20081236 Ver 1_EPA Comments_20080912

2p?j 123

JatEO sr,?r?s
A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
YZ
W REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
Z?F ,02 61 FORSYTH STREET
tirq? Pwlto ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
September 5, 2008
Ms. Tracey L. Wheeler D [R@ R O V LA D
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers S E P 12 2008
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000 DENR.WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Subject: Global Transpark Wetland Mitigation Bank; Prospectus
ORM ID SAW-2008-02311.
Dear Ms. Wheeler:
This letter is in response to your request, dated August 14, 2008, for comments on the
Prospectus for the proposed Global Transpark (GTP) Wetland Mitigation Bank, in Lenoir and
Craven Counties, North Carolina. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4
Wetland Regulatory Section has reviewed the Prospectus for this bank. We understand that this
bank is being established utilizing existing mitigation sites that were required under Action ID
Number 199202851 (the 1998 permit), along with an additional site. We have the following
comments for your consideration.
EPA does not have objections to the conversion of the project-specific mitigation sites to
a mitigation bank. We also do not object to the application of the bank's proposed credit ratios
to previous impacts under the 1998 permit. We note that the Mitigation Banking Instrument
(MBI) should clearly show how much credit has been utilized by GTP to date, and how much
remains available for the bank. The acreage already used for compensatory mitigation should be
debited from the sites at a 2:1 ratio, prior to determining the number of credits presently
available for the bank.
In order to expedite the review of the MBI, we recommend that the bank sponsor closely
review the requirements of 33 CFR Part 332 and 40 CFR Part 230 and ensure that all of the
required information is provided in the MBI. Likewise, if any new mitigation plans are
developed or old plans revised, the plans must comply with the requirements of 33 CFR Part 332
and 40 CFR Part 230.
On Page 14, the Prospectus proposes 1,100 acres of wetland preservation at the Frog-
Hollow site, providing 220 credits at a 5:1 ratio. However, on Page 11, the Prospectus states that
989 acres of the Frog Hollow site have hydric soils. Although we recognize the functions
provided by upland habitats, only wetlands on the site may receive wetland mitigation credit.
Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
and Interstream Mitigation Areas (Phase II of the original Mitigation Plan), and also to determine
whether 5:1 is an appropriate mitigation ratio for the site.
The Prospectus does not elaborate on the original intent for the acquisition and
restoration of the proposed Wildlife Corridors and Interstream Mitigation Areas (Phase II of the
original Mitigation Plan from the 1998 permit), which the Frog Hollow Site is intended to
replace. EPA has no record of the resource agencies' deliberations in this matter, but if there
were special considerations or requirements by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission with respect to wildlife passage in this particular area,
the Prospectus should address how the newly proposed site will meet the same criteria.
In Section 4.3, one of the numeric codes for the adjacent 12-digit HUCs appears to be a
typographical error. EPA assumes that the two adjacent hydrologic units proposed for the
Geographic Service Area (GSA) are 030202030505 and 030202030506. If so, then EPA can
agree to the proposed GSA, which includes the Neuse River 03020202 and the two adjacent 12-
digit HUCs listed above. The GSA as proposed is acceptable due to the proximity of the GTP
site, which straddles the 03020203 and 03020202 watershed boundaries, and the location of the
Stonyton Creek Mitigation Site in close proximity to the boundary. It is therefore reasonable to
assume that impacts in the adjacent 12-digit HUCs immediately upstream would be adequately
compensated by the proposed mitigation bank sites.
In Section 4.5, the Prospectus proposes 1.5:1 for wetland enhancement at Stonyton
Creek, and justifies the proposal by stating that the ratio is due to the "acreage (approximately
145 acres) and extensive nature of buffer restoration in addition to the enhancement areas." The
Prospectus should clarify this statement and provide more details for the justification of the
proposed ratio. EPA notes that the buffer areas will presumably be used also for Buffer
mitigation pursuant to the Neuse River Buffer Rules. Because this acreage may be utilized as
mitigation for more than one type of impact (from the same permitted activity), EPA believes
that GTP should provide more justification to receive better ratios. We note that pursuant to 40
CFR 230.930), under no circumstances may the same credits be used to provide mitigation for
more than one permitted activity. However, where appropriate, compensatory mitigation
projects may be designed to holistically address requirements under multiple programs and
authorities for the same activity.
On Pages 15 and 16, GTP proposes 100 percent of its credits to be immediately released
when the MBI is executed, the property is preserved, and successful monitoring reports are
provided. However, it does not appear that any of the sites have been monitored for five years or
longer and closed out. Further, pursuant to 40 CFR 230.96(b) requires that a longer monitoring
period (more than five years) be required for aquatic resources with slow development rates,
such as forested wetlands. We understand that the mitigation plan was approved prior to the
effective date of this rule, but believe that at a minimum, five years of successful monitoring (for
both stream and wetland enhancement and restoration) should be required before all of the
credits are released. We recommend that the MBI incorporate the credit release schedule
approved by the IRT and public noticed by the Wilmington Corps in June, 2008 for both stream
and wetland credits. We note that as each site is closed out, the credits associated with that site
2
may be completely released. The preservation credits may be released upon approval of the MBI
and recording of the preservation instruments.
Pursuant to 33 CFR 332.8(d)(2) and 40 CFR 230.98(d)(2), a complete Prospectus must
provide several types of information, including the following: Qualifications of the sponsor to
successfully complete the types of mitigation projects proposed, including information on past
activities, and assurance of sufficient water rights to support long-term sustainability of the
mitigation bank. These two items should be more directly addressed in the Prospectus. We
believe that the other items required under these parts (objectives, service area, long-term
management, etc) have been adequately addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have questions or
comments, please call or email Kathy Matthews, of my staff, at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Welborn
Chief
Wetlands, Coastal and Non Point Source Branch
cc: Ron Sechler, NOAA
Howard, Hall, USFWS
Maria Dunn, NCWRC
Tammy Hill, NCDWQ
3