20040325 Ver 1_USFWS Comments_20030310

; '.'

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726

March 4, 2003

WETLANDS / 401 GROUP

MAR 1 0 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION

Mr, Mickey T. Sugg
U. S, Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Subject: Wetland Mitigation Plan, Phase II Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank

Dear Mr. Sugg:

This letter provides the comments ofthe U, S, Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the updated
Wetland Mitigation Plan for Phase II of the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank,
dated February 2003, in Cumberland County, North Carolina, and proposed amendments to the
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). The bank sponsor, ECOBANK of Winter Park, Florida,
submitted the original Phase II plan and proposed MBI amendments to the Wilmington District
ofthe U. S, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) by cover letter dated September 19, 2002. The
Service attended a meeting of Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) and site visit on
December 10, 2002, These comments are submitted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U,S.C, 661-667d), and section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of1973, as amended (16 U.S,C, 1531-1543),

Phase II would serve as an extension of the 626-acre Phase I project initiated in March 1999,
The overall area of the Phase II site is 1,812 acres, and the project would restore 883 acres of
nonriverine pocosinlCarolina Bay, restore 24 acres of nonriverine pine flatwoods/savannah,
enhance 215 acres of nonriverine wetlands, preserve 621 acres of nonriverine wetlands, and
preserve 69 acres of upland buffer. The Phase II plan calls for filling approximately 125,400
linear feet of ditches/canals and planting approximately 395,000 native trees, The mitigation
area would be preserved in perpetuity through conservation easement and transferred through fee
simple title to an approved public land management organization,

You informed the Service that the legal opinion of the Corps is that Phase II will not require a
new MBI, but will be covered under the Phase I MBI with the addition of a site-specific
restoration plan, The new plan will address credit release schedules, credit ratios, financial
assurances, and property disposition,

As stated at the December 2002 MBRT meeting, the Service has concerns regarding the request
(pp. 13-14) to expand the Geographic Service Area (GSA) of Phase II to include that portion of

...

2

Ecoregion 63 (Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain) situated within the boundaries ofthe Cape Fear
River Basin, The October 1998 MBI (Section 4,1) stated that the GSA would include the inner
coastal plain area of the Cape Fear River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) 03030004,
03030005, and 03030006, For Phase I the MBRT limited the GSA to areas north of Wilmington
due to Karst topography, regional aquifer issues, expected development patterns in the region,
and the potential for wetland compensatory mitigation in proximity to these developments,
Ecoregion 63 extends to the coast (Appendix D) and including areas in New Hanover,
Brunswick, and Pender Counties, areas experiencing rapid and large-scale development. If on-
and off-site mitigation are of equal quality, the Service believes that on-site compensation has
greater wildlife habitat value and water quality benefits, Therefore, we do not support the
proposed extension of the Phase II GSA. However, in accordance with standard procedures,
compensation from Barra Farms for wetland impacts outside the formal GSA can be considered
on a case-by-casebasis.

The Service has concerns about the proposed credit release schedule given in Table 4, The
current plan requests the release of 15% of all credits after approval of the restoration plan and
15% after completion of all restoration activities, This schedule, the same as given in the
December 1998 MBI for Phase I, would release almost a third of all bank credits before any
measure of either hydrologic or vegetative success had been taken, We support the principle that
"the number of credits available for withdrawal (i,e" debiting) should generally be commensurate
with the level of aquatic functions attained at the bank at the time of debiting" (Federal Register,
Vol. 60, Number 228, p, 58,611, November 28, 1995). While we understand that Phase I has had
fairly good success, a less aggressive schedule allows for unexpected problems to be recognized
and rectified. Work with other mitigation efforts in the years since 1998 has established a
standard credit release schedule that allows the release of 15% when the MBI is signed and 10%
after first year success criteria are met. Additional credit sales are allowed after success in the
second, third, fourth, and fifth years of 10%, 10%, 15%, and 15%, respectively, with a final 25%
held until the final sign-off by the MBRT, Although the Service prefers this recent credit release
schedule, we will accept the release schedule of the 1998 MBI for Phase II,

Regarding hydrologic success, the Service believes that wetland restoration and enhancement
should be based on more than meeting the minimal standards given in the Corps 1987 wetland
delineation manual. The current mitigation plan states (p, 23) that during normal rainfall,
hydrologic success would be achieved by the establishment of a static water table at, or less than
12 inches from, the soil surface for five percent ofthe growing season (241 days) for the restored
pine flatwood/savannah and for 12.5% ofthe growing season for the restored bay forest/Carolina
bay. Presumably, the latter criterion would also apply to the 215 acres of partially drained
pocosin/bay wetlands that would be enhanced by the removal of drainage ditches.

The plan should provide an objective definition for "normal rainfall." Ifhydtologic success
would be achieved without meeting jurisdictional status during periods of drought, then the
precise conditions constituting below normal rainfall should be given. A possible basis for this
criterion is the drought conditions designated by the North Carolina Drought Monitoring Council

(;)

3

(web page < http://www.ncwater,org/Water Supply Planning/drought monitoring, ,>). Among
the three types of droughts identified by this organization, a meteorological drought seems the
most appropriate, It would also be necessary to select one of the five levels of severity (from
"abnormally dry" to "drought-exceptional") as the criterion for below normal rainfall,

The proposed hydrologic success criteria for Phase II represents the minimal, acceptable
standards and a retreat from the comparisons with the hydrology of a reference wetland used in
Phase I. The November 2002 annual wetland monitoring report for Phase I states (p, 8) that
hydrologic success required mitigation areas to have jurisdictional hydrology for "at least 50% of
the time the reference habitat achieved wetland hydrology," The report notes (p, 8) that the
hydrology (percent of the growing season with saturation to within one foot of the surface) of
three restored wetland communities was similar to their respective reference sites, When based
on a comparison of the number of days within the growing season with jurisdictional hydrology,
the three mitigation communities varied from 94,7% (groundwater flats) to 75,6% (riverine
floodplains) of their respective reference areas,

We support a hydrologic success standard for restored/enhanced/created wetlands that requires
both: (1) achieving jurisdictional status; and, (2) replicating, within a specified deviation, the
hydrology of an appropriate reference wetland, The hydrology of wetland
restoration/enhancement sites should not be limited to achieving jurisdictional status, but should
seek to return, to the maximum extent practical, an area to its pre-disturbance character.
Replication should be considered in terms of the percent of growing season with continuous
inundation or saturation to within one foot of the surface. The percent of the growing season for
which this inundation level is continuously maintained on the restored wetland should be within
a fairly narrow range around the corresponding percentage of a well selected reference site. The
fifth year hydrologic data from Phase I would have been successful with an allowable deviation
of 25%,

Regarding vegetative goals for restoring wetlands, the Service seeks to ensure plant communities
consisting of diverse plant species, primarily among potential canopy trees, that would provide
maximum wildlife habitat values. The first step is selecting a target community or communities.
The updated plan provides a good discussion ofthe two target communities to be restored: bay
forest/Carolina bay (883 acres) and wet pine flatwoods/savannahs (24 acres), The discussion
(pp. 19-20) of information contained in Schafale and Weakley (1990) provides justification for
the selection of the two communities.

The second step should be the selection of desirable tree species that may be called preferred,
desirable, or character species. The current plan refers (p, 20) to the trees to be planted as
"characteristic" species, and we will use this term in our comments, Characteristic species
should be those trees occurring in the mature forest canopy of the target community, heavy
seeded species that are slow to colonize new areas, and those without broad environmental
tolerances, The definition of characteristic trees given in 1998 MBI (Section 1.4) is too broad
and includes: (1) those within the reference ecosystems; (2) elements enumerated in the planting

4

plan; and, (3) those naturally recruited such as sweetgum, red maple, loblolly bay, loblolly pine,
black willow, and pond pine, Species such as red maple, loblolly pine and sweetgum that are
highly invasive and possess broad environmental tolerances are not recommended as
characteristic species. Characteristic trees do not necessarily need to be planted if natural
recruitment is likely.

Table 2 indicates that six species would be planted in the poco sin/Carolina bay areas and four
species would be planted in the pine flatwood/savannah areas, Only one species, black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica), would be planted in both communities, so a total of nine species would be
planted, These species do not exactly match those given for high pocosins/bay forest (Schafale
and Weakly (1990 pp, 209, 216) or pine flats woods and savannahs (Schafale and Weakly 1990
pp. 223, 226). Table 2 notes that pond pine (Pinus serotina) would be planted in bay forest
areas, but not in the pine flatwood/savannah areas where the plan states (p, 20) it is a typical
canopy tree, However, in the decades following the end of the monitoring period, natural forces
will shape species distribution within the site and allow species to colonize suitable habitat. The
purpose of the initial effort is to provide a head start for the most desirable species and, in that
regard, we find the proposed planting regime acceptable,

The Service does not believe that it is necessary to qualify the species composition for the
restoration effort with a significant qualifier such as (Table 2) ". , . final species composition
dependent upon nursery quality and availability at the time of plant ordering," The Service
strongly prefers planted trees to be of local genetic stock and we believe that proper planning can
ensure that the desired species are available in the needed quantities. Nurseries normally operate
on an annual cycle, Trees to be planted in late winter or early spring must be ordered in the
spring of the preceding years, Bank sponsors should follow this planning schedule and not be
dependent on supplies that may be available several months before actual planting, The Service
believe that exceptions to a stated planting regime should only be considered when a nursery
fails to deliver the desired species and/or quantities after a valid and timely order was. accepted
by the nursery, We believe that the actual species composition is an important aspect of
restoration that should not be relegated to a footnote, We request that this aspect ofthe
mitigation be fully discussed in the mitigation plan and include: (1) the screening procedures for
nurseries; (2) the criteria for selecting a nursery; (3) the timing of order placement in relation to
actual planting time; and, (4) contingencies, included alternative species, to be used if the
selected nursery fails to deliver the ordered species and/or quantities it committed to supply,

Following the selection of a target community and the characteristic trees, the Service
recommends that monitoring at all stages make a clear distinction between characteristic trees
and other, invasive, less desirable trees, There can be a density measure (living stems per acre)
for all trees, but this total should separate characteristic trees and all other vegetation, The
present plan calls (p, 23) for differentiating "planted individuals" and "volunteer individuals,"
Thirty-six permanent O.l-acre plots (0.4% ofthe restored wetland area) would be established to
monitor revegetation. The use of only 3.6 acres to characterize a restoration area of907 acres is
insufficient. The Corps has recently recommended (for the Neu-Con mitigation bank) that

5

vegetation monitoring include at least two percent of the entire site, The Service supports this
higher level of vegetation monitoring,

The current plan calls (p. 22) for a minimum of320 trees/acre at the end of three years and/or
260 trees/acre at the end of 5 years, The "and/or" in this criterion should be changed to "and."
Non-preferred species may comprise up to 20% of the stated target densities. Table 2 states that
preferred species would be planted at a density of 435 per acre. Using the proposed target
density after five years, the present plan would be considered successful if only 208
planted/characteristic trees (260 x 0,8) survived, a survival rate of only 47.8% (208/435), Such a
high rate of mortality is not conducive to establishing the wildlife habitat values that the Service
desires on wetland mitigation sites,

The Service recommends that each stage of monitoring consider both the total density of woody
vegetation and the species diversity of that vegetation. Each monitoring report should give data
on the total number of woody stems/acre, by target community, The total number of woody
stem/acre should be divided into two groups: (1) the characteristic, preferred, or planted species;
and, (2) all other woody species that would include natural colonizers, Vegetative success
should require that preferred trees constitute a specified niinimum percentage of all woody stems
within the restoration site, This aspect of restoration allows for natural colonization by invasive,
early successional trees such as red maple, sweetgum, and loblolly pine, However, it is necessary
to limit both the total number of non-preferred/characteristic trees and their proportion of all
woody plants to facilitate the survival of the more desirable species that will form the future
canopy, The current proposal to limit non-preferred species to a maximum of20% of the stated
target density for woody stems is acceptable to the Service if the preferred species are limited to
those in the planting regime (Table 2),

Considering that 20% of target densities maybe non-preferred trees, the goal of260 trees per
acre sought on the site after five years is too low, The Service supports the position, recently
endorsed by the Corps, that 320 and 260 trees/acre representthe number of
preferred/characteristic species surviving on the site for three and five years, respectively. If
these figures must represent at least 80% of all surviving trees, then the total number of
trees/woody stems surviving for three and five years should be at least 400 (320/0,8) and 325
(260/0,8) trees/acre, respectively, The Service supports such target densities. We also support
the point made in the plan (Footnote 1, p. 22) that natural colonization by preferred species may
be counted toward vegetative success if the plants survive on the site for five years, If older trees
of a preferred species exist on the mitigation area and could be left in place, these plants could
count toward vegetative success,

The final success for vegetative restoration should be dependent on the length of survival on-site,
This means that preferred trees should not be considered successfully established based on
obtainment of a certain age or size, Trees planted at one or two years of age should not be
considered successfully established after four or three, respectfully, at the age of five years,

6

Final vegetative success is solely dependent on the characteristic trees that survive on site for five
years, While it may be useful to set goals during interim years, we do not consider interim goals
to be essential. However, some standard must be in place for the release of credits during the
five year monitoring period, We believe that it is only necessary for the sponsor to state that the'
mitigation effort is on track to achieve the final desired goal. The best interest of the sponsor
requires that these estimates be made carefully since failure to achieve the fifth year goal would
require replanting and are-starting of vegetation monitoring. The possibility of replanting late in
the monitoring period is a good reason to hold 40% of all bank credit to the end ofthe fifth year,

In addition to plant density, vegetative success should require an objective, measurable criterion
for species diversity, The current plan contains (p. 23) two measures of species diversity: (1) no
single species (volunteer or planted, hardwood or softwood) may comprise more than 30% ofthe
total number of individuals counted [emphasis added] toward the success criteria; and (2) an
average of at least three planted species per acre must be present.

The Service has concerns about the first measure of species diversity. The 30 percent standard
appears to set a limit on the trees of one species that may be counted, but not on the number of
trees that may occur on the site, For example, this requirement appears to suggest that if a given
tree could constituted 90 percent of the characteristics trees present, the species would only be
allowed to contribute 30 percent of the desired goal. When the Service recommends that a single
species must not constitute more than 20 percent of a specific plant subset or total stems/acre, we
are referring to the actual number of plants on the site, We believe that to set a specific limit
above which actual trees would cease to be counted toward a certain success criterion can distort
actual conditions on the site, The Service recommends that counts of stems per acre do not
artificially exclude any plants above a certain threshold, Vegetation monitoring should not be
driven by a counting process related to a particular success criterion, but rather toward providing
an accurate assessment of plant abundance on the site.

Regarding the second proposed criterion for plant diversity, the Service is concerned that the use
of simple averages can present a distorted picture of actual conditions, For example, six species
would be planted on 883 acres for bay forest/pocosin restoration, If after five years, roughly 442
acres (or half the monitoring plots) had all six species surviving and the other441 acres ( the
other monitoring plots) had zero species, the overall area would be considered to have achieved
successful species diversity, Such a condition would not achieve the restoration of wildlife
desired by the Service,

The Service recommends that both the proposed measures of species diversity be replaced.
Vegetative restoration should start by planting preferred species in approximately the proportions
that are desirable in the mature canopy or actually occur in an undisturbed reference community.
The percentage given in the planting regime (Table 2) are acceptable, During the first five years
of restoration, these proportions should only be allowed to deviated slightly within a given target
community, The Wilmington Regulatory Field Office recently (ID# 200100005, Forest Creek
Holding Company, LLC, Moore County, February 2003) requested that "final living planted

7

species number may deviate 10 percent from the initial species planting numbers" to achieve
vegetative success, This ten percent deviation may be considered as the low point within a range
of values that could be as high as 50 percent. Basing vegetative success on a specified deviation
from the percentages planted would ensure that a given species was not totally eliminated from
the site during the first five years of an overall restoration that will ultimately require decades.
This procedure could allow vegetative success to be achieved in cases where a given preferred
tree had above average success in one part of the community restoration area but below average
success in another part,

As an example using the highest deviation of 50 percent, planting for the Phase II in pine
flatwood/savannahs would be ten percent for each of black gum, water oak and willow oak.
Longleaf pine would be 70 percent ofthe planting, In this case, success would be achieved ifthe
three hardwoods constituted between five and fifteen percent of all the characteristic species that
survived on-site for five years, This criterion cannot be applied directly to longleaf pine since a
fifty percent increase would place the species over 100 percent of the total. However, based on
success among the three hardwoods, longleafpine could range from a low of 55 percent (all
desired hardwoods represent 45%) to a high of 85 percent (all desired hardwoods represent 15%)
of the characteristic species, The success of planting in the pocosin/Carolina Bay area is easier to
calculate with planting percentages often or twenty percent for each of six species,

Finally, vegetative success should contain a specific commitment to replant the site if the initial
planting effort fails as well as a stated obligation to reset the monitoring timeframe to year one if
required to reach the specified quantity and diversity of characteristic tree species,

The Corps, in conjunction with the bank sponsor, must ensure that the mitigation effort does not
adversely affect any Federally threatened or endangered species, Potential impacts to the listed
species reported from Cumberland County are addressed in Appendix G of the current mitigation
plan, '

Saint Francis' Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci), a Federally endangered butterfly, is known
to exist in the sandhills of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, Appendix G states (p, 2) that the
mitigation areas are either densely vegetated or former cropland that do not provide the wide, wet
meadows with a high diversity of wetland sedges required by this species.

Appendix G states (p, 3) that forested areas within the mitigation site consist of pine stands that
have been periodically timbered, Agricultural fields and areas of active, short-rotation timber
management do not provide suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
(RCW) , The absence of known RCW colonies near the project site also reduce the possibility
that RCW would be impacted,

Five Federally protected plants have been reported from Cumberland County. Each species is
addressed in Appendix G,

8

The small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), a Federally threatened perennial, known from
open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. It occurs in habitat where there is relatively high
shrub coverage or high sapling density and has not been observed in Cumberland County for over
20 years, The plan concludes that the mitigation area would not support this species,

Appendix G concludes that prior, intensive land use precludes the presence of habitat for three
listed plants, Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), listed as Federally endangered, is generally
associated with wetland habitats such as bottomland and hardwoods in non-coastal areas, and the
margins of sinks, ponds and other depressions in the more coastal sites. American Chaffseed
(Schwalbea americana), listed as Federally threatened, is an erect perennial herb that occurs in
sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally moist to dry soils, It is generally found in
habitats described as open, moist pine flatwoods, fire-maintained savannahs, ecotonal areas
between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, and other open grass-sedge systems,
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), has also been found on deep peat in the
low shrub community of large Carolina bays, Appendix G (pp, 3-5) concludes that suitable or
appropriate habitat does not exist on the project site for these three species,

Appendix G notes (pp, 4-5) that timbered pine stands may provide suitable habitat for Michaux's
sumac (Rhus michauxii), a Federally endangered shrub, that grows in sandy or rocky open woods
in association with basic soils, The plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance
has provided an open area such as forest canopies that have been opened by harvesting.
However, project implementation would only require grading in fields and the plan concludes the
project would not impact the plant. At this time, we believe that greater attention should be
given to the possible occurrence ofthis species at the ecotones of woods and fields and along
ditches and roads throughout the site,

The Corps should consider the information provided in Appendix G in making an effects
determination of project impacts on Federally listed species. The Public Notice for Phase II
should contain the Corps' determinations ,in accordance with section 7 of the ESA. At that time
the Service will review all available information and provide our assessment of compliance with
section 7 requirements,

Overall, the Service supports this mitigation effort, The restoration and preservation of such a
large tract of land on the coastal plain will provide valuable wildlife habitat. We support the
natural regeneration of desirable plant communities wherever feasible. Furthermore, the Service
is pleased that Phase I appears to have improved the quality of water leaving the site. However,
we would stress the point made at the December 2002 MBRT meeting that all mitigation
wetlands on Barra Farms are replacements for wetlands permanently lost in other areas. While
the current plan states (p, 16) that the Barra Farms bank would enhance water quality in New
Hanover County and the lower Cape Fear River Basin, we remind the applicant that when all the
wetland losses to be debited from the bank are fully considered, the overall mitigation effort may
not produce a significant increase in water quality or other wetland function in the lower reaches
ofthe Cape Fear River, We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comment. Please advise

9

us of activities of the MBRT for this project. If you have questions regarding these comments,
please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or bye-mail at < howard hall@fws,gov >,

Sincerely,

~Pd~~

Dr, Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor

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,

cc:

Yohn Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Bennett Wynne, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Kinston, NC
Kathy Matthews, USEP A, Athens, GA
Alan Fickett, Ecobank, Winter Park, FL
Rob Maul, Land Management Group, mc, Wilmington, NC