20040425 Ver 1_USEPA Comments_20040902

i^

~~.
~J

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center

61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8960

Mr. S. Kenneth Jolly, Chief
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

SUBJ: Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank~ Phase II Mitigation Proposal
September 2002 Draft

Dear Mr. Jolly:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4, Wetlands Regulatory
Section has reviewed the September 2002, draft Mitigation Plan and amendment to the
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI), submitted by ECOBANK for Phase II of the Barra Farms
Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank. EP A is generally pleased with the mitigation plan, and has
no significant concerns with the technical proposal for restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of wetlands on the site. Most of our comments are related to the MBI.

As you may know, Barra Farms was one of the first mitigation banks reviewed and
approved by the interagency Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) in North Carolina. Since
the approval of Phase I of the bank, over 20 additional mitigation banks have been reviewed.
The MBRT has refined and standardized many of its requirements for geographic service area
(GSA), calculation of credits, credit release schedule, and typical success criteria. We.
recommend that Phase II of the Barra Farms project ("Barra II") be subjected to the same
requirements as the other private mitigation banks in North Carolina.

1. In the letter from ECOBANK, dated September 19, 2002, and on page 12 of the
mitigation plan, ECOBANK requests that the GSA of Barra II be expanded from that of
Barra I to include "that portion of Ecoregion 63 situated within the boundaries of the
Cape Fear River Basin" (USGS Hydrologic Unit (HUC) 03030005). However, the GSA
for Barra I includes not only most of HUC 03030005, but significant portions of two
other 8-digit HUCs as well (03030006 and 03030004). The GSA was approved after a
lengthy consideration by the MBRT members, because Barra Farms is almost on the
border of these three HUCs, and it was determined that it would adequately provide
compensation for impacts in these areas. The lower end of 03030005 was omitted from
the GSA primarily due to "Karst topography and regional aquifer issues in this area" (as
noted on Page 6 of 14 in the MBI). Because of this concern and the history of the
MBRT's decision in this circumstance, and because ECOBANK has already been granted
a GSA larger than almost all other mitigation banks in the state, we are reluctant to

#

\
.

2

approve an expansion to include the entire lower Cape Fear basin. However, it appears
that the amended MBI for Barra II proposes only HUC 03030005 (not 03030004 and
03030006) as the GSA. If ECOBANK is willing to establish the GSA as only HUC
03030005 (and drop 03030004 and 03030006), we would be willing to reconsider the
issues. We recommend that the MBRT discuss these issues and whether to allow the
entire HUC as the GSA for Barra II.

2. On Page 18 under Item V.(1) (Monitoring Plan) ofthe mitigation plan, the success
criteria should include 320five-year-old trees per acre. Further, we note that on Page 19,
the bank sponsor states that no single species may comprise more than 30% of the total
number of individuals counted towards the success criteria. We recommend that this
number be consistent with the majority of other mitigation banks in North Carolina,
which are typically required to maintain softwood species to less than 20% of the total.

3. Page 18, Section V.(2), and Page 19, Section B: Given that the bank sponsor has several
years of hydrologic data from the reference site and at Barra I, we recommend that the
data be used to determine an appropriate, more specific hydrologic success criteria, based
upon the expected hydroperiod of the site. The hydroperiod should, at a minimum, meet
the wetland delineation criteria from the 1987 Corps manual.

4. Table 2 of the mitigation plan, and Page 5 of the MBI states the requested mitigation
credits for the site. This credit calculation is similar to that of Barra I, but is not similar to
other banks in North Carolina. EP A recommends that the method for generating
mitigation credits, agreed upon by the MBRT at our June 1, 2000 meeting, be used to
determine the number of available credits for each Phase (1: 1 for restoration, 2: 1 for
enhancement, 3:1 for creation, and 5:1 for preservation). The method is outlined in
David Lekson's June 27,2000 letter. The MBI should clearly outline the calculation of
mitigation credits for each phase and each type of mitigation. Finally, the MBI should
also include the language recommended on Page 2 of the June 27, 2000 letter, which
generally states that two credits will be debited from the bank for each acre of impact.
We note that the number of available credits will be higher with the newer method.

5. No credits may be given for upland buffers. Although EPA is pleased that uplands on the
site will be preserved, there is no formal mechanism established in the State of North
Carolina to allow mitigation credit for uplands. Further, from Figures 5-8, this area
appears to be a soil road (constructed in wetlands) which will not be removed. The
upland area only buffers less than 25% of the perimeter of the site. The functional
benefits of such an area are questionable.

6. EPA does not agree to the credit release schedule listed in Item 27 on Page 7. The credit
release schedule should be consistent with the schedule agreed to by the MBRT at our
April, 1999 meeting:

-t-..

3

Accomplishment

Percentage (cumulative)

MBI signed
1 st year success
2nd
year success
3rd
year success
4th year success
5th
year success
MBRT final sign-off

15
10 (25)
10 (35)
10 (45)
15 (60)
15 (75)
25 (100)

7. The signature block for EP A should read:

Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section
Wetlands, Coastal & Watersheds Branch
Water Management Division
EP A Region 4

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions
concerning our comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone].

Sincerely,

Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section

cc: USACE, Wilmington
USFWS, Raleigh
DWQ/NCDENR, Raleigh
NCWRC, Raleigh