20070829 Ver 1_Complete File_19981130

~

4iA
NCDENR

JAMES B. HUNT JR.

GoVERNOR

WAYNE MCDEVI"TT
SECRETARY

J\v. .:,-.;
';-.','

A.PRESTON
JR., P'E';:".
DIRECTOR

vvr)~/ r/V'-
"trf-;C -\- - 8, Ajr-/
I~J - ~
20070829

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF WATER QUAL.ITY

Mr. Steve Lund
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801

NOV 3 0 1998

;"-.Ji
I

WETlANDS GftOUP
WATER QUAlffY SECTiGN

This letter provides comments regarding the Johns River Wetland and Stream
Mitigation Bank (September 8, 1997) and corresponding draft Mitigation
Bank Instrument (October 1998). Ron Ferrell and myself visited the site on
September 24th, based on what we saw and the current information reviewed
from Triangle Wetland Consultants, LLC, the Division of Water Quality feels
that both the Mitigation Plan and the rvtBI needs to address these major issues:

Dear Mr. Lund,

. A detailed Soil Survey to identify hydric soils,
. Recalculation of wetland restoration credits,
. Lack of information regarding stream restoration,
. Credit release schedule,
. Regulatory release in Exhibit C,
. A credit release schedule based on phased projects,
. Derivation of credits based on "marginal wetland fields",
. Geographic Service Area.

The site visit confirmed what the Mitigation Plan stated which was that a
majority of the' soils on site are not mapped as hydric soils. Of course, that is
not to say that some of these soils may develop hydric characteristics after
restoration work has been performed. However, DWQ feels that initially, a
detailed soil map at a 1 :600 scale be performed to aid in the 'calculation of .
restoration credits. For example, Table 1 in the Mitigation Plan offers
approximately 207 acres of restoration where we believe that restoration
acreage is more like 50 to 70 acres. A detailed soil map would likely generate
different hydric soil acres and thus restoration credits should be recalculated.

The planting of additional riparian vegetation does not constitute stream
restoration. Stream restoration at its most fundamental condition is the
restoration of a stream's natural and stab Ie, dimension, pattern, and profile.
With stream restoration comes intense data collection on both the reach and
corridor scale. A true stream restoration project examines present conditions
and offers a design channel or desired condition with associated hydrological
data and stream channel dimensions. In addition, stream restoration calls for
reach analysis both laterally and longitudinally.

P,O. Box 29535, RAL.EIGH, NORTH CAROL.INA 27626-0535
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL. OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPL.OYER - 50% RECYCL.EDlIO% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

~

DWQ feels that there is no information of this sort in either the Mitigation
Plan or the MBI. ,,,,\Th~refore, DWQrecommends no pre-release of stream
mitigation credit until such work has been completed.

DWQb~li~~:that the credit release schedule would have to be revisited
when thej~sJ:~r.'!-Jion acres have been adjusted. Related to this matter would
be the phased form of each of these projects. DWQ would like to endorse the
coni~nts ofth~ COE in your October 6th memo to Doug Frederick regarding
both the phasing of projects, the credit release schedule and the geographic
service are~FHowever, DWQ believes that the geographic service should be
limited to the river basin which contains the Johns River, the Catawba River.

It is DWQ's position that the definition of "marginal wetland fields" needs to
be elaborated on as well as the amount of credit given and the monitoring
which is required on these sites. Moreover, DWQ does not agree with many of
the tenets ofEh.hibiL C in the 1vIBl, namely, matters regarding regulatory
release of both wetland and stream restoration credits.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

3fri-

Mac Haupt
Implementati~n Coordinator
NCDENR-DWQ Wetland Restoration Program

Cc: John Dorney DWQ
Joe Mickey WRC
Doug Frederick TWC
Mark Cantrell USFWS
Forrest Westall DWQ-Asheville RO

,'.'.' . - .
. , - ,
~,"., ;.:'. >:'
JAMES B. HUNT JR_ '

;'

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY

September 9, 1999

Mr. Steve Lund
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Dear Mr. Lund:

This letter is regarding the Johns River Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank. The following
comments will address the MER T meeting of July 26, 1999, the Bank prospectus, and Bank
memo of July 29, 1999.
This proposed mitigation bank is located on floodplain land in Burke and Caldwell
Counties. The bank is being proposed by Crescent Resources, Inc. and The Triangle Group, LLC.
The objective of the Bank is to restore, enhance and preserve 2033+ acres of riparian corridor.
They have 52 acres of restorable wetlands (Bottomland Hardwoods) and 23 acres suitable for
created wetlands. They are asking for 273 credits due to the overabundance of preservation
acreage. They are also asking for 75,000 linear feet of stream restoration credit.

DWQ's rules are clear in asking for at least a 1: 1 ratio for mitigation. We see no
exceptional circumstance here that warrants using a different method to compute credits. In the
Johns River case, we contend that the Bank has maximum wetlands credits of75 (52 restoration +
23 creation). This also would tie up either 300 enhancement acres or 750 preservation acres. The
leftover acreage can be included in the credit makeup or be left for future endeavors in this
watershed.
DWQ does not see any restoration potential on Johns River proper, but there is potential
to work on the 12,500 feet of tributaries. The prospectus does not describe the current conditions
of the tributaries and does not go into any detail regarding the streams' impairment. Are the
streams stable or unstable? Are the banks eroding, is there aggradation or degradation occurring
in the stream channels? What are the actions to be taken to restore the streams? Would sinuosity
be restored to straightened streams? Pool-riffie sequences to be restored? Is fish habitat being
looked at in stream design? Also, how are stream restoration projects protected from impacts in
the watershed reaches above? There needs to be more information supplied in order for the
MER T to determine if the overall project is viable.

With regards to the wetlands restoration, we count eleven different fields where this
restoration is to occur. Does that mean they will put wells in each field showing wetland
hydroperiods as they are attained? Are there going to be any base data collected showing non-
wetland status for these fields?

There are no suggestions in the prospectus about reference sites, success criteria for
wetlands seems to be based on the standard Corps delineation definition. The restored wetlands
hydroperiod should follow the hydrologic pattern of the reference wetlands in the area. Also,
water levels should be measured daily, throughout the year in both project land and reference site.

Success Criteria for stream restoration is not stated; the prospectus refers to DWQ for
guidance in this area Without knowing whether or not the streams are impaired, this will be hard
to do.

Vegetation success should be based on yearly growth and not # of stems at end of 5
years. There should be yearly growth goals, not just a target height at year 5.

'P.O. Box 29535, RAL.EIGH, NORTH CAROL.INA 27626-0535
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL. OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPL.OYER - 50% RECYCL.ED/l0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

..

The Banker suggests a phased approach for this project, including phasing the easements.
DWQ does not support adding easements when the Banker seems assured there are sufficient
impacts for which additional credits are needed The beauty of putting this whole corridor in
easement is that it virtually negates much further development in the floodplains of this stretch of
Johns River. Therefore, we strongly suggest that the entire project be put into a conservation
easement before the MBI is signed

There needs to be a map showing where the restorable acreage is as well as non-buffered
streams so the MBRT can see and understand the connectivity of the proposed project.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Bank proposal. If there are any questions,
please contact me at 919-733-5316.

Sincerely,

e ek
NC Division of Water Quality

Cc: John Dorney, DWQ
Kathy Matthews, USEP A
Mark Cantrell, USFWSChris McGrath, NCWRC
Douglas Fredrick, Johns River, LLC.

.,

\

May 15, 2001

To: File
Dr. Doug Frederick, Greenvest, 1001 Capability Drive, Suite 312, Raleigh, NC 27606

From: Steven Kroeger

Subject: Site visit May 4, 2001 --Johns River Wetland and Stream Restoration Bank

A site visit to two potential wetland and stream restoration sites was conducted on May 4,
2001. Consultants from Green Vest (Dr. Doug Frederick, and Scott Frederick) and Newkirk
Environmental (Dr. Duncan Newkirk and Clement Riddle) were present. Todd St. John and
Steven Kroeger represented the NC Division of Water Quality and Steve Lund represented the
US Army Corps of Engineers.

The purpose of the visit was to determine how well two tracts of land were suited for
wetland restoration/creation and stream restoration. The two tracts totaled about 46 acres, and
approximately 35 acres of wetland restoration/creation was proposed. Approximately 2400 feet
of stream restoration was also proposed. Generally, the amount of restoration proposed was
equally distributed between the two sites.

Tract 1 is located on the Morganton North Quadrangle (Burke Co. NC) north of SR 1438
and between SR 1424 and the Johns River. Tract 2 is south of Tract 1 and south of SR 1438.

Approximately 8.4 acres of Tract 1 has been designated as Prior Converted cropland.
The stream on Tract 1 was ditchedlincised and it is unclear if perennial hydrology would be
maintained if the stream was returned its floodplain

.'

I

Hydric soils (Worsham series) were present for a portion of Tract 1.

Sources of water that could help support hydrophytic vegetation include what could be
contributed by a restored stream and drainage ditch on site. It was not clear whether these
sources were sufficient, although the Prior Converted cropland portion of the site strongly
indicates that hydrophytic vegetation was present at some point in the past.

The consultants proposed wetland creation in the area along a man made drainage feature. Soils
in this area did not reveal any characteristics of hydric soils.

<I'

, Ii

Hydric soils were not present in any substantial amount in Tract 2. Steve Lund and myself looked
throughout the site, and only found a few small and shallow lenses of soils that portrayed hydric
characteristics (low chromas, and redoximorphic features). Any attempt to establish a
jurisdictional wetland in this area would have to be considered as creation.

The stream present in Tract 2 had riffle and pools and an abundance of aquatic life. The riparian
areas were forested. Segments of the stream banks appeared unstable, but other areas
appeared stable. Steve Lund felt more damage would be done by restoring this stream than
accomplished through restoration of the unstable features.

.

,,~
.

.

Johns River Wetland and Stream Restoration Bank

Burke County, North Carolina

Land Owner
Crescent Resources

Site visit May 4,2001

Bank Sponsors:

Green Vest
1001 Capability Drive, Suite 312
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-831-1234

Newkirk Environmental
300 North Main Street, Suite 205
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-0091

slIaaJ:> pazuauuell:>
sall:)~!a apew-uew N

N

~atlon Servlca

SCS-CPA-026
(5-89)

1. Nama and Addr_ of Pe,.,on

....

2. Data of Request

HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND AND WETLAND
CONSERVATION DETERMINATION

5/28/q

4. Nam. of USDA Ag.ncy or P.rson Requesting Determination

S C S 2bCfO
SECTlON.I- HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND

3. County

StArke
T-9968

6. Is soli surv.y now available for making a highly arodlbl. land d.termlnatlon?

Yes

No

Field No.(s)

Total Acres

7. Ar. thar. highly erodlbla soli map units on this farm?

8. Lilt highly arodlbl. fields that, accordIng to ASCS records, w.... used to produce
an agricultural commodity In any crop year during 1981-1985.

10. This Highly Erodible Land determlnstlon was completed In the: Off;ce

NOTE: If you hllove highly erodible cropland fjelds, you may ne..d to havll a conservation plan de."810ped for these fie!<i.. For further informetion. contact the'
locel office of the Soli Conservation Service.

E"

9. List highly erodlbla fields that hava been or will be converted for the prOduction of
sgrlcultural commodities and, according to ASCS records, w:Jre not ul8d for this
purpose In any crop year during 1981.1985; and ware not ~nroll1ct in a lJSOA
s..t-~sld" or diversion ro rem.

SECTION II - WETLAND

1 t. Are the,. hydric .olls on this farm? Yel No Field No.(,) Total Wetlond Acres
V
Li.t Ileld numbers and acres, where appropriate, for the following : ........
.
12. Wetland. (W), includinll abandoned watlands, or Farmed Wetland. (FW). '.' .
Wetland. may be farmed under natural conditions. Farmed Wetlan:lI may
be farmed a.,d maintained in the .ame m~nner aJ th.y were prior To
December 23, 1985, as long as they e'e not ~bamll)n3d.
13. Prior Convllrted Watlands (PCI . Th6 us.., mena!lemant, drainage, .nd slteretion ne/d z
of prior converted wetlends (PC) are not subject tQ FSA unless the .r3a reverts T- CJ Cf ~"O
to wetland as a result of aba!'donment. You should inform SCS of any aros to
be used to prOduce an agricultural commodity th"t has not been cropped.
menaglld, or maintelned for5 yea.. or more.
14. Anificial Wetlands (AW) . Artificisl Wetlands includes irrigation induced wetlands.
These Wetlands are not subject to FSA.
15, Minimal Effect Wetlands (MWI . These wetlands are to be farmed according to lhe
minimal effect agreement signed at the time the rrainimal ef1ect rjetermination
was made.
-

JU

]

16. Converted Wetlands (CW) - In any year that an agricultural commodity is planted
on these Converted Wetlands, you will be ineligible for USDA benefits. I f you
believe that the conversion was commenced before December 23. 1985, or thet
the conversion was caused by a third party, contact the ASCS office to request a
commenced or third party determination.

17. The planned alteration measures on wetlands in fields are considered maintenance and are in compliance
with FSA.

18. The planned alteration measures on wetlands in fields __ are not considered to be maintenance and jf installed
will cause the area to become a Converted Wetland (CW). See item 16 for information on CW,

19. This wetland determination was completed in the: OffiC~';;;;-'rzr

20. This determination wes: Deliver~~;e~the Person on Dete: tP -10l. - 9 J

NOTE: If you do not agree with this d"t~rmination. you may request 3 reconsideration from the person that signed this form in Block 22 below, The
reconsideration is a prerequisite for any furthor apP3al. The request for the rac'lnsideration must be in writing and muU state your reasons for the request.
The requast rnust be mailed or delivered wilhin 15 days after this detorrnination is mailed to or otherwise rnade available to you. Plesje see reverse side of
the producer's copy of this form for more information on appeals procedure.

NOTE: .. If you intend to convert additional land to cropland or alter any wetlands, you must initiate anoth er Form A 0.1026 at the local off ice of ASCS.
Abandonment is where land has not been cropped, n"lonaged., or maintainod for 5 yaars or more. You ,hould inform SCS if you plan to prodl'ce an
agricultural commodity on abandoned wetlands.

21. Remarks

(see attached remarks)

123.

Date

i1ablo without rogard to race, religion, color, sex, age, handicap, etc.

.---

~________...u. .,

.. ~.i:~', ::~~)1'''~'::':~~~~~ ~'. .

.>';;"?;'J;'"\,!U.,,,,:~~,., . 'l" i#J. :.. ,.,~..~ }
~ ~Vy. ~ ~ :..)t.r ~:.~.:. :..~~,+-:( ~;{.~~r'-""
....; ~~to.' ' .'~'~:':'.~ "'~" ",.~ 'f-~' ~:.~.;;"....
j';..tf;(:, .1'~ ':,~ ...; . Jo\~' ~,.. "~J'j.~
.,.... i~:~;L' :'_~\" j "". 1:'....::;,'4<. i.:-'; '. '.

Remarks;

There are no highly erodible fields on these tracts that are currently being
farmed. No Conservation Plan is required.

There are no wetlands on these tracts that are currently being farmed.
Tract 9968 - Field 2 is P.C.
Ref. NFSAM 512.16 {a) (7)

The wetland determination was ma~e only for cropland fields as identified by
ASCS or for areas where soils have been mapped. If you plan to convert pasture,
woodland, or other non-cropland areas to cropland, you should first complete
Form AD-I026 at the ASCS office and request a wetland determination. Failure to
do so could result in loss of USDA program benefits.

~

HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATORS
FOR
NONSANDY SOILS
(Soils having permeability ((6 IN/HR in upper 50 cm.)

COUNTY Bu.rk~
HAP OR FIELD SHEET NUMBER 55 C-2.
SOIL SERIES OR HIGHER CATEGORY Worsha"'l

DATE 0- '1-9/
HAP SYMBOL ?loA
SIR NO. VA0009

A--
WATER TABLE DEPTH .4 20 II

ESTIMATED SEASONAL WATER TABLE

MICROLANDFORM: f70l>cf ,;:;Ia.,-"

HYDRIC CRITERIA:

VEGETATION:

-< 10 I'

\ \

^ r.I:'
. {I I - .
.)' ., " -.~.
I..i) , _,-,,_. ,-I / "'~I "'
.. I i

. rk-;l~ ~;;r

:.: ~>2.c-;;r".\)
t:' ./
e:tt j'
.~ P /
v U/ -.r?_ ~ _,~",

1. Umbric Epipedon if nearly level or depressional landscape.

2. Presence of 1 cm. or more of peat or muck in the upper 2 to 5 cm. of
the soil if a root mat or leaf mat is present. Only a presence of
peat or muck is required if a root or leaf mat is absent.

3. Presence of sulfidic materials (rotten egg odor) in the upper 2S cm. 0
the soil.
4. Chroma of 2 or less with values of 6 or more within 25 cm. of the
surface.
~ 5. Chroma of 1 or less with values of 5 or more within 2S cm. of the
surface.
6. Chroma of 2 or 1 ess with values of 4 or more within 25 cm. of the
surface and

a. presence of 2 percent (by volume) or more ferro-manganese
concretions and/or

b. presence of common or many, distinct or prominent, 10YR or 7.5YR
chroma 6 or more mottles.

7. Presence of oxidized Rhizopheres along living roots in upper 25 cm.

8.

Presence of a polychromatic matrix within the upper
polychromatic matrix ;s defined as follows: A soil
two or more colors arranged in a splotchy pattern.
and chroma is 1, and/or 2, and 3.

Wert's/..::."'? is ;J<7Orf>. d-ro.:..-/ a..c1 j,~s 4 J~/ $ ",/'so, '/.

25 cm. of soil. A
matrix dominated b
Value is S or more

Description:

L~

. . 0; c;entist