FW: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site As-Built/ SAW-2019-00835/ Avery County

Baker, Caroline D
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:40 PM
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs
Mitigation Site As -Built/ SAW-2019-00835/ Avery County
Laserfiche Upload: email and attachment
DW R#: 20190865
Doc Date: 1/13/23
Doc Type: Mitigation — Mitigation Information
Doc Name: Initial Release Ledger
Thanks,
Sue Homewood (she/her/hers)
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Sue. Homewood @ ncden r.gov
336 813 1863
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 8:44 AM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Cc: Raymond Holz <[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie <[e-mail]>; Harmon, Beth
<[e-mail]>; Stanfill, Jim <[e-mail]>; John Hamby <[e-mail]>;
Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>; Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J
CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>;
Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>
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 Spa m.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Paul,
Thank you for the follow-up on Laurel Springs. Attached is the current signed ledger for the initial 30% release. Please
make sure to coordinate with Andrea Leslie on diversity plantings this quarter.

Please let me know if you need to discuss.
Have a good weekend,
Kim
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107
-----Original Message -----
From: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Raymond Holz <[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie <[e-mail]>; Harmon, Beth
<[e-mail]>; Stanfill, Jim <[e-mail]>; John Hamby <[e-mail]>;
Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel
Springs Mitigation Site As -Built/ SAW-2019-00835/ Avery County
Importance: High
Good afternoon Kim, Casey, Erin and Todd;
DMS typically incorporates IRT comments from the MYO/ Record Drawing reports in the following MY1 report and
appendices. For Laurel Springs (DMS# 100122), Restoration Systems (RS) and DMS wanted to avoid any future confusion
by amending and reposting the MYO/ Record Drawing report based on the IRT comments received, the IRS amendment
request, and the project's remedial planting plan.
The updated MYO report and record drawings (including IRT correspondence) have been uploaded to the DWR
Laserfiche site. The updated files have also been uploaded to the IRT/DMS SharePoint site and will be posted to the
DMS project website in the coming weeks:
IRT/ DMS SharePoint site links:
Laurel Springs_100122_MYO _2022.pdf
Blockedhttps://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/:b:/r/sites/IRT-
DMS/AsBu i It% 20Report/ 20/ 20Drawi ng/Lau rel % 20Spri ngs % 20(100122)/Lau rel % 20Spri ngs_100122_MYO_2022. pdf?csf
=1&web=1&e=Ogol h I
Laurel Springs_100122_AB_2022.pdf
Blockedhttps://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/:b:/r/sites/IRT-
DMS/AsBu i It% 20Report/ 20/ 20Drawi ng/Lau rel % 20Spri ngs % 20(100122)/Lau rel % 20Spri ngs_100122_AB_2022. pdf?csf=1
&web=1&e=Nf9adj
DMS would like to request release of 30% of the project's mitigation credit based on the final MYO/ Record Drawing
report and IRT approval.
The project's MYO (2022) 30% release credit ledger is attached for your review and signature.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thankyou

Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
Cell: [phone]
[e-mail]
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Ray Holz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Kim Browning <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Casey. M. Haywood @ usace. a rmy. m i 1>
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 Spa m.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Thank you, Kim. We will keep American hazelnuts limited to the hillslopes and provide the IRT with a summary of the
implemented AMP.
Sincerely,
Raymond H.
-----Original Message -----
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2022 10:08 AM
To: Ray Holz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Casey. M. Haywood @ usace. a rmy. m i 1>
Subject: RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site As -Built/ SAW-2019-00835/ Avery
County
Hi Ray,
Thanks for the follow-up. In general, the IRT does not have any concerns with the Remedial Planting Plan or counting the
bare root species towards success. WRC and DWR request that you contact them if you plan to supplement
understory/shrub species next year. They would like to encourage diversity out there. Andrea Leslie did mention that
American Hazelnut is not a typical riparian species and is often found on hillslopes. This species may not do well in the
riparian zone. She would recommend Witch Hazel as an alternative. She also noted that Red Spruce is very elevation
specific and survives in elevations in excess of 4,000 feet.
Thanks,
Kim

Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107
-----Original Message -----
From: Ray Holz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 4:26 PM
To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;'[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Youngman, Holland J <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]'
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Melonie Allen <[e-mail]>; Crumbley,
Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; John Hamby
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs
Mitigation Site As -Built/ SAW-2019-00835/ Avery County
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:
Response to IRT comments which includes revised MYO Report and Recorded Drawing pages

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: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2022 7:37 AM
To: Ray Holz <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;'[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Youngman, Holland J <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]'
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Melonie Allen <[e-mail]>; Crumbley,
Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; John Hamby
<[e-mail]>
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
americana). 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 Betula alleganiensis, which was planted). Please include me in a discussion with IRS;
I'd like to have input on the supplemental planting.
Todd Bowers, EPA:
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:
DWR appreciated DMS' report review and site visit comments.
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.
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 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) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 2:26 PM

To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <maiIto: [e-mail]> ;Youngman, Holland J
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Ray Holz
<[e-mail] <maiIto: [e-mail]> >; John Hamby
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Allen, Melonie
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Notice of As -Built Review/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site/ SAW-2019-00835/ Avery County
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
DWR# 2019-0865 v1
French Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 06010108
Avery County, North Carolina
10

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)
11

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: [e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > ), tel: [phone] I cell: 919.604.9314
NCDEQ- DMS PM: Paul Wiesner, [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > , [phone]
FINAL As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report and Record Drawings can be accessed directly on the DMS SharePoint site
here:
12

IRT-DMS SharePoint Page:
Blockedhttps://urldefense.com/v3/_https://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/sites/IRT-
DMS/SitePages/Home.aspx_;! !HYmSToo!ejLznDy_HhgDOA_mkQwxTiBiXOJUIOfn KXKhgSoRanVXYiJFJF6_kg-9wKaWIO-
aWYWmlTyJtl8o8nXSFAVtlmHzm-4$ <Blockedhttps://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/sites/IRT-
DMS/SitePages/Home.aspx> <Blockedhttps://urldefense.com/v3/_https://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/sites/IRT-
DMS/SitePages/Home.aspx_;! !HYmSToo!ejLznDy_HhgDOA_mkQwxTiBiXOJUIOfn KXKhgSoRanVXYiJFJF6_kg-9wKaWIO-
aWYWmlTyJtl8o8nXSFAVtlmHzm-4$ <Blockedhttps://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/sites/IRT-
DMS/SitePages/Home.aspx> >
RIBITS:
Blockedhttps://urldefense.com/v3/_https://ri bits.ops.usace.army. mi I/ords/f?p=107:278:9043125515214:::RP,278:P27
8_BAN K_I D:5903_; ! ! HYmSToo ! ej Lz n Dy_H hg DOA_m kQwxTi 8 iXOJ U I Ofn KXKhgSo Ra nVXYiJ FJ F6_kg-9wKaW 1O-
aWYWmlTyJtl8o8nXSFAVtxOuSms4$
<Blockedhttps://ri bits.ops.usace.army. mi I/ords/f?p=107:278:9043125515214:::RP,278:P278_BAN K_I D:5903>
Thank you in advance for your time.
Casey Haywood
13

Mitigation Specialist, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Work cell: [phone]
14