20190495 Ver 1_MP_2020_20210401

MEMORANDUM 2res
3600 Glenwood Avenue,Suite 100 Raleigh,North Carolina 27612 919.770.5573 tel.[phone] fax
TO: NCDMS
FROM: Matt Butler—RES
Brad Breslow—RES
DATE: March 25,2021
RE: Response to DMS Comments on the Final Draft Mitigation Plan Cowford, Project ID
#10095,DMS Contract#0007746
Reviewers: Kim Browning, Travis Wilson,Maria Dunn, Todd Bowers, and Erin Davis,
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Figure 9,Buffer Width Zones: Without being able to review the actual data spreadsheet, it's difficult
to determine whether terminal ends were accounted for. In the table provided on Figure 9 it appears
you used the old version of the buffer tool. The new version(attached)allows terminal ends where the
project exits the property to be exempt from counting against you. In this situation, the terminal end
that ends at Kinston Highway would be exempt from the buffer rule.Additionally,the terminal end of
KJ1-B that connects with the headwater valley would be exempt from being counted against you,but
the terminal end, as drawn, should not extend into the headwater area. Lastly, the total stream length
should not be entered into the spreadsheet that includes the headwater length, as this is a detriment to
you. Please re-run the buffer tool to account for the crossing terminal end, clip the headwater from the
actual buffer,and correct the length entered in the spreadsheet.I'm happy to meet with you if you need
additional explanation.
i. RES has used the new NSBW spreadsheet to update the crediting values. The
headwater valley length was kept out of the creditable area as instructed.
2. Please adjust Table 14 and any asset tables.
i. Table 14 and other associated tables have been updated with the new NSBW values.
The NSBW Adjustment value has decreased from 258.443 to 201.670. This also
changes the Total Adjusted SMU's from 3,595.443 to 3,538.67.
3. Figure 10: Please also include fixed image locations at the culvert at the terminal end of the
project under Kinston Highway, and at the crossing. Channel formation is a concern on this site
so please supplement gauge data with photo documentation.
a. Figure 10 now includes reference to fixed image locations at the crossing and terminal end
under Kinston Highway.Section 9.2 the Monitoring Plan also references these new fixed image
locations.

3. Section 5 and Table 8 discuss the functional uplift potential and references the functional pyramid,
including the physiochemical and biological uplift. These are benefits that are presumed and will not
be measured by the monitoring.The footnote indicates that these will be measured indirectly.Regarding
Table 8,the "measurement method" for biology is listed at an As-built survey,which is not a measure
of biological uplift. Please modify these sections.
a. Table 8 has been updated to remove any discussion of monitoring measurements for both
Physicochemical and Biology.
4. Wetland reestablishment—In addition to adding wood to the channel it would be beneficial to add some
coarse woody debris to the depressional areas and throughout the wetland for habitat,and to help store
sediment,increase water storage/infiltration,and absorb water energy during overbank events.
a. RES will need to haul in most of the woody debris used on this project from offsite sources.
Should we have woody material left over after all proposed stream structures are installed,we
will add it to the wetland.
5. It would have been beneficial to have additional buffers placed around the wetlands especially since
immediately adjacent land uses may affect the function and sustainability of the site.Farming practices
often result in equipment encroaching along the easement boundary. The effects of ditching
immediately adjoining wetland projects is also a major concern if the farm fields become too inundated
to farm.
a. RES spoke with the landowner about expanding the size of the easement. Because of farming
practices and loss of farmable area,the landowner declined this request. RES understands the
concern with encroachment and will be installing signs at an increased frequency along the
easement boundary to protect against any potential issues. RES does not anticipate the farm
fields becoming too inundated but will work with the landowner to provide adaptive
management that will not affect the wetland area.
6. The design sheets show field tile outlets in the project stream.We do not encourage any type of outlets
through buffers, even if it's non-perforated,and into project streams. There will eventually need to be
maintenance done of the tile which could disturb the buffer and channel.Please confirm that these tiles
will be redirected and outlet outside the conservation easement.
a. The outlets are now proposed totally outside of the easement. Swales will convey the flow into
the easement to the stream.
7. The swales entering the conservation easement appear to be about 2' deep,there is concern that these
may have a draining effect on the wetland.
a. Yes,there is concern but hydrologic trespass constraints require the swales be at the proposed
design depth. RES will monitor wetland hydrology in the creditable area.
8. Page 25: Please explain further how much of the wetland area is anticipated to be open water/marsh
pockets. If it's a significant area you may want to consider planting herbaceous species and proposing
a performance standard of a diversity of at least 4 species and over 75%cover.
a. RES expects the trees in the wetland to grow and be overall trending towards a forested
wetland. It is expected that depressions will form but not affect the wetland in the long run.
9. Table 13: Please add wetland indicator status to this table.
a. Wetland indicator status has been added to Table 13 for each planted species.

10. Section 8.1.2: The 30 consecutive days of flow must be demonstrated annually. 30 days consecutive
flow should be a minimum,not a goal.
a. RES understands that 30 consecutive days of flow is not a goal. Wording has been added to
this section to indicate this as a minimum.
11. Section 8.1.4: Longitudinal images SHOULD indicate the absence of developing bars within the
channel...
a. Sentence has been fixed to say images"should"indicate the absence.
12. Section 8.2.1: There is conflicting information for hydroperiods in this section. Please correct. Given
that Muckalee soils are very wet,please use a hydroperiod of 16%. Please update Table 15 as well.
a. The guidance indicates 12-16%and therefore the hydroperiod has been updated to 12-16%and
the days required has been updated to align with this range.
13. Page 19:Regarding the reference site being located in a different watershed,especially since this project
is located in the outer coastal plain, please confirm that the reference site and the Cowford site have
similar topography, soils,drainage area,and ecoregion. Reference sites should have similar landscape
position.
a. RES chose the UT to Buffalo Creek reference site for this project to better fit the topography
of Reach KJ1-C,which exhibits slopes more akin to the upper coastal plain. The reference
reach drainage area is larger than project reaches,however,RES is confident that scaling
channel dimensions to fit different drainage area sizes is a useful design technique when
combined with the other techniques outlined in the mitigation plan.
14. Section 8.3: Any volunteer species on the approved planting list must be established for at least 2 years
to count towards success and will be subject to the average height standard.
a. Section 8.3 has been updated to clarify that volunteer species on the approved planting list.will
be counted only after they have been present for two or more years of monitoring.
15. Section 4.3:Additional projects risks and constraints to discuss include beaver,replacement of the road
culvert on Kinston Highway,adjacent ditching or drainage tile,etc.
a. Additional risks and constraints have been added and discussed in Section 9.2.
16. Appendix D Credit Release Schedule: The IRT will review the Record Drawing/As-Built reports
according to the 2008 Mitigation Rule's streamlined review process prior to approving the initial credit
release. Please alter the statement regarding credits being released by DMS without prior written
approval of the DE.
a. RES understands that credits will not be released until Record Drawing/As-Built reports are
reviewed. Appendix D has been edited to alter the sentence about releasing of credits without
prior written approval of the DE.
17. Hay bales for toe protection seem a little risky if the system does not stay inundated. I understand that
RES has successfully used this design in other states on low gradient systems with heavy live-staking;
however,with this being an intermittent channel there is concern that it will not stay inundated. I am
open to the use of new/different techniques and ultimately it is up to RES to demonstrate success and
stability.
a. Haybale toes are proposed in areas of low stream power and are intended more as a source of
habitat and organic material and less as a bank protection.Therefore,there is limited risk to the
system from these structures. RES understands that appropriate repairs will be required should
an issue arise during monitoring.

WRC Comments, Travis Wilson& Maria Dunn:
1. The culvert crossing to be installed should be designed so the low flow barrel size closely matches the
width of the baseflow channel in order for the structure to neither over widen nor constrict the channel
flow. The secondary pipe elevation should be set at the established bankfull elevation. (This may
already be the case,however it is not evident in the typical culvert crossing detail.)
a. The culvert has been revised to a 66" x 51" corrugated metal arch pipe to better match the
channel dimensions and promote bed material accumulation in the bottom of the culvert.
2. This is a relatively small watershed and hopefully can restore function as presented and desired;
sometimes these features in agriculture fields are difficult to get to perform as desired and stay
maintained.
b. Quickly reaching the maximum potential functional uplift on a mitigation site is always a
challenge. However, RES is confident that we have taken the appropriate steps to ensure we
provide the maximum functional uplift possible for this site.
3. It was difficult to locate specific detail on how much of the former CRP easement vegetation will
remain. Understanding there will be construction activity in the area,but trying to have a few of those
old,more established trees would have a benefit.
a. RES understands the concern for loss of more established trees through construction. During
construction,RES will minimize mature trees that are cut down.
EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
1. Section 5.1.3/Page 15:Recommend caution when using wood grade control or other instream structures
in an intermittent stream/HWV such as KJ1-A.
a. The proposed"grade control"structures in KJ1-A are meant to provide habitat more than grade
control since the need for grade control is significantly reduced by the limited slope of this
reach.
2. Section 7.2.1.2/Page 20: Denote that KJ1-B is undergoing P1 restoration and that the existing channel
will be filled and/or graded to provide wetland habitat.
a. Comment Incorporated
3. Section 7.4.1/Page 25:Recommend revising this date to NLT April 15 in order to allow for some buffer
time to complete monitoring before November 1 and that the provider will seek IRT concurrence or
approval to plant outside of the dormant season.Also,I recommend that the provider seek IRT approval
to plant alternate species if any of the primary species of the Proposed Plant List per Table 13 are not
available at the time of planting.
a. Project will plan to be planted no later than April 15 to give more buffer time for completion
of monitoring before November 1. RES will seek IRT approval if needed to plant outside of
the dormant season. RES will also seek IRT approval if any of the primary species of the
Proposed Plant List are not available at the time of planting.
4. Table 13/Page 26: Recommend adding Wetland Indicator Status for bare root planting tree species.
a. Table 13 now includes Wetland Indicator Status for all trees.
5. Table 14/Page 29: Approach Priority Level for KJ1-A should be HWV and not P1 Restoration.
a. Comment Incorporated

6. Section 9.5/Page 34: Recommend adding an additional gauge in an adjacent upland area to verify and
document the wetland boundary.
a. A sentence was added to say that RES would add an additional gauge in the adjacent upland
area for verification of the wetland boundary. This new gauge will also be marked on Figure
10.
7. Table 15/Page 36:Recommend adding the number of consecutive days needed to meet the 9-12 percent
of the growing season success criteria (approximately 29 days?). Two different criteria for wetland
water table performance standards are listed here (9-12% and 12%).
a. Table 15 has been corrected to have the same criteria for wetland water table performance
standards of 12-16%. The number of consecutive days has also been added.
8. Recommend including a random mobile plot to the wetland areas each monitoring year in lieu of using
all fixed plots.
a. One fixed plot has been changed to become a random plot in the wetland.This has been updated
in both the Monitoring Figure (Figure 10) and Section 9.6 Vegetation Monitoring.
9. Recommend that the Conservation Easement is extended around the wetlands to include a 50-foot
upland buffer to ensure drainage effects from the adjacent fields is minimized.
a. Due to landowner constraints RES was able to provide 10 to 40 feet of buffer around the
wetland but was not able to ensure a 50-foot upland buffer around the entirety of the wetland.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
DWR Comments for the Cowford Draft Mitigation Plan—December 21, 2020
1. Page 8, Section 3.2.4—Please expand on the future land use discussion to include potential adjacent
area and watershed land use changes.
a. A discussion of the Onslow County future land use plans is now discussed in Section 3.2.4.
RES finds no large changes that would affect the success of this project.
2. Page 13, Section 4.3 — a. During the IRT site walk, the IRT recommended relocating the existing
crossing to the upstream end of the project. Please provide a justification for keeping the easement
break in the middle of the project.Also,why does the easement break need to be over 60 feet wide?
i. Landowner needed crossing at current location for future land use. He has also
requested a 60 foot break to allow for farm equipment and large truck transit for
farming practices
a. Please confirm that the proposed project easement does not overlap the utility and roadway
easements,and that no known DOT work is planned for the downstream road/culvert.
ii. The easement does not overlap the utility easement and no work is proposed for the
downstream crossing in the State Transportation Improvement Plan.
b. Not sure if it's a constraint or risks/uncertainties discussion,but have you evaluated the risk of
hydrologic trespass that could result in ditching outside the proposed project easement?
iii. RES has designed the project to minimize the risk of hydrologic trespass to the
maximum extent practicable.

3. Page 20,Section 7.2.1.1—a.Is any work proposed for the three ditches connect at the top of the project?
Watershed size and slope in this area were major concerns noted during the IRT site walk.
i. No work is proposed on these ditches as they are at least partially owned by offsite
landowners.
b. Please confirm if the wood structures will be installed in a pilot channel.
i. Brush bed sills are proposed in the bottom of the HWV cross section.
4. Page 20, Section 7.2.1.2—Should filling the existing channel and grading the existing ditch to a swale
be included as restoration activities?
a. Comment Incorporated
5. Page 20, Section 7.2.1.3—During the IRT site walk,there was a discussion of a P1 approach below the
wetland. Even with the additional buffer width, a P2 approach is being proposed? Considering this
reach composes 47% of the project steam length, please discuss why a P1 is not feasible and the
limitations of potential functional uplift associated with a P2 approach.
a. A fully P1 approach is not feasible for Reach KJ1-C because the reach must tie to the elevation
of the NCDOT culvert at the downstream end of the project.Please note that this is not a typical
P2 approach since the channel bed is being raised significantly through this reach even though
it requires that a new floodplain be graded in.
6. Page 21, Section 7.2.1.6—Is there a concern with long term channel stability in using log structures for
grade control on this intermittent stream?
a. Several rock sills have been added to KJ1-C to promote long term stability. The slope of KJ1-
A and B is flat enough that grade control concerns are limited.
7. Page 21. Section 7.2.1.7 — Has the amount of available onsite woody material for proposed stream
stabilization and habitat structures been evaluated?If necessary,will offsite woody material be sourced
to complete construction of all of the structures shown on the design sheets?
a. There is not enough woody debris located on site to complete the project as designed and
woody debris will therefore be hauled to the site.
8. Page 24, Section 7.2.3 —What is the possible drainage effect from Swale A on the proposed wetland
restoration?Based on the design profile, Swale A appears to be approximately 2 feet deep.
a. Swale A is required to be at the design depth to prevent hydrologic trespass and will have a
draining effect on the proposed wetland. RES anticipates that raising the channel offsets this
effect and a wetland will be established.Monitoring wells are proposed to ensure that wetland
criteria are met.
9. Page 26,Table 13—
a. It would be helpful to have the wetland indicator status included. Also, DWR recommends
adding a few alternate/substitution species.
i. Table 13 now includes wetland indicator status for all trees.RES feels that the planting
list has enough species that if a species is not available, we will alter percentages
instead of adding a new species to the planting list.

b. The narrative notes planting zones at multiple points. DWR supports this level of detail and
would like to see the table reflect the breakdown of species by planting zone. Given that
multiple habitat types are expected onsite,were the inclusion of more shrub or midstory species
considered,or additional live stake species for the headwater valley,treatment swale and pool
plantings?
i. Any mention of planting zones has been removed to make sure it is clear thatthere is
only one plating zone and one target community. The planting plan was oriented in a
way that would be tolerant of wetland areas. Buttonbush will be increased to 15%and
added as a livestake to help increase the sub-canopy community.
10. Page 30, Section 8.1.2 (and Table 15) — Please clarify that surface flow is an annual performance
standard.
a. Section 8.1.2 now clarifies that surface flow is an annual performance standard. Table 15 also
indicates this performance standard.
11. Page 30,Section 8.1.5—Please rephrase the first sentence,the surface water flow performance standard
applies to headwater valley approaches.
a. The first sentence has been rephrased to say that while the performance standards still apply,
RES wanted to use the headwater valley restoration success criteria to be more specific for the
headwater morphology.
12. Page 31, Section 8.2.1 —This section notes multiple hydroperiods, which is a bit confusing. Table 15
lists 12%. DWR supports a minimum 16%wetland hydroperiod performance standard threshold.
a. Table 15 was updated to a hydroperiod of 12-16% of the growing season. Section 8.2.1 has
also been modified for this new hydroperiod.
13. Page 34, Section 9.3.1 —Due to flow concerns,DWR may request an additional gauge or supplemental
documentation (e.g. video, photos) during monitoring to demonstrate that the performance standards
are being met.
a. RES understands that an additional gauge or documentation will be requested to demonstrate
that performance standards are being met through monitoring.
14. Page 34,Section 9.6—If open water and marsh cover could potentially constituent more than 20 percent
of the wetland credit area, DWR recommends including an alternate herbaceous species diversity
success criteria and monitoring plan.
a. RES does not expect open water or marsh cover to exceed 20 percent of wetland credit area.
There is an expectation of minimal topographical depressions to form but the wetland credit
area is expected to be a forest. If open water or marsh cover does start to form excessively,
RES will institute an adaptive management plan to fix the issue.
15. Page 35, Section 9.7 — In the baseline report, please make sure to include redline drawings and soil
profiles at installed wetland well locations.
a. RES will be sure to add any redline drawings and soil profiles from well locations on site.
Section 9.7 now mentions these additions to the baseline report.
16. Page 36,Table 15—Please confirm whether fencing is proposed.
a. Table 15 has been updated to remove any discussion of fencing.
17. Page 38, Section 11 —DWR recommends higher sign posts or PVC extensions be considered along the
easement boundaries that abut row crop if corn will continue to be in rotation.
a. RES will use 10" white PVC poles to help delineate the boundary of the easement versus
agriculture land.

18. Appendix F—Since a culverted crossing is proposed, it should be monitored for any issues during the
monitoring/maintenance period.
a. RES will monitor the culverted crossing during monitoring events to find any issues if they
arise.Per the USACE comment#2,language has been added to Section 9.2 Visual Monitoring
to specifically state the culvert crossings will be monitored and that digital images of the
crossing will be taken annually.
19. Sheet E2—Please call out the drain tile lines.
a. Comment Incorporated
20. Sheet W1 —DWR appreciates the attempt to provide a buffer along the proposed wetland restoration
area. What is the minimum buffer width shown?Figure 12 shows the 10YR inundation area along the
northern CE boundary. Was additional buffer in this area discussed with the landowner?
a. Addition buffer was discussed but not agreed upon.RES has designed the proposed crossing so
that it overtops at approximately the same elevation as the CE Boundary in this area to reduce
risk of sustained flooding outside the easement.
21. Sheet D3 — Tile Drain Outlet — DWR does not support outlet structures within the CE. DWR
understands the site specific concerns of hydrologic trespass and is ok with the proposed outlet design
and up to 7 proposed locations, if the structures can be shifted outside the CE so that the vegetated
swales start at the CE boundary. This would eliminate the need for the landowner to request access
from Stewardship if structure repairs/maintenance are needed. And it would avoid direct discharges
within the CE.DWR requests that each swale be inspected during the project's monitoring/maintenance
period for signs of instability and noted in the annual reports.
a. Outlets have been shifted outside of the CE
22. Sheet D3 —Hay Bale Toe —Please provide more information about this technique (including photos
over time) and situations/places it has been successfully implemented. Also, please provide adaptive
management strategies for dealing with potential bank instability issues in these proposed treatment
areas for this site. What are the benefits of this treatment compared to brush toe?Was onsite brush toe
material availability a consideration for its use along the entire KJ1-B reach?
a. Haybale toes are proposed in areas of low stream power and are intended more as a source of
habitat and organic material and less as a bank protection.Therefore,there is limited risk to the
system from these structures. RES understands that appropriate repairs will be required should
an issue arise during monitoring. These repairs could include but are not limited to bank
grading,brush mattress or brush toe installation.

pre
_ „,...____,.,. , ..,,...., a rt
pp I
.•
' . y ,.. ....,,,
. , .. ,, . .. „.,.,.„_,„ 4„.. r 1.--,4!',,..V( -4
- ., .fi t ,a ,
�.. ' j GSA ,� .a,
Iri
� .. �x u- 'S y n ,, +,, yr - 'F� ; ,;�
.3 -r A r ',, -, " fir r -: y- �- m4 - 4
..:!SV;1.1t---. 2?',14:;itL,,„,.Vatt,...,..f-'.11.;, ,A'.'',.',-,e,tic.; .'.:-':--.:7-41;01.'„,,.,..;;,'
::::".5!'-C-1''.-,-'-'111k4f:404:4:-. ...ie."4*...:7;4'..*:1,.:Vr 'Il VA.-,-;:-','St471.%.,.-:j..-`'`,:i,-.:.,'''.4.'771:.i.,-,---i ,i .4t-,,:.,,--.„...„..46.- --7,,.
r.,:.,',,,-.r.,4.,,ra..q,7..,4r.,_.• '' ,..i:...?-zetto,.:4#-,1:,Ii..;ri-,..i., .,.mel.,:c:::.,....Afr,-A-- - .14.. -,.-5 r:61M...;•iv.. ‘-.7,1"-V.0 %.:4-f.IA,-.4,--11..,-..4,-t+V-...- '.--'• ''.7T*C---.',
r
p.4.4.saa.,::::vt.,-0..,,z-tt-11,..,',,,--..nik:,- .".,,,*.40.4..._,Nt,.., ,,,,..r.,_...7:,wi*'-ir-,1-.:; I,,•,:A..-4'--;: -7":-- ..-4,..4.,',
rr,,14.„..,,,,i_.-- t.".7-i,..,,k,41-1,,1 4,,, -.4.7.P47.40,..c,, r..- .....-.'-f.'-. .s,i.A.-41, ..,,i._.,41.7,12„, , - -,‘,,,,.jyjaiki,z,:tT,,fri., c'.,, ,,, „....;..,,T,;
!'"'-.Tp,T44-...:Lc.,',:,.---f,v4,,,-' wi.,41,y,r 4, ,. ,,,,40.,,,..t,,,,,,-4,€.,,trit,c4,.„1,..,...,1._„1,.._,,;.,,,_.,._ ,.*. ..,c., -_, ___,.•.,,_:
,-, 34,- -,,, . ,4...,.. .,. ..... „.„,,,,,.4,„„... ., .*.,...: .., ,,_,_
.. , ,J.„. ,./..
,-f... . -ffic-, .754,-,... ,.=4/44giurnv.f.z ' •.`"P'..,---'11,41P---= -.°4 4''-''"--
.1,,,A,,,,19,0y,
R .3..- i ., " F „k c Y LIti.k " �1.
� # 'a„a
K @ P y. aar .1.---, °'mod t . y - ( i :-
`;: . 4-.7 'h! t f Aky d IR wry z}R k`i ` .«
ifirri%.sp 71 0.47,21-!:17•_1; -4W''''-,*--4"•. ' `-: -
id - a ys.... n,., ,✓', .� ., � „ - "S a 0: a� m A . .._. ,'
Final Mitigation Plan
Cowford Project
DMS Project#: 100095 I Contract#: 7746 I USACE Action ID: SAW- 2019-00487
DWR Project#: 2019-0495 RFP: 16-007577
March 2021
White Oak River Basin I HUC 03030001 I Onslow County,North Carolina
Prepared By: Prepared For:
Resource Environmental Solutions,LLC NC Department of Environmental Quality
For Environmental Banc&Exchange,LLC Division of Mitigation Services
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27612 Raleigh,NC 27699-1652
919-209-1067
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and
Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section 332.8 paragraphs(c)(2)through(c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28,2010
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.

Table of Contents
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Project Components 3
1.2 Project Outcomes 3
2 WATERSHED APPROACH 5
2.1 Site Selection 5
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 7
3.1 Watershed Summary Information 7
3.2 Landscape Characteristics 7
3.3 Reach Summary Information 9
3.4 Wetland Summary Information 12
4 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 13
4.2 Clean Water Act- Section 401/404 14
4.3 Potential Constraints 14
5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL 15
5.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements 15
6 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 18
7 MITIGATION WORK PLAN 20
7.1 Reference Stream 20
7.2 Design Parameters 21
7.3 Sediment Control Areas 25
7.4 Vegetation and Planting Plan 25
7.5 Mitigation Summary 28
7.6 Determination of Credits 28
8 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 31
8.1 Stream Success Criteria 31
8.2 Wetland Success Criteria 32
8.3 Vegetation Success Criteria 33
9 MONITORING PLAN 34
9.1 As-Built Survey 34
9.2 Visual Monitoring 34
9.3 Stream Hydrology Events 34
9.4 Cross Sections 35
9.5 Wetland Hydrology 35
9.6 Vegetation Monitoring 35
9.7 Scheduling/Reporting 36
10 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN 39
11 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN 40
12 REFERENCES 41
Cowford Mitigation Plan 1 March 2021
Project#100095

List of Tables
Table 1. Cowford Project Components Summary 4
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information 6
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information 7
Table 4.Mapped Soil Series 8
Table 5. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics 9
Table 6. Summary of Stream Parameters 10
Table 7. Regulatory Considerations 14
Table 8.Functional Benefits and Improvements 19
Table 9. Peak Flow Comparison 23
Table 10. Stable Channel Design Output 24
Table 11. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses 24
Table 12. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities 25
Table 14. Cowford Project(ID-100095)-Mitigation Components 30
Table 15.Monitoring Requirements 37
List of Figures
Figure 1 —Project Vicinity
Figure 2—USGS Quadrangle
Figure 3—Landowner Parcels
Figure 4—Watershed Landuse
Figure 5—Mapped Soils
Figure 6—Historical Imagery
Figure 7—Existing Conditions and Project Constraints
Figure 8—Conceptual Design Plan
Figure 9—Buffer Width Zones
Figure 10—Monitoring Plan
Figure 11 — 1YR Inundation Map
Figure 12— 10YR Inundation Map
Appendices
Appendix A—Plan Sheets
Appendix B—Data Analysis and Supplementary Information
Appendix C—Site Protection Instrument
Appendix D—Credit Release Schedule
Appendix E—Financial Assurance
Appendix F—Maintenance Plan
Appendix G—DWR Stream Identification Forms
Appendix H—USACE District Assessment Forms
Appendix I—Wetland JD Forms and Maps
Appendix J—Invasive Species Plan
Appendix K—Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Appendix L—DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Appendix M—Final Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study
Cowford Mitigation Plan 2 March 2021
Project#100095

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Components
The Cowford Project (Project) is located within a rural watershed in Onslow County, North Carolina
approximately three and half miles northwest of Richlands, NC. The Project lies within the White Oak
River Basin,North Carolina United States Geological Survey(USGS) 8-digit Cataloguing Unit 03030001
and 14-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03030001010010, a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) and the
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-05-02 (Figure 1). The Project proposes to restore
3,337 linear feet(LF)of stream as well as re-establish 2.991 acres of wetland that will provide water quality
benefit for 238 acres of drainage area (Figure 2). The Project is in the Carolina Flatwoods Level IV
ecoregion.
The Project area is comprised of a 17.20-acre easement involving one unnamed tributary within an
entrenched channel between agricultural fields,totaling 2,988 existing LF,that drain to Cowford Branch,
which eventually drains to the New River.The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized
in Table 1. The Project is accessible from state route NC-258. Coordinates for the Project areas are
approximately 34.9233,-77.5917,at the crossing in the middle of the project.
1.2 Project Outcomes
The streams and wetlands proposed for restoration have been significantly impacted by ditching, drain
tiling, and other agricultural practices for over 50 years. The stream is currently allowing sediment,
nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides to flow freely into Cowford Branch and the New River. Both water
bodies are classified as Class C and Nutrient Sensitive Waters. The proposed wetland restoration area will
raise the local groundwater and restore a more natural hydrologic cycle to the riparian zone. Successful
construction and restoration of this tributary and headwater wetland system will provide numerous benefits
to water quality. Proposed improvements to the Project will help address impacts specifically discussed as
priorities in in the 2010 White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities(RBRP).
Through stream restoration, headwater valley (HWV) restoration, and wetland restoration, the Project
presents 3,347 LF of proposed stream, generating 3,538.67 Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and
2.991 acres of proposed wetland, generating 2.991 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU) (Table 1). This
mitigation plan is consistent with the June 6, 2019 Post Contract IRT Meeting Minutes and IRT response
emails(Appendix B).
Cowford Mitigation Plan 3 March 2021
Project#100095

Table 1. Cowford Project Components Summary
Stream Mitigation
Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Ratio Warm SMU
Restoration(HWV) 923 1:1 913.000*
Restoration 2,424 1:1 2,424.000
Total 3,347 3,337.000
Non-standard Buffer Width Adjustment 201.670**
Total Adjusted SMUs 3,538.67
*Headwater valley credits are calculated from valley length,not included in NSBW calculations.
**Credit adjustment for Non-standard Buffer Width calculation using the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit
Calculator issued by the USACE in January 2021.See Section 6.6 for further information
Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Approach Area(acres) Ratio WMU
Re-establishment 2.991 1:1 2.991
Total 2.991 2.991
Cowford Mitigation Plan 4 March 2021
Project#100095

2 WATERSHED APPROACH
The Project was selected based on its potential to support the objectives and goals of the DMS 2010 White
Oak RBRP.The White Oak RBRP identified several restoration needs for the entire White Oak River Basin,
as well as for HUC 03030001, specifically. The Project watershed was identified as a TLW
(03030001010010, New River), a watershed that exhibits both the need and opportunity for stream,
wetland, and riparian buffer restoration. Approximately 44% of this project's river basin is agricultural
land.Basin wide goals for all Catalog Units(CUs)outlined in the 2010 White Oak RBRP and CU Specific
Goals for the Upper New River Targeted Local Watershed include:
Basin wide goals for all CUs
1. Protect and improve water quality throughout the Basin by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs
into streams and river
2. Protect shellfish harvesting waters and reduce the number & frequency of Division of
Environmental Health (DEH)closures of designated shellfish growing areas
3. Support efforts to restore local watersheds in the White Oak River Basin; and
4. Support implementation plans (NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (Street et al, 2005) and its
associated implementation plans (NC Division of Marine Fisheries, 2007;NCDMF, 2009).
Upper New River: 03030001010010 Specific Goals
1. Planting riparian buffer zones with appropriate woody species.
2. Best management practices that offset the impacts of agriculture are also a high priority here.
3. Preservation should be considered where high-quality habitat exists and riparian corridors can be
maintained.
The Project directly supports many of these listed goals through the restoration and protection of aquatic
resources and presents an opportunity to grow the already protected catchment in the Upper New River
watershed from earlier DMS efforts in the White Oak River Basin. The lack of riparian buffer, historic
stream manipulation,ditching in the watershed and agricultural practices are significant contributing factors
to water quality impairment and habitat degradation in this watershed, and the Project will help address
these identified stressors at a localized level,as described in Section 2.1.
2.1 Site Selection
Currently,the majority of the Project area is within agricultural fields,having row crops of a corn/soybean
rotation. The lower portion of the stream has more incised banks with more of a riparian buffer in place.
The Project will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the RBRP by reconstructing natural
channels within the agricultural field, stabilizing eroding stream banks and establishing floodplain
connectivity, reducing sediment and nutrient loads, and restoring forested wetlands and buffers. 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 2.
The Project will address several goals outlined in the 2010 White Oak RBRP, one of the goals for all CUs
and two goals from the Upper New River TLW. The Project includes restoration of streams,wetlands, and
their associated buffers that will promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas (RBRP
Basinwide Goal 1).The project also will plant riparian buffer zones with appropriate woody species(RBRP
TLW specific Goal 1)and the stream and wetland restoration and riparian buffer establishment to provide
a natural buffer between the agricultural fields and the waterways is a best management practice that helps
offset the impacts of agriculture(RBRP TLW specific Goal 2).
Cowford Mitigation Plan 5 March 2021
Project#100095

The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes portions of
one parcel in Onslow County with the following ownership in Table 2&Figure 3. Once finalized,a copy
of the land protection instrument will be included in Appendix C. The Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS)Conservation Easement model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instruments.
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
PIN
Owner of Record Or Stream Reach
Tax Parcel ID#
Kenneth W Jones 44220-129-3936 All
(Onslow County)
Cowford Mitigation Plan 6 March 2021
Project#100095

3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed Summary Information
3.1.1 Drainage Area and Land Cover
The Project area is comprised of one unnamed tributary that flows east to west and drains into Cowford
Branch just downstream of a road crossing. The total drainage area for the Project is 238 acres(0.37 mi2)
(Figure 2). The surrounding land use is agricultural and undeveloped land with scattered single-family
homes.Drain tiles have been constructed to drain the surrounding slopes below the gently sloping to nearly
level landscape along the edge of the interstream divide. Primary land use within the Project drainage area
consists of approximately 75% Row Crop, 21% Woods, 3.3%Residential, and 0.06%Impervious Surface
(Figure 4).
Table 3.Project Watershed Summary Information
Watershed Feature Designation
Level IV Ecoregion Carolina Flatwoods
River Basin White Oak
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03030001
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03030001010010
DWR Sub-basin 03-05-02
Project Drainage Area(acres) 238
Percent Impervious Surface 0.06%
Surface Water Classification(drains to) C and NSW
3.2 Landscape Characteristics
3.2.1 Physiography and Topography
The Project is located in the Carolina Flatwoods level IV ecoregion within the Middle Atlantic Coastal
Plain level III ecoregion. This region is characterized by low-relief, wide upland surfaces on lightly
dissected marine terraces. Large areas of poorly drained soils are common, contributing to swamps,
Carolina bays,and low gradient streams with sandy and silty substrates.Artificial drainage for forestry and
agriculture is common in this region, and the Project floodplain is no different. (Griffeth et al., 2002;
Appendix M)An extensive ditch and drain-tile network rapidly removes surface water from the floodplain
and lowers what would naturally be a high groundwater table. The Project exists in a transitional area
between a broad interstream divide and the lower valley of Cowford Branch. The upper half of the project
begins the transition from a nearly level mineral flat to a headwater stream in a gradual sloping manner.
Just after the easement break,the valley becomes more defined and steepens to join with that of Cowford
Branch (Figure 2). Elevations range from 43 ft to 71 ft above mean sea level (NAD83), based on
topographic survey.
3.2.2 Geology and Soils
According to geology data from the North Carolina Geologic Survey, published in 1985, the Project is
within geologic map unit Tec, occurring in the Coastal Plain Belt. This map unit is associated with
sedimentary type rocks of the Comfort Member and New Hanover Member formation that formed during
the Tertiary period within the Cenozoic era between 2 and 63 million years ago. This undivided formation
may contain skeletal limestone commonly with locally-dolomitized solution cavities or phosphate-pebble
conglomerates.The Project floodplain soil appears to have been formed in minor erosional deposition from
the surrounding upland soils and is primarily characterized as sand, sandy clay,and loam.All soils on-site
are formed in loamy and sandy marine deposits and the alluvium from those deposits.(Appendix M).
Cowford Mitigation Plan 7 March 2021
Project#100095

The Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)depicts five mapping units across the Project(Figure
5).The Project area is dominated by Norfolk loamy fine sand(58%),with progressively smaller proportions
of Stallings loamy fine sand (24%), Rains fine sandy loam (11%), Goldsboro fine sandy loam (4%), and
Onslow loamy fine sand(3%). The soil characteristics of these map units are summarized in Table 4.
Rains fine sandy loam is the only soil unit on-site to be considered hydric by the NRCS.However,Norfolk
loamy fine sand may contain hydric inclusions of Woodington or Mucklee; Stallings loamy fine sand may
contain hydric inclusions of Woodington or Rains; and Onslow loamy fine sand may contain hydric
inclusions of Rains. Stallings loamy fine sand is considered farmland of statewide importance, while
Goldsboro fine sandy loam,Norfolk loamy fine sand,and Onslow loamy fine sand are all considered prime
farmland,and Rains fine sandy loam is considered prime farmland if drained(MRCS,n.d.).
Table 4.Mapped Soil Series
Map Unit Percent Hydrologic Landscape
Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Drainage Class Soil Group Setting
Goldsboro fine sandy loam, Moderately Well Broad interstream
GoA 0 to 2 percent slopes No A/D divides on marine
Drained
terraces
Ridges on marine
NoA Norfolk loamy fme sand,0 No Well Drained A terraces,broad
to 2 percent slopes interstream divides on
marine terraces
Norfolk loamy fme sand,2 Broad interstream
NoB to 6 percent slopes No Well Drained A divides on marine
terraces
Moderately Well Broad interstream
On Onslow loamy fme sand No Drained A divides on marine
terraces
Rains fine sandy loam,0 to 2 Carolina bays on marine
Ra percent slopes,Atlantic Yes Poorly Drained B/D
Coast Flatwoods terraces
St Stallings loamy fme sand No Somewhat Poorly A/D Flats on marine terraces
Drained
A detailed soil survey was performed on the Project parcel by a licensed soil scientist in January 2020 to
evaluate the extent of hydric soils and the potential for wetland re-establishment for wetland mitigation
(Appendix M). Soils on site typically have a dark surface despite years of drainage and cultivation. The
typical soil surface consists of very dark gray to black sandy loam surface usually with brown or dark brown
mottles. This dark surface is underlain by a gray to dark gray horizon with mottles. The mottles are
concentrations of iron, manganese, and organic matter. Two borings appeared to have sandy deposition
over a black,gleyed horizon possibly from sedimentation or effects from long-term cultivation.Black,high-
organic soils also appear within the upper elevations of the landscape on the mineral flat.Additionally,the
presence of a clayey textured horizon as well as areas with a possible spodic horizon provide potential for
perching of a water table. In general,the soils on this site are highly variable and interpretation is difficult,
which may be a result of many soils converging towards the upper reach of the tributary(Appendix M).
3.2.3 Existing Vegetation
Vegetation at the Project is made up of mainly brush species that grow along the banks of the ditches.These
species include Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Carex sp., Brazilian vervain (Verbena brasiliensis), and
Cowford Mitigation Plan 8 March 2021
Project#100095

Pokeweed (Phytolacca americana). The fields next to the ditches have been used as agricultural fields.
Along the downstream end of KJ1-C,a buffer was planted in 2004,funded by the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Ditch and
stream buffer areas were planted but no bank stabilization took place. In this CRP zone, the vegetation
changes from small brush to larger trees. The canopy becomes more closed and includes species like
Persimmon (Diaspyros virginiana), Sawtooth Oak (Quercus acutissima), Loblolly Pine (Pinus teada),
Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata), Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) and Southern Crabapple (Malus
angustolfia). The herbaceous layer in this closed canopy area consists of Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), Shrubby Lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor), Smooth Sumac (Rhus glabra), and Trumpet vine
(Campsis radicans). Woody vines are also locally common and include Laurel Greenbrier (Smilax
laurifolia).
3.2.4 Land Use—Historic, Current, and Future
The area surrounding the project has been used for agriculture since 1950 and has steadily grown in usage
(Figure 6).The forested upstream area was cleared between 1950 and 1977,which led to an increase in the
use of row crops, mainly corn and soybean. Between 1977 and 1982, KJ1-A was straightened for
agricultural purposes.In 2004,a CRP was put in place on KJ1-C.However,this CRP easement expired by
its own term in September of 2019,as can be seen in Appendix C.Between 1982-2010,the watershed just
upstream of the project area was significantly altered by an increase in the number of ditches in the
surrounding agricultural fields(Figure 6).
3.3 The future land use for the Project area will include 17.20 acres of conservation easement that
will be protected in perpetuity. The Project easement will have 3,347 linear feet of a
functioning stream, a minimum 50-foot riparian buffer,and 2.991 acres of riparian wetlands.
Outside the Project,the area will likely remain in agricultural use.According to the "Onslow
County Comprehensive Plan", adopted in 2009 and amended in 2014,the area surrounding
the Cowford Mitigation Project does not expect to have major changes in landuse. The area is
currently Residential Agriculture and vacant land. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that
the soils around the town of Richlands are "Most Suitable Agriculture Soils"and does not
expect that urbanization or a rise in residential agriculture will occur within the larger
Richlands area.Reach Summary Information
The Project area is comprised of one unnamed tributary, KJ1, split into three reaches based on proposed
mitigation treatment(A, B, and C), that flows east to west and drains just downstream of the project into
Cowford Branch(Figure 7).Results of preliminary data collection are presented in Table 5.Morphological
parameters are located in Appendix B.
Table 5. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Drainage Amu. Width Mean Width:Depth Bank
mu Entrenchment Slope
Reach Area(ac) (ftz) (ft) Depth Ratio Height Ratio Sinuosity (ft/ft)
(ft) Ratio
KJ1-A 115 3.8 4.1 0.9 4.3 2.5 1.8 1.00 0.004
KJ1-B 181 4.5 4.9 0.9 5.3 3.9 1.5 1.01 0.007
KJ1-C 238 6.5-8.2 6.6-6.7 1.0-1.2 5.4-6.8 1.8-4.2 1.9-2.1 1.02 0.007
'ABuF=cross-sectional area(measured at approximate bankfull stage as estimated using existing conditions data and NC
Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
Cowford Mitigation Plan 9 March 2021
Project#100095

3.3.1 Channel Classification
The Project stream has been classified as intermittent using, the NCDWR Stream Identification Form
version 4.11 (Stream ID Form) KJ1. The project stream was also rated using the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method(NCSAM)and received an overall score of Low(Appendix H). Table 6 summarizes
these stream parameters and the Stream ID Form as well as a stream identification map, which includes
USGS and NRCS Onslow County Soil Survey mapped streams, can be found in Appendix G. Stream
determinations have been verified by the USACE(Appendix I).
Table 6. Summary of Stream Parameters
Reach Hydrology Stream Determination NCSAM Reach Length Rosgen Stream
Status Score Score (LF) Classification
KJ1 Intermittent 27.5 Low 2,988 E5 —G5c
3.3.2 Existing Channel Morphology
3.3.2.1 Reach KJ1
KJ1-A
Reach KJ1-A originates at an ephemeral/intermittent break,located at the confluence of 3 ditches
on the eastern boundary of the proposed conservation easement. The reach has a mild valley with
limited longitudinal slope, has been historically ditched, and no longer provides significant
ecological functions.KJ1-A flows west through row crop fields to KJ1-B.Much if not all the reach's
morphology is currently driven by ditching instead of natural channel processes. The break between
reach A and B was selected because the valley steepens and becomes more defined downstream of
this point.Row crops are directly adjacent to both banks.Drain tiles from the adjacent fields currently
outlet directl into the reach.
•
•
•
KJ1-A Banks KJ1-A Banks
Cowford Mitigation Plan 10 March 2021
Project#100095

KJ1-B
Reach KJ1-B originates at downstream end of KJ1-A and flows west through hydric soils to a
proposed culvert crossing and easement break. The reach has been ditched and has further degraded
such that it lacks floodplain connection, appropriate patten, and bedform diversity. There is an
existing 41 LF culvert crossing approximately in the middle of the reach. Row crops are directly
ad.acent to both banks. Drain tiles from the ad.acent fields currentlyoutlet directl into the reach.
p3
k
KJ1-B Banks Below the crossing on KJ1-B
KJ1-C
Reach KJ1-C originates downstream of the proposed easement break and continues west to the
downstream limits of the conservation easement. The reach has a relatively steep (-1%), defined
valley. Directly downstream of the easement,the channel flows under NC HWY 258 through a 48"
CMP. The reach has been ditched and has further degraded and entrenched such that it lacks
floodplain connection, appropriate pattern, and bedform diversity.Managed forest, from an expired
CRP easement,forms an immature buffer along much of the right bank while row crops form much
of the left bank.
•
KJI-C Banks KJI-C Banks
Cowford Mitigation Plan 11 March 2021
Project#100095

3.4 Wetland Summary Information
3.4.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Information
A survey of existing wetlands was performed on October 3, 2019. Wetland boundaries were delineated
using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual(Environmental Laboratory 1987).
A preliminary jurisdictional determination(PJD)request was sent to the USACE on October 4, 2019 and
revised materials were submitted on November 12, 2019. The confirmed PJD package was completed by
USACE;the PJD was received on February 12,2020. These documents and correspondence can be found
in Appendix I.
Within the boundaries of the proposed Project,no jurisdictional wetlands are present(Figure 5). The only
jurisdictional feature is the stream KJ1 (Appendix I).
3.4.2 National Wetland Inventory
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) also depicts no wetland areas within the Project
(Figure 5). The only mapped NWI depicts palustrine forest wetlands in forested areas within a mile of the
project boundaries.
3.4.3 Hydric Soil Indicators
A detailed hydric soil investigation for Cowford Mitigation Site was completed in January of 2020 by a soil
scientist. A series of approximately 75 soil borings were performed to described and verify the presence
and estimate the extent of hydric soil and soils that appear to exhibit relict or historic hydric indicators
(Appendix M). Soils were characterized and classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States,Version 7.0(USDA-NRCS 2010).Hydric indicators were found within 12 inches of the soil
surface and found in both riparian and non-riparian landscapes.The hydric soil indicators found include the
F3-Depleted Matrix, S7-Dark Surface,All-Depleted Below Dark Surface,Al2-Thick Dark Surface, S5-
Sandy Redox, and S9-Thin Dark Surface. Also present were S5-Sandy Redox, S9-Thin Dark Surface, and
F3-Depleted Matrix. The range of the indicators points to the complexity of the soils at the location, and
these can all be found on both riparian and non-riparian landscapes.
3.4.4 Existing Hydrology
Overbank flooding is limited by the deeply dredged and straightened channel and lowers surrounding
groundwater elevation in the floodplain. Additionally, the drain tile system lowers the ground water
elevations farther from the stream,extending to nearby portions of the contributing watershed.The smooth
cultivated surfaces and ditches also quickly remove surface water to prevent accumulation and limit
infiltration. These drainage modifications decrease both surface storage and subsurface storage. There are
two potential surface drainage patterns that have a concave topography that contribute to the watershed.
One enters along the stream channel from the northeast and one from the southeast where a ditch is located.
Due to the landscape and potential convergence of multiple soil units, this site appears to have been
historically part of a small riverine headwater system where hydric soil extends outward up into the higher
elevations of the mineral flat. This Project is located along the transition from a riparian to non-riparian
landscape where multiple soil morphologies were noted. This confluence of differing soils and the
converging landscape provide variable soil textures and hydric soil indicators providing evidence this area
supported a riparian wetland prior to drainage and conversions to agricultural use.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 12 March 2021
Project#100095

4 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
4.1.1 Environmental Screening and Documentation
To ensure that a project meets the "Categorical Exclusion" criteria,the Federal Highways Administration
(FHWA) and NCDMS have developed a categorical exclusion (CE) checklist that is included as part of
each mitigation project's Environmental Screening process. The CE Approval Form for the Cowford
Project is included in Appendix K and was approved by DMS and FHWA in August 2019.
4.1.2 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. According to the United States
Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) IPAC database review tool (USFWS 2018) and the self-certification process
conducted by RES and submitted to the USFWS on August 2nd, 2019, there are sixteen endangered or
threatened species listed that may occur in proximity to the Project. However, it was determined that only
four species;Cooley's Meadowrue(Thalictrum cooleyi),Golden Sedge(Carex lutea),Pondberry(Lindera
melissifolia), and Roughed-leaved Loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), had the potential to have
suitable habitat on the property. After a habitat and species survey conducted on July 19th, 2019, it was
determined there was"no suitable habitat"nor species present on site.Therefore a"no effect"determination
was made for all of the listed species that were provided in the official species list. The USFWS was
consulted through the self-certification process during the CE process and no response was provided by
USFWS, which is typical as the certification letter(provided) is their official response unless they do not
concur with the determination. Supporting documentation and correspondence can be found in Appendix
K.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with state fish and wildlife agencies when
"waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be
impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or modified. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) was consulted during the CE process and the NCWRC stated that there are no
records of any state or federally listed species at the site nor any in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Documentation is included in Appendix K.
4.1.3 Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service (accessed 11
February 2020) database revealed five listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources
nearby the proposed project properties. Three of these listings are marked as gone; Billy Banks House
(ON0023), India Anna Elizabeth Jarman House (ON0318), and Lloyd Humphrey House (ON0306). The
other two documented buildings are the S. Ab Cox House (ON0104) and the William Kinsey House
(ON0342). No construction shall be completed outside of proposed easement, so these listings should be
untouched. RES consulted with the SHPO during the CE and the SHPO had "conducted a review of the
project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project."Cultural Resources
screening met the Categorical Exclusion Criteria for FHWA and DMS projects and documentation is
included in Appendix K.
4.1.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)/Hydrologic Trespass
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, there is no part of the Project
included within the mapped FEMA 100-year floodplain(Zone AE) and no regulated floodway is mapped
(FEMA 2018)(Figure 5).
RES has completed a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to minimize the risk of hydrologic trespass to the
maximum extent practicable.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 13 March 2021
Project#100095

4.2 Clean Water Act- Section 401/404
Impacts to jurisdictional streams will be unavoidable, due to the restoration activities proposed. Although
these impacts are unavoidable, the proposed stream treatment will result in an overall functional uplift of
the stream system, as described in Section 5. All of KJ1 is proposed for restoration activities. These
activities will have permanent impacts, due to stream restoration and stream realignment. No existing
wetlands will be impacted during stream restoration activities. The project does intend to reestablish
wetlands on-site.All stream impacts will be accounted for in the Pre-Construction Notification form.
Table 7.Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States-Section 404 Yes Pending Permit Appendix I
Waters of the United States-Section 401 Yes Pending Permit Appendix I
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix K
National Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix K
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act No N/A N/A
(CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A Appendix L
Magnuson Stevens Act-Essential Fisheries No N/A N/A
Habitat
DOT Right-of-way Permit Yes No N/A
4.3 Potential Constraints
Major project constraints include an existing culvert crossing on KJ1-B,road and utility right of ways,and
multiple drainage ditches and drain tiles that outfall into the existing channel.Most of the drainage ditches
and drain tiles tie to the bottom of the existing channel somewhat limiting the potential to connect the
channel to the existing valley.
The proposed Project is located approximately 3 miles from Hell and Purgatory Airport.Hell and Purgatory
Airport has a single grass runway and no permanent structures; it is not anticipated that the Project will
interfere with the airport's function. There is a portion of Reach KJ1-C that was enrolled in a CRP contract
which expired in 2019. The CRP program contract was for vegetated ditch buffers,which was herbaceous
vegetation, and there was no requirement to stabilize eroding banks. The CRP contract had not provided
funds for any of the tasks outlined in the RFP (RFP #16-007577). The contract ran for 15 years and it
expired on September 20,2019 (Appendix C).
Cowford Mitigation Plan 14 March 2021
Project#100095

5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
In order to thoroughly examine the potential functional uplift to stream systems proposed for restoration,
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 Cowford 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 Cowford Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project will provide numerous ecological and water quality
benefits within the White Oak 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, 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 8.
5.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
5.1.1 Hydrology
The Project will locally address several historic hydrologic disturbances including deforestation and
channelization;however,it is not anticipated that the Project will have a significant effect on hydrology at
the watershed scale.
5.1.2 Hydraulic
The greatest potential uplift at the Project will be achieved by providing floodplain connectivity throughout
the Project. Channels will be designed to promote stable channel hydraulics by increasing floodplain
inundation, grade control, bank stabilization. Currently, hydraulic parameters for all reaches are not
functioning due to lack of buffer, historic realignment, maintenance of agricultural drainage through the
use of drain tiles and ditching and will be functioning post restoration.
5.1.3 Geomorphology
The proposed design will promote a dynamic transport of sediment through the project. Due to a lack of
floodplain connection much of the current project has a high transport capacity that drastically limits the
channels ability to store sediment.By promoting floodplain inundation and headwater valley characteristics
the transport capacity will be reduced,allowing the stream to develop/utilize depositional areas(point bars
and floodplain wetlands). In addition to reducing the transport capacity RES anticipates the project will
also reduce sediment loading within the project corridor. This load reduction will be achieved through a
reduction in bank erosion,planting a riparian buffer,and treating offsite drainage before it enters the reach.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 15 March 2021
Project#100095

Soil loss within the easement area is estimated to be reduced by approximately 80%through buffer planting
(using the RUSLE2 software; NRCS). The Headwater Valley restoration (Reach KJ1-A) will act as a
sediment sink for the downstream reaches. Channel stability and bedform diversity will be improved in
restoration reaches by installing wood grade control, coir matting, bank vegetation, and habitat structures
to promote a natural riffle-pool sequence. The existing channel will be filled to help raise the groundwater
within the wetland. Channel substrate of KJ1-C will be supplemented by off-site material to ensure bed
stability and habitat creation.Transport and storage of woody debris will be improved through increases in
channel roughness from plantings and structure installation. Existing riparian vegetation for reach KJ1-C
are functioning-at-risk due to lack of diversity of woody vegetation. Therefore, riparian buffers will be
planted out to a minimum of 50 feet to improve the riparian vegetation to functioning levels, while also
providing terrestrial habitat.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.
5.1.4 Physicochemical
Although this Project would support the overarching goal in the White Oak RBRP 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 many variables.However,several restoration actions that will
be realized by the Project are known to reduce nutrients and sediment even though they may not be
observable at the project level.These activities include removing drain tiles and/or outletting drain tiles into
the floodplain, converting active agricultural fields into forested buffers, filtering runoff through buffer
areas, and improving denitrification and nutrient uptake through buffer zones and riparian wetlands.
Additional benefits may also come from functional uplift of the lower-level stream functions (hydraulics
and geomorphology), which will reduce sediment and nutrients in the system through channel
establishment,bank stabilization,and reforestation. Temperature regulation will also be improved through
the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas. Oxygen regulation will occur through two
actions: first,the temperature of the water directly impacts the amount of gas held by the water. Therefore,
by planting the buffer to shade the channel, water temperature is decreased, and dissolved oxygen is
increased. Second, by constructing stable channels that include drop structures, mixing zones will form
where oxygen dissolves much faster than the current exchange rate. The processing of organic matter will
be improved once healthy riffles are shallow enough to catch twigs and branches that then retain leaves.
Many of these physicochemical benefits occur slowly and 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.
5.1.5 Biology
As mentioned for the physicochemical stream function, it will be difficult to see measurable results of the
functional uplift of the biological functions at a project scale during the monitoring time frame 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 categories two and three(hydraulics and
geomorphology) will be directly measured during the seven-year monitoring period. Ultimately, any
functional uplift to biology at the Project can only be assumed.
5.1.6 Wetland Functional Uplift
The Project currently has no wetlands due to the incised channel and drain tile system rapidly removing
surface and groundwater. The stream is currently allowing sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides
to flow freely into Cowford Branch and the New River. Both water bodies are classified as Nutrient
Cowford Mitigation Plan 16 March 2021
Project#100095

Sensitive Waters.The proposed wetland restoration area will raise the local groundwater and restore a more
natural hydrologic cycle to the riparian zone. Successful construction and restoration of this tributary and
headwater wetland system will provide numerous benefits to water quality. Successful hydrologic
restoration will provide numerous soils related functional uplifts in addition to the benefits of stream
restoration. These include,re-establishment of natural oxidation reduction cycling, improved nutrient and
chemical transformations,potential immobilization of phosphorus,increased organic carbon sequestration,
improved soil structure (surface primarily), lower soil and surface water temperature after vegetative
establishment, and increases in diversity of microbial and fungal populations that are important for soil
health. Large scale benefits may include an increase of diverse wildlife habitat, and connectivity to the
natural aquatic communities of Cowford Branch.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 17 March 2021
Project#100095

6 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework and conclusions based on a Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study(Appendix M),specific,
attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Project. These goals clearly address the degraded
water quality and nutrient input from agricultural practices that were identified as major watershed stressors
in the 2010 White Oak RBRP. The Project will address outlined RBRP Goal one and two of the TLW
specific goals(listed in Section 2).
The Project goals are:
• Re-establish hydrology to a historical stream/wetland complex that has been impacted by historic
channel realignment,channel entrenchment,field ditching,and field drain tiling;
• To transport water in a stable, non-erosive manner and maintain a stable water table in riparian
floodplain wetlands that will also contribute to stream baseflow;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows and
connection to the floodplain;
• Create diverse bedforms and stable channels that achieve healthy dynamic equilibrium and provide
suitable in-stream habitat for aquatic organisms;
• Limit sediment and nutrient inputs into stream system;
• Re-establish wetland;
• Restore native wetland and riparian vegetation;
• Indirectly support the goals of the 2010 White Oak RBRP to improve water quality and to reduce
sediment and nutrient loads; and
• To support the life histories of aquatic and riparian plants and animals through stream restoration
activities.
Anticipated functional uplift,benefits, and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function
Based Framework are outlined in Table 8.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 18 March 2021
Project#100095

Table 8.Functional Benefits and Improvements
Level Function Goal Objective Measurement Method
Convert the land-use of
to transport water from the streams and their Percent Project drainage
Hydrology° watersheds from cropland area converted to
watershed to the channel in a
Transport of water into riparian forest riparian forest(indirect
1 from the watershed to non-erosive manner and measurement)
the channel maintain a stable water table in Maintain appropriate
the riparian wetland hydroperiod for Muckalee Groundwater wells
soil series
Improve flood bank Cross sections
connectivity by reducing
Hydraulic bank height ratios and Stage Recorders
Transport of water in increasing entrenchment
2 the channel,on the to transport water in a stable ratios Bank Height Ratio
floodplain,and non-erosive manner
through the sediments Maintain regular,seasonal Entrenchment Ratio
flow in restored,
intermittent streams Flow gauge
Limit erosion rates and
increase channel stability
to reference reach As-built stream profile
Geomorphology to create a diverse bedform and a conditions
Transport of wood and Cross sections
stable channel that achieves
3 sediment to create healthy dynamic equilibrium and Improve bedform diversity
diverse bedforms and provides suitable habitat for life (Pool spacing,percent Visual monitoring
dynamic equilibrium riffles,etc.)
Vegetation plots
Increase buffer width to at
least 50 feet
Establish native hardwood
riparian buffer to provide
Indirectly support the goals of canopy shade and absorb
the 2010 White Oak RBRP to nutrients
Physicochemical° achieve appropriate levels for
Temperature and water temperature,dissolved Install in-stream structures
4 oxygen regulation; oxygen concentration,and other to created aeration zones
important nutrients including but
processing of organic not limited to Nitrogen and Promote sediment
matter and nutrients Phosphorus through filtration,nutrient cycling,
buffer/wetland planting and and organic accumulation
wetland hydrologic restoration through natural wetland
biogeochemical processes
Biology° Improve aquatic habitat by
Biodiversity and life to achieve functionality in levels installing habitat features,
5 histories of aquatic life 1-4 to support the life histories of constructing pools of
histories and riparian aquatic and riparian plants and varying depths,and
life animals through instream planting the riparian
buffer and wetlands
°These are benefits that are presumed and will not be measured by the monitoring
Cowford Mitigation Plan 19 March 2021
Project#100095

7 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Reference Stream
The restoration portions of the Project are currently characterized by agricultural practices. Physical
parameters of the Project were used, as well as other reference materials, to determine the target stream
type. The "Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" was also used to narrow the
potential community types that would have existed at the Project(Schafale,2012).An iterative process was
used to develop the final information for the Project design.
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the physiographic region and ecoregion,
• Similar land use on site and in the watershed,
• Similar soil types on site and in the watershed,
• Ideal,undisturbed habitat—several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among coastal plain streams,and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.
7.1.1 Reference Characterization
The selected reference stream is UT to Buffalo Creek which is part of the most downstream portion of the
Buffalo Branch Stream Mitigation Project and is located in the Upper Neuse River Basin. The reach that
was surveyed and analyzed is approximately 375 feet long with a drainage area of 1.11 square miles (709
acres). The land use in the watershed is not dominated by any one land use,but has major components of
cropland,pasture, and forests,with minor components of developed area,wetlands,herbaceous,and open
water. Site photographs of the reference stream are located in Appendix B.
The current State classification for Buffalo Creek downstream of the reference reach is C and NSW
(NCDWR 2011).Class C waters are those protected for uses such as secondary recreation,fishing,wildlife,
fish consumption,aquatic life including propagation,survival,and maintenance of biological integrity,and
agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading,boating, and other uses involving human body contact
with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. Waters
given the supplemental classification of Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) are those needing additional
nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
Further,Buffalo Creek is listed on the 2018 303d list for impaired waters (North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality [NCDEQ] 2018). It received a Fair Bioclassification rating for benthic ecological/
biological integrity.
7.1.2 Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge along with indicators of
bankfull stage for the reference site.Existing drainage area,land use,slope,roughness,and cross-sectional
area were all factors considered when performing the calculations.Using a combination of Coastal Regional
Curves, in-house spreadsheet tools, and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis, the existing
discharge for UT to Buffalo Creek was found to be approximately 18-21 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). See
Section 7.2.2 for a more detailed description of the hydrologic analyses performed for this project.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 20 March 2021
Project#100095

7.2 Design Parameters
7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach
The Project will include stream and headwater valley restoration. Stream restoration will incorporate the
design of a single-thread, meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from reference site,
published empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project streams, and NC
Regional Curves.Analytical design techniques will also be a crucial element of the project and will be used
to determine the design discharge and to verify the design. Based on soil type, valley slope, and drainage
area headwater valley restoration was incorporated in the design.Headwater valley restoration will include
the design of a vegetated diffuse flow system that will allow for the passive development of a headwater
stream. The USACE and DWR guidance "Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on
the Coastal Plain"was heavily utilized in the design of this reach.A conceptual plan is provided in Figure
8 and the design plan sheets of the restoration approach is found in Appendix A.
The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:
7.2.1.1 Reach KJ1-A(HWV)
A headwater valley restoration approach is proposed for this reach to address historic ditching and buffer
impacts. Restoration activities will include:
- Grading a headwater valley,
- Installing wood structures to provide grade control and habitat,
- Installing live stakes to stabilize the bed and banks,
- Riparian planting.
7.2.1.2 Reach KJ1-B
An offline restoration approach is proposed for this reach to address historic ditching and buffer impacts.
Restoration activities will include:
- Grading a new, single-thread channel in the existing floodplain(Priority I Restoration),
- Installing log structures to provide grade control and habitat,
- Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing toe protection on meander bends,
- Installing live stakes to stabilize the banks and provide channel shading,
- Filling and grading the existing channel to create wetland habitat,
- Riparian planting.
7.2.1.3 Reach KJ1-C
An inline, P2 restoration approach is proposed for this reach to address historic ditching, channelization,
and buffer impacts. Restoration activities will include:
- Grading a new, single-thread channel in an excavated floodplain,
- Installing rock and log structures to provide grade control and habitat,
- Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing toe protection on meander bends,
- Installing live stakes to stabilize the banks and provide channel shading,
- Filling the existing channel,
- Riparian planting,and
- Invasive vegetation treatment.
7.2.1.4 Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for riffles and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix A.All cross-
section dimensions were developed from the analog reach but were altered based on existing site conditions,
hydraulic modeling,and observations from other mitigation sites in the area.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 21 March 2021
Project#100095

7.2.1.5 Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignment are provided in Appendix A. The meander
pattern was derived directly from the analog reach and was altered in some locations to provide variability
in pattern,to avoid on Project constraints,to improve constructability, and to promote wetland hydrology.
The morphologic parameters summarized in the Appendix B were applied wherever these deviations
occurred.
7.2.1.6 Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix A. These profiles extend throughout the entire project for
the proposed channel alignment. The profiles were designed using the analog reach bed features that were
sized with the scaling factors. The bed slopes and bankfull energy gradients were determined for each
design reach based on the valley slope and the sinuosity of the design reach.Log structures will be utilized
in the design to control grade,divert flows,and provide additional habitat diversity and stability.
7.2.1.7 In-Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve aquatic
habitat. Native materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures where
applicable. Typical structures that will protect the channel bed and/or banks will include riffle grade
controls,log sills,rock sills, and brush bed sills.
Woody debris,including log sills,riffle material,and brush bed sills,will be placed throughout the channel.
Bank stability measures include the installation of live stakes,brush toes,and hay bale toes.Typical details
for proposed in-stream structures and revetments are in Appendix A.
7.2.2 Data Analysis
7.2.2.1 Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine and
validate the design bankfull 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 9) and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined for
comparison to design parameters using the following methods:
• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• AutoCAD's Hydraflow Hydrographs,and
• NC Regional Curves for the Rural Coastal Plain.
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 less than 6,400 acres(10 mi2)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-, 1.5-,and 2-year peak discharges based on the gauge data.
Discharges were then computed for the design reach. These discharges were compared to those predicted
by the discharge regional curve and USGS regional regression 2-year discharge equations.
AutoCAD's Hydraflow Express
Hydraflow Express was used to simulate the rainfall-runoff process and establish peak flows for the
watersheds. This model was chosen over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers model HEC-HMS because it
allows the user to adjust the peak shape factor.Rainfall data reflecting both a 284 and 100 peak shape factor
were used along with a standard Type II distribution, and NRCS hydrology (time of concentrations and
runoff curve numbers),to simulate the rainfall-runoff process.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 22 March 2021
Project#100095

Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina Rural Coastal regional curves by Doll et al. (2003) and Sweet and Geratz (2003) for
discharge were used to predict the bankfull discharge for the Project. The regional curves predicted flows
that are similar to those predicted by the 1.1-year flood frequency,while the Hyrdaflow values were much
higher. The regional curve equations for NC discharges by Doll et al. (2003):
(1) Qbk=16.56*(DA)°72 (Doll et al.,2003)
(2) Qbx=8.79*(DA)°76 (Sweet and Geratz,2003)
Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s)and DA=drainage area(mi2).
Table 9. Peak Flow Comparison
Drainage FFQ NC Regional NC Regional Hydraflow Hydraflow
Reach Area(Ac) Q1.1 FFQ Qi.s Curve Q(1) Curve Q(2) Ql Q2 Design Q
KJ1-A 115 5 16 5 2 9 14 -
KJ1-B 181 8 22 7 3 21 31 5
KJ1-C 238 9 26 8 4 30 44 8
7.2.2.2 Design Discharge
Based upon the hydrologic analyses described above, design discharges were selected that fall just below
the FFQ 1.1 and the NC Regional Curve revised values. The selected flows for the restoration reaches are
5 ft3/s for KJ1-B and 8 ft3/s for KJ1-C. These discharges will provide frequent inundation of the adjacent
floodplain.
7.2.2.3 Sediment 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, and
• Permissible Velocity Approach.
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 mm 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 and slopes, and their unique
solution for depth, making it easy to adjust channel dimensions to achieve stable channel configurations.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 23 March 2021
Project#100095

RES uses these results as a QAQC of the proposed channel dimension. The stable design output parameters
are listed in Table 10.
Table 10. Stable Channel Design Output
Reach Q(ft/s3) Bottom Depth(ft) Energy Composite Velocity Shear Stress
Width(ft) Slope(ft/ft) n value (ft/s) (lbs/ft)
KJ1-B 5 2 0.85 0.0025 0.04 1.3 0.13
KJ1-C 8 2 1.1 0.0015 0.03 1.4 0.10
The recommended channel characteristics showing in Table 10 are relatively close to the proposed channel
dimensions and were used to help validate the proposed design.
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).
RES uses the table below to further validate the design by confirming that the proposed bed shear stress at
bank full is between the critical shear stress and maximum allowable shear stress.
Table 11. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Allowable Shear Stressl
Proposed Bed Shear Existing Critical
Reach Stress at Bankfull Stage Shear Stress Coarse
Sand/Sily/Clay Vegetation
(lbs/ft2) (lbs/ft2) bs/ftz Gravel (lbs/ftz)
(lbs/ft2)
KJ1-B 0.19 0.02 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.7 to 1.7
KJ1-C 0.21 0.02 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.7 to 1.7
1(Fischenich,2001)
Review of the above table shows that the proposed bed shear stresses for the Project design reaches are
consistent with the allowable shear stresses for native substrate.Proposed riffles for KJ1-B will incorporate
native materials and will be supplemented with woody debris. KJ1-B riffles will be supplemented with a
mixture of gravel and woody debris to provided increased stability in the more confined valley until
vegetation can be established.This supplemental gravel is larger than the material naturally supplied by the
watershed. RES anticipates that this material will eventually mobilize and leave the site as sand fills in the
voids and the channel bed transitions from framework supported to matrix supported(Wilcock,2009).
Velocity Approach
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 12 compares the proposed velocities calculated using Manning's
equation with the permissible velocities.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 24 March 2021
Project#100095

Table 12. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities
Reach Manning's"n" Design Velocity Proposed Bed Permissible Velocity'
Value (ft/s) Material (ft/sec)
KJ1-B 0.045 1.3 Sand/Fine Gravel 1.75—2.5
KJ1-C 0.045 1.4 Coarse Gravel 2.5-6
1(Fischenich,2001)
Table 12 shows that the design velocity falls below the permissible velocity further validating the proposed
design.
7.2.3 Wetland Restoration
The Cowford Project offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. As such,the wetland restoration is
closely tied to the stream restoration and drain tile interruption. The Project will provide 2.991 WMUs
through wetland re-establishment. Wetland re-establishment is only proposed in areas that have been
determined appropriate for wetland restoration by a licensed soil scientist due to the presence of hydric soils
and potential hydrology (Appendix M). Re-establishment activities will include; a successful restoration
that raises the local groundwater elevation and allows frequent flooding,the plugging of ditches,removing
all drain tiles within the easement,and creating shallow depression features in the wetland.A 2D model of
the proposed stream restoration was run in HEC-RAS to evaluate the effectiveness of the design at
increasing wetland flooding. Inundation maps from this model of the 1- and 10-year design storms are
provided in Figures 11 and 12,respectively,and demonstrate that the proposed design will function in this
capacity. These activities will help raise the local groundwater and have a more natural hydrologic cycle in
the riparian zone. Surface roughening through shallow soil ripping will improve infiltration and slow runoff
through the floodplain. Surface roughening will also create microtopography and shallow depressional
areas,re-establishing more natural conditions and establishing habitat diversity.Historic land-use impacts
will be addressed through the planting of a native hardwood wetland community.
7.3 Sediment Control Areas
A suite of sediment load attenuation structures in the form of treatment pools and engineered sediment
packs(Appendix A,Details)will be installed within Swale A and B(Figure 8). Swale A will tie the flow
from Ditch A to reach KJ1-B and Wetland WA,while picking up its bed elevation and treating agricultural
runoff through the use of a treatment pool and planted vegetation. Swale B will tie the flow from Ditch B
into reach KJ1-C while picking up its bed elevation and treating agricultural runoff through the use of a
treatment pool, an engineered sediment pack, and planted vegetation. These structures will be installed
within the conservation easement so that they are protected. Catastrophic failure or maintenance of the
structures is not anticipated as they will be installed in a low-gradient area, and all treatment pools and
swales will be well vegetated.
7.4 Vegetation and Planting Plan
7.4.1 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 forested areas adjacent to the Project 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.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 25 March 2021
Project#100095

A Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Schafale, 2012) will be the target community along the Project
reaches and wetlands. This community type represents a diverse group of species with differing flood
tolerances, able to grow in close association with one another along stream and wetland features.
Additionally, as tree species are able to survive less frequently flooded conditions than shown for their
tolerance class,the planting plan selected takes into account the species that are best suitable for the most
flooded zone of the project with the intention that they will likely survive both the wetland area and the
more upland conditions (Stanturf, 2004). While reforestation is an important goal of this Project, it is
expected that some open water and/or marsh pockets may persist in depressions within the swamp areas.
These microtopographic features will further enhance community complexity and habitat diversity. The
target community will be used for the planting areas within the Project, shown in Appendix A. The plant
species list has been developed and can be found in Table 13. Hardwood species typical of the target
community were observed in adjacent and nearby communities and were judged to be appropriate for this
site. The whole project will be planted(16.35 acres). The trees within the previous CRP easement will be
mostly removed during construction, so a new buffer will be planted(Figure 10).
The restoration of plant communities along the Project will provide stabilization and diversity. For rapid
stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum),
Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and black willow(Salix nigra)
were chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth patterns and high
success rates. Willows grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, providing faster bank
stabilization and contribution of organic matter to the channel than the other planted woody species.As the
community matures,the willows will slowly stop growing or die out as the other species outgrow them and
create shade that the willows do not tolerate.The live stake species will be planted along the outside of the
meander bends to three feet from the top of bank, creating a three-foot section along the top of bank. The
live stakes will be spaced at least one per three linear feet with alternate spacing vertically.
The floodplain will also be planted with a seed mix that will promote a healthy ecosystem. RES plans on
planting a seed mix with combination of temporary and permanent species,that prefer a coastal plain soil
and are tolerant to wetland areas. This mix was created with a focus on the North Carolina Coastal Plain
species but also considered the potential availability and cost of various species. This seed mix includes
different wetland species which will promote growth and help the wetland re-establish. The non-wetland
species will be planted in the proper areas within the project and will help the project reach the targeted
community.
It is anticipated that vegetation planting will be conducted no later than March 15th, and there will be at
least 180 days until the initiation of the first year of monitoring.Furthermore,any replanting that may occur
throughout the monitoring phase of the Project will occur between November 15 and March 15, per the
October 2016 USACE/NCIRT monitoring guidance. However, if the Project completes construction after
March 15,the site will be planted no later than April 15.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 26 March 2021
Project#100095

Table 13. Proposed Plant List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Wetland %of Total
Species Common Name Indicator Spacing(ft) Unit Type Species
Status Composition
Betula nigra River birch FACW 9x6 Bare Root 15
Cephalanthus occidental is Buttonbush OBL 9x6 Bare Root 15
Taxodium distichum Bald cypress OBL 9x6 Bare root 10
Quercus nigra Water oak FAC 9x6 Bare root 10
Quercus phellos Willow oak FACW 9x6 Bare root 10
Quercus lyrata Overcup oak OBL 9x6 Bare Root 10
Nyssa b/ora Swamp tupelo OBL 9x6 Bare root 10
Platanus occidental is American Sycamore FACW 9x6 Bare root 10
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak FACU 9x6 Bare root 5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash FACW 9x6 Bare root 5
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Species Common Wetland Indicator Status %of Total Species Composition
Name
Salix nigra w lack
OBL 35
Silky
Cornus ammomum dogwood FACW 25
Populus deltoides Cottonwood FAC 20
Cephalanthus occidental is Buttonbush OBL 20
7.4.2 On-Site Invasive Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream restoration.
Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods,depending on plant phenology and
the location of the species being treated(Appendix J). 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). Invasive or aggressive 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 Depaitnient 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.
7.4.3 Soil Restoration
After construction activities,the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before the
topsoil is placed back over the Project. 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.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 27 March 2021
Project#100095

7.5 Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document.The combination of the analog and analytical design methods was determined to be appropriate
for this Project because the watershed is rural,the causes of disturbance are known and have been abated,
and there are minimal infrastructure constraints. The original design parameters were developed from the
measured analog/reference reach data and applied to the subject stream.The parameters were then 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 coastal plain channel features and
stream bed diversity to improve benthic habitat. The proposed design will allow flows that exceed the
design bankfull stage to spread out over the floodplain and into adjacent wetlands. Native organic material
will be installed throughout the restored reaches to reduce bank stress,provide grade control,and increase
habitat diversity.
Forested riparian buffers of at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the Project
reaches.An appropriate riparian plant community(Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp)will be established
to include a diverse mix of species. The plant species list has been developed and can be found in Table
13. Within the planting area, certain targeted species will be planted in the appropriate target community
location. Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted during construction.
Wetland re-establishment will be accomplished through stream restoration and drain tile interruption at the
easement boundary. Stream restoration efforts will re-establish surface-groundwater connections that will
provide retention and storage within this riparian wetland and drain tile interruption will further lift
groundwater elevations.The restored wetland area will be planted with a native Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp vegetation.
A combination of sediment load attenuation structures will be used on site; engineered sediment packs
coupled with treatment pools and a treatment Swale. These structures will be installed within the easement
and will ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site by reducing peak sediment loads and nutrient
inputs while allowing for the continuation of agricultural production outside of the conservation easement.
Due to the nature of the project,complete avoidance of stream and buffer impacts is not possible.Proposed
stream impacts,including stream relocation and crossing relocation,is a necessary restoration practice that
will contribute to the functional uplift of the Project's aquatic resources. Stream restoration will also impact
existing buffers,though all these areas will be replanted with a diverse tree community.All impacts will be
accounted for in the Pre-Construction Notification(PCN)form.
7.6 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 14 are projections based upon site design (Figure 8 and Appendix
A).Upon completion of site construction,the project components and credit data will only be revised to be
consistent with the as-built condition if there is a large discrepancy.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. All credits will be released in accordance with credit release schedules outlined
in the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (Appendix D).
Cowford Mitigation Plan 28 March 2021
Project#100095

7.6.1 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
14&Figure 9).
Cowford Mitigation Plan 29 March 2021
Project#100095

Table 14. Cowford Project(ID-100095) -Mitigation Components
Project Wetland Mitigation Approach
Component Position and Existing Stationing Plan As-Built Restoration Priority Mitigation Mitigation Notes/Comments
(reach ID) Hydro Type Footage or Acreage Footage or Acreage Footage Level Level Ratio(X:1) Credits
M-
Headwater valley
KJ1-A 913 1+42 to 10+65 923 TBD R HWV 1:1 913.000 restoration,
riparian planting
Channel
KJ1-B 647 10+65 to 19+17 852 TBD R P1 1:1 852.000 restoration,
riparian planting
Channel
KJ1-C 1,428 19+85 to 35+57 1,572 TBD R P2 1:1 1,572.000 restoration,
riparian planting
Total 2,988 3,347 3,337.000
Non-Standard *NSBW credit
Buffer Width 201.670* does not include
Adjustment HWV length
Total Adjusted
SMU's 3,538.67
Stream
WA RR 0.000 2.991 TBD R 1:1 2.991 restoration,drain
tile interruption,
native planting
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
Restoration Stream Riparian Wetland Non-riparian Wetland Overall
Level (linear feet) (acres) (acres) Asset Category Credits
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 3,347.000 2.991 Stream 3,538.670
Enhancement RP Wetland 2.991
Enhancement I NR Wetland NA
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality
Pres
Cowford Mitigation Plan 30 March 2021
Project#100095

8 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.
8.1 Stream Success Criteria
8.1.1 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.
8.1.2 Surface Flow
Intermittent stream reaches being restored will be monitored annually to document intermittent or seasonal
surface flow. This will be accomplished through direct observation and the use of automatic-logging
pressure transducers with data loggers (flow gauge). Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30
consecutive days of flow.
8.1.3 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.
8.1.4 Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should
indicate the absence of developing 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.
8.1.5 Headwater Valley Success Criteria(KJ1-A)
Though the above-mentioned performance standards do apply to channels constructed in accordance with
the Information Regarding Stream Restoration With Emphasis on the Coastal Plain,Version 2,dated April
4, 2007, referred to here as the Headwater Stream Guidance. Since Reach KJ1-A is being proposed as
headwater valley restoration the success criteria for this reach will be more specific to the reestablishment
of appropriate hydrology and hydraulics, which leads to the passive development of headwaters stream
geomorphology over time.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 31 March 2021
Project#100095

Channel formation must be documented using indicators consistent with RGL 05-05 in accordance with the
following schedule:
a. During monitoring years 1 through 4, the preponderance of evidence must demonstrate a
concentration of flow indicative of channel formation within the topographic low-point of the
valley or crenulation as documented by the following indicators:
• Scour(indicating sediment transport by flowing water)
• Sediment deposition(accumulations of sediment and/or formation of ripples)
• Sediment sorting(sediment sorting indicated by grain-size distribution within the primary
path of flow)
• Multiple observed flow events(must be documented by gauge data and/or photographs)
• Destruction of terrestrial vegetation
• Presence of litter and debris
• Wracking(deposits of drift material indicating surface water flow)
• Vegetation matted down,bent,or absent(herbaceous or otherwise)
• Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
b. During monitoring years 5 through 7, the stream must successfully meet the requirements of
standard 2(a) above and the preponderance of evidence must demonstrate the development of
stream bed and banks (i.e., an ordinary high water mark) as documented by the following
indicators:
• Bed and banks (may include the formation of stream bed and banks, development of
channel pattern such as meander bends and/or braiding at natural topographic breaks,
woody debris,or plant root systems)
• Natural line impressed on the bank(visible high water mark)
• Shelving(shelving of sediment depositions indicating transport)
• Water staining(staining of rooted vegetation)
• Change in plant community(transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long
duration,including hydrophytes)
• Changes in character of soil (texture and/or chroma changes when compared to the soils
abutting the primary path of flow)
8.2 Wetland Success Criteria
8.2.1 Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has a current WETs table (1990-2019) for Onslow
County upon which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season.The closest comparable
data station was determined to be the WETS station for New River MCAF, NC. The growing season for
Onslow County is 269 days long,extending from March 10 to December 4,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
the Muckalee soil of 12-16 percent of the growing season. The hydrology success criterion for the Site is
to restore the water table so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for 12-16
percent of the growing season (approximately 33 days) at each groundwater gauge location. Due to the
extensive drainage efforts,it may take at least a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach
the target hydroperiods.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 32 March 2021
Project#100095

8.3 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, 260 five-year old trees at seven 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 ten feet at the end of Year 7.Volunteer trees that are listed on the approved planting list
will be counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, and if established for
two or more years,may be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems,.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.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 33 March 2021
Project#100095

9 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the DMS Monitoring Report Template dated June 2017 and
NC IRT monitoring template. 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 reports will be prepared annually and submitted to DMS.
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 15 outlines the links between project
objectives and treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards within the
context of functional uplift based on the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework and a Site Hydric Soils
Detailed Study. Figure 10 depicts the proposed monitoring plan, including approximate numbers and
locations of monitoring devices for the Project.
9.1 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.
9.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year(MY)
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 streamwalk
and structure inspection.The culvert crossing on KJ1-B will be monitored during the complete streamwalk
to make sure any necessary repairs will be made. 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 each
groundwater well. Images will also be taken at the crossing in the middle of the project and the terminal
end under Kinston Highway. 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
channel structures. 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. Three ditches drain into the beginning of the headwater valley channel,
one more into KJ1-B, and two into KJ1-C. These ditches will be monitored to minimize erosion potential.
With the potential for beaver population onsite,the possibility for beaver management practices will need
to be put in place.
9.3 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 Priority 2
Restoration reaches.A minimum of one stage recorder will be installed on each tributary that is greater than
1,000 feet in length,with one gauge required for every 5,000 feet of length on each tributary and a maximum
of five gauges per tributary.Additionally,where restoration activities are proposed for intermittent streams,
monitoring flow gauges should be installed to track the frequency and duration of stream flow events.There
will be one flow gauge installed on KJ1-A and one stage recorder installed on KJ1-C.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 34 March 2021
Project#100095

9.3.1 Headwater Valley Specific Monitoring Plan (KJ1-A)
Headwater stream monitoring will be conducted for 7 years,with monitoring events occurring every year.
Surface water flow will be documented using a flow gauge. The flow gauge will be located within the
anticipated primary path of flow within the low point of the valley to ensure all flow events are captured
and placed along the topographic low point of the valley as necessary to document the upstream end of
channel forming flows. The number of gauge stations to be installed should be based on relevant factors,
including pre and post-construction site conditions, valley slope and length, watershed size, adjacent
wetlands, etc., and should be sufficient to document the upper end of stream formation when considered
with the required field indicators listed in the performance standards as is required in the October 2016
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Channel formation within the
valley or crenulation will be documented through the identification of field indicators consistent with those
listed in Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. Identified field indicators (listed in the performance
standards above)must be documented using data sheets and photographs,and their location must be shown
on a plan view of the site to be included with the annual monitoring report. Additional monitoring and/or
analysis may be necessary in the event of abnormal climactic conditions.
9.4 Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at an approximate frequency of one per 20 bankfull widths with
half in pools and half in riffles 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. Cross sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. The initial
plan is to install three cross sections on KJ1-A,four on KJ1-B,and eight on KJ1-C.
9.5 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydrologic conditions in the wetland re-establishment
areas. This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in
representative locations across the re-establishment area. 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.Three wetland gauges will be installed in the wetland to measure these
conditions. An additional gauge will be added in the adjacent upland area to help determine the wetland
boundary.
9.6 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size and cover a minimum of two percent
of the planted area. There will be 14 plots within the planted area(16.35 acres). Plots will be a mixture of
fixed and random plots,with nine fixed plots and five random plots(Figure 10). Planted area indicates all
area in the easement that will be planted with trees. 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. As discussed in Section 7.2.3, it is expected that
some open water/marsh pockets may persist in localized areas within the Project area.Therefore,RES will
attempt to avoid establishing vegetation plots in these potential areas. In the event that these areas become
too large (greater than 0.1 acres)or more widespread throughout the Project,RES will document and map
the areas to determine if any adaptive management is necessary. 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.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 35 March 2021
Project#100095

9.7 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 all information
required by DMS mitigation plan guidelines,including elevations,photographs and sampling plot locations,
gauge locations, and a description of initial species composition by community type. The report will also
include a list of the species planted and the associated densities,any redline drawings and soil profiles from
well locations on site. Baseline vegetation monitoring will include species, height, date of planting, and
grid location of each stem. The baseline report will follow DMS As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Template June 2017,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 DMS. The
monitoring reports will include all information and be in the format required by USACE.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 36 March 2021
Project#100095

Table 15.Monitoring Requirements
Treatment Objective Monitoring Performance Standard
Metric
Improve the
transport of
water from the
Convert land- watershed to the
use of Project channel in a Groundwater wells
non-erosive with pressure
reaches from Water table within 12 inches of the
manner and transducers:
row-crop to maintain Downloaded ground surface for 12-16%of growing season(33 days of the growing season)
riparian forest appropriate quarterly
and wetland wetland
hydrology for
Muckalee soil
series
Stage recorders:
Inspected Four bankfull events occurring in separate years
semiannually
Reduce bank Flow gauges:
height ratios Inspected quarterly
30+days of continuous flow along the headwater valley
and increase Improve floodq Y
entrenchment bank Cross sections Identify sediment sorting,scouring,sediment deposition and observe multiple
ratios by connectivity by monitored flow events
reconstructing reducing bank annually
channels to height ratios and Yearly photos
increase taken and data Identify bed and bank development,visible high-water marks,shelving,water
mimic entrenchment sheets used to staining,change in plant community and changes in soil character
reference ratios mark changes
reach
conditions Cross sections:
Surveyed in Entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches
MY1,2,3,5and
7 Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2
Establish a As-built stream N/A
riparian profile
buffer to limit Entrenchment ratio shall be no
erosion and Limit erosion Cross sections:
sediment rates and Surveyed in less than 2.2 within restored
input to maintain MY 1,2,3,5 and reaches
Project channel stability 7 Bank height ratio shall not exceed
streams. Improve 1.2
Establish bedform
stable banks Identify and document significant
with diversity(pool Visual monitoring: stream problem areas;i.e.
spacing,percent Performed at least
livestakes, riffles,etc.) semiannually erosion,degradation,
erosion aggradation,etc.
control Increase buffer
Vegetation plots:
matting,and width to 50 feet MY 1-3:>320 trees/acre
Surveyed in
other in MY 5:>260 trees/acre(7 ft.tall)
stream MY 1,2,3,5 and MY 7:>210 trees/acre(10 ft.tall)
structures. 7
Restore Promote
wetland sediment Groundwater wells
hydrology filtration, with pressure
and plant and nutrient cycling, transducers:
protect and organic Water table within 12 inches of the
riparian accumulation Downloaded ground surface for 12-16%of growing season(33 days of the growing season)
buffer and through natural quarterly
riparian wetland (indirect
wetland biogeochemical measurement)
processes
Cowford Mitigation Plan 37 March 2021
Project#100095

Establish native Vegetation plots:
hardwood Surveyed in
riparian buffer MY 1-3:>320 trees/acre
and high- MY 1,2,3,5 and MY 5:>260 trees/acre(7 ft.tall)
functioning 7 MY 7:>210 trees/acre(10 ft.tall)
riparian wetland. (indirect
measurement)
Visual assessment
of established
Protect aquatic conservation
resources in signage: Identify and document any
perpetuity Performed at least damaged or missing signs or easement markers.
semiannually
(indirect
measurement)
Cowford Mitigation Plan 38 March 2021
Project#100095

10 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the event the mitigation project or a specific component of the mitigation project fails to achieve the
necessary performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan,the sponsor shall notify the members
of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.Additionally,routine
maintenance activities for the Project are outlined in Appendix F.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 39
March 2021
Project#100095

11 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Project will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program(or 3rd party if approved). This party
shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct
periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.
Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is
established. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the
nonreverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the
Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest
gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship
administration,and land transaction costs,if applicable.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 40
March 2021
Project#100095

12 REFERENCES
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, B.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.
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.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pdf)
Griffith, G.E., J.M.Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H.McNab, D.R.Lenat, T.F.MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color
Poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey(map scale 1:1,500,000).
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.
NCDENR 2012a. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (February 2012).
NCDENR 2012b. "2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5." Water Quality Section.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (August 2012).
NCDWQ(North Carolina Division of Water Quality).2011.A Guide to Surface Freshwater Classifications
in North Carolina. Raleigh. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/
get_file?p1_id=1169848&folderld=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf; accessed March 2020.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services(NCDMS). "White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities
2010.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Geologic map of North Carolina: North Carolina Geological
Survey,General Geologic Map,scale 1:500000.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press,Chapel Hill,North Carolina.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 41
March 2021
Project#100095

Rosgen,D.(1996),Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition,Wildland Hydrology,Pagosa Springs,CO
Schafale,M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina,Fourth Approximation.North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program,Division of Parks and Recreation,NCDENR,Raleigh,NC.
Stanturf, J. A., et al. "Recognizing and Overcoming Difficult Site Conditions for Afforestation of
Bottomland Hardwoods."Ecological Restoration,vol. 22,no. 3,Jan. 2004,pp. 183-193.
Sweet, W. V. and Geratz, J. W. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships And Recurrence
Intervals For North Carolina's Coastal Plain. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 39: 861-871.
United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE). 2003.April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
USACE. 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter; SUBJECT: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. No.
05-05.
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. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
USACE. 2007. INFORMATION REGARDING STREAM RESTORATOIN With Emphasis on the
Coastal Plain(Version 2)
USDA NRCS. 1994.Soil Survey of Onslow County,North Carolina.
USDA NRCS.n.d. Water Erosion(RUSLE2). Retrieved from
https://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/national/technical/tools/rusle2/
USDA NRCS.n.d. Web Soil Survey;http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov(January 2020).
USDA NRCS.2018.Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States,Version 8.2.L.M.Vasilas,G.W.
Hurt, and J.F Berkowtiz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina."North
Carolina Ecological Services.http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/.(February 2020).
Wilcock, Peter; Pitlick, John; Cui, Yantao. 2009. Sediment transport primer: estimating bed-material
transport in gravel-bed rivers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-226. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station. 78 p.
Cowford Mitigation Plan 42
March 2021
Project#100095

Figures
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2: USGS Quadrangle Map
Figure 3: Landowner Parcels Map
Figure 4: Watershed Landuse Map
Figure 5: Mapped Soils
Figure 6: Historical Imagery
Figure 7: Existing Conditions and Project Constraints
Figure 8: Conceptual Design Plan
Figure 9: Buffer Width Zones
Figure 10: Monitoring Plan
Figure 11: 1YR Inundation Map
Figure 12: 10YR Inundation Map

Food Distribution Center
Richards Community...
m
xsa
1 Wnr.en r.ye„Rd
3� �`
. I o
Z \\
13/4
ins
I
ICC
l[®
.nee,,,zoom,,,,
„
W O' U
Iq ----__- 1i33 k `� iS`
�� I4
liEZB
Highway24raceQway ' \
ee�fa�'�/eH © Southern Angel Tees
rK'3�Med.First Primary 9, Keene's Motor Lodge 9
&'Urgent-Care
�U Haul ch woo.
I Neighborhood Dealer yy -
k Kerarsville
`L P•e L av e
(ar'45. 1St. ' r il'
1.311 Moon -
Cowford Mitigation Jacksonville
Project
,ea°�rw—
—
24
on's Hair Styling I i i H I
17
c„§
rq R,
Free Mission Church 9 Sneads Fern
-E ,c,r.h T...,ail
E Legend ` ch
Proposed Easement .t
r
z w 1.
White Oak River Basin 03030001 -,.',
I II TLW-03030001010010 '� 4
` _ 34.9233, -77.5917
" Figure 1 -Project Vicinity Date: 1/18/2021
E. f�a� FF,Ad r~i w c Drawn by: GDS res
777 lgorA..erari•.�,i MP Cowford0
"''+'.`,w1t� s Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
..., 0 ,,000 2 000
Feet Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=2,000 feet

u1. \ NI (
.0 \ \ A . ,.
, . \ , _±--
____\_._.__
n ,_.,._.... .
7i\
(. ,,. ,., ____ _ ,
4.,„
,,,.... ,._.
I ,\
, _ ___ _ _1,1,1,I
,.___/_.i.:,._
��r •
�rf /
► » ,r• ,
\ f214 `/ r rl r r l,...„. __,
i I • f
5-
: kt. s
A
\ t ,i ,). f6, • . ej s
c
' I' •# 4i 7• - -''' .); . / '7/::--=--s-\--A-::-f-
1.5
,) . 10. o. ti' , 1
/ i / / .\:,II.,1__,114 * i l'/7\
)11 (
•
4' - ..--- Nir ,,, •.__ .
\‘, ' — -- (I kr*41- 4"411111fr „-,,
ii
I - 8M Cetn:: —may
•• • . 21_2' r
:r
%\s.
t ; :M 19• i .7�•• •
t. •• PJfk
TwiNr•
.k 1 ilf f 4,..- /
//
..\/ ' IL , Le. . ' _...eg
� �, ••\ 125E �'r.•_.
Frov
At•
r ins' ‘/17 k...---, I.? yri"........ N_......_ ____:1..",---- l''', ) ? joe_.......„./.1 \'‘.
ID
---c--(\\ , ,-,---:-.7 <
I. '--•--f+..- Z 1 , ••• )16,..1 i
Legend :--„ --- . - `.-- \
, j 10 _, i \
Ei:,s„,
Proposed Easement }; ,� 20 ..
J Ap
�� -1 KJ1-A- 115 ac "L� , \2 r_1/
-..Cem — ' / \ �—
- KJ1-B 181 ac e, `.
-,..„9 \....)..„-..\\,___. ''' ....
" Figure 2-USGS Date: 1/14/2021
Richlands (1981)
E. f��� VP4*Asti w — Drawn by: GDS Ides
�'.'Arie-'m.•♦1A;r����� Cowford
,,
nave ar s Checked by: MDE
r,,• 0 1,000 2.000 Mitigation Project
Feet Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=2,000 feet

IT -irrd d t I ,irr f1 1a7I4RdII...IIIIIII.ii.. 111
1 _
Aliii°'75"It''I L ....,,.
ififerr
le ,, ...
..,
+4d
. iiiiir
, . ..... , .
.. ,
. •. . _ _ _
...•
I ... .... ,
....
... ... ..
oci
�, � - ' yam y
.. ,
, ir, ..,,
P 4,
iik-
..� r' , f t
>` , --•
'.'411'.,' .' 4,,le - ,4 --
JONES KENNETH W
, 442201293936
‘4A� '.i le
11 telT 61144: li 451 °. .
ebb k 0 OW09, ;
il V
.fa"r ti
,.
--, :',i4)
•
r 1s
Legend \
Proposed Easement 'V
Project Parcel 711111111.,:i
O Parking Spot rimy-
Parcel Access gp^seal10,
<` w.
Parcel ` -
,. . -
y %Sit
N
Figure 3-Landowner Parcel Date: 1/14/2021
orim 7 A`•r_ NI w 5 E Drawn by:GDS rs
tvika,...-..�•..•,1��1 Cowford
�r�,t ■mot
owa 0 300 60 Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
Feet Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=600 feet

:.. .:,( ° Warren Taylor oa '
i; ,T
1P� i4c.'` 11
4.
•
jz
•
IV
\ ..."°•-.P.
Are:
5
I
' f
Fit, \
•...„\s\
v=====1 .
•4:', t t
p w ♦ u+
n ,
Legend if 7`y' �. •:,. r � w:At. •�,,`'.*« t
Proposed Easement
_ Drainage Area
MI
4
Landuse \
Row Crop 75% ' ,' , ?: 6 �y^t" 1jA ,4,, ,,, ,y
o ■ ... '-'4
�,.. a � k;a 'Fri" x a. n
Woods-22% i �`
Residential 3.3% , '4 ^�4'''.,
i Impervious Surface-0.06%
. ' ,
-
N
o
Figure 4-Land-use Date: 1/14/2021
'�}..7 A`+���� w S E Drawn by: GDS Prs
,,10,.14:4.�,4-A��el Cowford
.,
ar.,t ■mot
��"�� 0 300 600 Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
Feet Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=600 feet

MI NoB
,,,' Gf^ on
Warren Taylor 0'' la .'7A Taylor
25
•
t CA
: .. -
N i -
o
IlY ••••-, —X------all Z
7
7,,,yri. ,
,,,:tt,
\ i
j------......... ,,
a",
94
NoB
ti.
t" t Zr
G� ';; \'��.JiYt �
Ls ram, x 3--_ Gb
Legend Gf
Proposed Easement
iiH
Hydric(100%) @ ,
Predominantly Hydric(66-99%) r' I Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name
GoA Goldsboro fine sandy loam,0%to 2%slopes
Predominantly Hydric(33-65%) NoA Norfolk loamy fine sand,0%to 2%slopes
NoB Norfolk loamy fine sand,2%to 6%slopes
Predominantly Nonhydric(1-32%) On Onslow loamy fine sand
Nonhydric(0%) Ra Rains fine sandy loam,0%to 2%slopes
1 St Stallings loamy fine sand
N
Figure 5-Mapped Soils Date: 1/14/2021
E. f��� ��•���i w c Drawn by: GDS 0 res
t�,,,:..1111InitiaievAmitaiwAte twimp
ea Cowford
"''+',`�w1t� s Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
fir 0 300 600
Feet Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=600 feet

1950 ° - 4 1977a „ ,� _ ,
iv*,‘;' ir.
• 111111111Will.
#y.
F I
. . ... . .. . ., \ .
y•
`' Source:USGS Earth Explorer �_ •
Source:USGS Earth Explorer
1982 ' wA. ,r !_ :e 010 ;�
•.;.,..,,..•--ik•'...,.....0,1,„,,r.',.13:,,,-,,,-:,-l4:,..'•-.l-,,.vi.e..'.:
4+ .
` ErlE'�f
d"' '':r y ;'4i Y �C qfi n
I
? se 4 F1f
.iltu,, ',' N's,,,, /
•
rs _
N.
Legend .,1'��
Source:USGS Earth Explorer ,`` Source:NC OneMap
Proposed Easmentlk
��
N
Figure 6-Historic Imagery Date: 1/14/2021
i., *y�'-��w,/�L, � Drawn by: GDS
+E
�:�5 ..�....v►�; i01 CowfordPres
"''+�#�t 5 Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
v"�� 011
500 1,000
Feet Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=1,000 feet

':..'r-.iiihiltr,s,:‘,.v.,• . ,. ••. . ... , ..•
..r..,.....?.:Zi.k 4.ra. R. k...... r ,. . . ' • - ' . i. :v.\
, ‘ .
P F04 B 4 ...-
'..cf.`.:.:•r-o,^',„:?.•st:'‘'• ' - • • .*`--: - . , ;;‘,.'--.. I .4 I. . :. .4, .. t
PUBHh '
" -
,..'''t,;;K.f."'Q'''.A.,..-..':-.6.`':'•
1 " ••• ''-,..._.
. „ .
Warren _Taylor= '_.- -- -•- '' , 4;°•', . . if**'i'''' Warren Taylor Rd
- -lot -- ...44. „ , _ • .
,. ta; • - ,
4 '' •
•
,, '.. • r_ __ _,,„_________
\\\:.
-0,
,• ••/'"" _., .. •••• ••'---- • -: "
, ••,4 :,,,L,4,-, . 4 •-,....,„....„,
0,0
. ,
., 'Z „;------ •,
0 PF01/4A
i'--• ' ..,
- • 1
.
.. . .-,-- - -'-', '.....*.%1;;;-•:At'•••7.— ,•
iv
''.•'"1-\ , _.-, , ,..
if* '. . . . • - •• •
•-•,-, • , ..
. -
1 i
tr,
....,
Existing Crossing -
• - . Y" .:.....
'• . ,..,„,..1{,,,-. . , ,-,,,
, cl5FP - ,- ' .4,4 •'-• .• \, •-, .•
: '1;4:.t' ' . •,-'1,f-•
t %
;•'-‘:*.i.• s
tvi........, ....
.... , •
'A;44•4- .i. ,_ • IC.,
•,,,, . ..„.t. t,,,,,' 1,.,,,,, ...,4,,,t
.c....
..'"-'i-' ..ct..,... -.: :.-r,t--... vil
‘;:'';';-i'' ;:i'. ' ___ -, •i
.--....V '1;:e-* 1 ' ' t
: .
' N
. will/
• . i
•,, .
Legend40,--
, .PF03/4Bd / / , ,
Proposed Easement /// 2;
..,
v A Expired FSA CRP Land (6.56 ac)
717
Hydric Soil Layer .• ,
.jY11 NW Wetlands(USFWS 05/01/2020)
•
J FEMA Zone AE (None)
-,,
1
, •-. N. 4.,.„
Stream Determination
i --- Intermittent
.-,
‘ \
'..;
\
)—+ Existing Ditches . ,yi-.
0
Existing Drain Tile /4. •,,y•-•6L‘'f,4 ... s't -
N t .! A 4° •••.4k \ ,
Figure 7-Existing Conditions Date: 1/14/2021
E. .0."410.17111.414,•11111? vv ___ -F
Drawn by: GDS
,.,-. atiirffAall VP 40'VIA Cowford
0
i „olvozon-evAik.:0 .4.
aavellar, s Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE res
300 600
il
11 1 inch=600 feet
Feet Onslow County, North Carolina

Y � .;.;..
it g ..
41........ .........."4/
Ti H �r ''
a'.s ,tx`", 5 , t� °` °. + ° Warren Taylor,-— v
rren_Toiler Rd, ' Oy,., , d _ — .
y qq.•``. 1 1 i }y
t LlL Mw*;; 6 S+w kw atV+3wr .L nK°''k $ i'wx✓s ---._-
,
X kk
r
y x ti.. r , t� cr . * ,. .
',eat , . ,a 1,s,- \ ga4try Y ,k 4 b,, ✓ ,L , � Y.�t - V
_ _:':\ v ` ,,L ` to
� r"�$w,t kkrr t r► _ ,r
Remove Existing , 1
Remove seven Drain
Z Crossing ,'
o Tiles •
a
a', Yf
, ° .fit . \ 4` ti" ,r
Relocate Culvert Crossing ..
' ' \ r � 1, iaP
.
" h WA _ ,
..-- -:
A , , Illikik CE1113
a 5s . S
%
Ca'0 . Add Crossing
I ,. .,_.__„��
1 : �
K s� ;\ Proposed Treatment •
' \ Pool
fi
dedit
.. - Cowford Project Credits
Legend • - ,-_ .. Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Length(LF) Mitiation Ratio SMUs
M
9 ": N
s tle KJ1-A Restoration(HWV* 923 1:1 913.000
Proposal Easement(17.20 ac) KJ1-B Restoration 852 852 000
,. KJ1-C Restoration 1,572 1:1 1,572 000
Mitigation Approach \
• Total 3,347 3,337.000
**Credit Loss in Required Buffer -76A50
IRe-establishment \ **Credit Gain for Additional Buffer 278.120
Total Adjusted SMUs 3,538.670
Restoration '
*Headwater valley restoration length is calculated from valley length
' **Stream Credit adjustments for additional buffer were not calculated on any HWV reach(USACE,2018)
— — Restoration (HWV) _ : ` "'4. Cowford Wetland Credits ■
- , Mitigation
Proposed Wetland Mitigation Type Total Acres WMUs
-- Project Swale 1 x Ratio
. 'AP':
�,. WA Re-establishment 2.991 1:1 2.991
r. I'' ,_ /,'a':, Total 2.991 2.991
N Figure 8-Conceptual Date: 3/25/2021
..1.t �.,� wE res
��&414 0 l�j�ts�' Cowford :::ebYDE
0 300 600 abloptigs
Mitigation Project0
Feet Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=600 feet

Ideal Buffers Actual Buffers Ores
+
m F
0 200 400
Il
Feet
Figure 9-Buffer Width Zones
Cowford Mitigation
Project
Onslow County,
North Carolina
NIIIIHI,11111. 4.444A �� Date: 1/25/2021 Drawn by: GDS
'. �_ Checked by:MDE 1 in=400 feet
in
��"� Wi %ii t,�7���� Legend
'- Proposed Easement
1_
Ineligible Area
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-35 feet
36-40 feet
41-45 feet
46-50 feet
51-75 feet
E
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feet
a/
Buffer Width Zone(feet from Ordinary High Water Mark) Project Stream
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 35 feet >35 to 40 feet >40 to 45 feet >45 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer(square feet) 73,073 24,515 24,593 24,672 24,750 24,829 24,907 24,986 126,106 128,069 130,031 131,994
1 Ideal Buffer(square feet) 73,975 24,360 24,219 24,210 24,217 23,943 23,857 23,838 120,047 122,584 125,658 128,943
Actual Buffer(square feet) 72,568 23,412 23,029 22,777 22,582 22,430 222,327 22,259 90,184 91,047 52,051 27,220 +R*���� ���
(pairI 1� h �►�1
Zone Multiplier 50% 10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 5% 4% 4% Wi aA r �1�1 0.15
E. Buffer Credit Equivalent 1,212 242 242 242 121 121 121 121 170 121 97 97 .. ��>�s it;*m�ff.��4..1
Percent of Ideal Buffer 98% 97% 96% 95% 100% 95% 95% 95% 75% 74% 41% 21% pinti� 11
Credit Adjustment -20 -8 -10 -12 0 -6 -6 -6 127 90 40 20
Net Change in VW
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required Buffer Credit Gain for Additional Buffer Total Credit
Credit from Buffers
2,424.000 -76.450 278.120 201.670 2,625.670

res
•
t,
s
4 M r a r +'x° +, $ '`` O A �r6-,'a 0 150 300
9 �` �,. Feet
"a,,,. \� Figure 10-Monitoring Plan
4`
;� ,�,�, t Cowford
(94. 1-' ' .4 .. , ."'.i' 0,,., *t , .
1 4 Mitigation Project
s . fir . 'S L — i Onslow County,
North Carolina
1
v \lit '
4 �., - , - Date: 1/25/2021 Drawn by: GDS
,%tt:;:'. 4.1,,...7,,,-- ; ., lAilit Illik
++. '' i`I I
Checked by:RTM 1 in=300 feet
!A, '.. ‘,2,,k,".' " :,:...,.. \— Vit ii
Legend
\�Ci 1 ' , ,
� Proposed Easement-
;' N
mx , �1 017.20 ac
� "? lik
Proposed Wetland
® Planted Area-(16.35
�� `\\\`\\!. _` , •_ Monitoring Devices
I� k , ` `"\\��+ \ — Fixed Plot
� � Pebble Grove Dr ���� ��
�'t* _ •
Random Plot
l! , dk „*„:,'
/ \
\ —Proposed Stream
I ' —HWV Restoration Stream
t
..t - Flow Gauge
o6.
Stage Recorder
Qp © Wetland Well
�% She'~�oAt
Cross Section
/r.
-A,
Fixed image locations will exist at each cross section
each vegetation plot, each stage recorder and each
flow gauge. Images will also be taken at the crossin. �Mja••a� lo a► ►�1
s -. 1 I ;, , ; and the terminal end of the project. �.ANN Illig •
nt� ~' s , s' ' Note: There will be 9 fixed vegetation plots, and 5 will be t01#
1 _ randomly placed each monitoring year and reported to the ♦y41
` .r!� IRT. Monitoring device locations are proposed and are subject
to chap.e based on as-built conditions.

, 41,11*
'...°31c
rz--------7\__ThP1 -.''d''Iml ._______Th
7\_iimi .,
..e. -
Legend
Proposed Easement
Proposed TOB
Proposed Wetland
Depth
1.90 ft
1.80 ft
1.70 ft
1.60 ft •
1.50 ft `
1.40 ft
1.30 ft
1.20 ft '
1.10 ft
1.00 ft
�0.90 ft -Nii
0.80 ft
0.70 ft
0.60 ft
0.50 ft
0.40 ft
0.30 ft
- 0.20 ft
- 0.10 ft
0.00ft 41111
N
Figure 11 -1YR Inundation Map Date: 1/25/2021
A4,040141FP44.� w E Drawn by: GDS
v�AnevAi;0_Av.�� Cowford rs
��a�,� 0 So 100 Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
Feet Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=100 feet

igpor.m", --LAIIIrt.
il
I
Oil
I
r
IP
111441111146N\
Legend
Proposed Easement
Proposed TOB
Proposed Wetland
Depth
2.80 ft
2.60 ft
2.40 ft
2.20 ft �,,
'
2.00 ft ''
1.80 ft
1.60 ft
1.40 ft
1.20 ft
1.00 ft
II
0.80 ft
0.60 ft
0.40 ft
4
0.20 ft
- 0.00 ft
1
N
Figure 12-10YR Inundation Map Date: 1/19/2021
',,}eA 7 A`+���� w 5 E Drawn by: GDS rs
tv,,,:...,4...�•fir•A A Cowford
�r�,t ■mot
+/will 0 50 100 Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
Feet Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=100 feet

Appendix B
• DMS IRT Site Visit Minutes
• Project Morphological Table
• Project Cross-section Plots and Photos
• Reference Reach Cross-section Plots and Photos
• WETS Table
• Background Attribute Table

IRT Meeting Notes

MEMORANDUM 2res
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh,North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel.
919.829.9913 fax
TO: Lindsay Crocker,DMS
FROM: Brad Breslow,RES
DATE: June 6,2019
RE: Cowford Post-Contract IRT Site Visit Minutes
CU: 03030001
DEQ Contract No: 7746
DMS Project ID: 100095
County: Onslow
DMS Project Manager: Lindsay Crocker
Meeting Details
Date/Time: April 17th,2019, 10:00 AM
IRT Attendees: Todd Tugwell(USACE),Mac Haupt(DWR),Erin Davis(DWR)
DMS Attendees: Lindsay Crocker(DMS),Jeff Schaffer(DMS),Jeremiah Dow(DMS)
RES Attendees:David Godley(RES),Jeremy Schmid(RES),Frasier Mullen(RES),George Lankford(sub)
General Summary
IRT members agreed that the Cowford Site (the "Site") is acceptable for compensatory mitigation after
some of their concerns are addressed.While the Site poses many challenges and associated risks,the Group
agreed that the proposed project has the potential to provide functional uplift to the New River watershed.
General discussion with IRT members included voicing their concerns over the lack of drainage area and
slope in the upper end of the stream reach. IRT suggested that a headwater valley approach could be used
in this section,but RES would still need to provide documentation of flow.
Main concerns discussed include:
• The IRT recommended relocating the stream crossing proposed at the middle of the project to the
upstream end if possible;
• RES should consider including a wider buffer around the proposed wetland to prevent outside
ditching effects;
• RES will need to ensure drain tiles are removed from inside the easement;
• There was discussion of the stream design approach at the upper end where 3 ditches confluence
to drain approximately 78 acres.The IRT expressed concern about the lack of fall across the reach
and the resulting Priority II needed to achieve flow and prevent hydrologic trespass.Both Priority
II and headwater valley approaches were discussed for the upper reach above the wetland, and
Priority I below the wetland;
• RES will need to document flow within the upper reach through gauges if designed as a headwater
valley. The use of cameras,video,and gauges to help substantiate flow was recommended;

• There was discussion that trees planted in the CRP easement could be used for in-stream
structures. The group also discussed the possibility of leaving desirable species but also felt it
would be ok to remove them pending WRC input at mitigation plan;
• The IRT would prefer to see a single thread channel proposed in drainage areas larger than 100
acres.

Morphological Parameters

Cowford Morphological Parameters
Reference Reach Existing Design
Buffalo Branch KJ1-A KJ1-B KJ1-C KJ1-B KJ1-C
Feature Riffle Pool Riffle Riffle Riffle I Riffle Riffle I Pool Riffle Pool
Drainage Area(ac) 709 115 181 238 181 238
Drainage Area(mil) 1.11 0.18 0.28 0.37 0.28 0.37
NC Regional Curve Discharge(cfs)2 18 5 7 8 7 8
VA Regional Curve Discharge(cfs)3 30 10 13 16 13 16
Design/Calculated Discharge(cfs)1 17 - - - 5 8
Dimension
BKF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 12.8 11.8 3.8 4.5 6.5 8.2 5.0 8.8 5.0 8.8
BKF Width(ft) 12.3 8.5 4.1 4.9 6.7 6.6 8.0 10.0 8.0 10.0
BKF Mean Depth(ft) 1.1 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9
BKF Max Depth(ft) 1.8 2.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.6
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 13.2 10.1 5.4 5.8 7.6 8.0 8.3 10.6 8.3 10.6
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8
Width/Depth Ratio 12.3 6.2 4.3 5.3 6.8 5.4 12.8 11.4 12.8 11.4
Floodprone Width(ft) 33.8 35.6 7.2 7.3 12.5 14.3 >50 >50 >50 >50
Entrenchment Ratio 3.0 4.2 1.8 1.5 1.9 2.1 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 2.5 3.9 4.2 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Su bst rate
Description(D50) Very Coarse Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Coarse Gravel
D16(mm) 0.4 - - - - -
D50(mm) 1.6 - - - - -
D84(mm) 5.7 - - - - -
Pattern
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 5.9 27.8 - - - - - - 4 27 7 23
Radius of Curvature(ft) 19.9 24.6 - - - - - - 10 14 11 24
Radius of Curvature Ratio 1.6 2.0 - - - - - - 1.3 1.8 1.4 3.0
Meander Wavelength(ft) 43.4 80.6 - - - - - - 33 61 38 77
Meander Width Ratio 0.5 2.3 - - - - - - 4.1 7.6 4.8 9.6
Profile
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Riffle Length(ft) 6.8 22.4 - - - - - - 5 27 8 32
Run Length(ft) 3.4 14.9 - - - - - - - - - -
Pool Length(ft) 5.1 24.2 - - - - - - 9 30 9 30
Pool-to-Pool Spacing(ft) 22.5 53.3 - - - - - - 20 53 20 49
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length(ft) 255 910 680 1395 602 1392
Channel Length(ft) 312 913 688 1429 852 1572
Sinuosity 1.22 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.42 1.13
Valley Slope(ft/ft) 0.0 0.004 0.008 0.007 0.003 0.003
Channel Slope(ft/ft) 0.0 0.004 0.007 0.007 0.002 0.003
Rosgen Classification E5 G5 G5 G5 to E5 E5/C5 E4/C4
1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003)
3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Krstolic and Chaplin(2007)

Cross Sections of Current Conditions
& Reference Reaches

S
e; iaa w TMw,yR st� —H c k v e 1,A'�.7,�•�i .e:"-- -
a � • fi •e ���
:-i-t-,,i1W.'4',,I.-*:-''.4.1M4,4'44*.s.i. A, ' -." ..':',-..i ....'' '1-"7:-.8r —
"` � q r` v,.-'� c � / _,.. -
v
" - ilAit v a a
• x / / max? ro m 1w 5
Upstream Downstream
Reach KJ1-A -XS1 (Riffle)
100.5
100
_____._... . 7
99.5
99
98.5
c
O 98
co
y 97.5
w
97
96.5
96 ,
4 6 8 10 12 0 2 14 16 18 20 22 24
Distance(ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Flood prone Area

gi,..,,,, - ..:Z'.;:r ....r,..L I.:..
'F #�r. dn^
. , , ...:... . . •
l - . g:" ,,� q5 £1.
` ; �
'::\J-
,Nt r:/A Aw ca,Usp s tream 4 . ! v ,° Downstream
Reach KJ1-B -XS2 (Riffle)
101 -
•
100 ,
99
98
c
O 97
r
co
a)
w 96
\ —a X
95
94 , 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Distance(ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Flood prone Area

'1 FT odt
n'IT
•
i
a � • 9,, Y ^S'' i Ty d"
'n4
-vi
`firfx k' Av. y' 4 �r a_. ;� '.!'� / � 4✓n$# " +r _ ''.° � dam � e a'Si.�;€ r:t . Upstream Downstream
Reach KJI-C -XS3 (Riffle)
100 -
98
96 -
r
c 94
0
•r
y 92
w
90
88 ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance(ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

kAtillitmlU'''f,;:vo,..,...,-
INFLV5 7*•:.c-u.,.3_,;_,,.t,411;.,.eip:,T.,...4..N,,t,...7,,,,.:, ,. ,
3s � .. '-•. ,,,',-,....
1
•
.R 'xx -['
•
•
fir A
;;,
P
T1'
•
/
Upstream Downstream
Reach KJI-C -XS4(Riffle)
101 -
•
100
99
98
97
r
c 96
O
'cis
95
a� 94
w
93
92
91 ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance(ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Flood prone Area

i 4
Upstream Downstream
Buffalo Branch Reference Reach -XS1 (Riffle)
189 -
188
F
° 187
186
185 ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance(ft)
Reference Reach Approx.Bankfull -Floodprone Area

rf`
Upstream Downstream
Buffalo Branch Reference Reach -XS2 (Pool)
190 -
189 -
188 -
I
186 -
185 -
184 ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance(ft)
tReference Reach Approx.Bankfull -Floodprone Area

hR .:.., ,.,x1-
Pt ' , r, ��`s , r,qx 1 a R i s &I! i
e;.,1..,: t. I. Wir,,,,,:,., ..,(
it .0,:i
. :,--,74:1-,4,-.'::4----....,. ''''":: :::- . _ ._4 .4 1* ..to. ..,,
' •-•4- 1 ' ;. , ,,' ' ''''' ' 1?;.: i i4 d .,',"
� 1.:: .,.2,.., i , 'Lk & '-',',-i• -:.--.'...:' itt 1, f '
' �<' �. ioibar .1,
��� fi _ '
Upstream Downstream
Buffalo Branch Reference Reach -XS3 (Pool)
190 -
189 ,
188 -
al
•
187 • . ►
aD
w
186 -
185 -
184
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance(ft)
Reference Reach Approx.Bankfull -Floodprone Area

-- S �.
�fi+ s +% i ,
;dji lt' A"� € � ;, ..' !� ..
•
yy� �...; •'�^`, . �K�?...Y'
1.
+ 10,'08/2014
.
Upstream Downstream
Buffalo Branch Reference Reach -XS4 (Riffle)
190 -
189
188 -
c
187 -
w
186 -
185 -
184 ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance(ft)
Reference Reach Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area

WETS Table

WETS Table
WETS Station:NEW RIVER
MCAF,NC
Requested years:1989-
2019
Month Avg Max Avg Min Avg Avg 30% 30% Avg number Avg
Temp Temp Mean Precip chance chance days precip Snowfall
Temp precip less precip 0.10 or more
than more than
Jan 56.2 35.0 45.6 3.85 2.79 4.53 7 -
Feb 59.6 37.3 48.4 3.27 2.16 3.92 6 -
Mar 66.1 42.9 54.5 3.94 2.80 4.67 7 -
Apr 74.2 51.4 62.8 3.35 1.90 4.09 5 May 80.7 60.2 70.4 4.00 2.60 4.81 6 -
Jun 87.0 68.4 77.7 5.00 3.36 5.99 8 -
Jul 89.6 72.1 80.8 6.22 4.48 7.33 9 -
Aug 88.0 70.9 79.5 7.04 3.48 8.60 9 -
Sep 83.6 66.2 74.9 6.87 3.90 8.37 7 -
Oct 75.4 54.4 64.9 4.05 2.23 4.94 5 -
Nov 66.3 43.6 54.9 3.53 2.01 4.29 5 -
Dec 59.1 38.1 48.6 3.66 2.58 4.35 6 -
Annual: 47.46 59.97
Average 73.8 53.4 63.6 - - - - -
Total - - - 54.79 80 -
GROWING SEASON DATES
Years with missing data: 24 deg= 28 deg= 32 deg=
1 1 1
Years with no occurrence: 24 deg= 28 deg= 32 deg=
0 0 0
Data years used: 24 deg= 28 deg= 32 deg=
30 30 30
Probability 24 F or 28 F or 32 F or
higher higher higher
50 percent* 2/20 to 3/9 to 3/23 to
12/22: 12/3:269 11/16:
305 days days 238 days
70 percent* 2/13 to 3/2 to 3/18 to
12/30: 12/10: 11/22:
320 days 283 days 249 days
*Percent chance of the
growing season occurring
between the Beginning and
Ending dates.
STATS TABLE-total
precipitation(inches)
Yr Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annl
1959 14.34 14.
34
1960
1961
1962
1963 M3. 3.35 7.22
87
1964 6.94 7.01 1.73 6.15 4.06 5.21 9.81 7.33 6.21 5.27 2.16 4.01 65.
89
1965 1.96 5.77 6.08 1.31 5.66 11.82 8.42 3.93 1.40 1.48 1.34 0.44 49.
61
1966 7.53 5.70 2.66 1.64 5.41 5.34 6.96 5.26 4.54 1.16 1.48 3.98 51.
66
1967 4.37 5.53 0.75 2.90 2.27 3.79 13.02 8.36 4.49 1.28 2.06 6.06 54.
88
1968 4.30 2.37 1.70 3.17 2.21 2.39 M11.06 3.49 3.60 3.71 4.17 2.33 44.

50
1969 2.55 1.91 5.44 2.63 3.75 8.89 6.64 7.50 1.70 3.83 5.73 3.99 54.
56
1970 2.04 3.80 6.39 2.22 3.24 5.23 7.14 11.56 4.32 3.85 2.24 2.64 54.
67
1971 3.86 2.92 3.38 2.77 2.68 6.31 7.32 5.17 4.90 5.14 1.03 1.16 46.
64
1972 3.64 4.52 2.38 1.77 3.41 3.90 4.61 1.69 2.99 1.68 4.36 3.25 38.
20
1973 2.49 4.02 3.01 5.27 2.69 9.19 7.37 6.51 2.10 1.21 0.58 5.17 49.
61
1974 2.72 2.90 2.94 4.85 8.36 5.09 6.04 12.64 3.63 1.42 2.05 4.81 57.
45
1975 5.40 5.60 2.63 4.36 1.71 4.62 8.98 5.65 9.20 4.41 1.60 6.10 60.
26
1976 1.96 1.72 1.83 0.50 5.07 7.11 7.52 6.10 7.03 3.47 3.84 5.83 51.
98
1977 2.94 2.05 5.46 1.51 7.61 4.20 4.95 5.20 4.23 6.49 3.92 4.02 52.
58
1978 7.07 1.50 4.00 6.53 4.18 2.70 4.28 2.31 1.10 3.78 4.10 41.
55
1979 6.82 4.50 3.16 3.90 5.73 5.08 7.28 3.59 12. 1.35 3.73 2.66 59.
19 99
1980 3.71 1.57 8.00 1.49 3.77 4.07 4.48 2.09 5.71 2.27 2.19 5.57 44.
92
1981 1.41 2.46 2.01 0.53 7.14 7.06 5.53 12.45 1.74 0.70 1.05 5.29 47.
37
1982 7.09 6.29 3.24 2.74 1.76 8.20 13.97 3.11 6.35 3.03 2.56 4.89 63.
23
1983 4.07 9.06 7.49 3.50 0.63 2.63 5.06 3.83 1.79 2.64 4.67 5.86 51.
23
1984 2.27 7.73 4.72 3.54 4.38 3.13 10.20 3.01 12. 1.15 3.76 1.74 58.
75 38
1985 3.13 4.75 2.81 0.57 1.86 2.17 7.42 7.20 5.34 8.88 6.69 1.96 52.
78
1986 2.08 2.09 4.12 1.17 3.93 4.44 4.03 M10.62 0.85 3.30 4.24 4.18 45.
05
1987 6.71 4.61 4.28 3.69 1.24 4.44 6.53 11.24 5.16 0.63 6.16 1.74 56.
43
1988 5.27 2.30 2.98 3.59 8.24 5.37 7.61 6.80 2.19 2.71 3.90 0.49 51.
45
1989 2.49 3.33 6.12 8.85 3.33 4.55 5.97 3.85 5.93 2.85 2.36 6.58 56.
21
1990 2.09 1.31 5.85 2.37 4.38 3.63 4.79 4.56 2.16 4.69 3.06 1.43 40.
32
1991 8.29 1.59 3.60 3.47 1.56 5.53 12.51 9.99 3.22 3.03 1.65 2.71 57.
15
1992 7.04 1.58 3.92 2.50 5.40 4.18 4.64 16.39 2.35 2.47 5.96 4.72 61.
15
1993 5.79 3.33 6.54 3.68 1.96 2.55 3.92 4.33 7.12 5.91 2.27 3.02 50.
42
1994 6.68 2.61 7.16 0.51 3.80 3.60 5.37 4.16 7.74 5.61 2.21 4.45 53.
90
1995 4.87 3.56 2.43 0.14 3.66 9.14 2.37 7.49 3.24 6.32 3.33 2.01 48.
56
1996 4.53 1.47 4.77 3.06 2.94 7.42 15.66 5.35 17. 7.18 1.86 3.48 74.
24 96
1997 4.71 4.97 3.09 2.07 1.62 3.98 6.96 0.56 11. 2.90 7.13 4.58 53.
06 63
1998 6.50 10.68 2.43 3.28 8.84 4.35 8.60 12.79 4.70 0.71 1.69 5.53 70.
10
1999
2000 M1.94 M0.00 M0.00 M2.13 M0.00 M0.00 M0.30 M6.22 M10. MO. M5. M2. 29.
31 87 78 10 65
2001 1.55 3.31 4.84 1.63 3.84 8.38 4.45 4.36 7.13 0.94 1.50 1.53 43.
46
2002 3.76 2.53 5.21 1.74 3.14 3.35 8.33 8.03 4.53 2.96 2.90 2.91 49.
39

2003 2.71 5.25 7.22 6.64 11.47 7.03 MT 8.17 5.01 12. 1.39 5.64 72.
13 66
2004 1.86 5.07 1.65 2.67 5.50 4.51 6.21 13.03 6.79 0.52 2.41 1.51 51.
73
2005 2.35 2.24 4.18 3.09 4.37 3.87 M5.92 2.19 6.37 M12. 3.64 3.76 54.
12 10
2006 3.21 1.36 1.19 3.59 2.57 9.30 6.38 7.92 5.01 3.56 12. 5.41 62.
97 47
2007 3.40 2.05 2.60 4.68 2.12 2.59 M1.57 M0.01 MO. 3.65 0.57 2.58 26.
37 19
2008 3.09 3.56 3.12 6.40 M4.69 M2.06 6.23 5.24 3.86 2.54 3.50 3.14 47.
43
2009 1.82 2.25 3.31 2.25 4.81 2.34 M3.34 8.27 7.85 1.80 9.00 6.59 53.
63
2010 3.36 4.31 2.16 0.91 1.37 5.75 M4.61 M3.86 15. 1.28 1.37 M2. 47.
95 73 66
2011 2.54 4.41 3.32 1.66 2.25 M1.41 4.13 M8.77 4.21 1.97 2.42 0.51 37.
60
2012 2.11 M1.84 7.86 2.46 6.52 2.44 6.53 7.74 2.13 5.50 1.99 4.77 51.
89
2013 2.16 5.19 1.89 5.46 1.24 11.37 3.68 7.29 M3. 2.87 3.67 2.54 50.
52 88
2014 2.98 2.72 6.27 4.94 1.88 5.23 8.31 5.36 8.86 2.26 4.27 5.09 58.
17
2015 6.58 4.86 2.98 2.39 5.04 11.23 3.39 11.73 2.92 8.95 8.04 5.07 73.
18
2016 3.69 7.73 2.59 1.42 4.88 2.22 9.28 5.50 14. 6.34 1.28 4.61 63.
16 70
2017 3.86 2.18 4.05 6.16 M4.31 3.84 6.39 11.01 7.20 4.03 0.95 3.93 57.
91
2018 5.08 1.83 2.15 6.85 11.01 7.26 9.16 8.37 20. 2.68 5.41 M4. 84.
37 00 17
2019 M2.47 0.83 1.75 M2.42 M1.62 2.02 5.33 7.76 8.36 2.93 3.51 3.00 42.
00
2020 1.40 6.29 4.08 3.18 7.17 M9.25 M2.85 M1.08 35.
30
Notes:Data missing in any
month have an"M"flag.A
"T"indicates a trace of
precipitation.
Data missing for all days in
a month or year is blank.
Creation date:2016-07-22

Background Attribute Table

Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name Cowford Project
County Ons low
Project Area(acres) 17.20
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 34.92293, -77.5917
Planted Acreage(Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 16.35
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province 63h - Carolina Flatwoods
River Basin White Oak
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit I 3020302 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit I 30203020102
DWR Sub-basin 03-05-02
Project Drainage Area(Acres and Square Miles) 238 acres (0.37 mil)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification Cultivated, High Intensity
Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach KJ1-A Reach KJ1-B Reach KJ1-C
Length of reach(linear feet) 923 852 1572
Valley confinement(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined Unconfined Moderately confined
Drainage area(Acres and Square Miles) 115 181 238
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification None None None
Stream Classification(existing) G5 G5 G5 to E5
Stream Classification(proposed) N/A E5/C5 E4/C4
Evolutionary trend(Simon) III III III-IV
FEMA classification Zone X(Minimal Risk) Zone X(Minimal Risk) Zone X(Minimal Risk)
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland WB
Size of Wetland(acres) 2.991
Wetland Type(non-riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non-riverine) Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series Muckalee loam
Drainage class Poorly
Soil Hydric Status Yes (Per LSS)
Groundwater,surface
Source of Hydrology flow,and stream
flooding
Restoration or enhancement method(hydrologic,vegetative etc.) Hydrologic&vegetative
restoration
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes No Appendix K
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes No Appendix K
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix K
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix K

Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA or CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No No Appendix L
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

Appendix C
• CRP Easement Affidavit
• Site Protection Instrument

EXHIBIT C
Landowner Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ONSLOW
BE IT KNOWN, that on this,9, day of quC(,)f , 2018
BEFORE ME,the undersigned Notary Public, duly qualified in and for the State of North
Carolina, personally came and appeared:
KENNETH W. JONES
known to me to be a credible person and of lawful age, who being by me first duly sworn, on his
oath, did depose and state the following:
1. That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his knowledge, information,and
belief;
2. Affiant is the fee title owner of two parcels of real property situated in Onslow County,
North Carolina, being identified by the PIN number 4422-01-2939-36, and being that
property conveyed by a deed recorded in Book 531, Page 388, and by the PIN number
4413-04-8154-25,and being that property conveyed by a deed recorded in Book 531,Page
388, both in the office of the Onslow County Register of Deeds (collectively, the
"Property");
3. The Property is subject to a Conservation Reserve Program Contract dated November 20,
2017 (the "Contract");
4. The Contract expires by its own term on September 30, 2019 (the "Contract Expiration
Date");
5. The Contract may be terminated by the terms of the Contract;
6. The Affiant executed that Agreement Regarding Proposed Mitigation Project dated
Avtf ks4 2Z, 2018 with Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC, a Maryland limited
liability company(the "Agreement"); and
7. By the terms of the Agreement, the Affiant has agreed to: (i) allow the Contract to expire
by its own term, or (ii) terminate the Contract before the Contract Expiration Date by the
terms of the Contract.
[Affidavit continued on following page]
Exhibit C
(Revised November 2017)

LENa I1_C( I Y,NORTH CAROLINA,thisr4 day of ClU _e,1- , 201
/<-4''' l'iF,11'.--
KENNETH W. JON
Address of Affiant:
[INSERT]
Subscribed and sworn to before me, thisAa day of 006b251 , 2016.
t:'il
NO ARI PUBLIC
Print Name: (_;. -Sn. ;r Lj 116 / kA—
Bar/Notary No.
`` %%%!.%ii/1/,1 Commission Expires: I. ieGoa_
..',,,Z,\PW THOA ,,,,
v Notary Public y
Pitt County, NC
7 My Commission Expires 4
2/26/2023 y
'''/,Oi AR i, ��,`,,``�.
Exhibit C
(Revised November 2017)

SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed below in Table Cl.RES has obtained a conservation easement from the current
landowners for the project area. The easement deed and survey plat will be submitted to DMS and State
Property Office(SPO)for approval and will be held by the State of North Carolina.The easement deed will
follow the NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template dated May 5,2017 and included in this
appendix. Once recorded, the secured easement will allow RES to proceed with the project development
and protect the mitigation assets in perpetuity. Once finalized, a copy of the land protection instrument(s)
will be included in Appendix C.
Table Cl.Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Tax Parcel Site Protection Deed Book and Acreage
Owner of Record ID# County Instrument Page Numbers Protected
Kenneth W Jones 44220-129-3936 Onslow Conservation -- 17.20 ac
County Easement

Appendix D
• Credit Release Schedule

CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved final mitigation
plan,unless there are major discrepancies and then a mitigation plan addendum will be submitted. Under
no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary Department of the Army(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 be restarted 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 as follows in Table D1 and Table D2.
Table Dl. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit Interim Total
Release Release Activity Release Release
Milestone
0 Initial Allocation—see requirements below 30% 30%
1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 40%
standards are being met
2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates 10% 50%
performance standards are being met
3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 60%
standards are being met
4* Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 5% *65%
standards are being met (75%**)
5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance ° 75%
standards are being met 10/° (85%**)
6* Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 5% 80%*
standards are being met (90% )
7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates 900/
performance standards are being met and project has 10% (100%**)
received closeout approval
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years
unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT.
**10%reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.

Table D2.Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Credit Interim Total
Release Release Activity Release Release
Milestone
0 Initial Allocation—see requirements below 30% 30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 40%
1 standards are being met
Second year monitoring report demonstrates 10% 50%
2 performance standards are being met
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance 15% 65%
3 standards are being met
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance o °
4* standards are being met 5/° 70/°
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 15% 85%
5 standards are being met
6* Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 5% 90%
standards are being met
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
7 performance standards are being met and project has 10% 100%
received closeout approval
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years
unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT.
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits,as specified in the mitigation plan,can be released by DMS without
prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan.
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism,as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property.
3) Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the DMS Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and a record
drawing has been produced. Record drawings must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout,if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
4) Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
Subsequent Credit Releases
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. For stream projects a reserve of
10% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull events have occurred, in separate
years,provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met.In the event that less than
four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at the
discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, DMS 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.

Appendix E
• Financial Assurance

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the NCDEQ DMS (formerly Ecosystem Enhancement
Program) In-Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) has provided the USACE-Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by NCDEQ DMS. This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.

Appendix F
• Maintenance Plan

MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site 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:
F1.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,channel plug maintenance,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 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 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.
Road Crossing N/A
Livestock Fencing N/A
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.

Appendix G
• DWR Stream Forms

NC DWOStream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: -1 ? Project/Site: (s3 .0) Latitude:
Evaluator: `I) 1 `.. County: /�,,,,.���.- l� Longitude:
'4-J } ". �l
Total Points: (i e.g.
Stream Determination(circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent ��,_) Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial Quad Name: J I
• if>_19 or perennial if>_30* P
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = r '5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la'Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 (3)
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 _ 2
3. In-channel structure:ex. riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 2 3
ripple-pool sequence �J
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 V 2 3
5.Active/relict floodplain _ 0 1 c2) 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 g 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
8. Headcuts -F 1 2 3
9.Grade control 0.5 1 1.5
10.Natural valley 0 0.5 1 C-5
11.Second or greater order channel No 0 Yes=3
2 artificial ditches are not rated;see d ussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12.Presence of Baseflow 0 1 V 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 0.5 0
15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
0.
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 1 1.5
17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 Yes 3]
C. Biology (Subtotal =. )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed Cal _ 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 1 2 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 _ 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 _ 1 1.5
23.Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0. 1 1.5
25.Algae 1::
1 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:

Appendix H
• NC SAM Forms

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Cowiord-KJ1 Date of Evaluation 10/3/2019
Stream Category la2 Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid-RES
Notes of Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included(Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type(perennial,intermittent,Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1)Hydrology LOW LOW
(2)Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2)Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4)Floodplain Access LOW LOW
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW LOW
(4)Microtopography LOW LOW
(3)Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4)Channel Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4)Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4)Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2)Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1)Water Quality LOW LOW
(2)Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation LOW LOW
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW
(3)Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO NO
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance NA NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1)Habitat LOW LOW
(2)In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(3)Baseflow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3)Substrate LOW LOW
(3)Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3)In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2)Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3)Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3)Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(3)Flow Restriction NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Habitat NA NA
Overall LOW LOW

Appendix I
• Approved PJD (February 12, 2020)

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2019-00487 County:Onslow U.S.G.S.Quad:NC-Richlands
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor: Kenneth&Sue Jones Agent: Resource Environmental Solutions
322 Jamestown Road Jeremy Schmid
Pink Hill,NC 28572 302 Jefferson Street
Suite 110
Raleigh,NC 27605
Size(acres) 16 Nearest Town Richlands
Nearest Waterway Cowford Branch River Basin Onslow Bay
USGS HUC 03020302 Coordinates Latitude:34.9247
Longitude:-77.5941
Location description: Project area is located east of Kinston Highway approximately 0.48 miles southeast of the intersection of
Kinston Highway and Warren Taylor Road in Richlands,Onslow County,North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
0 There appear to be waters on the above described project area/property,that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act(CWA)(33 USC§ 1344)and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act(RHA)(33 USC§403).The waters have been
delineated,and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate and reliable.The approximate boundaries
of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 10/3/2019.Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may be used in the permit evaluation process,including determining compensatory mitigation.For purposes of computation of
impacts,compensatory mitigation requirements,and other resource protection measures,a permit decision made on the basis of a
preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they
are jurisdictional waters of the U.S.This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process(Reference 33 CFR Part 331).However,you may request an approved JD,which is an appealable
action,by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters on the above described project area/property,that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act(CWA)(33 USC§ 1344)and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act(RHA)(33 USC§403).However,since the waters
have not been properly delineated,this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be used in the permit evaluation process.
Without a verified wetland delineation,this preliminary determination is merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA
jurisdiction over all of the waters at the project area,which is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable
permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters on your project area/property delineated.As the Corps may not be able
to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner,you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can
be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act(RHA)(33 USC§403)and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC§ 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations,this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waterson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act(CWA)(33 USC§ 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑We recommend you have the waters on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish
this wetland delineation in a timely manner,you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by
the Corps.
❑The waters on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps.The
approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE.We strongly suggest you have
this delineation surveyed. Upon completion,this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified,this survey

SAW-2019-00487
will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which,provided there is no change in
the law or our published regulations,may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑The waters have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory Official
identified below onDATE.Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,this determination may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S.,to include wetlands,present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations,this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act(CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City,NC,at(252)808-2808 to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US,including wetlands,without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act(33 USC§ 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,construction or
placement of structures,or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act(33 USC§401 and/or 403).If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program,please contact Rachel Capito at(910)-251-4487 or
Rachel.A.0 apito(ausace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 02/12/2020.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination 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 request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service,prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination,you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process(NAP)fact sheet and request for appeal(RFA)form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shannin,Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW,Room 10M15
Atlanta,Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps,the Corps must determine that it is complete,that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5,and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form,it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
CAPITO.RACHEL.ANN.153 Digitally signed by
CAPRO.RACHELANN.1536276790
Corps Regulatory Official: 6276790 Date:202092.1212:5803-05'00'
Date of JD: 02/12/2020 Expiration Date of JD:Not applicable

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Kenneth&Sue Jones File Number: SAW-2019-00487 Date: 02/12/2020
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT(Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL C
❑ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
E PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I-The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for fmal
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety,and waive all
rights to appeal the permit,including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly.You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice,or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter,the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a)modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b)modify the permit to address some of your
objections,or(c)not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections,the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration,as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for fmal
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety,and waive all
rights to appeal the permit,including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice,means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD,you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish,you may request an approved JD(which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION k REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMITMIMI=
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record,the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However,you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact: also contact:
District Engineer,Wilmington Regulatory Division Mr.Phillip Shannin,Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn:Rachel Capito CESAD-PDO
Wilmington Regulatory Office U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers 60 Forsyth Street,Room 10M15
69 Darlington Avenue Atlanta,Georgia 30303-8801
Wilmington,North Carolina 28403 Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants,to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation,and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer,Wilmington Regulatory Division,Attn: Rachel Capito,69 Darlington Avenue,Wilmington,North Carolina
28403
For Permit denials,Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer,Commander,U.S.Army Engineer Division,South Atlantic,Attn:Mr. Phillip Shannin,Administrative
Appeal Officer,CESAD-PDO,60 Forsyth Street,Room 10M15,Atlanta,Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 02/12/2020
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Kenneth& Sue Jones, 322 Jamestown
Road,Pink Hill,NC 28572
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME,AND NUMBER: Wilmington District,Cowford Site, SAW-2019-
00487
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Project area is located east of
Kinston Highway approximately 0.48 miles southeast of the intersection of Kinston Highway and Warren
Taylor Road in Richlands,Onslow County,North Carolina.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES
AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State:NC County: Onslow City:Richlands
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 34.9247 Longitude: -77.5941
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Cowford Branch
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Z Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH"MAY BE"SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION
Site Number Latitude Longitude Estimated Type of aquatic Geographic authority to
(decimal (decimal amount of resources(i.e., which the aquatic
degrees) degrees) aquatic wetland vs. resource"may be"
resources in non-wetland subject(i.e.,Section 404
review area waters) or Section 10/404)
(acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable
S1 34.9247 -77.5941 3,122 Non-wetland Section 404
waters

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:
n Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Vicinity, USGS, NWI, Soil, Existing conditions, WOUS
n Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
n Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
n Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
n D• ata sheets prepared by the Corps:
n Corps navigable waters' study:
n U• .S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
n USGS NHD data.
n USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
n U• .S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 24k Richlands
n Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
n N• ational wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
n State/local wetland inventory map(s):
n F• EMA/FIRM maps:
n 1• 00-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
n P• hotographs: n Aerial (Name & Date):
or n Other (Name & Date):
n Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
n 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.
CAPIIO.RACHEL. CDAPITO.RACHELANN.153627679
ANN.1536276790 ° a�a,d�n°m�°
Date:2020.02.1212:59:45-05�00� Jeremy Schmid E n,aoazn,nozzs moo----.resus
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
1 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.

v all
e v � �
in w V N 2
,JO♦!1 mzT4 r
� a;lti��g4.g, °v a ' O o2 a
:.E. N oiso c zY A 15
z
W o .ML•etik
c
D o w O' o f w W - ba1►� rn
U O 0 o J m o W VP v 0
.O`o .� Oz a in a Ko VP o�
co
7.
g.
'' O''' 1) I El l' 1 i
vz
Wrillir
g N
J N
f6 M
W
Q
:lV
il, . .
Q as>. d
•
E
co
z
en Y'a-)
co
itir -'-': .. ,._
i
•
or. .
-li
•
lioor 0
I;
- ❑ `
.T� , , ,-

Appendix J
• Invasive Species Plan

INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN
Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project. These site inspections may identify the presence of invasive vegetation.RES will treat invasive
species vegetation within the project area and provide remedial action on a case by-case basis. Common
invasive species vegetation,such as Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense),multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
tree-of-heaven(Ailanthus altissima),and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),will be treated to
allow native plants to become established within the conservation easement. Treatment for invasive
species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream restoration. Invasive species will
require different and multiple treatment methods,depending on plant phenology and the location of the
species being treated(Appendix J).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).Invasive or aggressive 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.Notably,although common rush is not an exotic invasive species,
it can be a nuisance species and it is possible that allelopathic properties upon its decomposition can
potentially inhibit tree growth.

Appendix K
• Approved Categorical Exclusion Form

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of Mitigation Services Projects
Version 2
Note:Only Appendix A should to be submitted(along with any supporting documentation)as the environmental
document.
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Cowford
County Name: Onslow County
DMS Number: 100095
Project Sponsor: Environmental Banc&Exchange, LLC,a RES company
Project Contact Name: Matt Butler
Project Contact Address: 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
DMS Pro'ect Mana•er: Lindsay Crocker
Project Description
The Cowford Project,in Onslow County, North Carolina will comprise a conservation easement totaling approximately 16 acres on
one parcel and will involve the restoration of an unnamed tributary to Cowford Branch and an adjacent riparian wetland.Stream
restoration practices may range from bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry.
Restoration activities will include natural design concepts and will be verified through rigorous engineering analyses and
modeling.The historic riparian wetland adjacent to the unnamed tributary to Cowford Branch have been drained and converted to
agricultural land for generations.The proposed riparian wetland restoration will address these historic land-use impacts through
stream restoration,grading, surface roughening, and re-vegetation to restore a functional and diverse alluvial forest community.
Restoration of these important ecosystems will improve local water quality, natural habitat, and biodiversity.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
(d Pin t-zle4 .
8/26/2019
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
8-2 b- I q 7719)t 54. -
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA

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

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

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

Categorical Exclusion Summary
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly
known as Superfund, created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries to clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
As a part of the environmental screening and CERCLA compliance, an EDR Radius Map Report with
Geocheck was ordered for the Cowford Mitigation Project through Environmental Data Resources, Inc
(EDR)on June 12th,2019.According to the EDR report,the project property was identified to be within an
quarter of a mile to two incidents listed in the State and Tribal leaking Storage Tank List issued by the
Depaitinent of Environment and Natural Resources and the State and tribal institutional control/engineering
control registries and the Records of Emergency Release Reports.Both sites are located at lower elevations
than the target property and are not adjacent to the project parcel.The first incident occurred at Jarman Fork
Service Station in February of 1990 and was the result of a gas tank being excavated and nearly 30 gallons
of gas spilled out in the excavation spot which contaminated a nearby water line. After purging and
monitoring of the site,the incident was closed out in 2015. The second incident was in January of 1998 at
the former Baysden's supermarket in which an aboveground tank spilled when it was overfilled during a
fuel transfer from a tanker truck. Estimates between 100-200 gallons of gasoline were spilled during the
incident. Cleanup followed soon after incident. The incident was closed out in 2003. The summary of the
EDR report is enclosed.
In addition to the EDR search,a visual inspection of the Cowford site was conducted to assess the potential
for the occurrence of recognized environmental conditions on the property that might not have been
revealed in the EDR report. The inspection was conducted to locate and identify any obvious use, storage,
or generation of hazardous materials.No hazardous storage containers or substances were observed during
the visual inspection.
National Historical Preservation Act(Section 106)
The National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) is legislation intended to preserve historical and
archaeological sites in the United States of America. RES requested review and comment from the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)with respect to any archaeological and architectural resources related
to the Cowford Mitigation Project on June 18th, 2019. SHPO responded July 9th, 2019 saying that they
conducted a review and were not aware of any historic resources that would be affected by the project.The
correspondence with SHPO can be found in the enclosed documents.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act(Uniform Act)
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) provides
important protections and assistance for those people affected by federally funded projects. The Uniform
Act applies to the acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for federally funded projects.
The Cowford Mitigation Project is a full-delivery project that includes land acquisition.Notification of fair
market value of the property and the lack of condemnation authority was completed by RES.The landowner
was notified of fair market value and condemnation authority was listed in the option agreement. A copy
of the letter sent to the landowner is enclosed
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies,in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary
of the Interior or of Commerce,as appropriate,to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or carry out are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species.

According to the United States Fish and Wildlife IPAC database review tool(USFWS 2018)and the self-
certification process conducted by RES and submitted to the USFWS on June 18t'`,2019(and re-submitted
on August 2nd, 2019)the list of threatened and endangered species includes 15 threatened, endangered, or
candidate species on this list. A complete list can be seen on the Species conclusion table in the USFWS
self-certification letter enclosed.After the original submission to USFWS,a habitat and species assessment
and survey was conducted to make updated determinations on the species conclusion table.The survey that
was conducted on July 19th evaluated the habitat and species presence for the Cooley's Meadowrue
(Thalictrum cooleyi),the Roughed leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), and the suitable habitat
for the Golden Sedge (Carex lutea) and the Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia). During this survey it was
determined that there were no species present nor any suitable habitat for both the Cooley's Meadowrue
and the Roughed leaved loosestrife. It was also determined that there is no suitable habitat for the Golden
Sedge (Carex lutea) and the Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) within the easement area. Therefore a"no
effect"determination was made for all of the listed species that were provided in the official species list.A
copy of the self-certification letter that was sent to the USFWS with the results of the survey is enclosed.
No response was provided by USFWS which is typical as the certification letter(provided)is their official
response unless they do not concur with the determination.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act(BGPA)
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act(BGPA) is a federal status that protects two species of Eagle.
The BGPA provides protection for the bald eagle and golden eagle by prohibiting the take,possession,sale,
purchase,barter, offer to sell,purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle,
alive or dead,including any part,nest, or egg,unless allowed by permit(16 U.S.C. 668(a)(BGPA, 1940).
The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), has been identified in Onslow county; wetland and stream
mitigation practices are unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles.
Farmland Protection Policy Act(FPPA)
The Farmland Protection Policy Act(FPPA) is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on
the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The Cowford Mitigation
Project includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD-1006 has been completed and
submitted to the Natural Resource Conservation Service(MRCS).The completed form and correspondence
documenting the submittal is enclosed.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act(FWCA)
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of the United States was enacted to protect fish and
wildlife when federal actions result in the control or modification of a natural stream or body of water.
Since the Cowford Mitigation Project may include removal and/or replacement of existing culverts as well
as stream bank stabilization,RES requested comment from the North Carolina Fish and Wildlife Resource
Commission(NCWRC).The NCWRC responded on July 26,2019 that there appears to be no listed species
within the immediate project area.All correspondence is enclosed.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act(META)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect,possess,buy, sell,trade, ship import, or
extort and migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by the
MBTA,so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute at taking.
RES consulted the USFWS's Information for Planning and Consultation(IPAC)tool and conducted a self-
certification process and submitted it to the USFWS on June 18th, 2019 (and re-submitted on August 2nd,
2019)to generate a list of migratory birds that are expected to occur at the Cowford Mitigation Project.The

results concluded that no migratory birds of conservation concern occur at the Site, other than the Bald
Eagle which was analyzed in the USFWS process.

EXHIBITS

f° ..... 7.-1
0
0
s
"—A
\ .
C owfo r''
Site
f
-- er-
is ,
\N e -;audio,,tiy �•..
\ ---... ...misi
2 g `,
2�
LI
A.3
)**),
Oands
,/
Neu' u:va. .6'
.1
) I ;LC/
Legend
Proposed Easement
5 Mile Aviation Zone
HUC-03030001010010
y NC NHP Element Occurrences
J4 y� J4
�\\ Bear Basin Mitigation Site
M Airports
Ai
NDate: 8/5/2019Figure 1 -Vicinity Map*:._:.,004.1�.�0 w Erep
��*.'1l��wa I��J�� ■ Drawn by: GDS
���� �iY)�+�#�`tJ� 0 0.5 1 Cowford Mitigation SiteP Checked by: JRM
11 Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=1 mile
Miles

,, /
. /\—.,—___-____..___*__!,
1' uu I J
r(4. .
1 , 1,l � � 10 �
.,\--
\-)N.,•I
i•) ..
''„
1 \ l
1 G
J ! 0 \
! !! 21.8 \ -- rI i
! l 10 1
f\
\ \I ......44pr,Ns:.•
if i ,
,.,, ,
,...._ ,
AtC\\k • . # '
r; -,--
/ )1 4,1 01 I LS
1 , 13ot l,7- \ \
, / / I ',-- \,4AL.sv
�� / •
{\
/ .., '• `d 4, -- ..t ,--rilic- , ,-- ,,...13_ - .„-*.
k1.342))
.16_ Pie,A .., • ,,
. . .,1141a,• 26111.2L7
• i
os.*-4F-:2----',-------\
cerr
T.
���L-!s {y��� 1 q "Ile>.?;': •tic •:/' *.
• ........,. . . Trailer
.'"44 ;IP,Afir-
;,\. ..) \,, r • . . -.in ---- .
.. ' Illk \''l--,'--/ - i .
,-- ',NIP' r,f . ' \_ . 1 ' -----,' -- k , (:), , ,, ._„..,,,,.,
•
,�� % `;\.
1.
4,\4r._„/ ' L., ;
.....)1M111.1 Lead ...7
k .4 ! ' . --- Aik*/ • , - \--,. 11, '
NIIP,__ )1:\: \ '. ,
• 1),...________\_ s
�lS ``�� 1231N.
Legend —� • /,
•
Proposed Easement /--S\--As.-- ''. - iiris Alio,
i. �Cern ,n,
.-
,.....
E ., N,,...:,
Figure 2-USGS Map Date: 8/7/2019 /)
�* +��u��r<.,e���. w E Richlands Quadrangle (1981)
o •. 'ZILIVAROilkr�`r� S Drawn by: GDS Orps
w iY)+;#�1 Cowford Mitigation Site Checked by: JRM
IPA" 0 1,000 2.000
il
Feet
Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=2,000 feet

7
• '-,-'',,q` ' -11*
, , • tri :i...,. . . - • . ,...;,-.
a lik •
, "-- .0 P , • :
,
---_, _
- - - . _..._— 4. _ _ .....
---,--iir- ,--- - ..
i- - - II 4 , .4440t' •k\ '. ‘t,',,,‘ 4,1 , r
, . .• 1 i IL W 2 Vie' I .
i V :11 .....
...r.a.,
•
\" _
tl
.
. $••• 1 t\ ' '1 il •' 9 N .‘ : a,-.....
t.4
-....
- ...„....,
, , I, . ',. 4 , • \ • , ,-..
.... i t
, • 1 ,1
4., • ( ', . .'' \ . • 1
k: A •V 1 ' tt 1 ' 1
li
•, $ .
11 •
tk;'
0•.. .....---. .....-..."..-
..... * •'"t. '. ill„,................-.. .,_........,,,_
,
....-''''.- ' i' .N.•,,,
...
1/' •
----..-.--' ------ .
N ---- N'..
......'
•' a
‘ .0+
, .
r-------""
. ,-.
/
111 .
`,..
I ,42,2%N6 ...1:1004101114 -. , g
'.c. . ..
',... .
• .
'-.I,,••••• _.,-, .' _Ag 1
'4.. • ,.
. .
.95. 1. , . •
,
'04: ' PI: •
d• ,) .. d
• .:Att;,'*.z4%*,,,%.--4:-:
- ''''''44fl•4Pqridit..1`... -
, ..
---'4. , IN irl% ',,,,, ',.-.• 'CI*v.:.
)
. — .
t*- - e 6
.1, • ,,_,...e. . . _______)...
%t,- ' • ,
• .
....... s $14 .,
-.,.-• • ____,,—."4--
Olt ' Nv , 11 ,, Illy 1-.; '- ,.'•;" ii
...,-• 18"\\"'s, .
Mill`
,e, 1
714, \ .- • ,
2 '' •
"..,.../k\
li ow t
1 _
, IF
Legend • , eo 4ti.... ,
`..i,
t,.. Proposed Easement
= N
Date 8/7/2019
Figure 3-Aerial Map
'411-"NiTAI7kilie w+E
. ....,area rgi III VP#,14*41.13..ngi Drawn by GDS
`,,,,, arigiolagl'illtaartfiam4.-..„„, Cowford Mitigation Site
ores
L,1 aaNsallist s
. 409CP$P Checked by JRM
1PN 0 250 500
11 Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=500 feet
',,' Feet

i 1
liPV
Existing CrossingIfr .44
•
s
Legend
Proposed Easement
Project Parcel
Project Streams
— — — Drain Tile
r4'
" Figure 4-Existing Conditions Date: 8/7/2019
*y�'-��w,/�L,�V w+E
Drawn by: GDS
_� ...�..�;�4 t'r� CowfordOrps
r,," 0 250 500 Mitigation Project Checked by: JRM
Feet Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=500 feet

an
- ___7
123
wo:
ea
cm .....-7---(
2 017 r , „, ......_,
•
�� i: -11...
°n
GTO
en
123
Legend
Proposed Easement
F 7 Hydric(100%)
Predominantly Hydric(66-99%)
Predominantly Hydric(33-65%)
Predominantly Nonhydric(1-32%)
Nonhydric(0%)
BF
N Date: 8/7/2019
Figure 5-Soils Map
_1;61►�.qi►4�,004.�tir� w e Drawn by: GDS rps
w arigbi altiV ROlik.��t�'r� s Cowford Mitigation Project0
+;# Checked by: JRM
IPA" 0 250 500
11 Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=500 feet
Feet

_
10. .1. PUBHh
,
t ... •.... ii.:I.L."': '• 0, b , ;.- ';,,I.',.-1
'S.i., . .
PF04B r - ..4
"...,
--- , . 4,‘,!' `...' I -• - _
ti ‘1 • •, -ii."' ,,, .. ,t,.,‘ 1"1
' I, •' A. I, o'iltite ' 11.7*,
1 . , ... ,
. 1
•1
. . ...,-..-,,....,
• . .
0 •
•
PF01/4A
• .,,
'
k i
ie
- .
•
V •",
• i,st.t,\ - t ,• .,‘„, .,- . .,_ t"4 -''' •. ____ --- ,
--
. „
. .. -
‘ .0+
, .
, -
f-------"",,, ______:;..------.---*------
' AREA C F IA FLOOD HAZARI
' tilt ...-• 0. /
------________----
,,*•;;':. . ,,.- 1, 1 , .
..,..60111k
lilta*11.
''',
, *
...4:
A '
' -
•-, 4-k -,..1.-
, •
. -- . , • .1.' - -• ,,
`I. . ,,,. - ,i•----.1,:,
.,'‘ • --"•• r
...
' -% . • v -
' . • :00,174.,
. • tii' ; '•,ri PF03/4Bd
-
-2. '•" •'..".'./7"' .0.- ,
/ :N• it -•••*"...';!:-
- .
'• ' 74- ,,It ' '
A I ..V..
= Legend .. .
, .
I I Proposed Easement
R. •
R En NW Wetlands(USFWS 10/28/2018)
1 \
FEMA Zone AE (None)
N
Date: 8/7/2019
Figure 6-Project Constraints
A..A.lit.1..,:mliarlvt,,,iiil& W+E
Drawn b GDS
....irviikdk.weoNFPirellityall
„...40,06:101WrAWIlik,Air .8v Cowford Mitigation Project ores
L,,, aim salgs-s s
., 4411kal Checkedy by JRM
IP.0 0 250 500
il
11 Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=500 feet
Feet

(041%tfr-- —AM111*.
CI
Wetland a
goo
a .
; j
M G
�e
gy Apo .-R 258
-r' 4 fi;
z,
Legend
0
Proposed Easement(15.92 ac)
Project Parcel
Mitigation \
Wetland Re-establishment
'e.
Stream Restoration (1:1)
— — Drain Tile
N Date: 8/7/2019
Figure 7-Concept Map
IP�iirw�l004.11 \� w e rs
���.�11��w;I��J�� �� Drawn by: GDS
���� �iY)�+�#�`tJ� 0 250 500 Cowford Mitigation SiteO Checked by: JRM
il
11 Onslow County, North Carolina 1 inch=500 feet
Feet

USDA FORM AD-1006

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request 6/10/2019
Name of Project Cowford Federal Agency Involved Federal Highway Admin (FHWA)
Proposed Land Use Conservation Easement County and State Onslow County, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By Pe i on Completing F� NRCS
NRCS 6/10/2019 Milton Cortes
Does the site contain Prime, Unique,Statewide or Local Important Farmland? YES NO Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no,the FPPA does not apply-do not complete additional parts of this form) n n none 166 acres
Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt.Jurisdiction Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
CORN Acres: 74 % 384,215 acres Acres: 66 % 345,021 acres
Name of Land Evaluation System Used Name of State or Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
Onslow Co., NC LESA N/A July 03, 2019 by eMail
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A.Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 15.9
B.Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C.Total Acres In Site 15.9
PART IV(To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A.Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 12
B.Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland 3.9
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0.0046
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 9.6
PART V(To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion 87
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted(Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria Maximum Site A Site B Site C Site D
(Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b.For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106) Points
1. Area In Non-urban Use (15) 15
2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use (10) 10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20) 19
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (20) 0
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15) 15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services (15) 0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10) 10
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland (10) 10
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (5) 5
10.On-Farm Investments (20) 5
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10) 0
12.Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use (10) 0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 89 0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 87 0 0 0
Total Site Assessment(From Part VI above or local site assessment) 160 89 0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 lines) 260 176 0 0 0
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Site Selected: Date Of Selection YES pi NO n
Reason For Selection:
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006(03-02)

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

Farmland Classification—Onslow County, North Carolina
(Easement_PR_Cowford) co
262800 2629W 263000 263100 263200 263300 263400 263500 263600 263700 263800
34°55'36"N I I I I I I I a I. I I - •- I.
1
_ •
y
ex, � . 8
•
NoB —1
ir
NoB
. , - ' §•
US
g000 Gawp la nciit Ioe vaDodl ail tll ilo walla°
N
34°55'13"N 34°55'13"N
262800 2629W 263000 263100 2632U0 263300 263400 263500 263600 263700
Eo
Map Scale:1:4,950 if printed on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet.
N Meters
0 50 100 200 300
A Feet
0 Z00 400 800 1200
Map projection:Web Mercator Caner WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zane 18N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 6

Farmland Classification—Onslow County, North Carolina
(Easement_PR_Cowford)
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest(AOI) 0 Prime farmland if 0 Farmland of statewide M Farmland of statewide M Farmland of unique
E Area of Interest(AOI) subsoiled,completely importance,if drained and importance,if irrigated importance
removing the root either protected from and reclaimed of excess 0 Not rated or not
Soils inhibiting soil layer flooding or not frequently salts and sodium available
Soil RatingPolygons irrigatedflooded during the
yg Prime farmland if El Farmland of statewide Soil Rating Lines
growing season
and the product of I(soil importance,if drained or
0 Not prime farmland p erodibility)x C(climate Farmland of statewide either protected from rV Not prime farmland
0 prime areas are factor)does not exceed importance,if irrigated flooding or not frequently
60 and drained flooded during the rV All areas are prime
farmland farmland
Prime farmland if irrigated Farmland of statewide growing season
0 Prime farmland if drained ,..w Prime farmland if
and reclaimed of excess importance,if irrigated Farmland of statewide drained
0 Prime farmland if salts and sodium and either protected from importance,if warm
protected from flooding or 0 Farmland of statewide flooding or not frequently enough,and either rV Prime farmland if
not frequently flooded importance flooded during the drained or either protected from flooding
during the growing growing season or protected from floodingor not frequently flooded- Farmland of statewide
not frequently flooded during the growing
g
season Farmland of statewide
importance,if drained during the growing season
0 Prime farmland if irrigated Farmland of statewide importance,if subsoiled, season
completely removing the r • Prime farmland if
0 Prime farmland if drained importance,if protected root inhibiting soil layer M Farmland of statewide irrigated
and either protected from from flooding or not importance,if warm r 0. Prime farmland if
floodingnot frequently frequently flooded during 0 Farmland of statewide enough or q y the growing season importance,if irrigated g drained and either
flooded during the and the product of I(soil 0 Farmland of statewide protected from flooding
growing season 0 Farmland of statewide erodibility)x C(climate importance,if thawed or not frequently flooded
Prime farmland if irrigated importance,if irrigated factor)does not exceed during the growing
- Farmland of local
and drained 60 importance season
Prime farmlandirrigated ,._r Prime farmland if
0 if Farmland of local
and either protected from importance,if irrigated irrigated and drained
flooding or not frequently ,.y,r Prime farmland if
flooded during the irrigated and either
growing season protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded
during the growing
season
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 6

Farmland Classification—Onslow County, North Carolina
(Easement_PR_Cowford)
r • Prime farmland if 0.6.0 Farmland of statewide 0400 Farmland of statewide r • Farmland of unique 0 Prime farmland if
subsoiled,completely importance,if drained and importance,if irrigated importance subsoiled,completely
removing the root either protected from and reclaimed of excess removing the root
N i Not rated or not available
inhibiting soil layer flooding or not frequently salts and sodium inhibiting soil layer
,.y Prime farmland if irrigated flooded during the r 0. Farmland of statewide Soil Rating Points Prime farmland if
season
and the product of I(soil growingimportance,if drained or a Not prime farmland irrigated and the product
erodibility)x C(climate ,.yam Farmland of statewide either protected from of I(soil erodibility)x C
factor)does not exceed importance,if irrigated flooding or not frequently • All areas are prime (climate factor)does not
60 and drained flooded during the farmland exceed 60
,.y Prime farmland if irrigated ,.y Farmland of statewide growing season . Prime farmland if drained . Prime farmland if
and reclaimed of excess importance,if irrigated ,.y Farmland of statewide irrigated and reclaimed
salts and sodium and either protected from importance,if warm . Prime farmland if of excess salts and
0.60. Farmland of statewide flooding or not frequently enough,and either protected from flooding or sodium
flooded during the drained or either not frequently flooded
importance Farmland of statewide
growing season protected from flooding or during the growing
Farmland of statewide importance
importance,if drained 0 • Farmland of statewide not frequently flooded season Farmland of statewide
importance,if subsoiled, during the growing 0 Prime farmland if irrigated
,.yam Farmland of statewide season importance,if drained
completely removing the
importance,if protected Prime farmland if drained Farmland of statewide
root inhibiting soil layer ,.yam Farmland of statewide . �
from flooding or not and either protected from importance,if protected
,.yam Farmland of statewide importance,if warm
frequently flooded during flooding or not frequently from flooding or not
importance,if irrigated enough
the growing season flooded during the frequently flooded during
and the product of I(soil ,. . Farmland of statewide growing season the growing season
,.y . Farmland of statewide erodibility)x C(climate importance,if thawed
importance,if irrigated factor)does not exceed . Prime farmland if irrigated . Farmland of statewide
60 r•V Farmland of local and drained importance,if irrigated
importance
. Prime farmland if irrigated
,.y Farmland of local and either protected from
importance,if irrigated flooding or not frequently
flooded during the
growing season
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2019
mom Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 6

Farmland Classification—Onslow County, North Carolina
(Easement_PR_Cowford)
O Farmland of statewide . Farmland of statewide 0 Farmland of unique The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
importance,if drained and importance,if irrigated importance 1:24,000.
either protected from and reclaimed of excess ❑ Not rated or not available
flooding or not frequently salts and sodium
Water Features Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
flooded during the 0
Farmland of statewide
growing season importance,if drained or Streams and Canals Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
▪ Farmland of statewide either protected from misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
importance,if irrigated flooding or not frequently Transportation line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of
and drained flooded during the Rails contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
▪ Farmland of statewide growing season
scale.
importance,if irrigated . Farmland of statewide .-. Interstate Highways
and either protected from importance,if warm
flooding or not frequently enough,and either US Routes Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
flooded during the drained or either measurements.
growing season protected from flooding or Major Roads
not frequently flooded Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Farmland of statewide Local Roads Web Soil SurveyURL:
importance,if subsoiled, during the growing
completely removing the season Background Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
root inhibiting soil layer . Farmland of statewide Aerial Photography Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
▪ Farmland of statewide importance,if warm 6.1k
projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
importance,if irrigated enough
distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the
and the product of I(soil • Farmland of statewide Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more
erodibility)x C(climate importance,if thawed
factor)does not exceed . Farmland of local accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
60 importance This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data
Farmland of local as of the version date(s)listed below.
importance,if irrigated
Soil Survey Area: Onslow County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 10,2018
Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Mar 7,2015—Oct
26,2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2019
woo Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 6

Farmland Classification—Onslow County, North Carolina Easement_PR_Cowford
Farmland Classification
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
GoA Goldsboro fine sandy All areas are prime 0.7 4.5%
loam,0 to 2 percent farmland
slopes
NoB Norfolk loamy fine sand, All areas are prime 9.1 57.1%
2 to 6 percent slopes farmland
On Onslow loamy fine sand All areas are prime 0.5 3.2%
farmland
Ra Rains fine sandy loam,0 Prime farmland if 1.7 10.8%
to 2 percent slopes, drained
Atlantic Coast
Flatwoods
St Stallings loamy fine Farmland of statewide 3.9 24.4%
sand importance
Totals for Area of Interest 15.9 100.0%
Description
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It
identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed,
fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and
unique farmlands are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21,
January 31, 1978.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 6

Farmland Classification—Onslow County, North Carolina Easement_PR_Cowford
Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is
reduced to a single value that represents the map unit as a whole.
A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is
either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the
attribute being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive
one attribute value for each of a map units components. From this set of
component attributes, the next step of the aggregation process derives a single
value that represents the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map
unit is derived, a thematic map for soil map units can be rendered. Aggregation
must be done because, on any soil map, map units are delineated but
components are not.
For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is
recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that the corresponding
component typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent
composition is a critical factor in some, but not all, aggregation methods.
The majority of soil attributes are associated with a component of a map unit, and
such an attribute has to be aggregated to the map unit level before a thematic
map can be rendered. Map units, however, also have their own attributes. An
attribute of a map unit does not have to be aggregated in order to render a
corresponding thematic map. Therefore, the "aggregation method" for any
attribute of a map unit is referred to as "No Aggregation Necessary".
Tie-break Rule: Lower
The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple
candidate values, or which value should be selected in the event of a percent
composition tie.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 6 of 6

Soil Map—Onslow County, North Carolina
(Easement_PR_Cowford) to
262800 2b2LO 263000 263100 263200 263300 263400 263500 263600 263700 263800
34°55'36"N I I I I _ •• I 34°55'36"N
I ��' t
•
••
. • r N
i a
't` r:
eAs
k.s't
8 k;
'k fi , NoB _§
10101,
NoB
Jo-
•
Oct] Gawp m woit We vaDod ail tlhilo amOQ°
34°55'13"N 34°55'13"N
262800 262a 0 263000 263100 2b32U0 263300 263400 263500 263600 263700
rn E0
Map Scale:1:4,950 if printed on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet.
N Meters
0 50 100 200 300
A Feet
0 Z00 400 800 1200
Map projection:Web Mercator Caner WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zane 18N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3

Soil Map—Onslow County, North Carolina
(Easement_PR_Cowford)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
n Area of Interest(AOI) Stony 1:24,000.
• Spot
Soilsei Very Stony Spot Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
El Soil Map Unit Polygons
Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
Soil Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
Other line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of
• Soil Map Unit Points contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
Special Line Features
Special Point Features scale.
Blowout Water Features
Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
031 Borrow Pit measurements.
Transportation
Clay Spot Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Closed Depression Web Soil Survey URL:
., Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
Gravel Pit US Routes
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Gravelly Spot Major Roads projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the
Landfill Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more
A. Lava Flow accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
Background
Marsh or swamp rika Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s)listed below.
Mine or Quarry
Soil Survey Area: Onslow County, North Carolina
Miscellaneous Water Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 10,2018
• Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales
Rock Outcrop 1:50,000 or larger.
vSaline Spot Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Mar 7,2015—Oct 26,
2017
Sandy Spot
° The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
Severely Eroded Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor
• Sinkhole shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Slide or Slip
o Sodic Spot
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2019
dim Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map—Onslow County, North Carolina Easement_PR_Cowford
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
GoA Goldsboro fine sandy loam,0 0.7 4.5%
to 2 percent slopes
NoB Norfolk loamy fine sand,2 to 6 9.1 57.1%
percent slopes
On Onslow loamy fine sand 0.5 3.2%
Ra Rains fine sandy loam,0 to 2 1.7 10.8%
percent slopes,Atlantic
Coast Flatwoods
St Stallings loamy fine sand 3.9 24.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 15.9 100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

EDR REPORT

Cowford
1336 Kinston Highway
Richlands, NC 28574
Inquiry Number: 5681529.37s
June 12, 2019
The EDR Radius Map TM Report with GeoCheck®
6 Armstrong Road,4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
CE DR® Toll Free:800.352.0050
www.edmet.com
FORM-LBD-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary _ ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 8
Orphan Summary_ 20
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum_ A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map _ A-5
Physical Setting Source Map A-14
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-16
Physical Setting Source Records Searched_ PSGR-1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer-Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources.NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT.ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES,INC.SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES,INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE.ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER.IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES,INC.BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS,NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE,FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE,INCLUDING,WITHOUT LIMITATION,SPECIAL,INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL,OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES,INC.IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT.Purchaser accepts this Report"AS IS".Any analyses,estimates,ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only,and are not intended to provide,nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding,or prediction or forecast of,any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property.Additionally,the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2019 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format,in whole
or in part,of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc.,or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos(including Sanborn and Sanborn Map)are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc.or its affiliates.All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC5681529.37s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc(EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence:Transaction Screen Process(E 1528-14)or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
1336 KINSTON HIGHWAY
RICHLANDS, NC 28574
COORDINATES
Latitude(North): 34.9286120-34° 55' 43.00"
Longitude(West): 77.5979950-77° 35' 52.78"
Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 18
UTM X(Meters): 262689.2
UTM Y(Meters): 3868010.8
Elevation: 70 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 5945711 RICHLANDS, NC
Version Date: 2013
West Map: 5945709 POTTERS HILL, NC
Version Date: 2013
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
Portions of Photo from: 20140520, 20140524
Source: USDA
TC5681529.37s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
1336 KINSTON HIGHWAY
RICHLANDS, NC 28574
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST(ft. &mi.)
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTION
1 JARMAN FORK SERVICE HWY 258 LUST, INST CONTROL, IMD Lower 991,0.188, SSE
2 BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKE 931 KINSTON HIGHWAY LUST,LAST, INST CONTROL, IMD Lower 1040,0.197,SSE
5681529.37s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL National Priority List
Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF RCRA-Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG RCRA-Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG RCRA-Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG RCRA-Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls/engineering controls registries
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List
TC5681529.37s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US INST CONTROL Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
State-and tribal-equivalent NPL
NC HSDS Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State-and tribal-equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
DEBRIS Solid Waste Active Disaster Debris Sites Listing
LCID Land-Clearing and Inert Debris(LCID)Landfill Notifications
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST AST Database
INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
VCP Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY Recycling Center Listing
HIST LF Solid Waste Facility Listing
INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
TC5681529.37s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ODI Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste/Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS Spills Incident Listing
SPILLS 90 SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80 SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen/NLR RCRA-Non Generators/No Longer Regulated
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA_ Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD Records Of Decision
RMP Risk Management Plans
RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS PCB Activity Database System
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System- FIFRA(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA_ Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA)Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV Indian Reservations
FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS Lead Smelter Sites
US AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES Abandoned Mines
FINDS Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
TC5681529.37s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECHO Enforcement&Compliance History Information
UXO Unexploded Ordnance Sites
DOCKET HWC Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
FUELS PROGRAM EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS ASBESTOS
COAL ASH Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP .Animal Operation Permits Listing
PCSRP Petroleum-Contaminated Soil Remediation Permits
SEPT HAULERS Permitted Septage Haulers Listing
CCB Coal Ash Structural Fills(CCB) Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt.Archives
RGA HWS Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES:SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases.
Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on
a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been
differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property.
Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed
data on individual sites can be reviewed.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable(orphan)sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incidents Management Database contains an inventory
TC5681529.37s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the Department of Environment, &
Natural Resources' Incidents by Address.
A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/01/2019 has revealed that there are 2
LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
Lower Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page
JARMAN FORK SERVICE HWY 258 SSE 1/8-1/4(0.188 mi.) 1 8
Incident Phase:Closed Out
Incident Number:5646
Current Status: File Located in Archives
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKE 931 KINSTON HIGHWAY SSE 1/8-1/4(0.197 mi.) 2 11
Incident Phase:Closed Out
Incident Number:32896
Current Status: File Located in House
LAST:A listing of leaking aboveground storage tank site locations.
A review of the LAST list, as provided by EDR,and dated 02/01/2019 has revealed that there is 1 LAST
site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
Lower Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKE 931 KINSTON HIGHWAY SSE 1/8-1/4(0.197 mi.) 2 11
Close Out: 11/02/2017
Close Out:03/26/1998
Incident Number:85456
Incident Number:85458
Current Status:C
Current Status:A
State and tribal institutional control/engineering control registries
INST CONTROL: No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring.
A review of the INST CONTROL list,as provided by EDR,and dated 12/19/2018 has revealed that there
are 2 INST CONTROL sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
Lower Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page
JARMAN FORK SERVICE HWY 258 SSE 1/8-1/4(0.188 mi.) 1 8
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKE 931 KINSTON HIGHWAY SSE 1/8-1/4(0.197 mi.) 2 11
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Records of Emergency Release Reports
IMD: Incident Management Database.
A review of the IMD list, as provided by EDR, and dated 07/21/2006 has revealed that there are 2 IMD
TC5681529.37s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
Lower Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page
JARMAN FORK SERVICE HWY 258 SSE 1/8-1/4(0.188 mi.) 1 8
Facility Id:5646
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKE 931 KINSTON HIGHWAY SSE 1/8-1/4(0.197 mi.) 2 11
Facility Id: 18185
Facility Id:85456
Facility Id:85458
TC5681529.37s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC5681529.37s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

OVERVIEW MAP - 5681529.37S
W°. * •
sr"
/lit _ __ ,‘,. :
ii
1
1, ,./. ,
, „,
IA°/ . /
.7).
1_ ,
1
\,.......__, „1
0 ,f,
l 1111‘
AL/ ,,,,,,__.4 1
/
illp
I doll
110 1
4 '"iiik .1 4reigt4
...„4., /, I 4 25g
,......_ ___: % 4
fr\ z
4,,
///i
/ 1,1 &....,
,..... \,/ / \ /
16
A 41 IK 41111A •
i 1 V
4 iiiitit
...e
•
•
•
Target Property 0 1i4 1/2 1 naves
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property '- Indian Reservations BIA .1 Hazardous Substance
• Sites at elevations lower than Disposal Sites
Power transmission lines
the target property
A Manufactured Gas Plants 100-year flood zone
National Priority List Sites VA 500-year flood zone
■ National Wetland Inventory
Dept.Defense Sites
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information.The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Cowford CLIENT: Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS: 1336 ICnston Highway CONTACT: Grayson Sanner
Richlands NC 28574 INQUIRY#: 5681529.37s
LAT/LONG: 34.928612/77.597995 DATE: June 12,2019 1:13 pm
Copyright g 2019 EDR,Inc.(g?2015 TomTom Rel. 2015.

DETAIL MAP - 5681529.37S
Warren Taylor Rd
.r
ilw
If
l\
imili4
%
P.00/ ''—
heel \ialp
-A
/ z � s S t
9
W
iiiii
��''11
�// A•STICAL PC
us z5
‘1 4
/ MARILVNS DAY CARE
k
Target Property 0 1/8 1/4 1/2 Mlles
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property '- Indian Reservations BIA .1 Hazardous Substance
• Sites at elevations lower than Disposal Sites
Power transmission lines
the target property
A Manufactured Gas Plants 100-year flood zone
VA500-year flood zone
i Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites ■ National Wetland Inventory
Dept.Defense Sites State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information.The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Cowford CLIENT: Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS: 1336 ICnston Highway CONTACT: Grayson Sanner
Richlands NC 28574 INQUIRY#: 5681529.37s
LAT/LONG: 34.928612/77.597995 DATE: June 12,2019 1:15 pm
Copyright g 2019 EDR,Inc.(g?2015 TomTom Rel. 2015.

I
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
Database (Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4- 1/2 1/2- 1 > 1 Plotted
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NPL LIENS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
SEMS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRA-SQG 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRA-CESQG 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
Federal institutional controls/
engineering controls registries
LUCIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Federal ERNS list
ERNS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
State-and tribal-equivalent NPL
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
State-and tribal-equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
OLI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DEBRIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LCID 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TC5681529.37s Page 4

I
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
Database (Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4- 1/2 1/2- 1 > 1 Plotted
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST 0.500 0 2 0 NR NR 2
LAST 0.500 0 1 0 NR NR 1
INDIAN LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST TRUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
AST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
State and tribal institutional
control/engineering control registries
INST CONTROL 0.500 0 2 0 NR NR 2
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Local Lists of Landfill/Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
HIST LF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DEBRIS REGION 9 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
IHS OPEN DUMPS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Local Lists of Hazardous waste/
Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
US CDL 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
SPILLS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
IMD 0.500 0 2 0 NR NR 2
TC5681529.37s Page 5

I
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
Database (Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4- 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
SPILLS 90 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
SPILLS 80 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen /NLR 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
FUDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
SCRD DRYCLEANERS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US FIN ASSUR 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EPA WATCH LIST 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
2020 COR ACTION 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
TSCA 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
TRIS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
SSTS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RMP 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
RAATS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
PRP 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
PADS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
ICIS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
FTTS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
MLTS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
COAL ASH DOE 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
COAL ASH EPA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
PCB TRANSFORMER 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
RADINFO 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
HIST FTTS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
DOT OPS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
INDIAN RESERV 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
FUSRAP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LEAD SMELTERS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
US AIRS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
US MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
ABANDONED MINES 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
FINDS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
ECHO 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
UXO 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
DOCKET HWC 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
FUELS PROGRAM 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
AIRS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
ASBESTOS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
COAL ASH 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DRYCLEANERS 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
Financial Assurance 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
NPDES 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
UIC 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
AOP 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
PCSRP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
SEPT HAULERS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
TC5681529.37s Page 6

I
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
Database (Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4- 1/2 1/2- 1 > 1 Plotted
CCB 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
EDR Hist Auto 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EDR Hist Cleaner 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EDR RECOVERED GOVERN MENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt.Archives
RGA HWS 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
RGA LF 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
RGA LUST 0.001 0 NR NR NR NR 0
-Totals-- 0 0 7 0 0 0 7
NOTES:
TP=Target Property
NR= Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC5681529.37s Page 7

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
1 JARMAN FORK SERVICE STATION LUST S101167751
SSE HWY 258 INST CONTROL N/A
1/8-1/4 RICHLANDS, NC 28574 IMD
0.188 mi.
991 ft.
Relative: LUST:
Lower Facility ID: Not reported
Actual: UST Number: WI-824
60 ft. Incident Number: 5646
Contamination Type: GW
Source Type: Leak-underground
Product Type: P
Date Reported: 02/08/1990
Date Occur: 02/08/1990
Cleanup: 02/08/1990
Closure Request: Not reported
Close Out: 12/16/2015
Level Of Soil Cleanup Achieved: Industrial/Commercial
Tank Regulated Status: R
#Of Supply Wells: 0
Commercial/NonCommercial UST Site: COMMERCIAL
Risk Classification: H
Risk Class Based On Review: L
Corrective Action Plan Type: Not reported
NOV Issue Date: Not reported
NORR Issue Date: 08/31/1990
Site Priority: Not reported
Phase Of LSA Req: Not reported
Site Risk Reason: Not reported
Land Use: Not reported
MTBE: No
MTBE1: No
Flag: No
FIag1: No
LUR Filed: 11/20/2015
Release Detection: 0
Current Status: File Located in Archives
RBCA GW: Cleanups to alternate standards
PETOPT: 3
RPL: False
CD Num: 602
Reel Num: 0
RPOW: True
RPOP: False
Error Flag: 0
Error Code: Not reported
Valid: True
Lat/Long Decimal: 34.9128-77.5870
Testlat: Not reported
Regional Officer Project Mgr: DTM
Region: WIL
Company: GREAT GAS&OIL CO.
Contact Person: MR.BOBBY WILLIAMS
Telephone: Not reported
RP Address: P.O.BOX 129
RP City,St,Zip: JACKSONVILLE,NC 28540
RP County: Not reported
Comments: Tanks were pulled and some gas spilled out into the excavation upon
TC5681529.37s Page 8

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
JARMAN FORK SERVICE STATION (Continued) S101167751
removal.02-07-90.5 gallons of product spilled when removing the
tank.No closure report ever submitted.A monitoring well was
installed and sampled.Results indicated 80 ppb benzene.1996-
Monitoring well resampled at request of region.Well was sampled
without proper purging contaminants found.2004 sampling revealed
only 4.29 ppb benzene at estimated concentration.WiRO conducted well
survey low risk.Site not found in TIMS.No soil samples taken.NRP'd
for Soil and Groundwater///pulled for archive 2.29.2016///
5 Min Quad: Not reported
PIRF:
Facility Id: 5646
Date Occurred: 1990-02-07 00:00:00
Date Reported: 1990-06-01 00:00:00
Description Of Incident: DURING EXCAVATION OF USTS APPROX.30 GALS.WAS SPILLED INTO PIT AREA,
NEAR A MAIN WATER LINE.TESTS RESULTS CONFIRMED CONTAMINATION.
Owner/Operator: MR.BOBBY WILLIAMS
Ownership: 4
Operation Type: 6
Type: 3
Location: 1
Site Priority: 95B
Priority Update: 1998-05-30 00:00:00
Wells Affected Y/N: N
Samples Include: 0
7#5 Minute Quad: 3
5 Minute Quad: 1
Pirf/Min Soil: Not reported
Release Code: Not reported
Source Code: Pirf
Err Type: Not reported
Cause: Not reported
Source: Not reported
Ust Number: Not reported
Last Modified: 2015-12-16 00:00:00
Incident Phase: Closed Out
NOV Issued: Not reported
NORR Issued: 1990-08-31 00:00:00
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
Corrective Action Planned: Not reported
SOC Signed: Not reported
Reclassification Report: Not reported
RS Designation: Not reported
Closure Request Date: Not reported
Close-out Report: Not reported
INST CONTROL:
Project Number: WI-824
Object ID: 1263
DWM Contact: Wilmington Regional Office(910)796-7215
DWM Program: Underground Storage Tank Section
Project Status: No Further Action
COC: Multi COC
Contamination Source: UST System
Received Date: 11/19/2015
TC5681529.37s Page 9

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
JARMAN FORK SERVICE STATION (Continued) S101167751
Restricted Media: Multi-Media
Allowed Use: Media Restrictions Only
Certification: None
Plant Reception Date: Not reported
Instrument Status: Effective
Deed BK: Not reported
Deed PG: Not reported
Plat BK: Not reported
Plat PG: Not reported
Instrument: Notice and Restriction
Deed: Not reported
Deed Date: Recorded 11-19-2015
Plat: Not reported
Plat Date: Not reported
X Coord: 2423580.7297
Y Coord: 426231.21105
IMD:
Region: WIL
Facility ID: 5646
Date Occurred: 2/8/1990
Submit Date: 6/1/1990
GW Contam: Yes,Groundwater Contamination has been detected
Soil Contam: No
Incident Desc: DURING EXCAVATION OF USTS APPROX.30 GALS.WAS SPILLED INTO PIT AREA,
NEAR A MAIN WATER LINE.TESTS RESULTS CONFIRMED CONTAMINATION.
Operator: MR.BOBBY WILLIAMS
Contact Phone: Not reported
Owner Company: GREAT GAS&OIL CO.
Operator Address:P.O.BOX 129
Operator City: JACKSONVILLE
Oper City,St,Zip: JACKSONVILLE, NC 28540-
Ownership: Private
Operation: Commercial
Material: GASOLINE
Qty Lost 1: Not reported
Qty Recovered 1: UNK
Source: Leak-underground
Type: Gasoline/diesel
Location: Facility
Setting: Residential
Risk Site: H
Site Priority: 95B
Priority Code: H
Priority Update: 5/30/1998
Dem Contact: DTM
Wells Affected: No
Num Affected: 0
Wells Contam: Not reported
Sampled By: Responsible Parties
Samples Include: Groundwater Samples
7.5 Min Quad: Not reported
5 Min Quad: Not reported
Latitude: 34.913941528
Longitude: -77.59037559
Latitude Number: Not reported
Longitude Number: Not reported
TC5681529.37s Page 10

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
JARMAN FORK SERVICE STATION (Continued) S101167751
Latitude Decimal: Not reported
Longitude Decimal: Not reported
GPS: 3
Agency: DWM
Facility ID: 5646
Last Modified: Not reported
Incident Phase: RE
NOV Issued: Not reported
NORR Issued: Not reported
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
Corrective Action Planned: Not reported
SOC Sighned: Not reported
Reclassification Report: Not reported
RS Designation: Not reported
Closure Request Date: Not reported
Close-out Report: Not reported
2 BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKET(FORMER) LUST S103131845
SSE 931 KINSTON HIGHWAY LAST N/A
1/8-1/4 RICHLANDS, NC 28574 INST CONTROL
0.197 mi. IMD
1040 ft.
Relative: LUST:
Lower Facility ID: Not reported
Actual: UST Number: WI-7827
61 ft. Incident Number: 32896
Contamination Type: GW
Source Type: Leak-underground
Product Type: P
Date Reported: 03/31/2004
Date Occur: 01/08/2004
Cleanup: 01/08/2004
Closure Request: Not reported
Close Out: 11/02/2017
Level Of Soil Cleanup Achieved: Industrial/Commercial
Tank Regulated Status: R
#Of Supply Wells: 0
Commercial/NonCommercial UST Site: COMMERCIAL
Risk Classification: H
Risk Class Based On Review: L
Corrective Action Plan Type: Not reported
NOV Issue Date: Not reported
NORR Issue Date: Not reported
Site Priority: Not reported
Phase Of LSA Req: Not reported
Site Risk Reason: Not reported
Land Use: Residential
MTBE: No
MTBE1: Yes
Flag: No
FIag1: No
LUR Filed: 10/06/2017
Release Detection: 0
Current Status: File Located in House
RBCA GW: Cleanups to alternate standards
TC5681529.37s Page 11

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKET(FORMER) (Continued) S103131845
PETOPT: 3
RPL: True
CD Num: 0
Reel Num: 0
RPOW: True
RPOP: False
Error Flag: 0
Error Code: N
Valid: True
Lat/Long Decimal: 34.2077-77.8636
Testlat: Not reported
Regional Officer Project Mgr: SAK
Region: WIL
Company: BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKET
Contact Person: MS.EDNA E.BAYSDEN
Telephone: Not reported
RP Address: 416 CAVANAUGHTOWN ROAD
RP City,St,Zip: RICHLANDS,NC 28574
RP County: Not reported
Comments: ust's were discovered when the area was being excavated during
remediation of an overspill from aboveground storage tanks in 2004.
See RAST incident 85456 for information on this spill.A NORR has
been issued.////August 2017-talked with representative with
Northeast Onslow Water and gave all addresses within 1000 feet and
they confirmed that all properties were connected to public water.
5 Min Quad: Not reported
PIRF:
Facility Id: 32896
Date Occurred: 2004-01-08 00:00:00
Date Reported: 2004-01-08 00:00:00
Description Of Incident: Not reported
Owner/Operator: Not reported
Ownership: 4
Operation Type: 6
Type: 3
Location: 1
Site Priority: Not reported
Priority Update: Not reported
Wells Affected Y/N: N
Samples Include: Not reported
7#5 Minute Quad: N
5 Minute Quad: Not reported
Pirf/Min Soil: Not reported
Release Code: Not reported
Source Code: Not reported
Err Type: 2
Cause: 3
Source: A
Ust Number: P
Last Modified: 2017-11-02 00:00:00
Incident Phase: Closed Out
NOV Issued: Not reported
NORR Issued: Not reported
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
Corrective Action Planned: Not reported
TC5681529.37s Page 12

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKET(FORMER) (Continued) S103131845
SOC Signed: Not reported
Reclassification Report: Not reported
RS Designation: Not reported
Closure Request Date: Not reported
Close-out Report: Not reported
LAST:
Facility ID: Not reported
UST Number: WI-85456
Incident Number: 85456
Contamination Type: GW
Source Type: 14
Product Type: P
Date Reported: 01/12/1998
Date Occur: 01/10/1998
Cleanup: Not reported
Closure Request: Not reported
Close Out: 11/02/2017
Level Of Soil Cleanup Achieved: Not reported
Tank Regulated Status: Not reported
#Of Supply Wells: 0
Commercial/NonCommercial UST Site: Not reported
Risk Classification: H
Risk Class Based On Review: H
Corrective Action Plan Type: Not reported
NOV Issue Date: Not reported
NORR Issue Date: Not reported
Site Priority: 55
Phase Of LSA Req: Not reported
Site Risk Reason: Not reported
Land Use: Not reported
MTBE: No
MTBE1: Yes
Flag: No
FIag1: No
LUR Filed: Not reported
Release Detection: 0
Current Status: C
RBCA GW: Not reported
PETOPT: 3
RPL: False
CD Num: 0
Reel Num: 0
RPOW: False
RPOP: False
Error Flag: 0
Error Code: Not reported
Valid: False
Lat/Long: 34 54 49.92 77 35 24.96
Lat/Long Decimal: 34.91388-77.59027
Testlat: Not reported
Regional Officer Project Mgr: SAK
Region: WIL
Company: BAYSDENS SUPERMARKET
Contact Person: EARL BAYS DEN
Telephone: Not reported
RP Address: 931 KINSTON HIGNWAY
TC5681529.37s Page 13

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKET(FORMER) (Continued) S103131845
RP City,St,Zip: RICHLANDS, NC
RP County: Not reported
Comments: RESPONSIBLE PARTY HAS BEEN ENFORCED FOR LACK OF CSA OR CAP.6/14/2002
MEETING WITH DAUTER TO DISCUSS HOW TO CLEAN WITH NO FUNDS.See UST
incident No.32896 for additional information concerning this site
5 Min Quad: Not reported
PIRF:
Facility Id: 85456
Date Occurred: Not reported
Date Reported: Not reported
Description Of Incident: Not reported
Owner/Operator: Not reported
Ownership: 5
Operation Type: 8
Type: Not reported
Location: Not reported
Site Priority: 55D
Priority Update: Not reported
Wells Affected Y/N: N
Wells Affected Number: 0
Samples Taken By: Not reported
Samples Include: Not reported
7#5 Min Quad: Not reported
5 Min Quad: Not reported
Pirf/Min Soil: Not reported
Release Code: Not reported
Cause: Not reported
Source: Not reported
Source Type: 1
Last Modified: 11/2/2017
Incident Phase: CO
NOV Issued: Not reported
NORR Issued: Not reported
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
Corrective Action Planned: Not reported
SOC Signed: Not reported
Reclassification Report: Not reported
RS Designation: Not reported
Closure Request Date: Not reported
Close-out Report: Not reported
Facility ID: Not reported
UST Number: WI-85458
Incident Number: 85458
Contamination Type: NO
Source Type: 19
Product Type: P
Date Reported: 01/10/1998
Date Occur: 01/10/1998
Cleanup: Not reported
Closure Request: Not reported
Close Out: 03/26/1998
Level Of Soil Cleanup Achieved: Not reported
Tank Regulated Status: Not reported
#Of Supply Wells: 0
TC5681529.37s Page 14

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKET(FORMER) (Continued) S103131845
Commercial/NonCommercial UST Site: Not reported
Risk Classification: Not reported
Risk Class Based On Review: L
Corrective Action Plan Type: Not reported
NOV Issue Date: Not reported
NORR Issue Date: Not reported
Site Priority: 55
Phase Of LSA Req: Not reported
Site Risk Reason: Not reported
Land Use: Not reported
MTBE: No
MTBE1: Unknown
Flag: No
FIag1: No
LUR Filed: Not reported
Release Detection: 0
Current Status: A
RBCA GW: Not reported
PETOPT: Not reported
RPL: False
CD Num: 471
Reel Num: 0
RPOW: False
RPOP: False
Error Flag: 0
Error Code: Not reported
Valid: False
Lat/Long: 34 54 49.92 77 35 24.96
Lat/Long Decimal: 34.91388-77.59027
Testlat: Not reported
Regional Officer Project Mgr: Not reported
Region: WIL
Company: WORSLEY COMPANIES, INC.
Contact Person: DON QUINN
Telephone: Not reported
RP Address: P.O.BOX 3227
RP City,St,Zip: WILMINGTON, NC
RP County: Not reported
Comments: OVERFILL DURING FUEL TRANSFER FROM TANKER TRUCK CAUSED A LOSS OF
100-200 GALLONS OF GASOLINE. CLEANUP FOLLOWED SOON AFTER. INCIDENT IS
NOT RELATED TO BAYSDENS SUPERMARKET INCIDENT AT THIS SAME LOCATION.
5 Min Quad: Not reported
PIRF:
Facility Id: 85458
Date Occurred: Not reported
Date Reported: Not reported
Description Of Incident: Not reported
Owner/Operator: Not reported
Ownership: 5
Operation Type: 8
Type: Not reported
Location: Not reported
Site Priority: 55E
Priority Update: Not reported
Wells Affected Y/N: N
Wells Affected Number: 0
Samples Taken By: Not reported
TC5681529.37s Page 15

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKET(FORMER) (Continued) S103131845
Samples Include: Not reported
7#5 Min Quad: Not reported
5 Min Quad: Not reported
Pirf/Min Soil: Not reported
Release Code: Not reported
Cause: Not reported
Source: Not reported
Source Type: 0
Last Modified: 3/26/1998
Incident Phase: CO
NOV Issued: Not reported
NORR Issued: Not reported
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
Corrective Action Planned: Not reported
SOC Signed: Not reported
Reclassification Report: Not reported
RS Designation: Not reported
Closure Request Date: Not reported
Close-out Report: 3/26/1998
INST CONTROL:
Project Number: WI-7827
Object ID: 5079
DWM Contact: Wilmington Regional Office(910)796-7215
DWM Program: Underground Storage Tank Section
Project Status: No Further Action
COC: Multi COC
Contamination Source: UST System
Received Date: 10/5/2017
Restricted Media: Multi-Media
Allowed Use: Media Restrictions Only
Certification: None
Plant Reception Date: Not reported
Instrument Status: Effective
Deed BK: Not reported
Deed PG: Not reported
Plat BK: Not reported
Plat PG: Not reported
Instrument: Notice and Restriction
Deed: Not reported
Deed Date: Recorded 10-5-2017
Plat: Not reported
Plat Date: Not reported
X Coord: 2343590.9409
Y Coord: 168561.68177
IMD:
Region: WIL
Facility ID: 18185
Date Occurred: 1/10/1998
Submit Date: 1/22/1998
GW Contam: Not reported
Soil Contam: Yes
Incident Desc: IN JAN.1998 AN AGST WAS OVERFILLED RESULTING IN DISCHARGE OF
TC5681529.37s Page 16

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKET(FORMER) (Continued) S103131845
GASOLINE.OLD USTS ON SITE.AGSTS HAVE LEAKED OVER SEVERAL YEARS.
Operator: EARL BAYSDEN
Contact Phone: Not reported
Owner Company: Not reported
Operator Address:931 KINSTON HWY.
Operator City: RICHLANDS
Oper City,St,Zip: RICHLANDS,NC 28574
Ownership: Private
Operation: Commercial
Material: GASOLINE
Qty Lost 1: Not reported
Qty Recovered 1: Not reported
Material: DIESEL
Qty Lost: Not reported
Qty Recovered: Not reported
Source: Dredge Spoil
Type: Gasoline/diesel
Location: Facility
Setting: Residential
Risk Site: No
Site Priority: 55E
Priority Code: E
Priority Update: Not reported
Dem Contact: Not reported
Wells Affected: Not reported
Num Affected: 0
Wells Contam: Not reported
Sampled By: Dept.of Env.Management
Samples Include: Groundwater Samples
7.5 Min Quad: Not reported
5 Min Quad: V27A
Latitude: Not reported
Longitude: Not reported
Latitude Number: Not reported
Longitude Number: Not reported
Latitude Decimal: Not reported
Longitude Decimal: Not reported
GPS: NOD
Agency: Not reported
Facility ID: 18185
Last Modified: Not reported
Incident Phase: Not reported
NOV Issued: Not reported
NORR Issued: Not reported
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
Corrective Action Planned: Not reported
SOC Sighned: Not reported
Reclassification Report: Not reported
RS Designation: Not reported
Closure Request Date: Not reported
Close-out Report: Not reported
Region: WIL
Facility ID: 85456
Date Occurred: 1/12/1998
TC5681529.37s Page 17

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKET(FORMER) (Continued) S103131845
Submit Date: 2/7/2001
GW Contam: Yes,Groundwater Contamination has been detected
Soil Contam: Not reported
Incident Desc: RESPONSIBLE PARTY HAS BEEN ENFORCED FOR LACK OF CSA OR CAP. 6/14/2002
MEETING WITH DAUTER TO DISCUSS HOW TO CLEAN WITH NO FUNDS
Operator: BAYSDEN, EARL
Contact Phone: [phone]
Owner Company: BAYSDENS SUPERMARKET
Operator Address:931 KINSTON HIGNWAY
Operator City: RICHLANDS
Oper City,St,Zip: RICHLANDS 910-324-3564
Ownership: Federal
Operation: 8
Material: Not reported
Qty Lost 1: Not reported
Qty Recovered 1: Not reported
Source: Dredge Spoil
Type: Gasoline/diesel
Location: Not reported
Setting: Not reported
Risk Site: Not reported
Site Priority: Not reported
Priority Code: D
Priority Update: Not reported
Dem Contact: SDC
Wells Affected: No
Num Affected: 0
Wells Contam: Not reported
Sampled By: Not reported
Samples Include: Not reported
7.5 Min Quad: Not reported
5 Min Quad: Not reported
Latitude: Not reported
Longitude: Not reported
Latitude Number: Not reported
Longitude Number: Not reported
Latitude Decimal: Not reported
Longitude Decimal: Not reported
GPS: GPS
Agency: DWQ
Facility ID: 85456
Last Modified: 6/26/2003
Incident Phase: RE
NOV Issued: 3/12/2001
NORR Issued: Not reported
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
Corrective Action Planned: Not reported
SOC Sighned: Not reported
Reclassification Report: Not reported
RS Designation: Not reported
Closure Request Date: Not reported
Close-out Report: Not reported
Region: WIL
Facility ID: 85458
TC5681529.37s Page 18

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction -
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
BAYSDEN'S SUPERMARKET(FORMER) (Continued) S103131845
Date Occurred: 1/10/1998
Submit Date: 2/7/2001
GW Contam: No Groundwater Contamination detected
Soil Contam: Not reported
Incident Desc: OVERFILL DURING FUEL TRANSFER FROM TANKER TRUCK CAUSED A LOSS OF
100-200 GALLONS OF GASOLINE. CLEANUP FOLLOWED SOON AFTER. INCIDENT IS
NOT RELATED TO BAYSDENS S
Operator: QUINN, DON
Contact Phone: Not reported
Owner Company: WORSLEY COMPANIES, INC.
Operator Address:P.O.BOX 3227
Operator City: WILMINGTON
Oper City,St,Zip: WILMINGTON
Ownership: Federal
Operation: 8
Material: Not reported
Qty Lost 1: Not reported
Qty Recovered 1: Not reported
Source: Spill-surface
Type: Gasoline/diesel
Location: Not reported
Setting: Not reported
Risk Site: Not reported
Site Priority: Not reported
Priority Code: E
Priority Update: Not reported
Dem Contact: SDC
Wells Affected: No
Num Affected: 0
Wells Contam: Not reported
Sampled By: Not reported
Samples Include: Not reported
7.5 Min Quad: Not reported
5 Min Quad: Not reported
Latitude: Not reported
Longitude: Not reported
Latitude Number: Not reported
Longitude Number: Not reported
Latitude Decimal: Not reported
Longitude Decimal: Not reported
GPS: GPS
Agency: DWQ
Facility ID: 85458
Last Modified: 6/26/2003
Incident Phase: Closed Out
NOV Issued: 1/26/1998
NORR Issued: Not reported
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
Corrective Action Planned: Not reported
SOC Sighned: Not reported
Reclassification Report: Not reported
RS Designation: Not reported
Closure Request Date: Not reported
Close-out Report: 3/26/1998
TC5681529.37s Page 19

Count:0 records. ORPHAN SUMMARY
City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s)
NO SITES FOUND
TC5681529.37s Page 20

CORRESPONDENCE

Ores
June 17, 2019
Kenneth and Sue Jones
322 Jonestown Road
Pink Hill, NC 28572
Re: Cowford Mitigation Project
Dear Kenneth and Sue,
As part of the environmental documentation process in preparation for the stream mitigation
project on your property, this letter is to inform you of provisions in the Federal Highway
Administration Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended, referred to as the Uniform Act.
The Uniform Act requires that we inform you in writing that this conservation easement
transaction is voluntary and that the project is being developed by Environmental Banc &
Exchange, LLC for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). Neither EBX
nor NCDMS have the authority to acquire the property by eminent domain. In addition, EBX
believes that the agreed purchase price for the conservation easement area represents the fair
market value.
This letter is for your information, and you do not need to respond. As always, please feel free to
call me at 919-817-7378 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Daniel Ramsay
General Manager
412 N.4th St.#300 1200 Camellia Blvd.#220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd.#130 302 Jefferson St.#110 33 Terminal Way#431
Baton Rouge,LA 70802. Lafayette,LA 70508 Odenton,MD 21113 Owings Mills,MD 21117 Raleigh,NC 27605 Pittsburgh,PA 15219
701 E.Bay St.#306 5020 Montrose Blvd.#650 2750 Prosperity Ave.#220 1521 W.Main 2n°Floor 3751 Westerre Pkwy.#A 5367 Telephone Rd. 1371/2 East Main St.#210
Charleston,SC 29403 Houston,TX 77006 Fairfax,VA 22031 Richmond,VA 23233 Richmond,VA 23220 Warrenton,VA 20187 Oak Hill,WV 25901

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Or es
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire,TX 77401
Main: 713.520.540
June 21st,2019
Maria Dunn
Coastal Coordinator
DENR Rgl
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington,NC 27889
Subject: Project Scoping for Cowford Mitigation Project in Onslow County
Dear Ms. Dunn,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential stream and wetland restoration project on the
attached site (USGS site map with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance
are enclosed). Resource Environmental Solutions,LLC (RES)is contracted by the North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services to conduct stream and riparian wetland activities for the Cowford Project
to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. The proposed project
presents an opportunity to restore 2.27 acres of riparian wetlands,and restore 3,770 linear feet of stream
and associated riparian buffer.Historic riparian wetlands adjacent to Cowford Branch and unnamed
tributaries to Cowford Branch have been drained and converted to agricultural land for generations. Other
land use around the project is pasture,residential land,and some bottomland hardwood forest.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation.You may return the comment to my
attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at mdeangelo(a�res.us with any questions that
you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Adfr
Matt DeAngelo Ecologist
res.us

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES), through its wholly owned subsidiary Environmental
Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX) has been contracted by NC DMS in response to the RFP #16-007577 to
provide stream and wetland mitigation credits in the White Oak River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03030001,
Targeted Local Watershed 03030001010010).
RES has entered into contracts to purchase fee simple property and a conservation easements totaling
approximately 16 acres on one parcel comprising the Cowford Project(Project),in Onslow County,North
Carolina. The Project will involve the restoration of an unnamed tributary to Cowford Branch and some
adjacent riparian wetlands.
As described in the following technical proposal,the Project will result in significant water quality
improvements including:
• Reduced nutrient and sediment loads,
• Improved flood flow attenuation, and
• Increased dissolved oxygen concentrations.
The Project will provide uplift for ecological functions,including:
• Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat diversity,
• Reduced water temperature,
• Restored native riparian plant communities,and
• Invasive species treatment.
The Project will restore,enhance,and protect an important aquatic resource and wildlife corridor while also
accommodating existing agricultural land uses.
Watershed
The Project is in the Upper New River watershed (14-digit HUC 03030001010010), a Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) that is being stressed by agricultural non-point source pollution. The Project supports
many of the White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) goals and presents an opportunity to
restore 2.27 acres of riparian wetlands and restore 3,681 linear feet of stream and associated riparian buffer.
The Project will provide ecological and water quality benefits to the Upper New River Watershed within
the White Oak River Basin. These benefits are not limited to the project area and have far-reaching effects
throughout the White Oak River Basin.The Project will provide improvements to water quality,hydrologic
function, and terrestrial and aquatic habitat connectivity. As stated in the 2010 White Oak RBRP report,
the following restoration and protection goals are listed for the watershed:
1. Protect and improve water quality throughout the Basin by reducing sediment and nutrient
inputs into streams and rivers;
2. Protect shellfish harvesting waters and reduce the number&frequency ofDivision of
Environmental Health (DEH) closures of designated shellfish growing areas;
3. Support efforts to restore local watersheds in the White Oak River Basin; and
4. Support implementation of the NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (Street et al, 2005) and
its associated implementation plans (NC Division of Marine Fisheries, 2007;NCDMF,
2009).

The Project directly supports many of these listed goals through the restoration and protection of aquatic
resources, and presents an opportunity to grow the already protected catchment in the Upper New River
watershed from earlier DMS efforts in the White Oak River Basin.
Stream and Wetland Restoration Approach
A key design consideration for the Project is ensuring the enhanced channels and restored wetlands achieve
maximum functional uplift while allowing the existing agricultural land uses to continue. All restoration
and enhancement practices will be designed and implemented to accommodate current and future flow
conditions in this developing watershed.
Historic riparian wetlands adjacent the unnamed tributaries to Cowford Branch have been drained and
converted to agricultural land for generations. In addition to stream channelization,wetland modifications
include drainage ditches/tiles, de-forestation, and soil disturbance/fill. The proposed riparian wetland
restoration will address these historic land-use impacts through stream restoration, grading, surface
roughening,and re-vegetation to restore a functional and diverse alluvial forest community.Restoration of
these important ecosystems will improve local water quality,natural habitat,and biodiversity.
Stream restoration practices may range from bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform
and hydraulic geometry.For reaches requiring full restoration,natural design concepts will be applied and
verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a
geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape.
Structures utilized on the Project's channels will include log sills,log vanes,and brush toes.
The Project's riparian planting design will achieve the following goals: filter existing or potential runoff,
provide channel and soil stability, and improve terrestrial wildlife habitat. The first step to developing the
vegetation plan will be a comprehensive vegetation and tree survey as a component of the overall data
collection.This will identify and map invasive species treatment areas,specimen trees for protection,likely
seed sources and successional communities,and potential trees to use for construction materials. RES will
perform all invasive exotic vegetation treatment. Treatments may include herbicide applications and/or
mechanical control.

From: Dunn,Maria T.
To: Jamey Mceachran
Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: [External] Project Scoping: Federal-Aid project(FHWA lead federal agency)administered by NC
DMS in Onslow County
Date: Friday,July 26,2019 3:50:48 PM
Mr. Mceachran,
I have looked at the site located off NC Hwy 258 near its intersection with NC Hwy 24 in Onslow
County for a NCDMS project of 3,770' potential stream and 2.27 acres of wetland restoration credits.
The area is associated with Cowford stream and is currently in agricultural use with minimal to no
buffer.
There appears to be no listed species within the immediate project area. However, since there was
minimal detail provided regarding site plans, it is difficult to say whether or not the project will
provide successful mitigation. Site design is important to insure water quality and wildlife benefits
can be obtained through the project by means of floodplain connectivity, appropriate vegetation,
and travel corridors. An important detail to consider is the downstream culverts under NC Hwy 258.
Generally the NCWRC provides comments during onsite meetings and during project proposals with
the IRT. More conversation may be had at that time when further details are provided.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comment. If I can be of additional service,
please do not hesitate to call or email.
Maria
Maria T. Dunn
Coastal Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
943 Washington Sq. Mall
Washington, NC 27889
office: 252-948-3916
fax: [phone]
www.ncwildlife.ord
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:Jamey Mceachran <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday,June 18, 2019 1:29 PM
To: Dunn, Maria T. <[e-mail]>
Cc: Matthew Deangelo<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Project Scoping: Federal-Aid project (FHWA lead federal agency) administered by

NC DMS in Onslow County
CA External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an
achmentto report.spamlthnc.gov
Hello Ms. Dunn,
Please see attached the request for review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to fish and wildlife associated with the Cowford stream and riparian wetland
restoration project identified by RES and contracted by NC DMS.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jamey
Jamey Redding McEachran
Ecology Team Lead
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
r es
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South,Suite 300
Bellaire,TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
June 17, 2019
Milton Cortes
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd., Suite 117
Raleigh,NC 27609
Subject: AD-1006 Request for the Cowford Mitigation Project in Onslow County
Dear Mr. Cortes,
Resource Enviornmental Solutions (RES) requests review and comment from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service on any possible concerns that may emerge with respect to farmland resources
including prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland associated with the Cowford stream
mitigation project. This project is being developed for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services.
Please note that this request is in support of the development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) and an
Environmental Screening document for the referenced project.
The Cowford Project has been identified for the purposes of providing mitigation for unavoidable stream
impacts in the White Oak River Basin. RES has been awarded the contract to design and implement the
Cowford project. A requirement of the project is to prepare an Environmental Screening Document that
describes resources present on the project site.
The Project is in the White Oak River Basin(03030001)in the Upper New River Targeted Local Watershed
(03030001010010).The Project supports many of the White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities(RBRP)
goals and presents an opportunity to restore 3,770 linear feet of stream,restore 2.27 acres of wetland, and
the associated riparian buffer. The proposed Project will provide ecological and water quality benefits
within the White Oak River Basin. These benefits are not limited to the project area and have more far-
reaching effects throughout the White Oak River Basin by providing improvements to water quality,
hydrologic function, and habitat. The Project is in close proximity with the existing DMS Bear Basin
Mitigation site,offering even more functional uplift to the local subwatershed. Coordinates for the site are
as follows: 34.923 N,-77.591W.
An inventory of soils data was completed by RES utilizing Web Soil Survey to determine prime farmland
classifications for the 15.9 acre project area. Three soil map units in the project area are classified as all
areas are prime farmland, making up 64.8% of the site (Goldsboro fine sandy loam, Norfolk loamy fine
sand, and Onslow loamy fine sand). One soil map unit is classified as prime farmland if drained and
accounts for 10.8% of the site (Rains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Atlantic Coast Flatwoods).
One soil map unit in the project area is classified as farmland of statewide importance making up 24.4%of
the site (Stallings loamy fine sand).
Enclosed is Form AD-1006 with Parts I and III Completed and maps of the Cowford Site. We ask that you
review the site information and complete Parts II, IV, and V as required by NRCS. Please email
(menge1c' res.us), or mail your reply to the our office on 302 Jeffferson Street, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC
27605.
res.us

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
t.))42fdr-A9''
Megan D Engel Ecologist II
Attachements: Vicinity Map(Figure 1),USGS Topographc Map(Figure 2),Aerial Map (Figure 3)
Conceptual Plan Map(Figure 4),Web Soil Survey Report,&AD-1006
2

Megan Engel
From: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday,July 3, 2019 8:16 PM
To: Megan Engel
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: AD-1006 Request for the Cowford Mitigation Project in Onslow County
Attachments: AD1006_Cowford Mitigation Project.pdf
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Megan:
Please, find attached the FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING form AD1006 for the Cowford
Mitigation Project in Onslow County, NC
If I can be of further assistance please let me know
Best Regards;
(ea.
State Soil Scientist
USDA NRCS
4407 Bland Rd., Suite 117
Raleigh,NC 27609
Desk: 919-873-2171
Cell: 984-365-2201
From: Megan Engel <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday,June 17, 2019 3:32 PM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC<[e-mail]>;Volinski, Petra - NRCS, New Bern, NC
<[e-mail]>
Cc:Jamey Mceachran<[e-mail]>; Bradley Breslow <[e-mail]>
Subject:AD-1006 Request for the Cowford Mitigation Project in Onslow County
Mr. Cortes,
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) requests review and comment from the Natural Resources Conservation
Service on any possible concerns that may emerge with respect to farmland resources including prime, unique, statewide
or local important farmland associated with the Cowford Mitigation Project. This project is being developed for the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. Please note that this request is in support of the development of the Categorical
Exclusion (CE) and an Environmental Resource Technical Report for the referenced project.
Attached is a request letter along with Form AD-1006 with Parts I and III Completed and maps of the Project. We ask that
you review the site information and complete Parts II, IV, and V as required by NRCS. We thank you in advance for your
timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have concerning the
extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Best,
Megan D Engel
1

Ecologist II
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients.Any
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and
subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender and delete the email immediately.
2

302 Jefferson Street,Suite 110
r es
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire,TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
June 21st,2019
Renee Gledhill-Earley
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
Subject: Project Scoping for Cowford Mitigation Project in Onslow County
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,
Resource Environmental Solutions,LLC(RES)is contracted by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services to conduct stream and riparian wetland activities for the Cowford Project to provide compensatory
mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. The proposed project presents an opportunity to
restore 2.27 acres of riparian wetlands,and restore 3,770 linear feet of stream and associated riparian buffer.
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 wetland mitigation project on the Cowford Site
(a USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation easement is attached).
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/; accessed January 9, 2018) was performed as part of the site due diligence
evaluation.The database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources
on the proposed properties. Other land use around the project is pasture, residential land, and some
bottomland hardwood forest.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the
comment to my attention at the address below, or via email. Please feel free to contact me at
[e-mail] with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Matt DeAngelo Ecologist
res.us

-..,„ g
r
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M.Bartos,Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H.Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
July 9,2019
Kimberly Browning
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Mitigation Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Wake Forest,NC 27587
Re: Cowford Mitigation Site,Richlands, SAW 2019-00487, Onslow County,ER 19-1952
Dear Ms. Browning:
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 or
environmental.review@a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project,please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
C_Q_A.,zt_ Atd101-Wtt-6-
V ✓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

(42V,r; hl �FIEAI&WILDLIFE 1
-. ySILNv[C8
N .`�` „t United States Department of the Interior
\„-4-a%, )/
R'q�cH s,5$a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE '
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date: 8/2/2019
Self-Certification Letter
Project Name Cowford Mitigation Project
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act(16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended(Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.
The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:
"no effect" determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
1-1 proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
ri "may affect, not likely to adversely affect"determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
ri "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the Northern long-
eared bat(Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;
✓ "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.

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

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Cowford_
Date July 31, 2019,
Species/ Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7/ Eagle Act Determination Notes/ Documentation
West Indian Manatee No suitable habitat No effect
(Trichechus manatus)
Piping Plover No suitable habitat No effect
(Charadrius melodus)
Red Knot No suitable habitat No effect
(Calidaris canutus rufa)
Red-cockaded Woodpecker No suitable habitat No effect No suitable pine trees on the property.
(Picoides borealis) Property has agricultural fields and CRP
easement consisting of 10 year old planted
sawtooth oak and loblolly pines
American Alligator No suitable habitat No effect
(Alligator mississippiensis)
Green Sea Turtle No suitable habitat No effect
(Chelonia mydas)
Hawksbill Sea Turtle No suitable habitat No effect
(Eretmochelys imbricate)
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle No suitable habitat No effect
(Lepidochelys kempii)
Leatherback Sea Turtle No suitable habitat No effect
(Dermochelys coriacea)
Loggerhead Sea Turtle No suitable habitat No effect
(Caretta caretta)
Cooley's Meadowrue No suitable habitat No effect Habitat and species survey conducted on July 19,2019.
(Thalictrum cooleyi) Determined no suitable habitat nor species presence.
Conclusion and determination revised to reflect this.See
conclusion letter,pg 16-17.

Golden Sedge No suitable habitat No effect Habitat survey conducted on July 19,2019.Determined
(Carex lutea) no suitable habitat present.Conclusion and determination
revised to reflect this.See conclusion letter,pg.16-17.
Pondberry No suitable habitat No effect Habitat survey conducted on July 19,2019.
(Lindera melissifolia) Determined no suitable habitat present.Conclusion
and determination revised to reflect this.See
conclusion letter,pg 16-17.
Roughed leaved No suitable habitat No effect Habitat and species survey conducted on July 19,2019.
Loosestrife Determined no suitable habitat nor species presence.
Conclusion and determination revised to reflect this.See
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia) conclusion letter,pg.16-17.
Seabeach Amaranth No suitable habitat No effect
(Amaranthus pumilus)
Critical Habitat No critical habitat present No effect
Bald eagle Unlikely to disturb nesting No Eagle Act Permit Required
bald eagles
Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an
informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.
A
gC4e714--
, Ecologist 8/2/2019
Signature/Title Date

cRale0.7T ,i rh'r Fi•sJd sin ulurr.
n
__: - -_...;I United States Department of the Interior ``"p
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
%$
igh Ecological Services Field Office .
��" Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh,NC 27636-3726
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
In Reply Refer To: June 18, 2019
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2019-SLI-1078
Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02456
Project Name: Cowford
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service)under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information.An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally-listed endangered or threatened species.A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally-protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or

06/18/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02456 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/migratorybirds/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 at [e-mail].

06/18/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02456 3
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List

06/18/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02456 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh,NC 27636-3726
[phone]

06/18/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02456 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2019-SLI-1078
Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02456
Project Name: Cowford
Project Type: LAND - RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT
Project Description: Stream Restoration and Wetland Restoration
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/place/34.922883632421346N77.59454847090188W
w,Rd
Counties: Onslow, NC

06/18/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02456 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 15 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
Fisheries', 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 Depaitiuent of
Commerce.
Mammals
NAM L STATUS
West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus Threatened
There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat.
This species is also protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act,and may have additional
consultation requirements.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4469
Birds
NAME STATUS
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened
Population: [Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations] -Wherever found,except
those areas where listed as endangered.
There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039
Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1864
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614

06/18/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02456 4
Reptiles
NAME STATUS
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis Similarity of
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Appearance
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/776 (Threatened)
Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened
Population:North Atlantic DPS
There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6199
Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3656
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered
There is proposed critical habitat for this species.The location of the critical habitat is not
available.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5523
Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1493
Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta Threatened
Population:Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1110

06/18/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2019-E-02456 5
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Cooley's Meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3281
Golden Sedge Carex lutea Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6025
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1279
Rough-leaved Loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2747
Seabeach Amaranth Amaranthus pumilus Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8549
Critical habitats
HERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

• ■■■ Roy Cooper.Governor
•• •• NC DEPARTMENT OF Susi Hamilton, Secretary
■■m NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
• Now Walter Clark, Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-9302
June 18, 2019
Matthew DeAngelo
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Cowford (updated 6182019
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:
https://www.fws.gov/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 [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Q 121 W.JONES STREET.RALEIGH.NC 27603 • 16S1 MAIL SERVICE CENTER.RALEIGH.NC 27699
OFC'M9.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Cowford (updated 6182019
June 18, 2019
NCNHDE-9302
No Element Occurrences are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Nam' Owner Type
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on June 18,2019; source: NCNHP, Q2 Apr 2019.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

NCNHDE-9302: Cowford (updated 6182019
I
1.54
Warren Taylor Rd
�n
80fl
>y a� firchUn..
,a D
52/
v C'
O.
wule�Mwy a t3aadow°r 0
4
aac
_ F i
Hum phreY 6Nd
al
Baufavllle�HM,y �'o7JS Vyhy� /y�o
o �q4P
,,C�
I
29�
N t "0,1-258 z,_
W±E of
90 !
s Ery
June 18,2019 1:22,052
a Project Boundary I % 0.175 0.35 i
0 Buffered Project Boundary 0 0.3 1.2 km
Managed Area(MAREA) Sources' Esri,HERE,Garmin,,Intermap,increment P Corp_.GEBCO,USGS,
FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase,IGN,Kadaster NL.Ordnance Survey,Esn Japan,
METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS
User Community
Page 3 of 3

RE: Thalictrum cooleyi Survey at Cowford site, Onslow County,NC
A plant survey for the federally listed Cooley's meadowrue, Thalictrum cooleyi(Fed E,
S2 G2), was conducted on July 19th, 2019 at our Cowford Stream and Wetland Mitigation site (a
Federal-Aid project(FHWA lead federal agency) administered by the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services), located near Richlands,NC in Onslow County; no populations were
located in this area. T. cooleyi's range in North Carolina includes Brunswick, Columbus, Onslow
and Pender counties; however, its suitable habitat includes fire dependent grassy bogs and pine
savanna ecotones with regular disturbance, neither of which make up this site. The Cowford site
consists of an eroded, overgrown ditch cut by an existing stream that bisects an exposed soybean
field; less than half of the site is densely forested on the western-most easement boundary. The
stream and floodplain are largely comprised of Eupatorium capillifolium, Acer rubrum,
Liquidambar styraciflua, Clethra alnifolia, Rubus pensilvanicus, Smilax sp., Typha latifolia,
Rhexia sp., Toxicodendron radicans, Magnolia virginiana, Carex sp., Setaria sp., Chamaecrista,
fasciculata, Verbena brasiliensis, Solanum carolinense, and Ambrosia artemisiifolia. There is
little to no disturbance (fire, mowing,powerline cut, etc.)that would create vegetation clearing
which would support suitable habitat for T. cooleyi. The forested portion within the easement
boundary predominantly consists of Rubus pensilvanicus, Solidago sp., Lespedeza bicolor,
Quercus acutissima, Diospyros virginiana, Baccharis halimifolia, Pinus teada, Ligustrum
sinense, Malus angustifolia, Quercus falcata, Rhus glabra, Celtis laevigata, and Phytolacca
americana. A very dense understory persists throughout, allowing little to no light to support
low-lying species like T. cooleyi, which requires an open understory (typically as a result of
recent burns). T. cooleyi often grows in tandem with Liriodendron tulipifera, Taxodium
distichum, and Chamaecyparis thyoides, none of which were found at this site.
Our method for surveying included splitting up (among two people) along both sides of
the existing stream,recording the species present and any occurrences of potential suitable
habitat; we continued surveying this way the entirety of the stream's length. When we reached
the forested area within the site,we began making transects throughout, surveying the understory
for T. cooleyi and its habitat. The habitat within the easement of this site was not representative
of grassy bogs or pine savanna ecotones.
Though a reference population was not visited for this survey, one of the team members,
Emily Ulman, has been to and seen a population of T. cooleyi in Columbus County, south of
Lake Waccamaw, east of US Route 701, near Nakina,NC. Both survey members, Emily Ulman
and Megan Engel,had dichotomous keys for the genus Thalictrum, amplified from Radford et al.
(1968) and Weakley (2008) and had researched the information and pictures provided by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for T. cooleyi. Megan and Emily have performed rare plant
surveys in the past for threatened and endangered plant species in both North Carolina and
California.
In conclusion, after conducting a more thorough evaluation of the habitat present at the
Cowford Mitigation Site and surveying for T. cooleyi specifically we have determined that there

is no suitable habitat present within the Cowford Mitigation Site easement; therefore,we are
changing the conclusion on the species conclusion table on the self-certification letter from may
affect to no effect on any T. cooleyi populations.
Although this survey was primarily conducted for T. cooleyi, three other federally listed
species were considered during this time (due to their range including Onslow county); golden
sedge (Carex lutes), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), and roughed leaved loosestrife,
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia).
L. asperulaefolia's peak survey time occurs from mid-May through September,which
was considered while surveying for T. cooleyi. Emily has visited two separate populations of L.
asperulaefolia in the past(mid-June, 2018 and July, 2019), both of them being within the Green
Swamp Preserve (owned by The Nature Conservancy) off of highway 211 in Brunswick County,
NC, southeast of Lake Waccamaw. This species is most likely to occur within ecotones along
longleaf pine savannas and pond pine pocosins,typically disturbed by fire (to maintain a sparse
understory).L. asperulaefolia also occurs within Carolina bay communities,which do not exist
at this site. Like T. cooleyi,L. asperulaefolia is heavily dependent on fire or disturbance
(roadsides,powerline cuts, etc.) for its growth and reproduction. Additionally,L. asperulaefolia
would have likely stood out, had it been present on this mitigation site, due to its bright yellow
inflorescence displayed in a terminal raceme and its distinct leaf arrangement(whorled with
three prominent veins). Due to these requirements, the Cowford mitigation site did not
represent a suitable habitat and therefore has no effect on L. asperulaefolia.
The survey times for C. lutea(mid-April through mid-June) and L. melissifolia(February
through March)have passed for this survey season; however, considering their suitable habitat
and occurrence records in Onslow County, it is very unlikely that they would appear on the
Cowford site. C. lutea typically shares a habitat with T. cooleyi, along pine savanna ecotones or
in swampy areas, frequently cleared by fire; these habitat features do not occur on this mitigation
site. Typical neighboring species of C. lutea are Liriodendron tulipifera and Taxodium ascendens
which do not appear on this site. Because of a dense understory throughout and the need for the
same/similar habitat as T. cooleyi(which is not present), it was determined that there is not
suitable habitat for C. lutea. L. melissifolia has only one recorded occurrence in Onslow County
(none recorded since) and otherwise prefers bottomland ponds and wet depressions (not
characteristic of this site). Because there is no suitable habitat present for either of these species,
it is highly unlikely that there would be any effect on them within this site. This survey did not
determine whether the species was present as the survey was not conducted during optimal
survey time for both species,but did determine that there was no suitable habitat present for C.
lutea and L. melissifolia.

�� rsr of -6 United States Department of the Interior
r1:11r, lir
o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
,,t." Raleigh ES Field Office
� •
a Post Office Box 33726
4RCH a.'� Raleigh,North Carolina 27636-3726
July 11, 2019
RECEIVED
Kim Browning JUL 15 2019
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Mitigation Field Office RALEIGH REGULATORY
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 FIELD OFFICE
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: NCDMS- Cowford Mitigation Site/SAW-2019-00487/Onslow County
Dear Mrs. Browning:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the project advertised in the above
referenced Public Notice. The project, as advertised in the Public Notice, is expected to have
minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Therefore,we have no objection to the
activity as described in the permit application.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973,.as amended, (ESA) and based on the
information provided,and other available information, it appears the action is not likely to adversely
affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. We believe that the
requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please remember
;1, that obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information identifies impacts of this
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2)this
action is modified in a manner that was not considered in this review;or, (3) a new species is listed
or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North
Carolina is now available on our website at<http://www.fws.gov/raleigh>. Our web page contains a
complete and updated list of federally protected species, and a list of federal species of concern
known to occur in each county in North Carolina.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project,please contact Kathy Matthews at(919)856-4520,
extension 27.
in er Iy,
P e Beni min,
Fie
ld Supervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, IBC. ; :_ ,
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh
1

Appendix L
• DMS Floodplain Requirement Checklist

Y iC
Ir=i1
����os stem = : �
EnnFiancement "
PROGRAM NORTH CA N A
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance Program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of
the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with
three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project: Cowford Project
Name if stream or feature: Unnamed Tributary to Cowford Branch
County: Onslow County
Name of river basin: White Oak River Basin
Is project urban or rural? Rural
Name of Jurisdictional Onslow County
municipality/county:
DFIRM panel number for 4422 and 4423
entire site: (map number 3720442200K, effective date June 19,
2020 and map number 3720442300K, effective date
June 19, 2020, respectively)
Consultant name: Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Phone number: [phone]
Address: 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh,NC 27612
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist.docx Page 1 of 4

Design Information
The Cowford Project is located within a rural watershed in Onslow County,North
Carolina within the White Oak River Basin and USGS 14-digit HUC 030203020102. The
Project proposes to restore 914 linear feet(LF) of headwater valley, 2,424 LF of stream,
and re-establish 2.991 acres of wetland that will provide water quality benefit for 238
acres of drainage area. The purpose of the Project is to meet water quality improvements
addressed in the River Basin Restoration Priorities and improve overall stream and
wetland health.
Reach Length (LF) Mitigation Type
KJ1-A 914 Restoration(HWV)
KJ1-B 852 Restoration
KJ1-C 1,572 Restoration
Wetland Acreage Mitigation Type
WB 2.991 Re-establishment
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist.docx Page 2 of 4

Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area(SFHA)?
C Yes ( No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
✓ Redelineation
✓ Detailed Study
r Limited Detail Study
✓ Approximate Study
r Don't know
List flood zone designation: Zone X(outside 0.2% floodplain)
Check if applies:
✓ AE Zone
C Floodway
C Non-Encroachment
None
✓ A Zone
C Local Setbacks Required
No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?
CYes 1 No
Land Acquisition (Check)
✓ State owned(fee simple)
✓ Conservation easment(Design Bid Build)
✓ Conservation Easement(Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned,then all requirements should be addressed
to the Depail.uient of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
[phone])
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist.docx Page 3 of 4

Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
Yes - No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: State NFIP Engineer, [phone])
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Austin Brinkley, [phone]
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
`vf No Action
No Rise
Letter of Map Revision
Conditional Letter of Map Revision
Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: Samuel Fasking Signature:
Title: Engineer I Date: 07.31.2020
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist.docx Page 4 of 4

Appendix M
• Detailed Soil Report

FINAL
Detailed Hydric Soils Study
Cowford Mitigation Site
Onslow County NC
Prepared for:
Matt Butler
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh,NC 27605
Prepared by:
George K Lankford Soil Scientist,LSS#1223
George K Lankford,LLC
238 Shady Grove Rd
Pittsboro,NC 27312
. .D,,":',. °.7 41144.3.
February 2020 Soil Scientist Seal
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Cowford Branch Mitigation Site in Onslow 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—Cowford Mitigation Site
Study Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the site soils and delineate the extent of riparian hydric soils
potentially suitable for hydrologic restoration and mitigation.All boundaries shown are based on the
detailed field evaluation. The potential for hydrologic restoration is evaluated considering both the
historic and existing land use,current conditions,and the sites potential for creating a hydroperiod
suitable for its landscape setting and soils. In addition to the anticipated restoration of the stream to
reestablish natural overbank flooding frequency,the practical modifications suggested generally utilize
the available natural hydrology and may include,but are not limited to surface drainage modifications
such as plugging drainage ditches,removal of fill materials,removal/plugging of drain tile,and
microtopographic alteration such as surface roughening or enhancing existing 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 establishment of natural structure and function. This site evaluation focuses
on evaluating the soils and the use of practical technical solutions to support restoration.
Recommendations of removing extensive fill material is typically limited by cost and environmental.
Restoration potential assumes a successful design and ability to construct site modifications necessary to
restore adequate hydrology.
This report presents an evaluation of the subject property based upon a site evaluation and detailed field
investigation for the purpose of confirming the presence of and delineating the extent of hydric soil. The
site is 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.
Project Information and Background
The site is located approximately 3 miles northwest of Richlands NC,to the north of Highway 24 and east
of Highway 258(Kinston Highway).The project is on a tributary to the east of Cowford Branch,a
tributary to the New River(Figure 1).The land use of the contributing watershed community is
agricultural row crop or undeveloped forest land with scattered homes and farm buildings(Figure 2). The
watershed is from a mineral flat having a slightly higher elevation with a nearly level landscape that
would naturally exhibit a high ground water table.An extensive ditch network present rapidly removes
surface water to allow cultivation. The tributary within this project is the primary drainage feature along
the western edge of a mineral flat.
The project area is approximately 14 acres with approximately 4 acres evaluated for potential riparian
hydric soil. The site is currently in row crops production of a soybeans/corn rotation on a small headwater
tributary. The stream is dredged deeply into the floodplain to lower the local groundwater with drain tiles
that lower the water table farther from the stream.
Topography of the project area is a broad,nearly level,interstream divide with low gradient side slopes to
the small drainage features above the larger streams. Landscape surrounding the project is typical outer
coastal plain where shallow valleys branch from the larger streams and have headwaters reaching up to
the interstream divides. The interstream divide above the project is constricted somewhat with the divide
becoming much broader to the east. This broader area to the east likely influences the local groundwater
of this project. The small headwater tributary flowing through the project begins along the edge of this
interstream divide,becoming steeper closer to Cowford Branch to the west of the project. Within the
project the floodplain widens at where the gentle slope transitions to a steeper slope gradient.Along this
transition is where the hydric soils were evaluated.
February 2020
Page 2 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study—Cowford Mitigation Site
NRCS Soil Mapping
The NRCS mapping units are an area of soil having similar defined soil properties and physical
characteristics with similar management criteria base upon these properties.Map units across a site are
useful for general planning,but cover larger scales and which typically 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 at the site.
The NRCS soil survey shows five soil map units within the project area(Table 1). These soils are typical
of broad interstream divides with only the Norfolk soil sometimes associated with streams in Onslow
County. The natural water table primarily depends on subtle elevation changes within a relatively flat
landscape.Along the edge of flats and typically associated with drainages are the better drained Norfolk
soils.All non-alluvial soils formed within loamy marine deposits and generally have a loamy surface
underlain by a sandy clay loam(on line NRCS Web Soil Survey 2019).
Table 1. NRCS Mapped Soil Units at the Cowford Site
(map units in order of increasing depth to water table)
Taxonomic Drainage Seasonal High Farmland
Series* Class Class Hydric Water Table(in) classification
Rams fine sandy loam
Typic
Rains(86%) Paleaquults poorly Yes 0 to 12 Prime farmland
Pantego(6%) Umbric very Yes 0 to 12 (if drained)
Paleaquults poorly
Stallings loamy fine sand
Stallings(90%) Aeric somewhat No 12 to 30
Paleaquults poorly
Woodington(5%) Typic poorly Yes} 0 to 12 Statewide
Paleaquults importance
Typic
Rains(2%) Paleaquults poorly Yes 0 to 12
Onslow loamy fine sand
Onslow(5%) Spodic moderately No 18 to 36
Paleudults well
Prime farmland
Typic
Rains(5%) Paleaquults poorly Yes 0 to 12
Goldsboro fine sandy loam
Goldsboro(87%) Aquic moderately No 18 to 30 Prime farmland
Paleudults well
Norfolk loamy fine sand
Norfolk(85%) Typic well No 40 to 72
Kandiudults
Typic
Woodington(3%) Paleaquults poorly Yes 0 to 12 Prime farmland
Muckalee(1%) Typic poorly Yes 0 to 12
Fluvaquents
*Map units with potential hydric inclusion shown.
February 2020
Page 3 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study—Cowford Mitigation Site
The Rains soil is poorly drained,Stallings is somewhat poorly drained, Onslow and Goldsboro are
moderately well drained,and the Norfolk is well drained. Only the Rains map unit is rated as hydric by
the NRCS,but a number of potential hydric inclusions are found in the map units. These inclusions are
found in concave,depressional areas within the mapping units where drainage is slow. The project
contains hydric soil where the soils on the flat begin to transition into a drainage feature.
The stream drainage feature is mapped as a Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slope(NoB)flanked by the
Goldsboro, 0 to 2 percent slopes(GoA), and Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slope(NoA). The
headwater of the stream appears to extend into multiple soil units of Onslow loamy fine sand(On),
Stallings loamy fine sand(St),Rains fine loamy sandy, 0 to 2 percent slope(Ra),and Goldsboro fine
loamy sandy, 0 to 2 percent slope. The Norfolk map unit may contain hydric inclusions of Woodington
and Mucklee,both classified by NRCS as hydric. The Onslow map unit may contain inclusions of hydric
Rains. The Stallings map unit may have inclusions of hydric Woodington and Rains. The Goldsboro and
Norfolk, 0 to 2 percent map units are not expected to contain significant inclusions of hydric soil.
Project Approach
The mitigation project approach is to restore functional natural hydrology on the floodplain that will
sustain wetland hydrology to appropriate portions of this landscape.An initial soil evaluation found that
much of this site exhibits hydric soil characteristics typically found in drained and disturbed wetland
soils. In the upper reaches,the stream is surrounded by what appears to be non-riparian hydric soils of the
mineral flat that grade to riparian at the slope transition. The past land management and drainage
modifications has removed wetland hydrology from these areas. To aid in farming use,the streams were
deeply channelized and straightened to maximize row crop farming and drain tiles were installed to
further lower local groundwater where sufficient slope is absent. Shallow ditches are also present to aid in
removal of surface water. Because the site contains hydric soils and exhibits a suitable landform,the
potential for wetland reestablishment may be present.
Landscape Setting
This project site is within the Outer Coastal Plain in the Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion on the headwater
floodplain of an unnamed tributary to the Cowford Branch. Geology of the project and surrounding area
is the Comfort Member and New Hanover Member formation. This undivided formation may contain
skeletal limestone with locally dolomitized,solution cavities common or phosphate-pebble
conglomerates. Cowford Branch is a tributary to the New River.
The local landscape is characterized by broad,nearly level gently rolling interstream divides with
moderate slopes adjacent to the drainageways. The project lies within a concave headwater floodplain
abutting a shallow depressional area along the edge of the interstream divide. The stream channel
originates upslope of the floodplain at the edge of the interstream divide. The floodplain soil appears to
have formed in minor erosional deposition originating from the surrounding upland soils.
Methodology
A detailed hydric soil investigation for Cowford Mitigation Site was completed in January of 2020.A
series of approximately 75 soil borings were performed to described and verify the presence and estimate
the extent of hydric soil and soils that appear to exhibit relict or historic hydric indicators(Figure 2). Soils
were evaluated using morphologic characteristics to determine hydric indicators and evaluate current
hydrology.Using criteria based on "Field Indicators of Hydric 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 Major Land
Resource Area(MLRA) 153A(Outer Coastal Plain)- Southern Piedmont and Land Resource Region
(LRR) T-Atlantic and Gulf Coast Lowland Forest and Crop Region.A hydroperiod success criteria is
February 2020
Page 4 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study—Cowford Mitigation Site
proposed based upon Corps mitigation guidelines(US Army Corps of Engineers 2016). Soil boring
locations were approximately located using the Terrain Navigator Pro smart phone application by Trimble
and figures were produced from the same software.
Hand auger soil borings, some to 36 inches,were used to described current soil characteristics,investigate
indicators of biological soil reduction processes,and evaluate the extent of soil suitable for restoration.
Representative profiles were described to document the range of characteristics found at this site
(Appendix A). The field evaluation delineated potential hydric soil that indicate a high potential for
wetland rehabilitation at this site. General conditions and patterns representative of this floodplain were
noted. Borings extended beyond the riparian area into the surrounding elevations.Additional non-riparian
soils were identified extending down to the riparian area,but a hydric soil map unit for non-riparian
hydric soil was not delineated(Figure 2).
This report describes for the Cowford Mitigation Site these findings,conclusions,and recommendation
for wetland restoration,including but not limited to the current hydrology,past and current management
practices,and observed existing modifications. The relevant soil characteristics found that may affect
potential hydrology are discussed.
Results and Discussion
Site Conditions
Currently the site is an agricultural field having row crops of a corn/soybean rotation. The surrounding
land use is agricultural and undeveloped land with scattered single-family homes.Evidence of past land
use indicates the floodplain area was used for staging equipment and contains a culvert crossing of the
stream. This may be due to the landscape position near the head of the stream. Drain tile has been
constructed to drain the surrounding slopes below the gently sloping to nearly level landscape along the
edge of the interstream divide.
The stream on this site has been straightened and excavated below the natural groundwater elevation.
It is very deeply incised from dredging and erosion. There is a slope change at the upper boundary of this
wetland as the floodplain widens and flattens.At the downstream end of the wetland,the slope transitions
to a steeper gradient not suitable for significant wetland formation. The stream depth is currently below
the outlet elevations of the drain tile.Fields are cultivated to near the top of bank,with minimal,well
maintained buffer. Below the culvert,the stream is actively eroding the banks.Within this headwater
landscape,hydric soil appears to be riparian in nature.Upslope are hydric soils of non-riparian landscapes
that extent down to the riparian zone identified.
The NRCS soil survey indicates this riparian landscape lies at the head of a Norfolk soil map unit(NoB)
and intersection of multiple soil map units. This landscape position may explain the complexity and
variability of the soils found across this landscape. This Norfolk soil unit may contain hydric inclusions of
Woodington or Mucklee. The Woodington soil is more typical of an interstream divide and Mucklee soil is
found along floodplains where streams are shallow and meandering.
Site Soils
Soils in this Coastal Plain landscape formed from loamy and sandy marine deposits with alluvial soil
having formed in sediments from these upland soils. When poorly or very poorly drained,both alluvial
and non-alluvial soils may accumulate high organic content in the surface horizons.At this site no distinct
textural differences were observed to distinguish an alluvial soil from a non-alluvial soil. The most
reliable indicator of a riparian soil is inferred from landscape position. This is especially true where the
gentle slopes are transitioning into a headwater drainage feature where the slope provides on low energy
flows despite overbank event resulting in minimal alluvial deposition.
February 2020
Page 5 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
i
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study—Cowford Mitigation Site
Soils at this site typically have a dark surface despite years of drainage and cultivation. The surface is
sandy or loamy and underlain by variable textures ranging from sandy clay to sand. Two borings
appeared to have sandy deposition over a black,gleyed horizon,possibly from sedimentation or effects
from long-term cultivation.A black,high organic soils also appear within the upper elevations of the
landscape on the mineral flat. There does appear to be a clayey horizon crossing the valley near the
downstream edge of the delineated hydric soil unit as well as areas with a possible spodic horizon.
Presence of a clayey textured horizon would provide the potential for perching of a water table. The
spodic is formed from water table fluctuations that move organic material down into the profile where it
accumulates. These horizons are typically impermeable and can perch a water table also. In general, soils
across this site are highly variable and interpretation is difficult. This may be the result of many soils
converging on this landscape in the upper reach of a small tributary.
Hydric Soil Indicators
The soil evaluation confirmed the presence of hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface
throughout this map unit. The most common hydric soil indicators based on recorded profiles are F3-
Depleted Matrix,S7-Dark Surface,All-Depleted Below Dark Surface, and Al2-Thick Dark Surface.
Also present were S5-Sandy Redox, S9-Thin Dark Surface, and F3-Depleted Matrix. Soils having a dark
surface having a loamy texture and underlain by a depleted horizon meet either the All orAl2 indicator.
A dark surface with a sandy texture meets the S7 indicator. Soils having a spodic horizon meet the S9
indicator. Soils underlain by a loamy or clayey texture that is depleted meet the F3 indicator and sandy
soils with a depleted matrix having redoximorphic mottles meets the S5 indicator.These indicators can be
found on both floodplains and non-riparian landscapes. The range of indicators reflect the complexity of
the soils at this location.
Current Hydrologic Alterations
Overbank flooding is limited by the deeply dredged and straightened channel and lowers surrounding
groundwater elevation in the floodplain.Additionally,the drain tile system lowers the ground water
elevations farther from the stream,extending to nearby portions of the contributing watershed. The
smooth cultivated surfaces and ditches also quickly remove surface water to prevent accumulation and
limit infiltration. These drainage modifications decrease both surface storage and subsurface storage. A
water table was only observed in a single boring at-25 inches(SB #03)during the initial site evaluation
This area was noted as very moist during the detailed evaluation. This indicates an area likely available to
provide a small discharge source of hydrology.
The shape of the hydric soil map unit from this investigation indicates two potential surface drainage
patterns having a concave topography enter from the contributing watershed. One enters along the stream
channel from the northeast and one from the southeast where a ditch is located. To the south,this soil unit
appears to have a spodic horizon that limits vertical infiltration and may perch the water table similar to
clayey textured horizons. This brittle horizon usually forms where the water table fluctuates with organic
material moving down in the soil to the top of the drawn down water table.
Due to the landscape and potential convergence of multiple soil units,this site appears to have been
historically part of a small riverine headwater system where hydric soil extends outward up into the
higher elevations of the mineral flat. This site is located along the transition from a riparian to non-
riparian landscape where multiple soil morphologies were noted. This confluence of differing soils and
the converging landscape provide variable soil textures and hydric soil indicators providing evidence this
area supported a riparian wetland prior to drainage and conversions to agricultural use.
Potential Hydroperiod for Restored Soils
Based upon this detailed study of soils at this site,the incised stream,presence of drain tile and ditches,
and long-term management for agricultural uses,the natural hydrology has significantly been altered
February 2020
Page 6 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study—Cowford Mitigation Site
resulting in a lower groundwater table.The site is within a suitable landscape position of a small
headwater stream and soils exhibit numerous hydric indicators.Based on mitigation guidance for Coastal
Plain soils(US Army Corps of Engineers 2016),a Muckalee series(Typic Fluvaquents)is suggested to
have a hydroperiod of between 12 and 16 percent where the water table is within 12 inches of the surface
during the growing season(Table 2). The Muckalee series does not have direct guidance on hydroperiod.
Based on the taxonomic classification,a similar soil was used to determine a proposed hydroperiod.
Because of natural variation found in natural systems,this site may be expected to exhibit a hydroperiod
between 10 and 16 percent.Because the small extent of the restoration area and the drainage occurring
within higher elevations above the project,a hydroperiod of 9 to 12 percent should be the reasonable
target hydroperiod.
For the first year after construction,it may be practical to expect a hydroperiod of 8 to 10 percent as the
site becomes wet and the higher groundwater table establishes.All suggested hydroperiods depend on the
factors related to stream design and construction,frequency of flooding,effective removal of the drain tile
system,and extent of surface drainage after construction.A successful hydrologic restoration should
allow over time the reformation of some hydric indicators within the surface horizon where cultivation
may have destroyed these indicators.
Table 2. Guidance for Hydroperiod Success Criteria at Cowford Mitigation Site
Mapping Taxonomic Topographic Slope Flooding/Ponding Hydroperiod
Unit/Series Classification Setting Frequency Range*
(down/across)
Muckalee Typic Yes
loam Fluvaquents concave-linear- frequent/none (12-16%)}
Rains Typic linear-linear- none/none Yes
fine sandy loam Paleaquults (10-12%)
Stallings Aeric No
loamy fine sand Paleaquults concave-linear- none/none (7-9%)}
Onslow Spodic linear-linear- none/none No
loamy fine sand Paleudults (NA)
Goldsboro Aquic linear-linear- none/none No
fine sandy loam Paleudults (NA)
Norfolk Typic convex-convex none/none No
loamy fine sand Kandiudults (NA)
*Hydroperiod follows US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.North Carolina Interagency Review Team-October 24,2016.
+Where series guidance not provided,simlar taxonomic subgroup substituted(Stallings and Muckalee)
NA-No guidance on Onslow, Goldsboro,and Norfolk soils—soils typically expected to lack significant hydroperiod.
Functional Uplift from Hydric Soil Restoration
The site currently has no wetlands due to the incised channel and drain tile system rapidly removing
surface and groundwater. The stream is currently allowing sediment,nutrients,pesticides,and herbicides
to flow freely into Cowford Branch and the New River.Both water bodies are classified as Nutrient
Sensitive Waters. The proposed wetland restoration area will raise the local groundwater and restore a
more natural hydrologic cycle to the riparian zone. Successful construction and restoration of this
tributary and headwater wetland system will provide numerous benefits to water quality.
At this site successful hydrologic restoration will provide numerous soils related functional uplifts in
addition to the benefits of stream restoration.These include,reestablishment of natural oxidation-
reduction cycling,improved nutrient and chemical transformations,potential immobilization of
February 2020
Page 7 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study—Cowford Mitigation Site
phosphorus,increased organic carbon sequestration,improved soil structure (surface primarily),lower
soil and surface water temperature after vegetative establishment,and increases in diversity of microbial
and fungal populations that are important for soil health. Large scale benefits may include an increase of
diverse wildlife habitat, and connectivity to the natural aquatic communities of Cowford Branch.
Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
The Cowford Mitigation project consists of a floodplain currently within an agricultural landscape where
a small deeply incised stream is allowing untreated runoff to enter Nutrient Sensitive Waters. The NRCS
soil survey map units indicate the site is within the floodplain of a small headwater along the edge of an
interstream divide. These map units are known to potentially contain inclusions of hydric soil in concave
landscapes similar to conditions found at this site. Previous farming efforts have dredged and deepened
the tributary,constructed drain tiles to lower groundwater,built shallow ditches,and recontoured the
surface to remove surface water. The site historically supported riparian wetlands. These drainage
modifications have eliminated natural flooding events and limited length of saturation normally found in
wetlands.Multiple hydric soil indicators are present including:All-Depleted Below Dark Surface, and
Al2-Thick Dark Surface, SS-Sandy Redox, S7-Dark Surface, S9-Thin Dark Surface,and F3-Depleted
Matrix.
Recommendations
Restoration techniques that can be used to restore hydrology require a successful stream restoration that
raises the local groundwater elevation and allows frequent flooding. Other methods include plugging of
ditches,removal of drain tile, and surface roughening. Due to the agricultural nature of the site,ripping of
the floodplain and wetland to a depth of 18 inches is recommended to decompact the area.Benefits of
decompaction include,reduced runoff velocity,higher infiltration rate,improved soil structural properties
and site storage. Other benefits include enhanced surface and subsurface biogeochemical cycling and
storage.Additionally,this will improve planting conditions to increase survival and enhance long-term
growth. Surface roughening with creation of shallow depressions to mimic local wetlands throughout the
restoration area will reestablish more natural conditions while providing an appropriate landscape
supporting a diverse habitat.All construction and decompaction activities should be limited or not
undertaken when soils are saturated. Equipment and tillage in wet soils permanently damages soils by
creating clods,ruts,and increasing compaction.
The hydric soils at this site can be expected to have a hydro period of 9 to 12 percent while small more
pronounced depressional areas potentially exhibiting 12 to 16 percent. Due to the extensive drainage
efforts,it may take at least a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the target
hydroperiods.For the first year after construction,it may be reasonable to expect a hydroperiod of 8 to 10
percent.
Conclusions
The topographic setting and hydric soil with potential hydrology are appropriate for a successful
hydrologic restoration at the Cowford Branch mitigation site. Within the headwater floodplain of this
small tributary the landscape position is suitable with the soils exhibiting hydric indicators reflecting
historic wetland hydrology.Restoration of the stream should raise the groundwater to within 12 inches of
the surface within of this floodplain and provide opportunities for overbank flooding
Restoration 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
restored wetland will be able to provide functional benefits of sediment removal, soil chemical and
biological transformations of nutrient and chemical pollutants while providing a range of wetland
habitats. Other benefits include increased organic carbon accumulation/capture,improved soil structure
February 2020
Page 8 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study—Cowford Mitigation Site
(surface primarily),and increases in diversity and beneficial 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 restoration. Successful hydrologic restoration at
this site can provide numerous soils related functional uplifts.Because of the historically wet nature of
this site,correct landscape position,the appropriate textured soils, and potential for restoration of
adequate hydrology,this site is suitable for wetland restoration.
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Cowford Mitigation Site in
Onslow 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 [November/2019].
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.army.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.
USDA 1992.United States Depailinent of Agriculture (USDA),Natural Resource Conservation Service
(MRCS).Soil Survey of Onslow County North Carolina. July 1992)
United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018.Field Indicators
of Hydric 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.
February 2020
Page 9 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL-Detailed Hydric Soils Study—Cowford Mitigation Site
Figures
APPENDICES
Appendix A Soil Boring Log
Appendix B Photos
Appendix C NRCS Web Soil Survey Report
February 2020
Page 10 of 10

/ ' fir" �� i'. �� ___ __.-Ir i lli 1111(1 i t
'tea ,I� -- `� 1N) \
J ,./\ ,
Mlle :e
\� 1•cilands iimmvipioreFi
/
, ii
I 2t.6 -
r' i / ''°
%) „„ l
,, L
.. s .2„, / yl • ....
I � � ,r �„
, ,.
i .&13. ,0 \
...\-HHNL
i. pr.6 _ warr.�� o� �16-
41
,-)_.i I" ",
; . --;o:' ./.1,3" .. . '\\L ... 4
o� h/ands•` _
I, ,„7-)
riftill ..
. .,.......,,
. .....
.,-,. .----..."
\\‘'-\-' '�` y � ....„.,/--- -ii
, ,,00p, a,
/ I 1 ! ° - / Road .,) ;o
\ ... 0
tlI� /
U .
3 I CO
��"
BFI t U ` ���
eu/a vil/e;H� h ')11141�, �� % �� eva�d �. ) Z
9.Way�� imp ce`J °�\:� •� sS�cee /s y}. ,- �
N g• • ;. egg - onq lCem
--s\kl. % :
c: ,a0,..,......„).... ...;.::......!:....� Trailer n•6` : ..?.
Park •
• -�:
BMA 22.1 •�'� °'
•
,..--<A :01-
0 0. nst
Declination ''-. Jsa3 co
'
1 l O� .I 19.1
M _ `` �� 4P o % 2R6 _ Q4
tir„ .,..p
)\.....\
....., ,i,7 ) .' '
GN 1.47°W =� !o •�f �0`N�� 1
MN 9.71 W � � kir
� �� ) C
Legend )\ 1 •
,�' 20 ��
Area
Project
(Proposed Conservation Easement
1 --__� Ya '.i ' lad l/ Copyn h 01,p rimbfe _, 'imit$ •.-rgt1reetMapc9}i I•uttgr31
Map Name: RICHLANDS
Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft.
Figure 1. USGS Vicinity Map SCALE 1:24000
Cowford Branch Mitigation Site 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Feet
Onslow County, NC 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Miles

\
�', \ 21
- \
%
y —
��.�'X • �f+A`:,• ° • wea or r �" \ 15 125 126
it. ij!.,f ' 120
AN.
•
-
4i
l ` \
—
I.
r___,
��n S.
'', LEGEND
•
,�� Easement Boundary
6 �trf--/7
�i� +'err: Hydric Soil Boundary
ill' �y '� s� �,C Stream
. - � � � — — Drain Tile
' ,v.5 \ti,
1'28 Ditches
dill orNatalG Soil Profile '
t Soil Boring Point
_ t ,AL fag (C)Copyright 2016,Trimble Navigation Limited,OpenStreetMap contributors
Scale: 1 inch = 300 ft. Horizontal Datum: WGS84 ,, N .. SCALE 1:3600
Cowford Branch Mitigation Site w E
0 100 200 300 400 500
Feet
Figure 2. Aerial View - Hydric Soils ,. ..

Appendix A
Cowford Branch Mitigation Site, Onslow County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Table Relresentative Soil Profiles at the Cowford Site
Depth Color Mottle Percentage **
(inches) Texture Notes
Matrix Mottle
SB 01 Hydric Indicators
August 7,2018 Al2-Thick Dark Surface
0-12 2.5 Y 3/1 SL area with drain tile
12-18 2.5 Y 5/1 10 YR 5/6 20% (PL) SCL
SB 03 Hydric Indicators WT at-25
August 7,2018 Al2-Thick Dark Surface
0-11 2.5 Y 3/1 SL
11-16 N 2.5/- CL
16-26 2.5 Y 3/1 fSL
26-30 2.5 Y 5/1 fSL
SB 21 Hydric Indicators No WT observed
August 7,2018 All-Depleted Below Dark Surface
F3-Depleted Matrix
0-8 2.5 Y 2.5/1 fSL
8-23 2.5 Y 5/1 7.5 YR 4/6 5% (PL) fSL
SB 47 Hydric Indicators No WT observed
August 7,2018 All-Depleted Below Dark Surface
F3-Depleted Matrix
0-9 N 2.5/- SL
9-15 N 2.5/- 2.5 Y 4/1 15%(PL) SL
15-19 2.5 Y 5/2 2.5 Y 4/6 10%(PL) fSL
19-26 2.5 Y 4/1 2.5 Y 4/6 15%(PL) SCL
SB 107 Hydric Indicators No WT observed
November 7,2019 SS-Sandy Redox
0-6 7.5 YR 4/4 7.5 YR 6/4 5% LS
6-10 7.5 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 3/4 10%(PL) LS
10-23 7.5 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 5/2 5%(PL) LS
7.5 YR 3/4 2%(PL)
23-33 7.5 YR 3/1 7.5 YR 5/1 10%(PL) SCL
7.5 YR 3/4 5% (PL)
SB 112 Hydric Indicators No WT observed
November 7,2019 S7-Dark Surface
0-9 7.5 YR 3/1 LS —80%coated sand grains
9-19 7.5 YR 4/2 5 YR 4/6 2% (M) LS
19-25 7.5 YR 4/6 5 YR 5/8 SC no structure and restrictive
Appendix A
Page 1 of 3
January 2020

Appendix A
Cowford Branch Mitigation Site, Onslow County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
SB 115 Hydric Indicators No WT observed
November 7,2019 S7-Dark Surface
0-16 7.5 YR 3/1 LS —75%coated sand grains
16-29 N 2.5/- SL
29-36 7.5 YR 5/2 7.5 YR 2.5/1 20% (PL) LS
SB 116 Hydric Indicators No WT observed
November 7,2019 S7-Dark Surface
S9-Thin Dark Surface
0-8 7.5 YR 3/1 LS —75% coated sand grains
75 YR 3/1 5%(PL)
8-11 7.5 YR 2.5/1 LS
7..5 YR 7/2 5%(PL)
11-16 7.5 YR 2.5/3 7.5 YR 5/6 30%(PL) LS brittle-possibly spodic
16-28 7.5 YR 6/2 S
SB 119 Hydric Indicators No WT observed
November 7,2019 F3-Depleted Matrix
0-8 7.5 YR 3/2 SL —60%coated sand grains
8-20 7.5 YR 4/2 7.5 YR 4/6 20%(M) SC weak structure-limited pore
space
SB 120 Hydric Indicators No WT observed
November 7,2019 F3-Depleted Matrix
0-10 7.5 YR 2.5/1 SL
10-21 7.5 YR 5/2 7.5 YR 4/6 5% (M) SC
SB 125 Hydric Indicators No WT observed
January 16,2020 S7-Dark Surface
0-8 7.5 YR 2.5/1 LS —90%coated sand grains
8-13 7.5 YR 6/3 7.5 YR 5/6 15%(PL) LS
7.5 YR 5/6 15%(PL) 4/6 mottles have distinct
13-20 7.5 YR 5/3 7 5 YR 4/6 2%(PL) SL boundaries
20-27 7.5 YR 5/2 7.5 YR 5/6 20%(PL) SCL weak structure-restrictive
27-40 7.5 YR 5/1 7.5 YR 5/6 20%(PL) SCL weak structure-restrictive
7.5 YR 4/6 10% (PL)
SB 126 Hydric Indicators No WT observed
January 16,2020 Al2-Thick Dark Surface
0-6 10 YR 2/1 SL —60%coated sand grains
6-16 10 YR 2/1 SL —90%coated sand grains
16-22 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 4/4 2%(PL) SL relict hydric
22-26 10 YR 5/3 7.5 YR 5/8 5%(PL) SCL
26-30 7.5 YR 5/8 10 YR 4/3 25%(PL) SC
30-41 7.5 YR 5/1 7.5 YR 5/8 20%(PL) SC
Appendix A
Page 2 of 3
January 2020

Appendix A
Cowford Branch Mitigation Site, Onslow County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
SB 127 Hydric Indicators No WT observed
January 16,2020 S7-Dark Surface
S9-Thin Dark Surface
0-10 10 YR 2/1 fSL —90%coated sand grains
10-13 7.5 YR 2.5/1 fSL
13-18 7.5 YR 2.5/2 5 YR 5/8 15%(PL) SL brittle-possibly spodic
18-23 7.5 YR 2.5/3 7.5 YR 5/6 10%(PL) SL saturated
23-35 7.5 YR 5/2 7.5 YR 4/6 10%(PL) SC restrictive
Hydric indicators valid for NRCS Land Resource Region 153A(Outer Coastal Plain)and Land Resource Region T
WT=observed apparent water table
*PL=pore lining,M=matrix
**Texture(follows USDA textural classification)
S=sand,L=loam,Si=silt,C=clay
f=fine,c=coarse(textural modifiers for sandy soils)
44' SOILSC/F
o e K.1vq�Ns
0
kf
Soil Scientist Seal
Appendix A
Page 3 of 3
January 2020

Appendix B
Cowford Branch Mitigation Site-Onslow County,NC
Photo Log
January 2020
-^`• ,4r r i ,fo. � ,tii �' \', � .., Pam.
3 a �6 q� ��A '�ii "
t —1
tAgge
„It,
g4Y
x,...., 1 _ .15.E .- ® .(' Y* .. J�_.
"' 'ram S
Z.
` « '
s
t _Jolly ., -..-744.
1` I. /i \�:. t �. ', �. ' n "
kkk w�� r Rao- n µ dv }
.s?a-, ;€' t ',',f�' I tar '' ::_, d. /S, �.Y \ ." 1,�'4.'� i
ry.
s �[.
.�. ' k7'F'��. •.st�a -wa 1� ';q ,/1 R f�?''�-�v •.'t`R�-a�
1. Hydric profile.Meets the S7-Dark Surface indicator. SB#125.t �.,b .
3 - �il. 4 f -' `g,F .y. p fL
3'
P1'-''';',,." ,A.,..f„„,1-tv-4,:ve:74 ' 44-4-`1 ,7*.-t.' - -1,t40',,,,46-444.14 tt nPAP,.h00t,,44,„..4Z:..k4„,t.e,i1l",r1:,,':'1.:„144A,:4,P''-„-.4,',4,,4r,,Ia7,',-'4.4',',r',r.,t7,.'_,,..W,,-4-„`r.‘::4-1.,4t.,4,4:,`-,„1-4t'f---''1ifAi.444lt1.---,1-4 S4,,:,":-?w",0-1 4",---1.I1',,.„'-;-?,.:,—,':,s.--,-..,-A'','':'47,"7,,i,'t,„1:,t,'t..'';„4:',',.,,,,*,.,:`k.„,4,t,,.4:6-':'.1":,,;11-,;-.,4"1 4:-/4"a;,..,,.1,.4'A l..''':,'-'.''.e"a,.;.'4,;''-4 C'.p.%a;,Ar,.44krV4t:,,t:;4;,ifr1'..:=,4'f'4'
tt 4 x
t f i.ry ise%. 0 , Y y , t 'K' 'Y•',
1 r
N 3�� � fit. �' X.. ii.,
7R ' .sad � _r.' �. ..i ��� , .?, d
2. Landscape looking across floodplain upstream. SB#125.
1
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
Cowford Branch Mitigation Site—Onslow County,NC
Photo Log
January 2020
kt4 if
r. fie' 17 � ''�"•�.,� r ,�,� � R� "r �;.Lh v ✓-
Nfe^
y a M. r :.$fir a r..
.)„..,,y,, ,
V'7 ,
,✓ 41- i r r` s�..J, er �, {- r,In 4s
e
t 6v14. rt f 1 ,AT,:/.:f y ik� \ ,,ea.. .
— •
i'�aj'' i '' kx her 7 . - k r P I r ', V -4, �� �'„ �, a�
3. Hydric profile. Meets the S7-Dark Surface and S9-Thin Dark Surface indicators. SB#127..
_ gx as • 47h,,,..77.,,,,,..,_
C,, i. `�' - k ayq
F- ,-' EF ++ fir b� ,d F '1�Xw„� ? :, -
� + °}fir $, ''' 6 - , fl W,� '? `
.,fics,,
������ _r �� � �� �� �a 1� � :bIL0.04;tett,'
mot J �� .
.ems r�•,r�z d i r ' P.. ' ,,,.,} wg' '14...-1,,-4,,. ,,, ,, , a'�„. � .:
,.,..„....„ ,..._.
'5
P ,, r / `A sh ( � @ i'. , ' ;era '¢ rk
7.
0,4„ ,u #gyp w
.. , ,.. ..,,,, ,,, , _ 14.tk4-4'-'!' '''..7.4':v11;'-
�"SA'� am !
` .� 4.t }F - 1 as. e: '` x k.,. `: .1't' •=t ylN a
r fps ► • f, ., Y , J a� i ,E
" Ivy. , y .4 f }-� .i �� Y + - '' ,
4. Hydric profile.Meets the Al2 Thick-Dark Surface indicator. SB#125.
2
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Soil Map—Onslow County, North Carolina
(Cowford Branch) a
262100 262400 262700 263000 263300 263600 263900 264200 264500 264800
34°55'45"N I .4 .__ - — - ---- - 34°55'45"N
r r
wa.
N
,,
I!'
Ilf 1111111°)i ONoB
,,loBjk- 1
8 Mklr
t f On v NoAo r
St
Co NoB /
- NOB sI. /
N `: `� MI �'
4;140 4( .:-t.4. ,
NoA LY
k,. \
1 -, -•`- V. N
,8 R- , .
N Ra
i `
P n --y•., -.A.:: :- x
c--' —\., i"f_ •1 Gpg, "
f, ' Aye�i--, NoB>N. '�_ . Pn 't
t J " NoB r ,e.. • �.
�C�rB f.
N I - .,, i . •
000 Gawp may'Boit Ilz eaDol ail Flo la. ..I N.• '-.
34°54'45"N ' I - { — 34°54'45"N
262100 262400 262700 263000 263300 263600 263900 264200 264500 264800
o zo
Map Scale:1:13,200 if printed on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet.
v
Meters N
0 1y0 au 600 900
Feet
A
0 y00 1000 Z000 :A1JJ
Map projection:Web Mercator Conerwordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 18N WGS84
„son Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/26/2020
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3

Soil Map—Onslow County, North Carolina
(Cowford Branch)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
n Area of Interest(AOI) Stony 1:24,000.
• Spot
Soilsei Very Stony Spot Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
El Soil Map Unit Polygons
Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
Soil Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
Other line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of
• Soil Map Unit Points contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
Special Line Features
Special Point Features scale.
Blowout Water Features
Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
031 Borrow Pit measurements.
Transportation
Clay Spot Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Closed Depression Web Soil Survey URL:
., Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
Gravel Pit US Routes
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Gravelly Spot Major Roads projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the
Landfill Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more
A. Lava Flow accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
Background
Marsh or swamp rika Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s)listed below.
Mine or Quarry
Soil Survey Area: Onslow County, North Carolina
Miscellaneous Water Survey Area Data: Version 21, Sep 16,2019
• Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales
Rock Outcrop 1:50,000 or larger.
vSaline Spot Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Mar 7,2015—Oct 26,
2017
Sandy Spot
° The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
Severely Eroded Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor
• Sinkhole shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Slide or Slip
o Sodic Spot
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/26/2020
dim Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map—Onslow County, North Carolina Cowford Branch
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
CrB Craven fine sandy loam, 1 to 4 1.1 0.1%
percent slopes
CrC Craven fine sandy loam,4 to 8 42.5 4.7%
percent slopes
GoA Goldsboro fine sandy loam,0 32.2 3.6%
to 2 percent slopes
GpB Goldsboro-Urban land 37.8 4.2%
complex,0 to 5 percent
slopes
Ly Lynchburg fine sandy loam,0 40.5 4.5%
to 2 percent slopes,Atlantic
Coast Flatwoods
MaC Mervyn loamy fine sand,6 to 15.5 1.7%
15 percent slopes
Mk Muckalee loam 55.7 6.2%
NoA Norfolk loamy fine sand,0 to 2 98.2 10.9%
percent slopes
NoB Norfolk loamy fine sand,2 to 6 146.2 16.2%
percent slopes
On Onslow loamy fine sand 63.3 7.0%
Pn Pantego mucky loam 41.9 4.6%
Ra Rains fine sandy loam,0 to 2 213.3 23.7%
percent slopes,Atlantic
Coast Flatwoods
St Stallings loamy fine sand 92.5 10.3%
Wo Woodington loamy fine sand 20.2 2.2%
Totals for Area of Interest 901.0 100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/26/2020
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3