20091169 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20091112

os-ii6g
??tAfFs
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
z REGION 4
Awl 0
o ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ti?9? vao?EO. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303.8960
November 12, 2009
Mr. Andrew E. Williams
Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Subject: Little Troublesome Creek Stream Mitigation Bank, Rockingham County, October 2009
Draft Prospectus
Dear Mr. Williams:
This is in response to your email requesting comments on the draft prospectus for
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.'s Little Troublesome Creek Stream Mitigation Bank. According to
the draft prospectus, the bank sponsor proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve 5,562 linear
feet of stream. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4 Wetlands and
Marine Regulatory Section reviewed the prospectus. We have the following comments for your
consideration, and the consideration of the Interagency Review Team (IRT). We recommend the
IRT schedule a site visit prior to making firm decisions on the appropriateness of the bank and
proposed mitigation ratios.
1. The prospectus adequately addresses all of the items required by the 2008 Mitigation Rule (40
CFR Part 230 and 33 CFR Part 332) for a complete prospectus.
2. On page 1, the prospectus states that the project is identified in the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program's 2004 Upper Cape Fear Basin Local Watershed Plan, and is also listed on the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality's (N.CDWQ) list of impaired waters (303(d) list), due to
habitat degradation and turbidity. We acknowledge that there may be some functional benefits
from restoring the streams on-site and establishing or preserving riparian buffers. However,
according to the aerial photographs and Section 3.2.3 on page 6, it appears that the streams in the
project area are already surrounded by mature diverse vegetation, with few exotic or invasive
species. It may be difficult or impossible to perform the restoration of the stream channel
without destroying the existing riparian buffer. In general, EPA does not believe it is beneficial
to remove existing mature vegetation for channel improvements, and then to replace that mature
vegetation with live stakes and saplings. Further, it is unclear how the proposed work will be
Intemet Address (URL) • http;//www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable -Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
work will be designed to handle the potentially flashy stormwater inputs from the urban
surroundings. Significant stormwater inputs may cause stability problems with the project,
particularly if the mature, deep-rooted vegetation is removed from the streamside area.
3. EPA will defer to NCDWQ for determination of the appropriateness and determination of
riparian buffer credit at this site.
4. Page 1 of the prospectus states that buffer widths will range from 50 to 100 feet from the top
of the stream bank, with minor encroachments from utility lines. However, from the attached
figures, it appears that the buffer on the west side of the site is much narrower in places. In
addition, an area of about 1,000 linear feet on Irvin Creek above the confluence with Little
Troublesome Creek appears to be constrained between a sewer easement and a gas line
easement. EPA has concerns that the buffer may be ineffective in some areas of the site.
5. Page 6 of the prospectus states that there are overhead utility lines, sewer line easement and a
gas line easement on the property. Figure 2 shows the sewer line and gas line, but not the
overhead utility lines. All utilities should be delineated on the site plan. Further, EPA has
significant concerns for the maintenance and potential repair/expansion of easements on the
property and how that may affect the quality of the site. At a minimum, the right-of-ways and
easements must be omitted from the conservation easement. These types of areas serve as entry
corridors for invasive and exotic species, and may affect the overall quality of the project in the
long term.
6. It is unclear where the project starts at the upstream end of Irvin Creek. The creek is outside
of the project area at the north end. Is credit proposed for any of the off-site stream length? Any
linear footage outside of the conservation easement should not be given credit.
7. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 230.94(c)(14), the mitigation plan must include a long-term
management plan. Although this is the prospectus, and not the mitigation plan, EPA
recommends that the bank sponsor consider the requirement to "include a description of how the
compensatory mitigation project will be managed after performance standards have been
achieved to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource, including long-term financing
mechanisms and the party responsible for long-term management." The bank sponsor has
provided some information on long-term management in Section 4.2 on page 9. However, the
sponsor does not indicate whether it will transfer the property to the North Carolina Stewardship
Program or to a private conservation organization, or whether the sponsor will continue to hold
the easement in perpetuity. Also, annual inspection/maintenance of the easement boundaries
should be included as a commitment, particularly given the location of the site in a relatively
urban area, and the presence of so many rights-of-way or other easements along and throughout
the property. Finally, the long-term management plan should include information on the long-
term financing mechanisms for managing the property in perpetuity, including re-recording the
instrument in coming decades.
2
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact Kathy Matthews, of my staff, at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jennifer S. Derby
Chief
Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section
cc: USFWS
NCDWQ
NCWRC
3