20210536 Ver 1_DRAFT MIT PLAN IRT COMMENTS_20220818

Hamilton, Ryan
From:Davis, Erin B
Sent:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 12:59 PM
To:Hamilton, Ryan
Subject:FW: \[External\] FW: DRAFT MIT PLAN IRT COMMENTS: SAW-2021-00489 /
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC / RES Cape Fear 02 UMBI / Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
Attachments:20220817 Tobacco Road Draft Mit Plan IRT Comments.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20210536 v.1
Doc Date: 8/18/22
Doc Type: Mitigation Plan Review
Doc Name: Same as email subject

From: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 7:10 AM
To: Matt Butler <[e-mail]>; Brad Breslow <[e-mail]>; Jamey McEachran <[e-mail]>; Emily
Ulman <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] FW: DRAFT MIT PLAN IRT COMMENTS: SAW-2021-00489 / Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC / RES
Cape Fear 02 UMBI / Tobacco Road Mitigation Project

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Good morning,

I misconstrued an important request by the IRT. They requested that you submit a revised draft mitigation plan; not
submit your response to comments, prior to the final mitigation plan, as outlined in my previous email. I do apologize for
the miscommunication there.

The revised draft mitigation plan request is based on key missing information such as a section on wetland success
criteria and preliminary crossing design details, as well as the introduction of a new design and crediting approach not
discussed during the prospectus stage.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Please note that I will be out of the office today and tomorrow,
but will be returning next week.

Best Regards,

Sam Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1

Wilmington District, Regulatory Division, Washington Field Office

Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

-----Original Message-----
From: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 2:36 PM
To: Matt Butler <[e-mail]>; Brad Breslow <[e-mail]>; Jamey McEachran <[e-mail]>; Emily
Ulman <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Erin Davis <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>;
Matthews, Kathryn <[e-mail]>
Subject: DRAFT MIT PLAN IRT COMMENTS: SAW-2021-00489 / Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC / RES Cape Fear 02
UMBI / Tobacco Road Mitigation Project

Good afternoon,

PLEASE NOTE: The IRT has requested that you provide your response to comments for IRT review prior to submittal of
your final mitigation plan. Kim has also requested that you reach out to her regarding your buffer calculations; this can
be done prior to your final mit plan submittal.

Attached are the RES Cape Fear 02, Tobacco Road Mitigation Site, Draft Mitigation Plan (dated June 2, 2022) IRT
comments. You may proceed with developing the final mitigation plan for the above referenced mitigation site provided
you adequately address all comments/concerns in the enclosed memo. As you will see, there were a variety of
questions/comments on the draft plan. Some of the questions will likely require additional review of language or
information on our part, so while you are preparing the Final Instrument and Mitigation Plan, please feel free to contact
me with questions regarding the comments. When the Final Mitigation Plan is complete, please upload an electronic
copy of the complete document to RIBITS for distribution to the IRT. In addition, please submit your Nationwide Permit
27 application for review and approval prior to discharging fill material into waters of the United States.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Sam Dailey

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

2

Wilmington District, Regulatory Division, Washington Field Office

Email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

Phone: [phone]

3

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

CESAW-RG/Dailey August 17, 2022

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Action ID # SAW-2021-00489, NCIRT Review Comments on the RES Cape
Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Tobacco Road Mitigation Project, Draft Mitigation
Plan

Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1. Page 9, Section 3.3 – Please confirm you have consulted with NCDOT and local
government planning web resources or contacted agency staff regarding
potential future projects in the project vicinity (e.g., DOT highway road widening
or culvert maintenance/replacement, Dominion Energy gas line
maintenance/expansion, Alamance County and/or local municipal
comprehensive land use or community master plans, etc.). DWR appreciates that
future land use was a consideration in sizing proposed crossings.
2. Page, 10, Section 3.4 – Has any evidence of beaver been observed onsite?
3. Page 11, Table 6 – It would be helpful to have columns included for reach
drainage areas and NCSAM scores.
4. Page 11, Section 3.4.1 – Please note if the project captures any of the stream
origins. Based on Sheets E2 & E3, it appears that the project captures the origins
of MN4-A, MN5-A, MN6-A, MN9, and TR2.
5. Page 11, Section 3.4.1, Reach TR1-A – How is the impoundment connected to
the project stream? If by an outlet, does the outlet structure appear stable and
maintained?
6. Page 19, Section 3.5.1 – Given the significant number of proposed crossings and
easement breaks, please include a table summarizing pertinent information (e.g.,
location/reach, need/justification, easement break width, external vs. internal
break, crossing type). Please explain why the TR1-C reach landowner access
easement break cannot be collocated within the utility easement break. Please
explain why the MN4 reach easement break and crossing cannot be shifted
upstream beyond the project boundary. If the TR1-C and MN4 crossings cannot
be eliminated, can they become internal easement crossings?
7. Page 19, Section 3.5.3 – DWR appreciates the discussion of the monarch
butterfly and the inclusion of swamp milkweed in the proposed permanent seed
mix.
8. Page 26, Section 6.1 – Please map the locations of the selected reference
streams. One of the two reference reaches is a sand bed system, does that
change how the reference data is applied? Also, both reference reaches have
larger drainage areas than many of the project tributaries and identified as
-2-

Rosgen Class E stream types whereas project reaches are proposed as Class C.
How does this affect the way the reference data is applied?
9. Page 27, Section 6.2 - Log sills are the only listed grade control structure for
intermittent reaches MN3, MN4, MN7, and MN8. DWR has observed log sills on
intermittent reaches, particularly in the slate belt region, breaking down before
the end of the monitoring period. Are there any concerns with long-term stream
stability?
10. Page 29, Section 6.2, MN2-A – Please add livestock exclusion to the list.
11. Page 34, Section 6.2.3 –
a. The narrative discusses diches and seeps plural; however, Figure 7 only
shows one ditch and one seep within the project area, please confirm.
Also, please callout “plugging surrounding drainage features" on
corresponding design sheets.
b. What are the max. depths for proposed shallow depression and pools?
Will these features be designed to dry seasonally?
c. Wetland rehabilitation requires the function uplift of multiple characteristic
(e.g., hydrology and vegetation). However, based on Sheets W2 and P2,
wetland credit areas WO, WQ and WR are not proposed to be planted
(even supplementally). Therefore, DWR supports hydrologic enhancement
at 2:1 as a more appropriate ratio for these wetland credit areas.
d. DWR encourages the placement of woody debris as habitat enhancement
in project wetland and floodplain areas.
12. Page 36, Section 6.2.4.1 – In the prospectus there was a 254-foot section of
Reach TR1-C proposed as “uncredited”, likely due to fragmentation by two
easement breaks. This change was not mentioned in this section. If both external
easement breaks are proposed to remain, DWR does not support the change in
crediting for this fragmented reach section. Additionally, DWR cannot support the
requested TR1-C and TR1-D credit change without reviewing additional
information on the proposed Layered Riffle treatment. Please see DWR comment
#49.
13. Page 38 Section 6.3 and Page 41 Section 6.4 – Two natural community types
were identified as references and combined into one of two planting zones. What
is the vegetative reference for the second planting zone?
14. Page 39, Table 12 – Black willow is listed in planting zone 2 as a canopy tree to
be installed as live stakes. Are you proposing to count live stake stems in your
vegetation performance standard monitoring? Also, was another wetland
understory species considered to enhance diversity (e.g., buttonbush, spicebush,
serviceberry, elderberry)?
15. Page 40, Section 6.3.2 –
a. Will fescue be treated prior to or during construction?
b. Murdannia keisak was identified in the existing wetlands. This species has
caused significant issues in wetland credit areas on other mitigation
projects. What is your treatment approach?
-3-

c. Please confirm that the initial invasive species treatment will occur during
the construction phase for the entire easement area.
16. Page 40, Section 6.3.3 – Will existing site topsoil be stockpiled for reuse? DWR
is particularly concerned with treatment of poor soils in Priority 2 cut areas, steep
slopes, and floodplain to upland transition slopes.
17. Page 41, Section 6.5 – Should there be a subsection discussion and/or table for
proposed wetland credits?
18. Page 43, Section 7 – Please provide a Wetland Success Criteria subsection,
including the minimum proposed hydroperiod and determination of growing
season.
19. Page 43, Section 7.1.2 – Based on the slate belt location and very small
drainage areas, DWR is concerned with flow on multiple tributaries. As a
reminder, the 30 consecutive days flow is the very minimum threshold to meet
the performance standard and not a target to demonstrate success.
20. Page 45, Section 8.5 –
a. Please identify the proposed growing season start and end dates and
source/method of determination.
b. Please identify if a rain gauge will be installed onsite. If not, please explain
why and list source location(s) for rainfall data, including distance from
project site.
c. DWR requests soil data be collected during MY7 near the eight wetland
creation gauges for comparison to soil data collected at MY0 (as required
by the 2016 NCIRT Guidance) to check for development of hydric soil
characteristics.
d. As noted in Section 10.1, re-delineation of wetland credit areas may be
required if areas are not meeting the minimum hydroperiod and/or clearly
exhibiting wetland habitat indicators.
21. Page 45, Section 8.7 – The baseline monitoring report should also include
verification of the installation of conservation easement boundary
markers/signage.
22. Page 47, Table 16 – There is no mention of wetland monitoring metrics or
performance standards. Understanding that the stream functions pyramid
framework is the presenting format, please integrate wetland information into this
monitoring requirements table if wetland credit is proposed.
23. Page 50, Table 17 – The stream component description ends with an “and”, is
there more information to be included?
24. Page 51, Section 10.1 – Were encroachment risks evaluated based on current
land use and property owner(s)? How would future development surrounding the
site potentially affect the project? What are the risks associated with the proximity
to a DOT highway and utility gas transmission line? If the large Dutchy Airpark
impoundment upstream breaches, what is the risk to the project?
25. Page 53, Section 12.1 – Please add a bullet for “documentation of the
establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow account”.
-4-

26. Page 55, Section 13 – Please correct the total endowment funding amount to
match the UP2S spreadsheet in Appendix B, $41,840. There are no five percent
returns.
27. Figures –
a. Please add a figure showing all assets proposed for the site, including
stream, wetland, buffer and nutrient offset.
b. A color LiDAR map would be helpful for this review.
28. Figure 5 – The Project Parcels do not appear to perfectly align with the Adjacent
Parcels. Are these features from different data sources or do they reflect
proposed changes to existing parcel boundaries?
29. Figure 13 –
a. This is a very busy figure. Given the scale and size of proposed wetland
credit areas, please consider presenting with multiple figures.
b. Please show the stage recorder along TR1-B as specified in Section 8.3.
c. Please add a wetland gauge to rehab area WK. And please see requested
gauge location shifts within WQ and C3 on attached figure mark-up.
d. Please dedicate one random veg plot to shift between planted wetland
rehab credit areas throughout monitoring.
30. Appendix B – Please note that the federal mileage rate is not 0.625. Also, have
you adjusted for inflation?
31. Sheet S1 –
a. Does the easement station number called out on the profile correspond to
the start of project reach credit? Is this the case on all plan sheets?
b. There appears to be an access path/road within the proposed easement,
please call out if this path/road will be removed.
32. Sheet S3 – Please callout the DOT road easement/ROW.
33. Sheet S4 – Please include a typical detail for the proposed stormwater swale
feature (including swale dimensions with max. depth, matting, seeding/planting).
Will stone be used in any form (e.g., outlet protection)? Are there any stability
concerns with directing concentrated flow over the abandoned channel plug?
34. Sheet S5 – Are there any concerns that the proposed stormwater swales within
the abandoned channel may inadvertently create preferential flow paths back
within the abandoned channel in the future? Are there any concerns that
connecting a stormwater swale just upstream of a log sill may erode the bank
anchoring the structure?
35. Sheet S6 – Please callout the utility easement/ROW on all applicable sheets.
36. Sheet S10 –
a. Please provide a callout description for the isolated plug in the floodplain.
b. Is the jurisdictional feature where the stormwater swale is proposed
expected to remain jurisdictional post-construction (i.e., not backfilled or
plugged)? If so, please confirm with USACE that BMPs are allowed within
jurisdictional features.
-5-

37. Sheet S14 – Please include a typical detail for the proposed engineered
sediment pack.
38. Sheet S16 – Does any concentrated flow from the pond just east of the project
enter the easement?
39. Sheet 19 – Sediment and erosion control measures to stabilize the steep slope
while groundcover establishes will be critical along the proposed cascade, as
well as other floodplain to upland transition slopes. Based on past project review
observations, these slopes are susceptible to become veg problem areas.
40. Sheet 23 - There appears to be an access path/road within the proposed
easement, please call out if this path/road will be removed.
41. Sheet 26 – Please callout Reach MN5-A.
42. Sheet S29 – The proposed realignment of MN6-B extends the reach length by
150 feet and parallels Reach TR1-D. Please provide a justification for the
extension and explain why an earlier tie-in is not appropriate.
43. Sheet S32 – Please add the easement line and station number callout to the
profile.
44. Sheets W1-W3 – If not included on the stream plan sheets, please show
proposed grading within wetland credit areas, noting any areas to be excavated
greater than 12 inches.
45. Sheet P1 – Please confirm that planting notes are consistent with plan narrative.
Also, please identify the proposed temporary seed species.
46. Details – Typical crossing details were missing. Preliminary culvert details should
be included in the draft mitigation plan for IRT review.
47. Sheet D2, Channel Abandonment and Backfill – The plan narrative mentions
shallow depressions and pools. Are these features only proposed within the
abandoned channels? If not, please show/callout on plan sheets and add a
typical detail.
48. Sheets D4 & D5 - Please consider aquatic passage in the max. drop depth
design and construction of proposed log sill and rock sill/vane structures. This
has become a concern based on observations at recent project as-built site
walks.
49. Sheet D6 - Regarding the proposed Layered Riffle, DWR is unfamiliar with this
design and will need to review additional information before we can support the
proposed approach and crediting change for TR1-C and TR1-D.
a. We are concerned about the long-term sustainability of these structures
and question whether they are suitable for a slate belt stream system.
Please provide more information about this technique (including photos
over time) and multiple examples of where it has been successfully
implemented. Examples should be situations similar to the proposed
setting and purpose.
b. Please provide a reach specific performance standard to demonstrate that
the functional uplift of increased overbank flow and floodplain connectivity
-6-

is achieved. Please include reach and structure specific monitoring
measures.
c. Please address concerns about inhibiting aquatic passage if flow starts
piping through the brush layers.
d. Please provide adaptive management strategies for dealing with potential
stream instability issues in these proposed treatment areas for this site.
e. Figure 12 shows the proposed five-year inundation with the layered riffles
extending beyond the project easement. This appears to show potential
hydrologic trespass. Please discuss your hydrologic trespass risk analysis
and potential corrective measures.
Olivia Munzer, WRC:
1. Piedmont Alluvial Forests/Headwater Streams – According to Schaeffle, this
community does not typically have river birch, hackberry or sycamore (these
percentages should be reduced or species removed and replaced with other
species that typically occur within this community). Here is a description of the
vegetation that typically occurs in this community type:
https://www.ncnhp.org/media/468/open
2. Similarly, they should look at the species list for the Piedmont Bottomland/swamp
forest community: https://www.ncnhp.org/media/466/open and
https://www.ncnhp.org/media/464/open
3. This community is not dominated by sycamore, river birch or hackberry. I
recommend reducing the percent composition. Consider adding the following
species: American holly, hickories, American hornbeam, other oaks.
4. I have concerns for the large percent of eastern cottonwood – they use a large
amount of water and is more common in larger streams. I recommend other lives
stakes, like elderberry, buttonbush, ninebark, or other species appropriate for the
community.
5. For permanent seed mix, I would like to see one or two more flowering species
added to the list, such as goldenrod.
6. For the livestock fencing, we would prefer there is no barbed wire.
7. We recommend leaving some woody debris in small piles or individually
throughout the project to provide wildlife habitat.

Samantha Dailey
Project Manager
Regulatory Division