20190865 Ver 1_Request for More Information As-Built_20221130

From: Davis, Erin B
To: Baker. Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site As -Built/ SAW-
2019-00835/ Avery County
Date: Monday, December 12, 2022 2:22:57 PM
Attachments: Laurel Sorinas Response to IRT MYO Comments 2022-11-30 .odf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DW R#: 20190865 v.1
Doc Date: 11/30/22
Doc Type: Mitigation — Mitigation Information
Doc Name: General topic of email title
From: Ray Holz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 4:26 PM
To: Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Youngman, Holland J
<holland—[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J
<[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie <[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; John Hamby
<jhamby@ restorationsystems.com>
Subject: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site As -
Built/ SAW-2019-00835/ Avery County
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
To Kim and IRT Members —
Firstly, my personal and sincere apologies for the lack of QA/QC on not only the Laurel Springs As-
Built/MYO Baseline Report but also for the failure to appropriately updated all portions of the
Mitigation Plan and with our ordering of non -approved bare -root species and quantities. I
wholeheartedly believe the IRT's mitigation plan review and comment process results in a superior
product, and it is never our intent to dismiss or disregard IRT's comments.
In this case, within the final/approved Mitigation Plan, IRS failed to update the planting plan on Sheet
L5.00 of the Construction Drawings; however, IRS did apply the IRT's comments regarding the
planting plan to Table 18 of the Mitigation Plan, which led to the discrepancy between the two.
During the bare -root tree ordering process, when species availability became an issue, IRS staff
charged with ordering trees did not notice or review the IRT's draft Mitigation Plan comments
concerning the planting plan. Specifically, the IRT's request to cap the amount of Eastern hemlock

planted. This mistake and the ordering of non -approved species caused us to review our bare -root
tree ordering process in detail. We have established additional QA/QC measures as a result, which
include:
1.) a full review of the IRT's mitigation plan comments while ordering trees by both
personnel charged with ordering trees and the project manager, and
2.) if non -approved substitution species are required, or quantities of species change
drastically due to a lack of availability, coordination with the IRT will occur immediately.
With that said, I have attached, as a single .pdf, the following items:
1. Response to IRT comments which includes revised MYO Report and Recorded Drawing
pages
2. A revised Mitigation Plan Amendment Request to count bare -root substitution species
towards success criteria, and
3. A Remedial planting plan for areas of observed low -stem density within the Site's Acidic
Cove Forest vegetation community
After discussing with Paul Wisner at DMS, we believe it would be best to allow the IRT to review the
attached information and provide comments before updating the MYO Report and re -posting the
document.
If there are any items you wish to discuss with me directly, please feel free to email or call me at
919-604-9314.
Thank you for your time and patience.
Sincerely,
Raymond H.
----- ------ ------
Raymond J. Holz I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
tel:[phone] cell:919.604.9314 1 fax:[phone]
email: rholz(@restorationsystems.com
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning(@usace.army.miI>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2022 7:37 AM
To: Ray Holz <rholzPrestoration systems.com>; Wiesner, Paul <Paul.wiesner(@ncdenr.gov>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Todd.J.Tugwell(@usace.army.mil>; Haywood, Casey
M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.HaywoodPusace.army.mil>; '[e-mail]'
<erin.davisPncdenr.gov>; bowers.toddPepa.gov; Youngman, Holland J
<holland_youngmanPfws.gov>;'[e-mail]' <travis.wilsonPncwildlife.org>;
and rea.lesliePncwildlife.org; Melonie Allen <melonie.allenPncdenr.gov>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <Tyler.A.Crumbley2Pusace.army.mil>; John Hamby
<jhamby(�restorationsystems.com>
Subject: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site As -Built/ SAW-

2019-00835/ Avery County
Good morning Paul and Ray,
The 15-Day As-Built/MYO review for the Laurel Springs Mitigation Site (SAW-2019-00835) ended
November 3, 2022. This review was done in accordance with Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008
Mitigation Rule. All comments received from the NCIRT are incorporated in the email below. The IRT
has significant concerns with portions of the MYO Report and requests a response to comments prior
to issuing the initial credit release. Due to the discrepancy in construction phase planting and the
concern that the planted species are not typical of mountain wetlands in Avery County, the IRT
would like to review the supplemental planting plan prior to its implementation.
Casey Haywood; USACE:
1. QAQC of the Vegetation tables need to be addressed in the report. Looking back at the
Mitigation Plan, Table 18 Planting Plan does not match the listed species on the L5 Plan
Sheet. It appears that some of the discrepancies listed below are likely a result of this. Please
ensure these tables reflect the same information in future submittals.
a. Table A lists yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) as a species that was not
planted; however, Table B shows it was planted but had it listed as swamp birch
(Betula alleghaniensis). Plan Sheet L5 also indicates it was planted. Please clarify.
b. Table A should reflect all species that were not planted to include elderberry and
buttonbush as shown on Table 18 of the Final Mitigation Plan.
c. Sheet L5 lists Scarlet Oak as an added species, however this is shown in Table B
(and Table 18 in the Mitigation Plan) as an approved species. Table B lists Red Spruce
as an added species, whereas Sheet L5 has it listed as an approved species. Please
update.
d. Based on the information provided, it appears the modification request includes
the addition of three species: arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum), bitternut
hickory (Carya cordiformis) and American hazelnut (Corylus americans). Is this
accurate? If so, I am okay with the inclusion of the replacement species, however,
please provide an updated red -line planting table to reflect Plan Sheet L5 and Table
18 of the Final Mitigation Plan to include consistency between common species
names and planting numbers. Updating this table will be beneficial to use as a
reference for potential replanting efforts in the future.
2. With the possibility of a replant in 2023, 1 concur with EPA's comment to include random
vegetation plots and would support the replacement of 3 permeant plots to random plots
(recommend plots 3, 5, and 13).
3. When comparing the MYO CCPV (Figure 1) to the updated Monitoring Map (Figure 9)
provided on August 26, 2021, some of the veg plots and groundwater gauge locations
appear to be flipped and are no longer located in creditable wetland reestablishment areas
(GWG 1, 6, & 9). While it's beneficial to have some groundwater gauges located in non -
credited wetlands, please ensure creditable wetland reestablishment areas have adequate
monitoring wells to document hydrologic uplift.
4. Appreciate the efforts made to work with the landowner to remove the shed located in
the easement near UT3. To help prevent future encroachments (such as mowing), were
additional boundary markers or horse tape added to this area when the surveyor visited the
site on 9/2022? When the new shed is constructed, please be sure to have the structure
located far enough off the easement boundary to prevent any future encroachments.

Andrea Leslie, WRC:
The as -built and final mitigation plan do not match when it comes to planting. The
numbers/percentages of what was planned (in black) to plant are not what is in the final plan. The
planned percentages are also different from the as -built (e.g., hemlock at 2-3% in final plan, but in
the as -built as planned at 8% and actually planted at 6%). The MYO report does note that a number
of species were not planted (but it is inaccurate, as it fails to include a number of those that were in
the final plan and includes Betulo ollegoniensis, which was planted). Please include me in a
discussion with IRS; I'd like to have input on the supplemental planting.
Todd Bowers, EPA:
1. Table 8: Post Mitigation Plan dominant species composition needs to be recalculated for all
plots.
2. Were there no random vegetation plots installed? If not, I recommend adding 3 random
plots in place of fixed plots for future vegetation monitoring.
3. Modifications and red line changes in As -Built plans such as floodplain culvert features,
added rock sills and log vanes, j-hooks, replacement of a box culvert with a bridge span, and the
modified planting plan are all noted with no comment.
4. Sheet L5.00: Recommend breaking down each species component (stem counts) into each
vegetation community.
5. 1 think the Corps (and IRT) should have been notified much earlier than concurrently with
the MYO Report of a modification request with changes or modifications to the planting plan.
6. Table 5: 16.5% of the site's planted acreage has low stem density based on visual
assessment. Recommend placing some of the recommended random plots in areas of concern. If an
adaptive management plan for supplemental planted is anticipated, please submit to the IRT as soon
as possible so that the site can be replanted no later than March 2023.
7. Overall, I am very satisfied with the report and the work that IRS has completed at the site. Having
not been able to visit this location, I really appreciated the detailed ground -level and drone level
wetland, vegetation and stream feature photos to illustrate the grading, planting and features
implemented.
Erin Davis. DWR:
1. DWR appreciated DMS' report review and site visit comments.
2. The inclusion of additional photos, particularly the drone images, were very helpful for this
review. Thank you.
3. 1 was confused about the addition of 29 rock sills that weren't engineered and installed to act
as grade control. In hindsight, is there a better term to depict adding cobble to support a
constructed riffle as described in Section 2.1?
4. Once all straw wattles with plastic netting have been removed from the site, please add a note
in the corresponding monitoring report narrative.
5. The mowing and shed encroachment should be identified in Table 5.
6. An additional five stormwater culverts were installed within project easement breaks.
Throughout the monitoring period, please pay particular attention to associated easement areas
that receive discharge from these structures for any evidence of wetland/floodplain instability or
erosion.
7. DWR is very disappointed with the planted species list. First, looking back at the final mitigation

plan, DWR reviewed and supported the Table 18 and Figure 8 plant list, which took into account the
several IRT draft mitigation plan comments. It appears that Table 18/Figure 8 was not correctly
updated in the associated construction plan sheets and that the draft mitigation plan plant list was
used for construction planting. Additionally, it does not appear that the IRT comments were
reviewed when making plant quantity adjustments as both WRC and DWR requested a cap for
Eastern hemlock at 5 percent.
8. DWR understands that species availability is a common constraint during the construction
phase. However, had DWR been notified and engaged on this issue we could have discussed and
agreed upon an adaptive planning approach such as phased planting to ultimately ensure that
appropriate species and appropriate species quantities were planted across the project.
9. Please provide a supplemental list of species and quantities for the proposed supplemental
planting effort. In addition to the proposed 18 percent supplemental planting area (total 16.2 acres),
DWR recommends sitewide supplemental planting of understory/shrub species as specified in the
approved Final Mitigation Plan Figure 8.
10. DWR recommends conducting random plots/transects in proposed supplemental planting
areas, with at least one survey area within the UT3 decommissioned farm road footprint.
11. Please provide wetland indicator status for proposed species additions to the approved plant
list.
12. DWR respectfully disagrees with RS' response to DMS that there were no significant changes in
monitoring device locations from the approved mitigation plan. As noted in the August 2021
correspondence, DWR was ok with relocating one groundwater gauge (#4) to a non -crediting area.
However, the MYO monitoring figure shows several gauges have been shifted outside of wetland
credit generating areas. In order to demonstrate performance standard success there needs to be
sufficient number and representative cover of monitoring devices across proposed credit areas. If
gauge locations remain as -is, DWR may request additional gauge installation during the monitoring
period.
Please reach out with questions.
Regards,
Kim
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107
-----Original Message -----
From: Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CEMVP (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood(@usace.army.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 2:26 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<Todd.J.TugwelIPusace.army.mil>; Isenhour,
Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning(@usace.army.mil>;
erin.davis @ncdenr.gov; bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Youngman, Holland J
<hollandyouungman(@fws.gov>; travis.wilson(@ncwildlife.org; and rea.leslie(@ncwildlife.org
Cc: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner(@ncdenr.gov>; Ray Holz<rholz(@restoration systems. com>; John
Hamby<ihamby(@restorationsystems.com>; Allen, Melonie <melonie.allen(@ncdenr.gov>;
Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Tyler.A.Crumbley2(@usace.army.mil>
Subject: Notice of As -Built Review/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site/ SAW-2019-00835/ Avery

Cou my
Good afternoon IRT,
The below referenced FINAL As-Built/Record Drawing review has been requested by NCDMS. Per
Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review follows the streamlined review process,
which requires an IRT review period of 15 calendar days from this email notification. Please provide
any comments by 5 PM on the 15-day comment deadline shown below. When providing comments
please indicate if your concerns are great enough that you recommend not issuing the credit
release. Comments provided after the 15-day comment deadline (shown below) may not be
considered. Please note, if a site visit is requested by the IRT, comments will be due 15-days
following the visit. At the conclusion of this comment period, a copy of all comments will be
provided to NCDMS and the NCIRT along with District Engineer's intent to approve or disapprove this
Final Record Drawing and initial credit release.
15-Day Comment Start Date: October 19, 2022
15-Day Comment Deadline: November 3, 2022
45-Day Credit Release Approval Deadline: December 3, 2022
*2022 is Monitoring Year 1 for this project.
Project information:
Laurel Springs
DMS Project# 100122
RFP# 16-007725 — Issued 11/13/2018
Institution Date: 5/17/2019 — Full Delivery
SAW-2019-00835

DW R# 2019-0865 v1
French Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 06010108
Avery County, North Carolina
Mitigation Plan Credits:
4,231.827 SMUs (cold)
3.688 WMUs (riparian)
As-Built-MYO Credits:
4,231.827 SMUs (cold)
3.688 WMUs (riparian)
Mitigation Plan Lengths and Acreage:
5,261 linear feet
3.688 acres for mitigation credit (9.847 acres total)
As-Built-MYO Lengths and Acreages:
5,240 linear feet
3.688 acres for mitigation credit (9.847 acres total)
PLEASE NOTE: Restoration Systems is requesting a modification of the Site's Mitigation Plan to
include planted tree/shrub species that were not included in the Site's IRT approved Mitigation Plan.
A lack of availability from nurseries of approved Mitigation Plan tree/shrub species required IRS to

adjust the number of stems planted for some approved species and include four additional species
not included in the approved Mitigation Plan. Additional information is available after the report
cover and in the MYO report and record drawings.
FD Provider: Restoration Systems, LLC. —Contact: Raymond Holz ([e-mail]
<maiIto: rholzC@restoration systems.com> ), tel: [phone] cell: 919.604.9314
NCDEQ- DMS PM: Paul Wiesner, Paul.wiesnerC@ncdenr.g_ovov<mailto:paul.wiesnerCo�ncdenr. og_v>,
[phone]
FINAL As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report and Record Drawings can be accessed directly on the
DMS SharePoint site here:
IRT-DMS SharePoint Page:
https://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/sites/I RT-DMS/SitePages/Home.asp
<https://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/sites/I RT-DMS/SitePages/Home.aspx>
https://ri bits.ops. usace.a rmy. m i I/ords/f?p=107:278:9043125515214::: RP; 278: P278_BANK_I D:5903
Thank you in advance for your time.
Casey Haywood
Mitigation Specialist, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Work cell: [phone]