[External] IRT Review Request of Revised Mitigation Plan / Wildlands Tar-Pamlico 01 UMB- Great Meadow / SAW-2021-01714/ Nash County

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.

Good morning, Jeff,

We have completed our review of the revised mitigation plan for the Wildlands Tar-Pamlico 01 UMB- Great Meadow Mitigation Site (SAW-2021-01714) located in Nash County. You may proceed
with developing the final mitigation plan provided you adequately address the remaining comments/concerns listed below. Please submit one (1) electronic copy of the Final Mitigation
Plan to me via RIBITS and I will distribute to the IRT. Additionally, please upload the final plan to DWR’s Laserfiche. Please submit your Nationwide Permit 27 application to me directly
for review and approval prior to discharging fill material into waters of the United States.

Maria Polizzi, NCDWR:

1. I also want to note that if this comment (USACE Comment I.a) had not been made and WEI had not addressed the decrease in planting area and monitoring plots, this should be highlighted
upon submittal of the final report. The draft review is where DWR is doing a deep dive and spending a lot of time going through all the details in the report. If significant changes
are made between the draft plan and final plan that are not a result of IRT comments, it would be helpful to include a cover letter describing these changes. Typically, the draft report
is where credit ratios are being determined, etc. and planting area is one of the factors that can determine the appropriate ratio. Decreasing the planting area by 6 acres between draft
and final plan stage is a significant change, and not one that I would necessarily be expecting to occur at this stage without clarification.

Erin Davis & Casey Haywood, USACE:

1. I’m ok with the crossing. During the call we had a long discussion about crossing impacts, fragmentation and function, justification, and documenting landowner engagement, etc.
2. I’m ok with the site assessment. The approach appears similar to a previous DMS project, setting hypothetical dam heights and locations to calculate the flood elevation risk to surrounding
land.
3. I’d recommend a 3:1 ratio for Fisher Branch Reach 2 based on the work/uplift proposed.
4. On Figure 12, I recommend two changes to achieve better coverage and distribution of veg monitoring stations. Please swap the random plot in the wetland area east of Shard Branch
with the middle fixed plot on the west side of the branch near the reach break, and swap the random plot on Fox Branch Reach 2 with the upstream fixed plot on Reach 1.
5. Currently there are three vegetation plots on Gideon Swamp (2 permanent and 1 random). Please be sure to keep the random transect located in the wetland area throughout monitoring.

6. Please confirm via email that the listed comments will be addressed in the final plan.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a call to discuss.

Regards,

Casey Haywood

Mitigation Project Manager

US Army Corps of Engineers I Wilmington District I Regulatory Division

3331 Heritage Trade Dr., Suite 105 I Wake Forest, NC 27587

Work Cell: 919-799-0536 I Email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>