due to
refinement or availability. Please notify the IRT if species are substituted, and red -line in
the As -Built.
13. Section 6.6: Since both Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and Mixed-Mesic
Hardwood Forest target communities are proposed, these areas should be
differentiated on Design sheets 28-31. It's also recommended to include a figure that
shows the different planting zones.
14.Section 6.6.1: Vegetation planting must be conducted between November 15 and
March 15.
15. Page 39: Japanese stiltgrass should be added to this section.
16. Section 6.7.4: I appreciate the detail in this section. Under Land Use Development,
please discuss the potential for future utility/sewer/greenway installation. The IRT is
approached numerous times a year with encroachment requests and it would be
beneficial to anticipate these concerns now.
17.Table 18, page 42: Livestock exclusion fencing is listed as a routine maintenance
component; however, it's unclear on the figures and design sheets where fencing will be
installed/is existing.
18. Page 43, Jurisdictional Stream Flow: Please note that the 30-days of consecutive flow
should be viewed as a minimum threshold and not a goal. Streams that are currently
listed as perennial are expected to have nearly constant flow all year.
19.Page 43, Photo Documentation: Please include a statement regarding stability of
crossings.
20.Section 9.1: This section discusses Enhancement Level II. Please confirm that all
reaches will involve a restoration approach.
21. Section 9.2: It's unclear which areas of vegetation are considered preservation areas.
a. Volunteer species on the approved planting list may be counted towards success
after being present for two years.
22.Section 10 and Appendix D: Please include the Long -Term Endowment calculation
spreadsheet which shows how the amount of $61,297 was calculated (annual
monitoring, signage replacement, travel, legal fees, cap rate, etc.).
23.Section 12, Financial Assurances:
a. Performance and construction bonds are preferable to casualty insurance. Some
concerns to consider with the use of casualty insurance include: The assurances
need to be structured so that the timeframes in the effective coverage periods
allow the IRT time to conduct reviews of the as -built and monitoring reports.

Ideally, coverage for the different periods should only terminate once we have
provided approval of the as -built or monitoring reports. Related to this, planting
completion poses a potential issue. The timeframes included in the insurance
policy that only cover construction through, for example, April 1st would obviously
be insufficient since the IRT would never approve as -built until after the site work
is complete (including planting).
b. The financial assurance section does include a cost breakdown and a provision
for contingency/remedial action of $104,000, but this amounts to only 8% of the
cost of construction, which seems inadequate. This amount also diminishes
across the life of monitoring, so there is even less contingency funding available
toward the end of the project.
24. Correspondence from USFWS and NCWRC is attached for reference.
Casey Haywood, USACE:
1. Pg 1 Intro: Please include site location and directions in the introduction.
2. Pg. 19 3.6.3 Conditions Affecting Hydrology- It would be helpful discuss the size and
type of culverts in this section.
3. Pg 23 Table 8 Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits: Recommend indicating P1/P2
restoration for project reaches. Also recommend identifying P1/P2 reaches on the
Proposed Mitigation Map, Figure 9.
4. Pg. 28 Section 6.2.1 Stream Design Reach Summary
a. S100- in section 3.6.3 Conditions Affecting Hydrology: S100 has one crossing
being replaced and one crossing was being added as a potential future crossing.
There are no discussion/details given for the culvert being replaced on this reach.
Please provide further detail (size/type).
b. It seems that many of the culverts being installed are smooth -wall HDPE. Please
note that HDPE is the least preferred of all hydraulic structure materials because
the smooth walls do not provide any roughness and do not hold substrate
material.
5. Pg 38 The narrative mentions both Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest on narrow
stream floodplains and Mixed-Mesic Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) on adjacent
side slopes.
a. IRT encourages separating planting zones for wetlands, riparian areas, uplands,
and streamside assemblages. Recommend adding a figure/map that identifies
the planting zones.
b. Recommend adding wetland indicator status to the planting list on Table 16 and
on design sheet 3A.
6. Pg 38 Section 6.6.1 Planting Materials and Methods:
a. Please note that vegetation planting/replanting must be conducted between
November 15 and March 15 in order to be counted toward success for the
subsequent growing season.
b. Please include discussion in the text how you plan to treat/manage the existing
fescue.
c. During the September 30, 2020 site visit, IRT noted many black walnut species -
Please include discussion in the narrative that existing black walnut may be

removed as needed. It may also be helpful to add this to Table 18. Routine
Maintenance Components.
7. Pg 42-43 Section 8.1 Stream Performance standards
a. Please note that ER must be no less than 1.4 at any measured riffle cross-
section on B-type reaches and no less than 2.2 on C-type reaches where ER is
altered to reference condition through design and construction.
b. Please add to the performance standards that BHR and ER at any measured
riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline conditions
during any monitoring interval.
8. Pg 46 Section 9.2 Vegetation Monitoring: What will the total planted acreage be for the
site?
9. Figure 8 and Table 9 stream lengths and credits do not match. Please update for
consistency.
10. Figure 10 Proposed Monitoring Map: Please mark location of photo points to include
crossings and culverts. Recommend adding a footnote to the figure if cross -sections are
being used as fixed photo points.
11.Appreciate flow gauges on S101, 102, & 103 in the upper third of the reach.
12.Appreciate that veg plot locations capture the various soil types and encompass
portions of the existing wetlands.
13. Recommend adding some photos in the narrative.
14.Please verify if the wetland groundwater gauge recommended on S100 during the
September 30, 2020 site visit was installed. Even though wetland credit is not being
pursued it is important to document existing conditions to demonstrate functional lift and
ensure that there is no net loss of wetlands as a result of restoration.
Travis Wilson, WRC:
1. The culverts are currently designed as smooth wall HDPE. CMP or RCP should be used for
pipe culverts. HDPE smooth wall pipes do not allow for any roughness and will not retain
substrate in the structure. Additionally, due to the smooth wall and common algae
accumulation these structures are not suitable for reptile and amphibian passage, which is a
concern with the potential future development mentioned in the mitigation plan.
2. "Future Crossing" located at approximate station 36+70 on S100. The preference would be
to include this crossing within the conservation easement, but as non -credited, in order for
the site to be reviewed and monitored if a crossing is eventually installed at this location.
Another option would be to include the design and installation of this crossing during site
construction. Allowing an easement break for a small crossing that could have limited
project impact review with the new culvert could result in an inadequate and improperly
installed structure that would result in adverse impacts upstream and downstream into the
credited portions of the mitigation site.
3. The downstream culvert at the end of S100 at station 67+90 is shown as a 36" CMP, much
smaller than the structures upstream on this reach. Unless prohibited due to a change in
landowners the preference would be to include a new properly sized and installed crossing
at this location. By replacing this structure with an upgraded structure, it will reasonably
preclude future problems associated with maintaining an old undersized structure.

4. As for the 1-40 culverts it looks like the channel design will repair the perched condition by
bringing the water surface elevation back into the culvert invert. Additional armoring (below
the substrate) of the outlet pool may be necessary to insure Tong -term stability. Outlet
stability and downstream stability is the primary concerns at the 1-40 culverts, due to the
culvert length, slope, and watershed size aquatic organism passage is unlikely.
Erin Davis, DWR:
1. DWR appreciates the discussion of potential surrounding land use changes throughout
the document, including consideration of both rural and urban regional curves in the
stream design.
2. Page 19, Section 3.6.3 — Figure 8 shows an existing culvert within the proposed CE
along S200 (lower), but no culvert at the bottom of S200. This is inconsistent with the
section text. Also, please verify that the existing culvert(s) to remain are properly sized
and in good condition.
3. Page 20, Section 4 — This section notes that functional objectives will be measured to
document project success. How will native woody debris be measured to document
biological function success? How do the functional design objectives in Table 6 relate
to the potential function uplift and measurement methods in Table 19?
4. Page 21, Section 4.1.1 — This section states that restoration activities "will likely" provide
functional uplift within the Level 4 and 5 categories. Please clearly note whether these
categories will be included in monitoring to demonstrate project success.
5. Page 22, Table 7 — Under Landscape Connectivity, what animals drinking from the
stream are being referenced? Is this the best example of biology benefits from
landscape connectivity?
6. Page 23, Table 8 — Six of the nine reaches show a reduction in length from existing to
proposed creditable stream channel. Do the crossings account for the total differences
or will the proposed stream design result in a reduction of jurisdictional waters?
7. Page 24, Section 6 — Please confirm the 9,965 LF of stream restoration referenced
includes 308 LF of non-credit stream restoration.
8. Page 29 — During the IRT prospectus site walk, we discussed our concern about post -
construction flow along S101, S102 and S103 where the streambed will be significantly
raised. Flow gauges should be located to demonstrate sufficient flow throughout these
reaches to meet performance standards.
9. Page 29 — DWR appreciates the statement to minimize tree loss to the extent possible.
From DWR's perspective this does not need to include protecting black walnut (site -
wide comment).
10. Page 36, Section 6.4.1 — UT to Little Fisher River was identified as a reference quality
stream even with the disturbance noted?
11. Page 37, Section 6.5 — There are no details or callouts in the design sheets for
floodplain interceptors or grass swales.
12. Page 38-39, Tables 16 & 17 — Please include wetland indicator status for species in
both tables.
13. Page 38, Table 16 — Were species present at the two stream reference sites considered
in developing the planting list? Please clarify whether the Mixed-Mesic Forest and
Alluvial Forest are two distinct target communities to be established within the project

site or two community types used to develop a single target community for the project
site. If two distinct target communities are proposed, Sheets 28 — 31 should show the
different planting zones.
14. Page 38, Section 6.6.1 — DWR maintains that March 15th should be the planting target
end date.
15.Page 39, Table 17 — The seed mix composition is primarily FAC/FACU. Given the
existing wetland and proposed floodplain reestablishment, will these species provide
adequate cover for the expected range of soil wetness conditions?
16. Page 39, Invasive Species — Will fescue be treated prior to or during construction?
17. Page 40, Section 6.7.1 — On the as -built drawings, please callout depressional area
locations (including partially filled channel/ditch areas) greater than 14 inches deep.
18. Page 43, Jurisdictional stream flow — Please clarify that is an annual performance
standard during the monitoring period.
19. Page 43, Section 8.2 — Recommend rephrasing so stems counted aren't restricted to 3-
yr, 5-yr and 7-yr old trees. Replanted stems can count towards success two years after
planting.
20. Page 44, Section 9.1 — There are no Enhancement II reaches identified within this
project.
21. Page 46, Section 9.2 — Will there be undisturbed wooded preservation areas? Sheets
28 — 31 show the entire site being planted.
22. Page 48, Table 19 — Under Establish Riparian Buffer Vegetation, please note the vigor
requirement.
23. Figure 9 — There is no callout for the removal of the lower S200 culvert shown on Figure
8. Please confirm.
24. Figure 10 —
a. Please show locations of proposed pressure transducers/crest gauges along
S100 and S200 to adequately demonstrate bankfull events.
b. Please note or show locations of proposed fixed photo locations, including at
cross -sections, veg plots and stream crossings.
c. There appears to be no veg plots proposed in existing wooded areas. Since all
project streams are proposed for restoration, DWR would expect at least some of
these wooded areas to be disturbed/cleared during construction and require
replanting. Additionally, Sheets 28 — 31 show the entire conservation easement
being planted. Please confirm that the number of veg plots meet the minimum
monitoring criteria for the project planting area. If portions of the site will not be
planted, please identify those areas on Sheets 28 — 31 and include a total area
calculation reference in the mit plan narrative. Please redistribute veg plots to
adequately cover the project site, including adding a plot to the S100 section
below the second crossing north of 1-40.
25. Please add or modify a figure to show the locations of the two reference sites in relation
to the project site.
26. Sheet 1A — Is there a difference between the two j-hooks or two rock steps listed in the
legend?
27. Sheet 3A — What species are proposed for the live staking and toewood live cuttings?
28. Sheet 2H — Please confirm the proposed culverts will be buried in compliance with
DWR's GC-4134 general condition #11.

29. Sheet 2K — Have proposed ditch plug locations been identified?
30. Sheet 2L — Please confirm there is only one ditch callout for the project, Sheet 17.
31. Sheet 4 — Please provide context and construction details for the Berm. I don't believe
this feature was mentioned in the plan narrative. Also, please callout the gravel drain
feature noted in Section 6.2.1.
32. Sheets 4, 7, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19 — Please provide a typical detail(s) for the proposed
"stabilize connections". Based on the total number of these features, I'm assuming
these are the water quality treatment features noted in Section 6.5. Considering five of
these features originate at or beyond the easement boundary, DWR is concerned that
they may act as a simple rock lined conveyance which would bypass the reforested
buffer meant to improve water quality. DWR would like to see a design that as
described in the narrative will "dissipate energy and gradually step-down to the stable
design streams," as well as trap excessive sediment inputs.
33. Sheet 6 — Were alternatives to a smooth wall culvert considered? Are there any aquatic
passage concerns with using smooth wall HDPE?
34. Sheet 9 — Will the proposed constructed riffle adequately stabilize the easement break
for the landowner's current site use?
35. Design Sheets — Please show floodplain grading lines on the final plans. The narrative
notes a minimum 1.5 bankfull width floodplain design in most areas, which DWR
appreciates. DWR was also glad to see a gentler slope planned between floodplain and
terrace areas where feasible.
36. Design Sheets — Is any fencing proposed? If so, please include an overall fencing
concept plan with approximate locations of existing (to remain) and proposed fencing.
Please ensure there is adequate safe access points for regulatory agency and long-
term steward representatives to walk the site.
37. DWR really appreciated the level of detail and site specific discussion provided in this
project draft mitigation plan, particularly in the site constraints, regulatory
considerations, and project risks and uncertainties sections.
Todd Bowers, EPA:
Note: It is understood that site visits may have been made by IRT members and other
project managers during the development of site feasibility to provide mitigation credit. In
that regard, I feel it is necessary to mention that I have not been on -site during this process
and that my comments may reflect a lack of on -site observation and evaluation.
1. General Comment: I really appreciate the sponsors consideration in addressing future
development near and/or adjacent to the site within the drainage area for both of the main
streams. Also appreciate the consideration of the potential widening of Interstate 40 in
Catawba County as a very real possibility and that appropriate setbacks were utilized.
2. General Comment: I almost overlooked the site photos (Appendix H) which some may
have been useful in the main body of the document to enhance the narrative. Great
illustration of the many stressors on and instabilities of the streams in the Starker Project.
3. Section 1.3/Page 6: The project does not involve stream enhancement as all streams
are undergoing Priority 1 or 2 restoration.
4. Section 2.1/Page 7: The lat/long for the site is erroneous.

5. Section 3.4.2: Recommend reorganizing the stream nomenclature by addressing each
stream segment by a name and reach #. The additional crossing language is confusing as
there are multiple existing crossings along each main stem along with a new one that is
being proposed. Example: S1 Reaches 1-5, S2 Reach 1, S2 Reach 2, S2 Reach 3 instead
of "north of" or "below" crossings. Consider renaming tributaries as S3, S4 and S5. Clearly
identify each Reach segment on the maps of Figures 8 and 9. This will make all the tables
much easier to read too.
6. Figure 9: Stream lengths and credits do not match Table 8 in Section 5.1. Recommend
that Restoration Priority 1 and 2 approaches are highlighted in Figure 9.
7. Section 3.6.3/Page 19: I appreciate the plain language that states that the 60-foot
crossing widths are based on future development of adjacent parcels and not due to
landowner preference.
8. Section 6.1/Page 25: As the anticipated floodplain is between 50 to 70 feet along most
of the project reaches, was the Conservation Easement width designed to encompass the
stream floodplains?
9. Section 6.1/Page 25: Along with topsoil stockpiling for reapplication in P2 restoration
reaches is there any plan for soil amendments in these areas to promote vigorous plant
growth?
10. Table 10: I am a bit suspect of the listed Drainage Areas that don't seem to change
much moving downstream. I may have missed it, but I don't see design discharge (Max Q)
listed anywhere in this table. I understand design discharge is well addressed in later tables
(13 and 14).
11. Section 6.2.1: Reiterating my comment on renaming the streams across the site to
remove confusion between text, tables and figures. Sequentially numbering the Reaches
along each main stem will reduce confusion with current and proposed crossings and
locations.
12. Section 6.3.1/Page 32: Once again I appreciate the sponsors consideration of future
development along with regional curves and reference reaches when designing the stream
parameters.
13. Section 11/Page 49: "physical inspection of the site will take place at least once a year
throughout the post -construction monitoring period" is in conflict with Section 7 that states:
"Project will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the Project will
take place at least twice a year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until
performance standards are met"
14. Given the existing wetlands currently within the conservation easement and the
potential for flooding in the downstream reaches near Lyle Creek, I recommend adding the
wetland indicator status to each species being considered for planting. Recommend
considering differing planting zones (currently a single zone) if significant hydrologic regimes
exist or may develop along the riparian buffer within the easement. Recommend adding a
simpler vegetation planting map as a Figure since the plan sheets were very cumbersome
to view due to size.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
01 September 2020
Ms. Erin Bennett
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration
1150 S.E. Maynard Road, Suite 140
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Subject: Request for Project Review and Comments
Starker Stream Mitigation Site
Catawba County, North Carolina.
Dear Ms. Bennett,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your request to
review and comment on any possible concerns regarding Starker Stream Mitigation Site. Biologists with
NCWRC have reviewed the provided documents. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North
Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The Starker Stream Mitigation Site is located north of Interstate 40 (I-40) and south of Rock Barn Road,
and south of I-40 and east of Banner Road NE near Claremont, Catawba County, North Carolina. The
site occurs within an existing agricultural and wooded areas.
We have no known records for rare, threatened, or endangered species at the site. Ecosystem Planning &
Restoration (EPR) surveyed the site for federal and state endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) in mid -July and found no individuals. The optimal survey period for Schweinitz's sunflower
is late August through October. EPR states potential suitable habitat occurs for the federal and state
threatened dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) and surveys will be conducted in spring 2021.
We offer the following preliminary recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife resources:
1. We recommend surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower are conducted during the optimal survey
window of mid -August through October. We suggest EPR contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) at [phone].
2. We recommend that riparian buffers are as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner
needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to
maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland
runoff, and wildlife habitat.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
01 September 2020
Starker Stream Mitigation Site
Catawba County
3. Due to the decline in bat populations, we recommend leaving snags and mature trees, or if
necessary, remove tees outside the maternity roosting season for bats (May 15 — August 15).
4. We recommend the planting list is diverse and consists of species typically found in that natural
vegetation community, as described by M.P. Schafale in The Guide to The Natural Communities
of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation (https://www.ncnhp.org/references/nhp-
publications/fourth-approximation-descriptions).
5. We recommend reducing the number of right-of-way easements that fragment the mitigation
project. If feasible, we suggest extending the mitigation project along Mull Creek to further
increase hydrologic function, restore ecological function in the watershed, and provide a corridor
for wildlife.
6. Ensure the culverts provide aquatic life passage during low flows.
7. Stringent sediment and erosion control measures should be implemented. The use of
biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose -weave netting
that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal
twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it
impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have
detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of
eggs, and clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. We will provide additional comments during the
site visit. If I can be of assistance, please call [phone] or email [e-mail].
Sincerely,
(2L,
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Ec: Steve Kichefski, US Army Corps of Engineers
Erin Davis, NC Division of Water Resources
Byron Hamstead, USFWS

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 23, 2021
Erin Bennett
System Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 S.E. Maynard Road, Suite 140
Cary, North Carolina 27511
[e-mail]
Dear Erin Bennett:
Subject: Proposed Starker Mitigation Bank; Catawba County, North Carolina
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence received on April 19, 2021, for the project referenced above wherein you solicit
comments regarding potential impacts to federally protected species to satisfy nationwide permit
application requirements. We submit the following comments in accordance with the provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, the proposed project involves restoration and
enhancement of two unnamed tributaries which connect with Mull Creek River in Claremont,
North Carolina. Design plans and descriptions of proposed impact minimization measures were
not provided in your correspondence. Onsite habitats (instream and riparian) are highly
disturbed due to a legacy of agricultural land use. Surrounding land cover is dominated by
forested areas, agricultural and residential developments.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
Suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the project area for the federally threatened
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and Service records indicate multiple mist -net
captures of this animal in the project vicinity. However, the final 4(d) rule (effective as of
February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of northern long-eared bat associated with activities
that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from
a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season (June 1 — July 31). Based on the
information provided, the project would occur at a location where any incidental take that may
result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule. Although not required, we
encourage you to conduct tree removal activities outside of the northern long-eared bat
pup season (June 1 to July 31) and/or the active season (April 1 to October 15). This will
minimize impacts to pups at roosts not yet identified.

Service records indicate several known occurrences of the federally threatened dwarf -flowered
heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) in the project vicinity. Moreover, your correspondence indicates
that suitable habitat is present onsite for dwarf -flowered heartleaf and the federally endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). However, botanical surveys conducted during
September 30, 2020 and April 15, 2021 detected no evidence for these species at that time. Due
to the presence of suitable habitat, but lack of onsite evidence for these species, we believe the
probability for project -mediated loss is insignificant and discountable. Therefore, we would
concur with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination for these species from
the applicable federal action agency.
Please be aware that obligations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We offer the following general recommendations on behalf of natural resources:
Erosion and Sediment Control
Construction activities near aquatic resources, streams, and wetlands have the potential to cause
bank destabilization, water pollution, and water quality degradation if measures to control site
runoff are not properly installed and maintained. In order to effectively reduce erosion and
sedimentation impacts, best management practices specific to the extent and type of construction
should be designed and installed prior to land disturbing activities and should be maintained
throughout construction. Natural fiber matting (coir) should be used for erosion control as
synthetic netting can trap animals and persists in the environment beyond its intended purpose.
Land disturbance should be limited to what can be stabilized quickly, preferably by the end of
the workday. Once construction is complete, disturbed areas should be revegetated with native
riparian grass and tree species as soon as possible. For maximum benefits to water quality and
bank stabilization, riparian areas should be forested; however, if the areas are maintained in
grass, they should not be mowed. The Service can provide information on potential sources of
plant material upon request.
A complete design manual that is consistent with the requirements of the North Carolina
Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative Rules, can be found at the
following web site: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources.
Stream Channel and Bank Restoration
A natural, stable stream system is one that is able to transport a wide range of flows and
associated sediment bed load while maintaining channel features and neither degrading nor
aggrading. Alterations to the dimension, pattern, or profile of the stream channel as well as
changes to streambank vegetation, floodplains, hydrology, or sediment input can significantly
alter this equilibrium.
We offer the following recommendations for the Applicant's consideration:
2

1. Streambanks with deep-rooted woody vegetation are the most stable, and stream
restoration efforts should incorporate the use of native vegetation adapted to the site
conditions. Live dormant stakes may be used to reestablish root structure in riparian
areas. In areas where banks are severely undercut, high, and steep, whole -tree revetment
or rock may be used as a stabilization treatment (small rock, gravel, sand, and dirt are not
recommended due to their erosive nature), and it should not extend above the bank -full
elevation (the elevation of the channel where the natural floodplain begins).
Deep -rooting woody vegetation should be established along banks where any channel
work is accomplished. Tree and shrub plantings should be spaced at intervals no greater
than 10 feet along banks. Vegetated riparian zone widths should be as wide as practical
but should extend at least 30 feet from the stream channel.
2. Only the absolute minimum amount of work should be done within stream channels to
accomplish necessary reconstruction. Restoration plans should account for the
constraints of the site and the opportunities to improve stream pattern, dimension, and
profile with minimal disturbance.
3. Reconstruction work should follow natural channel design methodologies that are based
on the bank -full, or channel -forming, stage of the stream. Bank -full stage maintains the
natural channel dimensions and transports the bulk of sediment over time. Natural
channel conditions should be identified using a reference reach (nearby stream reaches
that exemplify restoration goals). Restoration design should match the pattern,
dimension, and profile of the reference reach to ensure the project's success.
4. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area to the
extent possible. Sandbags, cofferdams, bladder dams, or other diversion structures
should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water. These diversion structures should
be removed as soon as the work area is stable.
5. Equipment should not be operated in the stream unless absolutely necessary. Machinery
should be operated from the banks in a fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody
vegetation. Equipment should be: (a) washed to remove any contaminant residue prior
to project construction, (b) in good working order, and (c) checked to ensure there are no
leaks of potential contaminants (such as oil or other lubricants) prior to and during
construction.
6. Adequate measures to control sediment and erosion must be implemented prior to any
ground -disturbing activities in order to minimize effects on downstream aquatic
resources. In North Carolina, non -cohesive and erosion -prone soils are most common in
the felsic-crystalline terrains of the mountain and upper piedmont regions. Therefore,
reconstruction work should be staged such that disturbed areas would be stabilized with
seeding, mulch, and/or biodegradable (coir) erosion -control matting prior to the end of
each workday. Matting should be secured in place with staples; stakes; or, wherever
possible, live stakes of native trees. If rain is expected prior to temporary seed
establishment, additional measures should be implemented to protect water quality along
3

slopes and overburden stockpiles (for example, stockpiles may be covered with plastic or
other geotextile material and surrounded with silt fencing).
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at [e-mail], if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-20-421.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
4