20001024 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20080228 (2)

iTCQ'SrNrES Of P�•�P
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
February 25, 2008
Action ID No. 199910581 / Bear Creek -Mill Branch Mitigation Bank
Mr. David Schiller
Restoration Systems, LLC IAS
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 U
kA:ct1� a
Dear Mr. Schiller:
This correspondence confirms that on February 20, 2008, the Mitigation Bank Review Team
(MBRT) convened to discuss issues related to the Bear Creek -Mill Branch Mitigation Bank
(Bank) located north of U.S. 70, east of Promise Land Road and south of Washington Road,
adjacent to Bear. Creek., west of LaGrange, in Lenoir County, North Carolina. Also participating
were Mr. William Wescott of my staff, Ms. Kathy Matthews, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Messrs. John Dorney and Eric Kulz, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, and Mr.
Randy Turner, Restoration Systems.
Specifically, the following matters were discussed and actions necessary to bring them to
closure were addressed:
1. Wetland type / final composition of bank credits. Please reference the attached report
prepared by EcoScience describing the condition of the site as it exists at the end of the 5 -year
monitoring period. Restoration Systems is to submit a proposal to the MBRT in narrative and
table format describing the actual wetland types and credits available in the Bank. Additionally,
please provide information regarding the status of the Bear Creek—Neuse River Regional Wetiand
Corridor as indicated on Figure 1 of your monitoring reports.
2. Removal of a portion of the bank property. The North Carolina Departiment, of
Transportation proposes to impact a portion of the Bank property in its construction of the U.S.
70 Goldsboro Bypass project. As discussed, Restoration Systems will present information to the
MBRT relating to the removal of 5.88 acres from the Bank, modifying the credit base
accordingly. This must also be reflected in the narrative and table format described in 1. above.
It is understood that negotiating the release of this portion of the Bank property from the
mechanisms established to preserve this area in perpetuity is a complex matter. I highly
recommend that you begin work on this immediately.

-2-
3. Protocol for final bank si tgof£ Restoration Systems proposes to cease monitoring on
the site and will submit the above information to the MBRT as soon as possible. The Corps in
turn will facilitate the expeditious review of the information. As discussed, it is recommended
that all necessary information be submitted as one package to the MBRT to facilitate the one-
time modification of the mitigation banking instrument.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact Mr.
Wescott at telephone [phone], extension 31.
Sincerel
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Chief, Washington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Eric Kulz
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mrs. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Mail Code: E-143-04
Durham, North Carolina 27711

-3 -
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Ms. Molly Ellwood
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Ms. Maria Tripp
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. George Howard
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

s
EcoScience Corporation
Raleigh, North Carolina 919-828-3433
F=Science
February 15, 2008
Mr. David Schiller
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Re: Investigation of the Bear Creek -Mill Branch Mitigation Bank 08-393
Lenoir County, NC
Dear Dave:
Restoration Systems (RS) has contracted EcoScience Corporation (ESC) to conduct a brief site
assessment of the Bear Creek — Mill Branch Mitigation Bank in Lenoir County, NC. This
mitigation bank has been properly established, and the proposed mitigation has been designed,
constructed, and monitored for five years. The purpose of our site visit was to make a
determination as to the presence and general amount of jurisdictional wetlands versus open water
within the approximately 88 -acre wetland restoration portion of the mitigation bank (hereafter
referred to as the "Site"). The Site contains wetlands located within the Bear Creek and Mill
Branch floodplains which appear to be subject to overbank flows from these streams during
normal conditions.
ESC personnel reviewed the detailed mitigation plan (September 1999), the mitigation banking
instrument (May 2002), and five years worth of annual monitoring reports (December 2002,
January 2004, January 2005, October 2005, and November 2006). Two members of EcoScience
(Sandy Smith and Michael. Gloden) then visited the Site on Tuesday, February 12, 2008. During
the visit, we walked much of the Site and made a best -professional judgment determination as to
the presence and amount of open water.
We found movement around the Site to be slow due to high water and dense thickets of brambles
associated with early successional communities; however, we did manage to cover much of the
Site on foot. We started from the middle northern boundary of the Site on Washington Street,
worked our way south and west to the Promiseland Road crossing of Mill Branch, then southeast
along the power line corridor to its crossing of Bear Creek, then north along Bear Creek to
approximately the middle of the eastern boundary, then west to the center of the Site, then north
along a filled former ditch back to our starting point on Washington Street.
Our determination as to the presence of wetlands and open waters was made based on our
experience as delineators of Section 404 jurisdictional areas. When conducting a Section 404
jurisdictional area delineation, we identify boundaries of wetlands and surface waters. Wetlands
are described by (33 CFR 328.3(b) [1986]) as:

s
EcoScience Corporation
Mr. David Schiller
February 15, 2008
Page 2
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include ssvamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Our primary source of guidance for conducting wetlands delineations is the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Our experience is that the
"vegetation" referred to in the above -referenced quote is considered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to be terrestrial and emergent vegetation, and not aquatic submerged or
floating vegetation.
The currently accepted method for the identification of Section 404 surface waters is with the use
of USAGE Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05 (entitled "Ordinary High Water Mark
Identification" and dated December 7, 2000. This Regulatory Guidance Letter provides
guidance for identifying the ordinary high water mark, which is considered to be the outward
boundary of Section 404 non -tidal seaters. Based on this guidance, important physical
characteristics considered when making the ordinary high water mark determination include
"destruction of terrestrial vegetation" and "change in plant community." Our recent experience
with Section 404 jurisdictional area delineations for the proposed Little River Reservoir (Wake
County) and US Highway 64 widening (Tyrrell and Dare counties) is that the USACE regulators
consider emergent vegetation to be indicative of wetlands and aquatic vegetation (whether
submersed, floating, or emersed) to be indicative of open water. Examples of emergent
vegetation include cat -tails (Typha sp.), wool -grass (Scirptis cyperinus), rushes (Ancus spp.),
sedges (Carex spp.), false nettle (Boehrner•ia cylindrica), and lizard's tail (S'aururus cernuus).
Examples of aquatic vegetation include pondweeds (Pohrinogeton spp.), hydrilla (Hydri"lla sp.),
watermilfoil (.r1;Iyriophyllion sp.), bladdersvorts (t;'tricularia spp.) duckweeds (family
Lamnaceae), and water -lilies (,Vt phar sp., AVymphaea sp.).
Our initial goal when visiting the Site was to determine if the Site contained open waters and, if
so, locate the boundary of wetland and open seater with the use of GPS technology (we made no
attempt to locate wetland/upland boundaries). This is how we began our Site investigation;
however, difficulties encountered in moving around the Site caused us to change our effort to
visiting all areas that looked to be questionable open waters from an aerial photo and hand
drawing wetland/open-water boundaries where apparently appropriate.
Since our field investigation occurred in mid-February, winter vegetation is what was available
for us to use when making our determination. Leaves were off deciduous trees, and emergent
herbaceous vegetation has been brittle and deteriorating for several months. The apparent break
between emergent vegetation and aquatic vegetation became the determining factor in our
location of the wetland/open-water boundary (see Photo 1). Dominant emergent vegetation was
rushes, cat -tails, and wool -grass. Dominant aquatic vegetation was water pennywort

EcoSeience Corporation
Mr. David Schiller
February 15, 2008
Page 3
(.Hyclrocolt:Ie r•anuncidoicler), bladderwort (Utriculczr•ur sp.), mosquito fern (.i olkt ccar oliniana),
and duckweed.
The result of the field effort is presented on the attached Figure 1. Please note that information
depicted on Figure 1 is an approximation and not the result of a detailed field delineation. We
identified five areas of open waters, and believe the boundaries (and therefore sizes) of these
waters may be determined to be different based on level of delineation effort and the season of
the effort. The largest area of open water is in the northwestern portion of the Site (see Photo 1).
The next largest area is in the southeastern coiner of the Site. Shallow portions of these open
waters support aquatic vegetation. and a couple of large, apparently floating mats of aquatic
vegetation were visible in the southern end of the "north pond" (see Photo 2). We were not
equipped to move into the middle of these open waters to determine depths. The open water area
located along the central eastern boundary appeared to contain an almost homogeneous coverage
of floating water pennywort (see Photo 3).
Photos 4 and 5 depict areas of interest within the Site. Photo 4 depicts the vicinity of
surface/groundwater gauge SF2. This area supports both emergent and aquatic vegetation. We
have called this area a wetland on Figure 1, however, if vegetation dominance/prevalence is
called into question, the eventual status of this area as wetland or open water may require a more
intensive investigation than we have recently conducted. Photo 5 depicts an area north of the
"south pond." Our investigation determined that this area is a wetland because saplings -rowing
along the periphery of this stretch of water are expected to provide woody coverage of the water
when mature — eventually resulting in a floodplain pool wetland type.
During our visit, we observed a beaver swimming within the Site and beaver sign throughout the
Site, including lodges and many dams of differing sizes and lengths. Also scattered throughout
Site marsh vegetation were many, mounds of vegetation that are likely muskrat houses.
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to assist you with this important project. Please
let us know if we can answer any questions concerning our findings.
Yours truly,
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
Alexander P. (Sandy) Smith
Senior Project Manager

EcoScience Corporation
Mr. David Schiller
February 15, 2008
Page 4
Photo 1. Wetland/open water boundary on the western side of the north pond.. facing south.
Emergent vegetation is primarily wool -grass (Stir pus cyperinus).
Photo 2. A mat of aquatic vegetation in the middle of the north pond, facing south (primarily
water pennywort [Hy-drocotyle ranunculoides]).

EcoScience Corporation
Mr. David Schiller
February 15, 2008
Page 5
Photo 3. Open water supporting crater pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides) in the central
eastern portion of the Site.
Photo 4. Vicinity of Well SF2, characterized by emergent rushes (Juncos spp.) and floating
aquatic vegetation (primarily water pennywort [Hl-drocolyle ranunculoides]).

:.
Cli—f-
Project:
Title:
Dwn By: Ckd By:
FIGURE
i
BEAR CREEK - MILL BRANCH
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK
WINTER
INVESTIGATION
nnc APS
w
1
Date: Scale:
FEB 2008 as shown
Lenoir County,
ESC Project No.:
�>Sz'Itt[ict
North Carolina
08-393