20040325 Ver 1_Mitigation Bank Proposal_19980701

I

t

r

s

r

MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
6200 Falls of Neuse Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27609
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Prepared by:
EcoScience Corporation
612 Wade Avenue, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
P440
EcoScience
July 1998

MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
' 1.0 PREAMBLE
This agreement made and entered into on the day of 199_, by Ecosystems
Land Mitigation Bank Corporation, hereinafter Sponsor, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), and the North Carolina Wetland Restoration
Program (NCWRP), hereinafter collectively referred to as the Mitigation Bank Review Team
(MBRT).
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a mitigation bank designed to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts authorized by Section
404 Clean Water Act permits or Section 401 Water Quality Certifications in appropriate
circumstances.
I The Sponsor is the record owner of that certain parcel of land containing approximately 623
acres located in Cumberland County, North Carolina described in the Barra Farms Cape Fear
Regional Mitigation Bank Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan). The
Mitigation Plan is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Mitigation Plan
is hereto revised as described in Exhibit A of this Banking Instrument (Supplemental Appendix
to the Mitigation Plan, Response to MBRT Comments and Revisions to the Mitigation Plan).
The agencies comprising the MBRT 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
stream functions at the Bank Site.
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 agreement.

f?

e

ri

2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.1 Goals: The goal of the mitigation bank is to restore and enhance streams, riverine
wetlands, nonriverine wetlands, and their functions and values. Restoration and enhancement
activities are designed to compensate in appropriate circumstances for unavoidable wetland
and stream impacts authorized by Clean Water Act permits or Water Quality Certifications in
circumstances deemed appropriate by USACE or NCDWQ after consultation with members
of the MBRT.
2.2 Additions to the Bank Site: The Sponsor may request the addition of adjacent lands to
the Bank Site. Such a request shall be accompanied by a Site-Specific Restoration Plan which
follows the general format of the Mitigation Plan and depicts the location and describes the
hydraulic interaction between the addition and the existing Bank Site. The MBRT shall review
the Site-Specific Restoration Plan and approve/disapprove the request for addition within 60
days of submittal. In the event the request for addition is not approved, specific modification
suggestions may be provided by the MBRT to the Sponsor. In the event of approval, the
additional area shall be deemed a portion of the Bank Site and the contents of this agreement
shall apply to that area. An updated mitigation credit determination will subsequently be
submitted which depicts the amount of credit, type of credit, and credit release schedule
generated by approved additions to the Bank Site.
2.3 Use of Credits: Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and stream impacts
authorized by Clean Water Act permits or Water Quality Certifications must be in compliance
with the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations, including but not limited to the
404(b)(1) Guidelines, and the National Environmental Policy Act, and all other applicable
Federal and State legislation, rules, and regulations. This agreement has been drafted
following the guidelines set forth in the proposed "Federal Guidance for the Establishment,
Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks," 60 Fed. Rea. 58605, November 28, 1995
I (Guidance).

2.4 Role of the MBRT: The MBRT shall be chaired by the representative from USACE,
Wilmington District. The MBRT shall review monitoring and accounting reports more fully
2

' described in Sections 3.3 and 4.4 below. In addition, the MBRT will review requests for
additions to the Bank (Section 2.2), or proposals for remedial actions proposed by the
Sponsor, or any of the agencies represented on the MBRT. The MBRT's role and
responsibilities are more fully set forth in Sections II.C. 3 & 6 of the Guidance. The MBRT will
work to reach consensus on its actions.
USACE, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies, shall make
all final decisions concerning the amount and type of compensatory mitigation to be required
for unavoidable, permitted wetland and stream impacts, and whether or not the use of credits
from the Bank is appropriate to offset those impacts.
The parties to this agreement understand that, where practicable, on-site, in-kind
compensatory mitigation is preferred, unless use of the Bank is determined by USACE to be
environmentally preferable or determined by USACE that on-site mitigation opportunities are
I not available.
1 3.0 MITIGATION PLAN
3.1 General Description: The Bank Site is composed of approximately 623 acres (ac) of
interstream flats, former Carolina Bays, and historic stream origins which have been
ditched and drained to support agricultural and silvicultural activities. This site offers
opportunities for nonriverine wetland, riverine wetland, and stream restoration and
enhancement. In addition, surrounding areas within the former wetland complex are
available for expansion of the Bank Site which can be phased over a period of time. A
more detailed description of the baseline conditions on the site is contained in Sections
1.0 through 4.0 of the Mitigation Plan.
3.2 Site Modifications: The Sponsor has completed all work described in Section 5.0 of the
Mitigation Plan. Stream repair and ephemeral pool construction has been completed and ditch
flows diverted into the restored floodplain where planned. Ditches have been backfilled and
spoil/roadway fill recontoured within the ditch corridors. Soil preparation and planting of
i
3
characteristic wetland trees has been completed. The purpose of the modifications, and the

1

r
P

objective of the Bank, is to re-direct the watershed into 2400 linear feet of historic stream
channel; to restore 451 acres of drained former wetlands to riverine and nonriverine wetlands,
and to enhance 172 acres of disturbed wetlands (Table 1, copied from Table 10 in the
Mitigation Plan).
3.3 Site Monitoring: The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site as described in Section 7.0
of the Mitigation Plan (Monitoring Plan ) and as amended in Exhibit A (Revisions to the
Mitigation Plan). The Bank Site will be monitored for a five year period after implementation
is completed or until such time as the MBRT determines that the Success Criteria have been
met.
The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration and enhancement
activities at the Bank Site, and for the overall operation and management of the Bank.
The Sponsor shall provide the reports described in Section 7.0 of the Mitigation Plan to each
member of the MBRT.
3.4 Contingency: USACE shall review said reports, and may, at any time, after consultation
with the Sponsor and the MBRT, direct the Sponsor to take remedial action at the Bank Site.
Remedial action required by USACE shall be designed to achieve the success criteria specified
in Section 7.0 of the Mitigation Plan and Exhibit A. All remedial actions required under this
paragraph shall include a schedule, which shall take into account physical and climatic
conditions.
The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the above
paragraph.
In the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to achieve the
required monitoring and maintenance criteria, it shall provide notice of such proposed remedial
action to all members of the MBRT. No remedial actions shall be taken without the
concurrence of USACE, in consultation with the MBRT.
4

L

1?

W

C
:I

Y
Z
CD
Z
O
Q
H
H
O Q
W z
U
O cc
C7 w
U.
LLI
Q
U
V.
f?
co

O ? I
r
C ca O N N
O
V
a)
c i O
Lc)
- 00

N

?

'
E = N r N
` O

... C)
a N
d

W
m
?r

r e? r N N r
V • • ai
? a'i ? of d;
I
O
co

O N
i 00

O

N CN a)

N CY)
M O
C d N
CY) e- Cfl
I
a? ;
O
c a?
c
c
CD •}r , 0
1
L co }+
?
Q) CD +U
+ it
Q) co
N : O ? L
O
c ? _ +-' ? ? +J Cn
C
O O co
O O
U
L-
a
LL C
O
cc

ro
c p j 'a C
' m -
L "' L co
'N NI O N c c 0-p m ?-p O *- .J

'-
ai
a
O
"O O
++ Q
i

O

W
?j

C
V

fn
D O
U M F-
C O I 'Q O O O C Q O O O LJ l 0
O O U O
cp L co
O I 4-
CA
!n c
(0
c c
c0
++ N O
Q) L
Q) L QC)
Q) C Q) c C
C O Q) Q)
C E y Q

' c
f° ?Q
>
E c
- ? 0 3 c co
m C:

L Q) -0 CL

O O 0 m

co

c y
6. ca
C

co

y
4r >
CA y L
2 v O c

Sw O Q) C
co
Z= O C

Zw C2
X cfl
y C
U
E '*+
O C
U 4-
N O
t C
co
C
4)
C 3
O
O O
y d
O
C
?O)N
L O Cn
0 N
O O C
U
.;, N
O
++ ? C
? ca)
U co U
y c
'a m co
c`o Co
E
v
co
a? y
"Co 3 co
c -0 Q)
cm 0 C
d (o
7 C a)
C O O
O
U
4? Q)
C
> N
•}r L
C O) .?
co '?+ 7
N
O C co
U 'O 7
a) U
C U O
co y v`-
7 ?- C
O m
C Q)
O C Q)
co O y
0
ai M aa)
m -0
r N
h

u

n

4.0 USE OF MITIGATION CREDITS
4.1 Geographic Service Area: The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area
wherein a bank can reasonably be expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts
to similar wetland and/or other stream or aquatic resources. The geomorphic setting of the
Bank includes nonriverine flats, nonriverine depressions, and riverine, low order blackwater
streams (third order or less) within the Coastal Plain region of the Cape Fear River Basin. The
Bank is located in proximity to, or on the boundary between three Hydrophysiographic
Cataloging Units within the inner Coastal Plan region of the river basin: 03030004,
03030005, and 03030006 as depicted in Figure 15 of the Mitigation Plan. These Cataloging
Units support similar Coastal Plain natural communities, wetlands, and drain into the lower
Cape Fear River. Therefore, the eastern and western limits of the service area are defined by
the outer boundaries of the Cape Fear River Basin contained within the above-listed
Cataloging Units.
The southern and northern boundaries of these river sub-basins have been modified based
primarily upon 11 digit watersheds in the region. To the south, watersheds in the Wilmington
Area have been excluded due to Karst geomorphology and regional aquifer issues identified
by the MBRT. The MBRT has further restricted the service area north of Wilmington due to
expected development patterns in the region and the potential for wetland compensatory
mitigation in proximity to these developments. To the north, the service area has been
reduced along 11 digit watershed boundaries to exclude Raleigh Belt portions of the Cape
Fear basin (Figure 15 of the Mitigation Plan).
Use of the Bank for compensatory mitigation may also be considered outside of the
designated service area if this option is preferable to other mitigation alternatives. It is
understood that Bank Service Area expansion will be considered if: 1) the area of the Bank
is expanded; or 2) project specific needs are justified and approved by the MBRT.
6

4.2 Amount and Type of Credit: The Mitigation Plan is intended to result in the forms and
amounts, in acres, of wetland compensatory mitigation depicted in Table 1 (copied from Table
10 of the Mitigation Plan). Successful implementation of the Mitigation Plan will result in the
creation of 240 riverine and nonriverine wetland mitigation credits. In addition, 2400 linear
feet of low order, stream channel credit (third order or less) will be generated (Table 1).
It is anticipated by the parties to this Agreement that use of mitigation credits shall be "in-
kind"; riverine wetland, nonriverine wetland, and low order, stream channel credits will be
used to offset riverine wetland, nonriverine wetland, and low order, stream channel impacts.
It is anticipated by the parties to this agreement that in most cases in which USACE, after
consultation with members of the MBRT, has determined that mitigation credits from the bank
may be used to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by Department of the Army
permits, for every acre of impact, one credit will be debited from the Bank. Deviations from
the one to one compensation ratio will be based on considerations of value of the wetlands
impacted, the severity of the impacts to wetlands, whether this compensatory mitigation is
in-kind, and physical proximity of the wetland impacts to the Bank Site.
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 water impacts authorized by Department of the Army
permits, shall be made by USACE, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and implementing
regulations and guidance, after notice of any proposed use of the Bank to the members of the
MBRT, and consultation with the members of the MBRT concerning such use.
4.3 Credit Release Schedule: The credit release schedule for the Bank will be based upon
successful completion of the following tasks:
Task 1: Task 1 entails acquisition and protection of the Bank site, completion of detailed
mitigation planning, review of plan parameters by the MBRT, and signing of the MBI.
Protective covenants, easements, and bonds on the property will also be obtained. Upon
completion of Task I, 15% of the total Bank credits will be released.
7

t

1

r

N
W
J
CO
F-
Y
z
co
z
O
W C7
= F-
N
UJ -j
co) Q
wp
cr. W
H cr.
cr
W W
LL
U
za
O V
F-
Q N
C7 ?
F- cc
U.
cc
cc
m
m
O O O N 000 N O
N C +-' O N co M CO 0) It
? N V Q
V
.O
y . y co (00 d0 co
c00
d0 00

M
M
N M M N

d

,w C .- CD N
M 00 N
V- O
N
O co I, CA i
-

V

t
CO 'C
c0
CO
d'
CO
O
?
co
-
O
d V
M
M
N
M
M
N
d
a
?
? d
U ?

? O c
0

A

O

O
LO

O

O

O
0
-
C- O v M ei LO r 00 V
a '
" Ln LO O LO
- LO
- O O
CS U
G7 . V N
a U

c
0
4) +-+
00
0
0)
?
O _
O
O
- d +0+ a) C M M O
N O

N O
N
Q) aQ

v r-
a m m
'_ m
U a
U a
U U U
• 7 7 O 7
U
Co C (n fn Cn )
fn (n
N O Q _

I- L
r'
`-- C p
O rn
C 7
LL 3
LL 5
LL 7
U. 7
LL
O

O +? CO

O-
C
O

?

N

M

LO

C Q
. O
++
'C
p? y
O 0 O m
U ip m
47 co co
4) N ca
N m co
N co
U CL >"C
M

O

O

O
N
??
U
N=
d
M
N
d' ''=

Lo •O
.- N M M U M U M U M U M U

Task 2: Task 2 includes completion of all mitigation implementation activities at the Bank.
Stream repair and ephemeral pool construction will be completed and ditch flows diverted into
the restored floodplain where planned. Ditches will be backfilled and spoil/roadway fill will
be recontoured within the ditch corridors. Subsequently, soil preparation and planting of
characteristic wetland trees will be completed. Documentation will be submitted to the MBRT
certifying completion of Task 2. Upon completion of Task 2, 15% of the total Bank credits
' will be released (30% cumulative).
Task 3: Task 3 involves implementation of the monitoring plan and submittal of annual
reports to the MBRT for a five year monitoring period. Hydrology and vegetation sampling
will be completed towards the end of each growing season (between September 1 and
October 31). The vegetation and hydrology data will be compiled and success/failure
documented within each Mitigation Design Map Unit (as depicted in the Mitigation Plan). The
data will be submitted to the MBRT as an Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR). Upon
submittal of the AWMR, wetland credits will be released as follows.
First AWMR (November 1998): 10% (40% cumulative)
Second AWMR (November 1999): 15% (55% cumulative)
Third AWMR (November 2000): 15% (70% cumulative)
Fourth AWMR (November 2001): 10% (80% cumulative)
Fifth AWMR (November 2002): 20% (100% cumulative)
Credit releases for Task 3 will only occur if success criteria are fulfilled as stipulated in the
Mitigation Plan and Exhibit A. If wetland or stream recovery is delayed (i.e. lacking wetland
' plants or hydrology), the credit will be reserved for release upon submittal of a subsequent
report which verifies restoration success.
I The final credit allotment will be released upon completion of the fifth AWMR, fulfillment of
success criteria, and provisions for dispensation /long term management of the property. The
' final credit allotment(s) may be released by the MBRT in advance of the fifth AWMR if
success criteria can be fulfilled earlier in the monitoring program. ECOBANK reserves the
1 9

1

1

t

Ci

right to request an expedited release of credits if wetland restoration success is apparent over
a period of time, and success criteria are met and exceeded.
4.4 Accounting Procedures: The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures for
maintaining accurate records of debits made from the bank, acceptable to the MBRT. Such
procedures shall include the generation of a report by the Sponsor showing credits used at
the time they are debited from the bank, which the Sponsor shall provide within 30 days of
the debit to each member of the MBRT. In addition, the Sponsor shall prepare an annual
report on each anniversary of the date of execution of this agreement, showing all credits
used, and the balance of credits remaining, to each member of the MBRT, until such time as
all of the credits have been utilized, or this agreement is otherwise terminated. All reports
will identify credits debited and remaining by type of credit (e.g., nonriverine forested
wetland), and shall include for each reported debit the USACE Action ID number for the
permit for which the credits were used. Exhibit B comprises a sample master credit ledger
which will be used to track and report Bank debits.
5.0 PROPERTY DISPOSITION
Ownership of the Bank will reside with the Sponsor who intends to provide fee simple
transfer of the property to the appropriate land management organization as determined by
the MBRT. Fee simple transfer will occur upon completion of debiting of the Bank or the end
of the monitoring period, which ever is longer. The transferee will be responsible for
maintaining the Bank in accordance with a Conservation Easement placed on the Bank Site
for perpetual protection as described in Section 8.0 of the Mitigation Plan.
6.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
6.1 Monitoring and Maintenance Bonds: The Sponsor is responsible for securing adequate
construction, monitoring, and maintenance bonds as a form of financial assurance to cover
contingency actions in the event of Bank default or failure. Construction and implementation
activities at the Bank Site were completed in January 1998; therefore, construction bonds
are no longer necessary. However, monitoring and maintenance bonds have been obtained
to ensure monitoring for a five year period and to ensure that contingency actions are
10

1

1

implemented in the event of wetland or stream restoration failure. Financial Assurance
Documents in the form of Monitoring and Maintenance Bonds are included as Exhibit C.
6.2 Management Trust Fund
A separate, long-term trust fund will be provided by the Sponsor for long-term maintenance,
management, and remedial actions. The trust fund will be established upon completion of
debiting of the Bank or at the end of the monitoring period, which ever is longer. The trust
fund, included as Exhibit D, will provide financial support to the land management
organization designated for fee simple transfer of the land by the MBRT.
7.0 MISCELLANEOUS
This agreement may be amended with the written consent of all the parties.
Notices, requests, and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at
their respective addresses provided below:
Sponsor:
Alan G. Fickett, Ph.D.
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
USACE:
Scott McLendon
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 27889-1000
USEPA:
Kathy Matthews
Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsythe St.
Atlanta, GA 30303
USFWS:
Kevin Moody
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 3326
Raleigh, NC 27636
11

' NCWRC:
Bennett Wynne
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
901 Laroque Ave.
Kinston, NC 28501
NCDWQ:
John Dorney / Cyndi Bell
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
NCWRP
Ron Ferrell
North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ll

?J

12

t
1
1
1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for the Barra Farms
Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
Scott McLendon
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kevin Moody
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bennett Wynne
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comm.
Alan G. Fickett
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corp.
13
Kathy Matthews
Environmental Protection Agency
John Dorney
North Carolina Division of Water
Quality
Ron Ferrell
North Carolina Wetland Restoration
Program

I EXHIBIT A

I SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX TO THE MITIGATION PLAN
RESPONSE TO MBRT COMMENTS AND REVISIONS
TO THE MITIGATION PLAN

t
1

1

14

SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX TO THE MITIGATION PLAN
RESPONSE TO MBRT COMMENTS AND REVISIONS TO THE MITIGATION PLAN
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Cumberland County, North Carolina
' Introduction
The following discussion provides responses to MBRT comments concerning the mitigation plan
for the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank. The comment letters forwarded by the
' MBRT members are attached to this document. This supplemental appendix will serve as an
addendum to the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and the Mitigation Plan. Plan parameters
enumerated in this addendum replace earlier provisions described in the Mitigation Plan.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
' Paragraph #2: Comment on the 18-acre, Downstream Addition to the Mitigation Bank
ECOBANK is in the process of negotiating with land owners to protect (through a conservation
easement) approximately 18 acres downstream of the Harrison Creek headwater restoration area.
This wetland area will be included as an "Addition to the Bank" as outlined in Section 2.2 of the
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). The Bank Sponsor will prepare a Site-Specific Restoration
Plan for the Addition for review and approval by the MBRT. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers,
ECOBANK and its consultants feel that this is a valuable downstream addition to the Bank and
concur that this area will likely provide 9 acres of wetland restoration credit. This addition will also
provide approximately 1900 linear feet of enhanced stream for a total of 4300 linear feet of enhanced
' stream for the entire Bank. Stream enhancement credit and monitoring plans for the stream are
described in item "e" below.
a. Page 1, Section 1.0, Introduction. Reference to the 2,247-acre tract should be deleted.
Reference to the entire 2,247-acre tract is removed herein from Page 1 of the Mitigation Plan.
' b. Page 19, Section 4.1.2 (Reference Groundwater Model Application and Results). This
section indicates that evapotranspiration rates decrease as the site develops into a
forested system. This statement should be revised to reflect that evapotranspiration
rates actually increase as the site develops.
This reference intends to indicate that evapotranspiration (E/T) rates decrease during successional
phases of forest development. Research indicates that E/T rates decrease from early-mid
successional stages (pocosin vegetation, 5-50 years) to late successional forested conditions.
Although E/T rates do increase in early years from cleared to early successional conditions, the
reference model compared pocosin vegetation to late successional forested conditions to predict an
average hydroperiod through successional phases relative to the reference site (late successional
forest). Hydroperiods increased significantly (22% to 40% of the growing season) as the forest
canopy developed, in part, due to projected decreases in evapotranspiration. This would suggest that
(I

the steady state forested sites generally remain inundated/saturated longer than pocosin sites in
Croatan soils.
C. Figure 9, Drainage Estimates. It is unclear what the central unshaded (white) portion
of the Figure signifies, would this be considered existing wetlands.
The central, unshaded area in Figure 9 (pre-restoration groundwater model) is an area which is not
' sustaining accelerated groundwater withdrawal due to ditching (based on the groundwater model).
When considering only precipitation and groundwater inputs, the area may be considered existing
wetlands. However, surface water influences (stream inflows) on wetlands in this area have been lost
due to watershed diversion away from this headwater storage area and stream origin. The unshaded
area in Figure 10 (post-restoration) depicts a similar situation concerning groundwater; but stream
' flows will also be restored in the unshaded area.
d. Page 29, Section 5.1.3, Off-Site Drainage Redirection. Will the shallow ditch that
prevents flooding on adjacent property owners be a maintenance concern as the ditch
fills in or becomes blocked.
The Off-Site Drainage Redirection is planned to discharge onto the mitigation site (Site) at an
elevation of 114.5 feet above MSL. Because elevations on portions of the Site are generally lower
than 114.5 feet, the discharge path would be expected to eventually develop characteristics of an
alluvial fan at outfall(s). On the mitigation site, the shallow ditch is not expected to persist over a
relatively long period of time (5+ years). Therefore, periodic ditch maintenance within the
mitigation site is not required
' Above the mitigation site, the ditch may require cleaning, as has been the case prior to mitigation
activities. If the plan is implemented at the assigned elevations, off-site ditch flows should continue
to discharge onto the Site even if the on-site, shallow ditch segment develops into an alluvial fan.
This area will be regularly evaluated during the 5-year monitoring period to assess these predictions.
e. Page 36, Section 7.2, Hydrology Success Criteria. This section should also contain
specific success criteria for the stream restoration area.
Hydrology Success Criteria for the Stream Restoration Area is incorporated into the Mitigation Plan
' as follows.
Stream Monitoring
' Two staff gauges will be placed within the restored stream channel. One gauge will be located in
central portions of the mitigation stream reach and a second gauge near the mitigation site outfall.
Water surface elevation within the channel will be collected weekly during the early growing season
and once every 2 weeks throughout the remainder of the year. Measurement at two week intervals
will be initiated after the groundwater table has dropped to greater than 1 foot below the soil surface
in all reference wetlands.
A stream reach will be established for monitoring use in central portions of the mitigation stream
reach. The stream reach will extend for a minimum of 200 feet along the restored channel. Annual
' Fall monitoring will include development of a channel plan view, three channel cross-sections,
pebble counts, and a water surface profile of the channel. The data will be presented in graphic and

' tabular format as summarized in the attached table. Data to be presented will include: 1) cross-
sectional area; 2) bankfull width; 3) average depth; 4) average width; S) width/depth ratio; 6)
meander wavelength; 7) beltwidth; 8) water surface slope; 9) sinuosity; and 10) stream substrate
composition. The stream will subsequently be classified according to stream geometry and substrate
(Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked and reported by
comparing data in each successive monitoring year.
Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include: 1) successful classification of the reach as a
' functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996); and 2) changes in channel morphology which indicate the
presence of a developing stream system; and 3) near permanent channel flow. Specifically,
precipitation data will be collected from the mitigation site at the same time that staff gauge
' measurements are collected. If precipitation is recorded over the sample period (generally a two
week period), a water surface must be present in the channel at each staff gauge. Collected data,
' photographic evidence, and stream classification results will be provided in the Annual Wetland
Monitoring Report to verify success criteria.
' f. Page 36, Section 7.1, Hydrology Monitoring. The plan seems to indicate that a single
hydrology success criteria will be used for all nonriverine portions of the site, however, this
section states that monitoring will be performed at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology
success criteria within each designated physiographic area. Please clarify this section of the
plan.
Hydrology monitoring will be performed at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success
criteria within each designated physiographic area: 1) groundwater flats; 2) headwater slope; and
3) riverine floodplain. The groundwater flat and riverine floodplain will be compared directly to the
corresponding reference site.
The headwater slope area presents a more complex situation. Based on general evaluations of
' Coastal Plain wetlands, these headwater slopes appear sometimes wetter than the surrounding flat
and sometimes dryer than the surrounding flat. This may be due to a number of factors; however,
slope of the groundwater table and discharge rates into ephemeral stream channels most likely play
' an important role. It is our opinion that this headwater storage area may remain significantly wetter
than the adjacent groundwater flat for the first few years until ephemeral drainageways begin to
reform towards the historic stream. Subsequently, the headwater slope will begin to exhibit shorter
hydroperiods than the groundwater flat over time.
As stated in the monitoring plan, the hydrology success criteria for the headwater slope
physiographic area will be interpolated between the two adjacent systems (groundwater flats and
riverine floodplains). The success criteria for the headwater slope is expected to comprise the
' average hydroperiod exhibited by reference sites for both adjacent systems (riverine floodplain and
groundwater flat).

g. Relative to comment (f.), above, what preliminary data is available relative to
groundwater fluctuation in the reference area. Please include this information in the
final plan.
Periodic sampling data for groundwater fluctuation in the groundwater flat reference area is included
as PZ 13 in Table 1 (Page 12) of the Mitigation Plan.
h. Page 37, Section 7.2, Reference Wetland Sites. Does ECOBANK have legal assurances
that the reference site located in Harrison Creek Bay will not be clear-cut or otherwise
manipulated. Unless these assurances are made we question ECOBANK's ability to
guarantee that the methods to determine hydrologic success can be carried out over the
life of the monitoring program.
' Reference Wetland Sites for this project include nonriverine swamp forests in the northwestern
portion of Harrison Creek Bay and riverine swamp forests located in Bladen Lakes State Forest.
ECOBANK has obtained verbal assurances from land owners that the reference sites will not be
clear-cut during the 5-year monitoring period. Legal assurances have not been obtained and are not
considered necessary. ECOBANK will maintain responsibility for providing reference site and
mitigation site data sufficient to defend achievement of hydrology success criteria, as outlined in the
Mitigation Plan.
i. All materials in the plan and NMI must be no larger than 81/2" x 14" (legal) size paper.
Graphics in the mitigation plan which are larger than 8 V2" x 14' (legal) size will be reduced and
forwarded to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1. Definition of up-front mitigation.
Up front mitigation has been defined in the plan as completion of all mitigation activities and
initiation of the monitoring plan prior to permitted impacts.
' 5. Potential property dispensation to WRC:
The MBRT and WRC have considered Barra Farms for inclusion into the WRC Game Lands
Program. Public access is a critical factor in determining the tract's suitability for inclusion. The
623-acre mitigation site maintains vehicular access points along the northern and southern
boundaries of the project. Public access opportunities at these vehicular access points is currently
' unknown. If areas adjacent to the current bank site are incorporated into the Bank at a later time,
additional opportunities for public access will occur. The NCWRP has agreed to hold the
conservation easement until a final determination is made for ultimate dispensation of the property.
North Carolina Division of Water Ouality / North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program
1. Derivation of Credit for Stream Restoration/Enhancement
Stream restoration credit is requested within 2400 linear feet of relict channel located at the
southern margins of the property. This system has maintained a drainage area of approximately
0.1 square miles for several decades. The approximately 10 square mile watershed which
historically flowed through the stream was channelized off the property through an extensive

' canal network. The canal network reconnects into the stream system several miles below the
mitigation site. This watershed redirection routed waters to the north and west, depriving the
former stream system of its source. Since this time, sediment buildup and debris deposition has
obliterated evidence of a defined stream channel, although relic features do remain to convey
intermittent flow during peak storms.
These relict features do not meet DWQ guidelines for stream designation under existing
conditions. Steve Kroger of DWQ visited the former stream in April 1997 and questioned
whether this system represents an actual stream valley. There is no distinct bed and bank; there
r are no pool/riffle formations; there is no evidence of aquatic life or fisheries; there are no
substrate features to suggest perennial flow. In summary, a 0.1 square mile watershed is not
adequate to support a viable stream channel. This fact is depicted in the hydraulic analysis in the
' Mitigation Plan.
' Three options of stream mitigation are generally recognized in the region; 1) in-place
modifications to an existing stream; 2) construction of a new stream adjacent to an existing
channel; and 3) establishment of a stream where one does not currently exist. Option 3,
commonly referred to as a watershed diversion, represents the method for stream mitigation
applied at Barra Farms. The watershed for this relict floodplain is being increased from less than
0.1 square miles under existing conditions to more than 2 square miles under post-mitigation
conditions (a twenty-fold increase). Therefore, stream restoration credit for 2400 linear feet of
channel is proposed.
2. Stream Monitoring Plan
The stream monitoring plan and success criteria are described above.
3. Credit Release Schedule for Stream Credits
The credit release schedule for stream credits will follow the procedures developed by the MBRT
for wetland credit release. The revised credit release schedule for wetland and stream credit is
included in Table 2.

1-7
L
?I

H
u

C?

t
ICI

N
W
J
co
I--
W
J
W
2
V
W
N
a
W
J
W
H
W
V
Z
O
H
a
C7
H
E
a
m
m
_
O
O
O
N
N

r
CO
C14
co
CY) 00

CO

O O

N
=
E r..
zcnC)Q
V

c
co 00
_? M N M M N Rt

d

io c0 'O ? CO N O M C%4 00
CO CN
M 0
't
V O M n CA r .- r N

V

O co ItF co co It 00
) O M M N M M N
Q

0 ?
0
+ .2 ?o
a
3 LO O
M O
d LO
LO O
r? O
00
v
G LO cn O LO LO
- O O
41 'O U r r r ?- ? r N
aU
o
c
4
00
co
O

a)
O

0)
O

r
O
N

y Q, tC

r

r
r
.- O
N
N O
N
O

a \
rl `
M ?-
r r
r r
r r
r r
r
N N h N N y
G)
U
U
_
m •+_+
- ? U U U
Cc U C N cn c!) !n cn

F- +L+ C C
•?
C
LL
U. -
tL 5
U. -
U.
C 0"

c
a O 0 r N M
E
O 0 c m
0 m `m
0 m m
0 m co
0 m w
0 M
C
(n N
r N M Lo
r N M M U M U M U M U M U

u

0
February 2, 1998
Action ID No. 199704890, Barra Farm Mitigation Bank
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
Mr. Alan Fickett
ECOBANK
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Dear Mr. Fickett:
Reference the January 8, 1998, Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) meeting to discuss
development of the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank (Bank). The purpose of this meeting was to
discuss the Mitigation Banking Instrument (NMI) and credit release schedule as well as the
technical aspects of the final mitigation plan for the Bank. It is our understanding that all
earthwork has been completed and that trees will be planted in the next few months. It is
encouraging that a substantial amount of progress has been made on the site and we are looking
forward to finalizing the MBI.
ECOBANK has acquired (through a conservation easement) an additional 18 acres
' downstream from the (Harrison Creek) headwater restoration area. We feel that this is a
valuable addition to the Bank and concur that this area will provide 9 acres of restoration
"credit". Although 4,200 linear feet of stream restoration will be generated at the Bank,
' procedures must be adopted to account for the acreage amount of this type of restoration
available for use.

r

Finally, we offer the following comments regarding the final mitigation plan:
a. Page 1, Section 1.0, Introduction. Reference to the 2,247 acre tract should be deleted.
b. Page 19, Section 4.1.2, Model Application and Results. This section indicates that
evapotranspiration rates will decrease as the site develops into a forested system. This statement
should be revised to reflect that evapotranspiration rates will actually increase as the site
develops.
c. Figure 9, Drainage Estimates. It is unclear what the central unshaded (white) portion of
the Figure signifies. Would this be considered existing wetlands?

' -2-
d. Page 29, Section 5.1.3, Off-Site Drainage Redirection. Will the shallow ditch that
prevents flooding on adjacent property owners be a maintenance concern as the ditch fills in or
becomes blocked?
' e. Page 36, Section 7.2, Hydrology Success Criteria. This section should also contain the
specific success criteria for the stream restoration area.
' f. Page 36, Section 7. 1, Hydrology Monitoring. The plan seems to indicate that a single
hydrologic success criteria will be used for all the non-riverine portions of the site, however, this
' section states that monitoring "will be performed at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology
success criteria within the designated phhysiographic area. Please clarify this section of the plan.
' g. Relative to comment (f.), above, what preliminary data is available relative to
groundwater fluctuation in the reference area. Please include this information in the final plan.
' h. Page 37, Section 7.2, Reference Wetland Sites. Does ECOBANK have legal assurances
that the reference site located in Harrison Creek Bay will not be clear-cut or otherwise
' manipulated. Unless these assurances are made we question ECOBANK's ability to guarantee
that the methods to determine hydrologic success can be carried out over the life of the
monitoring program.
' i. All materials in the plan and MBI must be on no larger than 8 1/2" x 14" (legal) size
paper.
' With the exception of Kevin Moody, representing the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
following credit release schedule was tentatively agreed to by ECOBANK and the MBRT during
' this meeting:
- 15% credit release at signing of NMI
' - 15% credit release at completion of construction
- 10% credit release at completion of year one
- 15% credit release at completion of year two
' - 15% credit release at completion of year three
- 10% credit release at completion of year four
' - 20% credit release at completion of year five
H

-3-
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Questions or comments may be
addressed to the undersigned in the Wilmington Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone
[phone].
' Sincerely,
L

u

u
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Jerry McCrain, Ph.D
Post Office Box 11673
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Mr. Wes Newell
Environmental Services, Inc.
1100 Wake Forest Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Mr. Bennett Wynne, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
901 Laroque Avenue
Kinston, North Carolina 28501
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Quality
Wetland Restoration Program
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
' and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
' James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director

n
0

0

Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
Attn: Dr. Jerry McCrain
612 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
February 13, 1998
RE: Comments of the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Dear Dr. McCrain,
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments to the proposed Barra Farms Cape Fear
Regional Mitigation Bank: Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan. We will focus our
comments on the following area:
Geographic Service Area
The geographic service area as delineated by Figure 15 of the plan, and established by
the MBRT, is acceptable to the NCWRP.
Derivation of Credit
The derivation of credits is found in Table 10 of the plan. For phase I of the Barra Farms
Mitigation Bank the plan shows 240 credits derived from 623 acres of altered wetlands.
The derivation of these credits is acceptable to the NCWRP. The stream restoration in
Table 10 shows 2400 linear feet available for credit. Given the fact that the relict
channel with vegetation is intact and all that will be done will be clearing some of the
debris and restoring the flow, the NCWRP believes that enhancement credit may be more
appropriate. I would like to visit the stream site before final recommendations are made
concerning derivation of stream credits. In addition, given the recent weather patterns in
the region, some stream flow may have already begun.
Credit Release Schedule
According to our records at the last MBRT meeting the credit release schedule which was
agreed upon by all parties is the following:
Up front
P year
2nd year
3rd year
' 4`h year
5`h year

30%
10%
15%
15%
10%
20% (after MBRT site visit).
A NC.WYWA
4j
17
D E N R
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Reference Ecosystem(s)
The NCWRP approves of the selection of several reference ecosystems (as seen in pages
' 24-26 of the plan) in an attempt to guide the work on site with regard to wetland
restoration. Moreover, we feel that while reference stream reaches were identified
(primarily) visually, more hard data could have been collected and presented in the plan.
' For example, reference reaches could have been represented through cross-sectional
schematics, and data concerning the watershed.
1 Plan work schedule
The NCWRP approves of the work plan schedule to backfill all ditches before the
' planting. However, one concern of the NCWRP is whether there is enough spoil
adjacent to the ditches to backfill all ditches. The NCWRP approves of the creation of
seasonal pools in the inter-field areas.
Monitoring and Success Criteria
' The NCWRP favors a hydrologic criteria compared to the reference wetland(s). We
believe that an attempt was made in this plan however, because variation in the
groundwater model was indecisive the plan reverts back to the old COE standard of
12.5% of the growing season. If the model showed a variation of from less than 12.5%
to 44%, what was the mean %? Median %? The NCWRP would certainly accept such a
figure with an associated error bar.
t Some specifics about the Drainmod model:
-Model refers to Fayetteville precipitation data Station 313017 - avg. 47 in/yr
' -The input model uses NWILMING.RAI or Station 319457 - avg. 56.25 in/yr
- How will 7 less inches of rain per year change the model?
- Are the ET correction factors based on Wilmington data also?
' - Was growing season for Fayetteville or Wilmington used?
Dispensation of Property and Conditions
Has the amount of the performance bond and the trust fund been specified?
Section 4 of the Chapter 8.0 Dispensation of Property alludes to the fact that timbering
will be occurring on the mitigation site. The NCWRP does not approve of timbering on
the mitigation site. There may be special cases where limited select cutting is allowed
making sure to strictly abide by forestry BMPs in wetlands.
' This plan was reviewed by Mac Haupt and Jeff Jurek.
' Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
' Mac Haupt I-WQ-NCWRP

F EB fly ' ytj U: >; - - 1
4
FEB a 9 1998

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commissiong
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919.733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Wes Newell
Environmental Services, Inc.
Scott McClendon
Army Corps of Engineers
' FROM: Bennett Wynne P
Habitat Conservation Section
' DATE: January 29, 1997
SUBJECT: Barra Farms. Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank Stream and Wed nd'
' 'Mitigation Plan, off NC 210 southeast of Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North
Carolina.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) provides the following
comments in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U. S. C.
' 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U. S. C.
661.667d).
' 1. During past meetings of the Mitigation Banking Review Team (MBRT), use of the
term `up-front mitigation' has created some confusion. To us, upfront mitigation means
successful completion of all mitigation activities prior to initiation of project impacts. To
' Barra Farms Mitigation Bank proponents, however, up-front mitigation appears to mean
initiation of mitigation activities (site preparation, planting, etc., but not completion of
monitoring) prioi to-project impacts. We feel this contributed to the difficulty in reaching
consensus regarding the bank's credit release schedule. The Mitigation Plan would benefit
from clarification of this issue.

' From PHONE No. Jan.29 199e 5:50PN P02
r

11

7

C
Barra F1311'ns Mitigation Plan 2 January 29, 199$
7. In recogllitiou oft]) e hank's prollOllouts Men give plalltlillb ,rffolts' wG will accept the
wlnln•omiae credit release scltcduic agreed upon at the January! 8, 1996 lttccting of 111c
MORT in Wilmington. The cumulative ptrcout. credit lolcnsud fin- this schcdule was 40%
at. the end of the first year, 559% at. the end of the second year, b0%, at. the end oftilc third
year, 90% ht. the end of the fourth year, altd 100% at the end o.?t.hc liiful year.
3. The stream rosloration proposed in the plan is to headwatej of Harrison reek.
Consequently, tlus lnitigat.ion will only be suitable for impacts tp headwater st.l-e-anis.
4, hi Figure 8, the area depict.cd' as nakcy Island Gauge Lands ?s not. currently a Pali of
the WRC's Game Lands Program.
5. Possible incosroration ofbatr.k lands into the WRC's Game Lands Progratlt has bcon
discussed by the MBRT. MBRT members and bank proponent should be aware that
availability of public access is a critical factor in deternti! b tll,; tract's suitability ruff Game
Lands,
6. We withhold oorn nent,on the Site Addendum to the Mitigatpon Plan (i.e. downstream
s e,puent of f larlison Creek) until we have had au opportunity t!? visit tale site.
Thank ,you for tho opportxuuty to further counnent. Please call kne if you have questions
at [phone],

I IFII UI JlJ LU -• UI'11.1
' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
' Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director

Dr. Gerald McCrain
EcoScience, Inc.
612 Wade Avenue
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27605
RE. Barra Farms Site Visit (4-21-98)
Dear Dr. McCrain,
10 X.; WA
D E N R
April 24, 1998
The purpose of this letter is to clarify the position of the Division of Water Quality
concerning the stream restoration component of the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mititgation Bank. The three primary issues as we see it are: (1) should restoration or
enhancement credit be given for the 2400 linear feet of stream, (2) success criteria for the
stream component, and (3) the credit release schedule for the stream component.
The Division feels there is strong evidence to support the view that the stream section
should be considered enhancement. On page 27 of the Stream and Mitigation Plan, the
Plan states that, " In 1997, stream flows were intermittent through' the winter and early
spring." Bennett Wynne of the NCWRC noted that there was a channel present. The
vegetation on site is intact, and no work is proposed to alter the channel or riparian area.
The work proposed is-changing the stream from intermittent to perennial. This is very
similar to enhancing wetlands which are already jurisdictional by raising the water table
or increasing the flooding frequency. The next statement in the plan relayed the fact that
no flows were noted from April 1997 to November of 1997, and permanent flows were
noted within the reference reaches. The aforementioned period was a noted drought
period. In addition, the reference reaches are higher order streams (2°d or 3'd order) than
the stream mitigation site (1' order).
I thought we covered some of the success criteria during the site visit. We definitely
would like at least two staff gauges read every week in addition to flows measured at the
respective sites. The gauges should be placed in the middle section of the reach and at
the outlet where we stood along the ditch. Channel cross-sections, Rosgen stream-type
classifications (before and after each monitoring year), and aquatic life are other
measurables which should be included in the stream success criteria. Please contact John
Dorney concerning the biological success criteria for streams. The Plan states that the
stream will be returned to permanent flows. During the site visit, Wes stated that the
stream was showing peak flows of 220 cfs when the model from the plan predicted 130
cfs. The Division would like a revised predicted base and peak flow for the stream
component. The weekly staff and flow readings for the next year injected into the
model would greatly improve the accuracy of the model.
' P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10.6 post-consumer paper

' The credit release schedule for the stream credits should be similar to the credit release
schedule for the wetlands component of the Bank. Credit release must be related to
achieving the success criteria established for the stream component of the Bank.
0

H

fl
n

[J

The Division, as a member of the MBRT, will accept the decision of the MBRT
concerning whether the stream component is considered to be restoration or
enhancement. However, the issue of credit release for the stream component has not
been discussed by the MBRT. The Division feels strongly that the proposed credit
release schedule for the stream component (all stream credits released in November
1998) is unacceptable and we will be glad to explain our position at the next MBRT
meeting if necessary.
The NCWRP will strive to provide you and ECOBANK with comments that reflect the
position of the Division of Water Quality concerning these and other issues associated
with the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we will be in touch with you soon.
Sincerely,
Mac Haupt
NCDWQ-WRP
Jeff J rek
NCXQ-
CC:
John Dorney- NCDWQ-Wetlands Group
Cyndi Bell-NCDWQ-Wetlands Group
Scott McClendon- USACOE-Wilmington
Ernie Jahnke- USACOE-Wilmington
Bennett Wynne- NCWRC
Kevin Moody-USFWS

' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
' and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
' Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director

AX4;1 0
NNOON
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT ANo NATURAL RESOURCES
February 25, 1998
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Dicky Harmon
Environmental Services, Inc.
Through: John DorneTD
' From: Cyndi Bell t,`,?
' Subject: Barra Farms Mitigation Bank
Reference is made to the Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (December 1997)
' for the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank, and to the Mitigation Banking
Review Team meeting of January 8, 1998. The Division of Water Quality, Wetland
Restoration Program, provided comments on the Mitigation Plan on February 13, 1998.
' Comments provided herein by the Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality
Certification Program, relate specifically to the use of this mitigation bank in future
' permit decisions:
• We concur with the Geographic Service Area agreed upon by the Mitigation Banking
' Review Team, as illustrated on Figure 15 in the Mitigation Plan. Included within this
service area are Cape Fear River sub-basins #0303004, #0303005, and #0303006.
Use of Barra Farms will be limited to projects located within this service area. This
' service area is not to be expanded at a later date to include any NCDOT projects
outside this service area.
' • We agree with the WRP opinion that the stream work proposed thus far should be
identified as enhancement, not as restoration. As such, stream work to be conducted
onsite will not provide stream restoration credits required in the 401 Water Quality
Certification process. WRP has indicated their willingness to review your further
studies prior to making a final recommendation regarding stream credits. Our final
determination regarding the use of these credits for NCDOT projects will be made in
' accordance with this resolution.
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
' Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone] '
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycledtlo% post consumer paper
i
n
11

0
t

r

EXHIBIT B
SAMPLE MASTER CREDIT LEDGER
15

1 x

as
°

0

w

«S
U

w
'
? o ?

W o a o
3 d ?

a?
Y
w
3 °
C
N
' U ?
on a.

C y

cn

t

)

a O
??
',
,
a
o X
1"
X
,
le
Y
?p

U =o
° U

W y
i.r d,.. 01;

C v' a
c? N

V,n
L V
a+
o " U U
4

U tz 0 0 0

H (n L
? a

A
?
•
?
E

U a
a

? U

3 a
Q

a

an
C

?
Q

00
e.

I EXHIBIT C
1 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE BOND
' DOCUMENTATION

u
r

16

May 29, 1998

Mr. Ron Ferrell
Wetlands Restoration Program
Archdale Building
512 N Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Ron:
ECOBANK
Enclosed for your review are the Trust Fund Agreement for Long Term Maintenance and the Mitigation
Monitoring/Ivtaintenance Performance Bond. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter from our consultant,
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION, addressing the dollar amount of these two performance guarantees.
For the Trust Fund Agreement, we propose that $112,500 be used in that this represents 15% of the land value for
the Barra I bank.
For the Mitigation Monitoringlivlaintenance Performance Bond, Nve propose to provide a bond for $100,000. This
amount is calculated as follows:
ECOBANK Annual Field Costs - $ 6,000
Outside Consultant Report Preparation - 12,000
Contingency 2.000
Annual Cost - $ 20,000
Times 5 Years x 5
Bond Amount $100,000
Please advise of you concur with these amounts and document formats so that we may finalize the documents.
Yours truly

Alan G. Fickett, Ph.D.

r

cc: Brooke Lamson, USACE
1555 HOWELL BRANCH ROAD . WINTER PARK. FLORIDA 32789
' [phone] - FAX [phone]
612 Wade Avenue Suite 200 Raieigh. NC 27605 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
' EcoScience
March 26, 1998
Alan Fickett, Ph.D.
ECOBANK MAR, Q Ism
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789 BY: -_-
- Dear Al an:
I I am providing information on the proposed Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank, Barra Farms
tract, as requested.
1. Trust Fund contribution for perpetual maintenance. Our experience suggests that a Trust
Fund contribution equaling 10-20% of the land value is expected by most organizations
receiving the property. This range of contribution has been quoted by the Conservation Trust
for North Carolina and reiterated by personnel with the North Carolina Wetland Restoration
Program.
2. Monitoring costs for Barra Farms, Phase I. The mitigation plan calls for 23 stations on the
Barra Farms property and additional stations on reference lands (5 stations have been
established on reference tracts) to be monitored for vegetation and hydrology success criteria.
Hydrology is being monitored weekly until water tables drop below 12 inches and
approximately bi-weekly thereafter. Hydrology monitoring is being provided by an outside
contractor retained by ECOBANK. If EcoScience Corporation involvement is required, we
would provide the following: collection of data from 28 vegetation plots once each year
(September or October), compilation of hydrology data (provided by outside contractor) once
each year, provide photographic evidence of each sample plot (once each year), preparation
of an annual report. All other services to be provided would be on a time and materials basis.
COST: time and materials. Estimated range: $8,000 - $12,000.
I hope this information will be of some assistance during final planning for Barra Farms.
' Sincerely,
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
/0 r
Jerrry McCrain, Ph.D., CEP
President

-4-909-9(44
MITIGATION MO ITORING/INLU T`rEINANCE
PERFO MA-NCE BOND
FDa d executed:
date:
:.cnsvs a ., n
n 'n
. LSSS 'r Parc, Flaida 2789
Type of Organization:
Individual
Joint Venture
Partnership
X Cotvoration
State of Incorporation: InHd
Surety(ies): 011 (' Sualty c? Si?rPr? (`n
a;1 7 Wesr W v Su'te aQl
Tams. Florida >; 14
Scope of Coverage: Task 3 of ;he Cape Fear Miti ation Ba u7g
Farms property in Cumber;ard County, North Carolina Q?nt ("MBP') for the Barra
Total penal sum of bond: S=z.-tk*:x "/DOf o00
Surery's Bond Number: XXXXXX.u
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, the Principa! a_nd Surerv ies?
hereto are firmly bound to the [::.iced States grey Corps or 1=nginrers "liS C ( J
Carolina Department of Fnviromnent a. ZAP
lid s d? ?
("DENR") in the above e; tiatura! Resource; ^ tvtstoa or ater u1'
Pal Sum for the payment of which we Q a•uy
executors, administrators, successors, and assigns jointly and sever bind ourse:ves, our heirs,
Sureties are corporations acting as co-sureties, we, the Sur' ;a,a bind ourseevesZ such here the
"jointly and severally" bniy for to purpose of allowing a joinr action or actions aQai sun
or us, and for all other purposes each Surety binds itself, oinriv • ? rst any or all
for the paymenr of such sum only as is set forth opposite tl,.e a?-T,2 of such Sur jt n e Prrnr,pal,
LV. ity is indicated, the limit of liability shall be full amount of the penal > ut if no limit
sum.
WHEREAS, said Principal is required to provide financial assurance for Task 3 of '
' the Mitigation Project as further described in the scone of coverage above tnr
and
' 2120198) 1
?-:. r- ;4/16 F-:y7

WI EREAS, said Principal shall establish a standby trust Aind as is required when a surety
bond is used to provide such financial assurance;
NOW, TI ERF. o n, the conditions of the obligation arc such that if the Principal shall
faithfully perform completion of Task 3 of the Mitigation Project cis further described in the scope
of coverage herein, for which this bond guarantees completion, in accordance with the 1
such may be amended, pursuant to all applicable laws, statutes, rules, and regulations, as Bu such
laws, statutes, rules and regulations may be amended;
Or, if the Principal shall provide alternate financial assurance and obtain the
USACE/DENR's written approval of such assurance within 90 days after the date notice of
cancellation is received by both the Principal and the USACEIDENR from the Surety(ies), then
this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it is to remain ir, full force and effect.
Such obligation does not apply to any of the following:

1

ri
11

(a) Any obligation of Ecosvstems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation under a
workers compensation, disability benefs, or en;,plovment compensation
law or other similar law;
(b) Bodily injury to an employee of Ecosvstems Land lyiitigatie Bat:.
Corporation arising from, and it. the course of, employment by Ecosystem
Land Mitigation Bank Corporation;
(c) Bodily injury or property damage arising i:orr•. the ownership, mair.?erarce,
use of, or entrustment to Others of any aircraft, motor or
vehic:e,
watercraft;
(d) Property damage to any property owned, re:tte.3, loan co, i. ;.?:e care,
custody, or control of, occupied by Ecosyste--m; Land Mitigatior_ Bank
Corporation that is not the direct result of a construction or imple:rw :cation
activity for the MBI.
(e) Bodily injury or propert•v damage for which E_o'.;Ystems Land ?fit: Qa *i
• »` on
Bank Corpdration is obligated to a damaps by a
of liability in a contract or agreement other tt:aniacontract?oraavumpt;on
entered into to meet the requirements of t:e -IB1. ' e, y` t
The Surrty(iesr shall become liable on this bond obligation only when aZe Pri p
ncial has
failed CO »lfill the conditions described above.
Upon notification byte USACE/DE..NR that the Principal has been found in violation of
the requirements of MBI for completion of Task 3 of the -Mirig:,tion Project for wi ich dais bond
guarantees performance, the Surery(irs) shall within sixty (60) days of receiving suet notice either
perform completion in accordance with the MBI and pursuant to the written directions of the
I Rev. 1.? (ZlZQ?y8)
t

Li
" • -VIA-Y1134
T-.: P !;Vis F-:;T
USACE/DENR or place the bond amount guaranteed for Task 3 of the ?blitigarioa Project into c.^°
standby trust fund as directed by the USACE/DENR.
The Surety(ies) hereby waive(s) nArification of amendment:; penm'rs laws, statutes, rules and regulation and agrees that no such amencimen a i?In anway aPleviatr
its (their) obligation on this bond.
The Liability of the Surety(ies) shall not be discharged b? r
payments hereunder, unless and until such payment or a menu ,.{ any payment e. succession of
the penal sum of the bond, but in no event shall the obligation of thelSu amount in tre aggregate to
the amounr of said penal sum. ry(irs) hereunder exceed
The Surety(ies) may cannel the bond by sending notice of cancellation by cerrifed mail to
the Principal and the USACEIDEN'R; provided, however rhat cancellation shall rcr occur during
the 120 days beginning on the date or receipt of the notice of cancellation by bcth t-- Princip l
and dr,e USACE,%DENR, as evide .ce by rile return receipts.
The Principal may terminate this bond by sending written notice to :.e Suretv(ies);
provided, however, that no suc" notice shall become effective until the Surer?'(ies) receive(s)
written authorization for termination of the bond by the USACE/DENR.
Principal and Surety(ies) i._reby agree to adjust the penal sum of the bore-: yearly so that
it guara.11tees increased or decreased corrpietion costs provided dial no decrease i d:e penal su.*n
takes place without the written Tp=issioa of the US ACE/DE.NT-1.

Rev. 1.5 (2120/98) --
... .rr JI J4 ??i? •v/?(j ?
V r C? ??
LTV WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and Sure(ies
Bond and have affixed their seals on the dace et forrh above) 'nave executed this Performance
I The persons whose signatures appear below hereby cerrify char they are aut.orized to
execute [his surety bond on behalf of the Principal and Surety(ic--.j.
PRINCIPAI. CORPORATE SLRETY(IES)
ECOSYSTEMS I.A:YD MITIGATION
BAN'K CORPORATION CUMBERLAND CASUALTY & SURETY
COMPANY
Hv I
D. Miller McCarthy, President Bvward J. Eaentieid Iv, President
4311 Nest Waters Avenge, Suit` 401
Tampa, Florida 3;514
Florida
State cf. Inco[poration
Liabil;ty Liu-.,it: SX. XXXXkXXX
(Corporate Seal)
I
(Corporate Seal)
I
I
I
I
i
I j
i
1? lteV. i.s c?r_c??sl 4
- - - , ..„ r .u61i is r_19L

MITIGATION BANK STANDBY TRUST FUND AGREEMENT
TO DEMONSTRATE MONITORING/MAINTENANCE
FINANCIAL. ASSURANCE
TRUST AGREEMENT, the "Agreement," entered into as of by and
Dare
between Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank C'ornori}an
Name of the Owner or Operator
a Florida CCo poration (the Grantor,)
Nw4e of Stare lnserr -corporanon, pannermip associarion, or proprietorship
and SourhTrust Asset Managemenr Com,, gny of Florida. N.A.
Name caul iaaress of &porare Dwree
a National Rank (tier Trustee.)
btsert 'incorportrred to the sreue of "or" a nartomi balw`
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property in Cumberland County, North
Carolina, and has received from the United States Army Corps of En'5 ;-W;l ° .e
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Division of Water Quality
( DENR) that Mitigation Banking Instrument ("MBI") Number ("Permit") which
authorizes the construction, operation and implementation of a wedand mitigation bank known as
Cape Fear Mitigation Bank.
WHEREAS, the LISACE/DENR, have established certain regulations applicable to the
Grantor, requiring that an owner of a wetland mitigation bank provide assurance that funds will
be available when needed for the monitoring and maintenance of this mitigation bank if Grantor
fails to monitor and maintain this mitigation bank pursuant to the terms of the above referenced
permit.
WHEREAS, the Grantor has elected to establish a performance bond to provide such financial
assurance for the monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation bank identined herein and is
requested to establish a standby trust fund able to accept payments from the performance bond.
WHEREAS, the Grantor, acting through its duly authorized officers, has selected the Trustee
to be the trustee under this agreement, and the Trustee is willing to act as trustee,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor and the Trustee agree as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement:
(a) The term "Grantor" means Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation who enters into
this Agreement and any successors or assigns of the Grantor,
(b) The term "Trustee" means SoutliTrusr Asset Management Company of Florida, N.A., the
Trustee who enters into this Agreement and any successor Trustee.
Rm 1.2 (2,".'3198) 1
r vii ic r-roc

fl

(c) The term "USAGE/DENR" means the United States Army Corps WWF" o
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ADivision of Water
Quality or any successor thereof..
Section Idenrifi?cation of Facilities and COST EsTimarea, This Agreement pertains to the
Facilities and cost estimates identified on attached Schecl le ,
Se 'n . Standby 'Must. This Trust shall remain dormant until funded with the proceeds
from the Surety Bind as listed on
Insert "Letter of Creair ° or -s4rery Bond-
Schedule R, The Trustee shall have no duties or responsibilities beyond safekeeping this
Document. Upon funding this Trust shall become active and be administered pursuant to the terms
of this instrument.
Sec in . Estahlishmept of Fund. The Grantor and the Trustee hereby establish a trust fund
(the Fund), for the benefit of the USACE/DENR. The Grantor and the Trustee intend that no third
party have access to the Fund except as herein provided. The Fund is established initially as a
standby to receive payments and shall not consist of any property. Payments made by the provider
of the Surety Bond listed on Schedule pursuant to the USACE/DENR's instructions are
transferred to the Trustee and are referred to as the Fund, together with all earnings and profits
thereon, less any payments or distributions made by the Trustee pursuant to this Agreement. The
Fund shall be held by the Trustee, IN TRUST, as hereinafter provided. The Trustee shall not be
responsible nor shall it undertake any responsibility for the amount or adequacy of, nor any duty
to collect from the Grantor, airy payments necessary to discharge any liabilities of the Grantor
established by the USAC1r/DENR.
Section I. Pavrnent for Cornnierina Monitoring gnd MainlenRnce The Trustee shall make
payments from the fund as the Director of the DENR's Division of Water Quality shall direct,
in writing, to provide for the payment of the costs of completing monitoring and maintenance of
Task 3 - Cape Fear Mitigation Banking Instrument including any modifications or amendments
to that Banking Instrument. The Trustee shall reimburse such persons as specified by the
USACE/DENR from the Fund for monitoring and maintenance expenditures in such amounts as
the USACEIDENR shall direct in writing. In addition, the Trustee shall refund to the Grantor such
amounts as the USACE/DENR specifies in writing. Upon refund, such funds shall no longer
constitute part of the Fund as defined herein.
The Fund may not be drawn upon to cover any of the following:
(a) Any obligation of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation under a workers'
compensation, disability benefits, or unemployment compensation law or other similar
law;
(b) Bodily injury to an employee of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation arising
from, and in the course of employment by Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation,

-.- ...?? r-1:c

?I

1

(c) Bodily injury or property damage arising from the ownership, maintenance, use, or
entrustment to others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or watercraft;
(d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, custody, or control
of, or occupied by Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation that is not the direct
result of the monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation bank;
(e) Bodily injury or property damage for which 1~cosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or
agreement other than a contract or agreement entered into to meet the requirements of
USACE Mitigation Banking Instrument.
e o 6. Payment, Comprising the Fund. Payments made to the Trustee for the Fund shall
consist of cash or securities acceptable to the Trustee and shall consist solely of proceeds from the
Surety Bond
Insert "Letter of Credit" or "Saraty Bund".
S c io 7. Trustee Management. The Trustee shall invest and reinvest the principal and
income of the Fund and keep the Fund invested as a single fund, without distinction between
principal and income, in accordance with general investment policies and guidelines which the
Grantor may communicate in writing to the Trustee from time to time, subject, however, to the
provisions of this Section. In investing, reinvesting, exchanging, selling, and managing the Fund,
the Trustee shall discharge his duties with respect to the trust fund solely in the interest of the
beneficiary and with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then
prevailing which persons of prudence, acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters.
would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims; except that:
(a) Securities or other obligations of the Grantor, or any other owner or operator of the
mitigation bank, or any of their affiliates as defined in the Investment Company Act of
1940, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 80a-2.(a), shall not be acquired or held, unless they are
securities or other obligations of the Federal or a State government;
(b) The Trustee is authorized to invest the Fund in time or demand deposits of the Trustee, to
the extent insured by an agency of the Federal or a State government; and
(c) The Trustee is authorized to hold cash awaiting investment or distribution uninvested for
a reasonable time and without liability for the payment of interest thereon.
Section R. Cnmminglin and Investment. The Trustee is expressly authorized in its discretion:
(a) To transfer from time to time any or all of the assets of the Fund to any common,
commingled, or collective trust fund created by the Trustee in which the Fund is eligible
to participate, subject to all of the provisions thereof, to be commingled with the assets of
other trusts participating therein; and
1 l ae?. t.z tzrz3?J8) 3
I
... F u,;. r c r-rot

r_,

L

1
(b) To purchase shares in any investment company registered under the Investment Company
Act of 1940,15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq., including one which may be created, managed,
underwritten, or to which investment advice is rendered or the shares of which are sold by
the Trustee. The Trustee may votE such shares in its discretion.
9. Exmss Power f Tn -. Without in any way limiting the powers and discretion
conferred upon the Trustee by the other provisions of this Agreement or by law, the Trustee is
expressly authorized and empowered:
(a) To sell, exchange, convey, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any property held by it, by
public or private sale. No person dealing with the Trustee shall be bound to see to the
application of the purchase money or to inquire into the validity or expediency of any such
sale or other disposition;
(b) To make, execute, acknowledge, and deliver any and all documents of transfer and
conveyance and any and all other instruments that may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out the powers herein granted;
(c) To register any securities held in the Fund in its own name or in the name of a nominee
and to hold any security in bearer form or in book entry, or to combine certificates
representing such securities with certificates of the same issue held by the Trustee in other
fiduciary capacities, or to deposit or arrange for the deposit of such securities in a qualified
central depository even though, when so- deposited, such securities may be merged and
held in bulk in the name of the nominee of such depository with other securities deposited
therein by another person, or to deposit or arrange for the deposit of any securities issued
by the United States Government, or any agency or instrumenrality thereof, with a Federal
Reserve bank, but the books and records of the Trustee shall at all times show that all such
securities are part of the Fund;
(d) To deposit any cash in the Fund in interest-bearing accounts maintained or savings
certificates issued by the Trustee, in its separate corporate capacity, or in any other
banking institution affiliated with the Trustee, ro the extern insured by an agency of the
Federal or a State government; and
(e) To compromise or otherwise adjust all claims in favor of or against the Fund.
Section 0. Taxes and-Expenses. All taxes of any kind that may be assessed or levied against
or in respect of the fund and all brokerage commissions incurred by the Fund shall be paid from
the Fund. All other azpenses incurred by the Trustee in connection with the administration of this
Trust, including fees for legal services rendered to the Trustee, the compensation of the Trustee
to the extent not paid directly by the Grantor, and all other proper charges and disbursements of
the Trustee shall be paid from the Fund.
Sec n . A V 'o . The Trust shall annually, at least 30 days prior w the
anniversary date of establishment of the Fund, furnish to the Grantor and to the USACE/DENR
Rue. 1.2 (2123198) 4
. ... . - .Y/ 1 L r-1 JG

0
1

11

a statement confirming the value of the Trust. Any securities in the Fund shall be valued at market
value as of no more than 60 days prior to the anniversary dare of establishment of the fund. The
failure of the Grantor to object in writing to the Trustee within 90 days after the statement has
been furnished to the Grantor and the USACE/AE.NR shall constitute a conclusively binding assent
by the Grantor, barring the Grantor from asserting any claim or liability against the Trustee with
respect to matters disclosed in the statement.
Section 12. Advice of Counsel. The Trustee may from tithe to time consult with counsel, who
may be counsel to the Grantor, with respect to any question arising as to the monitoring of this
Agreement or any action to be taken hereunder. The Trustee shall be fully protected, w the extent
permitted by law, in acting upon the advice of counsel.
S c in . Trustee Comte ion. The Trustee is authorized to charge against the principal
of the Trust its published Trust fee schedule in effect at the time services are rendered.
Section A. Suce-essor Trustee. The Trustee may resign or the Grantor may replace the
Trustee, but such resignation or replacement shall not be effective until the Grantor has appointed
a successor Trustee, the successor Trustee is approved by the USACE/DENR, and this successor
accepts the appointment. The successor trustee shall have the same powers and duties as those
conferred upon the Trustee hereunder. Upon the successor trustee's acceptance of the appointment,
the Trustee shall assign, transfer, and pay over to the successor trustee the funds and properties
then constituting the fund. If for any reason the Grantor cannot or does not act in the event of the
resignation of the Trustee, the Trustee may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the
appointment of a successor trustee or for instructions. The Trustee shall notify the USACE/DENR
in writing of such event. The successor trustee shall specify the date on which it assumes
administration of the trust in a writing sent to the Grantor, USACE; DENR, and the present
Trustee by certified mail 10 days before such change becomes effective. Any expenses incurred
by the Trustee as a result of any of the aces contemplated by this Section shall be paid as provided
in Section 10.
Sec 'n . Ji3srr(ictions to the Trustee. All orders, requests, and instructions by the Grantor
to the Trustee shall be in writing, signed by such persons as are designated in the attached Exhibit
A or such other designees as the Grantor may designate by amendment to Exhibit A The Trustee
shall be fully protected in acting without inquiry in accordance with the Grantor's orders, requests,
and instructions. All orders, requests, and instructions by the USACEIDENR to the Trustee shall
be in writing, signed by the USACE/DENR's Division Director of Water Quality, or the designee,
and the Trustee shall act and shall be fully protected in acting in accordance with such orders,
requests, and instructions. The Trustee shall have the right to assume, in the absence of written
notice to the contrary; that no event constituting a change or a termination of the authority of any
person to act on behalf of the Grantor or the USACE/DENR hereunder has occurred. The Trustee
shall have no duty to act in the absence of such orders, requests, and instructions from the Granmr
and/or the USACE/DENR, except as provided for herein.
Rae. 1.2 (2123198)

LI

Section 1 Fi, mendmen, Qf Aueemem. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument in
writing executed by the Grantor, the Trustee, and the USACE/DENR, or by the Trustee and the
USACE/DENR if the Grantor ceases to exist.
Section 17. Irrevocability- and Termination, Subject to the right of the parties to amend this
Agreement as provided in Section 16, this Trust shall be irrevocable and shall continue until
terminated at the written agreement of the Grantor, the Trustee, and the USACE/DENR, or by
the Trustee and the USACE/DENR, if the Grantor ceases to exist. Upon termination of the Trust,
all remaining trust property, less final trust administration expenses, shall be delivered pursuant
to the written agreement terminating the Trust
Sectinn 18, Immunity and Indemnifi ation. The Trustee shall not incur personal liability of any
nature in connection with any act or omission, made in good faith, in the administration of this
Trust, or in carrying out any directions by the Grantor or the USACE/DENR issued in accordance
with this Agreement. The Trustee shall be indemnified and saved harmless by the Grantor or from
the Trust Fund, or both, from and against any personal liability to which the Trustee may be
subjected by reason of any act or conduct in its official capacity, including all expenses reasonably
` incurred in its defense in the event the Grantor fails to provide such defense.
Se o 9. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be administered, construed, and enforced
according to the laws of the State of Florida.
won ' Q, jn e?pgerarion. As used in this Agreement, words in the singular include the plural
and words in the plural include the singular. The descriptive headings for each Section of this
Agreement shall not affect the interpretation or the legal efficacy of this Agreement.
v
Rev. 1.2 (2123198) 6

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their
respective officers duly authorized and their corporate seals to be hereunto affixed and attested as
of the date first above written.
ATTEST GRANTOR
ECOSYSTEMS LAND MITIGATION
BANK CORPORATION
BY
Signature D. Miller McCarthy, President
(CORPORATE SEAL)
ATTEST TRUSTEE
SOL=RUST ASSET IMANAGEN. MNT
COMPANY OF FLORIDA, N.A.
Ry_
Signature Brenda Tipton, Assistant Vice President
(CORPORATE SEAL)

Rev. 1.2 (212JAIN) 7
t
NOTARY ACICVOWLEDGMENT OF GRANTOR'S SIGNATURE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
On this _ day of 1998, personally appeared D. Miller McCarthy, who being
by me duly sworn, acknowledged said instrument to be his free act and deed. Mr, McCarthy is
personally known to me, or has produced her (state) driver's license
bearing number
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.
Signature
Printed Name
(NOTARIAL SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF
Commission expiration date
Serial Number; If any
NOTARY ACID OWLEDGMENT OF TRUSTEE'S SIGNATURE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
On this _ day of 1998, personally appeared Brenda Tipton, who being by me
duly sworn, acknowledged said instrument w be her free act and deed. Ms. Tipton is personally
Imown to me, or has produced her (state) driver's license bearing number
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.
Signature
Printed Name
(NOTARIAL, SEAL)
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF
Commission expiration date
Serial Number, If any
Ro. 1.2 RID/98)

t
GMS Identification Number:
Name:
SCHEDULE A
Tls -Cane Fear Mitiga ion Ba king
Instrument
Address:
Task 3
Monitoring and Maintenance
Care Cost Estimates: ,rDO ooh

Rrr. 1.2 L=198) 9
- - - ... ... .I., 1-aio r.iit ic r-fU

SCHEDULE B
sc a 8o?d Number
Mitigation Bank Monitoring/
Maintenance Performance Bond
Rrr. 1.: L2r23198) 10

EXHIBIT A
Designated Person: D. Miller McCarthy
Ecosystems Land Mirigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road
Suite C-200
Winter Park, Florida 32789

Arr. 1.2 (2123198)

' EXHIBIT D
MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND DOCUMENTATION

t

r

t
17
11

ECOBANKI
May 29, 1998
Mr. Ron Ferrell
' Wetlands Restoration Program
Archdale Building
512 N Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
' Dear Ron:
Enclosed for your review are the Trust Fund Agreement for Long Term Maintenance and the Mitigation
Monitoring/Maintenance Performance Bond. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter from our consultant,
ECOSCMNCE CORPORATION, addressing the dollar amount of these two performance guarantees.
For the Trust Fund Agreement, we propose that $112,500 be used in that this represents 15% of the land value for
the Barra I bank.
For the Mitigation Monitoring/Maintenance Performance Bond, the propose to provide a bond for 5100,000. This
' amount is calculated as follows:
ECOBANK Annual Field Costs - S 6,000
Outside Consultant Report Preparation - 12,000
Contingency 2.000
Annual Cost - $ 20,000
Times 5 Years x 5
Bond Amount $100,000
Please advise of you concur with these amounts and document formats so that we may finalize the documents.
Yours truiv
Alan G. Fickett, PhD.

cc: Brooke Lamson, USACE
1555 HOWELL BRANCH ROAD - WINTER PARK. FLORIDA 32789
[phone] - FAX [phone]
612 Wade Avenue Suite 200 Raleigh. NC 27605 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
' EcoScience
March 26, 1998
Alan Fickett, Ph.D. r~ ' -
' ECOBANK MAR 3, 0 X98 .
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789 BY:
- Dear a lan:
' I am providing information on the proposed Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank, Barra Farms
tract, as requested.
1. Trust Fund contribution for perpetual maintenance. Our experience suggests that a Trust
Fund contribution equaling 10-20% of the land value is expected by most organizations
receiving the property. This range of contribution has been quoted by the Conservation Trust
for North Carolina and reiterated by personnel with the North Carolina Wetland Restoration
Program.
2. Monitoring costs for Barra Farms, Phase I. The mitigation plan calls for 23 stations on the
Barra Farms property and additional stations on reference lands (5 stations have been
established on reference tracts) to be monitored for vegetation and hydrology success criteria.
Hydrology is being monitored weekly until -water tables drop below 12 inches and
approximately bi-weekly thereafter. Hydrology monitoring is being provided by an outside
' contractor retained by ECOBANK. If EcoScience Corporation involvement is required, we
would provide the following: collection of data from 28 vegetation plots once each year
(September or October), compilation of hydrology data (provided by outside contractor) once
each year, provide photographic evidence of each sample plot (once each year), preparation
of an annual report. All other services to be provided would be on a time and materials basis.
COST: time and materials. Estimated range: $8,000 - $12,000.
I hope this information will be of some assistance during final
planning for Barra Farms.
Sincerely,
ECOSCIENCE COVORATION
' Jelrry vlcCrain, Ph.D., CEP
President

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MITIGATION BANK TRUST FUND AGREEMENT
FOR LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE
TRUST AGREEMENT, the "Agreement", entered into as of by and
Date
between Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
Name of the Owner or Operator
a Florida corporation (the Grantor,)
Name of State Insert "corporation, partnership association, or proprietorship "
and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resource Wetlands Restoration
Name and Address of North Carolina state agency
Program. Division of Water Quality ( the Land Manager).
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property in Cumberland County, North
Carolina, and has received from the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE")/State of
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality
("DENR') that Mitigation Banking Instrument ("MBI"), executed on , 1998, which
authorizes Grantor to be the Bank Sponsor for the construction, operation, implementation and
maintenance of a wetland mitigation bank known as Barra Farm Cape Fear Regional Mitigation
Bank (`Bank"); and,
WHEREAS, The MBI has established certain obligations applicable to the Grantor,
requiring that as Sponsor of the Bank, the Grantor shall (a) transfer the real property
encompassing the Bank in fee simple to the Land Manager; and (b) provide a Trust Fund for long-
term maintenance of the Bank in the name of the Land Manager in the amount of S 112.500.00.
The Trust Fund will be established upon completion of debiting the Bank or at the end of the
monitoring period specified in the MBI, whichever is. longer.
' WHEREAS, the Grantor, acting through its duly authorized officers, and the Mitigation
Bank Review Team ("MBRT'), have selected the Land Manager to provide long term
maintenance for the Bank under this agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the Land Manager has agreed to accept the fee simple transfer of the
' mitigation bank land owned by the Grantor,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor and the Land Manager agree as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement:
' (a) The term "Grantor" means the owner or operator who enters into this Agreement, its
successors or assigns.
(b) The term "Land Manager" means the North Carolina state agency who enters into this
Agreement, its successors or assigns.
(c) The term "USACE/DENR" means the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of
Water Quality, its successors or assigns.

' Section 2. Payment Comprising the Fund. Grantor shall establish the Trust Fund for the
long-term maintenance in the name of the Land Manager and deposit cash in the amount of
$112.500.00 upon completion of debiting the Bank or at the end of the monitoring period
specified in the MBI.
Section 3. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument
in writing executed by the Grantor, the Land Manager, and the USACE.
Section 4. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be administered, construed, and enforced
according to the laws of the State of North Carolina.
Section 5. Interpretation. As used in this Agreement, words in the singular include the
' plural and words in the plural include the singular. The descriptive headings for each Section of
this Agreement shall not affect the interpretation or the legal efficacy of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their
respective officers duly authorized and their corporate seal to be hereunto affixed and attested as
of the date first above written.
ATTEST GRANTOR
ECOSYSTEMS LAND MITIGATION
BANK CORPORATION
' By:
Signature
' Printed Name i 1
andTte
' (Corporate Seal)
ATTEST FORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE,
' WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM,
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
' (TO BE NAMED)
Signature
By:

Printed Name and Title
(Corporate Seal)

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment 7'0?'r
and Natural Resources / ° °
Division of Water Quality _
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor D E N R
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Dr. Gerald McCrain April 24, 1998
EcoScience, Inc.
612 Wade Avenue
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27605
RE: Barra Farms Site Visit (4-21-98)
Dear Dr. McCrain,
The purpose of this letter is to clarify the position of the Division of Water Quality
concerning the stream restoration component of the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mititgation Bank. The three primary issues as we see it are: (1) should restoration or
enhancement credit be given for the 2400 linear feet of stream, (2) success criteria for the
stream component, and (3) the credit release schedule for the stream component.
The Division feels there is strong evidence to support the view that the stream section
should be considered enhancement. On page 27 of the Stream and Mitigation Plan, the
Plan states that, "In 1997, stream flows were intermittent through the winter and early
spring." Bennett Wynne of the NCWRC noted that there was a channel present. The
vegetation on site is intact, and no work is proposed to alter the channel or riparian area.
The work proposed is changing the stream from intermittent to perennial. This is very
similar to enhancing wetlands which are already jurisdictional by raising the water table
or increasing the flooding frequency. The next statement in the plan relayed the fact that
no flows were noted from April 1.997 to November of 1997, and permanent flows were
noted within the reference reaches. The aforementioned period was a noted drought
period. In addition, the reference reaches are higher order streams (2"' or 3"' order) than
the stream mitigation site (1` order).
I thought we covered some of the success criteria during the site visit. We definitely
would like at least two staff gauges read every week in addition to flows measured at the
respective sites. The gauges should be placed in the middle section of the reach and at
the outlet where we stood along the ditch. Channel cross-sections, Rosgen stream-type
classifications (before and after each monitoring year), and aquatic life are other
measurables which should be included in the stream success criteria. Please contact John
Dorney concerning the biological success criteria for streams. The Plan states that the
stream will be returned to permanent flows. During the site visit, Wes stated that the
stream was showing peak flows of 220 cl:s when the model from the plan predicted 130
cfs. The Division would like a revised predicted base and peak flow for the stream
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
r.
component. The weekly staff and flow readings for the next year injected into the
model would greatly improve the accuracy of the model.
The credit release schedule for the stream credits should be similar to the credit release
schedule for the wetlands component of the Bank. Credit release must be related to
achieving the success criteria established for the stream component of the Bank.
The Division, as a member of the MBRT, will accept the decision of the MBRT
concerning whether the stream component is considered to be restoration or
enhancement. However, the issue of credit release for the stream component has not
been discussed by the MBRT. The Division feels strongly that the proposed credit
release schedule for the stream component (all stream credits released in November
1998) is unacceptable and we will be glad to explain our position at the next MBRT
meeting if necessary.
The NCWRP will strive to provide you and ECOBANK with comments that reflect the
position of the Division of Water Quality concerning these and other issues associated
with the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we will be in touch with you soon.
Sincerely,
Mac Haupt
NCDWQ-WRP
Jeff Jurek
NCDWQ-WRP
CC:
John Dorney- NCDWQ-Wetlands Group
Cyndi Bell-NCDWQ-Wetlands Group
Scott McClendon- USACOE-Wilmington
Ernie Jahnke- USACOE-Wilmington
Bennett Wynne- NCWRC
Kevin Moody-USFWS
AM

NMI 612 Wade Avenue Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
EcoScience
May 11, 1998
Mr. Mac Haupt
Mr. Jeff Jurek
N.C. Wetland Restoration Program
Division of Water Quality, DENR
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Barra Farms Stream Restoration
Dear Mac and Jeff-
I am concerned about comments regarding stream restoration on the Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank, Barra Farms property, as noted in your April 24, 1998 letter. Our site
visit of April 21, 1998 was intended to provide all members of the MBRT with an
opportunity to visit restored non-riverine sections of the site, and to clearly see why
restoration credit is warranted for stream segments within the bank property. This field
meeting lasted more than 6 hours and resulted in animated discussions regarding the
matter of stream restoration versus stream enhancement. Although it was indicated in the
field that the restoration/enhancement question may be a matter of semantics, it is
crucially important to the EcoBank planning team and to future clients of the Bank that
resolution of this issue is forthcoming now rather than during permitting.
We have requested stream restoration credit within 2400 linear feet of relict channel
located at the southern margins of the property. This system has not seen perennial flow
for several decades. The Barra Farms property has been periodically cleared for
agricultural production since the 1960s, and the watershed was channelized off the
property through an elaborate and extensive ditch network as clearing occurred. This
channelization re-directed waters to the north, or in the opposition direction, away from
the site, depriving the former stream system of its source. Since this time, sediment
buildup and debris deposition has obliterated evidence of a defined stream channel,
although relic features do remain to convey intermittent flow (mostly sheet flow runoff
from adjacent farm fields) during times of excessive high water. This fact was mentioned
in our mitigation plan.

Mr. Mac Haupt
Mr. Jeff Jurek
May 11, 1998
Page 2
However, conveyance of intermittent flow through a relic, silt filled channel does not
infer a viable stream system. These relict features do not meet DWQ guidelines for
stream designation. There is no distinct bed and bank; there are no pool/riffle formations;
there is no evidence of aquatic life or fisheries; there are no substrate features to suggest
perennial flow. Steve Kroger of DWQ visited' the former stream in April 1997 and
questioned whether this system represents an actual stream valley.
Three options of stream mitigation are generally recognized in the region; 1) in-place
modifications to an existing stream; 2) construction of a new stream adjacent to an
existing channel; and 3) establishment of a stream where one does not currently exist.
Option 3, commonly referred to as a watershed diversion, represents the method for
stream mitigation applied at Barra Farms. The watershed for this relict floodplain is
being increased from less than 0.1 square miles under existing conditions to more than 2
square miles under post-mitigation conditions (a twenty-fold increase).
With considerable effort, we have elected to re-divert the canal flows back into this
former riverine system in the hopes that natural processes would scour out and form the
original channels with little damage to the surrounding landscape. Our other option
would have been bring in heavy equipment, destroy mature forest cover, and reconfigure
the system. However, as noted in the field, our first option is currently working and we
anticipate a viable, defined stream system to form within a short period of time. This is
stream restoration, not enhancement.
Our request for riverine restoration credit in and around this former stream system (30
acres) has not been challenged. However, wetland restoration in adjacent bottomland
forest could not occur without stream restoration to provide overbank flooding.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and other members of the Mitigation Banking
Review Team (MBRT) have supported the notion that our work (establishment of a
regulated stream where none previously existed) constitutes stream restoration. This fact
was clearly repeated by ACE representatives and other resource agency personnel, as
well as by members of our planning team, during the April 21s` field review. In addition,
the issue of stream restoration has been discussed at previous MBRT meetings and was
considered a consensus point early in the process. To bring this matter up for re-
evaluation at the end of the planning process as we are preparing the Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI) for signature is unfair and unsupported by existing evidence.

Mr. Mac Haupt
Mr Jeff Jurek
May 11, 1998
Page 3
We request that you reconsider your position on this matter. By copy of this letter, we
are requesting ACE and MBRT support for stream restoration credit as stipulated in the
Final Mitigation Plan and MBI.
Sincerely,
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
K11404'-
Jerry McCrain, Ph.D., CEP
President
cc: Mr.Emie Jahnke, ACE
Mr. Scott McClendon, ACE
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Bennett Wynne, WRC
Mr. Kevin Moody, USFWS
Ms. Cyndi Bell, DWQ
Ms. Kathryn Matthews, EPA
Dr. Alan Fickett, ECOBANK
612 Wade Avenue Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
EcoScience
6 July 1998
Cyndi Bell/John Dorney
N.C. Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Cyndi/John:
The Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) for the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
is enclosed for your review and approval. Exhibit A of the MBI also contains the response to agency
comments and revisions to the Mitigation Plan. A copy of the MBI has been forwarded to each
member of the MBRT.
We understand this information completes the documentation phase of the MBI process for this
proposed Bank. The Ecobank planning team hopes that remaining administrative processing can
proceed expeditiously, including final approval and signing of the MBI. Please feel free to contact
Wes or myself should you have additional questions or need clarification on the information
provided.
Sincerely,
EC SCIENCE ' ORPO ATIO J/M
Jerry McCrain, Ph.D., CEP
President
cc: Kevin Moody, USFWS
Scott McLendon, USACE
Bennett Wynne, NCWRC
Alan Fickett, ECOBANK
Ron Ferrell, NCWRP
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
r 4
1
k:•

0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott McClendon
Army Corps of Engineers
Jerry McCrain
EcoScience
FROM: Bennett Wynne
Habitat Conservation Section
DATE: September 11, 1998
SUBJECT: Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) for the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank, ofFNC 210 southeast of Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North
Carolina.
I understand there may be a MBRT meeting to discuss the Barra Farms MBI on
September 23 or 29. Unfortunately, I have prior commitments and will be unable to attend on
either date. However, I hope you will accept the following few comments.
1. Regarding stream mitigation, I have a concern that first order stream restoration (or
enhancement) at Barra Farms will be used to mitigate adverse impacts to second, third, or
larger order streams in the service area. Second, thud, and larger order streams provide
more aquatic habitat than first order streams and, if impacted, should be mitigated for on a
stream of the same order. I agree with NCWRP's recommendation that "low order" be
replaced with "first order" in paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 7 of the MBI.
2. A wetland mitigation credit is defined in paragraph 3 on page 7 of the MBI. Including
a stream mitigation credit definition here (I linear foot of stream = 1 credit?) would
promote a clearer understanding of the 2 types of mitigation credits.
0 - -*
A„ f
k?
r ? d?v
Barra Farms MBI 2 9/16/98
3. Regarding whether stream mitigation in the Harris Creek headwaters constitutes
restoration or enhancement, based on my pre-treatment and post-treatment observations, I
lean toward considering the work restoration. I saw no stream flow or evidence of stream
flow (scouring or accumulated sediments) during our pre-treatment site visit. Granted, I
was unable to observe the treated stream reach in its entirety during our April 21, 1998
site visit. I would gladly revisit the site, however, to make a more complete observation if
it would be of benefit to the MBRT.
Thank you for the opportunity to further comment. Please call me if you have questions
at [phone].
cc: Kevin Moody, USFWS
Cyndi Bell, NCDWQ
Mac Haupt, NCDWQ-Wetland Restoration Program
)IF
FEB 23 '98 11:20AM
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James 8, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secrotary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
Attn: Dr. Jerry NlcCrain
612 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
P. 1/1
,D E N R
February 13, 1998
RE: Comments of the Barra. Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Dear Dr. McCrain,
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments to the proposed Barra. Farms Cape Fear
Aegional MitigatioaDank: Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan, We will focus our
comments on the following area:
Geographic Service Area
The geographic service area as delineated by Figure 15 of the Plan, and -established by
4,,Ae MBRT, is acceptable to the NCWRP,
Derivation of f'Credit
The derivation of credits is found in Table 10 of the plan. For phase I of the Barra Farms
Mitigation Bank the plan shows 240 credits derived from 623 acres of altered wetlands.
The derivation of these credits is acceptable to the NCWRP. The stream restoration in
Table 10 shows 2400 linear feet available for credit. Given the fact that the relict
channel with vegetation is intact and all that will be done will be clearing some of the
debris and restoring the flow, the NCWRP believes that enhancement credit may be more
appropriate. I would like to visit the stream site before final recommendations are made
concerning derivation of streams credits. In addition, given the recent weather patterns in
the region, some stream flow may have already begun.
Credit Release Schedule
According to our records at the last NR3RT muting the credit release schedule which was
agreed upon by all parties is the following:
UY front 30%
1 year 10°1/0
2n4 year 15%
3"' year 15/0
4t` year 10%
5' year 20% (after MBRT site visit).
P.Q, Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
FEB 23 '98 11:27AM
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Siacretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
Attn: Dr. Jorry McCrain
612 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
A&4
D E N R
February 13, 1998
RE. Comments of the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Dear Dr. McCrain,
P. 1/2
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments to the .proposed Barra Farms Cape Fear
Regional Mitigation Bank: Stream and Wetland hk ation Plan. We will focus our
comments on the fallowing area:
Geographic Service Area
The geographic service area as delineated by figure 15 of the plan, and .established by
the MBRT, is acceptable to the NCWRP.
Derivation of Credit
The derivation of credits is found in Table 10 of the plan. for phase I of the Barra Farms
Mitigation Bank the plan shows 240 credits derived from 623 acres of altered wetlands-
The derivation of these credits is acceptable to the NCWRP. The stream restoration in
Table 10 shows 2400 linear feet available for credit. Given the fact that the relict
channel with vegetation is intact and all that will be done will be clearing some of the
debris and restoring the flow, the NCWRP believes that enhancement credit may be more
appropriate. I would like to visit the stream site before final recommendations are made
concerning derivation of stream credits. In addition, given the recent weather patterns in
the region, some stream flow may have already begun.
Credit .Release Schedule
According to our records at the last WRT meeting the credit release schedule which was
agreed upon by all parties is the following-
Up. front 30%
1.1 ear 10%
"2nd year 15%
3rd year 15%
0 year 10%
5t' year 20% (after MBRT site visit).
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]=AX 919-733-2496
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% past-consumer paper
FEB 23 '98 11:28AM
Reference Ecosystem(k)
The NCWRP approves of the selection of several reference ecosystems (as seen in pages
24-26 of the plan,) in an attempt to guide the work on site with regard to wetland
restoration. Moreover, we feel that while reference stream reaches were identified
(primarily) visually, more hard data could have been collected and presented in the plan,
For example, reference reaches could have been represented through crass-sectional
schematics, and data concerning the watershed.
Plan work schedule
The NCWRP approves of the work plan schedule to backfill all ditches before the
planting. However, one concern of the NCWRP is whether there is enough spoil
adjacent to the ditches to backfill all ditches. The NCWRP approves of the creation of
seasonal pools in the inter-field areas.
Monitoring and Success Criteria
The NCWRP favors a hydrologic criteria compared to the reference wetland(s). We
believe that an attempt was made in this plan however, because variation in the
groundwater rnodel was indecisive the plan reverts back to the old COE standard of
12.50/6 of the growing, season. If the model showed a variation of from less than 12.5 /0
to 44%, what was the mean V Median %? The NCWRP would certainly accept such a
figure with an associated error bar.
Some specifics about the Drainmod model:
-Model refers to Fayetteville precipitation data Station 313017 - avg. 47 in/yr
-The input model uses NWILMYN'G.RAI or Station 319457 - avg. 56.25 in/yr
How will 7 less inches of rain per year change the model?
- Are the ET correction factors based on Wilmington data also?
Was growing season for Fayetteville or Wilmington used?
Dispensation of Property and Conditions
Has the amount of the performance bond and the trust fund been specified?
Section 4 of the Cbapter 8.0 .Dispensation of Property alludes to the fact that timbering
will be occurring on the mitigation site. The NCW. sloes not approve of timbering on
the mitigation site. There may be special cases where limited select cutting is allowed
malting sure to strictly abide by forestry BMPs in wetlands,
This plan was reviewed by Mac Haupt and Jeff Jurek,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Post-it" Fax Note 7871
TOO
t nn
! Qo.1 opt. •??'?
Mac Haupt - DWQ-NCWRP Pnon?
P. 2/2
r 7D1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
February 2, 1998
Action ID No. 199704890, Barra Farm Mitigation Bank
J /\(../?jErk
Y
cb?6

Mr. Alan Fickett
ECOBANK
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Dear Mr. Fickett:
2
tA
Reference the January 8, 1998, Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) meeting to discuss
development of the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank (Bank). The purpose of this meeting was to
discuss the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and credit release schedule as well as the
technical aspects of the final mitigation plan for the Bank. It is our understanding that all
earthwork has been completed and that trees will be planted in the next few months. It is
encouraging that a substantial amount of progress has been made on the site and we are looking
forward to finalizing the MBI.
ECOBANK has acquired (through a conservation easement) an additional 18 acres
downstream from the (Harrison Creek) headwater restoration area. We feel that this is a
valuable addition to the Bank and concur that this area will provide 9 acres of restoration
"credit". Although 4,200 linear feet of stream restoration will be generated at the Bank,
procedures must be adopted to account for the acreage amount of this type of restoration
available for use.
Finally, we offer the following comments regarding the final mitigation plan:
a. Page 1, Section 1.0, Introduction. Reference to the 2,247 acre tract should be deleted.
b. Page 19, Section 4.1.2, Model Application and Results. This section indicates that
evapotranspiration rates will decrease as the site develops into a forested system. This statement
should be revised to reflect that evapotranspiration rates will actually increase as the site
develops.
c. Figure 9, Drainage Estimates. It is unclear what the central unshaded (white) portion of
the Figure signifies. Would this be considered existing wetlands?
-2-
d. Page 29, Section 5.1.3, Off-Site Drainage Redirection. Will the shallow ditch that
prevents flooding on adjacent property owners be a maintenance concern as the ditch fills in or
becomes blocked?
e. Page 36, Section 7.2, Hydrology Success Criteria. This section should also contain the
specific success criteria for the stream restoration area.
f. Page 36, Section 7. 1, Hydrology Monitoring. The plan seems to indicate that a single
hydrologic success criteria will be used for all the non-riverine portions of the site, however, this
section states that monitoring "will be performed at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology
success criteria within the designated physiographic area. Please clarify this section of the plan.
g. Relative to comment (f.), above, what preliminary data is available relative to
groundwater fluctuation in the reference area. Please include this information in the final plan.
h. Page 37, Section 7.2, Reference Wetland Sites. Does ECOBANK have legal assurances
that the reference site located in Harrison Creek Bay will not be clear-cut or otherwise
manipulated. Unless these assurances are made we question ECOBANK's ability to guarantee
that the methods to determine hydrologic success can be carried out over the life of the
monitoring program.
i. All materials in the plan and MBI must be on no larger than 8 1/2" x 14" (legal) size
paper.
With the exception of Kevin Moody, representing the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
following credit release schedule was tentatively agreed to by ECOBANK and the MBRT during
this meeting:
- 15% credit release at signing of MBI
- 15% credit release at completion of construction
- 10% credit release at completion of year one
- 15% credit release at completion of year two
- 15% credit release at completion of year three
- 10% credit release at completion of year four
- 20% credit release at completion of year five
-3-
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Questions or comments may be
addressed to the undersigned in the Wilmington Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
/North Carolina Department of Environment
V and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Bennett Wynne, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
901 Laroque Avenue
Kinston, North Carolina 28501
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Quality
Wetland Restoration Program
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Mr. Jerry McCrain, Ph.D
Post Office Box 11673
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Mr. Wes Newell
Environmental Services, Inc.
1100 Wake Forest Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626
SITE ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATION PLAN
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The downstream segment of Harrison Creek has become available for inclusion into the detailed mitigation plan
and the Bank site. The available stream reach comprises approximately 18 acres of historic riverine floodplain
and groundwater discharge slope wetlands. The approximately 1900-foot stream reach provides potential for
riverine floodplain and stream restoration in lower reaches of the ecosystem.
Existing Conditions
The area was cleared of forest vegetation in the last five years (see attached aerial photograph). Tree and
remaining shrub material was subsequently removed. A low-lying dirt road supporting one culvert crosses the
relict floodplain in north central portions of the area.
Stream flows have not been documented in the stream reach for the period extending from April 1997 through
November 1997. Based on drainage analyses in the mitigation plan, watershed redirection will increase stream
flows from a 2-year discharge of approximately 40 CFS to over 150 CFS under post-restoration conditions.
Hydraulic analyses indicate that permanent in-stream aquatic habitat and periodic overbank flooding will be
restored in the system. This downstream segment of Harrison Creek exhibits greater floodplain dissection into
the landscape with adjacent terraces consisting of agricultural lands on elevated, well drained, upland slopes.
The floodplain supports Johnston soils and adjacent uplands are dominated by the Autryville series
Proposed Mitigation
The dirt road crossing in the floodplain will be elevated with two additional culverts placed on the floodplain
to accommodate bankfull stream discharges (see Section 5.0 of the Mitigation Plan). The stream channel in
vicinity of the road will be cleaned out to accommodate in-stream flows. The upstream and downstream
segment away from the road will be re-established by systematic non-mechanized clearing of woody debris
jams and incidental fill associated with skid trails and pond construction, where needed.
The 19 acre wetland system will be planted with forest tree species characteristic of small stream swamp forests
(Section 5.0 of the Mitigation Plan). The wetland trees will be planted on a 10-foot by 10-foot spacing (435
trees/acre). In total, approximately 8,265 tree seedlings will be planted. Subsequently, two wetland monitoring
plots (hydrology and vegetation) will be placed within the 18-acre floodplain/headwater slope physiographic
area for wetland monitoring and evaluation of restoration success (Section 7.0).
Potential Mitigation Credit and MBRT Approval
Based on the above proposal, the addendum site provides approximately 18 acres of riverine/ headwater slope
wetland restoration and 1900 linear feet of stream restoration. Proposed credit includes a 2:1 mitigation ratio
which translates to 9 acre-credits of low order, riverine wetland mitigation credit. In addition, 1900 feet of
stream mitigation is also proposed as part of mitigation activities. If this addendum site is approved by the
MBRT at the 8 January 1998 meeting, restoration activities will be performed in January 1998 and mitigation
credit will be incorporated into the Mitigation Banking Instrument.

1
met 2 ./i6d
Y.y g 5oald -
goof 61.cke max 2522
?l/a m4 ytm, SoWA %46dma 28402
Jd'. 910-452-0001

September 22, 2000
TO: Mr. Scott McLendon
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
e'
V11-hiiINIDS C-1)0
gai& 94
A..4 r/
3805 W1*4&tW1k.R4Wwe
Wi/yeM#m, M 28403
RE: Proposed change in wetland hydrology monitoring at Barra Farms Mitigation Bank
Cumberland County, NC; Action ID No. 199704890
Dear Scott:
In order to evaluate wetland hydrology at Barra Farms, 23 manual wells were installed in
1997 and checked weekly throughout each year to monitor groundwater levels at the mitigation
bank. In addition, five continuous monitoring wells have also been installed that read groundwater
levels daily. The success criterion for wetland hydrology at Barra Farms requires saturation (free
water) within one foot of the soil surface for at least 50% of the time the reference habitat
achieves wetland hydrology.
Upon review of mitigation efforts thus far at Barra Farms, it has been documented that
wetland hydrology at the bank has far exceeded the success criterion since wetland restoration
commenced in 1997. In Year 1, restored wetlands at Barra Farms supported wetland hydrology
averaging between 95% and 105% of the reference (between 40-43% of growing season),
depending on community type. In Year 2, the wetland hydrology averaged between 73% and 90%
of the reference (between 31-36% of growing season).
Because hydrology has been so strong, we propose altering the hydrological monitoring
methods at this time to incorporate using only the continuous monitoring wells. With the MBRT's
approval, we would like to discontinue using the 23 manual wells and install another 6
computerized wells throughout the bank so that a total of 11 continuous monitoring wells exist

within the site. These wells would be programmed to read groundwater levels daily and
downloaded periodically to ensure that the wetland hydrology criterion is being met. Using these
wells would provide an easier monitoring strategy that is even more accurate than the manual well
readings.
If the MBRT prefers that we continue to use the manual wells, we propose that we be
authorized to stop monitoring them once they have fallen outside of the wetland hydrology range
(below 12" from surface level) for that year or monitor them only during the growing season
(March 17 - November 11) of each year since we are only using this data segment in our
monitoring report.
We appreciate you taking the time to review this proposed change in hydrological
monitoring at Barra Farms. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. We look
forward to hearing from you soon regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Kim Williams
Wetland Scientist
Cc: Dr. Alan Fickett, ECOBANK
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA
Ms. Cyndi Bell, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mr. John Dorney, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mr. Ron Ferrell, N.C. Wetland Restoration Program
Mr. Mack Haupt, NC Wetland Restoration Program
Mr. Kevin Moody, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Bennett Wynne, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission