20190603 Ver 2_USACE Correspondence_20191206

Strickland, Bev
From: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 10:56 AM
To: Chris Roessler; John Hutton
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B;
Bowers, Todd; Wells, Emily N; Twyla Cheatwood; Wilson, Travis W.; Gledhill-earley,
Renee
Subject: [External] Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank/Folly Swamp
Attachments: SAW-2018-02026 Initial Evaluation Letter.pdf, SAWS-2018-02026 USACE_DWR
Comments on the Folly Swamp Prospectus.pdf, USFW_20190827
LTRSNT Wells Barnes WashCOE-
WildlandsPasquotankUMB(FollySwampMitigationSite)SAW-2018-02026.pdf; SHPO_ER
19-2633.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Chris,
Attached are the comments that resulted from site visits, public notice, and the submittal of the prospectus for the
Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank/Folly Swamp site in Gates County, North Carolina, Corps Action ID# SAW-2018-
02026. Also included is the initial evaluation letter for this phase.
This electronic copy is an official Department of the Army Notification. However, if you wish to receive a paper copy, one
will be mailed upon request.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Field Office
910-251-4584
We at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch are committed to improving service to our customers. We
would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.miI/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
<Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.miI/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0>
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

yTfASTATES OF P���
Regulatory Division
AID: 2018-02026
Mr. Chris Roessler
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road
Suite 225
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Dear Mr. Roessler:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West 51h Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
December 5, 2019
This correspondence is in reference to the proposed compensatory mitigation bank known
as Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank). The Bank consists of five sites totaling 47
acres all flowing to Folly Swamp. The sites are located approximately four miles north of the
town of Sunbury on NC 32 in Gates County, North Carolina. The sites are located on named and
unnamed tributaries within the Pasquotank River Basin (HUC 03010205).This correspondence
refers to comments received in response to Interagency Review Team (IRT) reviews and a Public
Notice dated August 22, 2019.
After review of the public notice, project prospectus, and/or our on -site meetings, the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), the North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the United States Department of the
Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
provided comments which are enclosed for your review. It is Department of the Army policy to
provide a project proponent the opportunity to furnish a proposed resolution or rebuttal to all
comments and/or objections from the public and government agencies before a final decision is
made. In this regard, I would appreciate receiving any comments that you have on the comments
received.
Also, pursuant to 33 CFR Part 332.8 (d)(5), Initial Evaluation, I have determined that your
proposed mitigation bank has potential for providing appropriate compensatory mitigation for
activities authorized by Department of the Army permits. We share some of the same concerns
outlined by the IRT which should be resolved as the bank is finalized through the interagency
review process.
Accordingly, you may proceed with preparation of the draft mitigation banking instrument

(MBI) as directed by 33 CFR Part 332.8 (d)(6), Draft Instrument and finalization of your
mitigation plan. Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please
contact me at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
BARNES.KYLE.WJ Digitally signed by
BARN ES.KYLE.WILLIAM.1388
LLIAM.13880353 035397
Date: 2019.12.06 10:49:55
97-05'00'
Kyle Barnes
Project Manager
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies Furnished w/out enclosures:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Wetlands Section - Region IV Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mrs. Emily Wells
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services - Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Travis Wilson
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Rogers Lake Depot
1718 NC Hwy 56, Room 121
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Erin Davis
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources

1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
North Carolina Department of Natural
And Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
Ms. Twyla Cheatwood
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516

Mac's Comments on the Folly Swamp Minutes
January 24, 2019
1. Folly Ditch/Swamp- while DWR applauds WEI for engaging a project within a Drainage District,
until the roles and restrictions (and written affirmation) can be better realized by the Drainage
District regarding this proposal, DWR will reserve final judgement on the proposal on Folly Ditch
and all other proposed reaches in the prospectus.
WEI heard the concerns regarding the priority 2 approach on these type of streams from the
I RT.
The Folly Ditch is currently the only stream reach over 3,000 linear feet.
2. Jordan Branch- WEI reduced the length given the flow conditions, DWR concurred.
3. Powell Branch- This reach seemed to have some flow issues and Kyle Barnes stated the lack of
jurisdictional status in the upper reach. This reach has a red flag concerning flow and is a short
reach.
4. Greene Branch- The minutes state WEI intends to use a headwater approach in the upper
reach, however, in the proposed credits reach 1 shows a significant increase in project length.
The headwater approach utilizes valley length, DWR believes the amount of credit proposed
here would be reduced. In addition, this headwater reach will likely be dependent on the
hydrology that will come from an adjoining field outside the easement area. Until there is a
determination that 1) enough flow would be contributed to the headwater reach, and 2) there is
an agreement from the adjoining landowner that allows the flow to enter the reach, the viability
of the reach remains in question. A positive for the Greene and Pollo Branch is that there is a lot
of opportunity for nutrient abatement given the adjoining animal operations. Moreover, at the
bottom of Greene Branch, wetlands were noted and hopefully the design will incorporate
measures to maintain/enhance these resources.
5. Morgan Branch- DWR concurs with the minutes
6. Table of Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits- without getting too much into the design aspects
here, the proposed lengths seem high on several reaches, yielding a roughly calculated higher
than expected sinuosity. For example, proposed length of Folly ditch works out to roughly 1.33
sinuosity. There are similar concerns on the other reaches.
7. Overall, DWR maintains its position that the project is disconnected and most reaches are under
3,000 linear feet. Given the other comments provided by the IRT members regarding priority 2
project concerns in the coastal plain, DWR believes that for this project to move forward, some
of the issues regarding the Greene Branch would need to be resolved.
Kim's Comments:
1. The discussion on Drainage Districts is of concern, and until we have a signed agreement from them
stating that channel maintenance will not occur on Folly Ditch, or any of the project channels, I am
hesitant to continue to the Final Prospectus stage of this Bank.
2. For the project as a whole, I understand the constraint of doing Priority 1 restoration due to the risk of
flooding adjacent properties; however, with the majority of the project being proposed as P2, there is
very little functional uplift, aside from a riparian buffer, that will occur. In order to justify 1:1 credits for
restoration, you should be restoring the system to its original state, which is not what is currently

proposed. It's understood that there will be considerable earthmoving associated with the proposed P2,
but the burden of proof will be on Wildlands to justify the functional uplift associated with a 1:1 ratio.
3. Powell Branch, along with all project streams and associated wetlands, will need a JD. If it's
determined that a portion of Powell Branch is not jurisdictional, that entire reach should be dropped
from the Final Prospectus.
4. Greene Branch and Pollo Branch: a headwater valley approach through the woods seems appropriate,
if in fact you are able to divert water from the adjacent property to the east via the culvert at the fence
line, otherwise flow remains a concern here. Lower Greene Branch is of concern, especially at the lower
end, and appears to be more wetland -like, especially if the channel is raised here for P1. It's likely that
the wetlands in this area will have increased hydrology from raising the stream channel, but flow
continues to be a concern.
5. Morgan Branch would benefit from P1 for as much linear footage possible.
Kyle's Comments:
1) The Pasquotank HUC is 03010205. The prospectus indicates the Pasquotank HUC as 03020105 in
multiple locations.
2) Wetlands have been identified outside of the project area along Folly Swamp Reach 1. 1 have
concern that there may be a drainage effect on these adjacent wetlands.
3) The project as discussed will result in a significant amount of spoil and the needed area to
stockpile. Areas adjacent to Powell Branch and within the floodplain of the non -project area of
Folly Swamp have been identified as spoil stockpile areas. Removing vegetation and stockpiling
spoil within these areas are counter to the purpose of stream and wetland mitigation. These
areas should be avoided for spoil stockpiling because it removes or reduces existing
buffer/riparian area.
4) Same concern for Morgan Branch. Stockpiling spoil in the identified area only limits the function
of the buffer/riparian area outside of the project area.
5) Barker Branch: I have concern that the project will have issues with the owner/farmer when the
land outside of the easement becomes wetter. There needs to be a larger easement area to
prevent additional ditching and draining when the agricultural fields become too wet to farm.
6) Green Branch: The headwater approach in upper Green Branch is a concern due to the fact that
it is fully dependent on flow from the adjacent property that enters through a culvert. After
seeing the site in a high rainfall season and a semi drought season I have concern that the
headwater reach will only be a wetland in "normal" conditions.
7) Flow is a concern on Powell, Morgan, Green, and Barker Branch's.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 27, 2019
Kyle Barnes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West 5`1 Street
Washington, NC 27889
Re: Wildlands Pasquotank UMB (Folly Swamp Mitigation Sitey SAW-2018-02026/ Gates Co.
Dear Mr. Barnes:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information concerning the above
referenced project The project, based on the description inyour Public Notice to our office, and other
information, is expected to have minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. We appreciate the
proximity and potential for protected aquatic and riparian corridor connectivity to the Great Dismal Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 193, as amended, (ESA) and based on the information
provided, and other available information, it appears theaction may affect the Northern Long-eared Bat
(Myotis septentrionalis). Since the proposed project site is greater than 150 feet from a known rootstree
and your project does not require prohibited intentional take, your project has met the criteria for the 4(d)
rule. Any associated uke is therefore exempt. Please email the Situation three (3) pursuant to the SLOPES
agreement to our office to satsfy the remaining requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESAFurthermore,
it appears the projectis not likely to adversely affectany additional federally listed species or their critical
habitat as defined by the ESA Please remember that obligationsunder the ESA must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information identifies impacts of this action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered; (2) this action is modified in a manner that was not considereih this
review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified
action.
For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North Carolina
is now available on our websie at http://www.fws.gov/raleigil. Our web page contains a complete and
frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a lisbf federal species of
concern' that are known to occur in each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their de�gnated non-federal representative), in
consultation with the Service, insure that any actionfederally authorized, funded, or carried out by such
1 The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken toavoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally fisted endangered or threatened
species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be prepared to fulfill that requirementad in
determining whether additional consultation with the Service is necessary. In addition to the federally
protected species list, information on the species' life histories and habitats and information on completing
a biological assessment or evaluatbn and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh.
Please check the web site often for updated information or changes.
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally isted species known to be present within
the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect those
species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence
within the project area. The use of North Carolina Ntural Heritage program data should not be substituted
for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to
adversely affect) a federal lyprotected species, you should notify his office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species,
including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities tha
might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or
adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally listed species, then you are not required to contact our office
for concurrence (unless an Fnvironmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a
complete record of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified
personnel conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographsand any other related articles.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regardingthe project, please contactEmily Wells at [phone], extension
25.
Sincerely,
�fPete e 'amin
Field Supervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
September 19, 2019
Kyle Barnes
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, NC 27889
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Establish Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Folly Swamp Mitigation Site,
SAW 2018-02026, Gates County, ER 19-2633
Dear Mr. Barnes:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
60KRamona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599