HomeMy WebLinkAbout20141149 Ver 1_ACOE Initial Bank Evaluation Letter_20150210. .n
Fry'jFo .' P3r'fQ``P. •
STATES 0 4. • •
Regulatory Division/ 1200A
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
Action ID: SAW- 2014 -00657
Mr. John Preyer
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Preyer:
February 10, 2015
This letter serves as the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) initial evaluation of
the proposed Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Stream Mitigation Bank (Bank) prospectus, received on
October 29, 2014, and also includes comments stemming from field visits to each of the eight
sites conducted on December 16, 2014, December 19, 2014, and January 6, 2015. The proposed
plans are to enhance or restore 36,625 linear feet of warm water stream channel. A 45 -day public
notice for the proposed Bank was issued on November 28, 2014, and written comments from the
Interagency Review Team (IRT) members were received and forwarded to you via electronic
mail dated January 15, 2015.
Based on the prospectus and site visits the Corps offers the following comments that, along
with the public notice comments, should be addressed when developing the draft Instrument and
Mitigation Plan:
1. Overall prospectus:
a. Wetlands exist on most, if not all of the sites; however the prospectus only noted the
presence of wetlands on a few of them. Also, these wetland areas should be
characterized based on the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) and
delineated prior to future permit application submittal(s);
b. The prospectus proposes to use the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation
(NCWHF) to hold the conservation easements. Prior to approving this organization, we
will need additional information regarding the size of the proposed long -term
endowment, funding mechanism for the endowment, and the proposed long -term
maintenance plan.
Printed on ® Recycled Paper
-2-
Also note that for umbrella banks the easement holder does not have to be identified in
the instrument, but may be identified in the site - specific mitigation plan.
c. The proposed credit release schedule should be clarified, as discussed during site
reviews;
2. Motes Creek:
a. The main stem of Motes Creek was primarily dry during the December 16, 2014 site
visit, although field participants generally agreed on the proposed restoration (R)
approach;
b. The number of proposed crossings appears excessive, and we recommend that they be
reduced to the minimum number to maintain access on the property;
c. The Corps is concerned about maintaining enough flow in UT 1 to maintain/justify
jurisdictional status post R work. Note that performance standards for this feature will
likely include flow monitoring and Ordinary High Water Mark metrics;
d. The upper section of UT 2 was appropriate for enhancement level 1 (El), except for the
uppermost —100 linear feet, which only required enhancement level 2 (E2). The
remainder of UT 2 was appropriate for R;
e. The upper extent of UT 3 was appropriate for E2, with the lower majority suitable for R
including rerouting through a wetland complex.
3. Benton Branch:
a. This site was previously reviewed by Corps and North Carolina Division of Water
Resources personnel on March 26, 2014;
b. UT1 and UT 2 were discussed with respect to expected flow regime and channel size of
the proposed R approach. Field participants expressed some concern over maintaining
channel- forming flow due to the low slope of the middle portion of reach. As such,
visual monitoring for Ordinary High Water Mark metrics will be included as performance
measures for these reaches. Chemical treatments for fescue are recommended in R
segments through pasture areas;
c. UT 3 is appropriate for R;
d. UT 4a is appropriate for R, except for the upper —50 linear feet which require only E2
activities;
e. After much discussion, R was determined to be an acceptable approach for UT 4b;
f. Benton Branch and UT 5 are proposed for resetting existing cattle fences at 50 feet from
stream banks and planting the added buffer area. This work was discussed as being
called E2, but warranting a reduced credit ratio of 5:1;
g. UT 6 warrants El activities in the upper section and E2 in the downstream section, as
proposed. The existing crossing in this section is proposed to be maintained as a ford.
AM
Printed on W Recycled Paper
-3-
4. Orphan Creek:
a. The Main Channel and UT IA, and UT 2 are both appropriate for R;
b. The Corps is concerned about whether or not UT 1B would maintain at least intermittent
flow following R work. Note that performance standards for this feature will likely
include flow monitoring and Ordinary High Water Mark metrics;
c. The location of the proposed crossing of UT 2 is a concern, and it is our understanding
that it will be proposed to occur at the top of the reach instead;
d. UT 3 is appropriate for E1, including spot corrections where necessary, bringing up the
stream bed, fencing, and planting.
5. Chico Branch:
a. The majority of UT 1 is dry and non jurisdictional. The Corps recommends that the
majority of this reach be removed from the project due to risk of non - success;
b. The section of UT1 below the lower crossing is highly incised and degraded and warrants
a full R approach;
c. UT 2 is in poor condition but has flow maintained by upstream wetlands. An R approach
is appropriate as proposed;
d. Based on on -site discussion, and due to the length of UT 1 likely to be removed from the
project, Restoration Systems, Inc. indicated that the Chico Branch project may be
removed from the Bank.
6. Major Hill:
a. The majority of UT 1 is appropriate for R as proposed. An E2 approach is acceptable for
the lowest section of UT l;
b. UT 2 appears marginally jurisdictional, although the function is reduced. Cattle do not
currently have access to this area and it has an existing wooded buffer that includes some
invasive species. The Corps is concerned that an E2 approach would not provide the
typical uplift of aquatic function of typical E2 activities. As such, the field participants
discussed reducing the ratio below the typical 2.5:1 to 5:1. Participants from Restoration
Systems, Inc. suggested that UT 2 may be removed from the project;
c. The field participants discussed including a BMP at the confluence of a non jurisdictional
swale /ditch with the west side of the proposed easement to reduce nutrient and sediment
loading into the stream system.
7. Maple Hill Farm:
a. UT1 is appropriate for R in the cleared section, whereas the relict channel (in need of
spot corrections) exists in the forested section;
b. UT 2A and the upper extent of UT 2B did not have Ordinary High Water Marks and
would not be considered jurisdictional tributaries by the Corps. We recommend that
these components be removed from the project;
c. Actions proposed for the lower section of UT 2B do not appear necessary and would
likely not appreciably increase aquatic function. The Corps recommends that this
component be removed from the project;
AM
Printed on W Recycled Paper
W
d. Field participants agreed that an R approach that re- aligns UT 3 with its natural valley be
should evaluated. Further, it is our understanding that including a portion of UT 3 above
the current proposal will be evaluated.
8. Rocky Top:
a. This area was evaluated previously as part of the Abbey Lamm EEP Full Delivery Project
under Action ID: SAW- 2014 - 01710;
b. UT 1 upper section is appropriate for E2;
c. The lower section of UT 1, as well as UT 2, is appropriate for R as proposed.
9. Slingshot Creek:
a. The Main Channel is proposed for a variety of actions:
i. The upper -most section is appropriate for E2 as discussed on -site, including removal
on a breached earthen dam;
ii. Field participants agreed that a tributary intersecting the project from the northwest
should be included as an E2 section;
iii. Immediately below this section is an area of transition from overall good to poor
quality channel, and the proposal of E1 to R approach will be based further on
topographic surveys and design requirements;
iv. The middle section of the Main Channel is in poor condition and is appropriate for R
down to the confluence with UT 2;
v. From the UT 2 confluence to the end of the project is a mix of forested and mostly
stable channel in the upper extent to a highly degraded section in the lower extent.
Although an R approach is proposed for the entire length, the Corps and DWR
discussed employing an E1 approach to a tie —in above an existing crossing /grade
control, and then transitioning to R to the terminus of the project. Based on field
discussions, Restoration Systems, Inc. will evaluate this option based on topographic
surveys and further design to determine if space requirements allow this itemization.
Note that credit ratio determinations will be based on expected aquatic function uplift
rather than the work required due to design constraints;
b. An E2 approach is reasonable for the upper extent of UT 1 due to its v- shaped nature. An
R approach is appropriate as proposed for the portion of UT 1 downstream of what
appears to be an old earthen dam to its tie -in with the Main Channel;
c. An R approach is appropriate for UT 2.
Based on our review of the prospectus and site visits, we have determined that the proposed
bank does have potential to provide compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by
Department of the Army permits, and you may move forward with preparation of a Draft
Instrument and Mitigation Plans for the Bank. Once received, we will review these documents
and make a determination regarding whether they are complete as described in 33 CFR Part
332.8 (d)(6). If we determine the draft instrument is complete, we will forward the additional
copies you provide to the IRT members.
Printed on JW Recycled Paper
-5-
Please contact me at 919 -554 -4884, extension 30 if I can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
FILENAME: SAW201400657EVALLTR.doc
CESAW- RG- R4)Wjat
CESAW- RG- R/FILE
CESAW- RG- R/MAIL /02/ 10/2015
David E. Bailey
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Copies furnished:
Mr. Adam Riggsbee
River Bank Ecosystems
Post Office Box 29921
Austin, Texas 78755
Mr. Grant Lewis -
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Mr. Todd Bowers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, Southwest
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
P. O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDENR -DWR
Wetlands /401 Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Printed on JW Recycled Paper
-5-
Please contact me at 919 -554 -4884, extension 30 if I can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
David E. Bailey
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Copies furnished:
Mr. Adam Riggsbee
River Bank Ecosystems
Post Office Box 29921
Austin, Texas 78755
Mr. Grant Lewis
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Mr. Todd Bowers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, Southwest
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
P. O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDENR -DWR
Wetlands /401 Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Printed on 0 Recycled Paper
Ms. Sue Homewood
NCDENR -DWR
450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston- Salem, North Carolina 27105
Ms. Virginia Balser
NCDENR -DWR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Mr. Travis Wilson
NC Wildlife Resource Commission
1718 Hwy 56 West
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Ms. Shari Bryant
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 129
Sedalia, North Carolina 27342
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Early
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Mr. Fritz Rohde
Habitat Conservation Division — Atlantic Branch
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Doug Huggett
NCDENR -DCM
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Printed on G Recycled Paper