20160385 Ver 2_Notice of Intent to Approve Draft_ SAW-2016-00876_20170725

Strickland, Bev
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
0
Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>
Tuesday, July 25, 2017 11:04 AM
Chapman, Amy; Bowers, Todd; Wells, Emily; Matthews, Kathryn; 'Ken Riley - NOAA
Federal'; Wilson, Travis W.; Haupt, Mac; Poupart, Jeff, Higgins, Karen; Dailey, Samantha
J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Wicker, Henry
M Jr CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Gledhill-earley, Renee; Steffens, Thomas A CIV
USARMY CESAW (US); Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Merritt, Katie;
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW
(US); Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Baumgartner, Tim; Crocker, Lindsay; Schaffer, Jeff, [e-mail]
Notice of Intent to Approve Draft Mitigation Plan/Lake Wendell Mitigation
Site/Johnston County/SAW-2016-00876
Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo -Lake Wendell Mitigation Site -SAW -2016-00876
_Johnston County.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
The 30 -day comment review period for Lake Wendell Mitigation Site (USACE AID SAW -2016-00876, DMS Project #
97081) closed on July 1, 2017. All comments that were posted on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the review
process are attached for your records. Additionally, comments can be reviewed on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal
(utilizing the excel option).
We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period, and determined that the concerns raised are
generally minor and can be addressed in the final mitigation plan. Accordingly, it is our intent to approve this Draft
Mitigation Plan unless a member of the NCIRT initiates the Dispute Resolution Process, as described in the Final
Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Section 332.8(e)). Please note that initiation of this process requires that a senior official of the
agency objecting to the approval of the mitigation plan (instrument amendment) notify the District Engineer by letter
within 15 days of this email (by COB on August 9, 2017). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution
Process.
Provided that we do not receive any objections, we will provide an approval letter to NCDMS at the conclusion of the 15 -
day Dispute Resolution window. This approval will also transmit all comments generated during the review process to
NCDMS, and indicate comments that must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All NCIRT members will receive a
copy of this letter and all comments for your records.
Thank you for your participation,
Andrea W. Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 107
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone] x 59

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Hughes
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
July 25, 2017
SUBJECT: Lake Wendell Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30 -day Mitigation Plan
Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Review
Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008
Mitigation Rule.
NCDMS Project Name: Lake Wendell Mitigation Site, Johnston County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW -2016-00876
NCDMS #: 97081
30 -Day Comment Deadline: July 1, 2017
Mac Haupt, NCD WR, July S, 2017:
1. WLS should incorporate the methods and practices in the IRT Monitoring Guidance,
posted October 2016.
2. The vegetation monitoring needs to have 5 full monitoring events, currently there are
only 4 mentioned in the plan (years 1, 3, 5, and 7).
3. The reference to the EEP 2014 Monitoring Guidance needs to be removed.
4. The construction sequence should mention what type of methods the engineer will direct
for not only the dam removal process but the stream construction in the old pond bed as
well. For example, will sediment be removed from the pond bottom? Will soil be
brought in to construct the new stream channel?
5. DWR would like to see another pool and riffle cross section added to the stream channel
in the relict pond bottom (two {one riffle and one pool} in the upper third of the
constructed reach and two in the lower third of the stream constructed in the pond
bottom).
6. A stream gauge should be placed in upper R 1 and in upper R5 (above riffle cross-
sections).
7. Figure 10 shows R5 as EII only, however, in the table inset as well as other areas in the
document lists some restoration and EII work.

8. For streams being constructed in relic pond bottoms, DWR would prefer to see most of
the dam removed for floodplain access. In this project, WLS proposes to keep the dam
for a crossing?
9. DWR likes the depressional water quality features, however, for those features outside of
the easement, how will they be protected? Managed?
10. For the water quality features located outside of the easement, Design sheets 9 and 10
show that these features will include an outlet channel which shows it discharging down
to the stream. DWR would prefer that the outlet channel discharge into a mounded level
spreader somewhere in the riparian buffer so the flow will have a chance to dissipate
before entering the stream. Or these channels could discharge into a constructed vernal
pool which would then dissipate the flow energy from the outlet channel.
11. What vegetative indices are WLS referring to on page 56, third paragraph?
Todd Tugwell and Andrea Hughes, USACE, July 24, 2017
1. Stream lengths and credit totals in the mitigation plan are different from what was
presented at the technical document stage. Is there a reason for this? Where did the
changes between the existing and proposed lengths come from? Was the stream through
the pond bed measured or just valley length used?
2. Table 14 on page 30 indicates a difference between the restored footage and creditable
footage for Reach 1 and Reach 3. Please include a notation and/or discussion explaining
the differences (road crossing, utility easements, etc.).
3. The functional pyramid was used to describe the benefits of the project, which is fine, but
it was also discussed in terms of performance standards as well. Please note that the
functional pyramid and QT tool have not been approved for use in determining success
for mitigation projects and should not be tied directly to project performance. For
instance, Table 23 states specific performance standards for different functional
categories up to level 5, which includes increasing the DWR bioclassification from
"poor" to "fair". Based on the mitigation plan, failure to meet this would be interpreted
as project failure without any discussion about how this would affect credits. There is
also no discussion of whether this means average rating or if individual reaches would be
treated separately. Also, Table 23 on pages 56 and 57 proposes water sample testing,
soils lab analysis, and DWR small stream/Qual v4 sampling, IBI, however, no standards
for collection protocol are addressed in the plan, nor are sampling locations and number
of samples discussed.
4. Please include a more detailed discussion and photos of the portion of Reach 4 that is
now proposed for Enhancement rather than preservation (due to Hurricane Matthew
damage). Please depict the location of proposed soil lifts on the design plans.
5. Please expand on your description of how the existing pond bed will be handled - how
much sediment do you intend to remove? Where will sediment be placed? Will
restoration follow traditional methods in this area? Potential problems resulting from the
pond work should be addressed in the adaptive management plan as well. The plan
indicated the pond was to be drained in Spring 2017. Has this been done yet?

6. We do not recommend inclusion of Acer rubrum in planting plans as this species may
currently be present onsite.
7. Aerial photographs from 1999 appear to show that the pond had been drained, with a
vegetated buffer along the stream, but the pond was later rebuilt. Please provide
additional information regarding the history of any pond repair, and permits, if obtained.
8. The plan includes discussion of agricultural BMPs and Water Quality Treatment
Features, which are to be located outside of the conservation easement. Please revise this
discussion to clearly state that no credit is requested for these activities.
9. The plan states "Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of five to seven
years with the final duration dependent upon performance trends toward achieving
project goals and objectives. An early closure provision may be requested by WLS for
some or all monitoring components, understanding that early closure may only be
obtained through written approval from the regulatory agencies." The plan should state
the project will be monitored for 7 years. Please remove any reference to possible early
closure as this should not be anticipated in the mitigation plan.
10. Under 8.2.2, the mitigation plan states a planimetric survey and longitudinal profile will
be conducted to document baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring. Please
clarify this is monitoring Y0. Year 1 monitoring begins at least 180 days post baseline
monitoring (YO).
11. The Vegetation Performance Standards state: "Specific and measurable success criteria
for restored plant survival density at the project site will be based on the
recommendations presented in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) Technical Note and
WLS's recent experience and correspondence with review agencies on DMS full -
delivery project". What is the purpose and intent of this sentence?
12. Please remove the following sentence, which is not consistent with current guidance - "If
the performance standard is met by Year 5 and stem densities are greater than 260, 5 -year
old stems/acre, vegetation monitoring may be terminated with approval by the USACE
and the IRT."
13. Page 56 states the vegetation plots will be monitored in years 1, 3, 5, and 7. Please
modify to state vegetation data collection in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 and visual monitoring
in years 4 and 6.
14. If a third party (other than DEQ stewardship) is proposed for stewardship, it must be
presented in the mitigation plan, along with pertinent information (endowment funding,
organization accrediting, etc.), otherwise, please remove any references related to a third
party steward.
15. The section entitled Additional Easement Management includes the following statement
"Once the easement boundaries are established and the project construction and planting
are completed, the landowners intend to enjoy passive use of the property within the
easement, consisting mainly of hunting, wildlife viewing and wildlife management."
Please provide more detail about any potential wildlife management activities. Note that

all activities must be consistent with the allowable activities described in the conservation
easement.
16. Page 58„ if the landowner is responsible for long term maintenance and repair of fencing
then a paragraph should be added to the conservation easement identifying their
responsibilities:
Long -Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term management
activities associated with fencing. These activities include the maintenance and/or
replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic resource functions within the
boundaries of the Protected Property are sustained.
17. All temporary and permanent impacts to existing wetlands and streams must be accounted
for in the PCN and the loss or conversion of those waters must be replaced on-site. Please
include a map depicting the location of all impacts with the PCN.
HUGHES.ANDREA. HUGHIESsigned by
AND EAWADE.1258339165
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=Do D, ou=PKI,
WADE.1258339165 Date:USA c.o7.UG E O6DREA. ADE.1258339165
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division