20061291 Ver 1_Modifications_20070620

O~OF W AT ~9QG
r? r
~_ ~
(~ 'C
Mr. Dave Lekson
Washington Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
107 Union Drive
Suite 202
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Lekson:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Cazolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
June 20, 2007
RE: Request for expansion of Service Area for Timberlake Mitigation Bank
Tyrrell County
U5 1~P1
On June 4, 2007, we received your letter relaying the request from the Timberlake Mitigation
Bank to expand its service area to include the coastal area from the North Carolina -Virginia border to
the North Carolina -South Carolina border in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. A detailed, technical
review of this request is attached. In short, the Division is opposed to this proposed service area for
reasons well laid out in the attached memo from Eric Kulz dated June 20, 2007. While the Division is not
opposed to a somewhat larger service area for this bank, debiting of this bank from this larger area would
have to include ratios outlined in the adjacent cataloging unit guidance document that was produced for
the PACG-TC group last year. This document is available on our website at the following address:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc. us/ncwetlands/documents/PACGconcurrenceonAdjCU.doc
If you have any questions, please call me at 919-733-9646.
Sinc ely yours,
h Dorney
Cc: Eric Kulz
Kyle Barnes, DWQ Washington Regional Office
File copy
Donald Carr, Pillsbury Winthrop, 1133 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036-4305
401 OversighUExpress Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Sufte 250, Raleigh; North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] I FAX [phone] I Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
None Carolina
~tura!!y
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled110°~ Post Consumer Paper

NC Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
June 20, 2007
Memorandum
To: John Dorney
From: Eric Kulz
Subject: Comments on Great Dismal Swamp Restoration Bank/Timberlake Farms
Tyrrell County
John:
Great Dismal Swamp, LLC is requesting a modification to their MBI to expand the geographic
service area of the Timberlake Farm property. Their service area currently serves HUC
03010205, which comprises the northeast corner of the state, and includes portions of the
Chesapeake-Pamlico Lowlands and Tidal Marshes sub-ecoregions of the Middle Atlantic Coastal
Plain ecoregion. This area appears to include Camden; Currituck, Dare, Pasquotank,
Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties.
The proposed service area comprises the entire Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain ecoregion,
extending from the tidewater area west to Gates County, south to Brunswick County and
extending as far inland as portions of Bladen and Sampson Counties.
Of particular concern with this proposal is the accelerated growth occurring in the southeastern
portion of North Carolina. Based on population growth figures for the period from 2000 to 2006,
Pender, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties rate among the high growth counties (see
attached map; from the North Carolina State Demographics website, http://demog.state.nc.us).
The overall population growth projected for North Carolina from 2000 to 2010 is 16.2%. However,
during that same time period, projected growth for New Hanover County is 24.9%; Pender County
is 27.2%; and Brunswick County is 40.5% (demog.state.nc.us/demog/grow0010.html).
This growth would be expected to result in an increase in wetland impacts due to development.
401 Water Quality Certification approvals increased 31 % from the period 1993-2000 to the period
2000-2007 (BIMS).
The concern regarding Great Dismal Swamp, LLCs proposal is that there is the potential for
compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts occurring in the southeastern counties to be
satisfied by wetland credits in the northeast portion of the site, resulting in an unmitigated loss of
wetlands in the southeastern coastal plain, particularly in New Hanover, Pender and Brunswick
Counties.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://ncwaterq uality. org/wetlands

NC Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
An interesting point to note is that based on the 2000-2006 population growth data, Camden,
Currituck, Pasquotank and Dare are also considered High Growth counties. Projected
population growth over the period from 2000 - 2010 for Camden County is 51 %; Currituck County
is 45.9%; Dare County is 28.3%; and Pasquotank County is 20%. (demog.state.nc.us/demog/
grow0010.html).
401 Water Quality Certification approvals for the counties within the current bank service area
increased 32% from the period 1993-2000 to the period 2000-2007 (BIMS).
Based on this data, increasing growth in the northeastern portion of the state appears to be
expected, and with that growth will likely come increased need for wetland mitigation credits in
the area. The Timberlake Farms property can provide those credits within the same HUC code
as the impacts, providing some offset and minimizing net losses of wetlands in this portion of the
state.
By not having a large bank from which credits can be purchased for impacts in distant parts of the
state (e.g. the southeastern counties), applicants have greater incentive to seek out mitigation
opportunities in the same sub-basins as the impacts, also resulting in reducing net loss of
wetlands in a particular geographic region of the state.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://ncwaterquality. org/wetlands

North Carolina State Demographics
Page 1 of 1
North Carolina State Demographics
Home Contact_s_ New_Ev_ents More Census LINC
~ ,~
State
Highlights
County/State
Estimates
Municipal
Estimates
Census
County/State
Projections
http : //demo ~. state. nc. us/
POPULATION GROWTH 2000 TO 2006
Growth Classifications
State__Data_Ce_n_t_e r
6/14/2007

County Population Growth 2000 - 2010
County Population Growth 2000 - 2010
(to open/download as Excel Spreadsheet, click here)
...go to 2000-2010 Growth Map
._go to state Po Pop. Growth Natural Net Migr.
County 2000 2010 Amount % Births Deaths Growth Amount
ALAMANCE 130,794147,988 17,19413.1 18,753 13,041 5,712 11,482 8.8
ALEXANDER 33,612 38,631 5,01914.9 4,190 2,991 1,199 3,820 11.4
ALLEGHANY 10,680 11,137 457 4.3 990 1,345 -355 812 7.6
ANSON 25,275 26,385 1,110 4.4 3,165 2,782 384 726 2.9
ASHE 24,384 26,520 2,136 8.8 2,520 3,001 -481 2,617 10.7
AVERY ~ 17,167 18,658 1,491 8.7 1,638 1,949 -311 1,802 10.5
BEAUFORT 44,958 47,138 2,180 4.8 6,001 5,595 406 1,774 3.9
BERTIE 19,757 19,333 -424 -2.1 2,401 2,592 -191 -233 -1.2
BLADEN 32,278 33,878 1,600 5.0 4,528 3,771 757 843 2.6
BRUNSWICK 73,141 102,799 29,658 40.5 9,315 8,987 329 29,329 40.1
Pop. Pop. Growth Natural Net Migr.
County 2000 2010 Amount % Births Deaths Growth Amount
BUNCOMBE 206,289 229,358 23,069 11.2 25,854 22,365 3,489 19,580 9.5
BURKE 89,145 90,604 1,459 1.6 10,308 8,315 1,992 -533 -0.6
CABARRUS 131,063 168,850 37,787 28.8 23,208 11,474 11,734 26,053 19.9
CALDWELL 77,708 80,101 2,393 3.1 9,377 7,487 1,890 503 0.6
CA~v9D`` 6,885 10,394 3;~0~) 5;1:4 979 762 217 3,292 47.8
CARTERET 59,383 65,839 6,45610.9 6,055 7,240 -1,185 7,641 12.9
CASWELL-~ 23,501 24,506 1,005 4.3 2,419 2,324 96 909 3.9
CATAWBA 141,677158,132 16,455 11.6 20,486 13,108 7,377 9,078 6.4
r~~~n~~r~~~
Page 1 of 5
http://demog.state.nc.us/demog/grow0010.htm1 6/14/2007

County Population Growth 2000 - 2010
(CHATHAM ~ 49,329 61,635 12,306 24.9 7,212 5,268 1,944 10,362 21.0
CHEROKEE 24,298 27,926 3,62814.9 2,635 3,137 -502 4,130 17.0
Pop. Pop. Growth Natural Net Migr.
County 2000 2010 Amount % -Births Deaths Growth Amount
CHOWAN 14,150 14,722 572 4.0 1,802 1,844 -42 614 4.3
CLAY 8,775 10,699 1,924 21.9 834 1,226 -392 2,316 26.4
CLEVELAND 96,278 99,363 3,085 3.2 12,266 9,872 2,393 692 0.7
COLUMBUS 54,749 55,583 834 1.5 7,529 6,121 1,409 -575 -1.1
CRAVEN 91,523 94,726 3,203 3.5 15,314 8,651 6,663 -3,460 -3.8
CUMBERLAND 302,967 312,107 9,140 3.0 53,471 20,446 33,024 -23,884 -7.9
CURRITUCK 18,190 26,533 8,343 45.9 2,560 2,004 556 7,787 42.8
DARE 29,967 38,458 8,491 28.3 4,211 2,706 1,505 6,986 23.3
DAVIDSON 147,250162,201 14,951 10.2 19,280 13,495 5,785 9,166 6.2
DAME 34,835 42,744 7,909 22.7 4,494 3,511 984 6,925 19.9
Pop. Po Growth Natural Net Mi r.
County 2000 2010 Amount % Births Deaths Growth Amount
DUPLIN 49,063 ' 55,675 6;62; 1'~~ 8,001 5,225 2,776 3,836 7.8
DURHAM 223,314 258,398 35,084 15.7 39,352 18,398 20,955 14,129 6.3
EDGECOMBE 55,606 51,329 -4,277 -7.7 7,438. 5,935 1,502 -5,779 -10.4
FORSYTH 306,063 347,470 41,407 13.5 46,848 28,793 18,055 23,352 7.6
FRANKLIN 47,260 59,997 12,737 27.0 6,971 4,397 2,574 10,163 21.5
GASTON 190,316199,534 9,218 4.8 25,507 19,016 6,491 2,727 1.4
GATES 10,516 11,809 1,29312.3 1,133 1,213 -80 1,373 13.1
GRAHAM 7,993 8,351 358 4.5 963 1,027 -64 422 5.3
GRANVILLE 48,498 57,592 9,09418.8 6,189 4,627 1,563 7,531 15.5
GREENE 18,974 21,567 2,593 13.7 2,524 1,732 792 1,801 9.5
Pop. Pop. Growth Natural Net Migr.
County 2000 2010 Amount % Births Deaths. Growth Amount
Page 2 of 5
http://demog.state.nc.us/demog/grow0010.html 6/14/2007

County Population Growth 2000 - 2010
GUILFORD ~ 421,048 471,832 50,784 12.1 59,905 37,051 22,855 27,929 6.6
HALIFAX 57,370 55,843 -1,527 -2.7 7,286 6,776 510 -2,037 -3.6
HARNETT 91,025 112,581 21,556 23.7 15,069 7,763 7,306 14,250 15.7
HAYWOOD 54,034 59,066 5,032 9.3 5,600 6,559 -959 5,991 11.1
HENDERSON 89,214106,440 17,22619.3 11,297 11,770 -473 17,699 19.8
HERTFORD 22,977 24,303 1,326 5,8 2,868 2,856 12 1,314 5.7
HOKE 33,646 47,609 13,963 41.5 7,360 2,508 4,851. 9,112 27.1
HYDE 5,826 5,556 -270 -4.6 551 702 -151 -119 -2.0
IREDELL 122,660 155,652 32,992 26.9 18,898 11,658 7,240 25,752 21.0
JACKSON 33,120 37,670 4,55013.7 3,600 3,113 487 4,063 12.3
Pop. Pop. Growth Natural Net Mi r.
County 2000 2010 Amount % Births Deaths Growth Amount
JOHNSTON 121,900 169,143 47,243 38.8 22,955 10,724 12,231 35,012 28.7
JONES 10,419 10;349 -70 -0.7 879 1,176 -298 228 2.2
LEE 49,208 58,196 8,98818.3 8,536 4,972 3,564 5,424 11.0
LENOIR ~ 59,598 57,976 -1,622 -2.7 7,624 6,955 668 -2,290 -3.8
LINCOLN 63,780 ' 75;837 12,057 18.9 8,994 5,671 3,323 8,734 13.7
MCDOWELL 42,151 45,078 2,927 6.9 5,110 4,199 911 2,016 4.8
CON 29,811 35,397 5,586 18.7 3,290 3,924 -634 6,220 20.9
MADISON 19,635 21,205 1,570 8.0 2,168 2,188 -19 1,589 8.1
MARTIN 25,546 24,167 -1,379 -5.4 3,027 2,939 88 -1,467 -5.7
MECKLENBURG 695,370 900,146 204,776 29.4 130,657 51,266 79,391 125,385 18.0
Pop. Po Growth Natural Net Migr.
County 2000 2010 Amount % Births Deaths Growth Amount
MITCHELL 15,687 16,120 433 2.8 1,618 1,937 -319 752 4.8
MONTGOMERY 26,822 28,476 1,654 6.2 3,894 2,645 1,249 405 1.5
MOORE 74,762 87,434 12,672 16.9 9,379 9,410 -32 12,704 17.0
NASH ~ 87,385 96,007 8,622 9.9 12,241 8,883 3,358 5,264 6.0
Page 3 of 5
http://demog.state.nc.us/demog/grow0010.html 6/14/2007

County Population Growth 2000 - 2010
`NEW,:~HAN~)U;ER 1160,327 200,213 39886 21,501 15,588 5,913 33,973 21.2
NORTHAMPTON 22,086 21,622 -464 -2.1 2,341 2,757 -416 -48 -0.2
ONSLOW 150,355 159,528 9,173 6.1 32,762 7,835 24,928 -15,755 -10.5
ORANGE 115,537130,375 14,83812.8 13,351 7,249 6,102 8,736 7.6
PAMLICO 12,934 13,416 482 3.7 1,057 1,546 -489 971 7.5
PASQUOTANK 34,897 41,934 7,037 20.2 4,976 3,981 995 6,042 17.3
Po Po Growth Natural Net Mi r.
County 2000 2010 Amount % Births Deaths Growth Amount
FENDER 41,082 52,258 11,176 ~7:? 5,027 4,270 758 10,418 25.4
PERQUIMANS 11,368 12,810 1,44212.7 1,206 1,499 -293 1,735 15.3
PERSON 35,623 38,990 3,367 9.5 4,557 3,542 1,015 2,352 6.6
PITT 133,719153,411 19,69214.7 20,407 11,234 9,173 10,519 7.9
FOLK 18,324 20,110 1,786 9.7 1,740 2,698 -958 2,744 15.0
RANDOLPH 130,471 146,561 16,09012.3 18,393 11,168 7,225 .8,865 6.8
RICHMOND 46,564 47,113 549 1.2 6,196 5,127 1,069 -520 -1.1
ROBESON ~ 123,241 134,071 10,830 8.8 20,229 11,398 8,831 1,999 1.6
ROCKINGHAM 91,928 ' 92,779 851 0.9 11,010 10,017 992 -141 -0.2
ROWAN 130,340 139,427 9,087 7.0 16,797 13,273 3,524 5,563 4.3
Pop. Pop. Growth Natural Net Migr.
County 2000 2010 Amount % Births Deaths Growth Amount
RUTHERFORD 62,901 64,742 1,841 2.9 .7,841 7,212 629 1,212 1.9
SAMPSON 60,161 68,764 8,60314.3 9,133 6,215 2,919 5,684 9.4
SCOTLAND 35,998 37,735 1,737 4.8 4,814 3,692 1,122 615 1.7
STANLY 58,100 60,730 2,630 4.5 7,449 5,967 1,482 1,148 2.0
STOKES 44,711 48,590 3,879 8.7 4,969 4,073 895 2,984 6.7
SURRY 71,216 76,501 5,285 7.4 9,108 7,810 1,298 3,987 5.6
SWAIN 12,968 14,281 1,313 10.1 1,822 1,567 256 1,057 8.2
TRANSYLVANIA 29,334 30,896 1,562 5.3 2,649 3,622 -973 2,535 8.6
Page 4 of 5
http://demog.state.nc.us/demog/grow0010.htm1 6/14/2007

County Population Growth 2000 - 2010
ITYRRELL I 4,149 4,317 168 4.0 418 446 -28 196 4.7
UNION 123,772 191,434 67,662 54.7 25,585 10,100 15,484 52,178 42.2
Po Po Growth Natural Net Mi r.
County 2000 2010 Amount % Births Deaths Growth Amount
VANCE 42,954 44,739 1,785 4.2 6,871 4,691 2,179 -394 -0.9
WAKE 627,866 876,643 248,777 39.6 118,662 39,646 79,016 169,761 27.0
WARREN 19,972 21,002 1,030 5.2 1,985 2,251 -267 1,297 6.5
WASHINGTON 13,723 13,167 -556 -4.1 1,668 1,621 47 -603 -4.4
WATAUGA 42,693 43,976 1,283 3.0 3,410 2,899 511 772 1.8
WAYNE 113,329119,222 5,893 5.2 17,314 10,708 6,606 -713 -0.6
WILKES 65,632 68,626 2,994 4.6 8,258 6,505 1,753 1,241 1.9
WILSON 73,811 80,080 6,269 8.5 10,642 8,188 2,454 3,815 5.2
YADKIN 36,348 39,538 3,190 8.8 4,744 3,495 1,248 1,942 5.3
YANCEY 17,774 18,821 1,047 5.9 1,824 1,892 -68 1,115 6.3
Pop. Pop. Growth Natural Net Migr.
NORTH 2000 2010 Amount % Births Deaths Growth Amount
CAROLINA 8,046,813 9,349,175 1,302,362 16.2 1,212,240 741,203 471,037 831,325 10.3
.go to toy
go to County/State Projections
Last Update: June 27, 2006
Page 5 of 5
http://demog.state.nc.us/demog/grow0010.htm1 6/14/2007

IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Fleid Office
P.O. BOX 1000 /
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000 ~ + L
June 4, 2007
~~~ ~~
1 ~
ORM ID SAW-199606890 /Great Dismal Swamp Restoration Bank
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Mr. Jo
wo~"`~
~~~~ad~
D
JUN 5 Z007
WEIlANp4Rq(~p S DER G~IAI.tTY
or~uw~t~t
This correspondence is in reference to the Timberlake Farm property of the Great Dismal
Swamp Restoration Bank located south of U.S. 64, east of Columbia, in Tyrrell County, North
Carolina. The purpose of this letter is to request your review and comments on the attached
proposal by Great Dismal Swamp, LLC, to modify its mitigation banking instrument (MBI) to
expand the geographic service area of the Timberlake Farms bank property.
Specifically, the Bank Sponsor proposes to expand the service area to include all areas of the
outer coastal plain of North Carolina identified as Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain on the attached
map (Ecoregion 63), from Virginia to South Carolina and west to the demarcation between the
inner and outer coastal plains. Pursuant to Section IX. General Provisions, D. Modifications, of
the MBI, the instrument may not be modified except by the written agreement of the signatory
parties. Toward this end, please provide me with your written comments regarding this proposal
within 20 days of your receipt of this correspondence. I will be contacting you in the near future
to discuss this matter in more detail.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me at the
Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 22.
Sincerely,
C'~~~~'"`~ ~Y Imo,
David M. Lekson
Chief, Washington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures

DISTRIBUTION:
Copies furnished (with enclosures):
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island .
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Donald. Carr
Pillsbury Winthrop
1133 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-4305
2

Draft Level III and IV Ecoregions of North Carolina
H4° 83° .. B2°
B1' 8U° ,
79° 76° 77° 76°
g G ~- ~-' .- -•
~~ 67f 67th,-~ 67f _ ~:~- 66c ~~-' ~~~'AS'e ~ ~ S '45c ~ ~ Di ~ ~ ~ 636~~
~ ,
Q ~ -~' ~ 45f ~ ~ ~ 63e '~ I
_ _ 7 ~.
\ ,
69d V ).' ~ ddd~ 66c ~. ~ ~~u^ ~ ~ ' 63e
~ ~ li. _~f' `~`'r / .c t `. i'~SJ ~ tiro , $ ~` ~ - ~ '~ F 5 8 63d
.~ 'b 66d 'Y;~~~ 4~c ~ ~~~""-~t F ~~~ +~ ~ I~'~ 5-.. 1'$ ' Ff"~+: -ti ~ a~,.
7g b~p arcemdom ~ r~ 63g
null ~ ` i ~~.' ~ 1 ~ -" wuum~._ ~O. ~ ,~ 45f ~ 'x~i ` -~ M1Fa`Ffhl?L~~~~pw
J ~ . - ~} > ,~- I ~ -. 'Til
.~~' ~ ~g ... ~ p tis - - 1 _ _ , _~. ,~ _
~~ ~ ~ y~v t. ~. ~ ~ ~; ~~63e 1, ti. -
"~;~ _
~66e~ ~~1 ~ N ~ ~ ~ \ ~ _ .y~ ., ~
'~ ~ _' ~~ ~ - ~ - -~ ~ 4S6 ~ - 45c _ _ ~ _ ~~GSm ~ ° O,un 11 ~ l o- ~~\
- ..
,~~, j~ ~ ~+'r ~ ~ T~-'_ ~ -~ y •_ _63e
;,
~.: . F
~y. a -' - 1
~` _- r '7Y a .' - € --- - _:.1. Chazlon r..~ r. a:~ 65c ~~~ 'L. '~ ~ \ ~ / ,~
~ b . ~~ ~ 45~ ~."~ - ~ f: Y ~~ _ jg i ~ 63g J~
L~~j ~'
FJ ,' '7 ~~ ~ t 45a O ~- ~ 1 s^t-'~8" ~ ; 6`F ~ t ,,
,~ ', ~ ~ - - -~ X651 -- - -
S66g ~ ~ c no~ ~, - _ -i I 63h w
~ ~ Lnncm~ ~ 63c lr 69
1 O O 45c\, ~ 63h a~ ~'-'~ ~ R
~~-~O/' h~ /~ ,\ ' 45b ~-_- '; ~ 651 `
~` - i./ - ~ ~; ~ ~ ~~,, ~'-j ~ U ~ ~`y~ . ~ 651 _ _
'~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~~ ~-- ~ 651 ~~- 63h .i '/' L 1 ,'~ T d ('
~ ~ ~~ _ 65p °~ wum~gtm ~~ I} C / .d ,~V~
_{ ~' I 45b " _ 7.,.'~ ° i~~.~' f45c~ - ~~' Colwnbia ..
'~ _ 1
~_ ~~ °~ -t ~y~~ ~ ~~' 63h~ 63n1 63h'
~~ ~ 45c `~J ~ ~ -~ 651 ~' ~ ~
~° 83° ,
45 Piedmont e ° Bt°' ~ ` ecr 7 7 ° 77^ 76° ,
Q 45a Southern Inner Piedmont 65 Southeastern Plains
45b Southern Outer Piedmont ~ 65c Sand Hills Ecoregions denote areas of eneral simi]ari
SCALH 1:2000 000 8 ty in ecosystems and in the
Q 45c Carolina Slate Belt 0 65l Atlantic Southern Loam plains type. quality, and quantity of environmental resoumes. They an designed
Q 45e Northern Inver Piedmont ~ 65m Rolling Coastal Plain - ] 0 0 20 40 mi to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management,
Q 45f Northern Ou[er piedmont 65p Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces -- -`~'~"~~ and monitoring of ecosystems acid ecosystem components. The ecoregions
Q 45g Triassic Basius ,` are identified through analysis of patterns of biotic anti abiotic phenomena,
,,,,~. 45i Kings Mountain 66 Blue Ridge Mountains 20 0 20 - 40 ~ 601on including geology,. physiography, vege~tibn, climate, soils, land use,
45j Saura[own Mounmins ~ tr6c New River plateau Albers Fyuxl Area Projection wildlife, and hydrology. The map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000, as
( 66d Southern Crystalline Ridges end Mountains part of collaboraTive pmjeet primarily between the U.S. EPA, USDA-
63 Middle Atlantic Coastal Plnln ~ 66e Soutltern Sedimentary Ridges NRCS, and NCOENR. Comments and suggestions mgarding this DRAFT
63b Chesapeake-Pamlico Lowlands and Tiidal Marshes ~ 66g Southern Metasedimeatary Mountains Level IIT anti iV Ewregions of North Carolina map should be addressed to
63c Swamps and Peatlands 66i High Mountains Level III Boundary Glenn Griffith, USDA-MRCS, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333,
0 63d Virginian Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes Q 66j Broad Basins Level IV Boundary [phone], FAX: [phone], wnail: glennC mail.cocepa.gov, or
0 63e Mid-Atlantic Flatwaods ~ 66k AmphiboliteMountains ----- State Boundary to Jamcs Ometnik, U.S. EPA - NHEERL, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis,
63g Carolinian Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes ~ 661 Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills - ------- County Bomdary OR 97333, [phone], email: [e-mail].
0 63h Carolina Flatwoads
63n Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Te[[aces
~x ~ St~n~
~~~o~d

~~
Pillsbury
Winthrop
Shaw
Pittman~~
2300 N Street NW Te1202.663.8000
Washington, DC 20037-1122 Fax 202.663:8007
' com
MAY 2 ~ 2~~7
~~~ ~~
v~'as~ngt
May 16, 2007
Donald A. Carr
Partner
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
David Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
107 Union Drive
Suite 202
Washington, NC 27889
Dear David:
Here is a draft revision of the MBI which would accomplish the objective we discussed
last week. This new language would make it clear that Timberlake credits are eligible for
consideration in decisions about mitigation packages for projects with wetland impacts in
Ecoregion 63. In support of this amendment, the following things can be said:
1. It is completely in conformance with the express language of the mitigation
bank guidance, which provides that "the geographic extent of a service area should, to the
extent environmentally desirable, be guided by the cataloguing unit of the "Hydrologic
Unit map of the United States' (USGS, 1980) and the ecoregion of the "Ecoregions of the
United States' (James M. Omernik, 1986) or section of the `Descriptions of the
Ecoregions of the United States' (Robert G. Bailey, USDA, 1980))."
2. When we began drafting this MBI provision in mid-1995, before the EPA
guidance document was issued, and before restoration work was fully conceived, much
less implemented at the Timberlake site, it was the prudent, conservative course to
restrict the provisional service area to HUC 03010205,_ if for no other reason than to steer
the advance credits to projects within close proximity of the then-untested mitigation
work. Of course, even this original MBI language allowed for a wider service area
beyond HUC 03010205 where the Corps and the MBRT so approved; on a case-by-case
basis.
3. Since the MBI was finally approved in 1997, and the first restoration plan was
accepted in 1998, the MBRT has had ample opportunity to judge the comrriitment and
wherewithal of the bank sponsor to complete the whole endeavor to the full extent of the
success criteria. Moreover, the MBRT's decade of scrutiny of the operation of the bank,
in both Phase I (forested area) and Phase II (agricultural area), has led to confident
400572631v1

David Lekson
May 16, 2007
Page 2
judgments that the site has not only achieved predicted levels but in fact has become an
exemplar of excellence in the reestablishment of healthy wetland functions. The
potential has become the actual, eliminating the significant risks which are inherent in the
early phases of these banks.
4. As judged today against other less-well-established banks in the ecoregion, or
banks yet to be commenced, Timberlake credits maybe seen as representative of more
mature, more robust, ecological systems and services.
5. Insofar as Timberlake credits have been, and may in the future be subject to
purchase by NCDOT/WRP/EEP for 13iitigation of linear transportation impacts, they fit
the model in the EPA guidance for "designation of a more inclusive service area more
appropriate for mitigation banks whose primary purpose is to compensate for linear
projects that typically involve numerous small impacts in several different watersheds."
6. Timberlake has become distinctive in the development of a scientific platform
for leading researchers and institutions, such as Duke and LTNC. The work of Drs.
Bernhardt and Doyle and their colleagues, Dr. Ardon and Ms. Morse, in "intense
monitoring effort of soil and surface water nutrient concentrations, watershed nutrient
loading and export, and gaseous emissions" affecting climate change processes, reflects
the scientific and conservation policy significance of the bank site.
7. As is evident from the Bernhardt-Doyle work, it is the great scale of this
restoration program, in addition to the ambitious riverine success criteria, which makes
the project stand out from the pack. The mitigation bank guidance, as well as a body of
scientific evidence, speaks to the preference for larger, landscape scale banks, over the
so-called "postage stamp" variety.
8. As is also evident from the Bernhardt-Doyle scientific research, the
Timberlake restoration program addresses ecosystem services issues which are common
to areas in the North Carolina portion of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. Insofar as it
is their research which furnishes the basis for the recent Apri14, 2007 stream restoration
information paper concerning the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecoregion (as shown on
Griffith, et al. 2002), it seems appropriate now to clarify that the bank's credits should be
eligible for consideration in mitigation decisions about projects in the ecoregion.
9. GDSRB contemplates that in the course of any additional sales of Timberlake
credits to EEP, or to related North Carolina state entities, this amended service area
400572631V1 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

David Lekson
May 16, 2007
Page 3
would apply, and that the MBRT would be engaged in all subsequent decisions about the
utilization or apportionment of such credits.
Please let me know if you have any questions on these points, or if you need any
additional materials in connection with our request.
Sincerely,
Donald A. Carr '
Enclosure
cc: Dr. Bernhardt
Dr. Doyle
400572631V1 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

V. OPERATION OF THE MITIGATION BANK
A. Geographic Service Area. The service area of the Bank
is the designated area wherein it can reasonably be
expected to provide appropriate compensation for
impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources. This
is defined by the USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03010205,
which is the historic watershed of the Great Dismal
Swamp in southeastern Virginia and northeastern North
Carolina , i . e-; ~~re-e-r~-~~e~-ri~~-a^~~~~
a«_'^r , T~~-lei 1-~-$ e-~c~~cFii~ir'~-crl~-~~rre "'}rz =~ ~rrxc -
~-eere~--e~B~.-~__ ~~~a~~iA,., c~-~t on ~.. ~:c.rt':
~-^~ , ..~ thc. .,n~~and the Middle Atlantic Coastal
North Carolina, provided that: (i) restoration credits
produced in Virginia may only be used to compensate for
impacts to wetlands in Virginia; (ii) restoration
credits produced in North Carolina may only be used to
compensate for impacts to wetlands in North Carolina
(with restoration credits produced south of the
Albemarle Sound used to compensate for impacts south of
the Albemarle Sound); and (iii) preservation credits
produced in Virginia or North Carolina may be used to
compensate for impacts in either jurisdiction. The use
of the Wetland Bank to compensate for impacts beyond
the geographic service area may be considered by the
Corps or the permitting agency in appropriate
circumstances, but authorization for any specific
project is within the discretion of the Corps and state
regulatory agencies. In consideration of concerns
expressed by the North Carolina DEHNR, the Little River
watershed is excluded from the geographic .service area
of the Bank, however, until such time as the MBRT
approves of inclusion of a wetlands site from the
Little River watershed in the Bank, and such a Bank
Site has generated credits to be used for compensatory
mitigation.
B. Bank Uses. The Bank may be considered by the Corps,
North Carolina DEHNR, and Virginia DEQ as one of the
practicable mitigation options for permitted activities
that disturb wetland areas. It may be used to offset
unavoidable project impacts in a manner similar to
other compensatory mitigation options. The Bank will
not in any way alter normal mitigation requirements as
set forth in, among other places, 40 C.F.R. ~ 230.10.
When an applicant has requested compensatory mitigation
for unavoidable impacts through the purchase of credits
from the Bank, evaluation of a proposed project will be
no different than evaluating the project with other
forms of compensatory mitigation. Subject to further
agreement by the MBRT, the Bank may not be considered
as one of the practicable mitigation options for
x/600996493
14

impacts in the Little River watershed, except where the
MBRT has approved of inclusion of a wetlands site from
the Little River watershed in the Bank, and the site
has generated credits to be used for compensatory
mitigation.
C.
Design of the Bank.
1. Concepts. Subject to the decision of the Corps,
site-specific designs for each site shall be
prepared by the Bank Sponsor and submitted to the
MBRT for review, comment, and approval with all
comments to be delivered to Bank Sponsor as deemed
necessary. The design of the Bank shall be based
on the following concepts:
a. Restoration of monotypic stands of Atlantic
white cedar or other suitable species
historically indigenous to the Swamp.
b. Vegetation establishment consisting of direct
planting of Atlantic white cedar or other
suitable species seedlings. Plant stock will
be drawn from nursery stock approved by the
MBRT and located within +/- 200 miles north
and south of the planting area, based upon
availability and economic considerations at
the discretion of Bank Sponsor and as
approved by MBRT.
c. Enhancement of existing conservation lands,
including State, federal, and private
holdings.
#60099649.3
D.
2. The wetlands to be enhanced, preserved or restored
shall be in the areas of the Bank Site delimited
in the Joint Public Notices issued by the Army
Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, and Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality on April 24,
1997, and by the Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District on May 1, 1997, as to be more
fully described in the Site Specific Restoration
Plan (s) .
3. Wildlife enhancement and educational features
shall be considered and incorporated within the
design concept.
Site-Specific Restoration Plan(s). The Site-Specific
Restoration Plan(s) shall be .prepared along the
conceptual terms set forth in V.C. supra, and shall
include at a minimum a water budget, a conceptual
grading plan, a spot elevation survey, a plant species
list and planting scheme (including spacing & density),
15