HomeMy WebLinkAboutOssipee Final Prospectus Cover Letter 120922RiverBank
.ONSERVATION
09 December 2022
Mr. Todd Tugwell
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27587
RE: NORTH CAROLINA DAM REMOVAL UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK & OSSIPEE MILL DAM
MITIGATION SITE (SAW-2021-02309) FINAL PROSPECTUS
Dear Mr. Tugwell,
Accompanying this letter is the Final Prospectus for the North Carolina Dam Removal Umbrella Bank
(Bank) and its initial site, Ossipee Mill Dam Mitigation Site (Site) in Alamance County, NC. RiverBank
Conservation is the Bank Sponsor and has partnered with Glen Raven —the Site's owner —in
proposing the Bank's first Site. Also accompanying this letter is a response to IRT comments
regarding the Draft Prospectus submitted in October 2021.
Thanks in advance for your consideration of this proposal. We look forward to hearing back from the
IRT soon. In the meantime, please reach out if you need anything else from me.
Sincerely,
) /14� I I//
J. Adam Riggsbee
President
cc: John Gant, Glen Raven
Travis Hamrick, EcoMitigation Asset Advisors
Enclosures (2)
P.O. Box 29921, Austin, TX 78755 512.241.3775 www.riverbankconservation.com
Riverbank Responses to IRT Draft Prospectus Comments
NCDEQ- Division of Water Resources
1. Section 2: Please provide more information on Glen Raven, Inc.'s qualifications to be the mitigation
bank sponsor. Mitigation bank sponsors in North Carolina typically have environmental industry
experience.
Response: RiverBank Conservation will serve as Bank Sponsor. See Section 3 for RiverBank's
qualifications.
Section 6 — Can you please clarify the extent of the "dam site". Also, please provide a parcel map
showing the property boundaries along the extent of the project area. Is it the intention of the
sponsor to be the conservation easement holder and long-term steward, or select a third -party non-
profit to do so?
Response: The dam site is the physical footprint of the dam. Figure 2 shows draft conservation and
access easements along with parent parcel boundary. The intention is to select a third party to serve
as easement holder and long-term steward (see Sections 10.6.1 and 10.6.2)
3. Section 7.3 — Please provide more information on how the approximate extent of the proposed
impounded/impacted stream length was determined and what methodology is proposed to further
refine the project length as part of the draft mitigation plan development.
Response: See Section 4.1 of Final Prospectus. The current location for the upper extent of
impoundment is based on field observations and review of contour elevations generated from Lidar.
Final impoundment length determination will be completed by a professional surveyor —using dam
crest and thalweg elevation measurements —in support of the Site's mitigation plan.
4. Section 7.4 —Are there any pollutant/toxicity concerns from the historic mill/warehousing
operations adjacent to the dam? Also, please note that sediment analysis will need to comply with
associated DWR 401 general certification requirements and state water quality standards.
Response: The Ossipee mill/warehousing operations were considered as part of the preliminary Tier
1 analysis conducted by Dr. Augspurger. No concerns were identified. See section 4.5 for more
discussion on sediment quality and quantity, which includes a statement regarding DWR
compliance.
5. Section 7.6 — DWR is concerned with the potential loss of wetlands and destabilization of upstream
tributaries. Even if wetland loss is allowable under NWP 53, direct and indirect impacts to water
resources need to be considered in the evaluation of a potential mitigation bank.
Response: DWR's concern is noted. Should the project advance to the draft Site Mitigation Plan
stage, wetland analyses will be conducted to support IRT/Sponsor discussions regarding potential
wetland losses.
6. Section 8 — Of the species listed in Section 7.7, which are expected to directly benefit from the
proposed project?
Response: The Eastern Creekshell was identified during the Tailrace Survey conducted in June 2022.
See sections 4.8.6 and 4.8.8 for further discussion.
7. Section 9 — Further discussion is needed on credit determination. Instead of the DRTF 2008
guidance, DWR supports the use of the currently -in -development NCIRT draft mitigation guidance
section on dam removal projects.
Response: The final prospectus is not specific with respect to credit determination (see Section 9.3),
as the IRT guidance referenced is still in draft form. The Sponsor looks forward to discussing
crediting with the IRT should the project advance further.
Section 10 — Further discussion is needed on the development of success criteria and monitoring
plan components. Instead of the DRTF 2008 guidance, DWR supports the use of the currently -in -
development NCIRT draft mitigation guidance section on dam removal projects.
Response: See response to 7 immediately above.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Historically this watershed does not have a lot of documented survey work, so there is a lack of
aquatic survey data for Reedy Fork. As noted in the prospectus the species listed are county
records; however that does not mean they're present in this watershed. WRC would like to see at a
minimum an initial survey of the tailrace area to identify species presence within Reedy Fork.
Having that data will provide necessary information to begin conversations related to the potential
for improved aquatic assemblage as well as habitat restoration and species recolonization.
Response: An initial biological survey was conducted in the summer of 2022 by Three Oaks
Engineering and is included as Appendix D.
US Fish & Wildlife Service
The Sponsor appreciates the Service's comments. There are no specific comments that require direct
responses here.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Section 332.8(d)(2) of the Mitigation Rule identifies the required components necessary for a
completer prospectus. The Draft Prospectus addresses each of these required elements, but we
recommend including additional information for several of these elements per the comments
below.
Response: The Sponsor has provided all requested additional information in the Final Prospectus.
Please note that more information may be required if the project advances. The Sponsor believes
the additional information provided is sufficient for the prospectus stage. We will work with the IRT
moving forward to provide site -specific information as needed to secure approval for the proposed
bank site.
It is not clear of the proposed sponsor, Glen Raven, Inc., has any experience of qualifications as a
compensatory mitigation sponsor. Please provide more detail.
Response: RiverBank Conservation will serve as the Bank Sponsor. See Section 3 for RiverBank's
qualifications.
The discussion of Ecological Suitability of the Site describes other similar projects undertaken in the
Wilmington District and references several papers related to the effects of dam removal, but there is
no discussion of the suitability of this particular dam site. This will be particularly important as this
dam is located within a series of other impoundments, which affects its ability to provide the
functions referenced in the studies. Please revise this section to address the specific conditions
present on this site.
Response: The Final Prospectus has expanded on some of Ossipee's site -specific considerations with
respect to Ecological Suitability (Section 5.2) and Technical Feasibility and Site Limitations (Section
7). In general, the presence of several impoundments upstream and downstream of Ossipee may
have some limiting effects on biological community responses to dam removal; however, the
anticipated responses will likely be significant as lentic conditions transition to lotic conditions. To
the USACE's point, the degree of overall biological community response will be affected by factors
such population isolation (presence of other dams in the watershed) and drainage -wide water
quality, but the presence of Ossipee is the single most controllable factor affecting aquatic biology in
this reach of the Reedy Fork. The proposed removal has the potential to facilitate immediate and
remarkable biological and water quality changes throughout the current impoundment. Additional
benefits will be provided well above and below the impoundment with respect to relieving habitat
and population fragmentation. While such benefits are not as easily measured or otherwise
quantified, they are widely recognized by the scientific community. The Sponsor therefore assumes
crediting, performance standards and monitoring will focus on the former impoundment and
potentially the reach immediately below the Dam.
4. Section 8 of the document (Restoration Plan) briefly describes the objectives of the proposed
project. Please expand on this section to provide more detail of the specific objectives of the
project. It is not clear how this project will be able to achieve the objective of "RTE species"
recolonization.
Response: The project's objectives have been rewritten. Please see Section 9.1 for more detail. In
general, the objectives are tied to hydraulic changes within the Reedy Fork following dam removal.
Altered hydraulics will initiate the passive restoration of current impoundment and relieve local
habitat fragmentations, allowing for lotic biological communities to recolonize the reach.
Please note that the potential of the project to impact existing wetlands is a concern that would
have to be addresses. For compensatory mitigation projects that are used to offset impacts
associated with other District permits, loss of aquatic functions, including wetlands supported by the
dam, would need to be considered in the overall functional benefit provided by the projects, and
mitigation for the wetland loss may be required even with the use of NWP 53 — Removal of Low -
Head Dams.
Response: The Sponsor acknowledges this potential, and it willing to continue pursuing the project.
It is our intent to investigate these wetland areas further in the next stage of the project. This
information will be provided to the IRT to discuss the potential fate of these wetlands and how that
affects the balance of benefits associated with the proposed dam removal.
Please be aware that the 2008 guidance for dam removal referenced in the draft prospectus was
rescinded in 2012, and will not be used for determination of credit potential for this project. Please
remove any reference of the 2008 guidance. As noted in the Public Notice that rescinded the 2008
guidance, all dam removal projects will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis; however, the District
and IRT have been working on revised draft guidance specifically for dam removal, which may be
used for this project. Addition coordination with the IRT will be necessary to make the
determinations.
Response: The Sponsor is aware and has noted that credit potential will be determined by the
Sponsor and the IRT. We are comfortable with much of draft guidance we have reviewed. We look
forward to further discussing the dam removal and its credit potential with the IRT.
State Historic Preservation Office
1. Please note that our office requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review
Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field
investigation.
Response: The Sponsor will work with SHPO and the USACE as needed per the requirements of
Section 106. Archaeological investigations have not been conducted to date. It is anticipated such
investigations will be conducted in support of the Site Mitigation Plan.