The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20191004 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20200501Strickland, Bev From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 1:09 PM To: Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Wilson, Travis W.; Wells, Emily N Subject: [External] SAW-2019-00229 Durant's Neck Stream Mitigation Bank Attachments: SAW-2019-00229 Durant's Neck Initial Evaluation Letter.pdf, IRT Comments Durant's Neck Site.pdf CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to report.spam@nc.gov<mailto:report.spam@nc.gov> Please find attached the Initial Evaluation Letter for IRS Durant's Neck Mitigation Bank. Please address any questions to Kyle Barnes. Thanks Kim 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) *NOTE: I am currently teleworking and away from my office. Please contact me via email or at 919.413.6392. -----Original Message ----- From: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Kyle.W.Barnes@usace.army.mil> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2020 9:21 AM To: Ray Holz <rholz@restorationsystems.com> Cc: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil> Subject: SAW-2019-00229 Durant's Neck Stream Mitigation Bank Ray, Hope things are going well and you and the IRS team are staying healthy during this crazy time. I have attached the evaluation letter for the subject project for your review. Please review the information and let me know if you have any questions. Kyle Barnes 1 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.mil/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. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Washington Regulatory Field Office 2407 West 5" Street Washington, North Carolina 27889 'TfASTATES OF P�� April 29, 2020 Regulatory Division AID: 2019-00229 Restoration Systems, LLC. Mr. Raymond Holz 1101 Haynes Street Suite 211 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Dear Mr. Holz: This correspondence is in reference to the proposed compensatory mitigation bank known as Durant's Neck Mitigation Bank, (Bank). The Bank is 12 miles southeast of Hertford and 1 mile east of Newby Landing, between New Hope Road (SR 1300) and Muddy Creek Road (SR 1321) in Perquimans County, North Carolina. The site is located within the Pasquotank River Basin (HUC 03010205) encompassing 239 acres including (10) unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek which flows to the Perquimans River. This correspondence refers to comments received in response to Interagency Review Team (IRT) comments and a Public Notice dated November 8, 2019. I have reviewed the public notice, project prospectus, and/or on -site meetings notes, the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Comments that were provided have been enclosed for your review. 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, I would appreciate receiving any comments that you have on the comments received. Also, pursuant to 33 CFR Part 332.8 (d)(5), Initial Evaluation, I have determined that your proposed mitigation bank has potential for providing appropriate compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by Department of the Army permits. We share some of the same concerns outlined by the Interagency Review Team which should be resolved as the bank is finalized through the interagency review process. Accordingly, you may proceed with preparation of the draft mitigation banking instrument (MBI) as directed by 33 CFR Part 332.8 (d)(6), Draft Instrument and finalization of your mitigation plan. Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone (910) 251-4584. Sincerely, 4 L QV`� Kyle Barnes Regulatory Project Manager Washington Regulatory Field Office Enclosures Copies Furnished w/out enclosures: Mr. Todd Bowers Wetlands Section - Region IV Water Management Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mrs. Emily Wells United States Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services - Raleigh Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 Mr. Travis Wilson North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Rogers Lake Depot 1718 NC Hwy 56, Room 121 Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522 Mr. Mac Haupt Division of Water Quality North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Ms. Erin Davis Division of Water Quality North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley Environmental Review Coordinator State Historic Preservation Office North Carolina Department of Natural And Cultural Resources 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617 Ms. Twyla Cheatwood National Marine Fisheries Service 101 Pivers Island Road Beaufort, NC 28516 IRT Comments for the Restoration Systems' Pasquotank 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Durant's Neck Site: USACE: 1. The confluence of UT and UT2 is a nice functioning wetland currently. Removing the impoundment would cause loss of function in this area. 2. A JD needs to be done to determine the extent of the streams on site. Proposed Restoration on some of the reaches causes concern for lack of flow. 3. The inclusion of the wetland preservation and width of the buffers is a definite plus. 4. Normally having a fragmented project, where the reaches aren't connected, would be a concern and we likely wouldn't approve it, but the inclusion of the wetlands helps justify the ecological value of this project. 5. Where is the reference reach for this site? DWR: During the August 2019 IRT meeting, we asked RS to address certain concerns in their final prospectus, including small drainage areas, potential effects of sea -level rise/tidal changes, functional uplift of draining the existing cypress swamp to restore stream channels, and appropriateness of stream vs. wetland restoration. In reviewing the final prospectus, there was little to no discussion of these topics. If this project moves forward, it will be critical that the draft mitigation plan address all these concerns in detail. And the JD will be important. DWR has the following comments regarding the Durant's Neck Prospectus: 1. DWR does not support mitigation bank projects that are highly fragmented. Sites that are not hydrologically connected do not support a watershed/catchment approach to functional uplift. 2. DWR does not support UT and UT2 being included in the bank. 3. DWR does not believe there is 7,000+ stream restoration feet within this project site. During our site visit and the IRT meeting, DWR made comments to the effect that the proposal would not yield the requested stream restoration linear footage. Please see the table below. 4. In addition, given the rising sea level discussion and the tidal model mapping provided, it is likely that this site will remain mostly wetland with some conversion to coastal marsh in the not too distant future. Proposed DWR's estimate 0f) (if) Comments UT 1 447 0 should not be in bank UT2 941 0 should not be in bank UT3 925 400 UT4 1335 500 UT5 535 0 UT6 335 200 labeled as UT5 on map 5B (E1) UT7 563 150 not on a 5A-C UT8 500 0 UT9 1027 500 UT10 420 0 Total 7,028 1,750 USFW In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and based on the information provided, and other available information, it appears the project is not likely to adversely affect any additional federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. Please remember that obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information identifies impacts of this action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action. The Service would appreciate some additional information and photographs regarding the Muddy Creek flow conditions; specifically where the Creek seems to pond and become more stagnant due to disrupted natural flow conditions from the road construction, Are there adequate drainage opportunities under the Muddy Creek Road Bridge that will allow the upstream tributaries proposed for mitigation to reach the Albemarle Sound without becoming blocked or backed up? For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North Carolina is now available on our website at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,asa mended( 16 U.S.C. 1531e t seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern' that are known to occur in each county in North Carolina. Section7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal representative), in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the Service is necessary. In addition to the federally protected species list, information on the species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the web site often for updated information or changes. If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys. If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record of the assessment including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action. Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Emily Wells at (919) 856- 4520, extension 25. SHPO We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed. 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, contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. NCWRC I would suggest buffer widths that would roughly mirror what is depicted by the lower elevation lidar signature. That would be more appropriate for this type of system and it's closer to the boundary of the wind tide model they provided. The prospectus states 75' from edge of outer stream braid, but I'm not sure that will pick up the appropriate width. I question some of the proposed stream segments shown for restoration, even with a headwater approach, as being too small. UT 8,9,14 & 15 and likely others. UT 8 appears to be a pond. Was this area excavated? If so what's the approach to this reach. There would seem to be a good opportunity to redesign the road network to remove all the stream crossings from the mitigation site and relocate the crossings above the site in the ditched portion of the farm.