20181461 Ver 1_MBI_REV3_Draft_Combined_20200220

ID#* 20181461 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 02/21/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/20/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r` Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Tara Allden
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20181461
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Weyerhaeuser Neuse 02 Beaufort 56 Site
County: Beaufort
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Bank Instrument
File Upload: B56_REV3_Draft_Combined_Documents.pdf 45.87MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Timothy M Aldinger
Signature:*

Version December 2016
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE MIDDLE NEUSE STREAM AND WETLAND
UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK IN THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN WITHIN THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
USACE approval of this Instrument constitutes the regulatory approval required for the
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank to be usedto provide
compensatory mitigation for Department of the Army permits pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 332.8(a)(1).
This Instrument is not a contract between the Sponsor or Property Owner and the USACE or any
other agency of the federal government. Any dispute arising under this Instrument will not give
rise to any claim by the Sponsor or Property Owner for monetary damages. This provision is
controlling notwithstanding any other provision or statement in
the Instrument to the contrary.
This Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI) is made and entered into on the
day of , 20 , by Weyerhaeuser NR Company, hereinafter Sponsor, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and each of the following agencies, upon its execution of this
UMBI; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The Corps, together with the State and Federal
agencies that execute this UMBI, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the Interagency
Review Team (IRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this agreement is to establish an umbrella mitigation bank (Bank)
providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts separately
authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act permits and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act permits in appropriate circumstances;
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the IRT agree that the Bank sites are suitable mitigation
bank sites, and that implementation of the Mitigation Plans are likely to result in net gains in
wetland and/or stream functions at the Bank sites, and have therefore approved the Mitigation
Plans;
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the following
provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this UMBI.
Section L• General Provisions
A. The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration, creation,
enhancement and preservation activities at the Bank sites, and for the overall operation and
management of the Bank. The Sponsor assumes the legal responsibility for providing the
compensatory mitigation once a permittee secures credits from the Sponsor and the District
Engineer (DE) receives documentation that confirms the Sponsor has accepted responsibility for
providing the required compensatory mitigation.
The goals of the Umbrella Bank sites are to restore, enhance, create and preserve wetland and
stream systems and their functions to compensate in appropriate circumstances for unavoidable
wetland and stream impacts authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permits and or

Version December 2016
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits in circumstances deemed appropriate by the
Corps after consultation, through the permit review process, with members of the IRT.
B. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by Clean
Water Act permits must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and implementing
regulations, including but not limited to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the National Environmental
Policy Act, and all other applicable Federal and State legislation, rules and regulations. This
agreement has been drafted in accordance with the regulations for Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources effective June 9, 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) (Mitigation
Rule).
C. The IRT shall be chaired by the DE of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District (District). The IRT shall review documentation for the establishment of mitigation bank
sites. The IRT will also advise the DE in assessing monitoring reports, recommending remedial
measures, approving credit releases, and approving modifications to this instrument. The IRT's
role and responsibilities are more fully set forth in Sections 332.8 of the Mitigation Rule. The
IRT will work to reach consensus on its actions.
D. The DE, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies
through the permit review process, shall make final decisions concerning the amount and type of
compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted wetland and/or stream
impacts, and whether or not the use of credits from the Bank is appropriate to offset those
impacts. In the case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation required solely under
the Section 401 Water Quality Certification rules of North Carolina, the NCDWR will determine
the amount of credits that can be withdrawn from the Bank. Any credits used to offset impacts
solely authorized by Section 401 cannot be used for other impacts authorized under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
E. The parties to this agreement understand that a watershed approach to establish
compensatory mitigation must be used to the extent appropriate and practicable. Where
practicable, in -kind compensatory mitigation is preferred.
Section IL• Geographic Service Area
The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area within which the Umbrella Bank is
authorized to provide compensatory mitigation required by DA permits. The GSA for this Bank
shall include the Middle Neuse Hydrologic Unit 03020202 in North Carolina. Credits are to be
used in the same HUC in which they were generated, and credits within each HUC should be
tracked on separate ledgers.
2

Version December 2016
Section III: Mitigation Plan
Any Mitigation Plan submitted pursuant to this agreement must contain the information
listed in 332.4(c) (2) through (14) of the Compensatory Mitigation Rule.
A. The Sponsor will perform work described in each site -specific approved Mitigation Plan.
B. The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Sites as described in the approved Mitigation Plans,
until such time as the IRT determines that the performance standards described in the Mitigation
Plans have been met.
C. Mitigation Plans submitted for inclusion in this bank must meet the requirements of any
District guidance that is current at the time the new site is submitted to the District, including any
updates made to monitoring requirements, credit releases, long term management, or any other
provisions that are required and/or specifically addressed in the Mitigation Plan. The addition of
any site to this instrument shall be considered as a modification to this instrument, and processed
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Mitigation Rule.
D. The members of the IRT will be allowed reasonable access to the Property for the
purposes of inspection of the Property and compliance monitoring of the Mitigation Plan.
Section IV: Re on rting
A. The Sponsor shall submit to the DE, for distribution to each member of the MT, an
annual report describing the current condition of the Bank Sites and the condition of the Bank
Sites in relation to the performance standards in the Mitigation Plans. The Sponsor shall provide
to the DE any monitoring reports described in the Mitigation Plans.
B. As part of each annual monitoring report, the Sponsor shall also provide ledger reports
documenting credit transactions as described in Section VIII of this UMBI.
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall provide notification to
the DE within 30 days of the transaction. This notification shall consist of a summary of the
transaction and a full ledger report reflecting the changes from the transaction. Additionally,
signed copies of the Compensatory Mitigation Transfer of Responsibility Form shall be
submitted to the Corps Project Manager for the permit and the Corps Bank Manager for the bank
site.
Section V: Remedial Action
A. The DE shall review the monitoring reports, as required in the Mitigation Plans, and
may, at any time, after consultation with the Sponsor and the IRT, direct the Sponsor to take
remedial action at the Bank sites. Remedial actions required by the DE shall be designed to
achieve the performance standards as specified in the Mitigation Plan(s). All remedial actions

Version December 2016
required under this section shall include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take
into account physical and climactic conditions.
B. The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the above.
C. In the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to achieve the
required performance standards, it shall provide notice of such proposed remedial action to all
members of the IRT. No remedial actions shall be taken without the concurrence of the DE, in
consultation with the IRT.
Section VI: Use of Mitigation Credits
A. Description of credit classifications and provisions pertaining to the use of those credits
shall be provided in the Mitigation Plans to be included in this bank. Credit classifications (e.g.,
cold water stream, cool water stream, warm water stream, coastal wetlands, non -riparian
wetlands, riparian non-riverine wetlands, and riparian riverine wetlands) will be in accordance
with current District guidance at the time the Mitigation Plan is submitted to the District. In
general, these classifications will be used to determine if a particular credit qualifies as "In -
Kind" mitigation. Exceptions to the use of "In -Kind" mitigation may be allowed at the
discretion of the permitting agencies on a case -by -case basis.
B. Wetland and stream compensation ratios are determined by the DE on a case -by -case
basis based on considerations of functions of the wetlands and/or streams impacted, the severity
of the wetland and/or stream impacts, the relative age of the mitigation site, whether the
compensatory mitigation is in -kind, and the physical proximity of the wetland and/or stream
impacts to the Bank Site.
C. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits
from the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all decisions concerning the
amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by
Department of the Army permits, shall be made by the DE, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act and implementing regulations and guidance. These decisions may include notice to
and consultation with the members of the IRT through the permit review process if the DE
determines this to be appropriate given the scope and nature of the impact.
Section VII: Credit Release Schedule
A. All credit releases must be approved in writing by the DE, following consultation with
the IRT, based on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved.
B. A credit release schedule shall be provided in each site -specific Mitigation Plan that is
included in this bank. The release schedule will list all of the proposed credit releases and any
performance standards associated with those releases.
C. In general, the initial allocation of credits from any site included as part of this bank shall
be available for sale only after the completion of all of the following:
4

Version December 2016
1. Execution of this UMBI by the Sponsor, the DE, and other agencies eligible for
membership in the IRT who choose to execute this agreement, to include the approval of
any modifications to this agreement when new sites are added to it;
2. Approval of a final Mitigation Plan;
3. Confirmation that the mitigation bank site has been secured;
4. Delivery of executed financial assurances as specified in the site -specific Mitigation
Plan;
5. Delivery of a copy of the recorded long-term protection mechanism as described in as
specified in the site -specific Mitigation Plan, as well as a title opinion covering the
property acceptable to the DE; and
6. Issuance of any DA permits necessary for construction of the mitigation site (if
necessary).
The Sponsor must initiate implementation of the approved Mitigation Plans no later than the first
full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction (i.e., construction of the initial
physical and biological improvements proposed in the approved Mitigation Plans must be started
by the end of the first full growing season following the initial sale of any credits from the
Bank). This provision does not apply to preservation -only sites that do not include any physical
or biological improvements. Subject to the Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all
required performance standards and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be
available for sale by the Sponsor as specified in the final Mitigation Plan.
Section VI11: Accounting Procedures
A. The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures acceptable to the DE for maintaining
accurate records of debits made from the Bank. Such procedures shall include the generation of
a ledger by the Sponsor showing credits used at the time they are debited from the Bank. All
ledger reports shall identify credits debited and remaining by type of credit and shall include for
each reported debit the Corps ORM ID number for the permit for which the credits were utilized
and the permitted impacts for each resource type.
B. When credits from the bank are sought by a permit applicant, the Sponsor shall prepare a
reservation letter for the applicant to include with the Corps permit application, that documents
the number and type of credits available to be debited from the bank, and the amount of time (if
any) that those credits will be held for that applicant (with an expiration date for the letter of
availability).
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall notify the DE within
30 days of the transaction with a summary of the transaction and a full ledger report showing the
changes made. Signed copies of the Transfer of Mitigation Responsibility form shall also be
submitted to the Corps permit Project Manager and the Corps Bank Manager for that bank.
D. The Sponsor shall prepare an annual ledger report, on each anniversary of the date of
execution of this agreement, showing all credits used, any changes in credit availability (e.g.,
additional credits released, credit sales, suspended credits, etc.), and the beginning and ending

Version December 2016
balance of remaining credits. The Sponsor shall submit the annual report to the DE, for
distribution to each member of the IRT, until such time as all of the credits have been utilized, or
this agreement is otherwise terminated.
Section IX: Financial Assurances
A. Financial assurances for the Bank sites will be detailed in the site -specific Mitigation
Plans. The Sponsor shall provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the DE, sufficient
to assure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and any remedial
work required pursuant to this UMBI. The financial assurance value should be based on the cost
of doing the mitigation work, including costs for land acquisition, planning and engineering,
legal fees, mobilization, construction, and monitoring. For preservation only Bank Sites, no
financial assurances will generally be required unless there are specific activities necessary to
ensure the successful preservation of resources on the site, in which case appropriate financial
assurances may still be required.
B. All financial assurances shall be made payable to a standby trust or to a third -party
designee, acceptable to the Corps, who agrees to complete the project or provide alternative
mitigation. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the Corps in the event of default
by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable.
C. The form and amount of financial assurances must be stated in the site -specific
Mitigation Plans in order for the Mitigation Plan to be approved. This must include the name of
the specific provider of those assurances and the method by which the financial assurances will be
provided in the event that they must be utilized. Original copies of the financial assurance
documents must be provided to the DE prior to the initial release of credits.
D. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the DE receives notification at
least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
Section X: Site Protection
A. The Sponsor shall grant a Conservation Easement (CE) in form acceptable to the DE,
sufficient to protect the Bank Sites in perpetuity. The CE shall be perpetual, preserve all natural
areas, and prohibit all use of the property inconsistent with its use as mitigation property,
including any activity that would materially alter the biological integrity or functional and
educational value of wetlands or streams within the Bank Site, consistent with the Mitigation
Plan. The purpose of the CE will be to assure that future use of the Bank Site will result in the
restoration, protection, maintenance and enhancement of wetland and/or stream functions
described in the Mitigation Plan. The name and contact information for the Corps approved
easement holder and a draft copy of the CE will be provided in the site -specific Mitigation
Plans.
B. The Sponsor shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the DE covering the mitigation
property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that would conflict with its
use as mitigation, including, but not limited to, any liens that have priority over the recorded CE.
ro

Version December 2016
C. Subsequent to the recording of the CE, the Sponsor may convey the Bank Site property
either in fee or by granting an easement to a qualified land trust, state agency, or other
appropriate nonprofit organization approved by the Corps. The Sponsor is responsible for
ensuring that the CE is re -recorded so that it remains within the chain of title. The terms and
conditions of this conveyance shall not conflict with the intent and provisions of the CE nor shall
such conveyance enlarge or modify the uses specified in the easement. The CE must contain a
provision requiring 60 day advance notification to the DE before any action is taken to void or
modify the CE, including transfer of title to, or establishment of any other legal claims over, the
project site.
Section XI: Long-term Management
A. The Sponsor shall implement the long-term management plan as described in the site -
specific Mitigation Plans. The Bank Sponsor, Weyerhaeuser NR Company, will serve as the
long-term manager for each mitigation site addended to thebank. Contact information is as
follows:
Weyerhaeuser NR Company
Attn: Doug Hughes
406 Cole Road
Hattiesburg, MS 39402
601 341 6054
B. The long-term management plan will include a list of annual maintenance, monitoring,
and/or repair activities for each mitigation site, the associated annual cost for each activity, and
the required total amount necessary to provide all future site management. The long-term
management plan should explain how the funds will be managed and provided to the designated
long-term manager (e.g., an endowment managed through a separate account holder). The long-
term management plan should include a contingency section that addresses how the
responsibility and funding for the long-term site management will be passed on to a new
manager in the event that the selected long-term management entity is no longer able to provide
for management of the site.
Section XII: Default and Closure
A. It is agreed to establish and maintain the Bank sites until (i) credits have been exhausted
or banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice by the Sponsor provided to the
DE and other members of the IRT; and (ii) it has been determined and agreed upon by the DE
and IRT that the debited Bank site has satisfied all the conditions herein and in the Mitigation
Plan. If the DE determines that the Bank site is not meeting performance standards or complying
with the terms of the instrument, appropriate action will be taken. Such actions may include, but
are not limited to, suspending credit sales, adaptive management, decreasing available credits,
utilizing financial assurances, and terminating the instrument.
Any delay or failure of Bank Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder if and to the extent
that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or conditions beyond the
Sponsor's reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its ability to perform its
obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide, or
interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking by any governmental body; (iii)
7

Version December 2016
change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or permit condition, or the interpretation or
enforcement thereof, (iv) any order, judgment, action or determination of any federal, state or
local court, administrative agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of
any permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of the Bank Sponsor
is affected by any such event, Bank Sponsor shall give written notice thereof to the IRT as soon
as is reasonably practicable. If such event occurs before the final availability of all credits for
sale, the Sponsor shall take remedial action to restore the property to its condition prior to such
event, in a manner sufficient to provide adequate mitigation to cover credits that were sold prior
to such delay or failure to compensate for impacts to waters, including wetlands, authorized by
Department of the Army permits. Such remedial action shall be taken by the Sponsor only to the
extent necessary and appropriate, as determined by the IRT.
C. At the end of the monitoring period, upon satisfaction of the performance standards, the
Sponsor may submit a request to the DE for site close out. The DE, in consultation with the IRT,
shall use best efforts to review and comment on the request within 60 days of such submittal. If
the DE determines the Sponsor has achieved the performance standards in accordance with the
mitigation plan and all obligations under this MBI, the DE shall issue a close out letter to the
Sponsor.
Section XI11: Miscellaneous
A. Modification of this UMBI shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in 332.8 of
the mitigation rule.
B. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories
hereof, their successors and assigns, shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof.
C. This UMBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject
matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
D. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this UMBI are held to be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability will
not affect any other provisions hereof, and this UMBI shall be construed as if such invalid,
illegal or unenforceable provision had not been contained herein.
E. This UMBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws ofNorth
Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
F. This UMBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
G. The terms and conditions of this UMBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of
the parties hereto and their respective successors.
H. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at their
respective addresses, provided below.

Version December 2016
Sponsor:
Weyerhaeuser NR Company
Attn: Mr. Doug Hughes
406 Cole Road
Hattiesburg, MS 39402
Corps:
Mr. Kyle Barnes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
2407 West 5th Street
Washington, NC 27889
USEPA:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
USFWS:
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27606-3726
NCWRC:
Mr. Travis Wilson
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1718 Highway 56 West
Creedmor, NC 27606-3726
NCDWR:
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
NCSHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
4617 Mail Service Center
109 E. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
3]

Version December 2016
NMFS:
Ms. Twyla Cheatwood
National Marine Fisheries, NOAA
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
NCDCM:
Ms. Cathy Brittingham
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699
10

Version December 2016
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Bank In Craven and Beaufort County, North Carolina":
Sponsor: Weyerhaeuser NR Company
By: Date:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
By: Date:
II

Version December 2016
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Bank, Neuse River Basin in the state of North Carolina":
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
By: Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
By:
Date:
N.C. Division of Water Resources:
By:
Date:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission:
By:
Date:
NC State Historic Preservation Office:
By:
Date:
National Marine Fisheries Service:
By:
Date:
N.C. Division of Coastal Management:
By: Date:
12

Version December 2016
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Geographic Service Area Map
Appendix B: Mitigation Plan (Each plan should include construction costs, maintenance and
monitoring costs, draft copy of financial assurance documents, draft copy of site protection
instrument, and a long term management plan as appendices to the plan.)
13

Middle Ne us a Stre am and We land Umbre lla M itig atio n B ank
SAW-2017-02019
Agency Comments (black)
Sponsor Responses (red)
Submitted February 12, 2020
Mac Haup/, NCDWR:
Overall comments:
A. DWR did not see any information regarding riparian buffer or nutrient offset credit for the
proposed 3 sites, we are assuming there is no riparian buffer and/or nutrient credit on these
projects. No buffer or nutrient credits have been proposed at this time. Credit calculations
have been done to maximize stream credit generation.
B. DWR does not approve of Weyerhaeuser being the long-term steward on their own projects.
Weyerhaeuser understands the concerns of the NCDWR related to Weyerhaeuser serving as
both the sponsor and the long-term manager for the Middle Neuse Umbrella Mitigation Bank
(MNUMB). It should be noted that Weyerhaeuser is not proposing to serve as long-term
steward which will be the roll of Unique Places to Save, the conservation easement holder.
Since Weyerhaeuser owns a majority of the lands surrounding the MNUMB sites, it would
appear that the chance for encroachment from Weyerhaeuser's other operations would be
high. However, the fact that Weyerhaeuser owns a majority of the lands surrounding its
mitigation sites has actually helped to reduce the chances of encroachment. The reason being
is because as the majority landowner, Weyerhaeuser is able to control access to the lands
surrounding the mitigation sites which in turn helps to limit possible encroachment issues.
It should also be noted that in all seven (7) USACE Corps Districts (including the
Wilmington District) in which Weyerhaeuser currently operates, have all have approved
Weyerhaeuser serving as both the owner and long-term manager for its other mitigation
banks/sites. These sites are listed below in Table 1.0.
Table 1.0 — Approved Nfiitigation Banks and PRM Projects
BankName
County/Parish
State
USACE
District
Bank Size
(acres)
Credit Types
PUMB*-Big Run
Mitigation Site
Berkeley
South Carolina
Charleston
2,427
Freshwater Wetland and
Stream
Gum Swamp
Livingston
Louisiana
New Orleans
1,125
BLH**
St. Johns
St. Johns
Florida
Jacksonville
3,578
Pine Savannah
Dolly
St. Tammany
Louisiana
Vicksburg
1,518
PineFlatwoods
Long Lonesome
Morehouse
Louisiana
Vicksburg
612
BLH
Cotton Valley
Webster
Louisiana
Vicksburg
676
BLH and Stream
Denton Bottoms
Jackson/Bienville
Louisiana
Vicksburg
253
BLH and Stream
Bachelors Delight
Onslow
North Carolina
Wilmington
323
BLH and Stream
Brice Creek
Craven
North Carolina
Wilmington
645
BLH

Turkey Creek
Harrison
Mississippi
Mobile
235
Pine Savannah and BLH
Great Bear
Ashley
Arkansas
Vicksburg
514
BLH
Broxton Rocks
Cofe and Jeff Davis
Georgia
Savannah
1,591
BLH and Streams
TalisheekPRM***
St. Tammany
Louisiana
New Orleans
323
Pine Savannah
MOTPRM****
Bossier
Louisiana
Vicksburg
307
BLH
*Palmetto Umbrella Mitigation Bank (DUMB)
**BottomlandHardwood (BLH)
*** Developed for aPrivate Commercial Retail Outlet Firm
** Developed f)r Louisiana Department of Transportation
This also true for the other four (4) mitigation sites currently under development by
Weyerhaeuser which are listed below in Table 2.0.
Table 2.0— Weyerhaeuser Mitigation Banks Currently Under Development
USACE
Bank Size
BankName
County/Parish
State
Credit Types
District
acres
PUMB-Gregorys Creek
Freshwater Wetland and
Mitigation Site
Union
South Carolina
Charleston
536
Stream
PUMB -Edisto River
Dorchester
South Carolina
Charleston
1,300
Freshwater Wetland and
Mitigation Site
Stream
PUMB-Great Swamp
Freshwater Wetland and
Colleton
South Carolina
Charleston
3,000
Mitigation Site
Stream
Pontchartrain Basin
Umbrella Bank
Livingston
Louisiana
New Orleans
7,383
BLH
Since the development of its first mitigation project, Weyerhaeuser has never experienced
any encroachment issues related to its mitigation projects, either by Weyerhaeuser's other
operations or from other surround landowners. In addition, Weyerhaeuser is uniquely
qualified to serve as long-term manager of its own mitigation projects because of its vast
network of restoration and management contractors. This network has enabled Weyerhaeuser
to effectively manage its mitigation sites by being able to quickly respond to issues related to
the restoration or management of a site. Lastly, and most importantly, Weyerhaeuser is not
the only entity monitoring for encroachment issues on its mitigation sites. The holder of the
conservation easement for each mitigation site also monitors the mitigation sites to ensure
that neither Weyerhaeuser nor another entity has encroached on the mitigation site.
Following the December 11, 2019 meeting with IRT members, the discussion of long-term
manager has been removed.
C. DWR does not approve of the proposed credit release schedule. Following the December 11,
2019 meeting with IRT members, Weyerhaeuser has removed the proposed modified credit
release schedule and replaced it with the existing Wilmington District schedule.
D. Typically, an appendix is included with agency correspondence. Responses to agency
comments were prepared and submitted. These will be moved to an appendix for the final
submittal.
E. The plans did not include a JD approval or request package. Wetland delineations were
completed, and data forms were submitted with the documents (Appendix X). A formal JD
request package will be included in the NWP 27 application.

F. There was no discussion of existing crossings, culverts or roads. All easement breaks
should be mentioned in the site constraint section. This discussion will be added to the final
submittal.
G. Even if not an issue, the plan should acknowledge review of FEMA floodplain
compliance and any potential for hydrologic trespass. Noted. Appropriate discussion will
be added to final documents.
H. There is no discussion of treating exotic or invasive vegetation, including treatment of pine
which should be addressed given the target vegetative communities and the surrounding
land use. Invasive species and management of pine are discussed in the Wetland
Restoration and Enhancement Approach Description, the Vegetation and Planting Plan, and
Vegetative Monitoring. Specific methodologies for treating invasive or undesirable
vegetation was added in the Adaptive Management discussion.
Craven 26
1. Section 1.4- Ownership- the long-term steward should not be the landowner. DWR
supports a third -party managing entity to handle this role. See comment for NCDWR
#B.
2. Section 5.2- Stream Mitigation Workplan- under the Headwater Restoration sub heading it
is stated that research has supported 40 acres for intermittent streams and 100 acres for
perennial streams. Pertaining to this site and for all the other proposed sites, DWR has
stated a number of times the need to expand the watershed to ensure that the headwater
reaches will have the necessary flow. While the provider has expanded the easement further
than initially proposed in several cases, DWR believes the easement does not capture all the
essential drainages as evidenced by the LIDAR Figure 9 (particularly the area to the west of the
confluence ofUTI andUT2). Following the December 11, 2019 IRT meeting, Site
configurations were updated to provide appropriate drainage areas and project design.
3. Table 12- DWR recommends limiting the planting of Green Ash to 5% because of the ash
borer that has become prevalent statewide. Noted. This change has been made.
4. Section 7.0 Credit Release Schedule- DWR does not approve of the proposed credit
release schedule. Please utilize the schedule as seen in the October 2016 Mitigation
Guidance. See comment for NCDWR #C.
5. Section 8.3 Performance Standards -
a. DWR requires the minimum wetland saturation threshold to be 101/o. While DWR
realizes a portion of the site may be mapped as Lenoir or Lynchburg soils (have
these been verified by a licensed NC Soils Scientist?) most of surrounding soils are
Rains or Leaf. Since the proposed work is to raise the stream, then given the mapped
soils type Paleaquults, a deep clay, these soils should wet up to well beyond the 10%

minimum standard. Noted. The actual percentage will be documented.
b. Headwater flow standard- while DWR accepts the 30-day standard, however; we will
not accept only requiring the standard in years 4 thru 7. Further discussion with the IRT
is warranted here to understand the acceptable standard.
6. Table 21- DWR recommends the Performance Bond Reduction Schedule mirror the
This change has been made.
7. Appendix C- Cross Sections- more existing cross sections should be listed. In addition, the
scale shown for XS3-UT2 Reach 2 for the y axis (elevation) is not adequate. Cross
sections were added, and the y-axis corrected.
8. Design sheets- next time please provide plan sheets that are no larger than 11 x 17.
However, DWR did like the way the stream profile and pattern where displayed.
Noted.
9. Design sheet 10- DWR is concerned that the channel bed is being raised enough to access
the floodplain. If the ditch is 6-8 feet deep but the sheets show channel is being cut down
anywhere from 6-7 feet to 4-5 feet, the channel bed is effectively raised about 2 feet. Will
the flow be able to readily access the floodplain, especially from station 23+00 to station
26+50. Also, this is a section there will be wetlands adjacent to the stream channel and
the designer must plan for enough overbank to keep the wetlands within the proposed
saturation threshold. DWR wants to be sure that the stream reach does not resemble a
ditch dug through wetlands. This section of stream has been realigned to fall in the low
spot of the valley where flow will now be able to readily access the floodplain.
10. Design sheets 11-13- there are a lot of proposed vernal pools along UT1-Reach 3. DWR
has two concerns related to the proposed layout. First, the designer should be mindful of
the alternate flow path (in many cases when channels or ditches are filled there will be
some sinking or subsidence once the plug settles, creating a shallow depression) this may
create during high precipitation events. In certain areas, there are very narrow plugs,
stations 39+00 and 52+60, that could result in stability problems for the proposed stream
channel and bed. Secondly, these vernal pools are all within the proposed wetland
restoration area, which is not necessarily a bad thing, however, the layout may result in
more open "marsh -like" areas. Therefore, some verbiage should be included in the section
which proposes what target vegetative community is proposed. Also, please note that the
IRT has seen vernal pools that were constructed that were too deep, it is important that
these areas not deeper than shown on your typical. Noted. These areas will be shallow
depressions meant to slow and hold water within the floodplain. The depth will be
suitable for the wetland tree species specified.
11. DWR requires at least 4 to 5 wetland monitoring gauges in the proposed wetland
restoration area. Noted. The document has been modified.

12. Figure 11- there are no veg plots located in the proposed wetland restoration area. There
needs to be a significant number of plots included in the wetland restoration area (some
can be moved to wetland restoration area, none need to be added). Noted. Vegetation plots
will be relocated to measure the appropriate wetland restoration area.
13. DWR recommends flow gauges on all headwater valley tributaries be placed in the upper
third of the reach (most flow gauges as displayed on Figure I I are almost at the bottom of
eachreach). Noted. This change has been made.
In addition, DWR would like to stress that these gauges should not be crest gauges and should
be placed in a riffle like feature. Noted.
14. Design sheet 18- 20- DWR recommends some verbiage be included regarding the removal
of the gravel road and the site preparation that will occur prior to planting. Unless this area
is effectively ripped, the trees will not grow. Noted. This change has been made.
15. Enhancement 1 credit ratio is proposed for reaches UT3 and UT3A. This ratio is
based on supplemental plantings. Typically, for planting only, the credit ratio would
be 4 or 5:1. Enhancement activities will include grading of the ground surface to
enable the headwater establishment, clearing of pine, and replanting.
16. DWR believes reaches UT2 reach I and UT1 reach 1 are at risk for providing the
proposed amount of credit. DWR predicts about half the amount of credit for each reach
will be realized. Moreover, DWR does not believe UT2 reach 2 upper or UT1 reach 2 will
maintain perennial flow. Please realize all of the above could result in credit loss, and this
is most related to the size of the contributing watershed.
The Site has been adjusted based on watershed concerns and other items discussed.
Craven 30
1. Section 1.4- Ownership- the long-term steward should not be the landowner. DWR
supports a third -party managing entity to handle this role. See comment for NCDWR
#B.
2. Section 5.2- Stream Mitigation Workplan- under the Headwater Restoration sub heading
it is stated that research has supported 40 acres for intermittent streams and 100 acres for
perennial streams. In Table 3, three tributaries (UT3, 4, and 5) are just at the minimum
drainage area. Pertaining to this site and for all the other proposed sites, DWR has stated a
number of times the need to expand the watershed to ensure that the headwater reaches
will have the necessary flow. DWR believes tributaries UT 1(upper), 4 and 5 are risk to
deliver stream mitigation credits. See response #2 for Craven 26.
3. Table 12- DWR recommends limiting the planting of Green Ash to 5% because of the ash
borer that has become prevalent statewide. Noted. The Mitigation Plan has been changed.
Section 7.0 Credit Release Schedule- DWR does not approve of the proposed credit
release schedule. Please utilize the schedule as seen in the October 2016 Mitigation
Guidance. Following the December 11, 2019 meeting with IRT members,
Weyerhaeuser has removed the proposed modified credit release schedule and
replaced it with the existing Wilmington District schedule .
4. Section 8.1- Table 18 is reporting 67 total veg plots, DWR believes this is a typo.
This is the correct number of proposed veg plots

5. Section 8.3 Performance Standards -
a. Headwater flow standard- while DWR accepts the 30-day standard, however; we will
not accept only requiring the standard in years 4 thru 7. See response above.
b. DWR accepts the 12% minimum wetland saturation threshold.
6. Table 21- DWR recommends the Performance Bond Reduction Schedule mirror the
credit release schedule as shown in the 2016 Mitigation Guidance. This change has
been made.
7. Appendix C- Cross Sections- more existing cross sections should be listed. One cross section
is not adequate. DWR requires more cross sections be sent before final approval of the
mitigation plan can be approved. Noted. We will add more cross sections.
8. Design sheets- should show a bankfull line on the profile view.
The bankfull profile has been added to the UT1 plan sheets.
9. Design sheets 8-10 - there are a lot of proposed vernal pools along UT1-Reach 2 and 3. DWR
has two concerns related to the proposed layout. First, the designer should be mindful of the
alternate flow path this may create during high precipitation events. In certain areas, there are very
narrow plugs, stations 15+00 and 32+50, that could result in stability problems for the proposed stream
channel and bed. Secondly, these vernal pools are all within the proposed wetland restoration area,
which is not necessarily a bad thing, however, the layout may result in more open "marsh -like" areas.
Therefore, some verbiage should be included in the section which proposes what target vegetative
community is proposed. Also, please note that the IRT has seen vernal pools that were constructed
that were too deep, it is important that these areas not be deeper than shown on your typical. Vernal
pools which do not dry out will not be counted towards wetland restoration credit. Noted. These
areas will be shallow depressions meant to slow and hold water within the floodplain. The
depth will be suitable for the wetland tree species specified.
10. Design sheet 11- as DWR stated in earlier comments, we believe UT1 Reach 3 will splay
out well before it reaches the major stream. DWR recommends cutting back the stream
construction to station 44+00 or at the confluence of tributary UTS. The stream was
trimmed back to where relic channel scars are seen in the LiDAR map (Sta:—48+00).
11. Design sheet I I- what is the basis for wetland restoration along UT1 Reach 3 below the
road? From the design sheets, it does not appear there are many spoil piles. DWR believes
this area is wetland enhancement at best, depending on how much the channel is raised.
This area has been delineated as shown. Areas of existing wetland will be enhanced and
areas where wetlands were not present due to hydrology will have hydrology restored
through the priority 1 restoration re-establishing overbank flow.
12. DWR recommends wetland gauges at station 37+00 stream left, and station 42+00 stream
left. Noted. This change was made.
13. DWR recommends flow gauges on all headwater valley tributaries be placed in the upper
third of the reach (most flow gauges as displayed on Figure I 1 are almost at the bottom of
eachreach). Noted as above.
14. In addition, DWR would like to stress that these gauges should not be crest gauges, and
should be placed in a riffle like feature. Noted as above.
15. Design sheet 17- since part of this channel will go through an old pond (or two?), DWR

would like to see verbiage included and/or typicals included in the design sheets as to
what fill will be used and how the channel will be constructed. In other cases, the IRT has
noted if the dam is breached and the channel is left to develop passively, most often
wetlands develop and not a stream channel. Understood. More information has been
added to the plans and the mitigation document to define this further.
Beaufort 56
1. DWR is not recommending this site move forward for the following reasons:
a. Consider all the overall comments above as applying to this site as well.
b. We have repeatedly talked about getting the appropriate watershed area to support
headwater and 1st order streams in the coastal plain. We believe this site still falls short
of incorporating the contributing drainage that could make this site successful (see
Figure 9- LIDAR). Additional acreage was added to this Site following the December
2019 IRT meeting.
c. In addition, there was not a response to my previous comment considering Beaufort
56A comment 2 on page 7 (from your July 12, 2019 response memo), which relates to
our comment above (a). Additional acreage was added following the December 2019
IRT meeting.
d. There are other drainages entering the site that are not adequately addressed.
The Site has been reconfigured to encompass more drainages and to address water
coming from off site.
e. The site is bisected by a road which leaves a relatively short reach at the end
of the project. The reach below the dirt road crossing is more than 1,300 feet.
f. What is the drainage area of the two short reaches UT2 and UT3? UT2 has a drainage
area of 42 acres; UT3 has a drainage area of 41 acres.
Todd Tugwell, USACE:
Instrument comments -
1. Under Sec VII, Credit Release Schedule, we have in the past allowed for up to 100% of
the credits generated though preservation to be released upon completion of the tasks
identified in this section. If this doesn't amount to much credit, it may not be worth
complicating the release schedule, but that's up to you and the sponsor. If they were to
request release of all credits generated through preservation, they would also need to make
sure to have a proportionate amount of the endowment funded before this release. I would
add this as a condition of the initial allocation of credits. Also see additional comments
regarding the endowment and credit release sections in the mitigation plans, below. Noted.
Please see comment to NCDNR #C
2. Sec XI - Weyerhaeuser is identified as the long-term manager of the site. They are also the
land owner and sponsor. I don't think that this arrangement is appropriate, especially for
this bank. I understand that the easement is being held by Unique Places 2 Save, but from
what I can tell, Weyerhaeuser would be the entity that monitors the site for encroachments
(this is how the mitigation plans read as well), which is like the fox watching the henhouse.
In this case, if there were an encroachment, it would most likely be committed by
Weyerhaeuser because they own almost all of the land surrounding the easement, and will

be continuing to conduct forestry operations on the adjacent land. If there are management
activities (burning, invasive control, etc.) I could see those being conducted by
Weyerhaeuser, but the sponsor/owner should never be the party responsible for monitoring
the site for encroachments. Both Weyerhaeuser and Unique Places 2 Save would both be
monitoring for encroachment issues. See comment under NCDNR Comment #B for further
explanation.
Comments pertaining to all mitigation plans — The following comments regarding the
mitigation plans are combined in this section as they apply to all three mitigation plans.
1. General comment - One of the primary concerns previously discussed relates to concerns
that the projects have not been designed to restore sites to prior (pre -forestry operations)
conditions, and that the upper ends of these projects should really be wetland systems rather
than streams. Some easement area was added to help justify the approach, but overall the
amount added to the upper ends of the systems on these bank sites is minimal. The projects
also propose to develop headwaters streams within areas that may be better suited for
wetlands. Once the ditches have been filled, it is also likely that hydrology will be impacted
much farther upstream that the limits of the easements, which has the potential to cause
impacts to land use in these areas. This is evident by looking at the proposed grades up
valley from the headwater stream reaches. Site configurations have been changed based on
comments and input from the IRT.
Under Sec 1.4, it states that long-term stewardship responsibilities will begin at the end
of the bank's operational phase (after all credits are released and sold) and continue into
perpetuity. This section needs to be changed to indicate that long-term management
starts after the final release of credits when the site has been closed (i.e., at the end of the
monitoring phase). It could potentially be decades or longer before all credits are sold.
Change was made.
2. Sec 2.3, assurance of sufficient water rights, control of minerals, access, does the sponsor
have control of all areas that may potentially be impacted by increased hydrology due to the
restoration activities? We have discussed this previously at length. The mitigation plans
should include an evaluation to identify areas that could potentially be impacted by filling
the ditches on the site. If this may affect forestry operations adjacent to the project
easements, this needs to be noted (we need to know if ditches may be constructed adjacent
to the site in order to improve drainage once the project ditches are filled). No impacts will
occur within the proposed sites that will negatively impact the restored streams or wetlands.
Any impacts to adjacent lands have been minimized.
3. Sec 2.3 should also state whether mineral rights are held by Weyerhaeuser. If they have been
previously transferred, they would not be subject to the conservation easement restrictions.
Mineral rights for all sites are owned by Weyerhaeuser.
4. The long-term management plan includes maintenance of undesirable vegetation and
beaver/hog control. It's great to see these included, but how realistic is this? Understood.
The final mitigation plans have been modified to discuss natural conditions as compared to
those that threaten sustainability of the mitigation values.
5. The long-term management plan in lacking in detail. What are the proposed activities? How
often will they be done? How do they relate to the objectives of the bank? The description
of activities seems to be mostly about keeping roads open and passable, which if anything,
is contrary to the objective of the bank. This section has been modified.

6. Endowment (escrow) amounts have been lumped into one amount for all three sites. These
really should be broken out because each site is separate. This change has been made.
7. How is the endowment funding being managed? Does the NFWF provide an annual amount
based on the identified tasks? Who approves the release of funds, UP2S?? They could.
However, currently, NFWF will approve the release of funds.
8. The capitalization rate is 4% (3.5% is pretty typical), but it's not clear if this accounts for
inflation. Does NFWF get a 4% return? After discussion with the IRT on December 11,
2019, there will be no long-term management fund since no long-term management
activities are proposed beyond those typical activities that Weyerhaeuser will undertake as
owner of the property.
9. Is the endowment lumped in with other banks, or are the funds kept separate? See 98 above.
10. How were the figures in the table listing the tasks for long-term management determined?
For instance, undesirable vegetation control, it lists 10.2 acres, but this is much smaller than
the combined acreage of the easements, correct? (I couldn't find the easement size anywhere
in the mit plans.) I think the breakdown of the long-term management needs more detailed
descriptions of tasks, costs (per site), etc. See #8 above.
11. I did not see that there was any accounting for legal costs associated with protection of the
site. These legal costs are normally covered under the conservation easement endowment.
12. Endowment/escrow funding should be in place earlier than the year before the final credit
release, as stated in the plan. I recommend that the funding be tied to credit release, so that it
is partially funding during each credit release, and 100% funded by year 5. The
Conservation Easement endowment will be paid at closing.
13. The credit release schedule that proposes 601/o at construction is not acceptable. The District
has an approved release schedule that would apply to this bank. I recommend that they also
include the release schedule template that lists the anticipated releases along with dates. I
have attached this for reference. The credit release schedule has been changed to match the
current Wilmington District guidance.
14. Credit calculations for non-standard buffers were not done correctly (e.g., the ideal buffer
was not measured right, and there appear to be areas where wetland credit overlaps with
additional buffer credit). Please review guidance related to this methodology and
recalculate. Also provide more detailed maps showing the buffer zones. Shapefiles and/or
the excel file may be requested as well. I am available to discuss how to apply this if it
would be helpful. Guidance has been reviewed and modifications made. Additional
information can be provided as needed.
15. The adaptive management plan lacks specifics — please provide additional detail, including
any specific concerns regarding these sites (lack of channel formation, excess hydrology,
etc.). This section has been updated according to comments from the IRT.
16. Performance standards only reference the 2016 guidance. Specific monitoring and
performance standards should be restated in the document so it is clear what they are in the
mitigation plans. Noted. This change has been made.
17. The vegetation planting list only includes 7 tree species (not to include live stakes). I
recommend adding additional species to ensure a more diverse over story. The species
named are representative of typical coastal plain bottomland hardwood and swamp forests
with regard to number of species.
18. Green ash plantings should be reduced to no more than 5% due to the likely effects of the
emerald ash borer. Noted as discussed above. The planting percentages have been updated.

19. Headwater valley lengths appear to be based on the centerline measurement of the
ditches. These lengths should be based on straight-line valley length. Please update the
credit projections accordingly. Headwater centerlines have been confirmed in GIS and used
to calculate credits.
20. Vernal pools should be designed to be only seasonally impounded. If these areas remain
impounded, they should not be considered successful. Noted. See previous responses
regarding floodplain depressions.
21. It is not clear if the measurements of wetlands on the site include the vernal pools and/or the
area occupied by the channel (for single -thread channels). Noted. This has been clarified.
22. The design sheets provided do not appear to be updated to the current proposal. (i.e., they do
not show wetland restoration along the single thread channels, as is shown on the proposed
condition figures). Wetlands have been added to design sheets.
23. Ditch plugs should be at least 100 feet in length. Noted. All ditch plugs are shown as at least
100-feet long.
24. Flow gauges generally appear to be too far downstream. These gauges should be located
fairly close to the proposed stream origin, and at least in the upper 1/3. Noted as previously
discussed.
25. The distribution of groundwater gauges on sites should be modified to include some near the
edge of the easement (within wetlands) and some within restoration areas closer to the
channel (along single -thread channels). Noted.
26. The plans propose to restore natural topography, including minor depressions and small
mounds. Please take caution to ensure that any created topography does not adversely affect
the site, create non jurisdictional pockets or impounded areas. Noted.
27. It is not clear from the plans what areas are proposed to be planted. Please make this clear
on the planting plan, along with the amount of planted areas. Noted. Planting details have
been added. Final planting plans will accompany final construction drawings.
28. Wetland enhancement has not been defined. What constitutes "low enhancement". In
general, the description of current conditions of the wetlands and how they will be restored
is very vague. Please expand on these descriptions so that the reader has abetter
understanding of what will be done on the site. Understood. Discussion of wetland
mitigation activities has been added.
29. For areas where hydrology will be enhanced, is there any preexisting data to compare to?
What are the hydrology standards for these areas? Mitigation plans indicate that hydrology
performance "through comparison to measured reference condition" — I recommend
removing this statement. Hydrology will be determined successful if it meets the stated
standards only. Noted. This change has been made.
30. I had some questions about how the headwater valleys will be developed. What happens in
areas above the conservation easement? For instance, on Beaufort 56, Pollard swamp —
reach 1 starts at 3+50, but the easement doesn't start until 5+75. Please provide more detail
so that we get a better understanding of what is proposed for the headwater valley reaches.
Site plans have been adjusted to encompass additional areas. Off -site impacts have been
minimized.
31. On Beaufort 56, the NRCS soils map and LiDAR suggest that reach 2 should be located
farther east than either its current or proposed location. Please explain why this reach is
located where proposed? Agreed. The figures have been adjusted to show the correct
location for reach 2.

Kim Browning, USACE:
1. Endowment amounts —it needs to be enough that the site can be stewarded into perpetuity
based on the level of stewardship proposed. (Monitoring, walking the boundaries,
boundaries marked, check for encroachment, prescribed burning if applicable, invasive
control rarely, means for legal defense of easement, stewardship complexities.). No long-
term management activities are proposed. Legal defense of the easement is normally
covered in the conservation easement endowment.
2. An acceptance letter from the Long -Term Steward, including an itemized list of the
endowment funding, should be included in each mitigation plan. Noted. Letter will be
included in final plan.
3. The mitigation plan should provide a list of the annual long-term management activities
and associated annual costs. To estimate if you are providing an adequate endowment,
you can take the total annual amount required and divide it by 0.04 (cap rate). For
example, if the total annual costs were $500 and you divide by 0.04 then you should have
at least $12,500 to cover the long-term management. (A 0.04 capitalization rate is the
minimum rate we will allow) Keep in mind that this does not include funding to cover
any potential legal costs. You should include additional monies for a legal fund. I met with
UP2S recently and they indicated they are using a 3-3.5% cap rate currently. After discussion
with the IRT on December 11, 2019, there will be no long-term management fund since
no long-term management activities are proposed.
4. The endowment should be fully funded at least one year prior to closeout so that the
long-term steward does not have to draw on the principal. Noted.
5. Please depict photo points/digital image stations on monitoring maps. If the fixed cross-
section locations are to be used, please describe that in the text in the monitoring section.
Noted. This change will be made.
6. Wetland Restoration/enhancement — The inclusion of vernal pools is acceptable, and should
be 8- 14" depressions that dry up annually so that predatory species cannot colonize. Noted.
7. If ditches are to be filled, please show these areas on the construction plans, and the length
of the ditch plug (minimum 100 feet). Noted.
8. It would be beneficial to add some coarse woody debris to the depressional areas in the
buffers and throughout the adjacent wetlands for habitat, and to help store sediment,
increase water storage/infiltration, and absorb water energy during overbank events.
Noted.

THE MIDDLE NEUSE STREAM AND
WETLAND UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT (Rev. 3)
Middle Neuse River Basin — HUC 03020202
Beaufort County, North Carolina
SPONSOR:
Weyerhaeuser NR Company
Attn: Doug Hughes
406 Cole Road
Hattiesburg, MS 39402
601 341 6054
USACE ACTION ID NUMBER:
SAW-2017-02019
U:142_1:141l:Y16
Kimley-Horn
Attn: Tara Allden
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28202
704 319 7699
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Daren Pait, P.E., CFM
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
Coggin Asset Management, LLC
Attn: Daniel S. Coggin
P.O. Box 476
Amory, MS 38821
662 825 0058
Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable
Waters Volume 3, Chapter 2, Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c) (14).

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Project Introduction..........................................................................................................5
1.1 Project Description..............................................................................................................
5
1.2 Site Selection......................................................................................................................
6
1.3 Mitigation Site Location, Size, and Service Area................................................................
6
1.4 Ownership...........................................................................................................................
7
2.0
Watershed Approach.......................................................................................................8
2.1 Watershed environmental concerns and mitigation needs.................................................8
2.2 Goals and Objectives..........................................................................................................
8
2.3 Assurance of Sufficient Water Rights, Control of Minerals, and Access ............................
9
2.4 Site Protection.....................................................................................................................9
3.0
Site Baseline.................................................................................................................10
3.1 Existing Watershed Conditions.........................................................................................
10
3.2 Existing Site Conditions....................................................................................................
10
3.3 Endangered/Threatened species......................................................................................
12
3.4 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................
13
3.5 Regulated Floodplains......................................................................................................
13
3.6 Existing Site Constraints...................................................................................................
13
4.0
Functional Uplift Potential..............................................................................................14
5.0
Mitigation Plan...............................................................................................................16
5.1 Reference Site and Design Parameters...........................................................................
16
5.2 Mitigation Work Plan.........................................................................................................
19
6.0
Determination Of Credits...............................................................................................25
6.1 Stream Mitigation Credit Calculations...............................................................................
25
6.2 Wetland Mitigation Credit Calculations.............................................................................
25
7.0
Credit Release Schedule...............................................................................................26
8.0
Monitoring Plan.............................................................................................................26
8.1 Stream Monitoring Requirements.....................................................................................
27
8.2 Wetland Monitoring Requirements....................................................................................28
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1

8.3 Performance Standards....................................................................................................
28
8.4 Adaptive Management Plan..............................................................................................29
8.5 Post -Construction Documentation....................................................................................
31
8.6 Long -Term Management Plan..........................................................................................
31
8.7 Financial Assurances........................................................................................................
32
9.0 References....................................................................................................................33
TABLES
Table 1 — Proposed Stream Mitigation Summary.........................................................................................
Table 2 — Proposed Wetland Mitigation Summary........................................................................................
Table3 — Watershed Overview.....................................................................................................................
Table 4 — Beaufort County Protected Species..............................................................................................
Table 5 - Stream Mitigation Work Plan.........................................................................................................
Table 6 — Distribution of Intermittent and Perennial Origin Contributing Watershed (acre) ...........................
Table 7 — Stream Mitigation Approach Summary.........................................................................................
Table 8 — Wetland Mitigation Approach Summary........................................................................................
Table9 — Proposed Buffer Widths................................................................................................................
Table 10 —Zone 1 Planting Summary ..........................................................................................................
Table 11 —Zone 2 Planting Summary ..........................................................................................................
Table 12 — Zone 3 Planting Summary ..........................................................................................................
Table 13 — Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits...........................................................................................
Table 14 — Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits..........................................................................................
Table 15 — Credit Release Schedule — Streams...........................................................................................
Table 16 — Credit Release Schedule —Wetlands .........................................................................................
Table 17 — Vegetative Monitoring Plots........................................................................................................
Table 18 — Estimated Amount Required for Performance Bond...................................................................
Table 19 — Performance Bond Reduction Schedule.....................................................................................
..5
..5
10
12
14
18
19
22
23
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
32
32
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
I February 2020

APPENDICES
Appendix A
— Figures
Appendix B
— Photo Pages
Appendix C
— Geomorphic Cross -Sections
Appendix D
— Geomorphology
Appendix E
— Buffer Credit Calculations
Appendix F
— Mitigation Plan Sheets
Appendix G
— NCSAM Forms
Appendix H
— Wetland and Stream Data Forms
Appendix I —
Conservation Easement Documents
Appendix J —
Performance Bond
FIGURES
Figure 1 —
Service Area Map
Figure 2 —
Vicinity Map
Figure 3 —
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4 —
Historic Aerials
Figure 5 —
NRCS Soils
Figure 6 —
Hydric Soils
Figure 7 —Watershed
Figure 8 —
Existing Conditions
Figure 9 —
LiDAR
Figure 10
— Proposed Mitigation
Figure 11
— Monitoring Plan
Figure 12
— Additional Stream Buffer Credit
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Beaufort 56 Mitigation Site ("B56 Site" or "Site") is an initial site in the Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland
Umbrella Mitigation Bank (the "Middle Neuse UMB" or "Bank"). The Site is identified as having potential to help meet
the compensatory mitigation requirement for permitted stream and freshwater wetland impacts in Hydrologic Unit
Code ("HUC") 03020202 of the Neuse River Basin. It was selected based on the its ability to provide improvements to
aquatic resources within the Middle Neuse 8-digit HUC through restoration as described further within this Mitigation
Plan.
The Site is in Beaufort County, NC (Figure 1—Service Area Map) and consists of one (1) stream system within the
Creeping Swamp watershed (HUC 030202020403) that includes headwater restoration and stream and wetland
systems restoration. This Mitigation Plan is a holistic approach that encompasses the valley and riparian wetlands
adjacent to the stream channels. The stream system described here as Pollard Swamp ("PS") is a tributary to
Creeping Swamp, which joins Clayroot Swamp upstream of the confluence with Swift Creek.
On -site streams that are proposed for restoration were historically impacted by extensive ditching and currently have
diminished functionality within the functional categories identified in the stream functional pyramid (Harman, Starr,
Tweedy, Clemmon, Suggs, Miller. 2012). Based on these areas of impacted functionality and potential for functional
uplift, this Mitigation Plan has been produced identifying the proposed mitigation activities and associated credit
generation shown in Table 1 and Tablet.
All mitigation areas within the Site will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement totaling 99.1 acres. The
Conservation Easement document will be in the form described in Section X of the Middle Neuse Umbrella Mitigation
Baking Instrument ("UMBI").
Table 1 — Proposed Stream Mitigation Summary
Mitigation Approach ME=
Existing Length (ft.)
Proposed Length (ft.)
Credit Ratio
Credits
PS—R1 Headwater Restoration
967
967
1:1
967
PS—R2 Restoration
2,954
3,233
1:1
3,233
PS—R3 Restoration
467
530
1:1
530
UT2 Headwater Restoration
927
927
UT3 Headwater Restoration
988
988
1:1
988
Total stream lengths and sub -total Credits
6,303
BUFFER ADJUSTMENT TO STREAM CREDITS
(SEE "WILMINGTON DISTRICT STREAM BUFFER
CREDIT
CALCULATOR" WORKSHEETS IN Appendix E —
Buffer Credit Calculations)
433
TOTAL STREAM CREDITS
Tak = 2 — Proposed Wetland Mitigation Summary
CMitigation Approach Mitigation Area (ac.) Wetland Mitigation Ratio Credits
Restoration 78.1 1:1 78.1
TOTAL WETLAND CREDITS 78.1
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
I February 2020

SITE SELECTION
As part of the Middle Neuse UMB, the B56 Site is proposed to provide compensatory mitigation for
permitted impacts within the Middle Neuse Watershed (HUC 03020202). The larger Neuse River Basin
has been a focal point for water quality concerns for almost three decades due to sediment disturbances
in upstream rural development as well as nutrient loading from upstream agricultural land use.
Development within this basin is predicted to increase - especially with the proposed Kinston Bypass
construction, which will likely increase development around the proposed interchanges. As such, the B56
Site aims to provide protection and the potential for significant water quality and aquatic habitat
improvements in this sensitive region. The B56 Site was identified as a strong candidate for mitigation
based on its potential for uplift as well as the following criteria as originally documented in the prospectus
phase:
Access —Potential sites must have permanent, deeded access.
Proximity to Impacts —Potential sites must be within the 8-digit HUC in which impacts are
anticipated to occur.
Watershed Impact —Restoring, enhancing, and protecting a potential site must contribute to the
overall improvement of the watershed in which it is found.
Restoration Potential —Potential sites must have a combination of wetland and stream
restoration. Sites with historical alterations, such as silviculture, will generally be given priority for
development.
Habitat Connectivity —Potential sites must contribute to creating larger, contiguous conservation
properties to help support habitat diversity, quality, and stability.
Sufficient Water Rights/Resources—Potential sites must have sufficient water rights/resources to
sustain restored and/or protected wetlands and streams.
Mineral Rights —The Bank Sponsor must own/control the surface mineral rights, including gravel,
sand, salt, and coal.
1.3 MITIGATION SITE LOCATION, SIZE, AND SERVICE AREA
The B56 Site is in southwest Beaufort County, North Carolina, about 23 miles north of New Bern. It can
be accessed from Pollard Road off State Road 102, approximately 3 miles east of U.S. Highway 17. The
Site is located at 35.4126' North and-77.1526' East (Figure 1-ServieeArea Map). Overall, the Site includes
the restoration of multiple tributaries and riparian wetlands, some of which currently are within narrow
bands of hardwood forest near active timber production.
The Site is in the Creeping Swamp sub -basin of the Middle Neuse River Basin (HUC 030202020403) and
the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Level III Ecoregion. The Site sits in the Department of Water Resources
("DWR") Sub -basin 03-04-09. HUC 03020202 is situated downstream of HUC 03020201 (which contains
Raleigh and Durham) and HUC 03020203 (which includes Smithfield, Goldsboro, Farmville, and other
heavily agricultural areas). The local Creeping Swamp sub -basin is predominantly used for timber
production, with some agriculture and very little existing commercial, industrial, or residential
development.
The B56 Site, as a mitigation site under the framework of the Middle Neuse UMB, is proposed to produce
stream and wetland credits that will be used to offset permitted impacts to aquatic resources within the
Bank's service area. The service area associated with the B56 Site is defined as the United States
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1

Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit HUC within which the Site is located -the Middle Neuse 02 HUC (HUC
03020202) (Figure 1—Service Area Map).
1.4 OWNERSHIP
SANK OWNER, SPONSOR, AND LONG-TERM STEWARD
Weyerhaeuser NR Company
Contact: Doug Hughes
Address: 406 Cole Road
Hattiesburg, MS 39402
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
As the landowner, Weyerhaeuser NR Company will provide access to the property for establishment
(including granting the conservation easement), operation, management of the Site, and long-term
management of the property within the framework of the Middle Neuse UMBI. The owner will retain all
rights and responsibilities of ownership subject to the terms of the Conservation Easement (included as
,dr--4i)(1-Conservation EasementDocumer ), which shall be placed on the property prior to the first release
of mitigation credits.
As the Bank Sponsor, Weyerhaeuser NR Company maintains the rights to permit, develop, maintain, and
operate the Middle Neuse UMB and its associated sites, including The B56 Site, in accordance with the
terms of the Middle Neuse UMBI and this Mitigation Plan and subject to the terms and conditions of the
conservation easement that will be established over the property.
Weyerhaeuser NR Company will be responsible for maintenance of the Site's aquatic resources as
described in the Long -Term Management Plan, in Section 8.6 of this document. Long-term management
responsibilities will begin at the end of the bank's monitoring phase (and continue in perpetuity.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT IOLDER
The Conservation Easement will be held by Unique Places To Save
(https://www.uniqueplacestosave.org), a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit conservation organization located in Chapel
Hill, North Carolina. Founded in 2014, Unique Places To Save was founded to "move beyond barriers to
address unmet needs in the fields of natural and cultural heritage, farming, community, and technology."
Unique Places To Save is an entrepreneurial nonprofit organization that invests in, and enhances the
places that make communities unique. To date, the organization holds fifteen (15) conservation
easements.
A copy of the Conservation Easement document is included as - — -- -`;In Easement Documents.
0 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
1 February 2020

2.1 WATC:DSHED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND MITIGATION NEEDS
The Middle Neuse River Basin (HUC 03020202) has been significantly impacted by agricultural land
uses, extensive ditching, and lack of riparian buffer. Development within this basin is predicted to
increase, especially with construction of the Kinston Bypass. This bypass will increase mobility in the area
and spur development around proposed interchanges, likely creating additional impacts to the area. The
Middle Neuse River Basin (HUC 03020202) consists of 1,008 square miles with more than 340 miles of
stream and is primed for significant local growth. Between the five (5) counties that make up the
watershed (Beaufort, Craven, Lenoir, Pitt, and Wayne Counties), Pitt County is forecasted to grow by
5.8% by 2020, and Wayne County is expected to grow by 4.1 %**. Overall, the Middle Neuse watershed is
expected to see 2.4% growth by 2020. The B56 Site represents a valuable opportunity to restore natural
streams and headwater systems to offer long-term protection to essential habitat and aquatic resources
as growth and development comes to the area.
This Site's goals and objectives described below are consistent in addressing the major stressors
identified in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities ("RBRP") document produced by the North
Carolina Department of Mitigation Services ("NCDMS").
**https.//files. nc.govmcosamiaemogicountygrowtn_2020. html
2.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
WATERSHED SCALE GOALS
The Neuse RBRP 2010 document produced by the NCDMS spells out the Middle Neuse Basin
restoration and protection goals. Applicable goals stated are as follows:
Promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving
wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers.
Continue targeted implementation of projects under the Nutrient Offset and Buffer programs, as
well as focusing Department of Transportation ("DOT") sponsored restoration in areas where they
will provide the ecosystem's most functional improvement.
Mitigation proposed as part of the B56 Site addresses these specific RBRP goals. A significant length of
stream mitigation, wetland mitigation, and riparian corridor enhancement and preservation will improve
water quality within the Middle Neuse Basin. Additionally, these projects are being implemented now to
offset future impacts that could occur as part of the Kinston Bypass construction and future development
that may occur because of the roadway improvements.
SITE -SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
Fill ditches that currently are draining headwater valley systems and reestablish the historic
headwater valley system to accomplish the following:
o Restore hydrology to the headwater valley system to restore wetland systems within the
headwaters.
o Restore original headwater stream system to provide more frequent flooding of the adjacent
headwater wetlands and valley.
The Middle Neusc otream ana vvetiand Umurella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1

o Supplement existing trees and roots in headwater systems with appropriate vegetation to
encourage stabilized flow paths through restored headwater systems.
Restore native riparian buffers.
Restore native wetland vegetation.
Restore intermittent and perennial streams with a Priority 1 restoration approach to:
o Reestablish the restored channel to the center of its valley and restore appropriate pattern,
dimension, and profile.
o Because of elevating the stream through a Priority 1 approach, restore adjacent riparian
wetland hydrology. This also will address the cross -sectional dimensions of the channel to
return it to a stream hydraulically connected to its floodplain versus its current ditched and
disconnected/incised state.
o Restore profile and habitat diversity by reestablishing riffle/ripple and pool sequences (i.e.,
habitat transitions) throughout the restored stream systems to provide depth variability.
o Establish a 150-foot-wide vegetated buffer to each site of the Priority 1 restoration and
transition reaches.
o Establish and/or protect a minimum 50-foot-wide vegetated buffer to each side of the
headwater reaches.
o Provide additional buffer, outside the required 50 feet along restored headwater systems, to
protect restored wetlands.
Where possible, preserve channel reaches to provide a contiguous riparian corridor throughout
the site.
Reestablish natural overland flow patterns within the adjacent buffers by removing planting rows
and disrupting the drainage effect of ditches within the buffer.
Restore natural topography in the floodplains, including minor depression and mounds that
promote diversity of hydrologic conditions and habitats.
Restore site wetland hydrology by promoting storage of surface water, increasing surface
ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing a higher water table across
the floodplain and wetlands.
2.3 ASSURANCE OF SUFFICIENT WATER RIGHTS, CONTROL OF
MINERALS, AND ACCESS
Sufficient water rights exist to support the long-term sustainability of the Site. There are no severed rights
on the property.
2.4 SITE PROTECTION
In accordance with Section X (Site Protection) found in the Middle Neuse UMBI, the Bank Sponsor,
Weyerhaeuser NR Company, plans to protect the site by applying a conservation easement. A copy of
the Conservation Easement document is included as Appendurl-Conservation Easement Documents.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
I February 2020

EXISTING WATERSHED CONDITIONS
The stream system proposed for mitigation consists of the Pollard Swamp stream channel and two (2)
unnamed tributaries. The headwaters for this system occur onsite and are included in the mitigation area.
Silviculture is the primary land use within the headwater system. In some reaches, a hardwood buffer has
been left intact where the adjacent floodplain typically is too inundated for pine harvesting. In these
reaches, the center of the valley typically has been ditched, draining the headwater system. Watershed
summary information for the system is provided in the table below.
Quie 3 - Watershed Overview
Level IV Ecoregion
63e Mid -Atlantic Flatwoods
River Basin
Neuse
USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit
03020202
USGS 12-digit Hydrologic Unit
030202020403
DWR Sub -Basin
03-04-09
Project Watershed / Percent Impervious
Beaufort 56
807 Ac
0.11
The watershed sits within the Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion (Level IV), which occur in the nearly level
coastal plain with frequently high-water tables and large areas of poorly drained soil. While the watershed
currently is occupied by significant commercial loblolly pine plantations, the large areas of loamy, organic
soils historically were home to significant biological diversity compared to the Mid -Atlantic Flatwood region
to the north. Restoring and preserving headwater systems is especially valuable to the health and water
quality of the watershed because of its shallow topography.
3.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION
All reaches identified on -site, including each unnamed tributary and named swamp system (Pollard
Swamp), are identified as Class C waters with additional designations of nutrient sensitive waters
("NSW") and swamp waters ("SW"). The system joins Clayroot Swamp, which is listed as impaired and
drains to an impaired segment of Swift Creek.
SITE SOILS
The on -site soils are derived from deposits on marine terraces within the coastal plain. These soils were
deposited between the Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs, where ocean levels were high enough to form
flat terraces across the coast of North America and deposit marine sands, silts, and clays. The on -site
soils are described by site section and soil type below. The soils that occur on -site are presented in
S - N and jure 6 - Hydrie Soils.
Leaf Silt Loam
Leaf Silt Loam ("La") soils predominantly exist on terraces that form on broad interstream divides and
consist of clayey marine deposits. The profile is made up of 0 to 6 inches of silt loam, a depth from 6 to 67
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation bank I bcautort 56 Site Mitigation Tian - DRAFT
February 2020 1 9

inches of clay, and a final depth from 67 to 80 inches of clay loam (end of profile). This soil type is poorly
drained and trends with a 0-2% slope. It has a hydric rating of 90. Leaf soil occurs on -site in the lower
portion of the Pollard Swamp reach.
Leon Sand
Leon Sand ("Lo") is a sandy soil that forms on flats in marine terraces created from sandy fluvio-marine
deposits during prehistoric periods of high sea levels. The profile consists of medium sand from 0 to 15
inches and fine sand from 15 to at least 80 inches (end of profile). The soil is highly conductive, with
hydraulic conductivity values in the most confining layers (fine sand) of as high as 1.98 inches per hour.
The Leon soil occurs on -site adjacent to the stream corridors of Pantego loam. The water table is
consistently at 0 to 12 inches in depth and the soil has a hydric rating of 80.
Pantego Loam
Pantego Loam ("Pa") forms in broad interstream divides on marine terraces and consists of mostly loam
and sandy loam. The soil profile consists of loam from 0 to 18 inches and a sandy clay loam from 18 to 80
inches (end of profile). The soil is poorly drained with high available water storage and a hydric rating of
90. Fitting with its description, the Pantego soils occur within the tributary corridors.
Tomotley Fine Sandy Loam
Tomotley Fine Sandy Loam ("To") forms in depressions on terraces along the coastal plain and consists
of medium -to -fine sandy loam. The soil profile is made up of fine sandy loam from 0 to 12 inches, sandy
clay loam from 12 to 42 inches, sandy loam from 42 to 50 inches, and loamy sand from 50 to 80 inches
(end of profile). The soil profile is poorly drained but has a high hydraulic conductivity rating and a hydric
rating of 91. Tomotley soils occur in the western edge of the Site.
BASELINE STREAM CONDITIONS
Descriptions of each existing reach condition are outlined below. provides watershed
acreages for each reach and provides existing lengths. Additionally, representative photos are
included in ippendVb do Pages.
Pollard Swamp ("PS") Reach 1, UT2, and UT3
Historically, Pollard Swamp, UT2, and UT3 are headwater systems that have been ditched and
disconnected from the adjacent floodplain to drain adjacent areas. North Carolina Stream Assessment
Method ("NC SAM") scores for each reach are low, due to the incised and disconnected nature of the
existing conditions, and bank ratios for each reach range from 2.5 to 4.0. NCSAM forms for the stream in
Appendix G - NCSAM Forms.
Pollard Swamp ("PS") — Reaches 2 and 3
The lower portion of Pollard Swamp is an incised channel that has been ditched and currently acts as a
roadside ditch. Historically, reaches 2 and 3 were shallow E-type stream channel that formed at the
downstream extent of the PS headwater system. Currently, due to the incised and ditched nature of the
channel, it is disconnected from the floodplain and lacks natural pattern and bedform diversity. The NC
SAM rating of the lower reach of PS is low, primarily due to its entrenched condition and inability to
frequently access its historic floodplain.
A i ne iviiadle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020

3ASELINE WETLAND CONDITIONS
All areas within the Beaufort 56 site boundary have been field reviewed( `,7ure8—Existing Conditions). While
large portions of riparian areas along each system have hydric soils and, historically, have been
headwater and riparian wetlands, there are currently no existing wetlands on -site.
NDANGERED/T rZEATENED SPECIES
Table 4 includes a full list of state and federally protected species known to occur in Beaufort County.
Though the Site does not currently have suitable habitat for any of the species listed, the restoration of
wetlands and streams at the Site may result in more suitable habitat for these species.
Table 4 — Beautort County Protected Species
(NC Nat. a Heritaqe Program, https://www.ncnhp.orq/data/species-communi!v-search, updated February9, 2079.)
Suitable
Taxonomic StateA
Scientific Name Common Name
Habitat On -
ML
Group Status
site
Neuse River
rivers and large streams in Neuse
Amphibian Necturus lewisi Sc
and Tar drainages (endemic to North No
Waterdog
Carolina)
Amphibian
Pseudacris ornata Ornate Chorus Frog
F
E
I
A&
swamps, savannas, wooded ponds
No
and pools
Rana capito (syn. Carolina Gopher
breeds in temporary fish -free pools;
Amphibian
Rana capita capita) Frog
E
forages in sandy woods, especially
No
Ammodramus Henslow's Sparrow
pine -oak sandhills
clearcut pocosins and other damp
Bird
E
potential
henslowii
weedy fields [breeding season only]
mature forests near large bodies of
Bird
Haliaeetus
Bald Eagle
T
BGPA
water (nesting); rivers, lakes, and
No
leucocephalus
sounds (foraging) [breeding evidence
only]
Bird
lxobrychus exilis
Least Bittern
SC
fresh or brackish marshes [breeding
No
evidence only]
Red -cockaded
mature open pine forests, mainly in
Bird
Picoides borealis
Woodpecker
E
E
longleaf pine [breeding evidence
Potential
only]
Wayne's Black-
nonriverine wetland forests,
Bird
Setophaga virens
throated Green
E
especially where white cedar or
No
waynei
Warbler
cypress are mixed with hardwoods
[breeding evidence only]
Freshwater
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic Pigtoe
E
PT
Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear,
potential
Bivalve
Yadkin -Pee Dee drainages
brackish water of large rivers and
Freshwater
Acipenser
Fish
brevironser
Shortnose Sturgeon
E
E
estuaries; spawns in freshwater
No
areas
Acipenser
Freshwater
Fish
oxyrinchus
Atlantic Sturgeon
E
E
coastal waters, estuaries, large rivers
No
oxyrinchus
Mammal
Canis rufus
Red Wolf
T
EXP
swamps, pocosins, extensive forests
Potential
Corynorhinus
Eastern Big -eared
roosts in hollow trees, old buildings,
Mammal
rafinesquii macrotis
Bat
Sc
and beneath bridges, usually near
No
water
Mammal
Trichechus manatus
West Indian
T
T
warm waters of estuaries and river
No
Manatee
mouths
Reptile
Alligator
American Alligator
T
T(S/A)
fresh to slightly brackish lakes,
No
mississippiensis
ponds, rivers, and marshes
__F
wetland forests in the Coastal Plain;
Reptile
Crotalus horridus
Timber Rattlesnake
SC
rocky, upland forests elsewhere
potential
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020 1

Malaclemys
Diamondback
Reptile
SC
salt or brackish marshes, estuaries No
terrapin
Terrapin
Nerodia sipedon
Carolina
salt or brackish marshes (endemic to
Reptile williamengelsi
Watersnake
North Carolina) No
pine flatwoods, pine/oak sandhills,
Sistrurus miliarius
Carolina Pigmy
Reptile
miliarius
Rattlesnake
SC
other pine/oak forests
freshwater to slightly brackish tidal
Potential
Vascular
Aeschynomene
Plant
virginica
ensitive Jointvetch
T
marshes and wet ditches
Vascular
Eleocharis cellulosa
Gulfcoast Spikerush
E
interdune ponds, brackish marshes
No
Plant
& tidal freshwater marshes
Vascular
Lysimachia
Rough -leaf
E
E
pocosin/savanna ecotones, pocosins
No
Plant
asperulifolia
Loosestrife
Vascular
Platanthera nivea
Snowy Orchid
T
wet savannas
No
Plant
Vascular
Polygonum
Plant
glaucum
Seabeach Knotweed
E
ocean and sound beaches
No
Vascular
Ponthieva
blackwater forests and swamps,
Shadow -witch
T
No
Plant
racemosa
especially over marl
Vascular Sagittaria
Grassleaf
fresh to slightly brackish marshes,
Plant weatherbiana
Arrowhead
E
streams, swamps, and pond margins
Potential
Vascular
Eaton's Ladies'-
Spiranthes eatonii
E
pine savannas and pine -oak sandhills
No
Plant
tresses
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
A search of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) GIS Web Service (http://ais.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/, accessed January 3, 2019) showed no known
significant historic or archeological resources on site or immediately adjacent to the site. No impacts to
such resources if they do occur are anticipated.
REGULATED FLOODPLAINS
The site is located in an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (Zone X - FIRM panel 3720564000L). No FEMA
coordination is required to work in this area.
EXISTING SITE CONSTRAINTS
There are no known constraints that are not being addressed through design. The only known design
constraints are:
An existing dirt road that crosses the site along the PS Reach 2 section of channel.
o The existing culvert under this road is to be upsized with a wider/larger culvert to
improve the hydraulic connection from the upstream side of the road to the downstream
side.
o The new culvert will be elevated to match the higher stream invert that was designed to
provide a Priority 1 restoration and thus promote floodplain connectivity.
o The new culvert invert will also be installed 1.0 foot below the stream invert in order to
better allow for fish passage.
o The conservation easement will have a break to accommodate the road; no mitigation
credits will be generated from this area.
Reach 3 will tie into the existing channel as it leaves the site.
o The lower 550 feet of PS - Reach 3 will transition from the Priority 1 restoration down to
tie in to the lower existing invert of the channel as the stream channel leaves the site.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation clan - uKAr I
February 2020

Based on data and observations collected from the watershed analysis, site visits, and reference material,
Table 5 outlines areas of potential uplift and a work plan associated with the uplift of each design
consideration. These parameters, and their associated design considerations, have been developed to fit
under the framework of the Harman Stream Functions Pyramid. Maximum practical uplift potential for
each functional level, including stream hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology, physical chemistry, and
biology, were scrutinized based on the existing conditions and limitations associated with adjacent land
use, watershed condition, and landscape variables. The content of this Mitigation Plan was guided by
these observed functional uplift areas to best serve the project and improve overall site conditions.
Table S - Stream Mitiaation Work Plan
Design Consideration
Work Plan (if not functioning or functioning at -risk)
Hydrologic Function
Restore multi -zone hardwood and vegetative buffer to slow overland
Overland Flow
flow and reduce sedimentation. Identify areas of concentrated flow
Surface Flow and
such as lateral ditches that enter the proposed conservation
Watershed Contribution
easement and fill these ditches and locations of concentrated flow.
Vegetative Buffer
Also, implement floodplain depressions to dissipate energy and slow
water entering the conservation easement.
Hydraulic Function
Bank Height Ratios
Restore natural bankfull dimensions and reestablish hydrologic
(BHR)
access to the floodplain by raising existing channel bottoms or
designing new channel with appropriate base width and bankfull
Entrenchment Ratio
dimensions based on regional curves and reference reach data. The
Floodplain Connectivity (ER)
primary approach throughout all reaches is to reconnect the channel
to its historic floodplain by filling in ditches through headwater
Dimensionless Rating systems and implementing Priority 1 restoration where feasible.
Curve Floodplains and adjacent wetlands will be restored to promote the
storage and infiltration of surface water.
Bankfull Velocity Reduce channel erosion and stabilize sediment transport within the
channel by selecting bankfull dimensions and channel
Bankfull Shear Stress geomorphology to optimize stream power and velocity and minimize
Flow Dynamics negative impacts from excess shear stress. Changes to the
dimensions of the channels will include construction of a channel
Bankfull Stream Power with appropriate bank height ratios (1.0) and appropriate bedform
diversity to dissipate energy across the floodplain and channel.
Reestablish channel pattern and profile, removing existing ditches
Meander Width Ratios that drain surrounding groundwater areas. Raised groundwater
conditions along the stream banks restores hyporheic zones and
Groundwater/Surface allows for groundwater and surface water exchange. Floodplains and
Water Exchange adjacent wetlands will be restored to promote the storage and
Bedform diversity infiltration of surface water. Priority 1 combined with decreasing
floodplain drainage capacity will impose a higher water table across
the site.
Geomorphic Function
Large Woody Debris Large Woody Debris Reestablish hardwood buffer along riparian zone to provide shade,
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1

Transport and Storage
Index (LWDI) compared
detritus, and large and small woody debris to supplement habitat
to reference
provided by in -stream structures in the channel and buffer area.
Rosgen Stream Channel
Succession Scenarios
Design new channel with intentional P-P spacing, radius of curvature,
(2010)
Channel Evolution
riffle slopes, and bankfull dimensions to regulate channel type and
Simon Channel
development.
Evolution Model Stages
(1989)
Meander Width Ratios
Design channels with appropriate width -to -depth ratios and
Bank Migration/
Bank Erosion Hazard
meander widths, as well as radius of curvature, to prevent unnatural
Lateral Stability
Index (BEHI)
bank erosion and excess sedimentation. Plant stabilizing vegetation
and live stakes on the banks to reduce bank recession and
Width -to -Depth Ratios
sedimentation.
Varying widths of vegetative buffers will provide valuable hydrologic
and hydraulic benefits to the overbank and transitional areas of the
Riparian Vegetation
Vegetative Buffer
stream reaches and headwater systems, including stabilization,
energy dissipation, and natural habitat.
Percent Riffle
Provide mechanism for channel bedform revitalization through
Bed -form Diversity
Pool -to -Pool Spacing
appropriate channel profile and dimensions that will subsequently
Depth Variability
alter sediment deposition, transport, and channel stability.
Introducing proper pool -to -pool spacing and riffle/ripple grades will
support deposition of sediment and establishment of stable natural
Bed Material
Bed Material
channel bed material. Additionally, wood structures such as log
Characterization
Composition Relative to
vanes, log cross vanes, brush and roll riffles, and toe wood will be
Reference
used to provide immediate bedform diversity creating habitat
transitions like references
Physicochemical Function
Establish vegetative buffer to decrease sediment erosion from
riparian areas and from incoming surface flow from outside of the
Vegetative Buffer and
conservation easement. The buffer also will reduce runoff velocities
Water Quality
Bank Stability
which will decrease the potential for channel bank erosion.
Regrading and planting channel banks (where applicable) will reduce
the potential for bank erosion and further reduce sediment loading.
Establish riparian buffer along headwater systems, as well as
Establish Riparian
ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams within the
Water Temperature
Buffer
conservation easement. Narrowing low flow when channel is
overwide will further reduce temperature.
In -Stream Riffle
Reestablish appropriate channel dimensions and pool -to -pool
Structures
spacing to restore groundwater to surface water exchange in the
Nutrients
channel banks and revitalize hyporheic zones where micro bacteria
Profile and Bankfull
breakdown and consume complex nutrients from fertilizers, like
Dimensions
nitrates into atmospheric Nitrogen.
Biological Function
Aquatic Habitat Revitalize riparian buffer conditions, install instream structures for
Wetland Habitat stability and habitat (brush and roll rifles, brush toe, log vanes, and
Aquatic organism log cross vanes), and raise channel bed to reconnect flow to the
communities Groundwater and floodplain and enhance hyporheic activity. The installation of riffle
Surface Water structures provides areas for aquatic habitat, as well as areas for
Connectivity turbulence that oxygenates water.
0 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
1 February 2020

Oc:c7c:RENCE SITS AND DESIGN PARAME
Design of the proposed restoration reaches within the B56 Site were based on multiple considerations
and sources of design parameters. The following were used for the stream and wetland design:
Four (4) reference stream sites located within the Carolina Flatwoods level -IV ecoregion.
On -site relic channels and relic wetland systems.
Multiple coastal plain regional curves and accompanying data.
Current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") and NCDMS guidelines/design parameters.
Searches were conducted upstream/downstream of the Site and into surrounding watersheds to find
suitable references that contained similarities to the Site streams including level IV physiographic
ecoregion, watershed, valley slope, and morphology. No reference reaches were identified immediately
upstream or downstream of the site or in the surrounding watershed. Four (4) reference reaches from
multiple reference databases (NCDOT and Sweet/Geratz) were selected outside of the watershed but
within the Carolina Flatwoods level -IV physiographic eco-region. The reference reaches were selected to
represent the probable configurations for the proposed streams. The data shown in able 6 helped to
provide a basis for evaluating the project site and determining the stream systems that may have been
present historically and/or how they may have been influenced by changes within the watershed. A
description of each reference reach is included below. Geomorphic parameters for these reference
reaches are summarized in pholog1
Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can be used to inform
design of stable channels of similar stream types in similar landscapes and watersheds. While reference
reach data can be a useful aid in designing channel dimension, pattern, and profile, there are limitations
in smaller stream systems. The flow patterns and channel formation for most reference reach quality
streams is often controlled by slope, watersheds, groundwater inputs and larger trees and/or other deep-
rooted vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters, such as radius of curvature, are particularly
affected by vegetation control. Pattern ratios observed in reference reaches may not be applicable or are
often adjusted in the design criteria to create designs that are less likely to erode after construction before
the permanent vegetation is established.
REFERENCE STREAM REACHES
Beaverdam Branch
The Beaverdam Branch reference reach is located approximately 1,000 feet downstream of SR 1119
outside Trenton, North Carolina in Jones County. Beaverdam Branch is classified as a Rosgen E5 stream
type. The stream flows through a wide wooded swamp floodplain with a valley slope of 0.1 %-0.4% and
sinuosity of 1.9. Most of floodplain would be considered wetland with numerous seeps and side
tributaries. The 3.0 square mile watershed is mostly agricultural (70.4% cultivated) with the remainder
being bottomland forest/hardwood swamps, shrublands, mixed upland hardwoods, and some single-
family residences.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1 M

Black Branch
Black Branch is in Craven County just north-west of New Bern off SR 1101, within Croatan National
Forest. This site was classified as a blackwater E stream type and has a watershed of 1.2 square miles.
The reach has a valley slope of 0.6% and channel slope of 0.4% giving it a sinuosity of 1.7. The stream
maintains an entrenchment ratio of 15-25. The watershed of the reference reach lies almost entirely
within the National Forest boundaries made up of predominantly silviculture southern yellow pine with
some bottomland forest, mixed upland hardwoods, and mixed shrubland.
"ributary to Town Creek
The unnamed tributary ("UT") to Town Creek is located north of SR 1413 (Town Creek Rd NE) near
Belville, NC in Brunswick County. The stream was classified as a blackwater E stream type with a
watershed of 0.6 square miles. This reach flows through a semi mature bottomland forest and has an
average valley slope of 0.72% and an average channel slope of 0.35%. The channel has a width -to -depth
ratio of 8.9, an entrenchment ratio of over 20, and a sinuosity of 2.0. The watershed for this reference
reach is mostly used for cultivated silviculture with some forested land and shrubland.
Tributary to Hunters Creek
The UT to Hunters Creek is in Jones County, south of Great Lake Road, Croatan National Forest. The
watershed is 0.7 square miles and the land use within the watershed is comprised of cultivated
silviculture, semi mature -mature bottomland forest/hardwood swamps, shrublands, and mixed upland
hardwoods. The UT to Hunters Creek reference site was classified as a C6 stream type with a sinuosity of
1.5. The channel has a width to depth ratio of 19 and an entrenchment ratio of 16. The reach has a valley
slope of 0.4% while the channel slope is 0.2%.
HYBRID ECOREGION-SPECIFIC REGIONAL CURVE
The published Rural NC Coastal Plain regional curve (Doll, et al., 2003) along with an additional NC
Coastal Plain regional curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) was used to check hydraulic geometry based on
watershed using regional relationships. A hybrid level IV ecoregion-specific curve was developed for the
Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion using data from the two published regional curves and supplementary data
from Kimley-Horn's internal reference reach database. Analytical review of applicable streams from
multiple stream reference databases and developing a hybrid regional curve, provided the most pertinent
background information to determine the appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and
overall site functional uplift potential. Additionally, reference parameters from Kimley-Horn's internal
database based on successful past projects were consulted and analyzed. AppendixD-Geomorphology
illustrates the NC Coastal Plain curves along with other data used for these analyses.
HEADWATER REFERENCE
In addition to design criteria reference data (mentioned above), design and placement of the headwater
restoration reach systems required consideration of the valley slope, contributing watershed, ground
water inputs, curvature, soils, precipitation and ecoregion. Research provided in "Mapping Headwater
Streams: Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Stream Model Development and Spatial Application" by
Russell (2008) shows that contributing watershed is the usually the dominating factor in predicting
intermittent and perennial stream points of origin. For the Coastal Plain it was found that the mean
.e Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020

contributing watershed at the point of origin of intermittent streams is about 40 acres. For perennial
streams that value is about 100 acres.
Table 6 - nittrihutinn of Intermittent and Perennir7/ nrinin Cnntrihutinn Wnterthed (a( -re)
Carolina Slate
Belt -A
Carolina Slate
Belt-B
Eastern Blue Northern Outer
Ridge Foothills_jmL Piedmont
int per int per
Rolling Coastal
Triassic Basin
int
per
int
per
int
per
int
per
Min
0.20
0.72
0.05
2.04
0.23
0.24
1.55
2.54
0.16
7.16
0.10
0.13
10%
1.47
7.53
0.77
2.39
2.17
1.02
1.80
4.07
7.52
10.76
1.24
1.89
25%
2.85
11.58
4.89
9.52
3.72
2.91
4.48
10.05
11.15
28.82
1.95
3.27
50%
7.36
15.99
23.80
37.50
4.60
4.98
8.82
16.18
25.67
84.00
3.70
6.85
Mean
11.20
23.74
50.86
60.85
5.16
5.27
12.72
20.52
40.66
95.59
5.11
10.40
75%
14.47
35.40
69.96
68.16
6.34
7.04
15.06
27.11
55.15
122.00
7.16
15.79
90%
27.39
43.33
142.41
187.26
8.16
9.81
22.99
41.31
101.33
217.34
11.87
27.80
Max
74.63
107.00
322.27
328.28
14.60
15.85
115.95
64.81
173.65
343.66
16.51
32.49
(Russell, 2008)
REFERENCE SITE WETLANDS
Wetland restoration adjacent to the headwater systems will be based on hydrology restored through the
process of restoring headwater stream systems and implementing Priority 1 stream restoration. Relic
wetlands within the headwater systems are primarily impacted by extensive ditching through the middle of
the valley, which has drained the systems. The relic hydric soils and valley features are already in place.
The system uplift will be based on the headwater channel and Priority 1 channel design which will raise
the groundwater table. Any wetland restoration that results from the stream restoration work will be
monitored and tracked. On -site reference wetland systems (upper 5613) in similar landscape positions
(i.e., headwater or riparian) and mapped soils will provide design and monitoring success criteria for
hydrology and vegetative community reference (see Figure 6-HydricSnP for hydric soils and Figure 11-
Monitoring Plan for monitoring locations).
DESIGN PARAMETER DEVELOPMEN'
Design parameters were first based on the existing valley shape and slope, on -site relic stream systems,
the reference stream dimensionless parameters, and finally checked and confirmed using multiple
regional curves for North Carolina's Coastal Plain region. AppendixD-Geomorphologyoutlines these
developed parameters.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1

5.2 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
STREAM MITIGATION WORK PLAN
A summary of the mitigation approach and lengths for each reach is provided in the table below.
I able /— stream Mitigation Approach Summary
each Mitigation Approach
PS—R1 Headwater
Existing Length (ft.) Proposed Length (ft.)
967 968
2,954 3,234
PS — R2
Restoration
PS — R3
Restoration
467
530
UT2
Headwater
927
927
UT3
Headwater
988
988
Overall Stream Channel Mitigation Approach Description
The B56 site has historically been extensively ditched, which has altered the wetland and stream systems
that used to be located within the headwater valleys of the systems. The overall approach to the system
is to reverse the damage created through ditching. More detailed and reach -specific approaches are
outlined below for restoration reaches, but the overall goal of these approaches is to reconnect the
channel flow with its adjacent riparian floodplain and wetlands and restore native vegetation communities
to restore lost functions of the system.
The design process began with a thorough analysis of existing and historic conditions and functions
within the catchment area for each reach and analysis of hydrologic, hydraulic, and geomorphic functional
impairments within each reach, wetland, and floodplain. From this data, reference systems (e.g., streams,
headwaters, wetlands, and riparian buffers) were selected that represented a stable, healthy system that
manages the same or similar baseline conditions. Through a comparison of existing conditions and relic
performance, as well as historic conditions, major areas of concern and potential uplift were identified.
The concerns include, but are not limited to, bank instability, disconnection from the natural floodplain due
to significant ditching, incision, over -widening of existing channels, and wetland and floodplain drainage.
Site analysis also identified a significant loss of in -stream and riparian wetland habitat (including sources
of shade, woody detritus, and large woody debris for future habitat development).
These issues will be addressed with a watershed -based approach. Starting at the top of the watershed,
the ditches within the valley reaches that show potential for headwater system restoration will be filled.
Downstream of these headwater systems, a Priority 1 approach will be used to continue a reconnection of
the stream hydrology to the adjacent floodplain through the valley; thus, raising the water table. This is a
valley restoration approach that will benefit adjacent wetland areas and the channel instead of only
providing uplift to the channel itself. In addition to raising the invert of the channel back to its historic
elevation, the channel will be returned to its original location along the lower portion of its valley and
appropriate pattern and bedform diversity (profile) will be restored.
Headwater Restoration Approach Description
The on -site headwater systems have been ditched to accelerate drainage, damaging the hydrological and
ecological functions of these systems. When functioning properly, with gradual progression from linear
wetland systems to channelized stream -wetland system, headwaters offer a vital ecological resource and
mitigate against nonpoint source pollution from the contributing watershed, as well as critical habitat for
19 -he Middle Neuse Stream acid Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Tian - DRAFT
I February 2020

aquatic and terrestrial species. Species diversity and frequency benefit from enhanced habitat in the
headwater and buffer areas within the entire B56 Site. As such, special focus has been given to addressing
major deficiencies in on -site headwater resources and the transitions from upland to headwater and
headwater to stream-wetland-floodplain.
Pollard Swamp - Reach 1, UT2, and UT3 within the B56 system each represent headwater mitigation
and aim to remove ditching and enhance riparian/wetland vegetation for a buffering mechanism. They
also aim to provide stabilized flow pathways for overland flow that will reduce sediment contributions from
off -site runoff and dissipate energy from potential sources of concentrated flow. Where relevant, new
planted vegetation will be selected based on its uplift potential for stability and erosion reduction, as well
as its functional value as wetland wildlife habitat. Headwater restoration is proposed to begin on each
reach where the cumulative watershed becomes 40 acres. Research has documented that 40 acres is
the average watershed size in the Coastal Plain Region that can support the formation of an intermittent
channel. (Russell, 2008) The headwater restoration will continue until the watershed size reaches 100
acres, at which point the work will transition to traditional Priority 1 stream restoration.
In general, the headwater restoration approach applied to the reaches listed above will include the
following:
Fill the existing ditch (use adjacent spoil piles from original ditching activity).
Fill lateral ditches that tie-in to the existing centerline ditch (using adjacent spoil pile material).
Ensure appropriate organic topsoil exists (site investigations confirmed plenty of organic topsoil
material on -site).
Rip and disk (if needed) the freshly placed soil and areas of construction to ensure soil is not
compacted.
Reestablish natural overland flow patterns within the adjacent buffers by removing berms and
planted rows and disrupting the drainage effect of ditches within the buffer.
Restore natural topography in the wetland-floodplain, including minor depression and small
mounds that promote diversity of hydrologic conditions and habitats.
Restore or enhance site hydrology by promoting surface water storage, increasing surface
ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing a higher water table across
the valley.
Plant appropriate headwater system vegetation.
Install woody debris structures to provide immediate stabilization to the freshly filled portions of
the ditch footprint (e.g., log sills or brush mattresses).
Install coir fiber matting (as necessary) in some locations where concentrated flow is anticipated.
Plant native vegetation within all restored areas as the contractor works their way out of the
headwater restoration area and down to the lower stream restoration reaches
Stream Restoration Approach Description
Priority 1 restoration is proposed for Pollard Swamp - Reaches 2 and 3. Restoration activities aim to
reconnect flow to the floodplain and provide stable, natural bankfull dimensions, pattern, and profile.
These goals are accomplished by filling the existing ditched, incised, and eroding channel and redirecting
flow into a newly constructed natural channel that has been sized and aligned based on the following:
Relic stream location.
- Valley topography/centerline location.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1

Consideration of dimensionless ratios from reference reach conditions.
Regional curve data.
The following specific improvements are incorporated into the restoration reaches on the Site:
Dimension —The channel will be reconnected to its historic valley and floodplain by raising the
stream back up from its incised/ditched condition and the channel will have an appropriate
bankfull depth. This will restore the groundwater depths in areas directly adjacent to the channel
and will allow for more frequent floodplain access for storm flows.
Pattern —The channel will be returned to its historic location within its valley as opposed to its
current straight/ditched location. Within the confines and boundary of its historic valley center, the
channel's pattern will be returned based on on -site relic channel patterns, reference reach
dimensionless ratios, and regional curve data.
Profile —With a restored dimension and pattern, the profile also will be designed to incorporate
bedform diversity with well-defined pools and shallow riffle reaches. In -stream structures will be
installed to provide scour for pools and initial grade control until the new riparian vegetation has
time to establish the root system necessary to hold the restored system in place. In addition,
woody structures —such as the proposed brush and roll riffles and toe -wood —will provide
immediate habitat and stabilization for the newly constructed channel.
Riparian Buffer —Beyond restoring the natural channel, the stream restoration approach also
reestablishes a native riparian buffer protected with a permanent conservation easement that
provides uplift to site hydrology, channel stability, and availability of natural habitat.
Flow Patterns —Within the adjacent buffers, natural overland flow patterns will be reestablished
by removing berms, planted rows, etc. and disrupting the drainage effect of ditches within the
buffer.
Natural Topography —Natural topography in the floodplains, including minor depression and
mounds that promote diversity of hydrologic conditions and habitats, will be restored.
Site Hydrology —Site hydrology will be restored or enhanced by promoting surface water storage,
increasing surface ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing a higher
water table across the floodplain and wetlands.
Mitigation Approach for Individual Reaches
Mitigation approaches for each reach in the B56 Site have been outlined below. Table 7 provides an
overview of the suggested mitigation activities that will be employed to achieve the targeted objectives
within each reach.
Pollard Swamp - Reach 1
Headwater Restoration - Mitigation activities will aim to restore headwater stream-wetland-floodplain
system functionality by filling in the existing ditched channel and restoring appropriate grade, hydrology,
and vegetative communities. Existing buffer hardwoods will be preserved and will continue to provide a
stabilized flow path for restored stream and riparian wetlands, and a 100 foot buffer will be added to each
side of the valley centerline to protect the restored system and regulate incoming surface flow from
outside the conservation easement.
21 1 ne Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020

Pollard Swamp - Reach 2 and 3
Priority 1 Restoration - Mitigation activities include raising and re -meandering the channel with
appropriate dimensions to reconnect hydrology with the floodplain and restore/enhance riparian wetlands
adjacent to the stream. Within the channel, in -stream structures will be installed, including log cross
vanes, toe wood, and other woody debris to protect restored banks, maintain channel grade in riffles, and
enhance natural habitat within the restored profile. A 150-foot buffer will be added on either side of the
stream valley along Reach 2 and along the East side of Reach 3. A 50-foot buffer will be added along the
West bank of Reach 3.
As Reach 3 reaches its tie in location at the southern end of the Site the stream will need to be
transitioned from a Priority 1 restoration back down to tie in to the existing channel before flowing off -site
This transition is gradual over the last 430 feet of the reach and is shown on Sheet 13 of the attached
Draft Mitigation Plan Drawings.
U T2
Headwater Restoration - Mitigation activities will restore headwater stream systems by filling in existing
ditched channel and restoring gradual grade and hydrology. Existing trees and roots will be supplemented
by tree, shrub, and herbaceous plantings to provide a stabilized flow path for the restored system, and a
100-foot buffer will be planted on either side of the valley.
U T3
Headwater Restoration - Mitigation activities will restore headwater stream systems by filling in existing
ditched channel and restoring gradual grade and hydrology. Existing trees and roots will be supplemented
by tree, shrub, and herbaceous plantings to provide a stabilized flow path for the restored system, and a
100-foot buffer will be planted on either side of the valley.
WETLAND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
Through restoration of the headwater stream systems and Priority 1 restoration of the downstream
systems, riparian and headwater wetlands will be restored throughout the system. Based on
topography/LIDAR and presence of hydric soils, there are wetlands that are anticipated to be restored
through filling of the ditches and restoration of the headwater systems (hydrology and vegetation). These
areas will be monitored after restoration to determine the extent of restoration achieved. A summary of
the mitigation approach and areas for each system is provided in the table below.
Table 8 - Wetiona Mitigation Approach Summary
Mitigation Approach gation Area (ac.)
Restoration 78.1
Wetland Restoration Approach Description
Wetland restoration activities aim to uplift site hydrology, surface and subsurface hydrologic connectivity,
vegetation diversity/density/composition/vigor, and to provide improvements that benefit downstream
waters. On site wetlands will be restored as part of the headwater stream restoration activities and by
converting vegetation from commercial pine plantation to bottomland hardwood forest species. These
new plantings will provide flow velocity control, soil stability, habitat, and additional essential ecosystem
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1

functions that will provide essential, permanent habitat for local fauna in areas where loblolly pine
plantations make habitat variable and less diverse.
Included below is a bulleted list of the proposed activities to be completed to accomplish wetland
restoration on the site. Activities to restore these wetland systems include:
Fill existing ditch as part of the headwater stream restoration approach.
Fill any lateral ditches that currently drain the wetland restoration areas to the primary ditch.
Remove berms and spoil piles that exist along ditches.
Remove pine planting beds within the wetland restoration areas (as applicable) because they
adversely affect drainage.
Disk (if needed) the disturbed areas prior to planting.
Re-establish native wetland vegetation within areas currently in pine production and within
disturbed areas.
Monitor the restored wetland areas for invasive species and treat as necessary to comply with the
success criteria outlined in this document.
VEGETATION AND PLANTING PLAN
Planting within the Conservation Easement has been separated into three (3) zones to reflect differences
in purpose and location, as well as differences in vegetation. Zone 1 is located along the stream bank and
serves to provide bank stability and in -stream habitat along the channel. Zone 2 makes up the upland
riparian buffer of each reach, providing a wide range of benefits including physicochemical and
hydrological uplift to the channel as well as overbank habitat and erosion prevention. Zone 3 includes
wetland plantings within the riparian buffer. Buffer widths for either side of each reach are provided in
Table 9. The plant species proposed for zones 1 and 3 were selected based on reference vegetative
conditions and various resources providing guidance on healthy North Carolina Coastal Plain bottomland
hardwood communities. Planting ratios were identified based on relevant guidance to restore natural
bottomland hardwood conditions that were impacted historically by land use and site manipulations. Tree
seedlings will be planted at a density of 500 stems per acre.
Due to the differences in hydrologic purpose and ecological benefit, different planting profiles are
proposed for Headwater and stream mitigation areas. Typical planting sections are provided in the project
plan set, Appenc, n Sheets.
I able 9 - Proposed B
Reach Proposed Length I Left Buffer width (ft) i Right Buffer width (ft)
PS — R1
967 50
3,233 150
50
150
50
50
PS — R2
PS — R3
530 150
UT2
927
50
UT3
988
50
50
Zone 1 - Stream Bank
Channel stability and geomorphology are dependent in large part on the health and strength of stream bank
vegetation. As such, live stakes selected for Zone 1 have been identified for their rapid growth rate and
high success rates in channel bank conditions. Long term, stream bank vegetative conditions will evolve
The Middle Neuse Stream acid Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Tian - DRAFT
I February 2020

through natural secondary succession, eventually transitioning to shade tolerant hardwoods like the riparian
buffer conditions. The table below provides Zone 1 species for live stake planting within these buffer areas.
Table 10 - Zone 1 Planting Summary
Stream Bank Live Stake Planting
Common Name
Scientific Name
(Corpus amomum)
Wetland Indicator
Status
FACW
Silky Dogwood
Black Willow
(Salixnigra)
OBL
Cottonwood
(Populus deltoides)
FACW
Buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis)
OBL
Zones 2 and 3 — Riparian Upland and Wetland
Riparian wetland conditions suffer in absence of a stable vegetative stream buffer. - ' ' - outlines
proposed buffer widths along either side of each reach. Tables below provide Zone 2 and 3 species for
planting within these buffer areas. Based on wetland conditions, different vegetation has been identified.
The wetland delineation for each site is shown in Figure 8-6dstingConditions.
able 71—Zone 2
Common Name
Planting Summary
Upland Zone
Scientific Name
(Quercus pagoda)
Planting
Wetland Indicator
Status
FACW
Percent Planted
20%
Cherrybark Oak
(Platanus
American Sycamore
FACW
20%
occidentalis)
(Fraxin us
Green Ash
FAC
5%
A111111111111—pennsylvanica)
Willow Oak
(Quercus phellos)
FACW
20%
Swamp Chestnut Oak
(Quercus michauxii)
Blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica)
FAC
20%
Table 12 — Zone 3 Plontino Summory
ame
7BaldmCypress
Wetland Zone
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator Percent
Status Planted
(Taxodium distichum)
OBL
18%
Swamp Tupelo
(Nyssa biflora)
OBL
20%
Water Tupelo
(Nyssa aquatic)
OBL
18%
Cherrybark Oak
(Quercus pagoda)
FACW
20%
American Sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis)
FACW
20%
Green Ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
FACW
4%
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1

-TREAM MITIGATION CREDIT CALCULATIONS
Proposed stream mitigation ratios and credits are included in the table below. These credits are based on
the lengths and approaches as included in the draft Mitigation Plan Sheets. These numbers are subject to
change based on the final design plan drawings that will be produced for construction and based on the
actual constructed project and as -built survey.
--.e 13 - Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits
Existing Length (ft.) A
Proposed Length (ft.)
Credit Ratio
redi
PS — R1
Headwater Restoration
967
967
1:1
967
PS — R2
Restoration
2,954
3,233
1:1
3,233
PS — R3
Restoration
467
530
1:1
530
UT2
Headwater Restoration
927
927
1:1
927
UT3
Headwater Restoration
988
988
1:1
988
Total stream lengths and sub -total Credits 6,30TMEEV 6,645
BUFFER ADJUSTMENT TO STREAM CREDITS (SEE "WILMINGTON DISTRICT STREAM BUFFER
CALCULATOR" WORKSHEETS IN Appendix E — Buffer Credit Calculations)
TOTAL STREAM CREDITS
CREDIT
6,645
433
7,078
6.2 WETLAND MITIGATION CREDIT CALCULATIONS
Proposed wetland mitigation ratios and credits are included in the table below. These credits are based
on the delineated areas and restoration approaches as included in the draft Mitigation Plan Sheets.
These values are subject to change based on the final design plan drawings that will be produced for
construction and based on the actual constructed project and as -built survey.
able 14 - Propose Mtiond Mitigation Crecilts
Mitigation Approach Mitigation Area (ac.) Wetland Mitigation Ratio Credits
Restoration 78.1 I 1:1 78.1
TOTAL WETLAND CREDITS 78.1
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
I February 2020

7.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
Mitigation credits shall be released and added to the mitigation site ledger in accordance with the
milestones and percentages shown in and
I suit IJ — Credit Release Schedule — Streams
Credit chedule and Milestones for Strea
Credit Release
Interim
Total
Release Activity
Milestone
Release
Released
1
Site Establishment
15%
15%
Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made pursuant to the
2
15%
30%
Mitigation Plan
3
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and interim
10%
40%
performance standards have been met
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and interim
4
°
10%
50%
performance standards have been met
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and interim
5
10%
60%
performance standards have been met
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and interim
6
5%
65%
performance standards have been met
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and interim
7
10%
75%
performance standards have been met
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and interim
8
5%
80%
performance standards have been met
9
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and performance
90%*
standards have been met
*NOTE: 10% reserve credits will be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Table 16 — Credit Release Schedule — Wetlands
Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Forested We
Credit Release Interim Total
Milestone Release Activity Release Released
1
Site Establishment
15%
15%
2
Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation
Plan
15%
30%
3
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance standards have been met
10%
40%
4
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance standards have been met
10%
50%
5
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance standards have been met
15%
65%
6
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance standards have been met
5%
70%
7
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance standards have been met
15%
65%
8
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance standards have been met
5%
90%
9
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that performance standards have been met
10%
100%
The Site will be monitored based on the performance standards and monitoring requirements provided
below. Annual monitoring reports will be provided using the IRT monitoring template for the duration of
the 7-year monitoring window. The monitoring plan is outlined in Figure 11—Monitoring Plnp.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020 1

STREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Vegetative Monitoring Streams and Wetlands
g 9i )
Vegetative monitoring will be conducted per the October 24, 2016 "Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" ("NCIRT guidance") with the exception that the sites are
relatively small, and the Sponsor will increase the percent monitored to obtain an accurate measurement
of survival, species variability, and trees per acre. Five (5) percent of the total planted portion of the site
will be monitored with vegetation plots. The NCIRT guidance states that this area requirement can be
adjusted on a case by case basis for these types of sites. A combination of fixed (50%) and random
(50%) 0.05-acre plots will cover five (5) percent of the planted area on site. Planted area acreage was
determined based on anticipated supplemental planting to expand existing hardwood areas and replace
absent buffers. Tree seedlings will be planted at a density of 500 stems per acre. Planted acreages and
monitoring plot counts are provided in the table below. Locations are shown in
Invasive species will be monitored visually during field visits to ensure that no species threatens the
growth of the planted and native community vegetation. The native community vegetation may include the
presence of some pine species so long as the vegetative performance standards are met as described in
Section 8.3.
Table 17 - Vegetative Monitoring Plots
Number of Tree Vegetative Monitoring Plots
Planted Area
Seedlings to be Planted Permanent Random
99.1 49,550 50 49
Headwater Stream Monitoring
Headwater monitoring will be conducted every year for seven (7) years. Surface flow will be documented
using gauges or photo(s) (i.e. time lapse/game cameras) and will be monitored in accordance with the
2016 guidance.
Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology Monitoring
Channel stability and hydrology monitoring will be conducted, per the 2016 guidance. Due to the narrow
width of the channels in the B56 Site, the Bank Sponsor will place two (2) cross sections per 1,000 feet of
stream. Crest gauges will be installed to monitor channel hydrology and will be capable of monitoring
frequency and duration of overbank events.
Visual Monitoring
Monitoring will be conducted with a walkthrough of the entire project area, looking to identify areas of low
stem density, poor plant vigor, prolonged inundation, native and exotic invasive species, beaver activity,
herbivory, encroachments, indicators of livestock access, or other areas of concern. Results of both
monitoring walkthroughs each year will be reported in the annual monitoring report, where -in
recommended courses of action shall be identified where necessary. Any areas of concern will be
reevaluated on all subsequent visual assessments.
27 is Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020

8.2 WETLAND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
MONITORING HYDROLOGY AND REPORTING HYDROLOGIC DATA
Monitoring of areas of wetland restoration will be conducted per the 2016 guidance. Installation of
groundwater equipment will be in accordance with techniques and standards described in the USACE
Technical Standard for Water Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites. Wells will be installed in
wetland mitigation areas, and the location of these wells is shown in 17-Monitoring Plat. Hydrologic
success of wetlands will be determined based on published guidance (IRT 2016) or through comparison
to measured reference condition.
8.3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
VEGETATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Success will be identified based on interim stem density criteria provided in the 2016 NCIRT guidance:
Survival of at least 320 stems per acre at the end of year 3, 260 stems per acre by the end of
year 5, and 210 stems per acre at the end of year 7.
Per IRT guidance, coastal plain projects must maintain vegetation that averages seven (7) feet in
height at year 5 and ten (10) feet in height at year 7.
No one species may comprise more than fifty (50) percent of the total composition within any plot
at year 3, 5, or 7.
No more than five (5) percent invasive species may occur be present.
STREAM CHANNEL STABILITY AND STREAM HYDROLOGY PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
Stream Channel Flow Perennial and Intermittent Channels
All perennial channels shall receive sufficient flow throughout the monitoring period to maintain an
ordinary high-water mark. Surface flow within intermittent tributaries must be documented to occur every
year for at least thirty (30) consecutive days during the prescribed monitoring period, per the 2016 NCIRT
guidance. Perennial streams must have continuous surface flow. See the "Headwater Stream Flow
Performance Standards" section that follows for headwater systems.
Channel Stability
Bank Height Ratios and Entrenchment Ratios shall meet minimum/maximum requirements as provided in
the 2016 NCIRT guidance, and not differ by more than ten (10) percent from baseline conditions. Bank
Height Ratios shall not exceed 1.2. Entrenchment Ratios shall not be less than 2.2.
Bankfull Events
The project shall remain stable during four (4) separate bankfull events occurring in separate years during
monitoring years 1 through 7.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1 M

Headwater Stream Flow Performance Standards
Success will be based on the standards outlined in the 2016 NCIRT guidance for Headwater Stream
Performance Standards with the exception that continuous surface water flow must be documented to
occur every year for at least thirty (30) consecutive days for monitoring years 2 through 7. The extensive
ditch drainage system that will be filled during restoration activities will require a large amount of material
to be moved and placed in the existing ditches. To reduce disturbance within the headwater system
existing spoil material from on -site will be used to fill the ditches and some small portions of the ditches
will be graded to act as vernal pools. It will take a few seasons for an appropriate number of fines to wash
into the system naturally to fill the voids of the newly placed material therefore sealing it up. During years
1 through 3 these fines will work their way into the system and return baseflow to the flow path of the
headwater valley system. Visual identification of natural channel formation indicators will be performed in
accordance with the schedule provided in the 2016 NCIRT monitoring guidance will.
WETLAND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Wetland Hydrologic Performance Criteria
All areas of wetland restoration must be monitored to determine whether the restored areas meet the
established percent saturation/hydroperiod thresholds as described in the "Wilmington District Stream
and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update, North Carolina Interagency Review Team" dated October
24, 2016. The areas of proposed wetland restoration adjacent to the project reach contain Pantego
hydric soils and Tomotley fine sandy loam which require 12-16% and 10-12% wetland saturation ranges
respectively per "Table 1 - Wetland Saturation Threshold Table" of the above referenced document.
8.4 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
An integral part of a successful compensatory mitigation project is early detection of problems during
implementation, determining the cause(s) of those problems, and attempting to correct those problems
so that the compensatory mitigation project achieves its objectives and ecological performance
standards. Interim performance standards are crucial to ensuring compensatory mitigation performance
follows a trajectory to attain final compensatory mitigation success.
In the event the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the necessary performance
standards as specified in Section 8.3, the Sponsor shall notify the members of the IRT and work with the
IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions. Large scale corrective measures may require
an Adaptive Management Plan. Large scale corrective measures may include, but are not limited to, re-
grading part of the mitigation site, replanting more than twenty (20) percent of the Site to improve
composition or species diversity, or the addition of stabilization structures.
The Adaptive Management Plan review will follow Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, part
of the streamlined review process, which requires an IRT review period of 15 calendar days.
Once the Adaptive Management plan is prepared, the Sponsor will:
• Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide Permit 27 general conditions.
• Notify NCDWR if necessary for 401 conditions.
• Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements
as necessary.
• Obtain other permits as necessary.
29 is miudle Neuse Stream a, iu dvetiand Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020

Submit the Adaptive Management Plan for IRT review and approval.
Implement the Adaptive Management Plan.
Provide the IRT a Record Drawing/As-Built of corrective actions. The Final
Listed below are identified project risks and uncertainties that have been evaluated in the development
of design plans for the Site, along with methods that have been/will be used to address these concerns.
Methods to address may be presented as adaptive management.
1. Land use development: There is potential for increased land development around the site in
the future that could lead to additional runoff and changes to watershed hydrology.
• Methods to Address: The project area has seen little development in recent years and it is
unlikely that development will threaten the site in the foreseeable future. Restoration of the
site to reconnect streams to their floodplains will reduce the likelihood of future degradation
from watershed changes, as increased flows will spread over a wider floodplain. Grade
control (in the form of constructed in -stream structures and natural bedrock outcrops) will
decrease the chances of future channel incision.
2. Easement Encroachment: Any encroachment to the conservation easement. (Including road
widening, culvert maintenance, utility easements, etc.)
• Methods to Address: To ensure that there are no encroachment issues within the
easement boundary, the Sponsor will clearly mark the easement boundary with appropriate
signage. The Sponsor will also work in conjunction with the conservation easement holder
to routinely monitor the Site for encroachment issues. Any encroachments that do occur will
be remedied by the sponsor to address any damage and provide any other corrections
required by the IRT.
3. Drought and Floods: There is potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring
period of the project.
Methods to Address: The Sponsor will apply adaptive management techniques as
necessary to meet the site performance criteria. Such adaptive management may include
replanting, channel damage repair, irrigation, or other methods. If adaptive management
activities are significant, additional monitoring may be required by the IRT.
4. Beavers: While there was no evidence of recent beaver activity during recent assessments,
there is potential for beavers to colonize the site during the monitoring period of the project.
• Methods to Address: If beaver colonization does occur, the sponsor will take steps
to trap and remove beaver if they colonize the Site during the monitoring period.
Hydrologic Trespass: Since the Sponsor owns the lands surrounding the Site, there is little
or no potential for hydrologic trespass onto any other adjacent landowners.
• Methods to Address: The project has been designed and will be constructed utilizing
methodologies which will greatly reduce the potential of hydrologic trespass outside of the
conservation easement boundary. Based off this information, the possibility of hydrologic
trespass is extremely unlikely and is not expected to be an issue.
6. Invasive/Nuisance Species: No significant number of invasive/nuisance vegetation currently exist
in the conservation easement area. However, there is the potential for such species to have a
negative impact of the restored vegetation within the easement area.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1

• Methods to Address: The sponsor will be diligent is monitoring for any invasive
vegetation and if any is found, will visually assess, photograph, and map the areas
affected. These areas will be treated by mechanical or chemical methods, so that the
invasive species are no more than five (5) percent of the easement acreage, and zero
tolerance for kudzu. Any vegetation requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with the NC Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.
POST -CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION
An as -built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel condition and provide
baseline data for comparison to future monitoring reports. Information included in the as -built will be in
accordance with USACE guidance and has been identified in the monitoring requirements and
performance standards sections.
Monitoring reports will be provided to the Wilmington District USACE for review no later than April 1 st of
the year following the monitoring activity.
8.6 LONG-1 ERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Land use and property boundaries along with the proposed mitigation plan were designed to minimize
long-term management conflicts. As a result, the potential for hydrologic and boundary conflicts have
been minimized. The Sponsor has identified Unique Places to Save (a 501 (c)(3) entity) as the grantee of
the conservation easement deed. The recorded Conservation Easement deed will ensure the protection
of the project in perpetuity. The site -protection instrument is provided in
,vents.
The overall purpose of the Site is to establish a self-sustaining, natural ecological resource. Proposed
restoration and enhancement activities should not require maintenance beyond the proposed monitoring
period to provide aquatic resource functions in perpetuity. The Bank Sponsor will serve as long-term
manager of the Site. Because Weyerhaeuser has been the landowner and established a practice of
managing the land over many decades, it is appropriate that Weyerhaeuser NR continues in this role,
subject to the restrictions of the Conservation Easement. Weyerhaeuser maintains the human and capital
resources to accomplish this role.
Ownership of the Mitigation Site
It is anticipated that Weyerhaeuser NR will remain the owner of the Site. The Site will be protected by a
conservation easement held by Unique Places to Save.
Identification of Long -Term Management Activities
No long-term management activities are proposed except those that are related to the general
maintenance of the Site. These general activities will include removal of significant woody impediments
(such as downed trees) to road passage, maintenance of access roads and gates, and periodic visual
inspections to identify the same.
ong-Term Maintenance and Protection Account
Since no long-term management activities are proposed for this Site, a long-term maintenance and
protection account is not being established for the Site.
31 The Middle Neuse Stream a, iu vdetland Umbrella MILIgation banK I beautort 56 Site mitigation Tian - ur<AFT
February 2020

=INANCIAL ASSURANCES
In accordance to Section IX (Financial Assurances) found in the Middle Neuse UMBI, the Bank Sponsor
shall provide financial assurances in the form of a Performance Bond to the IRT sufficient to assure
completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work required. The
Sponsor plans to retain twenty (20) percent of the total construction costs to help pay for any remedial
work that might be required during the monitoring period. Financial assurances shall be payable at the
direction of the USACE to its designee or to a standby trust. Financial assurances structured to provide
funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial
assurance must be in the form that ensures that the USACE receives notification at least 120 days in
advance of any termination or revocation.
The amount of the Performance Bond shall be based on costs to implement the Site through monitoring
and any remedial work that may be required. The Performance Bond shall be in place prior to the first
credit release. The costs that are detailed in the table below include the construction and monitoring costs
for the Site.
Table 18 — Estimated Amount Required for Performance Bond
Cost
Site Prep Mechanical Shear (within wetland and riparian buffers) $20,399.49
Site Prep Mechanical Rake (within wetland and riparian buffers)
$10,408.06
Site Prep Chemical Application (If needed within wetland and riparian buffers)
$8,846.66
Site Prep Prescribed Burn (if needed within wetland and riparian buffers)
$3,642.62
Planting Labor and Seedlings (wetland and riparian buffers)
$23,427.07
Stream Construction Work (in -stream and riparian buffer work)
$585,217.50
As -built Report
$38,379.49
Annual Monitoring
Total Estimated Amount of Performance Bond
$310,057.20
$1,000,378.09
The USACE will review the as -built and annual monitoring reports to evaluate the success of the
ecological restoration. Success will be evaluated based on the Site's adherence to performance
standards specified in Section 8.3. As performance standards are met, the Bank Sponsor will request a
reduction in the amount of the performance bond based on the reduction schedule provided below. The
reduction schedule assumes that the Site will meet all performance standards on an annual basis.
able 19 — rerrormance Bond Reduction _�aneauie
1
- ivi
Establishment of Performance Bond
Reduction Amount (%) Reduction Amount ($)
N/A N/A
55.97% $559,932.61
Bond Amount
$1,000,378.09
2
USACE approval of As -Built Report
$440,445.48
$377,524.70
$314,603.91
3
USACE approval of Year 1 Monitoring
6.29%
$62,920.78
4
USACE approval of Year 2 Monitoring
6.29%
$62,920.78
5
USACE approval of Year 3 Monitoring
6.29%
$62,920.78
$251,683.13
6
USACE approval of Year 4 Monitoring
6.29%
6.29%
6.29%
$62,920.78
$188,762.35
7
USACE approval of Year 5 Monitoring
$62,920.78
$125,841.57
8
USACE approval of Year 6 Monitoring
$62,920.78
$62,920.78
9
USACE approval of Year 7 Monitoring
6.29%
$62,920.78
$0.00
Total
100%
$1,000,378.09
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1

Sweet, W. V. & Geratz, J. W. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals for
North Carolinas Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39, 861-
871 (2003).
Doll, Barbara A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton and D.A. Bidelspach, Hydraulic Geometry
Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams, NC Stream Restoration Institute,
Report to N.C. Division of Water Quality for 319 Grant Project No. EW20011, www.ncsu.edu/sri.
11 pp. (2003).
Russell, Periann 2008. Mapping Headwater Streams: Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Stream
Model Development and Spatial Application. Final Report for Federal Highway Administration
Contract Feasibility Study WBS: 36486.4.2. January 28, 2008.
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District (2003), Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring
Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart. 1999.
Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Harmon, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. (2012) A Function -Based
Framework for Stream Assessments and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006. .
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016a. River Basin Classification Schedule
(online). Available: https://deq.nc.gov/river-basin-classification-schedule [August 01, 2018]. North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. Floodplain Mapping Information System.
http://floodmaps.nc.gov/FMIS/DefauIt.aspx Raleigh, NC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2018. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
33 1 ne Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
The Stream Stats web program for North Carolina. Available online at:
https://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/north_carolina.html
National Land Cover Database 2011. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd20l 1.php
United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Land Cover Dataset 1992. [Online WWW]. Available
URL: https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcdl992.php
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 6-8-2015. Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Beaufort County, NC. Available online at:
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/beaufort.html
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and
R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database for North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at
https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/. (FY2016 release date).
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2003. Reference Reach Database. In publication.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. NC
Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. NC
Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Beaufort County, NC.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
February 2020 1

AppendixA— Figures
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020

0302020'
N,, 1,01,
03020102
03020101
039,1
P
ti
Bet I
03020103
JF
Beaufort 56 Site
35.4126, -77.1526
03020104
e611 01�
CP
011�
hN
Co
"r
Nevi Bern
03020204
03030006
V-1
Havelock
03030007
Legend 03020302 03020301
County Boundary
Conservation Easement
1
8-Digit HUC 0 20 Miles
MI
Prepared For Prepared By: Beaufort 56
Figure 1
Weyerhaeuser Kimley>Morn Service Area Map
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank

1 Juniper S�,,,mA
I i�
1
I
I
H
I
1
�C
y'9
hw
dy
A�
Legend
County Boundary
Conservation Easement
Prepared For: Prepared By:
A Weyerhaeuser Kimley>>> Horn
0
N,
17
0 1 2 Miles
Beaufort 56
Figure 2
Vicinity Map
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank

Legend
Conservation Easement
Weyerhaeuser Properties
DI
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Prepared For: Prepared By: Beaufort 56
A/� Figure 3
Weyerhaeuser Kimley>))Horn USGS Topographic Map
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank

Legend
Conservation Easement
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Prepared For: Prepared By: Beaufort 56
Figure 4
Weyerhaeuser Kimley>Morn Historic Aerials
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank

N
Ra n
GoA
Gt
La
Lo f Pa
f
GoA
Ly BoB
.' L
To
Lo
o
Pa 0
�`
r GoA
Pa � (3A
Lo
To
Ra
GOA
La
G rA
G ®A Lo ' QT
o
Q
Tr 0
Legend L@ 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Conservation Easement
Prepared For: Prepared By: Beaufort 56
Figure 5
A Weyerhaeuser Kimley>))Horn NRCS Soil Survey - Beaufort County
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank

F
Hydric
Map unit name Rating
u loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent 5
ro fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent 5
Pa IPantego loam
Ra Rains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, Atlantic Coast Flatwoods
Pa
GoA
Lo
Ra
Lo
Pa
Ly
Goo
I&l
Legend 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Conservation Easement
Prepared For: Prepared By: Beaufort 56
Figure 6
A Weyerhaeuser Kimley>))Horn Hydric Soils Map
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank

Legend
Conservation Easement
Prepared For: Prepared By:
A Weyerhaeuser Kimley>>> Horn
0
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56
Figure 9
LiDAR Elevations
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank

Pollard Swamp - Reach 2 (3,234 LF) Priority 1 restoration
approach. Elevate invert of channel to reconnect with historic
floodplain to the extent feasible. Re -meander channel
with appropriate dimensions, restore riparian wetlands
adjacent to the channel, and install in -stream log cross
vanes, toe -wood and other woody debris to help maintain
poolstrestored profile. Proposed buffer and conservation
easement will exend out to150' wide on both sides
of the channel.
UT2 (927 LF) Restore headwater
stream system by filling in existing channel
and establishing a miniumum 50' buffer to each
side of the valley centerline. Existing trees
and roots will be supplemetned by tree,
shrub and herbaceous plantings to provide
a stabilized flow path for the restored system.
UT3 (988 LF) Restore headwater
stream system by filling in existing channel
and establishing a minimum 50' buffer to each
side of the valley centerline. Existing trees
and roots will be supplemetned by tree,
shrub and herbaceous plantings to provide
a stabilized flow path for the restored
system.
Legend
Conservation Easement
Weyerhaeuser Properties
Mitigation Approach
Headwater Restoration
�i Restoration (Priority 1)
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Restoration: 78.1 Acres
Pollard Swamp - Reach 1 (968 LF) Restore
headwater stream system by filling in existing channel
and establishing a 50' buffer to each
side of the valley centerline. Existing trees
and roots will be supplemented by tree,
shrub and herbaceous plantings to provide
a stabilized flow path for the restored system.
Conservation Easement: 45.7 Acres
Pollard Swamp - Reach 3 (530 LF) Priority 1 restoration
approach. Elevate invert of channel to reconnect with historic
floodplain to the extent feasible. Re -meander channel
with appropriate dimensions, restore riparian wetlands
adjacent to the channel, and install in -stream log cross
vanes, toe -wood and other woody debris to help maintain
poolstrestored profile. Proposed buffer and conservation
easement will exend out to150' wide on both sides
of the channel.
0 750 1,500 Feet
Prepared For: Prepared By: Beaufort 56
AWeyerhaeuser Kimle >))HOrn Figure 10
y y Proposed Mitigation
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank

Proposed Creditable Stream Length
Credit Loss in
Credit Gain for
Net Change in
Elligible for Additional Credit
Total Credit
Required Buffer
Additional Buffer
Credit from Buffers
(Total Baseline Credit)
3763.0
-145.84
578.49
432.65
4195.65
Pollard Swamp - Reach 1
Prepared For: Prepared By: Beaufort 56
Weyerhaeuser Kimle >Morn Figure 12
y Additional Stream Buffer Credit
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank

Legend
Weyerhaeuser Properties
Conservation Easement
Stream Buffer Credit Area
Wetland Restoration
Mitigation Approach
♦ . Headwater Restoration
�i Restoration (Priority 1)
0
Pollard Swamp - Reach 1
er: TimA ,,g.,
d.te 1/24/2020
lime: 10524GAM
0 750 1,500 Feet
Prepared For: Prepared By: Beaufort 56
A Weyerhaeuser Kimle >>>Ho n Figure 13
Y Y Credit Type Figure
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank

Appendix B —Photo Pages
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020 1

Photo 1 — Beaufort 56 — UT1 Reach 1
Photo 3 — Beaufort 56 — UT1 Reach 2
Photo 2 — Beaufort 56 — UT1 Reach 1
Photo 4 — Beaufort 56 — UT1 Reach 2

� a r
�sa-v i'.- ^,..�? � ;r.� _-�^= ice. ��.�-. _'a• - �, -
Ta
T
a
r 1 tl _ ►`1f,�1t., - `.i' j v'� ��G- yA rk L,
i
tv
_ �Ak s y

-1
�1

Appendix C —Geomorphic Cross -
Sections
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020

;.
O
N
W
!6
N
W
BEAUFORT 56A
XS1 - UT1 Reach 1
O Grcuntl Points O BarkfLll Ircicators ♦ Wafer Surface PoirR
— - 4.17 -b, - -< Abkf = 3.17
Horizontal Distance (ft)
XS2 - UT1 Reach 2
O Grcund Points ♦ Banidull Indicaors ♦ Water Surface Poirta
-kf = fi.2 -kf = —7 -kf = 6.61
Horizontal Distance (ft)

BEAUFORT 56A
XS3 - UT1 Reach 2
O Ground Points Banidull IndicaWm V Wafer Surface Poirft
Wbkf = 0.04 Mkf = .74 Ab kf = 6.55
RE
Horizontal Distance (ft)
XS4 - UT2
O Grcund Points # Bankfull IndicaWm V Water Surface Poirta
— = 4.43 Mkf = .39 Ab kf = —2
0 20 40 60 BO
Horizontal Distance (ft)

BEAUFORT 56A
XS5 - UT3
O Grcuntl Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Wafer Surface PoirRs
Wbkf = 4.21 nbk£ _ .55 Abkf = 2.3
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Appendix D —Geomorphology
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020 1

REFERENCE REACH MORPHOLOGICAL DATA
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Beaufort County, North Carolina
VARIABLES
(All units are in Feet)
Beaverdam
Branch
Black Branch
Tributary to
Town Creek
Tributary to
Hunters
Averaged Ratios
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Av Max
1
Stream Type (Rosgen)
E5
E
E
C6
--
2
Drainage Area (square miles)
3.20
1.20
0.60
0.70
--
3
Bankfull Width (Wbkf)
11.6
19.8
8.1
14.9
7.0
13.2
17.0
--
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf)
1.2
1.7
1.0
1.5
0.9
1.3
0.9
--
5
Width/Depth Ratio (Wbk�dbkf)
9.7
11.6
8.1
9.9
7.8
10.2
18.9
8.5 10.9 10.6
6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (Abkf)
17.1
28.8
10.1
21.7
7.4
11.9
15.0
--
7
Bankfull Mean Velocity, ft/s (Vbkf)
0.6
1 1.0
0.8
1 1.3
2.8
--
8
Bankfull Discharge, cfs (Abkf)
16.9
18.4
13.1
42.0
--
9
Bankfull Maximum Depth (dmax)
2.1
2.8
1.4
2.6
1.7
2.1
1.8
--
10
Max dm�/dbkf ratio
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.9
2.0
1.6
1.7
1.8
11
Low Bank Height to Max Bankfull dbkf ratio
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.5
12
Width of Flood Prone Area (Wfpa)
164.6
216.3
200.0
225.0
175.0
180.0
278.5
--
13
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa VVbkf)
10.4
34.5
13.4
27.8
13.3
25.7
16.4
12.41
20.21
29.3
14
Meander Length (Lm)
92.0
125.0
120.0
--
15
Ratio of Meander Length to Bankfull Width (LmNVbkf)
4.9
6.7
7.1
4.9
6.2
6.7
16
Radius of Curvature (Ro)
30.0
40.0
31.0
--
17
Ratio of Radius of Curvature to Bankfull Width (R�/Wbkf)
1.6
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.1
18
Belt Width (WblJ
49.0
105.0
40.0
--
19
Belt Width Ratio (WbIN°°bkf)
2.6
5.6
2.4
2.6
3.5
5.6
20
Sinuosity (k) (Stream Length / Valley Length)
1.70
2.10
1.60
1.70
2.00
1.50
1.7
1.8
1.9
21
Valley Slope (Svalley) (ft/ft)
0.0007
0.0044
0.0017
0.0048
0.0072
0.0040
--
22
Average Stream Slope (Savg) _ (Svalley/k)
0.0004
0.0021
0.0011
0.0028
0.0036
0.0027
--
23
Riffle Slope (S,ff)
--
24
Ratio of Riffle Slope to Avg. Slope (SnffldSavg)
--
25
Pool Slope (Spool)
--
26
Ratio of Pool Slope to Avg. Slope S /S
p 9 p pool avg
--
27
Maximum Pool Depth (Dpool)
2.9
4.1
1.3
3.1
2.2
3.0
3.0
--
28
Ratio of Pool Depth to Bkf Depth (Dpool/dbkf)
0.9
1.5
1.0
2.2
2.0
2.7
3.4
1.3
2.0
2.1
29
Pool Width (Wpool)
13.4
18.1
9.2
17.0
9.7
12.5
11.5
--
30
Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width (Wpool/Wbkf)
0.8
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.4
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.3
31
Pool Area (Apool)
20.3
34.8
8.8
30.5
10.4
15.8
--
32
Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area (Apool/Abkf)
0.8
1.3
0.8
1.5
1.1
1.7
0.9
1.2
1.5
33
Pool to Pool Spacing (p - p)
100.0
51.0
--
34
Ratio of Pool to Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width (p-p/Wbkf)
5.4
3.0
4.2

y
4-1
1000
100
10
0.1
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve - Doll
Hybrid Carolina Flatwoods Data
♦ Design Values
Beaufort 56 Site Design Bankfull Area Plot
■■■■■
IMM■■■■■■■
■■■■■
NOW■■■■■■
milli
EIIIIIII
• :
7
Hybrid Carolina FlatwoodsRegional
..,
. ,.,
Regional
-
• 96
■■
mo,�■
%i■■■
-----
■■■■■
■■.■■
■■■■■
mill
111111
Drainage Area (square miles)
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve - Sweet/Geratz
Existing Conditions
10
Hybrid Carolina Flatwoods Regional Curve
Reference Reaches
100

BEAUFORT 56 SITE MORPHOLOGICAL DATA
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Beaufort Countv, North Carolina
VARIABLES
(All units are in Feet)
Pollard Swamp - Reach 2
Pollard Swamp - Reach 3
Existing
Regional Curve &
Reference Reaches
Design
Existing
Regional Curve &
Reference Reaches
Design
Min Max
Min Avg Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min I Avg Max
Min I Max
Stream Type (Rosgen)
B
E
C
B
E
C
2
Drainage Area (square miles)
0.48
0.48
0.48
1.26
1.26
1.26
3
Bankfull Width (Wbkf)
6.6
9.2
10.2
6.6
12.9
15.4
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf)
1.1
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.0
5
Width/Depth Ratio (Wbkf dbkf)
6.2
8.5 10.9 10.6
13.1
6.2
8.5 F10.9 10.6
16.2
6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (Abkf)
6.2
7.1
7.9
6.2
14.2
14.7
7
Bankfull Mean Velocity, ft/S (Vbkf)
--
1.2
1.0
--
1.1
1.0
8
Bankfull Discharge, cfS (Abkf)
--
8.3
8.3
--
15.0
15.0
9
Bankfull Maximum Depth (dm.)
1.7
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.4
10
Max dn,a,/dbkf ratio
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.5
11
Low Bank Height to Max Bankfull dbkf ratio
3.0
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.0
12
Width of Flood Prone Area (WfPa)
13.6
113.9
186.2
270.2
102.0
306.0
13.6
159.5
260.8
378.4
154.0
462.0
13
Entrenchment Ratio (WfPa/Wbkf)
2.1
12.4
20.2
29.3
10.0
30.0
2.1
12.4
20.2
29.3
10.0
30.0
14
Meander Length (La,)
--
45.1
57.4
61.7
51.0
71.4
--
63.2
80.4
86.4
77.0
107.8
15
Ratio of Meander Length to Bankfull Width (La,/Wbkf)
4.9
6.2
6.7
5.0
7.0
4.9
6.2
6.7
5.0
7.0
16
Radius of Curvature (R,)
14.7
16.9
19.3
16.3
25.5
20.6
23.7
27.1
24.6
1 38.5
17
Ratio of Radius of Curvature to Bankfull Width (RJWbkf)
1.6
1.8
2.1
1.6
2.5
1.6
1.8
2.1
1.6t84.7
18
Belt Width (Wbit)
24.0
32.6
51.6
25.5
56.1
33.5
45.6
72.2
38.519
Belt Width Ratio (Wb1^kf)
2.6
3.5
5.6
2.5
5.5
2.6
3.5
5.6
2.5
20
Sinuosity k Stream Length / Valley Length)
1.04
1.65
1.77
1.90
1.11
1.04
1.65
1.77
1.90
1.11
21
Valley Slope (S,,,I,y) (ft/ft)
0.0031
--
0.0031
0.0031
--
0.0031
22
Average Stream Slope (Savg) = (Sva,,,/k)
0.0030
0.0028
0.0030
0.0028
23
Riffle Slope (S,;ff)
--
0.0042
0.0113
-
0.0042
0.0113
24
Ratio of Riffle Slope to Avg. Slope (S,;ff1,/S,,g)
1.5
4.0
1.5
4.0
25
Pool Slope (Sp,,,)
0.0000
0.0003
0.0000
0.0003
26
Ratio of Pool Slope to Avg. Slope (S,oi/Savg)
--
0.0
0.1
--
0.0
0.1
27
Maximum Pool Depth (Dp,,,)
1.0
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.4
2.2
2.4
1.9
28
Ratio of Pool Depth to Bkf Depth (Dp,,I/dbkf)
1.3
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.3
2.0
2.1
2.0
29
Pool Width (Wp.i)
8.9
10.0
12.3
11.2
12.5
14.0
17.2
16.9
30
Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width (WPoo1/Wbkf)
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.1
31
Pool Area (Ap,,j)
6.4
8.5
10.7
9.5
12.7
17.0
21.2
17.6
32
Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area (Ap,,,/Abkf)
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.2
33
Pool to Pool Spacing (p - p)
38.7
30.6
71.4
54.2
46.2
107.8
34
Ratio of Pool to Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width (p-p/Wbkf)
4.2
3.0
7.0
4.2
3.0
7.0

Appendix E— Buffer Credit Calculations
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
I February 2020

Site Name: Beaufort 56
USACE Action ID: SAW-2017-02019
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor: Weyerhauser NR Company
County: Beaufort
Minimum Required Buffer Width': 50
Mitigation Type
Restoration (1:1)
Enhancement 1(1.5:1)
Enhancement 11(2.5:1)
Preservation(5:1)
Other(7.5:1)
Other(10:1)
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio
Custom Ratio 5
Totals
Buffer Zones
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)'
Ideal Buffer (square feet)'
Actual Buffer (square feet)`
Zone Multiplier
Buffer Credit Equivalent
Percent of Ideal Buffer
Credit Adjustment
Mitigation Ratio Creditable Stream
Baseline Stream Credit
3763.00
3763.00 3763.00
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
less than 15 feet
>15 to 20 feet
>20 to 25 feet
>25 to 30 feet
>30 to 35 feet
>35 to 40 feet
>40 to 45 feet
>45 to 50 feet
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 feet
>125 to 150 feet
112890
37630
37630
37630
37630
37630
37630
37630
188150
188150
188150
188150
114068.6
38334.4
38431.5
38370.9
38286.2
38179.5
38071
37975
189026.7
189605.3
191785.8
194744.1
111839.6
36967.8
36715.8
36247.6
35801.8
35404.3
35018.4
34531.3
157829.3
141152
141229.4
139271.4
50%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
7%
5%
4%
4%
1881.50
376.30
376.30
376.30
188.15
188.15
188.15
188.15
263.41
188.15
150.52
150.52
98%
96%
96%
94%
94%
93%
92%
91%
83%
74%
74%
72%
-36.77
-13.41
-16.80
-20.82
-12.21
-13.68
-15.09
-17.06
219.94
140.07
110.84
107.64
Credit Loss in Required Credit Gain for Net Change in
Total Baseline Credit Total Credit
Buffer Additional Buffer Credit from Buffers
3763.00-145.84 578A9 432.65 4195.65
'Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
'Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet -to -credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
'Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded fromthis measurement, even if theyfall within the easement.
°This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linearfootage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
'Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside ofthe easement. The inner zone(0-15) should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge ofthe average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non -creditable stream
reaches within the easement should be removed priorto calculatingthis area wtih GIS.
'Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non -creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed priorto calculatingthis area wtih GIS.

Appendix F —Mitigation Plan Sheets
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020 1

m
MIDDLE
DRAFT MITIGATION PLANS
for
N US STREAM AND WETLAND UMBRELLA
WEP'YERHAEUSER NR COMPANY
MITIGATION BANK
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
200 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202
[phone]
KYLE HALCH I N, P.E.
SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING OF NC, PC
201 CHATHAM STREET, SUITE 3
SANFORD, NC 27330
[phone]
DAREN PAIT, P.E., CFM
OWNER:
WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY
406 COLE ROAD
HATTI ESBU RG, MS 39402
[phone]
DOUG HUGHES
SURVEY:
BASE MAPPING PROVIDED BY:
2014 QL2 LIDAR
METADATA CONTACT:
NC FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM
4105 REEDY CREEK DRIVE
RALEIGH, NC 27607
[phone]
VICINITY MAP
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 1500 3000 6000
Sheet List Table
Sheet
Number
Sheet Title
01
COVER SHEET
02
GENERAL NOTES
03
LEGENDS AND SYMBOLS
04
TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
05
TYPICAL SECTIONS
06
OVERALL PLAN AND KEY SHEET
07-08
PLAN AND PROFILE - POLLARD SWAMP REACH 1
09
PLAN AND PROFILE - POLLARD SWAMP REACH 1 &2
10-11
PLAN AND PROFILE - POLLARD SWAMP REACH 2
12
PLAN AND PROFILE - POLLARD SWAMP REACH 2&3
13
PLAN AND PROFILE - POLLARD SWAMP REACH 3
14
PLAN AND PROFILE BEAUFORT 56A - UT2
15
PLAN AND PROFILE BEAUFORT 56A - UT3
16
WETLAND PLAN
17-20
STREAM DETAILS
21-22
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS
23
VEGETATION NOTES AND DETAILS
cn
z
0
cn
w
n,
0
z
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u�
oN
o
o
o
w O
O
=
� O
0 �
w N
�-
cn
�
m
O
0-Ln
Q
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
LLJ J
wLLJ
z
zi
y
��
o
u
W
�
=
o
o
u
0
z
� J
Lo F-
W
Oo
LL z
� Q
Q �
W Q
m W
C)
W
W
U)
W
O
U
z
Q
m
z
O
Q
CD
0
LL
0
w
Q
w
b
C
SHEET NUMBER
01

u
m
u
O
w
Q
Q
0
c
0
a
m
E
Y
O
z
o
O
>
w
m
C)
0
0
z
Q
a
°
E
o
a
N
0
o
Y
o z
� o
o
w
= N J
o
a
C
0', Y
W N
o' u
�\ cn
0
z Li
o
�.o
N
o
�<
w
u
o
N
o
�
�
o
o w
w
z
w
O
�
z
■� o
o
u
�
O
o
cn
—
Q
0
co
m
°
0
PRIEILIIVIINAIRY
NOT FOR
o
CONSTRUCTION
=
_
Q
a
E
-
U-0
N
°
0
(DQ)
° THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Q�
�Q
o�
O
O
(n-E
Du
T�
0
O
3:
o
o
o
C�
0
Wo
� O
0 C9cn
oo�O
o
=
�
m
m
%
o
0-�
Q
N
o
LLJ
z
m
o
LLJ
_
W
J
CD
z
�
Y
u
J�
=
U
u
-
O
u
(n
W
C)
�
C)
=
u
Q
N
Q
/
N
O
T
IWv
LC�
I�
-
O
=
C
Oo
m
J
N
N-
°
Q
N>
T�
°°
W
Z
N
w
i
W
0
C�
zC)
Q°
_
wc:
z
w�
.(D
N°
0�
z
Q
°
L Q
(DLn
°
w
0�
C
°
0,
z
=0�
O o0Lu �-,
�°
Q
°°
�Q~w
Q
(D v
°�
W Q
00 LLJ
°
�E
SHEET NUMBER
O
02
o
a-
-

EXISTING PLAN LEGEND
EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE
EXISTING
DRAINAGE DITCH
EXISTING
MINOR COUNTOUR
EXISTING
MAJOR CONTOUR
— —
EXISTING
PROPERTY LINE
:.'.
EXISTING
GRAVEL/DIRT ROAD
m
EXISTING
CULVERT/PIPE
EXISTING
WETLAND
PROPOSED PLAN LEGEND
1035+00
PROPOSED STREAM CENTERLINE
B PROPOSED STREAM BANKFULL
GE PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED LOG CROSS VANE
PROPOSED LOG SILL
PROPOSED LOG VANE
PROPOSED BRUSH AND ROLL RIFFLE
PROPOSED FILL
M, PROPOSED CHANNEL 81-0111
+ + + PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN DEPRESSION
PROPOSED HEADWATER FILL
PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION
m PROPOSED CULVERT/PIPE
w
Q
PROPOSED PROFILE LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE AT PROPOSED CENTERLINE
EXISTING GRADE AT EXISTING CENTERLINE
WSF EXISTING WATER SURFACE AT EXISTING CENTERLINE cn
z
PROPOSED CHANNEL BOTTOM cn
o
PROPOSED BANKFULLLLJ
0
z
o
0
O o z
O O
W �
N J
N
Ld ( Y
z �
w
o
\� <
Q �
O
cn o
rl-
0
N w
z
� O
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u
NN
o
o
o
iw O
O
=
--D CD
w N
\
cn
m
CDQ
0- Ln
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
Ld J
w
z
zi
Ld
u
O
u
w
oo�
=
(n
C)
C)
u
0
z U)
Q J
W Q
0 00
z
W >-
CD w
W
J
0
z
CD J z QQ.) c�
Lo W 00
Q � v
� zo �
OooLL _Lu
Q
Lu Q
pp w
U)
SHEET NUMBER
03

m
W
Q
\ TYPLCROSS—SECTION
MAX POOLcn
DEPTH e� w
e
MEANDERING POOL B
\ RIFFLE e\ TY�=ROBS—SECTION
ANYERING
POOL
NOTES:
TYPICAL SECTIONS ARE PROVIDED TO GIVE THE GENERAL DIMENSIONS
OF THE CHANNEL.
FINAL GRADING WILL GIVE THE CHANNEL A MORE "NATURAL"
APPEARANCE AND ALLOW A SMOOTH TRANSITION FROM EXISTING
CHANNEL TO NEW CHANNEL AND BETWEEN RIFFLE AND POOL
SECTIONS.
RIFFLE FLOODPLAIN WIDTH VARIES BASED ON THE TYPICAL
POOL DIMENSIONS AND THE VALLEY WIDTH SHOWN ON THE
PLAN SHEETS.
THE CURVE BETWEEN THE PC AND PT SHOULD BE ROUNDED.
I Cr`CNIfI.
-Q� VERIFY BASED ON TYPICAL BANKFULL
0 VERTICAL CONTROL FROM PROFILE
0
ti
:LE
m
MEANDERING
POOL
/ TAIL OF RIFFLE
(TOR)
HEAD OF RIFFLE
(HOR)
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW SCHEMATIC
w
LL
LL
LL
0
Li
POOL
NOT TO SCALE
STREAM FLOW
TOP
Of— _BA N�—LBANKFULL
)— P =R PROFILE
RIFFLE SLOPE BANKFULL
(SEE PROFILE) DEPTH
LENGTH PER PROFILE
RIFFLE
w
V=
0
un Q:�
w_ n
0<0
H-
w
w
0 ul
~ m
w w
z
0
H—
U U Q
» >
���
un Un Lw
p < OpE
�O T
�F ��T
RUN
LENGTH PER
PROFILE
-ION
1�
n
n
VIA
SUM FLOW w 0
POOL
LENGTH PER
PROFILE
9.1
w
w
w
w
0
wQ:�
00
f
DEPTH VARIES
BASED 0 + PROFILE BAlbr NKFULL
PAR
GLIDE
LENGTH PER
PROFILE
TYPICAL PROFILE OF RIFFLE/POOL SEQUENCE
NOT TO SCALE
LENGTH PER PROFILE
POOL
O
z
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
v
NN
o
o
o
w
O
_
--DO
wN
\
cn
m
O
�LoNQ
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
LLJ J
w
z
zi
LLJ
y
Y CD
O
Q
(n
Q
w
cn
o
o
u
RIFFLE 0
z
(.0J z Q�
c�
Lo IZ W 00
Q � v
zo
0 00�
Q2
Lu Q �z
m W
0
SHEET NUMBER
04

m
w
Q
EXISTING BERM/SPOIL
TO BE REMOVED AND
USED AS CHANNEL FILL
TI E TO
EXISTING
GROUND
TI E TO
EXISTING
GROUND
PROPOSED RESTORED
VALLEY GRADE
I
EXISTING
CHANNEL WIDTH
VARIES
------- 20:1 20:1
� I �
i
POLLARD SWAMP — REACH 1. UT2. UT3 (HEADWATER STREAM RESTORATION
0
5.0'
3. 0'
NOT TO SCALE
EXISTING BERM/SPOIL
TO BE REMOVED AND
USED AS CHANNEL FILL
POLLARD SWAMP — REACH 2
NOT TO SCALE
EXISTING BERM/SPOIL
TO BE REMOVED AND
USED AS CHANNEL FILL
POLLARD SWAMP — REACH 3
NOT TO SCALE
EXISTING CHANNEL
EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
,
i
i
EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
\
/
/
/
i
i
/
cn
z
0
cn
w
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u
D
o
o
o
w O
O
=
--D O
0 �o
w N
\
(n
�
m
O
0-Ln
Q
3 D
Q
o
m
m
o
\
LLJ J
w
z
zi
LLJ
u
CD
Q
(n
Q
w
(n
C)
C)
u
v /
z
0
U
Lu
U)
J
Q
U_
0
z
Q.)J z
Lo w 00
Q � QJ
zo
0 00�
QQj
LLJ
pp w
SHEET NUMBER
05

U
N
_O
U
O
Q
O
C
O
T
N
E
Y
0
0
O
U
c
Ui
N
O
U
O
a
c
0
U, 0
3: _
� T
Y o
7 Q
z
c
J O
� o
Y N
Y O
� O
cn �-
N �
� o
o �
a �
O
Y �
O �
U
� O
O �
N �
Y o
J �
/ U
O
Q
E
Q�
U
c:(n
�Q
�Q
-�
f)
Y o
Z
z
/
0
� o
Q
Q
U
U
� Q
N
Y �
� O
V �
O
N
O �
�u
z>
�nQ)
O
Y
�E
Y c
Y N
9 -o
� m
� N
O N
a�
9
f
o�
�U
�Q
.nc:
O
U
-�
T
n0
U�
_�
U
a
0�
/
/
/
/
/
/ J
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 200 400 800
CADILLAC
RD
4
km
m
cn
z
0
cn
W
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u�
oN
o
o
o
Wo
o
=
--D o
w N
\
(n
m
CD
0- Ln
Q
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
\
LLJ J
w
z
z
LLJ
u
CD
o
Q
u
(n
w
Q
oo�
w
=
(n
C)
C)
u
0
Z
Z ~
W
J W
J U)
Q W
W
0
0
Z 5--1
LLJ
0 00L
Q
Lu <
pp w
U)
SHEET NUMBER
06

m
O
N
_O
O
O
76
Q
E
74
0
72
E
Y
O
70
a
68
0
66
64
62
0
60
3
a E
°
Y =
58
Y
56
_
z =�
z
J
54
Z a
0
52
N 0
_
50
= N
Q0
9
48
L
o �
46
Q
� o
Y
44
� o
42
Q o
40
L
O o -038
/0
0 =
36
EXISTING
GR
DE
NOTE: THIS PROFILE IS FOR DESIGN AND REPRESENTATION OF BANKFULL
SLOPE AND TARGET HEAD OF RIFFLE AVERAGE SLOPE THROUGH THE REACH.
DETAIL SHOWING POOL DEPTHS, RIFFLE SLOPES, AND STRUCTURE TARGET
ELEVATIONS WILL BE ADDED IN THE DRAFT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. SEE
SHEET 04 FOR TYPICAL PROFILE RIFFLE -POOL SEQUENCING.
D a
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00
T
-0
-0
o
9+50
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
10+00
n
v> /
J �✓ / / / /a �/ �
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40 80
z
�CE
CE
a — V \ % % � / � �� \ \ i c �� CE E o � 9 o i � j / � \ r 7
— �l /
o V — PROPOSES CFfiANNEL�BkbCK (T1CP� ) o / o— a /
\ \i J
�$EE � 1,1 6, SHEET S �-
o
l , �7
zJAB o l
_ -J
oo/ �� ��� k
X/ / — C— \ / \� /� T
�r / / �o i � /�
1< �1 --�—�A—'V / �, � �J /
A
�� / /✓ V /� A s
IC \ / G J \ /�� l \
J ( / J i� O
/ / ti� J A / / / — —� a �� o \ // —
�/ i � � /�/ / / r � / �� / LL�R
\ 1 J 1LLJ
I U �� v/ _/ �_�, MP_ -
° v _� K a ;, �v v ,� �,� �> >
H1�a �� o — r
) i / �/ �
n
/ 0� vV �� \ a / �ti— �� s /� /� / �� �/ / YI _c� \/
�
C� o r r — v�1 C7
z —� �\ �/� �� a L —/ — /C C J7 \ ) r
\7
o
i ~
1
0
1+On
— — — 12+00
W
Q
0
cn
z
0
cn
w
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u
NN
o
o
o
Wo
o
=
--DO
wN
\
cn
m
CDQ
0- Ln
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
LLJ
J
w
z
zi
LLJ
y
Y CDQ
in
Q
w
�
o
o
u
1
W�
J_
L Q
0��
Z
U
Q
Z W
Q J
z J
Q0
J
0—
0
z
QJ
W Q v
00 o c�
zo
0 oow
Q 2
W Q �z
00 w C
G
SHEET NUMBER
07

O
76
Q
°
E
74
0
72
E
Y
O
70
a
68
O
66
64
62
O
60
3 °
a E
°
Y =
58
i E
Y
56
_
z =�
J
54
Z a
0
52
N 0
_
50
N
Q0
9
48
L
o �
46
Q
/ 0
� o
a
Y
44
E
M U
M o
42
Q o
40
c
O o
-038
/0
0=
36
EXISTING
G
ADE
_T
-7—/
r
7/
NOTE: THIS PROFILE IS FOR DESIGN AND REPRESENTATION OF BANKFULL
SLOPE AND TARGET HEAD OF RIFFLE AVERAGE SLOPE THROUGH THE REACH.
DETAIL SHOWING POOL DEPTHS, RIFFLE SLOPES, AND STRUCTURE TARGET
ELEVATIONS WILL BE ADDED IN THE DRAFT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. SEE
SHEET 04 FOR TYPICAL PROFILE RIFFLE -POOL SEQUENCING.
D a
10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50
T
�-0
� o
19+00 19+50
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
20+00
ct-
SCE m�O
z =- / S /
��� �z V — — /\
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
_ v \ / / 1 — — ti _ / r� \ ✓ , ( 0 20 40 80
�\
� a I � J I � �-l ��P �� �>> � � /,n l ����� � -° �`� � 1� �� � � � � � o� ✓ � � � � � a ��
r 7 l L v
STA: 16+35 o a o �1
vI l �� BEGIN POLLARD SWAMP — HEADWATERS �� o
BEGIN HEADWATER RESTORATION Q �o - ) ° � ) — l � r 1 ) -,) v J � H 5t�\
s 1 / J o v> \ \
s
/ / O _ 7 ♦ �
_n cn21
r- ti o < <o
\ g+00 / Q O 3(> h— \ J �' I/ 5+p0 — / 7 o S
— — W 11 + _ / J ) / - — — — — — — 17+00 — 18+00 `19+00E—
= o > — W W 00� — 0p — — 12+00 — 13+00� / 14+�— _ _ — — — 20 W
_ Lu
�v+00 z
52
� l ��� \ —� C i �� r 1 T 7 / �� / ) (/ice �ti ��-77
' — —
�z> _ - / > W
z w - > > - -� °POLLARD SWAMP REACH 1 ��� / -� / r/ -
a %\ ✓ A �� ��� �� V V 4 Z
/ —� / ^� i� Q Li b �✓ / i��� P
>
9 �/ A� VV/ 7 '� �_JL� V it �� �� � '�
° ° — o HEADWATER RESTORATION — REGRADE
/ HEADWATER
G DITCH AN SP01L� PI ES TO
S / �� r /� `�E��Q�� /ALLEY. SOME__SECTNS OF
NELIWI -L C� TAIN �F P AIN
v?d�' LIONS o/ o
f
Y J �I / . 1 \ C /— I J o /IC� I V J
> L <J \ ��— A L d
�Y �i a o
o �� > \ f
o �� �✓ a v
o
i ~
cn
z
0
cn
w
ofz
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u
NN
0
o
o
w O
O
=
�O
0 �o
wN
�
cn
�
m
O
0- Ln
Q
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
J
w
z
zi
LLJ
y
CD
ED
u
W
oo�
_
cf)
o
o
u
I
w
J_
L
Q
O
>
r
�
U
z�w
J
�
Q
z
J
QO
J
0-
0
Z Q.)J z (�
Lo W Q � QJ
00 o c�
zo
O oOw
LL Q
LL
W Q
W w G
rr�
v!
SHEET NUMBER
OV

r
O
72
Q
c
70
0
68
E
Y
O
66
64
0
62
r
60
58
0
56
Y E
54
Y I
1 �
E
Y
52
T
Y L
50
� a
48
L
°
46
Q�
0
f
o
44
Q
'
42
< O
Y �
40
L
U
38
Q
0
36
o�
-0U
uC
/
34
�Q
N O
32
z
0
F
a
of
O 0
Ln
+ o Ld
� �
N .. Z
< J w
cn w m
C°
+�
(Do
N Lo
a w
H J
cn w
EXISTING
GRADE
PROP
SED GR
DE
PROPOSED
BANKF
LL
\
BANKF
LL SLOP
v
Uv
0%
NOTE: THIS PROFILE IS FOR DESIGN AND REPRESENTATION OF BANKFULL
SLOPE AND TARGET HEAD OF RIFFLE AVERAGE SLOPE THROUGH THE REACH.
DETAIL SHOWING POOL DEPTHS, RIFFLE SLOPES, AND STRUCTURE TARGET
ELEVATIONS WILL BE ADDED IN THE DRAFT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. SEE
SHEET 04 FOR TYPICAL PROFILE RIFFLE —POOL SEQUENCING.
20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50 23+00 23+50 24+00 24+50 25+00 25+50 26+00
3
O o
Y
Y \ J �S \
� � �/ � � � � � \ �I � � � / � \��f .V ✓ rho �/
I \\
o _ PROS OSDED�f�,�l� 3�ISHEETT-�P�i�> � > r\
l / l r Ll L
L
STA: 26+15—
5 , END POLLARD SWAMP — REACH 1-'
END HEADWATER RESTORATION
r v a BEGIN POLLARD SWAMP — REACH 2
BEGIN PRIORITY I RESTORATION l
y 1 Q \� A T�_A�
/�— o)0 -19 (+00— � W
y22+00 +4+� )Z00
,cr �A
_ 2v��2�\�V5' J\+< r00l
2)
�6�±
u LV uJ 21+2
� --POLLARD SWAMP- REACH 1
rr
v
r
r _ _
� 7rr > / s
��
0�
26+50
1 (
27+00
27+50
TJ
PROPOSED LOG VANE (TYP.)
SEE DETAIL Z; SHEET,1/&_�
r�
28+00
28+50 29+00 29+50
POLLARD SWAMP - REACH 2 r
0 J
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30+00
GRAPHIC
SCALE IN FEET
r
0
20
40 80
tl—
J O
+ c_
\
1
r✓ /
\'1 29+00 '�� �� M l� 1 r \ ��
28+00
�'/ice
0
30 ��W js
� LLI Wl
\ O � +00
r a rl > B n ?\ < 3A
\� i J 8 0
x xJ
X� X, x C
_ x x �cx X x x (xy x
x x x x\x x x x1x I
Xtic 1 \ x� �/ ( x
1I
l
( \ PROPOSED BRUSH AND ROLL RIFFLE (-TYP.) \ 1
SEE DETAIL 1; SHEET 17 V
r
L
A 1 \
ti v
cfIT
cn
z
0
cn
w
ofz
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
U
NN
0
o
0
w O
O
=
--DO
0 c9
wN
�\
cn
�
m
0- Ln
Q
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
LLI J
wLLJ
z
zi
y
Y CD
O
Q
in
Q
w
�
o
o
u
I
W
W
J_
L.L
Q
N
0
06
I..L
p
p
z
L.1_
U
Q
Q
J
W
zJ�
Q0
J
0—
0
Z
(o J z
� C�
W
o c�
z o
0 C) o �-,
LL Q Q�
Lu
W Q �7_
00 w
rr�^
VJ
SHEET NUMBER
09

D
O
72
Q
c
70
0
68
E
Y
O
66
64
O
62
60
58
D
O
56
E
°
54
Y
Y �
1
Y
52
�
z T
0
Q .D
50
Y
Z a
0
48
D
46
N
Q 0
9
44
L
o
� D
42
Q
/ 0
40
/ D
cn o
38
c
N
0
36
Q
Lu
c
O
34
PROPOSED
BAN
FULL
PROPOSED
GRADE
_
-
—
/
\/
NOTE: THIS PROFILE IS FOR DESIGN AND REPRESENTATION OF BANKFULL
SLOPE AND TARGET HEAD OF RIFFLE AVERAGE SLOPE THROUGH THE REACH.
DETAIL SHOWING POOL DEPTHS, RIFFLE SLOPES, AND STRUCTURE TARGET
ELEVATIONS WILL BE ADDED IN THE DRAFT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. SEE
SHEET 04 FOR TYPICAL PROFILE RIFFLE -POOL SEQUENCING.
D a
30+00 30+50 31+00 31+50 32+00 32+50 33+00 33+50 34+00 34+50 35+00 35+50 36+00 36+50 37+00 37+50 38+00 38+50 39+00 39+50
T
� O
9
Y
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
40+00
C
0- / DV o L f ( ��
o \ �� 1
r ) C D
1 J DDi N J D 4�\C�
C GE GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
�\ �'�IL- �� �� �� �a V �� �> D/ vCE J D�� � �17 0 20 40 80
Q 1 �RQPOSED LOG ROSS VANE (3P )
SEE DETAIL -4, EET 19 �� �� �< �� �� / >��� �� \ �� r -- �� ll �� / �� r -
Cv
D
�e l 0) � /�" i — �o /'�� �" <� / D D �, D C -'---
J� /
LV LLI 0� j s l (D \ > Z-� O
z
Y
b31-1'00
.� + +�+ + + + `� �� +� +++ + +�+ +++ �+++ �r� ���� 110++++++++++
+—+ + + + + + + + +
Uu
r E + _ <� — + 32+0 + + �+ + +
�� � —+-++
+ +F + ++ —
++�+ —+ +— ++— + + + + +�+
±
+D
OvZB
"
i � Ao 17 � Q
� Zcn
D D — > o D > / J u,J
1 36+00 /'
35+p0 �� d o Q g
-' POLLARD SWAMP -REACH 2
1 o� I
l� �7
z ✓ �� <� i 1 D �/ / /D J — // / l Z / l /
Tj
_i r i
0
r
cn
z
0
cn
w
ofz
o
0
O o z
0 o
w
N J
mr C:)
� ( Y
zcn
�
w
o � �
Q �
o
cn o
o
0
N w
z
o
a_
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u
NN
o
o
o
w O
O
=
--DO
0 �o
wN
cn
u�
m
O
0- Ln
Q
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
LLI
J
w
z
zi
y
Y CDLLJ
Q
(n
Q
w
�
o
o
u
Lu
a
J
�
L.L
OWN
a�U
0
Lu
Z
_j
J
a
0-
0
z Q.)i Z
Lo W Q � v
00 o c�
� zo �
000_Lu
w Q �z
m w
r�
V i
SHEET NUMBER
10

O
72
Q
c
70
0
68
E
Y
O
66
64
0
62
60
58
0
56
3
a E
°
54
Y E
1
Y
52
�
z T
0
Q�
50
J
Z a
0
48
C
o
46
N
Q 0
9
44
L
o
42
Q
40
E
cn o
38
c
N
0
36
Q
Lu
c
O o
34
od
+0)
H J
N W
PROPOSED
BAN
FULL
PROPOSEDTRADE—,
BANKF
LL SLOPE
\I
NOTE: THIS PROFILE IS FOR DESIGN AND REPRESENTATION OF BANKFULL
SLOPE AND TARGET HEAD OF RIFFLE AVERAGE SLOPE THROUGH THE REACH.
DETAIL SHOWING POOL DEPTHS, RIFFLE SLOPES, AND STRUCTURE TARGET
ELEVATIONS WILL BE ADDED IN THE DRAFT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. SEE
SHEET 04 FOR TYPICAL PROFILE RIFFLE -POOL SEQUENCING.
D a
40+00 40+50 41+00 41+50 42+00 42+50 43+00 43+50 44+00 44+50 45+00 45+50 46+00 46+50 47+00 47+50 48+00 48+50 49+00 49+50
T
� O
9
Y
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
50+00
�I Z' % ( / V << l
/ a
i^ \ ✓ / d \
V \ JA GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40 80
Z/
�I� O
�
� v �e
T� � Qom+ + �+ V �� \ \ V
_
�+�+ + + �C J�I r �� \ \
�� k + + + �.+ +�� o — — v a l �v �2 — w ova
0
w �,
8
i
�� \ p �o �+ + STA: 43+03
+ + + + POLLARD SWAMP — REACH 2 /� / ti v/ r \
N ✓ a ) ��� v + 1+ ++ + STA: 109+55
r + + + —J I -
o _
+ + �+ + END U T2 � / o I Ir
�/ v L + +��+( V+ + + STA: 45+60 i + i> l f J
c 1' v + + v+ + + S _ POLLARD SWAMP - REACH 2 ti �� \ Ir v o
— 4 ���
�� v ) B ��2�0 A +� v�� < STA: 210+24 �� r \ \ ! +�
V 0� + o v v / END UT3
o y A �� V a
/^ C \v� B �.�x
_� 0 ��� /\ x —+� + v
^� o "REMOVE E TING CMP
ro
+
_� —/ �� f�—�� > �� �� I (II L �o j A
X 4� l
ij �\+ +
�� V \ o ��` l A
_ q _
n > o J J �� [ — CONTRACTOR TO GRADE SMOOTH
�� �� o TRANSITION AT CONFLUENCE—
_ //o / s
7 TV
iz-
0/ r l '� D �\
�
0�
cn
z
0
cn
w
ofz
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u
NN
0
o
o
w O
O
=
--DO
wN
\
cn
m
CD
0- Ln
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
LLJ J
w
z
zi
LLJ
y
Y
O
Q
in
Q
w
�
C)
C)
u
Lu
a
J
�
L.L
OWN
a�U
0
-<
0�
<
Z
_j
J
a
0-
0
z Q.)(D J z c�
� w
o0 o c�
zo
O ooLu
LL Q Q�
Q 2
w Q �z
m ww
L.L
SHEET NUMBER
11

v;
O
70
Q
E
68
0
66
E
Y
O
64
62
0
60
58
56
O
�<
54
�I
Y E
=
52
Y I
1 �
E
= Y
50
T
z =
48
46
_
o
°
44
QN
� .N
-00
f
0
42
Q
'
40
� o
Y �
38
U
"
36
Q
0
34
o�
-0U
uC
/
32
�0
�Q
� o
30
cd
Lo
+m
cd
rn
+
0
o
Lo
H J
L
Q
W
00
+ Lo
0�
N
W W
~ J
N W
EXISTING
GO
Q Lj
H J
N W
PROPOSED
BA
KFULL
BA
KFULL
I BANKFULLI
r-%r-%^r-%lelr'M
fr-I
A fM-%
=
0.15%-
_4Z
E
1.00%
b K U
SLOPE
= O�
L
BANKF
SLOPE
LL
II
11
v
/ -
0.39
,
NOTE: THIS PROFILE IS FOR DESIGN AND REPRESENTATION OF BANKFULL
SLOPE AND TARGET HEAD OF RIFFLE AVERAGE SLOPE THROUGH THE REACH.
DETAIL SHOWING POOL DEPTHS, RIFFLE SLOPES, AND STRUCTURE TARGET
ELEVATIONS WILL BE ADDED IN THE DRAFT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. SEE
SHEET 04 FOR TYPICAL PROFILE RIFFLE -POOL SEQUENCING.
50+00 50+50 51+00 51+50
3:
O o
Y �
E
J
�f
t> _
PROPOSED 40LF OF 48" CMP
Q 0 STA: 50+49 J I S l
y J POLLARD SWAMP - REACH 2 `1 /
STOP PRIORITY I RESTORATION
i
0
<>
49X0ki O 51 +00
i= �
ci /
z AZ
-
fl
+ + 30
-� L�
I �I
EXISTING GRAVE ROAD
ROAD
I
0
52+00 52+50 53+00 53+50 54+00 54+50 55+00 55+50 56+00 56+50 57+00 57+50 58+00 58+50 59+00 59+50
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
60+00
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 ## ## 4
cn
z
0
cn
w
ofz
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u�
oN
o
o
o
w o
o
=
--D O
L'Jcn
m
CDQ
0- Ln
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
LLI
J
wLLJ
z
zi
y
Y CD
o
Q
(n
Q
w
�
o
o
u
Lu
a
J
0
06
�
U)
N
0
a�w
z
J
�
J
a
0-
0
Z Q.)C� i Z c�
Lo w Q � v
~ � m
zo c�
� o �
O o O , �-,
Qj
m W
SHEET NUMBER
12

70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
60+00
z
0
o Q
0 0
w
Q w o
H J Z
LiJ LiJ
EXISTING
GRADE
PROP
OSED B
NKFULL
(n
\
-
V
'BA
`Fl1LL
SL PF
NOTE: THIS PROFILE IS FOR DESIGN AND REPRESENTATION OF BANKFULL
SLOPE AND TARGET HEAD OF RIFFLE AVERAGE SLOPE THROUGH THE REACH.
DETAIL SHOWING POOL DEPTHS, RIFFLE SLOPES, AND STRUCTURE TARGET
ELEVATIONS WILL BE ADDED IN THE DRAFT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. SEE
SHEET 04 FOR TYPICAL PROFILE RIFFLE —POOL SEQUENCING.
60+50 61+00
61+50 62+00 62+50 63+00 63+50 64+00 64+50 65+00
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
65+50
�j
/ q �� f lS L i
a �� ;' f1l o
clterCIE f
/
\ t v o GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
CIEo v D v o > 1 0 0 20 40 80
���
\ 1CIE
a o \ o
CIE
z T
/ �
y
r J
17
0
��2 \ �/
a
� 5
0
0 0
y ? � X �
z
�cl
tp(." oNA
o,
8
v \
° A / 58+00 _ B o _
9
L " � �J �F/\� �
END POLLARD SWAMP — REACH 3
a
�� ✓ �� �o ��� / END PRIORITY I RESTORATION
o a C
v Qf V_
O xro �6O=V\
�
_ z
o \
e � � SWAM p,RID
�—
POLL- - ' v -
a.. I l
e �
-� �—� / _: S \ —1
j
v .
zlol
1 i v f
0 r
� �
/ 57+00 �� - 'ice �: ;. > L ��
.
01
J- 0 �
loll
0
cn
z
0
cn
w
ofz
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u
NN
0
o
o
w O
O
=
--DO
0 c9
wN
�\
cn
�
m
O
0- Ln
Q
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
LLJ J
w
z
zi
LLJ
y
Y CD
O
Q
in
Q
w
�
o
o
v
Lu
a
J
�
L.L
OEM
a�U
Lu
Z
J
_j
a
0-
0
z Q.)(D J z c�
Lo F_ Q
~ LJJ00
O CCU
�zL
0 00�
Q �
LL� —
�
W Nw G
SHEET NUMBER
13

O
70
Q
E
68
0
66
E
Y
O
64
62
O
60
58
56
O
Q
54
=
52
a
E
Y
T
50
0
48
0
46
y O
44
N
�0
_
42
N
40
(n O
=
38N�
a N
Q�
9 U
36
n
L N
o
0
34
_
/u
�c
32
N0
Q
T
30
cD
000
oLr)
�
o
c~i�w
+W
o�
00
00
Llj
(/)
J
W
+
0)
O
EXISTING
G
ADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
Q W
N w
NOTE: THIS PROFILE IS FOR DESIGN AND REPRESENTATION OF BANKFULL
SLOPE AND TARGET HEAD OF RIFFLE AVERAGE SLOPE THROUGH THE REACH.
DETAIL SHOWING POOL DEPTHS, RIFFLE SLOPES, AND STRUCTURE TARGET
ELEVATIONS WILL BE ADDED IN THE DRAFT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. SEE
SHEET 04 FOR TYPICAL PROFILE RIFFLE —POOL SEQUENCING.
E
100+00 100+50 101+00 101+50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00 104+50 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00 108+50 109+00 109+50
Q0
O
_ _ /' o i
0 �
14
% •- O � -ram � � `ti � � � \ � /-1 � � \ � � � � ti Z\ o \/ f s o / �-7 o �
Ll
= 0 STA:100+35 �) r % l�� o ! — r <
BEGIN UT2
BEGIN HEADWATER RESTORATION')
in
0 o 100+OO��I ���� 10
— _ 4+00 r ) l
5+00 — \ o
106+00_ (�
107+00
J < i
L \ ( < 5 O J �I
r
J l
/
a �/ \ r<
v f4,1
Ir
o
� I
0�
�4—
CONTRACTOR TO GRADE SMOOTH
TRAN:SITIONI AT CONFLUENCE
L
6
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
110+00
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40 80
STA. 109+88
END UT2
+ JEND HEADDWATER RESTORATION
+ + STA: 43+03
+ 'POLLARD SWAMP — REACH 2
2 .+++� I
Q \
rL
Y45+OOB
1
cn
z
0
cn
w
O
0
O o z
0 o
w
mr C)
N J
N
L00LLJ
LLJ
z �
w
\�
Q Nj
:D u
O
cn o
o �
0
N W
z
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u
NN
o
o
o
w O
O
=
--DO
wN
cn
m
CDQ
0- Ln
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
LLI
J
w
z
zi
LLJ
y
Y CDQ
in
Q
w
�
C)
C)
U
0
Z Q.)(o J z c�
� w 00
Q � QJ
� Z o �
O oow
LL Q Q�
2
W Q �z
m NW
L.L
SHEET NUMBER
14

° 68
Q
66
E
0
64
E
Y
° 62
60
°
58
56
u
c
54
°
52
°
E
0 50
a
Y IE 48
Q
° 46
0
° 44
Y
42
N
�0
40
38
(n °
N�
36
a N
Q�
/ 34
n
0
L N
32
N °
Yc
J 30
�0
Y
° 28
cD
a
0
+ 0,
N �
H J
c0
N �
Q W
H J
P
OPOSE
GRAD
N W
j
v
NOTE: THIS PROFILE IS FOR DESIGN AND REPRESENTATION OF BANKFULL
SLOPE AND TARGET HEAD OF RIFFLE AVERAGE SLOPE THROUGH THE REACH.
DETAIL SHOWING POOL DEPTHS, RIFFLE SLOPES, AND STRUCTURE TARGET
ELEVATIONS WILL BE ADDED IN THE DRAFT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. SEE
SHEET 04 FOR TYPICAL PROFILE RIFFLE —POOL SEQUENCING.
Q
200+00 200+50 201+00 201+50 202+00 202+50 203+00 203+50 204+00 204+50 205+00 205+50 206+00 206+50 207+00 207+50 208+00 208+50 209+00 209+50 210+00 210+50 211+00
°
Q
L
o
N
Q > l
o — t � �--�� ) t �i � � -'� o YY� < � �� �� �A of �✓� \`�� �- �� � ,� A /' ° (�
L�
2 > s7
/fN7 +
L
o ✓ / �+
�i t� / J a A\ a ��� + +
/ > �V v + +
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
211+50 212+00
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40 80
I�
r � _j �� 206+00\
�� t L <
�� �
0
J \ o a t > Y 05+00 t( > 1
'207+00
IX
0 AA
r 210+00
a a 20r
t� %\� �or �_z��
\� ✓ _
(° J \ X
�� V � I Q �l �� Y �i ���,
Y o�/ tiIj
) l /z / �� J \
�r A o � 4�_
� a °� STA: 211+68
i / r % / / — Y f k END UT3
� A r o END HEADWATER RESTORATION
_ �1 1 �� � ,ZOO �A j> I l STA: 45+60
z N - ✓ �� Y/ �r / < < / ',POLLARD SWAMP — REACH 2
L/
z / % J� +005 t �� co
- O
O
> �Y�
9 0k00 t �� Q < �� ° > l� �� �/�
OVA ��✓\L��/ �� o ��� �] �� t ���\ ��\�++i
STA: 201 +01 v L V / — �� ,� + �A
n o BEGIN UT3�� o a �� / �— ��� �� t \ ��� t ) +� ��+� \� d�
— C �� + 1 < J
,BEGIN HEADWATER RESTORATION / a / _ �� — ti h ) o —
'V
jt ��
��
> j t
O F� �0 a O ��� V �
o, � �
r _
0�
cn
z
0
cn
w
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
v
ON
0
o
o
w O
O
=
--DO
wN
\
cn
m
CDQ
0- Ln
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
LLI J
w
z
zi
LLJ
y
Y CD
O
Q
cn
Q
w
�
o
o
u
1
W
J_
LL
O/
M
z
Q
z
J
0-
0
z
Co J z c�
Lo w Q � QJ
°° o c�
zo
O oow
LL Q Q�
2
W Q F___
Lu
I..L
r�
V J
SHEET NUMBER
15

❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
❑
Z ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
oe
/--]
-1 E E
-1 E E
-1 E E
-1 E E
-1 E E
-1 E -1 E
F
E
-1 E�x
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
El E
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
V/E
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ C�v ►�
-777-7-=P�-77
—77
E
E: E: E:
E
❑
E:
❑
E:
❑
E:
❑
E:
❑
E:
❑
❑
E
❑
E
❑
E/
❑
9-1
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
-1
❑
-1
❑
-1
❑
-1
❑
ElElElElElElElElEl
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
QO
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
ElEl
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
P] E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑ ❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E -1
❑
❑
❑
E:
❑
-1 E:/
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ Er
❑
❑
❑
❑
7
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
-1 E
❑
E
❑
-1 E
ElElElElElElElElElElElEl❑
-1 E
E
-1 E
-1 E
-1 E
-1 E
A.,
-1 E
-1 E
-1 E
-1
El
El
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
El
ElElElElElElEl❑
❑
❑
AEl
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Iz ❑
❑
❑
El
- El
- El
- El
- El
- E
- E
-F,::Ii_-]EIE
-IEIE--IEEIE
-
El
- El
El
�IWE]
/ A
El
- Q•
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
1
❑
❑
❑
F
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
ElElEl
P
❑ ❑ �� �L
- �Q
El
QO
Q ❑
1
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
I - c�
NORTH
I
I
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 100 200 400
I
cn
z
0
cn
w
o�z
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
u
NN
0
o
o
w O
O
=
--D O
0 �
w N
�\
cn
�
m
oo� O
0- Ln
Q
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
J
w
CD
LLJ
u
O
o
u
W
oo�
=
(n
C)
C)
u
Z
J
❑ z
m Q
❑ J
W
0
❑ ❑ z
❑ J Z
`'� Q
W � QJ
/El ElC) U > z p
Q LL > z
Q0 Lu
0 00�
W Q
00 W —
()
SHEET NUMBER
16

u
m
u w
O
cn Q
Q
°
c
0
a
m
E
Y
O
Cn
HEAD OF RIFFLE LOG (TYP.) o
Fn
TAIL OF RIFFLE LOG (TYP.) w
m
INTERCHANGEABLE WITH LOG
CROSS VANE, LOG VANE, OR
LOG SILL PER PLANS. SEE
6 BED SEPARATE DETAIL
FLOW
ql
Q — \ \ z
— — — — —_
6, Ei
— o
Y
0
N LJ
o � �
1.0' DEEP WELL GRADED MIX
OF BRUSH AND NATURAL LiN
CHANNEL MATERIAL � z
° NOTES: o �
1. PLACE FABRIC ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE �
MOST UPSTREAM LOG SILL IN THE CONSTRUCTED = Q �
° RIFFLE. o u
2. THE LOG SILLS SHALL ALL BE DESIGNED TO BECn
COVEED o
S.
SECTION A -A 3. LOGS SUBMERGED
U USED INRSTRUCTUREAFOR LOGLOWLSSILLS SHALL o
Q o BE HARDWOOD SPECIES AND A MINIMUM OF 12" z
IN DIAMETER. o
o 4. TAIL OF RIFFLE LOG IS INTERCHANGEABLE WITH a_
LOG CROSS VANE, LOG VANE, OR LOG SILL PER
PLANS. SEE SEPARATE DETAIL
°
BANKFULL
° — —
C —
°_ KEY/PRESS BRUSH INTO TOE OF BANK PRELIMINARY
TO PROVIDE SCOUR PROTECTIONNOT FOR
1%cv- SLOPPE �_I I JEEI I I_I I 1—�
CONSTRUCTION
Q
Y
N SECTION B-B
TAIL OF RIFFLE LOG (TYP)
INTERCHANGEABLE WITH LOG CROSS
HEAD OF RIFFLE LOG (TYP.) VANE, LOG VANE, OR LOG SILL PER
WELL GRADED MIX OF BRUSH PLANS. SEE SEPARATE DETAIL
Q AND NATURAL CHANNEL
o Q MATERIAL
0 BRUSH TOE PROTECTION WHERE
NORMAL WATER MEETS THE
B / �\ BANKS
U \
T BANKFULL \� BANKFULL
o
o EDGE OF WATER EDGE OF WATER w o 0LLJ
0 o
o A POOL\ \ POOL A m o Q m m
D 0
FLOW Q o N Q o z o
_ \ _ FLOW = �_ � c� u
CD \ 0L \ \ EXCAVATED POOL, TYP.
Q o EDGE OF WATER \ EDGE OF WATER co
� T
BANKFULL BANKFULL
Q
\ / \
0_� B \ w
o \� SEE PROFILE FOR
CV \\ O SPACING BETWEEN STEPS
KEY INTO BANK
T 0 PLAN VIEW MINIMUM OF 5.0'
-0L
°
° Q)
ECn
L.1_
Y�
Q
Y
o °
Q
Ll
a
C
0 0
z
O °
J Z C/)
L'
Ln L QJ
BRUSH AND ROLL RIFFLE z o
m Not to Scale 0 zLL
0
Q ~ w
Q (D v
cn
L Q
L
° cn
m SHEET NUMBER
°
0
7

u
m
u w
O
cn Q
Q
0
c
0
a
m
E
Y
O
NAIL FABRIC TO LOG SEE PROFILE FOR ELEVATION cn
z
o
HEADER LOG cn
FLOW ,
TOE OF SLOPE - -��► m
ATTACH FABRIC TO
' BACK OF LOG
HEADER LOG\/
\� j/\�
o 0
\\/�\\/�\\/� O BED z
BACKFILL WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF \ \ \
E O
BRUSH AND ON —SITE MATERIAL �2 0,� EXCAVATED POOL
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR DEPTH o
E � z
FOOTER LOGLLJ
O o
COMPACTED BRUSH LAYER AND m N J
NATURAL CHANNEL MATERIAL LAYER. o
� 00 y
o w N
ALL BRUSH PLACED PERPENDICULAR � z
TO THE CHANNEL. cn
SECTION A -A z w
HEADER LOG > o s,
SECTION A —A
NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE _ Q �
FABRIC, TYP. u
o
cn o
v FLOW o
Q o � �,,,.�� cv �i
� - — SLOPE 1 0 ■ o
W
o. . ...... ......
"t a) STREAM BED
N O
BACKFILL AND BRUSH FOOTER LOG
Q o (LOGS MAY BE NOTCHED TO
/ PROVIDE A BETTER FIT AND
u END OF LOG BURRIED w w z
C LOCK TOGETHER IF NECESSARY) o INTO STREAM BED Q Q Q< < m PRELIMINARY
BRUSH LAYER w w w NOT FOR
0 0 0
CONSTRUCTION
QE o 0 o BACKFILL WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF
a w w BRUSH AND ON —SITE MATERIAL
N SECTION B-B
o r0 , HEADER LOG (SEE SECTION A —A)
BACKFILL WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF \ \ \ \
< 0 r Q KEY INTO BANK A MINIMUM BRUSH AND ON —SITE MATERIAL 2.0' \ \ \ \ \ \ OF 5.0'
NON —WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
L
� o
T�
O O o
U CD N O 0
O =
0 o I 0 oO w0 cn
L� C9 �_ \ u� >
o 0
aLLJ
m Q
A m 0� Q o m
= CD� o A � Y� LLJ
o Q in Q w
z Cn o o u
U u
a
�T
J
QO
o� A
BRUSH LAYER
o BELOW LOG W
0 a 4' FOOTER LOG/CUT OFF SILL
N PLAN VIEW
TO Q�o
DQ) W
E
J� �
Q
wC:
o�
LLI
PLAN VIEW
C�
Z
O
J CO J z cry
Ln LOG VANE LOG SI LL �' w Q v
2 3
Not to Scale Not to Scale
��00��
U
Z o
�� 0 o0LL
w
mQ
Q~w
O � (D aJ
cn Q
W wT� m ~
Y
�0)
u
�E
SHEET NUMBER
O
0 18

u
m
u w
O
cn Q
Q
0
c
0
a
m
E
Y
O
CROSS LOG Cn
NOTCH LOGS SO THAT THEY LOCK TOGETHER BANKFULL ELEVATION INNER BERM ELEVATION z
(LIKE LINCOLN-LOGS) LOG VANE (SEE PLAN, PROFILE, AND TYPICAL SECTIONS) o
cn
O >
FLOW COIR FABRIC (TYP) NOTE: IF TYPICAL SECTION DOES NOT CALL FOR INNER BERM, z
SEE DETAIL BRUSH AND FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AND
COMPACTED TO THE BANKFULL ELEVATION.
--� SEE PLAN
MATCH TYPICAL DIMENSIONS
BACKFILL (TYP) BED
U
EXCAVATED POOL, O NON -WOVEN 6" MAX ABOVE "BASE FLOW" z
SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR DEPTH
Q
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
2.0'
FOOTER LOG STREAM GRADING
BACKFILL WITH WELL GRADED MIX OF =7s( PER PLAN o
BRUSH AND ON SITE MATERIAL u
BASE/NORMAL FLOW ELEVATION O z
Y
O � �
SECTION A-ALJ
w
18" MIN. EXCAVATED POOL PER PROFILE o
Q BRUSH LAID PERPENDICULAR TO THE N -
° STREAM BED AND COMPACTED IN 6" LIFTS. ^ Li N w �\ �z�
C w
z
N oLn
SECTION A-ADoe I
QNj
u
� � I
O
U1 O
° � O
O
N W
z
Q � ■� o
0 _
o �
o
O
m
� o
F— m
O CID
O
j o NOTE DEEPEST PART OF POOL TO BE IN LINE WITH WHERE VANE ARM TIES INTO THE BANK. 13' MIN. FROM EDG I�
u 2. BRUSH AND STICKS TO BE USED TO REDUCE VOIDS BETWEEN LOGS. D
0 3. ALL LOGS TO BE HARDWOOD SPECIES, 8" DIAMETER. mPRIEILIIVIIINAIRY
NOT FOR
i o A CONSTRUCTION
o Q
Q I
Y°
U
N°
0
O
POOL PER PROFILE
i
Q� w w
Q w a_Q
J J J � � � J P OL \
ILLcn of L
Y ILL ILLo z BRUSH PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO
z o
Q q w m FLOW
m w0 O
o L F
NAIL LOGS TOGETHER
T USING 9" GALVANIZED NAIL
o
ARM EXTENTS OF TOE--W&Q. u o o
SEE PLAN FOR
Ln -0NOTCH LOGS SO THAT THEY FIT TOGETHER ° ° ��ti\ LENG o CD LLJ� CD o `� >
0 (LIKE LINCOLN-LOGS) % �� (L) � CD Q Q m m
o Ln N o m p
z u O ° ° _� \ uCf) o o
-
C BACKFILL WITH BRUSH, STICKS,
CROSS LOG G� AND ON -SITE ALLUVIUM, (TYP.) 75% BRUSH (STICKS/LEAVES/BRANCHES)
SK ON -SITE LEARTHMATERIAL CH S) (n
J
0
3 NK LL a
o
LOG VANE P OL
O
0 c W
N o cQ
0 .( ^� � ° Q
N �_ = PLAN VIEW
r4u�—
N
T � NOTE:
D 1. BRUSH SHALL BE A VARIETY OF DIAMETERS AND SHALL
A FOOTER LOG BE LAID GENERALLY PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW AND w
E COMPACTED BY DIRT.
cn ,- 2. FIRST LAYER OF BRUSH SHALL BE A BED OF 3"
Q POOL EXCAVATED PER PROFILE LIMBS/BRUSH SET 18" MIN. BELOW THE BED.
o OR DIRECTION OF ENGINEER 3. LAYERS ABOVE 1st LAYER SHALL BE 75% BRUSH OF A (n
VARIETY OF SIZES WITH 25% ON SITE MATERIAL FILLING
u VOIDS.
4. BRUSH BROUGHT UP IN LIFTS.
PLAN VIEW 5 GRADING
SECTION AND/OR TGRAD NG PLAN.
PER THE TYPICAL
Cn 0
z /
°° Q
Ln
° LOG CROSS VANE BRUSH TOE PROTECTION 4 5L w m v
° O
Not to Scale Not to Scale � 3 ILL
mQ
�u �Q~w
Q
(D a�
cn
wQ
w
m SHEET NUMBER
O
0 19

u
m
u w
O
cn Q
Q
0
c
0
a
m
E
Y
O
z
o
O >
w
m
NEW STREAMBANK 5'
SHALL BE TREATED UNCOMPACTED
AS SPECIFIED IN PLANS BACKFILL o
z
FLOW
cn-•°
w
0 —
�.
a
COMPACTED
— BACKFILL
Y
o z
o �
COMPACTED O N
BACKFILL
Lj
SECTION A -A `� N
SECTION B-B U ���
Lw N
Q' u
C w
z
N oLn
o \� <
_ Q �
NATURAL
DRAINAGE 0.5' TO 1.0' VARIES FLOW
cn o
Y .-
FLOW FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION o w
o 3 MqX 0
DEEP POOL — DEEP POOL�PJk �3. 7 ■ �� o
1.0' — 1.5' PRIMARY STREAM
i E WEIR CHANNEL
SECTION A -A LOCATION
Q 0
a PRIMARY
C WEIR
(LOCATION PRELIMINARY
VARIES) NOT FOR
i o CONSTRUCTION
o Q
o E z
Q -
Yz
a
N° _
o A A
NATURAL 10 Q
3' MIN. DRAINAGE 1.0'-1.5' 1.0'-1.5'
LENGTH FLAW DEEP POOL 0.5'-1.0' DEEP POOL FLOW N
o
U 0 0
N OTES:
1. BOTTOM OF BLOCK SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 1' BELOW THE INVERT
OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL.
BACKFILL 2. COMPACT BACKFILL IN 12" LIFTS TO EXTENT POSSIBLE OR AT THE DIRECTION OF z =
EXISTING THE ENGINEER. o � o
o= CHANNEL P w CDo= o
rn -o D O un
o 20 � Q \ �n m m
i
(0 =� off_ �,
Q EXTEND CHANNEL BLOCK w
MIN. OF 6 BEYOND LIMITS o u W � =
OF EXISTING CHANNEL Cn o o
PLAN VIEW
E�
Q�
J
�T
0
I� o
O -uFLOODPLAIN DEPRESSION
C: 7 W
Not to Scale
r, u
T�
�o
DQ)
E
J� �
Q
YC:
o�
Ll
Q
Cn
CHANNELBLOCK o 6
Not to Scale Z �...�
O
CO J z cry
L
Ln L J
0m Q�
Z
0,
Lu
mQ
Q ~ w
Q
(D v
cn
W Q
W
u
SHEET NUMBER
O
0 20

m
w
Q
POOL
RIFFLE
RIFFLE
COIR FIBER MATTING INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS WITH
LIVE STAKING, PERMANENT AND
TEMPORARY SEEDING PER PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS. (TYPICAL BOTH SIDES)
COIR FIBER
MATTING
ANCHORS ON
3' CENTERS
MUZIMEWWR
BACKFILL
EXCAVATE TRENCH AND
KEY INTO GROUND (6" MIN)
Q:::POOL::D
18" (TYP.)
PLAN
6" MIN
KEY INTO STREAMBED
(PER TYPICAL
CROSS-SECTION BELOW)
POOL
RIFFLE
RIFFLE
FLOODPLAIN/EXISTING
GROUND
ANCHORS ON 1'
CENTERS IN TRENCH
MATTING SHALL BE PLACED IN
TRENCH AND BACKFILLED
EXTEND MATTING BELOW TOE
OF SLOPE AND KEY INTO
STREAMBED MIN. 6"
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
MATTING
TRENCH
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
EXCAVATE TRENCH AND
KEY INTO GROUND (6" MIN)
SEED AND MULCH PER VEGETATION
NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS
NEW CHANNEL
COIR FIBER MATTING INSTALLED TO EDGE OF CUT/FILL
PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS WITH LIVE
STAKING, PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SEEDING PER
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. (TYPICAL BOTH SIDES)
NATURAL CHANNEL BOTTOM
ecnTin�i (NO MATTING)
NOTES:
1. IN AREAS TO BE MATTED, ALL
SEEDING, SOIL AMENDMENTS, AND
SOIL PREPARATION MUST BE
COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF COIR
FIBER MATTING.
ANCHOR TRENCH
PLAN VIEW
INSTALLATION GUIDE FOR EROSION CONTROL MATTING
Not to Scale
2" X 2" (NOMINAL)
WOODEN STAKE
1"
N
N N
A Kif%WnQ
ANCHORS ON 3' CENTERS
ANCHORS (TYP)
> ON 1'
uuv 1 F_rZS AT
STREAMBED
Cn
z
0
w
w
0
z
O
0
O o z
0 o
w �
:D N J
N
Ld
Ld
z �
w
o � �
Q �
O
cn o
6' MAX. W/O WIRE STEEL POST
VARIABLE AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER
N w
z
O
SILT FENCE
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
SILT FENCE FABRIC
INSTALLED TO SECOND 3'-0
" z
WIRE FROM TOP 8"_24
GRADE - o
GRADE
PRELIMINARY
FABRIC 8" DOWN AND 4" I I I_ 8" MIN. COVER NOT FOR
FORWARD ALONG TRENCH 2 -O I- OVER SKIRT* CONSTRUCTION
ANCHOR SKIRT AS
= _ *
_I DIRECTED BY ENGINEER
FRONT VIEW
* FOR REPAIR OF SILT FENCE FAILURES, USE No. 57 STONE
FOR ANCHOR WHEN SILT FENCE IS PROTECTING CATCH BASIN.
SIDE VIEW
N OTES:
1. USE SILT FENCE ONLY WHEN
DRAINAGE AREA DOES NOT
EXCEED 1/4 ACRE AND NEVER
IN AREAS OF CONCENTRATED
FLOW.
2. END OF SILT FENCE NEEDS
TO BE TURNED UPHILL.
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
Not to Scale
u�
oN
o
o
o
w O
O
=
O
0 �0
w N
�\
cn
u�
m
O
w L
Q
N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
J
wLd
z
zi
y
�o
o
Q
En-Q
Ld
W
�
o
o
u
J
0
Z C�
OJ
UQ
Z
Ow
_o
W
0
W
0
z
V./
J z
LO w 00 Q o� QJ
� zo �
0 00LuLL
Q
Lu <
pp w
U)
SHEET NUMBER
21

m
w
Q
A
4 X (D)
A
PLAN
0
X
LO
SECTION A -A
ENERGY DISSIPATOR FOR PUMP —AROUND HOSE
OF CLEAN WATER) Not to Scale
EXISTING TERRAIN
FILTER FABRIC
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
15.0 FT. TO 20.0 FT.
##57 STONE
STREAM BANK
NOTE: IF SPECIAL STILLING BASIN IS PLACED ON DISTURBED SOIL THEN A STABILIZED
OUTLET/CHANNEL NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED.
THE STABILIZED OUTLET WILL CONSIST OF A 1 "-6" WELL GRADED MIX OF RIP RAP A
MINIMUM OF 1' THICK PER THE DIMENSIONS BELOW. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BETWEEN
THE RIP RAP AND SOIL FOUNDATION. THE STABILIZED OUTLET WILL EXTEND FROM THE
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN TO THE BANK OF THE CHANNEL BELOW THE WORK AREA.
FILTER FABRIC
I— 3.0 FEET _�
_EXISTING
GROUND
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN WITH ROCK PAD
Not to Scale
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN, UTILIZE A
STABILIZED OUTLET INSTEAD OF A
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN IF PUMPING
CLEAN WATER. (SEE NOTES)
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE
EDGE OF FLOODPLAIN
EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
DEWATERING PUMP
FLOW
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL WORK AREA WHEN WORKING "IN CHANNEL'
1. INSTALL SPECIAL STILLING BASINS) AND ENERGY DISSIPATOR FOR
HOSE/PIPE OUTLET.
2. INSTALL UPSTREAM PUMP AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE.
3. PLACE UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING
OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION.
4. PLACE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND PUMPING APPARATUS.
DEWATER ENTRAPPED AREA. AREA TO BE DEWATERED SHALL BE
EQUAL TO ONE DAY'S WORK.
5. PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS.
6. EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF
IMPERVIOUS DIKES. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND TEMPORARY
FLEXIBLE HOSE. (DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKES FIRST).
7. PUMP AROUND AREA TO BE STABILIZED WITH MATTING AT THE END OF EACH
WORK DAY. THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET
ONLY SHOW THE UPPER AND LOWER EXTENT OF WORK FOR EACH STREAM
SEGMENT. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE
LOCATION OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKES) FOR EACH DAY'S WORK. ALL
GRADING MUST BE STABILIZED AT THE END OF THE DAY.
8. REMOVE SPECIAL STILLING BASINS) AND OUTLET CHANNEL AND THEN
BACKFILL. STABILIZE DISTURBED AREA PER THE PLANS AND SPECS.
NOTES
1) ALL IN —STREAM EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY OR ISOLATED
SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.
2) IMPERVIOUS DIKES ARE TO BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK FROM
STREAM FLOW.
3) GRADED STREAM BANKS SHALL BE STABILIZED, WITH MATTING,
PRIOR TO PREDICTED RAIN FALL EVENTS, UNLESS ALL RAIN
EVENT FLOW CAN BE PUMPED AROUND FOR PREDICTED EVENT.
4) MAINTENANCE OF STREAM FLOW OPERATIONS SHALL BE INCIDENTAL
TO THE WORK. THIS INCLUDES POLYETHYLENE
SHEETING, DIVERSION PIPES, PUMPS AND HOSES.
5) PUMPS AND HOSES SHALL BE OF SUFFICICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER
THE WORK AREA.
WORK AREA
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
NOTE:
PUMP —AROUND OPERATION MAY
NOT BE REQUIRED IF NO BASE
FLOW
EXAMPLE OF PUMP -AROUND OPERATION
Not to Scale
cn
z
0
cn
>
w
w
0
z
O
o z
O O
_
w �
= N J
o
N
0Li N
Y
z
cn
z w
Doe
Q I' j
u
O
cn o
o �
0
N w
z
O
P]RIEILIMINAIRY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
��
0
o
o
w O
O
_
--DO
wN
\
cn
m
>
CDQ
w Ln
3 N
Q
o
m
m
o
_
\
LLJ
J
w
c�
CDLLJ
o
Q
Cn
Q
W
Cnoou
J
0
Z C�
OJ
UQ
Z
w LD 0
co
0
w
0
Z�,
V./
(.0J z
LO w
°° o c�
Zu
0 00LuLu
Q
w Q
pp w �
U)
SHEET NUMBER
22

u
m
0
0
o
w
Q
Q
MULCH AND MAINTENANCE
E
MULCH
APPLY 2,000 LB/ACRE STRAW. ANCHOR STRAW BY TACKING, WITH BIODEGRADABLE
E NETTING, OR A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL. A DISK WITH BLADES SET NEARLY STRAIGHT
Y CAN BE USED AS A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL.
MAINTENANCE
REFERTILIZE IF GROWTH IS NOT FULLY ADEQUATE. RESEED, REFERTILIZE AND MULCH z
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING EROSION OR OTHER DAMAGE PER SECTION 1.8 OF SCDHEC O
BMP HANDBOOK FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DESIGN MANUAL. U'
o >
w
m
0
o GENERAL NOTES
0
1) ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHOULD BE RAKED/ROUGHENED (A MINIMUM OF 5"), TOP SOIL
ADDED, AMENDED WITH FERTILIZER, SEEDED (PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY), STRAWED, o
Q AND THEN COVERED WITH EROSION CONTROL MATTING (C700 OR APPROVED z
EQUIVALENT) PER THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS. ONCE THE MATTING IS
ci
DOWN INSTALL THE LIVE STAKES THROUGH THE MATTING.
2) O.C. = ON-CENTERcm
0
3) IF DROUGHT CONDITIONS EXIST THE CONTRACTOR WILL WATER THE INSTALLED z.
w Y VEGETATION WITH WATER FROM THE CREEK TO ENSURE 85% SURVIVAL AT THE END o
o OF THE 1-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD. O
z o
Qmr C/�o � N J
w Q
C
O W N
z
oou
z
o
0 WI
0
Q.�
w N o
> 0 -
Q rj
�n o v �
O �
O
o z
Lo
o
D
D
O °
Q)-0
o
0
Q o
u
o n
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
2 LIVE STAKES ARE 1 /2" TO 2" IN DIAMETER AND 1'-3' IN LENGTH. CONSTRUCTION
n
L
o o
� o
O
Ln
o .o
ZONE ZONE
z o 3 2
v VARIES VARIES o o o
ao° o B O �p N
o w w w w o Q Q °�
d cnLTI
ISO
Q ap�8 8� °O b °°�R o ° 8D o 8� 8� 8D I\ z z Y
o m
O Q 8 b 8 ° djpo0 oa �b ° o o cF Q F W W W
o o �� 8�� Q (n Q W
U 1
ED j W _
INSTALL WOVEN COIR FIBER MAT , /2" — 2"
o Q OVER SEED OR SOD r^
O FLAT TOP END V J
ESTABLISHED PLANT SHOWN
No } FOR INFORMATION ONLY W
T l GROUND O V J N
SECTION VIEW (HEADWATER RESTORATION) - BUFFER AND WETLAND PLANTING DEAD INSTALL STAKES PER
1P
LATERAL BUD q �� SURFACE J
DEAD STOUT STAKES PER SPECIFICATIONS
° NOT TO SCALE j�///% /��/ z
J BARK RIDGE
Ow
Q PLANTING TO TOP 0
o SIDE BRANCH
OF RIP RAP (TYP) REMOVED J iv Q Q
Q ZONE u
1 J z
w VARIES (\� ° W
0 30" LIVE CUTTING (DORMANT) EXISTING
GROUND V v
ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE NOTES:
o c 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1. IF USING WOVEN COIR FIBER w
Q m VARIES ►I� VARIES _I I� VARIES ►I.. VARIES NC MAT, INSTALL LONG STRAW — >
LLIw ��°� D 1 1� ° o��goo° TF2 MULCH BENEATH MAT. LOW SEASONAL
��O°° ° °° oo �� WATER TABLE
2. 3 ON CENTERS
° D � D V8�°�0 ° D d 8 ���� 8 w�� 8 w�� 8 ���� 8 w�� o b�' a Q
o���°D°�F a 45' TAPER BUTT END BELOW
z
8o a ° ° LAST REMOVED BRANCH
° 1 1 LIVE STAKE DETAIL Z
g a LIVE STAKE (IN EARTH) NOT TO SCALE Lo Q
W
NOT TO SCALE
L
o
L.L 7 LL
OL.L 000
mQ _
Q ~ w
SECTION VIEW(RESTORATION) BUFFER AND WETLAND PLANTING v
cn NOT TO SCALE _
W
W � G
uJ
� o rr^^
u V J
0
O �
a E
m SHEET NUMBER
o
N
o23
RIPARIAN SEED MIX
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
PERCENT PLANTED
REDTOP PANICGRASS
PANICUM RIGIDULUM
30
BEAKED PANICGRASS
PANICUM ANCEPS
25.9
GREENWHITE SEDGE
CAREX ALBOLUTESCENS
13
RIVERBANK WILDRYE
ELYMUS RIPARIUS
10
HOP SEDGE
CAREX LUPULINA
5
GLOBE BEAKSEDGE
RHYNCHOSPORA GLOBULARIS
9
CRIMSONEYED ROSEMALLOW
HIBISCUS MOSCHEUTOS
2
SOFT RUSH
JUNCUS EFFUSUS
2
LIZARD'S TAIL
SAURURUS CERNUUS
2
JOE PYE WEED
EUPATORIUM FISTULOSUM
1
PURPLEHEAD SNEEZEWEED
HELENIUM FLEXUOSUM
1
PATH RUSH
JUNCUS TENUIS
1
WOOLGRASS
SCIRPUS CYPERINUS
1
NEW YORK IRONWEED
VERNONIA NOVEBORACENSIS
1
SOUTHERN WAXY SEDGE
CAREX GLAUCESCENS
0.5
NARROWLEAF PRIMROSE
WILLOW
LUDWIGIA LINEARIS
0.3
SEASIDE PRIMROSE WILLOW
LUDWIGIA MARITIMA
0.3
STREAM BANK (ZONE 1) LIVESTAKE PLANTING
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
WETLAND INDICATOR
STATUS
SILKY DOGWOOD
CORNUS AMOMUM
FACW
BLACK WILLOW
SALIX NIGRA
OBL
COTTONWOOD
POPULUS DELTOIDES
FACW
BUTTONBUSH
CEPHALANTHUS OCCIDENTALIS
OBL
ZONE 2 — UPLAND PLANTING
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
WETLAND INDICATOR
STATUS
PERCENT PLANTED
CHERRYBARK OAK
QUERCUS PAGODA
FACW
20
AMERICAN SYCAMORE
PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS
FACW
20
GREEN ASH
FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA
FACW
5
WILLOW OAK
QUERCUS PHELLOS
FACW
20
SWAMP CHESNUT OAK
QUERCUS MICHAUXII
FACW
15
BLACKGUM
NYSSA SYLVATICA
FAC
20
ZONE 3 — WETLAND PLANTING
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
WETLAND INDICATOR
STATUS
PERCENT PLANTED
BALD CYPRESS
TAXODIUM DISTRICHUM
OBL
18
SWAMP TUPELO
NYSSA BIFLORA
OBL
20
WATER TUPELO
NYSSA AQUATIC
OBL
18
CHERRYBARK OAK
QUERCUS PAGODA
FACW
20
AMERICAN SYCAMORE
PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS
FACW
20
GREEN ASH
FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA
FACW
4

Appendix G — NCSAM Forms
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Weyerhaeuser - Site B-56-A - UT1-Reach 1
Stream Category la2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation June 13, 2017
Assessor Name/Organization J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermo regu latio n HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermo regu latio n HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Weyerhaeuser - Site B56-A - UT1-Reach 2
Stream Category la2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation June 13, 2017
Assessor Name/Organization J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermo regu latio n HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermo regu latio n HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Weyerhaeuser - Site B56-A - UT1 - Reach3
Stream Category la3
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation June 13, 2017
Assessor Name/Organization J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Weyerhaeuser - Site B56-A - UT2
Stream Category la1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation June 13, 2017
Assessor Name/Organization J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
YES
YES
YES
Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
(2) Baseflow
(2) Flood Flow
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermo regu latio n
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
LOW
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
(2) In -stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermo regu latio n
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Weyerhaeuser - Site B56-A - UT3
Stream Category la1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation June 13, 2017
Assessor Name/Organization J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
YES
YES
YES
Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
(2) Baseflow
(2) Flood Flow
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermo regu latio n
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
LOW
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
(2) In -stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermo regu latio n
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

Appendix H— Wetland and Stream
Data Forms
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020 1

North Carolina Division of Wer Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
, w S.. -D
Date: �� J9
Project/Site: s
Latitude:
Evaluator: `} ,�
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is least intermittent J
Stream Determination(cirf-re�one)
ether
at
Ephemeral Intermittek Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
S!rqng
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3 ;
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
pool sequence
0
1�
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
cm
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0,
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
` 1 --
-, 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
'Yes = 3')
an111�101 unQIIco aic I IUL iaicu, acc wxuoawi is III ivaiwat
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
(1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
t
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris Imes or piles
0
0.5
-
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
('-Yes = 3 )
C. Biology Subtotal = �,
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
-_ 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
=
FACW 0.75• BL
= 1.5;)Other = 0
S
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
4 2 .
BKFW: r Z
BKFD:
WW: 7
WD: ! -'
Substrate:
Clarity: c- I -
Flow: l , ,i�s raw

North Carolina Division of WWI l r Qu lity- eam Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date:
! V
Project/Site, ` 10
Latitude:
Evaluator: I ElmYV
County: 6e, V
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determ' n (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemer Intermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
Q
16. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
At
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
O
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5; Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes
� s 00 IBC \ PPLA,
r�
ti
n�
BKFW: s i
BKFD: �Az
WK. w1a
WD: ,. JC' J
Substrate: Sa
Clarity: I,K
Flow: o_ rC'_

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
r rr - 'I_
Date:
Project/Site: N 6
�P
Latitude:
Evaluator: y�yjs C/�� 1
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Z7
Stream Determinatio (circle one)
Other
f
Stream is at least intermittent 1
Ephemeral I rmitte Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = I
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
pool sequence
0
2
3
f
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
'
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
Q
9. Grade control
0
(r5l
1
1.5
© .
10. Natural valley
0
1< ly
1
1.5
.
11. Second or greater order channel
o
Yes = 3
.,,,,,,,,a, u,,,,,- - I,IL,a Gu, u,a a , ,, ,,, ,,,a,,...,
B. Hydrology Subtotal = < " 5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
011V
1.5
-
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
.5
1
1.5
17. Solkbased evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
?
C. Biology Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 '
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
ACW = 0.7 , OBL
= 1.5; Other = 0
d
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of ma ual.
Notes:
2 kS e--
a 14 " () r-jew 'g. ov-
BKFW: C
BKFD: -S
WW: 0#1
W U y�ia
Substrate:
Clarity: (-,(a
Flow: .ti,` 11-

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region J
Project/Site: C*Pp— — 1 r_ Ci y]County: l� Sampling Date: 71 +
b If
ApplicanVOwner: l^-�/� State: Sampling Point: DF
lnvestigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): _h Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Lat:
Long:
Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic I hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ES] 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, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes a No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NO ---
Remarks: r {�
a Ae_ [O �" 1" D i G� ✓�
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators minimum of one is re uiredo check
all that a 1
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two reauiredf
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (02)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water (At)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (131)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Mari Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
includes ca illa tinge)
No Depth (inches):
No Depfih (inches): 7 Z t
No Depth (inches): jO
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes L3 No 2r
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
t &/o
CC `, t
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants,
Sampling Point: O/
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test vvorksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
S_ end ies? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. i4g d 1�4 _19 -i�
%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
d h
t C dC(
Total Number of Dominant -7f
3. a �`
Jam_
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index woricsheot:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8.
70 =Total Cover /
QBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:_
20% of total cover: / ![� /,
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
Sa Iin /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
6ffiI
)
rD `�,� f!��
FACU species x 4 =
1
2. Jolt
�� �-��✓
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
= Total Cover /,
11;2
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
u
Herb St ra m (Plot size: )
C
'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 ��
J
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree -- Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 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) plants, regardless
g
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft 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:
WoocIv Vine Stratum (Plot size:
) y
S
1.
/dC
21.
3.
4.
5•
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover:
, 5 / 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

SOIL
n
Sampling Point: P l
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 (molst °10 Tyne Loc Texture Remarks
!Q-?�
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM�Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratifed Layers (A5)
organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
trictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Polyvalue Below Surface (88) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,13)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153111
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR Pr T, U) wetland hyd-ology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes = No
�c�a�ed 5a,�.d- c�va,r�-� �u�✓fac.2
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -- Version 2.0

Map unit
symbol
Map unit name
Hydric
Rating
150B
eonneau loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
5
GoA
Goldsboro Fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
510 os
5
La
Leaf slit loam
90
Lo
Leon sand
80
Ly
Lynchburg fine sandy loam
7
Pa
Pantego loam
90
Ra
Rains fine sandy IDarr, 0 t0 2 percent
slopes Atlantic Coast Flatwoods
92
To
Torrotley fine sandy loam
91
_w
Legend
Conservation Easement
Prepared FoF Prepared By
A Weyerhaeuser KideP)Horn
Pa
GoA
s
=aA
m 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56 - A
7.tatrearn
�' (1 f iQ Figure 5
Hydric Soils Map
Middle and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
4/5/2018

Appendix I— Conservation Easement
Documents
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made this
day of 201_ by and between
("Grantor") and ("Grantee").
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine,
feminine or neuter as required by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and
being in County, North Carolina, more particularly described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property");
WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not -for -profit or educational corporation,
association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue
Code, the purposes or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) — (d)
listed below;
(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space aspects of real

property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational, educational,
or open -space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following
natural communities: add or delete as appropriate: wetlands, streams and riparian
buffers. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain streams, wetlands
and riparian resources and other natural values of approximately _acres, more or
less, and being more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated fully herein by reference (the "Conservation Easement Area"), and
prevent the use or development of the Conservation Easement Area for any purpose
or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation
Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation Banking Instrument
(MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the Mitigation Bank, Department of the
Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW- , entitled "Agreement to Establish
the Mitigation Bank in the River Basin within the State of
North Carolina", entered into by and between acting as the Bank Sponsor
and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in consultation with the North
Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The Mitigation Site has been
approved by the Corps for use as a mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable
stream and wetland impacts authorized by DA permits.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of enforcement
shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District ("Third -Party," to
include any successor agencies), and may be exercised through the appropriate
enforcement agencies of the United States, and that these rights are in addition to, and
do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the Department of the Army instrument
number SAW- ("Mitigation Banking Instrument"), or any permit or
certification issued by the Third -Party.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby
unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors
and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and
character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area
described on Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:

ARTICLE I.
DURATIONOF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation Easement is
an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor,
Grantor's personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and
licensees.
ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent with
the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Conservation
Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and restricted from any
development that would impair or interfere with the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and
uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder:
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any
introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising
display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other
temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the Conservation
Easement Area.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or
commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes are
prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming,
cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the Conservation Easement
Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan. Mowing of invasive and herbaceous
vegetation for purposes of enhancing planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved
in the Mitigation Plan is allowable once a year for no more than five consecutive years
from the date on page 1 of this Conservation Easement, except where mowing will
negatively impact vegetation or disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed
by and shall not violate any part of Item L of Article II.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or modification to existing

roads, trails or walkways.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation Easement
Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation
values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving directions or proscribing rules
and regulations for the use of the Conservation Easement Area and/or signs identifying
the Grantor as owner of the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage,
waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or
other materials on the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
I. Excavation. Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any
manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to restore natural topography or
drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and enhancing streams and wetlands
within the Conservation Easement Area, is allowed to perform grading,
filling, and excavation associated with stream and wetland restoration and
enhancement activities as described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by
Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 27.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or
alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition,
diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into,
within or out of the easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is
prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered
or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited other than for
temporary or occasional access by the Enter Sponsor Name, the Grantee, its
employees and agents, successors, assigns, and the Corps for purposes of
constructing, maintaining and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area..
M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Conservation
Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant,
the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area substantially in its natural

condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is prohibited.
ARTICLE III
GRANTOR'S RESEVERED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation Easement Area
for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, including, but not
limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area, the rights
of ingress and egress, the right to hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement
Area, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement
Area, in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to
the terms of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its
successors and assigns, including acting as the Bank Sponsor, the right to
construct and perform activities related to the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area in accordance with the approved Mitigation Plan, and the
Mitigation Banking Instrument described in the Recitals of this Conservation
Easement.
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE'S RIGHTS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and the
Corps, shall have the right to enter the Property and Conservation Easement Area at all
reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to
determine if the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns,
is complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation
Easement. The Grantee, Enter Sponsor Name, and its authorized representatives,
successors and assigns, and the Corps shall also have the right to enter and go upon the
Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making scientific or educational
observations and studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do
not include public access rights.
ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, and the Corps are
allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation Easement Area that is
inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to require the restoration of such
areas or features of the Conservation Easement Area that may be damaged by such
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by
Grantor that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the
Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of such
notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach remains
uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by

appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without
notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if
the breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances
damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate.
The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to,
and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection
with this Conservation Easement. The costs of a breach, correction or restoration,
including the Grantee's expenses, court costs, and attorneys' fees, shall be paid by
Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps
shall have the same rights and privileges as the said Grantee to enforce the terms and
conditions of this Conservation easement.
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision
hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition,
or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of
a subsequent breach or default.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to
entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the
Conservation Easement Area resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except
Grantor's lessees or invitees; or from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor
under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life,
damage to property or harm to the Conservation Easement Area resulting from such
causes.
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which
may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property
which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor
further warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived
from and arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend title to the Property against the claims of all persons._
B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any
interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor agrees to
provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of the
transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement
shall survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Conservation

Easement Area or any portion thereof and shall not be amended, modified or
terminated without the prior written consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this
Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however that the
Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or assigns this
Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a qualified
holder pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 501 (c)(3)
and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and
agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or
assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes
described in this document.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The Mitigation Banking Instrument: MBI
with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and this Conservation Easement sets forth the
entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and
supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to
the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be void or unenforceable by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes,
assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the Property
free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor, except
those incurred after the date hereof, which are expressly subject and subordinate to the
Conservation Easement. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any
kind related to the ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the
Property, except as expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor
of the obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits
that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
F. Long -Term Management. If livestock operations will be maintained on the
property, Grantor is responsible for all long-term management activities associated
with fencing to ensure livestock do not have access to the Protected Property. These
activities include the maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures, as deemed
necessary by the Grantee, to ensure the aquatic resource functions within the
boundaries of the Protected Property are sustained.
G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the
continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the conservation purposes, this
Conservation Easement may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, byjudicial
proceeding.
H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation Easement Area
is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the
Restrictions imposed by this Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in
appropriate actions at the time of such taking to recover the full value of the taking,
and all incidental and direct damages due to the taking.

I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest
immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the Conservation
Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an
extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair
market value of this Conservation Easement as determined at the time of the
extinguishment or condemnation.
J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication
required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter
specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Sponsor:
To the Corns:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a
reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to
make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's
interest shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an
appropriate proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.
L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in
a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not
affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee
under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation purposes of this
grant.
M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The wetlands, scenic,
resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Conservation
Easement Area, and its current use and state of improvement, are described in Section
of the Mitigation Plan,_prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor
and Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and
Grantee have copies of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any
future changes in the use of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with
the terms of this Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to
preclude the use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the

Conservation Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for
the aforesaid purposes.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]

Appendix J —Performance Bond
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank I Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan — DRAFT
February 2020 1

Maintenance and Monitoring
Performance Bond
Bond No. Penal Sum: $1.000.378.09
Know All Men By These Presents,
That we, Weyerhaeuser Company of 220 Occidental Avenue S Seattle, WA 98104-3120
(hereinafter called the Principal), as Principal, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of
America with an office at One Tower Square Hartford, CT 06183, a corporation duly
organized under the laws of the State of CT (hereinafter called the "Surety"), as Surety, are held
and firmly bound unto the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, (hereinafter
called the "USACE") and the Unique Places to Save with a mailing address of P.O. Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-1183 , (hereinafter called the "Obligee"), up to the maximum penal sum
of ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS
AND NINE CENTS ($1,000,378.09) (hereinafter called the "Maximum Penal Sum"), for the
payment of which we, the Principal and the Surety, bind ourselves, our heirs, executors,
administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
WHEREAS, the Principal has entered into the Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Banking Instrument (hereinafter called the "MBI") with the USACE, dated the
day of which includes the Final Mitigation Plan for
the Beaufort 56 Mitigation Site (the "IMP") to ensure that aquatic resources within the
boundaries of the mitigation site will be restored, enhanced and protected.
WHEREAS, the principal promised to deliver to the USACE and the Obligee a Bond substantially
in the form hereto upon completion and compliance with construction and other criteria of the
UMBI, IMP, and permits.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH that this Bond will
not be released in whole or in part until the Principal receives written verification from the
USACE that the conditions for release in the IMP have been fully met. If the above bounden
Principal shall meet the final performance standards as defined in the IMP, then this obligation
shall be null and void; otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect. This bond is subject to
the following conditions:
1) This bond shall remain in full force and effect for a period of nine (9) years. The
Maximum Penal Sum of this bond may be reduced by the USACE, by these scheduled amounts:

Year
Reduction
Revised Penal Sum
1
N/A
$1,000,378.09
2
$559,932.61
$440,445.48
3
$62,920.78
$377,524.70
4
$62,920.78
$314,603.91
5
$62,920.78
$251,683.13
6
$62,920.78
$188,762.35
7
$62,920.78
$125,841.57
8
$62,920.78
$62,920.78
9
$62,920.78
$0.00
Total
$1,000,378.09
2) USACE shall issue a full and final release of this Bond when the construction activities are
complete and/or seven vear monitoring period is complete: all monitoring reports have been
submitted and have been approved by the USACE: and the success criteria identified in the
FMP have been achieved and approved by the USACE. This Bond shall not be released in
whole until the Principal receives written verification from the USACE that all the conditions for
release have been satisfied.
3) If any payment under this Bond, as set forth in subsection 4 (b) below, is made, then the
outstanding penal sum of the Bond shall be reduced by the corresponding amount of such
payment. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the aggregate liability of
the Surety is limited to the Maximum Penal Sum stated above, regardless of the number or
amount of claims brought against this bond and regardless of the number of years this bond
remains in effect. The USACE shall issue a full and final release of this Bond and any and all of
Surety's obligations hereunder when Surety has tendered payment in whole, or in parts equal to
the aggregate sum, of the Maximum Penal Sum of this Bond.
4) The Surety's obligation under this Bond shall arise after the USACE has notified the
Principal of their failure to abide by, or cure default conditions related to, the terms and
conditions of the FMP. Upon notice of the Principal's default under the FMP, the Surety, in its
sole discretion and notwithstanding any of the provisions of the above, shall remedy the
Principal's default by taking action under 4) a) or 4) b) below. In the event that the Surety either
fails to respond to USACE's notice of default within thirty (30) business days of receipt of said
notice, or fails to honor Surety's commitments under this bond to the full satisfaction of the
USACE, then Surety shall remedy such default in accordance with subsection 4) c) below:
a) Remedy the default of the Principal to the full satisfaction of the USACE by a reasonable date
determined by the USACE; or
b) Immediately tender to the Obligee, that portion of the Maximum Penal Sum that the
Obligee determines, in their discretion, is due and owing and necessary to remedy the
default. If payment is tendered to the Obligee under this subsection, the Obligee shall
immediately become a Surety or Sureties to this Bond, or
c) In the event that the Surety fails to respond within thirty (30) business days to the
USACE's notice of default, or to honor commitments to the full satisfaction of the
USACE under paragraph a) or b) of this section within a reasonable time to be

determined by the USACE, the remaining portion of the Maximum Penal Sum may, at
the election of the Obligee, immediately become due and owing and paid to the Obligee.
The Obligee under this paragraph shall immediately become a Surety or Sureties under
this bond for the remaining term of the bond.
5) Surety shall have no obligation to the Principal, USACE, the Obligee, or any other person
or entity for any loss suffered by the Principal, USACE, the Obligee, or any other person or
entity by reason of acts or omissions which are or could be covered by the Principal's
general liability insurance, products liability insurance, completed operations insurance or any
other insurance. Under no circumstance shall the USACE be responsible to arbitrate any
insurance claims made, declined or disputed under this Bond.
6) The Surety hereby waives notification of amendments to the UMBI, permits, applicable
laws, statutes, rules, and regulations, and agrees that no such amendment shall in any way
alleviate its obligation on this Bond.

NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT TO THE
CONTRARY, THE LIABILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL AND SURETY UNDER THIS BOND IS
LIMITED TO THE TERM BEGINNING THE DAY OF , 20 , AND
ENDING THE DAY OF , 20 AND
ANY EXTENSIONS OR RENEWALS OF THE REFERENCED AGREEMENT SHALL BE
COVERED UNDER THIS BOND ONLY WHEN CONSENTED TO IN WRITING BY THE
SURETY. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT THE REFUSAL BY THE SURETY TO EXTEND
THE TERM OF THIS BOND SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A DEFAULT BY THE
PRINCIPAL, AND SHALL NOT GIVE RISE TO A CLAIM OR DEMAND AGAINST THE
SURETY UNDER THIS BOND.
In accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 332.3(n)(5), the Surety shall provide the USACE and the Obligee
written notification at least 120 days in advance of termination, revocation, or modification of
this Bond.
No right of action shall accrue on this bond to or for the use of any person or corporation other
than the USACE or the Obligee named herein, or their successors or assigns.
The above -bounden parties have executed this instrument under their several seals, dated this
day of , 2016, the name and corporate seal of each corporate party being
affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to authority of
its governing body.
Principal: Weyerhaeuser NR Company
By:
Doug Hughes, Mitigation Banking
Manager
Surety: Travelers Causality and Surety
Company of America
By:
Attorney -in -Fact
Obligee: Unique Places to Save
Director or Acting Director