20201990 Ver 1_COMBINED_WhiteHat_FinalMitigationPlan_20210727_reduced_20210729

fires
July 29, 2021
Kyle Barnes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2407 W 5"' St.
Washington, NC 27889
Re: White Hat Final Mitigation Plan Submittal (SAW-2018-02027)
Dear Kyle,
3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
On behalf of Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) & Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (a RES affiliate), I
am pleased to submit the Final Mitigation Plan for the White Hat Site, the initial site for the RES Pasquotank 05
Umbrella Mitigation Bank. A prospectus was submitted in April 2019, put on public notice on April 30, 2019, and
issued an initial evaluation letter on March 23, 2020. The draft mitigation plan was submitted in January 2021.
The attached plan includes minor modifications from the draft mitigation plan to incorporate suggestions from the
IRT Draft Plan Comment Memo dated on August 12, 2020. The minor alterations and updates are detailed below:
• The final mitigation plan presents 7,363.663 SMUs;
• The project conservation easement of 76.32 acres remained consistent from the Draft Mitigation Plan;
• RES has supplied a Draft Perpetual Flowage Easement in Appendix A.
We look forward to discussing this project with you in more detail as your review progresses.
Sincerely,
F
Matt Butler
Project Manager
res.us

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Barnes
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
May 28, 2021
SUBJECT: The RES Pasquotank 05 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and White Hat
Stream and Wetland Draft Mitigation Plan Review, Perquimans County, NC
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received from the NCIRT during the 30-day
comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.
USACE AID#: SAW-2018-02027
30-Day Comment Deadline: April 2, 2021
Kim Browning, USACE:
1. UMBI: The correct contact for NMFS is Twyla Cheatwood (Dr. Ken Riley moved to a
different division) and the contact for NCDCM is Cathy Brittingham, 1638 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699. Please update.
2. In addition to Figure 1, please include a separate Service Area Map.
3. Figure 12: Please add veg plots to encompass areas where the farm path was removed,
particularly near DC1-A, and in areas where ditches were filled (random is fine).
Additionally, please capture the areas where the planted pine is removed south of DC1-
B with a permanent veg plot.
4. Section 1.2 states that all wetlands will be improved in both hydrologic and vegetative
function. Why is there only one well collecting pre -data (page 26)? Additional pre -data
would be helpful to demonstrate uplift.
5. Table 1: Please add a line to the table to show the credit gain for additional buffers is
1,177.370 S M U s.
6. Section 3.1.2: Do you anticipate that the Class SC waters, tidal salt waters, will be
affected by potential future sea level rise?
7. Section 1.2 and Table 1 reference 21.073 acres of wetland credit and section 3.3 states
that at least 22.04 acres will be credit generating. Please check consistency.
8. 1 appreciate the detail of existing conditions in Sections 3.5 and 3.6.
9. Section 3.4: Please address whether wetlands will be located near airports within 5 miles
of the aircraft operations area. Open water in wetlands will likely attract water fowl and
cause wildlife hazard and potential bird -strikes. Refer to the FAA Advisory Circular [150-
5200-33C], dated February 21, 2020, for additional guidance.
10. Section 6.1.1.1: Please confirm that the treatment swales are not being placed in
existing jurisdictional wetlands.

11. Section 6.1.3.1: The text states that re-establishment at 1:1 will occur on WJ, WH, WK,
WE, and WD; However, Figure 9 shows that WD, WH and WE are planned for
enhancement. Please verify and re -word for clarity.
12. Table 14: It would also be beneficial to add a moderate shrub layer of appropriate
species for Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamps.
13. Section 6.2.3: Will the existing farm path also be ripped in areas where channel
relocation will not eliminate this need?
14. Section 7.2.1: A hydroperiod of 12% for the site is acceptable. Language regarding a
slightly lower hydroperiod should be removed.
15. Section 8.5: A wetland gauge should be added to WE enhancement area, near the
southwest edge, to establish the limits of jurisdiction.
16. Section 8.6: While I agree that the site is fairly uniform, there are several areas where
trees will be removed and compaction concerns from past farming activities exist.
Permanent plots should be added to the planted area north of DC1-B (past cropland)
and south of DC1-A, in addition to those listed in comment #3. If vegetation monitoring
suggests that the site is not on a trajectory for success, additional plots may be required.
17. Table 18: Please ensure that site boundary markers and spaced often enough that
landowner encroachment along DC1-B is not a concern with regard to farming practices.
18.Appendix A, Site Protection Instrument: The obligation letter and spreadsheet from
UP2S lists the conservation easement as 76.34 acres, while Section 1.1 indicates the
easement is 76.32 acres. Please confirm. Additionally, will UP2S be responsible for
monitoring the 23.60-acre perpetual flowage easement? If so, this should be accounted
for in the endowment calculation. If not, who will be responsible for monitoring the
flowage easement? This should be discussed in Section 10. Finally, please include the
actual flowage easement documents, any restrictions it may pose, and a general
description of the easement.
19. General: A reference site should be included to identify reference conditions for different
resources proposed to be restored or enhanced as part of the project. The plan should
identify the location of all reference sites in the mitigation plan and provide NC SAM and
NC WAM assessment ratings for the sites. The mitigation plan should also address
expected discrepancies between the reference sites and the mitigation site that may
occur because of the developmental differences that exist (e.g., hydrology within
reference sites maybe lower than expected on the mitigation site due to increased
evapotranspiration resulting from more mature vegetation than on a newly planted
wetland site).
Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1. Page 5, Section 3.1.2 — How did you assess that there was no evidence of salt water or
significant tidal influence (e.g. YSI salinity readings)? Is there any tidal influence within
the project site?
2. Page 8, Section 3.4.2 — Please provide more discussion of the evaluation of hydrologic
trespass risk (stream and wetland) and more information on the perpetual flowage
easem ent.

3. Page 10, Section 3.5.1 —Please callout the hunting impoundment on Figure 7. Will this
feature be graded/filled during construction? It wasn't mentioned in the mitigation work
plan or shown on the design sheets.
4. Page 21, Section 6.1.1 — Please identify at least one stream reference site or provide an
explanation why one is not available/applicable.
5. Page 21, Section 6.1.1.1 — It appears the existing culvert crossing is proposed to
remain. Please confirm that the culvert is in good condition, properly sized and allows
proper aquatic species passage.
6. Page 25, Section 6.1.3.1 — Will areas where the existing farm road and wetland re-
establishment areas overlap necessitate ripping? Are any wetland credit areas
proposed to overlap channel plug areas? If so, is vegetation establishment a concern
due to the soil compaction for the plug?
7. Page 26, Section 6.1.3.2 — What is the proposed functional uplift for the wetland
enhancement area identified south of DC1-C? This area is shown outside of the
proposed planting area and no bed elevation change or right bank grading is proposed
for DC1-C.
8. Page 26, Section 6.2 —Are any of the proposed treatment swales located with wetland
credit areas? Also, please indicate whether these stormwater features require long-term
m aintenance.
9. Page 27, Section 6.3.1 — Please confirm Blackwater Bottom land Hardwoods is
accurate; Brownwater was mentioned earlier in the mitigation plan.
10. Page 28, Table 14 —There are multiple species listed that do not appear under Section
3.2.3 Vegetation or in the identified Schafale community type descriptions. Is there a
separate reference community plant list that can be included as a resource?
11. Page 28, Section 6.3.2 — This section could be renamed to "nuisance" species to
include pine maintenance during the monitoring period. If not addressed in this section,
please describe the approach to site management of pine colonization elsewhere in the
final mitigation plan.
12. Page 29, Section 6.3.3 — Please reference the farm road removal that runs the entire
length of the project site. Also, is there any bedding within the pine areas that will be
rem oved/graded?
13. Page 34, Section 8.7 & Table 18 — Given the non -uniform shape of much of the
southern easement boundary, DWR is concerned with the potential for accidental
encroachment. Sign spacing and maintained visibility will be important to reduce this
risk.
14. DWR recommends adding a project risks and uncertainties section. While some site
constraints and planning/design considerations were noted, there seem to be several
concerns noted in the October 14, 2020 IRT site visit meeting minutes and November
207 2020 USACE email that were not clearly and thoroughly addressed in the mitigation
plan. Some of these items include:
a. Providing the IRT a draft/copy of the perpetual flowage easement to review
b. Discussion of long-term management of beaver and associated risks of
hydrologic trespass and designed system stability
c. Evaluation of risk and monitoring/remediation plan for potential loss of forested
wetland upstream due to increased inundation for backwater

d. Hydraulic modelling showing anticipated effects upstream and downstream of the
project (not just within the site) and associated discussion
e. Water quality and DO implications upstream of the site from backwater as a
result of the proposed 3-foot elevation lift at the project start. This is a concern of
particular importance to DWR and was not mentioned at all in the mitigation plan.
Given the concern and risk, please provide a justification as why water quality
monitoring should not be required forthis project.
15. Figure 12 —
a. Wetland Re-establishment — It's difficult to determine the exact placement of
groundwater gauges and veg plots at this figure scale. It appears that some re-
establishment areas overlap sections of the existing channel (20-30' wide) and
the farm road, both of which should be considered when placing monitoring
stations in the field.
b. Wetland Enhancement — There are four veg plots that appear to be straddling the
credit area line. DWR recommends shifting these plots to within the
enhancement areas.
16. Soil Report —
a. DWR agrees with George's recommendation to schedule construction during dry
conditions to limit soil impacts if at all feasible.
b. DWR appreciates the detail provided in the report narrative, as well as the photos
and boring table. Looking at Figure 3, it would've been nice to have seen 2-3
more points taken within the drained hydric soil identified west of the
crossing/break.
17. Sheet E1
a. Note 8 — If sod mats are proposed, please include a typical detail.
b. Legend — If woody riffles are proposed, please include an icon and show
approximate locations on plan view sheets.
c. Legend — The brush toe protection icon doesn't match the icon used on the plan
sheets.
18. Sheet S1 —
a. Stream tie-in — It's expected that the constructed bed slope will maintain long-
term? No reinforcement or structure is necessary against scour that would
migrate downstream? DWR requests an additional cross section in this area to
track any changes during monitoring.
b. Please callout existing roads/paths and whether or not sections will be removed
on all plan view sheets. Is the farm road being relocated outside of the
easem ent?
19. Sheet S3 — Given the stream relocation and double sinuosity, what is the risk that
significant storm flows could create a bypass through the relic channel?
20. Sheet S7 — Is there an existing pipe near Station 73+00 that should be called -out for
removal?
21. Sheet S8/S15 — Does having the swale parallel and abutting the channel meander
affect the integrity of the bank?
22. Sheet P1
a. Note 3 — Please confirm that soil restoration is consistent with descriptions in the
mitigation plan narrative.

b. Note 10 — Please identify the species for the temporary seed mix.
c. Note 12 — Is there a separate herb seed mix proposed for application within the
site?
23. Sheet D2, Single Wing Deflector — Interesting design. I'm curious to see it during
monitoring.
24. Sheet D3, Ford Crossing — Please remove if not proposed for this project.
25. Sheet D3, Channel Plug — DWR recommends a minimum 50-foot plug length in the
coastal plain.
26. Sheet D3, Channel Backf ill —Since the existing channel appears to over 6 feet deep in
areas, the 70% partial backfill may need to be adjusted. DWR typically recommends a
14-inch open max depth to allow to seasonal dry as ephemeral habitat. Additionally,
permanent pools in areas proposed for wetland credit can be a concern.
Todd Bowers, USEPA:
1. General: While the purpose of the "perpetual flow easement" is clear, it is not
consistently addressed in the document. In one instance, Figure 9, it is called a
"hydrologic easement" and not referred by that name in the document outside of a
reference in correspondence. It is also not included in any other Figures as a project
component. Since this is a large feature of the project and will be monitored for
reference conditions, I recommend including the perpetual flow easement in Figures 1-
10 and 12.
2. Section 3.4/Page7: Consider mentioning the nearest airfield (Whitehurst Landing Strip)
if it is within 5 miles of the site as wetlands are being reestablished. Include an analysis
and conclusion that the project will not increase aviation hazards due to a potential
increase in waterfowl that may occupy the wetlands within the project.
3. Section 3.4.5/Page 9: Since the jurisdictional determination was last performed in April
2019, please confirm that the extent of waters of the United States will not change now
that the Navigable Waters Protection Rule is codified.
4. Section 5/Page 19: Please include some mention of the permanent flowage easement
in the discussion of project goals and objectives.
5. Section 6.1.1.1/Page 21: Minimum buffer widths are 50 feet from top of bank (ideally
this would be based on stream belt width) and the language of 100-foot buffer widths is
confusing.
6. Section 6.1.1.1/Page 21: The swales capturing ditch flow before discharging into DC1-B
direct flow upstream with respect to stream flow direction. Is this to increase retention
time? What is the possibility of high ditch flow overwhelming the swales and bypassing
them to flow directly to DC1-B? How will these swales perform during times of DC1-B
overbank flooding?
7. Page 24: The figures below Table 13 are helpful in understanding design and flooding
conditions along DC1-C but shouldn't they be based on the 40 cfsdesign discharge (Q)
rather than 38 cfs?
8. Section 6.2/Page 26: see comment above concerning the swales.

9. Section 8.5/Page 34: Recommend adding a couple additional gauges outside of the
anticipated wetlands to monitor extent of reestablished wetland boundaries. If the
perpetual flowage easement is to be monitored this should be mentioned in this Section.
10. Section 8.6/Page 34: Existing wooded areas should be changed to "Maintained" if there
are areas where planted pines or other wooded areas that will thinned and/or replanted.
11. Section 10/Page 38: "Upon approval of the Project" should be reworded to "Upon
completion of short-term monitoring and site closeout" to avoid ambiguity that the site
will be transferred before Year 7 performance is satisfactorily completed.
12. Section 13: 1 am somewhat confused by the 3 different amounts needed for monitoring
performance costs/bonds. Please clarify if needed.
13. Sheet P1: The wetland areas along DC1-B and C (dotted areas) are not represented in
the legend. Denote which species will be in which Planting Zone per Section 6.3. Also
recommend including the wetland indicator status foreach species per Section 6.3.
Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers

M E M O R A N D U M
fires
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 919.209.1062 tel.
919.829.9913 fax
TO: Kyle Barnes — Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Matt Butler — Project Manager
Resource Environmental Services, LLC
DATE: July 29, 2021
RE: Response to The RES Pasquotank 05 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and
White Hat Stream and Wetland Draft Mitigation Plan IRT Comments, USACE
AID#: SAW-2018-02027
Kim Browning, USACE:
1. UMBI: The correct contact for NMFS is Twyla Cheatwood (Dr. Ken Riley moved to a
different division) and the contact for NCDCM is Cathy Brittingham, 1638 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699. Please update.
The UMBI has been updated to reflect these changes.
2. In addition to Figure 1, please include a separate Service Area Map.
A Service Area Map has been added to the figure package, labeled as Figure lb, where
Figure la is the existing Project Vicinity Map.
Figure 12: Please add veg plots to encompass areas where the farm path was removed,
particularly near DC1-A, and in areas where ditches were filled (random is fine).
Additionally, please capture the areas where the planted pine is removed south of DC1-B
with a permanent veg plot.
During monitoring, a portion of random vegetation plots will be situated along the removed
farm path, filled ditches, and other areas with specific post -construction considerations. A
fixed vegetation plot has been included in the area of removed pines, south of DC1-B.
4. Section 1.2 states that all wetlands will be improved in both hydrologic and vegetative
function. Why is there only one well collecting pre -data (page 26)? Additional pre -data
would be helpful to demonstrate uplift.
Originally, two pre -data wells were installed, one in the existing jurisdictional wetland near
the easement break between DC1-A and DC1-B, and the other just west of the Project, in the
perpetual flowage easement to serve as a reference. While the intention was to collect more
reference data, unfortunately, the well installed in the perpetual flowage easement was
damaged sometime between its installation in May 2019 and present day and can no longer
be used to collect reference data. That being said, the majority of the proposed wetland re-

establishment throughout the Project will be occurring in backfilled areas of the existing
stream corridor, and therefore a pre -data collection well cannot be installed. The areas of
proposed wetland enhancement will be more focused on vegetative enhancement; therefore,
pre -construction hydrology data will not be as crucial moving forward in these areas.
Additionally, treatment for portions of wetland WF and WG (originally proposed
enhancement) have been revised to preservation at a 10:1 ratio (displayed as WF-2 and WG-2
in Figure 9), since the need for functional uplift is not necessary based on the existing
conditions in these wetland areas; therefore, there is no need for pre -data wells here.
Table 1: Please add a line to the table to show the credit gain for additional buffers is
1,177.370 SMUs.
A line has been added to Table 1. indicating the credit gain and credit loss for additional
buffers.
6. Section 3.1.2: Do you anticipate that the Class SC waters, tidal salt waters, will be affected
by potential future sea level rise?
Class SC waters will most likely be affected by future sea level rise and the project area
eventually will be included within the affected area. However, current predictions by the
NOAA sea level rise viewer do not have any of the project area within areas of inundation for
well over 50 years from now. Proj ections have the project area predicted to transition to a
freshwater emergent wetland around 2060 and slowly from there transitioning to a
brackish/transitional marsh as levels of water coverage increase. Hopefully, restoring the
stream wetland complex and protecting the area in a conservation easement along with a
perpetual flowage easement will help support the transition as one can only assume there will
be continued effects of flooding and storm events associated with sea level rise and climate
change. By restoring the habitat within the stream and wetland complex, and throughout the
riparian areas of the Proj ect, a more resilient system will be created, better equipping it to
face the impact of predicted climate change.
7. Section 1.2 and Table 1 reference 21.073 acres of wetland credit and section 3.3 states that at
least 22.04 acres will be credit generating. Please check consistency.
There will be 20.870 acres of credit -generating wetlands (with the exclusion of the swale tie-
ins to existing and restored wetland). Section 3.3 has been revised to state that "... and at
least 20.870 acres of credit -generating riparian wetlands..."
8. I appreciate the detail of existing conditions in Sections 3.5 and 3.6.
Thank you.
9. Section 3.4: Please address whether wetlands will be located near airports within 5 miles of
the aircraft operations area. Open water in wetlands will likely attract waterfowl and cause
wildlife hazard and potential bird -strikes. Refer to the FAA Advisory Circular [150-5200-
33C], dated February 21, 2020, for additional guidance.
A very small portion, roughly 3.34 acres, of existing wetland lies within a five -mile radius of
the Meadstown Airstrip on the far eastern side of the Project. There will be no newly restored
wetlands in this area, only vegetative enhancement and preservation; therefore, the risk of
waterfowl strikes will not increase further as a result of this Project. Upstream from this
point, the site currently promotes inundation through a managed hunting impoundment; the
Project will be lessening the risk of waterfowl strikes upstream of this point by removing the
impounded areas, specifically south of DC1-A.

10. Section 6.1.1.1: Please confirm that the treatment swales are not being placed in existing
jurisdictional wetlands.
Treatment Swale C ties to a jurisdictional wetland and will require a minor impact caused by
swale grading and will be included within the pre -construction notification form as a
temporary impact to the wetlands. The design of Swale C was revised to reduce this impact.
11. Section 6.1.3.1: The text states that re-establishment at 1:1 will occur on WJ, WH, WK, WE,
and WD; However, Figure 9 shows that WD, WH and WE are planned for enhancement.
Please verify and re -word for clarity.
Section 6.1.3.1 has been updated to provide further clarity. The first two sentences have been
updated to state: "Wetland re-establishment with a credit ratio of 1:1 is proposed in areas 50 feet
out from the proposed stream channel top of bank where jurisdictional wetlands do not exist and
includes areas of existing stream channel footprint, spoil, farm path, and drained areas. These re-
establishment areas will connect the existing jurisdictional wetlands (WJ, WH, WK, WE, and
WD), resulting in a contiguous riparian wetland corridor. The system of interconnected re-
established wetlands on the western side of the easement break, will be collectively referred to as
"WR-1" (Wetland Re-establishment 1) (Figure 9)." As shown in Figure 9, WD, WH, and WE
will be considered Wetland Enhancement as they are already jurisdictional.
12. Table 14: It would also be beneficial to add a moderate shrub layer of appropriate species for
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamps.
A column has been added to the table denoting which species are canopy trees and which are
shrub trees. Due to shrub species' shade tolerance, supplemental planting in future years may
include more shrub species as needed for supplemental planting.
13. Section 6.2.3: Will the existing farm path also be ripped in areas where channel relocation
will not eliminate this need?
Yes, the farm path will be ripped in areas where the channel will not be relocated.
14. Section 7.2.1: A hydroperiod of 12% for the site is acceptable. Language regarding a slightly
lower hydroperiod should be removed.
This section has been revised to remove any language regarding a slightly lower hydroperiod.
Language has been included and states, "Therefore, hydrology success criterion for the Project
is to restore the water table so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface
for at least 12 percent of the growing season (approximately 31 days) at each groundwater gauge
location."
15. Section 8.5: A wetland gauge should be added to WE enhancement area, near the southwest
edge, to establish the limits of jurisdiction.
Figure 12 has been updated to include a wetland gauge in the southwest corner of wetland
WE.
16. Section 8.6: While I agree that the site is fairly uniform, there are several areas where trees
will be removed and compaction concerns from past farming activities exist. Permanent plots
should be added to the planted area north of DC1-B (past cropland) and south of DC1-A, in
addition to those listed in comment 93. If vegetation monitoring suggests that the site is not
on a trajectory for success, additional plots may be required.

Figure 12 has been updated to include fixed vegetation plots that have been added north of
DC1-B on the eastern side of the cropland, and south of DC1-A where pines will be removed.
Random vegetation plots will also be situated through these areas of concern and will be
monitored for success. Additional plots will be included in future monitoring years if needed.
17. Table 18: Please ensure that site boundary markers and spaced often enough that landowner
encroachment along DC1-B is not a concern with regard to farming practices.
A statement has been added to Table 18 indicating that site boundary markers will be spaced
100 to 150 feet apart to ensure that farming -related or other encroachment will not be a
concern throughout the life of the Proj ect.
18. Appendix A, Site Protection Instrument: The obligation letter and spreadsheet from UP2S
lists the conservation easement as 76.34 acres, while Section 1.1 indicates the easement is
76.32 acres. Please confirm. Additionally, will UP2S be responsible for monitoring the
23.60-acre perpetual flowage easement? If so, this should be accounted for in the endowment
calculation. If not, who will be responsible for monitoring the flowage easement? This should
be discussed in Section 10. Finally, please include the actual flowage easement documents,
any restrictions it may pose, and a general description of the easement.
The easement acreage has been updated in the endowment calculation to reflect the
Mitigation Plan document at 76.32 acres. UP2S will not be responsible for the flowage
easement. This will be held by Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC. The draft perpetual
flowage easement template has been added to Appendix A and discussed in Section 10.
19. General: A reference site should be included to identify reference conditions for different
resources proposed to be restored or enhanced as part of the project. The plan should identify
the location of all reference sites in the mitigation plan and provide NC SAM and NC WAM
assessment ratings for the sites. The mitigation plan should also address expected
discrepancies between the reference sites and the mitigation site that may occur because of
the developmental differences that exist (e.g., hydrology within reference sites may be lower
than expected on the mitigation site due to increased evapotranspiration resulting from more
mature vegetation than on a newly planted wetland site).
Reference conditions have been summarized in section 6.1.1 and NC SAM forms, NC WAM
forms, and a map of the three reference reaches can be found in Appendix C.
Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1. Page 5, Section 3.1.2 — How did you assess that there was no evidence of salt water or
significant tidal influence (e.g. YSI salinity readings)? Is there any tidal influence within the
project site?
Though no salinity readings were taken during initial site evaluations, a number a salt -
intolerant tree species were observed among the existing vegetation during baseline data
collection. Species throughout the site that had both low aerosol salt tolerance and low soil
salt tolerance include pignut hickory (Carya glabra), American hornbeam (Carpinus
carohniana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and
red maple (Acer rubrum). With these species present throughout the floodplain, and in some
places along the banks of the stream, the presence of regular amounts of salt water is highly
unlikely based on the size and situation of these certain tree species. There is a presence of
wind -driven tidal influence present, but a lack of lunar tidal influence similar to the
Albemarle Sound.

2. Page 8, Section 3.4.2 — Please provide more discussion of the evaluation of hydrologic
trespass risk (stream and wetland) and more information on the perpetual flowage easement.
RES has further refined the hydraulic modeling and now anticipates a No -Rise condition will
be obtained for this project. We have also included inundation mapping in Appendix C to
show the impact of project on the surrounding water surface elevations.
The draft perpetual flowage easement template has been added in Appendix A. We do
anticipate higher water surface elevations during base flow and smaller storm events. RES
anticipates this increase will impact upstream field ditches and therefore RES has acquired a
flowage easement to allow for this impact.
Page 10, Section 3.5.1 — Please callout the hunting impoundment on Figure 7. Will this
feature be graded/filled during construction? It wasn't mentioned in the mitigation work plan
or shown on the design sheets.
The proposed alignment of DC1-A runs through the existing hunting impoundment and will
require grading. A label has been added to sheets Al and E2.
The existing hunting impoundment has been included in Figure 7.
4. Page 21, Section 6.1.1 —Please identify at least one stream reference site or provide an
explanation why one is not available/applicable.
This section has been revised to discuss reference conditions. Locations, photos, and stream
forms have been provided in Appendix C.
5. Page 21, Section 6.1.1.1 —It appears the existing culvert crossing is proposed to remain.
Please confirm that the culvert is in good condition, properly sized and allows proper aquatic
species passage.
RES confirms that the existing culvert is in good condition, properly sized, and allows for
proper aquatic species passage.
6. Page 25, Section 6.1.3.1 — Will areas where the existing farm road and wetland re-
establishment areas overlap necessitate ripping? Are any wetland credit areas proposed to
overlap channel plug areas? If so, is vegetation establishment a concern due to the soil
compaction for the plug?
The existing farm road will be ripped before planting. RES understands the vegetation
establishment concerns and will monitor these areas and address any issues as they occur.
The proposed channel plug detail does require a minimum of 1.5ft of uncompacted backfill at
the top of the plug to facilitate vegetative establishment.
7. Page 26, Section 6.1.3.2 — What is the proposed functional uplift for the wetland
enhancement area identified south of DC1-C? This area is shown outside of the proposed
planting area and no bed elevation change or right bank grading is proposed for DC1-C.
The wetland area south of DC1-C has been changed to preservation at a 10:1 ratio, now
labeled as wetland WF-2. Updates to this wetland can be found in Section 6.1.3.3, Table 15,
and Figure 9.
Page 26, Section 6.2 — Are any of the proposed treatment swales located with wetland credit
areas? Also, please indicate whether these stormwater features require long-term
maintenance.

The proposed swales cross the wetland credit areas and have been excluded from the
calculations. These features will be stabilized with vegetation and therefore not require long
term maintenance.
9. Page 27, Section 6.3.1 — Please confirm Blackwater Bottomland Hardwoods is accurate;
Brownwater was mentioned earlier in the mitigation plan.
The text has been changed throughout to state that the site closely resembles a Coastal Plain
Brownwater Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
10. Page 28, Table 14 — There are multiple species listed that do not appear under Section 3.2.3
Vegetation or in the identified Schafale community type descriptions. Is there a separate
reference community plant list that can be included as a resource?
Though Schafale and Weakley's Fourth Approximation was utilized as a reference for
community type descriptions, the proposed planting plan has been built using best
professional experience, including trees proven to do well in restoration within the Coastal
Plain.
11. Page 28, Section 6.3.2 — This section could be renamed to "nuisance" species to include pine
maintenance during the monitoring period. If not addressed in this section, please describe
the approach to site management of pine colonization elsewhere in the final mitigation plan.
This section has been renamed "6.3.2 On Site Nuisance Species Management." A paragraph
has been added to address the possibility and management of future pine colonization
throughout the site, specifically in areas of cleared pines, post -construction.
12. Page 29, Section 6.3.3 — Please reference the farm road removal that runs the entire length of
the proj ect site. Also, is there any bedding within the pine areas that will be removed/graded?
The farm road that will be removed was included in the soil restoration section. If bedding is
found within the areas of cleared pine, it will be documented and amended during
construction.
13. Page 34, Section 8.7 & Table 18 — Given the non -uniform shape of much of the southern
easement boundary, DWR is concerned with the potential for accidental encroachment. Sign
spacing and maintained visibility will be important to reduce this risk.
A statement has been added to Table 18 indicating that site boundary markers will be spaced
100 to 150 feet apart to ensure that farming -related or other encroachment will not be a
concern throughout the life of the Proj ect.
14. DWR recommends adding a proj ect risks and uncertainties section. While some site
constraints and planning/design considerations were noted, there seem to be several concerns
noted in the October 14, 2020 IRT site visit meeting minutes and November 20, 2020
USACE email that were not clearly and thoroughly addressed in the mitigation plan. Some of
these items include:
a. Providing the IRT a draft/copy of the perpetual flowage easement to review
The draft perpetual flowage easement template has been added to Appendix A.
b. Discussion of long-term management of beaver and associated risks of hydrologic
trespass and designed system stability
RES will monitor and remove beavers for the monitoring period to allow vegetation to
establish and stabilize the channel and floodplain. If the threat is posed and beaver
management is needed post -construction, depending on the severity, RES will trap

beavers and remove impoundments where necessary. All beaver management activities
will be documented and included in annual monitoring reports. Beyond the monitoring
period the landowners will be able to remove beavers if they become a nuisance. RES
does not anticipate significant hydrologic trespass will be caused by beavers even if they
establish. This is based on the presence of wide floodplains that can convey flood flows
effectively. Refer to Table 18. and Section 12.1- Risks and Uncertainties.
c. Evaluation of risk and monitoring/remediation plan for potential loss of forested wetland
upstream due to increased inundation for backwater
RES does not anticipate major impacts to the forest upstream of the project. The
inundation maps provided in Appendix C show limited changes to inundation are
anticipated upstream of the project. Refer to Section 12.1- Risks and Uncertainties.
d. Hydraulic modelling showing anticipated effects upstream and downstream of the project
(not just within the site) and associated discussion
RES does not anticipate significant changes up or downstream of the project in large
storm events as shown in Appendix C. We do anticipate higher water surface elevations
during base flow and smaller storm events. RES anticipates this increase will impact
upstream field ditches and therefore RES has acquired a flowage easement allow for this
impact. Refer to Section 12.1- Risks and Uncertainties.
e. Water quality and DO implications upstream of the site from backwater as a result of the
proposed 3-foot elevation lift at the project start. This is a concern of particular
importance to DWR and was not mentioned at all in the mitigation plan. Given the
concern and risk, please provide a justification as why water quality monitoring should
not be required for this project.
RES does not anticipate the backwater effect from the proposed 3-ft elevation lift will
have a significant impact on dissolved oxygen concentrations upstream of the project.
The backwater area in question is currently impounded approximately 1-ft by high points
in the existing channel. The area is also in backwater periodically from flashboard risers
utilized to flood the existing hunting impoundment.
Brownwater systems are characterized by slow moving channels with backwater areas
with high concentrations or organic material. These characteristics all exhibit a positive
correlation with low DO. Therefore, the projects target aquatic community is adapted to
the low DO conditions that currently existing and that will persist once the prcj ect is
completed. Refer to Section 12.1- Risks and Uncertainties.
15. Figure 12 —
a. Wetland Re-establishment — It's difficult to determine the exact placement of
groundwater gauges and veg plots at this figure scale. It appears that some re-
establishment areas overlap sections of the existing channel (20-30' wide) and the farm
road, both of which should be considered when placing monitoring stations in the field.
The monitoring stations have been adjusted in Figure 12 to account for areas within the
current farm path and channel. Ultimately locations may vary slightly in the field during
as -built.
b. Wetland Enhancement — There are four veg plots that appear to be straddling the credit
area line. DWR recommends shifting these plots to within the enhancement areas.
These vegetation plots are now proposed fully within the enhancement areas. Ultimately
locations may vary slight in the field during as -built.
16. Soil Report —
a. DWR agrees with George's recommendation to schedule construction during dry
conditions to limit soil impacts if at all feasible.

We agree.
b. DWR appreciates the detail provided in the report narrative, as well as the photos and
boring table. Looking at Figure 3, it would've been nice to have seen 2-3 more points
taken within the drained hydric soil identified west of the crossing/break.
Thank you for the suggestion. We will take that into account moving forward.
17. Sheet E1
a. Note 8 — If sod mats are proposed, please include a typical detail.
Sod mats are not proposed on this project. The note has been revised.
b. Legend — If woody riffles are proposed, please include an icon and show approximate
locations on plan view sheets.
No "woody riffles" are call out in the plans because all riffles (typical riffles) will include
woody material. See Note 6 and sheet D4 for details on typical riffles.
c. Legend — The brush toe protection icon doesn't match the icon used on the plan sheets.
Brush toe symbols were revised to match.
18. Sheet S1 —
a. Stream tie-in — It's expected that the constructed bed slope will maintain long-term? No
reinforcement or structure is necessary against scour that would migrate downstream?
DWR requests an additional cross section in this area to track any changes during
monitoring.
RES anticipates the bed in this location will be maintained long term within normal
adjustment tolerances. RES does not anticipate excessive scour in this area.
An additional cross section has been added to the first riffle of the project, shown on
Figure 12.
b. Please callout existing roads/paths and whether or not sections will be removed on all
plan view sheets. Is the farm road being relocated outside of the easement?
Proposed grading limits have been added to the plan sheets to more clearly show the
sections of road that will be removed. The farm paths currently within the easement will
need to be relocated; RES will work with the landowner during construction to locate a
path that is most beneficial for both parties.
19. Sheet S3 — Given the stream relocation and double sinuosity, what is the risk that significant
storm flows could create a bypass through the relic channel?
RES designed the stream to follow the existing meandering valley. We are proposing
significant fill in the existing channel to prevent the relic channel from conveying low flow.
However, we anticipate high flows will inundate the old channel as shown in the provided
inundation maps.
20. Sheet S7 — Is there an existing pipe near Station 73+00 that should be called -out for removal?
Yes, a callout has been added.
21. Sheet S8/S15 — Does having the swale parallel and abutting the channel meander affect the
integrity of the bank?
If it were close enough to the bank it would but all swales were designed to be a minimum of
1 Oft from top of bank to reduce the risk of issues. The ESP was removed from Swale C to
promote flow into the jurisdictional wetland and further reduce the risk to the channel banks.

22. Sheet P1
a. Note 3 — Please confirm that soil restoration is consistent with descriptions in the mitigation
plan narrative.
Comment incorporated
b. Note 10 — Please identify the species for the temporary seed mix.
Temporary seed mix can now be found on sheet EC1.
c. Note 12 — Is there a separate herb seed mix proposed for application within the site?
The "herb seed mix" is used for disturbed areas outside of the conservation easement. This
mix is coordinated with the landowner and closely matches existing land cover.
23. Sheet D2, Single Wing Deflector — Interesting design. I'm curious to see it during
monitoring.
RES is excited to monitor the success of this structure.
24. Sheet D3, Ford Crossing — Please remove if not proposed for this proj ect.
The detail has been removed from the plan set.
25. Sheet D3, Channel Plug — DWR recommends a minimum 50-foot plug length in the coastal
plain.
The detail has been revised to 50ft.
26. Sheet D3, Channel Backfill — Since the existing channel appears to over 6 feet deep in areas,
the 70% partial backfill may need to be adjusted. DWR typically recommends a 14-inch open
max depth to allow to seasonal dry as ephemeral habitat. Additionally, permanent pools in
areas proposed for wetland credit can be a concern.
The detail has been revised to show a max pool of 14".
Todd Bowers, USEPA:
1. General: While the purpose of the "perpetual flow easement" is clear, it is not consistently
addressed in the document. In one instance, Figure 9, it is called a "hydrologic easement" and
not referred by that name in the document outside of a reference in correspondence. It is also
not included in any other Figures as a project component. Since this is a large feature of the
project and will be monitored for reference conditions, I recommend including the perpetual
flow easement in Figures 1-10 and 12.
Perpetual Flowage Easement verbiage has been standardized throughout the Mitigation Plan
to reference the property upstream of the project area that will be protected by a separate
easement document (included in Appendix A). All Figures have been updated to reflect this
terminology as well. The flowage easement is in place to protect against potential reduction
in lateral ditch effectiveness, not for monitoring reference conditions.
2. Section 3.4/PageT Consider mentioning the nearest airfield (Whitehurst Landing Strip) if it
is within 5 miles of the site as wetlands are being reestablished. Include an analysis and
conclusion that the project will not increase aviation hazards due to a potential increase in
waterfowl that may occupy the wetlands within the project.
A very small portion, roughly 3.34 acres, of existing wetland lies within a five -mile radius of
the Meadstown Airstrip on the far eastern side of the Project. There will be no newly
constructed wetlands in this area, only vegetative enhancement and preservation; therefore,
the risk of waterfowl strikes will not increase further as a result of this Project. Upstream
from this point, the site currently promotes inundation through seasonal hunting

impoundment; the Project will actually be lessening the risk of waterfowl strikes upstream of
this point by removing the impounded areas, specifically south of DC1-A. Verbiage has been
included in section 3.4.1.
Section 3.4.5/Page 9: Since the jurisdictional determination was last performed in April 2019,
please confirm that the extent of waters of the United States will not change now that the
Navigable Waters Protection Rule is codified.
Upon review of the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, the White Hat jurisdictional
determination, performed in 2019, will not change, as none of the updated rules or definitions
apply. All of the wetlands in the current proposed easement are still considered j urisdictional
under the new rule. The adjacent wetlands are still inundated by flooding in a typical year,
and/or have direct hydrologic surface connections to DC1-C. However, the WOUS figure
submitted for the PJD, performed April 2019, contains a study area that includes one wetland
(WA) that would not be jurisdictional under the new rule; this wetland is no longer within the
current proposed easement.
4. Section 5/Page 19: Please include some mention of the permanent flowage easement in the
discussion of project goals and objectives.
This was added to the Project objectives.
Section 6.1.1.1/Page 21: Minimum buffer widths are 50 feet from top of bank (ideally this
would be based on stream belt width) and the language of 100-foot buffer widths is
confusing.
This statement is referring to the project minimum buffer width of 100-ft and that much of
the project far exceeds this proj ect minimum of 100-ft. As shown in Figure 11. The statement
is not meant to convey any information about the regulatory minimum of 50-ft.
6. Section 6.1.1.1/Page 21: The swales capturing ditch flow before discharging into DC1-B
direct flow upstream with respect to stream flow direction. Is this to increase retention time?
What is the possibility of high ditch flow overwhelming the swales and bypassing them to
flow directly to DC1-B? How will these swales perform during times of DC1-B overbank
flooding?
Some swales are designed to flow in the opposite direction compared to stream flow to
increase retention time, reduce the risk of a low flow channel establishing, reduce in channel
forces during overbank events to provide backwater habitat and promote sedimentation. RES
does not anticipate ditch flow from offsite overwhelming the swales, but we do anticipate
flows from DC will inundate the swales. Inundation maps and other figures from hydraulic
modeling have been included to show how these swales will function during high flow events
(Appendix Q.
7. Page 24: The figures below Table 13 are helpful in understanding design and flooding
conditions along DC1-C but shouldn't they be based on the 40 cfs design discharge (Q)
rather than 3 8 cfs?
The figures have been revised to show approximately 40 cfs.
Section 6.2/Page 26: see comment above concerning the swales.
The proposed swales cross the wetland credit areas and have been excluded from the
calculations. These features will not require long term maintenance.

9. Section 8.5/Page 34: Recommend adding a couple additional gauges outside of the
anticipated wetlands to monitor extent of reestablished wetland boundaries. If the perpetual
flowage easement is to be monitored this should be mentioned in this Section.
Currently there are two reference wells proposed throughout the site that will be used during
monitoring. Additionally, a wetland gauge has been included in the southwest corner of
wetland WE to establish limits of jurisdiction in this area. Since the area within the perpetual
flowage easement contains non-credit generating wetlands, there will be no monitoring
performed in that area; therefore the addition of reference wells in this area is unnecessary..
10. Section 8.6/Page 34: Existing wooded areas should be changed to "Maintained" if there are
areas where planted pines or other wooded areas that will thinned and/or replanted.
This section has been reworded for clarity.
11. Section 10/Page 38: "Upon approval of the Project" should be reworded to "Upon
completion of short-term monitoring and site closeout" to avoid ambiguity that the site will
be transferred before Year 7 performance is satisfactorily completed.
This statement has been updated accordingly.
12. Section 13: I am somewhat confused by the 3 different amounts needed for monitoring
performance costs/bonds. Please clarify if needed.
The varying amounts reflect increased effort and equipment needed to set-up M&M and
perform as -built work, normal M&M activities in years 1,2,3,5,7, and decreased required
M&M effort in years 4,6.
13. Sheet P1: The wetland areas along DC1-B and C (dotted areas) are not represented in the
legend. Denote which species will be in which Planting Zone per Section 6.3. Also
recommend including the wetland indicator status for each species per Section 6.3.
Wetland hatching has been removed from the sheet for clarity. Percent composition for Zone
1 and 2 is included in the Bare Root Planting Table. Indicator status has been added to the
table.

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
White Hat Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
Perquimans County North Carolina
SAW 2018-02027
DWR #: 20201990 — Version 1
Pasquotank River Basin
HUC 03010205
Prepared by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1052
July 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................
1
1.1 Project Components................................................................................................................
1
1.2 Project Outcomes....................................................................................................................
1
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION...............................................................
3
2.1 Site Selection..........................................................................................................................3
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................................
5
3.1 Watershed Summary Information..........................................................................................
5
3.2 Landscape Characteristics......................................................................................................
5
3.3 Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future...............................................................................
7
3.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints............................................................
7
3.5 Existing Stream Reach Conditions.......................................................................................
11
3.6 Existing Wetland Conditions................................................................................................
13
3.7 Existing Hydric Soil Area Conditions..................................................................................
16
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL.......................................................................................
17
4.1 Stream Functional Uplift......................................................................................................
17
4.2 Wetland Functional Uplift....................................................................................................
19
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................
20
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN.....................................................................................................
22
6.1 Design Parameters................................................................................................................
22
6.2 Sediment Control Measures.................................................................................................
28
6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan ...............................................................................................
28
6.4 Mitigation Summary.............................................................................................................
31
6.5 Determination of Credits......................................................................................................
32
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................
34
7.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria.....................................................................................
34
7.2 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria..................................................................................
34
7.3 Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................
35
8 MONITORING PLAN.................................................................................................................
35
8.1 As -Built Survey....................................................................................................................
35
8.2 Visual Monitoring................................................................................................................
35
8.3 Stream Hydrology Events.....................................................................................................
36
8.4 Cross Sections......................................................................................................................
36
8.5 Wetland Hydrology..............................................................................................................
36
8.6 Vegetation Monitoring.........................................................................................................
36
8.7 Scheduling/Reporting...........................................................................................................
36
9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.........................................................................................
39
10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................
40
11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE...............................................................................................
41
I L I Initial Allocation of Released Credits..................................................................................
41
11.2 Subsequent Credit Releases..................................................................................................
41
12 MAINTENANCE PLAN.............................................................................................................
43
12.1 Risks and Uncertainties........................................................................................................
43
13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES......................................................................................................
45
14 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................
46
White Hat Mitigation Plan i July 2021

List of Tables
Table 1. White Hat Stream and Wetland Project Components Summary..
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information ..................................
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information ....................................
Table4. Mapped Soil Series.......................................................................
Table 5. Regulatory Considerations...........................................................
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics .............................
Table 7. Summary of Stream Parameters ...................................................
Table 8. Existing Wetland Summary Information ......................................
Table 9. Function -Based Goals and Objectives ..........................................
Table 10. Peak Flow Comparison..............................................................
Table 11. Stable Channel Design Output ...................................................
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses ............
Table 13. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities ...................
Table 14. Proposed Plant List.....................................................................
Table 15. Mitigation Credits.......................................................................
Table 16. Monitoring Requirements...........................................................
Table 17. Credit Release Schedule.............................................................
Table 18. Maintenance Plan .......................................................................
Table 19. Financial Assurances..................................................................
List of Figures
Figure la
— Project Vicinity
Figure lb
— Service Area
Figure 2a & 2b — USGS Quadrangle
Figure 3 —
Landowner Parcels
Figure 4 —
Land Use
Figure 5 —
LiDAR
Figure 6 —
Mapped Soils
Figure 7 —
Existing Conditions
Figure 8 —
Historical Conditions
Figure 9 —
Conceptual Design Plan
Figure 10
— Project Constraints
Figure 11
— Buffer Width Zones
Figure 12
— Monitoring Plan
Appendices
Appendix A - Site Protection Instrument
Appendix B - Baseline Information and Correspondence
Appendix C - Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Information
Appendix D - Design Plan Sheets
.. 2
.. 3
.. 5
.. 6
11
11
13
15
21
24
25
25
25
30
32
38
42
43
45
White Hat Mitigation Plan ii July 2021

I PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Components
The White Hat Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project (Project) is located within Perquimans County,
approximately nine miles east of Hertford, NC. The Project lies within the Pasquotank River Basin,
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-01-52 and United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit Cataloguing Unit 03010205 and 14-digit hydrologic unit code
(HUC) 03010205060020 (Figure 1). The Project is the firstto be established underthe RES Pasquotank
Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank) being designed to help meet compensatory mitigation requirements
for stream and wetland impacts in the HUC 03010205. The conceptual design proposes to restore 5,258
linear feet (LF) and enhance 1,541 LF of stream as well as restore 3.49 acres, enhance 13.89 acres, and
preserve 3.487 acres of wetlands that will ultimately provide water quality benefits and ecosystem uplift
for the Project's 1,859-acre drainage area (Figure 2a and 2b).
The Project is comprised of a 76.32-acre conservation easement contained within six parcels and a
23.60-acre draft perpetual flowage easement extending west toward Godfreys Lane. The Project
involves the restoration and enhancement of Deep Creek, a named stream forming to the west of the
easement boundary flowing east through the Project to the Little River, eventually draining to the
Albemarle Sound. Within the conservation easement, the stream channel is divided into three reaches,
DC1-A, DC1-B, and DC1-C and is surrounded by a system of interconnected jurisdictional wetlands.
The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in Table 1. To access the Project from
Hertford, travel east approximately 7.1 miles on New Hope Road. Turn left on Suttons Lane and
continue for another 0.5 miles to the eastern end of the project. Godfreys Lane will allow access to the
western portion of the Project. The approximate coordinates of the conservation easement are
36.175378,-76.329986.
1.2 Project Outcomes
The entire floodplain system adjacent to and within the Project has been manipulated by agricultural
practices over time, thereby adversely impacting both streams and wetlands. Significantly degraded
streams will be restored or enhanced to attain higher function. Areas of hydric soil within riparian areas
and outside boundary of jurisdictional wetlands will be restored to jurisdictional wetlands via re-
establishment to improve both hydrologic and vegetative functions. All jurisdictional and non -
jurisdictional wetlands, whether forested, non -forested, or pine -dominated will be improved in both
hydrologic and vegetative function. Proposed improvements to the Project will help meet the river basin
needs expressed in the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 2009 Pasquotank River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP).
Through stream restoration and enhancement, the Project presents 61799 LF of proposed stream,
generating 6,285.333 base Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) (Table 1). By incorporating wider
buffers, the total adjusted SMUs for the Project amount to 7,363.663 SMU. Additionally, the Project
presents 20.87 acres of wetland re-establishment, enhancement, and preservation, generating 8.469
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU) (Table 1). IRT Meeting Minutes from a site visit on
October 14, 2020 were carefully considered in the preparation of this Mitigation Plan. (Appendix B).
White Hat Mitigation Plan 1 July 2021

Table 1. White Hat Stream and Wetland Project Components Summary
Mitigation Type
Proposed Length (LF)
Mitigation Ratio
Warm SMUs
Restoration
Enhancement I
5,258
1,541
1:1
1.5:1
5,258.000
1,027.333
Total
6,799
6,285.333
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-99.040
Credit Gain for Additional Buffers
1,177.370
Adjusted Total*
7,363.663
*SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(Q- "Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator", supplied to
Providers in January 2021, rom the USACE.
Mitigation Type Proposed Area (ac)
Mitigation Ratio
Riparian
WMUs
Re-establishment
Enhancement
Preservation
3.490
13.893
3.487
1:1
3 :1
10:1
3.490
4.631
0.349
Total* *
20.870
8.470
"Areas generating wetland credit are within the proposed 50 foot stream bujjer area; therefore, additional stream credit
areas and wetland credit areas do not overlap.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 2 July 2021

2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The DMS 2009 Pasquotank RBRP identified restoration needs for each 8-digit HUC within the
Pasquotank River Basin. Goals for HUC 03010205 include supporting the implementation of the North
Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, promoting projects that re-establish more natural pattern,
hydrology, habitat, and riparian buffers, and addressing agricultural impacts such as nonpoint source
runoff and hydrologic modification. The Project will help address the identified stressor and reduce
non -point source pollution as described in Section 2.1.
2.1 Site Selection
The Project was identified as a stream and wetland mitigation opportunity to improve stream and
floodplain habitat, water quality, and wetland/floodplain hydrology within the Pasquotank River Basin.
The aquatic resources associated with the Project have been highly manipulated and degraded overtime
due to agricultural practices. Project stream reaches, specifically DC1-A, DC1-B, and DC1-C of Deep
Creek, have historically been dredged and straightened, leading to channels with limited habitat and
poor hydraulic function. Dredging and straightening have also adversely impacted the hydrology of the
surrounding wetlands and caused some areas to lose jurisdiction. Also, networks of surface ditches
draining toward the main channel further alter the natural hydrology of the stream -wetland complex.
Much of the forested area surrounding the conservation easement has been cleared for row crop
production resulting in narrow to absent riparian areas. Current and historical pine planting and
harvesting operations have led to a monoculture in upstream areas along the channel which limit the
natural vegetative diversity within the riparian areas. Therefore, the Project presents a great opportunity
to address stressors identified within the watershed while also providing tremendous additional uplift
to a degraded stream -wetland floodplain system. By reconstructing natural channels within the Deep
Creek floodplain, stabilizing eroding stream banks, establishing floodplain connectivity, reducing
sediment and nutrient loads, restoring and enhancing riparian buffers and wetlands, and protecting
aquatic resources, the once -degraded stream -wetland system that makes up the White Hat Project will
be restored and protected in perpetuity. Project -specific goals and objectives will be addressed further
in Section 5. Watershed planning priority boundaries are shown on Figure 1, and the Project's drainage
areas are shown on Figure 2a and 2b.
The land required forthe construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes six parcels
in Perquimans County with ownership as presented in Table 2 & Figure 3. The Wilmington District
Conservation Easement model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instrument. Once
finalized, a copy of the land protection instrument(s) will be included in Appendix A.
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record
Tax Parcel ID# (PIN)
7889-62-5550
7889-74-6923
Ethel Sutton Chappell, William Wray
7889-82-4911
Chappell, Tenants by Entirety
7899-03-1867
7889-84-1950
7889-81-7137
(Per uimans County)
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX), acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a
conservation easement, and will monitor the Project for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation
Plan provides detailed information regarding bank operation, including long term management and
White Hat Mitigation Plan 3 July 2021

annual monitoring activities, for review and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Upon
approval of the Project by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to Unique Places to Save (UP2S).
UP2S will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Project to ensure that restrictions required in
the conservation easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required
to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the conservation easement will allow for the implementation of an
initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the Bank
Sponsor. The conservation easement will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary, maintenance
of the Project during the initial monitoring phase. These activities will be conducted in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the approved Mitigation Plan for the White Hat Mitigation Project. The
White Hat Project will be authorized under the RES Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank made and
entered into by EBX, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NC Division of Water Resources.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 4 July 2021

3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed Summary Information
3.1.1 Drainage Area and Land Cover
The Project area is comprised of Deep Creek and is divided into three reaches that flow east and
eventually drain into the Little River. The total drainage area for the Project is 1,859 acres (2.91ml').
Drainage areas for each Project reach are: DC1-A, 1,535 acres (2.40 mi'); DC1-13, 1,711 acres (2.67
mi'); and DC1-C, 1,859 acres (2.91mi'). The Project drainage area originates just west of Woodville
Road about seven miles south of US Highway 17, with primary land uses of approximately 19%
forest/brush, 1% residential, 79% cropland, and 0.2% open water, while impervious/developed area
covers about 0.2% (Figure 4). Most of channels within the drainage area appear to have been ditched
and have mostly exposed riparian areas converted for agricultural use, with partial forestation (Table
3 & Figure 4). Much of the land immediately adjacent to the Project is used for agricultural production,
including row crops, which have contributed to the degradation of Project streams and wetlands.
Additionally, logging of forested portions of the floodplain has further degraded wetland function in
some of the Project's wetlands.
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification
The segment of Deep Creek within the Project area has been classified by NCDWR as Class SC, which
are tidal salt waters protected for secondary recreation such as fishing, boating, and other activities
involving minimal skin contact; fish and noncommercial shellfish consumption; aquatic life
propagation; and wildlife. Although this classification is determined by NCDWR, the stream within the
Project area does not show evidence of being salt water nor significantly influenced by lunar tides.
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information
Watershed Feature
Designation
Level IV Ecoregion
Chesapeake -Pamlico Lowlands and Tidal Marshes
River Basin
Pasquotank
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03010205
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03010205060020
DWR Sub -basin
03-01-52
Project Drainage Area (acres)
1,859
Percent Impervious Area
--0.2%
Surface Water Classification
Class SC
3.2 Landscape Characteristics
3.2.1 Physiography and Topography
The Project is located in the Chesapeake -Pamlico Lowlands and Tidal Marshes level IV ecoregion
within the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain level III ecoregion. These occur on the lowest marine terraces
with elevations ranging from sea level to 25 feet. This ecoregion consists of nearly level plains with
some broad shallow valleys, seasonally wet soil, brackish and fresh streams, and broad estuaries
affected by wind tides. These low-lying areas are underlain by unconsolidated sediments. Poorly
drained soils are common and there is a mix of coarse- and fine -textured soils. The Project is in the
Coastal Plain geologic belt and parent materials consist of sand, clay, gravel, and peat.
Though the flat topography throughout this ecoregion poses a drainage issue for agriculture, areas with
better -drained soils and ditching practices have allowed row crop production where corn, wheat,
White Hat Mitigation Plan 5 July 2021

soybean, and potato are common. Poultry production and forestry operations are also significant
throughout the region. Historically, nonriverine wet hardwood forests were prevalent; whereas, current
day natural vegetation more often resembles oak -hickory -pine forests (hickories, shortleaf pine,
longleaf pine, loblolly pine, white oak, post oak, etc.).
The specific landscape characteristics of the Project are similar to that of the Chesapeake -Pamlico
Lowlands and Tidal Marshes ecoregion, with flat, low-lying, poorly drained soils. The Project streams
and riparian area have been heavily manipulated to enhance agricultural and hunting uses and no longer
function to their highest ecological potential. LiDAR data exemplifies the current channel location
within the footprint of the natural landscape elevations and is further described in Section 3.7 and is
displayed in Figure 5.
3.2.2 Soils
Existing soil information from the Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS"), from Web Soil
Survey, shows four map units across the Project (NRCS, 2019) and are summarized in Table 4 and
Figure 6.
Table 4. Mapped Soil Series
Map Unit
Map Unit
Percent
Drainage Class
Hydrologic Soil
Landscape Setting
Name
Hydric
Group
Ch
Chapanoke silt
5
Somewhat poorly
C/D
Flats
loam
drained
CO
Chowan silt
90
Very poorly
A/D
Flood Plains
loam
drained
Pe
Perquimans silt
95
Poorly drained
C/D
Flats and
loam
Depressions on
Marine Terraces
Ro
Roanoke silt
90
Poorly drained
C/D
Flats and
loam
Depressions on
Marine Terraces
A detailed hydric soil evaluation was also conducted by a licensed soil scientist to describe and
delineate the extent of hydric soils that are potentially suitable for wetland re-establishment for wetland
mitigation. A detailed soils report is included in Appendix C.
3.2.3 Vegetation
The Project is characterized primarily by row crop production with areas of disturbed riparian forest
regeneration. Much of the left bank of DC1-B is rotated between soybean or corn production, while
most of the right bank, throughout the Project is sparsely to densely forested including stands of mixed
slash pine (Pinus elhotii), persimmon (Diospyros virgintana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), live oak
(Quercus virginiana), willow oak (Quercus phellos), black oak (Quercus velutina), bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), American hornbeam (Carpinus carohniana),
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), swamp tupelo (Nyssa
bifora), devil's walking stick (Aralia spinosa), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), and muscadine (Vitis
rotundii lia). Some exotics were noted, including Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese
stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum).
Scattered along the right bank of DC1-A and DC1-B, planted loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stands remain
unharvested. Along the left bank of DC1-A, a previous pine logging operation left the land, most of
which is an existing wetland, fallow and littered with slash. Natural succession has begun to take place,
White Hat Mitigation Plan 6 July 2021

converting the once cleared land to dense slash pine (Pinus ehotii), 10-15 feet tall, scattered sea myrtle
(Baccharis hahmifolia), and rushes (Juncus sp.) (Figure 7). Since this monoculture of planted and
successive pines is present, both banks will be cleared during stream construction and replanted with
diverse, native tree species which can be found in Section 6.3.1, Table 13.
3.3 Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery dating back to 1952 indicates that the western portion of the Project had been
forested since at least 1952 before the right bank was partially cleared sometime before 1975, leaving
it sparsely wooded. Sometime between 2013 and 2017, Google Earth imagery shows that the right bank
of the western portion had appeared to somewhat regenerate, which has remained partially wooded
with mainly pines up to current day. Between 2013 and 2016 the left bank was cleared for logging
purposes and current conditions show natural succession and a gradual regeneration of mostly pines.
The middle of the Project was cleared for row crop production between 1952 and 1975, which has
remained cleared, except for a portion of the right bank appearing forested with pines since sometime
between 2013 and 2017. The eastern portion of the Project has remained forested since at least 1952.
Adjacent to the Project, in all directions, most of the land has been maintained for agricultural purposes
since at least 1952. Portions of the forested areas around the site have also been maintained for hunting
use. It is unknown exactly when the channelization of Deep Creek began; however, it is evident in the
1952 aerial imagery that the western and middle segments of Deep Creek, within the Project boundary,
were already heavily manipulated: the stream was obviously dredged and straightened, relocated from
its historical location. In 1952, ditching can be seen at the easement break and around 1975 ditching
began in the middle of the western portion, where the forest had been partially cleared. (Figure 8).
Currently, within the proposed easement boundary, the western portion of the Project is mostly a
regenerated post -harvest pine monoculture along the left bank with dense active pine stands along the
right bank overlaid with a meandering swath of jurisdictional wetlands. Most of the right bank, east of
the easement break is forested, moving downstream to the end of the site. The left bank is cleared in
the middle of the Project until the confluence with DC1-C, where the left banks becomes entirely
wooded to the end of the easement boundary. Three main ditches run through the Project; the western-
most ditch runs parallel along the boundary line of the easement, the second meets the stream in the
middle of DC1-A, and the last comes to a confluence with the stream just east of the easement break.
A few smaller ditches can be seen along DC1-A near the easement break and DC1-B flowing toward
the channel from the field to the north (Figure 7).
The future land use for the Project will include an established 76.32-acre conservation easement that
will be protected in perpetuity. The conservation easement will encompass 6,799 linear feet of high
functioning streams with minimum 50-foot riparian buffers, though most buffers will be much wider,
and at least 20.870acres of credit -generating riparian wetlands, though the actual protected wetland area
will be much greater. Outside the Project, the area will likely remain in agricultural use to the north and
south, and remaining mostly forested to the east.
3.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
Regulatory considerations and potential constraints of the Project are discussed below, and Table 5 is
a summary of regulatory considerations. All supporting documentation can be found in Appendix B.
3.4.1 Property, Boundary, and Utilities
The proposed easement is bound on the west and east by parcel boundaries. A 23.60-acre draft perpetual
flowage easement extends west from the Project, until reaching Godfreys Lane (Figure 9). A farm path
runs the entirety of the stream along Deep Creek through the Project; therefore, the proposed easement
White Hat Mitigation Plan 7 July 2021

will have one easement break to accommodate an agricultural crossing used to access the fields to the
north of the site (Figure 7). Otherwise, there are no other easement breaks or crossings associated with
the Project. No utilities are anticipated to interfere with the construction of the Project.
A portion of the eastern side of the Project, about 3.34 acres, lies within a five -mile radius of the
Measdstown Airstrip, located in Elizabeth City, NC. There will be no newly constructed wetlands in
this area, only vegetative enhancement and preservation; therefore, the risk of waterfowl strikes is
unlikely to increase as a result ofthe Project, in regard to the FAA Advisory Circular [150-5200-33C]
guidance. Upstream from this point, the site currently promotes inundation, which attracts
waterfowl that are nesting, perching, loafing, etc. By removing impoundments, specifically south
of DC1-A, the Project will be lessening the risk of aviation hazards resulting from waterfowl
strikes.
3.4.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA')/Draft Perpetual Flowage
Easement
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, the Project is almost entirely
within a flood hazard zone (AE), with an anticipated base flood elevation of between 6.3 feet and 7.8
feet, extending the length of the easement (Figure 10). RES has completed preliminary hydraulic
modeling and anticipates minor decreases to the 100-year floodplain will be caused by this project. We
therefore anticipate a FEMA No -Rise permit will be required for this site. The Project can be found on
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 7888 (map number 3720788800K), effective date December
21, 2018.
RES also anticipates the project will cause minor (<0.5 ft) increases to flooding elevations in storms
with smaller recurrence intervals. To account for this, a 23.60-acre draft perpetual flowage easement
(Figure 9) will be established to the west of the proposed easement, directly upstream of the Project,
ending at the intersection of Godfreys Lane. This agreement provides RES with the "limited and express
right to periodically, regularly, overflow, flood, inundate, flow water on, across, and through, store
water on, and submerge the Flowage Area". The template for this agreement is provided in Appendix
A. Reference Appendix C for pre -post 1-yr, 5-yr, and 100-yr inundation mapping.
3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under
provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (accessed 25 November 2020) lists the red knot (Calidris canutus
rufa) and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionahs) as threatened species in Perquimans County,
North Carolina. The Bald eagle (Hahaeetus leucocephalus) is protected under the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) and prohibits take of bald and golden eagles. No protected species or
potential habitat for protected species was observed during preliminary Project evaluations.
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. Results from NHP indicate that there is one known occurrence of a state
significantly rare species within a one -mile radius of the project area, the multiflowered mud plantain
(Heteranthera multiflora). No threatened or endangered species were listed within a one -mile radius of
the Project. Based on initial site investigations, no impacts to state protected species are anticipated as
a result of the proposed project.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 8 July 2021

A Self Certify Package was sent to the USFWS on January 21, 2021 stating that there would be "no
effect" on the red knot (Calidris canutus) or any critical habitats found throughout the Project in
accordance to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Additionally, there will be "no Eagle Act permit
required," in accordance to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The "may affect" determination
was given to the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionahs); but was concluded that there is no
known habitat within the site boundaries in Perquimans County according to the USFWS map updated
on March 24, 2020 and the NHP data report generated on November 25, 2020. The requirements of the
USFWS under Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), have been
satisfied for this project. (Appendix B).
3.4.4 Cultural Resources
On April 1, 2019 and again on November 25, 2020, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) website (http://gis.ncdcr.gov) database was reviewed to determine if any listed or
potentially eligible historic or archeological resources in the proposed Project existed. This search
revealed three occurrences near the 0.5 mile radius project boundary. The James Whedbee House
(PQ0262), the Whedbee Cemetery (PQ0261) and the Gregory House (PQ0079) are located within 0.5
mile of the project area but are not on the National Registered List. The Project will not threaten or
impact these historic locations. A letter sent to the NC SHPO requested review and comments on any
possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with
a potential stream and riparian buffer mitigation project on the White Hat Site. A response dated May
31, 2019 confirmed that there would be no historic resources affected by this Project; correspondence
can be found in Appendix B.
3.4.5 Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
A survey of potential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. was performed in April of 2019. Wetland
boundaries were delineated using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Soils were characterized
and classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (NRCS, 2010).
A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was sent to the USACE in July 2019 and a
site visit was conducted on August 15, 2019. Following the site visit and upon additional findings of
aquatic resources, revised materials were submitted on August 29, 2019. Ultimately, the confirmed PJD
package will be issued at the time of the mitigation plan approval; however, verbal verification of
jurisdictional waters at the Project was expressed during the site visit on August 15, 2019. Email
correspondence can be found in Appendix B.
The delineation concludes the presence of jurisdictional streams, wetlands, and open water in and
adjacent to the Project (Appendix B & Figure 7). Existing stream and wetland conditions will be
discussed in detail in Sections 3.5 and 3.6.
3.4.6 Clean Water Act - Section 4011404
Impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands will be unavoidable due to the restoration and
enhancement actives proposed. Although these impacts are unavoidable, the proposed stream and
wetland treatment will result in an overall functional uplift of the stream and wetland system, as
described in Section 4. One reach, DC1-C, proposed for Enhancement I, will have temporary stream
impacts due to construction activities such as floodplain benching and wing deflector installation.
Furthermore, restoration reaches, DC1-A and DC1-B, will have permanent impacts, due to stream
restoration and stream realignment. Wetlands WD, WE, WF, WH, WJ, and WK will have permanent
and temporary impacts due to stream restoration that will include stream construction and relocation.
Other temporary impacts in these wetlands will be due to construction haul routes where equipment
White Hat Mitigation Plan 9 July 2021

will be mobile and where tree clearing is necessary for stream restoration efforts. All stream and
wetland impacts will be accounted for in the Pre -Construction Notification form, to be submitted after
Final Mitigation Plan approval.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 10 July 2021

Table 5. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
No
Appendix B*
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
No
Appendix B*
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix B
National Historic Preservation Act
Yes
No
Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson -Stevens Act - Essential Fisheries
Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
*PCN will be submitted after the Final Mitigation Plan is approved
3.5 Existing Stream Reach Conditions
The Project stream is named Deep Creek. Within the project limits Deep Creek has been divided into
three reaches (DC1-A, B, and C) based on existing conditions and proposed mitigation treatment
(Figure 7). Existing reach conditions and characteristics based on data collection are discussed in detail
in this section and are summarized in Table 6. Morphological parameters can be found in Appendix
C.
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach
Drainage Area
(acres)
ABKF
(ft')
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth (ft)
Bank
Height
Ratio
W/D
Ratio
Sinuosity
Slope
(ft/ft)
DO -A
1,535
38
20
3.1
1.7
11
N/A
0.0005
DO-B
1,711
46
31
1.5
1.4
22
N/A
0.0004
DO-C
1,859
50
24
2.1
1.4
11
N/A
0.0004
3.5.1 Reach Conditions and Channel Morphology
Deep Creek
DCI A
Reach DC 1-A is located in the eastern portion of the project and flows southeast to an agricultural
crossing (Figure 7). The reach has a juvenile pine forest and a hunting impoundment on its right
bank, while the left bank is bordered by a grassed farm road and an unmaintained cutover. The entire
channel is a modified natural stream and has been relocated from its historic location and dredged
to enhance agricultural and hunting practices. This reach has been straightened and is oversized
with nearly vertical banks and lacks any real aquatic habitat. The agricultural crossing on the
downstream end of the reach contains flash board risers that are periodically used to modify the
water level through the reach to promote agricultural and hunting practices. The drainage area for
the reach is approximately 1,535 acres.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 11 July 2021

Looking upstream along Reach DCI-A
(May 2019)
Looking downstream along Reach DC 1-A
(May 2019)
DCI -B
Reach DCI-B is located downstream of DCI-A and flows east toward a confluence with DCI-C
(Figure 7). The reach has a juvenile pine forest on its right bank, while the left bank is adjacent to a
grassed farm road and active row crops. The entire channel is a modified natural stream that has
been straightened and dredged to enhance agricultural production. This reach is oversized with
nearly vertical banks and lacks any real aquatic habitat. The drainage area for the reach is
approximately 1,711 acres.
Looking upstream along reach DCI-B
(January 2021)
DCI -C
Looking downstream along reach DCI-B
(January 2021)
Reach DCI-C is the most downstream portion of the project located in the eastern limits of the
project (Figure 7). The reach is surrounded on both sides by riparian forest. A grass farm road
parallels the existing channel for the length of the reach partially disconnecting hydrology from the
left bank wetland. The entire channel is a modified natural stream that has been straightened and
dredged. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 1,859 acres. Deep Creek continues
approximately 3.5 miles to the confluence with the Little River.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 12 July 2021

Looking upstream along reach DC1-C
(May 2019)
3.5.2 Channel Classification
Looking downstream along reach DC1-C
(May 2019)
The streams have been classified as perennial streams using the NCDWR Stream Identification Form
version 4.11. Stream determinations have been verified by the USACE. Additionally, streams were
rated using the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method ("NCSAM") and overall scores ranged from
"High" to "Low" based on the varying levels of disturbance along the stream reaches. Table 7
summarizes the stream parameters and corresponding forms are included in Appendix C. DC1-A, B,
and C are loosely classified as C and F-stream types using the Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen,
1996). The term "loosely classified" is used because these channels are predominately shaped by
dredging and not natural stream processes.
Table 7. Summary of Stream Parameters
Reach
Reach Length
(LF)
Hydrology Status
Stream Determination
Score
Rosgen Stream
Classification
DCl-A
1799
Perennial
32.5
F — C
DC1-B
2019
Perennial
32.5
F - C
DCl-C
1541
Perennial
32.5
F - C
3.6 Existing Wetland Conditions
3.6.1 Existing Wetlands
Wetland delineation confirmed the presence of seven jurisdictional wetland areas within the Project
and are labeled as WD (Wetland D), WE (Wetland E), WF (Wetland F), WG (Wetland G), WH
(Wetland H), WJ (Wetland J), and WK (Wetland K) in Existing Conditions, Figure 7 & Appendix B.
There are approximately 34.266 acres of wetlands within the proposed easement area: WD is
approximately 5.415 acres in size; WE is approximately 7.716 acres; WF is approximately 10.205
acres; WG is approximately 4.897 acres; WH is approximately 5.855; WJ is approximately 0.041 acres;
and WK is approximately 0.136 acres. Wetlands were rated using the North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method ("NCWAM") and overall scores ranged from "High" to "Low" based on the
varying levels of disturbance throughout the wetland complex (Appendix Q. Existing conditions of
each wetland are described below and summarized in Table 8.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 13 July 2021

Wetland D
WD is a generally wide floodplain wetland system that meets Deep Creek and has varying levels of
disturbance that impact both hydrology and vegetation. The vegetation of WD is predominately planted
loblolly pine with some bald cypress scattered throughout in the wetter areas. In general, hydrology is
driven by groundwater, runoff from surrounding landscape and ditch features, and historically, flooding
of Deep Creek. Most of WD is inundated for much of the year.
Wetland E
WE is downstream to the east of WD and maintains a similarly wide floodplain. Three ditches intersect
WE, flowing northeast towards Deep Creek. A ditch runs parallel to Deep Creek connecting WE to
WD. Vegetation throughout the wetland is composed of mostly loblolly pine stands with some shrubby
black oak and bald cypress mixed in. Groundwater, ditching and residential runoff drive the hydrology
throughout this wetland.
Wetland F
WF extends the length of the remaining easement area to the east of WE, south of Deep Creek, varying
in floodplain width, though mostly reaching the Project boundary to the south. The vegetation varies
throughout WF with the western portion of the wetland being mostly planted loblolly pine and the
eastern portion resembling a bottomland hardwood forest, including species such as swamp tupelo, bald
cypress and American hornbeam. Historically, this area was most likely a Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp, but due to disturbance has altered the natural community. Groundwater is sufficient to maintain
jurisdictional wetland status along with runoff from the surrounding landscape. Some braided features
and depressional areas are evident throughout this "bottomland" floodplain that demonstrates the
historic nature of the system that existed prior to anthropogenic disturbance.
Wetland G
WG, to the north, along the left bank of the existing channel shares similar vegetative and hydrologic
characteristics with WF; however, though wide in some places, it narrowly hugs the channel, rather
than splaying out widely throughout the floodplain. It similarly represents vegetation characteristic of
a bottomland hardwood forest. A farm path, running parallel to the channel intersects the wetland area.
Wetland H
WH, seemingly contiguous to WD and WE, is separated by the intersection of Deep Creek. This highly
disturbed wetland is widely splayed out across the floodplain, reaching the northern boundary of the
easement. Runoff from the surrounding landscape, nearby ditching, historical flooding, and
groundwater levels all contribute to the hydrology of WH. Vegetation throughout is mainly slash pine,
sea myrtle, and juncus. This area historically was planted and harvested pine, left fallow, and now
undergoing natural succession. Depressions scattered throughout WH, groundwater, runoff, ditching
and flooding contribute to the hydrology of this wetland system.
Wetland J and K
WJ and WK are very small wetlands located northeast of WD and WE, on the left bank of the existing
channel. They sit on either side of WH, disjunct from the larger system, but similar in characteristics.
Vegetation throughout both is mostly slash from recent pine harvest. Species include slash pine, sea
myrtle, and juncus. These wetlands are highly disturbed as the historical, repeated clearing and
regeneration of the land has occurred. Hydrology is driven by groundwater, flooding, runoff, ditching,
and poorly established topsoil.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 14 July 2021

Table 8. Existing Wetland Summary Information
Wetland Wetland Type Area (ac) Vegetation
1D
WD Bottomland Hardwood 5.415 Tree Stratum:
Forest Loblolly pine, bald cypress, black oak, sweetgum
Sapling Stratum:
None
WE Bottomland Hardwood 7.716
Forest
Shrub Stratum:
Chinese privet
Herb Stratum:
Poison ivy, common rush, false nettle
Woody Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier, roundleaf greenbrier, muscadine
WF Bottomland Hardwood 10.205 Tree Stratum:
Forest Swamp tupelo, bald cypress, red maple
Sapling Stratum:
Red maple
Shrub Stratum:
American hornbeam
Herb Stratum:
False nettle, giant cane, marsh dewflower, lizard's
tail
Woody Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier
WG Bottomland Hardwood 4.897 Tree Stratum:
Forest Swamp tupelo, bald cypress, red maple
WH Bottomland Hardwood
Forest (highly
disturbed)
WJ Bottomland Hardwood
Forest (highly
disturbed)
Sapling Stratum:
Red maple
Shrub Stratum:
American hornbeam, American holly
Herh 4trafim-
False nettle, giant cane, marsh dewtlower, lizard's
tail
Woodv Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier
5.855 Tree Stratum:
Slash pine, loblolly pine
Sapling Stratum:
Red maple, slash pine
Shrub Stratum:
Sea myrtle
Herb Stratum:
Common rush
Woodv Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier, roundleaf greenbrier
0.041 Tree Stratum:
Slash pine, loblolly pine
Sapling Stratum:
Red maple, slash pine
White Hat Mitigation Plan 15 July 2021

Wetland Wetland Type Area (ac) Vegetation
1D
Sea myrtle
Herb Stratum:
Common rush
Woody Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier, roundleaf greenbrier
WK Bottomland Hardwood 0.136 Tree Stratum:
Forest Slash pine, loblolly pine
(highly disturbed) Sapling Stratum:
Red maple, slash pine
Shrub Stratum:
Sea myrtle
Herb Stratum:
Common rush
Woody Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier, roundleaf greenbrier
3.6.2 National Wetland Inventory
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts two areas of wetlands within the project
limits. The primary wetland area at the eastern end of the easement is PFOIAd (Palustrine, Forested,
Broad -Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched). Additionally, further east
is a smaller area of PFO1Cd (Palustrine, Forested, Broad -Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded,
Partially Drained/Ditched) (Figure 10).
3.7 Existing Hydric Soil Area Conditions
The entire Project area has been highly manipulated by human activities that have caused the loss of
natural hydrology and a disturbed natural community within the Deep Creek floodplain. LiDAR
imagery documents a depressional pattern in the landscape that is likely representative of the historic
stream -wetland complex on -site (Figure 5). Much of the depressional area is currently jurisdictional
wetland, and the majority of the riparian areas that are not, contain hydric soils and will be reestablished
as wetlands post -stream construction. The primary loss of jurisdiction is due to ditching and
straightening of Deep Creek and conversion to agriculture with ditching of the adjacent fields. As
mentioned in Section 3.6, NCWAM was performed for much of this area and resulted "Low" ratings
for all functions (Appendix Q. Only the 0-50 foot buffer off the stream channel top of bank and >150
foot buffer will be used for wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation credit; areas between
50-150 feet may also be restored but will not generate credit because the NSBW tool is being utilized.
A detailed hydric soil study was conducted by licensed soil scientist George Lankford of George K.
Lankford, LLC, with assistance from Kathleen Webber of RES. It was determined that hydric soils are
present throughout the floodplain depressional area described above; however, these areas lack
sufficient wetland hydrology due to the above -described modifications of ditching and straightening.
The findings from the study are discussed below. The detailed hydric soil report is included in
Appendix C.
3.7.1 Hydric Soil Indicators
The soil evaluation confirmed hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface throughout
floodplain at this site. The most common hydric soil indicators observed are the F3-Depleted Matrix
and AI I -Depleted Below Dark Surface indicators. Another indicator found is F6-Redox Dark Surface,
an indicator common in wetland soils with dark surfaces where ponding occurs. The common dark
White Hat Mitigation Plan 16 July 2021

surface indicates an accumulation of organic matter. The high organics in surface soils usually form
under long periods of saturated conditions. The saturated conditions make observation of the F6
indicator difficult and any surface tillage for forestry operations may have destroyed many of the
required redoximorphic feature. The indicators observed reflect the very wet historical hydrology of
this floodplain that has resulted in the accumulation of organic materials throughout the soil surface
(Appendix Q.
3.7.2 Hydrology
Deep Creek is channelized and straightened throughout the project limits and is regularly dredged to
remove sediment that aggrades in the channel. Ditching of adjacent fields further modifies the
groundwater table to allow farming along the edge of the channel.
Deep Creek has been deeply channelized and widened to facilitate drainage and use of the surrounding
land. The channel appears to have been straightened along the left bank toe of slope. The endosaturated
nature of the water table and the deep incision of Deep Creek likely impacts the floodplain groundwater
elevation adjacent to the channel by limiting overbank flooding and providing drainage of the
surrounding sandy soils. Stream crossings allow access to farmland but result in constriction points to
surface and subsurface flow within the floodplain. Ditches draining from the surrounding agricultural
land provide additional drainage of surface waters where they cross the floodplain.
The interpretation of groundwater observations is limited. Surface water was observed within the edge
of the cultivated field but may be from tillage compaction with recent rainfall and runoff from the
adjacent slope. The floodplain contained areas of shallow surface water. Within the jurisdictional areas
only a limited soil evaluation was necessary but did verify hydric soils. Conditions of above average
rainfall and seasonal timing reflect the high groundwater (Appendix Q.
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
4.1 Stream Functional Uplift
In order to thoroughly examine the potential functional uplift to stream systems proposed for restoration
and enhancement, the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Framework) (Harman et. al. 2012) serves
as a useful concept to understand streams and their ecological functions. The Framework presents a
logical, holistic view of streams that describes the interrelatedness of fundamental stream functions.
The Framework defines five stream function categories, ordered into a hierarchy, that demonstrates the
dependence of higher -level functions (biology, physicochemical, and geomorphology) on lower level
functions (hydrology and hydraulics). Functions that affect the greatest number of other functions are
illustrated at the base of the Pyramid, while functions that have the least effect on other functions are
illustrated at the top. Further justifying this hierarchical concept, Fischenich (2006) found that the most
critical restoration activities are those that address stream functions related to hydrodynamic processes,
sediment transport processes, stream stability, and riparian buffers.
Therefore, principles of the Framework are utilized to discuss and communicate the potential functional
uplift to streams at the White Hat project and to propose realistic, attainable goals and objectives.
However, the determination of credits and performance standards for the Project follow guidance put
forth by the USACE Wilmington District.
The White Hat Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project will provide numerous ecological and water
quality benefits within the Pasquotank River Basin by applying an ecosystem restoration approach. The
restoration approach at the reach scale of this project will have the greatest effect on the hydrology,
White Hat Mitigation Plan 17 July 2021

hydraulic, and geomorphology functions of the system and is assumed to ultimately benefit the upper -
level functions (physicochemical and biology) over time, and in combination with other projects within
the watershed. Within the Project area, functional benefits and improvements related to the Function -
Based Pyramid Framework are anticipated by realizing site -specific functional goals and objectives
These goals and objectives, as they relate to the Framework, are outlined in Table 9.
4.1.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
4.1.1.1 Hydrology
The Project will locally address several historic hydrologic disturbances, including deforestation and
drainage alterations including stream relocation, channelization, and ditching. Improvement will
include altering land use within the project area by converting over 9 acres of cropland and over 40
acres of active and successive planted pine monoculture to riparian forest. However, it is not anticipated
that the Project will have a significant effect on hydrology at the large watershed scale.
4.1.1.2 Hydraulic
The greatest potential uplift at the Project will be achieved through establishing healthy floodplain
connectivity. Constructing stream channels back within the natural low point of the valley and sizing
them to provide seasonal to intermittent flooding the entire floodplain system can be reinvigorated.
Also, by locating the stream channel back to its natural position within the floodplain and raising the
channel bed, groundwater/surface water exchange will be rejuvenated and maintained, further
benefitting the stream -wetland floodplain complex.
4.1.1.3 Geomorphology
Sediment transport will be improved by designing and constructing sinuous channels back within the
natural low of the valley-floodplain that maintain stable dimension, plan, and profile to allow for
healthy transport and storage of sediment within the channel and floodplain. Channel stability and
bedform diversity will be improved by live staking banks and installing wood structures including
typical riffles, brush bed sills, brush toes, and sing wing deflectors. Transport and storage of woody
debris will be jump started by the installation of the structures outlined above. These plantings and
structures will also increase roughness further promoting long term wood storage and cycling. Long
term the riparian plantings included with this project will continue to contribute woody material to the
system. All of these functional parameters are interconnected and depend on each other; therefore,
improving this wide range of parameters will result in long-term functional geomorphic uplift.
4.1.1.4 Physicochemical
Although this project would support the overarching goal in the Pasquotank River Basin Priorities to
promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas, it is difficult to measure nutrient and
sediment reduction at this project level because they can be affected by so many variables. However,
many of the restoration and enhancement activities intended to improve the hydraulic and
geomorphology parameters will also directly and indirectly affect the physicochemical parameters of
the Project streams overtime. The primary activities that will directly affect physicochemical functions
are stabilizing banks, planting riparian buffers, eliminating agricultural practices from riparian buffer
areas, and restoring and enhancing hydrology to riparian wetlands. These activities will reduce
sediment input by reducing erosion of stream banks and increase physical filtration of sediment through
forested riparian buffers, decrease nutrient sources by converting farmland to forest, and increase
nutrient processing through denitrification and nutrient uptake. Activities that will indirectly benefit
physicochemical functions are as follows: Temperature regulation will improve by introducing canopy
tree species to riparian buffers that will shade the stream. Organic matter processing will improve
immediately after construction due to the large amount of woody debris that will be added to the site.
This processing will continue long term as the channel roughens and pattern traps and the restored
buffer deposits more organic matter. Many of these physicochemical benefits will occur slowly and
White Hat Mitigation Plan 18 July 2021

are dependent on multiple variables within the stream ecosystem. Therefore, it is not practical or
feasible to directly measure these parameters within the monitoring time frame of this project. With
that said, it is logical to compare existing conditions with ongoing monitoring outcomes using the
established stream and wetland performance standards to demonstrate the positive correlation of
hydraulic and geomorphic parameters with physicochemical parameters. For example, as riparian
buffer trees grow, as represented in annual monitoring reports, it is anticipated that canopy cover is
actively shading the stream channel and reducing water temperature. This is not a substitute for direct
physicochemical monitoring, but it is a useful tool to help project the long-term benefits of the Project
in terms of its functional uplift. Ultimately, any uplift to physicochemical functions at the Project can
only be assumed.
4.1.1.513iology
As mentioned for the physicochemical stream function, it will be difficult to measure the functional
uplift of the biological functions at this site within the monitoring period of the project. However, since
the life histories of many species likely to benefit from stream and wetland restoration are depending
on the lower -level functions, the functional uplift from the hydraulic and geomorphic levels would
likely have a positive effect on the biology over time and in combination with other projects within the
watershed is anticipated. Again, there is no substitute for direct biological monitoring, but it is important
to understand the hierarchy of the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework in order to help project long-
term benefits of the Project though only hydraulic and geomorphology parameters will be directly
measured during the seven-year monitoring period. Ultimately, any functional uplift to biology at the
Project can only be assumed.
4.2 Wetland Functional Uplift
The stream restoration activities discussed above that will provide stream -related functional uplift will
also provide functional uplift to riparian wetlands within the Project. Especially, by constructing an
appropriately sized, meandering channel back through the natural low of the floodplain, hydrologic
restoration and enhancement can be attained that will provide numerous water quality and soil -related
functional uplifts. These include, reestablishment of natural oxidation-reduction cycling, improved
nutrient and chemical transformations (especially nitrates), and potential immobilization of
phosphorus. Potential sources of these pollutants are present in the watershed. Other benefits include a
lower soil and surface water temperature after vegetative establishment, increased organic carbon
sequestration, and increases in diversity of beneficial microbial and fungal populations important for
soil health. Healthy microbial populations in wetlands are primarily responsible for biochemical
transformations of complex organic substances such as ammonia, molecular nitrogen, nitrite and
nitrate. Existing wooded jurisdictional wetlands moderately affected by a change in hydrology due to
Project stream construction will be preserved in perpetuity. Large scale benefits should include peak
flood control, an increase of diverse wildlife habitat, and greater connectivity to the natural aquatic
communities along Deep Creek (Appendix Q.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 19 July 2021

5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's maximum functional uplift using the Stream
Functions Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Project.
These goals clearly address the stream and landscape manipulations that have altered natural pattern,
hydrology, habitat, and riparian buffers, as well as address agricultural impacts such as nonpoint source
runoff and hydrologic modification that have degraded water quality in the watershed. Ultimately, these
goals promote long-term resilience to the inevitable issues that were identified as major watershed
stressors in the 2009 Pasquotank River RBRP. The Project will address these stressors and support
RBRP goals (discussed in Section 2).
The Project goals are:
• Re-establish the natural position, pattern, and function of the stream -wetland complex;
• Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non -erosive manner;
• Improve water quality within the restored channel reaches and downstream watercourses by
reducing sediment and nutrient loads;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows and
connection to the active floodplain;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation;
• Improve ecological processes by reducing water temperature, improving terrestrial and aquatic
habitat, and restoring a native plant community; and
• Restore and enhance riparian wetlands.
The Project objectives to address the goals are:
• Design and reconstruct stream channels to be relocated within the historic low position, sized
to convey design flows that will maintain a stable dimension, profile, and planform;
• Add in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced
streams;
• Install habitat features such as brush toes, brush bed sills, riffles, wood material, and pools of
varying depths to restored and enhanced streams;
• Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios;
• Increase forested riparian buffers to approximately 100 feet on both sides of the channel along
the project reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community;
• Treat exotic invasive species;
• Re-establish and enhance riparian wetlands by raising stream bed elevations, plugging surface
ditches, and planting native wetland plant species;
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project; and
• Establish a permanent perpetual flowage easement upstream of the Project.
Project goals and objectives, as they relate to the Function Based Pyramid Framework, are outlined in
Table 9.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 20 July 2021

Table 9. Function -Based Goals and Objectives
Function
Goal
Objective
Hvdro]oey
To transport water from the watershed
Convert land -use of riparian areas to forest
Transport of water from the
to the channel in a non -erosive manner
watershed to the channel
and improve wetland hydrology in
Maintain appropriate hydroperiod for
riparian wetlands
Chowan, Perquimans, and Roanoke soil series
Improve flood bank connectivity by reducing
Hydraulic
To transport water within streams and
bank height ratios and increasing
Transport of water in the
floodplains in a stable, non -erosive
entrenchment ratios
channel, on the floodplain,
and through the sediments
manner
Promote intermittent to seasonal overbank
flooding
Limit erosion rates and increase channel
Geomorphology
To create a diverse bedform and stable
stability
Transport of wood and
sediment to create diverse
channels that achieve healthy dynamic
Improve bedform diversity (pool spacing,
bedforms and dynamic
equilibrium and provide suitable
percent riffles, etc.)
equilibrium
habitat for life
Increase buffer width to at least 50 feet, but
mostly greater than 100 feet
To promote healthier levels for water
Establish native hardwood riparian buffer to
Physicochemical
temperature, dissolved oxygen
provide canopy shade and absorb nutrients
Temperature and oxygen
concentration, and other important
regulation; processing of'
nutrients including but not limited to
Promote sediment filtration, nutrient cycling,
organic matter and nutrients
Nitrogen and Phosphorus through
and organic accumulation through natural
buffer/wetland planting
wetland biogeochemical processes
Bioloey
To achieve functionality in levels 1-4
Improve aquatic habitat by installing habitat
Biodiversity and lift
to support the life histories of aquatic
features, constructing pools of varying depths,
histories of aquatic life
and riparian plants and animals through
and planting the riparian buffer and wetlands
histories and riparian life
stream and wetland
with appropriate species designed for specific
restoration/enhancement activities
conditions
White Hat Mitigation Plan 21 July 2021

6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
6.1 Design Parameters
6.1.1 Stream Treatment and Design Approach
The stream treatment plan and design approach were developed based on the existing conditions,
project goals, and objectives outlined in Sections 3 and 5. The Project will include Priority I Restoration
and Enhancement Level I. Stream restoration will incorporate the design of a single -thread, meandering
channel with parameters based on data taken from hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, onsite-gauge
data, published empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project streams, and
NC and VA Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques will be a crucial element of the project and
will be used to determine the design discharge and to verify the overall design. The Conceptual plan is
provided in Figure 9 and Appendix D.
In addition to empirical and analytical design approaches, RES visited several sites with similar
location, drainage area, and topographic position to DCI;three reaches exhibited characteristics we
deemed desirable for a reference condition. Consistent width to depth ratios, shallow floodplain
inundation and backwater areas were observed on several reaches. Inundation depth can depend on
several factors, but based on observed water level as well as vegetation and floodplain debris, we are
confident that the floodplains often contain shallow standing water. As expected, many of the reaches
were straight due to historic straightening; however, the channel dimensions were consistent between
straight and meandering reaches. Channel pattern was difficult to determine due to floodplain
inundation and tree canopy making aerial imagery insufficient. RES utilized this data to not only guide
the channel design but also floodplain design. We have added swales that act as backwater features and
sized the channel to promote regular shallow floodplain inundation. The three areas utilized in this
analysis are shown in Appendix C.
The detailed treatment plan and design approach is as follows:
6.1.1.1 Reach DC1-A & B
An offline restoration approach is proposed for this reach to address channelization and loss of habitat.
Priority Level I Restoration is proposed for Reach DC1-A, which will entail raising the channel bed
and restoring a stable single thread channel through the existing floodplain. The existing channels will
be backfilled with material excavated from onsite to the elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to
the new channel. Woody debris will be installed throughout the reach to improve aquatic habitat.
Woody debris will be added in the channel in the form of typical riffles (all riffles will be a mix of 75%
woody material / 25% native substrate), brush bed sills, and brush toes. Channel banks will be live -
staked, and a minimum 100-foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation,
but buffers will exceed 100 feet in many areas. Invasive species will be treated.
Multiple drainage ditches run through the proposed easement and tie directly to the existing channel.
The existing ditches that confluence with DC1-A flow through existing wetlands with dimensions and
slopes indicative of stormwater treatment swales and will therefore be tied directly into DC1-A. The
ditches that confluence with DC 1-B do not exhibit these treatment characteristics and will therefore be
directed into treatment swales before they outlet into DC1-B or existing jurisdictional wetlands. The
existing hunting impoundment, south of DC1-A, will be graded during construction.
6.1.1.2Reach DC1-C
An Enhancement I approach is proposed for this reach to address lack of appropriate channel pattern,
channel dimension, limited habitat, and limited connection to the left overbank area. Enhancement
White Hat Mitigation Plan 22 July 2021

activities will promote appropriate channel pattern, channel dimension, habitat, and encourage the
formation of a natural stream and wetland complex in the low gradient floodplain of Deep Creek.
Reference section 6.1.2.1.2 for a detailed analysis of the hydraulic changes provided by this
enhancement. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of 12 single wing deflectors to promote channel pattern, flow diversity, appropriate
channel dimension and overbank flows.
- Removal of the existing road on the left bank. Removal will include the excavation of 50
percent of road material to provide connection from the channel to the low areas of the left
bank wetland. The excavated material will then be deposited on the remaining areas of the
existing road to form hummocks and promote floodplain flow and habitat diversity.
- Riparian planting along the top of the single wing defectors and the created hummocks.
6.1.2 Data Analysis
6.1.2.1.1 Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine
and validate the design discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a
single model. Peak flows (Table 10) and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined
for comparison to design parameters using the following methods:
• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• NC and VA Regional Curves
Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas ranging from 0.56 to 10.2 mi' which passed the Dalrymple
homogeneity test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations.
Regional flood frequency equations were developed for the 1.1 and 1.5-year peak discharges based on
the gauge data. Discharges were then computed for the design reaches. These discharges were
compared to those predicted by the discharge regional curve.
Regional Curve Regression Equations
The Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain bankfull regional curves by Doll et al. (2003) and the
Maryland/Virginia Non -Urban Non -Tidal Coastal Plain bankfull regional curves by Krstolic and
Chaplin (2007) were used in part to develop the design discharge for the Project. The regional curve
discharge equations used for the analysis are:
(1) QbkJ=16.56*(DA)0.71 (Doll et al., 2003)
(2) Qbxj=28.3076*(DA)oS9834 (Krstolic and Chaplin 2007)
Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi').
White Hat Mitigation Plan 23 July 2021

Table 10. Peak Flow Comparison
Drainage Area
Reach (Ac)
FFQ Qi.i
FFQ Qis
NC Regional
Curve Q (1)
NMNA Regional
Curve Q (2) Design Q
DCl-A 1535
49
97
31
48 40
DC1-B 1711
51
101
34
51 40
DC1-C 1859
53
104
36
54 -
The design discharge of 40 cfs was selected to help promote the seasonal to intermittent flooding that
is typical of a Coastal Plain Brownwater Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
6.1.2.1.2 Sediment Transport
Sediment Supply
The backwater effect caused by raising the channel 3 feet at the upstream end ofthe project will promote
sedimentation of much of Deep Creek's suspended sediment load. Therefore, RES does not anticipate
significant risk of aggradation associated with this project even though the channel dimension will be
significantly decreased, and floodplain access will be significantly increased through much of the
project. However, the bed is sand and silt, and it is therefore expected to be highly dynamic with some
localized areas of aggradation and scour.
Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a
stable sand bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment transport is
assessed to determine a stream's ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows. Various
sediment transport equations may be easily applied when estimating entrainment for gravel bed
streams; however, these equations are not as effectively applied to sand bed channels where the entire
bed becomes mobile during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, more sophisticated modeling
techniques were used to analyze the stream design for this project. The following methods and functions
were utilized during the sediment transport analysis:
HEC-RAS Stable Channel Design
Permissible Shear Stress Approach
Permissible Velocity Approach
Based on the results shown in the analysis below along with the qualitative assessment in the sediment
supply section. We anticipate a natural fully mobile bed for this project with localized areas of
deposition and aggradation. Some areas will likely see pools aggrade and a more ripple dune complex
developed while other areas particularly areas where woody debris is added to the channel will likely
maintain deeper pools long term. The various channel bed adjustments anticipated will only add to the
habitat diversity expected on this project.
Stable Channel Design
Design cross-section dimensions were evaluated using the stable channel design functions within HEC-
RAS. These functions are based upon the methods presented in the SAM Hydraulic Design Package
for Channels developed by the USACE Waterways Experiment Station. The Copeland Method was
developed specifically for sand bed channels (median grain size restriction of 0.0625 min to 2 mm).
The method sizes stable dimensions as a function of slope, discharge, roughness, side slope, bed
material gradation, and the inflowing sediment discharge. Results are presented as a range of widths
White Hat Mitigation Plan 24 July 2021

and slopes, and their unique solution for depth, making it easy to adjust channel dimensions to achieve
stable channel configurations. The stable design output parameters are listed in Table 11. The results
are acceptable and match closely with the design reach parameters.
Table 11. Stable Channel Design Output
Bottom Energy Composite n Velocity Shear
Reach Q (ft/0) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Slope value (ft/s) Stress
(ft/ft) (lbs/ft2)
DCl 40 11 2.9 0.00019 0.045 0.7 0.03
Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses
are a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation),
cohesiveness of bank materials, vegetative cover, and incoming sediment load. The shear stress
approach compares calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature.
Critical shear stress is the shear stress required to initiate motion of the channels median particle size
(D50).
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Proposed Shear Existing Allowable Shear Stress'
Reach Stress at Bankfull Critical Shear Sand Silt Fine Gravel Vegetation
Stage (Ibs/ft2) Stress (Ibs/ft2) (Ibs/ft2) (Ibs/ft2) (Ibs/ft2) (lbs/ft2)
DCl 0.04 0.01 0.02 to 0.075 0.045 to 0.05 0.075 to 0.33 0.7 to 1.7
' (Fischenich, 2001)
Velocity pproach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank
materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to
aid in the verification of channel stability. Table 13 compares the proposed velocities calculated using
Manning's equation with the permissible velocities.
Table 13. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Permissible
Reach Manning's "n" Value' Design Velocity (ft/s) Bed Material Velocity2
(ft/sec)
DCl 0.045 0.9 Sand / Silt 1.5 - 2
'(Chow, 1959)
2(Fischenich, 2001)
In addition to the velocity analysis shown above a 2-dimensional hydraulic model was developed to
predict the effect the proposed enhancement activities will have on Reach DC1-C.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 25 July 2021

f
For— —
J r '-
Existing Conditions Discharge — 40 cfs
Proposed Conditions Discharge — 40 cfs
.—
Existing Conditions Discharge — 230 cfs Proposed Conditions Discharge — 230 cfs
The figures above show outputs from that 2-dimensional model comparing existing and proposed flow
velocities and flow areas. Note the velocity color scale in feet per second for the figures below is from
0.0 (dark blue) — 2.0 (light green) — 3.0 (orange) — 4.0 (dark red). White flow paths are also included in
the figures to indicate direction of flow (left to right) and velocity magnitude (length of path). You can
see from the figures that the proposed single wing deflectors succeed in providing more dynamic flow
in the channel. We can also see that the proposed roadway excavation increases the velocity of flow in
the left overbank and provides more interaction between the channel and the left overbank area. The
proposed enhancement does not increase velocities above 4 ft/s meaning there is limited risk of
significant bank erosion on the banks opposite the deflectors, however, adjustments (aggradation and
degradation) to both channel and floodplain are anticipated from this enhancement. Although minor
erosion will be caused by this enhancement the dynamic channel and floodplain flow along with the
added woody debris to the channel should significantly improve channel and floodplain habitat
throughout this reach.
6.1.3 Wetland Treatment and Approach
The White Hat Project offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity that will revitalize a highly
manipulated floodplain forest community. As such, the wetland restoration and enhancement are
closely tied to the stream restoration. Wetland restoration aims to re-establish hydrology and
hydrophytic vegetation to currently non -wetland areas that exhibit hydric soil indicators and drained
hydrology, while enhancement areas aim to improve hydrology or vegetation in already jurisdictional
wetland areas. The Project will provide 8.470 Riparian WMUs through a combination of wetland re-
establishment, enhancement, and preservation. Notably, areas generating wetland credit are either
within the proposed 50-foot stream buffer area of proposed stream channels or are wholly outside of
the non-standard buffer width areas generating additional stream credit (greater than 150 feet).
White Hat Mitigation Plan 26 July 2021

Therefore, wide buffer areas utilized for additional stream credit and wetland credit areas do not overlap
(Figure 9 & Figure 11).
6.1.3.1 Re-establishment
Wetland re-establishment with a credit ratio of 1:1 is proposed in areas 50 feet out from the proposed
stream channel top of bank where jurisdictional wetlands do not exist and includes areas of existing
stream channel footprint, spoil, farm path, and drained areas. These re-establishment areas will connect
the existing jurisdictional wetlands (WJ, WH, WK, WE, and WD), resulting in a contiguous riparian
wetland corridor. The system of interconnected re-established wetlands on the western side of the
easement break, will be collectively referred to as "WR-I" (Wetland Re-establishment 1) (Figure 9).
Most of these proposed areas incorporate the footprint of the existing, excavated Deep Creek channel
that will be backfilled and graded to match the existing floodplain elevations in association with the
stream restoration. However there are other small areas within WR-1 that contain hydric soils but lack
sufficient wetland hydrology and a lowered water table due to the altered landscape and drainage
modifications, including the relocated and incised Deep Creek, presence of highly permeable soils, and
the location of drainage ditches intercepting groundwater discharges onto the floodplain. Moving east
across the easement break, "WR-2" (Wetland Re-establishment 2) will be restored 50 feet out from the
proposed channel. This system of wetlands borders jurisdictional wetlands WF and WG. As mentioned
above, the hydrologic restoration of this area will be directly related to the stream restoration and re -
vegetation activities. Reconstructing Deep Creek (specifically reach DC1-A and DC1-B), with an
appropriately sized channel back within the low of the existing floodplain and filling the incised,
abandoned channel, will raise the local groundwater elevation that will allow frequent flooding. Also,
the re-established wetland area will be planted with bare root hardwood trees representative of a Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp community; however, due to the high organic matter of existing soil and
existing natural surface topography, ripping is not required. However, where construction equipment
is utilized, limited surface roughening may be necessary due to the structure of high organic soil that
may be destroyed by equipment.
In order to document existing hydrology and establish baseline conditions for proposed wetland re-
establishment area WR-1 and WR-2, one groundwater hydrology well was installed within the area,
near the easement break. In addition, one well was installed within existing, jurisdictional wetland, just
outside of the western -most Project boundary, within the draft perpetual flowage easement to serve as
a reference and document less disturbed hydrologic conditions. Unfortunately, this well was damaged
sometime between its installation in May 2019 and present day and therefore can no longer be used as
a reference. Limited data was collected from it to establish a baseline reference. The current,
functioning well was installed in May 2019 with an automatic pressure transducer within the well,
which records data twice per day. Data from these wells will be presented in the Final Mitigation Plan
and should include hydrographs for each well.
6.1.3.2 Enhancement
Wetland enhancement with a credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed within the existing jurisdictional wetlands
WJ, WH, WK, WG (labeled WG-1 on Figure 9), WF (labeled WF-1 on Figure 9), WE and WD in
areas 50 feet and >150 feet out from the proposed stream channel top of bank (Figure 9). These
wetlands are naturally fed by groundwater; however, anthropogenic disturbance from agricultural
production (clearing), ditching, and planted pine monocultures have created unfavorable conditions for
regeneration of woody wetland vegetation. Therefore, the primary approach to enhance these wetlands
is to plant native bare root trees, characteristic of a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp in order to
establish a wetland hardwood forest community. By reconstructing and enhancing Deep Creek, with
an appropriately sized channel back within the low of the existing floodplain, and plugging and filling
White Hat Mitigation Plan 27 July 2021

the incised, abandoned channel, the local groundwater elevation will rise and more frequent flooding
will occur, ultimately improving hydrology to the entire system.
6.1.3.3 Preservation
Wetland preservation with a credit ratio of 10:1 is proposed for the remaining jurisdictional wetland
areas within WG and WF that will not be directly enhanced by stream restoration efforts (labeled as
WG-2 and WF-2 on Figure 9). These areas lie outside of the non-standard buffer width areas (greater
than 150 feet) as well as directly south of DC1-C, and will remain forested and protected in perpetuity.
6.2 Sediment Control Measures
A suite of sediment control measures will be utilized for the Project to reduce sediment and nutrient
loading. The combination of the following sediment control measures: riparian buffer planting, stream
restoration and treatment swale construction, will ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site.
The riparian buffer will be restored or enhanced along all project reaches. Restored riparian buffers are
established adjacent to and up -gradient from watercourses of water bodies to improve water quality.
Several treatment swales are proposed along DC1-B to reduce sediment and nutrient loading from
agricultural ditches along this reach. These swales are designed to provide treatment by promoting
sediment deposition and nutrient uptake. The treatment swales will also function as backwater habitat.
6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan
6.3.1 Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration Project. The selection
of plant species is based on what was observed in the forest surrounding the restoration Project and
what is typically native to the area. Specifically, species identified in the downstream area of the Project,
where it is mostly forested, along with species described in the 2012 Guide to the Natural Communities
of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation (Schafale, 2012) for coastal plain wetland -type communities
were used to determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project.
The existing site characteristics show habitat similarities to a Coastal Plain Brownwater Bottomland
Hardwood Forest which helps serves as a reference for determining appropriate species to plant
throughout the Project. Along with this reference, the proposed planting plan has been built using best
professional experience, including trees proven to do well in restoration within the Coastal Plain. This
community type represents a diverse habitat where wet -tolerant hardwoods can establish throughout
while very wet species (e.g. cypress and gums) can thrive in the sloughs, depressions, and more swampy
areas. The target community will be used for the planting areas within the Project, shown in Figure 12
and Appendix D. Due to the varying site characteristics, including soil types, wetland extent, existing
vegetation, and inundation periods, there will be two planting zones where a mix of proposed tree
species will be planted throughout the planting areas, specific to the conditions present. The first
planting zone (Zone 1) will account for the maj ority of the planting area in the wetlands and throughout
the floodplain including a selection of species similar to that of a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp.
A second planting zone (Zone 2) will include a selection of wet -tolerant species to be planted in areas
along DC1-B where treatment swales will be installed and more frequent flooding will occur,
sometimes holding around 0.5 feet of standing water at a time. The tree species list has been developed
and can be found in Table 14.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 28 July 2021

In order to maintain integrity of the mature forested wetland areas within the proposed stream
restoration construction corridors, though sparse, tree clearing will be limited to the greatest extent
practicable. Therefore, where possible, some mature trees may remain within the proposed planting
area depicted in Figure 12 and Appendix D. Additionally, it is anticipated that tree clearing outside
the depicted planting area, and possibly outside the easement area, will occur to accommodate
construction access and limit monocrops; specifically, areas of pine regeneration on the left bank of
DC1-A and planted pine rows on the right banks of DC1-A and DC1-B, once harvested. These areas
will also be replanted along with the rest of the site in order to promote native plant diversity.
The restoration of plant communities along the Project will provide stabilization and diversity. For
rapid stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), black willow (Salix nigra), eastern
cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentahs) were chosen for live
stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth patterns and high success rates. Some
of these species will also be used in planting zone two, due to their tolerance in standing water. Willows
grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, and they stabilize the stream banks. Willows
will also be quicker to contribute organic matter to the channel. When the other planted tree species
grow bigger, the black willows will slowly stop growing or die out as they are effectively shaded out
and outcompeted. The live stake species will be planted along the outside of the meander bends three
feet from the top of bank, creating a three-foot section along the top of bank. The live stakes will be
spaced one per three linear feet with alternate spacing, vertically.
It is anticipated that the vegetation planting/replanting will be conducted between November 15 and
March 15, per the October 2016 USACE/NCIRT monitoring guidance. Furthermore, there will be at
least 180 days until the initiation of the first year of monitoring.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 29 July 2021

PO
io
M
.ry
�
O
�
�
x
O
U
i

6.3.2 On Site Nuisance Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required, specifically along the downstream portion of DC1-A,
which contains locally dense areas of Chinese privet. Vegetation throughout the remainder of the site
will be monitored throughout the life of the Project and any non-native species will be treated
accordingly. Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant
phenology and the location of the species being treated; however, based on observed existing
conditions, presently the only known exotic invasive species that would require treatment is Chinese
privet. All treatment will be conducted as to maximize its effectiveness and reduce chances of detriment
to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods will include mechanical (cutting with loppers,
clippers, or chain saw) and chemical (foliar spray, cut stump, and hack and squirt techniques). Plants
containing mature, viable seeds will be removed from the Project and properly disposed. All herbicide
applicators will be supervised by a certified ground pesticide applicator with a North Carolina
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) license and adhere to all legal and
safety requirements according to herbicide labels, and NC and Federal laws. Management records will
be kept on the plant species treated, type of treatment employed, type of herbicide used, application
technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities used. These records will be included in all
reporting documents.
Areas of cleared pines along DC1-A and to the south of DC1-B, will be monitored for future pine re -
colonization. Areas of dense regrowth will be treated either mechanically (cutting with loppers,
clippers, or chain saw), chemically (foliar spray, cut stump, and hack and squirt techniques), or a
combination of both based on the localized need.
6.3.3 Soil Restoration
Areas that have been disturbed, tracked over with heavy equipment, and where the existing farm road
was not removed the soil will be ripped and scarified during final soil preparation and before planting.
Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled and placed over the Project during
final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid
establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the Project.
6.4 Mitigation Summary
The entire stream and floodplain forest ecosystem, within the Project limits, will be restored and
revitalized through stream and wetland restoration and enhancement.
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document. The design parameters were developed to promote natural channel hydraulics, improve
aquatic habitat and promote intermittent to seasonal floodplain inundation. The parameters were
rigorously analyzed and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical tools and numerical
simulations of fluvial processes. The designs presented in this report provide for the restoration of
natural non -tidal coastal plan silt /sand channel features and stream bed diversity to improve benthic
habitat. The proposed design will allow flows to spread out over the floodplain, restoring a portion of
the hydrology for the existing wetlands. A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using
material excavated from the restoration channel. Native woody material will be installed throughout
the restored reach to increase habitat diversity, reduce channel and bank stress, and provide grade
control.
Forested riparian buffers of at least 100 feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the
project reaches. An appropriate combination of riparian wetland plant communities (Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp and Brownwater Bottomland Hardwood) will be established to include a diverse
White Hat Mitigation Plan 31 July 2021

mix of species in two separate zones specific to the planting area. The plant species list has been
developed and can be found in Table 14. Replanting of native species will also occur where the existing
buffer is impacted during construction.
Wetland restoration via wetland re-establishment aims to re-establish hydrology and hydrophytic
vegetation to currently non -wetland areas that exhibit hydric soil indicators and drained hydrology,
while enhancement areas aim to improve hydrology or vegetation in already jurisdictional wetland
areas. The primary mechanism to re-establish and enhance wetland hydrology is through stream
restoration efforts that will re-establish surface -groundwater connections, increasing retention and
storage, and permit flood events. All restored wetland areas will be planted with native, wetland -
tolerant hardwood vegetation. The remaining functional, jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved.
A combination of sediment control measures will be used on site; riparian buffer planting, treatment
swales, and stream restoration. This combination of sediment control measures will ultimately lead to
the functional uplift of the site by minimizing sedimentation and nutrient input from agricultural
production (row crop) outside of the conservation easement.
Due to the nature of the project, complete avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is not possible.
However, the construction approach and sequencing will be adjusted to minimize impacts and tracking
within the existing wetlands to avoid compaction to the extent possible. Please refer to Section 3.4.6
for a discussion of Project impacts. Ultimately, the impacts associated with the Project are integral to
provide functional uplift to aquatic resources on -site. Furthermore, all impacts will be accounted for in
the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) form.
6.5 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 15 are projections based upon site design (Figure 9). If upon
Project completion, there is a large discrepancy between design and as -built conditions an updated plan
will be submitted to the District for approval as a project modification. Any deviation from the
mitigation plan post approval, including adjustments to credits, will require a request for modification.
This will be approved by the USACE.
Table 15. Mitigation Credits
The White Hat Stream and Wetland Site Mitigation Credits
Warm Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Totals 6,285.333
9.149
NA
Stream Components
Mitigation
Reach Type
Existing
Proposed Stationing Length
(L ')
Proposed
Length
(L ')
Mitigation
Ratio
SMUs
DCl-A Restoration
34+83 to 63+90 1,799
2,907
1:1
2,907.000
DCl-B Restoration
64+38 to 87+89 2,019
2,351
1:1
2,351.000
DCl-C Enhancement I
87+89 to 103+30 1,541
1,541
1.5:1
1027.333
Total
5,359
6,799
6,285.333
Credit Loss in Required Butter
-99.040
Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment*
1,177.370
Total Adjusted SMUs
7,363.663
White Hat Mitigation Plan 32 July 2021

* SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator", supplied to
Providers in January 2021, from the USACE. A detailed description of the methodology and calculations is described below
in Section 6.5.1 and in Figure 11.
Wetland Components
Wetland ID Mitigation Area (ac) Ratio WMU
WR-1 Re-establishment 1.084 1:1 1.084
WR-2 Re-establishment 2.405 1:1 2.405
WJ, WH, WG-1, WF- Enhancement 13.893 3:1 4.631
1, WE, WD, WK
WG-2, WF-2 Preservation 3.487 10:1 0.349
Total* * 20.870 8.470
** Areas generating wetland credit are within the proposed 50 foot stream buffer area or are wholly outside of the Non-
standard buffer width areas generating additional stream credit (>150 ft.); therefore, additional stream credit areas and
wetland credit areas do not overlap.
6.5.1 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths
To calculate functional uplift credit adjustments, the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit
Calculator from the USACE supplied to mitigation providers in January 2021 was utilized. To perform
this calculation, GIS analysis was performed to determine the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones
and actual buffer zones around all streams within the project, including the area within the arc around
stream terminal ends. Minimum standard buffer widths are measured from the top of bank (50 feet in
Piedmont and Coastal Plain counties or 30 feet in Mountain counties). The ideal buffers are the
maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream
reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the square
feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g.,
wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation
performance standard, etc. The stream terminal ends are where the streams exit or enter the project
boundary, not including internal stream crossings. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width,
so areas within the easement that are more than 150 feet from creditable streams were not included in
this measurement. Non -creditable stream reaches within the easement are removed prior to calculating
this area with GIS (for both ideal and actual). The stream lengths, mitigation type, number of terminal
ends, ideal buffer, and actual buffer are all entered into the calculator. This data is processed, and the
resulting credit amounts are totaled for the whole project (Table 15 & Figure 11).
As mentioned earlier, areas generating wetland credit are within the proposed 50-foot stream buffer
area or are wholly outside of the Non-standard buffer width areas generating additional stream credit
(greater than 150 feet); therefore, additional stream credit areas and wetland credit areas do not overlap.
A completed credit calculation table can be found in Appendix C.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 33 July 2021

7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Project will follow the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update and subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
7.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
7.1.1 Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
7.1.2 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -
cutting or erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall
be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio
shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored riffle cross
sections.
7.1.3 Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, effectiveness of erosion control measures, and crossings throughout the
Project. Longitudinal images should not indicate the development of bars within the channel or an
excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing
degradation of the banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional
maturation of riparian vegetation.
7.2 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
7.2. l Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) has a current WETS table (1911-2020) for
Pasquotank County upon which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season. Data for
Perquimans County was not available; therefore, the closest comparable data station was determined to
be the WETS station in Elizabeth City, NC. This station determines the growing season to be 257 days
long, extending from March 15 to November 27, and is based on a daily minimum temperature greater
than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years.
Based upon field observation across the site, the NRCS mapping units show a good correlation to actual
site conditions in areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a
hydroperiod for Roanoke, Perquimans, and Pasquotank soil series of 9 to 12 percent of the growing
season; and 12-16 percent for Chowan soil series.. Soil in the surrounding upland soil map units and
immediately adjacent to the floodplain are anticipated to have shorter hydroperiods. Small depressional
areas underlain by a clayey subsoil may exhibit longer hydroperiods exceeding 16 percent. Therefore,
hydrology success criterion for the Project is to restore the water table so that it will remain continuously
within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12 percent of the growing season (approximately 31
White Hat Mitigation Plan 34 July 2021

days) at each groundwater gauge location. Due to the current drainage and permeable soils, it may take
at least a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the target hydroperiod.
7.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project
will follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the
survival of at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, a minimum of 260
five-year old trees at 7 feet in height at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will
be 210 trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be
counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports. In order for a volunteer
tree to count towards success criteria, it must be a species on the approved planting list and be present
for at least two growing seasons. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent
of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be
shown in the monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate success. Additionally, invasive
species will be monitored and controlled to under five percent of the easement area.
8 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported according to NC IRT monitoring guidance. The monitoring
report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and
trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding project close-out. Monitoring of the
Project will adhere to metrics and performance standards established by the USACE's April 2003
Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the NC IRT's October 2016 Wilmington
District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Table 16 outlines the links between
project objectives and treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards.
Figure 12 depicts the proposed monitoring plan, including approximate numbers and locations of
monitoring devices for the Project.
8.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank
to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by USACE.
8.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species,
and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete stream
walk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record
each monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Fixed image locations
will exist at each cross section, each vegetation plot, each stage recorder, and at the agricultural crossing
(easement break). Results of visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief
description of problem areas and digital images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate
channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of
erosion control measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within
the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive
erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate
successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 35 July 2021

8.3 Stream Hydrology Events
Continuous stage recorders, devices that utilize automatic -logging pressure transducers that are capable
of documenting the height, frequency, and duration of bankfull events, will be installed on Restoration
reaches of Deep Creek. Specifically, stage recorders will be installed on reaches DC1-A and DC1-B.
8.4 Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in
pools and half in riffle on all Restoration reaches. Morphological data will be measured and recorded
for all cross -sections; however, only riffle cross sections will include bank height ratio and
entrenchment ratio measurements. A total of 14 cross sections are proposed across the Project. These
cross sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
8.5 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydrologic conditions in the wetland restoration
areas. This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in
representative locations across the restoration areas as well as the jurisdictional wetland areas, outside
of crediting zones, for reference conditions. These gauges will be installed in accordance with USACE
guidelines. The gauges will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated
during the growing season. Gauge installation will follow current NCIRT guidance. Visual observations
of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site
visits. A total of 10 groundwater gauges are proposed across the Project; five in re-established wetlands,
two in enhanced, jurisdictional wetlands, and three in uncredited jurisdictional wetlands, serving as
references.
8.6 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.0247 acres in size and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. While the entire planted area totals 51.90 acres, the number of vegetation
plots will be calculated based on the areas of wetland enhancement and the areas within the stream
corridor out to 150 feet, given that the Project represents a large, uniform site. This area totals 32.70
acres (Figure 12). Of that calculated 32.70 acres, 30 plots will be installed and monitored throughout
the total 51.90-acre planted area. Plots will be a mixture of fixed and random plots, with 18 fixed plots
and 12 random plots. Planted area indicates all area in the easement that will be planted with trees.
Maintained areas are not included in the planted area; this excludes areas where planted pines will be
thinned and replanted. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the fixed plots: species,
height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. For random plots, species and height will be
recorded for all woody stems. The location (GPS coordinates and orientation) of the random plots will
be identified in the annual monitoring reports. Vegetation will be planted, and plots established at least
180 days prior to the initiation of the first year of monitoring. Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5,
and 7 between July 1st and leaf drop. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored so that none
become dominant or alter the desired community structure of the Project. If necessary, RES will
develop a species -specific treatment plan.
8.7 Scheduling/Reporting
A baseline monitoring report and as -built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be
developed within 60 days of the planting completion on the Project. The report will include elevations,
photographs and sampling plot locations, gauge locations, cross section locations, and a description of
initial species composition by community type. Baseline vegetation monitoring will include species,
height, date of planting, and grid location of each stem. The report will also include a list of the species
White Hat Mitigation Plan 36 July 2021

planted and the associated densities. In addition to the as -built drawings, a redline version of the as -
built drawings will be developed to identify any significant deviations between design and as -built
conditions. The baseline report will follow USACE guidelines and the October 2017 Mitigation Credit
Calculation Memo.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the
success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final
success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the IRT.
The monitoring reports will include all information and be in the format required by USACE.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 37 July 2021

Table 16. Monitoring Requirements
Objective
Treatment
Monitoring Metric
Success Criteria
Improve the transport of
Convert land -use of some
water from the
Project reaches from pine
watershed to the Project
stand and cropland to
reaches in a non -erosive
riparian forest.
Groundwater wells with
Water table within 12 inches of
way and maintain
pressure transducers:
the ground surface for 12% of
appropriate wetland
Restore and enhance
Downloaded quarterly
growing season (z 31 days)
hydrology for Chowan,
wetland hydrology through
Perquimans, and
stream restoration and
Roanoke soil series
enhancement activities
Stage recorders:
Four bankfull events occurring
Improve flood -bank
Reduce bank height ratios
Inspected quarterly
in separate years
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
connectivity by
and increase entrenchment
reducing bank height
ratios by reconstructing
Cross sections: Surveyed
less than 2.2 within restored
ratios and increase
channels to mimic reference
reaches
entrenchment ratios
reach conditions
in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Bank height ratio shall not
exceed 1.2
As -built stream profile
NA
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
Limit erosion rates and
Establish and/or widen
Cross sections: Surveyed
less than 2.2 within restored
reaches
maintain channel
riparian buffers to reduce
in
stability
erosion and sediment
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Bank height ratio shall not
Improve bedform
transport into project
exceed
1.2
diversity (pool spacing,
streams.
Identify and document
percent riffles, eta
Establish stable banks with
Visual monitoring:
significant
Increase buffer width to
livestakes, erosion control
Performed at least
stream problem areas; i.e.
50 feet, mostly greater
matting, and other in stream
semiannually
erosion, degradation,
than 100 feet
structures.
aggradation, etc.
Vegetation plots:
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
Surveyed in
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
Promote sediment
filtration, nutrient
cycling, and organic
Groundwater wells with
Water table within 12 inches of
accumulation through
pressure transducers:
the ground surface for 12% of
natural wetland
Restore and enhance
Downloaded quarterly
growing season (z 31 days)
biogeochemical
wetland hydrology
processes
Vegetation plots:
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
Establish native
Plant a riparian buffer
hardwood riparian
Surveyed in
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
buffer
Establish permanent
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
conservation easement
Visual assessment of
Inspect signage.
Protect aquatic
established conservation
Identify and document any
resources in perpetuity
signage: Performed at
damaged or missing
least semiannually
signs
White Hat Mitigation Plan 38 July 2021

9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of Project construction, RES will implement the post -construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in this
document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the Project's ability to achieve
performance standards are jeopardized, RES will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized RES will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Prepare Corrective Action Plan for review and approval by IRT.
5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
6. Provide the IRT a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 39 July 2021

10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of short-term monitoring and site close out by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to
Unique Places to Save (UP2S):
Unique Places to Save
[phone]
PO Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
info(a uniqueplacestosave.org
UP2S will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements will be stewarded in
general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust Alliance. Specific
responsibilities include:
• Monitoring of site is conducted on an annual basis.
• An on -site inspection is conducted once per year.
• Visits to the site are coordinated with landowner when possible.
• Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
• Signage for the easement boundary is maintained.
• Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are promptly communicated
to the landowner.
In addition to the Conservation Easement being recorded for the Project, a Draft Perpetual Flowage
Easement will be recorded upstream of the project area. This easement provides RES with the limited and
express right to periodically, regularly, overflow, flood, inundate, flow water on, across, and through, store
water on, and submerge the Flowage Area described in Appendix A and depicted throughout the figures.
Upon approval of the Final Mitigation Plan, RES will execute the Draft Perpetual Flowage Easement which
will be held in perpetuity by Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC.
A model conservation easement, engagement letter from UP2S, and draft perpetual flowage easement are
included in Appendix A. The engagement letter includes itemized annual cost accounting of long-term
management, total amount of funding, and the manner in which the funding will be provided.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 40 July 2021

11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved mitigation plan of
the site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of the
mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the IRT, will determine if performance standards have
been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some
performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the
case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails
to meet the specified performance standard. The release of Project credits will be subject to the criteria
described in Table 17.
11.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the IRT with
written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
b) Approval of the final mitigation plan;
c) Mitigation site must be secured;
d) Delivery of financial assurances;
e) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
f) Issuance of the 404-permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
g) Documentation of the establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow account.
11.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan and IRT
approval of the Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey. All subsequent credit releases must be
approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a determination that required performance
standards have been achieved. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the Sponsor
will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of
criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring
report.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 41 July 2021

Table 17. Credit Release Schedule
Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total Released
Milestone
Release
1
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
15%
15%
stated above)
2
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
3
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
performance standards are being met.
4
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance standards are being met.
(60%*)
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
60%
performance standards are being met.
6
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
65%
performance standards are being met.
(75%*)
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
75%
performance standards are being met.
(85%*)
8
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
80%
performance standards are being met.
(90%*)
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
90%
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
(100%*)
has received close-out approval.
* 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull eventperformance standard has been met.
Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Release
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total Released
Milestone
Release
1
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
15%
15%
stated above)
2
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
3
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
performance standards are being met.
4
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance standards are being met.
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
15%
65%
performance standards are being met.
6
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
70%
performance standards are being met.
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
15%
85%
performance standards are being met.
8
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
90%
performance standards are being met.
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
100%
has received close-out approval.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 42
July 2021

12 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Project will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will be conducted a minimum of
once per year throughout the post construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine
maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may
include the following:
Table 18. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in -stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where
stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank failures and head -cutting. Stream maintenance activities will be
documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Stream maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
Wetland Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir
matting and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation within
the wetland.
Vegetation Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species
shall be treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control
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.
Site Boundary Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs, spaced
100 to 150 feet apart, identifying the property as a mitigation site 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 site 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.
Beaver Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver management is
needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability or vegetative success, RES
will trap beavers and remove impoundments as needed. All beaver management
activities will be documented and included in annual monitoring reports. Beaver
monitoring and management will continue through the monitoring period.
12.1 Risks and Uncertainties
While RES is committed to restoring, enhancing, and preserving the stream and wetland system
throughout the Project, it is acknowledged that potential risks and uncertainties may arise. Risks during
design and planning have been addressed throughout the design parameters, Section 6.1 and in the plan
sheets found in Appendix D. Monitoring of these risks will ensure the success of the Project. General
risks that are common on restoration projects are discussed in Table 18. as they are typical maintenance
activities that occur throughout the monitoring period. By understanding and monitoring these risks, RES
White Hat Mitigation Plan 43 July 2021

is better equipped to combat areas of concern not only throughout the White Hat Mitigation Site, but also
future project sites that may require similar considerations.
Due to the proposed elevation lift at the most upstream portion of the Project, it is uncertain how the
accumulation of backwater will impact water quality, specifically the risk of lowering levels of dissolved
oxygen. While nothing is certain, RES does not anticipate the backwater effect from the proposed three-
foot elevation lift will have a significant impact on dissolved oxygen concentrations upstream of the Project.
Upon evaluation of the backwater area in question, it was noted that it is currently impounded
approximately one foot by high points in the existing channel. The area is also in backwater periodically
from flashboard risers utilized to flood the existing hunting impoundment. Additionally, Brownwater
systems are characterized by slow moving channels containing backwater areas with high concentrations
of organic material. These characteristics all exhibit a positive correlation with low dissolved oxygen.
Therefore, the Project's target aquatic community is adapted to the low dissolved oxygen conditions that
are currently existing and that will persist once the project is completed. Going forward, this area will be
visually monitored for vegetative decline or evidence of other negative aquatic impacts, such as fish kills.
If these instances occur, RES will provide a plan, addressing the impact, which will be included in yearly
monitoring reports.
RES does not anticipate major impacts to the forest upstream of the project. The inundation maps provided
in Appendix C show that limited changes to inundation are anticipated upstream of the project. We do
anticipate higher water surface elevations during base flow and smaller storm events. RES anticipates this
increase will impact upstream field ditches and therefore RES has acquired a draft perpetual flowage
easement allow for this impact.
With regards to long-term system stability, RES will maintain beavers for the monitoring period to allow
vegetation to establish and stabilize the channel and floodplain. If the threat is posed and beaver
management is needed post -construction, depending on the severity, RES will trap beavers and remove
impoundments where necessary (Table 18.). All beaver management activities will be documented and
included in annual monitoring reports. Beyond the monitoring period the landowners will be able to remove
beavers if they become a nuisance. RES does not anticipate significant hydrologic trespass will be caused
by beavers even if they establish. This is based on the presence wide floodplains that can convey flood
flows effectively.
White Hat Mitigation Plan 44 July 2021

13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $1,600,000 Construction Performance Bond
to the USACE to assure completion of mitigation construction and planting. Construction and planting costs
are estimated to be at or below $1,600,000 based on the Engineer's construction materials estimate and
recent bid tabulation unit costs for construction materials. Following completion of construction and
planting the Construction Performance Bond will be retired and a $200,615 Monitoring Performance Bond
will be provided to assure completion of seven years of monitoring and reporting, and any remedial work
required during the monitoring period. The $205,000 amount includes contingency and estimated
monitoring costs from the Engineer. The Monitoring Performance Bond will be reduced by $29,285
following approval of each annual monitoring report. The Monitoring Performance Bond will be retired in
total following official notice of site close-out from the IRT. Financial assurances shall be payable to a
standby trust or other designee at the direction of the obligee. Financial assurances structured to provide
funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance
must be in the form that ensures that the USACE receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any
termination or revocation. The Performance Bonds will be provided by a surety listed with the U.S.
Treasury and has an A.M. Best Rating of B or above. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the
USACE in draft form for approval prior to execution. In the event of Sponsor default, UP2S has agreed to
receive the funds and ensure the work is successfully completed.
Table 19. Financial Assurances
Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc.)
$300,000
Sitework
$600,000
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs, logs, rocks, coir, etc.)
$410,000
Crossings
$50,000
Vegetation
$165,000
Miscellaneous/Admin Fees
$75,000
Total
Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Set -Up, As -Built, & Equipment
$1,600,000
$20,000
Year 1 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Year 2 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Year 3 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Year 4 Monitoring and Report
$8,000
Year 5 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Year 6 Monitoring and Report
$8,000
Year 7 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Maintenance and Contingency
$130,000
Total
$216,000
White Hat Mitigation Plan 45 July 2021

14 REFERENCES
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open -Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood Frequency Analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1543-A.
Doll, Barbara A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton and D.A. Bidelspach, 2003, Hydraulic
Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams, NC Stream Restoration
Institute, Report to N.C. Division of Water Quality for 319 Grant Project No. EW20011,
www.ncsu.edu/sri. 11 pp.
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.
Fischenich, C. 2001. "Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials." ERDC Technical Note No.
EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss.
Fischenich, J.C., 2006. Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration, EMRRP Technical Notes
Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52), US Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. (available online at http://el.erdc.usace.anny.mil/elpubs/pdf/si 52.pdf)
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Krstolic, J.L., and Chaplin, J.J., 2007, Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non -urban, non -tidal
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5162, 48 p.
NCDENR 2012a. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (Accessed August 2020).
NCDENR 2012b. "2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5." Water Quality Section.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (Accessed August 2020).
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2011. A Guide to Surface Freshwater Classifications
in North Carolina. Raleigh. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_librM
get file?p_1_id=1169848&folderld=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf; (Accessed August 2020).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2021. Sea Level Rise Viewer.
https:Hcoast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/mar/8/-
8498966.218358332/4325122.025887861/14/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion ;
(accessed July 2021).
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). "Pasquotank River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009."
White Hat Mitigation Plan 46 July 2021

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). N.C. Natural Heritage Data Explorer.
https://ncnhde.natureserve.org_//. (Accessed November 2020).
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2"d edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2, December
24, 2002.
USACE. 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
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.
USACE. 2018. Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator.
USACE. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.
USDA NRCS. 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654), USDA
USDA NRCS. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas,
G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.
USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov (November 2020).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. EPA Manual. Quantifying Physical
Habitat in Wadeable Streams.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC).
https:Hecos.fivs.gov/ipac (Accessed November 2020).
White Hat Mitigation Plan 47 July 2021

Figures
Figure la: Project Vicinity
Figure IN Service Area
Figures 2a & 2b: USGS Quadrangle
Figure 3: Landowner Parcels
Figure 4: Land Use
Figure 5: LiDAR
Figure 6: Mapped Soils
Figure 7: Existing Conditions
Figure 8: Historic Conditions
Figure 9: Conceptual Design Plan
Figure 10: Project Constraints
Figure 11: Buffer Width Zones
Figure 12: Monitoring Plan

t
Ra
QBerea Church of Chri_•;
a°
�Hyae Ru
"P.
Legend
Proposed Easement
Draft Perpetual Flowage Easement
14- Digit HUC - 03010205060020
Pasquotank River Basin - 03010205
C5 Mile Aviation Zone
N
wF
0 1,000 2,000
1
Eure..Seed Farms, Inc
Qualify Bs
Figure 1a - Project Vicinity
White Hat
Mitigation Project
Date: 7/12/2021
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: MGB
1 inch = 2,000 feet
UK�
P...-7 U ,-,_.I
1
Hate ixton
fires

orapeake
FAoyock Knoits
I�;and
Dismal Swamp
Gates ollyGrove State Park
C-)
Currit Ck
Tar Corner
NatiO al
Wildli
Eason Cross Soulh Mills
rye Roads Sunbury rye
Currr[uck
Refug
Mapl,
37
Shawborp
Gatesvllle say
Barce
Cor la
3r
NohUsville
C:o,niock
Camden
r,
as 3
•Ilsville Sign Pine EIrabath
CIly _
Poplar Brar ch
8elv.dere
SI 'oh
145
�
33
A I ^'rt Trzl:
Gr:sr'dy
Woodville
5 n
Wlntall
White Hat
t,rv,;b,rg %
Mitigation Project
rSo
`�—
cn'er3m Neriford
t�L
;y, Rcckyh,
_
.. , Faint
New Hope
Sou iIrn
f•�i
point Harbor
K:i'vII k
.. r`,,xon5 Beach
�
Palntetta•Peartree
_
Preserve
rRea Ridge
�.:uemarle Skrnnersville
Beach Q Columhia
Alkwor
Mar•teo
Woodley
E_851
i_ake Manny N3rhar
-
Jerry
paper Creswell
• •-.•�
LJ
�Es Wanchese
.Ili'
is
m
(• 5
Alligator
River National
Wildlife y
Phelps
Refuge w
0
Gum fleck
pare Game
Wenona
Emily and
Land stumpyPr i •
Richardson
Dreyer
Sixth Siding
uckridge..
Wilkinson
Pantego
0-
Belhaven Fairfield
yeatesvllle d Engelhard
Scranton
Mattamuskeei Middletown
;;:r.steadv•Ire National itiebraska
Wildlife
Bayv,ew Gerrnarltowri sEa Refuge..
Swanquarter
Pa,.,,'k-o RiYp!
r �
Legend
Proposed Easement
Pasquotank River Basin - 03010205
N
w E
s
0 5 10
Miles
Figure 1 b - Service Area
White Hat
Mitigation Project
imans Countv- North Ca
f?, i x tC•
0 insco
F+a'tera;
F 36.177,-76.333

T - -
Forest"
Le- emend
Proposed Easement
Draft Perpetual Flowage Easement
® Project Drainage Area (2.91 sq mi)
rr�' :iin��j�►�a`i�til�+E
♦�l0 2,500 5,000
Feet
Newby �s
��rr i4
Piney
,f- Blount Point •
�1Point
Figure 2a - USGS Quadrangle Date: 7/12/2021
Nixonton (1982) Drawn by: EJU Ores
White Hat Checked by: MDD
Mitigation Project
1 inch = 5,000 feet
uimans Count North Carolina

Legend
Proposed Easement
® Draft Perpetual Flowage Easement
Drainage Area
- DC1-A (1,535 ac) tio�°o
DC1-B (1,711 ac) 4a
a
® DC1-C (1,859 ac) 4yf
s.
rr�''io::iin��j�►�a`ictilI.
N
Figure 2b - USGS Quadrangle
w White Hat
1,000 2,000 Mitigation Project
Feet Perquimans County, North Carolina
c
Date: 7/12/2021
Drawn by: EJU Ores
Checked by: MDD
1 inch = 2,000 feet

LIN I QQY, M I C H—AELTR-.
.._4
SJL7��k9 :,q_5 1 28 ; �q� I
U0.
Legen
Proposed Easement
Draft Perpetual Flowage Easement
rProject Parcel
Adjacent Parcel
�49w0 500 1,000
Feet
Figure 3 - Landowner Parcels Date 7/12/2021
Drawn by: EJU
White Hat
Mitigation Project Checked by: MDD
1 inch = 1,000 feet
presl

Ro
I
Legend
Proposed Easement
rDraft Perpetual Flowage Easement
Soils
- Hydric (100%)
Predominantly Hydric (66-99%)
Partially Hydric (33-65%)
ELI Predominantly Nonhydric (1-32%)
= Nonhydric (0%)
Pe
Ch
Map Unit
Map Unit Name
Ch
Chaponoke silt loam
CO
Chowan silt loam
Pe
Perquimans silt loam
Ro
I Roanoke silt loam
T
N Figure 6 - Mapped Soils Date: 7/12/2021
w E Ores
White Hat Drawn by: EJU
0 500s 1,000 Mitigation Project Checked by: MDD
1 inch= 1,000 feet
Feet
Per uimans County, North Carolina

LM
Leget
F7

M O O m m 7 m Cp Z) O O O
+•~ _i. t - N O In N W 0)r CO V Cm0 M 7
•w,.: O cli O N C� M m V O oo
N N O
:ice-w m 6— a M o
� O �
U c O m in r- O c v co v co
L N U ) N N— CO J '� Q m m m O
N
cya
LL E U C o o C O U N W >. O
£ t IIt O -z E
_ 1 co
m m N
Or 4
(� � o o U ui t u
L N o 0 t6
L 0 U
j
p U
o
-c Q w
a
O a0 U
s� yG'
O> H O O
O N a0+ 0 V
a � o
c d R
IA
c *'
a V C
R
`° °i = E
a
3 E Q
�0
ern
. Y c ac in
o E
�
LaO cm Q
a a o
oc wcm
a
O o0
s I-q
_ m
c
c y _
x � c
a
O O u E v LL
N m — m w
l7 �p (D
0)
ca o
a
+z)+ E c
w a t o
Q u ( -
�', d O u >
o a a
oa ° m
.'. a o a-
m

i
41E
Ii�wL`l35
J

a
O
V
_
s
3
LL
c
o'
W
m E
3
r
Q
'
LL
m
�
o.
� a � m 11111111�111
d
w
7
CO
Q
d
w
7
CO
70
d

�
= {§ _
0
: !
§ 2 |§
} I z
( =§/=\t
} 7 ) § (j } / \) § / (
\
§§=�»a
\ B
Go @ a | |
} ( \\
\
um
\ o �
\ \
� .
�
\�
��.
\\
\\/
� ^«
\\
\\\
\\
\\\
»
, e
>
\ \
\\
\ \
\
\\
\\\
r{
-
(\%
m0
\_~
\\
\ }
©�0
.
§),
-
§5.
\\/
-
f
±+»
E1
/_
.
){R
)/j
LL
/a)
-
2
/

Appendix A —
Site Protection Instrument

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S
USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made
this day of 202 by and
between ("Grantor") and _ _ ("Grantee").
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said
parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural,
masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated,
lying and being in County, North Carolina, more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property");
WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not -for -profit or educational
corporation, association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of
1

the Internal Revenue Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the
purposes or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) — (d)
listed below;
(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space aspects of
real property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational,
educational, or open -space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic,
natural, or aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes
the following natural communities: [add or delete as appropriate: coastal
wetlands, non -riparian wetlands, riparian wetlands, perennial and intermittent
streams and riparian buffers]. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to
maintain streams, wetlands and riparian resources and other natural values of
approximately acres, more or less, and being more particularly described in
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated fully herein by reference (the
"Conservation Easement Area"), and prevent the use or development of the
Conservation Easement Area for any purpose or in any manner that would
conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the
Conservation Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the
Mitigation Bank, Department of the Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW-
, entitled "Agreement to Establish the
Mitigation Bank in the River Basin within the State of North
Carolina", entered into by and between [enter Sponsor name] acting as the
Bank Sponsor and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in
consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The
Mitigation Site has been approved by the Corps for use as
a mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts
authorized by DA permits.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District ("Third -
Parties," to include any successor agencies), and may be exercised through
the appropriate enforcement agencies of the United States and the State of
North Carolina, and that these rights are in addition to, and do not limit, the
rights of enforcement under the NCDWR Project ID # and
Department of the Army instrument number SAW -
("Mitigation Banking Instrument"), or any permit or certification issued by the
Third -Parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, Grantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors and assigns, forever and in
perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to the
extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area described
on Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:
ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation
Easement is an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by
Grantee against Grantor, Grantor's personal representatives, heirs, successors
and assigns, lessees, agents and licensees.
ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent
with the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The
Conservation Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and
restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the
conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities
and uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated
hereunder:
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance,
alteration or impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement
Area or any introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is
prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building, mobile
home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display, antenna, utility
pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or permanent structure
or facility on or above the Conservation Easement Area.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential
and/or commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes
are prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing,
animal husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area
3

are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction,
harming, cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan.
Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for purposes of enhancing
planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the Mitigation Plan is
allowable once a year for no more than five consecutive years from the date on
page 1 of this Conservation Easement, except where mowing will negatively
impact vegetation or disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed by
[enter Sponsor name] and shall not violate any part of Item L of Article II.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or
walkways on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or
modification to existing roads, trails or walkways.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation
Easement Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying
the conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving
directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the
Conservation Easement Area.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes,
garbage, waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous
substances, or toxic or hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or
aboveground storage tanks or other materials on the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.
I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading,
filling, excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand,
gravel, rock, peat, minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography
of the land in any manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to
restore natural topography or drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and
enhancing streams and wetlands within the Conservation Easement Area,
[enter Sponsor name] is allowed to perform grading, filling, and excavation
associated with stream and wetland restoration and enhancement activities as
described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by Department of the Army
Nationwide Permit 27.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking,
draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related
activities, or altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or
disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns.
In addition, diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or
underground water into, within or out of the easement area by any means,
removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or
21

wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been
encumbered or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be
transferred pursuant to a transferable development rights scheme or cluster
development arrangement or otherwise.
[Not required, but may be added if Grantor and Grantee agree:]
L. Subdivision. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the Conservation
Easement Area currently consists of within
separate parcels. The Grantor may not further subdivide the
Conservation Easement Area, except with the prior written consent of the
Grantee. If Grantor elects to further subdivide any portion of the Conservation
Easement Area, Grantor must provide the Grantee the name, address, and
telephone number of new owner(s) of all property within the Conservation
Easement Area, if different from Grantor. No subdivision of the Conservation
Easement Area shall limit the right of ingress and egress over and across the
Property for the purposes set forth herein. Further, in the event of any
subdivision of the Property (whether inside or outside of the Conservation
Easement Area) provision shall be made to preserve not only Grantee's
perpetual rights of access to the Conservation Easement Area, as defined
herein, but also Grantee's right of perpetual access to any conservation
easements on properties adjacent to the Property which form a part of or are
included in the Mitigation Plan. Creation of a condominium or any de facto
division of the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. Lot line adjustments
or lot consolidation without the prior written consent of the Grantee is
prohibited. The Grantor may convey undivided interests in the real property
underlying the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor shall notify the
Grantee immediately of the name, address, and telephone number of any
grantee of an undivided interest in any property within the Conservation
Easement Area.
M. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not
limited to, motorcycles, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is
prohibited otherthan for temporary or occasional access by the [enter
Sponsor name], the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors,
assigns, NCDWR, and the Corps for purposes of constructing, maintaining
and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and preservation of streams,
wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation Easement Area. The
use of mechanized vehicles for monitoring purposes is limited to only
existing roads and trails as shown in the approved in the mitigation plan.
N. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the
Conservation Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the
purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental
systems, is prohibited.
5

ARTICLE III.
GRANTOR'S RESEVERED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation
Easement Area for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the
Conservation Easement Area, the rights of ingress and egress, the right to
hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement Area, the right to sell,
transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement Area, in whole or
in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms
of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, including [enter Sponsor name] acting as the Bank
Sponsor, the right to construct and perform activities related to the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within
the Conservation Easement Area in accordance with the approved
Mitigation Plan, and the Mitigation Banking Instrument
described in the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, the following rights in the areas labeled as "Internal
Crossing" on the plat [insert plat name and recorded plat book page number] in
the Conservation Easement Area: vehicular access, livestock access, irrigation
piping and piping of livestock waste. All Internal Crossings that allow livestock
access will be bounded by fencing and will be over a culvert.
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE'S RIGHTS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns,
and the Corps, shall have the right to enter the Property and Conservation
Easement Area at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the
Conservation Easement Area to determine if the Grantor, or his personal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, is complying with the terms,
conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation Easement. The
Grantee, [enter Sponsor name], and its authorized representatives, successors
and assigns, and the Corps shall also have the right to enter and go upon the
Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making scientific or educational
observations and studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted
herein do not include public access rights.
ARTICLE V.
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, the Corps,
and NCDWR are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation
Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to
require the restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement
Area that may be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the
terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of
the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The
Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions
constituting such breach. If the breach remains uncured after 30 days, the
Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal
proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to
obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if the
breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such
circumstances damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at
law will be inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided
hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and
remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
The costs of a breach, correction or restoration, including the Grantee's
expenses, court costs, and attorneys' fees, shall be paid by Grantor, provided
Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps and the
NCDWR shall have the same rights and privileges as the said Grantee to
enforce the terms and conditions of this Conservation easement.
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or
provision hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other
covenant, condition, or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce
the same in the event of a subsequent breach or default.
C. 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 resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of
God or third parties, except Grantor's lessees or invitees; or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or harm to the
Conservation Easement Area resulting from such causes.
ARTICLE VI.
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns
the Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the
Property which may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement
or that there are no outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other

interests in the Property which have not been expressly subordinated to this
Conservation Easement. Grantor further warrants that Grantee shall have the
use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and arising out of this
Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the
Property against the claims of all persons.
B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms
of this Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that
transfers any interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area.
The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60)
days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the
terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee and
easement interests in the Conservation Easement Area or any portion thereof
and shall not be amended, modified or terminated without the prior written
consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. 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 pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34
et seq. and § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the
Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or
assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to
continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The Mitigation Banking
Instrument: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and this Conservation
Easement 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 void or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate
taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall
keep the Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations
incurred by Grantor, except those incurred after the date hereof, which are
expressly subject and subordinate to the Conservation Easement. 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. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits
that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
F. Long -Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the

maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic
resource functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are
sustained.
G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render
impossible the continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the
conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be extinguished,
in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.
H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation
Easement Area is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to
substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation
Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of
such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.
I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property
interest immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the
Conservation Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted
following an extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall
be entitled to the fair market value of this Conservation Easement as
determined at the time of the extinguishment or condemnation.
J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other
communication required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by
registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such
address as may be hereafter specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Sponsor:
To the Corps.
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to
enforce this Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified
grantee, and if within a reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of
these events Grantee fails to make an assignment pursuant to this
Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's interest shall become vested in
another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate proceeding in a

court of competent jurisdiction.
L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but
only in a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment
does not affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of
the Grantee under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation
purposes of this grant.
M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The
wetlands, scenic, resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of
the Conservation Easement Area, and its current use and state of
improvement, are described in Section of the Mitigation Plan, prepared
by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and Grantee to be complete and
accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee have copies of this
report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes in the use
of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with the terms of this
Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the
use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the Conservation
Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually
unto Grantee for the aforesaid purposes.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and
seal, the day and year first above written.
[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]
10

PERPETUAL WATER FLOWAGE EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made this day of
and between
2021, by
("Grantor") whose principal address is
and
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC, ("Grantee") whose mailing address is 6575 West Loop
South, Suite 300, Bellaire, Texas 77401.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantee owns a parcel of property in
which is described in Exhibit A attached hereto (referred to as "Area A");
County, North Carolina,
WHEREAS, Grantee is establishing a wetland mitigation bank ("Mitigation Bank") on
Area A;
WHEREAS, Grantee's establishment, construction, operation, or maintenance of the
Mitigation Bank is expected to hydrologically impact a tract of continuous property, owned by
Grantor, which tract is described in Exhibit B attached hereto (referred to as "Flowage Area"); and
WHEREAS, to allow for such hydrologic impacts resulting from establishment,
construction, operation or maintenance of the Mitigation Bank, Grantor desires to grant Grantee
this flowage easement over the Flowage Area described in Exhibit B;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), together with
other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which are hereby
acknowledged, Grantor does hereby grant, bargain, sell, and convey to Grantee, a perpetual

flowage, drainage, and inundation easement (hereinafter referred to as the "Easement") over the
real property Flowage Area described in Exhibit B.
1) This Easement is given to Grantee for the limited and expressed right to regularly, or
periodically, overflow, flood, inundate, flow water on, across, and through, store water on,
and submerge the Flowage Area.
2) Grantor and Grantee shall use the Flowage Area in accordance with Federal and State laws
with respect to pollution and in no event will use of this Easement cause additional federal
or local permitting nor necessitate modification of existing permits.
All the covenants, terms, and agreements herein contained run with the land, and with the
owner or operator of the Mitigation Bank as applicable and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding
upon the parties hereto and their respective executors, administrators, personal representatives, heirs,
successors, and assigns.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same together with all and singular the appurtenances
thereunto belonging or in anywise incident or appertaining to the proper use, and benefit of the
Grantee, its successors or assigns, forever.
AND the Grantor hereby covenants with Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized of the
Flowage Area described in Exhibit B in fee simple; that it has good right and lawful authority to
convey this Easement; that it fully warrants and defends the title to the Easement hereby conveyed
against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
-2-

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Easement to be effective as of the date
first above written.
GRANTOR:
Name:
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I, a Notary Public of the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that ,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged that s/he signed the foregoing Easement
in his/her name and as his/her act and deed for the purposes stated herein.
Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this the _ day of , 20
[SEAL]
Signature of Notary Public
Printed Name of Notary Public
My commission expires:
-3-

GRANTEE:
ENVIRONMENTAL BANC &
EXCHANGE, LLC, a Maryland limited
liability company
By: Resource Environmental Solutions,
LLC,its Manager
By: _
Name:
Title:
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I, a Notary Public of the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that
as of Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC,
Manager of Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged that he/she signed the foregoing Access Easement Agreement in his/her capacity
stated above, for the purposes stated herein.
Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this the day of , 20
[SEAL]
Signature of Notary Public
Printed Name of Notary Public
My commission expires:
M

Exhibit A — Mitigation Bank
[To be attached.]
-5-

Exhibit B — Flowage Area
[To be attached.]

Authen9slgn ID: E3CE8738.9A90.427G818B-A81349818C9C
Unique Places
To Save
January 28, 2021
Matt Butler
RES
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Butler,
This letter confirms that Unique Places to Save ("UP2S"), a 501(c)3 not -for -profit organization located in the
State of North Carolina, has preliminarily agreed to act as the conservation easement grantee and long-term
steward for the White Hat Mitigation Project ("Site") located in the Pasquotank River Basin (HUC 03010205) in
Perquimans County, North Carolina. The Site consists of an approximate 76.34-acre conservation easement
area. As the conservation easement grantee and long-term steward, UP2S has agreed to and shall be
responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement
are enforced and maintained into perpetuity. Specific responsibilities include:
• Monitoring of Site is conducted on an annual basis.
• Visits to Site are coordinated with the landowner when possible.
• Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
• Ensure fencing (if applicable) for the easement boundary is maintained by the landowner.
• Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement are addressed following protocols
contained in the UP2S Conservation Easement Violations Policy and Conservation Easement Deed.
Upon recordation of the conservation easement deed, UP2S shall receive a stewardship endowment from
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC ("EBX"), the Site sponsor to ensure annual Site inspections occur and the
terms of the conservation easement deed are legally defended into perpetuity. UP2S is also acting as bond
obligee for the project and Site. UP2S shall require an administrative/bond fee upon execution of a
Stewardship Agreement between UP2S and EBX.
Aulhe
Je isnmMew
'er, oard Member
Unique Places To Save
404
Representative Signature
EBX/RES
Matt Butler
Printed Name
01/29/2021
Date
PO Box 1183 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 919-428-2040 info Dun

� '
0
0
0
U
0
000
O
0
0
06
C.
Q
� O
C f6 f6 �' f6 f6 f6 f6
Q Q 4J Q Q Q Q
LL 4J
U
C
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000"'0d�0
U � �
F,", 0
Q Q Q Q Q
00 �-1 z z z z z
I
= I
1�� 6 z z o O N z
El
O
O
O
L
O
C
E
in
Q
�
•.
O
4.1
�
o
o
+�
�
O �
U n
U
cn
cn
J 2
4.1
E
a)
U
a)
a u a) �
Ln
bA Ln
in
0
0
°°co
o
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
�
co
0
O
CO
c )
O
Lr
-b4
04'
O
++
+1
0
E
N
\
z
\
z
\
z
\
z
iy
C
ca
bA
OL
'i
L
O
M
U
p
Z.
O
LL
m
0
0
Q
11.04
0
z�z�z
o
o a a a
co z z z
Q Q Q Q
z z z z
4
.5
a)
a
a
C
O
E
O
Ln
m
LV
O
L
O
4.1
C:
0
,-
o
a
Ln
0
0
U
L
O
U,
O
a
O
7
U
tLi�
O
U
--
U
cn
O
Ln
0
0
Ln
O
�D
N

Appendix B —
Baseline Information and
Correspondence

North Carolina Interagency Review Team Meeting
Summary, February 4, 2020
White Hat Site, Pasquotank Umbrella Bank, RES Matt Butler.
A few changes since prospectus for review prior to draft mitigation plan.
Perquimans County, Pasquotank 05. Prospectus:
Restoration 6,000 LF and enhancement 2500 LF.
PJD visit in August 2019.
Ben Carroll will be the designer.
Concern from IRT that P2 would provide little functional uplift, no water
table rise, clay layer limit tree growth. Site survey showed flat topography, P1
not viable. Increasing clay content down to around 52 inches, validated tree
growth concerns. RES proposed to plant deep taproot species to penetrate
clay layer, topsoil cap not to be used (encourages taproot to grow downward).
Live stakes planted along the banks to stabilize soil.
Channel design should carry base flow in smaller nested channel (about 2.5
feet deep, 18 feet wide) with some sinuosity but any storm event should flow
along cut bench. No buffer credit on bench, but it will be planted. Buffer
width starts outside P2 bench. Approximately 1 sgmi at top of reach. Large
storm events sill a concern for hydrologic trespass. Agreements with
upstream landowner not yet resolved, option 2 (6000 LF, 4800 SMUs) would
be used if not agreed by adjacent landowner —this removes a lot of the
upstream portion of the project. NOT within an established drainage district.
If functional uplift is from overbank events, a performance standard should be
tied to this, especially for EIL Main IRT concern is that the only functional
uplift would be the wetland enhancement. Wetland credits not being sought.
The IRT would like to see a reference stream.

From: Davis. Erin B
To: Barnes. Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc: Haunt. Mac
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] White Hat Mitigation Bank
Date: Monday, March 2, 2020 1:20:42 PM
Hi Kyle,
Below are my thoughts.
The concerns bulleted on the White Hat Concept Presentation PowerPoint slide 3 still remain
concerns. DWR does not believe the current easement area provides sufficient width to properly
restore the stream system to result in substantial functional uplift. Also, DWR is skeptical that the
proposed P2 tree planting strategy will result in successfully achieving the required planting
performance criteria. In order for DWR to reconsider the project's viability, the easement area would
need to be expanded to provide a wider stream bench/floodplain and buffer.
Sorry for the delay.
Thanks,
Erin B. Davis, PWS
Stream & Wetland Mitigation Specialist
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-3684 office
erin.davisancdenr.gov

From: Elizabeth Toombs
To: Barnes. Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] FW: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice SAW-2018-02027 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:33:02 PM
Good Afternoon, Mr. Barnes:
The Cherokee Nation (Nation) recently received a review request for SAW-2018-02027 in Perquimans County,
North Carolina. Perquimans County is outside the Nation's Area of Interest. Thus, this Office respectfully defers to
federally recognized Tribes that have an interest in this landbase.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this proposed undertaking. Please contact me if there are any
questions or concerns.
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918.453.5389
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)[mailto:Kimberl5:.D.Browning4usace.ar3i):.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 12:49 PM
To: Brad Breslow <bbreslowC&,res.us>; mbutler*es.us
Cc: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Kyle.W.BamesC&,usace.army.mil>
Subject: <EXTERNAL> US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice SAW-2018-02027 (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
As requested, you are hereby notified that the Wilmington District, United States Army Corps of Engineers, has
issued a Public Notice. The text of this document can be found on the Public Notices portion of the RIBITS page,
under the Bank & ILF Establishment tab, under the Wilmington District filter. Each Public Notice is available in
ADOBE ACROBAT (.pdf) format for viewing, printing or download at:
Blockedhttps: //ribits.usace. anny.mil/iibits_apex/f?p=107:27:16893083 989658::NO::P27_BUTTON_KEY:10
<Blockedhttps://ribits.usace.anny.mil/ribits_apex/f?p=107:27:16893083989658::N0::P27 BUTTON KEY:10>

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OFENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CARO LI NA28403-1343
March 23, 2020
Regulatoly Division
Re: RES Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank, White Hat Mitigation Site, Perquimans
County, SAW-2018-02027
RES
Attention: Mr. Matt Butler
3600 Glenwood Avenue
Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Dear Mr. Butler:
This letter is in regard to the prospectus for the project identified as RES Pasquotank
Umbrella Mitigation Bank, White Hat Mitigation Site. The final prospectus received in our
office on April 23, 2019, proposes to restore and enhance approximately 8,452 linear feet of
stream channels and 33.43 acres of riparian wetlands in the Deep Creek watershed (HUC
03010205). The 106.86-acre project site is located between Godfreys Lane on the west and
Woodville Road on the east, near the town of Hertford, in Perquimans County, North Carolina,
(36.175185°N /-76.33021°W),
As you are aware, in accordance with 33 CFR 332.8 (d) (4), this office issued a public notice
(SAW-2018-02027) advertising your proposed project on May 1, 2019. The purpose of the
public notice is to solicit the views of interested state and federal agencies, and other parties
either interested or affected by the work. In addition, we conducted site visits on December 18,
2018 and August 15, 2019, to review the proposed site and review information regarding the
proposed design plans. We have enclosed copies of all letters and comments received in
response to the public notice, the draft mitigation plan review, the site visit conducted on
December 18, 2018, and the revised design plans received on January 31, 2020. The purpose of
this letter is to provide you with our determination regarding whether the proposed mitigation
site has the potential to provide appropriate compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by
Department of the Army (DA) permits.
According to the Mitigation Rule under 33 CFR 332,2 (a) (1), the fundamental objective of
compensatory mitigation is to offset environmental losses resulting from unavoidable impacts to
waters of the United States authorized by DA permits. In addition, the mitigation site must be
ecologically suitable for providing the desired aquatic resource functions [33 CFR 332,3 (d) (1)],
and designed to be self-sustaining once performance standards have been achieved. This
includes appropriate siting to ensure that natural hydrology and landscape context will support

long-term sustainability [33 CFR 332.7 (b)]. According to the information provided, the
proposed activities include the restoration and enhancement of 8,452 linear feet of Deep and the
restoration and enhancement of approximately 33.43 wetland acres within the floodplain of
Deep Creek. Based on a review of the information provided in the draft Mitigation Plan dated
April 2019 and the revised design plans submitted on January 31, 2020; and comments received
in response to the public notice, mitigation plan review, and site visit; the Corps has determined
that the mitigation proposal fails to demonstrate that the proposed activities will restore the
natural functions, provide functional uplift in the P2 area, and processes necessary for long-term
sustainability. Therefore, the mitigation site has limited potential to offset environmental losses
resulting from aquatic resource impacts authorized under DA permits, and we cannot
recommend that the proj ect, as proposed, move forward in the review process.
A copy of all comments received in response to the public notice are enclosed with this letter.
Please note that all comments and concerns listed on the attached memo must be addressed in all
future submittals associated with the proposed mitigation site.
We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting wetlands and other waters of the
United States. If you have any questions about this letter or the attached comments, please
contact Kyle Barnes at [phone] or kyle.w.barnes(a usace.army. mil.
v
Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
Regulatory Division
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List

From:
Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
To:
Matt Butler; Bradley Breslow
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Revised White Hat Mitigation Plan Comments
Date:
Friday, November 20, 2020 7:41:15 AM
Matt and Brad,
Thank you for putting together the site review for the IRT. I think it helped
those who had not seen the site gain a grasp of the existing site conditions and
landform. Below are the comments compiled from the revised White Hat
Mitigation Plan and site visit. Commenters agreed with the project moving
forward to the next phase.
1. 1 think the site definitely has potential and I appreciate that RES has updated
the plan to address most of the concerns noted from the initial review. Most
notably, I think modifying the approach from a P2 to a P1 makes a huge
difference. I also think the wider buffers will help significantly with the stream
work and also add to the benefit provided by the adjacent wetlands.
2. As discussed on site, I still have some questions/concerns about how the
transition from the upper reaches above the site (where RES has obtained
hydrologic trespass agreements) to the project streams. There seems to be the
potential for the ditch system above the project to be permanently inundated
at a deeper depth than normal (meaning the depth when beavers are not
affecting the drainage). This is an unusual situation. I assume that this will only
result in increased depth of water within existing ditches and not any actual
streams that flow to those ditches. Also, it may be helpfully to verify that this
will not inundate any existing wetlands that could see vegetation mortality. I
do think that this will impact the surrounding land use around the upstream
ditches, which is why RES has the trespass agreements, but it does raise the
question of how/if those agreements will need to be reviewed or if they
become part of the project documentation. I assume those are perpetual
agreements, and that if landowners are unhappy with the results following
construction there is nothing they can do to alter the drainage in such a way
that it would affect the project? The transition from the deeper ditches to the
P1 reach at the top of the project should also be shown in the detail so that we
can understand how this will work. What will the method of stabilization be?

Is there any potential for this to cause problems to the stream at the head of
the project, especially during high storm flows? I think these issues need to be
addressed in the adaptive management plan as well.
3. I think the general approach and ratio for Reaches DC1-A & B are good.
Floodplain access through these reaches is really important and can provide
significant functional uplift. I would note that the existing road along the canal
is very high in some places and I would recommend removing as much of the
road as possible to ensure proper access. The roadway may also be an area
where vegetation struggles just due to soil compaction and disturbance, so I
would encourage RES to develop a plan to address this up front (e.g., ripping
the finished soil grade, adding soil amendments as necessary, etc.).
4. The draft mit plan should include a detailed discussion of the proposed
vegetation planting plan, including planting zones, appropriate species (based
on reference in the area if possible), and a list of alternatives if they think plant
availability may be a concern. There are also a lot of pines within the proposed
easement - do they plan to remove the pines and replant? Regardless,
volunteer pines could be an issue.
5. Within Reach DC1-C, I still think that the proposed enhancement is really
more about the wetland than the stream. But I also think the wetlands are
already in decent condition, so the overall functional return would be limited. I
understand that the site may be been wetter when we saw it than in normal
circumstances, but this remains a concern. We discussed the possibility of
extending stream work down this reach, at least along the upper half, and I
think RES needs to explore different opportunities to provide more stream
functional return here, including efforts to improve the channel condition,
bedform, habitat, etc., otherwise think that stream ratios need to be reduced
to account for this. The possibility that this might be a more braided section of
stream should be considered as well.
6. The work done on the lower end also has the potential to impact
landowners downstream of the project, so this should be address in the
mitigation plan as well.
Let me know if you have any questions.

Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Field Office
910-251-4584
We at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch are committed to
improving service to our customers. We would appreciate your feedback on
how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
<Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0>
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

From: Jeremy Schmid
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:58 AM
To: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Matt Butler <[e-mail]>
Subject: White Hat PJD updates
Kyle,
Please find my updates to the PJD attached. Here are the listed changes:
-Removed stream EC-3
-Aquatic resources table updated to reflect new easement and removed/added features
-Labeled and digitized ditches using LIDAR (let me know if you would like to change the wording/labeling
on these features)
-Updated all figures with new easement including the added parcel
-Land owner authorization form for added parcel
-Data forms for wetland on added parcel (DP-7,DP-8)
-The wetland on the added parcel was in between WF and WI. Since they all connect to one another,
they were all combined to make one large wetland called WF. The WI label was repurposed for the new
wetland area that we added next to WJ, in the corner of the wooded section near our groundwater
gauge. I've attached the old map separately for reference.
-Data form for new wetland area (WI)
-WJ label moved to show polygon on figure (label previously covering polygon)
-Prevalence index worksheet cleared on all data forms (wasn't able to uncheck box in application)
Let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.
I've copied Matt Butler who will be the Project Manager for this site. Matt started with us back in March
and is an ECU alum from the Greenville area.
Thanks,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]

fires
July 2, 2019
Kyle Barnes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Field Office
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Barnes,
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) is pleased to present this Request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination for the White Hat Mitigation Site located in Perquimans County, North Carolina
(36.175378°N and-76.329986°W). This project will be part of the RES Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation
Bank and will provide mitigation credits to offset unavoidable impacts to stream resources within the
Pasquotank 05 River Basin (8-digit USGS HUC 03010205). As part of this scope of work, RES is
submitting this request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a confirmation of the limits of
Waters of the U.S. on the subject site.
The White Hat Mitigation Site (the "Site") is contained in eight parcels totaling 108-acres of proposed
easement in Perquimans County, NC. The Site will involve the restoration and enhancement of Deep
Creek, which begins at the western part of the project area and drains in an easterly direction across the
Site, eventually draining to the Albemarle Sound. The site is primarily characterized by agricultural use,
forest, and very low -intensity residential areas. Land use at the site is characterized by row crop
production and/or disturbed forest.
The proposed site will provide improvements to water quality, hydrologic function, and habitat. The
projects will address stressors identified in the watershed through nutrient removal, sediment removal,
runoff filtration, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
res.us

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me at
[phone] if you have any additional question regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Schmid I Senior Ecologist
Attachments: Jurisdictional Determination Request Form, Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form,
Landowner Authorization Form, Vicinity Map, USGS Topographc Map, National Wetlands Inventory
Map, Soils Map, Potential Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map, and Wetland Data Sheets

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 07/02/19
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:Jeremy Schmid
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: CESAW-RG-W
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: PerquimarlS City: Hertford
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 36.1753 Long.:-76.3299
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearest waterbody: Deep Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
see attached table

co
co
a�
I
U
O
J
0 0 0 0 N O M O N C) N
O a0 O W N M OLO 0 0
M M M M M N N M N M M O
O M M M M M M M M M M M I�
O) �
C �
O
J
O r— L LO LO (O O N
O a0 r— O LO r— O r— LO r— LO O
I� I-- M
— — — — — a0
(2) (O (O (O (O (O M (O (O (O (O (O
"O M co co co co M M M M M
"= M
COcu
J
Q W W W W W W W W W W W
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
I W W W W W W W W W W W
L z z z z z z z z z z z
+0-J J J J J J J J J J J
M W W W W W W W W W W W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W W W W W W W W W W W H
0� 0� ll� 0� 0� 0� 0� ll� 0� 0� ll� O
c U U U U U U U U U U U 0
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q LL
MM—LOcocn— �q-*NLOM
C M N�q-*— O I-- LO M— 0 M
B O O I— N O S M r—
O— M L r O M M N O 7 M
E O O L LO 0 0 0
Q
a)
Q
I L
Co co co co co co co co co co co co a)
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
a�
O
U
I
0
2
a)
O
U
c
I
2
L
co
3: 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O LL LL LL W LL LL LL LL LL LL LL M
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
z_ z_ z_ z_ z_ z_ z_ z_ z_ z_ z_ z_
J J J J J J J J J J J J
000000000000
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
000000000000
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
MOOOOOOOOOOOO
wzzzzzzzzzzzz
a)
E
co
z

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre -
construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be"waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
■❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Vicinity, USGS, NWI, Soil, Existing conditions, WOUS
0 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
■❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 24k Nixonton
❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
■❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Jeremy Schmid o�a�,ao;za,hNdzso;oo°
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

urisdictional Determination Reauest
US Army Corps
of Engineers.
Wilmington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http: //www. saw. usace. army. mil/Missions/Re._ ul�atoiyPermitProgram/Contact/Coun!yLocator. aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
FaxNumber: [phone]
WILNIINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: See attached
City, State:
Hertford. NC
County: Pequimans
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): See attached
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Jeremv Schmid
Mailing Address: 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone Number: 919-345-3034
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultanti
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: See attached
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
' Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Henry Butt William & Billie Divers
1223 WOODVILLE ROAD 325 NORTHEAST 59TH STREET
HERTFORD, NC 27944 OAK ISLAND, NC 28465
James Butt Robert & Hazel Eure
2217 IVAN STREET 400 WHITEHAT ROAD
APT 821 HERTFORD, NC 27944
DALLAS, TX 75201
Joseph Butt, Sr.
Calvin Godfrey
1491 NEW HOPE ROAD,
1833 NEW HOPE ROAD
HERTFORD, NC 27944
HERTFORD, NC 27944
Doris Carpenter Lizzie Godfrey
149 SHORE DRIVE 1833 NEW HOPE ROAD
COLONIAL BEACH, VA 22443 HERTFORD, NC 27944
Laurence Chappell Clarence Jennings
1777 NEW HOPE ROAD 123 E. GODFREYS LANE
HERTFORD, NC 27944 HERTFORD, NC 27944
Tina Chappell Laura Weaver
1777 NEW HOPE ROAD 2311 5TH AVENUE
HERTFORD, NC 27944 APT 8CC
NEW YORK, NY 10037
Dale & Cindy Craig Paul & Shannon Whitehead
189 GODFREY LANE 116 OLD US 17 ROAD
HERTFORD, NC 27944 HERTFORD, NC 27944
David Dewald
1679 NEW HOPE ROAD
HERTFORD, NC 27944

Landowner Authorization Form
Site: White Hat
Property Legal Description
Deed Book/Page: 287/562
County: Perguimans
Parcel ID Numbers: 7889-62-5550, 7889-74-6923, 7889-84-1950, 7889-82-4911, 7899-03-1867
Street Address: 105 Sutton's Lane, Hertford. NC
Property Owner: Ethel Sutton Channell: husband. William Wray Chappell. Tenants by Entirety
The undersigned, registered property owner of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Division of Water Resources, and the US Army Corps of Engineers,
their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above referenced property for the evaluation of
the property as a potential stream, wetland, and or riparian buffer restoration project, including conducting stream
and or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or
certification(s).
Property Owner Address: 105 Sutton's Lane, Hertford, NC 27944
UWe hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
sll
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
(Property Owner Printed Name)
Date
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) Date
(Property Owner Printed Name)
4846-3189-9210, v. 1

Landowner Authorization Form
Site: White Hat
Property Legal Description
Deed Book/Page: 467/388; 165/810
County: Perpuimans
Parcel ID Numbers: 7889-34-6379
Street Address: Godfrey§ Lane Hertford. NC
Property Owner. Albert Delwin Eure BeqY S. Eure Lois Marie Sure Karl Matthew Eure Burt Anthon Eure John
Albert Eure Tracy Michelle Um hlett stal Dawn Eure Karla Denise Eure Kourtne Deane Eure
The undersigned, registered property owner of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Division of Water Resources, and the US Army Corps
fa the evaluation Engineers of
their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above referenced property
the property as a potential stream, wetland, and or riparian buffer restoration project, including conducting stream
and or wedand determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or
certifications).
Property owner Address: 102 Whitehat Road Hertford NC 27944
1PWe hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
{Albert lwin Eure}
(Betty S. Eure)
{Lois Marie Eur
(Karl Matthew �f
Date
q _ - Ofv�
Date
Date
Date
(Burt A661AryEure)""
Date
Date
(Johalbert Eure) - - -

awy1Micheile
Denise Eurc]
ure]
WA 0-� 17,jr'r N-tl"
4846-3189-9210, - I
cl cl
Date
Date
,ql 061 Zo L
Date
9.�o,�
1 -� -
/1AdT ham► r.t

Landowner Authorization Form
Site: White Hat
Property Legal Description
Deed Book/Page: 467/388; 165/810
County: Perquimans
Parcel ID Numbers: 7889-34-6379
Street Address: Godfreys Lane, Hertford,.NC
Property Owner: Albert Delwin Eure Be . S. Eure Lois Marie Eure Karl Matthew Eure Burt AnthonyEure John
Albert Eure Tracy Michelle Um hlett stal Dawn Eure Karla Denise Eure Kourtne y Deane Eure
The undersigned, registered property owner of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Division of Water Resources, and the US Army Corps of Engineers,
their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above referenced property for the evaluation of
the property as a potential stream, wetland, and or riparian buffer restoration project, including conducting stream
and or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or
certification(s).
Property Owner Address: 102 Whitehat Road Hertford NC 27944
UWe hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Albert Delwin Eure)
(Betty S. Eure)
'4"- 02"'� &"-,)
(Lois Marie Eure)
I —
(Karl Matthew Eure)
(Burt Anthony Eure)
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
(John Albert Eure) Date

Landowner Authorization Form
Site: White Hat
Property Legal Description
Deed Book/Page: 351/507
County: Perquimans
PIN Numbers: 7889-65-1628
Street Address: Godfreys Lane. Hertford, NC 27944
Property Owner: Bryan Alan Jennings, Wife of Bryan Alan Jennings, Rita Renee Jennings Rippy, Husband of Rita
Renee Jennings Rippy, Alan Clarence Jennings
The undersigned, registered property owner of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Division of Water Resources, and the US Army Corps of Engineers,
their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above referenced property for the evaluation of
the property as a potential stream, wetland, and or riparian buffer restoration project, including conducting stream
and or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or
certification(s).
Property Owner Address: 123 E. Godfreys Lane, Hertford, NC 27944
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
e
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
C L't (Lie 0e-r
(Property Owner Printed Name)
Date
-4-/5;-
-( -20(1?-
(Property Ownci�'Authoked Signature) Date
15�� ALAJ J1:!44IG`S
ropert Owner Printed Name)
srty Owner Authorized Signature)
1 n --t-
(Property Owner Printed Name)
Date

Landowner Authorization Form
Site: White Hat
Property Legal Description
Deed Book/Page: 351/507
County: Perguimans
PIN Numbers: 7889-65-1628
Street Address: Godfreys Lane, Hertford, NC 27944
Property Owner: Bryan Alan Jennings, Wife of Bryan Alan Jennings, Rita Renee Jennings Rippy, Husband of Rita
Renee Jennings Rippy, Alan Clarence Jennings
The undersigned, registered property owner of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Division of Water Resources, and the US Army Corps of Engineers,
their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above referenced property for the evaluation of
the property as a potential stream, wetland, and or riparian buffer restoration project, including conducting stream
and or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuanceand acceptance of any required permit(s) or
certification(s).
Property Owner Address: 123 E. Godfreys Lane, Hertford, NC 27944
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
(Property Owner Printed Name)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
Owner Printed Name)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) T
(Property Owner Printed Name)
Date
Date
Date
//r

Landowner Authorization Form
Site: White Hat
Property Legal Description
Deed Book/Page: 396/253
County: Perguimans
PIN Numbers: 7889-44-7770
Street Address: 123 E.Godfreys Lane, Hertford, NC
Property Owner: Michael R. Twiddy, and Wife of Michael R. Twiddy
The undersigned, registered property owner of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Division of Water Resources, and the US Army Corps of Engineers,
their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above referenced property for the evaluation of
the property as a potential stream, wetland, and or riparian buffer restoration project, including conducting stream
and or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or
certifcation(s).
Property Owner Address: 116 Bayshore Drive, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
%
(Property Owner Printed Name)
Date
(Property Owper Authorized Signature) Date
- hlb6- ss
(Property Owner Printed Name)

Landowner Authorization Form
Site: White Hat
Property Legal Description
Deed Book/Page: 314/1
County: Perquimans
Parcel ID Numbers: 7889-81-7137
Street Address: New Hope Road
Property Owner: Doris Iona Butt Carpenter
Authorized Invitee: Environmental Banc & Exchanee: LLC
The undersigned, being duly authorized by the record property owner of the above property, pursuant to the terms of
a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated 8/5/2019, a redacted copy of which will be provided upon request, do hereby
authorize:
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Division of Water Resources, and the US Army Corps of Engineers,
their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above referenced property for the evaluation of
the property as a potential stream, wetland, and or riparian buffer restoration project, including conducting stream
and or ,vetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required pennit(s) or
certification(s).
Property Owner Address: 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110. Raleigh,NC 27605
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
.Z
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
P107 �76- 6.
(Property Owner Printed Name)
4846-3189-9210, v. I
Date

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
❑✓ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
✓� Size of Property or Review Area 108 acres.
❑✓ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: 36.1753
Longitude:-76.3299
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.army.niil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F4Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDS, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'.
W1 Vicinity Map
zAerial Photograph
F4 USGS Topographic Map
0 Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
❑ NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
Other Assessment Forms
www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatorv/regdocs/JD/RGL_08-02_App A Prelim _JD_Form fillable.pdf
R Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatoa-Permit-Program/Juiisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federaljurisdictionunder the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

el
"s
{
Y
x
r
t
L .
} 1 ral I - x
Imd Hi`'F parrQ
.r�3rq N111 pm Fwar
Lem' White Hat Project
a
Study Area
N
Date: 8/29/2019
Project Vicinity
w e Drawn by: MDE res
White Hat Mitigation Project
n s Checked by: JLS
0 1,000 2,000
Perquimans County, North Carolina 1 inch =2,000 feet
Feet

L 4
'
i
j'f��
41
o� •
��.
l
lr
40
I J
if
{ r * r
L
-419
3.2
i3
Ala
t '
m
#
it
. c
mfrw/ I
r
fi
4'
{.=
l
Le. emend
f
Study Areaf
ew
,
N
`" e
USGS Quadrangle
Nixonton (1982)
Date: 8/29/2019
Drawn by: MDE
s
White
Hat Mitigation Project
res
n
0 1,000 2,000
Checked by: JLS
Perquimans
County, North Carolina
1 inch =2,000 feet
Feet

PFO1Bd
FO4/1 Bd
I
Legen
Study Area
NWI Wetland (USFWS 10/15/2018)
N
N wE
5
0 500 1,000
Feet
Date: 8/29/2019
National Wetland Inventory
Drawn by: MDE
White Hat Mitigation Project
Checked by: JLS
Perquimans County, North Carolina 1 inch= 1,OOOfeet
5
PFO1Cd
I =fL`
fires

N
4 ar`
L
P03
745
EURE, ROBERT. H., 'ter / /
S��& H.
HAZEL
7889-30-7435
`/`
WHITEHEAD, PAUL
W. & SHANNON H
CHAPPELL,
7889-40-8742
LAURENCE WRAY
7889-50-1538
A
TWIDDY,
MICHAEL R
7889-65-1628
GHAPPELL,
ETHEL BUTTON &
7889-74-6923
GHAPPELL,
ETHELSUTTON &
7889-84-1950
Leo o 'I
GHAPPELL,
ETHELSUTTON &
7899-03-1867
LLI
III & BILI
899-13-6
5AMES

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: White Hat Mitigation Site City/County: Perquimans Sampling Date: 24-Apr-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-1
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat.: 36.18125 Long.:-76.34122
Soil Map Unit Name: Chaponoke silt loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑d significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
0.0 0/0 / 0.0
Datum: NAD83
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No O
Yes 0 No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
ditching surrounds the forested area on two sides, major canal is controlled using flashboard risers - would likely have stronger hydrology indicators if
not controlled
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑d FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. ,io.7
Sampling Point: DP-1
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1 Quercus pagoda
)
-
% Cover
10 ❑d
Cover
20.0%
Status
FACW
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
30
❑d
60.0%
FAC
3. Quercus palustris
10
❑d
20.0%
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.00/0
5.
6
0
0
❑
❑
o.00/o
0.00/0
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 85.7% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
0
❑
o.00/o
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
= Total Cover
oBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 0 x 3= 0
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5,
o
❑
o.o°ro
6.
0
El
0.00/0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0.000
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.00/0
8.
0
❑
0.00/0
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 i
1. Ligustrum sinense
70
100.0%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.00/0
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
o
El
o.o°ro
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. 0 ❑ o.00/o
6.
0
❑
0.00/0
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 35
20% of Total Cover: 14
70
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 , Toxicodendron radicans
2.
20
0
❑d
❑
100.0%
0.o%
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7.
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
0
❑
0.0%
9.
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
10,
o
El
o.o%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.00/0
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
0
❑
0.00/0
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. Lonicera japonica 5 ❑d 25.0% FACU
2. Smilax laurifolia
15
❑d
75.0%
FACW
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.00/0
5.
50% of Total Cover: 10
-
20% of Total Cover: 4
0
20
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes O No O
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _ 0/0Color (moisll_ 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-1 10YR 3/2 Loam
1-16 10YR 5/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 Clay
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No ❑
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: White Hat Mitigation Site City/County: Perquimans Sampling Date: 24-Apr-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-2
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0 °
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat.: 36.1892 Long.:-76.3427 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chaponoke silt loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑d significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Yes 0 No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
ditching surrounds the forested area on two sides, major canal is controlled using flashboard risers - would likely have stronger hydrology indicators if
not controlled
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ No O
Saturation Present?
Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. ,io.7
Sampling Point: DP-2
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1 ]uniperus virginiana
)
% Cover
_ 20 ❑d
Cover
50.0%
Status
FACU
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Quercus velutina
20
❑d
50.0%
UPL
3.
0
❑
0.00/0
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.00/0
5.
6
0
0
❑
❑
o.00/o
0.00/0
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
0
❑
o.00/o
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 20
20% of Total Cover: 8
40
= Total Cover
oBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 15 x 3 = 45
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 20 x 4 = 80
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 20 x 5 = 100
4.
0
❑
0.00/0
Column Totals: 65 (A) 245 (B)
5,
o
❑
o.o°ro
6.
0
El
0.00/0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.769
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.00/0
8.
0
❑
0.00/0
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 i
1. Ligustrum sinense
15
100.0%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.00/0
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
o
El
o.o°ro
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. 0 ❑ o.00/o
6.
0
❑
0.00/0
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 7.5
20% of Total Cover: 3
15
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 .
2.
0
0
❑
❑
0.00/0
0.o%
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7.
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
0
❑
0.0%
9.
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
10,
o
El
o.o%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.00/0
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
0
❑
0.00/0
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Smilax laurifolia 10 ❑d 100.0% FACW
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.00/0
5.
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
- 0
10
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes O No O
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _ 0/0Color (moisll_ 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture
0-12 10YR 4/1 Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A)
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: White Hat Mitigation Site City/County: Perquimans Sampling Date: 24-Apr-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-3
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0 °
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat.: 36.1795 Long.:-76.3381 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chaponoke silt loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ❑ No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ❑
Yes 0 No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
ditching surrounds the forested area on two sides, major canal is controlled using flashboard risers - would likely have stronger hydrology indicators if
not controlled
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No 0
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ No O
Saturation Present?
Yes 0 No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
area has water stained leaves from flooding due to flash board riser. Water table below 3 ft, dry brittle soil
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. ,io.7
Sampling Point: DP-3
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1. ]uglans nigra
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
3. Quercus velutina
4.
5.
6.
7.
8_
Absolute
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Cover
_ 10
❑
16.79/6
_ 30
❑d
50.0%
_ 20
❑d
33.39/6
_ 0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Status
Number of Dominant Species
UPL That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
FAC
UPL Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0% (A/B)
50% of Total Cover: 30
20% of Total Cover:
12
60
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
0
❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑ 0.0%
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ o.o%
6.
0
❑ o.o%
7.
0
❑ 0.00/0
8.
0
❑ 0.00/0
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover:
0
0
= Total Cover
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 . Ligustrum sinense
20
100.0%
FAC
2.
0
❑ 0.0%
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ 0.00/0
5.
0
❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑ 0.00/0
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover:
4
20
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 . Phytolacca americana
10
❑d 50.0%
FACU
2. Boehmeria cylindrica
10
❑d 50.0%
FACW
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ o.o%
6.
0
❑ o.o%
7.
0
❑ 0.0%
8.
0
❑ 0.0%
g.
0
❑ o.o%
10.
0
❑ 0.0%
11.
0
❑ 0.00/0
12.
0
❑ 0.00/0
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover:
4
20
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. Vitis rotundifolia
10
❑d 40.0%
FAC
2. Toxicodendron radicans
5
❑d 20.0%
FAC
3. Campsis radicans
10
❑d 40.0%
FAC
4.
0
❑ 0.00/0
5.
0
❑ 0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 12.5
20% of Total Cover:
5
25
= Total Cover
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply
by:
oBL species 0
x 1 =
0
FACW species 0
x 2 =
0
FAC species 0
x 3 =
0
FACU species 0
x 4 =
0
UPL species 0
x 5 =
0
Column Totals: 0
(A)
0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0.000
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
V 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes O No ❑
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _% _ Color (moistl 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-10 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 5/8 5 Clay Loam
10-16 10YR 5/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No ❑
Remarks:
soil extremely dry, crumbles out of auger
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: White Hat Mitigation Site City/County: Perquimans Sampling Date: 24-Apr-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-4
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0 °
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat.: 36.1781 Long.:-76.3378 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chaponoke silt loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ❑
Yes 0 No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
ditching surrounds the forested area on two sides, major canal is controlled using flashboard risers - would likely have stronger hydrology indicators if
not controlled
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No 0
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ No O
Saturation Present?
Yes 0 No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
area has water stained leaves from flooding due to flash board riser. Water table below 3 ft, dry brittle soil
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. ,io.7
Sampling Point: DP-4
Absolute
Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover
Cover
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Ulmus americana
- 10
❑
14.3%
FAC
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
4 (A)
2. Pinus taeda
20
❑d
28.6%
FAC
3. Quercus velutina
10
❑
14.3%
UPL
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
4 (B)
4. Liquidambar styraciflua
20
❑d
28.6%
FAC
5. Carya glabra
10
❑
14.3%
FACU
Percent of dominant Species
6
0
❑
0.0%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
$.
0
Elo.00/o
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50%ofTotaI Cover: 35
20%ofTotaI Cover: 14
70
= Total Cover
oBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 0 x 3= 0
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5,
o
❑
o.o°ro
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0.000
6.
0
El
0.00/0
7.
0
❑
0.00/0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
8.
0
❑
0.00/0
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 i
1. Ligustrum sinense
20
100.0% FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.00/0
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
o
El
o.o°ro
5.
0
❑
o.00/o
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
6.
0
❑
0.00/0
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Toxicodendron radicans
10
❑d
100.0% FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
2.
0
❑
0.o%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
5.
0
❑
0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
0
❑
0.0%
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
0
❑
0.0%
9.
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
El
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
10,
o
o.o%
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.00/0
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
0
❑
0.00/0
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
10
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 0 ❑ 0.0%
2. 0 ❑ 0.0%
3. 0 ❑ o.o%
4. 0 ❑ o.o%
5. 0 ❑ 0.0% Hydrophytic
Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover: 0 0 =Total Cover
Present? Yes O No O
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _% _ Color (moistl 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-11 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 5/8 5 Clay Loam
11-16 10YR 5/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No ❑
Remarks:
soil extremely dry, crumbles out of auger
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: White Hat Mitigation Site City/County: Perquimans Sampling Date: 24-Apr-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-5
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat.: 36.1755 Long.:-76.3199
Soil Map Unit Name: Chaponoke silt loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
0.0 0/0 / 0.0
Datum: NAD83
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No O
Yes 0 No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
0 Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
0 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 3
Water Table Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. ,io.7
Sampling Point: DP-5
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1 Taxodium distichum
)
-
% Cover
10 ❑
Cover
12.5%
Status
OBL
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2. Nyssa biflora
50
❑d
62.5%
OBL
3. Acer rubrum
20
❑d
25.0%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4.
❑
o.o%
5.
6
0
0
❑
❑
o.00/o
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
$.
0
❑
o.00/o
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50%ofTotaI Cover: 40
20%ofTotaI Cover: 16
80
= Total Cover
oBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
20
100.00/0
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
0PL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5,
o
❑
0.00r0
6.
0
El
0.00/0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0.000
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.00/0
8.
0
❑
0.00/0
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 i
1.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
❑
0.00/0
3.
0
❑
0.00/0
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
o
El
o.00ro
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. 0 ❑ o.00/o
6.
0
❑
0.00/0
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 , Murdannia keisak
2. Saururus cernuus
30
20
❑d
❑d
50.0%
33.3%
OBL
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Boehmeria cylindrica
10
❑
16.7%
FACW
4.
0
❑
0.00/0
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7.
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
0
❑
0.0%
9.
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
10,
o
El
o.o%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.00/0
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
0
❑
0.00/0
50% of Total Cover: 30
20% of Total Cover: 12
60
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0
-
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
0
❑ 0.0%
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes O No O
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _ 0/0Color (moisll_ 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 2/1 Muck
3-16 10YR 2/1 Silt Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
W Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No ❑
Remarks:
unable to pull soil clean soil profile due to inundation
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: White Hat Mitigation Site City/County: Perquimans Sampling Date: 24-Apr-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-6
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0 °
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat.: 36.1751 Long.:-76.3195 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chaponoke silt loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes * No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No
Yes O No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. ,io.7
Sampling Point: DP-6
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1 Carya glabra
)
_
% Cover
20 ❑d
Cover
33.3%
Status
FACU
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2. Liriodendron tulipifera
20
❑d
33.3%
FACU
3. Fagus grandifolia
20
❑d
33.3%
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4.
❑
0.0%
5.
6
0
0
❑
❑
o.00/o
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 57.1% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
$.
0
❑
o.00/o
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 30
20% of Total Cover: 12
60
= Total Cover
oBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1. Carpinuscaroliniana
20
100.0%
FAC
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5,
o
❑
o.o°ro
6.
0
El
0.00/0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0.000
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.00/0
8.
0
❑
0.00/0
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 i
1.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
❑
0.00/0
3.
0
❑
0.00/0
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
o
El
o.o°ro
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. 0 ❑ o.00/o
6.
0
❑
0.00/0
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 , Microstegium vimineum
2. Toxicodendron radicans
20
10
❑d
❑d
66.7%
33.3%
FAC
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3.
0
❑
0.00/0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7.
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
0
❑
0.0%
9.
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
10,
o
El
o.o%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.00/0
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
0
❑
0.00/0
50% of Total Cover: 15
20% of Total Cover: 6
30
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. Vitis rotundifolia 10 ❑d 100.0% FAC
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.00/0
5.
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
- 0
10
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes O No O
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _ 0/0Color (moisll_ 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 4/4 Loam
3-12 10YR 7/3 Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: White Hat Mitigation Site City/County: Perquimans Sampling Date: 14-Aug-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-7
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat.: 36.1751 Long.:-76.3245
Soil Map Unit Name: Chaponoke silt loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
0.0 0/0 / 0.0
Datum: NAD83
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No O
Yes 0 No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑d Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑d Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
0 Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
0 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?
Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. ,io.7
Sampling Point: DP-7
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1 Nyssa biflora
)
_
% Cover
20 ❑d
Cover
33.3%
Status
OBL
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2. Taxodium distichum
10
❑
16.7%
OBL
3. Acer rubrum
30
❑d
50.0%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.00/0
5.
6
0
0
❑
❑
o.00/o
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
$.
0
❑
o.00/o
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 30
20% of Total Cover: 12
60
= Total Cover
oBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1. Carpinuscaroliniana
10
100.0%
FAC
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
0PL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5,
o
❑
o.o0ro
6.
0
El
0.00/0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0.000
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.00/0
8.
0
❑
0.00/0
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
10
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 i
1.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
❑
0.00/0
3.
0
❑
0.00/0
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
o
El
o.00ro
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. 0 ❑ o.00/o
6.
0
❑
0.00/0
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 , Saururus cernuus
2. Boehmeria cylindrica
20
5
❑d
❑
40.0%
10.0%
OBL
FACW
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Murdannia keisak
15
❑d
30.0%
OBL
4. Arundinaria gigantea
10
❑d
20.0%
FACW
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.00/0
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7.
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
0
❑
0.0%
9.
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
10,
o
El
o.o%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.00/0
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
0
❑
0.00/0
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Smilax laurifolia 20 ❑d 100.0% FACW
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.00/0
5.
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
- 0
20
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes O No O
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-7
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _ 0/0Color (moisll_ 0/0Tvne 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-1 10YR 4/1 Silt Loam
1-16 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No ❑
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: White Hat Mitigation Site City/County: Perquimans Sampling Date: 14-Aug-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-8
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0 °
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat.: 36.1751 Long.:-76.3245 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chaponoke silt loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes * No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No
Yes O No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑d FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. ,io.7
Sampling Point: DP-8
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _
)
% Cover Cover
1. Fagus grandifolia
10
❑ 16.79/6
2. Acer rubrum
30
❑d 50.0%
3. Liriodendron tulipifera
20
❑d 33.39/6
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ o.o%
6.
0
❑ 0.0%
7.
0
❑ 0.0%
8.
0
❑ 0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 30
20% of Total Cover: 12
60
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. Asimina triloba
15
W 60.09/6
2. Carpinus caroliniana
10
0 40.09/6
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ o.o%
6.
0
❑ o.o%
7.
0
❑ o.o%
8.
0
❑ 0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 12.5
20% of Total Cover: 5
25
= Total Cover
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. Aralia spinosa
20
100.0%
2.
0
❑ 0.0%
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑ 0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
FACU
FAC
FACU
FAC
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
8 (A)
9 (B)
88.9% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply
by:
oBL species 0
x 1 =
0
FACW species 0
x 2 =
0
FAC species 0
x 3 =
0
FACU species 0
x 4 =
0
UPL species 0
x 5 =
0
Column Totals: 0
(A)
0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0.000
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑� 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
0 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
FAC ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1 . Microstegium vimineum
10
❑d 33.3% FAC
2. Arundinaria gigantea
20
❑d 66.7% FACW
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ o.o%
6.
0
❑ o.o%
7.
0
❑ 0.0%
8.
0
❑ 0.0%
9.
0
❑ o.o%
10.
0
❑ 0.0%
11.
0
❑ 0.0%
12.
0
❑ 0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 15 20% of Total Cover: 6
30
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Vitis rotundifolia
10
❑d 50.09/6 FAC
2. Smilax laurifolia
10
❑d 50.09/6 FACW
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ 0.0%
5.
0
❑ 0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 10 20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes O No O
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-8
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _ 0/0Color (moisll_ 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-5 10YR 3/3 Loam
5-16 10YR 4/4 Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: White Hat Mitigation Site City/County: Perquimans Sampling Date: 14-Aug-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-9
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat.: 36.1778 Long.:-76.3357
Soil Map Unit Name: Chaponoke silt loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑d significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
0.0 0/0 / 0.0
Datum: NAD83
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ❑
Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ❑
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
ditching surrounds the forested area on two sides, major canal is controlled using flashboard risers - would likely have stronger hydrology indicators if
not controlled
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
0 Water Marks (Bl)
0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑d FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Depth (inches):
Yes O No ❑
Saturation Present?
Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. ,io.7
Sampling Point: DP-9
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover
Cover
1 . Ulmus americana _
10
❑
15.49/6
2. Pinus taeda
30
❑d
46.29/6
3. Quercus velutina
5
❑
7.7%
4. Liquidambar styraciflua
20
❑d
30.89/6
5.
0
❑
o.o%
6.
0
❑
o.o%
7.
0
❑
0.0%
8.
0
❑
0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 32.5 20% of Total Cover: 13
65
= Total Cover
Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Status
Number of Dominant Species
FAC That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
FAC
UPL Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
FAC
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
0
❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑ 0.0%
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ o.o%
6.
0
❑ o.o%
7.
0
❑ 0.00/0
8.
0
❑ 0.00/0
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 . Ligustrum sinense
10
100.0%
FAC
2.
0
❑ 0.0%
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ 0.00/0
5.
0
❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑ 0.00/0
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
10
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 , Toxicodendron radicans
10
❑d 40.0%
FAC
2. ]uncus effusus
10
❑d 40.0%
OBL
3. Boehmeria cylindrica
5
❑d 20.0%
FACW
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ o.o%
6.
0
❑ o.o%
7.
0
❑ 0.0%
8.
0
❑ 0.0%
g.
0
❑ o.o%
10.
0
❑ o.o%
11.
0
❑ o.o%
12.
0
❑ o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 12.5
20% of Total Cover: 5
25
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply
by:
oBL species 0
x 1 =
0
FACW species 0
x 2 =
0
FAC species 0
x 3 =
0
FACU species 0
x 4 =
0
UPL species 0
x 5 =
0
Column Totals: 0
(A)
0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0.000
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑� 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
0 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Vitis rotundifolia
10
❑d 100.09/6 FAC
2.
0
❑ 0.0%
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ 0.0%
5.
0
❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
-
Vegetation
Yes O No ❑
50% of Total Cover: 5 20% of Total Cover: 2
10
= Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-9
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _% _ Color (moistl 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 5/8 5 Clay Loam
8-16 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No ❑
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

fires
July 9, 2019
Renee Gledhill -Earley
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 White Hat Mitigation Project in Perquimans County
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) is contracted by the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS) to conduct stream and riparian buffer activities for the White Hat Project
to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and riparian buffer impacts. The proposed
project presents an opportunity to restore and enhance up to 7,546 linear feet of stream and associated
riparian buffer in the Pasquotank River Basin.
RES requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream and riparian buffer mitigation
project on the White Hat Site. Coordinates for the site are as follows: 36.175378°N and-76.329986°W. 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 September 9, 2019) was performed as part of the site due
diligence evaluation to reveal any listed or potential eligible historic or archeological resources.
This search revealed three occurrences: The James Whedbee House (PQ0262), the Whedbee Cemetery
(PQ0261), and the Gregory House (PQ0079), all located within a half -mile of the project area but are not
on the National Register List. The Site will not threaten or impact these historic locations. The Site is
located within a rural area, and land use within the project area is comprised primarily of agricultural and
forested land uses.
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 in the letterhead, or via email. Please feel free to contact me at
jmceachrankres.us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Jamey McEachran I Regulatory Lead
Attachments: Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), Existing Conditions Map
(Figure 3), Conceptual Plan Map (Figure 4)
res.us

ELIZABETH CITY CG AIR STATION/MUNII
7
—� Rp
'� cr
"-•�� ��+ N�}Sofa
�MEADSTOWN AIRSTRIP
s
LL 1 a N Nrv: Hcpt, ...,•
"w fr
OA
� r1
Legend
Proposed Easement
Pasquotank River Basin: 03010205060020
8 Digit HUC: 03010205
High Quality Water Management Zone
5 Mile Aviation Zone
d� m
NC NHP Element Occurrence (July 2018)
- NC DMS Conservation Easement
Water Supply Watershed
LE Other Managed Area (NC NHP July 2018)
® Airport
White Hat Mitigation
Project
Elizaberi
co
Figure 1 - Vicinity ..
Will Drawn by: EJU Aft
• . •Project
rat Checked by: JRM
NorthPerquimans County, •

Legend
Proposed Easement =
® Drainage Areas
Figure 2 - USGS Map Date: 8/25/2020
Nixonton Quadrangle (1982)
Drawn by: EJU res
AIIIW 0 1,000 2,000 White Hat Mitigation Project Checked by: JRM
Facet
Perquimans County, North Carolina 1 inch =2,000 feet

• -.
10
woo
liw

btu. STATE,,
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
May 31, 2019
Kyle Barnes
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, NC 27889
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Establish RES Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank, White Hat Mitigation Site, SAW 2018-02027,
Pasquotank County, ER 19-1564
Dear Mr. Barnes:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project.
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 . In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
TT
Ramona 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

Matthew Deangelo
From: Raleigh, FW4 <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 1:23 PM
To: Matthew Deangelo
Subject: Automatic reply: [EXTERNAL] Online Project Review Certification Letter - White Hat Mitigation Project
(SAW-2018-02027)
Thank you for submitting your online project package. We will review your package within 30 days of
receipt. If you have submitted an online project review request letter, expect our response within 30
days. If you have submitted an online project review certification letter, you will typically not receive a
response from us since the certification letter is our official response. However, if we have additional
questions or we do not concur with your determinations, we will contact you during the review period.

aPQ��EK� aF rh�i
A
V) Q
7 3
ARCH 3, �adg
United States Department of the Interior
Project Name
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date: 01 /21 /2021
Self -Certification Letter
White Hat Mitigation Project
Dear Applicant:
u.N
nf%1 & W rt. 3LWE
19E W [Mi
A
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 proj ect 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;
0 "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 RaleighAfws.gov 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

�
�
$
-
2
co
�
�
E
2
m
�
C-
�
E
2
(D
�
C%4
i>-,
/
A
k
Cl
u
2 2 % o CN
Lo o co 2 � C4 �
= w 2 CN LO
C- � v \ �
%cn�00 b2
E
=
cm % m Co
R.g o = _
g
0 oo�o 222/
7
%
— o — . =
2 o x 2 cr/�
w o = o
/
E _ $ / co m
Cl
E /� E / E Co�E2
22=
$
=m7
� 0) R B 7
o _0 e o I--0% z
0-% S ZD
E
�
/
C
7
<
�
o
w
. $
<
U)
p
m
<o
co
>1
w
%
w
2
co
2
2
U)
7
p
1
�
M-
e
R
)
o
—
.$
0 2
co
g
p
2
a
2
2
e
E
C)2
U)
ZD�
2
0
m
�
co:
_
$$2
_
\
�
co
U)
.2
o
E ®
oA
7 e
w%oa
d
o
� CTJ C)
U)o�2�
m�2c)
E
E
»
cu
E
0
$
\
0
§
» �
»
3
0
%
2
§
6
/
.�
/
'o
ui
k cu
E
0 E
E 0
0 )
k 2
§
CU
3
% §
[ %
2 E
.g E
0 -r-
E g %
»m
3 \ 7 0- o
3 E W
Cl
�
\
3
65

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: 04EN2000-2021-SLI-0533
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01143
Project Name: White Hat
January 21, 2021
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location 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

01/21/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01143 2
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.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.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratoDLbirds/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].

01/21/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01143
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List

01/21/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01143
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]

01/21/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01143 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2021-SLI-0533
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01143
Project Name: White Hat
Project Type: ** OTHER **
Project Description: Stream and Wetland Mitigation project
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www. google.com/maps/(a)36.175378300000006,-76.32661439911095,14z
New Hope
Counties: Perquimans County, North Carolina

01/21/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01143 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 2 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
Fisheriesi, 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.
1. 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.
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
�_qw@_P
NAME STATUS
Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1864
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

New Roy Cooper, Governor
•� mm NC DEPARTMENT OF Susi Hamilton, Secretary
■�,-t m NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
a ■ox Walter Clark, Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-13395
November 25. 2020
Matthew DeAngelo
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: White Hat (RESTART)
Dear Matthew DeAngelo:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httr)s://www.fws.aov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund
easement, or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butlerCo�ncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 W JON S STREET, RALEIGI I_ NC 27603 - 16Sl MAOL SERVICE CENTER. PALEIGW. rkc 276�0
OFC 919.707,9120 • FAK 919.707.9121

■
1
CO
/
\
CO
<So
e
\/\ƒ
co
/
-0 co
co E z
./ >z
co 0
4
%®
\
z
/
/
\
E
»
\
CO
/
2
z
CO CO 3
s 2
nE v
2 / 3
3
CO
3 / \ e %
CO CO.g % n
g / / 2 .
s ƒ
7
Al
/
\ E
/ co\ (
y E
E
}
O
e
.k
3 \
\ m
\ u
t
E
/
/
\
/
�y
/
�\
0 _
/\
\ CO
x a
CO
/
\
E
\
3
CO
\
/
a
CC)
CO
6
\
\
>
CO
4
\
�
\
\
cn
./
CO
E
§
/
CO
.k
3
\
\
\
E
/
/
\
ƒ
\
\
CO
\
z
§
/

ry
CO
w
[u
W
L
CO
m
r
w
z
U
z
L,
0
cp U
c
� cm 0
C ❑ d
cV m
61
N •,
O �
d CO
E
O
Z
M
O
M
N
a

MEMORANDUM pres
3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NCIRT
FROM: Brad Breslow — RES
DATE: October 14, 2020
RE: White Hat IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
Attendees
Kyle Barnes, USACE
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Erin Davis, NC DWR
Date & Time
1:00 pm, October 14, 2020.
General Summary
Travis Wilson, NC WRC
Maria Dunn, NC WRC
Brad Breslow, RES
Ben Carroll, RES
Jeremy Schmid, RES
- Site visit was scheduled to discuss updates to proposed design based on updated final prospectus submitted
September 9, 2020
- RES and Kyle Barnes provided an overview on of site history and timeline- initial site visit, public notice, RES
presentation at February IRT meeting.
- Main issues with original concept were related to Priority 2 (P2) Restoration approach and hydrologic trespass
concerns. Based on that feedback, RES was able to alter plans and obtain hydrologic trespass agreements with
upstream owners and minimize amount of P2 Restoration. Buffers have also been increased to greater than 150 LF
throughout the project area, often wider than 200 ft in many areas.
- Todd Tugwell had some questions regarding the language in the upstream hydrologic easement agreements. RES
discussed potentially providing draft templates to IRT or discussing language with USACE legal representatives.
The hydro easements will likely be monitored by the same CE holder for the mitigation project.
- Kyle Barnes had some concerns regarding long-term beaver management. RES will address in mitigation plan.
Reach Specific Comments
nCI-A/R
- RES explained agreement with upstream landowners allows design to raise bed elevation at upper extent of project.
- IRT had questions/concerns with potential upstream impacts of raising bed so abruptly on existing ditched channel
and lateral ditches. RES plans to provide figures from hydraulic models in draft mitigation plan to show the
anticipated effects.
- USACE had questions/thoughts about water quality and DO implications from backwater in ditch with elevation
change. RES will discuss in mitigation plan and potentially monitor, but expect improvements based on floodplain
inundation, increased sinuosity, deposition, etc.

- LiDAR and detailed topographic survey provide good rationale for proposed alignment
- Loss of wetlands would need to be addressed in mitigation plan and PCN
DC1-C
- The general approach proposed by RES was to remove the existing farm path along the left bank to provide
hydrologic connectivity between the channel and the existing wetlands on the north side.
- RES discussed the opportunity to extend restoration downstream where road is more pronounced and plan to include
structures to provide habitat, pattern, and reduce channel cross -sectional area.
- Todd had some concerns that proposed treatments in original and updated prospectus address the wetland
impairments but not the stream. RES discussed opportunity to address both stream and wetland functional uplift
and will outline stream and wetland impairments and proposed treatments in the draft mitigation plan to justify
proposed ratios.
- Travis had some comments that the proposed work could result in a braided system and that the wetland system to
north might have some lower points for flow if road is removed. Kyle expressed concerns with proposed treatments
impacting upstream landowners. RES plans to provide figures from hydraulic models in draft mitigation plan to
show the anticipated effects of the project.
Next Steps
- Kyle will provide meeting minutes and updated prospectus to IRT to solicit any feedback to add to initial evaluation
letter (provided 3/23/2020). Putting the site back on Public Notice will not be required.
- Based on discussions in the field, the group agreed that the Site appears suitable to provide compensatory stream
and wetland mitigation, but final credit ratios will be determined in the approved Mitigation Plan.
- RES is anticipating submission of a Draft Mitigation Plan in December 2020.

Appendix C —
Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information

Dc,
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Ute 1P Ll
Date: %? 2� I V Project/Site: QV'1 � 4 Latitude:
Evaluator: County:'Pe Y4 V I' � 15 Longitude:
Total Points: Stream Determination (S'watwump Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermltten Perennial e.
if a 19 or perennial if a 30* E ✓ � I p g• Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
0
1
1
2
2
0)
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool se:iuence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
)
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
.1
1
".1 ,
_1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
1707
1
2
3
9. Grade control
_ 0 .
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
= 0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
! " `[Subtotal see t� cusns In manual
B. HVdr0104V
12. Presence of Baseflow
01
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1 E
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
L CI,.
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =
U. 61UIOflV iJUDTOial = V i 1t-­� l
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3'
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
70 %
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
a
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
f
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Tiz 4; 1 cx.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM 1
►ccompanies User Manual Version 2.1 i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property,
identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for
detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes" section if supplementary measurements were
performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION: ,.j
1. Project name (if any): Wv k) S l l 2. Date of evaluation: i
3. Applicant/owner name: 4. Assessor name/organization:
5. County: .eri+A(Y rYr 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at tQp of bank (feet): 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? []Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: EpVerennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑Mountains (M) []Piedmont (P) ❑Inner Coastal Plain (1) ter Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ❑a ❑b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) []Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 m12) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) []Size 4 (z 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes []No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
[]Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/surl-:lementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ❑No
1. Cbannel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
�d Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
[� Not A
3. ture Pattern - assessment reach metric
r
Not majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
4. F ture Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
Uh < 10% of channel unstable
10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
vii

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for tF�e Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB ,
❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
0ccck all that apply.
Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes" section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
X(G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded mash vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
Ell Other: C? ' (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑C No drought conditions
9. Large or D rigorous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes o Is stream too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natur -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. as []No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Gheck all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment
0199-- Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(including liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
XE Little or no habitat
reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
[IF 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
W ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
g ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
Y t ❑I Sand bottom
t m ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
2 ❑K Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****
11, Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
YvGf� 1 ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
✓✓✓""" 11b. hedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. I -riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row. Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare (R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%,
Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ >
NP
R
C
A
P
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
70%. Cumulative percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. []Yes [:]No Are pools filled with sediment?
viii

12.
Aquatic LLi€e — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. &es ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water Other:
12b:' Yes
El
El
El
El
El
El
El
11
El
El
El
El
El
❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts,
❑Beetles (including water pennies)
❑Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
[]Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑Dipterans (true flies)
❑Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑Midges/mosquito larvae
osquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑Other fish
❑Salamanders/tadpoles
❑Snails
❑Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
❑Tipulid larvae
❑ Worms/leeches
lichens, and algal mats)
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland
runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
3 ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
�rW Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil
lJ�J
compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water z 6 inches deep
❑BI
Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
16. BaseflovJ Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
fck all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods affecting assessment reach (ex: beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (Z 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
.OE Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
Ma Stream shading is appropriate for the stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A A a 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B MIK From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C WC ❑C OC From 30 to < 50 feet wide q %.r ,0 I V11'
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide 1
❑E t7_ ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. ETUffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
jBq
❑A Mature forest
❑B SB Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑9 ❑D Maintained shrubs
PE ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A 'KA ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑❑B ❑❑B ❑❑❑
B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
C C C C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
(Abuts), does not abut but
LB
❑A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
UW ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. ontinuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
EIB rB The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ;7P3 Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
p� ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
YYLL'' with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. []Yes JNo Was conductivity measurement recorded?
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E a 230
Notes/Sketch:

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM IN
?�l'u (" d, ,
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1 l
USAGE AID #:
NCDWR #
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-min_7M top phic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same p�ooerty,
identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for
detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes" section if supplementary measurements were
performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECTISITE INFORMATION: p-
1. Project name (if any): NO, 2. Date of evaluation: p
3. Applicantlowner name: 4. Assessor name/organization:
5. County: eve °',sue. 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin:on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel widthop of bank (feet): 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: erennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑Mountains (M) ❑Piedmont (P) ❑Inner Coastal Plain (1) [Auter Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ®a ❑b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 0.5 to < 5 miZ s
( ) ❑Size 4 (z 5 mi )
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? JYes []No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
El Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters []Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II []III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat []Primary Nursery Area [I High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑LAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:: ►�
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementaFy measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes []No
1. nnel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
�
B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb 1+�:'
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris
beaver dams).
Not A
3. F ture Pattern - assessment reach metric
A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. F ture Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric 0-or
Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cuttih"g, existing damming,
d over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability -assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
[a ve bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
dEP 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable
vii

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
] !F QB Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone
jJC Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes" section.
I� Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
_.,H Degraded rnar�shrvegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
❑I Other: ��Irerlrir r� (explain in'Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
9r ught.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑C No drought conditions
9. Large orngerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes Is stream too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural I stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. es ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
41OW Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(including liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) W ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent 09❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
Co C
vegetation Y t C ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) W ❑J 5°k vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedfonn and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
� r 11a. Les ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
OB Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
Ot Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. I riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Cheekat least one box in each row. Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare (R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%,
Abund (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP
C
A
P
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Bedrock/saprolite
❑
❑
El `
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑
❑
❑
❑
Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑
❑
❑
❑
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑
❑
❑
ElDetritus
❑
❑
El
El
❑
. (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. []Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment?
viii

-12. Aquatic Lff essment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. es �p Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as des ribed in the User Mappu��al? /
If No, sel t one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ther: ��,w� CyLI�Ihon F � I1'V
12b. V'es ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 Ll,-- Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ QA t frogs
❑ DA is reptiles
Elquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles (including water pennies)
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T]) �A
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula) S,V`
❑ []Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans (true flies)
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑ ges/mosquito larvae
❑ LUMosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ Mussels/Clams (not Corbcula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ []Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland
runoff.
LB RB
❑A EUK Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil
compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
ConsiderV
Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB5A '
Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water Z 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence -streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
� _ VAre wetlands present in the streamside area?
16. Bas9fiow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 C k all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
lr Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods affecting assessment reach (ex: beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (Z 24% impervious surface for watershed)
XD Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for the stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
Degraded (example: scattered trees)
If Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19, Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams) 41
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting'fat the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated
Wooded
LB
[:]AR5C ❑A LB
,/
RLyA
❑B ❑B
❑B
❑B
❑C ❑C
❑C
❑C
❑[e❑E
� ❑E
>- 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
From 50 to < 100 feet wide
From 30 to < 50 feet wide
From 10 to < 30 feet wide
< 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A �"""" Mature forest
❑B B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D/ ❑D Maintained shrubs
,_]e ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB /f'B LB RB LB RBZ
aA A A ❑L; A ,I Row crops
❑[]A[]A❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Ly8 Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A CA Medium to high stem density
❑D ❑B Low stem density
i� ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider wheth vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
[]AA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
K/ ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition - First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment re habitat.
LB B
❑A EW Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ' Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees. �r
;DC ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity - assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ❑No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E z 230
Notes/Sketch:

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
MlAiW1I I Fld F IMb, UZAPF ME rertiwrr A. r ._• t� I
USACE AID #: NCDWR #
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property,
identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for
detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes" section if supplementary measurements were
performed, See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECTISITE INFORMATION;
1. Project name (if any): A V. ; 2. Date of evaluation;
3. Applicantlowner name: 4• Assessor namelorganization
5- County: Y 6. Nearest named water body
7_ River basin: - ,:_ on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
& Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION., (depth and width can be approximations)
Site number (show on attached map): 10. Length of assessment reacts evaluated (feet):
t'Channel depth from bed (in rifle, if present) to top of bank (feet): ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
�41phannel. width at top of bank (feet): 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? ❑Yes ONO
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone' ❑Mountains (M) ❑Piedmont (P) ❑lnner Coastal Plain (1) Pouter Coastal Plain (0)
i 1 ,„ c
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for L ❑b
Tidal Marsh Stream). (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) Hess sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0-5 me) ❑Size 3 (0,5 to < 5 min) ❑Size 4 (a 5 mi)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION;
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? []Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
[:]Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑High Duality WaterslOutstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect El Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑LAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal andlor state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
[]Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream #nformationlsu pplementa ry measurements included in "NoteslSketch' section or attached? ❑Yes El No
1. Channet Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach,
❑B No flow, water in pools only-
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10°% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples. undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
Not A
3. Fe re Pattern — assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑13 Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances),
❑6 Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current Instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
ac a bank Failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening {such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap) -
A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C 7 25% of channel unstable
vl I

Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑8 ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples. berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction [little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with fioodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls. Fill, stream incislon,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples.
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching)) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an Interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reachlintertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
Ok Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
313 Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes" section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
❑'I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
0,1 Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought: for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
9 r
dr ht. r
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hour$ [. •� �� -
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑C No drought conditions
9. Large or D� ngerous Stream - assessment reach metric
[:]yesE No is stream too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition)
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. ElYes []No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses N
❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(including liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) E
~
❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y r
❑I Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) t @
❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots U
❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*" '*"*•"""""''""""'"'""' REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS**"**"*******'*'""*""**"
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
-I 1a— ElYes
YNo Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Pialn streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es),
❑A
Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
1
Pool -glide section (evaluate 11 d)
Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
f
11c. In riffle
sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check
at least one box In each raw. Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare (R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = n 10-40%,
Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = a 70%- Cumulative percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP
R C A P
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrockfsaprolite
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256-4096 mm)
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 -256 mm)
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand t.052 - 2 mm)
❑
Q ❑ ❑ ❑ SIIVclay (< 0.062 mm)
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
--1ad �i�er�
❑No Are pools filled with sediment?
viii

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. q
❑Yes No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described In the User Manuals ! ,
If No, seI ct one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water []Other: ' 4? pal Tt ,
12b. ❑Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1
>1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑
❑Advlt frogs
❑
❑Aquatic reptiles
❑
❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
��
❑
[]Beetles (including water pennies)
❑
❑Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera M)
❑
❑Asian.plam (Corbicula)
❑
❑Crustacean (isopodlamphipod/crayfishlshrimp)
❑
❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑
❑Dipterans (true, -flies)
❑
❑Mayfly larvae (Ephgmeroptera [E))
❑
❑Megaloptera (aiderffy„ fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑
❑Midgeslmosquito larvae`--
❑
❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) o mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑
❑MusselslClams (not Corbicula)`_
❑
❑Other fish
❑
❑Salamandershadpoles
❑
❑Snails
❑
❑Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [PI)
❑
❑TOiilid larvae
❑
QWormslleeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Conditlon — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland
runoff.
YRl�+
[6A
Little
or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B
❑B
Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C
❑C
Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil
compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Sank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
DA ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water a 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
16. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Leff Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RS). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimetQr of assessment reach.
LB. RB.'
❑V l❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area"
❑N ❑N
16. Basefiow Contributors —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Chteck all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs [jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
Obstruction that passes some Flow during low -flow periods affecting assessment reach (ex: beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
❑/ Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
[V Stream bed or bank soft reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑�a Urban stream (z 24% impervious surface for watershed)
Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18, Shad' g — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Co rder aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
f A Stream shading is appropriate for the stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
ix

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ©AC OA ? 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B El ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to a 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20, Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB .
❑A ❑A Mature forest
❑6 ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 1 D feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts) does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 3D feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A, ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
DS ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)lcommercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density —streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB.-
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
013 ❑B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer —streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams]
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation 7 10 feet wide.
LB RB
❑q. ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent
7-313 ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB, RB.
OA CQA Vegetation is close to undisturbed In species present and their proportions Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions. but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities Inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity -assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)i
25a. []Yes n] o Was conductivity measurement recorded?
25b Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of micresiemens per centimeter)
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E ? 230
Notesf5ketch:

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Enhancement
Date
4/19/2019
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jeremy Schmid, RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions
(Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Preservation
Date
4/19/2019
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jeremy Schmid, RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions
(Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Re-establishment
Date
4/19/2019
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jeremy Schmid, RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions
(Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

FINAL
Detailed Hydric Soils Study
White Hat Mitigation Bank
Perquimans County NC
Prepared for:
Matt Butler
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES)
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Prepared by:
George K Lankford Soil Scientist, LSS 41223
George K Lankford, LLC
238 Shady Grove Rd
Pittsboro, NC 27312
January 2021
Soil Scientist Seal
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the White Hat Mitigation Bank in Perquimans County, NC.
Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the complete report, including figures, maps,
appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — White Hat Mitigation Bank
Study Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the study was to evaluate and delineate the extent of riparian hydric soils within a
proposed 50-foot stream buffer that are potentially suitable for hydrologic restoration and mitigation. All
boundaries shown are based on the detailed field evaluation. The potential for hydrologic restoration of
hydric soil is assessed considering both the historic and existing land use, current drainage modifications,
and the sites potential for reestablishing a hydroperiod suitable for its landscape setting and soils. In
addition to the anticipated restoration of the stream to raise local ground water and reestablish natural
overbank flooding frequency, the practical modifications suggested generally take advantage of available
natural hydrology and topography. Suggestions may include, but are not limited to surface drainage
modifications such as plugging drainage ditches, removal of fill materials, and microtopographic
alteration such as surface roughening or enhancement of depressions.
Recommendation for the re-establishment of wetlands follows the Principles of Wetland Restoration
(USEPA 2000) that promote successful establishment of a functioning wetland community by restoring
ecological integrity through physical reestablishment of natural structure and hydrologic functions. This
site evaluation focuses on evaluating the soils and the application of practical technical solutions to
support reestablishment of natural hydrology. Recommendations for removing extensive fill material are
typically limited by cost and potential negative environmental impacts. The potential for hydrologic
restoration assumes an appropriate design and the ability to successfully construct site modifications
necessary to restore adequate hydrology.
The site has been assessed for the suitability of soils for wetland mitigation. The observations and
opinions stated in this report reflect conditions apparent on the subject property at the time of the site
evaluation. My findings, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on professional
experience, soils, drainage patterns, site conditions, and boundaries of the property as evident in the field.
This report presents an evaluation of the subject property based upon a detailed field investigation of this
site for the purpose of confirming the presence of and delineating the extent of hydric soil.
Project Information and Background
The site is located approximately 9 miles southwest of Elizabeth City NC. It is north of New Hope Road
(SR 1300) and west of Woodville Road (SR 1329) in Perquimans County. This project in on the
floodplain of Deep Creek, a tributary to the Little River arm of Albemarle Sound estuary (Figure 1). Land
use of the contributing watershed community is primarily agricultural land and undeveloped forest land
(Figure 2). The White Hat project area is approximately 45 acres. Prior to this evaluation a Jurisdictional
Determination verified by the Army Corps of Engineers has been received for this project. This soils
evaluation focuses on drained hydric soil outside of the Jurisdictional Wetlands to incorporate the full
extent of hydrologic restoration at this site. Drained hydric soils at this project primarily consist of active
agricultural fields, but includes forested areas with drainage modifications.
This work delineates the hydric soils that may be suitable for wetland reestablishment by construction of
this project. The reestablishment of these hydric soil areas as wetlands will also benefit the existing
wetlands identified. Based on project constraints, the primary area evaluated for wetland restoration is
limited to the 50-foot buffer of the proposed stream restoration alignment. It is recognized that evaluation
of soils outside the buffer is necessary to provide flexibility in the actual alignment while giving context
to the hydric soils of this landscape. Work outside of the 50-foot buffer was limited with the eastern
portion of the project having extensive jurisdictional wetlands.
NRCS Soil Mapping
A Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil mapping unit consists primarily of soils having
similarly defined soil properties and physical characteristics with similar management criteria base upon
Page 2 of 11 January 2021

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — White Hat Mitigation Bank
these properties. Mapping units are useful for planning by indicating the types and ranges of soil
characteristics that may be found within a landscape. The map units often correlate closely with soils at a
location, but have limitations because a site's soils represent the natural conditions and gradients
influenced by local geology, slope, and past land management practices. These soil map units provide
useful information for interpreting soil within a landscape and inform potential management decisions.
General characteristics of mapping units for the White Hat site are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. NRCS Hydric Soil Map Units at the White Hat Site
(map units in order of increasing depth to water table)
Hydric RatingLandscape
Taxonomic
Drainage
setting (down
Series
(Hydrologic
Class
Class
across)
Group)
Chowan silt loam (CO) (Consociation) Prime farmland if protected from flooding or
not frequently flooded during the growing season
Parent material - silty alluvium over herbaceous organic material and/or woody organic material
Depth to water table 0 to 6 inches Flooding e went Pondin - none
Chowan (90%)
Thapto-Histic
very poorly
Yes
linear - linear
Fluva uents
A/D
Perquimans silt loam (Pe) (Consociation) Prime farmland if drained
Parent material - loamy and silty marine deposits and/or fluviomarine deposits
Depth to water table 0 to 12 inches Flooding none Pondin - none
Perquimans (90%)
Yes
C/D
linear - concave
Pasquotank 2%)
Yes
Typic
poorly
B/D
o
Genie (2 /o)
Endoaquults
Yes
concave/linear -linear
(C/D)
Tomotly (1%)
Yes
linear - linear
Barclay (1%)
Aeric
somewhat
(B/D)
Endoa ue is
poorly
(B/D)
Roanoke silt loam (Ro) (Consociation) Farmland of statewide importance
Parent material - clayey marine deposits and/or fluviomarine deposits
Depth to water table 0 to 12 inches Flooding rare Pondin - none
Roanoke(
Typic
-F-
poorly
Yes
concave/linear - linear
Endoa uults
C/D
Chapanoke silt loam (Ch) (Consociation) Prime farmland if drained
Parent material - loamy and silty marine deposits and/or fluviomarine deposits
Depth to water table 12 to 24 inches Floodin none Pondin - none
Chapanoke (95%)
Aeric
No
linear - linear
Endoa uults
somewhat
poorly
C/D
Perquimans (3%)
Typic
Yes
linear - concave
Endoa uults
C/D
Yeopim (2%)
Aquic
moderately
No
linear - convex
Ha ludults
well
C
Gertie (2%)
poorly
concave/linear - linear
Endoapiuults
(Yes
Source-NRCS Web Soil Survey (2020 21 19)
Page 3 of 11 January 2021

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — White Hat Mitigation Bank
NRCS map units cover large extents and naturally include smaller areas of dissimilar soils not discernable
without a detailed site evaluation. Properties of the map units provide the background for interpreting the
range of soil properties that may be encountered within the landscape at a site. Although map units are
useful for general planning, an on -site evaluation is necessary to determine soil characteristics specific to
a site. The characteristics of these map units are a starting point for this soil evaluation.
The NRCS soil survey shows three soil map units lie within the project limits. Surrounding the project is
a map unit located at a slightly higher elevation. Soils within the project are typical of the low elevation
floodplains of streams and terraces in this area. The natural water table in these floodplains is expected to
be at or near the surface for much of the year due to the position in a lower elevation and naturally low
relief. Hydric soils are expected to have frequent flooding and slow drainage when not ditched.
The upper reach is mapped as Chapanoke and Roanoke soils. Downstream, the floodplain transitions into
a Chowan soil (on line NRCS Web Soil Survey 2019). The higher elevations immediately surrounding
the project are mapped as a Perquimans. The linear nature and local topography of the Chapanoke and
Chowan map units indicate the presence of a stream with Roanoke restricted to stream terraces. The
Perquimans soil is more typical of broad flats and depressions.
The Chowan, Roanoke, Perquimans, and most of the potential inclusions are very poorly or poorly
drained and are classified as hydric by the NRCS. The Chapanoke is slightly somewhat poorly drained
and is not considered hydric by the NRCS. A Chowan soil has a buried organic muck layer below 27
inches.
Project Approach
The approach to mitigation of hydric soil is to restore a functional, natural hydrology on the floodplain
that will sustain wetland hydroperiods appropriate for this landscape. The soil evaluation found this site
has hydric soil exhibiting characteristics typically found in wetland soils and predicted by the NRCS map
units. Much of the project is jurisdictional wetlands with Corps of Engineer concurrence (Figure 2). The
area evaluated is outside of the jurisdictional wetland. In addition to the dredged stream channel, these
areas contain ditches, contoured agricultural fields, and other surface modification that limit hydrology.
The past land management, stream channel excavation, and ditching appear to have removed the natural
wetland hydrology from these areas and likely impact hydrology in the adjacent wetland areas. The
stream has been excavated and spoil used to construct access along one or more of its banks. The area
evaluated contains the left floodplain of Deep Creek and the edge of the agricultural field with smaller
areas within the forested floodplain on the right bank.
Methodology
A detailed hydric soil investigation for the White Hat Mitigation Bank was completed in December of
2020. This evaluation was assisted by RES staff soil scientist Katie Webber. Ms. Webber acted as project
liaison and studied the approach and evaluation of this site. A series of approximately 22 soil borings
were performed across the site to verify, described, and estimate the extent of hydric soil, including soils
that appear to exhibit relict or historic hydric indicators (Figure 3). An on -site determination of hydric
soils requires the use of field indicators. Soils were evaluated using morphologic characteristics to
determine hydric indicators and evaluate current hydrology and using criteria based on "Field Indicators
ofHydric Soils in the United States" (USDA, NRCS, 2018, Version 8.2). The boring observations do not
contain adequate detail to classify these soils to a series. Hydric soil indicators used are valid for the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal
Plain Region Version 2.0 within Southern Piedmont and Land Resource Region (LRR) T- South Atlantic
and Gulf Slope Cash Crops, Forest, and Livestock Region and the Major Land Resource Area (MLRA)
153B - Tidewater Area. The suggested hydroperiod success criteria are based upon Corps mitigation
Page 4 of 11 January 2021

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — White Hat Mitigation Bank
guidelines (US Army Corps of Engineers 2016). Soil boring locations examined during the field
evaluation were approximately located using the Terrain Navigator Pro smart phone application by
Trimble and figures were produced from the same software. Boundary points were located using EOS
Arrow 100, a submeter GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) by RES staff.
Hand auger soil borings, some greater than 30 inches, were used to described current soil characteristics,
observe current hydrologic conditions, and determine the extent of soil suitable for reestablishment.
Representative profiles are described to document the range of characteristics observed (Appendix A).
Constraints on stream restoration may limit the extent of potential hydrologic restoration. The soil was
assessed for current hydrology by evaluating existing drainage modifications (both natural and
anthropogenic), interpretation of the location and pattern of the soil color and mottles, existing vegetation,
and the current soil water table where observed. The presence of hydric soil indicators does not assume
current hydrology. General conditions and patterns representative of this floodplain were noted. Selected
photographs of soils and the landscape are shown in Appendix B.
This report describes these findings, conclusions, and recommendation for wetland reestablishment at the
White Hat Mitigation Bank. The discussion describes relevant soil characteristics, current hydrology, and
land management with the existing modifications that may affect potential hydrologic restoration.
Results and Discussion
Landscape Setting
This project site is within the Tidewater Area of the Outer Coastal Plain on an old marine terrace derived
from mixed mineralogy clays and soils have not developed strong weathering zonation (NC Agricultural
Research Service 1984). In this area topography is a sequence of nearly level broad plains broken by
shallowly incised, widely spaced streams and broad estuaries. The low local relief has poorly to very
poorly drained soils covering large areas. Geologically, the project lies in surficial deposits of the Outer
Coastal Plain consisting of sand, clay, gravel and peat deposited in marine fluvial, eolian, and lacustrine
environments. These geologic formations are the parent material in which soil develops on uplands with
the patterns of erosion and deposition heavily influencing the alluvial floodplain soils.
The project lies on the low gradient floodplain of Deep Creek. The site historically supported a wet
riparian community prior to the channelization of Deep Creek and conversion to sylvicultural uses. The
watershed is rural and land use is largely agricultural fields and forested land managed for timber.
Draining and ditching of these fields are necessary to allow these activities.
Agricultural and sylvicultural activities in the watershed increase erosion and runoff The dredged
channels and ditches result in spoil that is redistributed onto adjacent soils. It is often used to raise surface
elevations to improve drainage and build equipment access in lower elevations and wet areas. The ditches
construction and channel dredging redistribute soils linearly along these features. These disturbed soils
usually visible in the borings.
Site Conditions
The area evaluated lies on the floodplain of Deep Creek, flowing east to the Little River. The majority of
the floodplain is planted pine approximately 15 years old. The project is divided into three segments,
upper reach, middle reach, and lower reach. The upper and lower reaches along with middle reach right
bank floodplain contain planted pine plantation with the floodplain mostly jurisdictional wetland. The left
bank in the middle reach lacks a buffer due to agricultural row crops on the left bank of floodplain.
Deep Creek is a low gradient channel flowing through the project area that has been deeply dredged and
straightened throughout the project. It has been deepened to approximately 10 feet and 30 to 35 feet wide.
Spoil appears to have been placed along banks of the channel to create a slightly raised road bed. The
Page 5 of 11 January 2021

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — White Hat Mitigation Bank
road bed allows access for managing forestry and agricultural practices along with maintenance of the
stream and ditches. Shallow ditches and culverts beneath this road facilitate drainage under the road.
Although dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), other saplings of red maple (Acer rubrum) and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifua) are present. Shrubs and vines typical of floodplain are limited and
groundcover appeared to be mostly absent during the site visit. The floodplain appears to have a relatively
level surface due to forestry operations. Bedding of the pines was not observed, but there is a general
absence of typical depressions, hummocks, and swales expected in this landscape.
The majority of the riparian areas planted in pine contain extensive jurisdictional wetland areas; therefore,
the area drained and converted to row crops was the primary study area for this evaluation. A few limited
areas were investigated within the proposed 50-foot buffer that occurred outside of the wetland, but were
within the floodplain.
Site Soils
Soils of this floodplain landscape formed in alluvium transported from upland landscape and were derived
from the silty, loamy, and clayey materials eroded from the upland landscapes. Due to the low relief of
the area, most are poorly or very poorly drained and accumulate organic material in the surface horizons
resulting in dark gray to black colors. The poor drainage contributes to the gray subsoil horizons that have
been depleted of most iron. Due to the minimal energy of these low gradient landscapes, deep
depositional surfaces do not appear common.
Soils observed at this site predominantly have a very dark brown to very dark gray sandy loam surface
with subsoils ranging from very dark gray to gray loams of loams and clays. A farm path along the
channel appears constructed of disturbed soil, likely from the dredge excavated from the channel. The
surface and upper layers have mixed colors and textures differing in appearance compared to the adjacent
soils. This disturbed appearance is common in excavated soils. Soils in less disturbed areas have the
typical dark surface over a gray subsoil. Because of the sandy nature of the subsoil found at this site and
absence of a continuous clay horizon, the soil has endosaturation where all layer to a depth of greater than
6 feet area saturated (compared to a perched water table in episaturation). Without a restrictive horizon,
drainage of the soil can extend a greater distance from ditches and can be manipulated with deeper ditches
and streams. Due to the current high stream flow, the water table across the floodplain was not a good
indicator of drainage.
Hydric Soil -Indicators
The soil evaluation confirmed hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface throughout
floodplain at this site (Figure 3). The most common hydric soil indicators observed are the F3-Depleted
Matrix and All -Depleted Below Dark Surface indicators. Another indicator found is F6-Redox Dark
Surface, an indicator common in wetland soils with dark surfaces where ponding occurs. The common
dark surface indicates an accumulation of organic matter. The high organics in surface soils usually form
under long periods of saturated conditions. The saturated conditions make observation of the F6 indicator
difficult and any surface tillage for forestry operations may have destroyed many of the required
redoximorphic feature. The indicators observed reflect the very wet historical hydrology of this floodplain
that has resulted in the accumulation of organic materials throughout the soil surface.
Current Hydrologic Alterations
Deep Creek has been deeply channelized and widened to facilitate drainage and use of the surrounding
land. The channel appears to have been straightened along the left bank toe of slope and through low
terraces. The endosaturated nature of the water table and the deep incision of Deep Creek likely impacts
the floodplain groundwater elevation adjacent to the channel by limiting overbank flooding and providing
drainage of the surrounding sandy soils. Stream crossings allow access to farmland, but result in
constriction points to surface and subsurface flow within the floodplain. Ditches draining from the
Page 6 of 11 January 2021

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — White Hat Mitigation Bank
surrounding agricultural land provide additional drainage of surface waters where they cross the
floodplain.
Surface water was observed within the edge of the cultivated field, but may be from tillage compaction
with recent rainfall and runoff from the adjacent slope. Within the jurisdictional pine areas only a limited
soil evaluation was necessary, but did verify areas of hydric soils. Hydric soil indicators are absent from
adjacent higher elevation terrace landscapes. Conditions of above average rainfall and seasonal timing
reflect the high groundwater. The interpretation of groundwater observations is limited.
Potential Hydroperiod for Restored Soils
The soils on the floodplain appear to generally reflect the characteristics of the NRCS map units. The
mitigation guidance for Coastal Plain soils (US Army Corps of Engineers 2016), does not provide direct
guidance for most of the soil map units or inclusions. The Corps guidance relies on soil classification to
the Subgroup level (such as Typic Endoaquults), a fourth order taxonomic classification, but also uses
some textural differences. The higher the classification, the more specific the soil properties with the
series the sixth and highest level. The suggested hydroperiod ranges were determined from series the
same Subgroup where possible (Table 2). In the case of Chowan soils, the closest taxonomic group is the
third order classification, the Great Group.
Hydroperiod success is defined by having the water table within 12 inches of the surface for a significant
length of time during the growing season. The hydroperiod for a specific soil represents a natural range
that saturated conditions can be expected for the series within the landscape. These hydroperiod ranges
provide success criteria cross referenced to the accepted guidance and is suitable for this purpose.
Table 2. Guidance for Hydroperiod Success Criteria at White Hat Mitigation Bank
(map units from very poorly drained to moderately well drained)
Mapping
Taxonomic Classification
Topographic
Drainage
Hydroperiod
Unit/Series
(Subgroup)
Slope Setting
down/across
Class
Range*
Chowan
Thapto-Histic
linear - linear
very
(12-16/oo) **
Fluva uents
poorly
Pasquotank
linear - concave
Gertie
Typic
concave/linear —
linear
poorly
Roanoke
Endoaquults
Perquimans
linear - concave
Tomotley
linear - linear
Chapanoke
Aeric
Endoa uults
linear - linear
somewhat
poorly
7-9 /o***
(suggested)
Barclay
Aeric
Endoa ue is
Yeopim
Aquic
linear -convex
moderately
(6-80/,)***
Ha ludults
well
(suggested)
Page 7 of 11 January 2021

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — White Hat Mitigation Bank
Table 2. Guidance for Hydroperiod Success Criteria at White Hat Mitigation Bank
(map units from very poorly drained to moderately well drained)
Mapping Taxonomic Classification Topographic Drainage Hydroperiod
Unit/Series (Subgroup) Slope Setting Class Range*
down/across
Chowan: utilized taxonomic Great Group (Fluvaquents association for Bibb series)
Pasquotank, Gertie, Perquimans soils: hydroperiod averaged using guidance for Roanoke and
"Guidance criteria Tomotley (all are in the same Subgroup for Typic Endoaquults)
for soil series utilized Chapanoke soils: hydroperiod taken from Lenoir
taxonomic similarity: Barclay soils: hydroperiod taken from Augusta
Yeopim soils: hydroperiod taken from Altavista
*Hydroperiodfollows US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016.
The Chowan series (Thapto-Histic Fluvaquents) is suggested to have a hydroperiod range between 12 and
16 percent, determined by a similar Fluvaquent series (Table 2). Textures across the site indicate similar
minerology for the soils within this project and based on the common subgroup classification (Typic
Endoaquults), the Pasquotank, Gertie, Perquimans, Roanoke, and Tomotley series should have success
criteria of between 9 and 12 percent, Because of natural variation of local topography and internal
drainage found across this site, a local hydroperiod slightly higher or lower than this guidance may be
expected. Soil in the surrounding upland soil map units and immediately adjacent to the floodplain are
anticipated to have shorter hydroperiods. Small depressional areas underlain by a clayey subsoil may
exhibit longer hydroperiods exceeding 16 percent. These suggested hydroperiods depend on the factors
related to stream design and frequency of flooding, construction details, local topography, and local
drainage after construction.
Functional Uplift from Hydric Soil Reestablishment
Successful construction and wetland reestablishment along Deep Creek has the potential to provide
numerous benefits to water quality. Deep Creek conveys agricultural runoff containing sediments,
nutrients, and pollutants into this stream that connects directly to estuarine habitat, allowing a direct,
unprocessed flows to pass on to the Cape Fear River. Much of the floodplain contains jurisdictional
wetlands, but the deeply incised channel limits connectivity between Deep Creek and its historic
floodplain. Despite its jurisdictional status, these wetlands most likely have a reduced hydroperiod and
lack consistent hydrologic connectivity.
The wetland reestablishment proposed will be the result of a stream restoration project which will raise
the local groundwater and reestablish floodplain connectivity with the associated functional uplift.
Successful hydrologic restoration can provide numerous functional uplifts related to soils and water
quality. These include, reestablishment of natural oxidation-reduction cycling, improved nutrient and
chemical transformations (especially nitrates), and potential immobilization of phosphorus. Potential
sources of these pollutants are present throughout the watershed.
After vegetative establishment, other benefits include increased organic carbon sequestration, increases in
diversity of beneficial microbial and fungal populations important for soil health, and improved habitat.
Healthy microbial populations in wetlands are primarily responsible for biochemical transformations of
complex organic substances such as ammonia, molecular nitrogen, nitrite and nitrate. Large scale benefits
should include control of peak flooding, an increase of diverse wildlife habitat, and greater connectivity to
the natural aquatic communities along Deep Creek.
Page 8 of 11 January 2021

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — White Hat Mitigation Bank
Wetland Restoration Within Current Channel
Based on the soil evaluation, much of Deep Creek is currently in the landscape where historically hydric
soils were located (Figure 2). The soil investigation shows hydric soil to either side and dredged material
exhibits hydric indicators. The proposed stream restoration will be relocated with the current channel
filled. Once filled, the channel will have hydrology similar to the rest of the floodplain, therefore it is
included in the hydric soil area suitable for reestablishment.
Summary Recommendations and Conclusions
The White Hat project lies along Deep Creek, a tributary to the Little River and Albemarle Sound
Estuary. The project site is within a suitable landscape position with soils exhibiting hydric indicators that
suggest long periods of saturation. Land use in the watershed and surrounding area is mostly agricultural
and sylvicultural activities. The floodplain through the project area has been ditched and modified with
dredge spoil. The Deep Creek stream channel is excavated and straightened to increase the rate of surface
drainage and lower groundwater within the floodplain to allow silviculture.
The floodplain currently is mostly a young pine plantation surrounded by row crop agriculture or
sylvicultural activities. The NRCS soil survey indicate the site contains map units known to be hydric or
contain hydric inclusions. These soils area expected to have surface horizons high in organic matter and
although highly permeable, the natural water table should be at or near the surface for extended periods
unless drained.
Soils are sandy with dark surface horizons and mostly loamy subsoils. A farm path along the channel has
mixed surface soils likely from stream excavation of deeper clays. Soils were found to be similar to the
expected map units. Soils are moderately permeable and expected to respond well to construction or
removal of drainage modifications. The most common hydric soil indicators observed are the F3-
Depleted Matrix and All -Depleted Below Dark Surface indicators. The dark surface indicates an
accumulation of organic matter usually formed under extended periods of saturated conditions. The
indicators observed reflect the very wet historical hydrology of this floodplain that has resulted in the
accumulation of organic materials throughout the surface horizon.
Recommendations
Restoration techniques to restore wetland hydrology require a successful stream restoration to raise the
local groundwater and allows frequent flooding. Plugging and filling of ditches to limit surface drainage
is recommended. Where construction equipment is utilized, significant compaction can occur and surface
roughening with limited ripping may be needed to decompact soils to provide conditions for vegetation
establishment and survival. All construction schedules with heavy equipment should be limited to dryer
conditions and utilize tracked equipment to limit loss of soil structure. These efforts to protect this soil
will retain natural structure, reduce erosion, and allow quicker vegetative reestablishment.
The reestablished hydric soils at this site can be expected to have a hydro period of 9 to 16 percent. Small,
more pronounced depressional areas may pond for short periods with hydroperiods potentially greater
than 16 percent.
Conclusions
The topographic setting and hydric soil are appropriate for a successful hydrologic reestablishment at the
White Hat mitigation bank. The soils on the floodplain of Deep Creek reflects historically wetland
conditions with extended periods of saturation. Restoration of the stream should raise the groundwater to
within 12 inches of the surface for 9 to 16 percent of the growing season.
This project will reestablish natural functions to these degraded aquatic resources by providing a stable
and unique wetland habitat to compliment the restored streams. Upon successful construction, the
Page 9 of 11 January 2021

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — White Hat Mitigation Bank
restored wetland will be able to provide functional benefits of sediment removal, soil chemical and
biological transformations of nutrient and chemical pollutants, and a range of wetland habitat. Other
benefits include increased organic carbon accumulation/capture and increases of natural diversity in
beneficial soil microbial and fungal populations important for soil health. Given the observed soil
characteristics and presence of hydric soil indicators within a favorable landscape position, this site
appears suitable for hydrologic wetland reestablishment adjacent to existing jurisdictional wetlands,
including the current channel of Deep Creek once filled. This site may also result in improved hydrology
for the existing wetlands.
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the White Hat mitigation bank in
Perquimans County, NC. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring
the complete report, including figures, maps, appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.
References
NTCHS. 2003. Technical Note 13: Altered Hydric Soils. Deliberation of National Technical Committee
for Hydric Soils.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
Accessed [January/2021].
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016. SAW-2013-00668-PN
http://www.saw.usace.anny.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 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.
NC Agricultural Research Service. 1984. R. B. Daniels, et al. Soil Systems in North Carolina. Bulletin
467.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators
ofHydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.).
USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
Vepraskas, M. J. 1994. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Tech. Bulletin 301.
North Carolina Ag. Research Service, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina.
USEPA. 2000. Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. EPA841-F-00-003.
Office of Water (4501F). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 4 pp.
(https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/principles-wetland-restoration) .
USDA, NRCS. 2008. Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, or Creation. NEH Part 650.13 Engineering
Field Handbook. Washington, DC.
Page 10 of 11 January 2021

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — White Hat Mitigation Bank
Figures
APPENDICES
Appendix A Soil Boring Log
Appendix B Photos
Appendix C NRCS Web Soil Survey Report
Page 11 of 11 January 2021

1334
Cry
0 _ ElizabeThCity- 1w yyy �' 1329
17
Edent ��
17 r • bb /em s]?31
seta' a
Qp 4' y
isF_err:Y---Road,
11 "`�••.: 1� _ JI
p• y 1
ry l331
Y 9�
:Fast r! �� `� � �
jf 3 �Ce
0(if/� �O W m - J
s= 333
jj .. ^
and'- iiiiiiii 1'_y 3.2 em
G 1333� 2.CD�\ �.
DdfreyOM
\
\
r \
e
a..� -
Declination IS
! L �O.' a1324•
i / •� jj Cem � �:/` - - .� / jj1
KI
b
Legend •��'p� v `� \ \
GN 0.78° W Project Area (Parcel) • ;enn 2.�
MN 10.64° W \\�,r�i •'\ t3� 11
� \ - ." . { 1' „ --1 ,�-T 1 \ 1\ i MpJA 01 + rimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap Contributors
Map Name: NIXONTON Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft.
Figure 1. USGS Vicinity Map SCALE 1:24000
White Hat Mitigation Site o l000 z000 3000 a000
Feet
Perquimans County, NC 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Appendix A
White Hat Mitigation Site, Perquimans County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Table Representative Soil Profiles at the White Hat Site
Hydric Indicators valid for NRCS Land Resource Region 153B (Tidewater Area) and Land Resource Region T.
Depth
Color
Mottle Percentage
Location*
Texture"
Notes
(inches)
Matrix
Mottle
SB 01
Hydric Indicators WT -10"
January 06 2021 (cultivated field)
AI I -Depleted Below Dark Surface
F3-Depleted Matrix
0-2
10 YR 3/1
SL
cultivated ho rizon
2-8
10 YR 4/1
SL
8-14
10 YR 4/1
10 YR 4/6
5% (PL)
SL
14-32
10 YR 4/1
10 YR 4/6
8% (PL)
SC
SB 09
Hydric Indicators WT -23"
January 06 2021 cultivated field
F3-Depleted Matrix
0-7
10 YR 3/2
10 YR 3/6
2% (PL)
SL
7-14
10 YR 4/1
2.5 Y 4/8
5% (PL)
SL
14-29
10 YR 511
5 YR 5/8
20% PL
SCL
mottle supports drainage
SB 11
Hydric Indicators WT -23"
January 06 2021 (cultivated field)
173-De leted Matrix
0-3
2.5 Y 4/1
fSL
3-10
2.5 Y 511
5 YR 5/8
10% PL
fSL
10-27
10 YR 511
10 YR 6/4
20% (PL)
SL
10 YR 5/8
10% (PL)
27-30
10 YR 511
10 YR 6/4
15% (PL)
LS
SB 17
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
January 06 2021 forested
AI I -De leted Below Dark Surface
0-3
10 YR 2/1
SL
greater than 95% coated
sand grains
3-8
10 YR 6/2
LS
8-14
10 YR 3/1
10 YR 5/8
5%
SL
14-22
10 YR 4/1
10 YR 3/4
15% PL
SCL
SB
08
Hydric Indicators WT -32"
January
06 2021
AI I -Depleted Below Dark Surface
road bed
along channel
173-De leted Matrix
0-1
10 YR 2/2
SL
potential fill for road
1-7
10 YR 3/3
SC
7-14
10 YR 4/1
10 YR 4/6
15% (PL)
LC
14-23
10 YR 511
10 YR 4/6
20% PL
SC
23-39
10 YR 4/1
10 YR 4/6
10% (PL)
SC
5 YR 4/6
10% (PL)
Appendix A
Page 1 of 2
January 2021

Appendix A
White Hat Mitigation Site, Perquimans County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
SB 10
January 06 2021
(road bed along channel)
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
173-Depleted Matrix
F6-Redox Dark Surface
0-4
10 YR 3/2
SL
upper appears
disturbed
4-7
10 YR 3/2
5 YR 4/6
10% PL
SL
7-12
10 YR 5/4
10 YR 3/3
40% PL
S
12-16
10 YR 4/2
7.5 YR 4/4
5% (PL)
SC
pieces of charcoal present
16-21
10 YR 4/1
10 YR 4/6
15% (PL)
CL
21-28
10 YR 511
10 YR 6/1
5% (PL)
CL
WT = observed apparent water table
*PL =pore lining, M = matrix, UCSG = uncoated sand grains
**Texture (follows USDA textural classification)
S = sand, L = loam, Si = silt, C = clay
f = fine, c = coarse (textural modifiers for sandy soils)
Appendix A
Page 2 of 2
Soil Scientist Seal
January 2021

Appendix B
White Hat Mitigation Site — Perquimans County, NC
Photo Log
January 2021
1. Hydric profile. Meets the F3-Deple ted Matrix indicator. SB409. Photo 48
2. Landscape looking at floodplain along edge of cultivated field. SB409. Photo 52
1
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
White Hat Mitigation Site — Perquimans County, NC
Photo Log
3. Hydric profile. Meets the F3-Deple ted Matrix indicator. SB417. Photo 69
4. Landscape looking across forested floodplain in pine plantation. SB417. Photo 73
2
January 2021
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
White Hat Mitigation Site — Perquimans County, NC
Photo Log
.v, }•
January 2021
5. Hydric profile. Meets the F3-Depleted Matrix and F6-Redox Dark Surface indicators. SB410. Photo
55
6. Landscape looking at farm path along edge of stream. SB410. Photo 57
3
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Z
a
�o
OO99OOb
M „LS./T o9L
�i
8
�i
8
Q
(6
O
U
M „ZS.TZ o9L
009900b
z
a
�o
006M 00EM 00Lb0Ob ONVOOb 009£OOb
00690Ob OOEM 00Lb0Ob 00MOV 009£OOb
8
�i
8
�i
T
a�
3
U
'o
U
� o
�
U >
= m
O
U Q
-0 O
Lf)
(D
U
m
Z
c
8
0
O
O
N
Z
i6tri
�
Ll
00
X
8
m
Cj
O
Q
p
p0
g
C
8
O
O
y
V
N
L
fA
�
y O
m
m
N +•
>L
�
p
p �
L
� y
m
z �
R O
Z U
M „ZS.TZ o91
�I
006Z00b
z
m
�o

Q
(U
O
U
y
V
O O
O
N
U
N
Uu) y
N O N
N
N
N
I
O)
a) 6
3: p
(6
0
O
O
ON
U)p
N
N
E
a)>N
.y 6
-6 U)E '6
N
6) E
CL
O-
p
U)
> N—
'6
N
O
Q
N
—_ U N
OE E
Z
C
u)
N
o m W 6-
U
U
U
(`�
U) (6
a)vpi
O
N
O
N
C r y N
U
O
:5
5 a)tl)
N C7
O
'6
Z
O N
N
U E y '6
Q
p_
U)
N '6 N O
Q
Z O
2i
'6
!E O O>
Q
U)
c U) N
6 C
N
(6
p Q
O
U
N
O
U
N
O U O
0
Q
O
CL
(a E
>
O
N
>•N U
E O
U) O
N
U)
O
L
Q
E �'m
Q
Z
Mn
O
O
U)
N
O
7 y U O N
0 p
E O
y
�
CL
US m
-a O (6
CL
o
T.oQ�
��
y
sN
N
�,
(6
�0�c
Q
U
3 Li
N
) au)) Q C O
(n
Q C
E
N>
d
N
�
(
tl)
N' O
t C
N
(6
-0
o
ZEE
Q U
oo(omo
a)
a�°'
N
o
a
0-0
0
:,"
-6
>'
N
U)
Q O U)
a) U (6 (6 7
,tl)
C
N Q
y (6
O '6 N O-
O o
>
3 U
m (�
U .o
Q m
E
m
s� (n E
U)
N O
E
2
_ U °?
O
E m� p
O N O
O
Q
o
O_ O
a�
(u
Q m _
t -O ` O
O
. y O
(n tl)
p
U
N
0
; .0 C y N
O >
O- N
(� N
(6 O
E O
Utl)
0 Q O 6)
N V
N
(6 (6
am)(aup
O
> N p
CL.� N U
m O u) U
y
L w
—
0 7
= O
O N
(6 O
a)E N�
s O
H
a E
u) > U
2 Q '6 Q m
H O
U) U)
U)
N
E
H U .— U)
y
�
y
Q
m
(i
U
m
L
L
CL
Q
>.
0
d
Q
0
CL
U)CL
m
E
m
o
a
o O
U) (n
Z N
>
L_
O
(n
y
(n
�
o
N
U
a Q
N
R
C
Z
LU
LU
J
y
CL
a
0
y
oCL
)
w
w w
y
cL
Q
a
0
>
Q
> >
Q Q
R
fl Q
fl
U)3
>,
y
O `p
N
w
o
(�
0
(�
w
,
N
_
`o
0
O-
a o
m
m m
y
—
3
3
O T
a
w
>
>
=
a
m a
o
o
U
O
o
o
Y
o
a
y
Q
o
(n
0 0
(n (n
o
o
m
o m
m U
O
U
c7
c7
J
>
J
y
N
a
O
m
U)
m
U)
>
U)
in
a
U)
o
U)
w
a
o
v
0
■
R_
U)
Q
y
Uo
� U
� o
U >
0 0
U Q
_a O
U
m
0
(U
Z

Soil Map—Perquimans County, North Carolina
VAi1(MOU
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
AaA
Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes
0.0
0.0%
Ch
Chapanoke silt loam
190.9
5.7%
CO
Chowan silt loam
79.3
2.4%
DgB
Dogue fine sandy loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
56.4
1.7%
Ds
Dragston loamy fine sand
19.4
0.6%
Pe
Perquimans silt loam
1,255.7
37.5%
Ro
Roanoke silt loam
1,738.4
51.9%
YeA
Yeopim loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
1.4
0.0%
YeB
Yeopim loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
7.1
0.2%
Totals for Area of Interest
3,348.6
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/21/2020
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

r :„.
��
s'41l
_
�s�*
4
yi�4Y
3�
f ,
��

E
E
§
k
�
2
g
cu
/
g
R }
2
�
E —
9
r 8 /
v
^ u f
_
0 e
_
#
J
y
|
r )
� )
�
0
r
m%%
g
G
g
G
3
G
m°
()u
R28

p Q a r
M C
rX d) O l0
(ONN M N A N NA
N
V O On0(0NN0NOn X11-fll
O l0 (�
_ O O u
U M N M V - � L 0 0
w N
O 00 V I� m N O O O Co= to O O O
(V N N M A A rC 00 V Co N N N I�
X x
R R
U to 0 (O V � C')l0 � Lo N� O l0 N� fn V V O 00 U
U a' 00 C,M l0 l0 N N M C,LAO
A l0 l0 00
— 60 N
U) C C lL
x x
R R
m C to V u:
00 V N 0) V (O O N V 01 01 O 00 is
Q 00
N Col0 V M Cl) N A A 0 0 00
C C ILL
r
O
O
Q
M
O_00
M
V
I�
MON�M�A�
M
00
O
l0 N
r
fn
x
R
X
R
0�1 0�1
I�r
00
O 00
C?
U
C?
v
M -CUa'l0N
O U
—
U)
00
N
N a
C
C
C
lL
�
(4
O O
►
O
w
�
� Y
m��f
w�
w
_ o
... o
w
......
O
... O
w
w......
..
......
...
... :_
ww
Cr
ww
0
w
CF.
CF.>
a>
o
o E
w
0)
r
O
3
C
N 'O
0
m
0 0
U) O
0(0
o 0
w w
O
►
0)
a
o
(4
L
U
(4
L
U
L
w
(6
s=
LL C
Y m
,E
X
m o
O
N E
s= L
N
2
''
-
0)
m
C (4
Z>
N
J
J
s= o
U `
(n
(n N
w
s=
O y
m
(4
n
w-
��
o
m o
a—
C L
o U
C
Y
w
N
U
w C
m
N
w
O
�aa
O
C
N
U
C
o 0
.�
a
lLY
�aa
o `
m
m
wU�
E>L
>
m
O
w
mm
o
2
° W
tL
-C
LEw
°
° R
U
U o
o as
U
U0
aw
w
O
U
m
a
m
o
oa
o 0
Z Z
O L
a
U U
= a
o
o
Y
ai
a'
a'
O
m
N
i
O O_
yr
w
U
z>
a
In
0
a
o
Co
a
a

k
!
a
\ )
@� w } —}&m
/(§)\k(((((-
}\�
!!,&' s § !§§!!leeeeea

/—:
�—
—
a!t$!;§
`
:
oi
}\oo
�/\
ƒ<(

4 LIT PIM

�m
m
c > �
a c `m
CL a o c
0
O o O o
O O
}
Ow�ONO
cNioDCn
U o aU
EUoo ai ca m ELUro OU ogiO U 0
-OLnu-OMLUC-ou
a 0-COa`w` w au L� a
7
� .J
G
io-
e� V
4
► •�
c ZJ
G U
(0 d (�
/ d O Z 0
Tw
O
/ Y cm:
(0 Z
EZ
Z
cr
/ O d
/ �LLLO C'
/ o °
/- — — — — — — — —
/
/
/
/ � O
/
O
■
Ta
J ~ C
C C
a - CO o
a
U m
•
N C m
w ONE:
LU a L
mN�
O
o
0
0Cm`N-'
EE
L
C
0
9 Q (D
C
C N
WE E m
O(n C)
a-E O
`U COJ
E
�- O L � a C t.
cp m
N 0
-O Z
M.
a)-2
m
p N a
E
(m
O':2
Td ?` C
V m
00 O
m
—o
0/O
a�Eo
O O m QQa
oaOZO.FoaO)
.O
Q
—
SLLy
Q
U cco m m
T O O O
UU)
5.0 V T�
J
•
p' f/1
CO m
d QC
O) m (6
- O O
C l J
oUo 0o (DLLCD
w?z
A
ANu6ise� ZlC1XWl1eH e]i4AA 8S 1001\spefl-s lue\s6slH\H WIldluewnuon

f0
a
a
-0
S
.Q
c
_oNU
w"a
Q
O
00
O
rnv�
o
xarvr
LL
w E p
0)
Tm
w � cO
vm�O
vUo ¢
wr
O
O
0
O
U°>
o
c p
c0
O
--
o
y r
n •-
U
c
a
N
c
N
C
U
m� Z
3 a
Td = m
m
E
a
w
E
c0
p
E"aN
o
-N
(
O
U
w
3U
a$U
nz'o-v�o
m
�v -"�
O
C
C
O
N
m
N
O
CCL
om
'o �_ 3
V
x
,
L
O
O
m
L
x
mE 0 m-
a
w
w
a
U
LL
a
a
w
I --
ZVLLr?
LL a o o
wzz2LL
J
n�
J
�
r
z
o•
m
U
}
CO O Z Z
L O
w
C O O a
7 'Z O
Co
C) Z
Ll CoE z
O
m a
o�
0
k
M
/ o
� Q
� o
1
-01 o
'•.........:
'/'���lllllfflllll11�11�
p—de ,ij,p... AOOI ]eHe]i4ANu6ise� ZlC1XWl1eH e]i4AA 8510011s"Uefo��{�si6�ue�si65eNdN We�{]uewnpo�

Appendix D —
Design Plan Sheets

j
N0113nNISNOO HOH ION - A2 11%11- i
�tlD3 431V313tl
1
'SNOTS-H
a o 0
W
Z
Q
a
H -
p U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U Q
m U
��
a��wa„O,zo���0000000o
J
Ja,LL,
�`�
a�
�
s U�S�
0
W
w al
W W
W W
uJ N
N to
tf] Z
D
D O O
�
O
N
W
Q
�
OJ
z
--w—cvm�ui�o�roo�v
� W
W Wu�u�u�u�u�u�u�u���n;nln�nln�n�
o000
m
W
In
r \
cn
O
a cD z
z c� Z
J O O
O �
� O
LD a a
U U J o 1 I D O
H 2 �
O
Z
G W o
Q j W j 0 2 ~
D (S�
W o E p w Q
Y Ir
C!) w \
D W
Q w o �
Z a a pf
W W
o
O
3 5 >
s
- W
U U D U
O
J

a
e
a
-
NOI1Jl12ISNOOJOi ION-1 VNMII3
:Hma3sv3i3H
1V12i3VIIV2JBAO
'31111 `]NIMVHa
Q
VN IMNO H12iON'AiNnoo SNWIMMAd
=
;�
1Z021OZ5
31tlO 101d 'SNOIS-H
311S NOUVOIlIW WV3b1S 1VH 311HM
'-VN l 1-1
a o 0

-
j
- _
Noii3nNISN3 ?JO ION - A21 11%11-d
:eoaa31vai3e
S310N
37I11 �wnnwa
LL1
VNIlMJV0 Hl2JON 'l.IWOD SNWIMMAd
_
v
_ _
311S NOIlV°OIlIW WV3?11S 1VH 311HM
-
a io�a sNolsiree
awvN laeroed

a
e
a
-
NOI1Jl12ISNOOJOi ION-1 VNMII3
,do�,�35tl313d
SNOURIN00 ONIISIX3
'31111 `]NIMVHa
LLJ
VN IMNO H12iON'AiNf100 SNWIMMAd
=
;�
1Z021OZ5
31tlO 101d 'SNOIS-H
31IS NOIlVOIlIW WV3b1S 1VH 311HM
'-IN l 1-1
a o 0

_
3
_
_
fifi
NI
NOIl3f1-SNOO JCJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3sval3e
l34 HOV32i
37111 �wnnwa
VNIIMJV0 HI2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIAMAd
^
G 1�i\
LL
o
pry
aiala-sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?J1S 1VH 311HM
awvN la3roea
6 0

_
-
3
_
- _
fifi
NI
NOIl3f1-SNOO JCJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3sval3e
l34 HOV32i
37111 �wnnwa
VNIIMJV0 HI2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIAMAd
_
_
a Iola sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?J1S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed

_
-
3
_
- _
fifi
NI
NOIl3f1-SNOO JCJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3sval3e
l34 HOV32i
37111 �wnnwa
VNIIMJV0 HI2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIAMAd
_
_
a Iola sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?11S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed

_
-
3
_
- _
fifi
NI
NOIl3f1-SNOO? CJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3sval3e
l34 HOV32i
37111 �wnnwa
VNIIMJV0 HI2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIAMAd
_
_
a Iola sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?11S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed

-
3
- _
fifi
NOIlOf1211SNOO?JON ION-A21tlNIINII-d
a3 —3e
l30 HOV32J
3�1u �wnnwa
VNIIM JV0 HI2ION 'AlNnoo SNVWU1M Ad
_
_
3
a io3a sNolslree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?J1S 1VH 311HM
awvN la3ro33

_
-
3
_
- _
fifi
NI
NOIl3f1-SNOO JCJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3svai3e
l34 HOV32i
37111 �wnnwa
VNIIMJV0 HI2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIAMAd
_
_
a io�a sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?J1S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed
i
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
�I
_
I
I
I
IP
I
I
I
FT
i

_
-
3
_
- _
fifi
NI
NOIl3f1-SNOO JCJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3svai3e
l34 HOV32i
37111 �wnnwa
VNIIMJV0 HI2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIAMAd
_
_
a io�a sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?J1S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

_
-
3
_
- _
fifi
NI
NOIl3f1-SNOO JCJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3sva/3e
l34 HOV32i
37111 �wnnwa
VNIIMJV0 HI2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIAMAd
_
_
a>-o�a sNolslree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?J1S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed

_
-
3
_
- _
fifi
NI
NOIl3f1-SNOO JCJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3svai3e
l34 HOV32i
37111 �wnnwa
VNIIMJV0 HI2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIAMAd
_
_
a io�a sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?11S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed

_
3
_
fifi
NI
NOIl3f1-SNOO JCJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3svai3e
l34 HOV32i
37111 �wnnwa
O
VNIIMJV0 HI2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIAMAd
_
-
- _
(A
_
a io�a sNolslree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?J1S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed

_
-
�
3
_
- _
fifi
NI
NOIl3f1-SNOO JCJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3svai3e
l34 HOV32i
37111 �wnnwa
(A
VNIIMJV0 HI2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIAMAd
_
�
��
_
�
� �
��
aia�a sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?J1S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed
/
7
zis
oo+ooiaNnu)lyw
I —
�I,_� i
�`y I
_ a
s � 1
� P
ail

_
3
_
fifi
NI
Noii3nNISNOO?ON ION- A21 11%11-d
:eoa a3 —0.
l30 HDV32J
3�Iu �wnnwag
N
VNIlMJV0 Hl2JON AiNnoo SNVAMON3d
_
it
- _
(A
_
a ia,d sNolsiree
311S NOIlVOLLIW WV3?J1S 1VH 311HM
awvN M3Md
I
�
-
__
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
�
I
11
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
II
I
—
�,
I
I
I
�I
I I
I
I
I
I,
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
i

_
-
NOIl3f1-SNOO?CJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3sval3e
V-31VMS
37111 �wnnwa
Cl)
VNIIMJV0 HI2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIl102i3d
_
-
�
(A
�
��
�
�
� �
��
aiala sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?11S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed

_
-
NOIl3f1-SNOO?CJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3sval3e
8-31VMS
37111 �wnnwa
�
VNIl02iV0 H12iON 'l.1Nf100 SNVWIl1Mi3d
_
-
�
(A
�
��
�
�
� �
��
aiala sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?11S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed

_
-
NOIlOf1211SNDO ?JON ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3svai3e
0-3lVMS
3�iu �wnnwa
Lf)
VNIlMJVO Hl2JON 'AlNnoo SNVWIl102i3d
_
-
(A
it
alma sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?11S 1VH 311HM
awvN iaeroed

_
-
NOIl3f1-SNOO?CJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
:eoa a3sval3e
0-3�VMS
37111 �wnnwa
�
VNIIMJVO HI2JON 'l.1Nnoo SNVWU1MAd
_
-
�
(A
�
��
�
�
� �
��
aiala sNolsiree
311S NOI LVOI LIW WV3?11S 1VH 311HM
awvN laeroed
� � W
i
I
i
I
I
4
r
I
I
--I
i
I
II
I
I
i
I
�
I
u
I
I
�
�
I

> -
e
$ _c
NOI1Jl12ISNOOJOi ION-1 VNMII3
,do�,�35tl313d
NVId ONUNVId
'31111 `]NIMVHG
VNIIMNO Hl2iON'AiNnoo SNWIMMAd
=
;�
1Z021OZ5
31tlO 101d 'SNOIS-H
311S NOIlVOIlIW WV3b1S 1VH 311HM
'-VN l 1-1
a o 0
c ,

a
& e
Noiion2iSNOO2OV 10N-A2VNIW 1�
eod a3sv3�3e
S310N lO?J1NOO NOISO?J
3�iu ONw�vea
<
U
°v
any
VNIlO?JVO Hl?JON 'AlNf10O SNVWIf1O?J3d
�
� LjJ
_�
31IS NOI LVOI LIW WV3?J1S 1VH 311HM
a
_
�aoaroan
a a
m
va io d SNOISIn3e
awvN i33roed
o
x €p
FiEE
SoOo� �So os o a G
m� o6
p -
OE
AOp_
p
�m 6 6J1O mF _ -W z <da
OG
o
wu - auk 3o m
O'ox
o03
�O
d aG �'€ _ "'d _W' a z�0 azm �3 Q� �Ox0 _3 Q
°G 1,0
o
-GI-0
°OG�x° opa
�3_ zo 'o_Wm3J
b_Ooa�
"Eo- 6
GazgwVn
Oo
�a
O
G OG -
VGpmoa,�wj SOG-
oO
>o
m
�o
3
oG0�om su
' oO3 ao
G
o§ooG
vim 3€Ss 8e< 3o m �3 3 os
o
o a
woo �m"<o _moG
o
k €
-
N
0-0
�o�
�� j� �� ���"O <� o
a <a
V^
6a6,9O
o
��Fj
SFoop� oa 8� °
og°wW�`, B� --
_
26
V
°o2x _
�,wz
3o30, 2�3 mad m�app��
000
g <A
ono o
Q�
Qoowp �0 03 _ W°
0
o8
2-0
uG w
3�G_.
� m5o
- _ _ _ i� m� O.Sa _ w
mo 3s p - z m3 _ sg3szz m -
_-
G `�� °oo x _ -'aQo8o 3 F 057
ooj ooWoQao
oW Go=s
- BS oxsu
<
6,�
_- _
Op ape
mGW z2la }� m o Ohm �m �3x� Gowi��m _m
w - - ..
-
_
��0 �m x� p a�� aar �Qo�Qy �3
3x zWO
m .-m m26
m �aam
m
��
o�� �a
O
u� m S�>
o�
m_as 22 - 3s O 30o>wo�43 ohs '12
o _ ooQo �
o2aOd
Oz�
Z oo3zmt��poO moo o G� mGz
z uo
z
%o
x3asm wx� _
- VioHE ' S oa o0 pG o
j
J07
° _
< -_
r ��
a11
--
�m
3 o -
030 -
g -
s
b
�Qox
'o _
°Cio ° o� 3~ oOm 3mW� z GmoG S S
oa
_m o °-
8Q -
�� �� _ "o o wm� _ - �G - �� -
- w
ow p G 3g a o 0
m m m�
aam m
�3Z G6 00—
3
0 G000' €o 3 G
soo
k
oa 8� s a - - - boa oW o 8w V - 30 - g
gso
O�
��
adz - - _o32o
o - -orQ mG o'o
zo
orao o�°S
3r
oW
3 Vim' o
VS �< 03 os s� GOm w01�
G 0�6
ono
_oGo
_ J -O Aa -
O
<a
OG w dG �O GG°
0 o22
_F.'Z^o 03mQm -�a
Z_
p
o A
6 30
0Oym�
oo,a
o
8 ="
m3o
��3�
of o 0- Gm
G a wm - o
mO�
u oY
_
Vm m
o� 3za oo
mow. $ - o� �g� 5 � Gomm �$ �m� -
�W�
Six
Q
w - 06
�Q
_ _ u,°"°� Jw
'm
" oGw
ok
no
..
��a> - 0,0
Goo' - wo Go
a°
sow - s
m Goo �GQom
ono
tm oS -
os
_ _- -- -Q
GAG G <GQ oG ->a -�'� - sG s 000
_
0 3oa --od
i �a�s �3oiis Sao o33s3 au3
m
��A'o°�o
dw ppm w�
2x
_ 888 <m 8 w< m ° p w ° x Y o
° m

j
oZIbZl5 Noii3n-SNOO JCJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
a3svai3e
SlIV130
37111 �wnnwa
_
HNI-1O}JVO HIHOWA1Nnoo SNVAInm:3d
s
V`m ¢
�
aura �sNolsiree
311S NOIIVOIIIA AV31 i161VH 311HM
awvN ia3roed
_
4 0

j
oZIbZl5 NOIl3n-SNOO? CJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
a3sval3e
SlIV134
37111 �wnnwa
_
N
HNI-1O}JVO HIHON 'A1Nnoo SNVAInm:Ed
-
=
-
W
_
V`m ¢
�
aiala �sNolsiree
311S NOI LV°JI LIA AV31 i161VH 311HM
awvN la3roed
_
4 0
7
k
F
r
U
r
s
I
z
�l
U
}

_
j
_
oZIbZl5 Noii3nNISNOO?Od ION- A21 11%11-d
�eoa a3svar3e
S1IV13O
37111 �wnnwa
_
C7
VNPO}JVO HIHON 'AlNnoo SNVAin :Ea
-
=
-
W
_
'/�^_'`
V`m ¢
- -
aura �sNolsiree
311S NOIIVOIIIA AV32ilS 1VH 3I HM
awvN la3roed
_
4 0

j
oZIbZl5 Noii3n-SNOO JCJ ION-A21tlNIINII-d
�eoa a3sval3e
Sl IV130
37111 �wnnwa
_
HNI-1O}JVO HIHOWAlNnoo SNVAinm:3d
s
w
V`m ¢
�
aiala �sNolsiree
3UIS NOIIVOIIIA AV31 i161VH 311HM
awvN ia3roed
_
4 0

ID#* 20201990 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 07/30/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 7/29/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r- Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r` Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matt Butler
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20201990
Existing IDr
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
White Hat Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project
Perquimans
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Bank Instrument
File Upload: Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matt Butler
Signature:*

ID#* 20201990 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 07/30/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 7/29/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r` Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matt Butler
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20201990
Existing IDr
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
White Hat Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project
Perquimans
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: COMBINED _WhiteHat_Final Mitigation Plan _202107... 89.59MB
Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matt Butler
Signature:*