20130456 Ver 1_401 Application_20140814

ATL�-A 13—C45�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
Eric Kulz
Division of Water Resources
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
Michael Ellison, Director
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
August 1, 2014
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
AUG 62014
D AIR - WA fllJ N
Re: Permit Application- Bear Basin Wetland Restoration Project, Onslow County (EEP Full
Delivery Project)
Dear Mr. Kulz:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Another
copy has been sent to the Wilmington Regional Office for review. A memo for the permit
application fee is also included in the package. Please feel free to contact me with any questions
regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Permit Application Fee Memo
CD containing all electronic files
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: [phone] Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

4
C
DEN R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Michael Ellison, Director
Governor Ecosystem Enhancement Program
August 1, 2014
Jim Gregson, Surface Water Protection Supervisor
NC DENR Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
John E Skvarla, III
Secretary
Re: Permit Application - Bear Basin Wetland Restoration Project, Onslow County (EEP Full
Delivery,Project)
Dear Mr. Gregson.
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project Please feel
free to, contact me with any questions, regarding this plan,,(919 -707- 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Cc: Eric Kulz
Sincerely
Lin Xu
1652 Mall Serwce,Center, Raleigh, North,Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone [phone] Internet www ncdenr gov
An Equal "00porbumty 1 Affirmative Acton Employer — Made impart by recycled paper

��®
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Michael Ellison, Director
Governor Ecosystem Enhancement Program
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Cindy Perry
FROM: Lin Xu J,X
SUBJECT: Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
DATE: August 1, 2014
John E Skvarla, III
Secretary
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program is implementing a wetland restoration and
enhancement project for Bear basin Site in Onslow County (EEP IMS # 95362). The
activities associated with this restoration project involve stream restoration related
temporary stream impact To conduct these activities the EEP must submit a Pre -
'construction Notification (PCN) Form to the 'Division of Water Resources (DWR) for review
and approval _ The DWR assesses a fee of $570 00 for this review,
Please transfer $570.00 from Fund # 2981, ,Account # 5351,20 to DWR as payment
for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be reached at 919-
707- 831;9. Thanks for your assistance.
cc* Eric Kulz, DWR
1652 Mad Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina; 27699 -1652
Phone_ 919 - 707= 89761,Internet ,www ncdenr gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action'Employer — Made in by recycled paper

AUG 0 5 2014
.. D NR WA QU
404/401 Joint Permit Application
Bear Basin Wetland
Restoration Project
KCI Project Number — 20122266
EEP Project Number — 95362
ACOE Project Number —SAW 2012 -01391
CnNTFNTS
- 404 -401 Application
- PCN Form
- Attachment 1— Approved Categorical Exclusion Report
- Attachment 2 - Mitigation Plan Approval Letter from ACOE
- Attachment 3 - Mitigation Plan Response Letter from KCI
- Attachment 4 - Final Mitigation Plan
io� <,O /V
ii"
,

U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB APPROVAL NO 0710 -0003
EXPIRES 28 FEBRUARY 2013
331CFR 325 The proponent agency is CECW -CO -R
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average'11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding
this bufden,estimate or any,other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive,Services an&Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office,of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, (0710-0003) Respondents,should be aware that'notwnthstanding any,other provision of_law, no personishall.be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a,collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number Please DO NOT
RETURN your form,to either of those addresses Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities .Rivers and,Harbors Act, Section 10, 33`USC 403, Clean Water,Act, Section 404, 33'USC 1344, Marine, Protection ,'Research,,and,Sanctuanes
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413, Regulatory Progiramslof the Corps of Engineers, Final Rule,33 CFR�320 -332 Principal Purpose Information,provided on
this form will be used'in evaluating the application for a permit Routine Uses This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be-made available as part of a, public notice as required by Federal, law Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the,permit application, cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued One set
of original drawings or good reproducible,copies which�show the,location and charactenof the,proposed activity must,be attached,to this application (see
sample drawinwand /or instructions),and'be submitted to the Distnct,Engmeer having jurisdiction over the - location of the proposed activity An'application
that is not completed'in full will be returned
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO, BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1 APPLICATION NO
2 FIELD,OFFICE CODE,
3 DATE,RECEIV,ED
4 DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE F/LLED,BYAPPL/CAN7)
5 APPLICANTS NAME
8 AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME,AND TITLE (agentlis,,not,required)
First - Tim Middle - Last - Baumgartner
First - Timothy Middle -T Last - Morris
.ompany - NG DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Company - KCI Technologies, Inc
mail Address -tim baumgartner @ncdenr gov
Email Address -tim morns @kci corn
6 APPLICANTS ADDRESS
9 AGENT'S ADDRESS -
Address- 217 West Jones St , Suite 3000A
Address- 4601 Sik Forks Rd , Suite 220
City,- Raleigh State - NC Zip-27603 Country-USA
City - Raleigh State - NC Zip- 27609 Country -USA
7 APPLICANTS PHONE,NOs w /AREA CODE
10 AGENTS PHONE NOs WAREA CODE
a Residence b Business c Fax
a Residence b Business c Fax
(919)707 -8543 (919)707 -8976
(919)783 -9214 (919)783 -9266
STATEMENT�OF AUTHORIZATION
11 l hereby authorize, Timothy J Morris to act in rry behalf,as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information,in support,of this permit application
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12 PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Bear- Basin Restoration Site
13 NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14 PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Uppec'New River
Address US HWY 258
15 LOCATION OF PROJECT
' atitude ^N 34 926545 Longitude -W -77607511
City Richlands State- NC Zip 28574
3 OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State'Tax Parcel ID 44,1304813247 Municipality 013547
Section - Huffmantown Rd Township - Richlands Range -
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE Page 1 of 3

17 DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
Proceed east on 1 -40 for approximately 72 miles Then travel on NC -24 east toward Magnolia and travel for six miles Turn right to remain
in NC -24 East for an,additional 19 miles Next, turn left onto Jesse Williams Road The site will be approximately 0 8 mile=ahead on,the
right after the pine forest.
18 Nature of Activity (Description of project, 'include all features)
i
The,Bear Basin Restoration Site (BB) is a full - delivery mitigation project being developed for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP). The BB is in the White Oak 01 Basin (03030001 8 -digit HUC) in Onslow County, North Carolina and has been
substantially, modified to maximize agricultural production The isite offers the chance to restore, impacted agricultural lands tdnon- riparian
wetland habitat The site will be restored to non - riparian wetland with two sections of upland inclusion These goals will be accomplished
through implementation of the following ,objectives- fill field ditches to restore surface flow retention and elevate local groundwater levels,
redevelop longer wetland flow, patterns to mcreasetsurface flow retention,time, restore�a diverse,wetland vegetation - community through
maintenance and germination of existing wetland seed stores, planting of wetland trees and shrubs,>and incorporation of a customwetland
seed mix
19 ,Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The 2010 White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities, identified HUC 0303000 10100 10 (Upper New River Watershed) as a Targeted
Local Watershed The 201_0 White Oak River Basin RBRP identified poor riparian zones and fragmented forests as major stressors within
this TLW The TLW also drains to the Upper New River, a historically listed (2008) 303 -d stream. The BB Project was identified as a
wetland restoration opportunity to improve habitat, and hydrologic regime within the TLW Consistent with the goals set forth in the White
Oak RBRP, the Bear Basin project will help�achieve'the following goals protect and improve,water, quality by reducing sediment and
nutrient inputs, provide habitat for aquatic flora and fauna by improving physical structure and vegetative composition, increase the local
hydroperiod by encouraging both surface,and subsurface, storage and retention, restore and establish a functional and diverse wetland
- ommunity
USE BLOCKS,20 -230 DREDGED AND /OR FILL,MATERIAL IS TO'BE DISCHARGED
20 Reason(s) for Discharge
Fill will be,discharged' into jurisdictional tributaries for the purpose of restoring the hydrology to approximately 10 acres of drained
wetlands.
21 Type(s) of Matenal'Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Type Type Type
,Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Soil Fill - 532 4,CY
22 Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres 0 11 (Jurisdictional tributaries)
or
Linear Feet 1750 Ourisdictional tributaries)
F cription of Avoidance, Minimization,, and,Compensation (see instructions)
r to reestablish wetland hydrology throughout a much larger area drainage features (jurisdictional tributaries),will be filled We
lticipate that filling these ditches will 'result in the upward movement of groundwater that would in'turn serve to extend the hydroperiod
.nd allowthe growth and propagation of hydrophytic vegetation Sediment and erosion control measures such as silt fence,,straw wattles,
rock silt screens and daily stabilization will be used to minimize impacts during construction
ENG FORM 4345, OCT-'2012 Page 2 of 3

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes [—X]No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (f more than can be entered here, Please attach a supplemental list)
a. Address- 582 Kinston Hwy
City - Richlands State - NC Zip - 28574
b. Address- PO Box 784
City- Beulaville State - NC Zip - 28518
c. Address- 4634 Parmele Rd.
City - Castle Hayne State - NC Zip - 28429
d. Address -
. ity - State - Zip -
e. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals /Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
' Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
7/--
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT I DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
d U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3

0F WA T fc�
O 1;ii� <
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑Q Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes Q No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑Q 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes E] No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes z❑ No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes 0 No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
Yes ❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Bear Basin Restoration Site
2b.
County:
Onslow
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Richlands, NC
2d.
Subdivision name:
NA
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
NA
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Kenneth Jones
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
DB 531 PG 388
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
NA L AM, U
3d.
Street address:
322 Jonestown Road . 1fl1A7Lp- QUALITY
3e.
City, state, zip:
Pink Hill, NC 28572
3f.
Telephone no.:
(252)568 -3820
3g.
Fax no.:
NA
3h.
Email address:
NA
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Apphcantus,
❑ Agent ❑,Other, specify,
4b
Name
Tim Baumgartner
4c
Business name
(if,appbcable)
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
4d
Street address
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A or 1652 Mail Service Center
4e
City, state, zip
Raleigh, NC 27603 or Raleigh NC 27699 -1652
4f
Telephone no
(919)707 -8543
4g
Fax no
(919)707 -8976
4h
Email address
tim baumgartner@ncdenr gov
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (ifapplicable)
5a
Name
Timothy J Morris
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
KCI Technologies, Inc
5c
Street address
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 220
5d
City, state, zip
Raleigh, NC 27609
5e_
Telephone no
(919)783 -9214
5f
Fax-,no
(919)783 -9266
5g
Email address
tim morns @kci com
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property'ldentification
1'a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
4413- 0481 -3247
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 34 925365 Longitude -77 607461
1c
Property size
11 94 acres
2.
Surface 'Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water to proposed,project
Upper New River
2b Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
Class C NSW
2c
River basin
White Oak
3.
Project Description
3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
The project siteis bounded by pine, plantations to the west and south Cropland to the east antl Jesse Williams Road,to the,north More detailed
descriptions of,land uselare included imthe attached mitigation plan
3b
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on'the property 0 21
3c
List the-total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property 0
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project
This project aimsrto restore impacted agricultural land to non - nparian wetland habitat
3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
The protect will. involve wetland restoratiom activities such as ditch filling, surface roughening, and planting Work will involve heavy equipment
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project, (including iall7 rior hases in,the past?
❑x Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments
4b
If the`Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
E]' Preliminary Final
4c
If�yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if,known) Steve Stokes
Agency /Consultant Company KCI Associates of NC
Other
4d If yes, list the dates bf`the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
October 31, 2012 JD forms /plats included'in the attached mitigation plan
5'.
Project History
5a
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the'past?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown
5b
If yes, explain'in detail according`to "help file" instructions
6.
Future Project Plans
6a
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑x No,
6b
Ifyes, explain
Page 3 of 1A
PCN Form — Version 14 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1 Impacts Summary
1a 'Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that�apply)
❑ Wetlands ❑ Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers El Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site', then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b
Type of impact
2c
Type of wetland
2d
Forested
2e
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W2 -
Choose one
Chooseaone
Yes /No
-
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W5� -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
2g Total'Wetland Impacts:
2h Comments
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
Stream impact
number
'Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b
Type of impact
3c
Stream name
3d
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e
Type of
jurisdiction
3f
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 -
Choose one
-
-
S2 -
Choose one
-
-
S3 -
Choose one
-
-
S4 -
Choose one
-
-
S5 -
Choose one
-
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
-
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
31 Comments
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 14 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the,Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U S then indiv ually list all open water impacts below
4a
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b
Name ofwaterbody
(if.applicable)
4c
Type of impact
4d
Waterbody
type
4e
Area of impact (acres)
01 T
Unnamed Jurisdictional Tributaries
Fill
Other
Oil
02 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f Total open water impacts
Oil
4g Comments juqsdictionartrinutaries Will e i e to restore a we an y ropeno n o e arained nyoric soil areas on site
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake,construction proposed, the complete the chart below
5a",
Pond ID number
5b
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f Total:
5g Comments
5h Is,a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ `Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
51 Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then,complete the chart below If yes, then individually -list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation, then vou MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a. Project is m ^which protected,basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar-'Pamlico E]' Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other
6b
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Stream name
6e
Buffer
mitigafion
required?
6f
Zone 1
impact
(square,
feet )
6g
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1 -
Yes /No
132 -
Yes /No
63 -
Yes /No
B4 -
Yes /No
65 -
Yes /No
66 -
Yes /No
6h Total Buffer Impacts:
61 Comments
Page,,5,of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la Specifically describe measures'taken'to avo6or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
We are applying for a Nationvode 27 permit This permit authorizes impacts to junsdictionaLwaters for the purpose of conducting aquatic habitat
restoration, establishment and enhancement'activities This project will provide wetland mitigation credits for impacts elsewhere within this 8 -digit
HUC The site offers,an'ideal opportunity to restore areas of uSmpacted agncultural landlo1wetland,habitat
1 -b Specifically describe measures °taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts,through construction techniques
In order to,reestablish wetland hydrology throughout a much larger area, these drainage features (and'existing,wetlands),vnll'be filled We anticipate
that filling,these ditches Will result in the upward movement of groundwater that would in turn serve to extend the hydropenod and allow the growth and
propagationiof hydrophytic vegetation
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of,the.U.S. or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑x No
2b If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
projects
❑ Mitigation bank
❑Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permlttee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank
3b `Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type Choose one
Type Choose one
Type Choose one
Quantity
Quantity
Quantity
3c Comments
r
4., Complete if Makin ,a.Pa meet to In -lieu Fee Program
4a- Approval letter from in -'lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c If using stream, mitigation, stream temperature
Choose one
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
ac -res
Ah Comments
5. Complete if Using a Permlttee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
Page 6 of 1 G
PCN Form — Version 14 January 2009

6. 'Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules)— required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes No
6b If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to,each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
Zone
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3,(2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1 5
6f Total buffer mitigation required:
6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer, restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund)
6h Comments
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑x No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b
If yes, thewis a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why
❑ Yes [:]'No
2.
Stormwater Mana ement;Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0
2b Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
Cl Yes ❑x ,No
2c
If this project -DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why
This
is a wetland restoration project and so�no impervious area will be created
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a"bnef, narrative description o Ahe plan -
2e
Who will be responsible for,the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
'In which ^local overnment's jurisdiction is this project?
Onslow County
❑ Phase II
❑NSW
3b,
Which of-the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply•(check all that apply)
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
E] Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply)
❑Session Law 2006 -246
❑Other
4b
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or'the
❑x Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b,
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation,of an
environmental document pursuant to the,requirements of the National or State
❑x Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c
If you answered "yes" to the above, has,the document review been finalized by the
State,Clearmg House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes E],No,
letter A,Categoncal Exclusion report has been prepared and is included as an,attachment
Comments to this permit application
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ❑x 'No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b
Is,this anaafter- the- fact,permlt application?
El Yes ❑X No
2c,
If'you answered "yes' to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s)
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated,future impacts) result in
El Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in,accordance with the
most,recent DWQ policy If you answered "no," provide a short narrative, description
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
This
is a wetland restoration project, no wastewater will be generated
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 14 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
0 Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
- NCDENR, Wildlife Resources Commission. Carolina Wildlife Profiles. http:// www. ncwildlife. org /fs_index_07_conservation.htm
- United States Fish and Wildlife Service. North Carolina's Threatened and Endangered Species. http: / /www.fws.gov /southeast/es /county %201ists.htm
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑Q No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http: / /www. saw. usar-e.army. mil /wetlands /N WP2007 /specialwaters. html
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes E] No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
See attached Categorical Exclusion Report and Correspondence with John Mintz, State Archaeologist
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
HEC -RAS
Tim Baumgartner
NC DENR, EEP
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

Attachment 1
Categorical Exclusion Report

k
>1L'
SFr
rr
Ch r�r
- Categorical Exclusion Forrn� for Ecosystem Ebbancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix kshould,Wbe,submltted (along with any supporting documentation)'as the,
`envirorimen`tal document
RECEIVED
NOV 7 2012
NC ECOSYSTEP,1
E-NIHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Version 14, 8/18/05
r
1
;A
o o
s
Mro ect' Name:
Bear Basin Wetland Restoration Project
Coun - Name:
Onslow County, NC
_
.'EEPk umber:
95362
iPro"ectfS
nsor-:
KCI Technologies,, Inc.
_
;:Pro
ect,Cantact;Nam6,
_Tim Morris
Pro
ect,Contact,Address:
4601 Six Forks Rd Suite 220 Raleigh, NC 27609
afro
ect_Contact,E=maii:
tim.morrrs kci.com
-,EEP-Pir 6d Mana "er:
` Kristin _Mi uez
. a ®, ,
O
sR@Viewretil'Bya
EEP "Project Manager -"
nCondition (,Approved -By:'
-T ateFT,
_dmiriistratoi
`CheckIfiwbbk if_thetde'are-outstand_
ing,issu_ es
_
;Final "Approval
3' { .T " "' max/ /'L _� • -
' f o _ � 'y - _
- '� N. y lb_ �"� /j /4 _, y T
;,Date x
_ s _
or; DivisionAdrrministr4tor
-
-
FHWA_
RECEIVED
NOV 7 2012
NC ECOSYSTEP,1
E-NIHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Version 14, 8/18/05
r
1
;A

Part 72: All Projects
..
2 Zoastal'Zorie Management Act= CZMA '
1, Is the project located in a CAMA,county?
Z Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project involve,ground- disturbing activities within a LAMA 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
-,Com behensive Environmental Res onse ,Com` ensatiomand.Liabilit Act CERCLA
1 Is this a "full - delivery" project?
®, Yes
❑ No
2 Has the zoning /land use of the subject property -and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
® No
❑ N/A
3 Asa result of a limited Phasel 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 1,06
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 tPro ert ” Ac uisition, 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 lie?
❑
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground-Qi'sturbing Activities
Regulat ion/Question Resppnse
` American Indian ,Reli ` ious 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 protect listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
NM
4 Have the effects of -the protect on this site been,considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Anti uities 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
® WA
3 Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4 Has a permit been obtairied?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1 Is the,projectJocated on federal,orindian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
® No
2 Will there b_ e 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 Hasa permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
_
® N/A
_ Endangered SiJecies Act ESA ` -
1, Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and /or Designated Critical Habitat
® Yes
listed for the'count ?
❑ 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 "likelylto adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
® N/A
5 Does,tFie USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
® Yes
(By virtue of no-response)
❑ No
❑ N/A
6 Has,the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

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,Polic Act FPPA
1 Will real estate be,acgwred?
® Yes
❑ No
2 Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or local
® 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 Wdl'the project impound, divert, channelAeepen, 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
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
Aagnuson-Stevensflihery Conservation and Management Act Essential fish
Habitat),
1 Is the project located'in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
® No
2 Is suitable habitat presentfor 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- Fishenes occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Migrato Bird Treat 'ActI 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
1Wilderness,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
M N/A
Version 1.4, 8/1,8/05

Attachment 2
Mitigation Plan Approval Letter from ACOE

NT_ OF O�
Qe/
1 y��
•`�a r, s of -�
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
28 June, 2013
'Re: NCIRT Review of Bear Basin Draft Mitigation Plan; NCEEP# 95362; SAW 2012 -01391
Mr. Michael Ellison
North, Carolina Ecosystem.Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Dear Mr. Ellison:
The ,purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) with all comments °generated by the North Carolina Interagency` Review Team ( NCIRT)
during the 30 -day comment period for the Bear Basin Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 5 June,
2013. These comments are ,attached for`your review. Additionally, this letter provides a brief.account
of further review by the USAGE, NCEEP, and the contracted provider, KCI Associates of North
Carolina, PC.
Based on our review of these comments, we have identified one major concern with the Draft Mitigation
Plan. This issue stems from the allowance of ditches, adjacent to the project to remain open and the
credit generation of those areas affected by`the ditch drainage. The USACE requested that those areas
subject to the permanent drainage be, removed from credit generation as restoration; due to the known
drainage effect of the ditches. This issue was also present on another KCI project under portal review at
the same time (Twin Bays). Based on the concern, and comments provided by the USACE/N,,CIRT,
during the portal review process (comments,attached), KCI provided an email response and a request to
meet and discuss justification for the proposed credit generation on those affected areas for both
projects. Subsequently, a meeting was, conducted, on 27 June, 2013. The discussion included a review
of modeling results for pre -and post- construction ditch effect, lack of existing groundwater hydrologic
data, hydrologic, inputs /exports of the sites,, and potential for movement of ditches or,ditch alterations.
It Was agreed upon that a "non- credit generating" buffer be placed along all the ditches that are to
remain open. This buffer represents a zone of 'influence from the remaining ditches and will 'be at a
distance somewhere between the ditch edge and the previously modeled results of effective drainage (0'-
85' for Bear Basin) that Will result in, zero credit generation. There will be a secondary zone that may
result in generation of restoration credits. This zone will be determined by monitoring transects of wells
and the resulting data supporting the presumption that the wock,conducted will have a mitigating effect
on the influence of the remaining permanent ditches. Furthermore this area will be held to the stated
performance standard for hydroperiod in the Draft Mitigation Plan (8% of the growing season). Please

note that prior to,finalizing the mitigation plan, we must approve.the width of the zones discussed,above.
The resolution of these issues must be included in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Application
for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter and a summation of the
addressed comments If it is deterin`ined that the project does not require a Department of the Army
permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
appropriate USACE field office at least 30 -days in advance of beginning construction,of the project.
Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit
authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed.
Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this,does not guarantee that
the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues
may arise during construction or monitoring of the project 'that may require maintenance or
reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions - regarding this
letter, please call us at 9,19- 846 - 2564.'
Sincerely,,
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Spec
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW-RG /Wicker
CESA W- RG -L/Bai ley
Jeff Jurek; NCEEP
Jeff Schaffer, NCEEP
Kristin Miguez, NCEEP
Digitally signed by
CRUMBLEY TYLER.AUTRY 100
7509975
Date 2013 0628 11 15 03
-04'00
iali'st

'�,F� x�u
No-
y. aS
7 Si i
,EcosystelTi
PROGRAM
Apt il' 1'5, 2013
Mi -,Tim Morris
KCI Associates of NC, PC
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six-Forks Road
Raleigh NC 27609
Subject: Mitigation Plan for -the
Bear Basin Restoration Site (IMS# 95362)
White,0ak River Basin —,CU# 0.3030001
Onslow County, North Cai ohna
Contract No 004741
Dear Mr Morris:
On December' 4, 20 f2, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP),teceived the. Beat Basin Restoration Site Draft
Mitigation Plan from KCI Associates, of NC, PC (KCI) The Plan establishes the plan of restoiation for the site and
establishes the anticipated mitigation of 10 Non'- riparian Wetland Mitigation Units.
EEP provided comments as hacked changesiconceming the draft report by email dated February 8, 2013 (the initial
attempt was made on,January 10, 2013 "but email failed) KCI revised the plan and provided revised copies to EEP
on March 1, 2013. EEP responded via letter dated March 19, 2013 stating concerns with the pioposed hydrologic
performance cr`itei is KCI responded by email on April 5, 2013 with a revised hydrologic pet formance criteria that
addressed,EEP's concerns
The Ecosystem Enhancement Piogiam (EEP) has completed its review of the testoration plan and has,no additional
comments at this tnffie. At this 'torte I will' be sending the Final Draft of the Bear Bas - -in Restoration Site Draft
Mitigation Plan to the Intetagency Review Team (]IT) for their review and comment In addition, I have appi,oved
;your Invoice No {3) 476557, in the amount.of $93,687 (40% of the total contract amount)
If you have airy questions, or wish to discuss this mattes furthei, please contact me at (919) 707 -8308 of email at
Jeff schaffer@ncdcnr net
Sincei cly,
Jeff Schaffer
EEP Eastern Regional Supervisor
cc. files
Kristin Miguez — EEP Project Managei
k
North Cat ohna, Fcosystein hnitanuinent Progtain, 1652 fail Service Center, bleighdIC 276994652 / 919 -7I5 -006 % wm.wep net

Attachment 3
Mitigation Plan Response Letter from KO (EEP and IRT)

CESAW -RG /Crumbley 5 June, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Bear Basin- NCIRT Comments During 30-day Mitigation,Plan Review
Purpose: The comments and responses listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan
Review Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of ,the
2008 Mitigation Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: Bear Basin Restoration Site, Onslow County, NC
USACE AID #' - SAW- 2012 -01391
NCEEP #: 95362
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 5 June, 2013
1. Eric_ Kulz, NCDWQ 8 May, 2013:
o As per my comment on Twin Bays, the ditches that are to remain open along the
western and southern property boundaries will likely result in a reduction of wetland
credits from the site.
2. T. Crumbley, and T Tuqwell, USACE, 4 June, 2013:
• Please review the indicator statuses of red maple, tulip poplar and water oak in section
7.1 Pg 19 of the plan. Insert "live, planted stems" at 210 /acre and remove the word
",mature" from the survivability discussion.
• Sec 7.3, Proposed Conditions:- Please remove the area directly adjacent to open ditch
(-85' based on modeling) from the acreage calculation at west and back of site: Move
paired wells back to the edge of potential wetland (i.e. 90' & 110' from ditch).
• Sec. 9.0 Vegetation Success, Criteria for meeting performance, standards should also
include the terms "live, planted stems", criteria for success.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS_
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
CESAW -RG /Crumbley 5 June, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Bear Basin- NCIRT Comments During 30-day Mitigation,Plan Review
Purpose: The comments and responses listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan
Review Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of ,the
2008 Mitigation Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: Bear Basin Restoration Site, Onslow County, NC
USACE AID #' - SAW- 2012 -01391
NCEEP #: 95362
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 5 June, 2013
1. Eric_ Kulz, NCDWQ 8 May, 2013:
o As per my comment on Twin Bays, the ditches that are to remain open along the
western and southern property boundaries will likely result in a reduction of wetland
credits from the site.
2. T. Crumbley, and T Tuqwell, USACE, 4 June, 2013:
• Please review the indicator statuses of red maple, tulip poplar and water oak in section
7.1 Pg 19 of the plan. Insert "live, planted stems" at 210 /acre and remove the word
",mature" from the survivability discussion.
• Sec 7.3, Proposed Conditions:- Please remove the area directly adjacent to open ditch
(-85' based on modeling) from the acreage calculation at west and back of site: Move
paired wells back to the edge of potential wetland (i.e. 90' & 110' from ditch).
• Sec. 9.0 Vegetation Success, Criteria for meeting performance, standards should also
include the terms "live, planted stems", criteria for success.

KCi ENGINEER,S - S'CIENTISTS - SURVEYORS - CONSTRUCTION MANAGER'S
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH- CAROLM, PA Landmark Center 11, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783 -9214 (919) 783 -9266 Fax
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 25, 2014
To: Todd Tugwell, USACE
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PA
Subject: Bear Basin- Final Mitigation Plan
IRT Mitigation Plan Review — Response to Comments
White Oak River Basin 03030001
Onslow County, North Carolina
Contract No. #004741
EEP IMS #95362
KCI Project Number - ,20122266
Please find below our responses (in italics) to the Mitigation Plan comments from the IRT received on
June 5, 201'3, for the Bear Basin Non - Riparian Wetland Restoration Project.
IRT Comments
Comment #1 Eric Kulz, NCDWQ, 8 May, 2013: - As per my comment on Twin Bays, the
ditches that are to remain open along thewestern and southern property boundary will likely
result in a reduction of'wetland credits from the site.
Response: In response to this and other similar IRT comments below, a meeting was conducted
with NC EEP and the ALOE to discuss the potential credit impacts associated with leaving
approximately 1,424' of the southern and western ditches open (unfilled). KCI requested that the
Corps allow monitoring results to elucidate the actual credit impact of the open,ditch on the site It
is KCI's belief that while there would be a drainage influence associated with the ditch, it was
likely that other modifications internal to the site .may offset the drainage impacts associated with
the ditch and allow for hydrologic performance standards to be achieved For example, water that
is currently being'routed around the site in ditches would be directed through the site in the post -
construction condition That coupled with sur "face roughening techniques should serve to store
more surface and shallow .ground water and result in a lengthening of the hydroperiod throughout
the site but especially near ,the low lying area adjacent to the southern ditch. While the Corps
acknowledged this- potential, they also expressed concern that they would be setting a double
standard byallowmg KCI to claim that the ditches were effectively,draining the site and impacting
the jurisdictionality of wetlands, and then claiming that not filling the ditches would not have an
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A. www, kci com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

effect on the success of the mitigation As a result of the discussion, a compromise• solution was
discussed and later agreed to that would define a no- credit zone directly adjacent to the ditch and a
second zone further from the ditch that would be monitored to determine the credit impact. The
width of the no- credit zone and the monitoring zone would be based on the zone of effect
determined by the Lateral Effect model (jVCSU, 2011) Essentially the no- credit zone would be ha f
of the lateral effect shown by the model. In the case of Bear Basin, the lateral effect .was
determined to be 85' so the no credit zone would'be °between 0' -42.5' from the edge of the ditch and
the monitoring zone would extend from 42.5' to 85' from the ditch The monitoring zone will be
monitored using paired 'wells, located at 50" and 80' from the edge of the ditch A schematic
showing the proposed well placement can be found on page 109 of the Final Mitigation Plan
Language in Sections 7 3 (Data Analysis) and 10.0 (Monitoring Requirements) was modified to
address the comment above as it relates to the area adjacent to the southern ditch.
Comment_ #2 T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USACE, 4 June, 2013: - Please review•the indicator
statuses of red maple, tulip poplar and water oak in section 7.1 Pg 19 of the plan. Insert "live,
planted stems" at 210 /acre and remove the word "mature" from the survivability discussion.
Using the Atlantic and Gulf Coast 2013 Regional Wetland Plant List, KCI checked and corrected
the indicator status of all trees and shrubs listed in Section 71. Also, all text corrections were
made as per the comment above
Comment #3 T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USACE, 4 June, 2013: - Sec. 7.3, Proposed
Conditions: Please remove the area directly adjacent to open ditch (-85' based on modeling)
from the acreage calculation at south, portion of the site. Move paired wells back to the edge
of potential wetland (i.e. 90' and 110' from ditch).
Refer to discussion on Comment #1
Comment #4 T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USACE, 4 June, 2013: - Sec. 9.0 Vegetation
Success, Criteria for meeting performance standards should also include the terms "live,
planted stems" criteria for success.
"Live, planted stems " terminology was inserted in the criteria for success
Please contact me if you have any questions or would l>ke clarification concerning these responses.
Sincerely,
Tim Morris
Project Manager
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P A..
www kci com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

KC1E,NGLNEEWS • &CIENT`ISTS •� SAJRVEYOR;S, C.ONSTR,UCTTON, MANAGERS
ASSOCIATES OF
NORM CAIa U4k PA Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783 -9214 (919) 783- 9266,Fax
MEMORANDUM
Date- February 28, 2013
To: Jeff Schaffer, EEP Eastern Regional Supervisor
From- Tim Morris, Project,Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PA
Subject: Bear Basin Wetland Restoration Site
Mitigation Plan Review
White Oak River Basin CU 03030001
Duplin County,, North Carolina
Contract No. #00474,1
EEP IMS #95362,
Please find below our responses in italics to the Mitigation Plan comments from NCEEP received on
February 8, 2013, for the Bear Basin Wetland Restoration Site.
Bear Basin Wetland Restoration Site— Draft Mitigation Plan Review
Executive Summary
The final version of the White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities document is available on
EEP',s web site.
➢ This will be updated in'the report
2. Comment concerning the project objective of elevating local groundwater levels: This is true for
much of the site but because they're maintaining the southern ditch to drain upstream ag, fields,, a
"significant amount of the proposed creditable acreage along the ditch will not benefit, from
elevated groundwater.
➢ This is a general objective of the project and should be accomplished as a part of the
objective,to fill the,majority,of the ditches on site
Comments concerning,the project objective ofsrestoring a diverse wetland vegetation community
through maintenance and germination of existing wetland seed ,stores, planting of wetland trees
and shrubs, and incorporation of a custom wetland seed mix:
a ) "Diverse" is an overstatement if they're only�plantmg.
,b.)They're not really doing this —the current, "seed stores" on the project site consist of weed
species and soy beans. Across the,western ditch'are almost all pines so this isn't a good seed
source for reestablishment of a diverse community. The wetland species across the,southern ditch
(that will remain post construction), might generate some recruits on the - project site, but not much
KCI ASSOCIATES OF'NORTH CAROLINA, P.A
www kci com
Employee -Owned Since 1998

without active dispersal by someone, and they have to contend with lower groundwater levels due
to the adjacent ditch.
➢ The word "diverse" is a•1 relative term, but will be deleted ,so as not to cause any
confusion over the final outcome of ,the vegetative 'community The section concerning
seed stores has been rewritten to. say "through maintenance and germination of volunteer
wetland ,vegetation from adjacent seed sources " This should clarify the intent of this
objective ,
Section 1.0
4. Comment.conceming'the 3,03 {d) listing of the Upper New River: Provide more detail.. has this
reach been listed since 2008, only in 2008, still listed in 2012?
> The reference to the 303(d) listing will be removed from the report,since it was delisted in
2010
Section 2.2
5. Comment concerning the statement that the site "was selected as an ideal candidate for wetland
rn igatiori ". "Ideal" is a bit strong
> The word "ideal " will be removed from this statement
Section 7.1
Comment concerning the target vegetative community as a Hardwood Flats Community: This
wetland type is primarily reliant on a high groundwater table. With 5' deep ditches completely
along the south and with some unknown quantity of deep ditches on the west, I have some
concern over how high the- water,table will be over much of the project area.
> This concern is acknowledged, and the mondormgplan that is outlined in the report will
determine the influence of these ditches and the effect on the water table by using
additional,groundwater gauges
7 Comment concerning the target planted stem density of 210 stems per acre after seven years.
Should be 260, right?
> There was a typo„ so the text in the report properly reads, "Trees and shrubs will be
planted at a density of 968 stems per acre (9 feet x 5 feet spacing) to achieve a mature
survivability of two hundred ten (210) stems per acre after seven years "
Comment concerning the proposed planting, species- Why not temper the'list of species to be
planted with your reference community species? There was an array of shrub species across the
southern ditch that doesn't occur in the list. In a wetland project like this, a shrub stem counts the
same as a tree stem, so why not plant species that occur in the vicinity on ,the same soils? I love
oaks' but•I didn't see any of These species
> Two species of broad leaved evergreens (Sweetbay, Magnolia and Swamp Red Bay) will
be added to the planting list From our understanding of the monitoring guidelines, even
though shrubs` and trees can both, be ,counted as planted stems, considering the new
height requirement, if we plant shrubs that survive and thrive, but do `not reach the
proper height, the vegetation could be seen as unsuccessful
_KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH' CAROLINA, P.A. www kci com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

9. Comment concerning the proposed planting species: This isn't "specific enough to insure they're
restoring a "diverse wetland vegetation community" as they commit to in the Executive
Summary.
➢ The term "diverse" will be removedfrom the Executive'Summary
Section 7.2
10. Comment concerning the statement that the restoring the wetland will involve "establishing
wetland microtopography ":
a.) May want to reword this due to the USACE's aversion to the term micortopography. Based
on our Jan. 3`d site visit what you are really doing'is surface roughening.
b.) What Jeff says I:s true, but references such as NCWAM and NCNHP attribute plant
community heterogeneity in Hardwood`Flats to microtopography
➢ This text will be reworded to say.surface roughening instead of microtopography
11. Comment concerning the "increase in flood storage" as a functional uplift expected from the
project: Given the elevation of the sitesand its location between two streams it is not expected that
this function is one that will truly be improved.
➢ This comment 'is noted, but KCI feels that by eliminating the crown in the field, the
surface drains, creating a roughened wetland'surface, andtflling ,the primary ditches
through the wetland, it is expected that more surface water will be held on `the site, which
will slow the surface runoff from the site, increasing the flood storage of the site
compared to its current condition
12. Comment concerning the "increase in sediment trapping and filtration" as a functional uplift
expected -from the project: According to'the site topography, the adjacent ag. fields drain away
from the project we do not expect °that sediment trapping will be improved.
➢ This comment is noted but KCI feels that by eliminating the ditches through the middle of
the site sediment will be stored imthe wetland that otherwise might,have been washed,out
through the ditches Also, KCI has revised the grading at the site to fill the northern
, section of the western ditch This will bring flows from the NCDOT ditch, north of the
project into the restored wetlands With these flows dispersing throughout the wetland,
any sediment or other pollutants will be trapped and filtered through the wetland.
13. Comment, concerning the "increase in biochemical cycling of nutrients and other pollutants" as a
functional uplift expected from the project. Again, according to the site topography, the adjacent
ag fields drain away from the project other than removing this site from production we do not
expect that pollutant removal ,is really going to occur.
This' comment is noted, but KCI, feels that the uplift is expected due to the reasons
described in the previous response (12)
14. Comment concerning the "scarifying the existing compacted surface soils ": 'Is this what creates
the microtopography you mention above?
➢ Yes, but the term microtopography has been changed to surface roughening
15. Comment concerning the broad leaved evergreens in the reference wetland: But these aren't
included in your list of°species to be planted...
➢ The planting list has been updated to include two species of broad leaved evergreens
(Sweetliay Magnolia. and Swamp Red Bay)
16. Comment concerning the monitoring well in the reference wetland- But more will be installed to
address the ditch,concerns, right?
Yes, the - monitoring approach is described in Section 10
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA. P.A. www kci com
Employee- Owned;Smce 1988

Section 7.3
17. Comments concerning the water budget:
a.)If all surface water Is assumed lost and groundwater 1s not, included, In the model how Is the
ditch affect being predicted The existing hydrology graphs In the appendices indicate that
groundwater may not be negligible in this system.
b.)I agree With Melonie. In fact, if the project intends to restore a Hardwood Flat Wetland, a high
water table is required and a legitimate model would have to reflect this.
➢ A limitation of the water budget model is that it doesn't accurately estimate the ditch
effect and loss of groundwater It simplifies the storage lost to ditches as all surface
runoff There is a. conservative amount of loss to infiltration assumed, but the existing
conditions hydrology is therefore higher because more loss to the ditches is probably,
occurring than is known As a result, the existing conditions ,show higher storage
occurring than we have documented on the site'
18. Comment concerning leaving open,the southern and,western ditches:
a.) Joe explained that this ditch would be filled to some degree, but it doesn't appear in this ,
report. The degree to which the ditch will be filled needs to be explicit
b.) This is still a concern that must ibe addressed during monitoring of the site to ensure the
ditches are not adversely affecting site hydrology
➢ There has been a revision to the grading plan that, is included in this fndl draft The top
portion of the western ditch will be .filled and the drainage from the NCDOT ditch that
enters from the northwest will be brought onto the site The monitoring approach,
described in Section 10 includes the method of monitoring the ditch effects
19. This comment seems to conflict with earlier statement that the ditches are having a,greater impact
on hydrology than the water budget has estimated. That being the, case, some loss of wetland
credit 1s likely along °the border of this ditch.
➢ The Lateral Effect software, supports the conclusion that the water budget is not a very
good predictive tool for estimating the ditch impact on site hydrology due to its
limitations We recognize that leaving the ditches open may have an impact on credit and
will monitor those potential problem areas to determine f credit reductions will be
necessary
Section 8.0
20 Include information on the Utility Right of Way that exists within the conservation easement.
y The utility right of way is not included in ,the credited wetland acreage
Section 9.0
21. How was the�6.5% hydrologic performance criteria determined and,why does it seem so low?
As documented in Section 7 3 the water budget shows that the site exceeds 6 5% during a
normal year, but the analysis does not accurately predict to a precise ,degree the role the
current ditches are playing in removing wetland hydrology given that the.model results
do not directly correlate to the absence of primary hydrologic indicators and
saturated%inundated soils documented at the site 'Without extensive pre - construction
monitoring or historic reference wetland data, the 6 5% figure represents our best
professionaljudgment based on the available data
22. Is the hydrologic performance criteria based on reference data collected during growing season or
modeled results?
➢ We do not have growing season data from the reference wetland The determination of
the hydrologic success criteria,is discussed in the comment above
KCI ,ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A. www kci com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

23. Please Include the write -up for wells to be installed near south side of the site after the site visit
with regulatory agencies
➢ A reference to Section 10 has been included in this ,section that describes the additional
wells that will be installed,to monitor the effects of the ditch
Section 10.0
24. Will there be 7 -8 gauges total or 7 -8 gauges plus the sets of coupled gauges discussed below? As
it is discussed below, it sounds as if there will be 10 additional gauges, for a total of 17 -18
gauges.
➢ Yes, because part of the western ditch is being filled,the final draft of the mitigation plan
lists an additional 8 gauges, instead �of the 10 mentioned in the report, so 15 -16 gauges
total A figure illustrating the potential locations of the monitoring gauges will be added
to Section -14 S - Appendix C
Section 14.4 — Appendix B — .Reference Wetland', Section
25. Why is the reference gauge situated here9
➢ This figure shows the location of the reference wetland that was selected for this site and
'the reference gauge that will be monitored throughout the monitoring period for this site
We selected a gauge location that was representative of our anticipated restored wetland
conditions
Section 14.6,— Appendix D. Project Plan Sheets
26. Numbering on plan sheets Indicates that there should be 10 pages, however only 5 of 110 plan
sheets have been,provided.
Sheets 6 -10 are the erosion control plans and are not included in the 60% plans,
however this final submittal does include these additional plans
27. Recommend reducing the percentage of planted Red Maple (as shown on sheet 5 of 10) to a
maximum of 5 %, and adjusting the quantities of other species accordingly.
➢ The planting plan will be adjusted to decrease the amount of red maple as requested'and
two evergreen shrub species ,(Sweetbay Magnolia and Swamp Red Bay) have be added to
the planting plan
* * * ** *Additional Comment from,KCI * * * * **
As noted above, the grading plan for the site has been altered slightly from the previous submittal KCI
will be filling the top portion of the °western ditch The grading has been adjusted to allow the water from
the northwestern NCDOT ditch to flow into the restored wetland and the other relevant portions of the
mitigationfplan have been modified to reflect this change
Please contact me if you.have any questions or would like clarification concerning-these responses.
Sincerely,
Tim Morris
Project Manager
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAR'OL'INA, P.A. www kcv com
Employee -Owned Since 1

Attachment 4
Final Mitigation Plan

/ S - Jq55
7AUl�•>i> Oki I
Bear Basin Restoration Site
Onslow County, North Carolina
EEP Contract 004741
EEP Project Number 95362
White Oak Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030001
Prepared for:
os stem
Fji alwemew
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
FINAL - July 2014
AUG 0 5 2014
n�a Y CfA._ Q(JAk TY

MITIGATION PLAN
Bear Basin Restoration Site
Onslow County, North Carolina
EEP Contract 004741
EEP Project Number 95362
White Oak Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030001
Pre`pa red °for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
-4 -
K C 1 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
AND CONSTRUCTION t INC
ASSOCLiTES OF .NC
KCI,Associates of North Carolina, PC
4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 783 -9214
FINAL —July 2014

Mitigation Plan Bear Basim Restoration, Site,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This mitigation plan has been written.i&conformance with the requirements of the.followmg:
• Federal rule for compensatory` mitigation projects►tes,as deser►lied'imthe Federal'Reg►ster',Tifle.33
Nav►gat►on,and,Nav►gable Waters Volume,3 Chabter 2,Section�§ 332 8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14)
• NCDENR,Ecosystem Enhancement Program,ln -Lieu Fee Instruments ►gned,and�datedJuly28, 2010
TheseVocuments govern,NCEEP operations and, ,,procedures for the delivery of compensatory, mitigation
The 'Bear Basin Restoration 'Site (BB) is a full - delivery, mitigation project being developed for the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) The BB is in the White Oak 01 Basin (03030001 8 -digit
HVC) in,,Onslow .County, North Carolina that has been,,substantially modified to maximize agricultural
production. The, site offers, the chance to restore impacted agricultural lands to, non - riparian wetland
habitat
Consistent with the igoals set forth in,,the, White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities (WORBRP),
(Breeding; 2010) the Bear Ba 'sin,pfoject will, help-achieve thelolldWing goals.
- Protect and improve water,quality,by reducingsediment and nutrient inputs
- The ,,,protection of a watershed draining into shellfish harvesting waters
Additional goals not included in the VVORBRP include:
- , Provide habitat for aquatic flora and -fauna by- ,improving physical structure and vegetative
composition
In the local hydroperiod by encouraging` both surface and, 'subsurface storage and
retention
Restore and establish a functionalwetland community
These goals will be accomplished through implementation,of °the following objectives;
- Fill,field ditches to restore surface,flow,retention,and elevate local groundwater levels.
- Redevelop, longer wetland flow patterns,to' increase ,surface,fl6w,_retention time
- Restore a Wetland vegetation community_ through maintenance and,germina"tion of,volunteer
wetland vegetation from, adjacent seed sources, planting of wetland trees and ,shrubs, and
incorporation +of -a custom wetland seed mix
The site, is located, approximately 5 miles to the,west of the'Town,of!Richlands'in Onslow County, North
Carolina_ The•site Fias- undergone significant modifications ,( clearing, and, ditching),that,have altered the
site's hydrologic and vegetative composition since at'least,1982. The sitetwdl be�restoredto non - riparian
wetland with two ►sections of upland inclusion. The ditches across,the,site will be filled and redeveloped
to retain and ,distribute surface flow across the site. Once site, grading `is complete, the non - riparian
communities will be planted as Hardwood Flats (NCWAM, v.4.1 2010). The site will'be monitored for
seVen,Vears or until the success criteria are,met.

Mitigation Plan
Bear Basin Restoration Site
Bear Basin Restoration Site, Onslow County
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non-riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Acres
68 6,
Credits
8 6'
TOTAL CREDITS
86
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement

Mitigation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Bear Basin Restoration Site
1J0
RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................ %
2;0
SITE:SGLEK3lON ................ .................................................................................................
2
2.1
Directions -.-----------.. . .. -. ..... . ............. . -..
---. --- -.l
22
Ste Selection ......... .................. - ,. . ....................... . .... ... ....
------. - . I
2.]
Vicinity Map .... ... ... ....... . ................................. ... ..... .................
....... .... .......... 4
24
VVateohedK8ap ............. .... ...... . . ..... ... . ..................... ..... ... .. ...
..................... ..... .G
2,.5
Soil Survey, ....... ....................................... ..... .. .......... ........................ ......
........................ 6
2.6
Curms!ConditmnPlamVaw------------. . ... ....... ....... . ......
.... ................... 7
2.7
Historicil Condition PlanVevv .... ................ ...... ..... .. -. . - -------
--- .-...D
28
Site Photographs ......... . ..... .... . ..... ... .... ... ................... ....... ..- ......................
...... 1O
3.0
INSTRUMENT ........................................................................................
12
3.1
Site Protection Instrument Summary Information ..... ......................... ... .. .............................
12
3.2
Site Protection Instrument Figure .... ... .................................. . .. .....................
....... 13
4.0
BASELINE INFORMATION .--.._..........-,.-.-_-'.---------.'.-'.'.,----------...'.~........14
4.1
'Watershed Summary Information ......... ....... . -. ----.. -- -
--------..1S
4.2
Reach Summary Information -... -.---------- . . ........ ...................
... . 15
43
Wetland Summary Information ................ . ........ .. ................. ..
.. ....................... 1S
4.4
Regulatory Considerations.., -.. ...................................... ..... .. .... .........
.... 15
5.0
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ...........................................................................................
16
6.0
CREDIT RELEASt SCHEDULE ...............................................................................................
17
7.0
MI TIGATIONVORK PLAN .................................................................................................
19
7.1
Tar8etVVet|andTypesandPbnt[ommunit/es .. ... . ......... .... . - ...
...................... ... .19
T2
Design Parameters ... -.. - .. . .. . .......... ............ . ........ .-..
--------.19
7.3
Data Analysis .. . ... .......................... ... . .... --- ----...
.--. ---21
7.4
Proposed Mitigation Plan View ............ . .... ....... .. ......................... .... ............................ 23
0.0
MAINTENANCE PLAN ........................................................................................................
24
9.0
PERFORMA NCE STANDARDS .............................................................................................
24
10.0
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ........ .................................................................................
25
11.0
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................
26
12.0
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................
27
13.0
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ....... ...........................................................................................
^27
14.0
OTHER INFORMATION ......................................................................................................
27
14.1
befnitkons-. ......................... .. .. ....... .. -. .......... ..........
--... .....-27
14.2
References.=.- ........... ................ . ...... .. ... ........................ ........
........................ J9
14.3
Appendix A.Site Protection Instrument ............................... . ...................................... -.31
144
AppendmJl Baseline Information Data ............................. . - ----..
- .... ..... ...... 43
14.5
Appendix C Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses ... ............................
.. .... ................... 8S
14.6
Appendix[lProjezt PlanSheets ........ `.. .............................................. ............................... 11D

Mitigation Plan Bear Bann Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan BearBosin Restoration Site
U
1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
EEP develops River Basin Restoration, Priorities to guide its restoration activities within each of the
state's 54 cataloging units RBRPs delineate specific Watersheds that exhibit- aboth the need and
opportunity for wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds are called Targeted
Local Watersheds (TLWs) and receive priority for EEP planning and restoration project funds
The 2010 White Oak "River Basin Restoration Priorities identified HUC 03030001010010 (Upper New
River Watershed) as a Targeted `Local Watershed _(http:/ /,,portal.ncdenr org /c /document_
library/get_file ?uuid= lcOb7e5a= 9617- 4a44- a5f8- df017873496b &groupld= 60329)., The watershed is
characterized by 51% forested and 44% agricultural area with impacts to streams including'increased
agricultural inputs, road construction impacts, and channelization.
The 2010 White Oak River Basin ,RBRP identified poor riparian zones and fragmented forests as mayor
stressors within this TLW. The Bear Basin Restoration Site (BB) Project was identified as a wetland
restoration opportunity to improve habitat and hydrologic regime within the TLW.
Consistent with the goals set forth in the White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities (WORBRP),
(Breeding, 2010) the Bear Basin project will, help achieve the following goals:
Protect and improve water quality,by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs
The protection of a watershed draining into shellfish harvesting waters
Additional goals not included in the W,OkBRP °include:
- Provide habitat for aquatic flora and fauna by improving physical structure and vegetative
composition
- Increase the local hydroperiod by encouraging both surface and subsurface storage and
retention
- Restore and establish a functional, wetland community
These goals will be accomplished- through implementation of`the following objectives:
- Fill field ditches to restore surface flow retention and elevate local groundwater levels.
- Redevelop longer wetland flow patterns to increase surface flow retention time.
- Restore a wetland vegetation community through maintenance and germination of existing
wetland seed ,stores, planting of wetland trees and shrubs, and incorporation of a custom
wetland seed mix
1
x-

Mitigation Plan
2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions
Bear Basin Restoration Site
The BB is.located on a,single parcel located off of Jesse Williams Road approximately,5 miles to the west
of the Town of- Richlands in.Onslow County, North Carolina. To reach the site from Raleigh. proceed east
on 1 -40 for approximately 72 miles. Then travel on NC -24 east toward Magnolia and travel for six miles
Turn right to remain on NC -24 East for an additional 19 miles. Next, turn left onto Jesse Williams- Road.
The site will be approximately 0.8 mile ahead on the.right after the pine - forest
2.2 Site Selection
The site is part of °the 03030001 USGS Cataloging Unit (White Oak 01). The White Oak River Basin as a
whole'is experiencing a large amount of habitat alteration due to population growth mainly in Onslow
County ,in the vicinity of the City of Jacksonville As a result, the focus in this watershed is on mitigating
impacts�to water quality'from nonpoint source pollution and protecting,and /or restoring existing habitat
(NCDENR,EEP, 2010).
The project site is bounded 'by Jesse Williams Road ,to the north, a ditch, along'the property line to the
west and south, and agricultural land to the east. The site has undergone significant modifications
(clearing and ditching) that have altered the site's hydrologic and vegetative Composition since at least
1982., The deeply entrenched ditches have severely altered the site's historic hydrologic regime,
effectively reducing or eliminating the wetland hydroperiod on the site. The existing site conditions are
shown in Section 2.6 and seen in site photographs (Section 2 8). Within the White Oak Basin, the Upper
New River drainage (03030001010010) remains relatively unaffected by urban. development. The site
drains to the Upper New River (DWQ Subbasinl9 -(1)), which is located approximately 0.5 miles west of
the project site. The Upper,NeW River is classified asp Class C with the supplemental listing of nutrient
sensitive waters (NSW). Currently,'1here are no portions of the 14-,digit HUC that are protected and
approximately 44% of its land use is,in agriculture (NCDENR EEP, 2010). Impervious cover in the 14 -digit
HUC is approximately 3 6%. The project watershed for the BB is comprised of 323 total acres. The land
use distribution in the project watershed closely mirrors the land use within the 14 -digit HUC, and
consists of primarily agriculture (14 4 ac /44 %) and forest (16.3 ac /50 %) The approximate total
impervious cover`of the project watershed is 2.0%
Historic aerials from Onslow County were, examined for any information about how the site hydrology
,and vegetation have changed over the last,century They`were obtained from USGS Earth Explorer from
1950, 1958, 1964, 1974, 1982, 1993, 1998, and 2010. The reviewed aerials are included in Section 2.7.
From this photographic record, it is apparent that the area surrounding the project site has been a mix
of agricultural and forested land for many years. Prior to 1982, the site appears in a forested condition
adjacent to existing agricultural fields to the east. Sometime between 1974 and 1982 the site Was
cleared and ditched for crop production From 1982 to the present time, the photos indicate that the
site has not been significantly altered from its present day condition. The land cover remains in,
agriculture currently. The surrounding area is rural with low development pressure at this time. These
land use trends indicated 'that restoring this property back to a forested wetlan_ d will provide an
important habitat enhancement in the watershed.
The site lies within the Castle Hayne,geologic formation of the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The
primary rock type in these areas is limestone with, dolomite existing as a common secondary rock type
2

Mitigation Plan
Bear Basin Restoration Site
The site topography is generally flat with only 2 feet of elevation change across the site (exclusive of site
ditching).
According to the Onslow County Soil Survey, the soils within the project site are mapped as Rains fine
sandy loam and Stallings loamy fine sand. A detailed investigation of the mapped soils resulted in
several changes to the type and boundaries of these two soil series. The soil mapped as Rains fine sandy
loam is more appropriately described as Pantego mucky loam (also a poorly drained soil), and the area
mapped as Stallings loamy fine sand was more accurately described as Lynchburg fine sandy loam, a
somewhat poorly drained soil. The restoration area will be focused on the areas determined to be
underlain by Pantego mucky loam. Both the mapped soils and the field- verified soils are described in
detail in Appendix C.
Based on these watershed and site - specific attributes, the BB was selected as a candidate for wetland
mitigation. The restored site will expand forested wetland habitat in an area that has been actively used
for agriculture since at least 1982.

Mitigation Plan
2.3 Vicinity Map
Bear Basin Restoration Site
DONE S
CRAVEN
DUPLIN
JONES COUNTY ON SLOW CARTERET
PENDER
4'
ry T.. Rd
11 N
t4gr. N
+ HELLANO
I tPUATORY
ii
-7
258
24
B—MW
ONS OW cOU
DUPLIN COUNTY
24
258
Al
DOW
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP
BEAR BASIN RESTORATION SITE
ON SLOW COUNTY, NC
4

Mitigation Plan
2.4 Watershed Map
t i
i
i
-- �1 — — RICHL/
POTTERS HILL QUAD 1 l 1
`i
t '
� f
r t
! t +
J !
1
44
•' 1 M1
11
I'.
+ l
f
Bear Basin Restoration Site
i
Project Watershed (32.7 acres)
tiL Vv �1`� » C3 Proposed Project Boundary
PROJECT SITE WATERSHED MAP R aidPotL ou - USGS s (19811) ) N
1,500 750 0 1,500 d Pbh
Fees BEAR BASIN RESTORATION SITE rsHdl(1980).
ONSLOW COUNTY, NC
5

Mitigation Plan
2.5 Soil Survey
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan Bear Basin Restoration Site
2.6 Current Condition Plan View

Mitigation Plan
2.7 Historical Condition Plan View
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
2.8 Site Photographs
Bear Basin Restoration Site
10

Mitigation Plan
Bear Basin Restoration Site
Looking south from the northwest project boundary along existing I Looking north from the western project boundary along existing
ditch. 10/3/2012 ditch. 10/3/2012
Looking southwest from the southern project boundary along Looking toward the northeast over the site. 10/3/2012
existing ditch. 10/3/2012
A view northwest toward an existing ditch and the northern edge of A view southeast toward an existing ditch and the existing forested
the site boundary. 10/3/2012 area along the southern project boundary. 10/3/2012
11

Mitigation Plan
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
Bear Basin Restoration Site
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the following parcels. The conservation easement documents were finalized in October
2012. A copy of the land protection instrument is included in Appendix A.
12
Site Protection
Deed Book and
Acreage
Landowners
PIN
County
Instrument
Page Number
protected
Kenneth
4413 -0481-
Conservation
Parcel A
Onslow
DB 531 PG 388
11.9 acres
Jones
3247
Easement
12

Mitigation Plan
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure
Bear Basin Restoration Site
13

Mitigation Plan
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Bear Basin Restoration Site
* Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B.
14
Project Information
Project Name
Bear Basin Wetland Restoration Site
County
Onslow County
Project Area (acres)
11.9 acres
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.)
34.925365 N , - 77.607461 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
White Oak
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030001
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030001010010
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -05 -02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
32.7 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
2%
CGIA Land Use Classification
44% Cultivated, 4% Managed Herbaceous Cover, 50% Southern Yellow Pine,
and 2% High Intensity Developed
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland Area 1
Size of Wetland (acres)
8.6 acres
Wetland Type (non- riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non - riverine)
Non - riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Rains and Stallings
(Pantego and Lynchburg by detailed soil investigation)
Drainage class
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Drained Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Precipitation
Hydrologic Impairment
Ditching and Crops
Native vegetation community
Crops
Percent composition of exotic
invasive vegetation
0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section
404
Yes
Applying I in g for NWP 27
Jurisdictional
Determination
Waters of the United States — Section
401
Yes
Applying I in g for NWP 27
Jurisdictional
Determination
Endangered Species Act*
No
N/A
N/A
Historic Preservation Act*
No
N/A
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat*
No
N/A
N/A
* Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B.
14

Mitigation Plan
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
Bear Basin Restoration Site
The site is within the 03030001 USGS Cataloging Unit (White Oak 01 Basin) The White Oak River Basin
as a whole is experiencing a large amount of habitat alteration due to population growth mainly in
Onslow County According to 1996 land cover data from the North Carolina Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis (CGIA), only 3% of the watershed is developed, but the area is expected to
continue to grow The predominant land uses are 49% forest and 12% agriculture
The project watershed for the BB is comprised of 32 7 total acres Current land use in the project
watershed consists of agriculture (14 4 ac /44 %), forest (16 3 ac /50 %), and high - intensity development
(0 8 ac /2%) The approximate total impervious cover of the project watershed is 2 0% The site drains to
the Upper New River, which is located approximately 0 5 mile west of the project site The project area
is located in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Potters Hill (1980) and Richlands (1981)
Quadrangles
4.2 Reach Summary Information
Not applicable for this project
4.3 Wetland Summary Information
Currently, there are no existing wetlands present The wetland data forms are included in Appendix B
The project site has experienced significant hydrologic and vegetative modifications to allow for
agricultural development A jurisdictional determination delineation was completed in which the ditch
network installed at the site was identified as jurisdictional tributaries (see Appendix B for jurisdictional
determination plat) The historic aerials indicate that the existing ditches were installed on the site
sometime after 1974 The site contains two interior ditches that serve to drain the site to the southeast
where they enter a perimeter ditch that carries water in a northeasterly direction, eventually
discharging into an unnamed tributary to the New River The site topography is generally flat with only
2 feet of elevation change across the site (exclusive of site ditching) This site is not located within a
geomorphic floodplain or a topographic crenulation and is not contiguous with a body of open water
This was the basis for the designation of the site as non - riparian restoration At the time of the first site
visit (September 2011), the site was planted in corn The site was planted in soybeans at the time of the
second site visit (October 2012) Currently, there are no cattle grazing on the property The surrounding
area is rural with low development pressure at this time
4.4 Regulatory Considerations
A jurisdictional determination was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers on October 9, 2012 and
approved on October 31, 2012 Following the completion of the mitigation plan, a pre - construction
notification (PCN) will be completed to apply for a Nationwide 27 Permit (NWP) to comply with Sections
401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act with the Wilmington District of the US Army Corps of Engineers and
the NCDENR Division of Water Quality
BB is not located within the 100 -year floodplain of the New River and therefore a flood study is not
anticipated for this project
15

Mitigation Plan
5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Bear Basin Restoration Site
Bear Basin Restoration Site, Duplin County
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Stream
Riparian
Non - riparian
Buffer
Nutrient
Nutrient
Wetland
Wetland
Offset
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Acres
8 6
Credits
8 6
TOTAL CREDITS
8 6
Project Components
Project
Restoration
Component
Stationing/
Existing
Approach
-or-
Restoration
Mitigation
Footage/
Footage
-or-
Location
(PI, PH etc)
Restoration
Ratio
Acreage
or Acreage
Reach ID
Equivalent
Central and
Wetland Area 1
Southwestern
8 6 acres
Restoration
8 6 acres
11
corner of project
Component Summation
Buffer
Restoration
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian Wetland
Upland
(square
Level
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
feet)
Non -
Rrvenne
Riverine
Restoration
8 6 acres
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
19 acres
High Quality
Preservation
TOTAL
8 6 acres
19 acres
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement
16

Mitigation Plan
6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
Bear Basin Restoration Site
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of
the mitigation project The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release
schedules below In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be
released depending on the specifics of the case Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended,
depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard The release
of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows
Forested Wetlands Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
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 performance
10%
50%
standards are being met
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
60%
standards are being met
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
70%
standards are being met
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
80%
standards are being met, Provided that all performance standards are
met, the IRT may allow the NCEEP to discontinue hydrologic monitoring
after the fifth year, but vegetation monitoring must continue for an
additional two years after the fifth year for a total of seven years
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
90%
standards are being met
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
100%
standards are being met, and project has received close -out
approval
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCEEP
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities
Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property
Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan, Per the NCEEP Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built
report has been produced As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits
17

Mitigation Plan
Bear Basin Restoration Site
- 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 15% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bank -full events have occurred, in
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met In the event
that less than two bank -full 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, the
NCEEP 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
18

Mitigation Plan Bear Basin Restoration Site
7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Target Wetland Types and Plant Communities
Wetland plantings shall consist of native species commonly found in the Hardwood Flats Community
(NCWAM, v 4 1 2010) Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of 968 stems per acre (9 feet x 5
feet spacing) to achieve a mature survivability of two hundred ten (210) stems per acre after seven
years Woody vegetation planting will be conducted during dormancy Species to be planted may consist
of the following consistent with a hardwood flat (NCWAM, v 4 12010)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator
Red maple
Acer rubrum
FACW
Red chokeberry
Aron►a arbut►fol►a
FACW
Tulip poplar
L►riodendron tuhp►fera
FACW
Sweetbay magnolia
Magnolia v►rg►n►ana
FACW
Swamp red bay
Persea palustr►s
FACW
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michaux►►
FACW
Water oak
Quercus n►gra
FAC
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagoda
FAC
American elm
Ulmus amer►cana
FACW
Highbush blueberry
Vacc►nium corymbosum
FACW
An adjoining upland area in the northern portion of the easement will be planted at 625 stems per acre
and will include an equal mix of red maple (Acer rubrum), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), Shumard
oak (Quercus shumard►►), and persimmon (Diospyros v►rg►n►ana) A custom herbaceous seed mix
composed of appropriate native species found in reference communities will also be developed and
used to further stabilize and restore the wetland
All of the above options will be marked and surveyed as per EEP's requirements contained within
http //portal ncdenr org /web /eep /fd- forms - templates In addition, the easement boundaries will be
marked with salt- treated wooden posts placed approximately 100 feet apart Each line post will be
marked with a conservation easement placard Corner posts will be marked with signs stating
"Conservation Easement Corner "
7.2 Design Parameters
The mitigation approach for BB will focus on restoring an integrated wetland ecosystem that will buffer
and support the Upper New River basin Restoration actions will focus on reestablishing an appropriate
wetland hydroperiod by filling ditches, surface roughening, and planting the site with appropriate
hydrophytes The site will be restored to a condition that resembles the former wetland community A
local comparable reference wetland system was identified approximately 0 15 mile northeast of the
restoration site and was used to aid in design of a wetland community most suited to the area Please
see the mitigation overview in Section 7 4 and the wetland plans included in Appendix D The following
elements of functional uplift are expected from this project
1 Increase in flood storage
2 Increase in groundwater recharge
3 Increase in sediment trapping and filtration
19

Mitigation Plan Bear Basin Restoration Site
J
4 Increase in carbon storage
5 Increase in biochemical cycling of nutrients and other pollutants
6 Increase in habitat utilization by wildlife (migrants and residents)
7 Increase in landscape patch structure
Non - Riparian Wetland Restoration — 8 6 acres
This site offers the potential to develop 8 6 acres of non - riparian wetlands within the Upper New River
basin Restoration actions would include filling approximately 2,500 linear feet of drainage ditches,
removing sidecast ditch spoils, eliminating field crowning, and scarifying the existing compacted surface
soils The primary receiving ditch, which runs west to east, will remain open Following the completion
of site grading, the non - riparian wetland will be planted as Hardwood Flats Community as described in
Section 7 1 Proposed project conditions are shown in Section 7 4
Upland Inclusions —1 9 acre of Upland Inclusions
In addition to the wetland components being offered, approximately 2 acres of upland buffer will be
included within the northern portion and southeastern corner of the easement area to augment the
sites potential to buffer pollutants from adjacent agricultural land and the existing roadway Once the
grading is completed, the northern portion will be planted as an upland zone while the southeastern
corner will be planted as the Hardwood Flats Community as described in Section 7 1
Non - Credit Areas — 3 3 acres
There are three non - credit generating areas on the site There are 19 acres of uplands located in the
northern and southeastern corner of the project boundary These areas will remain undisturbed and is
included in the BB conservation easement There is a utility easement on the northern side of the site,
located in the upland area, along Jesse Williams Road that remains undisturbed There are two ditches
that border the site that will also remain open The first is the primary receiving ditch, which runs west
to east, and will remain open to prevent potential hydrologic trespass The second is the lower two
thirds of the ditch on the west side of the site that runs north to south This portion of the western ditch
is not on the project parcel It is anticipated that leaving these ditches open will have minimal impacts to
the overall hydrologic performance of the site The hydrologic influence of the ditches were modeled
using Lateral Effect, a software program that determines the lateral effect of a drainage ditch or borrow
pit on adjacent wetland hydrology (NCSU BAE, 2011) This analysis determined that the potential
horizontal drainage influence averages 85' It is assumed that with the onsite modifications, such as
filling other ditches and surface roughening, the entire site will have more surface and groundwater,
which may decrease the effect of these ditches For this reason, the non - credit generating portion of the
site is assumed to be half of the zone (42 5') of influence for the ditch This area covers approximately
14 acres
Reference Wetland
A suitable reference wetland was found approximately 0 15 mile northeast of the BB and on the
opposite side of Jesse Williams Road The reference wetland is comprised of deciduous hardwoods over
a shrub layer with broad leaved evergreens and is consistent with the Hardwood Flats Community that
will be the target wetland type at the project site A groundwater monitoring well has been installed to
document the reference wetland hydrology during the course of monitoring
20

Mitigation Plan
7.3 Data Analysis
Bear Basin Restoration Site
The numerous modifications to the hydrology of the BB have effectively drained the historic wetlands
on -site The development of a network of field ditches has significantly altered the retention of surface
hydrology in these areas The pre and post - restoration effects of ditching on wetland hydrology was
evaluated using a hydrologic budget for the site (see Appendix C)
Existing Conditions
Existing site hydrology was modeled by developing an annual water budget that calculates hydrologic
inputs and outputs in order to calculate the change in storage on a monthly time step In order to set up
the water budget, historic climatic data were obtained from the North Carolina State Climatic Office
The weather station in Maysville, North Carolina was used, which is the closest station with the longest
period of record and is approximately 21 miles to the east of BB Monthly precipitation totals from the
entire period of record (1945 -2011) were reviewed and three years were selected to represent a range
of precipitation conditions dry year (1990), average year (1973), and wet year (1991)
Potential inputs to the water budget include precipitation, groundwater, and surface inputs For
precipitation, the data from the three selected years were used in the budget Groundwater inputs likely
exist, but they were considered to be negligible to be conservative for the purposes of this study
Surface water input was calculated using the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) runoff curve number
equation (USDA, SCS 1986)
Outputs from the site include potential evapotranspiration (PET), groundwater, and surface water
diversion PET was calculated by the Thornthwaite method using mean monthly temperatures
determined from the chosen years of record 1990, 1973, and 1991 Surface water was assumed entirely
lost since there is no surface storage in the existing conditions model
Once the inputs and outputs were determined, a net monthly total was calculated in inches and used to
estimate a yearly water budget The model assumes unsaturated conditions at the beginning of the
year A maximum wetland water volume of 3 6 inches was calculated based on the specific yield of 0 10
for 36 inches of Pantego soil The resulting hydrographs for the average and wet years show a seasonal
pattern The model shows that the majority of hydrologic inputs to the site come during the rainy spring
months for the average year and during both the spring months and late summer /early fall for the wet
year The site begins to lose saturation in the upper twelve inches in the late spring and early summer
months for both years However, after late spring, the wet year shows an increase in hydrologic inputs
that continues through the summer months and then decreases in fall The average year does not see an
increase in hydrologic inputs until the late fall The dry year shows very little hydrology overall It is clear
from the existing model output that the ditches within the site are exerting a larger influence on the
site's storage capacity than the water budget is accurately able to predict The site is currently not
achieving the wetland hydrology that the model predicts
21

Mitigation Plan Bear Basin Restoration Site
Proposed Conditions
A modified water budget was developed to analyze the effect of mitigation actions described in Section
7 2 on the site hydrology All surface flow is assumed to be retained in the proposed condition, because
it will no longer be immediately routed off the site To estimate the impact from surface roughening, an
additional 2 4 inches of hydrologic capacity was added to the calculations to represent surface
roughness Based on these changes, the budget shows the site potentially attaining jurisdictional
wetland hydrology in portions of the spring and summer for the average and wet years when compared
to the existing conditions The dry year remains relatively unchanged from the pre - construction
condition, indicating that the site's wetland hydrology may be susceptible to drought conditions
The southernmost ditch adjacent to the restoration area will be left open and not filled per landowner
requirements The northern top 400'of the westernmost ditch will be filled and the drainage from the
NCDOT ditch coming in from the northwest will be brought into the restored wetland The lower 650' of
the westernmost ditch will remain open similar to the southern ditch line It is anticipated that leaving
portions of these ditches open will have minimal impacts to the overall hydrologic performance of the
site The hydrologic influence of the ditches was modeled using Lateral Effect, a software program that
determines the lateral effect of a drainage ditch or borrow pit on adjacent wetland hydrology (NCSU
BAE, 2011) This software determined that the potential horizontal drainage influence averages 85'
Additional groundwater gauges will be installed to quantify the effect of these unfilled ditches (see
Section 10 0)
22

Mitigation Plan Bear Basin Restoration Site
23

Mitigation Plan
8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
Bear Basin Restoration Site
The site will be monitored on a regular basis, with a physical inspection of the site 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:
Component /Feature
Maintenance Through Project Close -Out
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir
Wetland
matting and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation within the
wetland. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the wetland may also
require maintenance to prevent scour.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
Vegetation
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall
be controlled by mechanical and /or chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture
(NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
Site Boundary
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.
Additionally, a utility right of way exists adjacent to the restored wetland, but because there is no
creditable acreage within this right of way, it is not expected that the utility maintenance will affect the
restored wetland.
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The BB will be monitored to determine if the development of the wetland indicators on site meet the
standards for mitigation credit production as presented in Section 5.0. The credits will be validated upon
confirmation that the success criteria described below are met. The site will be monitored for
performance standards for seven years after completion of construction.
Hydrologic Performance
Verification of hydrologic performance standards within the wetland mitigation area will be determined
through evaluation of automatic recording well data supplemented by documentation of wetland
hydrology indicators as defined in the 1987 US ACOE Wetland Delineation Manual (Manual). Sixteen
automatic recording gauges will be established within the restoration area of the site.
To meet success criteria, the upper 12 inches of the soil profile will display continuously saturated or
inundated conditions for at least 8% of the growing season with a 50% probability of reoccurrence
during normal weather conditions. A "normal' year is based on NRCS climatological data for Onslow
County using the 30th to 70th percentile thresholds as the range of normal as documented in the USACE
Technical Report "Accessing and Using Meteorological Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology, April 2000."
24

Mitigation Plan Bear Basin Restoration Site
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the growing season for Onslow County is
considered to extend from March 18th to November 16th, comprising 243 days (NRCS, 2002) KCI will
monitor soil temperature to verify that the local growing season is consistent with the NRCS published
data and reserves the right to present this information as a modifier to the number of days saturation is
required to achieve jurisdictional status
Due to the inherent variability in the sites soils and associated drainage characteristics, it is unlikely that
the project will exhibit uniform hydrologic conditions across the site, making a single hydrologic
performance criterion unrepresentative of the sites performance As such, the gauge data can be
evaluated and presented as a spatial average with each gauge representing the area half the distance to
adjacent gauges The spatial average will be the calculated value for comparison with the performance
standard for credit validation Gauges representing areas not achieving a minimum of 6 5% saturation
will be considered non - attaining even if the spatial average exceeds the credit validation performance
standard
Vegetation Success
The vegetation success criteria will comply with guidance included in "Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation" (NCDENR EEP, 2011), which states that
the plots must achieve a stem density of 320 stems /acre after three years, 260 stems /acre after five
years and 210 stems /acre after seven years to be considered successful In addition to density
requirements, plant height will be monitored within the monitoring plots to ensure that trees average
10 feet in height after seven years
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template The monitoring report shall
provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends,
population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding
project close -out
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
Yes
Groundwater
7 -8 gauges distributed
Annual
Groundwater monitoring gauges with data
Hydrology
throughout the restored
recording devices will be installed on site,
wetland and an additional 12
the data will be downloaded on a monthly
gauges to determine the effect
basis during the growing season
of the open ditch
Yes
Vegetation
Will be distributed to ensure
During
Vegetation will be monitored using the
sufficient coverage of planted
monitoring
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols
vegetation
years 1, 2,
3, 5, and 7
Yes
Exotic and
Annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation
nuisance
will be mapped
vegetation
Yes
Project
Semi-
Locations of vegetation damage, boundary
boundary
annual
I encroachments, etc will be mapped
The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted during the first full growing season following project
completion Monitoring shall subsequently be conducted annually for a total period of seven years or
until the project meets its success criteria
25

Mitigation Plan Bear Basin Restoration Site
Groundwater elevations will be monitored to evaluate the attainment of jurisdictional wetland
hydrology Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data
collected within the project area and reference wetland Seven to eight automatic recording gauges will
be established within the mitigation areas Daily data will be collected from the automatic gauges for a
minimum of a 5 -year monitoring period following wetland construction A nearby reference wetland will
also be monitored using the same procedures for comparative analysis (see Appendix B for reference
wetland data sheet and location map) Additionally, to monitor the effect of the unfilled ditches
described in Section 7 3, four sets of coupled gauges will be established perpendicular to each unfilled
ditch Each set will include a gauge that is 50' from the open ditch and another gauge that is 80' from
the ditch An additional four gauges will be established between the coupled gauges to monitor
hydrology less than 42 5' from the open ditch Two sets of the coupled gauges will be used at the
unfilled ditch along the southern project boundary The first set will be established one -third of the
distance from the western project boundary and the second set will be established at two - thirds of that
distance The two remaining sets of gauges will also be established perpendicular to the 650' of unfilled
ditch along the western project boundary The first set will be established one -third of the distance from
where the ditch is left open to the southern project boundary and the second set will be established at
two - thirds of that distance A figure in Appendix C shows the potential gauge locations at the site
Beginning at the end of the first growing season, KCI will monitor the planted vegetation in monitoring
years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 or until the success criterion is met The survivability of the vegetation plantings
will be evaluated using a sufficient number of 100 mz vegetative sampling plots randomly placed
throughout the restored wetland Permanent monuments will be established at the corners of each
monitoring plot and documented by either conventional survey or GPS These plots will be monitored
according to the Level 2 method of the current CVS /EEP monitoring protocol (http //cvs bio unc edu/
methods htm)
Photograph reference points (PRPs) will be established to assist in characterizing the site and to allow
qualitative evaluation of the site conditions The location of each photo point will be marked in the
monitoring plan and the bearing /orientation of the photograph will be documented
Annual monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted after all monitoring tasks for each year are
completed The report will document the monitored components and include all collected data,
analyses, and photographs Each report will provide the new monitoring data and compare the most
recent results against previous findings The monitoring report format will be similar to that set out in
the most recent EEP monitoring protocol
11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to the
NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program This party shall
be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation
easement are upheld Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be
negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently
houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands
Stewardship Endowment Account The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North
Carolina General Statute GS 113A- 232(d)(3) Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only
26

Mitigation Plan Bear Basin Restoration Site
for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the
compensatory mitigation sites Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the
Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction KCI will implement the post - construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in
this document If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve
site performance standards are Jeopardized, KCI will notify the EEP and the USACE of the need to
develop a Plan of Corrective Action The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in -house
technical staff or may require engineering and consulting services Once the Corrective Action Plan is
prepared and finalized KCI will
1 Notify the EEP and USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions
2 Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and /or required by the USACE
3 Obtain other permits as necessary
4 Implement the Corrective Action Plan
5 Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
has provided the U S Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program
14.0 OTHER INFORMATION
14.1 Definitions
8 -digit Catalog Unit (CU) — The USGS developed a hydrologic coding system to delineate the country into
uniquely identified watersheds that can be commonly referenced and mapped North Carolina has 54 of
these watersheds uniquely defined by an 8 -digit number EEP typically addresses watershed — based
planning and restoration in the context of the 17 river basins (each has a unique 6 -digit number), 54
catalog units and 1,601 14 -digit hydrologic units
14 —digit Hydrologic Unit (HU) — In order to address watershed management issues at a smaller scale, the
U S Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) developed methodology to delineate and uniquely
identify watersheds at a scale smaller than the 8 -digit catalog unit A hydrologic unit is a drainage area
delineated to nest in a multilevel, hierarchical drainage system Its boundaries are defined by
hydrographic and topographic criteria that delineate an area of land upstream from a specific point on a
river, stream or similar surface waters North Carolina has 1,60114 -digit hydrologic units
27

Mitigation Plan Bear Basin Restoration Site
DWQ— North Carolina Division of Water Quality
EEP — The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement combines existing wetlands restoration initiatives
(formerly the Wetlands Restoration Program or NCWRP) of the N C Department of Environment and
Natural Resources with ongoing efforts by the N C Department of Transportation (NCDCT) to offset
unavoidable environmental impacts from transportation - infrastructure improvements
Native vegetation community — a distinct and reoccurring assemblage of populations of plants, animals,
bacteria and fungi naturally associated with each other and their population, as described in Schafale,
M P and Weakley, A S (1990), Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third
Approximation
Project Area - includes all protected lands associated with the mitigation project
RBRP - The River Basin Restoration Priorities are documents that delineate specific watersheds
(Targeted Local Watersheds) within a River Basin that exhibit both the need and opportunity for
wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration
TLW - Targeted Local Watershed, are 14 -digit hydrologic units which receive priority for EEP planning
and restoration project funds
USGS — United States Geological Survey
28

Mitigation Plan
14.2 References
Bear Basin Restoration Site
Breeding, Rob 2010 White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities 2010 Raleigh, NC NCDENR,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Last accessed 02/2013 at http //portal ncdenr org /c/
document _li bra ry/get_file ?uuid= 1c0b7e5a- 9617- 4a44- a5f8- df017873496b &grou pId =60329
Environmental Laboratory 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report
Y -87 -1 Vicksburg, MS U S Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Faber - Langendoen, D , Rocchio, J , Schafale, M , Nordman, C, Pyne, M , Teague, J , Foti, T, Comer, P
2006 Ecological Integrity Assessment and Performance Measures for Wetland Mitigation
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia
Lindenmayer, D B , and J F Franklin 2002 Conserving forest biodiversity A comprehensive multiscaled
approach Island Press, Washington, DC
Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002 Climate Information — Wetlands Retrieval for North
Carolina Last accessed 10/2012 at http //www wcc nres usda gov /ftpref /support/
climate /wetlands /nc/37133 txt
NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program 2011 Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation Last accessed 11/2012 at
http //portal ncdenr org /c/ document _library/get_file ?p_I_id= 1169848 &folderld = 2288101 &nam
e =DLFE -39234 pdf
NC Natural Heritage Program 2012 Heritage Data Search Last accessed 10/2012 at
http / /portal ncdenr org /web /nhp /database- search\
NCSU BAE North Carolina State University, Biological and Agricultural Engineering 2011 Method to
Determine Lateral Effect of a Drainage Ditch on Adjacent Wetland Hydrology Last accessed
11/2012 at http //www bae ncsu edu /soil _water /projects /lateral_effect html
NCSU, State Climate Office of North Carolina 2012 Climate Data for Maysville, NC
NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team 2010 NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) User
Manual, version 4 1 Last accessed 11/2012 at http //portal ncdenr org /c /document_
libra ry/get_file ?uuid= 76f3c58b -dab8- 4960- ba43- 45b7faf06f4c &groupld =38364
Peet, R K, Wentworth, TS, and White, P S 1998 A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure Castanea 63 262 -274
Rosgen, D (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
Schafale, M P and Weakley, A S 1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC
Sprecher, S W 2000 Accessing and Using Meteorological Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology
Headquarters, U S Army Corps of Engineers, Operations Division, Regulatory Branch
29

Mitigation Plan
Bear Basin Restoration Site
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2010 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United
States a Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7 0
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Water and Climate Center 2012 RUSLE2 Related
Attributes Table for Onslow, North Carolina Last accessed 11/2012 at
http / /soildatamart nres usda gov /Survey aspx?County =NC133
USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1986 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Technical Release SS
Washington, DC Soil Conservation Service
USDA 1992 Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS 2012 Environmental Conservation Online System - Species by County Report Last accessed
10/2012 at http //ecos fws gov /tess_public /countySearchI species ByCountyReport action ?fips
=37133
Young, T F and Sanzone, S (editors) 2002 A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological
condition Ecological Reporting Panel, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee EPA Science
Advisory Board Washington, DC
30

Mitigation Plan
14.3 Appendix A. Site Protection Instrument
31
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
32
Bear Basin Restoration Site

I�In1�111�11�111111Nllltlllil�l�luf�lillll <IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillll
Doo ID: 010296830009 TVpe: CRP
Recorded: 02/06/2013 at 03.15.20 PM
Fee Amt: $265.00 Pape i of 9
ReVenue Tax: $239.00
Onslow County NC
Rebecoa L. Poilard R(eg, of Deeds
BK3923 P0+ I % V -7VT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
ONSLOW COUNTY
SPO File Number 67 -AW
EEP Site ID Number 95362 (Bear Basin)
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office CMG i S e T&*
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this � "—day of
e i h-m r 2013 by Kenneth W. Jones and wife, Sue Jones Jones ( "Grantor "),
whose mailing address is 322 Jonestown Road, Pink Hill NC 28572, to the State of North
Carolina, ( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of
Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The
designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs,
successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as
required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et sea ,• the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland
and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a frill delivery contract between KCI Technologies,
Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to provide
stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number 004741.
Cn-o"t -IN Illoi1 1, } ?�EtiiCf1t (1?d,ctr }iFl l(i - .)t)!3E`S} 4 rti

WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement puisuant to N.C. Gen. Stat § 121 -35, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineets, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions, and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 86 day of February 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this
instrument, and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Richlands 'rownship, Onslow County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 42.40 acres,
described as "Tract No 5" on plat recorded in Map Book 9, Page 35, Onslow County Registry
and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 531 at Page 388 of the
Onslow County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement over the herein
described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the included areas of
the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing
to accept such Conservation Easement This Conservation Easement shall be for the protection
and benefit of New River
NOW, TE EREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access
The Easement Area consists of the following:
Conservation Easement containing a total of 11.94 acres as shown on the plat of survey entitled
"Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Project Name- Bear Basin Non - Riparian Wetland Restoration Site, EEP Project #: 95362,
SPO #: 67 -AW," dated August 23, 2012 by James M. Gellenthin, PLS Number L -3860 and
recorded in the Onslow County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at Map Book r Pages
Iq$
Conservation Fa,sci- zit ofie %t Basin - Jt)noc ) ,2 tit 2

See attached "Exhibit A ", Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
"Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities, to maintain permanently the Easement Area in its natural
condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will
significantly impair or interfere with these purposes To achieve these purposes, the following
conditions and restrictions are set forth-
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement Unless expressly reserved as a
compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is prohibited
as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation credits, including, but
not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived from each site within
the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the Grantee. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are prohibited, restricted, or
reserved as indicated.
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Easement Area for
the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Easement Area is prohibited.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes including organized
educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the property shall
not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Vegetative Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non- native plants, diseased or
damaged trees, or vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Easement Area is prohibited
{' <1?]SEi faftt�i 1,i15cin urlf (Rear Basm olies) -�.! rif

E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Easement Area
including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement Area
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways, or paving
in the Easement Area
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive signs
describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Easement Area, signs
identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement, signs giving
directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Easement Area is
prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals, or
other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Easement Area No altering or tampering
with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or
created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into
waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the Easement Area is
prohibited In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage of all other water sources,
water from within the Easement Area may temporarly be used for good cause shown as needed
for the survival of livestock and agricultural production on the Property
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the underlying Property owned by the Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ")
that is subject to tlus Easement is allowed. Unless agreed to by the Grantee in writing, any future
conveyance of the underlying fee and the rights conveyed herein shall be as a single block of
property. Any future transfer of the fee simple shall be subject to this Conservation Easement.
Any transfer of the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and
egress over and across the Property to the Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
C ons�La,11ation I- aservent (Be;a• Fta,-n - ortt-O v,' I-if 4

O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non - native plants,
trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC
27699 -1652.
111. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, are hereby granted and receive a perpetual non - exclusive easement for
access to the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to
restore, construct, manage, maintain, enhance, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the
rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place fencing on the Property to restrict livestock access. Although the Grantee is not
responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the right to repair the fence, at its sole
discretion.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes
of this Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features in the Easement Area
that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms
of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify
the Grantor -in writing of such breach and the Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of
such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the breach and damage remains
uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing
appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and
other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and authority, consistent with its statutory
authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful
Coll ,crvatior, 1 a.-' 111ent (13car I as I) v2 rd 5

or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in
the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Grantee reserves the unmediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary
restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the
Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law
inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to,
and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this
Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times
for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action
taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life; or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. if any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
E)Xi� i t "2`t16yI1't ,£iSz aTt�ni f -Bo ii Th 5in - Jo yet-) et-) -? n i 6

C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement The owner of the
Property shall notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days prior to the
initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property. Such notification shall be addressed
to- Justin McCorkle, General Counsel, US Army Corps of Engineers, 69 Darlington Avenue,
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Easement
Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment of the
Easement Area
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes.
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
( on-,ci ,alu n (Bc,ir 8a -un - ,Iones) 'v ?,rt 7

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year fist above written.
U7L J (SEAL)
Kenneth W. Jones
5'� -4-- Q�� J (SEAL)
Sue Jones Anes
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ONSLOW
Ea.✓ds ��Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereb§ certify that Kenneth W. Jones and wife, Sue Jones Jones, Grantor,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing
instrument.
�-1G
IN WITNE S WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of -�-�'r , 2013.
N Public �+o'���W��d►
G
My commission expires. 10 'PUBV, '%-
eowCOU�,/
Conservanor, 1Aiojnv`trt ; 9lcar jloniiy f 0 rit

Exhibit A
Conservation Easement Description
A parcel of land to be used for conservation easement purposes located on lands now or formerly
owned by Kenneth W Jones (DB 531 Pg 388), located in Richlands Township, Onslow County,
North Carolina and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a set iron pin at the intersection of the Southeasterly right -of -way line of Jesse
Williams Road (60 foot public nght -of -way) and the West line of said lands owned by Kenneth
W. Jones; said point having State Plane Coordinates (NAD '83) of Northing. 431134.41 and
Easting.2417125.15,
Thence N 22 °59'18" E, on the said Southeasterly right -of -way line of Jesse Williams Road
(NCSR 1233), a distance of 364.54 feet to a point;
Thence S 26'12'37" E a distance of 1209.57 feet to a point on the Northwesterly line of lands
now or formerly owned by MR Hogs (DB 1687 Pg 917);
Thence S 62 °10'31" W, on the said Northwesterly line of MR Hogs lands, a distance of 72197
feet to a point at the Southwest corner of said lands of Kenneth W. Jones;
Thence N 02 °00'29" W, on the West line of Kenneth W. Jones lands, a distance of 1087.28 feet
to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 520,207 square feet or 1194 acres.
Point Table (Table of Coordinates)
Point
Northing
Easting
Description
1
431134 41
2417125 15
Easement Corner
2
431470 00
2417267 52
Easement Corner
3
430384.79
2417801.74
Easement Corner
4
430047.80
2417163 25
Easement Corner
Con <F„rx atlo,i EW +i -MOLil (BOU 1111,41 - JOIACS) 1, !.itl 9

ffl- M
SHM
�aaaa
I
o �
o§
addAa
/
vx
HIS
/ /
W / /
g� x
ga
�LL
7,ea
ba�oa
�y
U x
oz W
W
w -
� Ear ion, W`rL'
w UZp�
f'Q ¢O -A,Y3 Qi� uoi
flfl O
wF aZ 261tt �y tJn Ufc i�c,
Y
g Nrr�wi
y8 LL> >0o.az1
U
OU
0 w3 °za xw LL
u�
i u�
0
- - oa���
ill�oz
TS
aE
g32 >
He,
ZI\ r
�� ao ti� ••••J. ti �aow'��y
eQZ5 a�, !v
`Urn Wcn �7 �N ul ��4`9_
Er zi
N s
s w
6.8 - lz
° -w =awo
00 4o
€dgb' -,g
s6�°
is ��l8
adYA
is
N

Mitigation Plan
14.4 Appendix B. Baseline Information Data
43
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
44
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
USACE Wetland Determination Forms
45
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
46
Bear Basin Restoration Site

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Prolect/Site 13 ' "P6 x - J City /County Pi( %1 AI'vU , / 001) �,4/ ' Sampling Date '? � '
Applicant/Owner �=�r l'i ""' %.rr %r' r� / State Ne- Sampling Point DP,, 1 4 112- AJ(J
investigators) U,�! -5 Section Township, Range
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc Local relief (concave, convex, none) f L iq Slope ( %) U f
o"
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) L -R R T Lat 3 1 ° � =' 3`I- /17 1/ Long 911 -J/, '210 `S `= IA/ Datum
Soil Map Unit Name _L­_' --- -- __ _ -- -- — --- NWI classification
i
Are climatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ""No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation ✓, Soil or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbedo Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No V
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No %f Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No W, within a Wetland? Yes No l-
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No v1
Remarks
/ * /2 1.I
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required
Primary Indicators iminunum of one is required check all that apply)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CG)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
Algal Mat or Crust (84) _
1 hm Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
FAG- Neutral Test (D5)
Water - Stained Leaves (BO)
Sphagnum moss (08) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations--- �---- _._..____� .-
Surface Water Present? Yos No Depth (inches)
Water I able Present'? Yes No Depth (incites) > if
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches) Wetland Hydrology Present?
_includes capillary fringe) _ _ _ _
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well, aerial photos previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point LN'`` 1
3
4
5
6
7
8
50% of total cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size
1 5410/)P,rY" ,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
= Total Cover
20% of total cover
=Total Cover
50% oft otal cover 20% of total cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
1
2
3
4
5
= Total Cover
50 % oft otal cover 20% of total cover
s
Prevalence Index = B/A=
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Domnance Test is >50%
_ 3- Prevalence Index is <3 0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata,
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
height
Sapling /Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines less
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
Herb — All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
Woody vine —Ail woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present') Yes No V
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size }
% Cover Soecies Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
Total Number of Dominant
(A)
2
3
Species Across All Strata
(B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(AB)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet
7
Total % Cover of
Multiply by
8
OBL species
x 1 =
= Total Cover
FACW species
x2=
50% of total cover
20% of total cover
FAC species
x3=
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size j
FACU species
x 4 =
1
UPL species
x 5 =
2
Column Totals
(A)
(B)
3
4
5
6
7
8
50% of total cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size
1 5410/)P,rY" ,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
= Total Cover
20% of total cover
=Total Cover
50% oft otal cover 20% of total cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
1
2
3
4
5
= Total Cover
50 % oft otal cover 20% of total cover
s
Prevalence Index = B/A=
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Domnance Test is >50%
_ 3- Prevalence Index is <3 0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata,
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
height
Sapling /Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines less
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
Herb — All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
Woody vine —Ail woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present') Yes No V
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

SOIL
r or
Depth
Matrix
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)_
_ Black Histic (A3)
Color (moist) % iype- - Loc
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8) _
VNA
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Mari (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sampling Point b rl�- 1
the absence
Texture Remarks
P5 L
4(,L
1, VC
t
'Type C= Concentration D= Depletion RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains `Location PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted ) indicators for Problematic Hydric S
_ Histcsol (A1)
_ Pclyvalue Below Surface (88) (LRR S, T, U) _
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (39) (LRR S, T, U) _
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) _
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Mari (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Fioodplam Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (M LRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (37) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No \�
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProlecVSite yf3C @;c 1Sra' ; /ItJ City /County Pr'Vel "im / C)/) 5 / 1),) Sampling Date
Applicant/Owner %C�'- /01 ) => ' r °f `/< State 1JC Sampling Point
Investigator(s) 5 JA J ,, Section, Township, Range
Landform (hiilslope terrace, etc) fir, 'r' _ , Local relief (concave, convex, none) Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) % / Let 4' ^/ 5'> 3 ,/ 2 i' Long "77 = / 2 5 /^ y bf Datum
Soil Map Unit Name -'�/ _._ ?�_> ,' <`" u- -- _ ___ ---- -- - -_ —_— -- _ -- —__ - -- NWI classification
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation ✓ , Soil or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic> (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 1, Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wotland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
Al,r'l R rl;� / 4J jI� ! .<e
,r
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators Secondary Indicators (minimum of two recurred)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply) _ Surface Sod Cracks (BO)
— Surface Water (Al) — Aquatic Fauna (B13) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
— High Water Table (A2) — Marl Deposits (B 15) (LRR U) — Drainage Patterns (1310)
— Saturation (A3) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) — Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (61) — Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ,— Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) — Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) — Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CG) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (139)
— Algal Mat or Crust (B4) — 1 hin Muck Surface (C /) _, Geomorphic Positron (DL)
— Iron Deposits (135) — Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Shallow Aquitard (03)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) — FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water - Shined Leaves (B9) Sphagnum moss (08) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations
Surfaco Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches) _
Water t able Present? Yes No t Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes ca dp lacy fnn e
Describe Recorded Data (strearn gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections) if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point I-" PVI �-
Tree Stratum (Plot size )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cover Si)ecies Status I Number of Dominant Species
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
Sapimo/Shrub Stratum (Plot size )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
That Are OBI, FACW, or FAC (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B)
x3=
Herb Stratum (Plot size
FACU species
x4=
1 5F) ;f y,
UPL species
Prevalence Index worksheet
Total % Cover of Multiply by
OBL species x 1 =
FACW speces x 2 =
2
= Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
Sapimo/Shrub Stratum (Plot size )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
=Total Cover
Prevalence Index = B/A=
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3 0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
FAC species
x3=
Herb Stratum (Plot size
FACU species
x4=
1 5F) ;f y,
UPL species
X5=
2
Column Totals
(A) (B)
=Total Cover
Prevalence Index = B/A=
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3 0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
1 5F) ;f y,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
2
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
3
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 G cm) or
4
more in diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
5
height
6
Sapling /Shrub —Woody plants excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
8
Herb — All herbaceous non -woody) ( Doty) plants, regardless
9
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 It tall
10
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
11
height
12
= Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
1
2
3
4
5 Hydrophytic
=Total Cover Vegetation
50% oft otal cover 20% of total cover
Present? Yes No
Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

SOIL. Sampling Pant Del,
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators )
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type, Loc
Texture Remarks
'Type C= Concentration D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains
'Location PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Hydnc Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted )
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (SO) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (1718) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain to Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
— Depleted Ochrtc (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic(F10) (MLRA 150A, 1506)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodpiam Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes '� No
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ne City /County J�P -J;1� /�f� ;/, i t�,
Prolect/S t ) 'i! +' /a > /� <' !
� t %1 >� Sampling Date
ApphcanUOwner State All Sampling Point DiPl' > (a 4 2 -;
Investigator(s) Section, Township, Range —
Landform (hdislope, terrace etc) Local relief (concave, convex, none) f l'- •v Slope ( %)
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LA R T Lat �'% � 5 `� �' /� � 11 A/ Long 'P/ 16 �7 � Datum
Sod Map Unit Name -c�J^ `' ''•i r .c'; _ t" " -_� - - -- - - -- -- - - NWI classification Are chinatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation t-' , Sod , or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No V
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled A
Hydnc Sod Present) Yes N -', No Area
within a Wetland r r Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓�
Remarks
/ ^J
i
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology indicators
—
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired
Primary Indmatois,minimum of one is required check all that apply)
— Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
— Surface Water (Ai) _
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3) —
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (01)
_ Moss Trnn Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (61) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
— Sediment Deposits (B2) —
Piesence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) —
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
— Algal Mat or Crust (B4) —
1 hin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (03)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
— FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnuin inoss (08) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present) Yes No
Depth (inches)
Water I able Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches) '
Saturation Present) Yes No
Depth (inches)
wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No t�
(includes capol�
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks - - - - - -
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
50% of total cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sampling Point i 1'�" _1
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet
%Cover eciesl Status Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/6)
= Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover _
Herb Stratum (Plot size
1
('14 / h I A'. _,
2 _
3 _
4 _
5 _
6
7 _
8 _
9
10 _
11 _
12
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
= Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
=Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover _
list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers
Prevalence Index = B/A=
Hydrophylic Vegetation Indicators
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is —<3 0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in chameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
neight
Sapling /Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
Herb — All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
Hydrophyttc
Vegetation
Present? Yes No l
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0
Prevalence Index worksheet
Total % Cover of Multiply by
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
FACW species x 2 =
20% of total cover
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A) (B)
= Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover _
Herb Stratum (Plot size
1
('14 / h I A'. _,
2 _
3 _
4 _
5 _
6
7 _
8 _
9
10 _
11 _
12
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
= Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
=Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover _
list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers
Prevalence Index = B/A=
Hydrophylic Vegetation Indicators
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is —<3 0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in chameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
neight
Sapling /Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
Herb — All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
Hydrophyttc
Vegetation
Present? Yes No l
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators )
Depth
Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (mast) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral fl) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
1J )In
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods IF 20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
(V
(MLRA 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Matenal (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
r
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
�
'Type C= Concentration D= Depletion RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted )
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis
Histcsol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral fl) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods IF 20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Matenal (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
V Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (34)
_ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (M LRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed),
Type
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
l�
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

Mitigation Plan
9i
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
Reference Wetland
57
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
58
Bear Basin Restoration Site

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site dC 4' /, LLfl `>/!,,/ 4C 1 N, 0.,w v JJ0I � /J Giy /County r: ` Sampling Date I � l l' i ` 2 + 3) ,
ApplicanVOwner f F / "' State Ve-_ Sampling Point
Investigator(s) S. 6 �OAi' S !C , U nle 400 7- Section, Township, Range
Landform (hdlslope terrace, etc Local relief (concave, convex, none) C O.') tk • Slope ( %) O -1
Subregion (LRR or MLR/A) ��R Lat N -"iLn 55 , 1�•10 9 rr Long 0 U 7? o36 r 25. 9 rr Datum
Soil Map Unit Name 1 /19 NWI classification (Ir )� R
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (if no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes v' No
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point Iocatlons, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes v-'• No within a Wetland? Yes tZ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
—
Remarks
J E %'!�'
'lf ,r t.�' rl ' 1` n,1/ r_,rlrll- • �:,� J✓c � 1• �,':w
J , /
�I•jr +�' .`i/ !'�:,�r ,l /( ! f /�r•c,<Z, i C,Oli �/C �J!'��,r �/ iii; +lc {r�.Q -( }f� .!! )c.,,,�
P
HYDROLOGY
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
— High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Water Marks (BI) `
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Sediment Deposits (82)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Drift Deposits (83)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilted Sods (CO)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (87)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
Surface Soil Cracks (BG)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
✓Drainage Patterns (610)
_✓ Mass Trun Lines (BIG)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO)
_✓Geomorphic Position (02)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
✓FAC- Neutrat Test (05)
Sphagnum moss (08) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No V"' Depth (inches) �5l�
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
-- ----- - - - - -- - - - -- -- -- - - - - - --
Remarks / /
IJn1e"'L 7` f1 bk :i (': 1 %� �� - /� �i� !, �� !'c' /r �, tI: 2-5
if ('/.!/)!/17�>•! / l,.. r 1� r...r;.',i
v : f 7,
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point OA',` J
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30 )
1 ,),rr -e,, nirk -0.-,
Absolute
%Cover
Jo
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
✓ %/(C
Dominance Test worksheet
Number of Dominant Species
That Are 06L, FACW, or FAC (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata j (B)
Percent of Dominant Species r1
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B)
.r
2 Lola Jar f ,ge - i�rias Jaecd,�. ) 5 ✓ F>3c-
�
3 Sr'� �NT�tu ra) - LrQ+tu�n b2P_5y„J�cr fJ+crc_. 5 /*+
5
6
7
Prevalence Index worksheet
Total % Cover of Multiply by
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A=
8
76 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover t'
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size _101 )
/7P (":',t. 6 L? ✓ 1nr1t
M/ ;'•r 15i� /f i'r • 2 r� ✓ ();31_
,dG"' r J3lc<er,tkn� - !lo ^ -ryl �, r- foras,osrrr >s ) 5 -r etu
3 5nu7 /ir, tti i)i< ,J
4 & e f ,i(w •, rn ftic
5 Sr,�u)r�kr�,- l i0ru -art •,z r, /r ,S , /Re, rv�
ID
F%
Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators
t%1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ ✓2- Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6 r /iC W
7 15 t�J
8
3 = Total Cover
50% of total cover lo c) 20% of total cover U
Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 +I1 )
1 A 0 a_)nrr - PC o, �n 1 i' ,f�r5 � vi' F/t& W
2 c (ucr � �� /s2'r'r� /�) F <,yt -Cie 01 /mL, At)) 4, folr o
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines less
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
Herb —All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
3 I/4 n,o5vin 5 ✓ %r4cthJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
50% of total cover f S
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
1
JX, = Total Cover
20% of total cover
3
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present) Yes t'� No
2
3
4
5
= Total Cover
50% oft ota I cover 20% of total cover
VI C / r��
' 11 %t(!'Gt'�t�' <<,f`i'ri•• - l:JOrrcutNrr'uc�Jc�tlj, ~,tlCGL J (r7
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

SOIL
scri
or
Depth
Matrix
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Redox Features
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
(Inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist)
%
Type
Loc`
Texture
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
— Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
it,�r� �.
"! 1 v
I v !,J•'- ''i r
�i y>
'><lr
I c)
C
y "1
i
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Praine Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
v" Umbnc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151)
1 av
Zvi ; / t�
8�
Iv tru ,%
2y
r!
✓tip
�r(
r; l
7, � y�: %L•
S
G
t)
P�l
C..
Sampling Point 111' i 1
ators
Remarks
Type C= Concentration, D= Deplehon, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lining M =Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted ) Indicators for Problematic Hydric S
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside M LRA 150A, B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
— Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (FB)
r Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
Depleted Ochnc (F11) (M LRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Praine Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
v" Umbnc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (1718) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19) (M LRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (86) Anomalous Bright Loamy Solis (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_, Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Laver (If observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil PresenY2 Yes i� No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2 0

Mitigation Plan
62
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
Bear Basin Restoration Site
63

Mitigation Plan
64
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
65
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
66
Bear Basin Restoration Site

November 14, 2012
Mr Tim Morris
KCI Associates of NC, PA
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh NC 27609
Subject Categorical Exclusion
Bear Basin Wetland Restoration Project
White Oak River Basin — CU# 03030001
Onslow County, North Carolina
Contract No 004741, RFP No 16- 004107
Dear Mr Morris
Attached please find the approved Categorical Exclusion form for the subject full delivery
project Please include a copy of the approval form in your Mitigation Plan You may submit
your invoice for completion of the Task 1 deliverable for review and approval
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at any time
I can be reached at (910) 796 -7475, or email me at kristin miquez @ncdenr gov
Sincerely,
Kristin E Miguez, Project Manager
cc Donnie Brew, FHWA
file
kestDV-1 j... ... Prot"'
YDt of w Stag �P
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / www nceep net

r
i
F_
',il
r
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note, tartly Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting docurnontaunn) as the
environmental docunnenL
RECEIVE
NOV 7 2012
N' EGOSIST N1
E�}OEMENT PROGRAM
Version 1 4, 8/18/05
J
x
t
• •
0
Pro ect Name:
Bear Basin Wetland Restoration Pro ect
County Name:
Onslow Chun NC
EEP' Number:
95362
Project Sponsor-
KCI Technologies, Inc
Project Contact Name:
Tim Morris
Project Contact Address:
4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220 Raleigh, NC 27609
—Project Contact -mail:
dm.morris kci corn
EEP Pro'ect'Mana er.
Kristin Mi uez
• m qr1p !on.
o - v
Re —v-1d ved,By:
-1 9-b
tjate`
EEP Project MV nage-r-
�Cdiididbnal Appioved By:
r
ForDivlsion Administrator
FHWA
Q Check this boic if there are
outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
4-6,v WAIX7117--
1
`Date
or Division Administrator
FHWA
RECEIVE
NOV 7 2012
N' EGOSIST N1
E�}OEMENT PROGRAM
Version 1 4, 8/18/05
J
x
t

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question ..
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 PropertV 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 bey I
❑ N/A
Version 1 4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question ..
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
Anti uities 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
(By virtue of no- response)
❑ No
❑ N/A
6 Has the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1 4, 8/18/05

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 local
® 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
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- Fishenes occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Mi rato Bird Treat Act MBTA
1 Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
® No
2 Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Wilderness Act
1 Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
® No
2 Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1 4, 8/18/05

Mitigation Plan
72
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
Jurisdictional Determination
73
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
74
Bear Basin Restoration Site

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id SAW- 2012 -01391 County Onslow US G S Quad Richlands
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner Kenneth Jones Agent KCI Associates of NC
Address 322 Jonestown Road attn• Steven F. Stokes
Pink Hill, NC 28572 Address Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Property description
Size (acres) —17 Nearest Town Richlands
Nearest Waterway Cowford Branch River Basin White Oak
USGS HUC 03030001 Coordmates 34.925626 N - 77.607253 W
Location description The property is located on the east side of Jesse Williams Road approximately 0 8 mi not th of
its intersection with NC 24, near Richlands. Onslow County North Carolina The Proiect Area is located in the
southwestern corner of Parcel #: 30 -176.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) junsdiction To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 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
X There are waters of the U S. on the above described project area 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 strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps
X The waters of the US son your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps
We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by
the Corps. Once verified, this survey 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 of the U S including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on _ 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 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 determmation 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
Pagel of 2

Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Mr. David E. Bailey at (910) 251 -4469 /
David. E.Bailey2na usace.armv.mil.
C. Basis For Determination
The site exhibits features with Ordinary High Water. The waters on -site include an 3 unnamed tributaries (UTs) to
Cowford Branch - all Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) which flow via another Cowford Branch (RPW) to the New
River, a Traditionally Navigable Water.
D. Remarks
The Waters of the US were delineated by Steve Stokes (KCO3 with changes made in the field by Dave E. Bailey
(USACE) and are approximated as the shaded areas on the attached figure entitled "Jurisdictional Tributary
Delineation Map for Bear Basin Non- Rivanan Wetland Restoration Site". dated 8/20/2012.
P. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delmeation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act junsdiction for the
particular site identified in this request The del ineation/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 Jason Steele, 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 3315, and that it has been received by the District 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 December 30 2012
* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence ** "-`
Corps Regulatory Official
Date October 31, 2012 Expiration Date October 31, 2017
Copy furnished
Joanne Steenhuis , NCDENR -DWQ, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405

~r1 ar °z z
fi
Z r.a
i- � � o �
;s :" yam,. . f a a W p
LEI
-% s J,; S Z W 1� ca.� N J O L
�7Y } j "4e , V Mai N U $ Z Q oE 3O
W
`a.�, �� WHO
LLI o�� z�zz yCv
W _m m N w Limo
J Ov m �oU
N
mrn
000mu
„�a a
x o
inn
ao
an NEl p
W Z
O -W,
< �<WF
Z H W
in ?Z�
moa
f rapW
O
z V, p —C 4
N m O F J p W a
CL �_ a p
n N N
m
O I ,M
Boa /ia
n
W U y N
Q Z �
7
a'
Z
Z T
zwo O M
k mom
U / N
N
N �
a4w N
�Nw
4pU
o Q
oam��' 17' ■� w'I�IgJa °nN
aogo
�"Q?o
rn a a

Mitigation Plan
78
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
FEMA Floodplain Checklist
79
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
80
Bear Basin Restoration Site

J.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id SAW -2012 -01391 County Onslow U S G S Quad Richlands
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner Kenneth Jones Agent KCI Associates of NC
Address 322 Jonestown Road attn: Steven F. Stokes
Pink Hill, NC 28572 Address Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Property description
Size (acres) —17 Nearest Town Richlands
Nearest Waterway Cowford Branch River Basin White Oak
USGS HUC 03030001 Coordmates 34.925626 N - 77.607253 W
Location description The property is located on the east side of Jesse Williams Road approximately 0 8 mi north of
its intersection with NC 24, near Richlands, Onslow County North Carolina The Proiect Area is located in the
southwestern corner of Parcel #: 30 -176.
Indicate Which of the Following Annly:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 33 1)
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 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
X There are waters of the U S on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the
CIean 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 strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner Fora more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps
X The waters of the U S s on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps
We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by
the Corps Once verified, this survey 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 of the U S includmg wetlands have been delmeated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on _ 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 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
Pagel of 2

Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311) If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Mr. David E. Bailey at (910) 251 -4469 /
David. E. Bailey2(r)usace.army.in il.
C. Basis For Determination
The site exhibits features with Ordinary High Water. The waters on -site include an 3 unnamed tributaries (UTs) to
Cowford Branch - all Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) which flow via another Cowford Branch (RPW) to the New
River, a Traditionally Navigable Water.
D. Remarks
The Waters of the US were delineated by Steve Stokes (KCI) with changes made in the field by Dave E. Bailey
(USACE). and are approximated as the shaded areas on the attached figure entitled "Jurisdictional Tributary
Delineation Map for Bear Basin Non- Rinanan Wetland Restoration Site" dated 8/20/2012.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delmeation/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 Jason Steele, 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 District 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 December 30 2012
* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence
Corps Regulatory Official
Date October 31, 2012 Expiration Date October 31, 2017
Copy furnished
Joanne Steenhuis , NCDENR -DWQ, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405

`e
NOV w O w p Q o
as F 3 V U]a a$
�o
4 V a o
t 'r ti m¢ ¢H3 E+o Off.
Fn 0
Of W u N oap� M -1 �z
co
tiLi
cn
LIP W O W w p z w ct o
C -
Li-
dr U U a
W m m N wIL%aWo
c� 1.
�ar
rnm
mo
o�aa
x�o^
Jam o
a_
ao
as WQo
Z Z
m
/ X W
w
\ OTF
\ W
/
in ?Z b
'n cc
<
c w
o
J
z)-w ¢ m=<
O <jaN Qv <�
Fa� –,L
M°MZ :1 g<
Q }
a. •. a
to o ^ N H
wn Nm M
O �M
�O mO
3� °a j1
U � N
M /
Y�azo
d d
k ( M
z
FO ~CC
>ZD —/ M
G1
z<o rn M
w`m O
M �
N f M
N /
N �
a w cn N
�Nw
Q O U
O G
\� 1 Ul
Q EZT Lid m
oom'oo T a,.]N
va ?Jig
ZJ��N `��V p wUy'D
F ado
N

Mitigation Plan
84
Bear Bann Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
Bear Basin Restoration Site
14.5 Appendix C. Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
85

Mitigation Plan
86
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
Groundwater Modeling /Hydrologic Budget
87
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
FI
Bear Basin Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
Bear Basin Restoration Site - Existlnq Conditions
Bear Basin Restoration Site
Dry Year
Water In uts
Water Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland
Volume
1990
P
Sl'
G1
PET
so
Go
January
207
000
000
080
000
240
-1 13
000
000
February
186
005
000
1 25
005
240
-179
000
000
March
596
030
000
160
030
240
1 96
000
1 96
April
250
004
000
239
004
240
-229
000
000
May
595
010
000
384
010
240
-029
000
000
June
086
1 000
000
599
000
240
-753
000
000
July
221
000
000
682
000
240
-701
000
000
August
572
004
000
599
004
240
-267
000
000
September
033
000
000
422
000
240
-629
000
000
October
364
004
000
271
004
240
-147
000
000
November
391
060
000
1 15
060
240
036
000
036
December
1 60
005
000
090
0 05
240
-170
000
000
Annual Totals 1
36611
121
000
1 37 66
1 121
1 2880
Avg Year
Water Inputs
Water Outputs
change In
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland
Volume
1973
P
Si*
G1
PET
so
Go
January
451
001
000
045
001
240
166
000
166
February
434
006
000
032
006
240
1 62
000
328
March
497
000
000
1 84
000
240
073
042
360
April
553
013
000
219
013
240
094
0941
360
May
306
001
000
3 65
001
240
-299
000
061
June
970
064
000
548
064
240
082
000
143
July
396
008
000
565
008
240
-409
000
000
August
771
Oil
000
553
0 11
240
-022
000
000
September
370
039
000
443
039
240
-3 13
000
000
Octobe r
105
1 002
000
241
002
1 240
-376
000
000
November
047
000
000
1 26
000
240
-319
000
000
December
784
018
000
058
018
240
486
1 26
360
Annual Totals
55 94
11.3
000
3379
1 63
2980
Wet Year
Water Inputs
Water Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland
Volume
1991
P
Sr'
G1
PET
so
Go
January
78
001
000
062
001
240
478
000
360
February
197
001
000
090
001
240
-1 33
000
227
March
506
005
000
1 65
005
240
101
000
328
Apnl
445
026
000
307
026
240
-1 02
000
226
May
1 313
001
000
531
001
240
-458
000
000
June
939
048
000
51g
048
240
180
000
1 80
July
1435
1 51
000
629
1 51
240
566
386
360
August
975
009
000
533
009
240
202
202
360
September
665
016
000
3 83
016
240
042
042
360
October
28
1 001
000
1 208
001
1 240
1 -168
0o0,
1 92
November
204
001
000
095
001
240
-1 31
000
062
December
304
1 005
000
063
005
240
001
000
063
Annual Totals
70 43F
2 65
000
3684
266
2880
89

v
V)
c
O
a
0
c
c
Vi
O
m
O
v
m
N C
00
- 4:
ma
C
Q O
O tm
O =
� N
= X
W
c
a
'a
c
O
O
O1
a:.
i
C b
V
th
a
tU
y
I r
fV
n
CO ❑1
m C)
Q
I
I
a
,A9
�06
0
a�
6�
n
�A
v,
P�
8
.r
z�
0) co r• CO U-) "t Cl) N .-- O
(seg3ul) ewnlOAMBMPue118AA
P-i
-
I r
7
/
E�
o
C7
''
c
��
w`
\
V
N
7
� O
a
,A9
�06
0
a�
6�
n
�A
v,
P�
8
.r
z�
0) co r• CO U-) "t Cl) N .-- O
(seg3ul) ewnlOAMBMPue118AA
P-i

Mitigation Plan
Bear Basin Restoration Site - Proposed Conditions
Bear Basin Restoration Site
Dry Year
Water In uts
Water Out is
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Welland Volume
1990
P
Si'
GI
PET
So
Go
January
207
000
000
080
000
240
-113
000
000
February
1 86
005
000
1 25
000
240
-175
000
000
March
596
030
000
160
000
240
226
000
226
April
250
004
000
239
000
240
225
000
002
May
595
010
000
384
000
240
-019
000
000
June
086
000
000
599
000
240
-753
000
000
July
221
000
000
682
000
240
-7 01
j 000
000
August
572
004
000
599
000
240
-263
000
000
September
033
000
000
422
000
240
-629
000
000
October
364
004
000
271
000
2 40
-142
000
000
November
391
060
000
1 15
000
240
096
000
0%
December 1
160
1 005
1 000 1
090 1
000 1
240
-166
000
000
Annual Totals 1
3661
1 1 21
1 000 1
3766 1
000 1
28 80
A yg Year
Water In uts
Water Out uts
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Welland Volume
1973
P
Si.
G1
PET
So
Go
January
451
001
000
045
000
240
1 67
000
167
February
434
006
000
032
000
240
1 68
000
335
March
497
000
000
184
000
240
074
000
409
April
553
013
000
219
000
240
1 07
000
516
May
306
001
000
365
000
240
-298
000
218
June
870
064
000
548
000
240
1 47
000
364
July
396
1 008
000
565
000
240
-401
000
000
August
771
Oil
000
553
000
240
Oil
000
000
September
370
039
000
443
000
240
-274
000
000
October
105
002
000
241
000
240
-373
000 1
000
November
047
000
000
126
000
240
-319
000
000
Dace mbar
784
0 18
000
1 058
1 000
1 240
503
000
503
Annual Totals
5584
1 63
000 1
3379
1 000 1
2880
Wet Year
Water Inputs
Water Outputs
Change In
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland Volume
1991
P
St'
Gi
PET
So
Go
January
78
0 01
000
062
000
2 40
479
000
479
February
197
001
000
090
000
2 40
-132
000
347
March
5 06
005
000
165
000
2 40
106
000
453
April
445
026
000
307
000
2 40
-077
000
376
May
3 13
001
000
5 31
000
2 40
-457
000
000
June
9 39
048
000
519
000
2 40
228
000
228
July
1435
151
000
629
000
240
717
164
780
August
975
009
0 00
5 33
000
240
2 12
212
780
September
665
0 16
000
383
000
240
059
059
780
October
28
001
000
208
000
240
-166
0001
6 14
November
204
0 0 t
o 00
095
000
240
-1301
000
464
December
304
005 1
000 1
0 63
000
240
1 0061
0001
490
Annual Totals
1 70A3 1
265 1
000 1
35 84 1
000 1
2880
Note An increase in capacity of 0 2 feet (2 4 inches) of surface water is assumed based on the creation of microiopography during wetland restoration
91

Q,
c
0
a
O
QJ
m
c
a
m
`a
a
m
_ N
d C
� y
7 'O
m c
v O
U
O
0 C
CL
_IL
c
a
a
c
0
a
►
d
m 3
M
� o
I
I
O
U
N a c
J
N
'o u 0
rn
o
a
3
V
r v
I'
Z
I�
O
In
I�
I�
r�
I(13
U
(tl
�a
LL
c
co
O) oD ti co LO 'T M N •- O
(sayaui) ownlOAJORMPUMOM
N
Ol
I
I
U
\
O �
CO,
N
C
!
I
C�
CL a
U o
i
E
r
� y
O
!
c
I
�
i
N
I
N
C
/
I
l
\
r
�
\r
/
/
/
/
V
r v
I'
Z
I�
O
In
I�
I�
r�
I(13
U
(tl
�a
LL
c
co
O) oD ti co LO 'T M N •- O
(sayaui) ownlOAJORMPUMOM
N
Ol

Soil Delineation and Characterization
93

A detailed soils investigation at the BB was conducted by a licensed soil scientist (# 187) to determine
the extent and distribution of the hydric soils and to classify the predominate soils to the soil series
level The investigation consisted of delineating the hydric soil boundaries with pink flagging and
wooden survey stakes in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Delineation Manual
(1987) and the USDA Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States A Guide for Identifying and
Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7 0 (2010) Areas that were identified as possible hydric soil mapping
units were surveyed at a higher intensity until the edge of the mapping unit was identified The
boundary of the hydric and non- hydric soil mapping units were then followed by continual sampling and
observations as the boundary line was identified and delineated In those areas where the boundary was
found to be a broad gradient rather than a distinct break, microtopography, landscape position, soil
textural changes, redoximorphic features, and depleted matrices were additionally considered to
identify the extent of the hydric soils
In developing a detailed soils map, several soil borings were advanced on the site in the general hydric
soil areas identified by landscape position, vegetation and slope Once the hydric soil borings were
identified, the soil scientist marked the points and established a visual line to the next auger boring
where again hydric soil conditions were confirmed by additional borings The soil scientist moved along
the edges of the mapping unit and marked each point along the line To confirm the hydric soil mapping
unit and taxonomic classification, soil borings were advanced to a depth of 50 inches The soil profile
descriptions identified the individual horizons in the topsoil and upper subsoil as well as the depth,
color, texture, structure, boundary, and evidence of restrictive horizons and redoximorphic features
Delineated hydric soils boundaries were in contrast to those mapped in the Soil Survey of Onslow
County, North Carolina The delineated hydric soil boundaries are shown in the following figure, Detailed
Soils Map
Taxonomic Classification
The predominant soils identified on the site were of the Pantego (Fine - loamy, siliceous, semiactive,
thermic Umbric Paleaquults) soil series Inclusions of the Lynchburg (Fine - loamy, siliceous, semiactive,
thermic Aeric Paleaquults) soil series were also identified The Pantego and Lynchburg series are listed
as hydric soils in Onslow County, North Carolina They are defined as hydric due to saturation for a
significant period during the growing season These two soils are listed as hydric on the federal, state
and local lists The Pantego and Lynchburg series are also listed by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) as hydric soils
Profile Description
The Pantego series is described as very deep, very poorly drained, moderately permeable soils typically
found on uplands They are formed in moderately fine textured sediments with slopes ranging from 0 to
1 percent The Lynchburg series is described as very deep, somewhat poorly drained, moderately
permeable soils found on uplands They are formed in moderately fine textured sediments with slopes
of less than 2 percent These soils are very strongly acidic or strongly acidic throughout unless the
surface has been limed
95

Typical Pedon Description of the Pantego mapping unit
PANTEGO SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine - loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Umbnc Paleaquults
TYPICAL PEDON: Pantego loam -- cultivated field (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated )
Ap - -O to 10 inches, black (10YR 2/1) loam, weak fine granular structure, very friable, many fine roots,
very strongly acid, gradual wavy boundary (0 to 12 inches thick)
A--10 to 18 inches, very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loam, weak fine granular structure, friable, very strongly
acid, clear smooth boundary (4 to 14 inches thick)
Bt - -18 to 27 inches, very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy clay loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure,
friable, few faint clay films on faces of peds and in pores, very strongly acid, gradual wavy boundary (0
to 18 inches thick)
Btgl - -27 to 42 inches, gray (10YR 5/1) sandy clay loam, few fine and medium distinct mottles of
brownish yellow (10YR 6/6), weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure, friable, slightly sticky,
few faint clay films on faces of peds, very strongly acid, gradual smooth boundary
Btg2 - -42 to 55 inches, gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay loam, few medium and coarse distinct mottles of
yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, slightly sticky, few faint clay
films on faces of peds, very strongly acid, gradual wavy boundary
Btg3 - -55 to 65 inches, gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay loam, weak coarse subangular blocky structure, friable,
few faint clay films on faces of peds, very strongly acid (Combined thickness of the Btg horizons is 30 to
more than 60 inches )
TYPE LOCATION: Pitt County, North Carolina, 1/2 mile south of Winterville, North Carolina, on Highway
11, 100 feet west from road
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness is greater than 60 inches The soil is strongly acid, very
strongly acid, or extremely acid except where the surface has been limed Some pedons have an Oa
horizon that has hue of 10YR, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 1, or it is neutral and has value of 2 It is less
than 8 inches thick
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 10YR or 2 5Y or is neutral, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 0 to 2 It is
loamy fine sand, loamy sand, fine sandy loam, sandy loam, loam, or mucky analogues of these textures
Some pedons have an Eg horizon that has hue of 10YR or 2 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 6, and chroma
of 0 to 2 It is loamy sand, loamy fine sand, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or loam Some pedons have a
BEg horizon that has hue of 10YR or 2 5Y, value of 4 or 6, and chroma of 1 or 2 It is loam, sandy loam,
fine sandy loam, or sandy clay loam
The Bt horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR or 2 5Y, value of 3, and chroma of 1 or 2 It has the same
textures as the Btg horizon The Btg horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2
96

with few to common mottles of higher chroma The Btg horizon is sandy clay loam, sandy loam, sandy
clay, or clay loam, fine sandy loam, or sandy loam Some pedons have a BCg horizon that has hue of
10YR or 2 5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2 It is sandy clay loam, clay loam, sandy clay, sandy
loam, or fine sandy loam
The Cg horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR or 2 5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2 with
higher chroma mottles It is sandy clay loam, clay loam, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loamy fine sand,
fine sand, loamy sand, or sand
Typical Pedon Description of the Lynchburg mapping unit
LYNCHBURG SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine - loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Aeric Paleaquults
TYPICAL PEDON: Lynchburg loamy fine sand -- cultivated (Colors are for moist soil )
Ap - -O to 6 inches, very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loamy fine sand, weak medium granular structure, very
friable, common fine roots, few medium roots, very strongly acid, clear smooth boundary (3 to 11
inches thick)
E--6 to 10 inches, light olive brown (2 5Y 5/4) loamy fine sand, weak medium subangular blocky
structure, very friable, common fine roots, few fine pores, common medium distinct dark gray (10YR
4/1) iron depletions, very strongly acid, clear smooth boundary (0 to 10 inches thick)
Bt - -10 to 17 inches, light olive brown (2 5Y 5/4) sandy clay loam, weak medium subangular blocky
structure, friable, common fine roots, few fine pores, few faint clay films on faces of some peds,
common medium distinct light brownish gray (2 5Y 6/2) iron depletions and many medium distinct
yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), and few fine medium prominent red (2 5YR 4/8) masses of oxidized iron,
very strongly acid, clear wavy boundary
Btg1 - -17 to 30 inches, light brownish gray (2 5Y 6/2) sandy clay loam, weak medium subangular blocky
structure, friable, few fine roots, few fine pores, common faint clay films on faces of some peds, many
medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) and common medium prominent red (2 5YR 4/6)
masses of oxidized iron, very strongly acid, gradual smooth boundary
Btg2 - -30 to 65 inches, gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay loam, weak medium subangular blocky structure,
friable, few fine roots, common faint clay films on faces of peds, many medium prominent yellowish
brown and many medium prominent red (2 5YR 4/8) masses of oxidized iron, very strongly acid, gradual
smooth boundary
Btg3 - -65 to 80 inches, gray (10YR 5/1) clay, weak medium subangular structure, firm, few fine roots, few
faint clay films on faces of peds, many medium prominent strong brown (7 5YR 5/8) and few fine
prominent red (2 5YR) masses of oxidized iron and few medium faint greenish gray (5BG 6/1) iron
depletions, very strongly acid (Combined thickness of the Bt horizons are more than 40 inches )
97

TYPE LOCATION: Colleton County, South Carolina, 3,000 feet southwest of function of U S Highway 21
and Seaboard Coastline Railroad in Ruffin, 4 southwest of function of U S Highway 21 and South
Carolina Secondary Road 272, 100 feet north of U S Highway 21
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness is 60 to more than 80 inches Depth to bedrock is more
than 6 feet Content of pebbles range from 0 to 10 percent by volume The soil is strongly acid, very
strongly acid, or extremely acid except where the surface has been limed
Ap horizon or A horizon (where present) has a hue of 10YR or 2 5Y, value of 2 to 5, and chroma of 1 to 2,
or is neutral with value of 2 to 5 It is sand, fine sand, loamy sand, loamy fine sand, sandy loam, fine
sandy loam, or loam
The E horizon has a hue of 10YR or 2 5Y, value of 4 to 7, chroma of 1 to 4 It is sand, fine sand, loamy
sand, loamy fine sand, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or loam Redoximorphic features (where present)
have masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and iron depletions in shades of brown,
yellow, olive, or gray
The Bt horizon has a hue of 10YR or 2 5Y, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 3 to 8 It is sandy clay loam, but
ranges to sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam or clay loam The particle size control section contains less
than 30 percent silt Redoximorphic features (where present) have masses of oxidized iron in shades of
red, yellow, or brown and iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
The Btg horizon has a hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7, chroma of 1 to 2, or is neutral with value of 4 to
7 It is sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, sandy clay loam, or clay loam Some pedons are sandy clay or
clay at a depth of 40 inches or more Redoximorphic features (where present) have masses of oxidized
iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
The BCg horizon has a hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7, chroma of 1 or 2, or is neutral with value of 4 to
7 It is sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, sandy clay, or clay Redoximorphic
features (where present) have masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and iron
depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
98

..00MOMM1`
KC1SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Cheat- KC1 Ash ofNaM Cxelu% . P.A. Date Srotaiiil
11 2Q1 L
Projeee now Swe Wedwd Ra toration Som Project N. 201106"" -WO 0I
(.aaaty. tlorr Stage. HG
Location: US H" 2Sg _ SitdLot 23
Soil Series. itfteflno
Soil Classification. Fvwka py, silpWuk sevifwtim dwmtc Uittbri0 Paloetita►b:t —
Aw r• >0
L.tevstlon
Sim 0-i2 Slope Q-M As@eet.
Drainage VVY Poorly Dreuvod _ PertawabiNdy
veyetstioar in
tiorlogs termiasted at 60 Incbcs
�ti■'�i:ii��
iriNiia►t1ti��4i:fiL�Ti�
�ti:�ii
�
�
�
• �
COMMLNTS
rbe Pantego 5ene3 cwstats of my deep, vest' poorly drained soils formed to thick loamy deposits in nearly level and shgluiy depreasional areas
of the Southern Coastal Plain and Atlantic Coast Flatwoods
This renew sates w a drained hydnc sal by ditchms
the Pantego sal is poeded to very slow runoff and the waxutaily high water table is at or near the surface dunri0 wet
seasons, typtcalty betwew 0 -12 inches
DESCRIBED BY
DATE 91faM I

MEMO-�.�
KC I
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Cibnt. KCI Associates of North Carolina, P A _ Date: I; gi l
Project: Bear Basin Welland Restoration Sift Project N: 20110659P -wo 01
Coraty. Qasiow _ _ State. NC
Location: us kWY25g Site/Lot- 2zkg_024
Soil Series: Pat1{Btn
Soil Classification rine,-lpW_V, siltcMn, sernwAiM thermic Umbric Pal ults
AWT• 20' SNWT. 0.12' Slope. 0.296 Aspect:
Elevation Drainage Very Poorly Drained Permeability Moderate
Vegotatioo Cam
Borings terminated at 60 Inches
COMMENTS
The Pantego series consists of very deep, very poorly drained soils formed to thick loamy deposits in nearly level and slightly depressional areas
of the Southern Coastal Plain and Atlantic Coast Flatwoods
This Pantego series is a drained hydnc sort by ditching
The Pantego soil is ponded to very slow runoffand the seasonally high water table is at or near the surface during wet
seasons. typically between 0 -12 inches
DESCRIBED BY
DATE Wl 2 11

KC OF SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Nam CAIDuw ta
Cllent: JCCI AsNiguttel of Ngrth CaMNA PJL Date 1'.ICMbet 12,201 t
Project Rea► Bunt wetiaad Rastarattoa Stlo Project H- 201 to&wp --wo 01
C4001y: 9aalax State. Nc
Location. MY 2m _ SAWL411.1. kedlt4V _ —
Sod Series: PAM -, - -
Soil Classification two-ta", st6raoiq — +1MnRvl. lltitrmtc Lh„6ric Palat "U'ls
ANYT Ir SllWP air Slnpe 4144 Aspect.
Elevation Drainage. f � am2m gmime t Fetlmak0:: ModMSM
Vegetation. Cm
Borings terrnlsated at 60 inches
1101WON
DI P111 I 114
MA MIX
MuI11 rs
I I X'111RE
STitUC r1JRG
CONS1 IU%tl
BOUNDARY
NOTES
Ap
0 -10
WYR 3/1
fsl
I Fgf
mfr
a
l:
10-12
10YR 6P2
fsi
1 fsbk
mfr
cw
B I
12 -18
10YR 5/2
10YR 5/6cld
sl
1fsbk
mfr
%
aw
18.21
10YR 6/2
IDYR 518c2d
scl
2msbk
mfr
w
2 SYR 4/8c2
Bt
21 -33
10YR 611.
: SYR 4/1X2
SO
2msbk
mfr
9.
BtA4
3348
IOYR612
11lYRW4L2f
SO
Imsbk
mfr
AW
13t
48 -60
IDYR 6/2
I OYR Weld
sl
1 msbk
mfr
COMMENTS
The Pontego wws consists of vnty deep, very poorly drama! "Is fornwd in thick loanry depasits M neatly level and siaghlly depimutmial areas
of Ole Southern Coastal Plain and Atlantic Coast Flatwoods
This Pantego sates is a drained hydric sod by dieching
fhe Pumgo sal is pondod to very slow runoff and the soasermlly high water table m ai or near the surface during wet
seasons. typically between 0-12 inches
DESCRIBED BY
DATE W1 2M t

�_.
K� I
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
MA111 I%
WE
Client- KCI Awaolaw of *rth Carolina PA
DOw 3e0laitrbot I2, 3011
Project, Bear Rasa Wetland Restemgn Site
Project N: 2011 Wgp-W40 01
ceanty 991 r"
Bells: WC
Location LA HW V 2SS
Shell iie lgf!it g 12 _
Sod Sens lasYAD
Sod Classirrcatba Flwles W, ukyow, tiprincimt
theram llanhne PaMeMiuln
AW'T s11WT: air Slope a4% 'A"gWt•
Elevation Dsawnje Visa MOM—t Droved PerineabAk
YeRdaaian:
Borlags terminated at 64 luchm
COMMENrS
The Pantego scrip cants ofvoy dmp, very poorly drained sals rwned in thick loamy deposits in nearly laud and sightly depressuml areas
of the Southem Coastal Plain and Atlantic Coast Flatwoods
this PanteEa series is a drained hydric sal by ditching
The Pantego soil a pondod to veil slow ninoif and the seasonally high water table is at or near the surface dutmg wet
seasons typ=lly beov m 0-17 niches
DESCRII;LD BY
DAIL oily lFl
WE
COMMENrS
The Pantego scrip cants ofvoy dmp, very poorly drained sals rwned in thick loamy deposits in nearly laud and sightly depressuml areas
of the Southem Coastal Plain and Atlantic Coast Flatwoods
this PanteEa series is a drained hydric sal by ditching
The Pantego soil a pondod to veil slow ninoif and the seasonally high water table is at or near the surface dutmg wet
seasons typ=lly beov m 0-17 niches
DESCRII;LD BY
DAIL oily lFl

KC I
ASSOCIATES OF SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NOWM g1JI.1NA M
Client KCI Asaociatits of North Caroli.;K P A Date: 3SMbar t2, 2011
Project. Saar Basin Weilandlia3wwonSito Projectp 20110654P -wo of
Coarty Slate W _ _
t.oeattor: (* lIWY2Si mntMl BMW 030
Sail Shies.
Soil ClawrIcatioa: F 30 sent 1ltlrasir i lA*ft
AWT• 914
Elevation.
vegetall"
SIIWT: alr slope 0-JA Aspect:
Dra6t vein Pooh slaw
Bosingstermirated at 60 Inches
COMMENTS
The Pattte;o series consists of vay deep, very poorly drained soils formed in thick Wan^y deposits to rtwrty levvl and sbghtly depreuional areas
of the Southern Coastal Plain and Atlanhe Coast Fletwocds
This Pantago sates to a drained hydra sod by ditching
The Pantego soil is ponded to very slow runotl'and the scumaliy high water table is at or new the sarlace dunng wet
seasons typically between D42
DCSCRIBI'D BY
DATE W.IyaII

.a.
WCT
ASaci' a of SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
"Mit (AMM we. tx
Clem kCiti-uocwftcif Ranh rid PA- Date.. SYC4ta>hb M201,
Pawjeet 8aa Saain WOW d 6tea rtitto, Site - _ Project N: 201 IO"W -WQ 01
County: #}NW* State HC
i ocatton us K" in SileALat. INNIM2 E 2
Soli Series kal aft Yet
Soil Classification. Fbw- loaM sdlloM wb"%vt, dwink Anne Pak Agirults
AWT. 7¢¢` SIIW7 IS' Slope 04% Aspect:
Llevat ion. Drainage 3ontewhat Poorly Drained PerrneaWIDY. lwodehts
YestioNaa, tai ^
Boringsterroinaled at 6o Inches
110 IZON
DF"i(IN)
MA7aLY
mormM.
1LKMRE
SWULTEJRb
M'1LSI5rtNCI:
OOVIWARY
NOTFS
- A
0 -7
IOYR 411
fsi
I QPr
mvfr
cs
Al-
7 -10
IOYR4 11
iUYRS/':cld
fsi
I fu
mvfr
cx
E
10-15
10YR 516
IOYR u4c2f
vfsl -al
Ifsbk
mvfr
o
BE
15 -18
IOYR 5/6
IOYR V2c2d
vfsl -fsl
Imsbk
mvfr
Cs
DI III
18 -36
IOYR 7/1
10YR OV404
fsi I
2msbk
mfr
Ow
7 SYR 5!?itl
-
BE 2
36 -48
IOYR6/8
51
1Msbk
mfr
giv
IOYR 7/1
B1g3
48 -60
IOYR 6/8
IOYR 711 mad
Scl -sl
I msbk
anir
COMMENTS
The Lynchburg serves is a very deep somewhat ponrty drained soil ol'the Lower and Upper Atlanix Coastal Plain that occur at Marine tenets and 1 Tats
Dominant chrorrta 2 matnt for this Lynchburg sod description ranges from 10 to 18 tnches below the surface
Seasonally high water table for the Lynchburg aeries typically ranges from 6 to 18 inches
DLSCRIBI D BY
DATh WIVVII

f, �- a A Soil �•
r
Proposed Easement Area (119 ac)
r a i s J;S. rtii. ��'y,b Lynchburg
" IVA, '
. V' �..� . •r o c+ � r s s � x" a a ? ��'�c � � �' 'L �S kNM � �� �i
r r a� +yY _ r,'t C• - ^ +i !'^tfr° � �,�a Y*ws 2 `�..i
7.1 t •i.�. a 'y� }'�;, I ��.vy'h. +y sa§','1'��`'+. ot� 5 ate% og
O'xs ,}�. ;� +✓
31
a 2, i
'r
1:
Pe
%t I I
'� rr• J )� � Yr �' �� 'k

Potential Wetland Gauge Locations
107

108

}
f
4
Proposed Easement Area (11 9 ac)
Non-npanan Wetland Restoration (8 6 ac)
y Upland Inclusion (11 9 ac)
Non
__�credit Bearing Zone
X )CX Ditches to be filled
Ly
Utility Easement
Potential Gauge Locations
C� *A�
'
��t"tit e {t±etd t y
sk T ,•4�i1•:;'.d�s��•�`f =4i'� #`;�,
r
x�'ttg
H 3 F rT e ��� ` , y ������$•'.y'�t `� 1�. Ly '� �4 s e�t�r �e�t`�5����� ��^�;
t i3 i r ! '` 9tt *act fr'Gt t•. Y ! ! V �ry1 '.�14''jf' y"., i-
t Rt f ;r ef�`
r d 4} 1 `Y c &+ p
f+111 Mti�i'�� i �°`L4e, ,s �w�°,ytwt''w,a
Oa,
- y i i1(ist 'i•. a r 1 Y �+ Yt, 1 ` b b S., � a� htx�,..
�R l ,juy �yY .fF"Jl`\t �` ♦ -1\, .. �Y +%`�.t�ln�'i i�•]
IZ
s .t1Vy
t n �,. '�� ",. �^ �•s'�Oat����VA'R�'Yi 3st�� i �},y> ,pi w `c Cq3 "M,�h: �
�p''
�n
r h c
'G "n'ly`9 TO"�, ° ` `���lil - y "kk ` �• 7 , Ki �,a c • t$Z@x
2v-
': i+ flu, taE.<n`y3v
r ' i +',: , ,''k a tit fi! t'ai l,�'�a0.s\i S.� *' r . L n U
�' >• s i a' 4` 4 .tJ
+t
_K� 7 .T ,' �'�i ?�Fi�t' >�• 3ytu�xi k ' af?k
V.
t^,•� ♦ ��ar
'at,}�' o q
Al
ar?" rik,+t✓" s y 4 w44"d,�3�.,r a '7q. ' pwk
♦� ..? � �'�j "r!
J .. I�`afX���.iF�� }� yice, -- b•q�.�rtt�ci\ � Nt���'� ., ;'#'.� ` r�} '��,�f .
y�� ; �����, \�;'
,,•_� a' °� ♦\ I`I 'y 'f •ii j l � V.�q f .✓'{i %y,, _ ,.,i
}3 fl s hrS l —il l�v �,�� �•W 'T'. ��t 'R4p Y'�y.s� \.aYl..
�
itlt C, �8t> b weF 4 ti` to °Ya
q� ' k v
tt
- ° 1� YT r.C�. , �Gi ,�6tYY t�O y .�•, T � ��t,• �3d- x j � y, h.
1 7 � _ t��.�Q�'"- � i , ,•3 Nit ...r�

14.6 Appendix D. Project Plan Sheets
110

111

� s
E
LL
OV V W U
W N i a
* M s 3
L
O`
0
� ��• •rte::
Vl
O
u�
®� N
W 0
COD
COI Ag�
!9 / W L� w
Vj x �i u d x
� o°
ai 3a
DO W �j��;
O O? a° / m F�zN� a ~
'1 KN m z 4
Z
a o
Z W H w
zm
O O jLU
wO O a a
LU
Z 0
O z
° �o� o
zLU
W W
w_ '�2y� a a
M o
O z
Z
Boa [ti 0 v~i
�zO' U
W W u
ONJ� Q Z O
F- 0.
2 W J OC
w 3
QOL" ce Z 0
OaNMOINVwjjnH H O= X Q Q
a ZISO o Q
BARGEE R° r� W O- Z < g n' w
U,rs JWW= W O 0
J V C1 OC
Z o a Q QWZa 3 z o
W t~ _m
wl ~zo
"0 � o o
ai
>O' 5.: N
O r �►V�►yy '00 1� O SY w
4"v", H =� a Z Q Y"w q g�c 4 p O
3SS3r W 0 ' R _ ° 'On U' O
O
� z cry Z } p
yam �$<wa �
a� 20ooa� x go z
a° o �� p ° z O
�tPVv °�' Oa �u~i��Q �� O U
P HOryyyBMb Z02�0 U C U 0. W Zm O Z
H OLJ to ?O r� c� p� Ln O It
0( -) w ^ V QZ/ N
WOCMUM OLL OW N M O N b L �Q O o
Daz¢ -a F- V j w
ggzzzfoz - #SOf i9m IfL t JOKYLINOP11

SNOISIARI °
4IINUID IBI III BOSLZVNIIOMVOHllON H°JI3TRJ
Siva NOUdrdOS30 WAS LIIa bb", ozz3imOVOaSmOd XIS MO VNIIOabOH12iON 'lLN(IOOMOlSNO'SONHIHOIa QoOUp
� U
o
2 WWWW
311S NOI1dNO1S38 V-80 ry
3N IOSY17O W O CL W
KoZ AIM NOISSiwBnS 11Na3d"I tOC HOd o3SVGEI O
eloz avly UKHad iotaNOO Nolsoa3 bOd oaumanS 8 �II3® T ■ {1 N ISt/8 a d38 c� z a w
1 AJ 11 a ni
ZIOZ AON NVId NOUVOLLM H1NA O3uIRIMS V
I �
I
o}
W z
"Q
LL
" LL
cc O
LU
z" O
mo � W
0 J
z F-
U
Q W
w
W
" R,
DI I r Q
cm A > > o L. L.
U O
Cc LU W
o O O -Q
cc
W W V u C
O Q C� �_ O Q N
>Cn z¢ W at W
z " (�
z " O OJ
¢a w►}-
H
W
1 1
0 0 < M [N a
cc NN
cc
0,0 Z z IOiUU O I
W Z t`o mm V 0000.1 =QW
OLLJ I-• F- IDOMMMtnNQlm F"'i -7
z Q O > r, r, r- -4 r 4 14 x W L D Z O c: O O
" J W1�n1�nn1�1��DCD 0Ua A
W
WOLL JOm W
m= mLL F-
OW .-1 00M0 N 0 r t001
m Ur n00 ko eV 1A OOC OO _1WZ V
"O F" ZO M M Lnh W N00N 1"1 J" �/ Q •y, O
�HZ FLnLnWulsDmoNV Qm (� u
r1 M O.--1 a--I ei N N N > "Cn
Q O N^ n t, 1, N N N 11 1\ Q CO W C
Cl) z w r+ " . A rA rl .1 e-1 rr rr z
00"0 vv ZQ0F~ -I Q 1� G y
O O W N ry N N N ry N N N
fn q —qo¢ Ja W� -r�1 C IC O O
UQVm arZac? y •a CO L u
QzQ1-' CD.- o%omLnto.io.im UJ"0 �! t 0 � p V1
to¢Qz z_NN01tnOtDSVc��tDa1 Uaaclz, j) �i v
"Q O =MNN OO�OUI r-4-1 CCWOF
- ![! Q N C Vi
pcnwF"- �rNHI -1 °ornmrnrnrn ai¢UN i N
DOVQ OMMMMNNNNN mLLQX '�i -Q t ^a I/► L V -Q
zzzm Zvvv vvvavv O¢CLW U W C O L
CD < U) LL —CO o -j I,L O N��ijC V _ oG m
zw "z F-D000 0
Qor rlrydvlLD1,00o1� JOw0 'Q -Q � ~ u w- O Q
J J J at at st st U as st as ss " O m z N G1 O A O O L L
wJJJ uuuuuuuUU F- zF - Q y y y N = O O
CID Q Q Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O O O O W �• t Q Q.
CL a a Vj = E E
OL a CL V)

SNOISVaa
°
t lllJjffl[t' 60911 ?JON i
31va Noudrtns3a us ozz ains avou sNaod xis tae b NI10b0 H1210N 'A1N100 MOlSNO 'SONH iH01? J o UM
S1SLLN313S- 5113NNtlld S1133NION3 311S NOI1ViO1SM:1
j " h
VtOZ AInf Nolssiwans11wa3d VOV /IOVtlOd03SIA3lI O O�jOS311AO0SS' Y Z Gi
elozavw 11wa3dIOUINOONOISON3ao3031LIRMS 8 ` I ■x NIS�d9 2i�d38 W_
1 IJ 11
a "
UOt AON NVId NOLLVDLLMH1NA031unsns Y
o�
F-
LU J
Q' J
Q
Z �I WOp LU
Z O m I LL
0 F xt 0z�
H ¢UI �Q(D
> -j of O09
i I
JI W ZI 0FW
wl p —I OO to
wX'Xu1
W H W O
01
zt ZP I 0
F- X� t J
`nl\
m uJ I 5 Q ai
X
Q U
W\ t Z S�g Z t ¢ I U ul
O 1 z _ J
,o L v F `'� t .0 l 0 to ? O I J a
O zX
F" w I W J a I w w
rn t u> Q a x ¢ F,LU^ Q¢
E— x J fV.. F- V
u ED Q O
I a l Q O FF- Z fq 0 W
a (� z ono g `' o ' �<N Z '`w»
L l a > I W Z0J E- ^ J 1.6 J w0
I -j p_co O l% L] a LL
g O JD
a �' U�> o a 0 aW
= OJUa LU �H
N
wcj:¢ t z 0 w m�
p ~W Q Z Q g�
a UJ 2 a U) (3d�b ° a m
x °' wa>
zw0 0� 0u-2
gJ 0 °
w o`b g z —
o
m w W w J U
I l F- w(nQ
0 L I I T a\
J Zu��cn
w w
z \
z
F ° w fn
a
g �g
I I H �� U
I I �W
x 0 W Z
r,% ft C) LO
a z L
LL 16

sNOlSlnaa u,xil�l�.�1 it', I [I; 609LZ VNIlOUVO HLUON H013lVU
31VO N011dWS30 22 } Ltia:►5ASO , ,I OZZ311nsr OVOUSNboalASt09C VNIIOatlO Hl2M'.lLNnooMOlSNO SaNHlHOIU o
z
S1SUN313S- SU3NNVld SU33NION3
Y 311S NOIldbOlS3b � t
pg
NOISSIWSnS1L3dlOVllOe003SIA3U M10931Y OON SW Y Y go. otOZ Al7f NISt8 2t38 w
EtOZ NVW 11"3d lOU1NOO NOISOU3 UOd 031WUIS 9
AJ Ll i a
UDZ AON NVId NOI1VOI11W Hiw 031LIW8l19 V S
Ab
n 0o A
�•••• ••/• `',i �O ay
=�. Z
SF
ION
SF
°sum ®s~ I
� IL
1 ,
I
O � \
\ I y
N
C4, co
Ln
1 ` v / 10 f�
<C)
uj
1 I
1 I V p
1 1 p
1
I � p
1 \
W
t I/ !
7 }a I
O N
U �
1
t
I
1 +a
U
11 �Y
I
b,
\
` / 1
\
/
\ / 'A/ / /d/ /
/
/ \J
�9/ Q
a
4V �/ zZn�
J
W Z O
ZwUF-
I
Gj ZWaa
r„
D?OQ
OOJLL.
tai f— W
., a U
=NWa
w�J=
W J Z
F- LU
0000
ZOHF-

SNOISIAN
�«i7tli7• 5091Z VNM8VO HItJON H0131"
slva NaldlaOS3a rus 1 � 0 ozz311nsovoaS)INOA XIS 1097 VNIIONVOHIMON 'AiNf100MO1SNO'SCINVIH018 z
SISLLN3IOS • SU3NNVld • SN33NION3 > a Z z O
�s��OOSSr —•,—, 311S NOUVd JOIS32i
v10ZAlnf NOISSIWBnS LIWt 13d>OV /lOV N0103SIA3N O NISVO �d38 5 O ga
[l0Z HVW 11Wtl3d 10iI1NOO NOISWi3 NOi 03111W8nS V a
1 v1� a N
ZAM AON N" NouvouIW H1NA 03L.NWSns V
,,,,,,
AA
AA
�• • /� ,�
4
V• =•W
CM
•, a
/,�M ••'gip ±,. G p �1 � � d � h
GQ
1
I s
o W t p P
u°l
V1
\
CL
An
"11, \W I +11
°
tf1
11 N�
CO
s,
LU I /
a +
2
0
W
Z
p ; f
r'
r
� b
d
b
W S �pS 88 m
a 5�8�(�NNN N� 0 \ bll � d fO�V �iV fONV O
LL \ U+ 0
o
I
p ava�rc°v �°v�NN 1 — 51 /) /%! // / /ryy 0 NNNN
A /
/ /q'/ tt w,
uj
o Wo / /� /�� ! !/A 0 Z0
a z� / i /i, c¢i Zug
0 33�3i 3 33 1z"z ./" I N °ji/ !! /iii' z_° c3io�o wN
Lu F a aaaaaaaaaa= 0 �y ri' , / /i��� 0 1¢L4 QLLL Ix-
Z ZQ LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLL
AM 00
LU
i azj 6I , a qi?w
r w
cL, ai wam r ! �!! 0 .z w7m
w z a a0 U., / / 4r w woo
r (- oa 07
z o 2m ~ <°0, maw — �4.'! o a °oir ygow
z7 o f Dx�Z0 U C90co�0 f2W / rf/ Q i z �¢i5
O�U Jz w_ �z0 pj KtYKZU �Ta> / �rly r���C- c7 r1 AtUUa 00
2 W 0=�wy (p-
N 6U U UQ WK�777Q:Q LLw~ _ / / / /'� K¢ m Q008 OZN
w �� Ka h ¢i0.77000Q> Zzw / // / y ZO
z ow rLN o _ �Q' W f oz.Q�
ON Q S ��� / // V Q �X z ?W �.,.
Fz ��, i a5 �% m — I / // �V z ow 01 Yd OZ
Z WAR w Q¢ OI- W7 x� r� // h- 0CK w OYVI �Q
o zo ¢ Z �yWaZa =<�= wpw / /q rr/ JJ a w� CL III
=0Ul
Z a m� Z amxOQYVOO� rt-m �/ �� O O ¢ }¢O �W(4
'fv c o ¢raaU�o �x7 w� / '4i/ z U NI' imQ� ¢
5 zo:Q N�y' o�ldjww$dI-"oox ��� �// !' 5 Q g owmm 80�
Ogxo 6g o w5�7M,wM.? 0L. 0 it / / a m mN O wxxo o_o
z U At v - ¢UV, zx zo,- �0/ / , - o U o_OV)o zor
/
I�

SNOISIA311
i[allJ. s ILl ', 609LZVNIIOUVOHIIJON H0131YU
31va NOIIAliJ530 MUS WZ)Isr F ' OZZ31U1S av68smUOl xis togs, VNII08VO HIHON .dNnooMOISNO'SONVIHOW ¢0 $
SlSLLN313S • SU3NNVld SU33NION3
4t02 A1M �N�s mosri Z y
NOISSIWB151WU3d b > /tOV UOd 03SIA3U O 311S NOIIIVUOIS38 g a
NISVB 8838 'l7 02
ME UVW LW83d lOU1NOO NOISOU3 UOd O31UW5f1S B -1 �1 I � x m
ZIOZAON NVld NOLLVOIlIW NLN103tlIWSOS V AJ a
I
4 1
1
I 1 ,
I 1 ,
w 1 1 f
Ln
U_
p \\ Id \\
Ln
N
I /
I
I yl 1
1 y yl I
I
I y yi
I ly Iql I
II I �� 81 11
I r I
1
1 rr dpl � 4
11 11 111} 11 11 / A t
I
W I \ 1 I
V
I
N
r
� 1 �
1 1
I I
I 1
I 1
/ l
V q
1
1 q
1 q
\ n
\ q r
\ n
\ �1 - - -eCr
9//
W \♦ r 11 I� ,'1 9� ri' ,rn�'r
I /Ibi��r
rn z IV , rid r
V W U II �' /
Z - /
Y LLUQ� ~zz
a
¢OZ Qw� w OML15zo
C Uw 3Z / _f
a
JWI Q � =1M 0 0
Q �:Zoz
m { iaWQ OviaQWAaONzm aQ W ozaagaoo= Z WO 6 Nwa
1~z,—
Q�n �OJ� cS
O ZQW= -j.Cw
=Z 2Ng W2
/
/
/
I —OVO 9w 0002 JW wow / /
Z ZaW-1 zW.C�go <OZSu�p 1,1 / / , /
W W J =Q �u�U�gy go&g6t w
C ow�Wz V
F- z
5 w
W Qg
LLJ
W H >fnZ

SNOISIA3H
ipila^x1^L'iall` SOW VNI104VO HLaON H0131VF) J
31vo Noudlaas3o VIAS WDISAJV ' !1 ozz311ns avoasxaOd xis Logo VNIl0bV0 M80N')UNnooAAO1SNO'SONdlHOIU 0oz o
S1SI1N3IO9• SEl3NNYld• Sa33N10N3 311S NOIl`d2iOlS32i '" m�
�" 0 Z
7LOZ Alflf NOISSIWOnS LIWa3d Pot, LOO aOd 03SIAU O 3X 30sRvr1055tl [�v 1v f1 ' Z W 0
CLOT aVA LIWa3d 10a1N0O NOISOa3 a0d a311IWOnS 0 ^ T ■ N� N I J V 8 O V O
1 11JJ Ll
ZIOZAON NYId NOLLVaLLILYHLVAG4 ' GnS V 8 H
m Of
X U X U
w
♦ ♦ ♦♦ 40 {� Z V) Q V O N O N Z m LO v v V' N O N N
♦ I • ....m vm Z J
♦♦ �i ^ W J WW J U w
V[LIi J? WW W }
ir
i �J �� U Z z Qa N F, JZZ �'U KW
. O m
�� ^ Z WS, �w a¢ U) a'� ax m� a ozLmwL °aoW �� o�
��. �t� LOL'p mmm m JLL a00000N °o U� m0000N $ -L ZZwOVmx m> ap
_ NNNN.' =1 LL NNNN.- ZZQ 0 WW
i� •� U)a O O N IL
0. 0 1 0 N O J JN FLLa=Z ZU W W 0
CO W= rm
10 r� •� �.�•�%,� 0= NN ¢o ¢2� 00 NO0Z3: WLL W� -zw
��i�OI�(i /� \� '• '�P`� ♦`�, SG Z_ O� v� ��P000 O �i 0zr
• ¢ aD o¢oudox mY Zaz
��i ��� ♦ ♦� O Ld > > g om w2LLNmzw mZ p�z
LL v� J �a�m �a2U) m> U.<_3w 0 om wawa
O$ ¢ _
Wm �qa w pwJO2m �� o000 :3 w m OUOOrzQ wU) aa0m
FuQI ~0 U OZwzzU m¢ OZLLZrU >Q �m w2 w<OUO O7 Qra
�QJ RQF-Z iif KQF --U.ZQ O(n Zw - WwwdwQo FD wOW
�w (q¢0 }¢ m >>�jaQ Or-j S oog5��p ¢� o� 25Z�aww mF Omar
F-m D W m w O =Z�mj0 r„°, Q2 U)X55U 00 dK 04wzJ<m m r
JO = • m O <¢x2 2m WLL I <Q =Ogg WLL LL U<YpZQ(nU O00 JW�
Jr ¢ ¢ aar2 O JO aar�p O d zwQQzoxrm Z-J
m° �1-W N rG •�- (n U) � LLF 0� ,w,w o`L WZn LLF in m'LQat70m W� (nQW
W Oo 2-12 � W � f7�Uw m¢ � "�Umtnm mQ qy ga ��rm WUp� m0 NwQ
U) UZ_ �a v m UV 0U)O Um Q UV a 5 O0 mr wp p7Zz ar^ �II��W
} Qp Xg0 X? r X ZzmJ m ¢O X ZzyJ m <O mw mz amaJU`�60 �>w F7m
WW �Zr z ¢¢r�a4> mLL ¢ark} LL w O t7 J Fr
rw �� W aa-Q Cam mW m aa¢QC7m mJW Iw�LO Nm WWOW570U ? ¢2cm.) wwo
O Om w� w0 < w W Ow0ZO= OW m w Ow0z_Ui Wam Jvri 7u mW<LLI 0 x Lu L LL?
a Uz �wOa 1- 5. U r]CLmLWrr For w CQWUrF FOO zw �LL wW� owFx� J wLLZ FWO¢J
�g U) �m a ai w zm>5v�'i� z °¢ can zm25 :ch z °ate LL -j LwL¢ (wnlx- 000 <w20) M (�O z <9)
w
L
Fx- z
L
0 U W o
J 2 adz = !_ OOLL Lu cc
z m Q m aw�o r m MEW
O-
F
LU
vi mOZ Z) w o? yo =F o f;m oaN
mF ¢ m w zw(n
Z Wiz (¢A zga �g �m OO 0x0. O KW LL WOM
fro z ¢O oa oaz = az4aFw- w am ¢ mrx
O=wFU G ZW f- = Fa rp pa02 Z IW o aiWw I I lll�
r Wm zr o m F .6 U
U >F�Of m Mo OZ w= _< <a- x �¢ w �¢�
WmOz� m ozm UO C) F-m �¢Oa F- mp a Jmo
rwutnipz WgW Zo 'ZW�Z m000 S Wz V) rW
zF_wJ0 mrZ OF pOOC O rm2 W mQ OWWZW
OWZViLL ujww Oa 09-Qow 0050 a >or m�o0= 20
mxz0 >W¢ww mW Z¢oom m om a r inZ
LLOmow FZ- =p wp mUmwa srwz w Zr Y OF W o
'WTV50 in U_'OOrW om DOOM9 "'x jj-- mJ ZW 000x2 W W M
u<zSz 2m(n IL T- a6WmzZJe OM Q� OS ?:Lr FOWN W
ZmaOwn mo¢Z>- F-2w5 )OQO Ww 5 Y QU U'2OW'L oi3 J Z (O
�zooaw W =moo w,F=- CLW�00 W(x�JF W!5 oaw0D z g � zc�
w5a:zw ZrXMW pmOw =ESN z0�? a Qz =tea O0_ ~ O
(n5_ = ¢xrU Lxx C o H z Z y
woU mr LXU wu�r UO-orw gmFm r c�Qrzw Q -� W
xaWaOW jSZ� Jdm2WFa'mU rruwIF m �S omZa< F- z
�a U)Jj r(naro ¢oowOmwF- SrrgUa OW z >aaW W O O D
zzwwr oz60¢ WrrQ¢F�¢c9 WwMw ¢ Wz gCLOW, z I= W a 0
OO�z OaQaz zzOpyXx=�J ~�UQ o HD LLUWW¢aj D O D Z U
�JOmO U)wt7u0iQ O9F-Zm2WU a OOzm ZO 5=FW2N J F- W Q Z
0owwo ~WZOz z 2 a 0 ww< Ww¢� U rF¢-Q Jo EL- fn d' W W
LLWUZ U) X00 WWwin(rnaix -U)L� w Opzm w �Q WWW2YJ z D W
mxOL7Z �U<a: QmoOrm ZI m(gOLL r o F WC7WU¢ W O F- (j �
z 2rm(ng >"a,zW mwWwWZmWILLJLI MZF- Oz U) I-- LJr-02 m V U) F-
J 2 � O W 0¢ z z <Ix- z o y p j N Q m m o m w a 0 m z F W U a o a N 2 0 W J
V ma¢Jwm *9,6w<- Ca2z 9,< 0A z �� VZ zW UJpwz�z� fn N_ Z p
zzu=irz ¢ODp �UOZwap J =O zwOUOr xx ga� aaWzQo = J LL
� C7 Y
aaomw wrZaw< OrpaMOeOYJa_wzWr WwJO amg LL ZwaQzO r Q J U
z Wwrwz aU�aPL) mOWOOWWOMLLa0OF5X=2z F °a zWXwaLLWL U)i Mn m W
O tnr�01¢- W'zw >Z LYFwLwnaxymoUW70mWWwow ZDO _Om mrm
U a'SraO mmpram z(n >JJt=(DnTQmzw,W�W < gxa Wa0JO'zw
O OSZ¢U ¢a LwvUO< :56 4 -p Y�O QQa WZQOm,O- LaumWw as NwZOZ
W UWomZ 1= LJFF'W roJ Wu)= m<L1L 0<20
co W] wz<0 Mw J>ZHg
U g0000 ZZ�ZZm LL�2OZZLL �ZmmrLLamra0 -www aF/ZWN UQQ22ZW
z F-ZWOE W OOl 5J_ r_3 ?> >_ - gmw xrWWOx
W zpwWU OInUUa NM m � ma va(n mm Ur
UOS20W
0 Lwnd m (q4 m twn¢m (V) m
W Ix -aoW? m xa m a w
m w
L, LLI fn
m
W Z W MW < 0
r� o
5� m �W
¢o w ¢zp m Oz
m > `Lg w U
z = Zw j aw00Oa. c� mZ
W 0 WW 0 rxO_ m �a
F- z m J W 0 0o V) L) w w¢ mm 7Na OLLm mK
p Z Q 0 O zzo K WW m W m WO >D 2Wm rW gw
W ] Zp¢ F- a O s 0 JLL mo d m W JO mZ-
Z0r O OwZ OWm m F Oraw j m wQpmMW r07 z mj Om z00 Yw ¢W of
a i NJJ Aw O U wnla w O >-a W 0 OZwF+)F -WW moo z O r0 wU) 0m- wm 0
Ov)a ¢ zoo Orow LLmw LLL�p x x Amin pLL LWW¢>>xww0 0 - U Ow mw aam mz �z
0OU W OmF -0!> zU) WOLL
mFWx FWU)¢m Fm- 'OL�i< JmmQ aQ< Z r OS2w YOzgzwL`�Wmz F LU �U) (¢n t%) =?W aria Qp
QDQ WUr)I UwmFx-F �MZLwo ZKm UW0 aW uj LI�LLOw WWzOZ =aQ W$LLuLn= IJ
I¢-o, Z j0 OJ Oaw 2W zr
u12FWtm -n m =JOW ir0ar 0_rpJ fAsW El) Go mm LLm� r.JZO� L) >. 0°' J a� OEM omm ��
mr0rm aLL¢zm rJQqmr Wa= mmx FQ FI_w }a0>'W Wmw >QJJQmD ULU Y OW W W ~- �_ rF-
a>r?O j02Vjp Z¢ "'OZ mMO zLLr LL= Z�m za'JrQ Ha m >�JJWWLLa Jz L�LuJ Z(n tno mZL Ua wm
ZQWWUa mrmzm xWJmW WmU gOW Qm wmJ LL'a¢QL�NLY Swmr(namwai 00 S �z ZZ ZOm R'Q wm
a <mzx 0Lu z �'�(riiow mom Wdm >xH <T -< WWmad zapWXmmw Za
zozo QQ�OVQ w °F-wam 9r a i,- - MZ? a0m wwi- --mw 00 L) L)W
00 02LU WmL�y WW J6F.20 LYrm ZJW WOm Fr F- <03 JZ�pO =x qIt
Q¢vwitm - <� LU 0he z Opt. 0NO wUm 0 zmO Wm >mm gOO¢w0w<ww0 U-)
J L) W ZmJ co (7F-O_ Wrw m oxW
r?wZNZ >LrL a0,W0 OQaaV5 *0H o>zo ��w i5go xaa¢= ao W`2Iw-Q7mO mco
ma 030 wozF-o wMazO ZwL" �waZ �zm omu z-ja12 OF¢�mgamapa a
LrnNOwZ¢ NOU)x -O mm¢aw Uz� a¢ =U VU> <m¢ ON >azWmJU2wmcOr <w
g¢mLLOm wUO�r =W� OF-
w wLL2 OwzO Wzx 00 W00Jo 00awoo-owx wZ
aF m0rm ='000 m?JW �OO z2_N 08(11 Z¢zw ¢oaJ rJzm¢ZW J(Q o0
uwiwWwwi. -i _,F -, <U < V))wa BOO ��Oz 00� 9�Fo N <wQpO wzFmp �¢w a
rmm00tn xOZOU) W5- r- O NwW p�W P zWw wWQO %H-H WO >m =W UZZm ZV ui
LL =WOW- m OUO ¢mOUtn ¢rp Z jW Om� ZW< J�Lmm wZWmmm¢amw OLL ww-ow Zw *ox= °rFa¢om w�w(rna oaz go o zUZ oQZ IZzpwo zozwvpiQmQcaiPdoi 80
m Z u< WW�2marQ <nz -zw F-Um W:J r-Mw 0-2 W WWa 0 ULL mWQmZ Z<aZW L+JZWZ m�
ZWa¢OW mO�wQZ jzzx0 wOL 3 wmmw MFLlOJ fm -OZOJ wQwjJ Oaz <W�z¢UO vrjm
JJzUa x -zrc9 aaorm >Jr�L xrJr r ma¢¢ U� ¢ �- 'aJ� ZO
<n Wa0O ¢ Zoo -zu) 0mapa. w¢ -m F Za¢ LWnZJ zaa> LzLmwwx 0 :)W =)WpZ F 0�
W xMxo- w oow¢ww mmz0 w >m0 IYOYO Ya ozww LL WW U) mpOprm Uz�w U$
~ arioZ�z� wwozOwrzOp Fx�woi FWFw Um� Uzra ram>o Lu¢O?¢ zZmoc� wI=
O 00,0,E xz W J� z w} LLx S` Q00 wg(n Jmw¢z JF maWO»z x
z F_V)UOUo r¢ m� ao� ¢ ?m 0m Qr ? Lli3U -a06 (nOmpa Qma�20LL.pa> r'n
N M
a Ln (o r m aL
z
_OW
F- � m m V) m m
D O O p O
F- Q� r r n n n
IQV � f=
J
Z �= a m �g
D
F
Woa
�_
�
�
wa
O
¢v
OFwW
W(n
?�m
m o
�QZ
az
oq�
aW
�
og
Omz
x
Jra
au�i<
air
v)IL
¢S`t=-
vr-io
S�N

SNOISIA3a
,�II7uml IPI�gq 609LZ VN11OUVO HLUON HO13'IVU J
31tl0 NOI1d1U3S30 WAS ✓� OZZ 3LIH8 OVOU SNUOi %IS IOSV Z
LLI� f ' tJNIlOMdO HlilON '.l1Nf100 MOlSNO 'S4Nt/lHOlil O O z $
�1�1 SISILN31OS •SU3NNVId SU33NION3 31lS NOIl` HOlS3U o z 3
VIOL AIlU' NOISSIWSf13 LWU3d Dorf 1OV UOi O3SIA3U 3 �1 ON 40 SSa\VI�� ? Z x 0 a
CtOL UtlW AVA13d 10dINO3 NOISOU3 UOi 031LIWSf1S 8 NISd9 2!`d39 W
11 _
ZtOZ AON NVId NOUVOILIW HLMA O3nlW00S V 3 m
:Q •J;
LU
Nl �: p zd a Z a
?r I-o w Fpz o w II I
J Z" J
D 0 0
.. i �•�� �� r, a o m r m z w m I
��� �too � g oo t w 6~ E a N F
w - W� g OJN J p r III— oI-
w p x rn O rn
a mw wF
r ¢ (A
LU g
I
o
2o (nw zOZo x ¢ O _
y m
W OOw mW w =U >,
wF - O r0 d > a JZLL 0 Nw W UOVOQ '9 I- 10 In W z w w=0 two Wu W
p w ¢OZ
LL O m 2= LL O W Z Z
LL a:900r0R - -
- - --I I I I
p¢O LL z
o aUZZsOx'U' O< � 1u s/n 2�Y W, > w 44n
S O F- a ui
OmwKF- p >QJF-CUx5;J
�� x
w z S U J
w J 2
ao- W Q
��z�wZWWWVOWw�00 Z r v a _I z °� Ww
ZYa�mYa'� 2 w F Oma Ztn ro x z 0 OZO O J
v����¢co�a�?�zWm��w F-N z - ¢ ¢ W to z ca)
WDXZz .n Qza OD:�z ° U F- �p LL LL U I I — zV_ w m
pHi -wmm raOU' aU-2 ON D z wZ G K a HmLU V 0
Z- N M V co n J p a r F go III Wtai SS z uj Q
�U FL Z5 III_ "Z
z w N�
0 rg I III -j
I.LI
>a
w
WW,L,LU
ZtnwZON
N _
p o ` asg c¢�zFUa
x p F W W
laip} >yz
Lu
\ oar o O a
W Q Q .Jm. W
\ $ $ w Oa¢ ?r~ it w0 z¢ww¢
\ to moo~ 00co wm w9 °SS�U"EO,owSLL
\ I� ¢ZtJi 0 O °p ' O0yU. coLL O X W
\ w N�z �a� ¢¢z z °?Oln °O¢pau�
la In w ¢ "6 c9a�
\\ I� g?> wmz Oof
U ao0 2 !-m
\
oUZ
r N <O
¢ �ar�.
-- -- a
UW' Wpm U0
i ° g0H m 0
a It z
a� w ULL19 aZ7 Z r W
"L m LL
z
a w0 �� w
N
w z> —y „J 1 -,s —,s _ LLLL off w z w w
w a0 Z z t z a~ ~ N O z m
a rl 0: LU ¢¢ LL 0 0
m w LU
U ¢ ¢ a 0Q w =� w o
ti W aw N rN gW Oa
Z x N Z Q U wo
v)n s� J Qw
5'--
aZ H OV ox UQ
C. a ` I 0w � O z w0 Om ~ v,
z 00 Y O° C-~Jo z w az a~
h x 0 z LL w
�Z U tWnZ oa °z oz C7=
a w w Inr 0o p o
v CL Uw O EL
Hw DW C V
CL M ~ z W Lu QZ U �a QQ= m b
w 0 ZJO x �Y Q~ ZO NU ya
z ~ wZO 2zI- Of ZU Mtn wW Jtil v
a
?1 n ZtgZ 7zW zQLLO POOZ x0 x ¢a S
O K WO Y fNN U Wa' >OGa Vwfn�a'Zg UWd a0 mz =O 0.
0 o m€ . T H wmLL Ur ¢w� pJ'p LLo w0 Vp
wi �o Naa z"Jw0'�'g�ap >¢ mp Qr v w
a0 W "L ¢ }J °zu�a wWr �DLLI xz aN ¢� IX
NN O0i N�� ¢ �QIaiLL O�fnJ�¢°. Z Owl H' I-0 ao
N wV boo \ O zOrn¢ppmiO- �x0 0� m9 aw
Z $� ��� 1 za�o03ao�¢r CM �2 or a�
w 0 yi IndxS $A I�WQx F -wO�2W WJ0 N r7 v
Z) L122 O �r1yJ00wx¢Wwaw
H �aW?ZO=z0LLLu
�(0r- 0Wz 0 Uawwg
fn r N

SNOISIA3d
t�. lE? "
liC�'A'�l 1
[jj� U t
609LZ VNIIOUVO H1HON H0131"
OZZ 31U1S OV021 SN2tOd %IS L09V
S1SI1N310S•St13NNMd•Stl33NI0N3
ON to 5 sy
\nn, Y
1✓
bNllOifbO H1210N'.11Nf100MO1SN0'SONVIHORI
311S NOIld2101S321
NISVG 21438
Q °
3
J
z0
O
OZg
wU
°
o
m
W
2
m
3Ltl0
NOIlAN7S30
1YAS
9tOZAlM
N0ISS1YI9ns.UAN3d WOW I LOW N0303SIA3M
O
CLOZNVW
11141J3dlON1NOON01SON3LOd031LW90S
9
2t02 AON
NtlId NOLLVOLLIW H14N 03111W9(1S
d
U
Q
rn
z T
��,
,,�
�••
I • :�� {1Y
/,' •
.•
,I
o
r
W m
O N
W W
11
4
,�
• °
W
z
W
Q
��� 1► X•W=
�V
•.
o
i�o
1- I
W
CD
�•y
:
ut Qtr
uj
V
•,�
4►►t�,•
z > >
a
0
tlt��
Wham
z 1 11)
N
SOW
��a�
°a
0
1 mc�
0
?
o,.toa
�m
W
U
W <zo
Yda
mU W V`n
a
a? m �
CL a
U
W
O
a
a
w `nO <aO
N
O 1 n
aO
3 oa
x +`n
I
P-11
,
Gam" G�
Z U Y
/
'(O 0
Z K m
W Q z O
y a a
e
&S
i
t
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
_
w¢"�mm
���•�
- �^ooa^o
3 a I o ,n
$
T I •- Lo
a a
Jt7
tu tu
�Zoa
z
N
UM
N
OLj
Q�wVM
<
Q
to
U
U
,za: M
W
z� m
5t`aao
N
N
3aao

SNOISMS T T °
�l�il��a7� 1E?t tI e091z VN11016VO H1'60N H9131Vtl u
3LVa Noudr�OS3o wAS w O l ozz 311ns avoa sxtlod x1s Lo9v VNIIO2JVO H12lON '.UNf10O MOISNO 'SONVIHOIN zJ
oo a
+�" 61SI1N310S •SM3NNV'1d•S2i33NION3 ' to c
_ 31lS NOIIVUO1S3b
010Z klnf NOISSIWenS ilft3d POP 110>tl0303SIA3tl O —�' NISVO 2JV38 WO a
U W
EtOi tlVW 11Wtl3d lOLi1N00 NOIS083 NO3 03uIWenS e
� N
Z OZ AON NYM NOLiVOLLIW Ram O3ulwens v
of,, 'f" s
=v• z -. <= _
=2
:s f
r6; .�► `'.��?: ENT ,.
'�,��� •.. ..• II►Py�`��; SERVP�I�ON�eASE_M�r
Ow
J ZJ UJ
to
V�NL, t rn
W V
1 1
t I
dP
a
Ln
N
M
tt�l m�ul
`tkl
w ¢ sg
� ,N
� Pltpt a� I r� � 1 11A
�h'Ptl rq
IItI ��� \ t►tt4ttl i � �
i 4P4h N q
�Md
All �Ip
r 0��
ii'A t� AO�
LLI
Ila
4 Iri P��tli \`t rir
1
LU
Z \r� t�
a
j
0 44i
t �
O\� 0ut
s / l I
\� P��;t L\
P hl I � 1 1 �rr0 / rriy
�1A
/n 4r r r�r
�thh � A'di ' rr r0
�V1 r �rrq rii
Plh , rii /
y�Plr�r / Q w
�Q>
o r ri
(w 0
/ Wa
>d
/ WOQ
m
z �m¢�
yy�;r / 0 r-WO DaQZ
(7
a.
r x
uz0� �(7�w
w
�� w(nw�
N W U. O L.L. w }
ZUZCO