20230798 Ver 1_Initial Evaluation Letter

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

August 7, 2023

Regulatory Division

Action ID No. SAW-2023-00725
Re: NCIRT Initial Review of the WLS Slowplay Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument
and Mitigation Site Prospectus

Ms. Catherine Roland
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615

Dear Ms. Roland:
This letter is regarding your prospectus document dated March 2023, for the proposed
WLS Slowplay Mitigation Banking Instrument and associated Mitigation Site. The
proposal consists of the establishment and operation of a private commercial mitigation
bank, and the associated 20-acre WLS Slowplay Mitigation Site, located southwest of
Grassy Ridge Lane in Taylorsville, Alexander County, North Carolina (35.852430° N, -
81.148672° W). The proposed WLS Slowplay Mitigation Site would include stream
restoration and enhancement within the Catawba River watershed (8-digit hydrologic unit
code (HUC): 03050101).

The Corps determined the Prospectus was complete and issued a public notice (P/N
# SAW-2023-00725) on April 17, 2023. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the
views of interested State and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or
affected by the proposed work. Incorporated in this email and attached are comments
received in response to the public notice from the North Carolina Department of Natural
and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office, NC Wildlife Resource
Commission and the US Army Corps of Engineers.

The Corps has considered the comments received from members of the Interagency
Review Team (IRT) and information that was discussed during an IRT site review on
June 21, 2023 (see site visit meeting minutes attached). We have determined that the
proposed umbrella mitigation bank appears to have the potential to restore aquatic
resources within the 8-digit HUC 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin; however, we
request that you address the enclosed agency concerns in the draft mitigation plan.

Please provide a response to the attached comments with your draft mitigation plan
submittal. We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United
States. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact me at [phone]
or by email at [e-mail].

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Sincerely,

Steve Kichefski
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division - Wilmington District

Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List

Memorandum to the Record
August 7, 2023

Agency Comments for the WLS Slowplay Mitigation Bank (SAW-2023-00725)
Prospectus in Alexander County, North Carolina.

David McHenry, NCWRC:
Please consider a couple follow-up thoughts for Slowplay that I perhaps mentioned in the field
on June 21, 2023:
1) Rock structures or riffles in S103, S105, and S100-RI (as I believe the sponsor is intending to
include in the design) is recommended given the relative steepness of those
reaches/watersheds, the removal of the big pond on RI, and proximity of these reaches to
upper pasture areas where cattle use is more concentrated. I believe basins or other BMPs at
the head of these, or at least RI, was mentioned by someone and should be worthwhile
particularly if cattle use of the pastures increases.
2) S100-R4 (the possible Hexastylis ? reach) had good riparian canopy tree cover worth
keeping. I don’t think I mentioned this, but maybe some armored scour holes would be
worthwhile just inside the easement where those rills enter S100-R4 from the north side
(?).
3) Repair of the bank blow-out on R300 should be included.
4) If only minor cross-sectional changes to S200 shake-out, then it would be good to avoid
some undisturbed sections of riparian vegetation using targeted work access and work
points. Removal of tree trunk/canopy, but not stumps, is recommended on immediate
streambanks where excavation or equipment caused root damage is suspected.

Steve Kichefski, USACE:
The following comments are considered in addition to the site meeting minutes.
1. Small streams S105 and S103 need work and different approaches were discussed. S103
had bedrock, but Chris felt restoration needed to match the P1 approach to S100. There is
risk that they could lose jurisdiction when lifted, so include flow gauges and justify the
approach proposed. Consider expanding the CE if needed to provide enough space to
include BMP’s.
2. S104: EII is appropriate, but again getting enough buffer to stabilize is recommended.
3. Existing vegetation present along various portions of the project (S100, S101, S200, S201
& S300). Some shaded areas or heavily treated invasive areas may justify additional
planting in understory or to fill gaps. It was recommended to be clear which portions will
be planted in order to justify ratios proposed and what performance metrics would apply.
S100-R4 is a good example of a reach that may need minimal veg work and modified
ratio.
4. S201: This reach was clearly degraded/incised; however concern was expressed that even
if lifted it would remain a confined channel. It has steep slopes with established veg so
care is needed to keep slopes stable. This channel has limited functional uplift and was
justified partially due to the P1 lift needed on S200 and matching the channel elevation at
their confluence. Justify the approach and ratio of this reach with functional uplift in
mind and take care with the existing vegetation on the steep slopes for stabilization.
5. S200: Restoration needed, however see previous comments on existing vegetation both
for keeping slopes stable and detailing planting/veg performance metrics along with
justifying proposed ratios.

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898
May 12, 2023

Steve Kichefski [e-mail]
District Mitigation Branch-USACE
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801

Re: Slowplay mitigation bank, Lackey Tobacco Road, Taylorsville, Alexander County, ER 23-0991

Dear Mr. Kichefski:

Thank you for your letter of April 17, 2023, regarding the above-referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.

We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.

Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

waterlandsolutions.com | 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 1130, Raleigh, NC 27615 | 919-614-5111
Meeting Minutes
Slowplay Mitigation Project
Subject: NCIRT Prospectus Site Meeting
Date Prepared: June 22, 2023
Meeting Date and Time: June 21, 2023 at 9:30 am
Meeting Location: On Site (Alexander County, NC) 35.852430°, -81.148672°
Attendees: USACE: Steve Kichefski and Erin Davis (NCIRT)
NCDEQ DWR: Maria Polizzi (NCIRT)
NC WRC: Dave McHenry (NCIRT)
WLS: Kayne Van Stell, Catherine Roland, Kyle Obermiller, Chris Tomsic

These meeting minutes document notes and discussion points from the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT) Prospectus Site Meeting for the Slowplay Mitigation Project (Catawba River Basin,
CU03050101). The proposed bank site is located in Alexander County, North Carolina. The meeting began
at 9:30 am with a general summary of the overall project concepts. After the site overview, attendees
toured the project site to review existing conditions and proposed mitigation types, restoration and
enhancement approaches, and design concepts. In general, the project site review notes are presented
below in the order they were discussed/visited.

General/Before Site Walk
• Erin asked if the second crossing on S100-R4 was required. WLS explained that it was
requested by the landowner in order for them to have access to the other portion of their
property.
S100-R1
• The site visit started on S100-R1. The group walked to the top of the pond at an existing
culvert crossing.
• Erin asked if WLS planned to install a BMP at the top of the pond inside the CE. Chris
responded that a BMP would be located within the CE above the junctional stream call and
that cattle will be permanently fenced out across the entire project.
• The group discussed the design plan for the pond area. Chris explained that the pond dam(s)
and culverts would be removed along with any unsuitable soil. The design would involve a
combination PI and PII approach to restore natural valley contours across the remnant pond

waterlandsolutions.com | 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 1130, Raleigh, NC 27615 | 919-614-5111
bottom. WLS will design a step-pool channel to accommodate the steep drop across the
existing impoundment.
• Erin asked about the cut/fill and if Chris thought the reach would balance. Chris stated that
getting the earthwork to balance was the goal and if there was excess dirt that it would most
likely get spread across the adjacent side slopes and stabilized accordingly.
• The group discussed the use of both rock and wood structures for channel stability. Chris
stated that he will incorporate wood structures (angled log drops and woody riffles) based on
material availability, but rock structures will be utilized in steeper sections. Steve noted that
woody structures, including toe wood, should be submerged whenever possible. Chris added
that it’s important to maintain surface flow across remnant pond bottom and mixing suitable
clay soil will help promote saturation to keep wood structures from dry rotting.
• The group then walked below the pond dam. The IRT agreed that restoration was the best
approach in this location.
• Erin suggested WLS watch for the possibility of a monoculture of Virginia Pine on the lower
end of S100-R1 and the upper portion of S200-R2.
S105
• The group discussed how this reach was fed by a seep. Kayne discussed that WLS would design
a step-pool channel that would tie into the main tributary (S100-R1). The IRT agreed with the
proposed design approach for S105.
S103
• Maria asked if there was WLS had considered installing an in-line BMP at the top of the reach.
The group discussed that depending on where the jurisdictional call is made the CE may be
extended, if necessary.
• Erin suggested that it might be risky to claim jurisdictional stream credit above the existing
headcut.
• Erin asked for a flow gauge on S103.
• The group discussed the design approach, Erin and Steve expressed that they believed the
reach was more appropriate for EII given the existing bedrock knickpoints. Kayne disagreed
that the reach should at least be EI with the proposed channel work, buffer planting, BMP
and cattle exclusion. Chris stated that the best approach would be restoration and he would
prefer a shallow PII design approach. Steve stated that WLS needed to justify the approach
and credit ratio for S103.
S104
• The group walked down to S104. It was agreed that EII approach was an appropriate
treatment for this reach.
• Steve suggested that when WLS submits the PJD that we go to the county contact first, but
that we copy him on the email submittal.
S100-R3
• Erin suggested that we add a table into the mitigation plan that summarizes the mitigation
approach and the credit ratios for the total length of restoration and enhancement proposed
in this reach. She stated that it would be helpful to split the reach sections and proposed
credit ratios to match the proposed level of work.

waterlandsolutions.com | 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 1130, Raleigh, NC 27615 | 919-614-5111
• Erin and Steve stated that we need to make our vegetation plan very clear. If there is
established vegetation, WLS needs to make sure it is marked in the plans/figures. Different
success thresholds can be used in areas of understory planting. Erin suggested a stem survival
percentage threshold.
• Erin stated that WLS can propose different monitoring criteria where we are only planting
understory vegetation.
S101/S102
• The IRT agreed with the restoration approach in this area.
• Erin suggested we run the buffer tool, if possible, to capture more stream credits.
• Maria, Erin, and Steve suggested that WLS consider having the proposed stream crossings as
internal crossing in the CE deed vs. a break outside of the CE. WLS stated we would consider
including language in the CE deed that allows them to be used for farm crossings.
S100-R4
• The group walked the entire S100-R4 reach.
• Erin stated that she did not think a 2.5:1 ratio was appropriate EII for this reach and that WLS
would need to justify the credit ratio for this reach.
S300
• The group walked to the upper section near the blown out culvert. Steve commented that the
main stem was short and disconnected, but the channel was unstable with eroding banks in
the localized area. Kayne noted that the reach condition improves further downstream and
the IRT did not think a 2.5:1 ratio was appropriate for the entire reach.

S201
• The group then drove across to S201/S200 confluence. There was a group discussion on how
far WLS was going to raise the deepened channel and grade stable benches with side slopes.
The group agreed that although significant work is being proposed for a short reach, there
was some benefit to doing full restoration since the work also includes buffer planting,
invasive treatment (kudzu and multiflora rose) and adding a BMP to reduce sediment from
highly erodible soils.
S200
• The group walked up to the large headcut on S200. There was a discussion about the steep
slopes and vegetated buffer in this area. The group also discussed the excess sediment above
the crossing and how WLS would remove and prevent more entering the system during the
design and construction.
• Chris discussed that the existing crossing would be removed and excess sediment would be
excavated prior to channel restoration. Further upstream, existing trees of significance would
be saved, and the design approach would involve minimizing buffer disturbance with strategic
structure placement to improve bedform/step-pool morphology rather than denude entire
swath of vegetation along the reach.

waterlandsolutions.com | 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 1130, Raleigh, NC 27615 | 919-614-5111
Summary
• Overall, the IRT members agreed the project is suitable to provide compensatory mitigation,
provided it is properly justified in the mitigation plan.
• WLS will provide a Draft Mitigation Plan as the next step in the project.

The above minutes represents Water & Land Solutions’ interpretation and understanding of the meeting
discussion and actions. If recipients of these minutes should find any information contained in these
minutes to be in error, incomplete, please notify the author with appropriate corrections and/or additions
within five business days to allow adequate time for correction and redistribution.