20211421 Ver 1_IRT Comments: Draft Mitigation Plan Review_20220811

Hamilton, Ryan
From:Davis, Erin B
Sent:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 1:01 PM
To:Hamilton, Ryan
Subject:FW: \[External\] FW: IRT Comments: Draft Mitigation Plan Review/ WLS Yadkin 01 UMB -
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site/ SAW-2021-01538 / Davidson County
Attachments:Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_WLS Yadkin01 UMB - Rolling
Meadows_SAW-2021-01538.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20210536 v.1
Doc Date: 8/11/22
Doc Type: Mitigation Plan Review
Doc Name: Same as email subject

-----Original Message-----
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 11:47 AM
To: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] FW: IRT Comments: Draft Mitigation Plan Review/ WLS Yadkin 01 UMB - Rolling Meadows Mitigation
Site/ SAW-2021-01538 / Davidson County

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]>

Kim (Browning) Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers l 919.946.5107

-----Original Message-----
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:45 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: FW: IRT Comments: Draft Mitigation Plan Review/ WLS Yadkin 01 UMB - Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site/ SAW-
2021-01538 / Davidson County

Kim (Browning) Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers l 919.946.5107

-----Original Message-----
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 4:15 PM
To: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]>
1

Cc: Daniel Ingram <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Haywood, Casey M CIV MVP
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>; Byron Hamstead
([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Fennel, Tommy E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: IRT Comments: Draft Mitigation Plan Review/ WLS Yadkin 01 UMB - Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site/ SAW-
2021-01538 / Davidson County

Good afternoon Catherine,

Attached are the WLS Yadkin 01 - Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site draft Mitigation Plan IRT comments. You may
proceed with developing the final mitigation plan 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. Additionally, please upload the final plan to DWR's Laserfiche. 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 l 919.946.5107

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Browning August 11, 2022
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Instrument Modification to the WLS Yadkin 01 UMBI – Rolling Meadows Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan Review, Davidson 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-2021-01538 30-Day Comment Deadline: July 21, 2022
DWR #: 20211421
Todd Bowers, USEPA:
Note: It is understood that site visits have been made by IRT members during the development of
site feasibility to provide mitigation credit. In that regard, I feel it necessary to denote that I have
not been on-site during this process and that my comments may reflect a lack of on-site
observation and evaluation.
1.Table 4/Page 14:
o Error for S101 watershed drainage area (sq. mi).
2.Section 6.2.1/Page 25:
o Recommend removing wood riffles for grade control in S100 which is an intermittent
stream.
3.General:
o I would like WLS to provide an analysis of buffer width v. stream credits generated,
especially in the area of the Lower Reedy Creek area where right bank buffer width is
less than 50 feet. Granted this analysis may generate more stream credits if other areas
with much wider buffers are considered. If the IRT deems this as unnecessary based on
characteristics of the entire site, then I can accept that.
Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1.Page 8, Section 2.4 – Please briefly describe the anticipated watershed need for 404/401
mitigation credits.
2.Page 9, Section 3.1.3 & Table 2 – Based on the WAM form in Appendix E, wetland area W01
has an overall rating of “medium”.
3.Page 10, Section 3.2 – Development trends are briefly and broadly discussed in Sections 3.6.7
and 6.7.4. but are not currently mentioned in this section. Please add information or update the
header.
4.Page 16, Section 3.5.1 – Please consider rephrasing “wetland areas are mature forest located
in the uplands”.
5. Page 16, Section 3.5.2 – To confirm, spoil berms are present along the toe of slope ditches but
not the ditches that transect the ag fields shown on Figure 8, correct? It could be helpful to
callout approx. spoil berm areas on Figure 8.
6. Page 19, Section 3.7.3 – This section notes that “many” ditches will be plugged. Please show
ditches to remain unplugged/open on Figure 9.
7. Page 21, Table 7 (Level 3) – Will the proposed mitigation site remove areas from silvicultural
or agricultural use?
8. Page 22, Section 5 – The first paragraph mentions wetland enhancement, please update.
9. Page 25, Table 11 – Likely a difference in rounding, please update Tables 4, 11 and 14 to
have consistent drainage area values.
10. Page 26, Section 6.2.1 Reedy Creek Lower
a. There was a question raised during the IRT site walk regarding water rights of the
adjacent landowner if the stream is relocated from the shared property line to wholly
within the project property. What was the follow up on this? Are there any legal
concerns? Has the project been discussed with the adjacent landowner?
b. It’s noted that “where feasible” lateral ditches not filled will be tied to water quality
improvement features. However, no water quality improvement features are shown on
the design sheets for Reedy Creek Lower. Please clarify. Also, please confirm that the
max. depth of graded floodplain depressions will be shallow enough to seasonally dry.
11. Page 32, Table 16 – There is no mention of drainage areas for the reference reach or
composite data. DWR is concerned that the SCP Reference Reach and composite data is
being applied both to S101 (0.097 sq mi) and Reedy Creek Lower (8.6 sq mi) without more
information on how reference data is being scaled and applied to project design. Please
provide more information on the source and application of the composite data. Also, please
provide the drainage area for the SCP site reference reach and map of site location. As a non-
mitigation restoration project in a community recreation park, please confirm that the SCP
reach is “reference condition”.
12. Page 33, Section 6.4.2 – Please confirm whether the cited mature canopy was near or within
the reference wetland.
13. Page 33, Section 6.5 – The design plan sheets show one water quality treatment feature
(Sheet 14). If any of the shallow floodplain depressions are anticipated to have an outlet
channel, please show on plans. If any additional outlet channels are installed during
construction, please show on the redline and provide justification for the hardened feature
(verse veg swale or diffuse flow).
14. Page 35, Section 6.6.1 – If feasible, DWR requests an initial treatment of kudzu prior to
construction and working with landowner(s) to include treatment of kudzu just outside of the
proposed project area.
15. Page 37, Section 6.7.4 – If any evidence of beaver has been observed within the proposed
project area, please briefly describe in Section 3.
16. Page 38, Section 8.1 – Please reference the 2.2 entrenchment ratio performance standard.
17. Figure 8 – Please show any existing stream crossings and add locations of existing conditions
cross sections.
18. Figure 10 – Since GW-3 and GW-4 are located streamside in HS01, please shift the two
additional wetland gauges closer to the wetland/upland edge. These are the zones DWR is
most concerned with meeting the hydroperiod performance standard.
19. General notes on design sheets –
a. There were minimal callouts used on the plan views. But callouts can be very helpful for
plan review, including reach start/end stations, culvert removals, differentiating between
ditch and relic channel features, etc.
b. There were no limits of disturbance (LOD) lines shown on the plan views. Is this
because of the sheet scale or are the LOD lines yet to be determined?
20. Sheet 6 – Based on past project reviews, it’s typical to see a constructed riffle proposed within
a utility easement break if a ford or culvert crossing is not required for access. Are there any
long-term stability concerns with proposing a pool feature within the easement break?
21. Sheets 7-20 – Please confirm that relic channel and ditch areas that are shaded gray (not plug
hatching or floodplain depression crosses) are to be backfilled to grade.
22. Sheets 8-12 – Since Reedy Creek is proposed to have a max. depth of 4.5 feet, was a wetland
credit area offset from top of bank considered due to a potential drainage effect from the
stream channel?
23. Sheet 17 – Was a BMP considered within the easement upslope of the S101 origin?
24. Sheets 18-20 – This could simply be a line weight fix (i.e., connecting the dots), but the line
fragments as shown on the grading plans, particularly through wetland credit areas, are difficult
to follow and see a clear picture of changes being proposed to the current surface grade.
25. Sheet 21, Plant Schedule – Please fill in the information for ironwood.
26. Sheet 22 & 23 – Please show the two zones that will be planted based on community type
(i.e., different hatching for Reedy Creek floodplain vs. S100 & S101).
27. DWR particularly appreciates the attention to detail made in Sections 3.3.4, 3.5.2, 6.1 (priority
II bullets) and 6.7.2, as well as the Appendix B soils report. The additional existing conditions
photographs were helpful for this review. DWR values efforts made to enhance the project
including wider buffers, no streaming crossings, a single easement break, capturing stream
origins where feasible, adding a BMP, shallow floodplain depressions with LWD, and diverse
planting schedule.
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC:
1.I would like to see a separate seed mix for the bottomland hardwood forested wetland.
2.In the planting plan, there are several FAC species and one FACU species in the
bottomland hardwood forested wetland. I have concerns that some of these species will not
survive, especially during wetter periods. Consider other FACW or OBL species.
3.There should be more diversity in the flowering herbaceous plants for both the riparian and
wetland mix.
4.Ensure the culvert will provide aquatic life passage.
Kim Isenhour, USACE:
1.Figures 9 & 10 do not show S200. It would be good to show this jurisdictional feature, even if
not for credit.
2.Figure 8: Please show the location of existing culverts and crossings.
3.Why aren’t you including the existing wetland where WG-1 and S200 is located as wetland
preservation or enhancement credit?
4.Please show the location of the reference sites on either Figure 1 or 2.
5.Figure 10: Ground water gauges 3 and 4 should be shifted closer to the edge of the proposed
crediting area, away from the newly constructed channel.
6. Sections 3.3.4 and 3.6.6: Will you be able to work with the adjacent landowner to treat the
kudzu to prevent it from spreading into the easement?
7.Section 3.4.1: The text on page 12 states that S101 is perennial but Table 4 lists this reach as
intermittent. Please correct for consistency.
8.Section 3.5.1: I don’t understand the first sentence. Please rephrase.
9.Section 3.6.2: Are you planning to install a ford crossing in the 68-ft utility corridor? Will you
be seeding this area with a permanent seed mix?
10. Section 3.6.3: While the Marchmont Plantation Airpark is small, there remain concerns
regarding the potential hazard to air traffic posed by wildlife. The FAA issued an Advisory
Circular (AC No: 150/5200-33C), updated in February, 2020, that provides limitations and
guidance on the development of waterfowl attracting areas, such as open waters and some
wetlands. The advisory requires consultation with officials for all projects within a five-mile
radius of an airfield. Documentation of the consultation, including verification from the
appropriate official, that their concerns regarding the proposed Mitigation Plan have been
addressed must be included in the Mitigation Plan.
11. Section 3.7.1 and Appendix B: Thank you for including the detailed Archaeological Survey
Report and conclusion that this site is recommended Not Eligible for the NRHP. Related
correspondence from SHPO considers the site to be unassessed and recommends no further
archaeological investigations.
12. Section 3.7.2: Please confirm that Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) was not
identified in the upland areas of the project, or in the utility corridor. This species occurs in a
variety of transitional habitats such as maintained roadsides, utility rights of way, forest
openings, forest edges, old pastures, etc. This species prefers full sun but tolerates partial
shade.
13. Section 3.7.3: “Many of these ditches will be plugged…” Will some of the ditches remain? If
so, they should be shown on Figure 9.
14. Section 4: The text states that the objectives listed in Table 6 will be measured to document
overall project success; however, Table 7 states that physiochemical and biology will not be
measured. Unless you intend on monitoring for water quality and macroinvertebrate functional
uplift, I would suggest rewording this section to state that these improvements will be implied
based on the measured uplift of hydraulics and geomorphology. Furthermore, the Stream
Functions Pyramid is for function-based assessments for streams and not wetlands. I would
suggest incorporating language that addresses functional uplift potential to wetlands similar to
NCWAM functional areas (hydrology, water quality, and habitat).
15. Section 5: The text states that the project consists of wetland restoration and enhancement. I
believe that only restoration (re-establishment) is proposed.
16. Table 8: Please confirm that the utility crossing is non-credited.
17. Section 5.2, page 23: The initial credit release should also include documentation of the
establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow account.
18. Section 6.2.1: I would caution against using wood riffles or log weirs on S101 (if it’s
intermittent) and S300 due to the IRT’s observations that wood structures tend to rot after 5-7
years if not inundated year-round.
19. Page 26: Was there a conversation with the adjacent landowners to discuss moving the
channel off the property line and fully into the easement? It appears that three different
parcels will lose access to Reedy Creek lower.
20. Section 6.4.1 and Appendix C: It’s unclear what Composite Reference Values represent. Are
there several sites that were evaluated, and the data combined? I would think it more
appropriate to use separate reference reaches for the reaches with smaller drainage areas
(S100, S101, S300) and Reedy Creek.
21. Section 6.5: The water quality treatment features should be shown on Figures 9 and 10.
22. Table 17: White oak is FACU and listed in the bottomland hardwood planting list; suggest
substituting for a FACW or OBL species.
23. Section 8.1: The text states that continuous surface flow must be documented annually for at
least 30 days. This only applies to intermittent streams. The 30-day metric was established to
show success in the Coastal Plain Headwater guidance and was not intended to demonstrate
success for intermittent flow. Intermittent streams only dry seasonally and therefore should
have flow or the presence of water for periods much longer than 30 days.
24. Page 41: The first sentence should reference monitoring for the Enhancement Level I
approach.
25. The location of photo points should be shown on Figure 10, or indicate that they will be taken
at each cross-section, the utility crossing, and the culvert.
26. Section 9.2: How often do you download your groundwater well data? We’ve noted an
increase in gauge malfunction recently that results in months of lost data if the gauges aren’t
checked quarterly.
27. Section 9.3: Please switch 5 of the veg plots to random plots. This will provide an overall
picture of vegetative performance sitewide.
28. Section 12:
a. The “amount for Monitoring Activities and Annual Reports Through 7 years” is listed as
$104,000 in Table 21, which doesn’t match the amount listed below under Annual
Monitoring Costs, which equal $14,857 each year. If the annual monitoring costs of
$14,857 for seven years are added to Table 21, the amount should be $124,999, not
$104,000. The total monitoring financial assurance should be $240,999.
b.Please provide a table that shows the annual monitoring amounts and how much the
bond will reduce each year. It’s unclear how much the contingency will reduce each
year. If there is no contingency the last year of monitoring and repairs are needed, what
financial assurances do we have that the project could be repaired with little to no
repair fund.
29. Appendix D:
a.Please update the draft conservation easement.
b.The staff time to monitor the easement should include travel time, mileage and
communications. Considering that BWI is located approximately 230 miles from this
site, the estimated staff time, mileage, and cost appear low.
c.BWI may want to consider adding a line item for stewardship complexities should this
property ever be subdivided; for example, to deal with several adjacent landowners.
Kim (Browning) Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager
USACE – Wilmington District