20180182 Ver 1_MY1 Credit Release (SAW-2017-01927)_20210420

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>

Cidney/Kevin,
Please find attached the MY1 Credit Release letter for the Red Barn Mitigation Bank (SAW-2017-01927). As requested, credit is being released for approved stream restoration and enhancement
activities that satisfy the MY1 release requirements pursuant to the Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI) entitled, "Agreement to Establish the Red Barn Mitigation Bank in the Yadkin
River Basin (HUC 03040101), Surry County, North Carolina", approved December 18, 2019 and the final Red Barn Mitigation Plan dated November 2019.

The attached letter releases 803.2 SMU's, which are equal to 10% of the mitigation site's total stream restoration and enhancement credits. No wetland credits were released at this time.
Make sure to address any action items or future monitoring concerns incorporated into the letter. Also attached you will find MY1 comments from the EPA and additional IRT comments within
the meetings minutes from the IRT field visit on March 23, 2021.

Feel free to contact me with any questions. This electronic copy is an official Department of the Army Notification.

Regards,

Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey
located at our website at https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0__;!!HYmSToo!J-EV_4NY5nJVhif4n6bnm9eI_FcUDIEYthAH8JoBvG0h0baai4CSa6QXj5iLRxXh8DE$
to complete the survey online.

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure
we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
https://urldefense.com/v3/_http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0_;! !HYmSToolJ-
EV_ 4NY5nJVhif4n6bnm9e1_FcUDIEYthAH8JoBvGOhObaai4CSa6QXj5iLRxXh8DE$ to complete the survey
online.
2

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
April 20, 2021
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2017-01927
Re: MY1 credit release of the Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Mr. Kevin Tweedy
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration, PLLC
1150 SE Maynard Rd., Ste 140
Cary, NC 27511
Dear Mr. Tweedy:
This correspondence is in reference to the Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Report and request
for credit release, dated January 19, 2021, for the Red Barn Mitigation Bank. Also please
reference the NC Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) site visit meeting held on June 23, 2021
and the site visit meeting minutes provided by EPR via email on March 26, 2021. The Red Barn
Mitigation Bank Site is located off Ester Drive/Timeless Trail Road, south of NC 80 and
approximately 0.5 miles west of Mount Airy in Surry County, North Carolina. The 25.4-acre site
project entails stream restoration and enhancement generating cool stream mitigation units
(SMU's), as well as, wetland rehabilitation and creation generating riparian wetland mitigation
units (WMU's) along tributaries to Stewarts Creek, in the Upper Yadkin Watershed of the Upper
Pee Dee River Basin (03040101).
Pursuant to the Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI) entitled, "Agreement to Establish
the Red Barn Mitigation Bank in the Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101), Surry County, North
Carolina", approved December 18, 2019; and the site -specific Red Barn Final Mitigation Plan
dated November 2019, ten percent (10%) of the mitigation site's total stream restoration and
enhancement credits shall be available for sale immediately upon completion of the required
tasks.
The MY1 Report and cover letter referenced, document that most wetland gauges on the
Site are not meeting the hydroperiod performance criteria. EPR is evaluating its options in this
regard and no wetland credit for is currently being released for MY1.

By copy of this correspondence, we confirm that you have satisfied the above
requirements for the Year 1 cool stream credit release for all parcels within the bank and 803.2
SMU's are now available for sale. To date, 3,212.8 SMU's constituting forty percent (40%) of
the site's total stream restoration and enhancement credits, as well as, 0.61 WMU's constituting
thirty percent (30%) of the site's wetland rehabilitation and creation credits have been released
for sale.
During the NCIRT site meeting of March 23, 2021, several comments were made by
agency representatives regarding concerns noted with site conditions. Many of these concerns
were summarized in the site visit minutes submitted on March 26, 202. Those and other agency
concerns include:
1. IRT concerns over most wetland gauges on the Site not meeting the hydroperiod
performance criteria. EPR needs to determine their recommended course of
action. If this involves abandoning wetland credits, the IRT needs to be notified,
the WMU's already released will need to be addressed, as well as, an evaluation
of whether there was a reduction of wetland, as a result of the project.
2. Continued concerns regarding the amount of sediment deposition on UT2 where it
enters the project area and now further down that reach. Continue to update on
this area in future monitoring reports.
3. Graphs on page 87-102, need to fix right side y axis to reflect rainfall in inches
per month (not per day).
4. The vegetation plot data appears to be heavily influenced by Sycamore
throughout the site creating dominant species composition criteria to be exceeded
in many locations, mainly the random plots. Not very concerned with mortality at
this point although another year of abnormal precipitation patterns may influence
the outcome of MY2. Recommend EPR moving forward with AMP for planting
bare root stock to increase species diversity and stem density.
5. Stream Gage SG2 can remain in its current location and the IRT concurs with
moving WG9 to just within the wetland boundary.
6. Vegetation was noted in the lower end of UT1 and the IRT expressed concern for
the long-term presence of a stream channel versus wetland. Continue to update on
this area in future monitoring reports.
7. Notification is needed once the amend and release to the CE is finalized in the
three areas agreed upon.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
Steve Kichefski at [phone] extension 4234.
Sincerely,
for KICHEFSKI.STEVE Digitally signed by
N.L.13869O8539
Scott Jones, Chief
Asheville and Charlotte Regulatory Field Offices
KI CH EFSKI.STEVEN.L.1386908539
Date: 2021.04.20 17:31:23 -04'00'

Electronic Copies Furnished:
Erin Davis (NCDWR)
Andrea Leslie (NCWRC)
Travis Wilson (NCWRC)
Holland Youngman (USFWS)
Todd Bowers (USEPA)
Todd Tugwell (USACE)
Kim Browning (USACE)
Casey Haywood (USACE)
Scott Jones (USACE)

From: Bowers, Todd
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2017-01927 Red Barn Mitigation Bank MY1 Report
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 4:02:30 PM
Attachments: imaae003.pnq
Steve,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the MY1 Report for the
Red Barn Mitigation Bank in Surry County, NC. EPR submitted the report for IRT review in
January 2021 and a site visit is planned for March 22, 2021 to provide follow-up on -site
analysis of the site and corrective actions if needed especially in the vicinity of the dry
channel noted in the site visit last June. As expected, due to Covid-19 travel restrictions, I
will not be present at the site visit as currently planned. Therefore, I have provided my
response now in order for EPR to move ahead with corrective action especially in regard to
supplemental planting of bare -root stock proposed to increase site diversity and stem
count.
• Minor areas and incidences of encroachment noted in vicinity of UT3 and it appears
that corrective action was rapid and effective (landowner notification, cooperation and
additional signage). No further comment.
• Graphs on page 87-102 need to fix right side y axis to reflect rainfall in inches per
month (not per day).
• Obviously wetland hydrology hydroperiod criteria was not met with the exception of
RBWG-8. I concur with withholding wetland credits scheduled for release in
association with MY1. Unfortunately it appeared to be a very dry late spring/early
summer last year and the wetland hydrology appears to have been influenced only by
overbank events.
• The vegetation plot data appears to be heavily influenced by Sycamore throughout
the site creating dominant species composition criteria to be exceeded in many
locations; mainly the random plots. Not very concerned with mortality at this point
although another year of abnormal precipitation patterns may influence the outcome
of MY2. Recommend EPR moving forward with AMP for planting bare root stock to
increase species diversity and stem density however they should do so immediately
before the dormant period closes for this year.
• Deviations of six cross sections (only 5 listed on page 10) in BHR and ER reductions
most likely due to slight aggradation in riffles was noted. No further comment.
Thanks again for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Red Barn Mitigation Bank MY1
Report.
Best Regards,
Todd B.
Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Oceans, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303

404.562.9225
[e-mail]
Note: I am currently teleworking and away from the office. Please contact me via email or at
919.523.2637.
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:08 AM
To: Erin Davis <[e-mail]>; Andrea Leslie ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA)<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Hamstead, Byron
<byro n_h a m ste a d @ fws.gov>
Cc: Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2017-01927 Red Barn Mitigation Bank MY1 Report
Good Morning,
The Year 1 Monitoring Report review and credit release has been requested by EPR. Per Section
332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review follows the streamlined review process, which
requires an IRT review period of 15 calendar days from this email notification. Please provide any
comments by 5 PM on the 15-day comment deadline shown below. When providing comments
please indicate if your concerns are great enough that you intend to request a site visit prior to the
Year 1 credit release. Comments provided after the 15-day comment deadline (shown below) may
not be considered. At the conclusion of this comment period, a copy of all comments will be
provided to EPR and the NCIRT along with District Engineer's intent to approve or disapprove this
Year 1 Monitoring Report credit release.
Please note, we previously had an IRT site visit to review the Red Barn draft As -Built on June 10,
2020 and the final As -Built was submitted September 18, 2020. Between the two reports, some
areas were identified as concerns to monitor, including finishing the CE fencing, completing the
footbridge and ATV crossings, removing 3 areas from the CE (2 crossings and 1 sliver of boundary w
existing fencing), sediment deposition in UT2 and a section of dry channel downstream of the culvert
on UT1.
The MY1 report addresses the concerns expressed last year as well as documents additional items.
Amongst the various MY1 report results, EPR notes that the project wetlands are not meeting

performance standards and are not seeking wetland credit at this time. They also propose to "...
move SG 2 from its current location to the first pool downstream of the culvert. The location and
data for this gauge will be provided in the next monitoring report." This is in response to the short
section of dry channel identified during last June's site visit. I have included the Red Barn Mitigation
Site with our Monday, March 22 Yadkin visits due its close proximity to the Hair Sheep Site
scheduled for that day. If you feel the MY1 results are of enough concern that credit should not be
released prior to the March 22nd site visit, please indicate that with your comment response.
Sponsor: Ecosystem Planning & Restoration (EPR)
Name: Red Barn Mitigation Site
USACE ID: SAW-2017-02529
River Basin: Upper Yadkin Watershed; Upper Pee Dee River Basin
H U C: 03040101
County: Surry
CREDIT RELEASE:
10-percent of the total stream restoration and enhancement credits: 803.2 stream mitigation units
15-Day Comment Start Date: February 10, 2021
15-Day Comment Deadline: February 24, 2021
*NOTE: If a site visit is request by the IRT, comments are due 15 days after the site visit is complete.
You can find the MY1 Report and Cover Letter on RIBITs, under the Monitoring Reports, at the link
below. https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/ords/f?
p=107:278:11467618519579::NO::P278_BANK_ID:4775
Feel free to contact me with any questions.
Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
(828)-933-8032 cell
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help
us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our
website at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Red Barn IRT Meeting Minutes
Date: March 23, 2021
Time: 3:00 — 5:10 PM
Location: Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site; Mount Airy, NC
Attendees: Steven Kichefski - USACE
Todd Tudwell — USACE
Erin Davis - NCDEQ
Andrea Leslie — NC WRC
Jake Byers - EPR
Kevin Tweedy — EPR
Minutes:
• Minutes recorded by Kevin Tweedy and Jake Byers.
• Kevin and Jake started the meeting with a brief overview of the site conditions at the end of
Year 1 monitoring, and concerns/issues that were raised in the Year 1 monitoring report,
which included:
o Most groundwater wells did not meet wetland hydrology criteria. Group discussed
options of changing the wetland crediting for the site, or possible abandoning
wetland credits all together. EPR is going to evaluate in the future and decide, and
until that point will not request further wetland credit releases.
o Update on easement encroachment issues.
o Stream flow in UT1 and possible relocation of stream gage SG2.
o Replanting of some areas with higher tree mortality.
• The group walked north and started the site walk approximately 400 feet downstream of
the start of UT1. The following notes are in regards to discussions during the walk of UT1:
o Corps commented that some of the planted stems were very small. EPR attributes
some of the higher mortality to the size of the stems that were planted and is one of
the reasons supplemental planting is proposed.
o Group inspected the conditions of Wetland WA in the vicinity of WG1, above the UT1
culverted crossing. EPR explained that the pre -restoration wetland hydrology
appears to have been driven by perched water, and a depressional landscape. After
restoration, the stream is providing some drainage of the valley, and there appears
to be no connection between the local water table and the stream water level. Group
agreed that hydrology in this area will be hard to obtain except for some isolated
pockets, without a complete redesign and reconstruction. EPR is evaluating options
for this area.
o Group crossed the culverted crossing to the downstream reach of UT1. Group
inspected the location of stream gage SG2. After discussion and review of the rest of
UT1, Group agreed to leave SG2 in its current condition.
o Corps noted that there was vegetation in lower end of UT1 and that flow as obviously
reduced. Corps mentioned that they allow providers to remove vegetation from the

channel during the first 3 monitoring years with no penalties to allow the stream to
stabilize. Any "cleaning" should not be done right before a scheduled IRT field visit.
o Group discussed performance of wetland gages WG4 and WG5, near the confluence
of UT1 and UT2. Discussed poor performance of gages, and EPR's belief that the
situation could be improved by cutting off some surface drainage that appears to be
occurring.
• Group then walked to the upper end of UT2. Concern as expressed about the sand load in
the middle of the reach, but conditions appeared better at the top of the reach. EPR
explained that while the sand load is high from offsite, the stream appears to be processing
the sand without aggradation of the stream.
• Group briefly looked at wetland WB in the vicinity of gage WG7 on the south side of UT2
and noted it had hydrology and standing water.
• Group continued down UT2. EPR noted the wet floodplain that has formed along much of
UT2 from approximately the culverted crossing downstream. Corps confirmed that any
wetland credits developed from these areas would be at a "creation" ratio, due to the depth
of cut.
• Group inspected the foot bridge on lower UT2. No concerns were expressed.
• Group continued up UT3. Group noted the wetland around well WG8 appeared much
wetter than others, and it was the one well that met criteria during the previous year.
• Group looked at location of well WG9 which was mistakenly installed just outside the
proposed wetland line. EPR explained that they planned to move well WG9 downstream
slightly to get away from the ATV crossing. Corps suggested to relocate this well to the south
side of UT3.
• Group discussed the ATV crossing. EPR explained that they plan to lay the left bank back
slightly and install stone, so that an ATV can cross easier. EPR also explained that they
expect very little is any ATV traffic in the future.
• Tour concluded around 5:10. Steve said that he would issue the credit release letter for Year
1 (which will be stream credits only) later that week. EPR will evaluate options for the
wetland on the site and notify the Corps of any plans before any actions are taken.
• Corps confirmed that if EPR determined that wetland assets were not viable or they did not
want to pursue, only a delineation at close out would be required to ensure that the total
wetland area was not reduced. The Corps would also take into account that the pre -
restoration wetlands were generally low quality.