20141149 Ver 1_Draft UMBI Response Package_20160629

27 June 2016
Mr. David Bailey
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
RE: CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK (2014 -SAW -00657):
RESPONSE TO DRAFT MITIGATION BANKING COMMENTS
Dear Mr. Bailey:
Accompanying this letter are Restoration Systems' ("Sponsor") point -by -point responses to the
recently transmitted agency comments regarding the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
(`Bank") draft Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument ("UMBI") and associated Mitigation
Plans. The Sponsor agrees to incorporate the majority of the provided comments. With respect to
the UMBI, all suggested edits will be included in the final. With respect to the Mitigation Plans,
the majority of comments and recommendations will be integrated as indicated in the attached
response document. However, there are a three issues that require additional discussion with the
Interagency Review Team ("IRT").
Two of the three remaining issues appear programmatic in nature, long-term management and
stream performance standards. The Sponsor believes programmatic issues are not appropriately
discussed among the Sponsor and the project IRT exclusively. Instead, we hereby request both
issues are added to the agenda for an upcoming statewide IRT meeting for discussion during an
open session. As the IRT comments appear to make recommendations in both cases that, if
required but the U.S. Army Corps or accepted by the Sponsor, would set precedents for
mitigation projects within the Wilmington District, we believe other project proponents,
including the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and other mitigation bankers,
should be afforded the opportunity to provide input in these discussions.
The final issue requiring further discussion may or may not require an open session during a
statewide IRT meeting—site-specific monitoring to determine wetland growing season initiation.
In the accompanying responses, the Sponsor has provided more detail regarding proposed
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

monitoring protocols. Following the IRT's review, the Sponsor would like to discuss this matter
further.
Aside from the accompanying point -by -point responses, we have also included spreadsheets
summarizing each Bank Site's anticipated expenses, which was used to arrive at the financial
assurance amounts proposed in the Mitigation Plans. We ask that this information be treated as
confidential.
Finally, as the agencies' comments were not directed at proposed stream or wetland designs,
which might affect final alignments, the Sponsor hereby requests permission to initiate
permitting for each Bank Site. By simultaneously applying for Bank Site permits and working
towards UMBI and Mitigation Plan approvals, the Sponsor can save considerable time. As you
are aware, each Bank Site's initial credit release requires a §404 permit. Please let us know at
your earlies convenience if this approach is acceptable.
Thank you for your consideration of our responses and requests. If you have any questions or
require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Adam Riggsbee (512-970-
3062) or Worth Creech (919-389-3888). We look forward to hearing back from you soon
regarding our statewide IRT meeting and permitting requests.
Sincerely,
John Preyer
President
cc: Todd Bowers, EPA
Kathy Matthews, USFWS
Karen Higgins, NCDWR
Sue Homewood, NCDWR
Virginia Baker, NCDWR
Mac Haupt, NCDWR
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Shari Bryant, NCWRC
Ken Riley, NMFS
Doug Huggett, NCDCM
Worth Creech, Restoration Systems, LLC
Grant Lewis, Axiom Environmental, Inc
Adam Riggsbee, RiverBank Conservation, LLC
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

SAW -2014-00657 UMBI and Mitigation Plan Comments
Draft LIMBI:
• The cover letter states that the financial assurances have been written to allow flexibility
regarding the assurance used, and draft casualty insurance plans are not yet available.
This proposal must be refined and specified for IRT approval.
Response 1— A draft casualty insurance policy is unfortunately still not available. We will
therefore remove the flexibility language, limiting the financial assurances options to
performance bonds only.
• See comments in "2014-00657 Octobank Draft UMBI — USACE Comments.pdf'
All Mitigation Plans:
• Section 8.1 indicates that access easements will be obtained and page 28 indicates pipes
will be installed for project access. However, the CE document does not indicate that
easements will be placed on road crossing areas
Response 2 — Landowner access and land use management require crossings (both vehicular and
livestock) through the bank sites. As per common practice, proposed stream crossings are
located outside of the conservation easements, with no credit generation occurring outside of the
easements. All proposed crossings (with the exception of those noted on plan sheets) will be
piped crossings with suitable sized pipes to allow for stormwater drainage. Pipes will be
installed to allow for aquatic life passage (see Response 8 for detail). These crossings are
expected to have minimal adverse effect on the project restoration, and livestock fencing will be
installed parallel to, and on top of the road surface to limit livestock access within the restored
stream or wetland.
Project access is to be obtained by a 30 foot permanent access easement that has been surveyed,
platted, and recorded on the deed. The access easement and conservation easement are two
separate and distinct easements.
• Table 15 Stream Credit Release Schedule:
o Year 4 and Year 6 should also propose stream stability monitoring.
Response 3 — Standard operating procedure, as outlined in Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in NC (IRT 2013) includes Vegetative and
Stream Stability monitoring in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Wetland Hydrology monitoring will be
conducted with continuously recording groundwater gauges and will be reported in years 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, and 7. Report submittal in years 4 and 6 will include visual observation of stream
stability and vegetation condition, as well as groundwater gauge data, if applicable.
o For bankfull release, "... or at least not in violation" should be removed, as
interim measures at time of bankfull release should be met.
Response 4 - The text "or at least not in violation" will be removed.

• Table 16 Wetland Credit Release Schedule:
o No vegetation monitoring for wetland areas for Monitoring Year 6 is proposed
(see also Section 11.0). Why?
See Response 3, this language is based on District policy (IRT 2013).
o The bullet "*" referring to Year 5 Monitoring should be changed to the following:
"Hydrologic monitoring may be discontinued after Year 5 if Hydrologic
Performance Standards for years 1 through 5 have been met (Section 11.0)"
Response 5 - Text will be changed as requested.
• Table 17 — should allow 45-60 days for permit processing.
Response 6 - Table 17 will be changed to allow 45-60 days for permitting.
• Section 10.3:
o In the Belt -width Preparation and Grading section the narrative discusses
reapplying stockpiled topsoil to graded areas once grading is complete. In the
event that stockpiled topsoil is not of sufficient quality or quantity to provide a
suitable planting environment for graded areas, what alternative organic matter
amendments are proposed to compensate for low nutrient/high bulk density soils?
Response 7 - Text will be added to the document concerning soil amendments in low
fertility/organic matter areas including, but not limited to, the application of lime, Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, Potassium, and mulch. Mulch may be added and tilled into top soils to improve
bulk density, water retention, and proper management of fertilizer.
o Piped crossings should also be designed to allow aquatic life passage.
Response 8 - Text will be added that piped crossings will be designed to allow aquatic life
passage. This text will include placing pipes below the channel invert elevation and ensuring the
proper pipe size to allow for aquatic life passage.
• Table 19/Figure 9: the planting list includes Inkberry (Ilex glabra), which is primarily a
Coastal Plain species. Suggest replacing this species with a more Piedmont -appropriate
Marsh treatment wetland species
Response 9 - Inkberry will be removed from the planting list.
• Table 20:
o Under Hydrology / (3) Stream Stability: Change "determine" to "document"
Response 10 — The Sponsor is perhaps willing to change "determine" to "document'; however,
we are unsure of the practical effect of this change. Perhaps we should discuss further.

o Under Water Quality / (2) Indicators of Stressors: Change "minimized" to
"avoided" or similar term
Response 11 — Text will be changed from "minimized" to "avoided"
• Table 21: This table correctly identifies wetland monitoring (for year 6), however this is
not consistent with Table 16. Please check for consistency.
See Response 3. Will edit Table 21 for consistency.
• Section 11:
o Remove the "if specifically required by permit conditions" from the last sentence
in the first paragraph
Response 12 The text will be removed.
o A section for Stream performance standards/success should be added. While
Table 20 states "performance standards", it does not specifically state
performance measures related to stream stability.
See Response 10
o NCDWR and the Corps have concerns that the restoration of low scoring
intermittent streams will disconnect these streams from groundwater. A
disconnection with groundwater could result in a channel becoming non -
jurisdictional and no longer viable for mitigation credit.
Response 13 — This was discussed during our field review at each bank site. The IRT
determined which streams were intermittent, or questionable and where stream gauges, or other
monitoring devices were to be installed to ascertain the flow status. As per the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Region (Version 2. 0), the minimum criteria of 30 continuous days of flow is expected
to occur in these reaches. If we have proposed incorrect locations or mistakenly excluded stream
channels from such monitoring, please indicate specific channels and locations.
o All intermittent channels proposed for restoration should document continuous
flow for a minimum of 30 days.
See Response 13
• Section 11.1: Bankfull event documentation is proposed as either physical evidence or
staff gauges. Unless otherwise justified by the sponsor and agreed to by the IRT, staff
gauges should be used, and their location noted on the monitoring plans.
Response 14 — Based on past experience with staff gauges, which have the tendency to
malfunction, the Sponsor has proposed a flexible, alternative approach. More specifically, the

Sponsor would like to use a combination of automated trail cameras, in combination with gauges
(rain gauges and staff gauges), as well as physical evidence of overbank flooding to document
bankfull events.
• Section 11.2.1 (except Orphan Creek):
o Note that we the Corps now uses the "Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
(Version 2.0) (USACE 2012)"
Response 15 — The Sponsor will update text citations to reflect the "Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
(Version 2.0) (USACE 2012)".
o Although partially basing the growing season for using soil temperature/bud burst
is acceptable, several IRT members expressed concern about the February 1 start
date. DWR suggests that the start of the growing season should be no earlier than
March 1. USFWS generally in favor of determining growing season using site
specific data. Further discussion with the IRT is necessary.
Response 16 — The Sponsor is willing to accept published values for growing seasons as the
default; however, the Sponsor would like to monitor each site for biological activity suitable to
determine if the growing season is initiated earlier. As the Regional Supplement states, "Two
indicators of biological activity that are readily observable in the field are (1) above -ground
growth and development of vascular plants, and (2) soil temperature as an indicator of soil
microbial activity...." Above ground growth includes two or more non -evergreen plants exhibit
one or more of the following indicators.
a. Emergence of herbaceous plants from the ground
b. Appearance of new growth from vegetative crowns (e.g., in graminoids, bulbs, and
corms)
c. Coleoptile/cotyledon emergence from seed
d. Bud burst on woody plants (i.e., some green foliage is visible between spreading bud
scales)
e. Emergence or elongation of leaves of woody plants
f. Emergence or opening of flowers
For soil temperature, The Sponsor would like to propose the use of suitably located continuous
recording soil temperature probes to document soil temperature at 12 inches with growing season
initiation at 41 degrees F (with above -ground growth indicators present). If above ground
growth and soil temperature indicators are not met, the Sponsor would propose to use published
values (WETS tables, or NRCS dates) for growing season.
Depending on IRT input, the Sponsor will edit the language within each mitigation plan to
describe the monitoring standards and protocols detailed above.
rd

o Bud burst is further clarified in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
(Version 2.0) (USACE 2012). Please use this information to add to your
document to further clarify what counts as bud burst, as well as the type and
number of separate species required to satisfy this requirement.
See Response 16
o Regarding years with atypical climatic conditions and comparisons with reference
sites, do you plan to collect groundwater gauge data on the reference sites? This
would be an appropriate method of comparison as long as the soils, topography,
hydrologic inputs were similar.
Response 17 — Groundwater gauges are expected to be installed in reference sites to collect
groundwater hydrology data at a relatively undisturbed site, or sites. The data would be
compared to on-site groundwater gauge data during drought years to ascertain if hydrology
success criteria may be modified by the IRT for that particular year. Reference gauge data is not
proposed to alter growing season lengths, or hydrology success criteria without consent from the
IRT. The Sponsor will edit each mitigation plan as necessary to incorporate the use of reference
wetland hydrological monitoring.
o The Corps is not in favor of substituting a jurisdictional determination for success.
Meeting the 3 wetland criteria does not mean it is meeting success, as
compensatory mitigation sites should be high quality wetlands, not marginal.
Response 18 — The intent of the last sentence of Section 11.2.1 Wetland Success Criteria was to
quantify wetland acreage. There are several areas in the proposed bank sites where we are
identifying areas of potential wetland development (i.e. in ponds to be drained and in marginal,
highly disturbed areas) that were identified in the Prospectus and during the Jurisdictional
Determination walkthrough which we need to quantify post -restoration. These areas may have a
Jurisdictional Delineation conducted to determine the final wetland mitigation acreage. Such an
approach will provide the Corps and IRT with discretion in drawing final wetland boundaries,
and therefore determining final wetland credit allocations. The Sponsor will edit the last sentence
so that any reference to "marginal" is removed.
• Section 12.3 (except Orphan Creek): Generally, the Corps does not believe it is
appropriate to allow berms or excavation to meet success criteria in wetlands otherwise
not meeting hydrology Performance Standards.
Response 19 — Consultation with the IRT would be expected prior to any contingency items
being implemented.
• Section 13.0:
o The sponsor cannot hold the conservation easement. In order to receive the initial
credit release the Sponsor will need to transfer the easement to the CE holder
(NCWHF).

Response 20 —Section 13.0 addresses long-term management, not the site protection mechanism,
which is covered in Section 4.0. As indicated in Section 4.0, NCWHF will hold conservation
easements, not the Sponsor, which is a requirement for a Bank Site's initial credit release.
o Please provide a list of long term management activities with the annual cost for
these activities and the method and amount of funding. (the easements indicate a
"$100" fee paid to NCWHF for the easement?)
Response 21— This comment raises a few points the Sponsor would like to address. In addition,
it also makes a request for additional information that the Sponsor believes is a significant
departure from common practice in the District.
First, the $100 referenced in the easement is not related to long term management, it is related to
the assignment of an easement by the landowner (Assignor) to the land trust (Assignee). The
referenced language does not indicate that the Sponsor has paid the land trust for long-term
management. It instead indicates the landowner (not the Sponsor) is receiving money for
transferring their development rights to the land trust. Second, the $100 fee language is
customary and necessary according to NC real estate law. As you will note, after the $100 is
cited, the recital continues with, "and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged...". This language is used to indicate that a
sufficient amount of money has exchanged hands and is therefore legally binding; however, it is
intentionally vague in indicating what else, besides the $100, was exchanged. This is intended to
protect confidentiality in the public record (recall that this is a publically recorded transaction).
With respect to the commenter's request for more information regarding long-term management
activities, their associated costs and funding mechanisms: However, we respectfully decline to
provide that information at this stage of the process. Instead, we request this matter be tabled for
further discussion with the IRT, and more specifically that the matter be addressed in an open
statewide IRT meeting with other mitigation providers in attendance. As the commenter has
requested information that, to the best of our knowledge, has not been incorporated in any other
MBI or DMS project, we believe it is appropriate to address such a programmatic issue with a
broader audience.
o Although the plans do not proposed credit for the "marsh SW areas" but if the
outlet structure or any part of these BMPs falls within the mitigation areas, it
seems reasonable that the easement holder be responsible for maintaining these
areas.
Response 22 — Marsh Treatment Areas, as proposed at the bank sites, are not typical BMPs and
are designed to function as natural wetland depressions. The depressions are designed to fill and
naturalize over time.
o Per the Rule, the mitigation plan must include a long term management plan (not
conceptual) including the activities and funding for Corps review and approval.
C.

Response 23 — Please see our request in Response 21 to discuss this particular issue an open
statewide IRT meeting.
• Section 15.0:
o The Sponsor must clearly layout the process for the Financial Assurance
documents and provide documentation that the amount is appropriate (cost
accounting for the construction and monitoring) for IRT approval.
Response 24 — Please see the accompanying spreadsheet breaking down costs for each project.
We are providing to the IRT, but as this is financial information and is therefore confidential, we
respectfully request it not be included in the MBI or mitigation plans if possible.
o Will there be one document or two? Bond or policy? Will they provide 2
documents — construction and monitoring — or will they use one bond that reduces
on an annual basis?
Response 25 — Please see Response 1 regarding a casualty policy. One of the plans, Benton
Branch, mistakenly contained different financial assurance descriptions than the others. This will
be corrected. And modification will be made in all plans in accordance with Response 1 above.
With respect to the number of bonds proposed, there are only two types of performance bonds
construction and monitoring. While the value of each bond is different (see Section 15.0 and
Appendix F), their respective values shall remain consistent over time. The duration of each
bond will vary, as monitoring will obviously require more time than construction given MBI
requirements, and will be determined based on Hartford's bonding requirements. Per language in
the provided draft performance bonds, extension may be provided by replacement bonds or
continuation certificates. All such replacement bonds and/or continuation certificates will be
provided to the Corps in a timely manner.
o The Corps Office of Counsel will review and approve the draft document(s)
Response 26 — Acknowledged, please forward any comments or questions as soon as available.
o The Sponsor must provide an original of the executed documents prior to
receiving the first credit release.
Response 27 — Acknowledged and covered in each plan's credit release schedules (see tables 15
and 16 in each plan).
• Section 15.2: Typically the Corps will not release the construction bond until we receive
the executed monitoring bond.
Response 28 — Acknowledged, and this task will be added to both stream and wetland credit
release schedules. Appropriate language will be added to Section 15.2 in each plan as well.
• Section 15.3: The Corps cannot direct these funds — please remove such statements from
the documents. The Sponsor can name the NCWHF as the party that will receive the

funds and ensure that the work is completed as long as the NCWHF provides a statement
in writing that they are willing to take on this responsibility.
Response 29 — The language in Section 15.3 regarding the "District Engineer's (DE) discretion"
was is required by the 2008 Rule (§332.3 (n)(6)), which states, "financial assurances shall be
payable at the discretion of the district engineer...". If the DE does not have the authority to
"call" the Sponsor's bonds, it is unclear how the assurances could be paid to the beneficiary.
• Labels on figures and drawings should match the JD maps. Wetland
restoration/enhancement areas should be depicted and labeled on all maps/figures.
Response 30 — We respectfully request to treat the mitigation plan and JDs independently with
respect to channel and wetland identification. As the JDs were completed before the MBI and
Mitigation Plans and the JDs' structures are not suitable for ledger development, the Sponsor
would like to keep the figures and drawings labeled as is. We believe the amount of effort in
fulfilling this request is significant and would carry additional confusion with respect to
managing ledgers and understanding the mitigation plans. The Sponsor proposes the following:
in the permit applications impact figures will match JD nomenclature for each site.
• Comparing Table 13 to Figure 10, it appears that mitigation credits are proposed for road
crossings. Stations should end at the beginning of a crossing and begin again after the
road crossing. No mitigation credits should be proposed for road crossings. Please update
figures and tables as needed.
Response 31— Tables and Figures will be updated to account for non-credit generating areas
outside of the conservation easement.
• The Assignment of Conservation Easement Document is confusing. Please further
explain to what the $100 dollar amount is referring. Certainly a $100 endowment amount
is insufficient.
Response 32 — The conservation easement was originally recorded with Restoration Systems and
the Assignee, or the holder of the easement. Private companies are allowed by NC law to hold
conservation easements. Therefore, the Sponsor will transfer title to the easement to NCWHF
before requesting the site's initial credit release, which is the intent of the Assignment of
Conservation Easement Document. If there are specific questions about the assignment, please
forward so that we can have our attorney respond accordingly.
Please see general explanation to the $100 language in Response 21. In this case, this customary
language indicates that the land trust has purchased the conservation easement from Restoration
Systems, and as discussed in Response 21, the $100 is not related to the endowment.
Traditionally, stewardship endowments are funded through separate contractual agreements
between a mitigation banker and land trust. The endowment amounts are not detailed in recorded
documents. The amount of stewardship endowments are based on what the land trust determines
is necessary to fulfill its responsibilities associated with the conservation easements.
8

Rocky Top MB:
• This plan proposes restoration in the lower half of UT 1 and UT2 and E2 on upper
portion of UTI. However, the mitigation plan references restoration, EI and E2 in
various sections (2.0, 10.1, 10.4, 11. 1, etc). If E1 approach will be used then they need to
show this in the credit calculations. Otherwise, please remove references to approaches
that are not proposed.
Response 33 — Rocky Top is proposed as Restoration and Enhancement (Level II) with no
Enhancement (Level 1). The document will be updated to remove Enhancement (Level I).
• Table 17 (p. 26): Isn't planting in September too warm? Also, inconsistent with last
paragraph on p. 31, which states planting will occur from December 1 — March 15.
Response 34 — Any inconsistencies will be corrected. All sites are expected to be planted in the
late fall, winter, or early spring (Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for
Compensatory Mitigation in NC [IRT 2013] indicates vegetation planting shall be conducted
between November 15 and March 15). However, The Sponsor expects all planting to be
conducted between December 1 and April 15, depending on construction scheduling
• P. 28 indicates piped channel crossings for access to the site. The location isn't shown on
the maps or easement — is it within the boundaries of the mitigation site? Will these
crossings be used just for access or will these be permanent farm roads? If there are no
channel crossings proposed on this site, please indicate in this section.
Response 35 — Rocky Top has no piped crossings and this verbiage will be removed from the
document.
• Figure 6: Several wetland restoration and enhancement areas are proposed to occur in
locations that are already vegetated with trees. Will these treed sections be completely
timbered and replanted, or will any beneficial/desirable native species that may already
be established be identified and allowed to remain?
Response 36 — Damage to and/or destruction of beneficial/desirable vegetation in wooded areas
will be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Contractors will be directed to avoid existing
trees, particularly trees with high value for wildlife and stability (Specifications for forest
avoidance and disturbance minimization mechanisms are being developed by The Sponsor at this
time). In addition, on-site construction management will be implemented while the contractor is
working in these areas. Supplemental planting will occur in all areas within the conservation
easement, with a concentration in Restoration and Enhancement (Level I) areas.
• Figure 10:
o Why aren't smaller areas of wetland restoration proposed to have monitoring
wells?
Response 37 — Three groundwater monitoring gauges should be adequate for 0.2 acre of wetland
restoration.

o One of the wetland enhancement areas includes the entirety of one of the marsh
treatment areas. Is this included in the credit area calculations? Can the marsh
treatment areas be moved outside of the stream buffer/wetland?
Response 38 — Due to landowner constraints, the marsh treatment area must be located within
the conservation easement; however, the size and location of the marsh treatment area will be
adjusted to avoid impacts to wetland areas. Figure 10 will be adjusted to reflect this change.
o Vegetation monitoring should be proposed within the wetland
restoration/enhancement areas.
Response 39 — Vegetation plots will be moved to include wetland restoration/enhancement
areas. Please note, there are only 0.5 acres of wetland restoration/enhancement scattered across
the site and plots may not be entirely contained within the wetland areas. In addition, to provide
adequate coverage of the site riparian area, multiple plots will be located upstream and outside of
wetland areas.
o Why isn't vegetation monitoring proposed in the large area of Dry-Mesic Oak
Hickory Forest in southeast portion of the easement?
Response 40 — Based on guidance in Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for
Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina (IRT 2013), monitoring plots are expected to
encompass 2% of the planted portion of the Site, with a minimum of 4 plots. The Sponsor
understands this is a minimum criteria and is willing to expand beyond the proposed 5 plots.
Plot location on Figure 10 condenses the monitoring to the streamside riparian buffer areas
(within 50 feet of the stream) where the majority of functional uplift is expected to occur.
Orphan Creek MB:
• P. 28 indicates piped channel crossings for access to the site. Please include discussion
of the proposed stream crossings within the boundaries of the site including the purpose
of the crossings (farm roads and/or construction/maintenance access) and the potential
adverse impacts to the restoration project.
See Response 2
• Section 11.1/Figure 10:
o Why install the stream flow gauge in lower section of UT 113 instead of the upper
section?
Response 41— Past comments from IRT members on other projects requested the flow gauge be
installed in the lower reaches of intermittent streams. Previous requests included a discussion
that if the intermittent stream did not make flow requirements in the lower reaches, it's safe to
assume flow requirements in an upstream direction are not met. If requested, the gauge can be
moved to an upstream location.
10

o Using more than one (i.e. two or more) indicators of Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) per Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 should also be included as a
performance standard in upper section of UT 113.
Response 42 — OHWM indicators will be included in the performance standard.
• Labels on figures and drawings do not match the JD map.
See Response 30
• Figure 613: although moving the piped crossing to the head of UT2 was discussed during
the 12/16/2014 site visit, wetlands were only later determined in that location. Given the
proposed wetland impacts to UT 2, can the proposed crossing location be eliminated in
lieu of access directly from the dirt road to the north or via the proposed crossing of UT 1
to the south? Clearly explain if this crossing cannot be avoided. If a crossing is absolutely
necessary in this location, and it will be outside of the proposed easement, it should be
addressed apart from the mitigation bank process.
Response 43 — The crossing is necessary for farm operation management. It seems logical to
include this crossing under our permit (NWP 27) for project purposes.
• Figure 10:
o The stream gauge should be located in the upper section of UT 1B as this section
is likely to be the driest.
See Response 41
o Show monitoring area for more than one (i.e. two or more) OHWM indicators.
See Response 42
o Can marsh treatment areas be moved at least outside of the streamside area?
Response 44 — Marsh treatment areas are not hardened BMP's, but natural wetland depressions.
In this case, the marsh treatment area is located in the abandoned channel, which makes a
suitable and desirable area for the depression to occur. The marsh treatment areas will naturalize
over time and serve as suitable streamside area habitat.
o Please show the wetland enhancement area on the monitoring map and label as
such.
Response 45 — Wetland enhancement areas will be added to the monitoring map.
o At least one vegetation monitoring plot should be proposed within the wetland
enhancement areas.
11

Response 46 — Please note, wetland enhancement areas encompass 0.10 acre of land, linearly
situated along the existing channels. The existing wetlands are currently highly disturbed areas
of stream channel that have been created by livestock trampling of stream banks and are
characterized by liquefied substrate with little vegetation. A vegetation plot can be installed with
a portion of the plot including the wetlands, but the linear nature of the wetland does not allow
for a plot to be "within" the area.
• The Corps and NCDWR will require that future design drawings clearly show how the
upper portion UTIA (also referred to as UT1) will be constructed within the existing
wetland, clearly defining the temporary or permanent impacts that will occur to the
wetland.
Response 47 — As described in Response 46, these wetlands are highly disturbed, livestock
trampled stream beds with low functional value. Discussions with the Corps of Engineers
representatives prior to plan/draft UMBI submittal indicated that the functional uplift to these
wetland would off -set impacts associated with proposed mitigation. Design drawing are
expected to show channel excavation within the existing wetlands and bank stabilization efforts
will be necessary due to the existing substrate being liquefied mud. Due to the linear nature of
the wetlands in the existing stream channel, temporary impacts will include almost the entire
0.14 acres, with permanent impacts totaling 0.04 acres (including fill for the road crossing). The
functional uplift associated with proposed mitigation is expected to exceed the impacts
associated with proposed mitigation activities.
Benton Branch MB:
• NCWRC notes that there are records for the state special concern notched rainbow
(Villosa constricta) and the state significantly rare Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus
davidi) in Benton Branch. Therefore, we recommend stringent sediment and erosion
control measures are used for any restoration/construction activities.
Response 48 — Stringent sediment and erosion control measures will be implemented. The
Benton Branch mitigation plan will be edited accordingly.
• Are 60' wide road crossings necessary? This crossing width seems excessive for typical
activities in agricultural scenarios. Please minimize the road crossing width. If
minimization in this manner is not possible, please clearly explain the purpose of these
crossings and their potential effect on the restoration project.
Response 49 — Road crossing locations and widths were discussed in detail with the landowner
during negotiations with the Sponsor. In the end, this was important to the landowner, and
essential to his participation in the project. Only one crossing is 60 feet in width - the lower
reaches of UT4. This crossing is necessary to allow access to a portion of the property
completely isolated by the easement and the landowner didn't want to limit future resale
potential of this portion of the property. As proposed, the stream will be constructed and
wetlands restored outside of the conservation easement, with no credit generation. In addition,
livestock fencing will be erected outside of the easement with fencing extending along the top of
the road, eliminating livestock access from the stream. As designed, there are no adverse effects
12

from the proposed crossing and if future impacts occur (pipe installation/extension or road
construction) they must be permitted through appropriate agencies.
• Section 11.1/Figure 10:
o why install the stream flow gauge in lower section of UT 2 rather than in the
upper and middle sections of UT 1?
See Response 41
o Showing more than one (i.e. two or more) indicators of Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM) per Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 should also be included as
a performance standard in the upper and middle sections of UT 1.
See Response 42
• The Corps and NCDWR have significant concerns that restoration of UTI and UT2 and
removal of the upstream ponds will not result in channel forming flows. The mitigation
plan should clearly indicate how and when a final jurisdictional determination will be
made, and what actions will occur if these features are not determined to be jurisdictional
after restoration.
See Response 13 for general discussion regarding hydrological monitoring of restored
intermittent channels. In addition, the mitigation plan for Benton Branch will be modified to
indicate how and when a final JD will be conducted. The Sponsor suggests the following:
Stream gauges, cameras, and rain gauges will be utilized to determine the flow status, along with
OHW information to ascertain the jurisdictional status of the stream during annual monitoring of
the Site(s). If data indicates questionable jurisdiction of a stream feature, a site visit with the IRT
will be requested and additional stream gauges and cameras will be installed in the stream to
determine if the reach in question becomes jurisdictional at some lower section of the reach.
• UT and UT2 are identified as perennial streams in the mitigation plan but there is no
evidence or documentation of the Corps or DWR classifying these channels as
intermittent or perennial.
Response 50 — A JD was conducted on the bank sites (Benton Branch JD field visit on 8/27/15).
Figures, including streams subject to Section 404 jurisdiction were identified and included on
applicable mapping. In addition, IRT members reviewed each bank site and the jurisdictional
status (intermittent vs. perennial) was discussed/determined.
• Figure 613:
o Given the proposed wetland impacts to UT 1 and abutting wetlands, can the
proposed crossing location be eliminated in lieu of access directly from the north
of the pond? The sliver of wetland enhancement shown above the crossing of UT
1 is unlikely to function well given its very small size.
13

Response 51— Landowner access to the property from his house and barn complex occurs along
a fence line leading to the crossing in question. The landowner has requested this crossing and is
unlikely to allow its removal from the project. The sliver of wetland enhancement upstream of
the crossing is expected to be expanded once the pond has been removed and potential
wetlands/springs under the pond have been connected to the upper reaches of UT 1.
o Is any grading of the pond berms proposed? How will proposed areas of pond
removal/wetland restoration interact with the downstream stream and wetland
restoration/enhancement areas?
Response 52 — Pond dams are expected to be excavated to the surface of the surrounding
floodplain, effectively removing the dam from the floodplain and providing full connectivity to
the downstream wetlands and streams.
• Figure 6D:
o an area of Wetland Restoration and Enhancement as well as stream restoration is
shown near the bottom of UT 4 adjacent to a proposed crossing but outside of the
easement. Is this included in the credit area/length calculations?
Response 53 — Wetlands and streams located outside of the conservation easement are non-
credit generating. The document and tables will be verified and updated accordingly.
o The pond north of UT 5 appears to show wetland restoration but does not
specifically note it as does Figure 613; if restoration is proposed, is any grading of
the pond berm proposed? How will proposed areas of pond removal/wetland
restoration interact with the adjacent stream?
Response 54 — During IRT walkthroughs, this pond was determined to provide suitable
function/habitat in its current form. The IRT determined we could fill the pond, but is not
necessary. At this time, we are not proposing to fill or remove the pond north of UT 5. Figures
will be updated accordingly.
• Figure 10A:
o Surface water gauges should be installed in the upper reaches of UTI and UT2 as
well as at the confluence of these channels as proposed.
See Response 41 - Surface water gauges (and or cameras) will be added to the monitoring
figures.
o Show monitoring area for more than one (i.e. two or more) OHWM indicators.
See Response 42
o Recommend including a vegetation plot in at least one of the ponds proposed to
gain wetland restoration credit.
Response 55 — A vegetation plot will be moved to include a pond removal area.
14

o Include one of the vegetation plots within the wetland enhancement area next to
UT 6
Response 56 — A vegetation plot will be moved to include the wetland enhancement area.
• Figure IOB:
o Add a vegetation plot and groundwater gauge to Wetland Restoration area to the
east of UT 4B as well as in the pond proposed to gain wetland restoration credit.
Response 57 — Pond removal areas upstream of UT 1 and 2 have groundwater gauges proposed.
An additional groundwater gauge east of UT 4B will be added.
Motes Creek MB:
• NCDWR states that UT1 is identified as a perennial stream in the mitigation plan but
there is no evidence or documentation of the Corps or DWR classifying this channels as
intermittent or perennial.
See Response 50
• Table 17 (p. 27): Is planting in October too warm? Also, inconsistent with last paragraph
on p. 31, which states planting will occur from December 1 — March 15
See Response 34
• P. 28 indicates piped channel crossings for access to the site. Please include discussion
of the proposed stream crossings within the boundaries of the site including the purpose
of the crossings (farm roads and/or construction/maintenance access) and the potential
adverse impacts to the restoration project.
See Response 2
• Section 11.1/Figure 10A:
o The monitoring map shows two surface water gauges proposed for UTI, however
the text of the mitigation plan (p. 35) states there will be a surface water gauge in
the lower portion of the stream. Rather, the stream flow gauge should be installed
in middle section of UT 1 that is currently a wetland rather than a stream.
Response 58 — This is inconsistent with other IRT comments concerning gauge location and
discussions of gauge locations in the field.
o Showing more than one (i.e. two or more) indicators of OHWM per Regulatory
Guidance Letter 05-05 should also be included as a performance standard in the
middle section of UT 1.
See Response 42
15

• Are any additional marsh treatment areas or other BMPs proposed on this site other than
in the middle of the north side of UT 2?
Response 59 - At this time, no additional marsh treatment areas are proposed.
• Figure 613: 3 small wetlands (SA, SC, and SF) identified on this figure proposed as
wetland enhancement are not shown to receive any plantings per Figure 9.
Response 60 — These wetlands are in areas that are currently wooded. Wetland enhancement is
expected to occur through hydrologic improvements associated with adjacent stream restoration
and enhancement (level I).
• Figure 10:
o Why install the stream flow gauge in upper section of UT 1 rather than in the
middle section of UT 1?
See Response 58
o Show monitoring area for more than one (i.e. two or more) OHWM indicators.
See Response 42
o Add groundwater gauge in potential wetland restoration area along UT 1.
Response 61 — A groundwater gauge will be added along UT 1.
o Add vegetation monitoring plot to wetland restoration/enhancement area south of
Motes Creek and area west of the upper end of UT 3.
Response 62 —1 am not sure Motes Creek and UT 3 intersect. Please clarify.
IV

Motes Creek
Construction
Trees
Fencing
Monitoring
Maintenance
w/Contingency
Costs Notes
$324,660 60/LF
$19,000
$100,000
$84,000
$25,000
$552,660
$607,926.0
Benton Branch
Costs Notes
Construction
$313,860
Trees
$30,000
Fencing
$100,000
Monitoring
$84,000
Maintenance
$25,000
w/Contingency
$552,860
$608,146.0
Orphan Creek
Construction
Trees
Fencing
Monitoring
Maintenance
w/Contingency
Orphan Creek
Construction
Trees
Fencing
Monitoring
Maintenance
w/Contingency
Costs Notes
$142,000
$9,000
$50,000
$84,000
$25,000
$310,000
$341,000.0
Costs Notes
$60,000
$5,000
$8,000
$20,000
$25,000
$118,000
$129,800.0