The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20141149 Ver 1_Prospectus comments submittal_20150212Regulatory Division/1200A '3Loiq 1) 49 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 Peper or -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; -- n �r+V,l :,2. Motes Creek: ��;Vl, a. �Theirr�ain�stem of Motes Creek was primarily dry during the December 16, 2014 site OS -visit; althougFi field participants generally agreed on the proposed restoration (R) y approach; -"c e nuir[66r of proposed crossings appears excessive, an d 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. UTl 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 E1 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. Pnntad on Racyded Paper Ll -3- 4. Orphan Creek: a. The Main Channel and UT 1 A, and UT 2 are both appropriate for R; b. The Corps is concerned about whether or not UT 1 B 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 UTl 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 1; 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. Maple Hill Farm: a. UTl 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; Pnnrod on (D Recycled Paper se 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 E 1 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 El 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. Pnnled on G) Recyded 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 (D Recycled Paper Ms. Sue Homewood NCDENR -D WR 450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 Winston - Salem, North Carolina 27105 Ms. Virginia Baker NCDENR -D WR 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 Pnnted on ® Recycled Paper