20191132 Ver 1_Intent to Approve SAW-2019-01296_20201019

Strickland, Bev
From:
Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Monday, October 19, 2020 3:54 PM
To:
Davis, Erin B; Leslie, Andrea J; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd; Hamstead, Byron A;
Gledhill-earley, Renee; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning;
Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA);
McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA)
Cc:
Andrea Eckardt; Jake McLean
Subject:
[External] Intent to Approve the Wildlands Little Tennessee UMB: East Buffalo
Mitigation Site (SAW-2019-01296)
Attachments:
SAW-2019-01296 WildlandsLittleTennesseeUMB-
EastBuffaloDraftMitigationPlanCommentResponses.pdf, SAW-2019-01296-
WildlandsLittleTennesseeUMBI -Template.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Good Afternoon,
Attached are the response to comments for the Wildlands Little Tennessee UMB: East Buffalo Draft Mitigation
Plan (SAW-2019-01296) dated August 14, 2020 and the revised Wildlands Little Tennessee Instrument
Template received via email on October 7, 2020. These two documents and the final mitigation plan dated
October 5, 2020 have been uploaded to the Wildlands Little Tennessee UMB: East Buffalo Mitigation Site bank
folder in RIBITS (see the link below). Feel free to contact me with any questions or if you are unable to access
the file.
https:Hurldefense.com/v3/_https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=107:278:8297338958157::NO:RP,27
8:P278_BANK _ID:5162_;!!HYmSToo!L3OZagVrBL066lxT3gjcZgpSmhDoVEsDg70CNGPfhnv0A2ZaqROp8m2mv
eNe2BebQ4g$
We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period for the Draft Mitigation Plan, as well as,
the updated instrument/final mitigation plan, and determined that all issues have been adequately addressed.
Accordingly, it is our intent to approve the Wildlands Little Tennessee UMB: East Buffalo Mitigation Site 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 November 2, 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 Wildlands Engineering Inc. at the
conclusion of the 15-day Dispute Resolution window. The Wildlands Little Tennessee UMB Instrument is
attached for your agency's signature after the final plan is approved.
Thank you for your participation.
Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure
we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
https:Hurldefense.com/v3/_http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0_;! !HYmSToo!L3OZaq
VrBL066lxT3gjcZgpSmhDoVEsDg70CNGPfhnvOA2ZagROp8m2mveNeGQmmSWI$ to complete the survey
online.

% &V
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
August 14, 2020
Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: IRT Review Comments: Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site, Graham County
Little Tennessee River Basin HUC 06010204
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
NC DWR No. 20191132
Dear Mr. Kichefski:
We are in receipt of the IRT's August 6, 2020 comment letter for the East Buffalo Mitigation Site Draft
Mitigation Plan. Wildlands' comment responses are detailed below and have been incorporated into the
Final Mitigation Plan as noted. Upon your approval, we will provide copies of the Final Mitigation Plan
for distribution.
DWR COMMENTS, ERIN DAVIS & MAC HAUPT
1. Page 7, Section 3.3.2 — Was NCSAM performed for the preservation reaches to demonstrate existing
high -quality conditions?
Wildlands Response: No NCSAM forms were completed for preservation reaches.
2. Page 31— This section notes that favor will be given to reseeding streams with existing streambed
material. DWR appreciates this statement and highly supports efforts to salvage existing instream
habitat and organisms.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted. See WRC Comment #5.
3. Page 36, Section 7.7.4 — This section mentions sloping of stream banks and constructing a left bank
flood bench. Do these activities correspond to the 50 ft area of grading shown on Sheet 2.1.4?
Wildlands Response: Wildlands has revised Section 7.7.4 to be more specific about the location
and extent of treatment and has added additional callouts to Sheet 2.1.4 for the same purpose.
The East Buffalo Creek Reach 3 enhancement II reach begins at Station 1013+92. There is
continuous treatment of the stream (bed and banks) down to approximately station 1015+00 at
which point left bank grading and benching continues for approximately 75 additional feet.
4. Page 39, Section 7.8 —
a. The 20161RT Guidance specifies planting before March 15th. If planting cannot be completed by
March 15th, an extension request should be submitted to USACE/IRT. Please note that planting
after April 30th may result in a delay of the first monitoring year until the subsequent growing
season.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • 167-B Haywood Road • Asheville, NC 28806

b. Please identify a reference wetland and proposed target wetland community type(s).
Wildlands Response: The following text was added to the second paragraph in Section 7.8:
"The target wetland community will be a headwater forest with species selected consistent
with mountain alluvial forests; a wetland of comparable type and landscape position was
visited in a protected area within the Snowbird Creek drainage (across Lake Santeetlah) and
used to help guide species selection."
In areas where priority 2 restoration is proposed, stream benches are constructed and wetland
caps are excavated, please include a discussion of soil assessment and/or reuse of site
topsoil/planting medium.
Wildlands Response: The following text was added to the restoration overview in Section
7.7.1: "Most of the Site will entail Priority 1 restoration work. In the footprint of Priority 1
channel grading and in areas of Priority 2 grading, Wildlands will strip and stockpile topsoil
before grading. The stripped and stockpiled topsoil will be reapplied during final grading in
areas of fill or cut where the top layer is lacking in nutrients or structure necessary to
successfully establish herbaceous and woody vegetation." Wildlands recently collected soil
samples within planting areas and will use samples to prescribe soil amendments in both
Priority 1 and in the minor cut and fill areas proposed.
5. Page 40, Section 7.9 - Please indicate if fescue will be treated prior to or during site construction.
DWR recommends early treatment based on observations of fescue impeding planted vegetation
establishment and vigor.
Wildlands Response: The following text was added to Section 7.9: "Site construction is proposed
for winter 2020-2021. These species, as well as fescue on pastures, will be treated both prior to
and/or at the time of construction through both physical removal with equipment and through
chemical methods."
6. Pages 40-42 — DWR appreciates the level of detail included in the Project Constraints and Risk and
Uncertainties Sections.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted.
7. Page 43, Table 23 —
a. On the original concept map UT1 was proposed as enhancement 11 at 4:1. Since no channel
work is proposed and only supplemental planting will be completed (without applying a
vegetative performance criteria), DWR thinks that 4:1 is a more appropriate ratio.
Wildlands Response: The credit ratio has been revised.
b. It appears the new UT6 was added after the IRT site walk (and the old UT6 became UT7). Since
UT6 is isolated from the rest of the project site reaches, is less than 200 linear feet, has not
been seen by the IRT and no assessment data has been provided to demonstrate it as a high
quality/functioning stream, DWR does not support it as credit reach.
Wildlands Response: We have removed UT6 as a credited reach but believe that there is
benefit derived from protecting this subwatershed and from invasive species removal
proposed in this vicinity.
8. Page 49, Section 12 — DWR requests the inclusion of red -line drawings in the baseline monitoring
report comparing record drawings to final mitigation plan design sheets.
Wildlands Response: Section 12 indicates that as -built record drawings will be submitted.
Wildlands has added language to indicate that red -line notation will be part of the submitted as -
built.

9. Page 49, Table 26 — Please remove the phrase "based on the soil type". The proposed 12%
hydroperiod applies to all wetland restoration areas as stated in Section 11.3.
Wildlands Response: The phrase has been removed.
10. Page 50, Table 26 — Please note the vigor performance standard.
Wildlands Response: The vegetation vigor performance standard was added to table 26.
11. Page 51, Table 27 —
a. Table 1 states that 20.6 acres will be planted, which would mean a minimum of 17 veg plots (100
m2), unless supplemental planting areas are being counted. Currently 10 veg plots are proposed,-
DWR requests a minimum of 2 additional veg plots: 1 veg plot located within the wetland
enhancement areas and 1 veg plot located within the wetland reestablishment area.
Wildlands Response: The acreage included supplemental planting. Wildlands will include 1
vegetation plot located within the wetland enhancement areas and 1 vegetation plot located
within the wetland reestablishment area. A total of 12 vegetation plots are provided in
monitoring tables.
b. DWR requires visual monitoring be performed at all road crossings proposed for removal along
preservation reaches to verify that areas remain stable through the monitoring period.
Wildlands Response: A footnote has been added to Tables 27 and 28 (in reference to road
crossing naturalization measures proposed along Reach 1 of UT2, UT3, and UT4); three photo
points were added accordingly to Figure 11 Monitoring Components Map.
12. Figure 11 — DWR appreciates that non-credit existing wetlands are shown, but please confirm that
wetlands A, e and C included.
Wildlands Response: Wetlands A, B, and C will be planted as wetland areas but are not proposed
for credit.
13. Sheet 0.3 —
a. Are there any specific trees proposed to saved (icon not shown on plan views)?
Wildlands Response: Wildlands has not identified trees to be saved on the drawings yet. Tree
saves will primarily be identified during construction. Trees greater than 12" will be saved
where possible. Small willows and alders will be transplanted.
b. Is any fencing proposed?
Wildlands Response: Livestock will be permanently removed from the site and therefore no
fencing is proposed.
14. Sheet 2.3.1— Can a callout please be added to specify where the UT2-2 creditable reach begins.
Wildlands Response: The requested callout has been added to indicate the start of crediting where
the existing overhead utility easement ends.
15. Sheet 2.4.2 — Should the "proposed floodplain roughing" pattern icon be added to the areas with
associated callouts?
Wildlands Response: The hatch pattern has been added for consistency.
16. Sheet 2.4.3 — Please confirm the culvert shown south of station 4008+30 will be removed along with
the road naturalization.
Wildlands Response: The culvert will be removed; a callout has been added to the referenced
sheet.
17. Sheet 2.4.4 — No work/structures are proposed at the UT3 and UT4A confluence near the easement
boundary. Are there any concerns about long-term stability for this area?

Wildlands Response: The UT3/UT4A confluence is located on an adjacent parcel. No significant
concerns were identified in this area that would warrant additional work.
18. Sheet 3.0 — Please removed red maple from the wetland planting list. For future planting plans, it is
helpful for our review to have the wetland indicator status included in the tables.
Wildlands Response: Red maple has been revised to only be allowed as a volunteer species.
19. Sheet 6.7 — The bare root planting detail includes a nice description of the installation procedure.
Could additional information please be added to the live stake detail (e.g. installation depth,
typically planted dormant, etc.).
Wildlands Response: The Live Staking & Juncus Plugs detail has been updated to reflect the
information suggested.
20. Sheet 6 (Details) —
a. Please provide a detail for the proposed vernal pool. Please note that the approximate max.
pool depth and that it will be designed to be seasonally dry.
Wildlands Response: See response to item b. below.
b. Please provide detail(s) for relic channel backfill/partial backfill and/or plugs.
Wildlands Response: Wildlands has created a detail to address vernal pools (now referred to
as floodplain pools for features anticipated to be wet, and floodplain depressions for features
anticipated to be dry or seasonally dry).
For this project, constructed depressions along the hillslope where the mainstem is currently
located are not anticipated to support fish due to their position on the landscape. It is
uncertain whether slope seepage will maintain these as wet or dry or seasonally dry features.
The upslope wetland reestablishment is likely to contribute hydrology to these depressions
and the intent is to add upland wetland habitat of varying depth with a maximum target depth
of 18" to be set based on winter hydrology present at the time of construction. An exception
will be made in areas where minimal disturbance has occurred and the goal is to allow
remaining animals to remain in place without being filled over.
Detail 1/6.10 has been revised to reflect the variation of these features and document details
associated with construction procedures.
21. Sheet 6.1 — The cascading riffle detail icon shown appears to correspond with the Sheet 0.3 legend
icon for proposed pipe outlet protection. Please confirm.
Wildlands Response: The cascading riffle detail is associated with the cascading riffle -pool
sequence detail and is not shown on the plans symbolically. The plans have been revised to remove
the cascading riffle symbol.
22. Sheet 6.3 — Will the vegetated stone toe protection be live staked or solely seeded with Juncus?
Wildlands Response: The live staking and juncus plugs detail will apply to all such areas.
23. Design Sheets — It would help our review to see the existing channel areas proposed to be filled as a
shaded feature on the plan view sheets.
Wildlands Response: These areas are typically shown with grading contours and this holds true for
most of the areas on the proposed plans. Also, old channel will generally be filled unless otherwise
noted (e.g. those noted in accordance with symbols referenced in 20.b. response).
EPA COMMENTS, TODD BOWERS
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the draft mitigation plan for the
East Buffalo site as a component of the Wildlands Little Tennessee Stream and Wetland Umbrella

Mitigation Bank (UMB). Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC (the Bank Sponsor) have presented a viable plan to
provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable jurisdictional stream impacts associated with the US
Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program. The site, as presented in the
draft mitigation plan, is expected to provide approximately 4,511.5 cold stream mitigation units (SMU)
and 1.75 wetland mitigation units (WMU) through a combination of stream and wetland restoration,
reestablishment, enhancement and preservation in the Little Tennessee River Basin (HUC 06010204).
The chosen mitigation site will provide an excellent opportunity for the restoration, enhancement and
preservation of forested riparian buffers of the streams within the project conservation easements as
well as providing full watershed protection for several of the tributaries that contribute flow to East
Buffalo Creek. A significant amount of work will also be focused towards decommissioning unpaved
access roads and crossings within the established conservation easement. No credit has been
specifically proposed for additional buffer widths or water quality monitoring.
Note: It is understood that site visits may have been made by IRT members and other project
managers during the development of site feasibility to provide mitigation credit. In that regard I feel it
necessary to mention that I have not been on -site during this process and that my comments may
reflect a lack of on -site observation and evaluation.
The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following site- specific
comments as they pertain to the East Buffalo Draft Mitigation Plan dated March 25, 2020:
1. Section 1/Page 1:
a. Very first sentence is confusing. Since when do UMBs include towns? This is alluding to
service area, so a rewording is recommended. Perhaps "serve the towns of"?
Wildlands Response: The wording has been revised.
b. Excellent consideration and inclusion of several complete watersheds flowing into East Buffalo
Creek (UT 2, 3, 4 and 7) as preservation components of a comprehensive restoration plan.
Wildlands Response: Thank you.
2. Section 3.3.2/Pages 12-13:
Recommend adding "proposed for preservation" to the UT 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 descriptions
similar to UTS, UT4a and UT4b1.
Wildlands Response: We have added this reference to reaches UT2 Reach 1, UT3 Reach 1, UT4
Reach 1, UT6 and UT7. UT6 has been removed as a credited reach at the request of DWR.
3. Section 4.1/Page 13:
Field visit date is erroneous, and an error carried forward from the Wilmington District
correspondence sent last year. See page 203 of the pdf document to confirm. (Proposed
Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank (UMB) Comment Response (SAW-2019-
01296)]
Wildlands Response: The field date has been corrected, however the erroneous date on the
referenced memorandum was merely coincidence.
4. Section 7.7.1/Page 33-35:
a. Commendation to the sponsor for considering and obtaining a conservation easement that
includes the watersheds of many of the UT components of the project. The very wide buffers
from the boundaries, protection of seeps and upland habitat, decommissioning of access
roads and capturing entire watersheds is an excellent approach to preservation.
Wildlands Response: Thanks you.

b. 1 understand and concur with the Enhancement approach for UT2 Reach 2 even as it appears to
be closer to restoration work. This conclusion is based on field notes and discussions with other
IRT members.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted.
5. Section 7.7.2/Page 35:
"Enhancement 11 is proposed for East Buffalo Creek Reach 2" should be "East Buffalo Creek
Reach 1"
Wildlands Response: The correction has been made.
6. Section 7.7.12/Page 37:
a. Excellent proposal to remove/decommission the soils roads and crossings within the areas
proposed for preservation. 1 would add caution that language such as "This work will improve
water quality by reducing sedimentation to the streams across the site from road erosion and
will restore stream habitat and aquatic species passage" may be misconstrued to allude that
the project will improve water quality without any data to prove it. Without data or other
demonstrable evidence, the best the sponsor can provide is "This work may improve water
quality..." and I recommend that the edit is made.
Wildlands Response: The correction has been made.
b. Per the included diagram, Sheet 5.0, the access points to the soil roads will be blocked off
from East Buffalo Creek Road. 1 recommend this same approach applied to the road entering
and leaving the Exclusion Area 2 to prevent internal access if the property is developed.
Wildlands Response: Wildlands anticipates that renaturalization will render these roads
impassable to vehicular access. We have added the annotation to the sheet as a callout.
Additionally, I recommend that the sponsor include some sort of monitoring (visual/photos)
to ensure that the stream crossings are stabilized, the site access has been effectively blocked
to motor vehicles, and that the vegetation (10 trees per 300 feet) is surviving to some extent.
Preservation credits should be withheld until this minor success criterion is demonstrated for
at least two monitoring periods (years).
Wildlands Response: We agree to provide documentation of the stream crossings as
stated in response to DWR comment #11b, to visually verify survival rates of planted trees
and replant trees as necessary if planted trees or volunteers do not maintain 10 trees per
300 feet, and that any instability at crossings be addressed.
Pertaining to crediting, we offer the following suggestion:
7:1 Preservation (that has been proposed at 7:1 due to the characteristics of the
preservation- wide buffers and watershed scale protection) should not be entirely withheld
as suggested. We can agree that some withholding of crediting is reasonable in order to
ensure that performance and maintenance of these activities is executed to achieve the
desired sediment load reduction benefits and in a manner that achieves long-term stability
of streams.
The three crossing removals are one ford crossing and two old collapsed and buried culvert
crossings (subsurface drainage). The work is approximately 150 LF total to restore these
areas, as well as the work of decommissioning the adjacent road approaches.
Preservation reaches proposed for 7:1 credit account for 7,500 LF of stream credit, or
approximately 1,070 credits (or 25% of the bank total). We propose that 920 preservation
credits be released and that the remaining 150 credits (representing the work at the 150 LF

of crossing removal) be released along with the remaining restoration and enhancement
credits.
This approach withholds credits that exceed the value of the work being performed to
remove crossings and decommission adjacent soil roads and for potential adaptive
management, while releasing credits that recognize the immediate benefit of watershed
scale preservation and the considerable financial investment (land purchase) involved in
securing these assets.
7. Sections 7.8/Page 39:
Recommend removing Red maple (Acer rubrum) from the planting plan for the wetland planting
zone and it is a vigorous volunteer species. Excellent consideration of a mix of trees/shrubs for the
overstory and sub canopy portions of the Riparian and Wetland Planting zones.
Wildlands Response: We have removed red maple from the proposed list but maintained it as an
alternate in order that it may count in monitoring plots as a volunteer species. Please note the
additional changes we have made to the original planting plan based on comments and based on
availability of plant materials sourced through preferred planting contractor. River birch has been
removed from the planting plan based on IRT guidance. Also, we have lowered the percentage of
sycamore as requested by WRC and replaced with bioregionally appropriate species.
8. Section 9.0/Page 43:
I concur with the sponsors approach to mitigation ratios based on this section and with discussions
with IRT members.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted.
9. Table 23/Page 44:
UT4b1 is not included in the project component list (501f of no credit/preservation).
Wildlands Response: UT4b1 has been added to the table as a non -credited reach.
10. Section 10/Table 24/Page 45:
Recommend that preservation credits based on the 7:1 ratio be withheld until the forest road
decommissioning/stabilization is demonstrated to be successful for a minimum of two monitoring
periods to ensure the site is indeed stable. Release of 10:1 Preservation credits should be released
upon site establishment.
Wildlands Response: Please refer to our response to comment 6 below item 6.c.
11. Section 10.1/Page 46:
Recommend that only UT 5, 6 and 7 credits be released under the initial allocation of released
credits.
Wildlands Response: Please refer to our response to comment 6 below item
6.c.
12. Section 11.2/Page 47:
Please provide clearer language pertaining to fixed/permanent and random/mobile vegetation plots.
As 1 read it, the permanent plots are also randomly located so using the word "random" may not be
the best choice here. See note 5 of Table 29, which demonstrates clearer distinction.
Wildlands Response: The language in the mitigation plan was updated to make the distinction
between permanent and mobile plots clearer.
13. Table 26/Page 49:
Under the "Improve instream habitat" goal there should at least be some sort of visual confirmation
of performance of installed/constructed habitat features to minimize the occurrence of piping or

other instabilities. Here is where a measurement/metric pertaining to large woody debris may be
useful to demonstrate uplift of habitat function.
Wildlands Response: Visual assessment is proposed as a metric by which the stability of
installations can be assured. Documentation includes photo points along reaches. Section 13
requires that in -stream structures be maintained and repaired as necessary to prevent piping and
other instability.
14. Figure 4/Watershed Map:
a. The East Buffalo Drainage (600 acres) seems to include East Buffalo Creek (600 acres) along
with UT 5 (47 acres), UT 1 (52 acres) and UT 2 (51 acres) which totals 750 acres.
Wildlands Response: The East Buffalo subwatershed drainage area was changed from 600 to
450 acres so the combined total acreage at the watershed outlet (East Buffalo Drainage) is
correct.
b. The UT 3 Drainage (156 acres) seems to include UT 3 (156 acres), UT 4 (78 acres) and UT 40
(6 acres). The estimate for UT3 appears erroneous and should be about (72 acres).
Wildlands Response: The UT3 subwatershed drainage area was changed from 156 to 72 acres
so the combined total acreage at the watershed outlet (UT3 Drainage) is correct.
NCWRC COMMENTS, ANDREA LESLIE
1. Capturing the headwaters of many of these streams has great value for both aquatic and terrestrial
habitat connectivity and adds value to the heavier restoration work downstream. We are supportive
of the road decommissioning and stream crossing rehabilitation in the preservation areas. Once
complete, will there be any roads and/or culverts left in the preservation section of the project?
Wildlands Response: No roads or culverts will remain.
2. In addition, capturing the entire bottomland area in easement is valuable for protection of the
restoration and in providing a broader habitat corridor. As such, the planting plan is especially
important.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted. Please note that we have addressed planting suggestions
but also that upon review of the planting and further discussion of the utility easement with Duke
Power that we have decided to reduce the number of species in the planting plan and go with
more hardy species that could tolerate adjacent maintenance.
3. Please provide a wetland reference and target community for the wetland re-establishment,
rehabilitation, and enhancement areas. The vegetation plan should be based on references/target
communities. For the current list, we recommend diversifying the planting list as appropriate and (1)
eliminating red maple, as that is a pioneer species and should come in on its own, (2) reducing the
percentage of sycamore from 20% to 10-15% at most, and (3) eliminating river birch, as this typically
is only associated with large river floodplains in the Blue Ridge. We also ask for a wetland
herbaceous plant list.
Wildlands Response: Per the response to DWR comment #4b, text discussing wetland reference
and target community have been added to Section 7.8. The planting plan has been updated based
on the comments provided here and elsewhere. (Maple was removed but kept as an alternate not
to be planted but to count as volunteer species in vegetation plots. Sycamore was reduced and
river birch eliminated. An herbaceous plant list was developed based on observed species on site
and in a nearby wetland occupying a similar landscape and hydrologic position in a protected
portion of the Snowbird Creek drainage. The IRT is requiring a set hydrology standard for wetlands
and therefore no wetland has been proposed for reference hydrology.

4. Likewise, for the riparian area planting list, reduce sycamore from 20% to 10-15% at most and
eliminate river birch. Supplement the list with additional species, including understory species.
Wildlands Response: The riparian planting plan has been updated.
5. 817 ft of East Buffalo Creek Reach 2 and 976 ft of UT3 Reach 2 will be newly constructed channel.
The plan notes that substrate will be harvested from existing channels in the wet. Please explain how
this work will be staged, addressing both turbidity issues while harvesting material in the wet and
harvesting of stream biota. Please note that it is necessary for the designer to rescue/move aquatic
animals that are abandoned in the old channels. This can also aid in jumpstarting the biological
community within the new channel segments.
Wildlands Response: Applicable sheets now reference the proposed substrate and biota
harvesting sequencing provided on Sheet 0.3.1 which explains sequencing and sediment
management and that specifies designer involvement in relocation of aquatic animals. See DWR
Comment #2.
6. Wild trout reproduction should not be impacted by project activities and a trout moratorium is not
needed.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted.
USACE COMMENTS, STEVE KICHEFSKI
Page 2, Section 2, Figure 213 & UMBI — Please clarify if the intent is to utilize all 3 HUC's combined as
one service area as the report seems to suggest or whether each site within the UMB will be tracked
and have a service area of its particular HUC as the UMBI seems to suggest?
Wildlands Response: Since it understood that additional HUCs of the Little Tennessee River Basin
may be expanded/combined into one Official Service Area in the future, the following language has
been added to that end in the Executive Summary, Section 2, and the UMBI: "The expected
customers for the Bank credits include a combination of private enterprises and public entities
including NCDOT and the various municipalities located in the Little Tennessee service area that
currently includes 06010204 8-digit HUC (Figure 2). If the Official Service Areas of the Little
Tennessee River Basin are expanded/combined in the future, the service area of this Site will
automatically be expanded to include the expanded/combined service area".
2. Page 5, Section 3.2 — Describe existing community types of preservation areas.
Wildlands Response: The existing forest types found in the preservation areas are a mix of
Montane Oak — Hickory/Chestnut Oak Forest on dryer slopes to Acid cove/Rich Cove Forest near
streams and coves.
3. Page 6, Table 4 — Seems like the geomorphic location of the wetlands classified as seeps are within a
floodplain or crenulation and more likely to be relic bottomland hardwood forest or headwater forest
fragments, or so modified that it would be non -tidal freshwater marsh?
Wildlands Response: Wildlands agrees that these wetlands have been misclassified as seeps and
should be classified as headwater forest. Table 4 was updated to reflect this change.
4. Page 18, Section 5.4 —Please provide the archeological survey report that was submitted to the
SHPO in February 2020.
Wildlands Response: The final archeological survey report that was submitted to SHPO in February
2020 is included in Appendix S (and will also be provided in the PCN submittal).

5. Page 32, Section 7.6.3; Page 48, Section 11.3; Figure 11, Table 27 & Plan page 0.2.2 —
a. Please add two additional wetland ground water gages, the first in Wetland E and the
second in Wetland D north? of the proposed powerline relocation.
Wildlands Response: One additional wetland groundwater gage was added in wetland E as
was agreed upon per a follow-up discussion after these comments were received by
Wildlands. The above -referenced mitigation plan sections, table, figure, and plan sheet
have been updated to report a total of 5 groundwater gages.
b. Also, based on the LSS study and supplemental attachment/revised plan page, the
boundaries of the groundwater wells in the proposed establishment wetland have changed
slightly and the groundwater wells may need to be relocated to ensure they stay with the
proposed wetland boundary.
Wildlands Response: The post construction location of the groundwater gage in the
wetland re-establishment area has been moved to ensure it is within the proposed
wetland boundary. The new proposed groundwater gage location can be seen on Figure
11.
6. Page 37, Section 7.7.12 & Section 10.11.12 —
a. I like the plan for forest road decommissioning to help ensure longterm function of the
preservation reaches, however there needs to be additional monitoring/performance
objectives for the crossing removal/road decommissioning areas to ensure their success.
b. Also, a portion of preservation credits should be withheld until those areas have
demonstrated a trend towards stability. For example, perhaps 15% of preservation credit is
held and released incrementally with the remaining stream credit as monitoring milestones
are achieved or after the bankfull criteria has been achieved. Is there a plan for accessing
decommissioned areas if repairs are needed?
Wildlands Response: EPA comment 6 and DWR comment 11b pertain to this. We have
added language to Tables 27 and 28 and associated photo points to Figure 1 that provide for
the visual monitoring and tracking that is being requested. In Section 10, the release of 150
credits (approximately 15% of the 7:1 preservation credits) is proposed over the 7 year
period.
7. Page 39, Section 7.8 — Describe target communities for planting areas (both wetland and upland), so
appropriate species can be corelated. Remove red maple from the planting list since it is so prone to
becoming a volunteer.
Wildlands Response: Refer to the DWR comment #4b and WRC comment #3 pertaining to wetland
community and our response to address wetlands; and DWR comment #18 for our response related
to red maple.
For upland planting: Wildlands has included a discussion in Section 7.8 pertaining to the target
community types. The only upland areas being planted on the site are higher areas between
tributaries in the lower valley, and sloping areas east of UTS. A note has been added to the riparian
planting plan to designate species that are preferred for upland planting.
8. Page 40, Section 7.9 — Will treatment of such dense invasive areas need a modification of veg
approach such as a delay in planting or an elem•need for supplemental planting while the invasive
are eradicated? Were any of the preservation areas assessed for invasive species beyond treatments
shown in the Invasives Treatment Plan sheet 3.4?

Wildlands Response: A large portion of the preservation areas have been assessed for invasive
species. The areas identified on the plans represent the areas with infestations that are sufficiently
large and dense so as to have potential long-term impacts to forest structure. These are the primary
areas that we have identified for treatment. Other areas will be treated as specified in the
mitigation plan.
9. Page 41, Section 7.1— This section (and plans) seems to imply the utility line (including relocated
sections) can be accessed without any need for crossing the CE area streams or additional
encroachment of the CE outside of the ROW, but please confirm.
Wildlands Response: That is correct —the utility line (including relocated sections) can be accessed
without crossing CE area streams or additional encroachment of the CE outside the ROW. The new
proposed equipment access to maintain the utility ROW on the Site is located off East Buffalo Road
between the upstream limits of Reach 2 of UT2 and UT3. While no streams will be encroached upon
from the new equipment access location, two small areas of existing wetland will be encroached
upon within the lower valley of the ROW; however, the realigned utility line ROW intersects a much
smaller area of existing wetland than the existing utility line ROW alignment.
10. Please update the UM81 to the most recent 2020 version and include Erin Davis as the NCDWR
contact.
Wildlands Response: The UMBI has been updated to the most recent 2020 version and includes Erin
Davis as the NCDWR contact.
11. Page 44, Section 10 — Add 404 approval to the requirements prior to credit release. That line seems
to duplicate information in Section 10.1 and 10.2?
Wildlands Response: The following text from Section 10.1 was added to Section 10.0 for consistency
in summarizing the necessary requirements to be satisfied prior to credit release: "404 permit
verification for construction of the site, if required."
12. Page 55, Section14.2, Table 31— Verify that all boundaries will be marked and by what method,
including remote boundaries away from typical access points.
Wildlands Response: The boundaries of the conservation easement will be marked in the field to
ensure distinction between the conservation easement area and adjacent land. Boundaries may be
marked by signs, gates, posts, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or the
conservation easement document. Given the large scale of the Site and associated easement area,
markers will be focused on areas where the easement aligns with external/property boundaries.
13. Page 58, Section 15, Table 33 —A construction/supplemental planting and invasive contingency of at
least 8-10% is requested in the financial assurances.
Wildlands Response: Financial assurances have been modified to ensure that
construction/supplemental planting, and invasive control contingencies are at least 8% insurance
principal.
14. Plans — Much of the design plan for UT3 Reach 28 (or the riffle details) does not show any type of
step or vane grade control structure anchoring in the downstream end of riffles despite steep slopes.
Please describe why there is not a concern for instability with this approach or a design characteristic
I may have missed that ensures the riffles remain stable.
Wildlands Response: In refining the plans, we have addressed this in several ways. We utilize
cascading riffle portions similar to those in the Cascading Riffle -Pool sequence, which have structure

sized riffle material at the end of every riffle. At this stage, we have also designated the additional
riffle formations to be used throughout the project and added the corresponding details. The
Morphology Characteristics of Southern Appalachian Wilderness Streams (Zink, Jennings, Price,
2012) was referenced throughout design and influenced profile decisions. The overall goal of the
design was to provide stream stability while incorporating a natural approach through the existing
wetland area. However, additional grade control structures have been visibly added to the design to
further stabilize above -referenced areas of concern.
15. Add additional vegetation monitoring plots in wetland enhancement and rehabilitation areas for
better performance assessment.
Wildlands Response: Please refer to Wildlands' response to DWR comment #11. Wildlands
increased the vegetation plot total from 10 to 12 by adding an additional vegetation plot to the
wetland enhancement area and the wetland re-establishment area.
Two (2) hard copies and one pdf file (on CD) of the Final Mitigation Plan are included. Please contact me
at [phone] extension 100 if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Shawn Wilkerson
President

Version March 2020
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE WILDLANDS LITTLE TENNESSEE
UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
IN LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN WITHIN THE STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA
USACE approval of this Instrument constitutes the regulatory approval required for
the Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank to be used to provide
compensatory mitigation for Department of the Army permits pursuant to 33 C.P.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 , 20_, by Wildlands Holdings VI, Inc, 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) is/are
suitable mitigation bank site(s), and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan(s) is/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, creation,
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 Umbrella Bank site(s) is/are to restore, enhance, create and
preserve wetland and/or stream systems and their functions to compensate in

Version March 2020
appropriate circumstances for unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts authorized
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permits and or Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act permits in circumstances deemed appropriate by the Corps after
consultation, through the permit review process, with members of the IRT.
C. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and/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 is authorized to provide compensatory mitigation required by DA permits. The GSA
for this Bank shall include the Little Tennessee Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 06010204,
06010203, and 06010202 in North Carolina. Credits are to be used in the same HUC in
which they were generated and credits within each HUC should be tracked on separate
ledgers. If the Official Service Areas of the Little Tennessee River Basin are
expanded/combined in the future, the service area of this Site will automatically be
expanded to include the expanded/combined service area.
P

Version March 2020
Section III: Mitigation Plan
Any Mitigation Plan submitted pursuant to this agreement must contain the
information listed in 332.4(c) (2) through (14) of the Compensatory Mitigation Rule.
A. The Sponsor will perform work described in the/each site -specific approved
Mitigation Plan(s).
B. The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site(s) as described in the approved
Mitigation Plan(s), until such time as the IRT determines that the performance
standards described in the Mitigation Plan(s) have been met.
C. Mitigation Plans submitted for inclusion in this bank must meet the requirements of
any District guidance that is current at the time the new site is submitted to the
District, including any updates made to monitoring requirements, credit releases,
long term management, or any other provisions that are required and/or specifically
addressed in the Mitigation Plan. The addition of any site to this instrument shall be
considered as a modification to this instrument, and processed in accordance with
the procedures set forth in the Mitigation Rule.
D. The members of the IRT will be allowed reasonable access to the Property
for the purposes of inspection of the Property and compliance monitoring of
the Mitigation Plan.
Section IV: Reporting
A. The Sponsor shall submit to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT,
an annual report describing the current condition of the Bank Site(s) and the
condition of the Bank Site(s) in relation to the performance standards in the
Mitigation Plan(s). The Sponsor shall provide to the DE any monitoring reports
described in the Mitigation Plan(s).
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 Project
Manager for the permit and the Corps Bank Manager for the bank site.
Section V: Remedial Action
A. The DE shall review the monitoring reports, as required in the Mitigation Plan(s),
3

Version March 2020
and may, at any time, after consultation with the Sponsor and the IRT, direct the
Sponsor to take remedial action at the Bank site(s). Remedial action(s) required
by the DE shall be designed to achieve the performance standards as specified
in the Mitigation Plan(s). All remedial actions required under this section shall
include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take into account
physical and climactic conditions.
B. The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the
above.
C. In the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to
achieve the required performance standards, it shall provide notice of such
proposed remedial action to all members of the IRT. No remedial actions shall be
taken without the concurrence of the DE, in consultation with the IRT.
Section VI: Use of Mitigation Credits
A. Description of credit classifications and provisions pertaining to the use of those
credits shall be provided in the Mitigation Plan(s) to be included in this bank.
Credit classifications (e.g., cold water stream, cool water stream, warm water
stream, coastal wetlands, non -riparian wetlands, riparian non-riverine wetlands,
and riparian riverine wetlands) will be in accordance with current District guidance
at the time the Mitigation Plan is submitted to the District. In general, these
classifications will be used to determine if a particular credit qualifies as "In- Kind"
mitigation. Exceptions to the use of "In -Kind" mitigation may be allowed at the
discretion of the permitting agencies on a case -by -case basis.
B. Wetland and stream compensation ratios are determined by the DE on a case -by -
case basis based on considerations of functions of the wetlands and/or streams
impacted, the severity of the wetland and/or stream impacts, the relative age of
the mitigation site, whether the compensatory mitigation is in -kind, and the
physical proximity of the wetland and/or stream impacts to the Bank Site.
C. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using
credits from the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all
decisions concerning the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset
wetland and stream impacts authorized by Department of the Army permits, shall
be made by the DE, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
implementing regulations and guidance. These decisions may include notice to
and consultation with the members of the IRT through the permit review process if
the DE determines this to be appropriate given the scope and nature of the impact.
Section VII: Credit Release Schedule
A. All credit releases must be approved in writing by the DE, following consultation
with the IRT, based on a determination that required performance standards have
n

Version March 2020
been achieved.
B. A credit release schedule shall be provided in the/each site -specific Mitigation
Plan(s) 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 mitigation 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 as specified 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 mitigation
site (if necessary).
7. Documentation of the establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow
account.
The Sponsor must initiate implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan(s) no
later than the first full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction (i.e.,
construction of the initial physical and biological improvements proposed in the
approved Mitigation Plan(s) must be started by the end of the first full growing season
following the initial sale of any credits from the Bank. This provision does not apply to
preservation -only sites that do not include any physical or biological improvements.
Subject to the Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required performance
standards and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be available for
sale by the Sponsor as specified in the final Mitigation Plan.
Section VIII: 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.
5

Version March 2020
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 an annual ledger report, on each anniversary of the date
of execution of this agreement, showing all credits used, any changes in credit
availability (e.g., additional credits released, credit sales, suspended credits, etc.),
and the beginning and ending balance of remaining credits. The Sponsor shall submit
the annual report to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT, until such
time as all of the credits have been utilized, or this agreement is otherwise
terminated.
Section IX: Financial Assurances
A. Financial assurances for the Bank site(s) will be detailed in the site -specific
Mitigation Plan(s). 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 the mitigation
work, including costs for land acquisition, planning and engineering, legal fees,
mobilization, construction, and monitoring. For preservation only Bank Sites, no
financial assurances will generally be required unless there are specific activities
necessary to ensure the successful preservation of resources on the site, in which
case appropriate financial assurances may still be required.
B. All financial assurances shall be made payable to a standby trust or to a third -
party designee, acceptable to the Corps, who agrees to complete the project or
provide alternative mitigation. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to
the Corps in the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable.
C. The form and amount of financial assurances must be stated in the site -specific
Mitigation Plan(s) 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
L

Version March 2020
notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
Section X: Site Protection
A. The Sponsor shall grant a Conservation Easement (CE) in form acceptable to the
DE, sufficient to protect the Bank Site(s) in perpetuity. The CE shall be perpetual,
preserve all natural areas, and prohibit all use of the property inconsistent with its
use as mitigation property, including any activity that would materially alter the
biological integrity or functional and educational value of wetlands or streams
within the Bank Site, consistent with the Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the CE will
be to assure that future use of the Bank Site will result in the restoration,
protection, maintenance and enhancement of wetland and/or stream functions
described in the Mitigation Plan. The name and contact information for the Corps
approved easement holder and a draft copy of the CE will be provided in the site -
specific Mitigation Plans(s).
B. The Sponsor shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the DE covering the
mitigation property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that
would conflict with its use as mitigation, including, but not limited to, any liens that
have priority over the recorded CE.
C. Subsequent to the recording of the CE, the Sponsor may convey the Bank Site
property either in fee or by granting an easement to a qualified land trust, state
agency, or other appropriate nonprofit organization approved by the Corps. The
Sponsor is responsible for ensuring that the CE is re -recorded so that it remains
within the chain of title. The terms and conditions of this conveyance shall not
conflict with the intent and provisions of the CE nor shall such conveyance enlarge
or modify the uses specified in the easement. The CE must contain a provision
requiring 60 day advance notification to the DE before any action is taken to void or
modify the CE, including transfer of title to, or establishment of any other legal
claims over, the project site.
Section XI: Long-term Management
A. The Sponsor shall implement the long-term management plan as described in
the site- specific Mitigation Plan(s). Unique Places to Save (UP2Save) will serve
as the Grantee and long-term manager and will be the party responsible for
long-term management. UP2Save is a 501©3 non-profit that can be reached at
PO Box 1183 Chapel Hill, NC 27514-1183, [phone] or
[e-mail].
B. The long-term management plan will include a list of annual maintenance,
monitoring, and/or repair activities for the/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
7

Version March 2020
(e.g., an endowment managed through a separate account holder). The long- term
management plan should include a contingency section that addresses how the
responsibility and funding for the long-term site management will be passed on to
a new manager in the event that the selected long-term management entity is no
longer able to provide for management of the site.
Section XII: Default and Closure
A. It is agreed to establish and maintain the Bank site(s) until (i) credits have been
exhausted or banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice by the
Sponsor provided to the DE and other members of the IRT; and (ii) it has been
determined and agreed upon by the DE and IRT that the debited Bank site has
satisfied all the conditions herein and in the Mitigation Plan. If the DE determines
that the Bank site is not meeting performance standards or complying with the
terms of the instrument, appropriate action will be taken. Such actions may include,
but are not limited to, suspending credit sales, adaptive management, decreasing
available credits, utilizing financial assurances, and terminating the instrument.
B. 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.

Version March 2020
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.
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:
Mr. Shawn D. Wilkerson
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC
1430 S. Mint St., Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Corps:
E

Version March 2020
Mr. Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
151 Patton Avenue Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
USEPA:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Wetlands Section - Region IV Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
USFWS:
Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
NCWRC:
Ms. Andrea Leslie
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Rd, Building B
Marion, NC 28752
NCDWR:
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
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
NMFS:
Mr. Ken Riley
National Marine Fisheries
NOAA Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road F/SER47
Beaufort, NC 28516
10

Version March 2020
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE WILDLANDS LITTLE TENNEESSEE
UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK IN THE LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN WITHIN
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA":
Wildlands Holdings, VI, LLC, Sponsor:
By: Date:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
By: Date:
11

Version March 2020
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE WILDLANDS LITTLE TENNEESSEE
UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK IN THE LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN WITHIN
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA":
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
By: Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
By: Date:
N.C. Division of Water Resources:
By: Date:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission:
By: Date:
NC State Historic Preservation Office:
By: Date:
National Marine Fisheries Service:
By: Date:
N.C. Division of Coastal Management:
By: Date:
12

Version March 2020
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Geographic Service Area Map
Appendix B: Mitigation Plan (Each plan should include construction costs, maintenance
and monitoring costs, draft copy of financial assurance documents, draft copy of site
protection instrument, and a long term management plan as appendices to the plan.)
13