20021143 Ver 1_Complete File_20010201

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

PROSPECTUS

RICH FORK MITIGATION BANK

Davidson County, North Carolina

Prepared by: KCI Associates of North Carolina
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609

February 2001

- ~~CI
--A.
-=-=

. -.
\. ~ r"--

\SSfM'IATfS OF \lORnl {'AROLlN:\.. P.'

AK> CONSlIUCTION. NC

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Prospectus describes the proposed actions for establishment of the Rich Fork
Mitigation Bank (RFMB) for offsetting unavoidable wetland losses associated with
projects requiring Clean Water Act, Section 404 dredge and fill permits within the
proposed service area.

2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

. Bank Sponsor Identification
The sponsor of RFMB is Environmental Technologies and Construction, Inc. (ETC), a
wholly-owned subsidiary ofKCI Associates ofNC, Inc., which is a subsidiary ofKCI
Technologies, Inc., a full-service engineering, planning, and environmental services
consulting firm. KCI Associates is registered with the Office of the Secretary of State as
well as the N.C. Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (C-0764). ETC is
registered with the Office of the Secretary of State and is a N.C. Licensed General
Contractor (#41336), specializing in environmental restoration.

. Type of Bank
The RFMB will furnish both riverine wetland and stream mitigation credits.

. Commercial or Single Client Bank
The RFMB will function as a single client bank, to the N.C. Department of
Transportation.

. Real Estate Interests Held Currently
ETC is in final negotiations for purchasing a conservation easement on the RFMB
property. A copy of the conservation easement to be used for this transaction is in
Appendix A.

. Cost Assurances
Perfornlance Bond: Contract performance bonds and maintenance performance bonds
will be established for the amount of contract value. The outstanding amount of the
'bonds will depreciate in proportion to the amount of the contract remaining, based on
the submitted schedule of costs. The bonds will be provided by HMS in a form
acceptable to the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

Deed of Trust: RTI will execute a North Carolina Deed of Trust with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation as beneficiary on all lands/rights purchased
for the project. The Deed of Trust will remain in effect until all mitigation
requirements are satisfied.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The RFMB is located in the Piedmont physiographic region, Yadkin River basin,
HUCODE 03040103, NC Division of Water Quality sub-basin 03-07-07 (Abbotts Creek),
NC Wetland Restoration Program priority hydrologic unit 3 (Rich Fork drainage) (Figure
1).

The RFMB is located just downstream of SR 109 on the west bank of Rich Fork, a
tributary to Abbotts Creek, west southwest of High Point, in Davidson County (Figure
2). The site occupies approximately 26.9 acres. It is composed of two land tracts, the
Bodenhiemer tract (14.57 acres) and the Parker tract (12.33 acres) (Figure 3). At its most
downstream point, the site drains a watershed of 16,724 acres and is located in the 2, 10
and 1 OO-year floodplain.

High Point Westside WWTP discharges 6.2 MOD into Rich Fork Creek. A TMDL limit
has been set for Rich Fork at its present level. Rich Fork has a use support rating of
"Partially Supporting" in the Draft 2000 S 303( d) list. High turbidity and elevated
concentrations of iron, copper, N02-N03 and fecal coliform have been documented in
Rich Fork, indicating nonpoint source runoff as a problem (NCDWQ 1998).

Approximately 80 % of the site has been cleared, ditched and drained for agricultural use,
and -20% adjacent to the creek, is forested. Its position in the watershed is characteristic
of Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland forests which are present in undisturbed floodplain
areas adjacent and landward ofPiedmontIMountain Levee Forests (Schafale and Weakley
1990). The hydrology of the site has been altered by a network of ditches that drain
groundwater and surface water inputs from the agricultural fields and the adjacent
uplands into Rich Fork.

Watershed size is approximately 16,724 acres at the downstream limits of the site. This
includes urban (2,677 ac.), forest (10,157 ac.) and agricultural (3,790 ac.) land uses. The
City of High Point west of SR 311 accounts for the majority of the non-point source
loading into Rich Fork Creek. In addition, numerous point source discharges enter it
from industries and High Point Wests ide WWTP (1 mile upstream of site).

2.1 Hydrology

The site's hydrology and hydraulics reflect those characteristically found in Piedmont
riparian zones. The site is in the two-year floodplain and is inundated by flows from Rich
Fork 2 to 3 times a year, according to the current property owners. Additional hydrologic
influence is provided by precipitation and inflow from two streams, which enter the site
from the west.

Three principal groundwater seep or discharge zones can be identified. The first seep
zone is located at the toe of the upland slopes to the west, the second discharges along the
northwestern edge of the site and the third is adjacent to the northern property line.

2

I' J
I
I
I
I
I
I
"1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I

I AMOCIAI>.5... NOIUM CAW....... ^

I

....,..

:\
d\
D'\S~
;\~~
1

~.

1 1J

. ,

I

v

_...J I
V::: ....
~-Y
~. \ 'j;
.t~ t\
,-I
!II . _..i,'Oj
: .~. ~
.' >~ .,' 1,
" II
.". l .,""!":'"ft"

r-J
!)::J
elf ='\
'(2) T
I I~
I'

[I\=~ ~
~ '3)) ~t\1f,~
1-"\.. I 'M. J '77. ~ i'
" ~' ,~/.,~~J:) ~~ ~ I
( 8'~ ~ !'"'~V I ,I ~

~'<. ~ ~~ ~ ,I fi~
~',J ~1.Xf<X< ) ~)V~J
.(.u-, ~ r2-J( \. ~ ~ ~ ~
~~""1 SITE 7 ~' ~d:;. ,
~~~Yllr~~;--c,b~~ NC 109
~~~~ " ~;~, ~ I
~ ,!~" /-f 'C~ 1!~ T
1\\ 'x \ d ~ > Z-,..:.;-f I- .we ij.
(,/1 ~'17)\ b.~)": .J~ VIJ<., (\ I I(r,.'-
{; ~ BUSINESS 1-85 \~ \. . p
i\J \\1 ~ ~T\ J=lr4 \~....;- \Ii;:'" '\ r-Ji
~~~'.'~f:~ I~p~ n~~ . . .' ~
~ ,.. r -tfL>I71.~' ~~ .,' to'''::'',"
~ ~~'';;~ ~.~ '" 'l~'.;_" 'I
~~f '" b~~~~~~=,-': ' ~. :" 'I,U:;;' '
:' ..r " ~II ~ If r"L. ~~ K:::: . " ~.Iirti~~~v '
'~J10-- ~ J." .', (, .... ~
~: "'\ \-"... ";'.
'} 'r:.~~ 1-- ?-' .. "
/~ '" ~Vb.t<;\-" , !,
- ~;~~~ 1

~c.,,~_....... [......
.....- . " I

. ." ';;(f~
"r-:~.
~hJ...
RICH FORK MITIGATION BANK~ II I 0
FIGURE 1: REGIONAL WATERSHED I I North
NOT TO SCALE
. Yadkin River Basin I- Roads I
o USGS Hydrologic Unit 030401 03 - Rivers and Streams
o DWQ Sub-basin 03-07-07
- prlQ~rlty HYdr?loglc Unit 1! 3
- Co nty Boundaries
, I

;<: '
.,'1 l~~

. X;c

v

J(
~KCI

Resource
Technologies, "
Inc. .......'

.-
E~1AL TIlCtHJU)8IU
NC) COfnlUCIK>>f.1Hc

- -

---

I
I

'I
I

I '

I,

~ j 1

a. I
~.

-

I,
I
I
I
I
II
I'
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I

Resource

I If ~:C~hnologles, "
I~Ka .

I

,usOClAtuOl' ~OkJHC.u.outl^.rA

--

RICH FORK MITIGATION BANK I I I
FIGURE 3: SITE PROPERTY AND MITIGATION ~REA BOUNDARIES
I I
I

PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
RICH FORK
D BODENHEIMER TRACT
I
PARKER TRACT
I

-

~T~~EIO

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

High groundwater has- historically been reported for the site and occurs seasonally at or
near the surface in the surrounding natural areas.

Three surface water inputs contribute to the site. The dominant surface water input is
provided by Rich Fork Creek. The site is in the floodplain and is inundated under natural
conditions by discharges exceeding 953 cfs. This data corresponds well with rural
Piedmont regional curves for bankfull discharge. The landowner has indicated that
flooding is occurring with increasing frequency and currently occurs 2 to 3 times per
year. Rural and urban regression analyses identified discharges of 1373 cfs and 2925 cfs,
respectively, for the 2 and 10 year storm events.

Secondary hydrologic support enters the site from two drainages to the west (Figure 4).
These areas contribute approximately 216 acres of drainage. The northern drainage
supports an apparent perennial stream and the southern drainage supports an apparent
intermittent stream.

Both groundwater and surface water influences are removed from the property via the
lateral drains and ditches at rates higher than input. Two series of ditch net\vorks drain
the site (Figure 5). Both networks discharge into Rich Fork at the southern end of the
site. They jointly have the capacity to discharge surface and subsurface water at 32 cfs.
These ditches depress groundwater elevations by providing a discharge path, limiting
groundwater influence on the site. They also decrease the extent and duration of
flooding. Under the current conditions, lateral drains and the ditching of the stream
channel have effectively altered the hydrology of the site, decreasing the time of
concentration and the amount of water available for soil saturation. The ditching system
outlet also provides an artificial break in the natural stream levee and speeds drainage of
the site during overbank flooding events.

2.2 Soils:

The soils onsite have been investigated and the different series and their extent have been
determined using data gathered in the field and the Davidson County Soil Survey. Two
soil series occur onsite, Chewacla (which is the only soil mapped in the project area by
the. NRCS) and Congaree. Both these series are alluvial, commonly found in the
floodplain. Under natural conditions, flooding is frequent. During the field investigation,
seasonal ponding of water in low areas across the site during wet weather was noted.

Congaree soil is found along the levee adjacent to Rich Fork Creek. This series consists
of very deep, well drained and moderately \vell drained, moderately permeable soils
formed from recent alluvium. Due to its loamy texture, the Congaree soil situated in the
levee position can drain quickly. However, drainage and permeability decrease with
distance from the creek and levee. The water table rises during wet weather.

Chewacla soil occupies the remaining portions of the site that occur in a slightly lower
landscape position, farther from the creek. The Chewacla soils contain more clay than

6

1 '11

11??.~.~'t~.~'1(~~~.~~~~. '. ~l...(J.,..l} I.t~(~?f- ;~. itf:. ~/' ,{-J..li.' ~rF'..~.1t~.,..j;tJ:\.I~. ..... J.....~...
J7.} (~\~~)~~J~.\~'~..~I~.()~I.I~' :'~~'1 " ~ ~}VI; I ~~~.'~ S ~,. J J('I~ 1",}:;"J.'."':..'~i ~... 'I-JI.,~n_G:/J...'.."~ .....
I ~~~~~~ll.~ 'W()' 0 .~\ ~ ':~~ r~~ !Il<~~~ f-+ ~ ~~-~. '!1 '.:.~.~
;~~~~~:~ ~,~~~Srf . "Il~~ <X ~. ~ f \[~ tJ1hRJi.~~
I ~~~~gT' ?)o')~ "v. - I' ~/ ~ /, / ~~, <:,~.()ij .~,':71' ,,_" ~~. '::.jj~}I
~,:y,~~ '.7' r .,'t - ';-"~"~~! \ ~~14'~' ),t~.~~--:~.~;l{'~ ' .
I "~-".0.IW)))\~ I ~ry~41). tM~~.~~~;. j."~' . ~'''~~i~~~f
. ~\.I J' ." >> [#If-;~ '\ I (~~~/S~ '.k ;:-,.'..1...:1':.... i\...~ 47:,1:.'( 'I. ~ .~.'.:t ..~~~"~....,/II.lj)..f'
\ I I. .' 'E \ '\: :,\" \,,~ '.S_lr" l, ~\ ! ~ I.~' . JJ ',.ilV ,.ti~~, rr
~. ~ .~' '1,,; . . '....... ~. ..JI() .} ~~, ".\M}). _, I\!, '.vl.. (.r/(,. ~~' -. ~ \ ~1 .. . 1'.. ,,~(. "'''.,1 I
,J\W (j~ ''-=._ ~~. I{fl ), '1.~ ~ "( II" ,II fl . . II,.. 1
I .;t... ~' ... ..., .. II,itl J. - ;..; ,d}.ll! ( :'~ l ;,!./j, ( . . I~.. h J
~;f(~ .., . ~I~ ~ ~'1.' ~ .~. I~' -"'R." .~. ,b . I' 111, - , '..;t. . ?
I ~>>r'. ~("f"~.r.'- 'I ~\<. ~.... ~ ~ / ~: ~ ~ 5 Tin ~.il '.'t~.~.. f\g"\\'~ ,::-.~..~"'.\'.\1~:...1 )il,...~..J....' i.r~ 9f..~f.U ~:. i~. ~:?".o:~;~~J.~(. 'B. If..,.
"f/ Cl'e ~ ~~. ~ .r:=~,,~. ~~<< ~r^I!j;~d ~:') !~ _ " ~ 'r:"~y./~ .~'>:.~~ ~~" f, ii~':.
~~ -...,\ ~ Ill; ~., ;?;_L.:S\~ J.' ~"i(firi\~' :'~..~ .) I /I ,( : ~ . 1 ".~ '*'~
~'1 ~L . '\ '".~ "-. ~r~nJ ~~~~t.~~, ',~~~. 1 7( ?<' I - I ~ 'ff)~
f;--~ ~'~c'0\~l\, 7{. 'I~~ ),~~ I~. ~~t.~~:. (rf :~; J '-'?'\ \\,~'i11;., I,. 1,( &{(IJ
I
I ' ~~~ r~~A&\\l ~r' ~ 1?J. 1 {\ (f~~ ';~~',~t~. '~:-~~ :.. '<.' J r I vi
~.)~~ ~~;) ~11~~..: \:~'I ~l ~.; k~~~, i~'l \~ ~~~~/~}~
I :~~~"~;;-~I ~.)'-;\\S{;, -- ~~;'" ,;; ':i:'~.~.... '\ v '.II....~l~~((~(4~~.Il.. d'....>.1~. [(;(~.; (~ ~
/ h'''rff& " 7(rrf~\''j~'-!i.- I" i\: . <:l. .., .~. >)>))..... . .")1JY~i7~ ' '-'~~~'...s:' rt" ~'i:~
.' I'l!([(~~~~~); .," ~~f~(;'~' ~ .~--~ . :..", ~.', " '. ,~\Iw.,~~~~i'~ r~ :~\~ ;/#~~r~I~:~:q!
11~.-:-~.~~-LLmIU~.~r-;: ~~ . ~ ~~"'n7 ~~"'. ", .' "~.~' ~~7~ ~d '\\~]I r~~~~~~ .~j~III~.--r..(...~./I/<;;...(.~.I'~
" ~, w~J..:# ,J .. ~'\\ (I'. '---. ' .l\.t,'~ -.~j'-;) {Sew ew~i~~1 ".' 'Iii ""/-~'f ~
,-;::S'0:~'~ ~ ~'G;r:;;-: ~i'~- (~(I~ 09. ]) ~ 4. ~;.. J) . ""=. -"\."-}r;"" "". 0." "'1\!4 ~-~ ~~~ ~ /'1,(/:1,7_;
'~~(I . "R-7o'f. ' , , ,'" 'l> ~. we' .... \"".... \." (.
I (~r~ .} ,# ~~ t~3 <~l:i')~"..)~117~ l\"r ~ '- -~. -- - tj< \\\=
I~~ ~((U~ .\' ~a. '.~J\( ~(r!JI~ ~i_~~ ~ ': ,<.~ ~,/'7~,~N~ ))~I~' ~~~~~~['~~~,JQ. ~ell ~te~
I ftf',~ .' ~~~. .:r\!. ~ . .-~~ 1j1)Jff~J >. '!.,l.~l fi .,- . '.:'- '\S '...i~ · ;)jm.~....) J~, R~(..~~1) <~~ :_, ~
tl! \ l _. 'I ~ .If/('J)jl""i:, ~ . -,' .J 41....' \l\\~' '-. . ~::ri) ... \~-' I. V~ ~
~ Ir;" ~(" ~f);">" ~l~ .... CO ',(( (..~ ~~ '\'~\:~I.~"" ~., ' If'.
~ ~I~:\ '..I ~.,,\.~.' "'~'~~f~ ~ ',j ~r" '. -.-,:ti( (~. ~\~\~~l~~, .' ':,_.~~, .(4-
I ~~\'JJ \~,~ '~~~~." . /~~\~j:r \\1t~_. ~~~ ,{ftl~ (,
It.-(.(CG~~ b"t _ ~:; "~.:'it .. I ~l '\ ~~(\l~.~' l~...~. ;JnJt~~~-. ~~'~1~
11~f)~ ~ ~~')~1(=~>~ .., .- (p J.. Ii!~ '.'-_ '1' ,1.;.~ft,[{m.'I!},..'t Il\~. ~""-.I.')J!.",\t
11);.'- . .:711~ '\J,~ " . ~~ ~.oi:,'jr; / ,,-~/'f ~. j...7.: . '-Mil.. !. ~_ ~ l'I.' '\1 \(\ II
C:-"\.. 'U ii'fJ': ~.~. , ~J., . ~~ 7io/&.I.L\.::~:-"~/ ,~...... -,}- . .\\. "ill ,I <<.~
I ~~l~~b~ ')f~:~~~r:~li~,(~
I
Resource RICH FORK MITIGATION BAN~ I North 0
If ~-:,h",I""~ '\\ FIGURE 4: SECONDARY HYDROlOGICjl.i~UTS itOTlOSCAl<

I ~~KCI _ ---- SITE BOUNDARY
I E~ TIOtNCWOlII
, _C_.IHC.

I

--

~~

D SECONDARY INPUT DRAINAGE
D SECONDARY INPUT DRAINAGJ!!
J : I I I I
I I
I II
I I
. ~, I...

ASSOC1AlU O. NOkIH C\k<l.lNA, FA

-

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I r !::hnOlogles, ~
I ~KCI .
I

Resource

ASSOClAlUOfNOOltCAJ.(UNA. I"A

........... -
- ---

RICH FORK MITIGATION BAN~'
FIGURE 5: SITE HYDROLOGY I

RICH FORK ~ SEEP
-...- INTERMITTENT STREAMS
=i= DRAINAGE DITCH (DIRECTION <D,F.IFLOWI
1- _I Sl~ BOUNDARY II,

North 0
NOT TO SCALE

: I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
;
M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

the Congaree soils, have lower chroma and contain common and distinct mottles
throughout the B and lower horizons, and often in the A horizon. Despite drainage and
regular plowing, field investigations indicate relict hydric features, i.e. mottling and
concretions, within 12-14" (the plow layer zone) of the surface over a high percentage of
the site.

Table 1: Summary of soil series mapping units within
Rieh Fork Mitigation Banli, Davidson Co., NC
Map Soil Series Soil Subgroup Hydric Depth & Estimated
Symbol Status 1 Duration of Extent
High \Vater
Table2
Ch Chewacla Fluvaquentic Hydric 0.5' to 1.5' 63%
loam Dystrochrepts (Nov. - April)
Co Congaree Typic Non-Hydric 2.5' -4.0 37%
loam Udifluvents (Nov. - April)

I Hydric soil list for North Carolina 2 Based on soil taxonomy for undrained condition

The current owners of the site have related that the site floods often, 2-3 times per year.
Additionally, the fields are too wet to plow in 3 out of 5 years, and in the years when
plaqting is accomplished, crops are often still lost to flooding. The physical soil
characteristics and the high frequency of overbank flooding suggest that the hydroperiod
of the site before clearing has been substantially shortened by the network of ditches
constructed for agricultural conversion.

2.3 Existillg Plallt Commullities:

The site is predominantly in active agricultural use with two small remnant communities
of Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest and Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
(Schafele and Weakley 1990). A schematic of the present plant community condition is
in Figure 6.

Piedmont Levee Forests occupy a band of varying width adjacent to Rich Fork. Woody
speCies of the canopy include Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash), Platanus occidentalis
(sycamore), Betula nigra (river birch), Celtis occidentalis (hackberry), Asimina triloba
(pawpaw), Juglans nigra (black walnut), Liquidambar styracijlua (sweet gum), Acer
rubrum (red maple), and Quercus falcata (southem red oak). The midstory includes Acer
negundo (boxelder) and Acer rubrum (red maple). The understory includes vines and
herbs such as Smilax: sp. (greenbriar), and Toxicodendron radicans (poison ivy).

Piedmont Bottomland Forest occurs on the floodplain of Rich Fork. Woody species of
the canopy include Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash), Platanus occidentalis
(sycamore), Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum), Liriodendron tulipifera (yellow

9

i\.UOClAM fll NOOH CAlOUNA. r.A

---

RICH FORK MITIGATION SITE' II
FIGURE 6: EXISTING PLANT COMMUNITIES

~ :~~I~~L~:RE II
. piEDMONT / MOUNTAIN LEVEE ~ I REST
1- ...! flTE BOUINDtRY : I

-
- . - ------

I I

'II

~T~U~E 0

I
II

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

poplar), Acer rubrum. (red maple). The midstory includes Acer negzmdo (boxelder),
Carpinus caroliniana (ironwood), Comus jlorida (flowering dogwood) and flex opaca
(American holly). The understory includes vines and herbs such as Smilax sp.
(greenbriar), and Toxicodendron radicans (poison ivy).

Table 2: Summary existing plant communities ~lt RFMB, Davidson Co., NC
Plant community Estimated Restoration HGM
description 1 area activity type 2
Piedmont Levee Forest 7.21 ac preservation Riverine
Converted Piedmont 19.69 ac restoration Riverine
Bottomland Forest

1 follows Schafale and Weakley (1990); 2follows Brinson (1993)

2.4 Ecological Processes ami FUllctiolls:

A variety of ecological processes and functions can be attributed to the Piedmont Levee
and Bottomland Hardwood forest which once occupied the proposed RFMB site and
which will eventually be restored with this project. These functions are directly related to
the geomorphic/landscape setting and hydrologic attributes of the wetland types (Brinson,
1993). Brinson et a1. (1995) describe riverine wetland processes and functions in their
guiqebook for applying HGM assessments to riverine wetlands. They describe riverine
wetlands as occurring in floodplains and riparian corridors in association with stream
channels. Dominant water sources are overbank flow from the channel or subsurface
hydraulic connections between the stream channel and wetlands. Additional water
sources may be interflow and return flow from adjacent uplands, occasional overland
flow from adjacent uplands, tributary flow, and precipitation. When overbank flow
occurs, surface flows down the floodplain may dominate hydrodynamics. At their
headwater-most extent, riverine wetlands often intergrade with slope or depressional
wetlands as the channel (bed) and bank disappear, or they may intergrade with poorly
drained flats or uplands. Perennial flow is not required. Riverine wetlands lose surface
water via the return of floodwater to the channel after flooding and through saturation
surface flow to the channel during rainfall events. They lose subsurface water by
discharge to the channel, movement to deeper groundwater (for losing streams), and
evapotranspiration.' Bottomland hardwood floodplains are a common example of riverine
wetlands.

The clearing. draining and conversion to agriculture of the RFAlB site has altered its
natural wetland ecological fil11ction and diminished its capacity for natural biological
productivity, biogeochemical cycling. nutrient cycling, and lrater quality enhancement.
In its present state the site is only fulfilling a small part of its potential and historical
wetlandfimclional role on the landscape.

11

fi1
EtJ
e
8
II.:.....
lit
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I

2.5 FllIlctio/lal Uplift of the Proposed Project:

The wetland mitigation activities associated with the proposed RFMB will result in
substantial enhancement of the existing water quality and habitat functions onsite.
Elimination of channelized flow from agricultural ditches to Rich Fork Creek will
drastically reduce nutrient, pesticide and sediment runoff from the site and improve water
quality downstream. The proposed ditch plugging and filling will result in increased
short-term surface and subsurface water storage and subsequent increase in the duration
and elevation of the seasonally high water table. The increased retention time of surface
and subsurface water will result in reduced peak flows and augmented base flow to Rich
Fork Creek. Increased retention time will also facilitate a variety of biogeochemical
transformations such as denitrification and dissolved organic carbon export. Reduced
nitrogen export and increased carbon export will benefit downstream aquatic habitat areas
in Rich Fork Creek and the Yadkin River.

Converting the agricultural fields back to a natural vegetative species composition will
improve the feeding, shelter and breeding habitat for many indigenous and migrant faunal
species. The riverine nature of the restored wetlands will also augment wildlife corridors
between existing habitat islands.

3.0 MITIGATION

TheBection 404 (b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act (16 USC 1344), as described in 40
CFR Part 230, state that unavoidable wetland loss resulting from filling activities may be
offset by effective mitigation actions. According to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEP A) of 1969, mitigation actions should include avoidance, minimization, restoration,
enhancement and compensation for unavoidable impacts. After all practical attempts to
avoid and minimize wetland losses have been accomplished, compensatory mitigation in any
of the forms (i.e. wetland creation, restoration, enhancement, and/or preservation) should be
developed.

As identified in the Memorandum of Agreement between the USACE and USEP A
(November 15, 1989), wetland restoration is the most desirable form of mitigation. Creation
is the second most desirable form, and is generally deemed more desirable than enhancement
or preservation of wetlands. Acquisition of existing wetlands (preservation) is favored for
corridor protection and as a means to hedge against future destruction or unfavorable habitat
impacts. Ideally, compensatory mitigation should be in-kind and on-site to provide for
functional replacement. Wetland areas at or adjacent to project sites have historically been
created, restored, enhanced or protected to compensate for impacted wetland functions and
values. However, in areas with significant long-term development pressures, the quantity
and quality of the wetlands that can be successfully restored and/or created around the
periphery of a wetland impact site may be limited. Therefore, off-site mitigation may be the
best alternative.

12

8
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
B
I

3.1 Proposed Actiolls:, .

Both restoration and preservation mitigation credits will be generated in the RFMB. 92%
of the cleared and drained agricultural areas (19.7 acres) will be restored to Piedmont
bottomland forest. The existing riparian forest (5.45 acres) will be preserved as Piedmont
levee forest, and the remaining 8% of the cleared agricultural area (1.764 acres) will be
revegetated and converted to Piedmont levee forest, and combined with the preservation
levee forest acreage. The drained agricultural areas will be restored to Piedmont
bottomland forest by filling ditches, moving and/or removing the upper 6-12 inches of
soil to create microtopography across the site, and planting an appropriate mix of
bottomland hardwood tree species.

The unnamed tributary to Rich Fork Creek that flows south then east across the northern
portion of the Parker tract will be restored by returning it to a stable dimension, pattern
and profile. A schematic drawing of proposed restoration types and areas is included in
Figure 7.

3.1.1 Hydrology

The first step in restoring hydrology will be to demonstrate that under the 1987 Corps
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) that criteria for soil saturation, e.g. soils
saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for 5% or more of the growing season in most
years have been achieved. A water budget will be prepared to help quantify the
hydrologic characteristics of the site. In addition, automatic recording wells were
strategically placed across the site to collect groundwater data in January of 200 1.
According to the WETS data for Davidson County, the growing season(50% probability,
280 F) is from March 24-November 6 or 228 days. Since the RFMB occupies a Piedmont
riparian bottomland site which is a seasonal wetland, we propose using an 8% time period
for determining the number of consecutive days of saturation or inundation to within 12
inches of the surface. The required duration of continual high water table would then be
18 days. We feel 8% is appropriate for these wetland types and will use reference data
from just upstream to help quantify the hydroperiod length of similar wetlands nearby.

All.monitoring wells (6 total) have been installed according to guidelines outlined by the
US Army Corps, Waterways Experiment Station (WRP, 1993). Well data will be used
to document hydrologic restoration within the drained agricultural field areas.

3.1.2 Soils

Project success is dependent on the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology
within restoration areas. Approximately 92% of the agriculturally active area onsite is
occupied by Chewacla soils (Table 1) that have been effectively drained.

13

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Resource
,/ Technologies, '\..

I 'f Inc. "
I :::~"Kg .
I

--

--

RICH FORK MITIGATION SITE III North 0
FIGURE 7: MITIGATION TYPE AND EXTENJ) NO; 10 SCAlE
-1 UI I
- RICH FORK I SITE BOUNIDARY - STREAM RESTORATION
[---1 - 'II I
PIEDMONT / MOUNTAIN BOTTO~N~.ND FOREST - RESTORATION
. PIEDMONT / MOUNTAIN LEVEE. <DREST - PRESERVATbN
. PI'EDMONT / MOUNTAIN LEVEEYREST - PRESERVATJ6'N :
I I : ,II I, I'll I

..---..

o
ill
o
o
n
f.j
ill
B
9
o
rJ
EJ
D:'
':'.:
~.

o
~
R
U
IJ
fJ
U

~
f1
fJ
m

The past agricultural practices on the site have left the soil with elevated phosphorus
concentrations, which is good for woody vegetation reestablishment but also is conducive
to herbaceous weed growth and competition for nutrients and sunlight. This competition
can have an adverse effect on tree seedling survival. Application(s) of herbicide may be
needed to control herbaceous competition in the first growing season. Slow-release
fertilizer packets may also be used to increase seedling growth in the first two growing
seasons.

Our detailed restoration plan will be compatible with long-term objectives of improving
water quality by sequestering nitrogen and phosphorus on-site, discontinuing their
application in the future, and greatly reducing the amount of sediment that is allowed to
reach Rich Fork from onsite.

Another important element in the restoration process will be the creation of
microtopography across the entire site to enhance the retention of surface water and
precipitation and to provide proper slope for stream restoration. The upper layer of soil
will be manipulated to create the desired relief, so that the net variance from existing
conditions will be no more than 6 inches. This activity will not adversely affect soil
fertility since the soil has been plowed and homogenized in the upper 12-15 inches for
many decades.

3.1.3 Proposed Plallt Commullities:

The RFMB will be designed to restore Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood vegetation and
preserve and restore Piedmont Levee Forest vegetation.

The proposed species list and species composition will be determined using the remnant
forest onsite, the reference area, and by using the information contained in Schafale and
Weakley (1990).

Reference plots for the representative community types will be established within relatively
undisturbed examples of these natural communities identified in the area. The plant
community composition and hydro geomorphic target conditions for wetland restoration will
be ~hose of the undisturbed reference wetland types, or as close an approximation of those
conditions as possible.

3.1.... Stream Restoratioll:

An unnamed tributary to Rich Fork Creek enters the mitigation property at the northern
boundary (it is designated as an intermittent stream on the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle, but
maintains a constant year-round flow, indicating perennial status). It has been ditched,
channelized and redirected across the northern part of the mitigation site to enter Rich Fork
Creek on the eastern boundary of the site. This stream will be redirected, with the appropriate
pattern, profile and dimension, so that is flows southward across the site and into Rich Fork
Creek from the southern part of the site.

15

QI
w
m

m

m
(ft.;.
Ii)
m.~..:.
EJ
1ft.:
EJ
~

m

m...::i.......
' l~
?

iii..'
w
1ft....
[J

iJ.'.......

ID
ttl......
B
ID
ID
~}.
,.,,:'
-'.~

~
~

The intent of stream restoration efforts will be to recreate near-historical stream features,
using fluvial geomorphological principles and bioengineering measures, that are
integrated with and conducive to supporting the proposed wetlands restoration efforts.

The stream restoration efforts will:
. Establish stream geometry and instream flow characteristics that best support
proposed wetland and corresponding wildlife habitat diversity restoration efforts.
. Enhance overbank flooding frequency.
. Reestablish water table levels closer to their pre-disturbance kvels.
. Enhance water quality by reducing bank erosion potential, promoting nutrient
removal and maintaining efficient sediment transport.

....0 CREDITS

....1 Wetlawl ilfitigation:

Wetland mitigation credits will be generated within the RFMB through restoration of
agricultural fields and preservation of existing forested areas. The Federal Guidance for
the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (Federal Register, 1995)
defines wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation as follows:

Restoration - Re-establishment of previously existing wetland or other aquatic resource
character and function(s) at a site where they have ceased to exist or exist only in a
substantially degraded state.

Enhancement - Activities conducted in existing wetlands or other aquatic resources to
achieve specific management objectives or provide conditions which previously did not
exist, and which increase one or more aquatic functions.

Preservation - The protection of ecologically important wetlands or other aquatic
resources in perpetuity through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical
mechanisms.

The proposed wetland restoration within the RFMB consists of 19.69 acres of agricultural
fields that are currently non-wetlands. Based on existing relict hydric soils and
examination of forest areas adjacent to these fields, it is presumed that all 19.69 acres
v,'ere jurisdictional wetlands prior to conversion. Our proposed actions will be directed at
restoring the character and function of the Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood wetland type
that occupied these fields historically.

The proposed wetland restoration measures include:

1. Filling the entire ditch system.

16

~
fil
~
ID
rJ
ff1
19
tH
fJ
m
to
In
EJ
g

~

~,.
.-
;1'.

8
f1
lliJ
~~
.;:.:
"!-"

~
g]
tJ
8
~>
.,:.
_:~~

[l
~
U

2. Recreating microtopography across the site, to enhance surface water retention
and storage, to provide the necessary slope for stream restoration and to provide
amphibian breeding habitat where feasible.
3. Establishing vegetation species and composition consistent with Piedmont
Bottomland Hardwood Forest.

The proposed wetland preservation activities include:

1. Maintaining the undisturbed condition of the Piedmont Levee Forest currently
onsite.
2. Recreating microtopography across the cleared, agricultural area of the site where
Congaree soils occur (1.76 acres).
3. Establishing vegetation species and composition consistent with Piedmont Levee
Forest on the Congaree soil area.

Adjacent landowners will not be affected by these proposed activities. The RFMB is
hydrologically isolated from adjacent ownerships and planned hydrological modifications
will not impede drainage from these tracts.

4.2 Stream llfitigatioll

At this time it is anticipated that approximately 3500 feet of stream restoration will be
undertaken on the site, as estimated in Figure 7. The final design plans will be presented
to the MBRT when completed. The channel of the stream on the northern side of the
project property will be directed through the RFMB site and will be directed into Rich
Fork Creek at the south end of the site. All stream restoration design and construction
will be Rosgen level I restoration, which makes the floodplain more accessable and
returns the stream to a stable dimension, pattern and profile.

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation of this project will occur immediately after approval of the Final
Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI).

Assuming approval for the MBI is obtained by the Spring of 200 1, fieldwork will
commence immediately to characterize the reference plots. Seedlings will be ordered
during the summer of 200 1 in order to plant during the winter and early spring of 2002.
Site preparation for planting the agricultural fields will occur during the fall of 200 1.

6.0 REGULATORY RELEASE

The RFMB will be determined to be successful once wetland hydrology is established
within the restoration area and the vegetation success criteria are met. Monitoring data
will be collected for a period of 5 years or until all success criteria are achieved. Annual
reports will be submitted to the MBRT prior to the end of each calendar year,

17

m
e!J
fa
~
fl
EJ

ill

m
tJ
f1
eJ
R
tJ

o

m",
~':
~~'

n
tJ
fa
CJ
~

8

o
(l
tJ
B
tR
[j
[f
tJ
8
lU

documenting plant community conditions within the restoration areas and documenting
hydrologic data within the restoration areas and reference plots. The Annual Report will
also include a proposed plan of action for the following year including maintenance
activities and a contingency plan.

6.11Iydrologic ami Soils Criteria:

Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data
collected within the RFMB project area and approved reference plots. Automatic
recording wells will be established within restoration areas at a density of 1 automatic
well per 3.9 acres (5 wells total). One automatic recording well will be established at the
reference plot. Daily data will be collected from automatic wells throughout the year and
over the 5-year monitoring period.

'Vetland hydrology will be established if well data from restoration areas indicates
that the water table is within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 8 percent of the
growing season (18 consecutive days). If overbank flooding causes extended
inundation such that an area is ponded or flooded for 7 or greater days (during
normal weather conditions), then it meets the soils and hydrology criteria for a
wetland.

6.2 Vegetation Criteria:

The success criteria for the planted species in the restoration areas will be based on
survival and growth. Survival of planted species must be 300 stems / ac at the end of 5
years of monitoring. Height growth must average 6.0 ft. Non-target species must not
constitute more than 20 percent of the woody vegetation based on permanent monitoring
plots. Permanent monitoring plots will be established in restoration areas at a density of
1 plot per 4.5 acres (restoration area =6 plots) and in the preservation/Congaree soil area
at a density of 1 plot per 1.76 acres (preservation area = 1 plot). Permanent monitoring
plots will be systematically located to ensure even coverage throughout each area. The
following data will be collected at each plot: species, survival, height, estimated percent
cover of all species and evidence of insects, disease and browsing.

7.0 CREDIT TOTAL AND RELEASE SCHEDULE

The proposed credit value and release schedule for the RFMB is based on recent
agreements among State and Federal agencies following meetings in April 1999.
As result of those meetings, consensus was reached on wetland credit values and release
of credits for mitigation banks in North Carolina. The combination of mitigation types is
dependent on the specific bank site and the combination of restoration, enhancement and
preservation acres present on a given bank site.

A RESTORATION CREDIT CAN BE COMPOSED OF ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:

18

~...
m
"....~....
II
II
m
m.'.
ti!J
II..'
21

m

m

II
!J

m....'......
it
;iir

I'
,.."~.i...
~

iJ

~

~
Ril.
I!J
IJ..~
If:J
mi..,
tB
~.'.".
[J
~
m1
Iill

1 acre of restoration plus 4 acres of enhancement (5 acres total)
or
1 acre of restoration plus 10 acres of preservation (11 acres total)
or
2 acres of restoration (2 acres total)

All of the above combinations satisfy the State of North Carolina requirement that a
minimum of 1 restoration acre be used to mitigate for each acre of wetland impact.

The RFMB contains 19.69 acres of restoration (Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest).
There are 5.499 acres of currently forested preservation (Piedmont Levee Forest) to
which there will be added 1.764 acres of the Congaree soil area in the agricultural field
that will be returned to its natural hydrologic and vegetative state, for a total of 7.213
acres of preservation.

Using the above formulas for determining mitigation credits, the following number of
credits will result:

. 9.846 riverine restoration credits with a total area of 19.692 acres; consisting of
19.692 riverine wetland restoration acres occupying the agricultural fields onsite-
.19.692 restoration acres / 2 = 9.846 credits.

. 0.721 riverine preservation credits; consisting of 5.449 acres of piedmont levee
forest, coupled with 1.764 acres of cleared piedmont levee forest area-5.449 + 1.764 =
7.213 acres /10 = 0.7213 credits.

. In addition the Sponsor will restore -3500' of stream on the site

Total Number of Riverine Restoration Credits =10.567

Total Length of Stream Restoration =-3500'

Wetland mitigatio.n credits will be released according to the schedule outlined
below:

19

o
g
~

rI.'.........
(J
8

fi1
t.J

In...'.,'.....'
lJ
~
~
o
E
B
o
o
WI.:,.......
LJ
~
o
o
D

Milestone

Percent
Release

. MBRT approval of Mitigation Plan, execution ofMBI and
recordation of conservation easement 15%

. Following Implementation and Year 1 monitoring and MBRT
approval of Annual Report 10%

. Following Year 2 of monitoring and MBRT approval of Annual
Report 10%

. Following Year 3 of monitoring and MBRT approval of Annual
Report 10%

. Following Year 4 of monitoring and MBRT approval of Annual
Report 15%

. Following Year 5 of monitoring and MBRT approval of Annual
Report 15%

· Final 25%

8.0 GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA

The geographic service area (GSA) for the RFMB is, by USACOE definition, USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03040103. Projects outside of this Hydrologic Unit may be considered
for debiting from the RFMB at the discretion of the USACOE on a case-by-case basis.

9.0 LITERATURE CITED

Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, Teclmical
Report WRP-DE-4, 79 pp. plus appendix.

Brinson, M.M., R.D.Rheinhardt, F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Smith, and D.
Whighan1. 1995. A Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments
to Riverine Wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Research Program
Technical Report WRP-DE-l1.

McCachren, C.M. 1994. Soil Survey of Davidson County, North Carolina. U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service in cooperation with NC Dept. of En v., Health and Nat.
Resources, NC Ag. Res. Service, NCCES and Davidson County Board of
Commissioners. 157 pp. plus appendices.

20

o
o
o
~
B
U
B
o
o
~
m
o
g
fl........
tI
o
fl.....
EJ
g

ff.........
tJ

o

Mitsch, William 1. and-James G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second Edition, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New Yark, NY.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section. 1998. Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, NC
27626-0535.

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC. 325 pp.

Smith, Daniel R., Alan Ammann, Candy Bartoldus, and Mark Brinson. 1995. An Approach
for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference
Wetlands, and Functional Indices, Wetlands Research Program Teclmical Report
WRP-DE-9, US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg MS.

US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Hydric Soils of North
Carolina. Raleigh, NC.

W.R.P. 1993. Installing l'vlonitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Wetland Research Program Technical
Note HY-IA-3.l, 14 pp.

21

m
[J
~
~
~"
"
I :~'_'_

~'
J"-
~r:

In
[J
~'
'.,
,~-",

A
tI
f1;1
[j
fi1
tJ
~
~
~
~
f1
mJ
B
E
B
B

APPENDIX A. . SAMPLE CONSERVATION EASEMENT DOCUMENT

22

m
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
U
B
o
B
B
o
o
~
~
o

ADDENDUM A - Sample Conservation Easement

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

CONSERVATION EASEMENT

COUNTY

THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this day of
2000, by and between , whose mailing address is
Grantor, and KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction, Inc. whose mailing address is
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 200, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609, Grantee. The designations
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.

\VITNESSETH:

\VHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situate, lying, and being in _
County, North Carolina (the "Property"); and

\VHEREAS, Portions of the property have/will be restored to a natural state ("restored
property") for the benefit of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries and wildlife habitat; and
which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.

:WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee have agreed to create a conservation easement
("Conservation Easement") on the Restored Property for the purposes of creating, restoring,
improving, preserving and monitoring the stream/wetland and riparian areas located thereon and
preventing the use or development of the Protected Property for any purpose or in any manner
which would conflict with the maintenance of the Protected Property in its natural condition.

NO\V, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, temls, 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 of the nature and character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Restored
Property for the benefit of the people of North Carolina together with the right to preserve and
protect the conservation values of the Restored Property.

The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to preserve and protect the conservation
values of the Restored Property and to maintain permanently the Restored Property, including
the streams/w.etlands and riparian areas thereon, to protect any rare plants, animals, or plant
communities on the Restored Property, and to prevent any use of the Restored Property that will
significantly impair or interfere with the conservation values or interests of the Restored
Property.

To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth.

~

m........'........
;.r:
.'

11..,:.....
!9
~

1f1.....'..:...
It)
In........
f[J

~.......'..'.
,'"
~t_

fl.'.....
ltt
~
B
g

fI,.'........
E.J
g
101."...
E.J
B
g
ill
o
o

. . 1. DURATION OF EASEMENT

This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. It is an easement in gross, runs with the
land, and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor, its personal representatives, heirs,
successors, and assigns, lessees, agents, and licensees.

II. PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

Any activity on, or use of, the Restored Property inconsistent with the purposes of this
Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Restored Property shall be maintained in its natural
and open condition and restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the
conservation values of the Restored Property as set out in the Recitals.

In addition to the foregoing, the following specific activities are prohibited, restricted, or
reserved, as the case may be:

A. Industrial Use. Industrial activities are prohibited on the Restored Property.

B. Residential Use. Residential use of the Restored Property is prohibited.

C. Commercial Use. Commercial activities are prohibited on the Restored Property.

D. Agricultural Use. Agricultural use of the Restored Property is prohibited.

E. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, or other structure
constructed or placed on the Restored Property.

F. Signs. No signs shall be permitted on the Restored Property except interpretative signs
identifying the conservation values of the Restored Property, signs identifying the owner of
the Restored Property, and the holder of the Conservation Easement, and signs giving
directions or prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Restored Property.

G. Dumping. Dumping of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, abandoned vehicles, appliance or
machinery, or other material on the Restored Property is prohibited.

H. Grading, Minenll Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals, or other materials; and no change in the topography of the land in any manner
except as reasonably necessary for the purpose of restoring steams/wetlands and combating
erosion to maintain the wetland values.

I. \Vater Quality and Drainage Patterns. Diking, draining, filling, or removal of wetlands,
pollution, or discharge into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, llse of pesticides or biocides,
and disruption of natural drainage patterns is prohibited without written approval from the
Grantee.

B
n
t.J
o
~
~
o
B
g
o
f:1
(J
B
fJ
ltJ
~
~
B
fJ
tJ
o
o
o

J. Subdivision. Subdivision, partitioning, or dividing the Restored Property in a manner that
would substantially impair or interfere with the intent of the easement is prohibited.

K. Vegetative Cutting. Cutting, removal, mowing, harming or destruction of any vegetation on
the Restored Property is prohibited.

L. Commercial Forestry. Harvesting of trees for commercial forestry purposes on the
Restored Property is prohibited.

The Grantee shall have the right to enter the property at all reasonable times for the
purpose of inspecting said property to determine if Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this conservation easement.

III. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. In the event of a violation of these terms, conditions, or restrictions is found to exist, the
Grantee may institute a suit to enjoin by exparte, temporary or permanent injunction such
violation and to require the restoration of the property to its prior condition.

B. No failure on the part of Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision hereof shall discharge
or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition, or provision hereof or affect the
right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of a subsequent breach or default.

IV. MISCELLANEOUS

A. This Conservation Easement shall provide and protect compensatory mitigation credits.

B. 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.

C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the
parties at their addresses shown above or to other addressees) 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
Restored Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is
made. Grantor further agrees to make any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument
by which any interest in the Restored Property is conveyed subject to the Conservation
Easement herein created.

o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
B
D
o
~
o
g
~
~

E. Grantee shall notify Grantor in writing of the name and address of any party to whom the
Conservation Easement or any part thereof is transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is
made.

V. QUIET ENJOYMENT

Grantor reserves all rights accruing from ownership of the Restored Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Restored Property
that are not expressly prohibited or restricted herein and are not inconsistent with the purposes
of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Grantor
expressly reserves to Grantor, and Grantor's invites and licensees, the right of access to the
Restored Property, and the right of quite enjoyment of the Restored Property.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for
the aforesaid purposes.

AND Grantors covenant that they are seized of said premises in fee and have the right to
convey the permanent easement herein granted; that the same are free from encumbrances and
that they will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all persons whomsoever.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed
and attested by and affixed thereto by authority duly given.

(SEAL)

Grantor

Grantor

Secretary

(CORPORATE SEAL)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF