20181461 Ver 1_USACE Notice of Intent SAW-2017-02019_20191029

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 10:34 AM
To: Davis, Erin B
Subject: [External] FW: Notice of Intent/ Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland UMB/
SAW-2017-02019
Attachments: Bank Credit Release Template 20161108 (002).pdf; Draft Mit Plan Comment
Memo -Middle Neuse UMB.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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105 1 Wake Forest, NC 27587 1 919.554.4884 x60
BUILDING STRONG (r)
-----Original Message -----
From: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 2:42 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Wells, Emily
<[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Twyla Cheatwood
<[e-mail]>; Brittingham, Cathy <[e-mail]>; Gledhill-earley, Renee
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Pait, Daren <[e-mail]>; Daniel S. Coggin <[e-mail]>; Barnes, Kyle
W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Doug Hughes <[e-mail]>;
Lekson, David M CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Notice of Intent/ Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland UMB/ SAW-2017-02019
Team,
The 30-day comment review period for the three sites associated with the Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Bank (SAW 2017-02019) closed on September 30, 2019. All comments received during the review process are
attached for your records.
We have reviewed the draft mitigation plan, the additional information received from the provider, and all comments
generated during the review process and determined that the mitigation project, as proposed, has limited potential to
provide appropriate compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by Department of the Army (DA) permits. We are
requesting a resubmittal of the UMBI and draft mitigation plans. The IRT would also request field visits. Accordingly, it is
our intent to disapprove the Middle Neuse Mitigation Project, as presented, unless a member of the NCIRT initiates the

Dispute Resolution Process, as described in the Final Mitigation Rule (33 CFR 332.8 (e)). Please note that initiation of this
process requires that a senior official of the agency objecting to the disapproval of the draft mitigation plan (instrument
modification) notify the District Engineer by letter within 15 days of this e-mail (by COB on November 14, 2019). Please
notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.
Provided that we do not receive any objections, we will provide a letter at the conclusion of the 15-day Dispute
Resolution window notifying the Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank sponsor of our decision.
All NCIRT members will receive a copy of the letter and all comments for your records.
Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Field Office
910-251-4584
We at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch are committed to improving service to our customers. We
would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.miI/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
<Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0>
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

Project Name:
Sponsor Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWQ Action ID:
Wilmington District Mitigation Bank Credit Release Schedule
County:
8-Digit HUC:
Year Project Instituted:
Date Prepared:
Total Potential Credits
Credit Classification
Stream Credits
Forested Wetland Credits
Wetland
Warm
Water
Cool
I Water
Cold
Water
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Non-Riverine
Non -Riparian
Coastal
Potential Credits from Mitigation Plan
Potential Credits from As -Built Survey
Current and Future Credit Releases
Stream Credits
Forested Wetland Credits
Non -Forested Wetland
Credits
Projected
Actual Release
Credit Release Milestone
Scheduled
Releases
Warm
Water
Cool
Water
Cold
Water
Scheduled
Releases
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Non-Riverine
Non -Riparian
Scheduled
Releases
Coastal
Release Date
Date
1 (Bank/Site Establishment)" 2
15%
15%
15%
2 (Year 0/As-Built)'
15%
15%
15
3 (Year 1 Monitoring)
10%
10%
10%
4 (Year 2 Monitoring)
10%
10%
15%
5 (Year 3 Monitoring)
10%
15%
20%
6 (Year 4 Monitoring)
5%
5%
10%
7 (Year 5 Monitoring)
10%
15%
15%
8 (Year 6 Monitoring)
5%
5%
NA
NA
9 (Year 7 Monitoring)
10%
10%
NA
NA
Stream Bankfull Standard
10%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Varies°
Total Credits Release to Date
Contingencies (if any): None
Signature of Wilmington District Official Approving Credit Release Date
1-The first credit release milestone is based on the potential credits stated in the approved mitigation plan.
2 -The first credit release shall occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, which includes the following criteria:
1) Execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
2) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
3) Mitigation bank site must be secured;
4) Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan;
5) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
6) 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
3 -The second credit release is based on the credit totals from the as -built survey, and may differ slightly from the credit totals stated in the mitigation plan.
4 - A 15% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.

Wilmington District Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Streams
Total Released
Total Released With
Credit Release
Release Activity
Interim Release
Without Bankfull
Bankfull Standard
Milestone
Standard Met
Met'
1 Bank Establishment'
15%
15%
NA
Completion of all initial physical and biological
2
15%
30%
NA
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
3
10%
40%
NA
stable and interim performance standards have been met
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
4
10%
50%
NA
stable and interim performance standards have been met
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
5
10%
60%
NA
stable and interim performance standards have been met
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
6
5%
65%
75%
stable and interim performance standards have been met
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
7
10%
75%
85%
stable, performance standards have been met
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
8
5%
80%
90%
stable, performance standards have been met
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
9
10%
90%
100%
stable, performance standards have been met
1- The first credit release shall occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, which includes the following criteria:
1) execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
2) approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
3) the mitigation bank site must be secured;
4) delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan;
5) recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
6) 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
2 - A 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met
(4 bankfull events in separate years).

Credit Release
Milestone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Wilmington District Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Forested Wetlands
Release Activity Interim Release Total Released
Site Establishment' 15% 15%
Completion of all initial physical and biological
15% 30%
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that interim
performance standards have been met
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that interim
performance standards have been met
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that interim
performance standards have been met
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that interim
performance standards have been met
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that interim
performance standards have been met
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that interim
performance standards have been met
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that performance
standards have been met
40%
50%
65%
70%
85%
90%
100%
1- The first credit release shall occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, which includes the following criteria:
1) execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
2) approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
3) the mitigation bank site must be secured;
4) delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan;
5) recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
6) 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.

Wilmington District Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Coastal Marsh Wetlands
Credit Release
Release Activity
Interim Release
Total Released
Milestone
1
Site Establishment'
15%
15%
Completion of all initial physical and biological
2
°
15/°
30%
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that interim
3
10%
40%
performance standards have been met
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that interim
4
15%
55%
performance standards have been met
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that interim
5
20%
75%
performance standards have been met
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that interim
6
10%
85%
performance standards have been met
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that performance
7
15/°
100%
standards have been met
1- The first credit release shall occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, which includes the following criteria:
1) execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
2) approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
3) the mitigation bank site must be secured;
4) delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan;
5) recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
6) 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Barnes
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
October 29, 2019
SUBJECT: The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank- Draft Mitigation Plan
Review, Beaufort and Craven Counties, NC
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received from the NCIRT during the 30-day comment
period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.
USACE AID#'s: SAW-2017-02019 Beaufort 56; SAW-2019-00254 Craven 26; SAW-2019-00255
Craven 30
30-Day Comment Deadline: September 30, 2019
Mac Haupt, NCDWR:
Overall comments:
A. DWR did not see any information regarding riparian buffer or nutrient offset credit for the
proposed 3 sites, we are assuming there is no riparian buffer and/or nutrient credit on these
projects.
B. DWR does not approve of Weyerhaeuser being the long term steward on their own projects.
C. DWR does not approve of the proposed credit release schedule.
D. Typically, an appendix is included with agency correspondence.
E. The plans did not include a JD approval or request package.
F. There was no discussion of existing crossings, culverts or roads. All easement breaks should
be mentioned in the site constraint section.
G. Even if not an issue, the plan should acknowledge review of FEMA floodplain compliance
and any potential for hydrologic trespass.
H. There is no discussion of treating exotic or invasive vegetation, including treatment of pine
which should be addressed given the target vegetative communities and the surrounding land
use.
Craven 26
1. Section 1.4- Ownership- the long-term steward should not be the landowner. DWR supports a
third party managing entity to handle this role.
2. Section 5.2- Stream Mitigation Workplan- under the Headwater Restoration sub heading it is
stated that research has supported 40 acres for intermittent streams and 100 acres for perennial
streams. Pertaining to this site and for all the other proposed sites, DWR has stated a number of
times the need to expand the watershed to ensure that the headwater reaches will have the
necessary flow. While the provider has expanded the easement further than initially proposed in

several cases, DWR believes the easement does not capture all the essential drainages as
evidenced by the LIDAR Figure 9 (particularly the area to the west of the confluence of UT1 and
UT2).
3. Table 12- DWR recommends limiting the planting of Green Ash to 5% because of the ash borer
that has become prevalent statewide.
4. Section 7.0 Credit Release Schedule- DWR does not approve of the proposed credit release
schedule. Please utilize the schedule as seen in the October 2016 Mitigation Guidance.
5. Section 8.3 Performance Standards -
a. DWR requires the minimum wetland saturation threshold to be 10%. While DWR
realizes a portion of the site may be mapped as Lenior or Lynchburg soils (have these
been verified by a licensed NC Soils Scientist?) most of surrounding soils are Rains or
Leaf. Since the proposed work is to raise the stream, then given the mapped soils type
Paleaquults, a deep clay, these soils should wet up to well beyond the 10% minimum
standard.
b. Headwater flow standard- while DWR accepts the 30 day standard, however; we will not
accept only requiring the standard in years 4 thru 7.
6. Table 21- DWR recommends the Performance Bond Reduction Schedule mirror the credit
release schedule as shown in the 2016 Mitigation Guidance.
7. Appendix C- Cross Sections- more existing cross sections should be listed. In addition, the scale
shown for XS3-UT2 Reach 2 for the y axis (elevation) is not adequate.
8. Design sheets- next time please provide plan sheets that are no larger than 11 x 17. However,
DWR did like the way the stream profile and pattern where displayed.
9. Design sheet 10- DWR is concerned that the channel bed is being raised enough to access the
floodplain. If the ditch is 6-8 feet deep but the sheets show channel is being cut down anywhere
from 6-7 feet to 4-5 feet, the channel bed is effectively raised about 2 feet. Will the flow be able
to readily access the floodplain, especially from station 23+00 to station 26+50. Also, this is a
section there will be wetlands adjacent to the stream channel and the designer must plan for
enough overbank to keep the wetlands within the proposed saturation threshold. DWR wants to
be sure that the stream reach does not resemble a ditch dug through wetlands.
10. Design sheets 11-13- there are a lot of proposed vernal pools along UT1-Reach 3. DWR has two
concerns related to the proposed layout. First, the designer should be mindful of the alternate
flow path (in many cases when channels or ditches are filled there will be some sinking or
subsidence once the plug settles, creating a shallow depression) this may create during high
precipitation events. In certain areas, there are very narrow plugs, stations 39+00 and 52+60,
that could result in stability problems for the proposed stream channel and bed. Secondly, these
vernal pools are all within the proposed wetland restoration area, which is not necessarily a bad
thing, however, the layout may result in more open "marsh -like" areas. Therefore, some
verbiage should be included in the section which proposes what target vegetative community is
proposed. Also, please note that the IRT has seen vernal pools that were constructed that were
too deep, it is important that these areas not deeper than shown on your typical.
11. DWR requires at least 4 to 5 wetland monitoring gauges in the proposed wetland restoration
area.

12. Figure 11- there are no veg plots located in the proposed wetland restoration area. There needs
to be a significant number of plots included in the wetland restoration area (some can be moved
to wetland restoration area, none need to be added).
13. DWR recommends flow gauges on all headwater valley tributaries be placed in the upper third of
the reach (most flow gauges as displayed on Figure 11 are almost at the bottom of each reach).
In addition, DWR would like to stress that these gauges should not be crest gauges, and should
be placed in a riffle like feature.
14. Design sheet 18- 20- DWR recommends some verbiage be included regarding the removal of the
gravel road and the site preparation that will occur prior to planting. Unless this area is
effectively ripped, the trees will not grow.
15. Enhancement 1 credit ratio is proposed for reaches UT3 and UT3A. This ratio is based on
supplemental plantings. Typically, for planting only, the credit ration would be 4 or 5:1.
16. DWR believes reaches UT2 reach 1 and UT reach 1 are at risk for providing the proposed
amount of credit. DWR predicts about half the amount of credit for each reach will be realized.
Moreover, DWR does not believe UT2 reach 2 upper or UT reach 2 will maintain perennial
flow. Please realize all of the above could result in credit loss, and this is most related to the size
of the contributing watershed.
Craven 30
1. Section 1.4- Ownership- the long-term steward should not be the landowner. DWR supports a
third party managing entity to handle this role.
2. Section 5.2- Stream Mitigation Workplan- under the Headwater Restoration sub heading it is
stated that research has supported 40 acres for intermittent streams and 100 acres for perennial
streams. In Table 3, three tributaries (UT3, 4, and 5) are just at the minimum drainage area.
Pertaining to this site and for all the other proposed sites, DWR has stated a number of times the
need to expand the watershed to ensure that the headwater reaches will have the necessary flow.
DWR believes tributaries UT 1(upper), 4 and 5 are risk to deliver stream mitigation credits.
3. Table 12- DWR recommends limiting the planting of Green Ash to 5% because of the ash borer
that has become prevalent statewide.
4. Section 7.0 Credit Release Schedule- DWR does not approve of the proposed credit release
schedule. Please utilize the schedule as seen in the October 2016 Mitigation Guidance.
5. Section 8.1- Table 18 is reporting 67 total veg plots, DWR believes this is a typo.
6. Section 8.3 Performance Standards -
a. Headwater flow standard- while DWR accepts the 30 day standard, however; we will not
accept only requiring the standard in years 4 thru 7.
b. DWR accepts the 12% minimum wetland saturation threshold.
7. Table 21- DWR recommends the Performance Bond Reduction Schedule mirror the credit
release schedule as shown in the 2016 Mitigation Guidance.
8. Appendix C- Cross Sections- more existing cross sections should be listed. One cross section is
not adequate. DWR requires more cross sections be sent before final approval of the mitigation
plan can be approved.
9. Design sheets- should show a bankfull line on the profile view.
10. Design sheets 8-10 - there are a lot of proposed vernal pools along UT1-Reach 2 and 3. DWR
has two concerns related to the proposed layout. First, the designer should be mindful of the

alternate flow path this may create during high precipitation events. In certain areas, there are
very narrow plugs, stations 15+00 and 32+50, that could result in stability problems for the
proposed stream channel and bed. Secondly, these vernal pools are all within the proposed
wetland restoration area, which is not necessarily a bad thing, however, the layout may result in
more open "marsh -like" areas. Therefore, some verbiage should be included in the section
which proposes what target vegetative community is proposed. Also, please note that the IRT
has seen vernal pools that were constructed that were too deep, it is important that these areas not
be deeper than shown on your typical. Vernal pools which do not dry out will not be counted
towards wetland restoration credit.
11. Design sheet 11- as DWR stated in earlier comments, we believe UT Reach 3 will splay out
well before it reaches the major stream. DWR recommends cutting back the stream construction
to station 44+00 or at the confluence of tributary UT5.
12. Design sheet 11- what is the basis for wetland restoration along UT Reach 3 below the road?
From the design sheets, it does not appear there are many spoil piles. DWR believes this area is
wetland enhancement at best, depending on how much the channel is raised.
13. DWR recommends wetland gauges at station 37+00 stream left, and station 42+00 stream left.
14. DWR recommends flow gauges on all headwater valley tributaries be placed in the upper third of
the reach (most flow gauges as displayed on Figure 11 are almost at the bottom of each reach).
In addition, DWR would like to stress that these gauges should not be crest gauges, and should
be placed in a riffle like feature.
15. Design sheet 17- since part of this channel will go through an old pond (or two?), DWR would
like to see verbiage included and/or typicals included in the design sheets as to what fill will be
used and how the channel will be constructed. In other cases, the IRT has noted if the dam is
breached and the channel is left to develop passively, most often wetlands develop and not a
stream channel.
Beaufort 56
1. DWR is not recommending this site move forward for the following reasons:
a. Consider all the overall comments above as applying to this site as well.
b. We have repeatedly talked about getting the appropriate watershed area to support
headwater and I" order streams in the coastal plain. We believe this site still falls short
of incorporating the contributing drainage that could make this site successful (see Figure
9- LIDAR).
c. In addition, there was not a response to my previous comment considering Beaufort 56A
comment 2 on page 7 (from your July 12, 2019 response memo), which relates to our
comment above (a).
d. There are other drainages entering the site that are not adequately addressed.
e. The site is bisected by a road which leaves a relatively short reach at the end of the
project.
f. What is the drainage area of the two short reaches UT2 and UTP

Todd Tug, well, USACE:
Instrument comments -
1. Under Sec VII, Credit Release Schedule, we have in the past allowed for up to 100% of the
credits generated though preservation to be released upon completion of the tasks identified in
this section. If this doesn't amount to much credit, it may not be worth complicating the release
schedule, but that's up to you and the sponsor. If they were to request release of all credits
generated through preservation, they would also need to make sure to have a proportionate
amount of the endowment funded before this release. I would add this as a condition of the
initial allocation of credits. Also see additional comments regarding the endowment and credit
release sections in the mitigation plans, below.
2. Sec XI - Weyerhaeuser is identified as the long-term manager of the site. They are also the land
owner and sponsor. I don't think that this arrangement is appropriate, especially for this bank. I
understand that the easement is being held by Unique Places 2 Save, but from what I can tell,
Weyerhaeuser would be the entity that monitors the site for encroachments (this is how the
mitigation plans read as well), which is like the fox watching the henhouse. In this case, if there
were an encroachment, it would most likely be committed by Weyerhaeuser because they own
almost all of the land surrounding the easement, and will be continuing to conduct forestry
operations on the adjacent land. If there are management activities (burning, invasive control,
etc.) I could see those being conducted by Weyerhaeuser, but the sponsor/owner should never be
the party responsible for monitoring the site for encroachments.
Comments pertaining to all mitigation plans — The following comments regarding the mitigation plans
are combined in this section as they apply to all three mitigation plans.
1. General comment - One of the primary concerns previously discussed relates to concerns that the
projects have not been designed to restore sites to prior (pre -forestry operations) conditions, and
that the upper ends of these projects should really be wetland systems rather than streams. Some
easement area was added to help justify the approach, but overall the amount added to the upper
ends of the systems on these bank sites is minimal. The projects also propose to develop
headwaters streams within areas that may be better suited for wetlands. Once the ditches have
been filled, it is also likely that hydrology will be impacted much farther upstream that the limits
of the easements, which has the potential to cause impacts to land use in these areas. This is
evident by looking at the proposed grades up valley from the headwater stream reaches.
2. Under Sec 1.4, it states that long-term stewardship responsibilities will begin at the end of the
bank's operational phase (after all credits are released and sold) and continue into
perpetuity. This section needs to be change to indicate that long-term management starts after
the final release of credits when the site has been closed (i.e., at the end of the monitoring
phase). It could potentially be decades or longer before all credits are sold.
3. Sec 2.3, assurance of sufficient water rights, control of minerals, access, does the sponsor have
control of all areas that may potentially be impacted by increased hydrology due to the
restoration activities? We have discussed this previously at length. The mitigation plans should
include an evaluation to identify areas that could potentially be impacted by filling the ditches on
the site. If this may affect forestry operations adjacent to the project easements, this needs to be
noted (we need to know if ditches may be constructed adjacent to the site in order to improve
drainage once the project ditches are filled).

4. Sec 2.3 should also state whether mineral rights are held by Weyerhaeuser. If they have been
previously transferred, they would not be subject to the conservation easement restrictions.
5. The long-term management plan includes maintenance of undesirable vegetation and beaver/hog
control. It's great to see these included, but how realistic is this?
6. The long-term management plan in lacking in detail. What are the proposed activities? How
often will they be done? How do they relate to the objectives of the bank? The description of
activities seems to be mostly about keeping roads open and passable, which if anything, is
contrary to the objective of the bank.
7. Endowment (escrow) amounts have been lumped into one amount for all three sites. These
really should be broken out because each site is separate.
8. How is the endowment funding being managed? Does the NFWF provide an annual amount
based on the identified tasks? Who approves the release of funds, UP2S?
9. The capitalization rate is 4% (3.5% is pretty typical), but it's not clear if this accounts for
inflation. Does NFWF get a 4% return?
10. Is the endowment lumped in with other banks, or are the funds kept separate?
11. How were the figures in the table listing the tasks for long-term management determined? For
instance, undesirable vegetation control, it lists 10.2 acres, but this is much smaller than the
combined acreage of the easements, correct? (I couldn't find the easement size anywhere in the
mit plans.) I think the breakdown of the long-term management needs more detailed
descriptions of tasks, costs (per site), etc.
12. I did not see that there was any accounting for legal costs associated with protection of the site.
13. Endowment/escrow funding should be in place earlier than the year before the final credit
release, as stated in the plan. I recommend that the funding be tied to credit release, so that it is
partially funding during each credit release, and 100% funded by year 5.
14. The credit release schedule that proposes 60% at construction is not acceptable. The District has
an approved release schedule that would apply to this bank. I recommend that they also include
the release schedule template that lists the anticipated releases along with dates. I have attached
this for reference.
15. Credit calculations for non-standard buffers were not done correctly (e.g., the ideal buffer was
not measured right, and there appear to be areas where wetland credit overlaps with additional
buffer credit). Please review guidance related to this methodology and recalculate. Also provide
more detailed maps showing the buffer zones. Shapefiles and/or the excel file may be requested
as well. I am available to discuss how to apply this if it would be helpful.
16. The adaptive management plan lacks specifics — please provide additional detail, including any
specific concerns regarding these sites (lack of channel formation, excess hydrology, etc.).
17. Performance standards only reference the 2016 guidance. Specific monitoring and performance
standards should be restated in the document so it is clear what they are in the mitigation plans.
18. The vegetation planting list only includes 7 tree species (not to include live stakes). I
recommend adding additional species to ensure a more diverse over story.
19. Green ash plantings should be reduced to no more than 5% due to the likely effects of the
emerald ash borer.
20. Headwater valley lengths appear to be based on the centerline measurement of the
ditches. These lengths should be based on straight-line valley length. Please update the credit
projections accordingly.
21. Vernal pools should be designed to be only seasonally impounded. If these areas remain
impounded, they should not be considered successful.

22. It is not clear if the measurements of wetlands on the site include the vernal pools and/or the area
occupied by the channel (for single -thread channels).
23. The design sheets provided do not appear to be updated to the current proposal. (i.e., they do not
show wetland restoration along the single thread channels, as is shown on the proposed condition
figures).
24. Ditch plugs should be at least 100 feet in length.
25. Flow gauges generally appear to be too far downstream. These gauges should be located fairly
close to the proposed stream origin, and at least in the upper 1/3.
26. The distribution of groundwater gauges on sites should be modified to include some near the
edge of the easement (within wetlands) and some within restoration areas closer to the channel
(along single -thread channels).
27. The plans propose to restore natural topography, including minor depressions and small
mounds. Please take caution to ensure that any created topography does not adversely affect the
site, create non jurisdictional pockets or impounded areas.
28. It is not clear from the plans what areas are proposed to be planted. Please make this clear on the
planting plan, along with the amount of planted areas.
29. Wetland enhancement has not been defined. What constitutes "low enhancement". In general,
the description of current conditions of the wetlands and how they will be restored is very
vague. Please expand on these descriptions so that the reader has a better understanding of what
will be done on the site.
30. For areas where hydrology will be enhance, is there any preexisting data to compare to? What
are the hydrology standards for these areas? Mitigation plans indicate that hydrology
performance "through comparison to measured reference condition" — I recommend removing
this statement. Hydrology will be determined successful if it meets the stated standards only.
31. I had some questions about how the headwater valleys will be developed. What happens in areas
above the conservation easement? For instance, on Beaufort 56, Pollard swamp — reach 1 starts
at 3+50, but the easement doesn't start until 5+75. Please provide more detail so that we get a
better understanding of what is proposed for the headwater valley reaches.
32. On Beaufort 56, the NRCS soils map and LiDAR suggest that reach 2 should be located farther
east than either its current or proposed location. Please explain why this reach is located where
proposed?
Kim Browning, USACE:
1. Endowment amounts —it needs to be enough that the site can be stewarded into perpetuity based
on the level of stewardship proposed. (Monitoring, walking the boundaries, boundaries marked,
check for encroachment, prescribed burning if applicable, invasive control rarely, means for legal
defense of easement, stewardship complexities.)
2. An acceptance letter from the Long Term Steward, including an itemized list of the endowment
funding, should be included in each mitigation plan.
3. The mitigation plan should provide a list of the annual long term management activities and
associated annual costs. To estimate if you are providing an adequate endowment, you can take
the total annual amount required and divide it by 0.04 (cap rate). For example, if the total annual
costs were $500 and you divide by 0.04 then you should have at least $12,500 to cover the long
term management. (A 0.04 capitalization rate is the minimum rate we will allow) Keep in mind
that this does not include funding to cover any potential legal costs. You should include

additional monies for a legal fund. I met with UP2S recently and they indicated they are using a
3-3.5% cap rate currently.
4. The endowment should be fully funded at least one year prior to closeout so that the long-term
steward does not have to draw on the principal.
5. Please depict photo points/digital image stations on monitoring maps. If the fixed cross-section
locations are to be used, please describe that in the text in the monitoring section.
6. Wetland Restoration/enhancement — The inclusion of vernal pools is acceptable, and should be 8-
14" depressions that dry up annually so that predatory species cannot colonize.
7. If ditches are to be filled, please show these areas on the construction plans, and the length of the
ditch plug (minimum 100 feet).
8. It would be beneficial to add some coarse woody debris to the depressional areas in the buffers
and throughout the adjacent wetlands for habitat, and to help store sediment, increase water
storage/infiltration, and absorb water energy during overbank events.
BARN ES.KYL
Digitally signed by
BARN ES.KYLE.WILLIA
E.WILLIAM.1
M.1388035397
388035397
Date: 2019.10.29
14:37:22-04'00'
Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers