20110213 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20120601

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO May 30, 2012
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Division
Action ID. SAW -2011 -00377
Wetlands Resource Center
c /o:. Mr. Cal Miller
3907 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, OH 43110
Dear Mr. Miller:
1 \ —© ll
� 1.c�- 1 Q1cmdA,R
I [E&EUlm
DO
JUN 1 2012
DENR - wATER QUALITY
This letter serves as our review of the January 2012 Northeast Cape Fear Mitigation Bank
Plan (Plan) submitted by your agent Land Management Group, Inc. (LMG), and subsequently
provided to the Interagency Review Team (IRT) by e -mail. The Plan details the development of
your proposed stream and wetland mitigation bank within a 1,284 -acre tract owned by EFS
Properties, LLC. The property is located on the east side of Shaw Highway (SR 1520);
approximately 1.0 miles north of NC 210 intersection, adjacent to an unnamed tributary to the
Northeast Cape Fear River, east of Rocky Point, Pender County, North Carolina. The below
comments also incorporate earlier discussions points raised in our April 12, 2011 onsite meeting
and May 5, 2011 initial evaluation letter.
The following items must be further addressed, clarified, and/or updated prior to final
approval of the Plan (please note that some of these comments were provided to LMG by e -mail
dated May 8, 2012):
1) Soil Type Confirmation: The soil types must be verified and mapped via GPS in order
to establish the defined boundaries of each wetland type_ and in some cases, the mitigation kind.
Although not included in the Plan, the Corps was informed by a May 9, 2012 e -mail from LMG
that the soils have been verified and mapped. This information must be included in the Plan in
order for the Corps and IRT to verify the target wetland types (pocosin, wet pine flat, wet pine
savanna, and headwater forest) and the mitigation kind (restoration, enhancement, and/or
preservation). On the bott om of page 14 in the Plan, it is stated that the location and extent of
wetland community types are based on the presence of suitable soils and landscape position; and
on page 19 of the Plan, it is stated again that target wetland types have been mapped based on
varying soil types. However, the only soil mapping shown is in the Figure 4, which depicts the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) soil survey data. This mapping source is good
for planning purpose, but does not fulfill the required detailed level of site verification needed for
your proposal. Please include the detailed GPS of all soil types, including the coordinate points.

-2-
2) Success Criteria: This is interrelated to the soil type discussion above. Your target
restoration and enhancement success criteria, particularly for hydrology, are based on wetland
types, which in turn are identified according to soil types. GPS boundaries of the wetland types
must be established and included in order to verify the acreage amount of each type and
mitigation kind. Without accurate mapped boundaries, review of the monitoring reports may
become problematic when applying the various percentages for the growing season for each type
and kind. Additionally, to best evaluate and apply the success criteria for each type within each
mitigation kind during monitoring periods, it may be more efficient and clearer to include the
acreage of each type and kind within the performance standards.
a) Please use the following most updated standard version of the hydrology success
criteria for all types and for the restoration and enhancement kinds: "Water table at or within 12
inches of the soil surface for (X %) of the growing season under normal precipitation conditions.
Hydrology monitoring shall be undertaken from 01Feb through 30Nov of each monitoring year.
On O1Feb, soil temperature at each monitoring plot will be measured at 12 inches below the soil
surface and documented within the monitoring report. Should earlier monitoring be considered,
the project sponsor must also document biological activity on the site pursuant to the applicable
Regional Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Earlier monitoring must be
approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to commencement."
b) A hydrology performance standard must be included for the targeted restoration of
the — 4.0 acre headwater forest area associated with the zero -order stream. The hydrologic
regime for headwater forest ranges from intermittently inundated to seasonally saturated and the
percentage amount of the growing season should be based on the soil type and landscape
position.
c) Amend vegetation success criteria (1) to state "Demonstrated density of planted species
to meet or exceed 320 trees per acre at the end of three years (post- planting), 260 trees per acre at
the end of five years, and 210 (seven -yr. old) character canopy tree species per acre at the end of
seven years. The IRT may allow for the accounting of acceptable volunteer species toward the
210 -tree per acre density upon the review and evaluation of the annual monitoring report."
Amend vegetation success criteria (3) to state "No single volunteer species (most notably red
maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum) will comprise more than 50% of the total composition at
Year 3 or Year 5. If this occurs, remedial action, as approved by the IRT, may be required.
During Year 3 & 5, no single volunteer species, comprising over 50% of the total composition,
may be more than twice the height of the planted trees. If this occurs, remedial action, as
approved by the IRT, may be required. The need to conduct additional volunteer sampling after
Year 5 will be determined by the IRT." Include the following additional vegetation success
criteria: "(4) Planted tree stems must average 10 feet in height (at 7 -years old)

-3-
in each plot at Year 7. If this performance standard is met by Year 5 and stem density is trending
toward success (i.e., no less than 260 five year -old stems /acre) monitoring of vegetation on the
site may be terminated provided written approval is provided by the USACE in consultation with
the IRT." These vegetation performance standards apply to all planted areas within the bank site.
3) Enhancement Area: Please clarify the boundaries of the targeted non - riparian pine flat
and pocosin enhancement areas and give acreage for each. Figure 8 identifies the total 114 -acre
enhancement area and Figure 11 shows the targeted restoration wetland types with black being
the existing 404 wetlands. Figure 6 display the current wetland types, which includes the
enhancement areas. It's not clear where each of the proposed enhancement mitigation types is
located. We agree with the pre - construction hydrology monitoring, but would recommend
looking at a longer period than 3- months and target the wettest time of the year, regardless of
growing season.
4) Zero -order Stream: In Figure l OB, concerns are raised in reviewing Stream Valley A
Cross Section view. The profile shows that the stream valley will be located within portions of
the existing ditch. As observed on other sites, established flows may down -cut in the backfill
areas where the new stream valley and the existing ditch coincide or overlap. It is strongly
recommended that clay plugs are used where the valley and ditch locations coincide in order to
reduce the probability of down- cutting and compromising the stream valley. In Figure 1 OA,
please indicate the buffer width along the valley and clearly state whether any of the stream
buffers will include uplands or all wetland areas.
5) Monitoring: Table 3 "Project Timeline" of the Plan depicts the monitoring report
being submitted each year for seven years. Please keep in mind that when the report is
submitted, vegetation monitoring plot data will be included only in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. If you
choose to conduct supplemental monitoring, results may be considered towards meeting
performance, standards.. Volunteer,counts must be kept separate from planted stems and not
counted toward the established percentage of stems /acre in the success criteria. The zero -order
stream will be monitored over a 5 -year period, unless not meeting the success criteria, but the
adjacent planted buffer and the —4 -acre headwater forest will be monitored over a 7 -year period
as defined in the vegetation success criteria stated in (c) above.
6) Long -leaf Pine Savanna: For this proposal, please provide the description of the
existing conditions within the 160 -acre targeted long -leaf savanna. This description should
include the canopy tree species, general height of the trees, the understory component, and soil
types. Though the Corps is not opposed to the establishment of the long -leaf pine savanna, there
are concerns with your proposal: a) what will be the ecological lift from the existing plant
community, b) how will mechanized land clearing affect the soil (i.e., compaction), c) what
precautions will be taken if prescribe burning encroaches into adjacent mitigation types, d) need

-4-
to explicitly define the long -term maintenance and who will conduct the control burns, e)
detailed plans to restore emergency fire plow lines, f) will fire breaks have to be maintained
along the perimeter of the mitigation type, etc... If prescribed controlled burns are proposed,
please provide a detailed burn management plan and describe how the above, and any additional,
issues will be addressed.
7) Grading and Plug Location Map shown in Figure 9: Please explain why the entrance
road and road along zero -order stream, both along Ditch #34, will not be removed. It is strongly
recommended that an impervious plug armored with riprap be placed in both roadside ditches at
the terminus of where the road will be removed (intersection of Ditch #34 & #53). For some of
the longer ditches (i.e., Ditches #54, #30, #32, #29, #22, #19, #17, and the intersection of #58,
#56, #52), it is strongly recommended that additional plugs be placed mid -way to help equally
disperse or distribute water throughout the site and to reduce ponding along the roadbed removal
area.
8) NCWAM Assessment: Cross reference each data sheet type with Figure 6 and
identify where each assessment was taken.
Please make these corrections to the mitigation plan and resubmit to our office for final
approval. If you have any questions regarding the banking process, moving forward with the
establishment of your proposal, or the information requested above, please do not hesitate to
contact me at the Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone].
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Christian Preziosi
Land Management Group, Inc.
Post Office Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402
Sincerely,
Mickey Sugg, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Steve Sollod
Transportation Project Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC-27699 -1638

-5-
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Mr. John Ellis
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636 -3726
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636 -3726
Ms. Molly Ellwood
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Mr. Ian McMillan
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
NCDENR- Webscape Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Mr. Eric Kulz
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
NCDENR- Webscape Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Ms. Joanne Steenhuis
North - Carolina Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Ms. Debra Wilson
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Ms. Heather Coats
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
EFS Properties, LLC
Post Office Box 403
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Mr. Jeffrey Garnett
Region IV- Wetlands Regulatory Section
Water Management Division, USEPA
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Mr. Travis Wilson
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
1142 I -85 Service Road
Creedmor, NC 27522
Electronic Copies Furnished:
CESAW- RG- L /Amschler
CESAW -RG /Todd Tugwell
CESAW- RG- L /Sugg