20180177 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20220104

Laseffbhe Upload: Email & Attachments
DW R rt 201801))11
Doc Type: Mitigation Evaluation
From: BrOwnin& Kimberly DCIV USARMY CESAW (USA( [mail[,:Kimbedy.D.Br,[e-mail]]
Sem: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 301 PM
TO: Wiesner, Paul<paul.wiesner@ncdenr.g,v>
CC: Eric Neuhaus<eneuhaus@wildlandseng.c,m>; Shawn Wilkerson< Ikers,n@wildlandseng.c,m>;Tugwell, Todd lCIV USARMY CESAW(US(<[e-mail];Haywood,Casey MCIV USARMYCESAW(USA(<Casey.M.Hayw„[e-mail]; Davis, Erin
B<erin.davis@ncdenr.g,v>;Wilson, Travis W.<travis.wilson@ncwildlife.,rg>; Munzer,Olivia<,livia.munzer@ncwildlife.,rg>; Bowers,Todd<b,w .tMd@epa.g,v>;Youngman, Holland l<h0I.d young-.@fws.g, ;loner, M Scott (Scott( CIV USARMY CESAW(USA)
<ScOtt.l,[e-mail]>; Brown, David W CIV USARMY CESAW (USA( <David. W.Br,wn@usace.a rmy.mil>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA( <[e-mail],; Allen, Melanie <mebnie.allen@ncdenr.g,v>; Harmon, Beth
<beth.harm,n@ncdenr.g,v>; Stanfill, Jim <jim.rtanfll@ncdenr.g,v>
Subj..: [Extemal( Notice of Addendum Approval & MYO Review / NCDMS Wyant Lands & Expansion Prd-/ SAW-201-2609 & SAW-2021-02449/ Lincoln County
CAUTION:Eaernalemail. tb erify.5e
Paul and Eric,
The ASBuik/MYO review far the Wvant Lands Mitieati0n Site (SAW-2011026091 ended December 18, 2021. All comments received from the NCIRT are incorporated in the email below. Please address ITT concerns in the MY1 Report. Please send me the 30%release ledger for
the project reaches and wetland areas that were constructed and planted in 2021. The ITT has concerns with the bank instabilityand cattle access t, the crossing beneath Wyant Road, both uprtream and downstream; please provide an update on efforts W rtabilbe the banks
where the crossing is used w transport tattle under Wyant Road.
USAGE MYO COTmems, Casey NayvvOOd:
1. Concur with DWR'. comments below, and would support withholding pa rdal stream credit if thecr.mg on both sides of Wyant Road has not been repaired/s. bilized by credit release.
2. An email received on November 18, 2021 from Paul Wiesner inditated Wildlands would be installing the livestock watering Aructures/tanks the week,f11/29/2021. Please confirm these were inrtalled.
3. OK with the red line planting changes, to include the addition,f red mulberry.
DWB MYO COmmems, Erin D.-
1. DWR requess that the methodobgyt0 determine the extent,f the growing season be stand c,nsirtent throughout monitoring. if you're Selecting[, use the WETS table dates now, please do nm askW witch in MYS Wsoil and bud burst for that year.
2. Pleasec,nsider using approved planting plan species notinstalled duet, availability issues in future supplemental planting PIT— Uf a ppr,priate(.
3. There were 14 grade control structures positioned at the end,friffles that were nm installed as proposed. DWR requests that special attention be give,[, these areas during the annual visual assessment[0confirm n0 evidence 0f developing headcuts.
4. It's DWR underrtanding that Wildlands to working W resolve the severe bank inrtability and sediment loading occurring within the stream crossings,n either side of Wyant Road observed by the ITT during the October 2020 site visit. DWR is very concerned about associated
water quality impacts. If a remediati,n effort has not been implemented by the April DMS credit release meet?.& DWR will likely recommend at least partial withh,lding,f MY1 stream credits.
The ended December 18, 2021. The Addendum proposes the addition,f 2-15M SMUS and 4.513 WMUs. The expansion area assets will be tracked via a separate ledger. With this
email the addendum is approved (see attached), provided you address IRT comments bebw.
USACE Addendum COmmems, Ili. BrewniM:
1. The tateg,ritaI exclusion documents provided pertain to the 404 permit that was issued in July 2020. This will cover UT2 Reach 1, but was the new parcel where the wetlands will be added assessed for ESAand SH PO resources in 2018? 1 understand that the area N
cu ntly in agriculture and likely doem't c,main any resources; however, the entire area of disturbance should be evaluated and documented for the new 404 perm¢.
2. Section 5.5 should address whether thee -mg wooded buffer,. UT2 Rl will be cleared and replanted, ,r selective clearing and supplemental planting will be done. At the site vkit we discussed removal,f black walnut and potentially transplanting m,ckemut hickory,
whichw ,t disc red in thee ting conditions section.
3. Table 10aand 11: You may want to consider removing the Pebble Count performance standard.
4. Section ).0: If you ?.tendon proposing the addendum expansion pmjeR for cl,serout at MY6 t, coincide with cbserout,f the initial Wyant Lands pr,jeR, pending the pr,jeR b on a [rejeRoryf,rsuccess, that should be discussed in this seRi,n.
5. Figure 2A: It appears that not a11,f the existing wetland Twill be taptured in the addendum area (t, the north(. Will this pose a problem f,rthe bnd,wner if the field adjacent W the conservation easement becomes t00 wet?
6. Figure10.21Pleaseshowthebcationofthe BMP.
DWB AddeMum COmme ,Erin Davis:
1. Page), Section 3.2-What is the risk,f hydr,l,gbtrespass a long the Addendum wetland area? is there any concern with currents future land use that may result in ditching near the easement(and wetland credit( boundary?
2. Page 13- The Table lU footnote. appea rs inc, in twith the Section) monitoring ph n schedule/duration. Please clarify the proposed Addendum area's monitoring schedule, as well as,lb- (if at all( it will be associated with the original project mitigation plan's
schedule.
3. Figures -Is it possible[, show the existing CE red dashed line,ver the pro Pdl CE purple line where they share a b,undary?It wasWholly very confusing[, see the constructed project area extent into the proposed CE area.
4. Figure 6.3A-Based,. the aerla l basemap there appear[, be ditches,nsite(Wetland Ot, the area below Open Water 2(. Please confirm a M add calbuts if present. It balsa helpful[, haveany existing ditches l,tated near the propo
sed project boundries aidentified,
particule iftheyc,uldinfluencesiteconditions.
5. Figure l3A-Please show proposed wetland credittypes,nthis fgure.lt's diffcultt,tell itany,fthe veg plots and gauges are l,tated within proposed wetland rehabilitations creation areas. if not, please shift at lean one gauget,a representative creation area and have
at least one veg plot in each credit type area. Also, none of the gauges are 1-ted nea r the proposed easement boundary, which can be a zone we're concerned with the hydroperiod meeting the performance Aandard threshold. Please shift at least one gauge closer w the CE
boundary. If it would be helpful, DWR can mark-up a figure with recommended gauge shifts once the credit types have been added.
6. Sheet 2.0- With the grading proposed outsideofthe easement,N it expected W result in a bss,f any open -tar andAr wetland areas? Itapp,a the Open Water 2 area will be graded up w ale, 777.Also, what the minimum ditch plug length being proposed?
J. Sheet40- DWR would encourage reducing sytam,re and river birch percentages within the wetland planting zone in order to .he nce habitat diversity.
USACE AddeMu m Cgmmema, Casey Nay W:
1. Please include the October 18, 2021 site vkit notes as an appendix.
Please reach out with any questions.
Thanks,
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Pr,j,d Manager,RegulhWry Division I U.S. Army C,rps,f Engineers

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
January 4, 2022
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Wyant Lands Phase II Project Expansion
/ Lincoln County/ SAW-2021-02449/ NCDMS Project # 100595
Paul Wiesner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
Dear Mr. Wiesner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT)
during the 30-day comment period for the Wyant Lands Phase II Expansion Project Addendum,
which closed on December 18, 2021. These comments are in the attached email for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have
been identified with the proposed Addendum, which is considered approved with this
correspondence; however, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached email,
which must be addressed in the Final Addendum.
The Final Addendum is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Addendum. All changes made to the Final
Addendum should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document.
Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit
authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed.
Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Addendum, but this does not guarantee that
the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen
issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or
reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the
requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please contact me at Kim berly.d.brown ing(a-)usace.army.mil or
[phone].
Sincerely,
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List, Eric Neuhaus—WEI

�rtT of d�
a Illli hi
Gy
r� REPLY
Regulatory Division/Browning
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
January 4, 2022
Re: NCIRT Review of the NCDMS Wyant Lands Phase II Project Expansion / Lincoln County/
SAW-2021-02449/ NCDMS Project # 100595
The Addendum proposes the addition of 231.600 SMUS and 4.513 WMUs. The expansion area
assets will be tracked via a separate ledger.
USACE Addendum Comments, Kim Browning:
1. The categorical exclusion documents provided pertain to the 404 permit that was issued in
July 2020. This will cover UT2 Reach 1, but was the new parcel where the wetlands will be
added assessed for ESA and SHPO resources in 2018? 1 understand that the area is
currently in agriculture and likely doesn't contain any resources; however, the entire area of
disturbance should be evaluated and documented for the new 404 permit.
2. Section 5.5 should address whether the existing wooded buffer on UT2 R1 will be cleared
and replanted, or selective clearing and supplemental planting will be done. At the site visit
we discussed removal of black walnut and potentially transplanting mockernut hickory,
which was not discussed in the existing conditions section.
3. Table 10 and 11: You may want to consider removing the Pebble Count performance
standard.
4. Section 7.0: If you intend on proposing the addendum expansion project for close-out at
MY6 to coincide with close-out of the initial Wyant Lands project, pending the project is on a
trajectory for success, that should be discussed in this section.
5. Figure 2A: It appears that not all of the existing wetland T will be captured in the addendum
area (to the north). Will this pose a problem for the landowner if the field adjacent to the
conservation easement becomes too wet?
6. Figure 10.2A: Please show the location of the BMP.
DWR Addendum Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Page 7, Section 3.2 — What is the risk of hydrologic trespass along the Addendum wetland
area? Is there any concern with current or future land use that may result in ditching near the
easement (and wetland credit) boundary?
2. Page 13 — The Table 10 footnote #3 appears inconsistent with the Section 7 monitoring plan
schedule/duration. Please clarify the proposed Addendum area's monitoring schedule, as well as,
how (if at all) it will be associated with the original project mitigation plan's schedule.
3. Figures — Is it possible to show the existing CE red dashed line over the proposed CE purple
line where they share a boundary? It was initially very confusing to see the constructed project
area extend into the proposed CE area.

4. Figure 6.1A — Based on the aerial basemap there appear to be ditches onsite (Wetland Q to
the area below Open Water 2). Please confirm and add callouts if present. It is also helpful to have
any existing ditches located near the proposed project boundaries identified, particularly if they
could influence site conditions.
5. Figure 11A — Please show proposed wetland credit types on this figure. It's difficult to tell if
any of the veg plots and gauges are located within proposed wetland rehabilitation or creation
areas. If not, please shift at least one gauge to a representative creation area and have at least
one veg plot in each credit type area. Also, none of the gauges are located near the proposed
easement boundary, which can be a zone we're concerned with the hydroperiod meeting the
performance standard threshold. Please shift at least one gauge closer to the CE boundary. If it
would be helpful, DWR can mark-up a figure with recommended gauge shifts once the credit types
have been added.
6. Sheet 2.0 — With the grading proposed outside of the easement, is it expected to result in a
loss of any open water and/or wetland areas? It appears the Open Water 2 area will be graded up
to elev. 777. Also, what is the minimum ditch plug length being proposed?
7. Sheet 4.0 — DWR would encourage reducing sycamore and river birch percentages within
the wetland planting zone in order to enhance habitat diversity.
USACE Addendum Comments, Casey Haywood:
Please include the October 18, 2021 site visit notes as an appendix.