The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20110896 Ver 1_More Info Received_20120120Strickland, Bev From: Mcmillan, Ian Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:34 PM To: Strickland, Bev; Dennison, Laurie Subject: FW: Signed /Mailed - Orton Plantation Holdings, LLC - Action ID No. 2011 -00624 Attachments: Orton Plantation final.pdf DWQ 11 -0896 Ian J. McMillan, PWS, GISP NCDENR/Division of Water Quality - Wetlands and Stormwater Branch 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 Office: (919) 807 -6364 Fax: (919) 807 -6494 Email: ian.mcmillan.denr(c,,,gmail.com SENT TO MY PHONE Email: ian.mcmillan(cncdenr.gov E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Tressa Turner fmailto: Turner .Tressa(a�epamail.epa.govl Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:22 PM To: jennifer.s.fryeWusace.army.mil Cc: Mcmillan, Ian; Coburn, Chad; John _Elliskfws.gov; Ellwood, Molly M.; Coats, Heather; ron.sechler(a�noaa.gov; Jeffrey Garnett; Jennifer Derby Subject: Signed/Mailed - Orton Plantation Holdings, LLC - Action ID No. 2011 -00624 The original letter has been mailed. (See attached file: Orton Plantation final.pdf) ;�qE.D ST�r r €S� UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY w REGION 4 i ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 11 r 61 FORSYTH STREET yrRt. PROM �� ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 -8960 1 ii X12 Ms. Jennifer S. Frye U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 Subject: Orton Plantation Holdings, LLC Action ID No. 2011 -00624 Brunswick County, North Carolina Dear Ms. Frye: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Public Notice (PN) for Orton Plantation in Brunswick County, North Carolina. Although we were not able to provide comments during the comment period, we are providing our comments at this time and request that they be considered during the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) review process. Orton Plantation Holdings, LLC proposes to convert coastal wetlands into agricultural fields for cultivation of rice. Historically, Orton Plantation was a functioning rice farm. Since 1931, however, rice fields have remained fallow and have re- vegetated with a variety of wetland plants. Additionally, many water control structures are no longer operational and dikes have severely eroded or blown out altogether. In order to restore rice cultivation at Orton Plantation, the applicant intends to: rehabilitate the eroding, 1.62 mile -long revetment along the Cape Fear River; rebuild earthen dikes around the perimeter of the historic rice fields; repair /replace 13 water control structures; clear wetlands of existing vegetation via various mechanical methods and surface grade fields to provide a plantable surface; re- excavate a canal and quarter ditch system throughout the fields, and; construct 14 permanent machinery access points. The proposed project would impact 338.57 acres of wetlands and 6.4 acres of open water through the discharge of dredged and fill material. This letter summarizes the EPA's position on this project, concentrating specifically on the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 230. The purpose of the Guidelines is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters of the U.S. These goals are achieved, in part, by prohibiting discharges of dredged or fill material that would result in avoidable or significant adverse impacts on the aquatic environment. The burden to demonstrate compliance with the Guidelines rests with the permit applicant. The applicant's stated purpose and need is "to protect and restore the various elements of the historic rice field system at Orton Plantation." The EPA finds this statement of purpose to be vague and insufficient. According to Section 230.1(4) of the Guidelines, degradation or destruction of special lnli� net Address (URL) . http : / /www.apa.gov Recycled /Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) aquatic sites, such as filling operations in wetlands, is considered to be among the most severe' environmental impacts, which may represent an irreversible loss of valuable aquatic resources. The applicant needs to better demonstrate that the restoration of historic rice fields is justified given the potential for irreversible impacts to waters of the U.S. We request further explanation towards the overall objective of rice cultivation at Orton Plantation and the proposed benefit to the applicant and/or public. Additionally, the applicant's purpose needs to be clear in order to fully explore all practicable alternatives. In order to fully review the proposed project, the EPA requests that the applicant provide more detailed information on other practicable alternatives to the proposed plan. Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines states that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there exists a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. The applicant's alternatives analysis is cursory, and a more thorough assessment is needed. We believe other alternatives exist that limit the size of the project and have less adverse wetland impacts. This includes consideration of preserving/restoring the forested wetlands on site (back fields) and only converting the front fields, which are dominated by invasive Phragmites, to rice fields. Of the total acreage subject to impact, the applicant claims 333.74 acres of wetlands to be used for cultivation of rice constitutes a "temporary impact." While the rice fields will be subject to flooding from April through September, the EPA contends that the conversion of wetlands to rice fields is a change of use and will have a significant permanent impact. Rice cultivation would presumably require frequent disturbances such as tilling of the soil and repeated applications of fertilizer and pesticides (which the applicant has stated would occur on an annual basis to control Phragmites). These regular agricultural practices would likely affect the function and biotic composition of a natural coastal wetland. Additionally, rice cultivation could produce secondary impacts, as outlined in Section 230.11(h) of the Guidelines. For example, surrounding wetlands not used for rice propagation (in particular, those adjacent to outflows from rice fields) could also be impacted by the agricultural runoff produced. Furthermore, it is debatable as to whether a monoculture of rice makes for a functional wetland to be utilized by a high diversity of wetland biota (Lawler 2001; Tourenq et al. 2001; Richardson and Taylor 2003; Ma et al. 2004; Bellio et al. 2009; Machado and Maltchik 2010). Negative effects associated with coastal impoundments have been shown to include: limited exchange of sediments, nutrients, and aquatic biota between marshes and adjacent rivers; decreased water quality (e.g. higher water temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen), and; reduced foraging and prey capture by wading birds, reptiles, and mammals (Sanzone and McElroy 1998). Therefore, we request that a compensatory mitigation plan account for impacts to the 333.74 acres slated for use as rice fields, in addition to the permanent impacts caused by dike construction. According to the Guidelines and the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Corps and the EPA in determining mitigation, an applicant must demonstrate avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts before compensatory mitigation can be considered. Therefore, compensatory mitigation plans are premature because the applicant has not sufficiently shown that wetland impacts have been avoided or minimized by their failure to determine the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. In the event that on -site wetland impacts are reduced and avoidance and minimization are demonstrated in the future, the EPA requests that proposed mitigation plans are in compliance with the 2008 Federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule (MR). The MR creates a flexible preference for mitigation bank credits and in -lieu fee credits, if available, over credits from the use of permittee- responsible mitigation because the former generally restores larger areas and more ecosystem functions. If permittee - responsible mitigation is determined to be the only or ideal method to offset wetland impacts, the applicant is required to conduct a watershed assessment to determine where mitigation would best restore ecological functions and habitat lost, and they must provide justification as to why the selected option is the most environmentally preferable option to offset the unavoidable losses to waters of the U.S. In summary, the applicant's stated purpose and need is unclear, and the proposed plan fails to demonstrate that all practicable alternatives have been exhausted. Furthermore, the EPA is in strong disagreement that conversion of 333.74 acres of wetland to rice fields is a temporary impact, and as such, the proposed mitigation plan does not adequately compensate for wetland losses. Therefore, we request that the permit for Orton Plantation be denied as currently proposed. The EPA greatly appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Should you have questions, please feel free to coordinate with Becky Fox ( 828.497.3531; fox.rebecca(epa. ov) or Jeffrey Garnett (404.562.9314; gamett.ieffreyL&epa goy) of my staff. Sincerely, nnifer S. Derby Chief Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section cc: Ian Mcmillan, NCDWQ, Raleigh Chad Coburn, NCDWQ, Fayetteville John Ellis, USFWS Molly Ellwood, NCWRC Heather Coats, NCDCM Ron Sechler, NMFS References: Bellio MG, Kingsford RT, and Kotagama SW. 2009. Natural versus artificial wetlands and their waterbirds in Sri Lanka. Biological Conservation 142, 3076-3085. Lawler SP. 2001. Rice Fields as Temporary Wetlands: A Review. Israel Journal of Zoology 47,513- 528. Ma ZJ, Li B, Zhao B, Jing K, Tang SM, and Chen JK. 2004. Are artificial wetlands good alternatives to natural wetlands for waterbirds? A case study on Chongming Island, China. Biodiversity and Conservation 13, 333-350. Machado IF and Maltchik L. 2010. Can Management Practices in Rice Fields Contribute to Amphibian Conservation in Southern Brazilian Wetlands? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20, 39 -46. Richardson AJ and Taylor IR. 2003. Are rice fields in southeastern Australia an adequate substitute for natural wetlands as foraging areas for Egrets? Waterbirds 26, 353-363. Sanzone S and McElroy A (eds.). 1998. Ecological Impacts And Evaluation Criteria For The Use Of Structures In Marsh Management. US EPA, Science Advisory Board report EPA-SAB-EPEC- 98-003. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. Tourenq C, Bennetts RE, Kowalski H, Vialet E, Lucchesi JL, Kayser Y, and Isenmann P. 2001. Are ricefields a good alternative to natural marshes for waterbird communities in the Camargue, southern France? Biological Conservation 100, 335-343.