20140073 Ver 2_Revised Final Mitigation Plans_20200121

ID#* 20140073 Version* 2
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/21/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/21/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
r Stream r Wetlands W Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140073
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Green Valley II Project
County: Randolph
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*2
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Green Valley II_ 100111_MP_2020-01-21.pdf 37.84MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

Final Mitigation Plan
Green Valley II Project
DMS Project #: 1001111 Contract #: 7862 1 RFP: 16-007703 1 DWR Project #: 20140073v2
January 2020
Randleman Lake Watershed I HUC 030300031 Randolph County, North Carolina
Prepared By:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
For Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Prepared For:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• The Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule, 15A NCAC 02B .0295, effective November 1, 2015
These documents govern NCDM4 operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.

M E M O R A N D U M
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
TO: NCIRT and NCDMS
FROM: Kasey Carrere - RES
DATE: January 20, 2020
fires
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1062 tel.
919.829.9913 fax
RE: Response to Green Valley Farm II Draft Mitigation Plan Comments DMS Project ID
No. 100111 Contract #7862
No photos are provided showing existing conditions. The only 2 photos provided are from 2017
& 2016, which do not adequately describe "existing" conditions. Please add photos of the riparian
areas w/ dates that are more recent. Indicate any landuse changes, if any, from the date DWR was
last onsite, which was May 2018.
Updated photos, taken on January 14, 2020, have been added to Section 1.3.5, showing existing
conditions of the riparian area outside of existing easement. No significant landuse changes have
occurred since the last DWR site visit.
2. No site viability letter was provided by DWR, but an email to DMS was sent on May 13, 2019
about the site. Please add this correspondence to Appendix A.
A copy of the email correspondence from May 13th, 2019 from DWR to DMS has been added to
Appendix A.
Consistent misuse of the term "riparian buffer" or "buffer" is used throughout the text and can
lead to confusion or misleading information. These terms are only to be used to describe the
Randleman buffer, which is 0-50' and has a Zone 1 & Zone 2. All of this project is located
outside of the Randleman buffer. Please correct terminology where it is being misused and
replace with "riparian area".
The term "riparian buffer" has been revised to "riparian area" throughout the document.
4. Section 1.0
a. Page 1, 3rd paragraph: add the DWR# to the first Green Valley Site. Its 2014-0073vl
The DWR# of the first Green Valley Site has been added to the 3Yd paragraph on the first
page.
b. Page 2, 1st paragraph: replace "zero" with "fifty feet (50')" within the paragraph. The
provider has stated they are not performing any mitigation work within the top of bank
areas.
The word "Zero " has been replaced with "fifty feet (50) " within Section 1.0.
5. Section 2.1
a. It says that credits will serve Randleman Lake buffer impacts within the 8-digit
03030003. This is incorrect. The service area for this project is limited to only the

Randleman Lake Watershed, which is not as broad of an area as the 03030003. Please
correct this statement.
The 8-digit HUC 03030003 of the Cape Fear River Basin was removed and replaced with
"Randleman Lake watershed".
b. Change the width in the table from 0-100' to 50-100
The width has been changed from 0 to 50 within the Table 4.
6. Section 3.3.1
a. Correct terminology here for "buffer". In most cases, the term buffer should be "riparian
area .
The terminology has been corrected within this section from "riparian buffer" to
"riparian area ".
b. Descriptions of the "riparian buffer" conditions in this section are inaccurate. The
riparian buffer, which is the 0-50' from the stream, are all in great condition and in an
easement. This needs to be corrected. It's more accurate to represent the area of this
project, within 50-200'.
The description of the riparian buffer has been edited to indicate the area from 50-200'
rather than 0-50'.
Correct the widths from 0-200 to 50-200', since no work in planned within top -of -bank —
50'.
The width was changed from 0 — 200 to 50 — 200.
d. Recommend rephrasing the 4t1i sentence in 2nd paragraph to "All riparian restoration
activities will take place within the 50-200' riparian area along to UTI and UT4 and will
be subject to crediting and ratios as outlined in the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation
Rule ".
This sentence has been rephrased with ""All riparian restoration activities will take
place within the 50-200' riparian area along to UTI and UT4 and will be subject to
crediting and ratios as outlined in the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule ".
e. Reference to "DWR guidance" is included in the text regarding ratios. Remove this
reference, as there was no DWR guidance for ratios at the time this plan was submitted.
The only reference needed here is the 0295 rule.
The reference "DWR guidance" has been removed from the text.
f. Reference the email from DWR to DMS May 13, 2019 in addition to the other references
already in the text.
The email from DWR to DMS from May 13`" 2019 has been referenced in the text.
7. Only temporary seeding is proposed for application. However, DWR requests that
permanent/perennial riparian seeding also be applied and established where bare areas are present
from impacts of row crops. It is important to maintain a health and diverse herbaceous layer
within the riparian areas to reduce the potential of runoff, nutrients and sediments into the streams
A sentence has been added to section 3.4 to clarify `A mixture of temporary and permanent
riparian seeding will be applied and established where row crops are present. " However, as this
project will not have much in the way of land disturbing stabilization activities it is not likely that
other areas within the project easement will need seeding.

a. Planting with a seed mix that is abundant in annual and perennial pollinator species is
strictly voluntary but is being encouraged by DWR in other mitigation plans to promote
diversity and enhance the heath of the herbaceous layer, which can also greatly benefit
planted stems.
RES appreciates DWR requests and will do our best to include pollinator -rich
seedlings in our seed mixture. At this time, we have included common milkweed
and black-eyed Susan seed to be included with our typical riparian seed mix
order. As we do not buy the seed mix until closer to the actual date of
construction the actual seeds that are bought will be dependent on the alignment
of the germination and time period of seeding along with the availability and cost
at the time. RES will continue to consider this request in all future projects.
Section 4.0
a. Change "riparian buffer mitigation area" to "riparian restoration area".
The terminology has been changed to "riparian restoration area".
b. 2nd paragraph — the word "established" has been inserted into the text when describing the
performance criteria. Please remove, as this word in not in the rule and could have a
different meaning. I may have missed this word in previous mitigation plan reviews.
The word "established" has been removed from the sentence.
Page 12: 4.2
i. Since mowing would not be performed anywhere but within the Green Valley II
easement, which is outside the Randleman Lake Buffer, no reference to buffer
violations or the Randleman Lake Buffer should be necessary here. Only
easement violations could maybe result without notification.
Terminology regarding buffer violations to the Randleman Lake Buffer has been
removed.
Figure 1 -
a. Remove the 14-digit HUC from the service area map. It is not necessary and could be
misleading as presented.
Removed the 14-digit HUC from service area inset map.
b. Remove the words, "service area" from the 03030003 label in the legend.
Removed "service area "from 03030003 label.
10. Figure 2 -
a. Add 0-50' to the label for Green Valley Farm Easement.
Added 0-50' to label to Green Valley Farm Easement.
b. Add 50-200' to the label for Proposed Easement.
Added 50-200' to label for Proposed Easement.
11. Figure 3 -
a. Add 0-100' in the legend to 50-100' for Restoration
Added 50-100' in legend for Restoration.
b. Add 0-50' to the label for Green Valley Farm Easement
Added 0-50' to the label for Green Valley Farm Easement.

Table of Contents
1 MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY.......................................................................................... 3
1.1 Project Overview..........................................................................................................................
3
1.2 Project Location............................................................................................................................
5
1.3 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................5
2 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................7
2.1 Determination of credits...............................................................................................................
7
2.2 Other regulatory considerations...................................................................................................
9
3 RIPARIAN RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
......................................................10
3.1 Site Preparation...........................................................................................................................10
3.2 Materials.....................................................................................................................................10
3.3 Methods......................................................................................................................................11
3.4 Planting Plan...............................................................................................................................11
3.5 Easement Boundaries.................................................................................................................12
4 MONITORING PLAN.....................................................................................................................12
4.1 Monitoring Protocol and Success Criteria..................................................................................12
4.2 Adaptive Management Plan and Site Maintenance....................................................................13
5 STEWARDSHIP...............................................................................................................................14
6 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................15
FIGURES
Figure 1
— Service Area
Figure 2
— Existing Conditions
Figure 3
— Concept Design for Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Figure 4
— Project Vicinity
Figure 5
— USGS Map
Figure 6
— Soils Map
Figure 7
— Constraints Map
Figure 8
— Monitoring Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A — NCDWR Stream Determination and Viability Letter
Appendix B — Site Protection Instrument (s)
Appendix C - Categorical Exclusion
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project 4: 100111 2 January 2020

1 MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX), a wholly -owned subsidiary of Resource Environmental
Solutions (RES), is pleased to provide this Mitigation Plan for the Green Valley Farm II Riparian Buffer
Mitigation Project (Project) as a full -delivery buffer mitigation project for the Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) (DMS 9100111). This Project is designed to provide riparian buffer mitigation credits
for unavoidable impacts due to development within the Randleman Lake Watershed of the Cape Fear
River Basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC — 03030003)
(Figure 1 and 4). This Mitigation Plan is in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule
15A NCAC 02B .0295 and the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02B
.0250.
1.1 Project Overview
The conservation easement of the Green Valley Farm II Project will total approximately 7.19 acres and
includes two unnamed tributaries that drain directly into Randleman Lake approximately 1,000 feet
downstream of the Project. Land use within the Project is primarily actively farmed row crops and newly
planted riparian forest. The goal of the Project is to restore ecological function to the existing stream and
riparian area by establishing appropriate plant communities while minimizing temporal and land
disturbing impacts. Riparian area improvements help filter runoff from agricultural fields, thereby
reducing nutrient and sediment loads to Project channels and the overall watershed. Restoration, of the
Randleman Lake riparian area (as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0250) is anticipated to result in a reduction
of the water quality stressors currently affecting the Project: agricultural production and a lack of riparian
buffer. This Project is consistent with the management strategy for maintaining and protecting riparian
areas in the Randleman Lake watershed.
The easement is comprised of four sections, separated by two crossings and UT4. This Project surrounds
an existing DMS project, Green Valley Farms Buffer Restoration Site (DMS # 95012, 2014-0073v1) that
was closed out (Figure 2). The Green Valley II Project is composed of two stream channels: UT1 and
UT4. Both of these reaches are outside of the actual easement boundaries but included in the previous
Green Valley Farm Project. UT4 is a tributary to UT1, which then flows into Randleman Lake. UT1 is
approximately 1,677 linear feet and is on the western side of the project. UT4 is approximately 590 linear
feet and runs between the four easement segments. Stream identifications were verified by the DWR site
visit on September 1, 2011, as well as a re-evaluation for UT4 on February 23, 2017. Correspondence
regarding this determination is in Appendix A.
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 3 January 2020

Table 1. Buffer Project Attributes
Project Attributes
Project Name
Green Valley Farm II
Hydrologic Unit Code
3030003010070
River Basin
Randleman Lake
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
35.9086,-79.833
Site Protection Instrument (DB,
PG)
0018E/00488
Total Credits (BMU)
175,509.615
Types of Credits
Restoration
Mitigation Plan Date
October 2019
Initial Planting Date
April 2020
Baseline Report Date
June 2020
MY1 Report Date
December 2020
MY2 Report Date
December 2021
MY3 Report Date
December 2022
MY4 Report Date
December 2023
MY5 Report Date
December 2024
Of the total 7.19 acres in the conservation easement, the Green Valley Farm II Project presents the
opportunity to provide up to 175,509.615 (4.03 acres) of riparian buffer credits by establishing a native
forested and herbaceous riparian area plant community starting at fifty feet (50')from the top of bank and
extending to a maximum of 200 feet from the edge of the channels. These will be derived from 2.55 acres
of 50 to 100 feet of Restoration, 4.49 acres of 101 to 200 feet of Restoration. This new community will be
established in conjunction with the treatment of any existing exotic or undesirable plant species. Figure 3
shows the Riparian Buffer Conceptual Design and Credit Determination Map and Section 2.1
provides details of the mitigation credit determination on the Green Valley II Project.
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 4 January 2020

1. L I Parcel Ownership
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes portions of
the parcel listed in Table 2. EBX obtained a conservation easement from the current landowner on the 17t1'
day of December, 2019. The easement deeds and survey plats will be submitted to DMS and the State
Property Office (SPO) for approval and will be held by the State of North Carolina. The easement deed
followed the DMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template dated January 8, 2018 and is included
in Appendix B. The secured easement allows EBX to proceed with the Project development and protect
the mitigation assets in perpetuity. A copy of the land protection instrument is included in Appendix C.
Table 2. Parcel and Landowner Information
1.2 Project Location
The Green Valley Farm II Project is within the Randleman Lake Watershed of the Cape Fear River Basin
within the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030003, 14-digit HUC 03030003010070 and DWR
Sub -basin Number 03-06-08.
The Project is located in Randolph County approximately 2.3 miles northwest of Level Cross, North
Carolina (Figure 4). To access the Project head North on Randleman Road from city center for one mile
and turn left on Hockett Dairy Road. Go about 1.3 miles before taking a farm access road to reach the
project, on the right side. The coordinates are 35.9086 °N and-79.833 'W.
1.3 Existing Conditions
1.3.1 Surface Water Classification
The current State classification for Randleman Lake is Class CA* and WS-IV. Class C waters are protected
for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, and aquatic life including
propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. The * symbol identifies
waters that are within a designated Critical Supply Watershed and are subject to a special management
strategy specified in 15A NCAC 213.0248. The WS-IV classification is intended to protect waters used as
sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS-I, II or III
classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-IV waters are generally
in moderately to highly developed watersheds or protected areas (WS-IV; NCDWQ 2013).
1.3.2 Physiography and Soils
The Project is located within the Piedmont Physiographic region, specifically within the Southern Outer
Piedmont Ecoregion. The physiography of the ecoregion is mostly characterized by hills, ridges and
irregular plains. Streams generally have a low to moderate gradient with cobble, gravel, and sandy
substrates. Elevations range from 700 to 750 feet above mean sea level (NAD 27) based upon USGS
topographic mapping (Figure 5).
The National Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Web Soil Survey, accessed August 16, 2019,
depicts four map units across the project (Figure 6). The map units are Chewcla loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes; Wynott-Enon complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes; Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes;
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 5 January 2020

Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded. The soil characteristics of these map
units are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Project Mapped Soil Series
Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent
Hydric
DrainageSymbol
HydrologicMap
ChA
Chewcla loam, 0 to 2 percent
0%
Somewhat Poorly
B/D
Floodplains
slopes
Drained
WtB
Wynott-Enon complex, 2 to 8
00
%
Well Drained
D
Interfluves
percent slopes
Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to 15
Hillslopes
WtC
0/o o
Well Drained
D
percent slopes
on Ridges
Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to 15
WvC2
percent slopes, moderately
0%
Well Drained
D
Ridges
eroded
1.3.3 Wetlands
The USFWS NWI depicts no wetland areas within the Project (Figure 7). There are three PUBM wetlands
within a 0.5-mile radius of the project, but these should not be affected during construction of the project.
1.3.4 Landscape Communities
A. Existing Vegetation Communities and Riparian Vegetation
Current land use within the proposed easement is row crop production for dairy silage. The non -forested
areas consist primarily of pasture grasses and weedy herbaceous vegetation. Therefore, the riparian area
from 50 feet to 200 feet is in poor condition. However, as the first 50 feet of the riparian buffer have
already been included in a conservation easement since 2012, the riparian buffer in these areas is in good
condition. In October 2017, Year 5 monitoring conditions of the existing conservation easement noted the
following tree species: boxelder (Acer negundo), red maple (acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra),
shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), eastern redbud (Cercis
canadensis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), southern red oak (Quercus falcata),
overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), willow oak (Quercus phellos)
and winged elm (Ulmus alata). The most notable invasive species is the invasive Johnsongrass (Sorghum
halepense).
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 6 January 2020

1.3.5 Existing Conditions Photos
View from corner of Green Valley Farm Easement View of 50-foot buffer
January 14"', 2020 January 14', 2020
Alternate view of 50-foot buffer View of buffer from edge of Green Valley Farm II
January le, 2020 Easement
January 14', 2020
2 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 Determination of credits
This Project has the potential to generate approximately 175,509.615 fe (4.03 acres) of riparian buffer
restoration credits on existing non -forested pasture. These riparian buffer mitigation credits generated will
service Randleman Lake buffer impacts within the Randleman Lake watershed. The total potential
mitigation credits that the Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project will generate are summarized in Table
4; Figure 3.
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 7 January 2020

Table 4. Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Credit Summary
Rural Subject Restoration UT1/4 50-100 110,917 1 100% 1.00000 110,917.000
Rural Subject Restoration UTl/4 101-200 195,735 1 33% 3.03030 64,592.615
TOTALS 306,652 175,509.615
*Buffers must be at minimum 20' wide for riparian buffer credit, buffers must be 50' wide for nutrient
offset credit
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 8 January 2020

2.2 Other regulatory considerations
2.2.1 Environmental Screening and Documentation
Because DMS mitigation projects are considered to be a category of activities that do not individually or
cumulatively have an impact on the human environment, they do not require preparation of an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. To ensure that a Project meets the
"Categorical Exclusion" criteria, the Federal Highways Administration and DMS have developed a
Categorical Exclusion (Cat -Ex) checklist.
The regulatory evaluation for the Cat -Ex focused primarily on the presence of hazardous materials, utilities
and restrictive easements, rare/threatened/endangered species or critical habitats, cultural resources, and
the potential for hydrologic trespass. The Cat -Ex summarized impacts to natural, cultural, and historical
resources and documented coordination with stakeholders and federal and state agencies.
2.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
The USFWS database (accessed July 31, 2019) for Randolph County, North Carolina lists one endangered
species, Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). The Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) and prohibits take of bald and golden
eagles. No protected species were observed during preliminary site evaluations (Table 5).
Table 5. Federally Protected Species in Randolph County
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; T (S/A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance; BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act
In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was consulted
to determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species were mapped within one mile
of the Project site. Results from the NHP website on July 31, 2019 indicated that there are no known
occurrences of threatened or endangered species within one mile of the Project site. Based on initial site
investigations, no impacts to federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
The environmental screening phase of the project will include USFWS coordination to confirm these
findings. A survey was complete, on August 20, 2019 for the Schweinitz's sunflower but no species or
habitat was found.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of the United States was enacted to protect fish and
wildlife when federal actions result in the control or modification of a natural stream or body of water.
Since the Green Valley II Mitigation Site may include removal and/or replacement of existing culverts as
well as stream bank stabilization, RES requested comment from the North Carolina Fish and Wildlife
Resource Commission (NCWRC). The NCWRC responded on June 10, 2019 and stated there are no records
for any listed aquatic species in the vicinity of the project. All correspondence is in Appendix C.
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 9 January 2020

2.2.3 Cultural Resources
Environmental and cultural resources include historic and archeological resources located in or near the
Project. RES has evaluated the Project's existing and future conditions to determine any potential
mitigation impacts to cultural resources.
The National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) is legislation intended to preserve historical and
archaeological sites in the United States of America. RES requested review and comment from the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to any archaeological and architectural resources related
to the Green Valley II Mitigation Project on June 7, 2019. SHPO responded on July 9, 2019 and had no
objections to the Green Valley Farm II Project. The summary of the review pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the Project is found in Table 6 and correspondence with
the SHPO can be found in Appendix C.
2.2.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/Hydrologic Trespass
There are a few constraints to the Project that will be considered during the design of the project. The west
and north parcels of the project have areas that partial coverage by FEMA's Zone AE (Figure 7). It is not
anticipated that floodplain permitting would be required for the type of working being conducted on this
project. Thus, no coordination with the Randolph County Floodplain Administrator will be required prior
to mitigation work. Furthermore, no hydrologic trespass will be permitted to adjacent properties upstream
or downstream of the Project.
2.2.5 Clean Water Act -Section 4011404
Due to the nature of this project there will be no 401/404 permit required.
3 RIPARIAN RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Riparian restoration areas adjacent to streams are shown in Figure 3 and were approved by the DWR in the
letter dated September 1, 2011 (Appendix A).
3.1 Site Preparation
Preparation at the Project will involve spraying undesired fescue grass and exotic invasive species,
contoured ripping, seeding, and planting. A mixture of temporary and permanent riparian seeding will be
applied and established where row crops are present.
3.2 Materials
A combination of silt fencing, erosion control wattles, temporary seeding, and erosion control matting will
be used to reduce erosion and stabilize soil in riparian areas during any land disturbance activities. These
erosion control measures shall be inspected and properly maintained at the end of each working day to
ensure measures are functioning properly until permanent vegetation is established. Disturbed areas shall
be temporarily seeded within ten working days and upon completion of final grading, permanent
vegetation shall be established for all disturbed areas. After construction activities, the subsoil will be
scarified, and any compaction will be deep tilled before the topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil
that is removed during construction will be stockpiled and placed over the project area during final soil
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 10 January 2020

preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth. Bare root plantings
and live stakes shall be planted according to detail shown in the planting plan.
3.3 Methods
All restoration activities will extend from the tops of the stream banks and extend a minimum of 50 feet
from the stream outward to a maximum of 200 feet perpendicular to the stream channel. Vegetation within
riparian buffers can vary depending on disturbance regime and adjacent community types, so the protected
buffer easement will be planted with appropriate native species observed in the surrounding forest and
species known to occur in similar environments (Section 3.4). Restoration areas were also determined by
the mitigation determination performed during the viability assessment by DWR (Appendix A).
3.3.1 Riparian Restoration Activities
The riparian area is in poor condition throughout most of the Project area. Most of the riparian area is
devoid of trees or shrubs and row crops are actively cultivated up to the edge of the existing conservation
easement. Current area conditions demonstrate significant degradation with a loss of stabilizing vegetation
because of continued agricultural activities and past land management actions.
Buffer mitigation efforts along UT1 and UT4 will be accomplished through the planting, establishment,
and protection of a hardwood forest community. The result will be a riparian habitat that functions to
mitigate nutrient and sediments inputs from the surrounding uplands. Traditional riparian restoration, as
outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n), will be utilized. All riparian restoration activities will take place
within the 50-200' riparian area along to UT1 and UT4 and will be subject to crediting and ratios as
outlined in the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule. Mitigation ratios follow those provided in the
Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule. Prior to the issuance of the RFP (416-007703), RES received
approval for buffer restoration on February 27, 2012 and an update in March 24, 2017, included in the
Appendix A. RES received an email from DWR on May 13, 2019 that indicated that an updated site visit
was not necessary, correspondence is provided in Appendix A. The conceptual plan is provided in Figure
3.
3.4 Planting Plan
The conservation easement will start after the original riparian buffer that extended 50-feet from the top
of bank and extend out to a maximum of 200 feet. The buffer restoration target community is a Piedmont
Alluvial Forest, described in Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth Approximation (Schafale
2012). This forest system is common throughout Piedmont drainages and will provide water quality and
ecological benefits. Table 6 lists proposed tree seedlings to be planted at the site, where no one species is
greater than 50% of the total planted stems. A riparian seed mix will be utilized to provide a rapid
herbaceous cover and stabilization on un-vegetated areas of the site. A mixture of temporary and permanent
riparian seeding will be applied and established where row crops are present.
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 11 January 2020

Table 6. Tree Planting List
1ecies
Platanus occidentalis
Bare Root
CommonI
American sycamore
9X6
1'
Bare Root
i of TotalSpecies
Composition
20
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
9X6
Bare Root
15
Betula nigra
River birch
9X6
Bare Root
15
Cercis canadensis
Eastern Redbud
9x6
Bare Root
10
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
9X6
Bare Root
10
Quercus alba
White oak
9X6
Bare Root
10
Quercus nigra
Water oak
9X6
Bare Root
10
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9X6
Bare Root
10
3.5 Easement Boundaries
Easement boundaries will be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Project and
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means
as allowed by Project conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundaries will be marked with signs
identifying the property as a mitigation project and will include the name of the long-term steward and a
contact number. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on
an as needed basis (Figure 8). The easement boundary will be checked annually as part of monitoring
activities and the conditions as well as any maintenance performed will be reported in the annual
monitoring reports to DWR.
4 MONITORING PLAN
4.1 Monitoring Protocol and Success Criteria
Annual vegetation monitoring and visual assessments will be conducted. Riparian area vegetation
monitoring will be based on the "Carolina Vegetation Survey -Ecosystem Enhancement Program Protocol
for Recording Vegetation: Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only Version 4.2". Monitoring plots will be installed
a minimum of 100 meters squared in size and will cover at least two percent of the planted mitigation area.
These plots will be randomly placed throughout the planted riparian restoration area (7.19 acres) and will
be representative of the riparian area restoration. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the
plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. All stems in plots will be flagged
with flagging tape. There will be six (6) fixed vegetation monitoring plots (Figure 8).
Photos will be taken at all vegetation plot origins each monitoring year and be provided in the annual
reports. Visual inspections and photos will be taken to ensure that restoration areas are being maintained
and compliant. The measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of at least four
native hardwood tree species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of stems, at a density of at
least 260 stems per acre at the end of Year 5. Native volunteer species may be included to meet the
performance standards as determined by NC Division of Water Resources (DWR).
A visual assessment of the conservation easement will also be performed each year to confirm:
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 12 January 2020

No encroachment has occurred;
No invasive species in areas were invasive species were treated,
Diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement areas; and there has not
been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that would negatively affect
the functioning of the buffer.
Table 7. Summary of Project Monitoring and Maintenance Activities
Component/
J
Monitoring
Maintenance through project close-out
Feature
Vegetation
Annual
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
vegetation
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
monitoring
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species
shall be treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Vegetation maintenance activities will be
documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
Invasive and Nuisance
Visual
Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and treated so that none become
Vegetation
Assessment
dominant or alter the desired community structure of the Project. Locations of invasive
and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
Project Boundary
Visual
Project boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
Assessment
mitigation project and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs
identifying the property as a mitigation project and will include the name of the long-
term steward and a contact number. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by Project conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be
repaired and/or replaced on an as -needed basis. Easement monitoring and staking/
signage maintenance will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing
Visual
Road crossings within the Project may be maintained only as allowed by conservation
Assessment
easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
Crossings in easement breaks are the responsibility of the landowner to maintain.
4.2 Adaptive Management Plan and Site Maintenance
Adaptive measures will be developed, or appropriate remedial actions taken if in the event that the project,
or a specific component of the project, fails to achieve the defined success criteria. DMS must approve all
adaptive management plans prior to submittal to DWR.
Remedial actions will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified in this Mitigation Plan, and will
include identification of the causes of failure, remedial design approach, work schedule, and monitoring
criteria that will take into account physical and climatic conditions.
Initial plant maintenance may include a one-time mowing, prior to initial planting to remove undesirable
species. If mowing is deemed necessary by RES during the monitoring period, RES must first receive
approval by DMS and then by DWR prior to any mowing activities to ensure that no easement violations
have been performed. Failure to receive approval to mow within the Randleman Lake buffer, as defined
in 15A NCAC 02B .0250, by DWR could result in violations of the conservation easement. If necessary,
RES will develop a species -specific control plan.
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 13 January 2020

5 STEWARDSHIP
The Project will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. NCDEQ Stewardship Program shall
serve as the conservation easement holder and entity responsible for long term stewardship of the Project.
This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will
conduct periodic inspection of the Project to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement
are upheld. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the
nonreverting, interest -bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the
Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest
gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship
administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings as
needed.
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 14 January 2020

6 REFERENCES
Endangered Species Act of 1973. Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884. 16 USC 1531-1543,
Environmental Laboratory. (1987). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. North
Carolina Panel 5842; map number 3710775800K, revised 1/2/2008.
https://mapl.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraList.c ig ?displ=wsp/item_ 3710584200L.txt; accessed August
2019.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934. Public Law 85-72, 79 Stat. 216. 16 USC 661-667(d).
Lee, T.L, Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., and Wentworth, T.R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edI /protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-levl-2.pdf.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended Section 106). 16 USC 470. 36 CFR 800, 23
CFR 771, 36 CFR 60, 36 CFR 63.
NCDENR. 2010. "N.C. Wetland Assessment Method User Manual Version 4.1." N.C. Wetland
Functional Assessment Team.
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2013. North Carolina Water Bodies Listed by
River Basin. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/Ts/csu/classifications; accessed July 2019.
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2011. A Guide to Surface Freshwater
Classifications in North Carolina. Raleigh. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_libLm
get _file?p_1_id=1169848&folderld=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf, accessed July 2019.
NCDWQ. (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2010. Methodology for Identification of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins. Version 4.11. Raleigh.
NC Environmental Management Commission. 2014. Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0295 - Mitigation Program
Requirements for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers.
NCNHP (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). 2017. Natural Heritage Element Occurrences. July
2019.
NCSHPO (North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office). 2017. North Carolina Listings in the
National Register of Historic Places as of January 19 2017. http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/NR-
PDFs.pdf, accessed July 2019.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 15 January 2020

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS).
2006. Soil Survey of Randolph County, North Carolina.
USDA-NRCS. 2014. Web Soil Survey GIS Data.
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm, accessed August 2019.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. Information, Planning, and Conservation
(IPAC) Online Screening Tool. https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/; accessed July 2019.
Green Valley Farm II Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100111 16 January 2020

Figures
Figure 1. Service Area Map
Figure 2. Existing Conditions
Figure 3. Concept Design for Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Figure 4. Project Vicinity
Figure 5. USGS Topographic Map
Figure 6. Soils Map
Figure 7: Constraints Map
Figure 8: Monitoring Map

I Hall Belews Creek es
OStokesdale
a ,sa
19 Browns Monticello
Summerfield Summit
Pine Knolls 150
Walkertown 2071 Oak Ridge
O S
k Crest s2 lso Piedmont
,ss Triad
International 110
Guthrie Kemersville Airport
31 W illowbend x © McLeansv,..e Joseph M 8%Y �By�
Winston-Salem
67 Greensboro
_ Seda' a
m
so lov Union Cross
z7as _
'so Horneyto.
Wallburg O _
ee
Gum Tree �
Jamestown
Green Valley Farm II
CB ' Mitigation Project
Midway HI olnt Gard —
Archdale Climax 4"
Welcome e3
Julian
Tr
evel r ss
Bethesda Thomasville
427
109
�g
_ 2
Cliff
est Lexington � z2
�J Randlem Grays Chapel
Arbor Acres _ a s 4
f^Z
Hedrick Grove �J
m Burlington Mebane Hillsborough
Gr ensboro
m
loe
Cotton Grove
Silver Valle Hig oint 87 �
Y 49 Chapel Hill
Silver Hill sn 427
�
47
Feezor
Ramseur Siler City ttsboro
4 As oro
uthmont CD
enton 501
Farmer
Legend Sea rove
43,
San d
Randleman Lake Service
Uwharrie a oe "
le National Forest Cart —
Cape Fear River Basin - 03030003 27 Ca
1 24
" Figure 1 - Service Area Date: 1/15/2020
w Green Valley Farm II Drawn by: GDS
n Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
res
0 2.5 5
Miles
finch=Smiles
Randolph County, North Carolina

A r
Agricultural Crossing
T
Cropland
T.
Le-gen
Proposed Easement 50-200'
Green Valley Farm Easement from 0-50'(Closed-Out)
Stream Determination
Perennial
k
Intermittent
!K7
Figure 2 - Existing Conditions Map
Date: 1/15/2020
N
m
w
Green Valley Farm 11
Drawn by: ADS
Mitigation Project
Checked by: MDE
0 200 400
Feet
Randolph County, North Carolina
1 inch = 400 feet
Ores

0000 Ioli0000�
Legend
Proposed Easement 50-200'(7.19 ac)
Green Valley Farm Easement from 0-50'(Closed-Out)
Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Mitigation Approach Riparian Zone Mitigation Type Existing Area Ratio %FuliCredit Mitigation Assets
50-100' Restoration 110,917 ft2 1 1 100% 110,917.000 ft'
Restoration, 50-100' (2.55 ac) (2.55 ac)
195,735 ft2 64,592.615 ft2
Restoration, 101-200' 101-200' Restoration (4.49 ac) 1 .1 33% (1.48 ac)
306,652 ft2 175,509.615 ft,
Project Stream Total Restoration (7.04 a c) (4.03 acr
Includes ratios and credit reductions
N
Figure 3 - Concept Design for Riparian Date. 1/15/2020
Buffer Mitigation
Drawn by: GDS
Green Valley Farm 11
8 res
Checked by: MDE
0 100 200 Mitigation Project
1 inch = 200 feet
Randolph County, North Carolina Feet I I

I Hockett Dairy Rtl
19Jf,
Hakcrt Dairy Rd
a,b.d,erd Dr
S
Invitations Express Q
Hodgin Fain RU
3
Green Valley Farm II
Project
H�r;krtt D.i l.e A,+ F IWI Dairy Rd
Baptist Church
y �
0
1
C
Ho kett Dairy Rd
0
Sfeenk View Dr
Hockgr Da„' Rd
iv
3
^ � Proposed Easement
14 Digit HU - 0303000301006041
U
NC DIMS Conservation Easement �y 35.9086,-79.833
" Figure 4 - Vicinity Map Date: 1/15/2020
w _ F Green Valley Farm II Drawn by: GDS
5 r e,,. s
n Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
0 500 1,000
Feet Randolph County, North Carolina 1 inch= 1,000 feet

_
Nr
A ISO
13433
I
2365
28 ac
,yam, - r• � � �qa � �• ,
Proposed Easement
® Drainage Area
MCA
" Figure 5 - USGS Map Date: 1/15/2020
Pleasant Garden Quadrangle (2016)
ARM w E Green Valley Farm II Drawn by: GDS
s Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
0 1,000 2 000
Feet Randolph County, North Carolina finch =2,000 feet

Randolph County Soil Survey (2006)
idint
Ap�
Y
i
�Lor
NRCS Web Soil Survey (2019)
CcC
pres
N
W E
s
0 200 400
Feet
Figure 6 - Mapped Soils
Green Valley Farm II
Mitigation Project
Randolph County,
North Carolina
Date: 1/15/2020 Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDE 1 in = 400 feet
Legend
i
Proposed Easement
Hydric (100%)
MaC
Predominantly
Hydric (66-99%)
McB2 Predominantly
Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly
Nonhydric (1-32%)
C� Nonhydric (0%)
Map Unit Map Unit Name
ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percents lopes, frequently flooded+
WtB Wynott-Enon complex, 2 to 8 percents lopes Ad
WtC Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
W\C2 Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to 15 percents lopes, eroded

0
T� PUBH-O
Legend
Proposed Easement
® Green Valley Farm Easement from 0-50' (Closed -Out)
EA
FEMA Zone AE (None)
x ® NW Wetland (USFWS 10-29-2018) PUBHh
" Figure 7 - Constraints Map Date: 1/15/2020
wE
N Green Valley Farm II Drawn by: GDS
s Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
0 200 400
Feet Randolph County, North Carolina 1 inch =400 feet
5
pr e,,. s
�

e
i
\.. .. .. :i• .. .. _•_. •-.Yr lam._' -._ l• � i ] ._' .r. � ... :ll\._�' - .:.: _ham.. .

APPENDICES

Appendix A
• DWR Email from May 13, 2019
• NC DWR Stream Determination Letter
• NC DWR Buffer/Nutrient Mitigation Viability Letter

From: Dow, Jeremiah J
To: Kasev Carrere
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: site visits - Green Valley II, Rhapsody, Bucky"s Branch, Bohemian
Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 2:50:34 PM
Kasey, below is the email Katie was referring to in the Green Valley II comments.
From: Merritt, Katie
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 12:23 PM
To: Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: site visits - Green Valley 11, Rhapsody, Bucky's Branch, Bohemian
Hey Jeremiah,
No, neither Sue nor I need to visit any of the sites listed below, unless there are additional streams
or ditches being added to the sites that are not already addressed in the viability letters. Viability
letters for the sites below don't expire until August 2020. 1 remember the closeout for Green Valley
I, so I have no problem proceeding with that site without a DWR site visit. I will be assigning a DWR
ID # for DMS for each of these sites and will send you those numbers.
Thanks,
Katie
From: Dow, Jeremiah J
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 11:48 AM
To: Merritt, Katie <katie.merrittPncdenr.gov>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <sue.homewoodCcDncdenr.g_ov>
Subject: site visits - Green Valley II, Rhapsody, Bucky's Branch, Bohemian
Katie,
We are scheduling post -contract site visits and have four (4) sites listed below we need to ask you
about:
ID #
Project Name
Location
Provider
35.913067,
100108
Bohemian
RES
-79.892265
35.855950,
100109
Bucky's Branch
RES
-79.881048
35.897756,
100110
Rhapsody
RES
-79.893784
35.901437,
100111
Green Valley Farm II
RES
-79.834085
Bohemian, Bucky's Branch, and Rhapsody have had viability letters and stream calls completed (see
attachments). Do you wish to re -visit these sites? Green Valley 11 is adding additional width to

buffers on a closed out buffer mitigation project (see attachment) and a stream determination was
completed in 2017 since the original had expired. Do you want to revisit this site?
Thank you,
Jeremiah Dow
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
[phone] office
[phone] cell
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

r �
Water Resources
Environmental Quality
March 24, 2017
Mr. Brian Hockett
Resources Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson St, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
Subject: On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Randleman Lake Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0250)
Subject Property: Green Valley Farm Buffer Mitigation Site
Dear Mr. Hockett:
On February 23, 2017, at your request, I conducted an on -site determination to review the upper portion
of UT4 located within the subject project area for a stream determination with regards to the above noted
state regulations. You were present during the site visit.
At the time of the site determination the upper 400 feet of UT4, as shown on the attached Monitoring Plan
View, was determined to be an intermittent stream and therefore is subject to the Randleman Lake Buffer
Rules. Additionally, the riparian restoration that was constructed adjacent to this stream is viable for buffer
mitigation credit provided that the vegetation condition meets success criteria.
The owner (or future owners) should notify the Division (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in
any future correspondences concerning this property. This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years
from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the Division or Delegated Local
Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination
by the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing
c/o 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that
dispute a determination by the Division or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" surface water from
the buffer rule may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you
receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until
the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. The Division
recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are
made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B
of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60
days.
Nothiing Compares._.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 1 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336-776-9800

This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and does not approve any activity within
Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. If you have any additional questions or require
additional information, please contact me at 336-776-96923 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Sue Homewood
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Enclosures: Green Valley Farm Buffer Map
Cc: H. Needham Hockett Jr. c/o Brian Hockett (via email)
Lindsay Crocker, DMS (via email)
Katie Merritt, DWR Buffer Mitigation Coordinator (via email)
DWR electronic file 2014-0073
DWR, Winston-Salem Regional Office

EI3XFigure
7.
Monitoring Plan View
Green -y Farms Buffer Restoration Siterrspt���.
n.
1 inch = 400 -feet Feet Scale: NTS

oomm'°iO
�
�
m
L°'m
0
u
zd
i
II
J
m
0
N N
E
O C
0 0
0
3
LL
E
0 0
0 0
0 0
�
v
w,
1 1
i l
3 i
s0
E
$'
o
C
�
R
e
d
A
w a
� qm
� q
C
m
�
a
�
E
m
QittViVU¢Q��i�pp
�
p
ii tr
pgp
ami
Z fA
e
rn
m m
u
E a"i a`i
W
n
n c
J m Y
O 7 O o O
S p C € II
m e
p u L E E
� m
o u IL U N W
F� -
O°o E
g m
V N
S �
Y m
96
° m m 3
o c L
Ga p N m E 3 C G O O II
N a t0 '- .
A .9 CO p� m._ L o" m m m .. '� b° W m o ILI
._ o m o
m m u 2' o ami w Q' -o .
Amy CJ` U VJ=ca¢ zcn2 a =Jcn Ovi
O W F h .I
Q N {7 Q I[j IG I� (C W LO
g
y
y
2
m
>
>
A
J
C
O
J
ys+ O
v ti
ci
IK
E 7
o c
3
�oo
�oo
°
O
O
L
E
c
•i
E
Q
cL
Q
o
� n
� L
p
a
M
a
�
ll d
a
m
u _
b
f` ~C
o
o
-E
m
» II
`-^ w
J pL
i
`e'
V7
umuff
L
y
E
y
? (0
o p°
;
y
-D a
N
c
p
c c
m`
a°
g e=
3
m
�_
�w
o
=
�a
a .E
O
'a
m
-e.
v ia>
2 r% 9
?
I?i m 'O
'vul o
1
`�
pti,
Q)
�Uio
�caQo�=c7zin
i;
W S
a`
`
co Oco
O
>
W
Fcn❑
Q�ci
of
vl:i
corao
oio
m
H
riv
ui cow
O O
{p
p
pn
m m
N N
IA In
0
11
Oi
0
0
LL
E
m
0 0
0 0
0 0
d
E
$
o
E
w
g
E.
ami w
n
c
Q
mEm
Q
m Q
m
E

Appendix A
DWQ Correspondence

HOCKETT DAIRY AND GREEN VALLEY FARMS DWQ SITE VISIT SUMMARY
On September 1, 2011 NCDWQ met with NCEEP, EBX, and WK Dickson personnel to
review the eligibility of the proposed Hockett Dairy and Green Valley Farms Buffer
Mitigation sites in Randolph County, NC. The meeting attendees were:
• Sue Homewood, NCDWQ Surface Water Protection, Winston-Salem Regional
Office
• Tim Baumgartner, NCEEP, Full Delivery Manager
• Martin Hovis, EBX
• Daniel Ingram, WK Dickson
The NCDWQ comments for each project site are summarized below. This memorandum
also presents EBX's response to the NCDWQ comments.
HOCKETT DAIRY
UTl —Ms. Homewood (NCDWQ) agreed that buffer restoration would be advantageous
at this location due to the immediate proximity of Randleman Lake and the direct nutrient
and sediment input from the cattle operations. However, Ms. Homewood felt this
drainage lacked a defined channel and was not subject to the Randleman Buffer rules.
Ms. Homewood stated that if the channel was contained in a gully such as the one on the
back of the upstream dam, then the channel would qualify for buffer restoration credit.
Ms. Homewood also stated that she could not define the top of bank location and would
not be able to establish the buffer zones. For these reason Ms. Homewood felt the
drainage feature was not suitable for mitigation. She did state that if a channel formed by
the end of the five-year monitoring then the credits would be allowed. This results in a
loss of 0.20 acres of buffer restoration and. continued degradation of Randleman Lake.
EBX feels this determination is not appropriate for several reasons. The contributing
watershed is 17.6 acres at the downstream end. Recent research by NCDWQ in this
ecoregion (Carolina Slate Belt -A) has shown that stream channels form at a mean
watershed size of 11.2 acres and intermittent channels are present in 75 percent of 14.47
acre watersheds (Mapping Headwater Streams: Intermittent and Perennial Headwater
Stream Model Development and Spatial Application North Carolina Division of Water
Quality Final Report for Federal Highway Administration Contract: Feasibility Study
WBS: 36486.4.2, January 29, 2008). The upstream pond (Farm Pond 1) also provides
hydrologic storage limiting channel forming flows. WK Dickson personnel observed
seasonal stream flow in UT during the fall of 2010 and winter of 2011. Lastly, Keith
Hockett, principle dairy farmer, stated that the UTl channel was formerly gullied from
cattle access and dam failures but was repaired at the request of NCDWQ. There is a
defined drainage swale with FACW and OBL vegetation. EBX proposes the extent of
the hydrophytic vegetation be considered the channel and buffer restoration be allowed
for 50 feet extending outward from that point.
Farm Pond 1— Ms. Homewood agreed that buffer restoration would be advantageous at
this location due to the immediate proximity of Randleman Lake and the direct nutrient

and sediment input from the cattle operations. However, Ms. Homewood felt that Farm
Pond 1 lacked a connection to a downstream water body due to UTI not being subject to
the Randleman Buffer Rules. As a result, Farm Pond I is not subject to the Randleman
Buffer rules. For these reasons Ms. Homewood felt the pond was not suitable for
mitigation. She did state that if UT was contained in a defined channel then the Pond 1
buffer restoration credits would be allowed. This results in a loss of 0.50 acres of buffer
restoration and continued degradation of Randleman Lake. In addition, a supplemental
planted area (not for credit) of 0.63 acres is located adjacent to the proposed buffer
restoration and would not be included in the project if no buffer credit is allowed on Farm
Pond 1. NCDWQ had previously recommended planting this denuded area during a farm
inspection.
EBX feels this determination is not appropriate for the reasons discussed above. UT1
should be considered an intermittent stream and subject to the Randleman Buffer Rules
and allowing buffer restoration on Farm Pond 1.
UT2 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 1.52 acres
of UT2 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer
Rules.
Farm Pond 2 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed
0.46 acres of Farm Pond 2 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the
Randleman Buffer Rules.
UT3 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 1.44 acres
of UT3 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer
Rules.
Farm Pond 3 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed
0.54 acres of Farm Pond 3 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the
Randleman Buffer Rules.
UT4 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 4.35 acres
of UT4 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer
Rules.
UT5 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 1.00 acres
of UT5 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer
Rules.
UT6 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 1.78 acres
of UT6 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer
Rules.

GREEN VALLEY FARMS
UT1---- Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 3.55 acres
of UT1 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer
Rules.
UT2 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 2.65 acres
of UT2 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer
Rules.
UT3 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 2.30 acres
of UT3 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer
Rules.
UT4 —Ms. Homewood Ms. Homewood felt the upper 400 linear feet (approximate) of
this drainage feature was a linear wetland that lacked a defined channel and was not
subject to the Randleman Buffer rules. Ms. Homewood also stated that she could not
define the top of bank location and would not be able to establish the buffer zones. For
these reason Ms. Homewood felt the upper UT4 drainage feature was not suitable for
mitigation. She did state that if a channel formed by the end of the five-year monitoring
then the credits would be allowed. This results in a loss of 0.92 acres of buffer
restoration and continued degradation of Randleman Lake. Ms. Homewood agreed with
the Technical Proposal that the lower 190 linear feet of UT4 buffer restoration is
allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer Rules, resulting in 0.28 acres of
buffer restoration.
EBX feels this determination is not appropriate for several reasons. The contributing
watershed is 19.2 acres. Recent research by NCDWQ in this ecoregion (Carolina Slate
Belt -A) has shown that stream channels form at a mean watershed size of 11.2 acres and
intermittent channels are present in 75 percent of 14.47 acre watersheds (Mapping
Headwater Streams: Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Stream Model Development
and Spatial Application North Carolina Division of Water Quality Final Report for
Federal Highway Administration Contract: Feasibility Study WBS: 36486.4.2, January
29, 2008). Further, agricultural activities have resulted in heavy sediment loads entering
the channel and filling/obscuring the channel. This is supported by the presence of a
defined channel in the forested upstream reach. WK Dickson personnel observed
seasonal stream flow in UT4 during the fall of 2010 and winter of 2011 and completed a
NCDWQ Stream Identification Form that scored 26 points (intermittent). There is a
defined drainageway swale with FACW and OBL vegetation. EBX proposes the extent of
the hydrophytic vegetation be considered the channel and buffer restoration be allowed
for 50 feet extending outward from that point.

Page 1 of 2
Daniel Ingram
From: Martin Hovis [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 12:53 PM
To: Daniel Ingram
Subject: RE: Hockett Dairy and Green Valley Farms Buffer Site Cape Fear 03
From: Homewood, Sue[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 12:37 PM
To: Martin Hovis
Subject: RE: Hockett Dairy and Green Valley Farms Buffer Site Cape Fear 03
Hi Martin,
I confirm that these statements are all accurate. If there are intermittent or perennial streams in these locations, as
determined by the NCDWQ Stream Determination Manual that is in use at that time, then buffer credit would be
allowed.
Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Martin Hovis [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:44 PM
To: Homewood, Sue
Subject: Hockett Dairy and Green Valley Farms Buffer Site Cape Fear 03
Mrs. Homewood
I hope you are doing well.
We are in the process of developing our Mitigation Plans for the Hockett Dairy and Green Valley Farms Buffer sites we
were awarded for RFP# 16-003567.
Would you please confirm the following statement to be true regarding the buffer acreage for both Sites?
On September 01, 2011 the NCEEP, NCDWQ and EBX visited the Green Valley Farms and Hockett Dairy Buffer sites.
Upon viewing the sites NCDWQ, Sue Homewood, noted two sections of concern.
Hockett Dairy UT1—Ms. Homewood (NCDWQ) agreed that buffer restoration would be advantageous at this location
due to the immediate proximity of Randleman Lake and the direct nutrient and sediment input from the cattle
operations. However, Ms. Homewood felt this drainage lacked a defined channel and was not subject to the Randleman
Buffer rules. Ms. Homewood stated that if the channel was contained in a gully, such as the one on the back of the
upstream dam, then the channel would qualify for buffer restoration credit. Ms. Homewood also stated that she could
not define the top of bank location and would not be able to establish the buffer zones. For these reasons Ms.
Homewood felt the drainage feature was not suitable for mitigation. She did state that if a channel formed by the end
of the five-year monitoring then the credits would be allowed.
Farm Pond 1— Ms. Homewood agreed that buffer restoration would be advantageous at this location due to the
3/9/2012

Page 2 of 2
immediate proximity of Randleman Lake and the direct nutrient and sediment input from the cattle operations.
However, Ms. Homewood felt that Farm Pond 1 lacked a connection to a downstream water body due to UT1 not being
subject to the Randleman Buffer Rules. As a result, Farm Pond 1 is not subject to the Randleman Buffer rules. for these
reasons Ms. Homewood felt the pond was not suitable for mitigation. She did state that if UT1 was contained in a
defined channel then the Pond 1 buffer restoration credits would be allowed
Green Valley UT4 —Ms. Homewood felt the upper 309 linear feet of this drainage feature was a linear wetland that
lacked a defined channel and was not subject to the Randleman Buffer rules. Ms. Homewood also stated that she could
not define the top of bank location and would not be able to establish the buffer zones. For these reason Ms.
Homewood felt the upper UT4 drainage feature was not suitable for mitigation. She did state that if a channel formed
by the end of the five-year monitoring then the credits would be allowed. Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical
Proposal that the lower 190 linear feet of UT4 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman
Buffer Rules, resulting in 0.28 acres of buffer restoration.
EBX plans to plant trees and place a conservation easement overthe areas in question (Hockett Dairy UT1 and Farm
Pond 1, and Green Valley Farm's UT4 upper 309 Linear Feet) in anticipation that at the end of the 5.year monitoring
period there will be a defined channel. We feel the watershed size and defined drainage swale would develop a channel
formation if the access of equipment and cattle was eliminated.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Martin W. Hovis
Project Manager
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Dir: 919-829-9909 ext 24
Cell: 919-648-3661
Fax: [phone]
www.ebxusa.com
3/9/2012

Appendix B
Site Protection Instruments
Site Protection Instruments
• Recorded Conservation Easement
• Recorded Conservation Plat
• Landowner Authorization Form

K 2680 PG 916 - 927 (12)
This Document eRecorded.
Fee: $26.00 DocType: DEED
Randolph
Krista M.
STATE OF NORTH CARO INA
RANDO PH COUNTY
Excise Tax:$ aq4t �
Parcel Identifier No. : P/0 PIN 775 8-3 5-3 599
County, North Carolina
Lowe, Register of Deeds
DOC 20090352
12/18/2019
02:07:20 M
DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELI Elt V
MI IGATION CONTRAC-
Brief description for the Index.*: 7.190 (+/-) acre Conservation Easement in Randolph County, NC
SPO File Numbers. 76-CM
DMS Project Number: 100111
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State ProPerty Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
and I civvft Cf-qatc,#--- i P C-
Tax: $294.00
T IS DEER OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this � � day of ���,��- 2019, by Kenneth G. Hockett (unmarried)
hmba*("Grantor"), whose mailing address is 960 Hockett Dairy Road, Randleman NC,, 27317., to the
State of North Carolina, ("'Grantee"), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina,
Department of Administration, State Property Office,Office,1321 Mail Service Censer, Raleigh, NC
27699�1321, The designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors., and assiassigns,and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine
neuter as required by context.
submitted electronically by "Kennon Craver, PLLC"
in compliance with North Carolina statutes governing recordable documents
and the terms of the submitter agreement with the Randolph County Register of Deeds.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adapted 5 May 2017
Page 1 of 12
,, or

BK 2680 PG 917 DOC# 20090352
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143am-214.8 et seq.., the State
of North Carolina has established the DivRe ision of Mitigation Services (flonnerIv known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Prigramand Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring.,
enhancing'. creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the-
I*protection and improvement of wader quality; flood preventon, fisheries, aquatic habitat., wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Environmental Banc
& Exchange, LLC c/o Resource Environmental Solutions 6575 West Loop South, Suite 300,
Bellaire., Texas 77401 and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,, to provide
stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality Purchase and Services Contract Number 7862.
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the. Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. St . § 121-35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps o ngineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, (MOU} duly executed by all parties on November 41 1998,r This MOU
recognized that the Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory
mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring,,
enhancing and preserving the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department o ransportation and the United States Army Carps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA} duly executed by aiI parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2004'., which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program} is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring,, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Carps 0ngineers'I the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlifefe
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the. National Marine
Fisheries Service entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources"' Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem
enhancement Program} with an effective date of 2$ July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces
the previously effective MOA and MO referenced above ; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 Mav 2017
Page 2 of 12

BK 2680 PG 918 DOC# 20090352
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held I*n the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the S' day of February 20004.,and
WHEREA5, the Division of Mitigatdo ion Services in the Department of Environmental
0
Quality, which has been delegated the authority authorized br the Governor and Council of State
to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, Tying, and being
in Randolph County, North Carolina (the "Properly"), and being more particularly described as
that certain parcel of land- containing approximately 59.879 acres and being conveyed by a deed
recorded in Deed Book 2109, at Page 14 of the Randolph County Registry, North Carolina and to
the Grantor through the Estate of Herschel Needham Hockett, Jr., Estate File No. 18w-E-488, in
the Office of the Randolph County Clerk of Court.
WHEREAS, Grantor i*s willing to grant a Conservation Easement and. Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and Limiting the use of the
areas of the Property subject to the. Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
Purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Randleman
Lake Watershed,, Gape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030003).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants; terms; conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns., forever and m Per}�etuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:
BEING THOSE AREAS CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 7.6190 ACRES, AS SHOWN ON PLAT
OF SURVEY ENTITLED "CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY FOR THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES, GREEN VALLEY II", DMS
ID #: 1001 11, SPO #: 76-CM, PROPERTY OF KENNETH G HOCKETT, DATED JUNE I,
2Q19, PREPARED BY C. COLE, PLS NUMBER L-5008 AND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE
UF THE RANDQLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER OF DEEDS AT PLAT
,PAGE THE "SURVEY"), AND BEING FURTHER
DESCRIBER AS FOLLOWS:
See attached "EXHIBIT A Legal Description of area of the Property herel"nafter referred to as
the "Conservation Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore. enhance, construcID
t,
create and preserve. wetland andJor riparian resources i0 n the Conservation Easement Area that
contrtbute to the protection and improvement o water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 3 of 12

BK 2680 PG 919 DOC# 20090352
prevent any use of- the Easement Area that will significantl�� impair or interfere with these
purposes.. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conserva
Ric ht of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with,
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable ]IIIy the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatIF
ives, agents, lessees, and Licensees.
9
lion Easement and
and be a continuing restriction upon the
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of thiss Conservation Easement. Unless sly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee.
Any 0 rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to al I mitigation
-0
credits, including, but not limited to,, stream!, wetland, and riparian buffer mtigationiunits,
derived from each site 'A"Nqthin the area of the Conservation Easement
are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing., the folloNving specific uses are
prohibited,, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the. Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes thereof
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
1;
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
1111
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
pur oses including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site,.
D. Damage to VegetatiVegetation.Except wI*
ithin Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as related to the removal of none -native plants, diseased or damaged trees., or
vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat'. all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All
commercial uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.
industrial.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 4 of 12
residential

BK 2680
PG 920
DOC# 20090352
L
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use far cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower,, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.
All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat..
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area,, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement,, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conser%7'ati'on Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Staring. Dumping or storage of sail, trash, ashes, garbage., waste,,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.
K. Grading.., Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. Water Quality' and Drainage Paerns.tiThere shall be no diking, drani'ng,idredging,
channeling, filling, Leveling, pumping., impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. Na altering
or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored'.
enhanced,, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, ar use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all other water sources., water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property .
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision.
partitioning,, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ("fee"') that is subject to this Conservation Easement i*s allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property, to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.,
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 5 of 12

BK 2680 PG 921 DOC# 20090352
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alterati on or impairment of
dk
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for goad cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
lb Easement'.. and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 16'2 Mail Services Center. Raleigh, NC 27699-1652*
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, It
its employees and agents49
successors and assigns,, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities on the property to restore,
construct, manage,, maintain,, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area!, in accordance with restoration activities
or a long-term management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set. forth in this Conservation
Easement, the rights granted herein do not i5 nclude or establish for the public any access rights,.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation,, installation of monitoring wells, utilizabon of heavy equipment to Erade, fill, and
prepare the soilsoil,modl"fication of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to di rect in -stream, above ground,subterranecfic
and us water w.
C. Signs., The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the Project,, prohibited activities within the Conservati'on or Easement, identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the conservation Easement.
B. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock vithin conservations easements damages the
investment and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would cause financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor} with livestock are
required to restrict livestock access to the Conservati"on Easement area. Repeated failure to do so
may result in the State (Grantees repairing or installing livestock exclusionevices (fences)
within the conservation area for the purpose of restricting livestock access. In such cases, the
landowner (Grantor} must provide access to the State (Grantee) to make repairs.
E. Crossing Areas). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing areas),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, hi s successors or assigns.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 6 af 12

BK 2680 PG 922 DOC# 20090352
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. Tc accomplish the pwpases of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
q'
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is i0 nconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require. the restoration of such areas or
features i'*n the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by, such unauthorized
activity or use., Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor,, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused bv
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
power and authoritywith(a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
consistent its statutory
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or c} to seek damages
from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing., the- Grantee reserves the
immediate right'. v�tithaut notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief if the breach is or would irreversibly ar otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement,, and the Grantor and Grantee
0
acknowledge that the damage would be i*rreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights
RP
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to,, and not in lieu of: all
qP
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement,.
B. Inspection. The Grantee., its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grantoresco rol- including, without limitation, tire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate. or mitigate significant injury to life or darnage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses,, any costs
incurred I Y Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,,
including, without limitation, any costs o restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation o e terms o this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement o is Easement shall be at the discretion o the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder m the event of-6
any
breach o any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 7 of 12

BK 2680
PG 923 DOC# 20090352
V. MISCELLANEOUS
111
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
Be Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or Liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property,, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sale responsi*bili* , of the
obligation to comply NNqth fideral,
the exercise of the Reserved Rights
grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt
parties at
upon noti
requested to the
their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
ficaboon to the other,.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or anv part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal Is by which any
i-0
nterest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms o this Conservation Easement shall survive
.6 any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Properly or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
.6
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, i such amendment does not affect the
qualification o this Conservation Easement or the status o the Granter. under any applicable
laves and is consistent with the purposes o the Conservation Easement. The owner o f the
Property shall notify the Slate Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Is
Sixt3f (6Q} days prior to the iinitation o any transfer o all or any part of the Property or of any
request to void or modify this Conservation Easement., Such ratifications and modificationon
requests shall be addressed to:
Division of Miti"gation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699- l.'32 1
and
Full Del�very Gonservat�on Easement T-
NCDMSemplate adopted 5 May 201i
Page 8 of 12

BK 2680 PG 924 DOC# 20090352
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
16
Wilmington,,, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement!, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121&b34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment wilt be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remado 1*
ining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing,,
0
the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor. and the
ncensees.,, the right oi access to the Conservation
enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area,
Easement Area,
Grantor's invitees and
and the right of quiet
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,,
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 9 of 12

BK 2680 PG 925 DOC# 20090352
IN TESTIMONY VVH R OF,, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day and year
first above written.
Kenneth G. Hockett (unmarried)
.or
NORTH CARO INA
BOUNTY OF
(SEAL)
a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kenneth G. Hackett (unmarried), Grantor personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the /--. 07.
av of
7 "%N e �M � C--s' , 2019-d
0
Signature 6f44(Aary Public
D, 57YLq I
W Judson Sff oft Printed Name of Notary Public
No=ta Pubic
Caswel County
My commission expires: � t� /70,100
Morth CarojW f F
y Commission Exiolres 10/00&20202020
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 10 of 12

BK 2680 PG 926 DOC# 20090352
EXHIBIT A
(Conservation Easement Area)
BEING THOSE AREAS CONTAINIhTG A TOTAL OF 7,w 190 ACRES, AS SHOWN ON PLAT
OF SURREY ENTITLED "CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY FOR THE STATE- OF
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES, GREEN GALLEY II DMS
ID #: 100 1 ,SPO #: 766&EWCMI, PROPERTY OF K-ENNETH G HOCKETT.. DATED DUNE I,
2019, PREPARED BY C. COLE, PLS NUMBER L-5008 AND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE
OF THE R AND01 P1 I COT INTY., NORTH C A R, 01 INA REGISTER OF DEEDS AT PLAT
.wr
BOOK ,PAGE THE "SURVEY"), AND BEING FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
CONSERVATION EASEMENT " A"
155,786 S.F. +/- 3.r576 ACRES
BEGINNING AT A SET #4 A BEING THE MOST NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF
THE EASEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE S16°02'3 t"W 274.58 TO A SET #4
REBAR BEING THE MOST SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF THE EASEMENT
DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE S75050' I S"W 232.49' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE
S48047128"W 128.01' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE S08024' 1313 13W 'TO A SET #4
A HENCE S290 2" 2"W 155.07' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE S73°23'03"W
264.03' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE NQ 1 00815334543R 153.04' TO A SET #4 REBAR ;
THENCE N72024%095'E'163.44' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N29"Ol'03"E 69.88' TO A
SET #4 REBAR; THENCE ink 125.80' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE
N200f 4'06"E 7538' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N47°10'09"E 187.74' TO A SET #4
REBAR; THENCE N7402b'06"E 232.56' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE NI 1046'13"E
6e05'6 TO A SET #4 A HENCE N68053'32"E 71.89' TO A SET #4 A HENCE
N41039'06"E 56..280'TO A SET #4 A HENCE N73 0 05'49 " E 23.18 TO A SET #4
REBAR; THENCE S72047125"E 24A6' TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 155,786 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT "B"
76,991 SaFe +I-w 1*767 ACRES
BEGINNING AT A SET #4 REBAR BEING THE MOST NORTHERN CORNER OF THE
EASEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE S 024'59"E 78.97" TO A SET #4 AR;
THENCE S19°49'43"E 186.99'TO A SET 44 REBAR; THENCE S34°06'S� "E 65.55' TO A
SET #4 REBAR; THENCE S45°56'2T'E 58.27' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE S27°17'SQ"E
100.62' TO A SET #4 AR* THENCE S81'54'1 8"E 31.27' TO A SET #4 AR;
THENCE S02337'45"W 150.51' TO A SET #4 A H044'1 "W 126.06' T A
SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N34°54'07"W 345.43' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE
N16002*31"'E 280.70'TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 76,991
SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 1 I of 12

BK 2680 PG 927 DOC# 20090352
CONSERVATION EASEMENT "C"
381647 S.F.+/bw 0.00008 ACRES
BEGINNING AT A SET #4 REBAR BEING THE MOST NORTHERN CORNER OF THE
EASEMENT DESCRIBED THENCE S31 2105 E 10 1 004' TO A SET #4 RE -BAR,,
THENCE S03015'07 1314&00"TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N34056'16"W 89609"4 TO A
SET #4 RE -BAR. THENCE NI4°OS'S4"W 63.83.0
' TO A SET #4 REBAR
I26°55`42"W 2103 1' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N2605 5 4'3 9"'W 23.59 TO A SET #4
REBAR; THENCE N16002'48"W 82-0444 TO A SET #4 REBAR-0 THENCE N30043':1w)F0"W
11Q95' TO A SET #4 REBAR: THENCE N6.3 °04'QO"E 148052- TOTHE POINT AND PLICE
;THENCE
F BiLli`EINNING, CONTAINING 38,647 SQUARE- FEET, MORE OR LESS.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT "D"
41,780 S.F. +/- 0.959 ACRES
BEGINNING AT A SET 44 REBAR BEING THE MOST NORTHERN CORNER OF THE
EASEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE S33001'27"E 65.w89" TO A SET #4 REBAR;
THENCE SOl °07'4$ Sol
W 210.71' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE S63'06'00"W 154.29' TO A
SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N34024'12"W 12.971'ft TO A SET #4 A HENCE
N69029139"VJ 56-657" TO A SET #4 AR; THENC28037'06"E 104-e33` TO A SET #4
REBAR: THENCE N03043'I8"
31.30' TO A SET #4 REBARTHENCE N40027'42"E 'T
;O A SET #4 REBAR
N78051'32"E 26*98" TO A SET #4 REBAR;
W 64.26Or
' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENC340 36'41 "W
:THENCE
THENCE N44049'1 I "E 1020544' TO THE POINT
AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 41,7$0 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 12 of 12

WATER
Excise Tax: S
K 2680 PG 928 - 936 (9)
This Document eecoRrded:
Fee: $26.00
Randolph
Krista M.
DOC 20090353
12/18/2019
DocType: AGMT 02:07:21 M
County, North Carolina
Lowe, Register of Deeds
UA ITY PROJECT EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT
Parcel Identifier No.: PIN 775 8-3 5 -3 5 99 (REID *0 4802 1 }
Tax: $0.00
Brief description for the Index: 7.190 (+/-) acre Temporary Easement in Randolph County, NC
__ - 00- -NNW
THIS
"Agreement" ) i
WATER QUALITY PROJECT
s made this � � day of
EASEMENT
!11 201913
AND AGREEMENT (this
by and between KENNE H
G. HOCK TT (unmarried), whose mailing address is 960 Hockett Dairy Road, Randleman NC,
27317 ("Grantor"), and ENVIRONMENTAL BANG & EXCHANGE, LLCI., a Maryland limited
li0abi'sli:mty company, whose mailing address is 6575 West Laop South, Suite 300, Bellaire, Texas
77401 ("Grantee and collecti"velv xvith Grantor, the "Parties"), for the purpose of conveying an
easement on certain real property owned by Grantor to Grantee in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth below.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Grantor owns certain real property situated,, lying and be4k ing in Randolph
County, NorthCarolina, more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
EMEMENI
herein (the ``Pro e "); and
WHEREAS, Grantee intends tc establish an ecological restoration, conseiAration and/or
mitigation project (the "PraectaI--0 4%) on a portion of the Property., identified i*n Exhibit B, attached
hereto and incorporated herein (the "Conservation Area"}, i*n accordance with applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations.
submitted electronically by "Kennon Craver, PLLC"
in compliance with North Carolina statutes governing recordable documents
and the terms of the submitter agreement with the Randolph County Register of
1
Deeds.

BK 2680 PG 929 DOC# 20090353
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
herein and far other good and valuable consideration, the recei
contained pt and 1
representations
egal suffliciency
of which �s hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby give, grant and convey to Grantee an
easement upon, across and over the Properly, for the purposes of accessing the Conservation Area,
and upon, across and over the Conservation Area, for Grantee to use the Conservation Area in the
manner and for the purposes described herein,.
AGREEMENTS
1. Easement Grant. Grantor hereby grants (a) to Grantee., it agents, emP,Yoees,
contractors., successors and assigns (the "Grantee Parties") an easement (the "Easement") to enter
the Property and Conservation Area for purposes related to the entitlement, design, develor)ment.
operation, monitoring and maintenance of the Project construction, , including the activities
SP ecified in Section 3 hereof (collectively, " Project Activities"), Grantee
and (b) to the sole and
exclusive right to conduct the Project Activities, and all activities related thereto., within the
Conservation Area and carry out any and all activities on or relating
to the Conserve
.0
are consistent with the creation,, use,, management, operation, monitoring, preservation and care ot
111
he Project within the C-onservation Area. Each of the Grantee Parties shall have the full right of
t
i
ogress, egress, and regress necessary and convenien
tion Area that
t for the full and complete use by it of the
easement granted herein farurPposes of evaluat*ng the Proiect or Project Activities and reviewing
compliance with applicable requirements..
2. Term of Aareement,. The rights granted to, and created in favor of, Grantee under this
Agreement shall terminate on December 312Q31,, unless sooner terminated or modified as
provided herein.. This Agreement runs with the Land and binds the parties hereto and their
successors and assigns,,
3. Permitted Project Activities. During the term of this Agreement , and subject to
compliance with the provisions hereof , Grantee , its successors and assigns , shall have the
followring rights, which shall not be impeded , restricted or diminished in any way , directly or
indirectly., Iy Grantor or Y Grantor's heirs, successors or assigns:
th4,
e
(a) To apply for, obtain, amend, renew, transfer and surrender such plans, permits'.
licenses, approvals, permissions or other instruments from governmental entities that may become
necessary to the purposes authorized by this Agreement. Upon request of Grantee, Grantor shall
promptly and without delay, and without cost to Grantor, provide any authorization, consent,
information or reasonable assistance that may be necessary to obtain any of
foregoing and shall
not appose, or assist anyone else in apposing, any application by Grantee for any permit, approval
or license necessary to accomplish the purposes authorized by this Agreement;
(b) To conduct activities on or relating to the Conservation Area as necessary to
ensure the successful establishment, operation and maintenance of the Project;
(c) To have, hold and sell and to record any sale of credits from the Project and
Project Activities for such consideration and upon such terms s may be agreed upon between
Grantee and the purchasers of any such credits (and, Grantor acknowledges and agrees that anv
such credits and all benefits and proceeds therefrom are the sole property of Grantee and Grantor
has no economic or ownership interest in the same or claim thereto Y virtue of this Agreement);
and
Z

BK 2680 PG 930 DOC# 20090353
(d) To use, without charge, all public and private roads located on the Property for
the purpose of accessing the Conservation Area to conduct the Project Activities, and to the extent
91
Grantee is unable to reasonably access any portion of the Conservation Area by way of a public or
private road, Grantee,, its successors or assigns,, has the right of ingress and egress over other
portions of the Property, at such locations preferred by, Grantor and reasonably acceptable to
CTranteebut only in such manner asuill not causejunreasonabledAmage tn the Prnperly
,.
4. Restrictions-.
Grantor may not take any action that would have a material,, adverse
impact an Grantee's ability to obtain the approval of the Project from the applicable governmenta
entities. Grantor shall not execute or subject the Property or consent to an IV mortgages, lensi
ditions, restrictions, easements
encumbrances, covenants, eon
or rightsv-of-way'. or seek any zoning
changes or take any other action which may affect or modify the status of title or otherwise affect
the Conservation Area without Grantee-, s prior written consent, which shall not be unreasonably
withheld,.
5. Assigrnn-UmmmentS
This Agreement may be transferred or ass9tned, inwholeorin Partlby,
Grantee,, with Grantor's prior written consent, which sha
6. Amendment and Termination of A
s .0
11 not be unreasonably' withheld.
_ This Agreement may be terminated or
modified only by %vriften agreement of the Parties, except as otherwise provided herein. In the
event the Project is terminated, Grantee shall retain an easement in, on., over,, across and through
Such other portions of the Property, should such retention be necessary for any of Grantee's
continuing requirements of the Project. However,, Grantee, at any- time in its sole and absolute
discretion, may voluntarily terminate this Agreement by executing and recording a termination of
the same.
do
7. Miscellaneous. Any general rule of construction to the contrary notwithstanding, this
Agreement shall be liberally construed in favor of the Grantee to effect the purposes of this
Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement, or its application to any person or circumstance,,
is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remaining provisions of this
Agreement shall not be affected thereby. This Agreement, including any attachments hereto as
referenced herein, sets forth the entire Agreement of the Parties with respect to the matters herein
and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations., understandings or agreements relating hereto.
The interpretation and performance of this Agreement shalt be governed by the laws of the state
of North Carolina. This Agreement is intended solely or the purpose of conveying a property
interest to Grantee upon the terms and conditions set forth herein, and creates no joint venture or
other business relationship between the Parties. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the
Parties and no third party beneficiary is or is intended to be created hereby. This Agreement may
be executed by the Parties in any combination,, in one or more counterparts,, all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.
ap
8. Notices. Any notices, demands, requests, consents,, approvals, or communications
between the Parties that are required pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
deemed to have been duly given i upon receipt, if delivered by hand, or ii)upon posting, if
mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or (iii} the business day
following sending i sent by Federal Express or other nationally recognized overnight courier
service or Express Mail, or (iv) upon receipt i sent by facsimile against machine confirmation,,
and addressed as follows:
cement.
3

BK 2680 PG 931 DOC# 20090353
To Grantor*
Kenneth G. Hockett
960 Hockett Dairr Road
Randleman NC 27317
To Grantee,.
'9
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
6575 West Loop South,, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Attn: Stephen Colomb
With copies to:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite I 10
Raleigh., NC 27605
Attn: Judson Smith
[REAL4INDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
El

BK 2680 PG 932 DOC# 20090353
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF
first above written.
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF PC
the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and sea
GRANTOR0.
=4 , I —
Kenneth G. Hockett (ummamed)
11. the day and year
(SEAL)
9-&014 a Notary Public i*n and for the County and State aforesaid
5
do hereby certify that Kenneth G. 14ockett'. Grantor,, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set mv hand and Notary Seal this the i % day of
2019.
[SEAL]
W Judsm Sni
cdft
Notar Ir Pubfic
Caswal County,
North Carolina
Commiss41
ion Expires 1
1 041 -a L- 1 0 r>
Signature of
Notary Public
5 t� -I\i t t
Printed Name of Notary Pub
My commission expires: �
[Hockett Property Signature Page — Water Quallty Project Easement and Agreement]

BK 2680 PG 933 DOC# 20090353
M TESTIMONY WHERE' OF, the Grantee has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year
first above written.
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
i. a Not
Dint Qf
the
f i
i a
Public of the
P ersonall
liability company, m
GRANTEE:
ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE,
LLCI, a Maryland limited liability company
By: Resource Environmental Solutions,
Louisiana Limited liability company
ftp
By:
Nan
Title
F, I
LLC, a
13 its
that
that he/she is
L.- of Resource Fnv1'rnnmPntq1 Solutions, LLC13 a Louisianainnn
d
State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify
V appeared before me this day and acknawledge
ger of Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC a Maryland limited
limited
liability
company, and that by authority duly given, and as the act Of- the Grantee, he/she signed the
foregoing instrument in its name, on its behalf and as its act and deed for the purposes stated herein.
Witness my hand and official stamp or sea
WILLIAM A JAMES
Notary Public. North Car0fina
ires
Wake County
My Commission ExP
November 04, 2023
I, this the I I day of
Signature of Not
[SEAL] wl Cis �� �E. -----
Printed Name of Notary Public
e Lv &%*% )*,t r
Public
OVE �_w
G4wtiC
My commission expires:
1) 20191w
[Hockett Property Signature Page — Water Quality Proj'ect Easement and Agreement]

BK 2680 PG 934 DOC# 20090353
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Property
BEING that 59.879 acre, more or less., tract or parcel of real property situated i*n Randolph County,,
North Carolina, located at or near Hockett Dairy Road, being identified by PIN Number 7758-35*w
3599, and being all or a portion of the property conveyed to Herschel Needham Hockett
deed recorded in Deed Book 2109 at Pale 14 of the Randolph County Registry
Registry . See Randolph County, North Carolina, Estate File Na. 18 E 488 for further chain of title
Jr. by
reference.
[Exhibit A —Water Qualify Pro
ject Easement and Agreement]
North Carolina

BK 2680 PG 935 DOC# 20090353
EXHIBIT B
(Conservation Area)
BEING THOSE AREAS CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 7-.190 ACRES!, AS SHOWN ON PLAT
OF SURVEY ENTITLED "CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY FOR THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES, GREEN VALLEY II DMS
ID #: 100111 , SPO #: 76-C 4. PROPERTY OF KENNET11 G HOCKETT!, DATED JUNE 1,
2019, PREPARED BY C. SOLE, PLS NUMBER L-5008 AND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE
OF THE RANDOLPH COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER OF DEEDS AT PLAT
PAGE (THE EY AND BEING FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW:
CONSERVATION EASEMENT " A"
155,786 S.F. +/- 3.576 ACRES
BEGI NG AT A SET #4 A BEING THE MOST NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF
THE EASEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE S16°02'31 "W 274.58 TO A SET #4
REBAR BEING THE MOST SOUTHEASTERN COINER OF THE EASEMENT
DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE S75050" 15"*W 232-849" TO A SET #4 A HENCE
S48047128"W 128*01 TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE S08024`1314'W 167*83k TO A SET #4
I EBAR; THENCE SA1116I9°32'S2"W 155.07' TO A SET #4 REBAR
264.03' TO A SET #4 REBAR: THENCE N01 °08' 33"W l 53.04'
THENCE N72�244509
HENCE S73023'031"W
TO A SET #4 EBAR ;
THENCE N47010"09""E 187a74" TO A SET #4
AR.* THENCE N74"264"06"'E 232w56" TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE NII"46'13"E
66*05" TO A SET #4 A a THENCE N68053'32"E 71.89' TO A SET #4 -_A_j A a THENCE
N41 °39'06"E 56.28' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N73005'49"E 23.18' TO A SET #4
REBAR; THENCE S72047'25"E 24.06' T� THE POINT AND PLACE 4F BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 155,786 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
"E I63.44' TO A SET #4 BAR.-D THENCE N29001'03"E 69.,8840'TO A
.w
SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N0602 '34"E 125.80' TO A SET #4 A HENCE
N20014'06"E 75-w385 TO A SET #-4 AR
CONSERVATION EASEMENT "B"
76,991 S.F. +/- 1.767 ACRES
BEGINNING AT A SET #4 A BEING THE MOST NORTHERN CORNER OF THE
EASEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE S210244459"4E'78.97' TO A SET #4 A a
THENCE S19°49'43"E 186.99'TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE S34°06'S0"E 65.55' TO A
SET #4 A HENCE S 56'27"E 58.27' TO A SET #4 A HENCE S27"17'50"E
1 Q0.62' TO A SET °
#4 REBAR; THENCE S81 54' 18"E 31.27' TO A SET #4 REBAR;
THENCE S0203T45"W 150.51' TO A SET #4 REBAR: THENCE N73°44'I S "W 126-906" TO A
SET #4 A HENCE N34054"07"4W 345w43% TO A SET #4 A HENCE
N 16°02' 31 "E 280.70 TO THE POINT AlD PLACE OF BEGINNING, C TAINING 76,991
SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
[Exhibit B — Water Quality Project Easement and Agreement

BK 2680 PG 936 DOC# 20090353
CONSERVATION EASEMENT "C"
38,647 S-RF-w +/— 0,.888 ACRES
BEGINNING AT A SET #4 REBAR BEING THE MOST NORTHERN CORNER OF THE
EASEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE S31021'05"E 101.04" TO A SET #4 REBAR;
THENCE S03 °15'07 "W 314 000' TO A SET #4 REBAR: THENCE N34056'16"W 89609a TO A
SET #4 REBAR!,,, THENCE N14005'54"W 63083" TO A SET #4 R-EBAR; THENCE
N26 °55'42"W 21.31' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N260551.039"W 23.594'TO A SET #4
REBAR; THENCE N16°02'48 "W 82.44 TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N30043'50"W
110954'TO A SET #4 REBAR., THENCE N63"04'4004"E 1480:p)w24" TO THE POINT AND PLACE
OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING.1il8a647 SQUARE- FEET. MORE OR LESS.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT "D"
41,170"VI SPF* +/— 0.959 ACRES
BEGINNING AT A T #4 REBAR BEING THE MOST NORTHERN CORNER OF THE
EASEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE S33001'27"E 65-0890* TO A SET #4 REBAR;
THENCE SO10071548"W 210.71' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE S63006"00""W 154029"' TO A
SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N34°24`l2"W 12.71 TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE
N69°29'39"W 'T A SET #4 REBAR: THENCE N28037'06"E 104.&33" TO A SET #4
REBAR; THENCE NO3°43'18"W 64.26' TO A SET #4 REBA�t; THENCE N34.)6'41°"W
' TI-F°'"'ENRB31.30OASAR; N.O A; THENCE
N7805 1 26-998*' TO A SET #4 REBAR; THENCE N44049'11 "E 102054"" TO THE POINT
AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 780 SQUARE FEET, ORE- OR LESS.
TOGETHER WITH RIGHTS OF ACCESS OVER, ACROSS AND THROUGH THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A FOR THE PURPOSES OF GRANTEE FULFILLING
ITS RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
[Exhibit B —Water Quality Project Easement and A reemen
t]

13K 2631 PG 417 (6)
This document presented and filed:
01/08/2019 02:14:17 PM
MEMORANDUM
Fee $26.00
III I IIIIIIIIIIIIII
20072148
Randolph County North Carolina
Krista M. Lowe, Register of Deeds
J al eis), k1c 0?1(o0S"
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
This Memorandum of Agreement (this "Memorandum"), dated I % r kft) 9 2019,
is made for the purpose of providing recordable evidence of that certain written Agreement
Regarding Proposed Mitigation Project with the Effective Date of I A Y�i cl , 2019 (as
amended, modified or supplemented from time to time, the "Agreement'), among the Estate of
Herschel Needham Hockett, Jr., through its executor Roger Hockett, an individual, and Kenneth
Hockett, the sole devisee of the Property (defined below) by and through the Last Will and
Testament of Herschel Needham Hockett, Jr., with a mailing address of
c4P &oJeZt -�- DR,'iA.-tj 94- (collectively, "Owner"), and Environmental Banc & Exchange,
LLC, a Maryland limited liability company, with a mailing address of 5020 Montrose, Suite 650,
Houston, TX 77006 ("Project Sponsor").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owner owns certain real estate located in Randolph County, North Carolina,
located at 958 Hockett Dairy Road, Randleman, NC 27317, and as more fully described in Exhibit
A attached, and incorporated herein by reference (the "Pro a ");
WHEREAS, Project Sponsor is engaged in a business operation for the location,
establishment, approval and maintenance of ecological restoration and/or conservation sites;
WHEREAS, the Property, or a portion thereof, includes certain features or resources,
which may be suitable for qualification and approval by Project Sponsor under applicable law as
a ecological restoration, mitigation and/or conservation site (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, Owner and Project
Sponsor have entered into the Agreement to, among other things, (i) establish an Inspection Period
to allow Project Sponsor to evaluate the Property (or portions thereof) for development of the
Project, (ii) allow Project Sponsor to pursue approvals for the Project from applicable state,
federal, and local regulatory authorities, on the terms and conditions of the Agreement,
(iii) provide Project Sponsor, and certain third parties as provided in the Agreement, access rights
over and across the Property for purposes set forth in the Agreement, (iv) if and when required
under the Agreement, require the future execution by Owner of a perpetual conservation easement

in the form required by the Agreement (the "Conservation Easement"), and (v) set forth the various
payments and consideration to be paid by the parties in connection with the foregoing.
NOW, THEREFORE, Owner and Project Sponsor hereby agree to execute this
Memorandum of Agreement for purposes of stating the following with respect to the Agreement
and putting third parties on notice of the existence and terms thereof:
1. Recitals: The foregoing recitals are incorporated by reference into this Memorandum and shall
be binding on the parties hereto.
2. Owner: The name and address of Owner are as set forth above.
3. Project Sponsor : The name and address of Project Sponsor are as set forth above.
4. Date of Agreement: The date of the Agreement is l ' 0 - C —y t J
5. Option for Conservation Easement. Project Sponsor shall have the option to require Owner to
execute, deliver and record against a portion of the Property, the Conservation Easement.
6. Property Description: The Property, or a portion thereof, affected by the Agreement is the real
property described and/or depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto.
7. Conflicts. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Memorandum and the terms
of the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement shall prevail.
8. Hold Harmless Agreement. At all times that this Memorandum, the Agreement, or the
Conservation Easement remains effective, Project Sponsor agrees that it shall hold Owner
harmless from liability for any damages caused by any activities conducted by Project Sponsor
on the Property, other than to the extent such damages are caused by the negligence, willful
misconduct or breach of this Agreement, the Conservation Easement or the Memorandum of
Agreement by Owner or any party acting by, through or under Owner. At all times that this
Memorandum, the Agreement, or the Conservation Easement remains effective and for so long
as the Conservation Easement affects the Property, Owner agrees that it shall hold Project
Sponsor harmless from liability for any damages caused by any activities conducted by Owner
or Owner's invitees on the Property, other than to the extent such damages are caused by the
negligence, willful misconduct or breach of this Agreement, the Conservation Easement or the
Memorandum of Agreement by Project Sponsor or any party acting by, through or under
Project Sponsor .
9. Successors and Assigns. The Agreement shall be a covenant that runs with the land and shall
be binding on all of Owner's successors and assigns. Any party who acquires all or any portion
of the Property, or any interest therein, whether by sale, foreclosure sale, deed in lieu of
foreclosure, or in any other manner, shall take the Property (or such interest therein) subject to
all of the provisions of the Agreement.

[SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound, the Parties have executed this
Memorandum the day and year first above written.
Estate o Ver—Needham Hockett, Jr.
By: ekec"��
Roger Hockett, Executory
Date: l P l /
STATE OF IV Bra
COUNTY OF 1 4"t
On fir— 9 , 2019, before me, a Notary Public for the state aforesaid, personally
appeared cr d , and that he/she/they executed, in my presence, the within instrument,
and acknow edged that they executed the same for the purposes therein contained.
IN set my hand and official seal.
WILLIAM A JAMES
Notary Public, North Carolina,
Wake County
My Commission Expires Signature of Notary Public
November 04, 2023 �'i � A_ 10,,, 4s
[SEAL] Printed Name of Notary Public
My commission expires: r

Kenneth Hockett
Signature: 14 ; \-APLLO
Date: 1 - X - �h—D 1 Q/
STATE OF AVy,41, CC Uo h r (,
COUNTY OF `i WC9,
On ✓► v A , 2019, before me, a Notary Public for the state aforesaid, personally
appeared t Ho , and that he/she/they executed, in my presence, the within instrument,
and acknowledged that they executed the same for the purposes therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and official seal.
W M=IA JAMES
Notary Public, North Carolina
Wake County
My Commission Expires
November 04, 2023
W bjA.
+.
Signature of Notary Public
A. —yc'mt
Printed Name of Notary Public
My commission expires: N0vcb.64,r- 'I Z° 2-3

Project Sponsor:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC,
a Maryland limited liability company
By: Resource Environmental Solutions,
LLC, a Louisiana limited liability
company, its manager
bkvi�j
Name: N'- L B. .i-► s
Title: GEN(adL IV�A,JA�Ffz
Date: 1 R —19
STATE OF V o rX ( 6014%o%
COUNTY OF W ca)«
On T41
L)4,{ , 2019, before me, a Notary Public for the State aforesaid, personally
appeared c,n ] IU-i.a , who acknowledged himself/herself to be the
[7 tnurj Ni r�ri� e l of Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC, a Louisiana limited
liability company, anager of Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC, a Maryland limited liability
company, and that he/she, in the capacity set forth above, on behalf of Project Sponsor, being
authorized to do so, executed, in my presence, the within instrument, and acknowledged that he/she
executed the same for the purposes therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and official seal.
WILLIAM A JAMES
Notary Public, North Carolina
FW101unty
My Commission Expires
November 04, 2023
41�L & A, -
Signature of Not y Public
U, A.
Printed Name of Notary Public
My commission expires: Aio,. rLO13

EXHIBIT A
to Memorandum of Agreement
Description of Property
BEING that 59.879 acres, more or less, tract or parcel of real property situated in Randolph County,
North Carolina located at or near the address of 958 Hockett Dairy Road, Randleman, NC 27317,
being identified by the PIN number 7758353599, and being that property described as Tract #2
and conveyed by a deed recorded in Book 2109, Page 14 in the office of the Randolph County
Register of Deeds.

Appendix C
Approved Categorical Exclusion

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of Mitigation Services Projects
Version 2
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the environmental
document.
'
General • -ct Information
Project Name:
Green Valley II
Count Name:
Randolph
DMS Number:
100111
Project Sponsor:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC, a RES Company
Project Contact Name:
Kasey Carrere
Project Contact Address:
302 Jefferson Street Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
Project Contact E-mail:
[e-mail]
DMS Project Ma na er: Jeremiah Dow
Project Description
The Green Valley II site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03030003 and includes two unnamed
tributaries. The Project easement area is 7.19 acres and presents the opportunity to provide up to 175,509.615 buffer mitigation units.
These will be derived from 2.55 acres of 0-100' Restoration and 4.49 acres of 101-200' Restoration. The site will provide buffer mitigation
by establishing a native forested and herbaceous riparian buffer plant community with a minimum width of 50 feet and maximum of
200 feet from the edge of the channels. This new community will be established in conjunction with the treatment of any existing
exotic or undesirable plant species.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Z�)b/Z� LV
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA

2: All Projects
Regulation/QuestionPart
p.
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
❑■ No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
❑■ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
❑■ N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
❑■ Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
❑■ No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑■ No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
❑■ N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
❑■ N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
❑■ No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
❑■ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
❑■ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
❑■ No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
❑■ Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A

3: Ground -Disturbing Activities
Regulation/QuestionPart
..
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians?
❑■ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
❑■ N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
❑■ No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
❑■ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
❑■ No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
❑■ Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑■ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑■ No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑■ No
❑ N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑■ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
❑■ No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
❑■ N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
❑■ N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
❑■ Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
❑■ Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS?
❑■ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
❑■ Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑■ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
❑■ No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
❑■ No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
❑■ N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
❑■ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑■ N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
❑■ No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
❑■ N/A

Categorical Exclusion Summary
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly
known as Superfund, created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries to clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
As a part of the CERCLA compliance, an EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck was ordered for the
Green Valley II Mitigation Site through Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) on June
12t'', 2019. According to the EDR report, there were no listed sites located within 1 mile of the project
site. In addition to the EDR search, a visual inspection of the Green Valley II site was conducted to
assess the potential for the occurrence of recognized environmental conditions on the property that
might not have been revealed in the EDR report. The inspection was conducted to locate and identify
any obvious use, storage, or generation of hazardous materials. No hazardous storage containers or
substances were observed.
Overall, the EDR assessment revealed no evidence of "recognized environmental conditions" in
connection with the target property. The summary of the EDR report is enclosed.
National Historical Preservation Act (Section 106)
The National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) is legislation intended to preserve historical
and archaeological sites in the United States of America. RES requested review and comment from the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to any archaeological and architectural resources
related to the Green Valley II Mitigation Site on June 7t'', 2019. SHPO responded on July 9t'', 2019 and
had no objections to the Green Valley II Project. The correspondence with SHPO can be found in the
enclosed documents.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
provides important protections and assistance for those people affected by federally funded projects.
The Uniform Act applies to the acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for federally
funded projects. The Green Valley II Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project that includes land
acquisition. Notification of fair market value of the property and the lack of condemnation authority was
completed by RES. The landowner was notified of fair market value and condemnation authority was
listed in the option agreement.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the
Secretary of the Interior or of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species.
Randolph County's list of threatened and endangered species includes Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii). The Green Valley II Mitigation Site may contain potential habitat for
Schweinitz's sunflower. Therefore, a "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" determination
was made, although a survey will still be conducted for Schweinitz's sunflower during the optimal
survey window of late -August through October. Upon completion of the survey, if any individuals are
found in the project area, RES will follow up with USFWS to determine if a new Section 7
Determination is necessary.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) is a federal status that protects two species of
Eagle. The BGPA provides protection for the bald eagle and golden eagle by prohibiting the take,
possession, sale,

purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle,
alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C. 668(a) (BGPA, 1940).
The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), has been identified in Randolph county; buffer mitigation
practices will have a 'No Effect" result on the Bald Eagle.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have
on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The Green Valley
II Mitigation Site includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD-1006 has been completed
and submitted to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The completed form and
correspondence documenting the submittal is enclosed.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of the United States was enacted to protect fish and
wildlife when federal actions result in the control or modification of a natural stream or body of
water. Since the Green Valley II Mitigation Site may include removal and/or replacement of existing
culverts as well as stream bank stabilization, RES requested comment from the North Carolina Fish
and Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). The NCWRC responded on June 10', 2019 and stated
there are no records for any listed aquatic species in the vicinity of the project. All correspondence is
enclosed.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship import,
or extort and migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by
the MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute at taking.
RES consulted the USFWS's Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC) tool on June 3ra
2019 to generate a list of migratory birds that are expected to occur at the Green Valley II site. The
results concluded that no migratory birds of conservation concern occur at the Site.

EXHIBITS

0
w
"01400N,l
I a�
Green Valley Farm II
Project
N�1�N0
Providence Churc Rd
Legend
Proposed Easement m
Randleman Lake Service Area `` Gr ensboro,
Cape Fear River Basin - 03030003
14 Digit HU - 03030003010060
igh Point
NC NHP Element Occurrence (July 2018)
- NC DMS Conservation Easement m
Thomasville
- Other Managed Areas (NC NHP July 2018)
C Water Supply Watershed 4
5 Mile Aviation Zone wq
��- Green Valley Farm II
CIAirports Project
" Figure 1 -Vicinity Map Date: 7/18/2019
W E Green Valley Farm II Drawn by MDE
s res
n Mitgiation Project Checked by: JRM
0 0.5 1
Mile
Randolph County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1 mile

Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
0 1,00S0 2,000
Feet
------------ --
------- ------- -------
7 TT RD
- - - -------
UT4
28 ac
I t
Figure 2 - USGS Map Date 7/18/2019
Pleasant Garden Quadrangle (2016)
Green Valley Farm 11 Drawn by: MDE
Mitigation Project Checked by: JRM
Randolph County, North Carolina 1 inch = 2,000 feet
UT1
2365 ac
ores

Agricultural Crossing
1774d
Legend
Proposed Easement
Parcels
Green Valley Farm Easement (Closed -Out)
Stream Determination
Perennial
Intermittent
N
Figure 5 - Existing Conditions map Date 7/18/2019
+E Drawn by: MDE
Green Valley Farm 11
0 200 400 Mitigation Project Checked by: JRM
Randolph County, North Carolina
1 inch = 400 feet
Feet
Cropland
Ores

IIIIIIIII®
Le-gen
Proposed Easement (7.14 ac)
Parcels
® Green Valley Farm Easement (Closed -Out)
Project Stream"
Mitigation Approach
® Restoration (51-100')
® Restoration (101-200')
" Figure 6 - Conceptual Map Date: 7/18/2019
wE res
Green Valley Farm II Drawn by MDE
s Mitigation Project Checked by: JRM
0 200 400
Feet Randolph County, North Carolina 1 inch =400 feet

USDA FORM AD-1006

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 06/06/2019
Name of Project Green Valley II Mitigation Site
Federal Agency Involved Federal Highway Admin FHWA
Proposed Land Use Conservation Easement
County and State Randolph County, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received B
NRCS 06/06/2019y
Pe icon Cor,�pleting F
Mrlton orteS NRCS
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)El
YES NO
F-1
Acres Irrigated
none
Average Farm Size
106 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 74.5 % 376,412 acres
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 68.6 pro 356,923 acres
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
Randolph Co, NC LESA
Name of State or Local Site Assessment System
N/A
Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
July 1, 2019 By entail
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
7.20
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0
C. Total Acres In Site
7.20
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
1.8
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
55.4
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0020
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
59.5
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted Scale of 0 to 100 Points
67
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria
(Criteria are ex lained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor ro ect use form NRCS-CPA-106)
Maximum
Points
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
1. Area In Non -urban Use
(15)
12
2. Perimeter In Non -urban Use
(10)
10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
(20)
20
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government
(20)
0
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area
(15)
10
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
(15)
10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
(10)
7
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland
(10)
6.75
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
(5)
4
10. On -Farm Investments
(20)
15
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
(10)
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
(10)
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
94.75
0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
67
0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment)
160
94.75
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
161.75
0
0
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES❑ NO ❑
Reason For Selection:
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)

STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Step I - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place
of form AD-1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, htW:Htbpa.nres.usda.gov/lesa .
Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)of project site(s), to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the
U.S. The USDA Office Information Locator may be found at htt)://oftices.usda.aov/scripts/ndISAPLdll/oip public/USAmap, or the offices can usually be
found in the Phone Book under U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State
Office in each State.)
Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime,
unique, statewide or local important farmland. (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days.
Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts II, IV and V of the form.
Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records.
Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing
NRCS office.
Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent
with the FPPA.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
(For Federal Agency)
Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land
use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.
Part III: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following
1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the
conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture.
2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways,
utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion.
Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS
assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA).
1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor -type
project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero,
however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points.
2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the
FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other
weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites
where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse
impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation).
Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total
maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160.
Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:
Total points assigned Site A 180 X 160 = 144 points for Site A
Maximum points possible = 200
For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center.
NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD-1006 form.

605160
35o 54' 39" N
605220
Soil Map —Randolph County, North Carolina
(Green Valley II Buffer Mitigation Site)
M5280 6D5W 6W400
# AW
r
*�Im
he valid at this sca11
le.
35o 54' 22" N
605160 605220 605280 6W340 6W400
v
o Map Scale: 1:2,510 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Meters N
0 35 70 140 210
Feet
0 100 200 400 E00
Map projection: Web Mercator Gomermordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: lfrM Zone 17N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
am Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
6W460
y N
a
W5520
605460 M5520
m
a
a
35o 54' 39" N
id
3
35o 54' 22" N
6/5/2019
Pagel of 3

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
0
Soil Map Unit Polygons
r
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
t
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
g
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
0o
Sodic Spot
Soil Map —Randolph County, North Carolina
(Green Valley II Buffer Mitigation Site)
MAP INFORMATION
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
Other
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
Special Line Features
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Transportation
Rails
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
.,r
Interstate Highways
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
US Routes
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Major Roads
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Local Roads
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
Background
Aerial Photography
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Randolph County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 23, Sep 10, 2018
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 19, 2015—Oct
16, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDANatural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/5/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map —Randolph County, North Carolina
Green Valley II Buffer Mitigation Site
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
ChA
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, frequently flooded
1.8
25.1 %
WtB
Wynott-Enon complex, 2 to 8
percent slopes
1.2
16.3%
WtC
Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to 15
percent slopes
1.3
18.2%
WvC2
Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to 15
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
2.9
40.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
7.1
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/5/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

605160
35o 54' 39" N
35o 54' 22" N
605160 605220 605280 6W340 6W400
v
Map Scale: 1:2,510 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Meters N
0 35 70 140 210
Feet
0 100 200 400 E00
Map projection: Web Mercator Gomermordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: lfrM Zone 17N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
am Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
Farmland Classification —Randolph County, North Carolina
(Green Valley Buffer Mitigation Site)
M5220 M5280 6D5W 6W400 6W460
a
W5520
35o 54' 39" N
id
35o 54' 22" N
6D5520
m
a
a
6/5/2019
Page 1 of 5

Farmland Classification —Randolph County, North Carolina
(Green Valley Buffer Mitigation Site)
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
0
Prime farmland if
0
Farmland of statewide
.
Farmland of statewide
Farmland of unique
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
subsoiled, completely
importance, if drained and
importance, if irrigated
importance
removing the root
either protected from
and reclaimed of excess
0
Not rated or not
Soils
inhibiting soil layer
flooding or not frequently
salts and sodium
available
Soil RatingPolygons
yg
Prime farmland if irrigated
g
flooded during the
�
Farmland of statewide
Soil Rating Lines
0
Notrime farmland p
and the product of I (soil
i
growing season
importance, if drained or
Not farmland
erodibility) x C (climate
Farmland of statewide
either protected from
~
prime
0
All areas are prime
factor) does not exceed
importance, if irrigated
flooding or not frequently
All areas are prime
farmland
60
and drained
flooded during the
farmland
0
Prime farmland if drained
�
Prime farmland if irrigated
me
�
Farmland of statewide
growing season
,.y
Prime farmland if
and reclaimed of excess
importance, if irrigated
.
Farmland of statewide
drained
0
Prime farmland if
salts and sodium
and either protected from
importance, if warm
protected from flooding or
Farmland of statewide
flooding or not frequently
enough, and either
,ter
Prime farmland if
not frequently flooded
importance
flooded during the
drained or either
protected from flooding
during the growing
rowin
growing season
protected from floodingor
or
not frequently flooded
season
-
Farmland of statewide
importance, if drained
Farmland of statewide
not frequently flooded
during the growing
0
Prime farmland if irrigated
importance, if subsoiled,
during the growing
season
Farmland of statewide
completely removing the
season
r r
Prime farmland if
0
Prime farmland if drained
importance, if protected
root inhibiting soil layer
Farmland of statewide
irrigated
and either protected from
from flooding or not
0
Farmland of statewide
importance, if warm
r 0
Prime farmland if
floodin or not fre uentl
g q y
frequently flooded during
importance, if irrigated
enou h
g
drained and either
flooded during the
the growing season
and the product of I (soil
0
Farmland of statewide
protected from flooding
growing season
0
Farmland of statewide
erodibility) x C (climate
importance, if thawed
or not frequently flooded
Prime farmland if irrigated
importance, if irrigated
factor) does not exceed
LD
Farmland of local
during the growing
and drained
60
importance
season
0
rme farmland
Pifld if irrigated
0
Farmland of local
,.�r
Prime farmland if
and either protected from
importance, if irrigated
irrigated and drained
flooding or not frequently
,.yam
Prime farmland if
flooded during the
irrigated and either
growing season
protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded
during the growing
season
USDANatural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/5/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5

r r Prime farmland if
subsoiled, completely
removing the root
inhibiting soil layer
~ Prime farmland if irrigated
and the product of I (soil
erodibility) x C (climate
factor) does not exceed
60
~ Prime farmland if irrigated
and reclaimed of excess
salts and sodium
,.y Farmland of statewide
importance
N.y Farmland of statewide
importance, if drained
Farmland of statewide
importance, if protected
from flooding or not
frequently flooded during
the growing season
,.y Farmland of statewide
importance, if irrigated
Farmland Classification —Randolph County, North Carolina
(Green Valley Buffer Mitigation Site)
N•wr Farmland of statewide
importance, if drained and
either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the
growing season
Farmland of statewide
importance, if irrigated
and drained
,.y Farmland of statewide
importance, if irrigated
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the
growing season
r 0 Farmland of statewide
importance, if subsoiled,
completely removing the
root inhibiting soil layer
Farmland of statewide
importance, if irrigated
and the product of I (soil
erodibility) x C (climate
factor) does not exceed
60
r Farmland of statewide
importance, if irrigated
and reclaimed of excess
salts and sodium
r 0 Farmland of statewide
importance, if drained or
either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the
growing season
,.y Farmland of statewide
importance, if warm
enough, and either
drained or either
protected from flooding or
not frequently flooded
during the growing
season
Farmland of statewide
importance, if warm
enough
,.yam Farmland of statewide
importance, if thawed
,.yam Farmland of local
importance
,.yam Farmland of local
importance, if irrigated
r r
Farmland of unique
importance
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating
Points
0
Not prime farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if drained
Prime farmland if
protected from flooding or
not frequently flooded
during the growing
season
0
Prime farmland if irrigated
Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the
growing season
Prime farmland if irrigated
and drained
Prime farmland if irrigated
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the
growing season
0 Prime farmland if
subsoiled, completely
removing the root
inhibiting soil layer
Prime farmland if
irrigated and the product
of I (soil erodibility) x C
(climate factor) does not
exceed 60
Prime farmland if
irrigated and reclaimed
of excess salts and
sodium
Farmland of statewide
importance
Farmland of statewide
importance, if drained
Farmland of statewide
importance, if protected
from flooding or not
frequently flooded during
the growing season
Farmland of statewide
importance, if irrigated
USDANatural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/5/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5

Farmland Classification —Randolph County, North Carolina
(Green Valley Buffer Mitigation Site)
Farmland of statewide
Farmland of statewide
importance, if drained and
importance, if irrigated
either protected from
and reclaimed of excess
flooding or not frequently
salts and sodium
flooded during the
0
Farmland of statewide
growing season
importance, if drained or
Farmland of statewide
either protected from
importance, if irrigated
flooding or not frequently
and drained
flooded during the
Farmland of statewide
growing season
importance, if irrigated
Farmland of statewide
and either protected from
importance, if warm
flooding or not frequently
enough, and either
flooded during the
drained or either
growing season
protected from flooding or
0 Farmland of statewide
not frequently flooded
importance, if subsoiled,
during the growing
completely removing the
season
root inhibiting soil layer
Farmland of statewide
Farmland of statewide
importance, if warm
importance, if irrigated
enough
and the product of I (soil
Farmland of statewide
erodibility) x C (climate
importance, if thawed
factor) does not exceed
Farmland of local
60
importance
Farmland of local
importance, if irrigated
0 Farmland of unique
importance
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
a-" Rails
+, Interstate Highways
US Routes
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Major Roads
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Local Roads Web Soil Survey URL:
Background Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
6.4, Aerial Photography Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data
as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Randolph County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 23, Sep 10, 2018
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 19, 2015—Oct
16, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDANatural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/5/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5

Farmland Classification —Randolph County, North Carolina
Green Valley Buffer Mitigation Site
Farmland Classification
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
ChA
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2
Prime farmland if
1.8
25.1 %
percent slopes,
drained and either
frequently flooded
protected from
flooding or not
frequently flooded
during the growing
season
WtB
Wynott-Enon complex, 2
Farmland of statewide
1.2
16.3%
to 8 percent slopes
importance
WtC
Wynott-Enon complex, 8
Farmland of statewide
1.3
18.2%
to 15 percent slopes
importance
WvC2
Wynott-Enon complex, 8
Farmland of statewide
2.9
40.4%
to 15 percent slopes,
importance
moderately eroded
Totals for Area of Interest
7.1
100.0%
Description
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It
identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed,
fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and
unique farmlands are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21,
January 31, 1978.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
Tie -break Rule: Lower
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/5/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5

EDR REPORT

Green Valley II
960 Hockett Dairy Road
Randleman, NC 27317
Inquiry Number: 5681529.9s
June 12, 2019
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
CEDW Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
FORM-LBD-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary-------------------------------------------------------
ES1
Overview Map
2
Detail Map
3
Map Findings Summary----------------------------------------------------
4
Map Findings
8
Orphan Summary---------------------------------------------------------
9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking
GRA
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum------------------------------------------
A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary-------------------------------------------.
A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map-------------------------------------------
A-5
Physical Setting Source Map
A-15
Physical Setting Source Map Findings----------------------------------------
A-17
Physical Setting Source Records Searched------------------------------------.
PSGRA
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2019 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC5681529.9s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
960 HOCKETT DAIRY ROAD
RANDLEMAN, NC 27317
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.9055840 - 35' 54' 20.10"
79.8326230 - 79' 49' 57.44"
Zone 17
605343.0
3973905.5
736 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map
Version Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
5945571 PLEASANT GARDEN, NC
2013
Portions of Photo from: 20140705
Source: USDA
TC5681529.9s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

F- MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
960 HOCKETT DAIRY ROAD
RANDLEMAN, NC 27317
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
DATABASE ACRONYMS
RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ELEVATION DIRECTION
5681529.9s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL___________________________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL________________ Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS -------------------- Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL__________________ National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY__________ Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS_________________________ Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE-------------- Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS__________________ Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF------------------ RCRA- Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG------------------- RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG------------------- RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG---------------- RCRA- Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS_________________________ Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS_________ Engineering Controls Sites List
TC5681529.9s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US INST CONTROL__________ Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS_________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS_____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS------------------------- Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF_______________________ List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI____________________________ Old Landfill Inventory
DEBRIS_______________________ Solid Waste Active Disaster Debris Sites Listing
LCID__________________________ Land -Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID) Landfill Notifications
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST -------------------------- Regional UST Database
LAST__________________________ Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST_________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST_________________ State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST____________________ Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST___________________________ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST___________________________ AST Database
INDIAN UST__________________ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL______________ No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP__________________ Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
VCP___________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS______________ Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS----------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY_______________________ Recycling Center Listing
TC5681529.9s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HIST LF_______________________ Solid Waste Facility Listing
INDIAN ODI___________________ Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9___________ Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI___________________________ Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS___________ Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL_________________ Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL_______________________ National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2_______________________ CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS________________________
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS________________________
Spills Incident Listing
IMD___________________________
Incident Management Database
SPILLS 90____________________
SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80____________________
SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR_________
RCRA- Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS_________________________
Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD__________________________
Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS_______
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR_______________
Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST____________
EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION___________
2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA_________________________
Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS__________________________
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS--------------------------
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD__________________________
Records Of Decision
RMP__________________________
Risk Management Plans
RAATS________________________
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP___________________________
Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS_________________________
PCB Activity Database System
ICIS___________________________
Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS__________________________
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS-------------------------
Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE______________
Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA______________
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER________
PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO ---------------------
Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS____________________
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS_____________________
Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT____________________
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV_____________
Indian Reservations
FUSRAP______________________
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA_______________________
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS____________
Lead Smelter Sites
TC5681529.9s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US AIRS______________________
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES____________________
Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES ---------
Abandoned Mines
FINDS -------------------------
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
ECHO -------------------------
Enforcement & Compliance History Information
UXO ---------------------------
Unexploded Ordnance Sites
DOCKET HWC----------------
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
FUELS PROGRAM___________
EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS__________________________
Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS___________________
ASBESTOS
COAL ASH____________________
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS______________
Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance -----------
Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES------------------------
NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC----------------------------
Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP---------------------------
Animal Operation Permits Listing
PCSRP------------------------
Petroleum -Contaminated Soil Remediation Permits
SEPT HAULERS______________
Permitted Septage Haulers Listing
CCB___________________________
Coal Ash Structural Fills (CCB) Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP_____________________ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto ----------------- EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner_____________ EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS____________________ Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF_______________________ Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST____________________ Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC5681529.9s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped. Count: 1 records.
Site Name
OLD RANDLEMAN TOWN DUMP
Database(s)
OLI
TC5681529.9s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

OVERVIEW MAP - 5681529.9S
Target Property
A
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/4
1/2 1 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA
j Hazardous Substance
county Boundary
Disposal Sites
Power transmission lines
100-year flood zone
500-year flood zone
.
National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Green Valley II CLIENT: Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS: 960 Hockett Dairy Road CONTACT: Grayson Sanner
Randleman NC 27317 INQUIRY #: 5681529.9s
LAT/LONG: 35.905584 / 79.832623 DATE: June 12, 2019 1:08 pm
Copyright �o 2019 EDR, Inc. (,) 2015 TonnTom Rai. 2015.

DETAIL MAP - 5681529.9S
Q
a
0
Hcckatt101 ry Rd
Target Property
A
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
i
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1 /9 1 /4 1 /2 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
county Boundary Disposal Sites
100-year flood zone
500-year flood zone
. National Wetland Inventory
0 State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Green Valley II CLIENT: Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS: 960 Hockett Dairy Road CONTACT: Grayson Sanner
Randleman NC 27317 INQUIRY #: 5681529.9s
LAT/LONG: 35.905584 / 79.832623 DATE: June 12, 2019 1:08 pm
Copyright �o 2019 EDR, Inc. (,) 2015 TonnTom Rai. 2015.

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database (Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2-1
> 1
Plotted
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Proposed NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
NPL LIENS 0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SEMS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-SQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-CESQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries
LUCIS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US INST CONTROL 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal ERNS list
ERNS 0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
OLI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DEBRIS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LCID 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
TC5681529.9s Page 4

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database (Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2-1
> 1
Plotted
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LAST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LUST TRUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
AST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
INDIAN UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
State and tribal institutional
control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
VCP 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS
0.500
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY
0.500
HIST LF
0.500
INDIAN ODI
0.500
DEBRIS REGION 9
0.500
ODI
0.500
IHS OPEN DUMPS
0.500
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL
0.001
US CDL
0.001
Local Land Records
LIENS 2
0.001
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS
0.001
SPILLS
0.001
IMD
0.500
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0 NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0 NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0 NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0 NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
TC5681529.9s Page 5

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database
(Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2-1
> 1
Plotted
SPILLS 90
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SPILLS 80
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
FUDS
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
DOD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US FIN ASSUR
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EPA WATCH LIST
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
2020 COR ACTION
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
TSCA
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
TRIS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SSTS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ROD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
RMP
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RAATS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PRP
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PADS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ICIS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FTTS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
MLTS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH DOE
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH EPA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
PCB TRANSFORMER
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RADINFO
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
HIST FTTS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
DOT OPS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
CONSENT
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
INDIAN RESERV
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FUSRAP
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
UMTRA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LEAD SMELTERS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US AIRS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US MINES
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
ABANDONED MINES
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FINDS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ECHO
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
UXO
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
DOCKET HWC
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FUELS PROGRAM
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
AIRS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ASBESTOS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DRYCLEANERS
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Financial Assurance
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
NPDES
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
UIC
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
AOP
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PCSRP
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SEPT HAULERS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
TC5681529.9s Page 6

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
Database (Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 Plotted
CCB 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
EDR Hist Auto 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EDR Hist Cleaner 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
4Q:4111NxK6114N4exclell4N01hVil401rwill Kd:IDI*�
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
RGA LF 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
RGA LUST 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
Totals -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC5681529.9s Page 7

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation Site
MAP FINDINGS
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
TC5681529.9s Page 8

Count: 1 records.
ORPHAN SUMMARY
City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s)
RANDLEMAN S109136336 OLD RANDLEMAN TOWN DUMP ROM RANDELMAN, NORTH ON US-220 OLI
TC5681529.9s Page 9

CORRESPONDENCE

fires
June 20, 2019
The Estate of Hershel Needham Hockett, Jr.
217 N. Kimberly Road
Davidson, NC 28036
Attn: Roger Hockett
Re: Green Valley II Mitigation Project
Dear Mr. Hockett,
As part of the environmental documentation process in preparation for the stream mitigation project
on your property, this letter is to inform you of provisions in the Federal Highway Administration
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended,
referred to as the Uniform Act.
The Uniform Act requires that we inform you in writing that this conservation easement transaction
is voluntary and that the project is being developed by Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC for
the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). Neither EBX nor NCDMS have the
authority to acquire the property by eminent domain. In addition, EBX believes that the agreed
purchase price for the conservation easement area represents the fair market value.
This letter is for your information, and you do not need to respond. As always, please feel free to
call me at 919-302-2324 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Kenton Beal
Land Representative
412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Te—inal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2ntl Floor 3751 Westerre Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 1371/2 East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

�pENT OF u. L
SMVICE
N o United States Department of the Interior
0
9 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
�'QRCYI 3'�aA
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date:_06/03/2019
Self -Certification Letter
Project Name Green Valley II Mitigation Site
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.
The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:
"no effect" determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
✓ proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
❑✓ "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
❑ "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;
❑✓ "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.

Applicant Page 2
We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the "no effect" or
"not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the "may affect" determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pp.html.
If you have any questions, you can write to us at [e-mail] or please contact
Leigh Mann of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.
Sincerely,
/s/Pete Benjamin
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services
Enclosures - project review package

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Green Valley II Buffer
Mitigation Site Date. 6/03/2019
/ Resource Name
Conclusion
ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act Determination
Notes / Documentation
-Species
Schweinitz's Sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii)
Potential habitat present
and no current survey
conducted
May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Survey will be conducted during the optimal
survey window of late -August through
October. However, buffer mitigation
practices should have no effect on any
potential populations.
Critical habitat
No critical habitat present
No Effect
Bald eagle
Unlikely to disturb nesting
bald eagles
No Eagle Act Permit Required
Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an
informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.
T_:� Co I" "
Signature /Title
3 h0t
Date

!1Yi3fi h }i.{Jia'.-�iJLt]}!
- -' United States Department of the Interior"""
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2019-SLI-0964
Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02200
Project Name: Green Valley II
June 03, 2019
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or

06/03/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02200
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fivs.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.f vs.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and ho://www.fws. ov�/mi rgratoiybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/
comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office atjohn [e-mail].

06/03/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02200
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List

06/03/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02200
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

06/03/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02200
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2019-SLI-0964
Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02200
Project Name: Green Valley 11
Project Type: LAND - RESTORATION / ENHANCEMENT
Project Description: Buffer mitigation project
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www. google.com/maps/place/35.907998403578375N79.83334007041077W
Counties: Randolph, NC

06/03/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02200
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 1 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws. og v/ecp/species/3849
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

fires
June 6, 2019
Mr. Vann Stancil
Habitat Conservation Biologist
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
215 Jerusalem Church Road
Kenly, NC 27542
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
Subject: Project Scoping for Green Valley II Mitigation Site in Randolph County
Dear Mr. Stancil,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential buffer restoration project on the attached site (Site
maps with approximate property lines and areas of potential buffer restoration activities are enclosed). The
Green Valley II Site (35.54215, 79.49546W) has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions,
LLC (RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable buffer impacts. The proposed
project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7.14 acres of riparian buffers. Current
buffer conditions along the streams associated with this project demonstrate significant habitat
degradation as a result of impacts from agricultural land use, water diversion, and cattle intrusion.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to my
attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any questions that you
may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Kasey Carrere I Project Manager
Attachments: Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), Aerial Map (Figure 3)
Conceptual Plan Map (Figure 4)
res.us

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
10 June 2019
Ms. Kasey Carrere
RES
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Subject: Request for Project Scoping
Green Valley II Mitigation Site
Randolph County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Carrere,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your letter on 06
June 2019 requesting review and comment on any possible concerns regarding the Green Valley II
Mitigation Site. Biologists with NCWRC have reviewed the provided documents. Comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The Green Valley II Mitigation Site is located north of Hockett Dairy Road near its intersection with
Stanton Farm Road in Randleman, Randolph County, North Carolina. The project involves the
restoration and enhancement of approximately 7.14 acres of riparian buffer. Current conditions of the site
show significant degradation of the habitat from agricultural land use, water diversion, and cattle
intrusions. The project will restore the riparian buffer along unnamed tributaries to the Deep River
(Randleman Reservoir) in the Cape Fear River basin. The Deep River is classified as a Water Supply IV
and Critical Water Supply Area by the N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR).
We have no known records for federal or state -listed rare, threatened, or endangered species within or
near the site. The lack of records from the site does not imply or confirm the absence of federal or state -
listed species. An on -site survey is the only means to determine if the proposed project may impact
federal or state rare, threatened, or endangered species.
Based upon the information provided to NCWRC, it is unlikely that buffer mitigation will adversely
affect any federal or state -listed species. Establishing native, forested buffers in riparian areas will help
protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and provide a travel corridor for wildlife
species. If present, we recommend leaving snags and mature trees or if necessary, remove tees outside
the maternity roosting season for bats (May 15 — August 15).
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
10 June 2019
Green Valley II Mitigation Site
Randolph County
Provided measures are taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation from construction/restoration
activities, we do not anticipate the project to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. If I can be of additional assistance, please call (919)
707-0364 or email olivia.munzerkncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

fires
June 7, 2019
Ms. Gledhill -Early
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
Subject: Project Scoping for Green Valley II Mitigation Site in Randolph County
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Early,
The Green Valley II Buffer Mitigation Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
(RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable buffer. The proposed project involves the
restoration and enhancement of approximately 7.14 acres of riparian buffers.
RES requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological
or cultural resources associated with a potential stream mitigation project on the Green Valley II Site
(35.54215N,-79.49546W) (a USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation easement is
attached).
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service
database (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/; accessed January 7, 2019) was performed as part of the site due
diligence evaluation. The database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or
archaeological resources on the proposed properties. In addition, the majority of the site has
historically been disturbed due to cattle grazing.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the
comment to my attention at the address below, or via email. Please feel free to contact me at kcarrere(i ,res.us
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Kasey Carrere I Project Manager
Attachments: Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), Aerial Map (Figure 3)
Conceptual Plan Map (Figure 4)
res.us

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
July 9, 2019
Kasey Carrere
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
32 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Re: Green Valley II Mitigation Site, Randolph County, ER 19-1906
Dear Ms. Carrere:
Thank you for your letter of June 7, 2019, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
(�� %;�4(Sui wt
�fvRamona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

fires
June 6, 2019
Milton Cortes
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
Subject: AD-1006 Request for the Green Valley II Mitigation Site in Randolph County
Dear Mr. Cortes,
Resource Enviornmental Solutions (RES) requests review and comment from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service on any possible concerns that may emerge with respect to farmland resources
including prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland associated with the Green Valley II buffer
Mitigation project. This project is being developed for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services.
Please note that this request is in support of the development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the
referenced project.
The Green Valley II Site has been identified for the purposes of providing mitigation for unavoidable buffer
impacts in the Neuse River Basin. RES has been awarded the contract to design and implement the Green
Valley II project. A requirement of the project is to prepare a CE that describes resources present on the
project site.
The Project is located in the Randleman watershed (Cataloging Unit 03030003, 14-digit
HUC 03030003010060), a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW). The Project supports many of the Cape
Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) goals and presents an opportunity to restore 7.14 acres
of riparian buffers. The Project will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within
the Cape Fear Basin. These benefits are not limited to the project area, but have more far-reaching effects
throughout the Neuse River Basin. The Project will provide improvements to water quality,
hydrologic function, and habitat. Coordinates for the site are as follows: 35.54215N, 79.49546W
An inventory of soils data was completed by RES utilizing Web Soil Survey to determine prime farmland
classifications for the 16.5 project area. One soil map unit in the project area is classified as prime farmland,
making up approximately 25.1% of the site (Chewacla loam,0-2% slopes, frequently flooded). Three soil
map units in the project area are classified as farmland of statewide importance, making up 78.9% of the
site (Wynott-Enon complex, 2-8% slopes, 16.3%; Wynott-Enon comple,8-15% slopes, 18.2%; and Wynott-
Enon complex, 8-15% slopes, moderately eroded, 40.4%).
Encolosed is Form AD-1006 with Parts I and III Completed and maps of the Green Valley II Mitigation
Site. We ask that you review the site information and complete Parts II, IV, and V as required by NRCS.
Please email (knarrere.res „s), or mail your reply to the office at 302 Jeffferson Street, Suite 100, Raleigh,
NC 27605.
res.us

0
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Kasey Carrere I Project Manager
Attachements: Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), Aerial Map (Figure 3)
Conceptual Plan Map (Figure 4), Web Soil Survey Report, & AD-1006