20230801 Ver 1_Initial Evaluation Letter_South Fork Catawba UMBI_South Fork_SAW-2023-00927_20231130

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

November30, 2023
Regulatory Division
SUBJECT:NCIRT Initial Review of the South Fork Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Banking
Instrument and South Fork Mitigation Site Prospectus, Action ID No. SAW-2023-00927
Mr. Michael Beinenson
South Fork Mitigation, LLC
117 Centrewest Court
Cary, NC 27513

Dear Mr. Beinenson:

This letter is regarding your prospectus document dated August 2023, for the
proposed South Fork Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and associated
South Fork Mitigation Site. The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of
a private commercial umbrella mitigation bank, and the associated 35.1-acre South Fork
Mitigation Site, located at northwest of the intersection of Startown Road and Reepsville
Road in Lincolnton, Lincoln County, North Carolina (35.484031° N, -81.274811° W). The
proposed South Fork Mitigation Site would include wetland restoration, enhancement,
and preservation within the Catawba River watershed (8-digit hydrologic unit code:
03050102).
The Corps determined the Prospectus was complete and issued a public notice (P/N
# SAW-2023-00927) on September 19, 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, The Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office, NC Wildlife Resource Commission, and the US Army
Corps of Engineers.
The Corps has considered the comments received during the public notice and NCIRT
prospectus review, along with information that was discussed during the NCIRT field
review. Based on the information that was provided in the final prospectus, the field
review, and the comments that were provided by the NCIRT, we have continuing
concerns regarding the suitability of this site to successfully restore, enhance, and/or
preserve aquatic resources in accordance with the provisions of the 2008 Federal
Mitigation Rule. In this case, our concerns are specifically associated with the depth to
the relic hydric soil layer in proposed wetland reestablishment and rehabilitation areas
that are typically associated with wetland creation, insufficient hydrology uplift from filling
the shallow interior ditch system, limited landscape connectivity based on distance to the

-2-
river and high berm barrier, site fragmentation with the easement break situated through
the center of the project, and risk from the proposed ditch creation along the easement
boundary. Please refer to the attached comments for more specific information regarding
these concerns. We believe that the existing conditions and potentialfunctional uplift
constraints mean that we cannot support this as a compensatory mitigation site in its
current proposed configuration.
Given the concerns expressed by the IRT and the risks identified above, we have
determined that the South Fork Mitigation Site, as proposed in the Final Prospectus, is
not suitableto provide compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by DA permits. If
you are able to revise the prospectus to address the identified concerns, you may
resubmit the revised prospectus to restart the review process. Please note that the
project may be required to be reissued by public notice depending on the extent of the
changes from the original prospectus. Most importantly, a revised prospectus must also
fully address the concerns identified during the initial review in order to be reconsidered.
In accordance with Section 332.8 of the Federal Mitigation Rule, proposed banks
must include a mitigation site, and because that the South Fork Mitigation Site is the only
site submitted with the proposed South Fork Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank, if a
revised site prospectus is not pursued, we intend to conclude our review of the bank. If
you have another site that you plan to submit as part of the umbrella bank, please notify
us within 30 days of this letter, otherwise we will withdraw the bank from the review
process.
We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United States. If
you have questions regarding this letteror would like to schedule a call to discuss this
matter, please contact me by telephone at [phone] or by email at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Todd Tugwell
Chief, Mitigation Branch
Enclosure
cc (by email):
NCIRT Distribution List

-3-
Agency Comments for the South Fork Mitigation Site (SAW-2023-00927) Prospectus
Associated with the South Fork Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank in Lincoln County, North
Carolina.

Maria Polizzi, NC DWR:
1. Due to the nature and severity of the issues identified with this project, DWR has
significant concerns with the viability of this site and the ability for the project to
create adequate ecological and water quality uplift.
2. DWR requests that a detailed grading plan be included in the draft mitigation plan
since grading is such an integral part of this project. Additionally, grading will
impact soils and vegetation reestablishment, so it would be helpful to be able to
understand the specifics. It seems likely that grading in excess of 12” will be
needed in some locations proposed as reestablishment due to field crowning.
3. DWR wonders whether the areas where ditches are proposed to be filled should
be considered creation rather than rehabilitation.
4. Please be sure to describe the imminent risk to the wetland preservation area. To
be considered for preservation the wetland must be high quality and at risk of
negative future impact. Based on discussions in the field, DWR is unsure whether
there is significant risk to this location as it is not ideal for agriculture.
5. The minimum hydroperiod should be at least 12% for all years.
6. DWR does not like that a main component of this project is just relocating a ditch
from inside the proposed CE to outside. Although DWR appreciates the inclusion
of a wetland buffer, providing wetland mitigation credit for moving a ditch by
approximately 60 ft. is not ideal.
Olivia Munzer, NC WRC:
1. In the planting plan, the permanent seedling species include hairy buttercup
(Ranunculus sardous). This species is non-native. Please find an alternative that
is native to the Piedmont.
2. On page 27, 7.1.2 Vegetation, the prospectus states that temporary seed will
consist of species listed in the NCDEQ Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
and Design Manual. We do not recommend seeding with tall fescue, Kobe
lespedeza, sericea lespedeza, Sudangrass or Kentucky bluegrass even though
NCDEQ has these species on their seeding specifications. These species are non-
native plants and/or invasive. Instead, we recommend rye, browntop, oats, and/or
wheat for temporary seeding.

Travis Wilson, NC WRC:
1. The site appears to be a toe of slope broad floodplain system in Chewacla soils.
Chewacla soils are notoriously marginal for being successful wetlands restoration
sites. Site notes mention significant grading. I have a lot of concerns that
substantial grading in this type of system will simply result in perched surface water
on these soils, which is something we have seen before. There is likely potential
for this site to provide suitable wetland mitigation over a portion of the site;
however, the site as a whole is likely not all suitable wetland habitat. Extensive

-4-
grading to attain that function has historically resulted in marginal to no hydrologic
success, poor vegetation success and overall low functional uplift.
Erin Davis, USACE:
1. As discussed during the IRT site walk, proposed wetland credit areas where the
depth to hydric soil isgreater than 12 inches are typically considered creation.
The IRT expressed concerns based on field observations and review of the
provided LSS soil report that a significant portion of proposed reestablishment
and rehab areas would likely result in creation credit. Of the mapped 21 soil
borings approximated within proposed reestablishment and rehabilitation areas,
the shallowest depth to hydric soil indicators was identified at 11 inches, and at
17 boring locations the depth to hydric soil indicators was greater than 12 inches.
It does not appear any changes were made in the Final Prospectus as a result of
the IRT field discussion on this subject.
2. During the site walk, the IRT commented on the shallowness of the interior field
ditch network and questioned whether there would be sufficient hydrologic uplift
from filling the features to meet mitigation performance criteria and successfully
reestablish and support a forested wetland long-term. Review of additional
information would need to be considered, including baseline groundwater gauge
data and lateral drainage effect models of existing ditches.
3. The efforts made to make the easement break internal, reduce the width, and
remove the existing culverts are appreciated. However, the functional uplift
constraint associated with fragmenting the proposed site still remains a concern.
Associated with site fragmentation is the concern of wetland hydrologic
connectivity, which may potentially be affected by re-grading and replacing the
unimproved farm path with a gravel surface path. Also, please provide additional
information on local ordinances that apply to agricultural path width and grade
design requirements.
4. While the inclusion of the proposed ditch creation along the project easement
boundary is viewed as an effort to provide full transparency. It is not appropriate
for a wetland compensatory mitigation project plan to include the creation of a
new ditch. A proposed project should consider the risks associated with any
existing and potential adjacent land use activities during site selection and
design. For instances, if the landowner (or their agents) excavates a ditch outside
of the proposed project boundary, what is the potential lateral drainage effect on
wetland credit areas? Is there adequate site buffer protection allowing for the
original ditch construction depth and if the ditch were to be maintained at a
deeper depth in the future?
5. As noted in the prospectus, the proposed project site is located approximately
1,500 feet from the South Fork Catawba River. An active agricultural operation is
located between the project and river. Additionally, a high berm runs along the
riverbank separating it from the agricultural fields and proposed project site.
While it was noted in the field that in significant weather events river flow may
overtop a berm break, the berm acts as a barrier to regular overbank surface
flow. The presence of the riverbank berm was not mentioned in the Final
Prospectus. Based on the distance between the site and the river, and the

-5-
presence of the berm, there appears to be limited landscape and hydrologic
connectivity which affects the potential functional uplift that the site can provide.
With the site distance and floodplain disconnection from the river, how will
riparian function goals outlined in the prospectus be achieved?
6. The Final Prospectus does not include a discussion of the wetland credit need
within the proposed mitigation bank service area, including any sources of the
need assessment.

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.

October 12, 2023
Erin Davis [e-mail]
District Mitigation Branch
USACE
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC27587
Re: South Fork Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank, South Fork Mitigation Site, 979 Startown Road,
Lincolnton, Lincoln County, ER 23-2134
Dear Ms. Davis:

Thank you for your letter of September 19, 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
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898