20160849 Ver 1_USACE Intent to Approve_20200520

Strickland, Bev
From: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US) < [e-mail] >
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:21 AM
To: Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B; Byron Hamstead; Wilson, Travis W.; Tugwell, Todd J CIV
USARMY CESAW (US); Gledhill-earley, Renee; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(US); Kim Browning; Johnson, Alan; Munzer, Olivia
Cc: Cara Conder
Subject: [External] Intent to Approve (SAW-2015-01816_Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation
Bank)
Attachments: UpperRocky_MP_FINAL_IRT Response Letter 042320.pdf, Upper Rocky UMBI Final.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Good afternoon,
Attached are the response to comments for the Upper Rocky Mitigation Project Draft Mitigation Plans. Also attached is
the Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument. The sponsor's comments, along with the Final Mitigation
plans, were provided to you via email on April 23, 2020. If you need another electronic copy or a hard copy sent to you,
please let me know.
We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period for the Draft Mitigation Plan as well as the
attached responses from the bank sponsor, and determined that all issues have been adequately
addressed. Accordingly, it is our intent to approve the Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank unless a member of the
NCIRT initiates the Dispute Resolution Process, as described in the Final Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Section
332.8(e)). Please note that initiation of this process requires that a senior official of the agency objecting to the approval
of the mitigation plan (instrument modification) notify the District Engineer by letter within 15 days of this email (by
COB on June 5, 2020). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.
Provided that we do not receive any objections, we will provide approval to Water and Land Solutions at the conclusion
of the 15-day Dispute Resolution window.
Thank you for your participation.
Thanks,
Bryan Roden -Reynolds, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
Office: [phone]

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
(919) 614 -5111 1 waterlandsolutions.com
April 23, 2020
US Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
RE: WLS Responses to NCIRT Review Comments Regarding the Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation
Bank (UMBI) Final Mitigation Plan Approval for the Upper Rocky Mitigation Project, USACE AID#
SAW-2015-01816, Yadkin River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03040105, Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Roden -Reynolds:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to provide our written responses to the North Carolina
Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) review comments dated January 23, 2020 regarding the Draft
Mitigation Plan for the Upper Rocky Mitigation Project. We are providing our written responses to the
NCIRT's review comments below, which includes editing and updating the Final Mitigation Plan and
associated deliverables accordingly. Each of the NCIRT review comments is copied below in bold text,
followed by the appropriate response from WLS in regular text:
USACE Comments (Kim Browning:
General Comments
1. The labels, colors and reach names used in this draft mitigation plan are completely different
than those used during the prospectus stage. Please use consistent labeling throughout the life of
the project. Response: WLS understands the importance of this concern and has made every effort to
adhere to this on recent projects. The Upper Rocky prospectus was submitted in 2016 and the
labeling/colors were updated for the June 2019 IRT site visit and JD submittal to follow current IRT
guidance.
2. (Wetland re-establishment): Please incorporate similar language as used in the Scarborough
response letter regarding the inclusion of coarse woody debris throughout the wetlands for
habitat, and to help store sediment, increase water storage/infiltration, and absorb water energy
during overbank events. "These features will mimic small floodplain pools which include CWD
within the wetland areas that will provide habitat structure and complexity across the Project.
We have added language in these sections describing examples of CWD such as tree throws,
snags, and stumps and included general locations/distribution on the design plan sheets."
Response: Similar language regarding coarse woody debris has been added to the Final Mitigation Plan.
WLS appreciates this comment and agrees that coarse woody debris (CWD) serves an important
functional role when restoring stream and wetland systems as described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.6.2.
These features will mimic small floodplain pools which include CWD within the wetland areas that will
provide habitat structure and complexity across the Project. We have added language in these sections

describing examples of CWD such as tree throws, snags, and stumps and included general
locations/distribution on the design plan sheets.
3. The Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI): The Corps representatives are Scott
McClendon and Bryan Roden -Reynolds. Response: The UMBI has been updated to list Scott McLendon
and Bryan Roden -Reynolds for the USACE.
4. There is extensive earthwork required on this site which will likely result in overly deep
floodplain pools. The inclusion of vernal pools is acceptable, and should be 8-14" depressions
that dry up annually so that predatory species cannot colonize. Response: WLS agrees with this
comment and the vernal pools/floodplain depressions will not exceed 8-14" deep as suggested. We have
revised our channel plug detail to reflect this intent. Annotations within the design plan sheets will
further emphasize the size and depth of the floodplain depressional feature to prevent overly deep pools
resulting in stagnant water conditions.
5. For Reach R2, please show the existing road right-of-way boundary line. Recommend a 50-ft
setback of the proposed easement from the existing road edge to avoid potential future
transportation/culvert easement encroachment requests. This also applies to the proposed
greenway that bisects this reach. Response: WLS has revised the design plan sheets to illustrate the
Doves Crest road right-of-way (ROW). The conservation easement deed on this portion of the project
was completed in December 2016. WLS is not proposing any stream mitigation credit along upper R2
even though it is within a conservation easement and Enhancement Level I stream work is proposed
along this section. The ROW is 50 feet wide and the easement in this section is 13.26 ft from the edge of
the road. The lower portion of R2 already also accounts for the 50-ft ROW, but is also setback 46.1 ft
from the existing road edge. The greenway corridor will be removed from the conservation easement
area once it is constructed and surveyed. The proposed greenway trail is 10-ft wide with a 5-ft shoulder
on each side, but the greenway trail area to be removed from the conservation easement will be 30-ft
wide or 15-ft on each side of the greenway trail centerline. This is what the Town of Cornelius has
required for the greenway construction and maintenance.
6. Reach R3 should be connected with Reach R6 near the bottom of the beaver dam, or into the
beaver area, and not parallel in the floodplain. Response: WLS has revised the design of R6 per
discussion with the IRT to tie into R3 farther up the valley. The proposed location of R6 has been revised
to connect with R3 shortly below the beaver wetland complex.
7. The proposed easement should not include the area where the proposed greenway will be
located. Please adjust the easement boundary, especially where W4 is located. This area will be
functionally compromised due to fragmentation and should not be included for credit.
Additionally, please confirm the construction easements for the greenway and adjust the
easement accordingly to prevent future encroachments. The slopes along the stream where the
greenway is proposed will likely require some cut -fill to get a level trail, which would likely
require more space. Response: As previously mentioned in response comment #5, this portion of the
project is already in a conservation easement and the easement boundary cannot be altered. The
greenway corridor will be 30-ft wide and removed from the easement area (10-ft wide trail, 5-ft
shoulder on each side, and additional 5-ft on each side for maintenance; or 15ft from center on each side
of greenway). The aggregate base course will be installed for the future greenway during the stream
construction. Once the greenway is constructed and surveyed, the greenway corridor (30-ft wide area)
will be removed from the conservation easement per the conservation easement deed and released to
the Town of Cornelius. Only a small portion of proposed wetlands will be impacted due to the greenway.
W4 is the small jurisdictional wetland in pink and is not adjacent to the greenway nor will the greenway
impact this wetland, but WLS will still remove W4 as creditable wetland acreage. The greenway will be

constructed through proposed wetlands and not existing wetlands. The section of W4 that is bisected by
the sewer line easement and the greenway will be removed from creditable proposed wetland acreage.
8. Is the purpose for the easement break that bisects W5 a sewer line? As proposed, this area will
also be functionally compromised due to fragmentation and should be removed from the
easement. Response: Yes, W5 is bisected by an existing sewer line easement and this conservation
easement is already finalized. W5 is a jurisdictional wetland is still hydrologically connected with the
sewer line that is currently in place (not a proposed line, it is active). W5 is a toe of slope wetland along
the floodplain and is not affected by the stream restoration or sewer line easement. WLS proposes to
leave W5 as wetland preservation credit.
9. During the IRT site walk, appropriate approaches for R5 were discussed. Restoration should
not be proposed for the entirety of R5 as shown. The middle section should be preservation
based on current conditions. Assuming this is the EII section, please justify the need for
enhancement rather than preservation. Response: The proposed design of R5 includes both
Restoration and Enhancement Level I1 approaches. Based on the IRT site visit, WLS intentionally split R5
into Restoration and Enhancement Level II approaches at locations shown on the design plans.
Enhancement Level II sections of this reach will be supplementally planted and Restoration of R5 above
and below these sections will provide additional functional uplift for the stream and adjacent wetland
hydrology to justify an Enhancement Level II approach.
10. There are concerns about how you will manage beaver on some portions of the site, while
allowing beaver to remain in the wetlands on other portions of the site. Please discuss the
feasibility. Response: Per discussions during the IRT site visit, the existing beaver dam complex located
along wetland area W6 is currently stable and providing a water quality benefit. It was noted that there
is only one active dam present in the upper valley below reach R7. The beaver activity, including
foraging and movement patterns will be closely monitored by WLS throughout each year. WLS will
document any high risk areas and beaver colonies beyond W6 will be maintained within the Project
boundary to prevent future dam development and impacts to stream hydrology, site drainage and
riparian buffer vegetation planted within restored stream reaches. Routine maintenance and repair
activities caused by beaver activity may include supplemental planting, pruning, and dewatering/dam
removal. Beaver management be implemented using accepted trapping and removal methods within the
recorded Conservation Easement.
Draft Plan Specific Section Comments
1. In Section 1.1, please provide the conservation easement acreage. Response: The easement
acreage has been added to Section 1.1.
2. Section 1.3, states that "site protection through a 44.2-acre easement, while the UP2S
calculation is for a 43 acre easement." Please clarify. Response: The UP2S calculation was from
August 2019 and based on the proposed easement at that time. At the time of the draft mitigation plan
submittal the acreage was 44.2 acres. The easement boundaries are being finalized and in a preliminary
plat stage and that total acreage is 43.74 acres. The endowment breakdown document has been updated
with this acreage.
3. In Section 3.1.4, please provide a summary or table to show the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Methodology/North Carolina Wetland Assessment Methodology (NCSAM)/(NCWAM)
current functional assessment results. Response: A summary table of the results of NCSAM/NCWAM
has been added to section 3.1.4 of the mitigation plan.

4. In Section 3.7, beavers should be discussed as a potential site constraint. Response: Added
subsection 3.7.7, pg 25 that discusses beaver activity as a potential site constraint to restored stream
reaches and planted riparian buffer vegetation.
S. Within Table 7 (Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits), the ratio for R5 should be 2.5:1.
Therefore, please revise Table 7. Response: This is now Table 8 and R5 is broken up into both
Restoration and Enhancement Level II sections. There is a row for each mitigation type and the
Enhancement Level II section ratio is 2.5:1.
6. In Section 5, are you seeking the additional 2% credit for water quality monitoring and benthic
monitoring? If so, please specify in this section and add a column in Table 7 to show how the
additional credits are calculated. Response: WLS is not seeking additional 2% credit for water quality
and benthic monitoring.
7. In Section 5.2 (Credit Release Schedule), do you anticipate receiving all of the wetland
preservation credits with the first 15% credit release? If so, please specify in Table 9. Response:
Yes, WLS anticipates receiving all of the wetland preservation credits in the initial release. Table 10 has
been updated to reflect this.
8. In Section 6.2.1, please clarify what work will be done when discussing "Enhancement Level II
practices." Response: WLS updated section 6.2.1 to clarify work being performed in the Enhancement
Level II sections, which includes supplementally planting the riparian buffer, stabilizing any eroding
stream banks, and adding in -stream structures to increase bedform diversity.
9. Section 6.2.3, states planting completion at the end of May which would put the 180-day
vegetation monitoring in late November. However, monitoring should not be performed after
leaf drop. Planting beyond March 15th is not recommended and may result in an extended
monitoring period being required. Additionally, bare -root seedlings are significantly more prone
to root shock if not planted in the dormant season. Container trees/shrubs can handle the
transition better and so planting in April should yield higher survival rates. Therefore, revisions
to the planting schedule may be needed. Response: WLS understands that the IRT prefers that bare -
root trees be planted between November to March. The IRT guidance also requires that vegetation and
plots must be established 180 days prior to initiation of the first year of monitoring. Per email
correspondence from Todd Tugwell on March 17,, 2020, the mitigation plan has been revised to state the
planting will occur between mid -November and April 30th. WLS anticipates planting this site in March.
10. In Section 8.1 (Stream Hydrology), the wording in this section is confusing. Suggest rewording
to something similar to this: Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-
year monitoring period. The bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream
monitoring will continue until four bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
Response: Section 8.1 has been reworded to the language above to avoid confusion.
11. In Section 8.1, The Corps suggest adding a performance standard regarding Visual
Inspections or Digital Image Stations. These could be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, riparian vegetation success, and beaver activity. A
series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of the riparian vegetation.
Images should indicate the absence of mid -channel bars or excessive erosion. Response: A
performance standard has been added to 8.1 for Photo Documentation. Section 9, Monitoring Plan,
already had 9.4 Visual Assessment Monitoring that incorporates this suggestion.
12. Section 8.1 stated several areas were noted to contain extensive privet, autumn olive and
kudzu. The Corps recommends a performance standard be added that addresses invasive control
N

with levels no more than 5%, and no tolerance for kudzu. This will need to be maintained offsite
as well. In addition, please add kudzu to the Invasive Species on page 13 (Invasive Species
Vegetation). Response: Section 3.7.6 states that there are areas with invasive species, mainly Chinese
privet and some kudzu on the project periphery. Kudzu has been added to the invasive species on page
13. A performance standard has been added, 8.4 Invasive Species, that states WLS will treat invasive
species within in the project area and it will be treated/removed so that the invasive species
composition is no more than 5% of the total riparian buffer area. A zero tolerance for kudzu is not
feasible as maintenance of kudzu offsite will not be possible because WLS does not have permission to
work outside of the easement. WLS recommends including kudzu in the 5% tolerance level for invasive
species. Areas of kudzu within the easement will be treated/removed and areas of kudzu that are near
the easement boundary will be monitored especially closely to ensure that re -colonization does not
occur.
13. For Section 8.2, The Corps suggest restating that your hydrology standard will be at least 12%,
rather than 10-12% because as it reads, you may not be meeting performance standards if you
exceed 12%. Response: Section 8.2 has been revised to state the wetland hydrology standard will be at
least 12%. The soil series is mapped as Monacan and the expected hydroperiod range is at least 10-12%.
As described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.4.2, the nearby Monteith Park mitigation park site was recently
closed out in Spring 2019 by the USACE/IRT and involved the same soil type and restoration approaches.
The hydroperiod at that site was at least 12% in the floodplains, but on the fringe wetlands it was —9%
consistently (see Appendix B).
14. Regarding the additional anticipated wetlands along R5 (in Section 8.2 Wetlands), do you
have well data to show the pre -data? We recommend installing groundwater gauges now, prior
to construction, in order to establish baseline data. Please revise the monitoring map to include
the location(s) of the pre-construction/baseline monitoring wells. Response: There are pre -
construction gauges (wells 12-14) located on R5. All existing/pre-construction gauges have been added
to Figure 8 Channel Stability & Pre -Monitoring Features. The well graphs and locations of pre -
construction gauges can also be found in Appendix B.
15. In reference to Stream Monitoring (Section 9.1.1), the IRT prefers the use of pressure
transducers, rather than crest gages. Therefore, please update the mitigation plan accordingly.
Response: Language has been added to this section stating that WLS will use pressure transducers and
may use photography for documenting overbank flows and floodplain access within the monitoring
period. Figure 11 shows the proposed locations of these monitoring devices.
16. The third paragraph of Section 9.3 (Vegetation Monitoring) states: "Volunteer species will be
noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be evaluated with IRT on a case -by case basis."
Please note that volunteer species will only be counted towards success if they are on the
approved planting list. Response: Revised language in Section 9.3 states "Volunteer species will be
noted and if they are on the approved planting list and meet success criteria standards, they will be
counted towards success criteria. Other species not included on the list may be considered by the IRT on
a case -by -case basis."
17. Within Table 19 (Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary), the hydrology performance standard
of 30-days only applies to intermittent streams. In addition, the hydraulics performance
standard should specify BHR that does not exceed 1.2. Therefore, please revise Table 19
accordingly. Response: Intermittent streams has been added to the hydrology performance standard in
this table. Also, the BHR has been revised to not exceed 1.2.
18. In Section 10, the Corps appreciate the inclusion of the UP2S engagement letter and
corresponding cost spreadsheet. The Corps recommends to add a line -item for signage as it

would be beneficial to the mitigation plan. Response: The endowment breakdown sheet has been
revised to incorporate a line -item for signage.
19. Please provide an itemized list of monitoring tasks/costs to demonstrate how you estimated
the amount for the monitoring financial assurances. This information would be added to Section
12 (Financial Assurances). Response: An itemized list of monitoring tasks/costs has been provided
below Table 21 in Section 12. The monitoring financial assurance is for monitoring and maintenance and
those costs are included as well in Table 21.
20. Depicted on Design Sheets 9, 10, 11..., several "floodplain pools" are shown on the design
sheets in the location of the existing channel. There is concern that there are so many, they run
parallel with the proposed channel, and the depth is not clear. Are these intended to be vernal
pools? There is no typical for these included in the Details section. These pools are in areas that
are supposed to be planted riparian buffer. The Corps has concern that there will be a lot of open
water, deeper than vernal pools, in areas that should contain vegetation. Response: WLS intends to
construct vernal pools/floodplain depressions no more than 8-14" deep as suggested. We have revised
our channel plug detail to reflect the design intent of the vernal pools/floodplain depressions.
Annotations within the plan and profile sheets will further emphasize the size and depth of the
floodplain depressions to not make the features overly deep resulting in stagnant water conditions. The
depressional areas were designed to offset channel fill volumes and the quantity of them should not
compromise the buffer composition, surface hydrology and overall project success.
DWR (Mac Haupt):
1. DWR likes the fact that water quality sampling will be taking place on this project as stated in
Section 3.4 (Aquatic Resource Health and Function). Response: WLS appreciates this comment as we
believe that the WQ sampling will help us determine the associated functional lift that may be achieved
considering site constraints and existing conditions.
2. Within Table 3 (Reach Watershed Drainage and Jurisdictional Status for Project Reaches),
DWR is concerned with the drainage sizes of some of the proposed reaches, particularly Rya and
R8. DWR likes the fact that flow gauges are being placed on these reaches. R2 and R7a are other
reaches to watch and perhaps monitor the flow. Response: WLS notes your concern and will closely
monitor the flows in R5a and R8 as described in the monitoring section. Given our stream assessments
performed in the field, as well as seasonal flow observations over the past the three years, we are
confident that jurisdictional status will not be negatively impacted after implementing the proposed
design approaches. The drainage areas and geomorphic characteristics of R2 and R7a are similar to
monitored streams R8 and Rya and R7a scored as a perennial stream. In addition, we are not proposing
any stream credit in the upper part of reach R2 (south of Doves Crest Rd), but will be completing
Enhancement Level I treatment on this section. The proposed stream crediting begins on R2 below the
Doves Crest Road ROW and WLS suggests that additional flow gauges are not necessary for these
reaches.
3. In Section 3.6.3, DWR likes the extensive soil work done on the property, however, DWR does
not typically endorse the usage of the non -intentional erosional deposition for claiming historic
hydric soils. There are numerous areas in the piedmont which may have been wetlands 100-150
years ago, but with the cropping techniques of the times, mid 1800s thru early 1900s, resulted in
buried wetlands (see Stanley Trimble, 1974 and 2008). In cases where the deposition is more
recent and not as deep, DWR may consider the removal of the deposition, if there is a
documented hydric soil profile (i.e., not just indicators, but a series profile) below the deposition.
Response: WLS appreciates this comment and historical reference as it relates to buried hydric soils.
G9

As described in the detailed hydric soils study, the site work included an atypical soils evaluation that
confirmed legacy sediments over a historically extensive wetland soil. The site is located within an
appropriate landscape and geomorphic position for a natural occurring riparian wetland system. Also,
the soil work provides evidence of at least one other historic depositional event resulting in areas
greater than 12 inches of deposition where hydric indicators reformed within this appropriate
landscape. It is generally accepted that the more recent legacy sediment layering is anthropogenic from
the mid-1800s to circa 1920 as a result of farming practices on surrounding uplands (Trimble 2008).
Attempting to map or specifically define these legacy sediments to a series is not practicable in this
setting due to variability across the site. Individual soil profiles fall within the accepted range for a
'Monacan' or 'Wehadkee', while other nearby profiles will fail to meet either the series or anticipated
inclusion. The site -specific soil observations indicate that some areas are slowing redeveloping hydric
characteristics that would be expected within this landscape position. The proposed restoration
approaches will allow for the re-establishment of a former wetland that has been buried due to past
cropping practices. WLS is not excavating below 12 inches for the wetland restoration approach and is
not claiming wetland restoration where excavation is below 12 inches. This language has been added to
6.2.4 Wetland Restoration The EPA defines Creation as, "...the "construction of a wetland in an area that
was not a wetland in the recent past (within the last 100-200 years) and that is isolated from existing
wetlands (i.e., not directly adjacent)" (Gwin, et al., 1999)." https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-
restoration-definitions-and-distinctions. The proposed restoration at this site does not meet the definition
of creation due to the documented historic wetlands and its connection to existing jurisdictional
wetlands. Although the upland erosion rate has slowed, these legacy sediments are still present within
the system and are being mobilized by the widespread stream incision. The stream restoration approach
(Priority Level I) will be raising the local groundwater and re-establishing the natural processes and
hydrologic conditions that have already begun to stabilize these sediments. The following sentence has
been added to Section 8.2 for Wetland Hydrology: WLS expects the soils to develop hydric indicators
during the monitoring period, and if the proposed wetland restoration areas do not develop hydric
indicators by the completion of the project monitoring then wetland credit may be withheld based on
the wetland success criteria.
4. Section 3.7.3, discusses areas where the proposed greenway is within the easement; DWR
would like to see a buffer width analysis to see what the affect it would have on the stream credit.
Response: WLS has run the buffer width analysis which can be found in the buffer spreadsheet. Figures
13a and 13b also show the buffer widths.
5. Within Table 11 (Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root and Live Stake Plantings), please limit
the planting of Green Ash to no more than 5% due to the emerald ash borer. Response: Table 12
has been revised to limit green ash to 4%.
6. In Section 8.2, DWR believes the wetland performance criteria should be 12%. First, we
appreciate the fact that not only did you include pre -construction data but you included data
from the Monteith project. Some of the data from certain gauges is surprising given our
impressions from the site visit, most notably Gauges 8-11. Only Gauge 8 showed wetland
hydrology, while the area where all these gauges looked jurisdictional. In addition, the gauge
data at Monteith, while somewhat inconsistent showed significantly wet hydroperiods. Lastly,
given the fact that so many streams will be raised in the areas of proposed wetlands, DWR
believes there will be ample hydrology to sustain at least a 12% hydroperiod Response: Section
8.2 has been revised to state the wetland hydrology standard will be at least 12%. The soil series is
mapped as Monacan and the expected hydroperiod range is at least 10-12%. As described in Sections
6.2.4 and 6.4.2, the nearby Monteith Park mitigation park site was recently closed out in Spring 2019 by
the USACE/IRT and involved the same soil type and restoration approaches. The hydroperiod at that site
was at least 12% in the floodplains, but on the fringe wetlands it was —9% consistently (see Appendix B).

WLS is also excited to have multiple years of pre -construction data. Gauge 8 is on the fringe of a
jurisdictional wetland, while gauges 9-11 are not in a jurisdictional wetland.
7. Within Table 19 (Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary), the flow standard of 30 days is only
applicable to intermittent streams. Therefore, please revise Table 19 accordingly. Response:
Table 20 has been revised per USACE Comment #19 also.
8. The Adaptive Management Plan (Section 11) should include some specific details/narrative for
the management of beavers, since beavers are already located within the project easement.
Therefore, please update the Adaptive Management Plan accordingly. Response: The Adaptive
Management Plan has been updated to state that in W6 all beaver dams will remain in place and no
beaver removal treatment is proposed for this area. All areas outside of W6 in the project area will
receive routine beaver maintenance. Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver
activity may include supplemental planting, pruning, and dewatering/dam removal. Beaver
management will be implemented using accepted trapping and removal methods only within the
recorded Conservation Easement. W6 will not be maintained for beaver unless further stream reach
impacts are documented above or below the existing dams.
9. Depicted on Design Sheet 3, the stream banks for the riffle typicals are steep. DWR
recommends a flatter slope for these stream banks. Response: The 2(H):1(V) - 3(H):1(V) riffle side
slopes and width -to -depth (WD) ratios shown on design sheet 3 are within a common stable range of
Rosgen C4 and B4 stream types. The basis for the design criteria were developed by comparing local
reference reach surveys and successfully completed projects in the same physiographic region and
adjacent watersheds. In general, riffle side slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 (average range from 2:1
to 3:1) for the channel banks, and a WD design ratio between 12-18 is appropriate for most small
channel designs in order to adequately transport its sediment load. The typical section illustrations have
been modified to represent more proportional dimensions.
10. DWR believes that R3 should not run parallel for over 500 linear feet to other streams as
designed, as depicted on Design Sheets 9 and 10. On Figure 2 (USGS Map), shows R3 connecting
much farther upstream. In addition, Figure 4 (LiDAR Map) show a flat floodplain where R3 is
likely to connect to R6. DWR believes the confluence would be at either station 17+00 or the next
constructed riffle just before the confluence with R4. Response: Please see USACE response
comment #6. WLS has revised the design of R6 per discussion with the IRT to tie into R3 farther up the
valley. The proposed location of R6 has been revised to connect with R3 shortly below the beaver
wetland complex.
11. As depicted on Design Sheets 11 and 12, the greenway will likely impact a significant amount
of wetlands and riparian buffer. Response: The future greenway alignment was field located with the
intent to impact the least amount of canopy trees and existing wetland areas as possible. The greenway
will be located as far from the proposed stream as possible and will match the existing topography. The
design sheets distinguish between existing wetlands and proposed wetlands (difference in shading), and
only a small portion of proposed wetlands would be impacted due to the proposed greenway alignment,
but the proposed wetlands in the greenway location have been removed from this project. In general,
the future greenway will not be constructed through any existing wetlands; in the draft mitigation plan
there were proposed wetlands in part of the greenway path, but those have been removed. W4 is the
small jurisdictional wetland in pink and is not adjacent to the greenway, but WLS will still remove W4 as
creditable wetland acreage. The section of W7 in the draft mitigation plan that is bisected by the sewer
line easement and the greenway has been removed from creditable proposed wetland acreage.
12. Depicted on Design Sheets 19-20, it appears that R3 is labeled as R1. Please correct or clarify.
Response: WLS has revised design sheets 19 and 20 with the appropriate reach labels.

13. DWR would like a stream gauge placed at station 16+50 (see Design Sheet 23). Response: A
flow gauge was placed at station 16+50.
14. Overall comment on Design Sheets: The edge of the cut fill slopes occur at the edge (10-15
feet) of many meander bends. DWR is concerned with the amount of floodplain access at these
meander bend edges. Response: The proposed design channels for all reaches have a minimum
entrenchment ratio of 2.2. Revisions to the grading plan and cut/fill lines have been added in many areas
to reflect higher entrenchment ratios (> 2.2) where appropriate and feasible.
15. Overall comment on Design Sheets: On Design Sheet 2, you labeled the legend icon as water
quality treatment feature, while it appears throughout the design sheets they are labeled as
floodplain pools. The IRT considers floodplain pools to have specific construction depths (that
allow them to dry out), while water quality treatment features may not. The typical is labeled as
a water quality treatment feature. DWR hopes that each feature does not have a 4 foot wide rip -
rap outlet as shown. Please clarify. Response: WLS has revised the hatching on the water quality
treatment features to differentiate between floodplain depressions/vernal pools and water quality
features. These symbols have also been updated/added to sheet 2 for further clarification. The
floodplain depressions will not have 4 ft wide rip rap outlets. These design features are only applicable
to the water quality treatment features for stabilizing the outlet channel(s). Rip rap outlets are required
for the water quality treatment features to maintain the design treatment volume within the structure.
They also serve to deter erosion and headcutting of the outlet thereby helping to maintain the features
structural integrity.
Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Kayne M. Van Stell
Vice President, Ecosystem Design Services
Water and Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
N

AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE UPPER ROCKY
UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK IN YADKIN RIVER BASIN
WITHIN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
USACE approval of this Instrument constitutes the regulatory approval required for
the UPPER ROCKY UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK to be used to provide
compensatory mitigation for Department of the Army permits pursuant to 33 C.F.R.
332.8(a)(1). This Instrument is not a contract between the Sponsor or Property Owner
and USACE or any other agency of the federal government. Any dispute arising under
this Instrument will not give rise to any claim by the Sponsor or Property Owner for
monetary damages. This provision is controlling notwithstanding any other provision or
statement in the Instrument to the contrary.
This Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI) is made and entered into on
the _ day of , 2020, by Water & Land Solutions, LLC, hereinafter Sponsor,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and each of the following agencies, upon
its execution of this UMBI; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The
Corps, together with the State and Federal agencies that execute this UMBI, are
hereinafter collectively referred to as the Interagency Review Team (IRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this agreement is to establish an umbrella mitigation bank
(Bank) providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and/or stream
impacts separately authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act permits and /or Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits in appropriate circumstances;
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the IRT agree that the Bank site(s) are suitable
mitigation bank site(s), and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan(s) are likely to
result in net gains in wetland and/or stream functions at the Bank site(s), and have
therefore approved the Mitigation Plan(s);
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 UMBI.
Section I: General Provisions
A. The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation activities at the Bank site(s), and for the overall operation
and management of the Bank. The Sponsor assumes the legal responsibility for providing
the compensatory mitigation once a permittee secures credits from the Sponsor and the
District Engineer (DE) receives documentation that confirms the Sponsor has accepted
responsibility for providing the required compensatory mitigation.

B. The goals of the Upper Rocky Umbrella Bank site(s) are to restore, enhance, and
preserve wetland and/or stream systems and their functions to compensate in appropriate
circumstances for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts authorized by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act permits and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits in
circumstances deemed appropriate by the Corps and/or NCDWR after consultation,
through the permit review process, with members of the IRT.
C. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and/or stream impacts authorized
by Clean Water Act permits must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and
implementing regulations, including but not limited to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and all other applicable Federal and State legislation,
rules and regulations. This agreement has been drafted in accordance with the regulations
for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources effective June 9, 2008 (33
CFR Parts 325 and 332) (Mitigation Rule).
D. The IRT shall be chaired by the DE of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District (District). The IRT shall review documentation for the establishment
of mitigation bank sites. The IRT will also advise the DE in assessing monitoring reports,
recommending remedial measures, approving credit releases, and approving
modifications to this instrument. The IRT's role and responsibilities are more fully set
forth in Sections 332.8 of the Mitigation Rule. The IRT will work to reach consensus on
its actions.
E. The DE, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies
through the permit review process, shall make final decisions concerning the amount and
type of compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted wetland and/or
stream impacts, and whether or not the use of credits from the Bank is appropriate to
offset those impacts. In the case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation
required solely under the Section 401 Water Quality Certification rules of North
Carolina, the NCDWR will determine the amount of credits that can be withdrawn from
the Bank. Any credits used to offset impacts solely authorized by Section 401 cannot be
used for other impacts authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
F. The parties to this agreement understand that a watershed approach to establish
compensatory mitigation must be used to the extent appropriate and practicable. Where
practicable, in -kind compensatory mitigation is preferred.
Section II: Geographic Service Area
The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area within which the Umbrella
Bank sites are authorized to provide compensatory mitigation required by DA permits.
The GSA for each Bank site is Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040105 within the
Yadkin River Basin in North Carolina. Credits must be used in the same 8-digit HUC in
which they were generated. Credits within each 8-digit HUC should be tracked on
separate ledgers.
2

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

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

B. A credit release schedule shall be provided in each site -specific Mitigation Plan
that are included in this Bank. The release schedule will list all of the proposed credit
releases and any performance standards associated with those releases.
C. In general, the initial allocation of credits from any site included as part of this
Bank shall be available for sale only after the completion of all of the following:
1. Execution of this UMBI by the Sponsor, the DE, and other agencies eligible
for membership in the IRT who choose to execute this agreement, to include the
approval of any modifications to this agreement when new sites are added to it;
2. Approval of a final Mitigation Plan;
3. Confirmation that the Bank site has been secured;
4. Delivery of executed financial assurances as specified in the site -specific
Mitigation Plan;
5. Delivery of a copy of the recorded long-term protection mechanism as
described in the site -specific Mitigation Plan, as well as a title opinion covering
the property acceptable to the DE; and
6. Issuance of any DA permits necessary for construction of the Bank site (if
necessary).
The Sponsor must initiate implementation of each site -specific approved Mitigation
Plan no later than the first full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction
(i.e., construction of the initial physical and biological improvements proposed in the
site -specific Mitigation Plan must be started by the end of the first full growing season
following the initial sale of any credits). This provision does not apply to preservation -
only sites that do not include any physical or biological improvements. Subject to the
Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required performance standards and
monitoring, additional mitigation credits will be available for sale by the Sponsor as
specified in each Mitigation Plan.
Section VIIL• Accounting Procedures
A. The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures acceptable to the DE for
maintaining accurate records of debits made from the Bank. Such procedures shall
include the generation of a ledger by the Sponsor showing credits used at the time they
are debited from the Bank. All ledger reports shall identify credits debited and remaining
by type of credit and shall include for each reported debit the Corps ORM ID number for
the permit for which the credits were utilized and the permitted impacts for each resource
type.
B. When credits from the bank are sought by a permit applicant, the Sponsor shall
prepare a reservation letter for the applicant to include with the Corps permit application,
that documents the number and type of credits available to be debited from the bank, and
the amount of time (if any) that those credits will be held for that applicant (with an
expiration date for the letter of availability).

C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall notify the DE
within 30 days of the transaction with a summary of the transaction and a full ledger
report showing the changes made. Signed copies of the Transfer of Mitigation
Responsibility form shall also be submitted to the Corps permit Project Manager and the
Corps Bank Manager for that bank.
D. The Sponsor shall prepare annual ledger reports for each bank site showing all
credits used, any changes in credit availability (e.g., additional credits released, credit
sales, suspended credits, etc.), and the beginning and ending balance of remaining credits.
The Sponsor shall submit the annual reports to the DE, for distribution to each member of
the IRT, until such time as all of the credits have been utilized, or this agreement is
otherwise terminated.
Section IX: Financial Assurances
A. Financial assurances for each Bank site will be detailed in the site -specific
Mitigation Plans. The Sponsor shall provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to
the DE, sufficient to assure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and
monitoring, and any remedial work required pursuant to this UMBI. The financial
assurance value should be based on the cost of doing any remaining mitigation work,
including costs for land acquisition, planning and engineering, legal fees, mobilization,
construction, and monitoring. For preservation only Bank Sites, no financial assurances
will generally be required unless there are specific activities necessary to ensure the
successful preservation of resources on the site, in which case appropriate financial
assurances may still be required.
B. All financial assurances shall be made payable to a standby trust or to a third -
party designee, acceptable to the Corps, who agrees to complete the project or provide
alternative mitigation. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the Corps in
the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable.
C. The form and amount of financial assurances must be stated in each site -specific
Mitigation Plan in order for the Mitigation Plan to be approved. This must include the
name of the specific provider of those assurances and the method by which the financial
assurances will be provided in the event that they must be utilized. Original copies of the
financial assurance documents must be provided to the DE prior to the initial release of
credits.
D. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the DE receives
notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
Section X: Site Protection
A. The Sponsor shall grant a Conservation Easement (CE) in a form acceptable to
the DE, sufficient to protect Bank sites in perpetuity. The CE shall be perpetual, preserve
all natural areas, and prohibit all uses of the properties inconsistent with their use as
mitigation property, including any activity that would materially alter the biological
6

integrity or functional and educational value of wetlands or streams within the Bank sites,
consistent with the Mitigation Plans. The purpose of the CE will be to assure that future
use of the Bank sites will result in the restoration, protection, maintenance and
enhancement of wetland and/or stream functions as described in the site -specific
Mitigation Plans. The name and contact information for the Corps approved easement
holder and a copy of the CE template will be provided in each site -specific Mitigation
Plan.
B. The Sponsor shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the DE covering the
mitigation property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that would
conflict with its use as mitigation, including, but not limited to, any liens that have
priority over the recorded CE.
C. Subsequent to the recording of the CE, the Sponsor may convey the Bank site
property either in fee or by granting an easement to a qualified land trust, state agency, or
other appropriate nonprofit organization approved by the Corps. The Sponsor is
responsible for ensuring that the CE is re -recorded so that it remains within the chain of
title. The terms and conditions of this conveyance shall not conflict with the intent and
provisions of the CE nor shall such conveyance enlarge or modify the uses specified in
the easement. The CE must contain a provision requiring 60 day advance notification to
the DE before any action is taken to void or modify the CE, including transfer of title to,
or establishment of any other legal claims over the project site.
Section XI: Long-term Management
A. The Sponsor shall implement the long-term management plan as described in
each site -specific Mitigation Plans. Each plan must provide the name and contact
information for the party responsible for long-term management.
B. The long-term management plan will include a list of annual maintenance,
monitoring, and/or repair activities for each mitigation site, the associated annual cost for
each activity, and the required total amount necessary to provide all future site
management. The long-term management plan should explain how the funds will be
managed and provided to the designated long-term manager (e.g., an endowment
managed through a separate account holder). The long-term management plan should
include a contingency section that addresses how the responsibility and funding for long-
term site management will be passed on to a new manager in the event that the selected
long-term management entity is no longer able to provide for management of the site.
Section XII: Default and Closure
A. It is agreed to establish and maintain the Bank sites until (i) credits have been
exhausted or banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice by the Sponsor
provided to the DE and other members of the IRT; and (ii) it has been determined and
agreed upon by the DE and IRT that the debited Bank site has satisfied all the conditions
herein and in the site -specific Mitigation Plan. If the DE determines that the Bank site is
not meeting performance standards or complying with the terms of the instrument,

appropriate action will be taken. Such actions may include, but are not limited to,
suspending credit sales, adaptive management, decreasing available credits, utilizing
financial assurances, and terminating the instrument.
B. As projects developed as part of this bank are specifically intended to restore
streams and/or wetland systems that are subject to periodic flooding and drought
conditions, they should be designed to withstand any such events that are anticipated to
occur in the natural environment. This is not limited to routine or minor flooding or
droughts, but also specifically includes flooding events resulting from hurricanes, or
other extreme weather events as well as extended periods of drought. Additionally, this
includes conditions resulting from sea level rise that adversely impact projects that are
part of this bank.
C. Any delay or failure of Bank Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder if
and to the extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or
conditions beyond the Sponsor's reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its
ability to perform its obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God, subject to the
exceptions contained in Paragraph B above, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide, or
interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking by any governmental
body; (iii) change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or permit condition, or
the interpretation or enforcement thereof; (iv) any order, judgment, action or
determination of any federal, state or local court, administrative agency or government
body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of any permit, license, consent, authorization
or approval. If the performance of the Bank Sponsor is affected by any such event, Bank
Sponsor shall give written notice thereof to the IRT as soon as is reasonably practicable.
If such event occurs before the final availability of all credits for sale, the Sponsor shall
take remedial action to restore the property to its condition prior to such event, in a
manner sufficient to provide adequate mitigation to cover credits that were sold prior to
such delay or failure to compensate for impacts to waters, including wetlands, authorized
by Department of the Army permits. Such remedial action shall be taken by the Sponsor
only to the extent necessary and appropriate, as determined by the IRT.
D. At the end of the monitoring period, upon satisfaction of the performance standards,
the Sponsor may submit a request to the DE for site close out. The DE, in consultation
with the IRT, shall use best efforts to review and comment on the request within 60 days
of such submittal. If the DE determines the Sponsor has achieved the performance
standards in accordance with the mitigation plan and all obligations under this MBI, the
DE shall issue a close out letter to the Sponsor.
Section XIII: Miscellaneous
A. Modification of this UMBI shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in
332.8 of the mitigation rule.
B. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories
hereof, their successors and assigns, shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof.
8

C. This UMBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the
subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
D. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this UMBI are held to be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or
unenforceability will not affect any other provisions hereof, and this UMBI shall be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had not been contained
herein.
E. This UMBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of North
Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
F. This UMBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
G. The terms and conditions of this UMBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit
of the parties hereto and their respective successors.
H. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at
their respective addresses, provided below.
Sponsor:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Mr. Adam McIntyre, Chief Executive Officer
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Corps:
Mr. Bryan Roden -Reynolds
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
Mr. Scott McLendon
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343

USEPA:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
USFWS:
Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street, Suite B
Asheville, NC 28801
NCWRC:
Mr. Travis Wilson & Ms. Olivia Munzer
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Rogers Lake Depot
1718NCHwy 56W
Creedmoor, NC 27522
NCDWR:
Mr. Mac Haupt & Ms. Erin Davis
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
NCSHPO:
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
109 E. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
NMFS:
Mr. Ken Riley
National Marine Fisheries
NOAA Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement to Establish the Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Yadkin River
Basin in the State of North Carolina":
Sponsor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
By: �- ��"� Date: 4/23/2020
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
By: Date:
11

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement to Establish the Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Yadkin River
Basin in the State of North Carolina":
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
By: Date:
12

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement to Establish the Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Yadkin River
Basin in the State of North Carolina":
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
By: Date:
13

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement to Establish the Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Yadkin River
Basin in the State of North Carolina":
N.C. Division of Water Resources:
By: Date:
14

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement to Establish the Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Yadkin River
Basin in the State of North Carolina":
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission:
By: Date:
15

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement to Establish the Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Yadkin River
Basin in the State of North Carolina":
NC State Historic Preservation Office:
By: Date:
16

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement to Establish the Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Yadkin River
Basin in the State of North Carolina":
National Marine Fisheries Service:
By: Date:
17