20141149 Ver 1_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20161209

Homewood, Sue
From:Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, December 09, 2016 4:16 PM
To:Grant Lewis; Adam Riggsbee; Worth Creech
Cc:Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US);
Kathryn Matthews; Todd Bowers; Higgins, Karen; Homewood, Sue; Baker, Virginia; Haupt, Mac;
Munzer, Olivia; Huggett, Doug; Ken Riley - NOAA Federal
Subject:Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Bank (Octabank) 2nd Draft comments; SAW-2014-00657
Attachments:2014-00657 Octobank Draft UMBI and Plans - Compiled Comments 2.docx
Adam, Worth, and Grant,

Please see the attached compiled USACE and NCDWR comments on the 2nd Draft UMBI, for the above referenced project for
your review and response. Note that no additional concerns were raised by other IRT members. As before, if you prefer a formal
letter I would be happy to provide it at your request.

Upon receipt of your response to these comments, the IRT will work with you to address any unresolved issues concerning the
2nd Draft UMBI and Plans. Although we anticipate that the majority of the comments can be addressed via phone calls or email,
the Corps will arrange a meeting to be attended by IRT members and the sponsor - if necessary or preferred by the Sponsor - in
the interest of meeting the decisionmaking timeframes specified in 33 CFR 332.8(d).
‐

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

-Dave Bailey

---
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do
so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.

1

nd
SAW-2014-00657 UMBI and Mitigation Plan 2 Draft Comments

Draft UMBI:

1)Pg. 10, make the following replacements:

a.NCWRC contact: Shari Bryant with Olivia Munzer, Western Piedmont Habitat
Conservation Coordinator; her contact info is:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Sykes Depot, 2430 Turner Rd.
Mebane, NC 27302
Office: 336.290.0056 / Cell: 336.269.0074
[e-mail]

b.NMFS empty contact with Ken Riley

c.NCDCM empty contact with Doug Huggett

2)Geographic Service Area Map (Appendix A, not included in 2nd Draft): need to ensure
that the name of map says “Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank” rather than “Upper
Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank”, to be consistent with UMBI text

All Mitigation Plans:

1)Figures 1-5 all have the title as “Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank”, and
should be changed to “Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank” to be consistent with
UMBI text;

2)As previously noted in NCDWR's comments on May 12, 2016, throughout the mitigation
plans some channels have been identified as perennial streams, however there is no
evidence or documentation that either the USACE or DWR have classified the channels
as such.

3)Tables 15 and 16: Years 4 and 6 should state “Visual Assessment” to be consistent with
Table 21;

4)Section 11.1: The statement, “The Sponsor, through its assigns, may exercise discretion
in determining the placement and frequency of cross-sections, which shall be determined
by best professional judgment” is a concern in terms of future interpretation. This
statement is not necessary as the previous sentence allows for flexibility in cross-section
placement.

5)Section 11.1.1: “Stream success will be based on evaluations of functional uplift
identified on NCSAM calculations.” This statement is potentially confusing, in that it
seems like you’re comparing initial NCSAM calculations with ones completed after
restoration/enhancement; this not the intended use of NCSAM. If instead you are just
referring to NCSAM being used to initially evaluate the channels, then please restate.

6)Section 11.2.1: Portions of this section are potentially confusing. Just to be clear,
indictors of growing season such as bud burst and/or soil temperature can begin to be
stst
used on March 1 of any year. As such, March 1 is the earliest possible date for the
growing season to start for our purposes. The growing season will not be considered to
st
have started on March 1 of any year if the soil temperature or bud burst criteria have not
occurred as of that date.

7)Section 12.4: Note that fencing is purposed to exclude livestock. As such, sentence # 2 of
this section should be changed to: “Boundaries may be identified by marker, bollard, or
post.”

8)Sections 13 (Long Term Management Plan), 14 (Adaptive Management Plan) and 15
(Financial Assurance). Your various legal documents have been sent to Corps Office of
Counsel for legal review (the UMBI, CE documents for all 4 sites, Performance Bonds
for all 4 sites, Letter confirming the obligee \[NC Wildlife Habitat Association,
NCWHF\]). In the meantime, please see the following questions:

a.Section 13 (Long Term Management Plan): “General Stewardship Fund” is
referenced, how it is not clear what this is, how it is funded, or how much it
allows for. Further, what are the frequency of site inspections, staff, and
justification for the numbers. Based on our experience, $150 is a very low sum to
pay for a boundary inspection and enforcement on these sites, particularly since
many are adjacent to cattle farms. Also, why does the initial $5000 (in our
experience a very low estimate) not begin until 2023? Does this mean it won’t be
funded until the project is done? We believe that more information is needed
here.

b.Further, NCWHF will serve as conservation easement holder and long-term
manager. Based on information from recent mitigation bank submittals (other
sponsors), the NCWHF employs a contractor to conduct annual inspections at a
cost of $325 per inspection. This does not include additional fees associated with
litigation. Just based on an annual cost of $325 (for the site visit alone) at a
capitalization rate of 4%, the endowment would be at least $ 8,125. The average
amount of past "endowments" to the NCWHF have averaged $16,000 and the
endowment was paid to NCWHF prior to the initial credit release, allowing 5-7
years of interest to accrue. Endowments should be paid in full at least one year
prior to closeout in order to avoid having to draw on the principal.

c.Due to remaining concerns with Long Term Management, please coordinate with
either Todd Tugwell or Andrea Hughes of the Corps Wilmington District
mitigation team for resolution.

d.Section 15.1 (Financial Assurance): The mitigation plan should state the form of
financial assurance(s) that will be provided. In your response you stated this
would be changed to performance bond, however, several of the mitigation plans
still state “either a performance bond…or a casualty insurance policy…”
1

e.Footnote : Conservation easements should all clearly state that cattle exclusion
fencing is the responsibility of the landowner.

Rocky Top MB:
Table 15: there are minor table shading issues to correct.
1)

Table 17: planting occurring in April 2017? This should occur between November 15 and
2)

March 15. This is inconsistent with the dates stated on P. 31;
Section 10.7: please insert language regarding saving high value trees already within the
3)

easement;
Section 11.2: we strongly suggest that groundwater monitoring occur throughout the
4)

year, rather than only during the growing season.

Orphan Creek MB:

1)P. 1: Introduction states that overall, wetland mitigation will result in a loss of 0.02 acre
of jurisdictional wetland due to a stream crossing at the upper reach of UT2. The noted
crossing (and impact) is outside the project boundaries. However, it appears that wetland
impacts will occur as a result of restoration activities on UT 1a and UT 2. The plan
should provide information on these impacts and explain how the loss/conversion of
these wetlands will be replaced on-site.

2)Table 9: This table is inconsistent with stream labels and Field Classifications
(intermittent/perennial) with those shown on Section 6.1.4 and Figure 5;

3)Section 10.7: please insert language regarding saving high value trees already within the
easement;

4)Section 11.1

a.Monitoring should include data for bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio.

b.The stream flow gage on UT 1B should be installed in the upper portion of the
reach (typo from previous version). Also, a stream gage should be installed on all
intermittent tributaries proposed for restoration (UT 2 is notated as intermittent
and proposed for restoration);

c.Bankfull events should be documented by crest gage or automated trail cameras.
The plan states in conjunction with indicators but we agreed at the meeting that it
should be crest gage or automated cameras, with indicators in addition.

Benton Branch MB:

1)Section 10: More information is needed on the 1.7 ac. of “Potential Wetland Restoration”
in areas of old ponds.

a.We suggest that you add a section in 10.6 to address the ponds to be drained, how
they are different from their other wetland restoration activities proposed, how
will accumulated sediment in the pond bottoms be addressed, and how credits will
be determined (i.e. JD).

b.How will UT2 connect to the upslope pond? As included in our previous list of
comments, “how will proposed areas of pond removal/wetland restoration interact
with the downstream stream and wetland restoration/enhancement areas?

c.Also, one of the ponds also includes construction of a stream channel, through the
bed, which was not addressed previously.

2)Section 11.1.1: change “(Specifically UT 1)” to “(Specifically UT 1 and UT 2)”;

3)Section 11.2: we strongly suggest that groundwater monitoring occur throughout the
year, rather than only during the growing season.

4)Figure 6B: minor formatting issue - the potential wetland restoration area around the
lower pond on UT 2 should have an outline around the hatching.

5)Figure 10A:As previously noted in NCDWR’s comments on May 12, 2016, surface

water gauges should be installed in the upper reach of UT2 at the Benton Branch site

Motes Creek MB:

1)P. 7: it appears as though the “150” should be “152”. Please confirm that all stream
lengths are consistent on P. I, 1, 2, and 7, as well as Tables 13 and 14;

2)Table 15: minor formatting issues in the Year 7 monitoring section \[3)-5) instead of 1)-
3)\]; also need to add “(4) Proof of establishment…”;

3)Section 10.8: please insert language regarding saving high value trees already within the
easement;

4)Section 11.2: we strongly suggest that groundwater monitoring occur throughout the
year, rather than only during the growing season.

5)Section 11.3: minor formatting issue with last paragraph of Section 11.3 (Bold and
Underlined) and top of Section 11.3.1.