20231100 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20231211

Homewood, Sue
From:
Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Monday, December 11, 2023 5:34 PM
To:
Daniel Ingram; Cara Conder; Tommy Cousins
Cc:
Michael Scisco; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Davis, Erin B CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA); Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Bowers, Todd;
Wilson, Travis W.; Munzer, Olivia; Hamstead, Byron A; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (US); Polizzi, Maria; Homewood, Sue; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Hammond, Swade D CIV
USARMY CESAS (USA); Stock, N Carmela CIV USARMY CESAS (USA)
Subject:
[External] RE: Notice of Conservation Easement Modification Request/ WLS Upper
Rocky Mitigation Bank/ SAW-2015-01816 / Mecklenburg County
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Daniel,
Please find below our comments in response to the WLS Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank conservation easement
modification request received on October 4, 2023. Consideration of your responses are needed before a decision about
the proposed modification can be made. Please share these comments with your Mayes Meadow project partners,
however several of the comment responses are likely to need WLS input in order to respond adequately.
Feel free to contact me with any questions regarding these comments as you put together your response.
Steve Kichefski — USACE
1. Please clarify the existing greenway CE breaks especially along the border of the Mayes/Beverly property (Upper
Rocky Mitigation Reach R4). The figures provided seem to show inconsistent breaks or 1 sided breaks at this
property boundary for the proposed Greenway. It is my understanding that there is currently no CE break here
for the greenway and it is unclear where the greenway is supposed to cross or potentially encroach on the
Beverly Tract. What is the greenway status on the Beverly Tract, and would additional CE modifications be
required to complete the greenway? How can we evaluate alternatives or relocate a greenway easement break
if we don't even know where it will connect on the adjacent property.
2. There appears to be a discrepancy between the JD used for the original bank approval and the proposed
modification. Clarify which JDs are being used for the proposed modification, the discrepancies and which one is
more current so the proposed encroachments accurately reflect jurisdictional impacts/changes.
3. Update us with the ratio of what the proposed wetland and stream impact areas are earning from the mitigation
project and what the proposed new CE additions would earn if part of the mitigation project instead of just a
simple acreage/linear footage comparison.
4. Additional buffer credit was given for this project in areas that appear to overlap with the proposed CE breaks.
What would the new CE breaks remove in credit versus the new CE areas earn?
5. Are there stream stability concerns within the proposed crossing locations? Where are the crossings in relation
to existing structures? Has WLS reviewed the proposed crossing locations for project stability concerns?
6. What is the condition of the proposed replacement streams/wetlands? Do they need uplift in order to remain
stable/functioning?
7. Will the proposed CE breaks disturb monitoring (examples veg plots, cross -sections, gages)?

8. The proposed new sewer line ROW has several turns within the CE. Is there a pathway with the proposed new
sewer line CE break that would further reduce stream, wetland and CE impacts while still meeting your objective
of connecting to the same existing sewer junction?
9. The Maye Meadows PCN submittal shows significant development to the bank wetland/stream drainage area
with stormwater outlets moved lower on the landscape. Provide an approximate calculation of what percent of
the drainage area is being removed for bank streams R4 and R5 above the stormwater return discharge areas.
Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Mitigation Branch
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
(828)-933-8032 cell
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/ to complete the survey online.
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 10:28 AM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Steven.L.Kichefski @usace.army.mil>; Davis, Erin B CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>; Byron Hamstead
([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Polizzi, Maria <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Casey. M. Haywood @ usace. a rmy. m i 1>
Cc: Daniel Ingram<[e-mail]>; Cara Conder <[e-mail]>; Tommy Cousins
<[e-mail]>; Michael Scisco<[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Notice of Conservation Easement Modification Request/ WLS Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank/ SAW-2015-01816 /
Mecklenburg County
Good morning IRT,
Our office received the attached WLS Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank (SAW-2015-01816) Conservation Easement
Modification request on October 4, 2023. The request proposes to modify the Upper Rocky conservation easement to
accommodate the proposed Mayes Meadows development. The submittal package was prepared by Bayard (developer)
in coordination with WLS and Unique Places to Save (UP2S). The submittal includes an Executive Summary, Modification
Request (including alternatives analysis), Cost Alternatives Table, and Exhibits. WLS worked closely with Bayard and
UP2S to minimize impacts to the conservation easement. The proposed modification includes relocating easement
breaks and the addition of approximately 1.288-acres of easement, including 597 LF of stream and 0.49 ac of wetlands,
which will not generate compensatory mitigation credits.
The proposed modification will be reviewed using the streamlined review process, as outlined in Section 332.8(g)(2) of
the 2008 Mitigation Rule, which requires an IRT review period of 30 calendar days from the date of this email
notification. Please provide any comments by 5 PM on the 30-day comment deadline shown below. Comments

provided after the 30-day comment deadline 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 the Sponsor and the NCIRT along with the District Engineer's intent to approve or disapprove this
Conservation Easement Modification. This notification will be followed by a 15-day Dispute Resolution Period. An
easement approval notification will be provided at the conclusion of the dispute resolution period.
"The IRT has a closed IRT Meeting scheduled for October, 23, 2023. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this
proposal at that time.
30 Day Comment Start: October 11, 2023
30 Day Comment Deadline: November 10, 2023
60 Day DE Decision: December 11, 2023
IRT Dispute Resolution Period End: December 26, 2023
WLS Contact: Daniel Ingram [e-mail] [phone]
Please provide comments on the proposed easement modification to:
USACE Bank PM: Steve Kichefski Steven. [e-mail], (828)-933-8032
USACE Bank Mit Specialist: Erin Davis, Erin. [e-mail], [phone]
Thank you for your participation. Please reach out with any questions.
Regards,
Kim
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers I Wilmington District I Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Dr., Suite 105 1 Wake Forest, NC 27587 1 919.946.5107