20181097 Ver 1_USACE Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_20190828

Strickland, Bev
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 3:40 PM
To: Bradley Breslow
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B;
Bowers, Todd; Leslie, Andrea J; Wilson, Travis W.; Gledhill-earley, Renee;
[e-mail]; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] SAW -2017-00608 RES Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Dogtown Draft
Mitigation Plan IRT Comments
Attachments: SAW-2017-00608_DraftMitPlanCommentMemo_RESCatawbaUMB- Dogtown Site. pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
Brad,
Attached are the RES Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Dogtown Site Draft Mitigation Plan IRT comments. You may
proceed with developing the final mitigation plan for the Dogtown Mitigation Site provided you adequately address all
comments/concerns in the enclosed memo. Please ensure that each member of the IRT is provided a copy of the Final
Mitigation Plan and comment responses. In addition, please submit your Nationwide Permit 27 application after
approval of the banking instrument, for review and approval prior to discharging fill material into waters of the United
States.
Feel free to contact me with questions as you preparing the final plan submittal. This electronic copy is your official
Department of the Army Notification; no paper copy will be mailed, unless specifically requested.
Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
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
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.

REPLY
TO
ATTENT
ION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF
ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
CESAW-RG/Kichefski August 28, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: RES Catawba Umbrella Bank, Dogtown Mitigation Bank Site, USACE and
NCDWR Draft Mitigation Plan Comments (SAW -2017-00608)
NCDWR comments (Mac Haupt):
1. In the future, DWR would like it mentioned in the Executive Summary and in one
of the first sections if there are any other conservation easement components or
credits that is associated with another program. For example, Figures IOa and l Ob
shows riparian buffer associated with a separate conservation easement, which is
probably associated with the Duke Coal Ash settlement program.
2. Table 2- it appears that RES or one of its entities owns the parcels where the project
is being developed. The plan later states (Section 3.3) that the area outside the
project area would likely remain in agricultural use. DWR believes it is important
to structure the design as to future watershed development. An agricultural
watershed would lead to one set of BMPs while development of subdivisions might
suggest different BMPs. Which of these scenarios does RES believe is most likely
to evolve and what allowances have been included into the design to account for
these possible scenarios?
3. Please provide a map of the locations of the cross sections for the existing
conditions.
4. Section 6.2- DWR is concerned with the proposed design of reach S1 -B. Table 6
shows reach S 1-B having a BHR of 3.9. While the design sheet (S 17) shows this
reach's top of bank to be an average of 6-8 feet above the thalweg. This reach is
proposed as E2. The functional uplift of planting would be greatly reduced for this
channel as opposed to S 1-A. DWR requests that RES reconsider the design of this
400 foot reach.
5. Section 6.2 — Sediment Supply- DWR questions whether reaches S1 -A and B and
DT3 are threshold channels. Given the drainage area, it would seem these channel
may likely have more alluvial characteristics. Please explain why RES believes
these reaches are more threshold -like with regard to sediment supply (in addition to
the verbiage provided in the mitigation plan) .
6. From the design sheets (S2) it appears RES is removing the middle pond and
building a channel through to connect to the two other pond reaches. DWR likes
this approach. Please verify that RES intends to build channel to connect the upper
and lower ponds. In addition, the design sheets also stream work through the large

powerline crossings. DWR also likes this approach.
7. Design sheet S5 shows reach DT2 as Enhancement 1. However, virtually no work is
being performed except for at the end of the reach. DWR suggest that this reach be
a different ratio, and should likely be measuring credit through valley length versus
stream centerline since it appears no definitive stream channel may exist.
8. Design sheet S6- shows a steep slope with no structure to assist with slowing
erosion. Please explain how grading alone will arrest this erosion?
9. For the lower reach of DT3 DWR would like to know the width of the floodplain
(bench) that will be provided.
10. The Waters of the US Map shows a wetland feature WF that seems to show some
potential for wetland restoration. Since RES or its entities owns the entire parcel,
and the soils have the potential to include wetland areas, has RES considered
pursing any wetland restoration/credit given the constant need in Catawba 01?
11. After examining Design Sheet 521, DWR believes a more appropriate ratio for reach
S3 -A would be at least E2 (2.5:1).
USACE comments (Todd Tugwell & Steve Kichefski):
1. Recommend that the planting list of tree species (Table 13) be revised to reduce the
amount of Green Ash to no more than 5% due to the impending impacts from the
Emerald ash borer.
2. Recommend the addition of other live stake species to reduce the percent of black willow
used as live stakes (currently 60%).
3. Section 3.4 (p6&7) - Consultation with the Cherokee Nation and UKB, both federally
recognized tribes, will be needed prior to finalizing/permitting this bank. The Corps will
complete this action. Also, what portions of the project site were determined to have
suitable habitat for dwarf -flowered heartleaf and Schweinitz's sunflower? Provide brief
summary of staff experience in surveying for those two species and why an April 12th
survey date, which is outside the typical late August -early October survey window, was
suitable for surveying for this species. Brief additional information will be needed for
NWP27 permit issuance regarding the NLEB.
4. Section 6.3 (p30) - Depending on the species and density, treatment of invasive species
may be required within the project area, not just within the limits of grading as stated.
5. Under Performance Standards on Page 34, surface flow for streams states that it will be
monitored to document "intermittent or seasonal surface flow". Please note that channels
that are not intermittent, jurisdictional channels will not receive stream credit, regardless
of the presence of seasonal surface flow.
6. The inclusion of station numbers on the proposed mitigation credit Table 14 is
appreciated.
7. The draft plan mentions livestock exclusion or addressing livestock access in several
locations, however no mention of fencing to be installed. To clarify, will any fencing be
utilized or just removal of livestock from the adjacent property. Verify if all old fencing
be removed from the CE?
8. Section 13 — Generally detail what items are included and their cost estimates for the
maintenance and contingency costs under the monitoring financial assurances estimate.
9. In some areas, existing roads that lead to crossings that are proposed to remain go through
proposed easement areas. Please ensure that any existing roads be relocated outside
easement boundaries.
10. Please updated the map of proposed monitoring activities to include fixed photo plots.

11. The maintenance plan included in Table 18 states that routine channel maintenance may
be conducted throughout the monitoring period. Please note that the IRT prefers that in -
steam modifications to the channel bed and banks and vegetation growing in the channel
(other than live stake planting) not occur, especially during the last few years of
monitoring. This ensures that the IRT has an opportunity to observe the true trajectory of
the site without manipulation.
12. In areas where wetlands will be disturbed by site work (e.g., Sta. 16+00 on trib DTI -B),
please ensure that impacts have been minimized to the extent possible and that remaining
impacts are accounted for the in the permit application. Additionally, the mitigation plan
needs to include a statement that explains how impacted wetlands will be replaced on site
by the project.
13. For reach DT 1-A & B, please expand on the discussion regarding how the streams within
the pond beds will be handled specifically with regard to existing sediments and removal
of the dam (e.g., is the entire dam proposed for removal? Will it be necessary to bring in
new fill to construct the stream channel?) Also, please specify that the pond beds will be
replanted and with what species, if different from the planting list. The Corps likes that
channel restoration/dam removal will be completed even through portions of the project
outside the credit earning areas.
14. Clarify the buffer width for the south side of DT4 in the proposed EII reach from Station
14+07 to 16+53 and the justification for the 2.5:1 credit sought for this reach.
15. Additional small areas of planting may be needed outside planting areas depicted on the
design sheets PI/P2/MI/M2 such as gaps in vegetation such as around DT3-B and to the
west of Bakers Creek South. Please verify and/or update.
16. Plan Sheet S 17 labels Reach S 1-B as EIII while Section 6.2, Table 14 and Figure I Oa
Concept Map North notes it as EII. Correct for consistency and detail why 2.5:1 ratio is
justified considering no channel work is done and only a portion of the buffer will be
planted. Some of the buffer portion that will be planted is part of additional credit being
sought as part of the non-standard buffer width calculation.
17. Detail why a 2.5:1 EII ratio is appropriate for the portion of Bakers Creek within the
southern project area, but north of the crossing (Station 46+85 to 59+30) and the southern
EII portion of DT3, considering no channel work or planting is to be done and a portion
of that area is part of additional credit being sought as part of the non-standard buffer
width calculation.
18. Review of the design sheet for reach S3 -A does not seem to match the proposed activities
described in the mitigation approach. It appears that the bank will be laid back in three
spots, brush toe installed in two locations, and riffle enhancements in two areas, but the
majority of the channel does not have any proposed work. Please justify the requested E1
ratio for this reach or revise the ratio to reflect the amount of uplift proposed.
19. The mitigation plan references an easement area of 59.13 acres, but the letter from the
long term steward (Unique Places to Save) references a 54.92 acre mitigation site, which
does not include the 10.46 acre Duke Carolinas et al. Mitigation Order site. First, please
explain the discrepancy between the size of the bank site. Second, the endowment funding
appears to be for both the Duke site and the mitigation site. Please note that the estimate
for the costs of the long-term steward should not include the Duke site, and the
endowment must be handled separately, so that there are not common funds applied to
both sites. All of the stewardship activates for the mitigation site must be independent
from the Duke site. Also, since the stewardship approval letter will be updated and was
provided June 2017 make sure all endowment cost estimates are updated if needed.
20. Does the Dogtown Site design take into consideration the trend of residential
development that is increasing adjacent to the site and in the watershed, as can be seen

immediately to the north, west and southeast on recent aerials? Would any additional
changes in design, bmp's, etc. need to be incorporated to adapt to this change in land
use?
KICHEFSKI.STEVE Digitally signed by
KICH EFSKI.STEVEN.L.1386908539
N.L.1386908539 Date: 2019.08.2815:36:14-04'00'
Steve Kichefski
Project Manager
Asheville Field Office