20201095 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan Review_20220518

From: Davis, Erin B
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] IRT Comments: Draft Mitigation Plan Review/ WEI Catawba UMB - Double Rock Mitigation Site/
SAW-2020-01532/ Alexander County
Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 3:05:43 PM
Attachments: Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo WEI Catawaba UMB Double Rock SAW-2020-01532.odf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DW R#: 20201095 v.1
Doc Type: Mitigation Plan Review
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 3:02 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Neuhaus <[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd
<[e-mail]>; Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>; Hamstead, Byron A
<[e-mail]>; Fennel, Tommy E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] IRT Comments: Draft Mitigation Plan Review/ WEI Catawba UMB - Double Rock
Mitigation Site/ SAW-2020-01532/ Alexander County
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Good afternoon,
Attached are the Wildlands Catawba UMB — Double Rock Mitigation Site, Draft Mitigation Plan IRT
comments. You may proceed with developing the final mitigation plan for this site provided you
adequately address all comments/concerns in the enclosed memo. Please submit one (1) electronic
copy of the Final Mitigation Plan to me via RIBITS and I will distribute to the IRT. In addition, please
submit your Nationwide Permit 27 application to me directly for review and approval prior to
discharging fill material into waters of the United States.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a call to discuss the
enclosed comments.
Regards,
Kim
Kim (Browning) Isenhour

Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Browning
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
May 18, 2022
SUBJECT: WEI Catawba UMBI — Double Rock Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan Review,
Alexander County, NC
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received from the NCIRT during the 30-day comment
period in accordance with Section 332.8(d)(7) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.
USACE AID#: SAW-2020-01532
Todd Bowers, USEPA:
1. General:
30-Day Comment Deadline: March 16, 2022
a) I reviewed the site visit notes from September 28, 2020, and September 9, 2021,
and noted concerns of the IRT during both walks.
b) I am aware of the concerns for protecting HENA (Hexastylis naniflora) habitat in
the headwaters of Matheson Tribs and along Stikeleather Tributary. Wildlands'
approach appears reasonable to both avoid and protect some of the potential
habitat, especially in the vicinity of Matheson Tribs.
c) I am aware of the concerns and desires to shift the internal crossing locations.
d) I am aware of the presence of black walnut and the proposal to remove most of
the trees due to age and allelopathic concerns.
e) There are many great aspects of this project that provide functional improvement
including only two easement breaks (all internal), protection of headwaters, a step
pool BMP to address the headcut on Matheson Tribs., tying into perched culverts,
the extra work proposed in the temporary access area on Randall Tributary,
fencing out cattle, eradicating invasive exotic vegetation, considering the potential
effects of black walnut on planted vegetation, protection of T&E habitat along with
all the uplift from stream restoration.
f) I am aware of and concur with Wildlands' approach for protecting the headwaters
of Matheson Tribs balanced with the proposed ratio for preservation in order to
maintain financial solvency of the project.
2. Section 1 /Page 5:
a) The warm water stream credits is listed as 4,479, however, in Table 16 on Page 28
lists 4,556 credits. It appears that Table 16 is the correct value.

3. Table 17/Page 29:
a) The performance standard for hydrology should include separate years for the 4
bankfull events.
b) Footnote 3 states that vegetation performance is only based on the permanent plots.
Does this not include the 2 mobile/random plots? Table 18 includes both.
Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1. Page 11, Section 3.5 — If the Elk Shoals Creek Reach 2 internal easement break is intended
as a livestock crossing, is the proposed constructed riffle a sufficient stream structure design to
provide long-term stabilization?
2. Page 15, Table 8 — The Reach column of this table is a bit confusing. Section 3.3.1 notes
many sub -reaches on different tributaries (shown on Figure 3) and Section 6.6 mentions Elk
Shoals Creek Reaches 1A and 1 B and multiple restoration/enhancement segments along
Stikeleather Trib. However, Figures 8 & 12 show Elk Shoals Creek Reaches 2A and 2B, which
are not mentioned in the text. Please provide clarification and consistency on reach/sub-reach
call outs.
3. Page 19, Section 6.5 — DWR appreciates that future land use was a consideration in the
sediment transport analysis.
4. Page 25, Table 17 — Please add an ER value for B channels (i.e. Stikeleather Trib.) and clarify
that the four bankfull events shall be in separate years.
5. Page 27, Table 18 — DWR requests the addition of a pool cross section along Elk Shoal Creek
R1.
6. Figure 3 — Please add any existing crossings/culverts. Also, the cross sections shown do not
appear to match the data provided in Appendix 4, please update.
7. Figure 5 —
a. DWR requires an additional fixed plot along Stikeleather Trib. (total of nine plots,
rounding up from 8.3 calculated from the proposed planted area). Also, please shift
either fixed plot 5 or 6 across the stream for representation within the east buffer.
b. Please add a photo point of well house easement break. DWR is concerned about
potential mowing encroachments in this area.
8. Page 22, Section 6.7.1 — At minimum, one target natural vegetative community is required to
be identified for this project. Please also include a regional vegetative reference community
site or explain why a reference community is not available/applicable for this project.
9. Page 22, Section 6.7.2 — Will pasture grasses onsite be pre-treated before construction or as
part of construction?
10. Sheet 2.1.1 —
a. No bank treatment is proposed for the first meander bend downstream of double
culverts. Is there any concern that this area may scour during storm flows?
b. Please include "fill channel" call outs. Also, a typical channel plug detail was provided
but no plug locations are shown. Please indicate approximate locations of proposed
channel plugs and minimum plug length.
c. Based legend icon options, are the two features on the right bank/floodplain
"construction entrances" (also on Sheet 2.1.3)? If these features are meant to be riprap
swales, please provide a typical detail (including stone size, live stakes, etc.). Please
also explain why a non -hardened stabilization option is not feasible.
11. Sheet 6.2 — The log sill detail does not include a footer log. Please explain why a footer log is
not necessary for long-term grade control stability.
12. DWR appreciated the discussion points included in Section 6.8, as well as the photos and
figures embedded in Section 3.3.1. We believe the limited easement breaks and proposed

BMP aid to enhance the overall project. However, we also maintain that a wider buffer along
Matheson Tributary would have greatly improved protection from adjacent land use activities.
Travis Wilson. NCWRC:
1. WRC requests to review the crossing design details prior to submittal of the final mitigation
plan. The type of crossing has not been specified. The plan detail shows a constructed riffle as
the internal crossing, but it does not note which type of constructed riffle. I suspect the intent
was for this to be the "Chunky Riffle (CR-CH)". I'm not sure what the anticipated use of this
crossing is. If it's just to move cattle then a CR-CH should hold up, however if
vehicle/equipment use is likely a stream ford design would be more appropriate. The biggest
difference in the two being, a ford design should depict a constructed foundation for the riffle to
keep the riffle stable otherwise repeated travel over the riffle will eventually destabilize it.
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC:
1. No NLEB individuals would have been seen during the survey because the only way to see
them is to conduct bat mist -net surveys or acoustic surveys for them or if you see caves. I
suggest stating whether or not you saw caves/old mine structures (short shafts), stating no
NLEB roosts are known in the area; and I suggest removing this statement. If you intend to
follow USFWS/NCWRC recommendations to avoid clearing during the maternity roost period
of (May 15 — August 15), then state that as well.
2. State how you will ensure the HENA population is protected during construction (i.e., clearly
marking).
3. We prefer they use other flowering herbaceous species to plains coreopsis and giant ironweed
as they aren't native to Alexander Co., but instead use species such as lobed tickseed and
New York ironweed, or goldenrod species.
Kim Browning, USACE:
1. Section 1.0, Figure 2 & UMBI: The service area should be revised to the Catawba 03050101.
Once the expanded service areas are approved, you may request to modify the UMBI to
include the new service areas, or you may modify the language in the UMBI and mitigation
plan to state something similar to, "If the official service areas of the Catawba River Basin are
expanded/combined in the future, the service area of this Site will automatically be expanded
to include the expanded/combined service area."
2. Why are the wetlands not proposed for wetland preservation or enhancement credit?
3. Figure 12:
a. Please shift veg plot 5 to the east side of Randell Trib.
b. If possible, can you shift the crossing on Elk Shoals Creek to avoid impacting wetland
D? It looks like you can place it between wetlands D and E, and still provide access to
both fields.
4. Section 1 and Table 16 list different amounts of stream credits. Please update.
5. Section 3.3.2: Please include a copy of the signed PJD or concurrence letter once you receive
it from the USACE PM.
6. Section 3.3: Thank you for the detailed descriptions of existing conditions and photos.
7. Section 4.2:
a. NLEB: USFWS encourages project proponents to avoid clearing of suitable roost trees
during this animal's maternity roosting season (May 15 - August 15) and especially
during the pup season (June 1 - July 31).

b. As I understand it, Wildlands will need to coordinate with USFWS on a field assessment
to monitor for potential encroachment by non-native/invasive species to ensure that the
dwarf -Flowered heartleaf population is not displaced. This should be documented in the
MYO report. Credit release will be contingent upon this coordination.
8. Page 20, Elk Shoals Creek Reach 2: Please shift veg plot 2 slightly downstream in order to
capture the Priority 2 floodplain. Vegetation survival in P2 cuts, combined with historic
compaction from livestock, is a concern.
a. Is this crossing going to be constructed when the stream is relocated? Sheet 2.1.4
currently shows it designed as a riffle.
9. Page 21, Randell Trib: I'm confused about the potential future crossing. If it is for landowner
access (e.g., cattle crossing or farm equipment crossing), it will be subject to the restrictions of
the conservation easement and oversight by the long-term steward. These will also need to be
identified in the easement description (e.g., 50' wide gravel ford crossing) so the extents of the
easement exception are clear. If the crossing is not constructed when the channel is restored,
the crossing would not be considered part of this project and would potentially require
additional permits unless they are exempt under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act.
a. Is this potential crossing planned to be a ford or culvert? When fords are used on
smaller streams, they must be designed to maintain aquatic life passage, so without
being able to review the design, I don't have confidence that the crossing will allow this.
Lastly, I have concerns regarding the actual construction of the crossing that may
contribute sediment downstream.
b. I have similar concerns as Travis regarding the riffle's stability over time, in addition to
concerns about the banks eroding.
10. Section 6.7.1: Were the reference streams used to select the reference forest ecosystem?
You did not identify the target community type.
11. Section 6.8, page 23: You may want to discuss the potential for silviculture activities upstream
of Elk Shoals Creek.
12.Table 17, page 25: In addition to EPA's and DWR's comments, please add a performance
standard that addresses invasive species control; invasives will make up no more than 5% of
the conservation easement, with a zero tolerance for kudzu.
13. Section 10.3: You may want to consult with UP2Save regarding the mileage calculation and
whether inflation was accounted for in this estimate. The current federal mileage rate is
$0.585.
14. Section 11.0 and Appendix 6: Refer to the NCIRT Adaptive Management Plan Guidance,
issued September 2021, as necessary.
15. Design Sheets: The crossing designs should be included in the draft mitigation plan 60%
drawings. Both culverts and fords were discussed in the text, with no design details included
for either, with the exception of temporary stream crossings. The IRT requests to review the
crossing details for design, size, material, configuration, impacts, etc., prior to submittal of the
final mitigation plan.
16.Appendix 7: You may want to check the credit amounts in this table. I'm calculating that you
would receive 778.19 credits at milestone 1. Restoration and enhancement credits (according
to Table 16) add up to 4,444.6 credits, and preservation credits total 111.5. So 15% would be
666.69, plus the 111.5 preservation, totaling 778.19. But please confirm the totals and update
accordingly.

USFWS Comments, Byron Hamstead:
Information provided by the project proponents since May 5, 2021, indicates that suitable
habitat is present within the action area (50CFR 402.02) for two species: the federally
threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and dwarf -flowered heartleaf
(Hexastylis naniflora). Project proponents have not prepared or provided a complete biological
evaluation and effects analysis to our office at this time. Based on the information provided,
we offer the following comments to assist the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, action
agency) with making effect determinations to listed species for the proposed action:
Northern long-eared bat:
We can confirm that the 4(d) rule for this species exempts incidental take associated with any
tree clearing at the proposed project location. Although not required, we encourage project
proponents to avoid clearing of suitable roost trees during this animal's active season (April 15
— October 15), maternity roosting season (May 15 - August 15) and especially during the pup
season (June 1 - July 31). Tree clearing moratorium during the maternity roosting season
would also support our concurrence with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect"
determination from the action agency. If clearing of suitable roost trees is not proposed, we
would not object to a "no effect" determination from the action agency for this animal.
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf:
A population of this species was detected within the proposed action area and an onsite
evaluation was conducted with project proponents on May 13, 2021 (see attached email
summary). A map delineating this population and proposed limits of disturbance were
provided on October 14, 2021 (attached). Based on the information provided, we believe the
probability for project -mediated take or inadvertent loss of this species would be insignificant
and discountable, and we would concur with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect"
determination from the action agency if the following conditions are met:
1. Tree clearing, vegetative disturbance, grading, and all other project -mediated
disturbance will occur outside of the "HENA Population Boundary" depicted in the Impact Map
(attached).
2. Tree clearing, vegetative disturbance, grading, and all other project -mediated
disturbance will adhere to the limits of disturbance depicted in the Impact Map.
3. Temporary construction fencing will be installed where limits of disturbance occur within
the "HENA Buffer" and removed once the project is complete. Contractors will be informed on
the importance of adhering to these boundaries prior to construction to prevent disturbance to
the population and/or its suitable habitats.
4. Prior to credit release, the project area will be monitored for potential encroachment by
non-native and/or invasive species to ensure that the dwarf -flowered heartleaf population is not
displaced.
We request that project proponents enumerate or estimate the dwarf -flowered heartleaf
population that occurs within the proposed conservation easement and submit findings to this
office and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Occurrences of listed species that are
protected under easement may count toward species recovery goals, help support de -listing or
reclassification under the Endangered Species Act.
According to the information provided, we believe that suitable habitat does not occur onsite
for any other federally protected species and we require no further action at this time. 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.
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
USACE —Wilmington District