20070813 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20070917

a.-rF o~- ~8~ 3
~lniteci States Department o>~' the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 13, 2007
Ms. Brad Shaver
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
~~~~oe~~
SEP 1 7 2007
DENR -WATER QUALITY
1NETL~WD3 a1~D STOR4ttwAT6R BRANCH
Subject: Action ID No. 2007-1676-031, David Fussell, Rose Hill, Duplin County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Shaver:
This letter provides U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) comments on the subject Public Notice
(PN), dated July 27, 2007. The applicant, David Fussell, has applied for a Department of the Army
(DA) permit to impact waters of the United States in association with the impoundment of a
perennial stream (Indian Branch), flooding of the adjacent riparian area, and excavation of a portion
of the flooded area. These comments are submitted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). Comments related to
the FWCA are to be used in your determination of compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR
230) and in your public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the protection of fish and
wildlife resources. Additional comments are provided regarding the District Engineer's
determination of project impacts pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Project Area
The project area is agricultural land located in the Lower Coastal Plain that is characterized as the
Carolina Flatwood section of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecoregion. The area is east of the Town
of Rose Hill and bordered by Charity Road on the north and Interstate 40 (I-40) on the east. Indian
Branch is a second order, perennial stream that flow east through the project area, passes under I-40
in a culvert before flowing into Island Creek which is a tributary to the Northeast Cape Fear River.
The project area around the stream includes four family farms. Three of these farms have a total of
70 acres. The land of the applicant, Duplin Winery, consists often acres with one acre of fruit trees
and two acres of Muscadine grapes.
Indian Branch was dammed in the late 1800s to form Bradshaw Millpond. A 30-foot breach was
made in the dam in 1913 during a malaria outbreak. The remains of the structure are 20 feet wide
with a 110-foot section on the north side and a 200-foot section on the south side. Beavers (Castor
canadensis) blocked the breach and constructed lodges near the breach, but beaver dams were
removed by the applicant within the last year and a half. The PN does not provide the area of the
watershed above the location of the old dam or the discharge rate (cubic feet per second) through the
breach.

u ~
The riparian area upstream from the remnant dam is typical of former beaver ponds. The riparian
area ranges from 150 to 200 feet wide along the stream. The area has been cleared to prevent the
reestablishment of beaver colonies. The PN states that prior to flooding the riparian area would have
been a bottomland hardwood forest characterized as seasonally inundated with a closed tree canopy
and well developed shrub and vine layer. The PN also states that bottomland hardwood systems are
valuable for water storage, stabilization, and the removal of pollutants. There are 14 acres of
wetlands within the project area.
The applicant's property contains three borrow ponds which supplied material for construction of the
interchange at I-40 during the late 1980s. The bottoms of these ponds are dense clay and are located
higher than the adjoining wetlands and shallow groundwater table. The area of these ponds is
approximately eight acres.
Need and Purpose
The purpose of the proposed impoundment appears to be related to an "educational center" that the
applicant wants to development on uplands immediately southwest of the interchange of I-40 and
Charity Road and north of Indian Creek. The Supplemental Information states that local residents
and tourists would be able to learn more about agriculture in southeastern North Carolina. The
center would have experimental orchards, vineyards, row crops, and aquaculture ponds. The center
would show "different types of farming," including organic farming, and provide local farmers with
information on the effectiveness of "different growing regimes." The applicant proposes to use the
three existing borrow ponds for aquaculture, specifically the production of freshwater prawns
(shrimp-like crustaceans). The Supplemental Information notes that the project involves laying out
"experimental crop plots" during construction. The center would have a waking trail with
educational signage. The trail would run through the center, pass through the proposed wetland
buffer of the impoundment on an elevated walkway, and terminate at an observation deck in the
impoundment.
The PN states that the impoundment is needed to provide an adequate water supply to support
irrigation needs of the surrounding farms. The PN also notes that correspondence to the Corps has
indicated that the impoundment is needed to support educational and religious programs as well as a
training facility for canoeing and kayaking.
The Supplemental Information notes that the applicant "suggests" that the basic purpose of the
project is to provide a water supply for the adjoining properties. However, neither the PN nor the
Supplemental Information mentions any specific, long-term problems with existing agriculture in the
area. Table 2 in the Supplemental Information indicates that the crops grown on the 70 acres to be
supported by the impoundment require over 396,000 gallons of water per day. Muscadine grapes
require 12 gallons of water per vine three times a week. The two acres to be planted with these
grapes would require 3,600 gallons of water per week.
Alternatives Considered
Based on a need to supply approximately 2.7 million gallons of water per week for the grapes,
vegetables, and "experimental crop plots," the Supplemental Information considers alternatives to the
proposed impoundment. These alternatives include: (1) pumping water directly from Indian Branch

to the crops; (2) using the existing borrow pits as water holding ponds; (3) constructing new water
holding ponds in upland areas; (4) constructing new wells to tap the Black Creek Aquifer; (5) using
recirculated water; (6) creating a smaller in-stream reservoir and a series of high ground storage
ponds; and, (7) creating an impoundment at a different location.
The discussion in the Supplemental Information leads to the rejection of each alternative. The
rejection generally centers on the inability to supply the desired amount of water, the lost of cropland
necessary to create upland water storage areas, or the impracticality of bringing water from other
locations. Two particular points raised in the consideration of alternatives deserve discussion.
First, the rejection of the alternative for installing more wells in the Black Creek Aquifer notes that
the aquifer has been declared endangered by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources due to
its slow recharge rate and high utilization rate. Farmers in the project area are drawing water from
the aquifer, but understand the need to "stop" drawing from this resource. The installation of
additional wells in the aquifer for irrigation "would not be a responsible use of this imperiled
resource." The proposed impoundment is considered as a benefit to the aquifer if farmer around the
impoundment could close their wells.
Second, the use of water held in the three, existing borrow areas for irrigation was rejected because
the applicant proposes to use these ponds for aquaculture, specifically the production of freshwater
prawns. These three ponds are "filled almost exclusively by precipitation," and "very little if any
groundwater enters the ponds through the dense clay confining layer."
Proposed Activities
The applicant proposes construct a new dam at the site of the old dam and excavate an area within
the riparian floodplain for the impoundment. After the stream is diverted and a coffer dam is built,
the new dam would be constructed. The dam would be 12 feet high, two feet taller than the existing
dam. The structure would be 310 feet long with a base width of 105 feet. The dam would have a
spillway with a flash board riser and gate valve system to ensure downstream flow and control
releases during periods of heavy rain. There is no discussion of a specific minimum discharge rate.
The bottom of the impoundment would be excavated to create a uniform base at an elevation of 54.5
feet, six inches to 4.5 feet below the existing grade. The water level in the impoundment would be at
an elevation of 60 feet, producing an average depth of 5.5 feet. Sheet 1 with the PN states that "total
area of water," presumably the impounded area, would be approximately 11.84 acres.
The applicant also proposes a 30-foot wide walkway from the high ground to the impoundment. The
elevated walkway would terminate in an observation platform in the impoundment.
Environmental Impacts and Compensatory Mitigation
Dam construction would impact 0.16 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 40 linear feet (lfj of stream.
The proposed impoundment would impact 10.82 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 2,410 if of
stream. Therefore, overall impacts would be 2,4501f feet of stream and approximately 11 acres of
wetlands.
Certain design features of the project area intended to serve as compensatory mitigation for
permanent wetland losses. The Supplemental Information refers to an Attachment 10 with the

4
proposed mitigation package. However, this attached was not with the PN received by the Service or
on the Corps' web copy of the PN. The project would include a shallow ledge, or littoral shelf,
around the main area of the impoundment. This ledge would be 25 feet wide with an elevation
change of four inches. This area would be planted with species characteristic of shallow open water
to those found in a swamp forest. The area of the shelf on the applicant's portion of the
impoundment would be preserved with the exception of a 30-foot corridor for the walkway to the
impoundment. No information is provided on the total area of this littoral shelf or the area that
would be preserved.
Beyond the 25-foot shelf, a 50-foot strip of land would be used to create a "vegetated buffer," but the
plant community is not described. This area would transition from a floodplain forest to uplands.
This strip would be preserved on the "north side" of the impoundment, but not on the south side.
The areas of this component which would be preserved and the portion which would not be
preserved are not given.
There is no mention of compensatory mitigation for the elimination of 2,450 if feet of stream.
Without such compensation the project would result in the permanent loss of almost one-half of a
mile of stream within the Northeast Cape Fear River watershed.
Federally Protected Species
The Service reviewed available information on federally threatened or endangered species known to
occur in and around Duplin County. We have also reviewed information from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database which contains excellent data on the special status
species, both federal and state. This database can be accessed by topographic quadrangle (quad) of
the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). Data from USGS quads provide the most project-specific
information on species which should be considered in permitting this project. The project area is
located in the Charity quad. The occurrence data of special status species within this quad can be
obtained on the Internet at < http://www.ncnhp.o~ages/heritagedata.html >.
The endangered the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), (RCW), is the only federally
listed species with an occurrence record in the NCNHP database for the Charity quad. While there
are occurrence records for this species near the project site, the current habitats on the site do not
seem suitable for this species.
The Service recommends that the Corps consider the pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), or southern
spicebush, in its section 7 evaluation. This plant is a deciduous shrub that grows to approximately
six feet tall. It is listed as endangered by both federal and state agencies. Pondberry, for the most
part, is associated with wetland habitats such as bottomland and hardwoods in the interior areas, and
the margins of sinks, ponds and other depressions in the more coastal sites. The plants generally
grow in shaded areas but may also be found in full sun. Information on this species is available on
our web sites at < http://www.fws.~ov/nc-es/plant/pondberrv.html >. The optimal survey period for
pondberry is February through March.
While pondberry has not been reported in Duplin County, the NCNHP database has a current record
for the species in Sampson County to the west as well as records in Onslow County to the east.
Considering that suitable habitat exists within the riparian area which would be impounded, there
should be a determination of project impacts on this species.

Service Concerns and Recommendations
The Service has serious concerns about the environmental impacts of the proposed impoundment and
the effects on both upstream and downstream areas. Impoundments were one of the three most
frequently cited stressors as limiting factors for survival and recovery of freshwater fauna in a survey
of experts for fishes, amphibians, mussels, crayfishes, and insects (Richter et al. 1997). Neves et al.
(1997), Vaughn and Taylor (1999), and Watters (2000) reviewed the specific effects of
impoundments on freshwater mollusks, noting flow changes, population fragmentation, water quality
problems and sediment issues. Dams also alter normal nutrient dynamics of riverine systems
(Freeman et al. 2003) and can degrade water quality within the impounded reach as well as
downstream (Arnwine et al. 2006).
Headwater streams and wetlands exert critical influences on the character and quality of downstream
waters (Meyer et al. 2007, p. 3). The natural processes that occur in such headwater systems benefit
humans by mitigating floods, maintaining water quality, recycling nutrients, and providing habitat
for plants and animals. Small streams and wetlands offer an enormous array of habitats for plants,
animals, and microbial life. For fish and wildlife resources, small freshwater systems provide
shelter, food, protection from predators, spawning sites, nursery areas, and travel corridors through
the landscape (Meyer et al. 2007, p. 4). As stated in the Supplemental Information, a bottomland
hardwood forest, the community that would naturally occur in the area to be impounded, are valuable
for water storage, stabilization, and pollutant removal.
Many species depend on small streams and wetlands at some point in their life history. The North
Carolina Wildlife Action Plan notes the priority species associated with coastal plains floodplain
forests. Among birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles this community provides habitat for 18, 9,
10, and 7 species, respectively (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission [hereafter NCWRC]
2005, p. 237). Among the birds, the cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea), a species utilizing
mature, hardwood riparian areas, has a state status of significantly rare (SR). The four-toed
salamander (Hemidacrylium sculatum), known to occur in Duplin County, has a state status of special
concern (SC). Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) is also known to occur in
Duplin County and has a state status of threatened as well as being listed as a Federal Species of
Concern (FSC). The NCNHP database lists four freshwater mussels with current records in Duplin
County, but these are not reported in the Charity quad. However, the Service does not know whether
Indian Branch has been surveyed and it is possible that one or more of the special status mussels
could be impacted by the impoundment. The blackwater type of the coastal plains bottomland
hardwood is considered rare or uncommon in North Carolina.
The proposed project would eliminate two natural habitat types (perennial stream and riparian forest)
and replace them with an unnatural habitat, an impoundment. Meyer et al. (2007, p. 20) state that
because of their small size and intimate connection to the surrounding landscape, headwaters and
their inhabitants are easily influenced by human activities. Headwater systems are in a sense isolated
from similar systems by intervening uplands. Species restricted to such systems can be particularly
sensitive to habitat destruction because of the small geographic range and, in some cases, limited
mobility. The natural separation of headwater systems is increased by human activities such as
pollution, impoundment, and destruction of riparian vegetation (Meyer et al. 2007, p. 20). These
human activities. can have profound effects on biota living in headwaters and can lead to the
extirpation of species restricted to such systems. Meyer et al. (2007, p. 20) conclude that "given the

diversity and sensitivity of headwater biota, it seems likely that continued degradation of headwater
habitats will put more species at risk."
In addition to the direct adverse, environmental impacts of the proposed impoundment, the project
may result in adverse secondary adverse impacts downstream. Changes that degrade headwater
systems affect streams, lakes, and rivers downstream. Headwater streams and wetlands provide a
rich resource base that contributes to the productivity of both local food webs and those farther
downstream (Meyer et al. 2007, p. 4). The natural processes that occur in small streams and
wetlands provide Americans with a host of benefits, including flood control, adequate high quality
water, and habitat for a variety of plants and animals. Scientific research shows that healthy
headwater systems are critical to the healthy functioning of downstream streams, rivers, lakes, and
estuaries. To provide the ecosystem services that sustain the health of our nation's waters, the
hydrological, geological, and biological characteristics of small streams and wetlands require
protection. Land-use changes in the vicinity of small streams and wetlands can impair the natural
functions of such headwater systems (Meyer et al. 2007, p. 4).
A significant adverse impact of the proposed impoundment would be a reduction in water flow
downstream of the dam. While the Supplemental Information states that the spillway and gate valve
system would ensure that downstream flow is maintained, there is no explanation of how normal
flow would be achieved. Two specific concerns regarding downstream aquatic habitats involve
changes in discharge flows and changes in water temperature. As water levels are drawn down for
irrigation, the dam may block periods of high discharge. Without periods of high flow, silt is not
washed from gravel beds on which many aquatic species rely for spawning (Federal Interagency
Stream Restoration Working Group [hereafter FISRWG] 1998, p. 3-7). The dam may alter the
temperature of water in the impoundment and downstream. Relatively constant flows can create
constant temperatures which affect those species dependent on temperature variations for
reproduction or maturation (FISRWG 1998, pp. 3-7,8). In places where irrigation water is stored,
unnatural low flows can occur. Such low flows may consist of warmer water that holds less oxygen,
conditions which can cause stress or death in aquatic organisms (FISRWG 1998, p. 3-8). The narrow
vegetated buffer around the impoundment is not likely to prevent the heating of the water held
behind the dam.
The Service is also concerned that the large water needs of the project area could lead to large
reductions in, or even temporary cessations of, downstream flow. The Supplemental information
states that the water needs of crops in the project area would be 2,773,308 gallons per week, or
approximately 396,187 gallons per day. Since one acre-foot of water contains 325,851 gallons, the
daily requirement would be 1.2 acre-feet per day. While the exact area of the impoundment with a
five-foot depth is not given, the total water area would be 11.84 acres, including presumably the
shallow 25-foot shelf. Assuming that inputs from precipitation and natural flow from Indian Branch
would be allowed to pass downstream, the proposed withdrawal rate would lower the impoundment
by one foot in less than ten days (11.84/1.2). Overall, the 5.5 feet of impounded water would
represent approximately 54.25 days (11.84 x 5.5 divided by 1.2) of irrigation water. While
precipitation would reduce the need to draw water from the impoundment, it is possible that water
could become limited during a prolonged dry period. During such times, the farmers of the project
area would need to either: (1) greatly reduce, or stop, water flow to downstream areas; (2) draw the
shortfall from the overused Black Creek aquifer; or, (3) allow their crops to die. Over many years,
the combined application of options (1) and (2) would have serious, adverse environmental
consequences.

7
With regard to downstream impacts, the Service is concerned that there is no detailed water release
plan based on actual discharge data from both above and below the dam site. While the
Supplemental Information states that the spillway and gate valve would ensure downstream flow,
there is no information on how this would be achieved. The Service believes that before any dam or
impoundment is constructed, there should be at least several years of discharge data both above and
below the structure. These data should be on a monthly basis. Such data would provide an objective
measure of the water that must be released to protect downstream aquatic communities. The Service
recommends that the Corps' public interest review consider whether adequate data are available on
how much water should be released on a monthly basis and whether the applicant has an adequate
plan for ensuring the required releases.
One alternative to such environmental harm would be the production of crops adapted to the natural
level of precipitation. The Supplemental Information states that the crops in the area require, on
average, about six inches of rain per month and notes that the maximum monthly rainfall for July is
3.08 inches. The crops would require on average 72 inches of rain per year. The web site noted in
the Supplemental Information for the State Climate Office of North Carolina (< ht~t ://www.nc-
climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/summaries php~station=KDPL >) provides precipitation data at the
Kenansville Airport from December 2000 through January 2006. The average annual rainfall at that
site was 30.12 inches with monthly averages ranging from 1.69 inches (January) to 3.71 inches
(June). The average annual precipitation represents roughly 42% (30.12/72) of that required for
existing crops.
There is clearly not enough natural precipitation to support the crops grown in the area. Both
groundwater and surface water resources would benefit from crops that could be supported by the
natural level of precipitation. The Service hopes that the "experimental orchards," "experimental
crop plots," and "experimental farming techniques" that are mentioned in project plans would be
designed for producing crops adapted to the natural level of rainfall in the area.
The Service also hopes that the innovative agricultural operation of the applicant includes the use of
drip irrigation. Drip irrigation, also known as trickle irrigation or microin igation, is the slow, even
application of low pressure water to soil and plants using plastic tubing placed directly at the plant
root zone (Shock, C.C 2001). Awell-designed drip irrigation system loses practically no water to
runoff, deep percolation, or evaporation. The system reduces water contact with crop leaves, stems,
and fruit and thus may eliminate many diseases that are spread through water contact with foliage.
Irrigation scheduling can be managed precisely to meet crop demand and can lead to increased yield
and quality. Agricultural chemicals can be applied more efficiently with drip irrigation. Basic
information on this method of irrigation is available at < http://www.cropinfo.net/drip.htm >, "Drip
Irrigation: An Introduction."
The Service is concerned that the three, existing borrow pits have not been fully considered as a
source of irrigation water. The Supplemental Information notes that the eight acres of open water
would be subject to high evaporation during drought and would not retain enough water to irrigate
the crops. However, there is no discussion of how evaporation from these ponds would differ from
that of the propose impoundment. Beside the evaporation issue, the applicant proposes to use the
ponds for aquaculture, specifically the production of freshwater prawns, presumably the giant
Malaysian, or river, prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii).

Information available on prawn production in North Carolina suggests that the borrow pits do not
represent standard production ponds. The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (NCCES)
states (< http://~reene.ces.ncsu.edu/index ph~~age=news&ci=AGRI+1 >) that prawn production in
eastern North Carolina involves draining production ponds (usually 1-2 acres) at the time of harvest
and capturing the prawns in harvest basins adjacent to the ponds. This production technique would
require the draining and refilling of the existing borrow pits. In addition to the problems created by
disposing of the large volume of water which would need to drained, filling the ponds would require
large quantities of water. A prawn aquaculture operation in Johnston County, North Carolina, uses
three, two-acre ponds built to critical specifications and harvests the prawns in the fall by draining
the ponds (see <
http://www.ncsu.edu/nroiects/calcommblogs/archives/2005/08/prawns offer ne html >).
Furthermore, prawn production requires daily water quality checks with oxygen being the most
critical parameter.
Information from the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center (SRAC) (<
http://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm?catid=24 >) notes that traditional aquaculture production ponds
require approximately one million gallons per acre for filling and an equal volume is required to
compensate for evaporation and seepage during the year (Losodo et al. 1998). Using the eight acres
of existing borrow pits for aquaculture could require millions of gallons of water annually.
Losodo et al. (1998) discuss recirculating aquaculture tank production systems as an alternative to
pond aquaculture technology. Through water treatment and reuse, recirculating systems use a
fraction of the water required by ponds to produce similar results and the use of tanks reduce the
amount of land required. Since the Service supports innovative agricultural practices with low
environmental impacts, we would suggest that the applicant consider an indoor, recirculated system
such as that of the North Carolina State Operated Fish Barn. Technical information on this facility is
available at < http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/wild/pdf/aqua/FishBarn layout pdf >.
As part of the Corps' public interest review, the applicant should be required to provide a basic
outline of how the borrow pits would be used for prawn production, including any need for draining
them annually for harvesting. The applicant should also consider using a recirculated aquaculture
tank production system as discussed by Losordo et al. (1998). Unless there is high probability that
the borrow pits can be adapted to aquaculture, these areas should be used to supply the needed
irrigation water. These existing, upland water storage reservoirs would not need to be limited to their
present capacity. Impervious walls could be built around the pits to increase their water holding
capacity. The Corps should request estimates of the number of acre-feet of water contained in the
existing borrow pits and the storage capacity after additional construction. The existed or expanded
borrow pits could be used for irrigation as well as an area for canoeing and kayaking.
The Service has serious concerns about proposed compensatory mitigation for this project. As noted,
we did not receive Attachment 10 containing details of the mitigation plan and these comments are
basic on information in the PN and Supplemental Information. The single mitigation feature appears
to be a 25-foot-wide border, or littoral shelf, and an unspecified part of a 50-foot vegetated buffer.
These two strips would be located between the 5.5-foot-deep main impoundment area and uplands.
Over the 25 feet of the shelf, water depths would range from four inches at the waterward side to the
60-foot contour which is the height of the impoundment. Landward of this shelf would be a 50-foot-
wide vegetated buffer which is considered to range from a floodplain forest to uplands, but is unclear
whether this area would be flooded or the frequency of any such flooding.

Project drawings suggest that much of the 25-foot littoral shelf and the vegetated buffer would be in
areas already determined to be jurisdictional wetlands. Therefore, most of the proposed "mitigation"
wetlands would actually be converting existing, natural wetlands to artificial wetlands. There would
little if any increase in the wetland area and only a limited area within this perimeter buffer would
represent the bottomland hardwood community. The Service recommends that the Corps not accept
the conversion of a natural wetland area to another type of wetland as compensatory mitigation. At a
minimum, the Corps should require one-to-one, in-kind restoration of the approximately I 1 acres of
riparian wetlands eliminated by the impoundment. If approximately 11 of the 14 acres of wetlands
would be eliminated, the remaining three acres could be restored and protected.
The mitigation plan is deficient in that only a portion of the proposed buffer strip would be protected.
Without such protection, the areas intended to serve as compensatory mitigation could be
significantly altered at any time. Wetland areas preserved as compensatory mitigation should
represent high quality, natural communities and must be permanently protected. Mitigation area
without permanent protection should not be accepted as compensatory mitigation.
The mitigation plan is also deficient in that there are no assurance that wetland hydrology would be
maintained within the wetland buffer. As noted, if precipitation and normal inflows are allowed to
pass downstream, large water withdrawals would lower the water level drastically in only a few
weeks. Fluctuating water levels could jeopardize the survival of any plants within any wetlands in
the 75-foot buffer zone. Any wetlands used for compensatory mitigation should maintain the
required jurisdictional hydrology during the growing season.
The most important deficiency of the mitigation is the lack of any compensation for the lost 2,450
linear feet of perennial stream. The Corps should require full compensation for any loss of streams.
The Service strongly supports any effort by the applicant to promote environmental education in the
project area. The Supplemental Information states that future work will include an education center
and pathway with education signage regarding the history of the site, wetlands, ecological systems
present, and the plants and animals of the area. However, we do not believe that an artificial
impoundment which eliminates both afree-flowing stream and the site of a coastal plain bottomland
hardwood forest provides the most appropriate message for preserving fish and wildlife habitat. In
this regard, we recommend that the applicant consider restoring the natural path of Indian Branch and
the riparian hardwood forest. The proposed elevated walkway could remain and pass through the
various zones of the forest. Such a restoration effort would showcase a variety of plant animal
communities over many years and visitors could return many times to see the progress of the
emerging forest. This area which could be called the Duplin Winery Wildlife Sanctuary could
become a significant tourist attraction. The restored ecosystem would contrast sharply with the
artificial impoundment would not change over years and may be less likely to generate return
visitors. As the historic forest emerged on the site, the areas would provide habitat a diversity of bird
species and serve as an attraction for bird watchers, a very large and generally affluent group which
often makes special trips for the opportunity to see unusually bird species. The Audubon Society
operates several, private nature centers/sanctuaries which attract a large number of visitors annually.
The Service is concerned about the potentially significant secondary impacts of the proposed
impoundment. The "experimental orchards, vineyards, row crops, and aquaculture ponds" to be
supported by the impounded water are intended to show how different types of farming, including

organic farming, are accomplished on the site. The area would provide data to local farmers on the
effectiveness of different growing regimes. There would be an education center where people could
learn more about agriculture in southeastern North Carolina. However, based on data in Table 2 of
the Supplemental Information, the growing regime proposed for the 70 acres considered would
require, an average, 5,660 gallons of water per acre per day. As evidenced by the current PN, this
growing regime apparently cannot be supported by precipitation and requires either large
withdrawals from an overused aquifer and/or the impoundment of surface water. The Corps' public
interest review should carefully consider the long-term environmental impacts that may occur if the
applicant's "experimental farming techniques" are implemented by other farmers across the coastal
plain of southeastern North Carolina.
Summary
The mission of the Service is to protect fish and wildlife resources for the enjoyment of future
generations. Part of this mission is to protect important habitats such as free flowing stream and
riparian forest. In fact, the Service has been actively involved for many years in a program to
remove small dams and other obstructions of waterways in North Carolina. Therefore, from a
perspective of maintaining healthy fish and wildlife resources, we oppose the proposal of the
applicant.
We realize that fish and wildlife resources are only one component of the public interest review that
will be conducted by the Corps. While there is no doubt that the proposal would be advantageous to
the applicant, there should be an understanding that a public resource would be impacted. During the
public interest review, we strongly encourage the Corps to review the excellent information provided
by Meyer et al. (2007) on the scientific imperative for defending small streams and wetlands.
Adverse impacts to public resources should only be permitted if there is a demonstrable benefit to the
public and only after every practical measure has be employed to avoid and minimize such impacts.
If the public review should establish a public benefit which overrides the adverse environmental
consequences, then we strongly. encourage the Corps to consider the avoidance and minimization
measures we have discussed. We believe the many of the applicant's goals could be achieved
without impounding Indian Branch through a combined effort to: (1) create an aquaculture operation
in a barn-type facility using a recirculating aquaculture tank production system; (2) create walls
around the three existing borrow area to increase their water holding capacity for both irrigation and
recreational use; (3) grow more drought-tolerant crops; and (4) install a drip irrigation system to
reduce evaporation losses and apply water directly to plant roots. Any permit should require
adequate compensation for both riparian wetlands and stream footage. Compensatory wetlands
should be preserved in perpetuity and designed to maintain jurisdictional hydrology. There should
be a determination of project impacts on the federally endangered pondberry.
We would like to reiterate our recommendation that the project area would be suitable for
environmental restoration. Restoring the natural channel of Indian Branch and the historic
bottomland hardwood forest would provide an attractive basis for the education and outreach
programs sought by the applicant.
Considering the potentially harmful environmental impacts and the availability of less damaging
alternatives, the Service recommends denial of a DA permit for the actions described in the PN. The
Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this PN. Please advise us of any action taken by

the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers. If you have questions regarding these comments,
please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-~ai1 at-.< [e-mail] >
Field
Literature Cited
Arnwine D.H., Sparks, K. J., and James, R.R. 2006. Probabilistic monitoring of streams below small
impoundments in Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation,
Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville, TN.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream Corridor
Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A
57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3. Available at <
http://www.nres.usda.gov/technical/stream restoration/ >. Accessed August 16, 2007.
Freeman M.C., Pringle, C.M., Greathouse, E.A., and Freeman, B.J. 2003. Ecosystem-level
consequences of migratory faunal depletion caused by dams. Am Fish Soc Symp 35: 255-
266.
Losordo, T. M., Masser, M. P., and Rakocy, J. 1998. Recirculating Aquaculture Tank Production
Systems - An Overview of Critical Considerations. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center
(SRAC). SRAC Publication No. 451. 6 pp. Available at: <
http://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm?catid=24 >.
Meyers, J. L., L.A. Kaplan, D. Newbold, D. L. Strayer, C.J. Woltemade, J. B. Zedler, R. Beilfuss, Q.
Carpenter, R. Semlitsch, M. C. Watzin, and P. H. Zedler. 2007. Where Rivers are Born: The
Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands. American Rivers and
Sierra Club (Sponsors). Available on the Internet at <
http://www.americanrivers.or~/site/DocServer/WhereRiversAreBornl pdf'~docID=182 >.
Accessed August 13, 2007. 26 pp.
Neves, R.J., Bogan, A.E., Williams, JD, Ahlstedt, S.A., Hart6eld, P.W. 1997. Status of mollusks in
the southeastern United States: A downward spiral of diversity. Pages 31-85 in G.W. Benz
and D.E. Collins, eds. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Designs and Communications,
Decatur, GA.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan.
Raleigh, NC.
Richter, B.D., Braun, D.P., Mendelson, M.A., Master, L.L. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater
fauna. Cons. Biology 11:912-920.

12
Shock, C. C. 2001. Drip irrigation: an introduction. Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon State
University. 11 pp. Available at < http://www.cropinfo.net/drip.htm >. Accessed August 17,
2007.
Vaughn, C.C., Taylor, C.M. 1999. Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: A case
study of an extinction gradient. Cons Biology 13: 1081-1093
Watters, G.T. 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: A review of the effects of hydrologic
and instream habitat alterations. Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk Conservation
Society Symposium, 1999. Pages 261-274. Ohio Biological Survey.
cc:
Cyndi Karoly, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Steve Everhart, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Wilmington, NC
Rebecca Fox, US EPA, Whittier, NC
Angie Pennock, Southern Environmental Group, Inc., Wilmington, NC