20201990 Ver 1_Draft Mitigation Plan comments_20210601

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 2:07 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers,
Todd; Dunn, Maria T.; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Dunn, Maria T.;
[e-mail]
Cc: Lekson, David M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Bradley Breslow
Subject: [External] SAW-2018-02027 Pasquotank 05 White Hat Draft Mitigation Plan
comments
Attachments: SAW-2018-02027_RES Pasquotank 05 UMBI_White Hat_SAW-2018-02027.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.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Attached are the RES Pasquotank 05 UMB - White Hat draft mitigation site comments for your records. We
have requested additional information regarding the perpetual flow easement on the upstream adjacent
property prior to submittal of the final mitigation plan.
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Original Message
From: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 4:47 PM
To: Matt Butler <[e-mail]>
Cc: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2018-02027 Pasquotank 05 White Hat Draft Mitigation Plan
Matt,
Attached are the Pasquotank 05 UMBI, White Hat, Draft Mitigation Plan (dated January 29, 2021) IRT
comments. You may proceed with developing the final mitigation plan for the Pasquotank 05, Whit Hat Site
provided you adequately address all comments/concerns in the enclosed memo. Please submit one
1

(1) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy of the Final Mitigation Plan to me and I will distribute to the IRT
through
RIBITS. In addition, please submit your Nationwide Permit 27 application to this office for review and approval
prior to discharging fill material into waters of the United States. Additionally you should provide information
regarding the "Perpetual Flow" easement indicated in the plan prior to submitting the final mitigation plan.
You should submit the easement language and landowners that are adjacent to the easement area. Please let
me know if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a call to discuss the enclosed comments.
Best Regards,
Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Field Office
910-251-4584
We at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch are committed to improving service to our
customers. We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated
Customer Service Survey is located at: Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
<Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0>
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
2

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTONAVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OP:
CESAW-RG/Barnes May 28 , 2021
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: The RES Pasquotank 05 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and White Hat
Stream and Wetland Draft Mitigation Plan Review, Perquimans 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-2018-02027
30-Day Comment Deadline: April 2, 2021
Kim Browning, USACE:
1. UMBI: The correct contact for NMFS is Twyla Cheatwood (Dr. Ken Riley moved to a
different division) and the contact for NCDCM is Cathy Brittingham, 1638 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699. Please update.
2. In addition to Figure 1, please include a separate Service Area Map.
3. Figure 12: Please add veg plots to encompass areas where the farm path was removed,
particularly near DC1-A, and in areas where ditches were filled (random is fine).
Additionally, please capture the areas where the planted pine is removed south of DC1-
B with a permanent veg plot.
4. Section 1.2 states that all wetlands will be improved in both hydrologic and vegetative
function. Why is there only one well collecting pre -data (page 26)? Additional pre -data
would be helpful to demonstrate uplift.
5. Table 1: Please add a line to the table to show the credit gain for additional buffers is
1,177.370 SMUs.
6. Section 3.1.2: Do you anticipate that the Class SC waters, tidal salt waters, will be
affected by potential future sea level rise?
7. Section 1.2 and Table 1 reference 21.073 acres of wetland credit and section 3.3 states
that at least 22.04 acres will be credit generating. Please check consistency.
8. I appreciate the detail of existing conditions in Sections 3.5 and 3.6.
9. Section 3.4: Please address whether wetlands will be located near airports within 5 miles
of the aircraft operations area. Open water in wetlands will likely attract water fowl and
cause wildlife hazard and potential bird -strikes. Refer to the FAA Advisory Circular [150-
5200-33C], dated February 21, 2020, for additional guidance.
10. Section 6.1.1.1: Please confirm that the treatment swales are not being placed in
existing jurisdictional wetlands.

11. Section 6.1.3.1: The text states that re-establishment at 1:1 will occur on WJ, WH, WK,
WE, and WD; However, Figure 9 shows that WD, WH and WE are planned for
enhancement. Please verify and re -word for clarity.
12. Table 14: It would also be beneficial to add a moderate shrub layer of appropriate
species for Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamps.
13. Section 6.2.3: Will the existing farm path also be ripped in areas where channel
relocation will not eliminate this need?
14. Section 7.2.1: A hydroperiod of 12% for the site is acceptable. Language regarding a
slightly lower hydroperiod should be removed.
15. Section 8.5: A wetland gauge should be added to WE enhancement area, near the
southwest edge, to establish the limits of jurisdiction.
16. Section 8.6: While I agree that the site is fairly uniform, there are several areas where
trees will be removed and compaction concerns from past farming activities exist.
Permanent plots should be added to the planted area north of DC1-B (past cropland)
and south of DC1-A, in addition to those listed in comment #3. If vegetation monitoring
suggests that the site is not on a trajectory for success, additional plots may be required.
17. Table 18: Please ensure that site boundary markers and spaced often enough that
landowner encroachment along DC1-B is not a concern with regard to farming practices.
18. Appendix A, Site Protection Instrument: The obligation letter and spreadsheet from
UP2S lists the conservation easement as 76.34 acres, while Section 1.1 indicates the
easement is 76.32 acres. Please confirm. Additionally, will UP2S be responsible for
monitoring the 23.60-acre perpetual flowage easement? If so, this should be accounted
for in the endowment calculation. If not, who will be responsible for monitoring the
flowage easement? This should be discussed in Section 10. Finally, please include the
actual flowage easement documents, any restrictions it may pose, and a general
description of the easement.
19. General: A reference site should be included to identify reference conditions for different
resources proposed to be restored or enhanced as part of the project. The plan should
identify the location of all reference sites in the mitigation plan and provide NC SAM and
NC WAM assessment ratings for the sites. The mitigation plan should also address
expected discrepancies between the reference sites and the mitigation site that may
occur because of the developmental differences that exist (e.g., hydrology within
reference sites may be lower than expected on the mitigation site due to increased
evapotranspiration resulting from more mature vegetation than on a newly planted
wetland site).
Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1. Page 5, Section 3.1.2 — How did you assess that there was no evidence of salt water or
significant tidal influence (e.g. YSI salinity readings)? Is there any tidal influence within
the project site?
2. Page 8, Section 3.4.2 — Please provide more discussion of the evaluation of hydrologic
trespass risk (stream and wetland) and more information on the perpetual flowage
easement.

3. Page 10, Section 3.5.1 — Please callout the hunting impoundment on Figure 7. Will this
feature be graded/filled during construction? It wasn't mentioned in the mitigation work
plan or shown on the design sheets.
4. Page 21, Section 6.1.1 — Please identify at least one stream reference site or provide an
explanation why one is not available/applicable.
5. Page 21, Section 6.1.1.1 — It appears the existing culvert crossing is proposed to
remain. Please confirm that the culvert is in good condition, properly sized and allows
proper aquatic species passage.
6. Page 25, Section 6.1.3.1 — Will areas where the existing farm road and wetland re-
establishment areas overlap necessitate ripping? Are any wetland credit areas
proposed to overlap channel plug areas? If so, is vegetation establishment a concern
due to the soil compaction for the plug?
7. Page 26, Section 6.1.3.2 — What is the proposed functional uplift for the wetland
enhancement area identified south of DC1-C? This area is shown outside of the
proposed planting area and no bed elevation change or right bank grading is proposed
for DC1-C.
8. Page 26, Section 6.2 — Are any of the proposed treatment swales located with wetland
credit areas? Also, please indicate whether these stormwater features require long-term
maintenance.
9. Page 27, Section 6.3.1 — Please confirm Blackwater Bottomland Hardwoods is
accurate; Brownwater was mentioned earlier in the mitigation plan.
10. Page 28, Table 14 — There are multiple species listed that do not appear under Section
3.2.3 Vegetation or in the identified Schafale community type descriptions. Is there a
separate reference community plant list that can be included as a resource?
11. Page 28, Section 6.3.2 — This section could be renamed to "nuisance" species to
include pine maintenance during the monitoring period. If not addressed in this section,
please describe the approach to site management of pine colonization elsewhere in the
final mitigation plan.
12. Page 29, Section 6.3.3 — Please reference the farm road removal that runs the entire
length of the project site. Also, is there any bedding within the pine areas that will be
removed/graded?
13. Page 34, Section 8.7 & Table 18 — Given the non -uniform shape of much of the
southern easement boundary, DWR is concerned with the potential for accidental
encroachment. Sign spacing and maintained visibility will be important to reduce this
risk.
14. DWR recommends adding a project risks and uncertainties section. While some site
constraints and planning/design considerations were noted, there seem to be several
concerns noted in the October 14, 2020 IRT site visit meeting minutes and November
20, 2020 USACE email that were not clearly and thoroughly addressed in the mitigation
plan. Some of these items include:
a. Providing the IRT a draft/copy of the perpetual flowage easement to review
b. Discussion of long-term management of beaver and associated risks of
hydrologic trespass and designed system stability
c. Evaluation of risk and monitoring/remediation plan for potential loss of forested
wetland upstream due to increased inundation for backwater

d. Hydraulic modelling showing anticipated effects upstream and downstream of the
project (not just within the site) and associated discussion
e. Water quality and DO implications upstream of the site from backwater as a
result of the proposed 3-foot elevation lift at the project start. This is a concern of
particular importance to DWR and was not mentioned at all in the mitigation plan.
Given the concern and risk, please provide a justification as why water quality
monitoring should not be required for this project.
15. Figure 12 —
a. Wetland Re-establishment — It's difficult to determine the exact placement of
groundwater gauges and veg plots at this figure scale. It appears that some re-
establishment areas overlap sections of the existing channel (20-30' wide) and
the farm road, both of which should be considered when placing monitoring
stations in the field.
b. Wetland Enhancement — There are four veg plots that appear to be straddling the
credit area line. DWR recommends shifting these plots to within the
enhancement areas.
16. Soil Report —
a. DWR agrees with George's recommendation to schedule construction during dry
conditions to limit soil impacts if at all feasible.
b. DWR appreciates the detail provided in the report narrative, as well as the photos
and boring table. Looking at Figure 3, it would've been nice to have seen 2-3
more points taken within the drained hydric soil identified west of the
crossing/break.
17. Sheet El
a. Note 8 — If sod mats are proposed, please include a typical detail.
b. Legend — If woody riffles are proposed, please include an icon and show
approximate locations on plan view sheets.
c. Legend — The brush toe protection icon doesn't match the icon used on the plan
sheets.
18. Sheet S1 —
a. Stream tie-in — It's expected that the constructed bed slope will maintain long-
term? No reinforcement or structure is necessary against scour that would
migrate downstream? DWR requests an additional cross section in this area to
track any changes during monitoring.
b. Please callout existing roads/paths and whether or not sections will be removed
on all plan view sheets. Is the farm road being relocated outside of the
easement?
19. Sheet S3 — Given the stream relocation and double sinuosity, what is the risk that
significant storm flows could create a bypass through the relic channel?
20. Sheet S7 — Is there an existing pipe near Station 73+00 that should be called -out for
removal?
21. Sheet S8/S15 — Does having the swale parallel and abutting the channel meander
affect the integrity of the bank?
22. Sheet P1
a. Note 3 — Please confirm that soil restoration is consistent with descriptions in the
mitigation plan narrative.

b. Note 10 — Please identify the species for the temporary seed mix.
c. Note 12 — Is there a separate herb seed mix proposed for application within the
site?
23. Sheet D2, Single Wing Deflector — Interesting design. I'm curious to see it during
monitoring.
24. Sheet D3, Ford Crossing — Please remove if not proposed for this project.
25. Sheet D3, Channel Plug — DWR recommends a minimum 50-foot plug length in the
coastal plain.
26. Sheet D3, Channel Backfill — Since the existing channel appears to over 6 feet deep in
areas, the 70% partial backfill may need to be adjusted. DWR typically recommends a
14-inch open max depth to allow to seasonal dry as ephemeral habitat. Additionally,
permanent pools in areas proposed for wetland credit can be a concern.
Todd Bowers, USEPA:
1. General: While the purpose of the "perpetual flow easement" is clear, it is not
consistently addressed in the document. In one instance, Figure 9, it is called a
"hydrologic easement" and not referred by that name in the document outside of a
reference in correspondence. It is also not included in any other Figures as a project
component. Since this is a large feature of the project and will be monitored for
reference conditions, I recommend including the perpetual flow easement in Figures 1-
10 and 12.
2. Section 3.4/Page7: Consider mentioning the nearest airfield (Whitehurst Landing Strip)
if it is within 5 miles of the site as wetlands are being reestablished. Include an analysis
and conclusion that the project will not increase aviation hazards due to a potential
increase in waterfowl that may occupy the wetlands within the project.
3. Section 3.4.5/Page 9: Since the jurisdictional determination was last performed in April
2019, please confirm that the extent of waters of the United States will not change now
that the Navigable Waters Protection Rule is codified.
4. Section 5/Page 19: Please include some mention of the permanent flowage easement
in the discussion of project goals and objectives.
5. Section 6.1.1.1/Page 21: Minimum buffer widths are 50 feet from top of bank (ideally
this would be based on stream belt width) and the language of 100-foot buffer widths is
confusing.
6. Section 6.1.1.1/Page 21: The swales capturing ditch flow before discharging into DC1-B
direct flow upstream with respect to stream flow direction. Is this to increase retention
time? What is the possibility of high ditch flow overwhelming the swales and bypassing
them to flow directly to DC1-B? How will these swales perform during times of DC1-B
overbank flooding?
7. Page 24: The figures below Table 13 are helpful in understanding design and flooding
conditions along DC1-C but shouldn't they be based on the 40 cfs design discharge (Q)
rather than 38 cfs?
8. Section 6.2/Page 26: see comment above concerning the swales.

9. Section 8.5/Page 34: Recommend adding a couple additional gauges outside of the
anticipated wetlands to monitor extent of reestablished wetland boundaries. If the
perpetual flowage easement is to be monitored this should be mentioned in this Section.
10. Section 8.6/Page 34: Existing wooded areas should be changed to "Maintained" if there
are areas where planted pines or other wooded areas that will thinned and/or replanted.
11. Section 10/Page 38: "Upon approval of the Project" should be reworded to "Upon
completion of short-term monitoring and site closeout" to avoid ambiguity that the site
will be transferred before Year 7 performance is satisfactorily completed.
12. Section 13: I am somewhat confused by the 3 different amounts needed for monitoring
performance costs/bonds. Please clarify if needed.
13. Sheet P1: The wetland areas along DC1-B and C (dotted areas) are not represented in
the legend. Denote which species will be in which Planting Zone per Section 6.3. Also
recommend including the wetland indicator status for each species per Section 6.3.
Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers