20201990 Ver 1_Mitigation Bank Instrument_20211001

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 DC 1-A, and in areas where ditches were filled (random is fine).
Additionally, please capture the areas where the planted pine is removed south of DC 1-13
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 DC 1-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 DC1-13, 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.
5. 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. Projections 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 Project, 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 DC 1-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-l" (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 #3. If vegetation monitoring suggests that the site is not
on a trajectory for success, additional plots maybe required.

Figure 12 has been updated to include fixed vegetation plots that have been added north of
DCI-B on the eastern side of the cropland, and south of DCI-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 DCI-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 Project.
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
caroliniana), 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 DC 1-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.
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
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 project 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 Project.
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 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 project 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 E 1
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 S 1 —
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 P 1
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 EC 1.
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 project.
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/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.
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 DC 1-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 jurisdictional
under the new rule. The adjacent wetlands are still inundated by flooding in a typical year,
and/or have direct hydrologic surface connections to DC 1-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 project 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 DC 1-13? How will these swales perform during times of DC 1-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 1 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 C).
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 38 cfs?
The figures have been revised to show approximately 40 cfs.
8. 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 P 1: The wetland areas along DC 1-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.

Version March 2020
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE RES UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
IN THE PASQUOTANK 05 RIVER BASIN WITHIN THE STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA
USACE approval of this Instrument constitutes the regulatory approval required for
the White Hat Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project to be used to provide
compensatory mitigation for Department of the Army permits pursuant to 33 C.F.R.
332.8(a)(1). This Instrument is not a contract between the Sponsor or Property Owner
and USACE or any other agency of the federal government. Any dispute arising under
this Instrument will not give rise to any claim by the Sponsor or Property Owner for
monetary damages. This provision is controlling notwithstanding any other provision or
statement in the Instrument to the contrary.
This Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI) is made and entered into on
the day of , 20_, by , hereinafter Sponsor, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps), and each of the following agencies, upon its execution
of this UMBI; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The Corps,
together with the State and Federal agencies that execute this UMBI, are hereinafter
collectively referred to as the Interagency Review Team (IRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this agreement is to establish an umbrella mitigation bank
(Bank) providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts
separately authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act permits and /or Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act permits in appropriate circumstances;
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the IRT agree that the Bank site is a suitable
mitigation bank site, and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan is likely to result in net
gains in wetland and/or stream functions at the Bank site, and have therefore approved
the Mitigation Plan;
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the
following provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this UMBI.
Section I: General Provisions
A. The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration, enhancement
and preservation activities at the Bank site, and for the overall operation and
management of the Bank. The Sponsor assumes the legal responsibility for providing
the compensatory mitigation once a permittee secures credits from the Sponsor and
the District Engineer (DE) receives documentation that confirms the Sponsor has
accepted responsibility for providing the required compensatory mitigation.
B. The goals of the Umbrella Bank site is to restore, enhance, and preserve wetland and
stream systems and their functions to compensate in appropriate circumstances for
unavoidable wetland and stream impacts authorized by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act permits and or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits in

Version March 2020
circumstances deemed appropriate by the Corps after consultation, through the
permit review process, with members of the IRT.
C. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by
Clean Water Act permits must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and
implementing regulations, including but not limited to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and all other applicable Federal and State
legislation, rules and regulations. This agreement has been drafted in accordance
with the regulations for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources
effective July 9, 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) (Mitigation Rule).
D. The IRT shall be chaired by the DE of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District (District). The IRT shall review documentation for the establishment of
mitigation bank sites. The IRT will also advise the DE in assessing monitoring reports,
recommending remedial measures, approving credit releases, and approving
modifications to this instrument. The IRT's role and responsibilities are more fully set
forth in Sections 332.8 of the Mitigation Rule. The IRT will work to reach consensus
on its actions.
E. The DE, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies
through the permit review process, shall make final decisions concerning the amount
and type of compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted
wetland and/or stream impacts, and whether or not the use of credits from the Bank is
appropriate to offset those impacts. In the case of permit applications and
compensatory mitigation required solely under the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification rules of North Carolina, the NCDWR will determine the amount of credits
that can be withdrawn from the Bank. Any credits used to offset impacts solely
authorized by Section 401 cannot be used for other impacts authorized under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
F. The parties to this agreement understand that a watershed approach to
establish compensatory mitigation must be used to the extent appropriate
and practicable. Where practicable, in -kind compensatory mitigation is
preferred.
Section II: Geographic Service Area
The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area within which the Umbrella
Bank is authorized to provide compensatory mitigation required by DA permits. The GSA
for this Bank shall include the Pasquotank Hydrologic Unit 03010205 in North Carolina.
Credits are to be used in the same HUC in which they were generated, and credits within
each HUC should be tracked on separate ledgers.
�:

Version March 2020
Section III: Mitigation Plan
Any Mitigation Plan submitted pursuant to this agreement must contain the
information listed in 332.4(c) (2) through (14) of the Compensatory Mitigation Rule.
A. The Sponsor will perform work described in the White Hat approved Mitigation
Plan.
B. The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site as described in the approved
Mitigation Plan, until such time as the IRT determines that the performance
standards described in the Mitigation Plan have been met.
C. Mitigation Plans submitted for inclusion in this bank must meet the requirements of
any District guidance that is current at the time the new site is submitted to the
District, including any updates made to monitoring requirements, credit releases,
long term management, or any other provisions that are required and/or specifically
addressed in the Mitigation Plan. The addition of any site to this instrument shall be
considered as a modification to this instrument, and processed in accordance with
the procedures set forth in the Mitigation Rule.
D. The members of the IRT will be allowed reasonable access to the Property
for the purposes of inspection of the Property and compliance monitoring of
the Mitigation Plan.
Section IV: Resorting
A. The Sponsor shall submit to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT,
an annual report describing the current condition of the Bank Site and the
condition of the Bank Site in relation to the performance standards in the
Mitigation Plan. The Sponsor shall provide to the DE any monitoring reports
described in the Mitigation Plan.
B. As part of each annual monitoring report, the Sponsor shall also provide ledger
reports documenting credit transactions as described in Section VIII of this
UMBI.
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall provide
notification to the DE within 30 days of the transaction. This notification shall
consist of a summary of the transaction and a full ledger report reflecting the
changes from the transaction. Additionally, signed copies of the Compensatory
Mitigation Transfer of Responsibility Form shall be submitted to the Corps Project
Manager for the permit and the Corps Bank Manager for the bank site.
Section V: Remedial Action
A. The DE shall review the monitoring reports, as required in the Mitigation Plan,
KI

Version March 2020
and may, at any time, after consultation with the Sponsor and the IRT, direct the
Sponsor to take remedial action at the Bank site. Remedial action required by
the DE shall be designed to achieve the performance standards as specified in
the Mitigation Plan. All remedial actions required under this section shall include
a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take into account physical and
climactic conditions.
B. The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the
above.
C. In the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to
achieve the required performance standards, it shall provide notice of such
proposed remedial action to all members of the IRT. No remedial actions shall be
taken without the concurrence of the DE, in consultation with the IRT.
Section VI: Use of Mitigation Credits
A. Description of credit classifications and provisions pertaining to the use of those
credits shall be provided in the Mitigation Plan to be included in this bank. Credit
classifications (e.g., cold water stream, cool water stream, warm water stream,
coastal wetlands, non -riparian wetlands, riparian non-riverine wetlands, and
riparian riverine wetlands) will be in accordance with current District guidance at
the time the Mitigation Plan is submitted to the District. In general, these
classifications will be used to determine if a particular credit qualifies as 1n- Kind"
mitigation. Exceptions to the use of "In -Kind" mitigation may be allowed at the
discretion of the permitting agencies on a case -by -case basis.
B. Wetland and stream compensation ratios are determined by the DE on a case -by -
case basis based on considerations of functions of the wetlands and/or streams
impacted, the severity of the wetland and/or stream impacts, the relative age of
the mitigation site, whether the compensatory mitigation is in -kind, and the
physical proximity of the wetland and/or stream impacts to the Bank Site.
C. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using
credits from the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all
decisions concerning the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset
wetland and stream impacts authorized by Department of the Army permits, shall
be made by the DE, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
implementing regulations and guidance. These decisions may include notice to
and consultation with the members of the IRT through the permit review process if
the DE determines this to be appropriate given the scope and nature of the impact.
Section VII: Credit Release Schedule
A. All credit releases must be approved in writing by the DE, following consultation
with the IRT, based on a determination that required performance standards have
I:!

Version March 2020
been achieved.
B. A credit release schedule shall be provided in the White Hat Mitigation Plan that
are included in this bank. The release schedule will list all of the proposed credit
releases and any performance standards associated with those releases.
C. In general, the initial allocation of credits from White Hat shall be available for sale
only after the completion of all of the following:
1. Execution of this UMBI by the Sponsor, the DE, and other agencies eligible for
membership in the IRT who choose to execute this agreement, to include the
approval of any modifications to this agreement when new sites are added to it;
2. Approval of a final Mitigation Plan;
3. Confirmation that the mitigation bank site has been secured;
4. Delivery of executed financial assurances as specified in the site -specific
Mitigation Plan;
5. Delivery of a copy of the recorded long-term protection mechanism as
described in as specified in the site -specific Mitigation Plan, as well as a title
opinion covering the property acceptable to the DE; and
6. Issuance of any DA permits necessary for construction of the mitigation
site (if necessary).
7. Documentation of the establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow
account.
The Sponsor must initiate implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan no later
than the first full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction (i.e.,
construction of the initial physical and biological improvements proposed in the
approved Mitigation Plan must be started by the end of the first full growing season
following the initial sale of any credits from the Bank. This provision does not apply to
preservation -only sites that do not include any physical or biological improvements.
Subject to the Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required performance
standards and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be available for
sale by the Sponsor as specified in the final Mitigation Plan.
Section VIII: Accounting Procedures
A. The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures acceptable to the DE for
maintaining accurate records of debits made from the Bank. Such procedures shall
include the generation of a ledger by the Sponsor showing credits used at the time
they are debited from the Bank. All ledger reports shall identify credits debited and
remaining by type of credit and shall include for each reported debit the Corps
ORM ID number for the permit for which the credits were utilized and the permitted
impacts for each resource type.
B. When credits from the bank are sought by a permit applicant, the Sponsor shall
prepare a reservation letter for the applicant to include with the Corps permit
5

Version March 2020
application, that documents the number and type of credits available to be debited
from the bank, and the amount of time (if any) that those credits will be held for
that applicant (with an expiration date for the letter of availability).
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall notify the DE
within 30 days of the transaction with a summary of the transaction and a full
ledger report showing the changes made. Signed copies of the Transfer of
Mitigation Responsibility form shall also be submitted to the Corps permit Project
Manager and the Corps Bank Manager for that bank.
D. The Sponsor shall prepare an annual ledger report, on each anniversary of the date
of execution of this agreement, showing all credits used, any changes in credit
availability (e.g., additional credits released, credit sales, suspended credits, etc.),
and the beginning and ending balance of remaining credits. The Sponsor shall submit
the annual report to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT, until such
time as all of the credits have been utilized, or this agreement is otherwise
terminated.
Section IX: Financial Assurances
A. Financial assurances for the Bank site will be detailed in the White Hat Mitigation
Plan. The Sponsor shall provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the
DE, sufficient to assure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and
monitoring, and any remedial work required pursuant to this UMBI. The financial
assurance value should be based on the cost of doing the mitigation work,
including costs for land acquisition, planning and engineering, legal fees,
mobilization, construction, and monitoring. For preservation only Bank Sites, no
financial assurances will generally be required unless there are specific activities
necessary to ensure the successful preservation of resources on the site, in which
case appropriate financial assurances may still be required.
B. All financial assurances shall be made payable to a standby trust or to a third -
party designee, acceptable to the Corps, who agrees to complete the project or
provide alternative mitigation. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to
the Corps in the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable.
C. The form and amount of financial assurances must be stated in the White Hat
Mitigation Plan in order for the Mitigation Plan to be approved. This must include
the name of the specific provider of those assurances and the method by which
the financial assurances will be provided in the event that they must be utilized.
Original copies of the financial assurance documents must be provided to the DE
prior to the initial release of credits.
D. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the DE receives
notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
L

Version March 2020
Section X: Site Protection
A. The Sponsor shall grant a Conservation Easement (CE) in form acceptable to the
DE, sufficient to protect the Bank Site in perpetuity. The CE shall be perpetual,
preserve all natural areas, and prohibit all use of the property inconsistent with its
use as mitigation property, including any activity that would materially alter the
biological integrity or functional and educational value of wetlands or streams
within the Bank Site, consistent with the Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the CE will
be to assure that future use of the Bank Site will result in the restoration,
protection, maintenance and enhancement of wetland and/or stream functions
described in the Mitigation Plan. The name and contact information for the Corps
approved easement holder and a draft copy of the CE will be provided in the White
Hat Mitigation Plans.
B. The Sponsor shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the DE covering the
mitigation property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that
would conflict with its use as mitigation, including, but not limited to, any liens that
have priority over the recorded CE.
C. Subsequent to the recording of the CE, the Sponsor may convey the Bank Site
property either in fee or by granting an easement to a qualified land trust, state
agency, or other appropriate nonprofit organization approved by the Corps. The
Sponsor is responsible for ensuring that the CE is re -recorded so that it remains
within the chain of title. The terms and conditions of this conveyance shall not
conflict with the intent and provisions of the CE nor shall such conveyance enlarge
or modify the uses specified in the easement. The CE must contain a provision
requiring 60 day advance notification to the DE before any action is taken to void or
modify the CE, including transfer of title to, or establishment of any other legal
claims over, the project site.
Section XI: Long-term Management
A. The Sponsor shall implement the long-term management plan as described in
the White Hat Mitigation Plan.
Unique Places to Save
P.O. Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
B. The long-term management plan will include a list of annual maintenance,
monitoring, and/or repair activities for the mitigation site, the associated annual
cost for each activity, and the required total amount necessary to provide all future
site management. The long-term management plan should explain how the funds
will be managed and provided to the designated long-term manager (e.g., an
endowment managed through a separate account holder). The long- term
management plan should include a contingency section that addresses how the
rA

Version March 2020
responsibility and funding for the long-term site management will be passed on to
a new manager in the event that the selected long-term management entity is no
longer able to provide for management of the site.
Section XII: Default and Closure
A. It is agreed to establish and maintain the Bank site until (i) credits have been
exhausted or banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice by the
Sponsor provided to the DE and other members of the IRT; and (ii) it has been
determined and agreed upon by the DE and IRT that the debited Bank site has
satisfied all the conditions herein and in the Mitigation Plan. If the DE determines
that the Bank site is not meeting performance standards or complying with the
terms of the instrument, appropriate action will be taken. Such actions may include,
but are not limited to, suspending credit sales, adaptive management, decreasing
available credits, utilizing financial assurances, and terminating the instrument.
B. As projects developed as part of this bank are specifically intended to restore
streams and/or wetland systems that are subject to periodic flooding and drought
conditions, they should be designed to withstand any such events that are
anticipated to occur in the natural environment. This is not limited to routine or
minor flooding or droughts, but also specifically includes flooding events resulting
from hurricanes, or other extreme weather events as well as extended periods of
drought. Additionally, this includes conditions resulting from sea level rise that
adversely impact projects that are part of this bank.
C. Any delay or failure of Bank Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder if and
to the extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or
conditions beyond the Sponsor's reasonable control and significantly adversely
affects its ability to perform its obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God,
subject to the exceptions contained in Paragraph B above, lightning, earthquake,
fire, landslide, or interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking by
any governmental body; (iii) change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance
or permit condition, or the interpretation or enforcement thereof; (iv) any order,
judgment, action or determination of any federal, state or local court, administrative
agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of any permit,
license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of the Bank
Sponsor is affected by any such event, Bank Sponsor shall give written notice
thereof to the IRT as soon as is reasonably practicable. If such event occurs before
the final availability of all credits for sale, the Sponsor shall take remedial action to
restore the property to its condition prior to such event, in a manner sufficient to
provide adequate mitigation to cover credits that were sold prior to such delay or
failure to compensate for impacts to waters, including wetlands, authorized by
Department of the Army permits. Such remedial action shall be taken by the
Sponsor only to the extent necessary and appropriate, as determined by the IRT.
D. At the end of the monitoring period, upon satisfaction of the performance
Lf

Version March 2020
standards, the Sponsor may submit a request to the DE for site close out. The DE,
in consultation with the IRT, shall use best efforts to review and comment on the
request within 60 days of such submittal. If the DE determines the Sponsor has
achieved the performance standards in accordance with the mitigation plan and all
obligations under this MBI, the DE shall issue a close out letter to the Sponsor.
Section XIII: Miscellaneous
A. Modification of this UMBI shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in
332.8 of the mitigation rule.
B. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the
signatories hereof, their successors and assigns, shall be entitled to seek
enforcement hereof.
C. This UMBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the
subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
D. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this UMBI are held to
be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or
unenforceability will not affect any other provisions hereof, and this UMBI shall be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had not been
contained herein.
E. This UMBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
North Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
F. This UMBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or
more counterparts, all of which together shall constitute but one and the
same instrument.
G. The terms and conditions of this UMBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the
benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors.
H. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties
at their respective addresses, provided below.
Sponsor:
Matt Butler
Project Manager
3600 Glenwood Ave.
Raleigh, NC 27612
9

Version March 2020
Corps:
Mr. Kyle Barnes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
2407 W 5th St.
Washington, NC 27889
USEPA:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Wetlands Section -
Region IV Water
Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
USFWS:
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
NCWRC:
Mr. Travis Wilson
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 1-85 Service Rd.
Creedmoor, NC 27522
NCDWR:
Ms. Erin Davis
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
NCSHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
4617 Mail Service
Center 109 E. Jones
Street Raleigh, NC
27699-4617
ce

Version March 2020
NMFS:
Ms. Twyla Cheatwood
National Marine Fisheries,
NOAA Habitat Conservation
Division Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
NCDCM:
Ms. Cathy Brittingham
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
11

Version March 2020
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Umbrella Mitigation Bank In County,
North Carolina":
Sponsor:
go
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Date:
By: Date:
12

Version March 2020
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Umbrella Mitigation Bank, River
Basin in the State of North Carolina":
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
By: Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
By: Date:
N.C. Division of Water Resources:
By: Date:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission:
By: Date:
NC State Historic Preservation Office:
By: Date:
National Marine Fisheries Service:
By:
N.C. Division of Coastal Management:
By:
Date:
Date:
13

Version March 2020
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Geographic Service Area Map
Appendix B: Mitigation Plan (Each plan should include construction costs, maintenance
and monitoring costs, draft copy of financial assurance documents, draft copy of site
protection instrument, and a long term management plan as appendices to the plan.)
14

From: Davis. Erin B
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] Intent to Approve/RES Pasquotank UMBI & White Hat Mitigation Site/SAW-2018-
02027/Perquimans County
Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 9:38:33 AM
Attachments: White Hat Final UMBI.odf
Response to Comments White Hat.pdf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachments
DWR#: 20201990 v.1
Doc Type: Mitigation Instrument
From: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 9:00 AM
To: Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Gledhill-earley, Renee
<[e-mail]>; Twyla Cheatwood <[e-mail]>; Brittingham,
Cathy <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>; Kim Browning
<Kimberly.D.Brown [e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Matt Butler <mbutler@res. us>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Lastinger, James C CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Intent to Approve/RES Pasquotank UMBI & White Hat Mitigation Site/SAW-2018-
02027/Perquimans County
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Good morning,
This email is in reference to the SAW-2018-02027, RES Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank —
White Hat Site Final Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). The sponsor's response to IRT comments
is attached. Please log -in to the RIBITS website below to view the RES Pasquotank Umbrella
Mitigation Bank— White Hat Site Final Mitigation Plan (dated July 2021):
https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=107:2
We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period for the Draft Mitigation Plan
as well as the attached responses from the bank sponsor, and determined that all issues have been
adequately addressed. Accordingly, it is our intent to approve the White Hat Mitigation Site and the
RES White Hat UMBI unless a member of the NCIRT initiates the Dispute Resolution Process, as
described in the Final Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Section 332.8(e)). Please note that initiation of this
process requires that a senior official of the agency objecting to the approval of the mitigation plan
or Umbrella Banking Instrument notify the District Engineer by letter within 15 days of this email (by
COB on October 16, 2021). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process.

Provided that we do not receive any objections, we will provide an approval letter to RES, LLC at the
conclusion of the 15-day Dispute Resolution window. This approval will also transmit comments
generated during the review process to RES, LLC, and indicate that the approved responses must be
included in the Final Mitigation Plan. All NCIRT members will receive a copy of this letter and Final
Mitigation Plan for your records.
Provided that we do not receive any objections, we will provide approval to RES, LLC. at the
conclusion of the 15-day Dispute Resolution window. Additionally, attached is the White Hat Final
UMB Instrument for your agency's signature after the final plan is approved.
Thank you for your participation,
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.