20081296 Ver 1_USACE Comments_20081120

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
151 PATTON AVENUE, ROOM 208
REPLY TO ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
ATTENTION OF:
November 13, 2008
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 2008-02293
Restoration Systems, LLC
Attn: Mr. Randy Turner
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
N0 `J ,
J?tVR tif=.?ti?.i?.UA?.ISl
aTC?\4tT;aTEnBfL^NG?
VdE 11?D?AND
Dear Mr. Turner:
I refer to the prospectus you submitted on July 18, 2008, describing the proposed mitigation
bank known as the Ratcliffe Cove Mitigation Bank near Waynesville in Haywood County, North
Carolina. I also refer to the Interagency Review Team (IRT) site visit on October 9, 2008. This
proposed bank was advertised by public notice on August 22, 2008.
After review of the public notice, project prospectus, and/or the on-site meeting, the following
agencies submitted comments: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (2 letters), the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission, and the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office. These letters are attached for your
review. No other comments were received by this office.
It is Department of the Army policy to provide a project proponent the opportunity to furnish
a proposed resolution or rebuttal to all comments and/or objections from the public and
government agencies before a final decision is made. In this regard, we would appreciate
receiving any comments that you have on this matter.
In addition to the comments noted above, we have the following comments:
1. All areas generating mitigation credits must be buffered. Please revise the plans to allow
a 25-foot buffer on all proposed wetland mitigation areas. If a 25-foot buffer is not
possible on a wetland, the first 25 feet of the wetland should not be included in credit
generation.
2. There is a pipe that drains to the main channel. Please detail how this pipe will be
rerouted or removed in the final design. If there are additional pipes that drain to the
stream, please provide details for these as well.
3. Please provide detailed soil analysis, terrain analysis, and any historical information as to
the presence of wetlands in the area of proposed wetland restoration along tributary 2.
4. As discussed on-site, please revise the proposed credit release schedule.
-2-
5. If you cannot provide additional information concerning the potential for archaeological
resources in the areas where land and/or hydrological disturbances would occur, please
conduct a comprehensive survey as noted in the letter from the SHPO.
Pursuant to 33 CFR Part 332.8 (d)(5), Initial Evaluation, we have determined that your
proposed mitigation bank has the potential for providing appropriate compensatory mitigation
for activities authorized by Department of the Army permits provided that you satisfactorily
address the comments/concerns noted above and in the comment letters. As such, you may
proceed with preparation of the draft mitigation banking instrument (MBI) as directed by 33
CFR Part 332.8 (d)(6), Draft Instrument provided all outstanding issues are resolved to the IRT's
satisfaction.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the Asheville Regulatory Field Office, (828)
271-7980, extension 226.
Sincerely,
w
it
o kckecl
Regulatory Specialist
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies Furnished w/enclosures:
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Ms. Becky Fox
1307 Firefly Road
Whittier, North Carolina 28789
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn: Mr. Bryan Tompkins
Ecological Services - Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
-3-
Division of Water Quality - 401 Oversight & Express Permitting
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Attn: Mr. Eric Kulz
Mail Service Center 1650
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection
Asheville Regional Office
Attn: Mr. Kevin Barnett
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Mountain Region Coordinator
Attn: Mr. David McHenry
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway
Waynesville, NC 28786
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
October 21, 2008
Ms. Amanda Jones
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Jones:
Subject: Ratcliff Cove Mitigation Bank in Haywood County, North Carolina
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior
on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Public Notice (PN) of an Individual
Permit Application (IPA) submitted by Restoration Systems, LLC, to restore and enhance
Ratcliff Cove Branch, unnamed tributaries, and adjacent wetlands for the establishment
of the Ratcliff Cove Mitigation Bank. Information for this report is based on a review of
the IPA and the PN issued by the Corps and a site visit conducted on October 9, 2008.
The report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)
(Act).
Endangered Species. During the site visit I had mentioned that a survey may need to be
conducted for bunched arrowhead in the linear wetland feature located in the northern
section of the project area. After consulting with Ms. Carolyn Wells (staff botanist) of
our office, we have concurred that a survey for this species will not be necessary. We
believe that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species or their
habitat. Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled.
However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed
or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Though we believe that proposed Ratcliff Cove Mitigation Bank is a good proposal, we
are concerned with several aspects of the project. Our concerns are as follows:
1.Because the site visit was primarily a scoping meeting, specific plans for
the restoration of stream channels were not provided. We would
appreciate the opportunity to review more specific restoration plans as
they are developed, including reference reaches that will be used to
develop the restoration design. We believe it is important to mimic the
restoration design after the slope, riffle slope, pool slope, valley slope,
meander geometry, sinuosity, cross-sectional dimensions, entrenchment
ratio, bed material (pebble count), and bank-full discharge of a nearby
reference reach of a stable stream of the same classification (Rosgen
1996). We also recommend that you use examples of natural riparian
communities in the vicinity of the site. These examples can be
important for defming the objectives of the restoration effort and for
providing a reference to measure success at the restoration site.
2. The on-site discussion included an idea of reconstructing tributary 1 in a
different location. Tributary 1, though channelized in the past, now
consists of a large linear wetland that exists along most of the reach. If
tributary 1 is moved this wetland will dry up. We recommend that plans
include a design that will maintain this wetland.
3. The landowner has requested three crossings within the restored reach of
Ratcliff Cove Branch for cattle crossings and future access. Culverts
were discussed, as were bridges and fords with gates. Of course bridges
are recommended however it is understood that the cost of bridges
would be too expensive. Fords with gates are also preferred over
culverts, but the gates would have to be kept shut and maintained by the
landowner. Gates should only be open when moving cows from one
pasture to another and kept closed otherwise. This leaves a lot of
responsibility on the landowner and if gates are left open and cows are
able to consistently enter the stream then streambank stabilization would
be compromised. If culverts are used, then we recommend a proposal
should be developed that reduces the possible mitigation credits by a
minimum of the length of the crossing. Additional linear footage both
up and downstream of culverts should also be removed from the credit
recommendation to cover impacts of the culverts (i.e. aquatic barriers,
outlet scours, potential head-cut, etc.). No matter which technique is
used, the number of crossings should be kept to a minimum.
4. We are pleased that NPS pollution problems will be addressed. in this
stream system and that a 30-foot riparian buffer zone will be restored
along the entire reach. We realize that landowner consent can be
difficult to obtain; however, because this is a restoration project that is
trying to reduce sedimentation and impacts associated with NPS
pollution runoff, and will be reconnecting bankfull flows to abandoned
floodplains, we recommend reforesting and protecting the entire
floodplain throughout the project site.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments early in your planning effort.
Please keep us informed as to the progress of this project. If we can be of further
assistance or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan
Tompkins at 828/258-3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this
project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-08-282.
0?0? W AT ??QG
r
O 'C
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
September 5, 2008
Ms. Loretta Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Re: Ratcliffe Cove Mitigation Bank
Haywood County
Mitigation Bank Prospectus Comments
Dear. Ms. Beckwith:

We have reviewed the Prospectus for the above-referenced site. Based on the information presented in
the Prospectus, the site appears to be a good candidate for a mitigation site. Our comments address the
proposed monitoring and success criteria for the project, as follows:
• The stream monitoring should include installation of staff/crest gauges to document bankfull
events. Success criteria should include the occurrence off two bankfull events (in non-
consecutive years) over the proposed five-year monitoring period. This is referenced in the
credit release section of the Mitigation Plan (Section 6.2) but is not discussed in the sections on
monitoring or success criteria.
The target hydrological success criterion proposed for the project is inundation or saturation for 5
to 12.5% of the growing season (consecutive days). DWQ does not believe this is a suitable
hydrology criterion for riparian wetlands. Recent research conducted by DWQ has shown that
natural riparian wetlands are inundated or saturated for significant periods during the year.
DWQ feels that 12.5% should be the minimum acceptable hydrology target for riparian
wetlands, unless the reference wetland for the site shows drier conditions during an atypical year.
• DWQ does not agree with the proposed practice of performing a jurisdictional determination to
document success if wetland parameters are marginal based on monitoring. Compensatory
mitigation is intended to replace the lost functions and values of a particular type of wetland. The
monitoring data should reflect a trend toward the target wetland type in order to be considered
successful and generate mitigation credits.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
No `thCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Ms. Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Bass Mountain Mitigation Bank - Prospectus Comments
Page 2 of 2
Again, we feel that the site as proposed appears to be a good candidate for a mitigation bank. Please
note that DWQ reserves the right to provide additional comments based on the site visit and review of
more detailed design plans.
Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz or Tanury Hill at [phone] if you have any questions
regarding this project.
Sincerely,
C (%
Cyndi B. Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Central Files
Roger Edwards - ARO
NorthCarolina
?Uaturally
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
O?O? W AT ?9QG
r
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
October 17, 2008
Ms. Loretta Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Re: Ratcliffe Cove Mitigation Bank
Haywood County
Site Visit Comments
Dear. Ms. Beckwith:

Based on the site visit conducted on October 9, 2008, DWQ feels that the site has excellent potential as a
mitigation site. Based on discussion in the field, some revision of the plans will likely be required
regarding wetland conditions along Tributary 2. In addition, detailed soil evaluations will be necessary
to determine the extent of hydric soils/potential wetland restoration opportunities on the site.
Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this letter or
the project.
cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Central Files
Roger Edwards - ARO
Sincerely,
A
Cyn i B. Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
NorthCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycledl1 0% Post Consumer Paper
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Govemor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
September 5, 2008 00 2C?z
SEe
Lori Beckwith
Ashville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
1521 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Ashville, NC 28801-5006
SUBJECT: Proposed Wetland Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Bank, Waynesville, Haywood
County, North Carolina (DCM#20080114)
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
The NC Division of Coastal Management received a Public Notice (SAW-2008-02293) from the US
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) requesting comments on the proposed Ratcliffe Cove Mitigation Bank
(Bank): The Bank sponsor proposes to operate it as a mitigation bank for projects requiring
compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts. The proposed project site is not within North Carolina's
coastal zone. The Public Notice is silent on critical "accounting" methodology for determining how the
wetland mitigation credits would be counted and used. These "accounting" concerns need to be
addressed before the Bank is implemented. Below are the comments of North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management (DCM).
According to the Public Notice the applicant asserts that the bank would offer 5,778 Stream
mitigation Units and 1.3 Riverine Wetland Mitigation Units. How were these units determined?
How these "units" were devised is not stated. The availability of mitigation credits should be
based on the difference between existing habitat values and the habitat values that would exist
when the site is restored. At one time the site was formerly natural habitat and some habitat value
probably remains today. Existing habitat, which is of high quality and not in need of
"restoration", should not be counted as being available for mitigation credit. I would recommend
that a qualified biologist undertake an assessment to formulate the available mitigation credits
based on the difference between the existing habitat value and the projected value of restored
habitat.
The restoration of habitat value is scientifically challenging. It is also an inexact science.
Success rates, for a variety of complex reasons, are usually less than 100%. For example newly
restored habitat may not completely mimic the habitat lost because of differences in site
characteristics. Furthermore, the lost habitat, even if it is restored in another location, represents
am'incremental and cumulative loss of habitat function to the area were the habitat was lost. To
assure that the goal of no net loss to habitat values is achieved, to the maximum extent practical, a
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
restoration "premium" should be added for projects that utilize mitigation banks for compensatory
mitigation as a partial means of alleviating these types of incremental cumulative losses.
• Compensatory mitigation is technically an option of last resort. However, there appears to be no
incentive in the Bank proposal for a developer to pursue on-site mitigation versus off-site
mitigation. To provide an incentive for developers to design their projects in such a manner that
off-site mitigation would truly be an option of last resort, a mitigation "premium" should be
added to any mitigation ratio when the Bank is used for compensatory mitigation.
• Attached to this letter is a copy of an article from PilotOnline.com which further reviews many of
the issues that that a compensatory mitigation bank must address.
Mitigation banks are an appropriate method for providing compensatory mitigation. Nevertheless,
mitigation banks must be designed to assure that there is a net environmental benefit and should not
detract from the goal of avoiding/minimizing habitat losses when development projects are proposed.
Thank you for your consideration of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Sincerely,
AF
Stephen Rynas, AICP
Federal Consistency Coordinator
Cc: Doug Huggett, Division of Coastal Management
Maria Dunn, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Molly Ellwood, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Page: 2
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
November 10, 2008
Ms. Loretta Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
SUBJECT: Ratcliffe Cove Mitigation Bank Prospectus, Restoration Systems, LLC
Haywood County
ACTION ID SAW-2008-02293
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
Restoration Systems, LLC has proposed a stream and wetland mitigation bank in the Raccoon Creek
watershed in Haywood County. Comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(Commission) are provided under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Commission staff was unable to attend the October 9, 2008 site visit. However, based on a review of the
prospectus and knowledge of fish and wildlife resources near the bank location, the Commission offers
the following comments for you consideration:
1. When j-hooks are constructed, the "hooks" should include a sill foundation that is connected to the
opposing bench. This helps avoid flow deflection and sediment deposition associated with
conventional j-hooks that are constructed with just a few staggered boulders.
2. The 200-300 feet or so lower-most part of the project reach is shown as restoration, but it looks like
the channel pattern will not be changed based on the initial plan. If this is the case, then the work
would presumably only constitute enhancement according to the April 2003 Stream Mitigation
Guidelines.
3. If the property will remain as pasture and cattle crossings will be needed, then stable rock fords that
are fenced on either side are recommended to avoid the erosion and habitat fragmentation often
associated with culverts.
4. Bed load from stream reaches that will be relocated should be used as "seed" material in new channel
alignments.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Ratcliffe Cove Mitigation Bank Page 2 November 10, 2008
Haywood
5. The main channel will be realigned a long distance towards the wetland restoration area adjacent to
tributary 2. This may involve trying to ensure sufficient hydrology to the wetland and would be
appropriate if based on topography and other clues (e.g., underlying soils) this is where the channel
likely used to be and should be for stability reasons.
6. The streams probably do not support trout, but Raccoon Creek downstream does according to several
recent surveys the Commission has done with Haywood Community College. Therefore, adherence
to the long trout moratorium will likely be requested as part of permitting.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this mitigation bank proposal. If there are any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone] extension 24.
Sincerely,
G'-4
Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

n-?7 0 l 100
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
October 3, 2008
Lori Beckwith
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Re: Establishment of Ratcliff Cove Mitigation Bank, SAW-2008-02293, Haywood County, ER 08-2110
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
We have received the Public Notice concerning the above project.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based
on the topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or
historic archaeological sites.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project.
Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at www.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults.htln. The archaeologists listed, or any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely, 2-*? `- alLI
?1'eter Sandbeck
1? Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Sen-ice Ccnter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599