20180786 Ver 1_Notice of Initial Credit Release_20210816

Strickland, Bev
From: Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 5:05 PM
To: Kim Browning; Dow, Jeremiah J
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay; Harmon, Beth; Baumgartner, Tim; Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B; Haywood, Casey M CIV
(USA); Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd; [e-mail]; Munzer, Olivia;
McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA)
Subject: [External] RE: Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Sandy Branch Mitigation Site /
SAW-2018-01167 / Chatham Co.
Attachments: Sandy Branch IRT Comment Response.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.
Attached are responses to the IRT comments for the Sandy Branch As -Built Report. Let me know if there are any further
questions or comments. Thanks!
Jason Lorch, GISP I Senior Environmental Scientist
0: 919.851.9986 x107 M: 919.413.1214
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 2:32 PM
To: Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>; Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Baumgartner, Tim
<[e-mail]>; Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Tugwell,
Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Haywood,
Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; 'Wilson, Travis W. ([e-mail])'
<[e-mail]>; 'Bowers, Todd ([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>;'Matthews, Kathryn
([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>;
McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Sandy Branch Mitigation Site / SAW-2018-01167 / Chatham Co.
The 15-Day Record Drawing and MY-0 review for the Sandy Branch Mitigation Site (SAW-2018-01167) ended May 15,
2021. Per Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review followed the streamlined review process. There
were no objections to issuing the initial credit release. Please find attached the current signed ledger, and IRT comments
below. Please reply to this email with a response to the questions below, particularly to DWR's first comment given that
gauge location was discussed as a contingency of approval of the draft mitigation plan. (Attached is a gauge location PDF
from DWR sent 11-OCT-2019) The IRT is not requesting a site visit at this time.
1

USACE Comments, Casey Haywood:
1. Section 4.3: Please annotate in this section the plan to fence in the easement.
2. The AB drone footage was helpful and appreciated.
3. Please mark location of photo points to include crossings and culverts.
USEPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
I have no serious issues or concerns with the site as constructed and approve of/concur with full credit release (30%
released on April 8, 2021) for this milestone. I have few minor comments pertaining to the report that I would like to see
Wildlands correct and carry forward with future reports for this site and others which may benefit from these
comments.
* In Table 1, fencing is missing from the site objectives to meet the goal of permanently protecting the site from
harmful uses.
* Section 2.3: Whenever percentages of a growing season are referenced it is important to clearly state the actual
number of consecutive days required to meet the hydrology standard threshold.
* Section 4.3: Fencing could be addressed again here to align with site boundary marking.
* Table 6b: Total area for the 3 random plots should be 3 areas instead of 2.
* Planting Tables on Page 85 should list the wetland indicator status for each listed species.
* Planting Plan on Page 85: I recommend superimposing the fixed veg plot locations on this map to illustrate that
all planting zones are being monitored adequately. Figure 3 does a decent job at this so perhaps it is redundant.
* General: I am very pleased with all the relevant photos in the document illustrating the structures, groundwater
wells, cross sections and vegetation plots. The added bonus of the handheld video presented is great too as I watched it
before reading the report. This allowed me to anticipate some aspects of the site (such as the lack of boulder sills) that
were answered in detail by the as -built report and red -line changes from the final mitigation plan. The only request I
would have with photos would be to cover the culverts in detail.
NCDWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Many of the monitoring well and plot stations shifted slightly from the mit plan monitoring figure, which is
expected to a degree. But four of wetland wells appear to have moved from being within a re-establishment area
towards or within a rehabilitation area (GWG 7, 8, 10, 12). Particularly looking at GWG 7 (which was originally proposed
square within a non-hydric re-establishment area) and GWG 8, will stationed well data adequately represent functional
uplift and performance standards for the re-establishment credit areas as described in the approved mit plan?
2. Please confirm there were no changes from the approved mit plan planted species and percentages (an
updated/redline as -built planting table was not included).
Please contact the Mitigation Office if you have any questions.
Regards,
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
August 16, 2021
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attention: Kim Browning
Subject: As -Built Report and Plans
Sandy Branch Mitigation Project, Chatham County
Cape Fear River Basin HUC 0303003
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01167/DWR No. 2018-0786
Dear Kim:
We have reviewed the IRT's comments on the As -Built Report for the Sandy Branch Mitigation Site. We
will make necessary revisions in future monitoring documents. Below are responses to each of the IRT's
comments in your letter dated May 17, 2021. Your original comments are provided below followed by
our responses in bold italics.
USACE Comments, Casey Haywood:
1. Section 4.3: Please annotate in this section the plan to fence in the easement.
Future reports will include text mentioning that the conservation easement was fenced.
2. The AB drone footage was helpful and appreciated.
3. Please mark location of the photo points to include crossings and culverts.
Photos of the crossings and culverts will be included in future monitoring reports.
USEPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
1. In Table 1, fencing is missing from the site objectives to meet the goal of permanently protecting the site
from harmful uses.
Fencing will be added to the list of site objectives in Table 1.
2. Section 2.3 Whenever percentages of a growing season are referenced it is important to clearly state the
actual number of consecutive days required to meet the hydrology standard threshold.
The number of consecutive days required to meet the hydrology standard threshold will be added
whenever the percentages of a growing season are referenced.
3. Section 4.3: Fencing could be addressed again here to align with site boundary marking.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

Fencing will be addressed in future reports to align with site boundary marking.
4. Table 6b: Total area for the 3 random plots should be 3 ares instead of 2.
The Total area for the 3 random plots will be changed from 3 ares instead of 2 in the Monitoring Year
1 Report.
5. Planting Tables on Page 85 should list the wetland indicator status for each listed species.
Planting Tables in future as -built plan sets will include the wetland indicator status for each listed
species.
6. Planting Plan on Page 85: I recommend superimposing the fixed veg plot locations on this map to illustrate
that all planting zones are being monitored adequately. Figure 3 does a decent job at this so perhaps it is
redundant.
Fixed vegetation plot locations are typically shown on Figure 3. On future planting plan maps we will
consider showing vegetation plots depending on the scale of the map.
7. General: I am very pleased with all the relevant photos in the document illustrating the structures,
groundwater wells, cross sections and vegetation plots. The added bonus of the handheld video
presented is great too as I watched it before reading the report. This allowed me to anticipate some
aspects of the site (such as the lack of boulder sills) that were answered in detail by the as -built report
and red -line changes from the final mitigation plan. The only request I would have with photos would be
to cover the culverts in detail.
Photos of the culverts will be included in future monitoring reports.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Many of the monitoring well and plot stations shifted slightly from the mitigation plan monitoring figure,
which is expected to a degree. But four of wetland wells appear to have moved from being within a re-
establishment area towards or within a rehabilitation area (GWG 7, 8, 10, 12). Particularly looking at
GWG 7 (which was originally proposed square within a non-hydric re-establishment area) and GWG 8,
will stationed well data adequately represent functional uplift and performance standards for the re-
establishment credit areas as described in the approved mitigation plan?
Monitoring wells 10 and 12 were placed as close as possible to the stations proposed in the mitigation
plan and are representative of intended wetland areas. Avenza mapping service was used to
determine the location of the wetland zones and assist in the placement of the monitoring wells. The
accuracy of the mapping service played a part in the slight shift of the groundwater well placement.
Monitoring wells 7 and 8 also shifted slightly in the field to avoid placement in microtopographic high
or low spots. The chosen locations for wells 7 and 8 are representative of the functional uplift and
performance standards in the re-establishment zones but can be moved if deemed necessary.
2. Please confirm there were no changes from the approved mitigation plan planted species and percentages
(an updated/redline as -built planting table was not included).
No changes were made from the approved mitigation plan planted species and percentages.
2

If you have any questions, please contact me by phone [phone], or by email
([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator
3