20160385 Ver 2_WLS Response to IRTComment_20170815

August 1, 2017
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
Attn: Andrea W. Hughes
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 107
Wake Forest, NC 27587
WAIT E R & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
waterlandsolutions.com
919-614-5111
RE: WLS Responses to NCIRT 30 -day Review Comments Regarding Task 3 Submittal, Final Mitigation
Plan Approval for Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID #97081,
Contract #6826, Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201, Johnston County, NC
Dear Ms. Hughes:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to provide our written responses to the North Carolina
Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) review comments dated July 25th, 2017 regarding the Final Draft Mitigation
Plan for the Lake Wendell Mitigation Project. We are providing our written responses to the NCIRT's review
comments below, which includes editing and updating the Final Draft Mitigation Plan and associated
deliverables accordingly. Each of the NCIRT review comments is copied below in bold text, followed by the
appropriate response from WLS in regular text:
Mac Haupt, NCDWR, July S. 2017:
1. WLS should incorporate the methods and practices in the IRT Monitoring Guidance, posted October
2016. Response: The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) project contract award and RFP requirements predate the referenced October 2016 NCIRT
Monitoring Guidance. Sections 7 and 8 of the mitigation plan describe the specific monitoring methods and
practices, along with reference to the applicable guidelines and rules regarding project monitoring. WLS will
adhere to what is specifically required under the project contract.
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). Response: Section 8.4 of the mitigation plan edited to include
vegetation monitoring, with regards to stream mitigation credit, "...for seven years in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, and
visual monitoring in years 4 and 6...... Please note that Appendix 13 was also edited, in response to previously
received NCDEQ Division of Water Resources (DWR) 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch's review comments,
regarding riparian buffer mitigation, to specify that five (5) years of annual monitoring (Years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5)
will be conducted for riparian buffer mitigation.
3. The reference to the EEP 2014 Monitoring Guidance needs to be removed. Response: The reference
to the NCEEP Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued February 2014 was removed from
Section 6.1.1 of the mitigation plan.
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? Response: Section 6.8.3 of the mitigation plan has been edited to add more detailed language,
including draining and drying the pond bottom, removal of sand/muck layer and amending soils prior to new

channel construction, as follows: "The existing pond bottom along R3 currently consists of mostly fine sand and
muck. After the pond is drained down and sufficiently dried, the sand/muck layer will be removed (approximately
8" to 12" in depth) and organic material and topsoil from the adjacent pasture areas will be mixed across the
restored floodplain (approximately 12" to 18" depth) to create a more suitable soil base to insure successful
vegetation planting, growth, and establishment. Soils across the remnant pond bottom and new floodplain, will
be prepared by sufficiently disking and/or loosened prior to new channel excavation, in -stream structure
installation and vegetation planting.".
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). Response: An additional pool and an additional
riffle monitoring cross-section have been added at the relict pond bottom to document any changes to both the
restored channel and floodplain areas. See Figure 10.
6. A stream gauge should be placed in upper 111 and in upper R5 (above riffle cross-sections). Response:
Section 8.2.3 of the mitigation plan has been edited to include the addition of a stream gauge at R5.
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. Response: Figure 10 has been revised to clarify the proposed R5 Stream
Enhancement Level II (Lower) and Stream Restoration (Upper) segments as further described in Table 1 and
Section 6.1.2 of the mitigation plan.
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? Response:
WLS understands this concern and concurs that removing the existing dam in its entirety is the preferred
restoration approach. The landowner has requested a permanent stream crossing in this same location for
future property access. As a compromise and project benefit, WLS's proposed design includes removing the
man-made farm pond and associated dam to restore the natural valley cross section. Our proposed design also
includes adding an improved access path and associated permanent culverted crossing at this same location.
The language in the mitigation plan and Table 13 have been edited to reflect the above and to clarify pond
removal vs. dam removal.
9. DWR likes the depressional water quality features, however, for those features outside of the
easement, how will they be protected? Managed? Response: As described in Section 6.7, "the water quality
improvement features will be fenced out, such that they are connected to the easement fencing system, to prevent
livestock intrusion. The features will be constructed such that they do not require any long-term maintenance and
will be sited immediately outside of the conservation easement boundary to allow for modifications should that be
desired. Each of the basins have been designed with zero -maintenance weir outlets and the basins will be planted
even though they are excluded from the conservation easement area. This strategy will allow these features to
function properly with minimal risk and without long term maintenance requirements."
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. Response: WLS understands the concern of installing these outlet channel features that
discharge into the regulated Neuse River buffer. The water quality treatment features and their corresponding
outlet channels are proposed along non -jurisdictional flat or depressional areas where existing small
ephemeral drainages (drainage areas ave. 3 to 7 acres) intersect with the proposed conservation
easement/restored stream and riparian buffer corridor. The proposed outlet channels are intended to replace
and improve the existing degraded ephemeral channels, at the same locations, to provide a stabilized
connection to the restored stream system for the existing concentrated ephemeral flow path. It is anticipated
that over a few growing seasons post -construction, these small conveyance swales will become heavily

vegetated and diffuse flow paths will develop across the restored floodplain. Based on our experience, we
would prefer this sustainable energy dissipation approach rather than grading berms or installing level
spreaders within the riparian buffer.
11. What vegetative indices are WLS referring to on page 56, third paragraph? Response: For
clarification, the mitigation plan has been revised to remove the statement "...additional plant community
indices..." and leave the language "...native volunteer species and the presence of invasive species vegetation to
assess overall vegetative success.".
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? Response: The stream lengths and credits presented at the proposal stage were estimated using
topographic information (LiDAR data and USGS flow paths), limited field measurements, field assessments and
best professional judgement, which are appropriate, industry standard methodologies. The difference between
the existing stream lengths determined at the proposal stage (and the associated proposed stream mitigation
credits) and existing stream lengths measured during the existing condition surveys (along with the associated
proposed stream mitigation credits) and presented in the mitigation plan is simply a result of differing
measurement methodologies. Extensive, professional topographic surveys are conducted post -contract in
support of project development. These surveys and resulting data provide more accurate/updated information
than the initial approximations made during the proposal effort. The initial stream length for R3 was
conservatively estimated based on the valley length (VL -1,000 ft) and later substantiated with surveyed pond
bottom elevations. Additionally, approximately 230 feet along R1 and 70 feet along R5 are currently piped or
culverted, therefore channel length for these reaches was also estimated using the valley length prior to the
topographic survey. The proposed design alignment and conservative meander geometry (K-1.20) is
supported by reference reach data from nearby stream systems and common design parameters and extensive
monitoring data from stable streams in the Piedmont physiographic region. A brief comparison of the stream
lengths and mitigation credits from the proposal and mitigation plan is provided below for clarity and
illustrates the changes in stream length and proposed credits. WLS believes this minor discrepancy is also a
result of designated project stream reach break locations, the described estimated measurement of the piped
stream reaches, and easement breaks (i.e. utilities, conservation easement), however the results are still well
within an expected and acceptable range of tolerance.
Project
Existing
Existing
Credit totals -
Credit totals -
Difference in
Reach
Project Reach
Project Reach
Proposal
Mitigation Plan
stream
Designation
Length -
Length -
Estimate
(SMCs)
length
Proposal
Mitigation
(SMCs)
(ft)/credits
Stage (ft)l
Plan (ft)2
SMCs
R1
848
837
880
806
-11/-74
R2
920
1,029
1,076
995
+109/-81
R3
930
1,095
1,088
1,208
+165/+120
R4
853
822
85
115
-31/+30
R5 (upper)
176
210
176
210
+34/0
R5 (lower)
190
144
76
58
-46/-18
TOTALS
3,917
4,137
3,381
3,392
+220/+11
Note 1: Stream lengths were approximated
based on topographic and LiDAR information and
compared with USGS StreamStats flow paths for each reach.
Note 2: Stream lengths were based on datafrom actual professional topographic
surveys.
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.). Response: As noted above in comment response #1 above and the footnote
#1 in Table 14, no mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
Therefore, the difference in creditable footage for R1 and R3 are due to stream mitigation credit not being
requested at the stream crossings and conservation easement breaks (111: 30' crossing and R3: 60' crossing).
Although new channel work will be conducted at the stream crossings and conservation easement breaks, we
are not requesting stream mitigation credit in these areas.
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. Response: WLS understands the IRT concerns that the SQT
has not been approved for determining success for mitigation projects. Per the latest DMS stream and wetland
mitigation plan template and guidance (8/2016) and USACE endorsement for mitigation site development, the
stream functions pyramid (SFP) and SQT is an acceptable functional assessment methodology that can be used
to identify functional impairments, justify proposed restoration activities, and present how the uplift will be
achieved. As the SQT is being refined or regionalized, it may eventually be used for better defining performance
standards and ultimately tied to project success and credit determinations. Section 4.1.3 - Restoration Potential
of the mitigation plan specifically describes "the restoration activities will likely provide functional lift within the
physicochemical and biological functional categories and post -restoration efforts will include monitoring
physicochemical (Level 4 Category) and biological parameters (Level 5 Category) to document any functional
improvements and/or identify trends during the monitoring period. However. Level 4 and 5 function -based
parameters and monitoring activities will not be tied to performance standards nor required to
demonstrate success for credit release."
To provide further emphasis, the following language is also included under Section 4.1.3- Restoration Potential
of the mitigation plan, "Not all functional categories and parameters, such as water quality (Physicochemical -
Level 4) and performance standards listed in the SQT will be compared or required to determine project success
and stream mitigation credit and debit scenarios." Also, the footnote under Table 23 states "Pre -restoration
water quality sampling for Fecal Coliform bacteria (Physicochemical - Level 4) is ongoing, however, it is not
included as performance standard for demonstrating project success." The proposed sample locations are shown
on Figure 10 and will not be taken at each reach, rather in a restored reach and compared to preservation
reach(es). For consistency and comparison to pre -restoration conditions, the sample collection methods and
protocols will follow those outlined in Section 3 of the mitigation plan.
As such, WLS is soliciting input and guidance on how incorporate applicable monitoring and evaluation
methods to help develop a more function -based assessment and improve our project implementation process,
thereby advancing the practice of ecosystem restoration. If DMS and the NCIRT do not want the SFP and SQT,
we can omit functional category/level 4 and 5 monitoring in Table 12 or add in the Appendices as supplemental
monitoring activities that are not tied to performance standards and overall project success.
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. Response: Photos have been added to Appendix 2 (Site
Photographs) of the mitigation plan depicting proposed Enhancement level II area as well as added location of
vegetated soil lift along disturbed meander bend on the design plans. Additionally, language in Section 6.1.2 -
Design Reach Summary of the mitigation plan has been edited to justify the proposed enhancement activities
to address the bank erosion and lateral instability.

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? Response: As described in comment response #4 for Mac Haupt, WLS added more detailed language
to Section 6.8.3 of the mitigation plan, which includes draining and drying the pond bottom, removal of
sand/muck layer and amending soil prior to new channel construction, as follows: "The existing pond bottom
along R3 currently consists of mostly fine sand and muck. After the pond is drained down and sufficiently dried,
the sand/muck layer will be removed (approximately 8" to 12" in depth) and organic material and topsoil from
the adjacent pasture areas will be mixed across the restored floodplain (approximately 12" to 18" depth) to create
a more suitable soil base to insure successful vegetation planting, growth, and establishment. Soils across the
remnant pond bottom and new floodplain, will be prepared by sufficiently disking and/or loosened prior to new
channel excavation, in -stream structure installation and vegetation planting.".
The pond has not been drained as of late July 2017. WLS intends on draining the pond in August 2017 and
drying out the pond bottom/relic floodplain area prior to channel construction activities in the early Fall 2017.
Any unsuitable soil material will be excavated and spread across adjacent pasture areas outside of the
conservation easement area. Based on input and concerns from Todd Tugwell regarding observations and
evaluations of passive ('soft -handed") stream restoration in remnant pond bottoms, WLS will employ more
traditional stream channel construction practices in this area (R3) to help prevent subsurface flows or
excess/concentrated erosion, and to stabilize outlets and to help establish more vigorous native riparian buffer
vegetation establishment.
6. We do not recommend inclusion of Acer rubrum in planting plans as this species may currently be
present onsite. Response: WLS has developed a highly -successful riparian buffer planting strategy, as
demonstrated on successful mitigation project implementation and regulatory closeout. This strategy was
largely developed with significant input and data from industry experts and our personal experiences with
riparian buffer revegetation monitoring results over the past 15 years. We understand Red maple distribution
is abundant and that the species can propagate aggressively, however we believe it provides a functional
benefit to a riparian buffer and important to include it with our planting strategy. Please note that it is proposed
at a lower planting rate as compared to other proposed species.
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. Response: WLS was unaware of the
pond condition shown on the 1999 aerial photograph until the above comment was submitted. According to
the landowner, the pond is at least 50 years old, from memory, and the original pond outlet structure, a metal
pipe, failed and was repaired sometime shortly after 1999. The landowner recalled that this was a common
occurrence in the community due to the design and construction of these older farm ponds.
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. Response: Language has been added to Section 6.7 of the mitigation
plan to clearly state that no credit is requested for the referenced 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. Response: The
mitigation plan has been edited to remove reference to early closure provisions as this may be only requested
on a case by case basis.

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). Response:
Section 8.2.2 of the mitigation plan language edited as requested.
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?
Response: The referenced language in Section 7.3 of the mitigation plan has been removed for clarification.
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." Response: The
referenced language in Section 7.3 of the mitigation plan has been removed for clarification.
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. Response:
Section 8.4 of the mitigation plan edited to include vegetation monitoring, with regards to stream mitigation
credit, "...for seven years 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. Response:
Section 10 -Long -Term Management of the mitigation plan has been edited to remove the referenced standard
DMS mitigation plan template language that mentions potential third party approval.
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. Response: Section 10.1 Additional Easement Management of the
mitigation plan has been edited to remove any reference to wildlife management activities within 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 offence structures to ensure the
aquatic resource functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are sustained." Response: The
recorded Deed of Conservation Easement (recorded easement) does not specifically state or require that the
landowner (Grantor) is responsible for long term maintenance or repair of the proposed project livestock
exclusion fencing system. The recorded easement is based on the current, previously approved NCDMS Full
Delivery Conservation Easement Template (adopted 29 April 2015). The recorded easement therefore
includes the standard Grantor reserved uses and restricted activities and Grantee (State of North Carolina)
reserved uses, all of which ensure that the aquatic resource functions are sustained within conservation
easement boundaries and that the conservation easement areas will be restricted from usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of the recorded easement. WLS prefers not to add the requested paragraph to
the mitigation plan to maintain consistency between the mitigation plan and the recorded easement.

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. Response: Figure 12 depicts the wetland impacts areas
across the site and specific impact locations and acreages will be included with the PCN application submittal.
WLS anticipates no net loss to existing streams and wetlands across the site.
This letter serves as the formal response to NCIRT comments and shall be submitted in conjunction with the
Preconstruction Notification (PCN) for Nationwide permit (NWP) approval. We look forward to the Final
Mitigation Plan approval and anticipate NWP authorization by the end of August 2017.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
William "Scott" Hunt, III, PE
Senior Water Resources Engineer
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]