20180182 Ver 1_USACE Intent to Approve_20191203

Strickland, Bev
From:
Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Tuesday, December 3, 2019 5:05 PM
To:
Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B; Leslie, Andrea J; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd;
[e-mail]; Gledhill-earley, Renee; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA);
McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA)
Cc:
Cidney Jones
Subject:
[External] Intent to Approve the Red Barn Mitigation Bank (SAW-2017-01927)
Attachments:
SAW-2017-01927- Red Barn Mitigation Ban k-DraftPlanCommentResponse_
29August2019.pdf, SAW-2017-01927_Red BarnMBl_FinalUnsigned.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Flag for follow up
Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
Good Afternoon,
Attached are the response to comments for the Red Barn Mitigation Bank - Draft Mitigation Plans (SAW-2017-01927)
dated August 29, 2019 and the Red Barn Mitigation Banking Instrument. Due to revisions to the design plans and
mitigation plan, today (December 3, 2019) 1 distributed electronically, an updated copy of the Final Mitigation Plan
(including design plans and appendices) dated November 2019, to the IRT. Also, there was a cover letter distributed with
it describing many of the plan updates since the August comment responses were received. Feel free to contact me with
any questions.
We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period for the Draft Mitigation Plan as well as the
attached responses from the bank sponsor, and determined that all issues have been adequately addressed.
Accordingly, it is our intent to approve the Red Barn Mitigation Bank unless a member of the NCIRT initiates the Dispute
Resolution Process, as described in the Final Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Section 332.8(e)). Please note that initiation of this
process requires that a senior official of the agency objecting to the approval of the mitigation plan (instrument
modification) notify the District Engineer by letter within 15 days of this email (by COB on December 17, 2019). Please
notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.
Provided that we do not receive any objections, we will provide approval to Ecosystem Planning and Restoration at the
conclusion of the 15-day Dispute Resolution window.
Thank you for your participation.
Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208

Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.

AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE RED BARN MITIGATION BANK
IN THE YADKIN RIVER BASIN (HUC 03040101), SURRY COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
July 2019
USACE approval of this Instrument constitutes the regulatory approval required for the Red
Barn Mitigation Bank Site to be used to provide compensatory mitigation for Department of the
Army permits pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 332.8(a)(1). This Instrument is not a contract between the
Sponsor or Property Owner and USACE or any other agency of the federal government. Any
dispute arising under this Instrument will not give rise to any claim by the Sponsor or Property
Owner for monetary damages. This provision is controlling notwithstanding any other provision
or statement in the Instrument to the contrary.
This Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) is made and entered into on this day of
2019, by Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR), PLLC hereinafter Sponsor,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and each of the following agencies, upon its
execution of this MBI; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The Corps, together with
the State and Federal agencies that execute this MBI, are hereinafter collectively referred to
as the Interagency Review Team (IRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this agreement is to establish a mitigation bank (Bank) providing
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts separately authorized by
Section 404 Clean Water Act permits and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits in
appropriate circumstances;
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the IRT agree that the Bank site is a suitable mitigation
bank site, and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan is likely to result in net gains in
wetland and/or stream functions at the Bank site, and have therefore approved the Mitigation
Plan;
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the following
provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this MBI.
Section I: General Provisions
A The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration, rehabilitation, creation,
and enhancement activities at the Bank site, and for the overall operation and management of
the Bank. The Sponsor assumes the legal responsibility for providing the compensatory
mitigation once a permittee secures credits from the Sponsor and the District Engineer (DE)
receives documentation that confirms the Sponsor has accepted responsibility for providing the
required compensatory mitigation.
B. The goals of the Bank site are to restore, rehabilitate, enhance, and create wetland and
stream systems and their functions to compensate in appropriate circumstances for
unavoidable wetland and stream impacts authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

permits and or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits in circumstances deemed
appropriate by the Corps after consultation, through the permit review process, with members
of the IRT.
C. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by Clean
Water Act permits must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and implementing
regulations, including but not limited to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the National Environmental
Policy Act, and all other applicable Federal and State legislation, rules and regulations. This
agreement has been drafted in accordance with the regulations for Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources effective June 9, 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) (Mitigation
Rule).
D. The IRT shall be chaired by the DE of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District (District). The IRT shall review documentation for the establishment of mitigationbank
sites. The IRT will also advise the DE in assessing monitoring reports, recommending remedial
measures, approving credit releases, and approving modifications to this instrument. The IRT's
role and responsibilities are more fully set forth in Sections 332.8 of the Mitigation Rule. The
IRT will work to reach consensus on its actions.
E The DE, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies
through the permit review process, shall make final decisions concerning the amount and type of
compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted wetland and/or stream
impacts, and whether or not the use of credits from the Bank is appropriate to offset those
impacts. In the case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation required solely under
the Section 401 Water Quality Certification rules of North Carolina, the NCDWR will determine
the amount of credits that can be withdrawn from the Bank. Any credits used to offset impacts
solely authorized by Section 401 cannot be used for other impacts authorized under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
F. The parties to this agreement understand that a watershed approach to establish
compensatory mitigation must be used to the extent appropriate and practicable. Where
practicable, in -kind compensatory mitigation is preferred.
Section II: Geographic Service Area
The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area within which the Bank is authorized
to provide compensatory mitigation required by DA permits. The GSA for this Bank shall
include the entire Yadkin River Basin Hydrologic Unit 03040101 within North Carolina. Credits
are to be used in the same HUC in which they were generated.
2

Section III: Mitigation Plan
Any Mitigation Plan submitted pursuant to this agreement must contain the information
listed in 332.4(c) (2) through (14) of the Compensatory Mitigation Rule.
A. The Sponsor will perform work described in the approved Mitigation Plan.
B. The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site as described in the approved Mitigation
Plan, until such time as the IRT determines that the performance standards described inthe
Mitigation Plan have been met.
C. Mitigation Plans submitted for inclusion in this bank must meet the requirements of any
District guidance that is current at the time the new site is submitted to the District, including any
updates made to monitoring requirements, credit releases, long term management, or any other
provisions that are required and/or specifically addressed in the Mitigation Plan. The addition of
any site to this instrument shall be considered as a modification to this instrument and processed
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Mitigation Rule.
D. The members of the IRT will be allowed reasonable access to the Property for the
purposes of inspection of the Property and compliance monitoring of the Mitigation Plan.
Section IV: Reporting
A. The Sponsor shall submit to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT, an
annual report describing the current condition of the Bank Site and the condition of the Bank
Site in relation to the performance standards in the Mitigation Plan. The Sponsor shall provide
to the DE any monitoring reports described in the Mitigation Plan.
B. As part of each annual monitoring report, the Sponsor shall also provide ledgerreports
documenting credit transactions as described in Section VIII of this MBI.
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall provide notification to
the DE within 30 days of the transaction. This notification shall consist of a summary of the
transaction and a full ledger report reflecting the changes from the transaction. Additionally,
signed copies of the Compensatory Mitigation Transfer of Responsibility Form shall be
submitted to the Corps Project Manager for the permit and the Corps Bank Manager for the bank
site.
Section V: Remedial Action
A. The DE shall review the monitoring reports, as required in the Mitigation Plan, and
may, at any time, after consultation with the Sponsor and the IRT, direct the Sponsor to take
remedial action at the Bank site. Remedial action required by the DE shall be designed to
achieve the performance standards as specified in the Mitigation Plan. All remedial actions

required under this section shall include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take
into account physical and climactic conditions.
B. The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the above.
C. In the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to achieve the
required performance standards, it shall provide notice of such proposed remedial action to all
members of the IRT. No remedial actions shall be taken without the concurrence of the DE, in
consultation with the IRT.
Section VI: Use of Mitigation Credits
A. Description of credit classifications and provisions pertaining to the use of those credits
shall be provided in the Mitigation Plan to be included in this bank. Credit classifications (e.g.,
cold water stream, cool water stream, warm water stream, coastal wetlands, non -riparian
wetlands, riparian non-riverine wetlands, and riparian riverine wetlands) will be in accordance
with current District guidance at the time the Mitigation Plan is submitted to the District. In
general, these classifications will be used to determine if a particular credit qualifies as "In -
Kind" mitigation. Exceptions to the use of "In -Kind" mitigation may be allowed at the
discretion of the permitting agencies on a case -by -case basis.
B. Wetland and stream compensation ratios are determined by the DE on a case -by -case
basis based on considerations of functions of the wetlands and/or streams impacted, the severity
of the wetland and/or stream impacts, the relative age of the mitigation site, whether the
compensatory mitigation is in -kind, and the physical proximity of the wetland and/or stream
impacts to the Bank Site.
C. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits
from the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all decisions concerning the
amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by
Department of the Army permits, shall be made by the DE, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act and implementing regulations and guidance. These decisions may include notice to and
consultation with the members of the IRT through the permit review process if the DE determines
this to be appropriate given the scope and nature of the impact.
Section VII: Credit Release Schedule
A. All credit releases must be approved in writing by the DE, following consultation with
the IRT, based on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved.
B. A credit release schedule shall be provided in the Mitigation Plan that is included in
this bank. The release schedule will list all of the proposed credit releases and any
performance standards associated with those releases.
C. In general, the initial allocation of credits shall be available for sale only after the
completion of all of the following:
1. Execution of this MBI by the Sponsor, the DE, and other agencies eligible for
4

membership in the IRT who choose to execute this agreement, to include the approval of
any modifications to this agreement when new sites are added to it;
2. Approval of a final Mitigation Plan;
3. Confirmation that the mitigation bank site has been secured;
4. Delivery of executed financial assurances as specified in the Mitigation Plan;
5. Delivery of a copy of the recorded long-term protection mechanism as described inas
specified in the Mitigation Plan, as well as a title opinion covering the property
acceptable to the DE; and
6. Issuance of any DA permits necessary for construction of the mitigation site (if
necessary).
The Sponsor must initiate implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan no later than the first
full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction (i.e., construction of the initial
physical and biological improvements proposed in the approved Mitigation Plan must be started
by the end of the first full growing season following the initial sale of any credits from the Bank.
This provision does not apply to preservation -only sites that do not include any physical or
biological improvements. Subject to the Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all
required performance standards and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be
available for sale by the Sponsor as specified in the final Mitigation Plan.
Section VIIL• Accounting Procedures
A. The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures acceptable to the DE for maintaining
accurate records of debits made from the Bank. Such procedures shall include the generation of
a ledger by the Sponsor showing credits used at the time they are debited from the Bank. All
ledger reports shall identify credits debited and remaining by type of credit and shall include for
each reported debit the Corps ORM ID number for the permit for which the credits wereutilized
and the permitted impacts for each resource type.
B. When credits from the bank are sought by a permit applicant, the Sponsor shall prepare
reservation letter for the applicant to include with the Corps permit application, that documents
the number and type of credits available to be debited from the bank, and the amount of time (if
any) that those credits will be held for that applicant (with an expiration date for the letter of
availability).
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall notify the DE within
30 days of the transaction with a summary of the transaction and a full ledger report showing the
changes made. Signed copies of the Transfer of Mitigation Responsibility form shall also be
submitted to the Corps permit Project Manager and the Corps Bank Manager for that bank.
D. The Sponsor shall prepare an annual ledger report, on each anniversary of the date of
execution of this agreement, showing all credits used, any changes in credit availability (e.g.,
additional credits released, credit sales, suspended credits, etc.), and the beginning and ending

balance of remaining credits. The Sponsor shall submit the annual report to the DE, for
distribution to each member of the IRT, until such time as all of the credits have been utilized, or
this agreement is otherwise terminated.
Section IX: Financial Assurances
A. Financial assurances for the Bank site will be detailed in the Mitigation Plan. The
Sponsor shall provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the DE, sufficient to assure
completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work
required pursuant to this MBI. The financial assurance value should be based on the cost of
doing the mitigation work, including costs for land acquisition, planning and engineering, legal
fees, mobilization, construction, and monitoring. For preservation only Bank Sites, no financial
assurances will generally be required unless there are specific activities necessary to ensure the
successful preservation of resources on the site, in which case appropriate financial assurances
may still be required.
B. All financial assurances shall be made payable to a standby trust or to a third -party
designee, acceptable to the Corps, who agrees to complete the project or provide alternative
mitigation. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the Corps in the event ofdefault
by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable.
C. The form and amount of financial assurances must be stated in the Mitigation Plan in
order for the Mitigation Plan to be approved. This must include the name of the specific
provider of those assurances and the method by which the financial assurances will be
provided in the event that they must be utilized. Original copies of the financial assurance
documents must be provided to the DE prior to the initial release of credits.
D. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the DE receives notification at
least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
Section X: Site Protection
A The Sponsor shall grant a Conservation Easement (CE) in form acceptable to the DE,
sufficient to protect the Bank Site in perpetuity. The CE shall be perpetual, preserve all natural
areas, and prohibit all use of the property inconsistent with its use as mitigation property,
including any activity that would materially alter the biological integrity or functional and
educational value of wetlands or streams within the Bank Site, consistent with the Mitigation
Plan. The purpose of the CE will be to assure that future use of the Bank Site will result in the
restoration, protection, maintenance and enhancement of wetland and/or stream functions
described in the Mitigation Plan. The name and contact information for the Corps approved
easement holder and a draft copy of the CE will be provided in the Mitigation Plans.
B. The Sponsor shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the DE covering the mitigation
property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that would conflict with its
use as mitigation, including, but not limited to, any liens that have priority over the recorded CE.

C. Subsequent to the recording of the CE, the Sponsor may convey the Bank Site property
either in fee or by granting an easement to a qualified land trust, state agency, or other
appropriate nonprofit organization approved by the Corps. The Sponsor is responsible for
ensuring that the CE is re -recorded so that it remains within the chain of title. The terms and
conditions of this conveyance shall not conflict with the intent and provisions of the CE nor shall
such conveyance enlarge or modify the uses specified in the easement. The CE must contain a
provision requiring 60-day advance notification to the DE before any action is taken to void or
modify the CE, including transfer of title to, or establishment of any other legal claims over, the
project site.
Section XI: Long-term Management
A. The Sponsor shall implement the long-term management plan as described in the
Mitigation Plan. The property that comprises the Bank is privately owned. The Sponsor will
provide perpetual protection on the Bank through the establishment of a permanent
conservation easement that will comply with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers guidelines.
B. The long-term management plan will include a list of annual maintenance, monitoring,
and/or repair activities for the mitigation site, the associated annual cost for each activity, and
the required total amount necessary to provide all future site management. The long-term
management plan should explain how the funds will be managed and provided to the designated
long-term manager (e.g., an endowment managed through a separate account holder). The long-
term management plan should include a contingency section that addresses how the
responsibility and funding for the long-term site management will be passed on to a new
manager in the event that the selected long-term management entity is no longer able to provide
for management of the site.
Section XII: Default and Closure
A. It is agreed to establish and maintain the Bank site until: (i) credits have been exhausted
or banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice by the Sponsor provided to the
DE and other members of the IRT; and (ii) it has been determined and agreed upon by the DE
and IRT that the debited Bank site has satisfied all the conditions herein and in the Mitigation
Plan. If the DE determines that the Bank site is not meeting performance standards or complying
with the terms of the instrument, appropriate action will be taken. Such actions may include, but
are not limited to, suspending credit sales, adaptive management, decreasing available credits,
utilizing financial assurances, and terminating the instrument.
B. Any delay or failure of Bank Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder if and to the
extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or conditions beyond the
Sponsor's reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its ability to perform its
obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide, or
interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking by any governmental body; (iii)
change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or permit condition, or the interpretation or
enforcement thereof; (iv) any order, judgment, action or determination of any federal, state or
local court, administrative agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of
any permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of the Bank Sponsor
is affected by any such event, Bank Sponsor shall give written notice thereof to the IRT as soon

as is reasonably practicable. If such event occurs before the final availability of all credits for
sale, the Sponsor shall take remedial action to restore the property to its condition prior to such
event, in a manner sufficient to provide adequate mitigation to cover credits that were sold prior
to such delay or failure to compensate for impacts to waters, including wetlands, authorized by
Department of the Army permits. Such remedial action shall be taken by the Sponsor only to the
extent necessary and appropriate, as determined by the IRT.
C. At the end of the monitoring period, upon satisfaction of the performance standards, the
Sponsor may submit a request to the DE for site close out. The DE, in consultation with the IRT,
shall use best efforts to review and comment on the request within 60 days of such submittal. If
the DE determines the Sponsor has achieved the performance standards in accordance with the
mitigation plan and all obligations under this MBI, the DE shall issue a close out letter to the
Sponsor.
Section XIII: Miscellaneous
A. Modification of this MBI shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in 332.8 of
the mitigation rule.
B. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories
hereof, their successors and assigns, shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof.
C. This MBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject
matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
D. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this MBI are held to be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability will
not affect any other provisions hereof, and this MBI shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal
or unenforceable provision had not been contained herein.
E. This MBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws ofNorth
Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
F. This MBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
G. The terms and conditions of this MBI shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the parties hereto and their respective successors.
H. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at their
respective addresses, provided below.

Sponsor:
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration, PLLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
Corps:
Mr. Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
USEPA:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
USFWS:
Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
NCWRC:
Ms. Andrea Leslie
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
20830 Great Smokey Mountain Expressway
Waynesville, NC 28786
NCDWR:
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
NCSHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
4617 Mail Service Center
109 E. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
9

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Red Barn Mitigation Bank in the Yadkin River Basin (HUC
03040101), Surry County, North Carolina":
BANK SPONSOR
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
By: Date:
INTERAGENCY REVIEW TEAM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
By: Date:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
By: Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
By: Date:
N.C. Division of Water Resources:
By: Date:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission:
By: Date:
NC State Historic Preservation Office:
By: Date:

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Geographic Service Area Map
Appendix B: Final Mitigation Plan — Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
(This plan includes construction costs, maintenance and monitoring costs, draft copy of
financial assurance documents, draft copy of site protection instrument, and a long term
management plan as appendices to the plan.)
11

�.
Patrick
j sf Springs
JJJ//J AAAAAA r
Vrt rs
.0 rtH Car l�n .-, -
1 SWkrta Ffar ftvck
:ity ,�' _ '':f" ., -' • -� Project M1¢I A,r y �.. �A
. -"r ,••-:86 4 - - �.f ��-:' Location v
J etter san • 21
West R
Jefferson
ex 40�
Thurmond '
r' -
`� 3F1
Hays PleasanTHill
` oo �. "a Mul6arry Elkin JarYesville
Boonville \ Rural Hall
_ ; l
Millets Creek r
4
Cricket
Wilkesboro Oak
•� - YadkirrviIle
Kernerrvi11e
-
+1.-_
- Vyin ston -S alern
^" fr-r-
1 Clamtnon:
1901
L� High
.- - Lenoir Taylafaville
I
r'
Macksvitle
7hanasrfile�
Lexington
Legend S esrllle
- Proposed Service Area (HUC 03040101)y�
PREPARED FOR:
0 5 10 RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
USACE
Miles PROPOSED SERVICE AREA MAP
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
PREPARED BY:
MBI APPENDIX A SURRY COUNTY, NC yyy'�ry ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RCST01ZA'nON

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
August 29, 2019
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
Department of the Army
CORPS of Engineers
Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1343
Subject: Final Mitigation Banking Instrument
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Surry County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2017-01927
Dear Mr. Kichefski,
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 S.E. Maynard Road, Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR) has reviewed the comments of the Draft Mitigation
Banking Instrument for the Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site provided by the Interagency Review
Team (IRT) on 6/21/2019. The comments have been addressed as described below to create the
Final Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans for the Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site.
The Draft Mitigation Plan and Construction Plans were provided to the IRT for review on
2/24/2019. Comments from the IRT are provided on the following pages in italics with our
responses immediately following the comment, according to the following format:
Commenter (IRT member and affiliation)
1. Comment
o EPR Response
In addition to responding to the comments the deliverables were reviewed and additional grade
control was added to UT1 and UT2, the text in the mitigation plan regarding structures
implemented within these reaches was revised. A few errors in the mitigation plan were also
remedied: the buffer calculation was revised to remove a portion of actual buffer area across
easement break for the UT1 culvert; existing stream lengths were revised to match the approved
PJD; and UT3 design data in the geomorphic tables were revised to provide a range of values
rather than single values.
Please contact me at the above phone number or address with any questions.
Sincerely,
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Cc: Kim Browning, USACE, Mac Haupt, DNR

Mac Haupt, NCDWR
1. Section 1.0. UT1 is separated into 3 reaches. DWR would like UT1b labeled on Figure
10-Asset Map. In addition, UT3c was mentioned as a reach, assuming this was a typo
o UT1 b has been labeled on Figure 10-Asset Map.
o Typo has been fixed.
2. Section 3.1. DWR would have liked to have seen a more expanded soil investigation for
the site. While there were 9 soil cores with soil profiles, only three were within the
easement area and none were around the bottom of UT2a. In addition, there should
have been soil cores for pre restoration information in Wetlands 8 and C.
o Soil data that had been collected by EPR has been added to Appendix 4 and text
has been added to Section 3.0 to address this comment. These include soil
cores in wetland A, B and C and in the creation area between wetlands A and B.
3. Table 9. Should include wetlands in the Goals. For example, on page 1 of your
Mitigation Plan you state, "Creation or rehabilitation of 3.45 acres of wetland hydrology,
by raising and reconnecting the restored stream beds to an active floodplain'; this
statement or one like it should be in Goals.
o Wetland goals and objectives have been added to Table 9.
4. Table 10. Sinuosity for the Reference Reaches are proposed, DWR would like to know
the planned sinuosity for reach UT1 a, UT1 c, and UT2a.
o Design criteria and data characterizing the geomorphologic condition of the
existing and proposed reaches are provided in Appendix 7. Morphological tables
are provided for each reach except UT1 b which is not included as a credit
generating stream reach. The morphological tables include sinuosity and slope.
The requested values were also added into the narrative in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.
5. Graph 1- while DWR appreciates EPR modifying their stream design with regard to
UT1b, we feel that reach UT1c is still at risk to be more wetland like than stream. This
opinion is supported by UT1c's position on Graph 1.
o Once the cattle are removed, EPR believes UT1 c will function as a single -thread
channel. Channel formation is addressed as a concern in Section 7.6 — Project
Risks and uncertainties.
6. Section 7.1. DWR does not believe the construction of a low flow channel is necessary
for UT1b. If EPR believes it is necessary, DWR would suggest the channel be as small
(shallow) as practicable. In addition, DWR will require more wetland gauges in the area
and other wetland areas. DWR will recommend specific locations in the Design Sheet
comments.
o The low flow channel will convey water through the stream -wetland complex at a
low slope. The bankfull area of 3 square feet is the smallest EPR believes is
practicable and the design dimensions remain unchanged.
o Figure 11 has been revised to add more wetland wells.
7. Section 7.4. In the wetland creation areas, DWR believes in addition to the proper
wetland hydrology, the creation areas should show soil indicators of hydric status
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

development. This is why it is important to have soil profile data in the creation areas
before and immediately after restoration activities to compare during the monitoring
period.
o Additional soil data that has been collected by EPR has been added to Appendix
4 and text has been added to Section 3.0 to address this comment. These data
include soil profiles in the creation area. Text in Section 7.4 has been revised.
8. Section 8.3. Please include verbiage regarding the development of hydric soil indicators
in the wetland creation areas.
o Sentence was added to Section 8.3: In addition to the wetland hydrology and
vegetation performance standards above, wetland creation areas will document
the development of hydric soil indicators.
9. Table 11. DWR approves of these objectives.
o Thank you.
10. Section 9.2. Please include the location of soil temperatures from year to year in the
monitoring report. DWR is fine with beginning the soil temperature measurements in late
March.
o Text revised to describe locations of soil temperatures to include existing
wetlands A, B and C and the creation area between wetland A and B. Text also
revised to remove Vearly April' and indicate that soil temperatures will be
collected starting in late March.
11. Figure 12. Please provide the buffer spreadsheet that provides the summary of the
positive and negative areas of stream credit.
o The Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator documentation is
provided in Appendix 10.
o Note that an error was observed in the buffer calculation of the draft mitigation
plan and has been revised in this submittal. The actual buffers extended
upstream of UT1 crossing. This area has been removed from generating stream
buffer credits and added to the wetland creation and wetland rehabilitation area.
12. Typically a single pipe with floodplain culverts is preferable.
o Detail has been revised.
13. Sheet 3. What is typically on a Structure Tables page?
o Elevation, station and dimensions necessary for the contractor to install the
structures. These are included at the 100% and a placeholder sheet is included
in the plan set at earlier review submittals. The structure tables are provided in
this submittal.
14. Sheets 6, 7, 8, and 9. DWR would like an explanation of sinuosity for both going into and
out of UT1b. The sinuosity shown for UT1b (typically, DWR likes to see the reaches
labeled on the Design sheets) significantly less.
o Since UT1 b will likely be unable to support an ordinary high water mark due to
the valley slope and watershed size, construction of a meandering channel
through this area would disturb more wetland than necessary. UT1 b will function
more as a flowing wetland system than a stream. EPR is confident that the
channel constructed will provide surface water from UT1 a to UT1 c ensuring that
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE" ENVIRONMENT -

hydrologic success of UT1 c is met while not causing detrimental impacts to
Wetland A. As shown on the morphological tables provided in Appendix 7, the
design sinuosity for both UT1 a and UT1 c are well within the ranges provided in
the design criteria section of these tables. These numbers have been
successfully used on numerous past projects.
15. Sheet 7. DWR recommends placement of wetland gauges at sta 27+00, stream right,
and sta 29+00, stream left.
o Figure 11 has been revised. A gauge was added on stream left at UT1 29+00
within the wetland A rehabilitation area. A gauge was added to stream right at
UT1 27+60 within the wetland A rehabilitation area. The area around station
27+00 is used for stream buffer credits and is not creditable wetland area.
16. Sheet 11. DWR recommends a placement of a wetland gauge at sta 19+00, stream
right.
o Gauge has been added as requested. Figure 11 has been revised.
17. Sheet 12. DWR recommends a placement of a wetland gauge at sta 20+60, stream
right.
o Gauge has been added as requested. Figure 11 has been revised.
18. Sheet 16. It looks like EPR plans a stream gauge for this reach, DWR recommends
placement at sta 18+00, it looks like from Figure 11, it is close to this station.
o That is correct. The stream gauge location is at the pool/head of riffle around
UT2 station 18+30.
19. Sheet 19. DWR recommends placement of two wetland gauges, one at sta 30+00,
stream left, and one at sta 32+90, stream right.
o Gauges have been added as requested. Figure 11 has been revised.
20. Sheet 20. DWR would like to see this portion of reach (sta 35+00 to 37+00) just after
construction.
o EPR will contact DWR when this reach is completed.
Kim Browning and Steve Kichefski, USACE
1. Please discuss proposed BMPS, and any required maintenance, especially if they are
located within the conservation easement. It's unclear where these will be location, or
what is planned.
o There are no BMPs proposed in the conservation easement for this project.
Agricultural BMPs will be implemented to exclude cattle from streams, buffers,
and wetlands.
2. Section 5.3. Provide the FEMA floodplain coordinator project approval and/or status so
that we can ensure the project will meet federal permitting requirements. Is a no rise
being completed for project components within the floodplain/floodway?
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

As stated in Section 5.0 EPR is applying for a no -rise with the county for this
project. The No -rise has recently been submitted to the county and is included in
Appendix 5.
3. Page 2: The pedestrian bridge (between STA 33+00 and 34+00) should be removed
from the credited stream area on UT2C and added to Figures 10/11. Will this be located
within the FEMA floodplain and included with the floodplain administrator approval?
o The width of the bridge was been deducted from the creditable length of stream.
The bridge is located within the regulatory floodplain of Stewarts Creek; however,
the pedestrian bridge is proposed along UT2c. Therefore, this small pedestrian
bridge will have no impact on the base flood elevation or floodway of Stewarts
Creek.
o Also, please note that stream credits have changed due to errors EPR noticed
during this review. In the previous buffer calculation, the actual buffers from UT1c
extended upstream of the culverted crossing. This area has been removed from
the actual buffer areas and subsequently the wetland rehabilitation and creation
acreages have increased. Second, the creditable stream length for UT1 a began
at Station 10+00 in the draft mitigation plan but the utility easement extends from
station 10+00 to station 10+22. The creditable length for UT1a has been revised
to begin at station 10+22.
4. Section 4.0. Functional Uplift Potential is described by the Stream Functions Pyramid
SQT tool, which is good information, but it would be beneficial to have this information
tied in relation to the NCSAM forms, since it is the approved stream assessment method
for the Wilmington District, to show the current functional assessment and room for
functional uplift.
o NCSAM results have been provided in Appendix 3.
5. Section 9: It would be beneficial to have fixed photo points to assist with monitoring.
Please include the location of these points on the Monitoring Components Map.
o Fixed photo points will be included during the monitoring phase for both cross -
sections and permanent vegetation plots. Additionally, fixed photo points along
the stream channels will be set and used throughout the monitoring period.
Photographs will be taken longitudinally to document the function, stability, and
evolution of the stream channel and riparian vegetation. The location of these
points will be decided during the as -built stage and documented in the Baseline
report. Section 9.1 has been updated to include language describing visual
monitoring protocols.
6. The cover page lists the USACE Action ID associated with the PJD, please use SA W-
2017-01927 in reference to the blank in all future correspondence.
o The SAW ID has been corrected.
7. Please update the following names in the Banking Instrument: Byron Hamstead, not
Hampstead, and the NMFS representative is Twyla Cheatwood, not Dr. Ken Riley
(though this is not likely applicable in Surry County).
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

o The Banking Instrument has "Hamstead" spelled correctly. NMFS has been
removed.
8. Page 16, last paragraph: "Stream reaches were designed using Natural Channel Design
(NCD), which has been successfully in the past for small coastal plain streams." This
does not apply to Surry County.
o While this project is not located within the coastal plain, EPR is confident that the
drainage areas, slopes, and bed materials of certain project reaches are
analogous to headwater coastal plain streams making this data a useful tool in
predicting channel formation. This section has been re -phrased to clarify the
intent and use of Graph 1.
9. UT3a: The SQT results show Functioning & Functioning -At -Risk; the upper 113 of this
reach had an established buffer on one side and some existing bedform diversity, and
while it was incised, it was not actively eroding. Please justify why restoration is
appropriate in this reach, as opposed to an enhancement level 1 approach.
o This reach is extremely incised (BHR > 2.5) and entrenched (ER <1.4)
throughout much of its length. This channel has downcut to large bedrock
nickpoints which are currently holding grade and preventing any further upstream
headcut migration. These large nickpoints are acting as a barrier to aquatic
organisms. Additionally, this reach exhibits extreme lateral instability with banks
actively eroding throughout most of its length. Large amounts of fine sediments
have inundated the bed of this stream. This sediment is a direct contribution
from the active bank erosion throughout this reach. Restoration along this reach
will stabilize the stream banks greatly reducing the sediment source, raise the
stream bed elevation and provide a floodplain, and greatly improve aquatic
habitat. EPR is confident that the current level of degradation and the required
level of work to improve stream functions warrant restoration along this reach.
10. UT1b is referenced in several sections, please label this reach on the Asset Map.
o UT1 b has been labeled on Figure 10 -Asset Map
11. Section 8.0. Continuous surface flow for at least 30 consecutive days is only applicable
to intermittent streams. Flow the majority of the year is expected on perennial channels.
o Section reworded to clarify continuous surface flow for at least 30 days refers to
intermittent streams.
12. Section 8.0. Since both C and 8 type channels are being proposed, please correct the
Entrenchment Ratio statement to read no less than 1.4 for 8 type channels, and 2.2 for
C type channels.
o Section revised as requested.
13. Section 8.0. It is recommended that you add a statement regarding surveys.' For
example, "Longitudinal profiles of thalweg, water surface, and top -of -bank of each
Restoration and Enhancement level 1 reach shall be provided in the as -built survey.
Profile surveys during the stream monitoring period shall not be required, unless
evidence of bed and/or bank instability is observed. In such cases, the USA CE, in
consultation with the IRT, shall determine if remedial measures are necessary. If
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

remedial measures are necessary, additional monitoring and reporting may include
additional longitudinal profiles. "
o The recommended statement has been added to Section 8.1.
14. UT2a: There is some concern about the sediment load at the upper end, and its potential
to fill in the proposed channel where it currently forms a wetland complex. Please clarify
the steps to address this sediment transport concern. During the IRT field visit a splay
area for the sand was discussed, which is essentially placed a BMP in the channel
permitting that would be an issue, plus it may mask the problem of channel aggradation
downstream in the existing wetland.
o There are no BMPs proposed in the conservation easement for this project.
Agricultural BMPs will be implemented to exclude cattle from the easement. A
large floodplain will be excavated to provide a sink for excess sediment to
deposit during storm events. Much of the fines within this area are from direct
cattle access to the stream. Stabilizing this section and excluding cattle will
greatly reduce the amount of fines entering the stream. The eroding swale
running down the hillslope on the right bank will also be stabilized removing that
source of sediment.
15. Section 8.2. It is stated that the "Invasive species will be managed and controlled using a
combination of chemical and/or mechanical methods to ensure that these species
comprise less than 5% of the total easement acreage. " For some types of invasive
species the 5% threshold may not be adequate (Kudzu for example).
o Section text has been revised.
16. Section 8.3. Wetland hydrology should discuss the monitored period (for example, April
8-Oct 26), during average climatic conditions.
o Sentence was added: According to the Soil Survey of Surry County, the growing
season is from April 8 to October 26 (USDA 2007). This sentence and soil
temperature monitoring to show the beginning of the growing season are also
addressed in Section 9.2.
17. Section 9.0. Please remove the statement that the IRT may agree that monitoring may
be terminated early.
o Statement removed as requested.
18. Section 9.0. Additional wetland wells are needed to adequately document both the
wetland creation success and that the hydrology of existing wetlands WA/WB/WC will be
maintained.
o Figure 11 has been revised and more wetland wells have been added.
19. Section 10.0. Provide an acceptance letter from the long term steward with details
covering their committed monitoring obligations, long term management funding
(projected costs, endowment details, projected return rate, fund specific to project or
general fund, etc.)
o The long-term stewardship has been revised and instead of Piedmont Land
Conservancy, EPR has transferred the easement to Unique Places to Save.
Appendix 8 now includes an executed Easement Transfer Agreement and
Stewardship Agreement. Section 10 of the Mitigation Plan has been revised to
provide details on long-term management after project closeout.
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

20. Section 11.0. Project components and credit data may need to be adjusted after As -built,
not to exceed the credits approved in the final mitigation plan.
o Noted.
21. There is a 10-ft crossing listed in Table 15a on UT3cd. Please label this on the Asset
Map. Although no credit is being sought for this ATV for crossing, please [provide] more
info to alleviate concerns as to any long term degradation to the project. Will it be
monitored/maintained in long term stewardship? Who will be responsible for
maintenance should the need arise? It is included within the Site Protection Instrument?
o Table 15 has been revised to split out UT3c and UT3d.
o The crossing is designed as a constructed riffle crossing and will not be
maintained. The crossing will be fenced to limit access and will serve as a
designated and hardened location for the landowner to cross the stream to the
northern property during hunting season. The landowner understands the
easement to be a limited use area. There will be no vegetation removal or
maintenance performed by the landowner. As some disturbance is expected, the
stream length for the crossing is not included in the credits. The easement
perimeter, fencing, and any gates protecting the easement will be monitored by
the long-term steward. EPR will perform any required maintenance during the
monitoring period.
22. Table 15a. Please describe the table (reach, amounts, etc.) where the additional credits
are derived from additional buffers. Also, a portion of UT3d is depicted on the Figure 10-
Asset Map as Ell, however shown in Table 15a as Priority 1 Restoration. Please clarify.
o UT3cd was separated out in Table 15.
o The additional buffer method spreadsheet is provided in Appendix 10 and is
performed for an entire project. Per the method, calculations are not performed
by stream reach. The shapefiles have been provided with the digital files of this
submittal.
23. Appendix 11. Footnote 4 should read 10% reserve of credits for bankfull standard, not
15%.
o Footnote 4 has been updated to reflect above comment. Note the 15% is on the
spreadsheet downloaded from RIBITS.
24. Sheets 5/6. The existing wetlands depicted on plan/profile sheet 5/6 don't seem to match
the PJD and Figure 2. Please clarify. Do you anticipate any wetland reduction due to
channel construction along this reach? How about the culvert crossing at UT1 ?
o The delineation of wetland A on the plan sheets was incorrect and has been
revised.
25. Figure 12. There appear to be overlapping areas of wetland credit and additional stream
buffer credit sought for the project. Please verify.
o The shapefiles are provided in the digital files and are available from EPR upon
request. With the draft mitigation plan, the buffer method shapefiles were
provided, and a wetland assets shapefile has been included with the final
mitigation plan.
o The Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator method was applied first
to determine the additional SMUs generated. Any areas that are included in
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

Figure 12 to generate credit (stream buffer zones between 30 and 150 feet) are
clipped from the proposed wetland planting zones. The Asset Map (Figure 10)
shows that the only areas generating wetland credit are the wetland areas within
the 30-foot minimum buffer and those outside of the 150-foot maximum buffer.
26. Provide the sinuosity for project stream reaches. What is the average slope of UT1b,
UT1c and UT2a?
o Design criteria and data characterizing the geomorphologic condition of the
existing and proposed reaches are provided in Appendix 7. Morphological tables
are provided for each reach except UT1 b which is not included as a credit
generating stream reach. The morphological tables include sinuosity and slope.
The requested values were also added into the narrative in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -