Hannah Bridge MY4 Report Review, Response, and Notes

Baker, Caroline D
From: Hamilton, Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 2:19 PM
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] RE: Hannah Bridge MY4 Report Review, Response, and Notes
Hi Caroline,
Please file
Laserfiche Upload: Email
DW R#: 2017-0537v2
Doc Date: 4/12/2023
Doc Type: Mitigation monitoring Report Review
Doc Name: Same as email subject
Thanks,
Hannah Bridge #2017-0537v2 MY4
- Previous Issues
0 3 random vegetation plots were added after MY1(in addition to the 10 permanent plots)
o All plots surpasses the interim success criteria of 320 stems/ acre, average 663 stems per acre
■ Plot 11 barely met criteria with 324 stems/ acre
o Average height of 7.3 feet in MY3
- All plots meet success criteria, with a range of 364 to 931 planted stems per acre. Average of 620 stems per acre.
- Average tree height of 9.6 feet
- Supplemental planting of 3-gallon trees around VP 16 was conducted on February 281". Species include.
o Cherrybark oak, silky dogwood, Buttonbush, and river birch
o Cherrybark oak, silky dogwood, and button bush are not included in BPDP planting list but are included
in the Planting complete letter.
- 4.7 acres of Privet, Pine, and sweetgum were all treated along TH2, VP17 and HB1 in February
o Plot 17 is not on map or data sheets so is not a DWR plot. They could mean VP18 though because it has
81 Pine volunteers.
- Three instances of encroachment:
o Pull -off for a deer stand
■ Added fencing and easement markers
o Mowing behind a line of trees
■ Added fencing and easement markers
o Small horse pasture constructed within the easement in the northern section of HB1
■ Has been discussed with land owner and they will be moving the fence
o Ask about acreage and location of first 2 encroachments
o Any loss of stems within buffer or nutrient offset credit areas
- Map shows "nuisance species control" over most of the site
o Ask about this
- Map shows "proposed easement adjustment in the North east section of HB1, but there is no other mention of
an adjustment to the easement
- Plot 18 has 81 volunteer Sweetgums, South west corner of site.
- 320 stems per acre is their performance standard, not 260 for buffer
1

Ryan a ilto
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
[phone] Cell
Location: 512 N. Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, NC 27604
�llrf�,�l 1 I
Einaif corrrrsfrorrclrnce to andfroin this ackIress is subject to the
North th t;amf na Public lic Re cr:ar"c s taw and rr7ay be disclosed to thhV par fies,
From: Hamilton, Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 2:17 PM
To: 'Jamey Mceachran' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>; Katie Obenauf <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Hannah Bridge MY4 Report Review
Thank you for the thorough response, Jamey.
By copy of this correspondence, DWR approves the monitoring report for Year 4 of the Hannah Bridge site and
authorizes a 20% reduction in the current bond amount.
Thanks,
Ryan a ilto
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
[phone] Cell
Location: 512 N. Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, NC 27604
Einaif corrrrsfrorrclrnce to andfroin this ackIress is subject to the
North th t;amf na Public lic Re cr:ar"c s taw and rr7ay be disclosed to thhV par fies,
From: Jamey Mceachran <�[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:45 PM
To: Hamilton, Ryan [e-mail]>
Cc: Merritt, Katie <kgti.e merritt(�ncdenr.go_v>• Katie Obenauf <k¢ab n Laf:( res_.LAS>
........_................................
Subject: [External] RE: Hannah Bridge MY4 Report Review

CAUTION. External email. Donot click links oropen attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email asanattachment to
Report Sparn.
Hi Ryan,
Thank you for the comments.
Here are the responses to our comments, if you would like to discuss further please let us know.
1. The monitoring report describes three instances of encroachment but only provides the location for one
instance on the map. Please describe the acreage and location for all three instances of encroachment.
Additionally, please note ifthere were any loss ofstems within buffer ornutrient offset credit areas.
a. We have included the areas of discussion on the attached map. Only one of the areas overlapped the
buffer mitigation areas and it was only 70 feet long and one strip of trees that overlapped with the
Buffer Mitigation area. In this area, the landowner mowed around trees that we had planted so there
was no loss of stems, and we have had a discussion with the landowner so they know this action is
considered encroachment and not allowed. Photo below ofthe mowing and visible line oftrees

The other two areas are outside of buffer mitigation areas. The second area is 0.004 acres, and was a
small pull off area for someone accessing the powerline easement. This area has been marked off with
horsetape. This is the area in which we have requested to remove from the conservation easement from
the IRT so as to not be a continuous issue. The last area is a small area (.047 acres) that is forested so
was never planted and is within a wetland mitigation area). This area the adjacent landowner missed
the correct corner and just put up a temporary fence for his horse through the easement and we have
asked them to move the fenceline to the correct property line.
2. The map shows a large area of "nuisance species control" across the entire site. Please provide more detail to
exactly what this entails. What species are being targeted? What control measures are being implemented?

a. The area looks a little bigger than was actually treated. The species focused on were pine, privet, and
sweetgum. The areas notated on the Year 3 Monitoring Report (attached) were the focus of the
treatment, specifically there were several clumps of sweet gums pines and privet that had become
clustered along the old channel bed next to HB1, as was shown in the areas on the Year 3 Monitoring
Report, in addition to a fairly thick area of privet in the forested wetland areas. This was majority of the
area that was treated and was treated with basal spraying or stump cut and spray
treatments. However, the maintenance team was advised to check the rest of the site (as they are
trained to identify invasive species) and coordinates with the project manager on other areas that show
some new invasive growth and spray those new growths where feasible while they are out on site to
ensure we stay on top of the invasive species encroachment (specifically privet in the forested areas). So
most of the forested area within that treated area was smaller privet growth which was foliar sprayed.
3. The report cites interim stem density success criteria as "320 stems per acre." DWR interim success criteria is set
at 260 stems per acre for nutrient offset and buffer mitigation projects. Please correct this in future report.
a. This will be corrected in the next report.
Thank you for your time and please let us know what else you need from us.
Thanks
Jamey
From: Hamilton, Ryan <Eyan.hamilton()ncdenr. 2y>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 2:41 PM
To: Jamey Mceachran <jmceachran(res.us>
Cc: Merritt, Katie <kgtin.mnrrittc ncd nr....g_v>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Hannah Bridge MY4 Report Review
Hi Jamey,
DWR has reviewed the Year 4 Monitoring Report for the Hannah Bridge Site and have the following comments:
1. The monitoring report describes three instances of encroachment but only provides the location for one
instance on the map. Please describe the acreage and location for all three instances of encroachment.
Additionally, please note if there were any loss of stems within buffer or nutrient offset credit areas.
2. The map shows a large area of "nuisance species control" across the entire site. Please provide more detail to
exactly what this entails. What species are being targeted? What control measures are being implemented?
3. The report cites interim stem density success criteria as "320 stems per acre." DWR interim success criteria is set
at 260 stems per acre for nutrient offset and buffer mitigation projects. Please correct this in future report.
Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please provide an adequate response to all items above along with
supporting documents if required.
Once DWR receives a response to the comments above, issuance of monitoring report approval and credit release can
be determined.

Thank you for patience,
Ryan Hamilton
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division ufWater Resources
North Carolina Department ufEnvironmental Quality
(7O4)651-O357Cell
Location: 512 N. Salisbury Street, Archdale 8ui|ding, Ra|eigh, NC276O4
Email correspondence to and Ironthis ackIrea is subject to the
North CamfinaPublic RecotVsLaw and may bedisclosed hothhzparfies,