20211423 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20211105

% &V
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING NOTES
MEETING: IRT Post -contract Site Walk
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
Tar Pamlico Basin CU 03020101; Nash County, NC
USACE Action ID: SAW-2021-01714
DWR# 20211423 v1. 0302-02
DATE: Wednesday, October 20, 2021
LOCATION: Cooper Road
Red Oak, NC
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Erin Davis, DWR
Travis Wilson, WRC
Materials
Casey Haywood, USACE
Kathy Matthews, USFWS
John Ellis, USFWS
John Hutton, Wildlands
Chris Roessler, Wildlands
Maria Dunn, WRC
• Wildlands Engineering Great Meadow Mitigation Site Draft Prospectus
• Maps of existing and proposed conditions for the site and proposed easements
Meeting Notes
The primary purpose of this site visit was to provide an opportunity for the IRT members to see the site and for
Wildlands staff to explain the various components of the project. The site is on an active cattle farm and will
include stream restoration, stream enhancement I and II, and wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, creation,
and enhancement.
Riparian buffer and nutrient offset credits will also be developed. Wildlands will coordinate with NCDWR
separately on that. The draft mitigation plan for stream and wetland mitigation should include a draft of the
riparian buffer and nutrient offset mitigation plan in the appendix, as well as a map that shows all credits
sought.
Swift Creek in the project vicinity is critical habitat for a number of endangered species, including the Neuse
River waterdog, Carolina madtom, and yellow lance. Additional species found in Swift Creek are Tar River
spinymussel (endangered) and Atlantic pigtoe (threatened). The mitigation site is valued for this reason, but it
will also require additional oversight and carefully executed erosion and sediment control measures. The near
term plan is to have a permitted consultant look for habitat for the listed species in the lower ends of the project
reaches. It is assumed that Swift Creek has this habitat based on recent surveys. If habitat is in the lower project
reaches found, surveys will be conducted. December to February is the window to survey the Neuse River water
dog; Wildlands will look to have this done in the coming months. The survey results will be reported in the

biological assessment (BA). The BA will be submitted as an appendix of the draft mitigation plan. Erosion control
measures will be included with the draft MP. The biological opinion will be produced based on the BA. The
Corps indicated they would seek a formal consultation to answer questions such as should the existing beaver
dam on Gideon Swamp be removed and should mussels be relocated before construction. From a timing
perspective, It would be helpful if the BO development could be initiated during the IRT review of the draft MP.
This meeting summary is organized by stream reach. A concept map with comments added from this site visit is
attached.
Fisher Branch
• The IRT agreed with the stream approaches except for the following reaches:
o The IRT encouraged increasing the E2 ratio on Reach 2 upstream of the crossing to 2.5:1 by
doing bank grading and stabilization in areas that have scour.
o The group discussed the 3.5:1 ratio on Reach 4 of Fisher Branch. The IRT agreed that a lower
ratio may be possible if Wildlands includes additional monitoring, such as the pre-existing areas
with privet and post -construction transects to document survival of planted understory species.
Stem density in the understory planting would follow different performance standards than
open canopy tree planting. This should be fleshed out in the draft MP.
• For E2 areas, callouts for bank treatments should be included in the draft mitigation plan.
• The culvert will be replaced on Fisher Branch.
• The IRT requested that Wildlands inquire with landowner about removing princess tree from outside the
CE.
• The stream restoration in upper Fisher Branch should be priority 1 as soon as possible. This may be done
with a temporary construction easement from the upstream landowner. Travis noted a knickpoint
where restoration could start that may be on the upstream property.
• The IRT mentioned liking abundant woody debris in the restoration sections. They prefer when woody
debris is incorporated with the substrate rather than added separately on top.
• There are numerous areas of wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, enhancement, and creation
along Fisher Branch. The IRT agreed that wetland creation at a 3:1 ratio is possible at the top of the
project, provided performance standards are met and excavation is limited to less than 18 inches.
Wildlands said they would include creation in the final prospectus but further evaluate during design
and may not include this in the mitigation plan. The very wet area beyond the left bank in upper Fisher
Branch may have shrub/scrub pockets to include obligate wetland species such as buttonbush and
willow rather than trees that may be less endemic to the area (i.e. bald cypress). The IRT mentioned
changing the approach on this area from rehabilitation to enhancement. Last, a bigger wetland is
expected to form below the crenulation that delivers runoff from the livestock barn.
Shard Rranch
• The IRT prefers that Reach 1 be changed to restoration since the bedform diversity is so limited. A
number of caveats apply to this recommendation. Since this is a small drainage area (40 acres at
property line), a gage should be installed at the top to insure a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow,
annually. Stream credit will only be available from the point at which a JD stream call is made. An
intermittent headwater approach is likely from the start and will transition to a single -thread channel at
some point. The IRT suggest a Teams call before draft MP submittal to weigh in the on the design
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
October 21, 2021 IRT Post -Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes

concept. The group agreed that looking upstream on Shard Branch and other local reaches may provide
reference conditions. If a braided channel is constructed, cross section measurements would not be
required. Container plants may be helpful to provide shade and hold the channel in place. Channel
maintenance is acceptable during MY2 or maybe MY3 but not after. Pines and sweet gums should be
removed but floodplain grading should be limited. If stream credit does not pan out, wetland credit may
be attainable.
• The IRT prefers that the upper Shard crossing be moved to the property line or to the point where the
restoration channel transitions to single thread, in that order.
• The IRT would prefer to see the design channel tie into sections of existing channel where tree roots
provide bank protection and the channel/top of bank are at grade.
• Restoration may continue to the lower crossing. The culvert and channel at the lower crossing should be
realigned so that it is more perpendicular to Swift Creek and provide for fish passage.
• The lower E2 section will remain, though the credit ratio may be improved with additional monitoring as
described above in the Fisher Branch Reach 4 section.
• Additional wetlands may be possible along Shard Branch with restoration approach, particularly in areas
where runoff from adjacent hillslopes accumulates.
Swift Creek
• Wildlands is targeting 100-foot buffers on the left bank Swift Creek. We will ask the landowner about
extending the easement to a break in slope associate with a bluff on the left bank of the river. Will also
ask the landowner on the right bank if they will sell conservation easement allowing for stream
preservation on about 3,800 If of Swift Creek.
• An additional spring -fed channel between Shard Branch and Fox Branch was noted as likely to be
jurisdictional and in need of some treatment. E2 is possible on this.
Fox Branch
• The IRT agreed with the 4.5:1 E2 approach on lower Fox Branch and the E1 approach for upper Fox
Branch.
Gideon Swamp
• Wildlands should map areas of bank scour and call out treatments in the draft Mitigation Plan and in
coordination on the BA/BC) with USFWS.
• Depending on what is found in the endangered species habitat surveys, it may be preferable to limit
proposed enhancement activities to bank grading and stabilization above the baseflow water line.
• The formal consultation with USFWS will inform what to do about the existing beaver dam — whether to
leave it in place and remove new ones, or to remove the existing one using erosion control measures
like notching the dam and carefully removing it.
• Wildlands should inquire with the landowner about purchasing the pasture beyond the right bank,
which would eliminate the crossing. The IRT would be amenable to a higher credit ratio if this is done.
• As in other reaches, a better credit ratio is possible when removing privet and replanting understory
species, followed by additional monitoring to document survival.
Wetland-
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
October 21, 2021 IRT Post -Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes

• All wetland mitigation areas are shown on the attached map. The IRT generally agreed with the
approaches proposed by Wildlands. Additional wetland areas along Shard Branch may be possible but
should be gaged to confirm.
• Wildlands plans to plant all wetland areas within the easement that are not currently wooded.
Summary
At the conclusion of the site visit the IRT indicated that they approved of the site and had no issues with the
proposed approaches and had no objections to the minor changes to the plan discussed. Some modifications to
the Concept Map used for the site walk were made during the tour. A revised map is attached showing changes
and other details discussed during the site walk.
These meeting notes were prepared by Chris Roessler on October 21, 2021 and reviewed by John Hutton on November 4,
2021 and represent the authors' interpretation of the visit.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 4
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
October 21, 2021 IRT Post -Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes

Figure 8. Concept Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
W W I L D L A N D S 0 350 700 Feet Tar Pamlico River Basin (03020101)
ENGINEERING I I I I I Nosh County NC

Memorandum to the Record
October 20, 2021
Agency Comments for the Wildlands Tar Pamlico 01 Umbrella Mitigation
Bank Draft Prospectus (Great Meadows Site) in Nash County, NC
(SAW-2021-01714)
Todd,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the Wildlands Tar -Pamlico
O1 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (UMB) — Draft Prospectus to establish the first site in Nash
County, North Carolina. Wildlands Holdings VIII, LLC (Wildlands), the sponsor, proposes to
develop this private commercial mitigation bank in the Tar Pamlico River Basin, 8-digit
Hydrologic Unit Code 03020101. The Great Meadow Mitigation Site (the site) being established
under the proposed bank contains tributaries to Swift Creek which drains to the Tar River and is
located on an active cattle farm. Wildlands has presented a potentially suitable plan to provide
compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional stream impacts associated with the US Army Corps of
Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program. The Sponsor proposes to restore 3,066
linear feet and enhance 6,840 linear feet of site streams and re-establish 3.747 wetland acres,
rehabilitate 1.42 wetland acres, enhance 1.754 wetland acres, and create 0.494 wetland acres. No
riparian buffers or nutrient offset credits are currently proposed. The site conservation easement
is estimated to total 42 acres.
Note: It is understood that site visits may have been made by IRT members and other project
managers during the development ofsite feasibility to provide mitigation credit. In that regard, I
feel it is 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 Oceans, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch offers the following site -
specific comments as they pertain to the Wildlands Tar Pamlico 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank —
Draft Prospectus dated August 6, 2021:
General: I am very pleased to see that Wildlands is considering protection of the
left bank of Swift Creek between the project tributaries with a 50-foot wide
conservation easement. Although no credit is proposed for this approach, it
nonetheless greatly improves the overall project suitability by achieving
functional habitat uplift between the tributary riparian zones along Swift Creek.
This also helps to increase the project's amount of protected riparian zone that
appears somewhat minimal on many areas of the project tributaries, especially in
the face of ongoing pasture use by livestock.
2. Cover Page and Page 2 (Section 1.3): Change River Basin to "Tar Pamlico".

3. Page 4: The bank site characterization of currently maintained livestock in the
vicinity of the project streams is justification for the need for wider vegetated
riparian buffers. If the site continues the practice of free-range pasture cattle with
hog and bovine waste continuing to be applied to the pastures, I highly
recommend 100-ft wide vegetated riparian buffers for streams and wetlands to
offset the continued excess nutrient runoff. With this approach, I would also
encourage Wildlands to seek additional buffer credit (beyond stream credit
buffers) to be used for impacts in the Upper Tar Pamlico River watershed.
4. Page 9/Table 5: Can Wildlands provide justification for the 60-foot wide
easement crossings? Why is 30 feet (as used for Gideon Swamp) for a gated ford
crossing not suitable for a culverted crossing? If this is strictly to account for the
existing culvert length that may not be replaced, that information should be noted
in constraint details. I would also like to see justification for two crossings on
Shard Branch.
Page 10/Section 4.1: The information provided about adjacent land use stressors
on stream stability, erosion rates, nutrient inputs, invasive species (namely
Chinese privet), and livestock activity lend credible evidence towards designing a
project in need of wider riparian buffers. Due to the continued and ongoing
stressors listed above, I highly recommend that Wildlands consider expanding the
conservation easement to add more riparian buffer to the project tributaries as
well as providing upland buffers to the areas of wetland reestablishment. A wider
vegetated buffer will alleviate and minimize the detrimental influx of nutrients
from the adjacent livestock activity, provide a larger flow dispersal zone and
filtration of runoff from the adjacent lands and protect against invasive vegetation
by providing a larger interior to boundary ratio. I also recommend that riparian
buffers extend from the stream beltwidth/wetland boundary rather than the
proposed top of bank to allow for natural variation in long-term stream migration
within the conservation easement.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback, comments, and concerns with the Wildlands
Tar Pamlico 01 UMB — Draft Prospectus in Nash County, NC. Wildlands has provided a
mitigation bank prospectus and potentially suitable plan to restore and remove stressors to
streams, greatly improve wetland functions within the project, and provide 5,513 Warm Stream
Mitigation Units and 7.415 Wetland Mitigation Units in the Tar Pamlico 01 River Geographic
Service Area. If you or the sponsor have any questions or need clarification on any of the
comments stated above, please contact me at 404-562-9225 or at [e-mail].
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers
Comments submitted to Todd Tugwell (SAW -PM) and IRT Chair via email on October 20, 2021

Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Matthews, Kathryn H <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 2:23 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd
Cc: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Browning, Kimberly D
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Chris Roessler; Ellis, John
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [EXTERNAL] Wildlands Tar Pam 01 UMBI - Great Meadows Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Site Draft Prospectus Review
Thanks for the opportunity to go onsite at this proposed mitigation site. The USFWS is excited about the opportunities
for enhancement, restoration, and preservation. We walked most of the site during our field meeting, and the USFWS
agrees that most of the tributary reaches will benefit from restoration or enhancement. Swift Creek will also greatly
benefit from the proposed restoration, enhancement, and protection of buffers. We have the following comments on
the project, most of which we discussed last week on site.
1. The project encompasses portions of four tributaries to Swift Creek in the Tar River basin. In the project area, Swift
Creek has known occurrences of the following federally listed species:
Neuse River Waterdog (aquatic salamander) - threatened
Carolina Madtom (fish) - endangered
Yellow Lance (mussel) -threatened
Tar River Spinymussel - endangered
Atlantic Pigtoe (mussel) - proposed threatened
Swift Creek in the project area is also designated critical habitat for Neuse River Waterdog, Carolina Madtom, and Yellow
Lance, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic Pigtoe. Tar River Spinymussel does not have any designated critical
habitat. Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the Endangered Species Act. It is specific geographic areas that
contain features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may require special
management and protection. Critical habitat may also include areas that are not currently occupied by the species but
will be needed for its recovery. In this case, all of the critical habitat in the project area is known to be occupied by the
species.
2. We recommend that the Corp request initiation of formal consultation when complete information is available for the
project (draft mitigation plans and sediment and erosion control plans); however, we also recommend close
coordination as necessary prior to any significant decisions on restoration vs. enhancement, stream crossings, etc. If we
have the opportunity to review decisions as they come along, perhaps there will be no outstanding issues at the time of
the draft plan.
Complete information will be necessary prior to initiating formal consultation so that we can negotiate terms and
conditions and draft the biological opinion. Please see our web site for an overview of consultation and an explanation
of what is typically provided in a biological assessment. If the info in the mitigation plans and erosion control plans is
complete enough, a separate BA shouldn't be necessary. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/es_consultation.html
<Blockedhttps://www.fws.gov/raleigh/es_consultation.html>
3. We recommend that the number of stream crossings be limited to the extent possible, and that any perched culverts
be removed. Replacement culverts should be designed to provide appropriate flow and aquatic species movement in
low -flow conditions (in perennial streams).

4. We agree that most of the tributaries on the site do not have suitable habitat for listed species, particularly in the
upper reaches. However, Gideon Swamp, particularly downstream of the beaver dam, appears to have suitable habitat
for multiple species. We recommend that a qualified, permitted mussel biologist conduct suitable habitat surveys in
Gideon Swamp and the lower reaches of the other 3 tributaries to the Swift. If suitable habitat is present, then we can
either assume that the species are present, or surveys may be conducted. Depending on the results, salvage (relocation
surveys) may be needed prior to earth -moving work on the site.
5. We encourage the mitigation provider to approach the landowner(s) along the south bank of Swift Creek to see if they
would be willing to buffer the stream and wetlands on that side of Swift Creek. Swift Creek in this area is a high quality
resource, and the USFWS would be willing to provide better credit ratios for preservation credit.
6. Please coordinate with us on the plans for beaver dam removal in Gideon Swamp.
7. The USFWS understands that the owner sometimes pumps water from Swift Creek when flows are low, to irrigate
pumpkin seeds. This may not be directly related to the mitigation project, but please provide us with the typical amount
of water that is removed from the stream (we recall that the seeds are irrigated with one inch of water), and the typical
time of year.
Thanks again for the opportunity to coordinate on this project. We look forward to consultation. Have a good week,
Please note that I am teleworking almost exclusively. Email is the best way to reach me. Thanks,
Kathy Matthews
NC Renewable Energy Coordinator &
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-856-4520, x. 27
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 1:59 PM
To: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd
<[e-mail]>; Matthews, Kathryn H <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wildlands Tar Pam 01 UMBI - Great Meadows Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Draft Prospectus
Review
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or
responding.

IRT Members,
Wildlands Engineering has provided us with a Draft Prospectus of a new Umbrella Mitigation Bank in the Tar Pamlico 01
HUCT. The Great Meadows Stream and Wetland Site is included in the submittal as the first site for the bank. The Draft
Prospectus has been uploaded to RIBITS, and we are initiating the 30-day review of the Draft Prospectus with this email.
Information about the proposed bank is below:
Umbrella Bank Name: Wildlands Tar Pamlico UM
Sponsor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Contact: Chris Roessler)
Location: 36.1288,-77.9508 Nash county, 03020101 HUC
USACE Action ID: SAW-2021-01714
USACE Bank PM: Todd Tugwell
Deadline for comments on the Draft Prospectus: Oct. 27, 2021
I would also like to go ahead and schedule a time for a review of the site — Oct. 20th is the next available open IRT
meeting day, so please reserve the morning of the 20th for the meeting and I will provide more information as we get
closer. In the meantime, please let me know if you need a hard copy of the Draft Prospectus and I will arrange to have a
copy delivered. As note that this is still the Draft stage, so the project has not been put on Public Notice as of yet. Also,
because the site meeting is more than 30 days out, I have set the deadline for comments as one week after the site
meeting (Oct. 27th) .
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
Mitigation Project Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
[phone]

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
<Blockedhttps://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fregulatory.ops.usace.army.mil%2Fcusto
mer-service-
survey%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ckathryn_matthews%40fws.gov%7C03039b92b6084930e14a08d97872a07l%7C0693b5b
a4b184d7b9341f32f400a5494%7C0%7C0%7C637673255977048062%7CUnknown%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJW IjoiMC4wLjA
wMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=2TzPLBQJIgO%2FFDpIJG2Df3JTANo71SzrKV
x7gVIm8Y8%3D&reserved=0> Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

From: Davis, Erin B
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] RE: Wildlands Tar Pam 01 UMBI - Great Meadows Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Draft
Prospectus Review
Date: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:23:50 AM
Attachments: Tar Pam 01 UMB Draft Prospectus - EPA Comments.Ddf
Tar Pam 01 UMB Draft Prospectus - USFWS Comments.Ddf
Great Meadow IRT Site Visit Summarv.Ddf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachments
DWR#: 20211423 v.l
Doc Type: Mitigation Evaluation
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)[mailto:Todd.J.Tugw�.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 12:20 PM
To: Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Samantha.J.Dailey(ousace.army.mil>; Haywood, Casey
M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning
<Kimberly.D.Browning(ousace.army.mil>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<travis.wilson(oncwildlife.org>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; kathryn matthews(ofws.gov
Subject: [External] RE: Wildlands Tar Pam 01 UMBI - Great Meadows Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Draft
Prospectus Review
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to Report Spam. <mailto:report.spam(q_)ac. go
Chris,
I've attached the comments we received from the IRT based on the Draft Prospectus for the Wildlands Tar Pam 01
UMB - Great Meadows Site (AID SAW-2021-01714). I've also attached the minutes from our October 20, 2021
site review. With regard to the minutes, please note the following comments:
1. Fisher Branch: If the wetland creation area is pursued it will be important to document soil type and have proper
well placement. Could collect soil profiles during monitoring to show soils are trending toward having wetland
hydrology. In general, soil borings should be obtained at all wetland gauges.
2. Shard Brach: RI If a braided channel is constructed, there is a possibility it could trend towards becoming more
of a wetland. Recommend discussing in the adaptive management section.
3. Gideon Swamp: Noted some fescue- recommend treating if this is anticipated to be problematic.
4. Please note that final credit ratios will be agreed to during the review and approval of the Mitigation Plan for the
site. All credit ratios noted in the site meeting minutes are preliminary based on incomplete information and are
subject to revision.
Please consider all of these comments as you move forward with development of the Final Prospectus for the site.
Once we receive a the Final Prospectus, we will review for completeness and send out a Public Notice.
Thanks and let me know if you have any questions.
Todd Tugwell
Mitigation Project Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

[phone]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey
is located at: https://urldefense.com/v3/_https://regulatoU.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-
survey/_: ! ! HYmSToolK4jEzsbGfKPm98TjFiHHwxE2IPJv4KFfXEGiZY 1 EE7fT2ctsjBbquerTOSeYb2yLagU$
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 2:00 PM
To: Davis, Erin B <erin.davis&cdenr.gov>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd
<[e-mail]>; Kathryn Matthews <Kathryn [e-mail]>
Cc: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey
M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Kimberly.D.Browning(ousace.army.mil>; Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wildlands Tar Pam 01 UMBI - Great Meadows Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Draft Prospectus
Review
IRT Members,
Wildlands Engineering has provided us with a Draft Prospectus of a new Umbrella Mitigation Bank in the Tar
Pamlico 01 HUCT. The Great Meadows Stream and Wetland Site is included in the submittal as the first site for the
bank. The Draft Prospectus has been uploaded to RIBITS, and we are initiating the 30-day review of the Draft
Prospectus with this email. Information about the proposed bank is below:
Umbrella Bank Name: Wildlands Tar Pamlico UMB
Sponsor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Contact: Chris Roessler)
Location: 36.1288,-77.9508 Nash county, 03020101 HUC
USACE Action ID: SAW-2021-01714
USACE Bank PM: Todd Tugwell
Deadline for comments on the Draft Prospectus: Oct. 27, 2021
I would also like to go ahead and schedule a time for a review of the site - Oct. 20th is the next available open IRT
meeting day, so please reserve the morning of the 20th for the meeting and I will provide more information as we
get closer. In the meantime, please let me know if you need a hard copy of the Draft Prospectus and I will arrange
to have a copy delivered. As note that this is still the Draft stage, so the project has not been put on Public Notice as
of yet. Also, because the site meeting is more than 30 days out, I have set the deadline for comments as one week
after the site meeting (Oct. 27th) .
Thanks,

Todd Tugwell
Mitigation Project Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
[phone]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey
is located at: https://urldefense.com/v3/_https://regulatoU.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-
survey/_: ! ! HYmSToo 1 K4j EzsbGfKPm98TjFiHHwxE2IPJv4KFfXEGiZY 1 EE7fJ2ctsj BbquerTOSeYb2y LagU$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/_https://re,gulatory.ops.usace. army .mil/customer-service-
survey/_: I I HYmSToolK4jEzsbGfKPm98TjFiHHwxE21PJv4KFfXEGiZY 1 EE7fJ2ctsjBbquerTOSeYb9yLagU$
> Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.