Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_MiddendorfSprings_SAW-2021-01973

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
� WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
\` 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
_ WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
May 24, 2023
CESAW-RG/Kichefski
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: NCDMS Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30-
day Mitigation Plan Review, Anson County, NC
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received from the NCIRT during the 30-
day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(d)(7) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.
USACE AID#: SAW-2021-01973 30-Day Comment Deadline: April 19, 2023
DWR #: 2020-0775vl
David McHenry, NCDWR:
I've reviewed the plan and don't have any comments to offer. Thanks for the
opportunity.
Olivia Munzer, NCDWR:
1. Page 58, Section 7.5. It appears a word at the beginning of the sentence on line
10 is missing — probably "Table 15".
2. On Sheet DT-8 Planting Plan, they have hard fescue on the list — this is a non-
native species, and it likely will outcompete the native species. It should be
replaced with a native species. Also, the Woody Planting list on this page is
difficult to read.
Mac Haupt, NCDWR:
1. DWR appreciates the review (and extensive comments) from Kelly Phillips of
DMS.

2. DWR would like to emphasize the comment on the DMS review of Sheet C-2.
DWR has concerns over the extensive use of Angled Log Sills on some of these
streams with the slopes present.
3. Table 4 (and Section 3.3.1): DWR has concerns over the flow (because of the
small drainage areas and slate belt geology) for the following tributaries; 1 B, 1 C
and trib 5.
4. Section 3.3.2.2- Hydric Soils Investigation- DWR was appreciative of the fact
there was a Hydric Soil report by a Licensed Soil Scientist; however, the hydric
soils report in Appendix E has several shortcomings. As was stated in the report,
"Due to time constraints, the hydric soil investigation was not a complete review
of the entire area...". The review lacked covering the entire project area, lacked
geolocating the borings on a map, and should have included many more borings
given the wetlands that were evidently present.
5. Section 7.2.1- Stream Restoration Approach- DWR cautions raising a small
drainage area stream in the slate belt region. DWR believes that there will be
continuous flow issues on most of the streams in this project.
6. Table 12- Shows that the D50 proposed metric is to be 101.6 mm, or about 4
inches. Seeing the typical for the constructed riffle, of which there will be many
on this stream, DWR noted the use of Class A rip rap in the typical. DWR
believes that this will result in a considerable "hardening" of the stream channel.
DWR does not support the extensive use of class A rip rap in these stream
channels.
7. DWR appreciates the design firm utilizing the wetland performance criteria of
12% hydroperiod during the growing season.
8. Section 9.5- DWR will require three additional gauges be placed in existing
wetlands to ensure that the constructed stream channel does not significantly
reduce the wetland hydroperiod. The specific areas will be mentioned in the
review of the Design sheets.
9. Figure 7. It would have helpful if the drainage area acreage would have been
listed on the map.
10.Figure 11- Proposed Mitigation Plan-there are several areas of concern on this
map. First of all, DWR urges the designer to capture all areas that connect to the
easement that may affect either the stream or wetlands. Examples of these
areas which will likely affect the streams include the headwaters of tributaries 1 C,
1 B, and 4. In addition, there are several areas (proposed wetlands A and B, and
existing wetlands, WF, WH, and WA) where the easement line is directly on
either proposed wetlands or existing wetlands. In the past the IRT has
encountered problems where wetlands just outside the easement line were
ditched by the landowners and of course these ditches affected the wetlands

within the easement. Also, tributaries 5 and 6 both are shown to run down valley
from where they initially had their confluence with the stream. Figure 14 is
offered for evidence for tributary 5's path, however, DWR did not note any
support for tributary 6's path.
11.Figure 12- Monitoring Plan- DWR believes there should be flow gauges in the
upper third of the reach on each of the reaches proposed for restoration or
enhancement work. Tributary 1 B does not show a flow gauge.
12.Design sheet- C2-there is a lot of slope in this section with a lot of log sills. In the
past, log sills have shown to be prone to leak or lose the ability to hold grade.
Careful oversight will be needed in the construction of so many log sills.
Moreover, DWR requires a gauge in the existing wetland placed stream right
approximately near station 4+50.
13.Design sheet- C5 - DWR requires a wetland gauge stream right near station
2+50. This section shows a lot of constructed riffles. DWR would like to
emphasize their concern of placing rip rap in the stream channel. DWR suggests
the designer look for a source of rock on site that more resembles native rock on
site both in type and in size for the stream. In addition, DWR noted that there
does not appear to be any bank treatments for the meander bends. How does
the designer intend to maintain the stability of the stream in these areas (Design
sheet C6)?
14.Design sheet C7-same comment as #12 regarding slope and log sills.
15.Design sheet C9- in the longitudinal plot there were no lines.
16.Design sheet C16- DWR requires a gauge stream right at approximately station
4+50
17.Design sheet DT3 — DWR requests the on-site construction supervisor
emphasize the specs of the log sill rollers with the construction company and
specifically emphasize placement, footer logs and the minimum amount of length
the log embedded into the bank.
18.Design sheet DT4- DWR requests the designer look for rock on site which will be
more suitable for the stream rather than using NCDOT Class A rip rap.
Casey Haywood, USACE:
1. Pg 10 Section 3.3.1.1- Is the condition of UT1A Upper and Lower the same?
Recommend discussing the characteristics of existing conditions separately for
these sections. UT1A Upper appears stable in the photo provided in the

photolog. It would be helpful if the photos in Appendix L were moved to the
narrative to help add context.
2. Pg 17 Section 4.1.5- Section stated that improvements to biological activity will
be noted during visual assessments. Unless macrobenthic sampling will occur
and/or visual observation data of biological activity will be collected, recommend
removing this statement.
3. Pg 19 Section 5.5- Stream relocation is estimated to impact existing wetlands
within the easement. Seciton5.5 and 7.2.6 mention how permanent wetland
impacts will be offset by stream restoration activities and planting of existing (but
unimpacted) wetlands. Is this quantified somewhere for a comparison against
wetland loss? Though it is anticipated that the total wetland acreage, and quality,
will likely increase as a result of stream restoration, the Corps must still ensure
that there is no net loss of wetlands as a result of ecological restoration. If you do
not plan to install gauges on all wetlands within the easement and monitor
hydrology, please plan to reverify the extent of jurisdiction at the end of the
monitoring period to document that wetland acreage was not lost.
a. Please be sure to include temporary and permanent impacts to both
streams and wetlands when submitting the ePCN along with an impact
map. Additionally, any work being done outside the easement boundaries,
where you propose to tie into existing channels/ditches and upgrade or
install culverts, need to be included in the ePCN impacts. For instance, the
48" culvert crossing on UT6 (Figure 11) located just outside the easement
is tied to the project and will need to be included on the impact table
unless a separate NWP14 will be requested. Any crossing impacts you
believe qualify as agricultural exemptions should be clearly reported with
location, impact length, culvert size, etc. so the proper determination can
be made.
b. Please see the attached Permitting Tips for Mitigation Sites PDF for
reference and update the Mitigation Plan as needed.
4. Pg 25 Section 7.2.1- While much of the work on the PI Restoration reaches are
similar, this would be a good opportunity to discuss the stream design
implementation for each individual reach such as the road relocation and culvert
installation at the top of UT4 and UT6.
5. Pg 27 Section 7.2.3- Appreciate the inclusion of Figure 14 to justify the location
of tributary 5. Please include similar documentation for tributary 6.
6. Pg 28 Section 7.2.7- A treatment marsh is proposed at the top of UT4. It is
understood that this was discussed with the IRT; however, if this area is currently
jurisdictional it is not appropriate to place a BMP in a jurisdictional feature. It
appears that this area is called out on the JD maps and Figure 9 as a perennial

stream. Please confirm. Would there be an option for a BMP or marsh treatment
area above UT2?
7. Pg 32 Section 7.5- The selection of plant species is based on species present in
the forest adjacent to the site, please add a brief description of the vegetative
community used for reference.
8. Pg 32 Table 15- The percentage for Sycamore seems high. It would be
preferable to reduce the percent of Sycamore.
9. Section 7- Was any information gathered from a wetland reference site to help
develop project target conditions?
10.Pg. 33 Section 7.6- What is the potential for hydrologic trespass onto adjacent
fields? While there have been discussions with the landowner, there is no way of
ensuring that the LO will not construct new ditches immediately adjacent to your
project that would result in drainage of wetlands restored on your site. With no
guarantee that the adjacent parcel will not be transferred to a different landowner
in the future, this potential site constraint should be discussed in the text.
11.Pg. 33 Section 7.6- It was noted in Section 3.1.1 that cattle are located on
adjacent parcels upstream of Tributary 1. Do the cattle have access to the
wooded buffer on Tributary 1A outside the easement or are they fenced out? If
so, add a discussion of potential issues that could arise on the Site from the
cattle access upstream. Noted that the Site does not propose any fencing.
12.Pg 38 Section 8.3- Please note that volunteer species must be present for at
least two growing seasons before counting toward meeting performance
standards for monitoring year five and seven.
13.Pg 38 Section 9.0- Is that the "weather station" shown on Figure 12 the on-site
rain gauge? There was no mention of a rain gauge in this section.
14.Pg 39 Section 9.4- Indicates cross sections will be installed on all Restoration
and Enhancement I reaches however, there is no cross section shown on the El
reach on Figure 12.
15.Figure 5: Please include the proposed easement boundary.
16.Figure 7: Please show drainage area acreages on the map.
17.Figure 9- Please indicate the location of the perimeter ditch to be filled (as shown
on the map in Appendix A).
18.Figure 11-
a. It's unclear in the figure, text and design sheets where culverts will be
replaced, in particular for the road relocation above Tributaries 4 & 6.
These crossings were discussed during the IRT meeting. Please call out

these locations on the figure and discuss in further detail in the narrative.
Does the road go through the top of the CE on Tributary 6? The line for
the proposed reroute appears to stop at the easement line but the note
suggests it will be located above the easement. Design sheets should also
be updated accordingly.
b. Update the ledger to read "Parent tracts" as opposed to "Project Site
Tracts" for consistency. What is the difference between what is labeled as
the Project Site Tracts vs the Site—Boundary? Both attributes are pink.
c. Was there an option to include the crossing above Trib 1A Lower as an
internal crossing? Internal crossing are typically preferred so they are
protected and managed in perpetuity as part of the CE.
19.Figure 12-
a. Please include the culvert/crossing photo point locations on this figure.
b. Please include and label existing wetlands on this figure.
c. Please install a flow gauge on Trib 1 B. Additionally, please ensure flow
gauges are located in the upper third of all reaches. To help supplement
flow data it would be beneficial to also install game cameras.
20.Appendix F- Uniform Act document- FNI indicated that a notification was sent to
the property owner and a copy of the notification was located in the Appendix.
Please include the document as indicated.
21.Design Sheets-
a. C13 and C16- Were there culverts being installed for the road relocation
above Trib 4 and 6? Please include culvert type and dimensions in callout.
Also, please callout all easement breaks (internal and external) on the
profile views. And please include a typical culvert crossing detail.
b. Noticed a design sheet for Wetland A, C, D was not included. Is this
because work is limited in this area to mainly only removing drain tiles?
22.General Comment: Since this project is adjacent to active agricultural lands,
signage will be important to help establish boundaries for the landowner. We
recommend using horse-tape or some other visual barrier for the first few years
of monitoring. To confirm, does the easement boundary line on Trib 1A Upper
follow the centerline of the stream or does it follow the lines of the parent parcel?
It will be important to install signage more frequently along this area due to the
sinuous easement line. If the CE does not overlap the parent parcel, and if
possible, recommend installing signage in a straighter line somewhere between
the parent parcel and CE to avoid potential future encroachments.

Sincerely,
Steve Kichefski Digitally signed by Steve Kichefski
Date:2023.05.24 20:26:45-04'00'
Steve Kichefski
Project Manager
USACE Regulatory Division
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List