20081572 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20081208

Guilford Co. Prison Farm Mitig. Bank
Subject: Guilford Co. Prison Farm Mitig. Bank
From: Howard_Hall @fws.gov
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:48:32 -0500
To: RDarling @mbakercorp.com
CC: shari.bryant @ncwildlife.org, Matthews.Kathy @epamail.epa.gov,
Andrew. E .Williams @saw02.usace.army.mil, eric.kulz @ncmail.net, tammy.l.hill @ncmail.net
Richard,
I have reviewed the conceptual mitigation plan for the subject bank which
was distributed in October. With regard to mitigation banks in general,
this office is allocating less time to mitigation bank planning in order to
focus more on the protection and recovery of federally protected species.
As planning goes forward, I may not be able to provide detailed comments on
the plans for stream and wetland restoration /enhancement /preservation on
this site.
While I am unsure about how active I will be in reviewing the detailed
mitigation plan, the conceptual plan seems acceptable. However, I offer
the following general comments on the conceptual plan.
I see that you have coordinated with Dale Suiter of this office in regard
to the federally threatened small - whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides).
The plan notes that Dale informed you that the project would have no direct
impact on this species.
However, other rare species may be present in the project area that are not
protected by the Endangered Species Act. The NC Natural Heritage Program
has a current record for the Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) in
both Guilford and Alamance Counties. This mussel is a Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) and has a State designation of endangered. The Carolina
darter (Etheostoma collis lepidinion), a FSC, has been reported from both
counties. Any instream work, such as raising channelized streams or
constructing bankfull benches, should employ strict erosion and sediment
control measures to avoid harm to the existing biota
It is unfortunate that the streams to be included are somewhat fragmented.
From the perspective of some resources, a relatively short section of
restored stream bounded at both ends by impacted areas will have less
habitat value than a single, unbroken stretch of restored stream.
At this time, I do not have an opinion on the merit of the proposed
breakdown of the work as either restoration, enhancement I, or enhancement
II. The final mitigation plan should clearly justify the type of
mitigation for a given stream segment.
The final plan should also resolve any issues of hydrologic trespass. That
is, restoring the connection between a stream and its historic adjacent
floodplain could create unwanted flooding on properties beyond the boundary
of the site. Such issues should be fully assessed and resolved.
The mitigation plan should identify a definite community type for wetlands
and buffers to be restored. There should be evidence that any plant
community at a reference reach to be used as a model for the mitigation is
truly undisturbed. Small, isolated riparian areas may have mature trees,
but the species composition may be dictated by historical disturbances
(e.g., selective removal of commercially valuable trees). The natural
communities identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990) may be used as models
for the plants selected in the mitigation effort. Use of this reference
has the advantage of being able to match soil types of the recognized
community with the soils at the mitigation site. Any species planted
should be a recognized component of the natural community to be established
on the site.
The final plan should identify the entity that will be responsible for the
long -term management of the site. You mention that Guilford County may
manage the site. However, the Service would prefer an outside conservation
group to oversee the easement such as the groups also mentioned in your
letter, Piedmont Land Conservancy or the Haw River Trail. The conservation
easement should specify the types of activities that would be allowed
within the mitigation area and those which are prohibited. The Corps'
model conservation easement (available at <
1 of 2 12/2/2008 9:08 AM

Guilford Co. Prison Farm Mitig. Bank
http: / /www.saw.usace.army.mil /WETLANDS/ Mitigation/ Documents / conservation %20easement %2Or8- 03.pdf
>) should serve as a guide.
Please keep me informed of your planning effort.
Best regards,
Howard
Literature cited
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina Third Approximation. NC Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC 325pp.
Howard F. Hall
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
P. O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
Ph: 919 - 856 -4520, ext. 27
Fax: [phone]
e -mail: howard hall@fws.q
2 of 2 12/2/2008 9:08 AM