Response to IRT Comments_Notice of Initial Credit Release_NCDMS UT to Rush Fork

We Make a Difference
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
October 27, 2022
Subject: Response to IRT Comments (October 11, 2022) for Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS
UT to Rush Fork/ SAW-2018-01171/Haywood County
Please find below our responses to the IRT) review comments October 11, 2022 in reference to the
Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project's As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report.
The 15-Day As-Built/MYO review for the UT to Rush Fork Mitigation Site (SAW-2018-01171)
ended September 21, 2022. Per Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review
followed the streamlined review process. All comments received from the NCIRT are
incorporated in the email below. There were no objections to issuing the initial 30% credit
release of 1,060.076 cold stream mitigation units. Please find attached the current signed
ledger. No site visit is requested at this time.
Todd Bowers, USEPA:
Overall, the Site looks great, appears to be performing as intended, and is on track to meet
stream and vegetation success criteria. All red -line deviations of the vegetation planting and
site construction plans (structure mods, fencing gates and substitute species) were all minor in
nature and noted.
The following items or highlights from the As -Built Condition Assessment were noted:
1. There appears to be a minor error in stream photos with Photo 47 differing from the
location noted on Figure 3c.
Response: This discrepancy has been noted and will be corrected in the MY1 Report.
2. Planted species substitutions are suitable with only a very minor reduction in site
diversity.
Overall, I am very satisfied with the report and the work that Baker has completed at the
site. Having not been able to visit this location, I really appreciated the detailed ground -level
stream feature photos to illustrate the grading, planting, monitoring equipment and features
implemented. I recommend the appropriate credit release (Milestone 2) for cold stream
mitigation units for this monitoring milestone. I have no other substantial comments not
requesting a site visit at this time.
Erin Davis. NCDWR:
1. DWR appreciated all of DMS' comments and Baker's responses.
2. Regarding the BMP partially located outside of the easement, DWR's preference would be to
have the entire BMP within the easement, and we would support an easement modification
request to capture the feature within the project area. However, we do acknowledge that the
797 Haywood Rd. Suite 2011 Asheville, NC 28806
MBAKERINTL.COM Office: 8z8-41z-61o1I Mobile:[phone]

We Make a Difference
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
final mitigation plan figures do show the BMP extending beyond the easement line and are glad
that the feature perimeter is fenced. If the situation remains as -is, we recommend clear CE
boundary signage and early communication between Stewardship and landowner on long-term
maintenance and fencing.
Response: Clear CE signage is posted on the perimeter fence surrounding the BMP. This will be
discussed with Stewardship and the landowner.
3. Redline Sheet 4 appears to show the UT2 culvert pipe and riprap extending into the easement.
I'm not sure if this is the same area DMS referenced in their comments. If not, please discuss a
proposed resolution.
Response: This feature is the same area referenced by DMS in their comments. The boulder tail -
wall which extended into the easement a few inches has been realigned so it is completely
outside of the easement area.
4. Photo Point 23 — Please confirm the culvert upstream of UT4 was properly embedded as
per the 401 water quality certification.
Response: The culvert upstream of UT4 is properly embedded per the 401 water quality
certification.
5. DWR appreciated the planted species diversity and good report photos.
Dave McHenry, NCWRC:
Please provide some history on the culvert under NC 209 (UT 1 Sta 28+90) with the "plunge
pool" detail. It was not backwatered, and not designed to, even though the culvert bisects the
site. The grades were raised/set above the inverts on the culverts that were installed
elsewhere. I realize the 100-200-foot reach below NC 209 is outside of the CE possibly because
of concerns about possible chronic influence of the culvert and likely future road maintenance.
And, the culvert is about 3%.
Response: The culvert referenced is an existing culvert under NC 209 and is outside of the
conservation easement. There was a 1.5' drop at the end of this culvert. This culvert is
approximately 200 feet upstream of the established conservation easement below NC 209.
There was significant drop and instability over these 200 feet and while it generated no credit,
we felt that it required stabilization. We installed 5 boulder structures and did restoration level
work through this reach. This reach was not included in the easement due to the road and
overhead utility right-of-way extending into the stream buffer zone. The easement began
where there was no longer an overlap. Given that the NC 209 culvert is outside of our
easement and is NCDOT's infrastructure, we did not want to take any action that could be
interpreted as affecting its function, so backing water into the culvert was not considered. We
did want to raise the water level to the pipe invert and eliminate the drop which likely blocked
aquatic species passage. This was done by setting the downstream riffle elevation at 0.08 feet
(< 1 inch) below the outlet of the culvert. We believe that this will allow passage of species into

We Make a Difference
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
the pipe; however, passage through the pipe is still doubtful due to high velocities over a long
length of pipe. It is the responsibility of NCDOT to correct that issue.
Sincerely,
Jason York
Environmental Scientist

We Make a Difference
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L