20201865 Ver 1_RE_ Cornbread Internal Crossing and Utility Corridor Areas_20221031

From: Davis. Erin B
To: Baker. Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] RE: Cornbread Internal Crossing and Utility Corridor Areas
Date: Monday, November 7, 2022 4:22:32 PM
Attachments: Draft Final Memo - Internal Crossing and Utility Justification 10.25.22.odf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DW R#: 20201865 v.1
Doc Date: 10/31/22
Doc Type: Mitigation — Mitigation Information
Doc Name: General topic of email title
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 2:12 PM
To: Jake McLean <jmclean@wild landseng.com>
Cc: Shawn Wilkerson <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>;
Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV
USARMY CEMVP (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd
<[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Cornbread Internal Crossing and Utility Corridor Areas
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Hi Jake,
Thanks for the additional information. I would encourage this level of detail for crossings in future
submittals. I appreciate that you added language about coordination with DOT for future road
maintenance/widening. The IRT understands the dilemma of not being able to enforce cattle
exclusion without the backing of the conservation easement and would offer the following
comments:
1. This is some language from our draft guidance that I wanted to pass it along so that you can
start considering this for future projects: "If projects are proposed with streams and/or
wetlands that abut a road crossing (e.g., bridge or culvert), the IRT will generally require a
minimum setback of 30 feet from the existing structure or to the ROW, whichever is farther,
to the start of credit generation. In some cases, such as roads on high fills or in steep terrain,
the required setback may by greater. These aquatic resources should still be addressed in the
project design and included in the project easement, with language inserted into the
conservation easement that allows for potential future impacts within specified areas."
Again, this is not our current guidance, so crediting will not change for this project, but I
thought it was important for this discussion.
2. The IRT agrees that crossings intended for landowner access (e.g., cattle crossings, farm
equipment crossings, other maintenance roads or trails) should generally be located within
the conservation easement because these crossings are subject to the restrictions of the

conservation easement and oversight by the long-term steward. It's important that they be
identified in the conservation easement description and/or map so that the allowed activity
(e.g., 10' wide gravel path) and extents of the easement exception are clear.
3. After our field discussions, I agree with Shawn's point that sometimes the utility lines are
small and have the potential to be removed, which would leave the easement exposed if it
was external to the CE. On future projects, we would encourage including a table in the
mitigation plan that explains the type of crossing (ford, culvert, etc), width, whether it's for
livestock, utility, gas line, etc, and WHY you are proposing it to be internal or external. I
appreciate the one you included for this project.
4. For larger utility corridors where there would be overlapping easements, continual
maintenance activities are a concern and are not compatible with the intent of the
conservation easement, so it may be appropriate for these to be external; however, we can
discuss this more, particularly if including the ROW in the CE is the only way to enforce
livestock exclusion. I think the discussion on larger utility corridors was unintentionally lumped
in with smaller crossings.
5. It will be important to have extra boundary markings in these crossings, perhaps "No Mow'
signs, so that it's clear where the CE boundaries are compared to the utility line maintenance
areas.
6. 1 think the most important point to come from this discussion is to consider these points early
in the planning process and be prepared to discuss at the initial IRT site visit.
7. The attached justification appears to demonstrate the need for internal easement breaks. But
keep in mind that the IRT has not completed the draft mitigation plan review, so we are not
agreeing to design plans at this time.
Hopefully this helps you move forward. I did not hear from a few IRT members, so they may want to
provide additional feedback in the draft mitigation plan comments. Give me a call if you'd like to
discuss.
Thanks,
Kim
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107
-----Original Message -----
From: Jake McLean <imcleanPwildlandseng com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 5:11 PM
To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.BrowningCo�usace.army.mil>
Cc: Shawn Wilkerson <swilkerson anwildlandseng com>; Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesnerna ncdenr. og_v>;
Reid, Matthew <matthew.reidna ncdenr.g_ov>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Cornbread Internal Crossing and Utility Corridor
Areas
Kim,
It was brought to my attention that there are increasing concerns moving forward from the IRT with

regards to having internal crossings for utilities and farm crossings on mitigation projects. I
understand that encroachment requests are a significant burden that is driving this concern. As
Shawn has shared with you, the Cornbread Valley Mitigation Site CE has been finalized and approved
by SPO and is the culmination of two years of successive efforts to design the best easement
configuration for this site. It has not been recorded, but Wildlands feels strongly that it provides the
right level of protection for the site which is an active livestock operation.
I've prepared a discussion of the easement considerations at Cornbread Valley which I can include as
part of the final mitigation plan submittal at your discretion. I also wanted to bring to your attention
that we have drafted legal language for Utility Corridors that has been approved by DMS for the
easement document but which was not forwarded with the Draft Final Mitigation Plan to the IRT.
This language is included in the attached and mirrors the language of Internal Crossings except
without allowance for use as a farm crossing.
I hope that you will find the attached justification sufficient to demonstrate the need for this project
to proceed with the internal easement breaks proposed. If at all possible, I would really like some
resolution to this matter as soon as possible, and well in advance of the Nov 14 intent to
approve/deny date. We have made plans to close the easement before Thanksgiving and if plat
changes were to be necessary after receipt of comments, this would entail retraction of the sealed
plat drawings and rereview and approval by SPO.
Thanks,
Jake
Jake McLean I Senior Water Resource Engineer, Project Manager
M: 828.545.3865

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.<Blockedhttp://www.wildlandseng.com/>
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806