20081295 Ver 1_More Info Received_20081117

Wry fl8- 12L95
November 14, 2008
Regulatory Division
AID: 2008-2384
f WW2 p
NOV 1 7 2008
Mr. Randy Turner
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Turner:
DENR - VWER QUAD Y
WETLAYDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
This correspondence is in reference to the proposed compensatory mitigation bank known
as Farmer Creek, located on Bartlett Farmer Road, near Newland, Avery County, North Carolina.
This correspondence also refers to comments received in response to the on-site Interagency
Review Team (IRT) meeting held on October 10, 2008.
After review of the public notice, project prospectus, and/or our on-site meeting, the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, the
Environmental Protection Agency and one concerned citizen provided comments which are
attached for your review. It is Department of the Army policy to provide a project proponent the
opportunity to furnish a proposed resolution or rebuttal to all comments and/or objections from
the public and government agencies before a final decision is made. In this regard, I would
appreciate receiving any comments that you have on this matter.
Also, pursuant to 33 CFR Part 332.8 (d)(5), Initial Evaluation, I have determined that your
proposed mitigation bank has potential for providing appropriate compensatory mitigation for
activities authorized by Department of the Army permits provided some critical issues are
addressed. The proposed bank is currently comprised of stream channels with active trout
management ponds located on and off-line throughout various stream reaches. In the initial plan
submitted, these areas were excluded from the proposal which has created discontinuous reaches
of proposed preserved/restored stream channels. As discussed during our on-site meeting, the
removal of these ponds and inclusion of these reaches into the bank along with removal of other
existing aquatic barriers are crucial to the initial approval of this bank. We understand that you
are currently working with the property owner to resolve these issues that were raised.
Accordingly, you may proceed with preparation of the draft mitigation banking instrument (NMI)
as directed by 33 CFR Part 332.8 (d)(6), Draft Instrument provided these connectivity issues are
resolved to the IRT's satisfaction.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. 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 our website at
http://re ulatory.usacesurvey.coin/. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Asheville
Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 231.
Sincerely,
FILENAME: Farmer Initial Eval Ltr.doc/nw
CESAW-RG-A/Jones/s
'4 MAIL
CESAW-RG-A/file
nda Jones
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies Furnished w/enclosures:
Ms. Kathy Matthews
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Regulatory Section
Mail Code: E143-04
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Ms. Becky Fox
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1307 Firefly Road
Whittier, North Carolina 28789
Mr. Bryan Tompkins
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services - Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. Ron Linville
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1721
Mr. Eric Kulz
Division of Water Quality - 401 Oversight & Express Permitting
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Mail Service Center 1650
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
BCF: CESAW-RG/Jolly
CESAW-RG-McLendon
CESAW-RG-McCorcle
OW A T ?9pG
c
o ?
Ms. Amanda Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
September 5, 2008
Re: Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank
Avery County
Mitigation Bank Prospectus Comments
Dear. Ms. Jones:

We have reviewed the Prospectus for the above-referenced site. Based on the information presented in
the Prospectus, we have a number of questions/comments regarding the project as proposed. Our
comments are as follows:
• DWQ is concerned about the gaps between the restoration reaches on this project. DWQ feels
that one of the positive attributes of mitigation banks is that they generally result in the
restoration or enhancement of long reaches of streams. In many cases, larger projects have the
potential to provide higher ecological uplift than a series of smaller separate projects.
The gaps between the various restoration reaches may hinder the development of the stream
system at the site. Activities occurring in the gaps that are not under the control of the Sponsor
may negatively affect the restoration reaches.
• The stream monitoring should include installation of staff/crest gauges to document bankfull
events. Success criteria should include the occurrence off two bankfull events (in non-
consecutive years) over the proposed five-year monitoring period. This is referenced in the
credit release section of the Mitigation Plan (Section 6.2) but is not discussed in the sections on
monitoring or success criteria.
• The target hydrological success criterion proposed for the project is inundation or saturation for
12.5% of the growing season (consecutive days). Recent research conducted by DWQ has
shown that natural riparian wetlands are inundated or saturated for significant periods during the
year. DWQ feels that 12.5% should be the minimum acceptable hydrology target for riparian
wetlands, unless the reference wetland for the site shows drier conditions during an atypical year.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
N ehCarolina
Noaturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycledl10% Post Consumer Paper
,Ms. Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Bass Mountain Mitigation Bank - Prospectus Comments
Page 2 of 2
• DWQ does not agree with the proposed practice of performing a jurisdictional determination to
document success if wetland parameters are marginal based on monitoring. Compensatory
mitigation is intended to replace the lost functions and values of a particular type of wetland. The
monitoring data should reflect a trend toward the target wetland type in order to be considered
successful and generate mitigation credits.
Please note that DWQ reserves the right to provide additional comments based on the site visit and
review of more detailed design plans.
Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz or Tammy Hill at [phone] if you have any questions
regarding this project.
S' cerely, , L?
Cyndi B. Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Central Files
Roger Edwards - ARO
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: htttp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
One
?atura!!y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
o?0? w a r?9Q?
o -?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
October 17, 2008
Ms. Amanda Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Re: Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank
Avery County
Site Visit Comments
Dear. Ms. Jones:

Based on the site visit conducted on October 10, 2008, DWQ feels that the site has good potential as a
mitigation site, provided that the gaps associated with the trout ponds can be eliminated within Reaches
2 and 4. Maintenance of base flow in the relic stream channels, allowing for aquatic life passage, and
continuous forested riparian zones are necessary, in our opinion, for this project to be viable as a bank
providing compensatory mitigation credits. DWQ acknowledges that the stream between reaches 1 and
3 is not viable for inclusion into the bank due to the presence of the road and existing structures, and the
reach between Reaches 1 and 2 is not viable due to the proximity to the residence on the site.
Restoration Systems should further evaluate some of the areas indicated as preservation, as there
appeared to be opportunities for improvement of the riparian buffer and realization of more stream credit
(Enhancement 2 vs Preservation).
We hope the issue with the gaps can be addressed as was discussed in the field, and we look forward to
receiving updated plans reflecting these modifications.
Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this letter or
the project.
Sincerely,
CZ?
cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Central Files
Roger Edwards - ARO
Cyndi B. Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
NorthCarolina
,Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Jones, Amanda D SAW
From: Kevin Barnett [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 3:20 PM
To: Jones, Amanda D SAW; Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Cc: Eric Kulz
Subject: Re: Comments for Farmer and Ratcliffe Mitigation Banks
Attachments: Kevin Barnett.vcf
Kevin_Barnettmcf
(818 B)
Hi Amanda and Lori:
Asheville Regional Office of the Division of Water Quality has the following concerns with
these projects:
* Farmer
o dis-contiguous stream segments.
+ Ecological uplift? Can this be achieved?
o in-stream impediments to aquatic life should be removed and
intakes reconstructed
* Ratcliff
o riparian wetlands.
+ no hydric soils in these areas. creation? will not
meet success criteria in timely manner
# if approved, no up front credits should be given
for the proposed wetland creation
o cattle crossing
+ should be USDA / NRCS design structure, not wide pipe
crossing as crossing is for cattle, not future
development.
+ If piping must be part of project, separate
authorization should be required, no credit for 25
feet up and down stream from crossing for bank.
+ Reference channel impacted. /possible /reference
condition immediately upstream from project on main
stem where cattle fenced out of creek and woody buffer
in place.
Thanks for the opportunity,
Kevin
Jones, Amanda D SAW wrote:
> If you guys have any written comments for these sites, please forward
> them to me (for the Farmer Site) or to Lori (for the Ratcliffe site)
> by the end of this week, thanks!
> /Amanda Jones/
> /Regulatory Project Manager/
> /US Army Corps of Engineers/
> /Asheville Regulatory Field Office/
> /151 Patton Avenue, Room 208/
> /Asheville, NC 28801-5006/
> /office: (828)-271-7980 x.231/
> /fax: [phone]/
> /web: //http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands//
> /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 our
1
Jones, Amanda D SAW
From. [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:03 PM
To: Jones, Amanda D SAW
Subject: Farmer Creek MB comments
Amanda,
We believe the proposed Farmer Creek mitigation bank site has potential as a mitigation
bank if several issues are addressed. Below are my comments/recommendations for the
proposed Farmer Creek MB, Avery Co:
1. The current proposal is fragmented with stream sections left out for various reasons.
Proposed reaches for the bank are interrupted by trout ponds, perched culverts, inadequate
buffers, etc. For EPA to support the proposed bank, these issues would need to be
addressed to the maximum degree practicable. We do not see a significant value for
mitigation purposes in restoring numerous relatively short stretches of streams to have
them be interrupted by a trout pond or a perched culvert. We understand there are buffer
constraints in some areas and we recommend these areas also be restored, where
practicable, with the largest buffer that can be provided. The crediting may need to be
adjusted accordingly.
2. We would not support credit generation for stream reaches containing online settling
basins. This issue needs to be addressed in the revised mitigation plan.
3. The bank proposes 1310 linear feet of preservation. As specified in the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines, to receive preservation credit, the stream and buffer area should
relatively undisturbed and require little or no enhancement activities. If the proposed
preservation area needs improvement, such as buffer plantings or control of exotic
vegetation, this should be done and the reach would then potentially be eligible for
enhancement level II credit. The preservation area should also be shown to contribute to
the ecological sustainability of the watershed.
4. The discussion in the Prospectus of service area references the Wilmington District
"mitigation framework" PN of 6-3-08 and quotes the ability of the COE to allow the use of
bank credits for impacts outside the 8 digit cataloging unit (CU), on a case-by-case
basis. We recommend the adjacent CU guidance be consulted in the permit evaluation
process if this issue arises with the use of this or any other bank.
5. Item 18 in prospectus contains mention of the use of enhancement level II credits but
does not mention enhancement level I credits. It is our understanding from the previous
credit discussion for this bank that enhancement level I is proposed and not enhancement
level II. This discussion should be revised to reflect this information.
We will be happy to review any revised plans, if the banker decides to proceed with the
development of the Farmer Creek bank. Please let me know if you would like to further
discuss the bank or the above comments.
Becky Fox
Wetland Regulatory Section
USEPA
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
1
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amanda Jones, USACOE
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 21, 2008
SUBJECT: Farmer Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank, Unnamed Tributaries Squirrel
Creek, Avery County
Restoration Systems, LLC proposes. to establish a stream and wetland mitigation bank in a headwater area
of the French Broad River basin. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission are
familiar with habitat values in the area. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; NCAC 25).
The currently proposed mitigation bank will encompass about 6.7 acres of land and about 3360 linear feet
of stream as well as 0.13 acres of wetlands on unnamed tributaries of Squirrel Creek. The mitigation
proposed includes removal of non-point sources, sedimentation reduction, reestablishing stream stability
and natural channel form, improving floodwater attenuation, and improving aquatic/riparian habitat
values while improving trout habitat and holding structures. Wild brown trout are known for these
streams and downstream. Squirrel Creek is Hatchery Supported - Designated Public Mountain Trout
Waters.
A site visit was conducted by this office on October 10, 2008. During the site visit, it was determined that
some culverts preclude aquatic life passage unnecessarily and that some sediment removal apparatuses
are located in channel to provide clean trout pond water. These settling basins are cleaned out as needed
and the removed soils are used for plant propagation. Several segments of proposed stream mitigation
reaches are fragmented and forested buffers are minimal or grassed in some areas, especially near culverts
and maintained landscapes.
Generally, the property had been well-maintained and handled with light-handed land stewardship. The
headwaters are proposed to be protected to maintain water quality functions through adherence of a
prescribed forestry stewardship plan. The property owner should be commended for the care provided to
these mountain lands.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Farmer Mitigation Bank -Page 2 - October 21, 2008
Based on our review of the submittal and our site visit, we could support the mitigation bank providing
the following recommendations are implemented:
1. In stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone should be prohibited
during the brown and brook trout spawning season of October 15 through April 15 to protect
the egg and fry stages of trout from off-site sedimentation during construction.
2. Stream connectivity should be improved by adding stream sections left out of the current
proposal to provide improved buffers as well as more contiguous buffers. Well installed
culvert or bridge sites should be protected with conservation easements or similar legal
covenants to ensure mitigation project continuity.
Aquatic life and fish passage should be improved by removing and replacing perched culverts
using state-of-the-art culvert burial practices or the installation of bridges. This should
increase the amount of stream and wetland restoration opportunities as well as improve
aquatic movement towards headwaters. To the maximum extent practicable, culverts 48" or
larger should be buried a foot into the streambed. Culverts less than 48 inches in diameter
should be buried to a depth equal to or greater than 20% their size to allow for aquatic life
passage. These measurements must be based on natural thalweg depths. Aquatic life passage
must be assured during low flow or drought conditions. Any riprap used must not interfere
with aquatic life movement during low flows.
4. Previously culverted and diverted streams should be restored to original channel or natural
channel designed stream segments to increase stream length and to reconnect fragmented
habitats. Use of state-of-the-art in channel weirs and vanes should provide typical mountain
stream pool-riffle complexes to replace plunge pools caused by existing perched pipes.
5. Diversions of stream water for trout propagation should be accomplished using state-of-the-
art natural channel designs and facilities that may include settling basins prior to water
entering trout ponds.
6. The owner and applicants should be informed that as of July 1, 2005, anyone interested in
stocking fish, mollusks or crustaceans must obtain a stocking permit issued by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission pursuant to 15A NCAC I OC .0209. The purpose of this new
regulation is to protect native or legally established aquatic species from the potentially
damaging effects of unauthorized stockings [APPENDIX 2.- 15A NCAC 10C .0209
Transportation of Live Fish as amended effective June 1, 2005].
7. Any stream impoundments should be removed to avoid aquatic life passage impediments.
Off-line ponds are acceptable providing water diversions are designed so that base flows are
not severely diminished. Diversions should be designed and built so that the 7Q10 is
automatically maintained in jurisdictional waters.
8. Only autochthonous (native) riparian and wetland plants should be used for stream, wetland
and buffer improvements.
9. Remaining jurisdictional waters and wetlands should be buffered through protection or
provision of undisturbed forested buffer zones. Buffers should be permanently preserved as
common contiguous forest areas instead of being subdivided or fragmented. For streams that
do not support federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species, we recommend 50'
Farmer Mitigation Bank -Page 3 - October 21, 2008
intermittent and 100' perennial stream buffers. Irregardless, maximum available buffers
should be provided; however, the twenty-five (25) foot trout buffer should be provided as the
minimum undisturbed forested areas to the maximum extent practicable. Buffer averaging is
acceptable providing watershed functionality is not significantly diminished. Judicious
buffer/tree maintenance/removal is acceptable providing the buffer remains functional and
erosion is minimized. A smaller herbaceous/shrub buffer providing root mass and shade is
recommended for both streams near the existing homestead. Some mitigation credits should
be provided for this small buffer if it is provided.
10. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained
until project completion. If appropriate for the watershed, sediment and erosion control
measures should adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds (15A NCAC 4B
.0024).
11. If any concrete will be used, work should be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water.
12. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel in order
to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the
stream.
13. Petroleum spill containment equipment/materials should be readily available on the site
during stream and wetland restoration activities.
14. Temporary or permanent native herbaceous vegetation should be established on all bare soil
within five (5) days of ground disturbing activities in the twenty-five (25) foot trout buffer to
provide long-term erosion control. Natural fiber matting is recommended over plastic matting
that can impinge and entrap small animals. Onsite vegetation and materials may be used for
stream bank stabilization when practicable.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project during the early planning stages. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336-769-9453.
E-copy: Kevin Barnett, DWQ-ARO
Becky Fox, USEPA
August 27, 2008
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Attn: Amanda Jones
Re: Corps Action ID# SAW-2008-2384
Dear Ms. Jones:
I have two questions I would like answered:
AUG 2 9 2C-
ok,
(1) Will this "Farmer Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank" affect present or
future DOT work?
(2) How will the culverts from my property be effected by this work?
Your prompt response to these questions would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, 4
Eug a Jo son
177 Bartlett Farmer Road
Newland, NC 28657
[phone]