20040325 Ver 2_Other Agency Comments_20091109

D4 -o3 a.5 vi-.
J???EO sr,?r?s
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? >
W
? REGION 4
o Q
Z ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
yF
tir
71,02 61 FORSYTH STREET
q< PAW, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
October 29, 2009
Colonel Jefferson Ryscavage
District Engineer
Attn: Mickey Sugg, Project Manager
USAED-RG, Wilmington
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Subject: Barra Farms Phase II Mitigation Bank, October 2009 Mitigation Plan.
Action ID No. 2009-00189
Dear Colonel Ryscavage:
I sL ? C.LLP1 ' Lao
NO V u ll// 9
9 2009
?ENR WATER QUALITY
WEBS ANp STORMWATER 8W4cN
This is in response to the Mitigation Plan for Mr. Stewart Precythe's Barra Farms
Phase II Wetland Mitigation Bank (Barra Farms II), dated October 2009. The mitigation
bank is located in the headwaters of Harrison Creek Bay, in the same wetland complex
as, and adjacent to, the previously approved Barra Farms Mitigation Bank (Phase I). The
sponsor proposes to restore approximately 1,027 acres, enhance 170 acres, and preserve
544 acres of wetlands on a 1,811-acre site. The proposed community types include
pocosins and wet pine savannah.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Wetlands and Marine
Regulatory Section (EPA) reviewed the Mitigation Plan. We have the following
comments for your consideration and the consideration of the Interagency Review Team
(IRT).
1. In general, the mitigation plan complies with the provisions of the Apri110, 2008,
Revisions to 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and 40 CFR Part 230 (Federal Mitigation Rule).
All twelve components required by the Federal Mitigation Rule for a Compensatory
Mitigation Plan are provided.
2. EPA's comments on vegetation success criteria in our February 18, 2009, letter
concerning the prospectus for this mitigation bank have not been incorporated into the
mitigation plan. In our February 18, 2009, comments, EPA recommended that the
vegetation success criteria should be based upon survival and growth of the canopy tree
species. We further recommended that the following requirements be included in the
mitigation plan:
• Demonstrated density of planted tree species to meet or exceed 320 per acre at the end
of three years (post-planting), 260 trees per acre at the end of five years, and 210 (7-
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Posiconsumer)
year-old) character canopy tree species per acre at the end of seven years. The IRT
may allow for the counting of acceptable volunteer species toward the 210-tree per
acre density upon the review and evaluation of the annual monitoring data.
• No single volunteer species (most notably red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum)
will comprise more than 20 percent of the total composition at years three, five, or
seven. If this occurs, remedial procedures/protocols outlined in the contingency plan
will be implemented. During years three, five, and seven, no single volunteer species,
comprising over 20 percent of the total composition, may be more than twice the
height of the planted trees. If this occurs, remedial procedures outlined in the
contingency plan will be implemented.
• If, within the first three years, any species exhibits greater than 50 percent mortality,
the species will either be replanted or an acceptable replacement species be planted in
its places as specified in the contingency plan.
Although the bank sponsor has proposed 210 trees per acre as a vegetation success
criterion for year seven, none of the other recommendations were included in the
mitigation plans.
3. Where appropriate throughout the mitigation plan, the proposed North Carolina
Wetland Assessment Method wetland type should be included. This may be in addition
to the existing text concerning community type.
4. EPA concurs with the proposed Geographic Service Area for the mitigation bank,
which includes portions of the Upper Cape Fear (03030004) and Lower Cape Fear
(03030005).
5. EPA notes that the mitigation plan only proposes to replant and monitor the vegetation
in the restoration areas, and not the enhancement or preservation areas. On page 11, the
mitigation plan states that the pocosin enhancement areas demonstrate a "prevalence of
facultative or drier volunteer species such as horse-sugar, devils walking stick, and
bracken fern," rather than wetter pocosin vegetation. However, page 16 indicates a
"suitable density of appropriate vegetative species." It appears from the statement on
page 11 that the enhancement areas should be supplementally planted with appropriate
trees, and monitored for growth and survival. EPA recommends that the IRT conduct a
field inspection of the site to determine the appropriate actions and monitoring scheme
for the enhancement areas.
6. EPA has concerns that some of the preservation areas have been recently thinned or
clear-cut. We note that no areas of tree-cutting can be seen on Figure 3, a 1998 aerial of
the site. However, a visit to Google Earth, which has a more recent aerial photograph,
and Figures 6 and 8 indicate a possible clearcut area in the northernmost portion of the
site, and other areas in the northern and southern preservation areas that may have
recently been thinned. EPA is also concerned that because the site has been utilized for
silviculture, the vegetation in these areas is not entirely appropriate or indicative of a
mature pocosin. The Mitigation plan states that the canopy is mostly loblolly pine, while
other more appropriate vegetation is in the understory. Given these concerns, EPA does
2
not believe that a mitigation ratio of 5:1 is appropriate for the preservation areas. We
recommend that the agencies conduct a field visit of the site prior to determining a
mitigation ratio for the preservation portions.
7. On page 10, the mitigation plan indicates that pocosins and wet pine savannah habitats
will be restored. However, in the pocosins areas, bald cypress and water tupelo are
proposed to be planted, along with Atlantic white cedar, pond pine, sweet bay, loblolly
bay and red bay. While EPA agrees that the latter five species are typical of pocosin
wetlands, we do not believe that bald cypress and water tupelo are typical. Given
previous experience with pocosin restoration and the amount of greenbrier and other fast
growing species, we are concerned that it may be difficult for the cypress and tupelo trees
to survive. We would be willing to drop those two species from the planting list, if the
bank sponsor so wishes. For the wet pine savannah acreage, we agree that the species list
is appropriate.
As stated above, EPA recommends that the IRT schedule a site meeting to
determine appropriate actions and mitigation ratios for the site. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions or comments, please
contact Kathy Matthews, of my staff, at 919-541-3062, or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
e nifer S Derby --
chief
Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section
cc: USFWS
NCDWQ
NCWRC
NOAA Fisheries
NCDCM