20051354 Ver 2_More Info Received_20120702

cp11 zol I "LINO, 111101161 1111
May 20 2012
Ian McMillan 401 Coordinator
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1650
DS-13214 U a
12@2oeRu
MAY 2 3 2012
Re Revised Permit Application Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Perquimans County
Dear Mr McMillan
Attached for your review is one copy of the revised mitigation plan and NW 27 for Watts Stream
Restoration Project in Perquimans County I have also included an electronic copy The COE
recommended we revise the PCN not to show any impact for planting the wetland and we have
revised Appendix A We wanted to give you the latest copy of everything Please feel free to
contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919 715 1616)
Thank you very much for your assistance
Attachment Mitigation Plan
PCN
CD containing all electronic files
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service [enter Raleigh
Sincerely
(l/
Wya Brown
LSS
WWI
0 1 -ta �- & VWA
MC®ENR
NC 27699 1652 / 919 715 0476 / www nceep net

O�O� W A T69
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Watts Property stream & Wetland Restoration
2b.
County:
Perquimans
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Hertford
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
NCEEP
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Book 156, Page 654, Book 271 Page 589
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1 H 103
3e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC27604
3f.
Telephone no.:
919 - 715 -1616
3g.
Fax no.:
919 - 715 -2219
3h.
Email address:
wyatt.brown @ncdenr.gov
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
8808 -69 -9972
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.1652 Longitude: - 76.2676
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size:
48.09 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
Little River
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class SC
2c. River basin:
Pasquotank
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
degraded rural channel, poor buffer, mostly farm fields
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
.06 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
1505
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
restore and stabilize degraded portions of the stream, provide buffers, restore wetlands
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
restore pattern dimension and profile, creating undulating bedform, forest the buffer, track hoes dump trucks
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
®Yes F1 No F1 Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
El Preliminary ®Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Lane Sauls
Agency /Consultant Company: Ecological Engineering
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
9/13/2010, Bill Biddlecome
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary (T)
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Restoration
Reach 1 &2
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
5ft
1505
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
® Corps
❑ INT
® DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
1505
3i. Comments: please refer to table 5 page 30
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number -
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number -
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
re uired?
B1 ❑P ❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
follow the approved sediment control plan , seed mulch and plant
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) —required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
® Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
® Yes ❑ No
Comments: see restoration plan
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5.
Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a.
Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
5b.
Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts?
® Yes ❑ No
5c.
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Raleigh
❑ Asheville
5d.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated
Habitat?
Critical
6.
Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a.
Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
7.
Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a.
Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
❑ Yes ® No
7b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a.
Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b.
If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c.
What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Wyatt Brown
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
May 14, 2012
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

REVISED FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Perquimans County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 413
Pasquotank River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03010205
Prepared for:
E-1
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
May 2012

MITIGATION PLAN
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Perquimans County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 413
Pasquotank River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03010205
Prepared for:
stein
L1 lail 'Culellt
rRaGMAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
E colog cal
h
ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
919.557.0929
May 2012
This document is consistent with NCEEP Mitigation Template Version 2.0 dated October 1, 2010.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(14).
• NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
These documents govern EEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
Ecological Engineering, LLP (Ecological Engineering) has entered into an open services design contract with
EEP to provide designs and construction management for stream and wetland restoration within the
Pasquotank River Basin (US Geological Survey 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03010205). Professional services
associated with this contract will be performed at the Watts Property, also referred to as the Site, Watts Site
or Project Site. This property is situated along Durants Neck peninsula in Perquimans County, approximately
11 miles east - southeast of Hertford and nine miles south - southwest of Elizabeth City (Figure 1). The purpose
of this project is to restore the headwater stream and wetland complex that likely existed prior to the Site's
conversion to agriculture.
Goals and Objectives
The proposed project will be implemented within the confines of one State of North Carolina -owned
property parcel covering 48.09 acres. The overall goal of this project is to provide an ecological uplift to the
Project Site and its surrounding area. This uplift will be provided via modifications to the existing channel and
subsequent drainage network that currently exist at the Project Site. Designs will be based on USACE (2007)
guidance, reference information and professional judgment. A copy of the USACE (2007) guidance is
presented in Appendix B. This goal is in accordance with the defined restoration goals (NCDENR, 2009) for
the Pasquotank River Basin which includes the NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (Street et. al., 2005). The
goals are:
• Improve effectiveness of existing rules and programs protecting coastal fish habitats.
• Identify, designate, and protect strategic habitat areas.
• Enhance habitat and protect it from physical impacts.
• Enhance and protect water quality.
The objectives are to design a headwater stream and wetland system with the appropriate cross section and
slope that ultimately provides the proper physical characteristics to supply intended functions and meet
success criteria. In addition to cross section and slope, hydraulic stability and native vegetation establishment
will also contribute to the overall functionality of the system.
The ecological uplift will include the restoration of ecological function, the improvement of overall water
quality and enhancement of native wildlife habitat. Three main components, stream, wetland and riparian
buffer restoration, will serve as the dominant inputs for achieving this goal.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC
May 2012

Watershed and Watershed Planning Information
The Project Site is part of the US Geological Survey (USGS) 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03010205060020 and the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) subbasin 03- 01 -52. An unnamed tributary
(UT) to the Little River is the primary water feature at the Site. This channelized, first order conveyance
bisects the property from south to north. Ecological Engineering utilized planning and existing watershed
information from the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Basinwide Planning
Program, 303(d) Listing, the Pasquotank River Local Watershed Plan and NCDENR EEP Pasquotank River Basin
Restoration Priorities, dated September 2009. The Project Site is not within a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW), as defined by EEP. Nor, is there any information regarding the specific subbasin in the Local
Watershed Plan (LWP). Goals for the watershed, based on the existing available resources, are presented in
the preceding paragraph.
Existing Amount of Streams and Wetlands
Based on survey data, approximately 1,505 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel and 0.06 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands currently exist at the Project Site. These lengths and acreages were confirmed by the
US Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) in September 2010.
Proposed Design Approach
Ecological Engineering will provide designs for the restoration of approximately 1,505 linear feet of
Headwater Forest, approximately 20.4 acres of Hardwood Flat and approximately 26.8 acres upland buffer. In
addition, approximately 0.06 acres of Hardwood Flat will be enhanced via supplemental planting. Wetland
restoration work will occur in combination with stream restoration work along the existing unnamed
tributary. The current drainage network used to drain the property for agricultural operations will be
removed from the interior portion of the Site. The remaining onsite areas not defined as either stream or
wetland restoration will be planted with native riparian and /or non - riparian vegetation depending on their
landscape position.
Stream restoration will follow guidance provided in the document entitled Information Regarding Stream
Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina, updated in 2007 by the USACE and NC Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ). This guidance provides improved methodology associated with the restoration of
zero and first order streams in the outer Coastal Plain physiographic province. The channelized UT currently
functions as a conduit to quickly and effectively remove both surface and groundwater from the Site and
accompanying watershed. By converting its current characteristics to those associated more with a
headwater stream system, the UT will ultimately provide opportunities for water quality improvement.
Wetland restoration will be implemented via the removal of the existing drainage network. The current
network includes a combination of both lateral and linear drainages that manipulate groundwater to allow
for the planting and continuous maintenance of agricultural row crops. Any excess runoff will be filtered
through a vegetated buffer prior to entering the unnamed tributary.
The combination of both stream and wetland restoration at this site will immediately improve water quality
outputs. Ecological functions will be restored, as well as the enhancement of native wildlife habitat.
i
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page ii
May 2012

Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
No impacts will occur to jurisdictional wetlands as a result of project implementation. One jurisdictional
wetland along the northeastern perimeter of the property will be enhanced as part of the project. The
enhancement work will include planting of native hardwood species.
Regulatory Coordination
Coordination with the USACE took place in early 2012 for Section 404 purposes. The USACE provided several
comments with regard to the Mitigation Plan and associated design drawings. These comments included
questions about the version of stream restoration guidance, proposed monitoring time period, elevation of
the design channel, vegetation landscape position, proposed monitoring assessment methodology and a
concern related to a specific vegetative species. Appendix A includes the USACE comments and EEP response.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page iii
May 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................ ..............................1
1.1 Overarching Goals and Objectives of Mitigation Plans ............................... ..............................1
1.2 Watershed Goals and Objectives ................................................................. ..............................1
1.3 Project Site Goals and Objectives ................................................................ ..............................4
2.0 SITE SELECTION .............................................................................................. ..............................7
2.1 Directions .................................................................................................... ..............................7
2.2 Site Selection ................................................................................................ ..............................7
2.3 Project Site Vicinity Map .............................................................................. ..............................9
2.4 Site Photographs ......................................................................................... .............................10
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT .................................................................... .............................13
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information ..................................... .............................13
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Plat .................................................................. .............................13
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION .............................................................................. .............................15
4.1 Watershed Summary Information .............................................................. .............................16
4.1.1
Drainage Area, Project Area and Easement Acreage .................... .............................16
4.1.2
Surface Water Classifications and Water Quality .......................... .............................16
4.1.3
Physiography, Geology and Soils ................................................... .............................18
4.1.4
Existing Hydrological Features ....................................................... .............................21
4.1.5
Vegetative Community Type Descriptions and Disturbance History ..........................22
4.1.6
Historical Land Use and Development Trends ............................... .............................22
4.1.7
Potential Constraints ..................................................................... .............................24
4.1.7.1 Environmental Screening .................................................. .............................24
4.1.7.2 Site Access ......................................................................... .............................24
4.1.7.3 Utilities and Easements .................................................... .............................24
4.1.7.4 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass .............................................. .............................24
4.2 Regulatory
Considerations .......................................................................... .............................25
4.2.1
Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands ............................................. .............................25
4.2.2
Endangered Species Act ................................................................. .............................25
4.2.3
Historic Preservation Act ............................................................... .............................27
4.2.4
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) ....28
4.2.5
Essential Fish Habitat ..................................................................... .............................28
5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ........................................................................ .............................30
6.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN .............................................................................. .............................31
6.1 Stream Project and Design Justification ..................................................... .............................31
6.2 Designed Channel Classification and Wetland Types ................................. .............................31
6.3 Target Wetland and Buffer Communities ................................................... .............................32
6.4 Preliminary Groundwater Characterization ................................................ .............................32
6.5 Water Budget .............................................................................................. .............................32
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page iv
May 2012

6.6 Soil Characterization ................................................................................... .............................33
6.7 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................... .............................33
6.8 HEC -RAS Analysis ........................................................................................ .............................33
6.9 Site Construction ......................................................................................... .............................34
6.9.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation and Other Project Related Information .............35
6.9.2 Native Plant Community Restoration ............................................ .............................35
6.9.2.1 Soil Preparation and Amendments ................................... .............................35
6.9.2.2 Proposed Plant Communities ........................................... .............................36
6.9.2.3 Planting Plan ..................................................................... .............................37
6.9.2.4 Invasive Species Management .......................................... .............................39
7.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN .................................................................................... .............................41
8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ......................................................................... .............................42
8.1 Streams ....................................................................................................... .............................42
8.2 Wetlands ..................................................................................................... .............................42
8.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................... .............................42
9.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................... .............................43
9.1 Baseline Monitoring Document .................................................................. .............................43
9.2 Schedule and Reporting .............................................................................. .............................44
10.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................. .............................45
11.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................... .............................45
12.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ............................................................................... .............................45
13.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. .............................46
Appendices
Appendix A. Regulatory Correspondence
Appendix B. Guidance Pertaining to Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina
Appendix C. Site Protection Instruments
Appendix D. Baseline Information Data
Appendix E. Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix F. Reference Site Analyses
Appendix G. Project Plan Sheets
Appendix H. Land Acquisition
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page v
May 2012

SECTION 1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1.1 Overarching Goals and Applications of Mitigation Plans
According to USACE and NCDWQ (2007), restoration of stream pattern, dimension and profile is not often
appropriate in features appearing as zero to first order, headwater streams in the outer Coastal Plain.
Projects constructed in these areas may still qualify for stream restoration even though they may not include
construction of an actual channel. Credits will be calculated based on the length of the valley rather than an
exact length of the channel. Since a 50 -foot buffer is typically required for stream mitigation projects, areas
outside of this 100 -foot corridor but within the valley feature may be used as riparian wetland mitigation.
The width of the valley is defined using the edge of the valley slope. Mitigation outside of and /or above this
valley is considered non - riparian wetland mitigation assuming restoration of wetland hydrology, hydric soils
and hydrophytic vegetation are present ( USACE and NCDWQ, 2007).
The timely and cost effective delivery of sustainable ecological uplift will meet compensatory mitigation
requirements. Without excavation and fill, the Project Site would likely never revert back to pre - disurbance
conditions due to the existing drainage network. This network would eventually lose efficiency; however, it
would continue to function to remove excess surface and groundwater from the Site. In addition, natural
uplift via succession without any supplements would take significantly longer to form climax community
types. Based on these conditions, earthwork and the reestablishment of native vegetation will be necessary
for Site uplift.
Intervention via earthwork and planting will be conducted to the minimal extent practicable to ensure that
project goals and objectives are met. The approach is formulated to provide a jump start or accelerated
schedule for transformation of the Site. Factors of influence are based mainly on physical parameters,
including soil types and characteristics, topography, project constraints and various other attributes
discussed earlier in this document. These have been studied and compared with existing reference
information to aid in design development. Based on existing Site conditions, earthwork and the planting of
vegetation are necessary to ensure that effective transformation takes place. These aspects ultimately justify
the proposed level of intervention.
1.2 Watershed Goals and Objectives
The Watts Site is located in the 03010205 Catalogue Unit (CU), in the Pasquotank River Basin. According to
the Pasquotank River Basin Restoration Priorities (EEP, 2009), the Pasquotank CU offers an array of assets,
including but not limited to large forested tracts and conservation areas. An important priority is to promote
projects that reestablish riparian buffers and corridors of substantial width to improve connectivity of these
protected areas. Agricultural impacts are also prevalent throughout the CU, including nonpoint source runoff
and hydrologic modification. Projects that address agricultural runoff are important. The watershed will also
benefit from stream restoration projects that reestablish more natural pattern, hydrology and habitat,
especially in heavily ditched headwater areas. Additionally, this CU has an abundance of diverse marsh
habitats along an extensive shoreline. Wetland and marsh restoration projects, as well as shoreline
stabilization are high priorities for areas prone to erosion from natural exposure or from heavy boat traffic.
Finally, in developed areas like Elizabeth City, Manteo and the Outer Banks, projects that address stormwater
runoff and treatment are of primary importance (EEP, 2009). This document is available via:
http: / /www.nceep .net /services /restplans /FINAL RBRP Pasquotank 2009.pdf.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 1
May 2012

Restoration goals for CU 03010205 identified in the 2009 Pasquotank RBRP include supporting
implementation of the NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (Street et. al., 2005) and its associated
implementation plans. The three commissions, including the North Carolina Marine Fisheries, Environmental
Management, and Coastal Resources Commissions unanimously adopted the North Carolina Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan (CHPP) in December 2004. This plan recognizes the importance of North Carolina's coastal
fisheries resources and the commercial and recreational fisheries they support. The continued existence and
enhancement of these resources depend on the health of the aquatic habitats they occupy. The commissions
all agree that they will work in unison to accomplish the following goals:
• GOAL 1 — Improve effectiveness of existing rules and programs protecting coastal fish habitats.
• Enhance enforcement of, and compliance with, Coastal Resources Commission (CRC),
Environmental Management Commission (EMC), and Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC)
rules and permit conditions.
• Coordinate and enhance water quality, physical habitat, and fisheries resource monitoring
(including data management) from headwaters to the nearshore ocean.
• Enhance and expand educational outreach on the value of fish habitat, threats from human
activities, effects of non - native species, and reasons for management measures.
• Coordinate rulemaking and enforcement among regulatory commissions and agencies.
• GOAL 2 — Identify, designate, and protect strategic habitat areas.
• Evaluate potential Strategic Habitat Areas by:
• Coordinating, completing, and maintaining baseline habitat mapping (including
seagrass, shell bottom, and other bottom types) using the most appropriate
technology,
• Selective monitoring of the status of those habitats, and
• Assessing effects of land use and human activities on those habitats.
• Identify and designate Strategic Habitat Areas using ecologically based criteria.
• Analyze existing rules and enact measures needed to protect Strategic Habitat Areas.
• Improve programs for conservation (including voluntary actions) and acquisition of areas
supporting Strategic Habitat Areas.
• GOAL 3 — Enhance habitat and protect it from physical impacts.
• Greatly expand habitat restoration, including:
• Creation of subtidal oyster reef no -take sanctuaries, and
• Re- establishment of riparian wetlands and stream hydrology.
• Prepare and implement a comprehensive beach and inlet management plan that addresses
ecologically based guidelines, socio- economic concerns, and fish habitat.
• Protect Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), shell bottom, and hard bottom areas from
fishing gear effects through improved enforcement, establishment of protective buffers
around habitats, and further restriction of mechanical shellfish harvesting.
• Protect fish habitat by revising estuarine and public trust shoreline stabilization rules using
best available information, considering estuarine erosion rates, and the development and
promotion of incentives for use of alternatives to vertical shoreline stabilization measures.
• Protect and enhance habitat for anadromous fishes by:
• Incorporating the water quality and quantity needs of fish in surface water use
planning and rule making, and
• Eliminating obstructions to fish movements, such as dams, locks, and road fills.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 2
May 2012

• GOAL 4 — Enhance and protect water quality.
Point sources
• Reduce point source pollution from wastewater by:
• Increasing inspections of wastewater treatment facilities, collection infrastructure,
and land disposal sites, and
• Providing incentives for upgrading all types of wastewater treatment systems.
• Adopt or modify rules or statutes to prohibit ocean wastewater discharges.
• Prohibit new or expanded stormwater outfalls to coastal beaches and to coastal shellfishing
waters (EMC surface water classifications SA and SB) except during times of emergency (as
defined by the Division of Water Quality's Stormwater Flooding Relief Discharge Policy) when
public safety and health are threatened, and continue to phase -out existing outfalls by
implementing alternative stormwater management strategies.
Non -point sources
• Enhance coordination with, and financial /technical support for, local government actions to
better manage stormwater and wastewater.
• Improve land -based strategies throughout the river basins to reduce non -point pollution and
minimize cumulative losses to wetlands and streams through voluntary actions, assistance,
and incentives, including:
• Improved methods to reduce sediment pollution from construction sites, agriculture,
and forestry,
• Increased on -site infiltration of stormwater,
• Documentation and monitoring of small but cumulative impacts to wetlands and
streams from approved, un- mitigated activities,
• Incentives for low- impact development,
• Increased inspections of onsite wastewater treatment facilities,
• Increased water re -use and recycling.
• Improve land -based strategies throughout the river basins to reduce non -point pollution and
minimize cumulative losses to wetlands and streams through rule making, including:
• Increased use of effective vegetated buffers,
• Reduction of impervious surfaces where feasible and reduction of the level of
impervious surface allowable in the absence of engineered stormwater controls,
• Expansion of CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) upstream and landward,
• Consideration of erosion rates as an additional factor in the siting of structures along
estuarine and public trust shorelines.
• Develop and implement a comprehensive coastal marina and dock management plan and
policy for the protection of shellfish harvest waters and fish habitat.
• Reduce non -point source pollution from large -scale animal operations by the following
actions:
• Support early implementation of environmentally superior alternatives to the
current lagoon and spray field systems as identified under the Smithfield Agreement
and continue the moratorium on new /expanded swine operations until alternative
waste treatment technology is implemented,
• Seek additional funding to phase -out large -scale animal operations in sensitive areas
and relocate operations from sensitive areas,
• Use improved siting criteria to protect fish habitat.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 3
May 2012

According to the Pasquotank RBRP (2009), EEP is committed to advancing these goals by supporting efforts
to:
• Develop additional Strategic Habitat Areas (SHAs) and coordinate data and methodology
improvements with other state and federal agencies.
• Map, monitor and restore SAV.
• Improve and restore shellfish beds.
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to the estuary.
• Remove barriers to anadromous fish movement and improve nursery and spawning habitats.
• Protect, augment and connect Natural Heritage Areas and other conservation lands.
EEP will actively develop projects that can coincidentally meet CHPP objectives while meeting its primary
mitigation requirements within designated planning areas. The program will continue to promote innovative
coastal mitigation methods such as the split function crediting strategy proposed expert panels in the White
Oak Local Watershed Plan project titled Coordinating Compensatory Mitigation Requirements to Meet the
Goals of the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (2009).
1.3 Project Site Goals and Objectives
The Watts Site was identified as a stream, wetland and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water
quality, habitat and hydrology within the CU. The Project Site is part of the US Geological Survey (USGS) 14-
digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03010205060020 and the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) subbasin
03- 01 -52. An unnamed tributary (UT) to the Little River is the primary water feature at the Site. This
channelized, first order conveyance bisects the property from south to north. Ecological Engineering utilized
planning and existing watershed information from the NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) Basinwide Planning Program, 303(d) Listing and the Pasquotank River Local Watershed
Plan. The Project Site is not within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), as defined by EEP. Nor, is there any
information regarding the specific subbasin in the Local Watershed Plan (LWP).
The main stressors and impacts to watersheds are pervasive and to a large extent, transcend physiography.
As a result, overlapping of goals formulated to address these stressors and impacts often occurs. To
compensate for this aspect when working on individual project sites, a combination of goals and objectives
are presented. Project goals often broadly stated and standardized; therefore, project specific objectives
have been provided to assist with this project's approach to restoration. By properly understanding issues,
stressors and specific project concerns, an appropriate project design can be achieved that is instrumental in
the development of tailored, measurable and achievable goals.
Existing watershed and project stressors at the Project Site appear to be generated predominately by
agricultural related activities. These activities cause channel degradation, systemic sedimentation, buffer
deforestation, riparian compaction, compaction of wetland vegetation and soils, eutrophication and
promotion of invasive, non - native vegetation biomass and seed sources. The effects with regard to ecological
services and /or functions lost and requiring replacement and /or enhancement are transport of watershed
sediments in equilibrium, treatment of lateral overland flow, treatment of groundwater, provision of
instream habitat, provision of wetland habitat, provision of riparian buffer habitat, processing of organic
matter inputs and temporary sediment storage.
This uplift will include the restoration of ecological function, the improvement of overall water quality and
enhancement of native wildlife habitat. Three main components, stream, wetland and riparian buffer
restoration, will serve as the dominant inputs for achieving this goal.
Wattb nuperty rvnugduun ride— rerquirnans County, NC
May 2012

Furthermore, project objectives are to design a headwater stream and wetland system with the appropriate
cross section and slope that ultimately provides the proper physical characteristics to supply intended
functions and meet success criteria. In addition to cross section and slope, hydraulic stability and native
vegetation establishment will also contribute to the overall functionality of the system.
Stream restoration will follow guidance provided in the document entitled Information Regarding Stream
Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina, updated in 2007 by the USACE and NCDWQ. This
guidance provides improved methodology associated with the restoration of zero and first order streams in
the outer Coastal Plain physiographic province. The UT is currently channelized. Its purpose is to act as a
conduit to quickly and effectively remove both surface and ground water from the Site and its accompanying
watershed. By converting its current characteristics to those associated more with a headwater stream
system, the UT will ultimately provide opportunities for water quality improvement.
Wetland restoration will be implemented via the removal of the existing drainage network. The current
network includes a combination of both lateral and linear drainages that manipulate groundwater to allow
for the planting and continuous maintenance of agricultural row crops. Surface water at the Site will be
allowed to properly percolate. Any excess runoff will be filtered through vegetation prior to entering the UT.
The combination of both stream and wetland restoration at this site will immediately improve water quality
outputs. Ecological functions will be restored, as well as the enhancement of native wildlife habitat.
The Watts Site was identified as a stream, wetland and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water
quality, habitat and hydrology within the CU. The Project Site is part of the US Geological Survey (USGS) 14-
digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03010205060020 and NCDWQ subbasin 03- 01 -52. An unnamed tributary
(UT) to the Little River is the primary water feature at the Site. This channelized, first order conveyance
bisects the property from south to north. Ecological Engineering utilized planning and existing watershed
information from the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Basinwide Planning
Program, 303(d) Listing and the Pasquotank River Local Watershed Plan. The Project Site is not within a
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), as defined by EEP. Nor, is there any information regarding the specific
subbasin in the Local Watershed Plan (LWP).
The overall goal of this project is to provide an ecological uplift to the Project Site and its surrounding area.
This uplift will be provided via modifications to the existing channel and subsequent drainage network that
currently exist at the Project Site. Designs will be based on USACE and NCDWQ (2005) guidance, reference
information and professional judgment. This goal is in accordance with the abovementioned goals for the CU
and includes the following Site - specific goals:
• restore ditched wetlands to improve the habitat, fishery and flood control functions;
• reduce sediment loading and other pollutants from surface runoff by increasing the soil
retention, filtration and nutrient uptake functions of wetland and riparian areas;
• restore and protect wildlife corridors and other key links to high -value habitat areas; and
• restore and protect natural breeding, nesting and feeding habitat to promote species richness
and diversity.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 5
May 2012

The objectives are to design a headwater stream and wetland system with the appropriate cross section and
slope that ultimately provides the proper physical characteristics to supply intended functions and meet
success criteria. In addition to cross section and slope, hydraulic stability and native vegetation establishment
will also contribute to the overall functionality of the system.
The existing pre- restoration baseline depicts a channelized stream surrounded by a network of linear and
lateral ditches. The Site is drained in its entirety, aside from a very small wetland area (0.06 acres) along the
northeastern perimeter. Both the existing channel and wetland are considered jurisdictional. Impacts to
these two resources will be considered minimal, if any. The existing base elevations of the channel will
remain the same; however, its dimension will be significantly altered and thus requiring submittal and
approval of a Nationwide Permit 27 (Section 404) and its corresponding water quality certification (Section
401), as well as a likely consistency determination from the NC Division of Coastal Management. The pattern
of the tributary will be minimally altered. It is expected that the resulting headwater, first order channel will
have little or no actual meanders. No impacts are proposed to the jurisdictional wetland area. Once
earthwork is complete, the entire site will be planted with native vegetation. The other permit that will be
required is a land disturbance permit. Erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented to their
fullest extent to ensure that any impacts to water resources downstream are minimized to their fullest
extent during and immediately after construction.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 6
May 2012

SECTION 2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions to Site
The Watts Property is situated along Durants Neck peninsula in Perquimans County, approximately 11 miles
east - southeast of Hertford and nine miles south - southwest of Elizabeth City (Figure 1). It can be accessed by
using the following directions from US Highway 17:
From the west (Raleigh, Williamston and Hertford):
• Turn south (right) onto SR 1300 (New Hope Road), after crossing the Perquimans River.
• Proceed approximately 11.3 miles and turn northeast (left) onto SR 1326 (Little River Shore
Drive).
• Proceed approximately 1.2 miles and turn northwest (left) onto Shore Drive.
• Follow Shore Drive approximately 0.2 miles and turn northwest (left) onto Norma Drive.
• The Watts Property is approximately 0.1 mile to the south (left side) of the roadway.
From the east (Elizabeth City):
• Turn south (left) onto SR 1197 (Northside Road) towards Woodville.
• Follow Northside Road approximately 1.3 miles and turn to the south (left) onto SR 1329.
• Proceed approximately 6.2 miles to New Hope Road. Turn to the southeast (left).
• Proceed approximately 3.0 miles and turn northeast (left) onto SR 1326 (Little River Shore Drive).
• Proceed approximately 1.2 miles and turn northwest (left) onto Shore Drive.
• Follow Shore Drive approximately 0.2 miles and turn northwest (left) onto Norma Drive.
• The Watts Property is approximately 0.1 mile to the south (left side) of the roadway.
Based on available mapping from the US Geological Survey, the project is located at the following
coordinates: 36.1652791 °N and 76.2676037 °W.
2.2 Site Selection
The Watts Property was purchased fee simple by the State of North Carolina in 2004 for the purposes of
mitigation. It is situated in Perquimans County, along Durants Neck Peninsula separating the Perquimans
River, Little River and Albemarle Sound. The majority of the waters associated with the Site drain into an
unnamed tributary to the Little River. The Project Site and its surrounding area are all part of the Pasquotank
River Basin. Figures 2 through 4 depict the Site's watershed, underlying soils and current conditions. In
addition, historical aerials and Site photographs are also provided at the end of this Section.
The following information pertains to project components and structure with regard to the headwater
stream restoration of the UT, non - riparian wetland restoration and the restoration of upland buffer. This
information is summarized in Table 1. Based on existing survey data, implementation of the project will
provide approximately 1,505 linear feet of Headwater Forest stream restoration, 20.4 acres of Hardwood Flat
wetland restoration and 0.06 acres of Hardwood Flat wetland enhancement. In addition, the remaining 26.8
acres at the Project Site will serve as buffer. Additional information pertaining to the Project's components
and structure is provided in Section 5.0 entitled Determination of Credits.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 7
May 2012

As previously mentioned, headwater stream restoration will follow guidance provided in the document
entitled Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina, updated in
2007 by the USACE and NCDWQ. This guidance provides improved methodology associated with the
restoration of zero and first order streams in the outer Coastal Plain physiographic province. The existing UT
is a prime candidate for this type of restoration due to its location, state of channelization, current
hydrological characteristics and absence of physical constraints. By converting its physical components to
those associated more with a headwater stream system, the UT will ultimately provide opportunities for
water quality improvement.
Wetland restoration will be implemented via the removal of the existing drainage network. The current
network includes a combination of both lateral and linear drainages that manipulate groundwater to allow
for the planting and continuous maintenance of agricultural row crops. This network will be removed from
the interior portion of the Site. As a result, surface water at the site will be allowed to properly percolate.
Any excess runoff will be filtered through vegetation prior to entering the UT.
Buffers, extending more than 200 feet outward will be established along the UT and remaining areas not
utilized for wetland restoration. Although no additional credits are anticipated, these buffers will function to
provide additional water quality enhancement, stormwater and floodwater management, streambank and
shoreline stabilization, water temperature modification, wildlife habitat and absorption of airborne
pollutants. Ultimately the Site restoration efforts will result in the reduction of nutrient and sediment export
from the Site into the Little River.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 8
May 2012

2.3 Project Site Vicinity Map
i .'
w E
13 5h'awboro _ , -
P�14Ygans': a`
le
Caner \� •4.�, 343 j
Trotville �1 t
� 5andytrdss I' 'f'i,
Be.e t' 1 inch = 3,000 feet
Nobbsville 1 i
CDA— ..�;— Camde t
•Clid + ' Elizabet qty - - --
3 [ s. u. 4`
�
PROJECT SITE 343
-
and ��. rr� tJS.•
aae�vi ere Cha a��nrr G� Frhe
s f P E i[ ,Ul i�l • • Albcmw1,v
Tads •� "� i
' —
rv�er �� Winial xonton
l ..'- �.. ��' -• - -
H&O rd r r - �. �T 'WeekSVll le v
hisu,nn+
1
Hertford ,mot. 34
1 ��r
f +r Mewhom 'lot u. ran is
�•. �; _ Sfevenaon Pf.1
::,•= WATTS PROPERTY -
. ..k - ��. � w,: .'I.` — jfG«. - ..�. -• -_ � .. - -_ ..tip -_�•.— , A .
•� . - -.. - -I �', evil r1l�' •1. e �'
I <. �_ � a•n° I �,,. °nom
777 �• S � i, r 1 � � �.Fr
j
Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING. LLP PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP
128 Raleig h Stree t
[Jolly Springs. NC 27540 Watts Property
J919) &57-0029 Perquimans County, NC FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP EEP Contract No. D090595 1
2728 Capital Bleva
ourd rl-�J I February 21, 2011
Suite 11-1103 I" I}ti�' TC'ilt Source: NCDOT and NC Alias & Gazetteer
Raleigh. NC 27604 USGS Topographic Map- NIXONTON
Watts Property Mitigation Plan- Perquimans County, NC Page 9
May 2012

2.4 Site Photographs —Taken March 2010
Facing south across the W atts Site
Facing West across the W alts Site
Facing south (upstream) at the UT from Norma Drive
Facing southwest (upstream) from culvert located in the
approximate middle of the Site
Facing west from southern property perimeter
Facing west across the Watts Site from the eastern property
corner
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 10
May 2012

Site Photographs Cont. —Taken March 2010
Faun„ north (downstream at culvert under Norma Driv-
Facing east at the location where the southern perimeter
ditches unite with :he Ui as it enters the Site
Facing north along western perimeter ditch
Facing norkheast along interior drainage ditch
Facing north n. the northwe5- ...:i rv.: d -_ ,i, vv ich is no.
affil :cd wi.h the UT .hat bisects the Site
Facing northeas- :: Fang eastern perimeter of Si.e
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 11
May 2012

Site Photographs Cont. — Taken March 2010
Facing south.:::,: I�t - -ie southr.,cs: property corner
- � .• �y, td�1
Facing southeast (Llps- .ream) along the nor i .: : -r.. n
perimeter ditch
F-_-ing northwest at Norma Drive
Facing southeast along the nortneas. ern site perimeter
Dram pipe er-r =ring per i•)cter ditch alon, northeas. property
Lhoundary
Facing northeast (upstream) at 24 -inch pipe situated along
middle reach of UT
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 12
May 2012

SECTION 3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management and stewardship of this mitigation project includes the
following parcel information provided below. The State of North Carolina currently owns the property and
boundaries are posted. A copy of the deed is included in Appendix C. A copy of the plat is provided on the
following page. The State of North Carolina purchased the land fee simple from Richard L. and Kyle K. Watts
in September 2004.
Watts Property Tax Information
Parcel Owner:
State of North Carolina
Deed—Acre:
48.09
Parcel ID:
8808 -69 -9972
Deed_Bk1:
156
Pin:
2
Deed_Pg1:
654
Account:
413705
Deed_Bk2:
271
Name:
4- 0056 -007
Deed_Pg2:
589
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Plat
The following Plat was provided by EEP. It depicts the 2004 Watts Site Boundary Survey.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 13
May 2012

If1f �JWi'{
SaFf lillFi'I YR1
- 153 5w 1
• ' yfR1S
uim iFlif�uN�V.+.r.�Fµ�
t{�. �11L+VV1'r``{j•f �f
?V
dhY��VfJNCU %.43f
4 . i K'41
�i8'S,1' d10
J71 Y} fJ 1Q 47}YI}Vp
p'{}ccWµFry
s Js. u`{ �i'
y�y
rs f
•
m•.{�x
�u
Iw
•ae 'a xn
c�
}
I
I
I
II'
r
I
�I
I I
I
IS C
0 Big
fill
--- - - - - --
9
rye jig
v 42
JIM
"�°ms 2---- --
IN .
9� "}
x #
#41
r
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 14
May 2012

SECTION 4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
The following table summarizes the baseline information at the Project Site.
TABLE 1. BASELINE INFORMATION
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Project Number 413
Project Information
Project Name
Watts Stream, Wetland and Buffer Site
County
Perquimans County
Project Area
48.09 acres
Project Coordinates (Latitude and Longitude)
36.1652791 °N and 76.2676037 °W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Pasquotank River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 03010205
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03010205060020
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -01 -52
Project Drainage Area
136 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage Impervious Area
0 acres
CGIA Land Use Classification
Agriculture
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1 (upper)
Reach 2 (lower)
Length of Reach
750
755
Valley Classification
X
X
Drainage Area
110
136
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
25.0
33.25
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
SC (receiving water)
SC (receiving water)
Morphological Description — Stream Type
G5 or similar
G5 or similar
Evolutionary Trend
C to G to F
C to G to F
Underlying Mapped Soils
Roanoke silt loam
Roanoke silt loam
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric A
Hydric A
Slope
<2%
<2%
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Zone AE
Native Vegetation Community
N /A— Row Crops
N /A— Row Crops
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<5%
<5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
Size of Wetland
0.058 acres
Wetland Type
Hardwood Flat (NCWAM)
Mapped Soil Series
Roanoke silt loam
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric A
Source of Hydrology
Surface and groundwater
Hydrologic Impairment
Clay confining layer
Native Vegetation Community
N /A— Row Crops
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the US — Section 404
Yes
No
Waters of the US — Section 401
Yes
No
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
CZMA/ CAMA Regulation
Yes
No
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 15
May 2012

Existing conditions surveys were completed during the early spring of 2010. These surveys included natural
resources assessments, protected species assessments, jurisdictional wetland delineations and topographic
assessments. Field surveys were undertaken to determine natural resource conditions and to document
Waters of the United States. No detailed morphological surveys were completed along the existing channel,
which currently functions as a drainage ditch removing both surface and groundwater from the Project Site.
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
4.1.1 Drainage Area, Project Area and Easement Acreage
The watershed associated with the UT is rural, consisting predominantly agricultural lands with a small mix of
forest lands. Figure 2 provides an aerial view of the watershed. The drainage area, calculated from the
culvert under Norma Drive at the downstream end of the Site covers approximately 0.21 square miles (136
acres). Drainage at the Watts Property is via an onsite drainage network connected with one first order
stream channel that bisects the Site. No impervious services were noted within the watershed encompassing
the Site and it surrounding areas.
Landuse within the Project Area is agricultural. Row crops were planted through 2004 by the previous
property owner. Since this time, it has remained fallow. The existing drainage network however, is still
functioning as originally intended; effectively draining the Site. The drainage area including and surrounding
the Site is comprised of a network of exterior and interior drainage ditches emptying into a first order stream
channel. These ditches help to remove both surface and groundwater from the Site. One drainage outlet is
responsible for removing the majority of water from the Project Site. This outlet is along the northern edge
of the property and consists of a channel that flows under Norma Drive and discharges immediately into the
Little River. One other outlet is connected to the perimeter network of ditches at the northwestern corner of
the property.
4.1.2 Surface Water Classifications and Water Quality
The Project Site is situated within NCDWQ subbasin 03 -01 -52 of the Pasquotank River Basin. This basin is part
of the Albemarle - Pamlico Estuarine System, the second largest estuarine system in the United States
(NCDWQ, 2007). The subbasin consists of the northwestern edge of the Albemarle Sound and includes the
Little and Perquimans Rivers. The subbasin covers a total area of approximately 541 square miles, separated
within by 399 square miles of land and 142 square miles of water (NCDWQ, 2007).
According to NCDWQ (2009b), the UT's surface water classification is the same as its receiving water, the
Little River. The Little River is classified as Class SC waters, which denotes saltwaters protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, aquatic life propagation and survival, and wildlife (NCDWQ, 2009b). The UT within the
Watts Property receives its flow from both surface and groundwater with little to no saltwater intrusion
except in the case of backwater flow from storm surges. As a result, the classification under normal
circumstances would be Class C, which denotes freshwaters protected for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 16
May 2012

Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 17
May 2012

No High Quality Waters (HQWs), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs), or Special Management Strategy
Areas exist within five miles of the study area.
NCDWQ (2007) denotes four minor National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharges in
this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 0.7 MGD. Three of these facilities are water treatment plants. In
addition, there are three non - discharge permits and six stormwater discharge permits identified in the
subbasin (NCDWQ, 2007). None of the dischargers are situated along or adjacent to the Little River.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters not meeting water
quality standards or which have impaired uses. Listed waters must be prioritized, and a management
strategy or total maximum daily load (TMDL) must subsequently be developed for all listed waters. The Little
River, downstream of the UT, is currently listed on North Carolina's 303(d) List. It was originally listed in 2000
under the standard violation for low dissolved oxygen (NCDWQ, 2009a). According to NCDWQ (2009a),
potential sources(s) include, but are not limited to, agriculture and onsite wastewater systems (septic tanks).
4.1.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
The Coastal Plain physiographic province is the largest geologic belt in the state. It consists of a wedge of
mostly marine sedimentary rocks that gradually thickens to the east. The most common sediment types are
sand and clay, with limestone ever - present in the southern portion. According to Lapham and Lyman (1905),
the Project Site is geologically underlain by the Columbia Formation. This formation is built up from mineral
materials transported by streams from the Piedmont physiographic province and deposited as sediments of
various grades of fineness, at a time in geological history when the coast of North Carolina was submerged
under the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. The distribution of these sediments was controlled by varying current
and wave action, modified to some extent by stream erosion after the emergence of the land. The texture of
some of the soil types has also been modified in a measure by the incorporation of considerable amounts of
organic mater, resulting from the decay of quantities of vegetation (Lapham and Lyman, 1905).
The soils underlying the Watts Property are dominated by the Roanoke Series, with the exception of the
northern portion where the tributary exits under Norma Drive, which is underlain by the Dogue Series. The
locations of these soils are provided on Figure 3. Both the Roanoke and Dogue Series exhibit similar
characteristics such as their pH (acidic), depths to restrictive features (more than 80 inches), slopes (zero to
two percent), available water capacity (high, between 9.2 and 9.3 inches) and their parent material (loamy
and clayey fluviomarine deposits. Roanoke soils however, differ from Dogue soils in landform position,
drainage class, depth to water table and profile. Soil borings were conducted across the Site to verify mapped
locations. The results are presented in Appendix D and are discussed later in the document. The locations of
the borings are presented on Figure 4 along with the hydrologic features described in the following section.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (2009), Roanoke silt loam occurs along depressions
and flats on marine terraces. Its drainage class is poorly drained and the depth to water table varies between
zero and 12 inches (NRCS, 2009). The typical profile of Roanoke silt loam is provided in the chart below. This
soil is identified as a hydric soil, or soil that is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long
enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper portion.
Dogue fine sandy loam occurs along the ridges on marine and stream terraces. This soil is moderately well
drained and exhibits an average depth to the water table between 18 and 36 inches (NRCS, 2009).
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 18
May 2012

Current Condition Plan View
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 19
May 2012

1t IAA- INN IRIIATION:
W -1
W -2
W -3
WELL 182732
WELL 18I064
WELL 185631
N= S90,475
N= 89[5230
N= 889,598
E=2,806,944
E= 2,806,669
E= 2,806,527
ELEV = 3.9
ELEV = 6.8
ELEV = 7.9
Ik -4
W -5
W -6
WELL 174340
WELL 192821
WELL 174148
N= 889,733
N= 889,478
N= 889,832
Fri 2806,829
E= 2,807,027
E= $807,462
ELEV = 4.9
ELEV =7.8
ELEV = 6.9
Y.
t SBiD "+ �
- � r
SB9 r`
e
I -
- 24 " CMP '�
Z
SB1
• INTERIOR
W2 * DRAINAG
r % NETW „DR
d
�a° sg� �
! IP f sBs
N
1'8” CPP EXISTING SPOIL
AREA (BERM)
t8" CPP
18" CPP
* It JURISDICTIONAL
10" [:Iv1P 4V -g jf WETLAND
d w 3 u51.4
• �N/ eci
I P
sss 1, LEGEND
1 CMP: Corrugated Metal Pipe
CPP: Corrugated Plastic Pipe
IP: Iron Pipe
PERIMETER Sgt: Soil Boring Location
DRAINAGE W -1: Monitoring Well
r NETV-IORK
1 ' p : Drainage Flow Direction
Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING. LIP PROJECT SITE HYDROLOGICAL FEATURES
128pring . NC AND GAUGE LOCATIONS MAP
Holly Springs. NC 27540
(919) 557'0929 Watts Property FIGURE
Perquimans County, INC 4
Prepared For: NCEEP
2728 Capital Bou Ward
EEP Contract No. x090595
Suite iH103 November 9, 2010
Raleigh. NC 27644 1 I! 1,11 �1I ICi1r
g Gruirra•wunu nicrtatarWnnt rrun
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC
May 2012
Page 20

Profile information for both Roanoke silt loam and Dogue fine sandy loam is shown below.
Brief Soil Comparison Chart
PARAMETER
ROANOKE SILT LOAM
DOGUE FINE SANDY LOAM
Taxonomic Name
Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic
Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Aquic
Endoaquults
Hapludults
Map Unit Elevation
0 to 20 feet
0 to 20 feet
Landform Setting:
Depressions and flats on marine terraces
Ridges on marine and stream terraces
Slope
0 to 2 percent
0 to 2 percent
Depth to Restrictive Feature
More than 80 inches
More than 80 inches
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Moderately well drained
Depth to Water Table
0 to 12 inches
18 to 36 inches
Profile
0 to 8 inches — Silt loam
0 to 8 inches — Fine sandy loam
8 to 13 inches — Clay loam
8 to 66 inches — Clay loam
13 to 58 inches — Clay
66 to 80 inches — Sandy loam
58 to 80 inches — Fine sandv loam
Hvdric Classification* A
Source: NRCS, 2009
Note: * Hydric A classification denotes map unit that are all hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major component.
The growing season is calculated as the period between the average date of the last killing frost in the spring
and the average date of the first killing frost in the fall. The closest climate station to the Project Site is in
Elizabeth City. According to Gregory (2000), the growing season consists of 246 days and begins on March 18
and ends on November 19.
4.1.4 Existing Hydrological Features
As previously noted, the current landuse is agriculture and the existing drainage network confirms its
intended use. This network was installed to remove both surface and groundwater from the property in a
quick and efficient manner. The on -site network includes an internal assemblage of nine intersecting ditches
of varying dimensions that total more than 4,500 linear feet in length and a perimeter network totaling more
than 4,200 linear feet. The majority of the internal ditches drain into the UT that bisects the Project Site while
externally, the perimeter ditches on the west, south and eastern side empty into the UT. The ditch along the
northeast side also drains into the UT, although it is downstream of the Site and the ditch situated along the
northwest corner drains into another UT west of the Site. These ditches range from approximately eight
inches to three feet in depth and two to eight feet in top width. The UT, on the other hand, ranges between
three and four feet in depth and six and ten feet in width. Its total length is approximately 1,505 linear feet.
Existing pipes are located near the junctions of several of the ditches, as well as along the UT. These pipes
were identified as either corrugated metal pipe (CMP), iron pipe (IP) or corrugated plastic pipe (CPP) and
range in diameter between 12 and 24 inches. The primary function of the pipes is to provide access for
equipment to cross the drainage network.
The UT exits the Project Site through a pipe under Norma Drive. This pipe appears to be a 24 -inch CMP and is
completely submerged at both ends. Over the past several years, headwall erosion has been slowly
compromising this pipe and Norma Drive. Excessive sedimentation exists within the pipe and portions of the
pipe are corroding. This pipe will be upgraded to two 36 -inch corrugated aluminum pipes (CAP) during
project implementation to ensure the hydrologic trespass does not occur upon its ultimate failure.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 21
May 2012

4.1.5 Vegetation Community Type Descriptions and Disturbance History
Terrestrial plant communities at the Watts Property have been significantly altered from their natural states
and currently fall under the Agricultural — Row Crops classification. Although the Site is currently in a state of
fallow, this area consists almost entirely of herbaceous vegetation, including seasonal grasses and weeds. An
historical aerial photograph, dated 1975, is depicted in the following sub - section. This photograph shows the
Site as forested, further confirming the overall restoration goal of the project.
Common species observed were clover (Trifolium sp.), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), ragweed
(Ambrosia sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), thistle (Carduus sp.), Joe -pye -weed (Eupatorium
fistulosum), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), fescue (Festuca sp.), blackberry
(Rubus sp.), onion (Allium sp.), foxtail grass (Setaria sp.), aster (Aster sp.), vetch (Vicia sp.) and henbit
(Lamium sp.). Within the drainage network, soft rush (Juncus effusus), smartweed (Polygonum sp.),
duckweed (Lemna sp.), and seedbox (Ludwigia sp.) were observed. In addition, several pioneer woody
species have begun to establish themselves. These species included loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), baccharis ( eaccharis halimifolia) and several oaks (Quercus spp.).
4.1.6 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Based on a review of landuses and development throughout the Project and surrounding areas, little has
changed for the past several decades. More residential development has occurred downstream of the Site
along the Little River. The area west, east and south has remained unchanged. It is anticipated that over the
next couple of decades, growth will occur primarily in the form of residential housing. As a result, the overall
amount of impervious surface is expected to increase within this and the adjacent watersheds.
A review of aerial photographs was conducted as part of the preparation of the Environmental Resource
Technical Report (ERTR). It appears that major land disturbance activities including the conversion from
forest to agriculture occurred between 1975 and 1983. In addition, to the 1975 photograph, other recent
aerial photographs are provided in Appendix D.
According to Community Planning Collaborative, Inc. (2006), Perquimans County envisions the majority of
residential development will continue to be in residential subdivisions, within Hertford and Winfall, and to a
limited degree along State maintained roads. The State projects that Perquimans County's population will
grow from 11,890 persons in 2005 to 12,647 persons by 2015, and 13,011 persons by 2020. If these
projections hold true, the County will grow by about 1,121 people in the period 2005 — 2020. If residential
construction trends continue (at or near the rate of 168 residential structures per year) until 2020, an
additional 2,520 residential units could potentially be built or placed in Perquimans County. This total would
adequately accommodate the population growth projected. However, this level of residential construction
would involve some conversion of lands from other uses (most notably cleared agricultural lands and
woodlands); additional strip type development along State roads, and the development of additional
subdivisions. At a rate of one acre per home site, over 2,500 acres could potentially be converted to
residential uses, although the actual figure would most likely be much less as development is directed
intosubdivisions which allow for greater densities (CPC, 2006).
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 22
May 2012

Historical Condition Plan View
INQUIRY #: 2745210.4
YEAR: 1975 4 " N
500, T
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 23
May 2012

4.1.7 Potential Constraints
4.1.7.1 Environmental Screening
Ecological Engineering completed the checklist entitled "Environmental Screening and Document Guidelines
for Ecosystem Enhancement Program Projects (draft date 8.18.05)" in accordance with EEP protocols. This
information is intended to assist EEP in satisfying the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) obligation to
ensure compliance with various federal environmental laws and regulations. This obligation is necessary in
order to preserve FHWA's ability to reimburse the NC Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) for costs
incurred for offsetting NCDOT impacts through EEP projects. The signed Categorical Exclusion Form is
provided in Appendix D.
In addition, Ecological Engineering obtained data from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) with regards
to environmental risk at or near the Site. The Site is not listed on any of the databases searched by EDR (EDR,
2009). A copy of the report's overall findings and map are presented in the ERTR, dated October 2010.
4.1.7.2 Site Access
Access to the Watts Property is available via Norma Drive, a private road that intersects the northern
perimeter of the Site. No fences, barriers or other obstacles are present to deter access. Directions are
provided in Section 2.1.
4.1.7.3 Utilities and Easements
Based on field observations and associated mapping, two utility poles were noted within the Project Site
along Norma Drive. These poles are likely maintained by the local utility coop and are immediately outside of
the right -of -way associated with Norma Drive. No restoration or enhancement work is proposed within or
immediately adjacent to this area. Otherwise, no other utilities or easements were identified within the
project area.
4.1.7.4 FEMA /Hydrologic Trespass
According to FEMA (2004), the majority of the UT is situated in a mapped backwater area from the Little
River labeled as Zone AE, where base flood elevations have been determined. There is no established
floodway or non - encroachment area along this tributary. Furthermore, A HEC RAS analysis (results provided
later in the document) denotes no rise in water surface elevations based on proposed conditions. Therefore,
there will be no impact on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping. FEMA approval will not
be necessary for project implementation. In addition, no floodplain development permit will be required and
no further coordination is anticipated.
A copy of EEP's Floodplain Requirements Checklist and current FEMA Map are provided in Appendix D. This
checklist was submitted to the State Construction Office, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), NC
Floodplain Mapping Unit and EEP.
No hydrologic trespass will occur at the Project Site. Its position, including the topography and the existence
of a perimeter ditch along the eastern, southern and western boundaries will prohibit any opportunities for
hydrologic trespass. Portions of the site will be designed to function as a wetland, holding water for extended
periods of time. Drainage will follow natural valley contours which flow towards the UT that bisects the
property. The perimeter drainage ditches will capture any excess surface and /or groundwater and provide
Wattb nuperty wnugduun rmn— rerqufmans County, wu rage 14
May 2012

relief to either the UT bisecting the Site or the existing drainage network situated along the property's
northwest corner.
4.2 Regulatory Considerations
4.2.1 Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands
As per verification by the USACE in 2010, the UT is considered a jurisdictional stream channel. The NCDWQ
Stream Classification Forms for the UT are provided in Appendix D. This form offers a quick, qualitative
assessment based on a numerical system. Scores exceeding 30 represent a perennial or primary stream,
while those between 19 and 30 represent an intermittent or secondary channel. Any scores less than 19
discern the channel as either ephemeral or stormwater- based. The UT scored 25.0 along the upper portion
and 33.25 along the lower portion. This information is generally utilized to address stream mitigation credits;
however, being that the mitigation type proposed for this project includes a first order channel, rather than
perennial or intermittent, it is considered jurisdictional throughout its length. Therefore, mitigation credits
will be offered for its entire length throughout the property.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed using the three - parameter approach as prescribed in
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Supplementary
technical literature describing the parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrological
indicators were also utilized. One jurisdictional wetland was observed within the project area (Figure 4). The
wetland is considered low value and is the likely result of a soil confining layer, which significantly slows the
percolation of surface water. Its overall functions are severely limited due to its small size (0.058 acres),
location and surrounding land use. Coordination with the USACE began in March 2010. A request for
jurisdictional determination (JD) was submitted in August 2010 and concurrence was received in September
2010. The approved JD and associated forms are provided in Appendix D.
4.2.2 Endangered Species Act
Certain populations of fauna and flora have been, or are, in decline due to either natural forces or their
inability to coexist with humans. Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any federal action likely to adversely affect a species listed as
federally protected be subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Prohibited actions which may affect any species protected under the ESA are
outlined in Section 9 of the Act. Other species may receive additional protection under separate laws such as
the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1999, the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, or the Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Species which are listed, or are proposed for listing, as endangered or threatened are recorded in Section 4
of the ESA. As defined by the Act, an Endangered species is any plant or animal which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. A Threatened
species is any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Resource investigations were conducted by a qualified scientist during January, February and March 2010.
Field surveys were undertaken to determine natural resource conditions and to document natural
communities, wildlife and the presence of protected species and /or their habitats. Published information
regarding the study area and region and protected species was derived from a number of resources, which
are summarized in the ERTR, dated October, 2010.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 25
May 2012

According to the USFWS (2010), there are no federal Endangered "E" or Threatened "T" species listed as
potentially occurring in Perquimans County. In addition, there are no known critical habitats listed within two
miles of the project area (USFWS, 2010).
Scoping letters requesting review were sent via US Mail to the USFWS and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
( NCWRC) on January 25, 2010. As of October 31, 2010, no correspondence had been received from either
entity. Therefore, it is determined that neither the USFWS nor NCWRC have any comments regarding
protected species or their habitats with regard to the proposed project. Copies of the letters are provided in
the ERTR, dated 2010.
Species identified as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern (SC) by the NC Natural Heritage Program's
(NCNHP's) list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
According to the USFWS (2010), there are three Federal Species of Concern (FSC) and one species listed
under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) that potentially may occur in Perquimans County.
The NCNHP identifies a total of five species as either state - endangered, threatened or of special concern
( NCNHP, 2009). These species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. The chart presented at the end of this section
depicts the species of importance for Perquimans County, their scientific names, classifications and the
presence of available habitat within the project area.
On -line map reviews at the NCNHP website were conducted on July 15, 2009 and reconfirmed on August 31,
2010. There are no recorded sightings or occurrences of any species denoted by the USFWS or NCNHP
documented within a two mile radius of the Watts Property.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 26
May 2012

Protected Species Potentially Occurring in Perquimans County
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATE HABITAT RECORD
STATUS STATUS PRESENT STATUS
Vertebrates:
American eel
Anquilla rostrata FSC No Current
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA T No Current
Rafinesque's big -eared
bat Corynorhinus rafinesqui FSC SC No Current
Shortnose sturgeon
Acipenser brevirostrum E No Current
Timber rattlesnake
Crotalus horridus SC No Obscure
Vascular Plants:
Carolina grasswort
Lilaeopsis carolinensis T No Current
Raven's boxseed
Ludwigia ravenii FSC No Historic
FSC— Federal Species
A species under consideration for listing, for which there is insufficient information to support listing at this
of Concern:
time. These species may or may not be listed in the future, and many of these species were formerly
recognized as "C2" candidate species.
BGPA:
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register (72:37346- 37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed
(de- listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This de- listing took effect August 8,
2007. After de- listing, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668 -668d) becomes the
primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a
statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb." The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines to provide guidance to land managers, landowners and others as to how to avoid
disturbing bald eagles.
E — Endangered
"Any native or once - native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable component of the
(State of NC):
state's fauna is determined by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission to be in jeopardy or any species of
wild animal determined to be an 'endangered species' pursuant to the Endangered Species Act." (Article 25
of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987).
T- Threatened (State
"Any native or once - native species of wild animal which is likely to become an endangered species within the
of NC):
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a
threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act." (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General
Statues; 1987)
SC— Special Concern
"Any species of wild animal native or once - native to North Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife
(State of NC):
Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the
provisions of this Article." (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statues; 1987)
Sources: USFWS, 2010 & NCNHP, 2009
4.2.3 Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides that properties and districts listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places be considered in the planning of federal
undertakings such as highway construction and community development projects. "Federal undertakings"
also include activities sponsored by state or local governments or private entities if they are licensed,
permitted, approved, or funded (wholly or in part) by the federal government. "Federal undertakings" do not
include loans made by banks insured by the FDIC or federal farm subsidies.
There is no absolute protection from federal actions that may affect a historic property. If a federal
undertaking is in conflict with the preservation of a historic property, the State Historic Preservation Office
will negotiate with the responsible federal agency, sometimes with the involvement of the federal Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, in an effort to eliminate or minimize the effect on the property. This
mitigation procedure applies to properties that are determined eligible for the National Register in the day -
to -day environmental review process as well as those actually listed in the National Register.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 27
May 2012

North Carolina law (G.S. 121- 12(a)) provides for consideration of National Register properties in undertakings
funded or licensed by the state. Where a state undertaking is in conflict with the preservation of a National
Register property, the NC Historical Commission is given the opportunity to review the case, "giving due
consideration to the competing public interests involved," and make recommendations to the state agency
responsible for the undertaking. The commission's recommendations to the state agency are only advisory.
Properties potentially eligible for but not actually listed in the National Register are not protected under G.S.
121 -12 (a).
No structures, buildings, ruins or other man -made items exist within the area denoted as the Project Site.
Structures, including those associated with private residences and their associated farm buildings exist
outside of the project area; however, none of these will be impacted by the restoration of the stream
channel and enhancement of the surrounding wetland and buffer areas.
No items relating to archaeological resources were observed during the Site visit.
Scoping letters requesting review were sent via US Mail to the NC Department of Cultural Resources, State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) associated with the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians on January 25, 2010. Ecological Engineering received a letter dated
February 9, 2010 from SHPO confirming there are no historic resources that would be affected by the project,
and thus no comment on the undertaking as proposed. No letters or comments have been received from the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Copies of these Scoping letters and the SHPO response are provided in the
ERTR, dated 2010.
4.2.4 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
Perquimans County is one of 20 counties along the coastal region of North Carolina that is subject to the
rules and policies of the Coastal Resources Commission, which administers the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). Immediately downstream of the Site is an identified Area of Concern (AEC). Generally AECs are
defined as those areas exhibiting areas with navigable waters within the 20 CAMA counties, existing marsh or
wetland areas, areas within 75 feet of the mean high water line along an estuarine shoreline; near the ocean
beach, near an inlet, within 30 feet of the normal high water level of areas designated as inland fishing
waters by the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission or near a public water supply. The NC Division of Coastal
Management oversees CAMA for permitting purposes.
In addition, Federal consistency authority exists under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
This Act was enacted on October 27, 1972, to encourage coastal States, such as North Carolina, to develop
comprehensive programs to manage and balance competing uses of and impacts to coastal resources. It
applies to any activity that is within the State's coastal zone that may reasonably affect any coastal resource
or coastal use within the State's coastal zone (even if the activity occurs outside of the coastal zone), if the
activity is a Federal activity, requires a Federal license or permit, receives Federal money or is a plan for
exploration, development or production from any area leased under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
4.2.5 Essential Fish Habitat
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -
Stevens Act) set forth a new mandate for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery
management councils and other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous
fish habitats. The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson- Stevens Act support one of the
Nation's overall marine resource management goals - maintaining sustainable fisheries.
i
Wattb nuperty wf1U8'dUUfl rmn— rerqufmans County, iv., Page 28
May 2012

According to NOAA (2011), no EFH, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) or EFH areas protected from
fishing were identified within the Project boundaries. The remaining portion of the UT downstream of the
Site and the Little River exhibit EFH for all life stages of the red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus).
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 29
May 2012

SECTION 5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in Table 2 are projections based upon Site design. Upon completion of Site
construction, the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as -built
condition.
TABLE 2. PROJECT COMPONENTS AND STRUCTURE
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Project Number 413
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
1,505 If
20.4 ac
0.04 ac
Project Components
Project Component
-or- Reach ID
Stationing/
Location
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach (PI,
PI1, etc.)
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
UT Little River
10 +00 to 25 +05
1,505 If
CPHSR*
Restoration
1,505 If
1:1
Non - riparian
Wetland
n/a
0 ac
n/a
Restoration
20.4 ac
1:1
Non - riparian
Wetland
n/a
0.06 ac
n/a
Enhancement
0.06 ac
1.5:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non - riparian
Wetland (acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland (acres)
Riverine
Non -
riverine
Restoration
1,505
20.4
26.8
Enhancement
-
0.06
-
Enhancement I
-
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
High Quality
Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/ Function
Notes
n/a
Notes:
CPHSR = Coastal Plain Headwater Stream Restoration (USACE et. al., 2005)
BMP Elements: BR= Biorention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention
Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 30
May 2012

SECTION 6.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
6.1 Stream Project and Design Justification
This section is characterized as a functional balance sheet further establishing the design approach or level of
intervention is proportional and appropriate to the existing conditions at the Site and within the watershed
in order for uplift to be maximized to the fullest extent. Current impairment factors for the Project Site are
considered the following:
• Hydrological: existing channelized conveyance (UT) and surrounding drainage network.
• Impairment Severity: maximum with complete landuse change from previous community type.
• Proportion: entire 48 -acre property parcel.
• Rate of Deterioration: moderate, requiring periodic maintenance.
Although relatively small (136 acres), the contributing watershed also presents several impairment factors.
These factors include:
• Hydrological: existing channelized conveyance (UT) and surrounding drainage network.
• Impairment Severity: moderate with partial landuse changes from previous community type.
• Proportion: throughout.
• Rate of Deterioration: minimal to moderate, requiring periodic maintenance.
The main differences between the Project Site and its surrounding watershed area are that a portion of the
area remains wooded, with mature vegetation. This vegetation has helped to stabilize the channel upstream
of the Site. The area has still been altered through a drainage network though. The remainder of the
watershed consists of agricultural fields.
The abovementioned factors when contrasted and compared with existing features of value including:
standing ecological value of instream habitat complexity; standing ecological value of mature vegetation and
the biological state of the channel and existing wetland areas result in an overwhelming justification for
maximum intervention. The standing ecological values of instream habitat and mature vegetation are
essentially non - existent. In addition, the biological state of the channel and existing wetland areas are
severely compromised due to lack of stability, flow regimes, canopy cover and periodic maintenance. As a
result, the uplift potential for this project is very high.
6.2 Designed Channel Classification and Wetland Types
Stream mitigation credits will be generated via modification of the existing, channelized UT to a headwater,
first order stream channel. These modifications will effect the overall dimension, pattern and profile of the
channel. The classification of a design channel is not applicable in this case. Rather, the entire linear feature
will be restored to function similar to a Headwater Forest Community, as defined by NCWAM (2010) and
discussed in detail later in this section.
The existing interior drainage network will be removed in its entirety and restored to depict a Hardwood Flat
Community. This community type will transition into a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Community throughout the
remainder of the Project Site. The Hardwood Flat Community will occur in the wetter portions of the Site,
primarily those obtaining jurisdictional wetland status while the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Community will
occur along the drier portions.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 31
May 2012

6.3 Target Wetland and Buffer Communities
As mentioned above, target wetland and buffer communities will be categorized under the Coastal Plain
Headwater Forest, Hardwood Flat and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Communities. According to the Schafale and
Weakley (1990), vegetative communities commonly transition between each other and differences are
generally based on landscape position, hydrology, soil types and dynamics. These communities are all
indicative of the Coastal Plain physiographic province.
6.4 Preliminary Groundwater Characterization
Based on available groundwater information, nearly six years of groundwater data exist at the Project Site.
Initial collection efforts began in December 2003 and ended in December 2004. Following this effort, no data
was available for Year 2005 although the groundwater gauges remained in place. These gauges were
replaced at the beginning of 2010. Once the original gauges were removed from the Site, the manufacturer
was able to extract the additional data from 2006 to 2010. The replacement gauges have been periodically
monitored since their installation and will remain on site until implementation activities begin.
According to EEP (2005), the previous consultant's evaluation of site groundwater included the siting and
installation of a series of groundwater monitoring gauges with electronic data loggers. These gauges were
manufactured by Infinities USA, Inc. and provided by EEP. A total of six were installed along with a 6.5 -inch
diameter, 0.01 -inch, self emptying tipping bucket rain gauge data logger (EEP, 2005). The locations of the
original gauges have been preserved and are depicted on Figure 4. The data associated with these gauges is
provided in Appendix E.
Ecological Engineering replaced the previously installed gauges with Ecotone brand gauges provided from
Remote Data Systems, Inc. As previously mentioned, the original gauges were returned to the manufacturer
and downloaded. The current Ecotone gauges are situated immediately adjacent to the previous gauge
locations to maintain the groundwater data stream. Ultimately, this data will be used to compare the pre -
and post - implementation conditions. The data collected during this time period represents a snap -shot of
groundwater levels compared with precipitation data. Appendix E also depicts existing groundwater and
precipitation data at the Project Site. Based on current data, the existing drainage network is effectively
removing groundwater from the Site.
6.5 Water Budget
Ecological Engineering developed a water budget for the Watts Site to determine the viability of
reestablishing wetland hydrology on this site. The water budget is based on methods presented in Pierce
(1993) "Planning Hydrology for Constructed Wetlands." Development of a water budget requires knowledge
of the hydrologic inputs and outputs, site dimensions, physical properties of the soils present and existing
features on and adjacent to the project site which may affect groundwater hydrology. The water budget
calculations indicate that adequate water is present to meet the proposed hydrologic criteria for the restored
wetlands.
Site constraints limiting the extent of wetland development include a perimeter ditch and Norma Drive at the
lower project boundary. The perimeter ditch must remain in place to avoid hydrologic trespass on adjacent
properties, some of which are currently being used for agriculture. Norma Drive creates the northern
(downstream) project boundary. As previously mentioned, a 24 -inch CMP conveys the UT under the roadway
and roadside ditches provide drainage for the road bed. These features must also remain in place to prevent
erosion from compromising the current road. As a result, both of these constraints limit the extent of
wetland development within the Project Site.
i
Wattb nuperty wf1Ub'dUUfl rmn— rerqufmans County, iv., Page 32
May 2012

The water budget results verify the presence of adequate water to meet the proposed wetland hydrology
criteria for the majority of the Project Site. Calculations indicate excess water when comparing inflow to
outflow and by assuming that base channel flow and stormwater flow were zero, these calculations present a
conservative estimate of available water.
6.6 Soil Characterization
As previously mentioned, the soils underlying the Watts Property are dominated by the Roanoke Series, with
the exception of the northern portion where the UT exits under Norma Drive, which is underlain by the
Dogue Series. The soils associated with both the Roanoke and Dogue Series exhibit similar characteristics
such as their pH (acidic), depths to restrictive features (more than 80 inches), slopes (zero to two percent),
available water capacity (high, between 9.2 and 9.3 inches) and their parent material (loamy and clayey
fluviomarine deposits. Roanoke soils however, differ from Dogue soils in landform position, drainage class,
depth to water table and profile. Taxonomic classifications are:
Taxonomic Classifications
Roanoke Silt Loam fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic typic endoaquults
Dogue Fine Sandy Loam fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic aquic hapludults
Ecological Engineering characterized the underlying soils at the Site and compared them with typical profile
information for Roanoke silt loam. Ten soil borings were examined. These borings were randomly located
across the property as a comparison to the mapped underlying series (Figure 4). Based on the results, the
soils appear to be similar with the mapped Roanoke series. This information is provided in Appendix E. Upon
review of the data, it appears that all ten of the borings would fall under the hydric classification as
evidenced by the matrix and mottle colors within the upper 12 inches of the column.
6.7 Sediment Transport Analysis
A sediment transport analysis is generally conducted to determine channel stability, morphology and existing
and proposed bedload. Although an active channel is currently present at the Watts Site, the need for
sediment transport was not necessary in the formulation of the design of a headwater, first order stream
system. This design will transport sediment during high events; however, no base channel will be designed.
Therefore, any sediment transport analysis would be considered unreliable based on current designs.
6.8 HEC -RAS Analysis
Section 4.1.7.4 denotes that the UT is situated within FEMA Zone AE, where base flood elevations have been
determined. This classification is based on backwater influence from Little River, its downstream receiving
water. Ecological Engineering developed a HEC -RAS surface water model for the Watts Site to determine the
impacts, if any, the proposed stream and wetland restoration would have on water surface elevations
through the project area. In addition, the analysis was used to ensure that no hydraulic trespass occurred on
adjacent properties. HEC -RAS version 4.0, developed by the USACE, Hydraulic Engineering Center, was the
program utilized to most accurately model the flow of surface waters.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 33
May 2012

As part of development, Ecological Engineering created an existing model of the Site. Cross sections of the UT
and its floodplain were taken from 150 feet downstream of Norma Drive through the upstream limits of the
Site. The existing 24 -inch CMP under Norma Drive was included in the model. Roughness coefficients, or
Manning's "n" values, were determined for the floodplain and channel sections based on field observations.
The overbank area was determined to exhibit traits resulting in a Manning's "n" of 0.04 and the channel was
determined to be a 0.045. The overbank roughness coefficient was based on former agricultural land in its
current fallow state. The existing vegetation is mostly herbaceous in nature and does not create much
restriction to flow. The channel depicts slightly more roughness than it overbank area since it contains a
minimal amount of woody species.
Once the existing model was developed and calibrated, a proposed model was prepared. The proposed cross
sections show the widening of the stream bed and the flatter sloped banks. Also, Manning's "n" values were
adjusted to mimic the future condition. Overbank Manning's "n" was estimated at 0.15 to reflect the most
dense vegetative growth occurring within five years of construction. The channel Manning's "n" was
estimated at 0.08 to reflect the additional woody and more aquatic species that will occur within the stream
channel. The proposed model also includes the replacement of the 24 -inch CMP with two 36 -inch corrugated
aluminum pipes (CAP) with a headwall.
Ecological Engineering compared the existing and proposed scenarios to ensure no hydraulic trespass would
occur outside the Project Site. Due to the increase conveyance under Norma Drive and the increase flow
capacity of the proposed channel, water surface elevations decreased for all storm events within the project
area and no hydrologic trespass occurs upstream of the project.
The HEC -RAS model output is provided Appendix E.
6.9 Site Construction
6.9.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation and Other Project Related Construction
Based on the components itemized in Table 2 of this document, a combination of Coastal Plain Headwater
Forest restoration, Hardwood Flat restoration and enhancement and buffer restoration are proposed as part
of this overall project. The Watts Site is unique in the fact that the entire 48 -acre property will be ecologically
uplifted through community based restoration techniques. Each of these aspects are described in detail. In
addition, the attached Design Sheets provide a visual observation of the existing conditions, proposed
conceptual design and proposed planting plan.
Construction access will occur from the northern boundary of the property along Norma Drive. This road will
afford equipment and material access to the Project Site. Norma Drive is a private road maintained by the
current parcel owners along the roadway. It is expected that the contractor will maintain the road during
construction implementation to ensure that its condition remains consistent with the integrity prior to
implementation. Ecological Engineering recommends the selected contractor thoroughly note and document
existing road conditions prior to mobilization.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 34
May 2012

Construction activities will likely begin with the replacement of the existing pipe under Norma Drive. It is
currently in very poor condition. Ecological Engineering will prepare designs for the new pipe(s). These
designs will be incorporated with the construction documents. Once the pipe has been replaced, excavation
will begin along the existing side slopes of the UT throughout its length across the property. These side slopes
will be reduced from their existing 60 to 90- degree orientation to a slope averaging approximately 10:1, with
a substantial increase of the base channel width. The excavated material will be used to fill the interior
drainage network. The existing pipes situated along the interior drainage network will be removed in their
entirety. Several pipes exist along the northeastern perimeter that extend outside of the property boundary.
These pipes will be capped to ensure that water removal does not take place. Once excavation along the UT
has been completed, grading will continue outside of this area to reduce the existing field crowns (see
topographic contours on Design Sheet 1), as applicable. This material will be excavated no more than six
inches and directed into the interior drainage network. Any excess will be placed along the eastern portion of
the property, depicted on Design Sheet 3.
Throughout the duration of construction implementation, the Site will be stabilized with erosion and
sedimentation control devices, consistent with the requirements of the NC Sedimentation and Pollution
Control Act of 1973, as regulated by the NCDENR Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section.
Temporary seeding will occur along all areas of disturbance.
Once construction activities have been completed and approved, the Site will be seeded with a permanent
seed mix and trees will be planted. Several vegetated zones exist based on the current conceptual design.
These zones will be planted with their appropriate mix of vegetation. In addition, larger trees will be
intermixed with bare - rooted seedlings, especially along the project perimeter. These trees will function as
boundary trees and offer an aesthetically pleasing view from areas outside of the property.
6.9.2 Native Plant Community Restoration
6.9.2.1 Soil Preparation and Amendments
Project implementation will involve excavation along the current UT and field crowns between the drainage
ditches and fill along the project boundaries and interior drainage network. During the excavation process,
topsoil will be stockpiled aside from subsoil, where feasible, and utilized as a dressing once the desired
amount of subsoil has been removed. Ripping will not be required since compaction did not likely occur
during past farming operations. Fertilizer and seeding will be distributed per the NC Division of Land Quality's
(NCDLQ) recommended rates, unless the contractor performs a soil test to determine the prescribed
amounts. This soil test may be submitted prior to implementation. Table 3 details soil preparation
methodologies and amendment summaries per vegetated zone.
Herbicide treatments will also be part of the amendment process. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
exists at the Site. It will be treated along with soil amendment processes. More information pertaining to this
treatment is provided later in the document.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 35
May 2012

TABLE 3. SOIL PREPARATION AND AMENDMENT SUMMARY PER ZONE
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Project Number 413
Zone 1— Headwater Forest Areas
Acres
0.9
Mechanical
Treatment
Approx.
Date
Ground
Cover Fabric
Mulch Type
Mulch
Density /
Thickness
Nutrient
Amendments
Nutrient
Total Ibs'
n/a
1/12-5/12
Coir
Wheat straw
75% cover
n/a
n/a
Subtotal
n/a
Zone 2 — Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Areas
Acres
26.8
Mechanical
Treatment
Approx.
Date
Ground
Cover Fabric
Mulch Type
Mulch
Density /
Thickness
Nutrient
Amendments
Nutrient
Total Ibs
Herbicide
1/12-5/12
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1/12-5/12
n/a
Wheat straw
75% cover
Pellet Fertilizer
TBD
n/a
1/12-5/12
n/a
n/a
n/a
Ground
Limestone
TBD
Subtotal
TBD
Zone 3 — Hardwood Flat Areas
Acres
20.4
Mechanical
Treatment
Approx.
Date
Ground
Cover Fabric
Mulch Type
Mulch
Density /
Thickness
Nutrient
Amendments
Nutrient
Total Ibs
n/a
1/12-5/12
n/a
Wheat straw
75% cover
Pellet Fertilizer
TBD
n/a
1/12-5/12
n/a
n/a
n/a
Ground
Limestone
TBD
Subtotal
TBD
Total TBD 48.1
Notes: ' Nutrient Total Ibs will be determined by contractor upon the results of a soil test.
Z TBD = to be determined.
3 Herbicide applications will only be performed in areas exhibiting non - native species.
6.9.2.2 Proposed Plant Communities
Natural plant community restoration will follow descriptions of community types by NCWAM (2010),
Schafale and Weakley (1990), reference wetland vegetation types and professional judgment. The designed
natural communities are based primarily on landscape position and hydrology. Vegetative restoration will aid
to benefit biological function and habitat. Three distinct vegetative communities are proposed. They are
described in detail below.
The first community follows the existing UT to Little River channel area. It will consist primarily of riparian
wetland vegetation. This community is labeled as "Zone 1" and will depict the characteristics of a Headwater
Forest, as described by NCWAM (2010). Headwater Forest Communities, previously documented as Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp Communities by Schafale and Weakley (1990), are found in geomorphic
floodplains or first -order or smaller streams and in topographic crenulations without a stream. Groundwater
seepage and diffuse surface flow are often important sources of water, and this wetland type frequently has
surface flow, especially through ephemeral channels. Overbank flooding is not a substantial source of water
and Headwater Forests are relatively dry when compared to other riparian types. This wetland type is
characterized by a relatively flat ground surface that provides little water storage. Headwater Forests
generally occur on mineral soils that may be intermittently inundated by surface water or seasonally
saturated to semi - permanently saturated (NCWAM, 2010).
i
Wattb riuperty wf1L18dUUfl rmn— rerclufmans County, iv., Page 36
May 2012

The second community, identified as "Zone 2," consists of the non - riparian vegetation situated immediately
outside of the proposed wetland areas at the Project Site. This community is most consistent with the Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest, as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Although fire is a necessity for most
Coastal Plain vegetative communities, the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest is generally found along upland
areas protected from fire. It is underlain by various moist soils and is generally situated immediately upslope
of Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp and Non - Riverine Wet Hardwood Communities (Schafale and Weakley,
1990). There are some aspects of this community description that do not fit the characteristics of the Project
Site; however, Schafale and Weakley (1990), identified three recognized variants for the areas located in the
northeastern corner of North Carolina. These included the bluff/ slope variant, upland flat variant and swamp
island variant. Based on current site conditions, the Project Site falls under the upland flat variant, which
transitions into the Non - riverine Wet Hardwood Community and often contains combinations of wetter and
drier species, as well as typical mesic species. Variation may be controlled by small microtopographic
differences (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Zone 3, represented as the Hardwood Flat Community, is the third community proposed for the Project Site.
This community will occupy all wetland and transition areas, aside from the area along the existing tributary.
According to NCWAM (2010), Hardwood Flats are found primarily in the Coastal Plain Ecoregion on poorly
drained, interstream flats. These areas are usually seasonally saturated or intermittently to seasonally
inundated by a high water table or poor drainage, but have a shorter hydroperiod than Non - Riverine Swamp
Forests. The primary source of water is a high water table resulting from precipitation and overland runoff. In
their reference state, Hardwood Flats generally occur on mineral soils. These systems are commonly
dominated by hardwood tree species including various oaks including, but not limited to swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), as well as tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American elm (Ulmus americana), red
maple (Acer rubrum) and black gum (Nyssa biflora) (NCWAM, 2010).
6.9.2.3 Planting Plan
The planting plan for the Project Site will provide post- construction erosion control and habitat
enhancement. It will also attempt to blend existing vegetative communities into the recently restored areas.
Plantings in the wetland and buffer areas will include native species appropriate for the Coastal Plain
physiographic province and the Project Site. A variety of trees and shrubs will be planted to provide cover
and habitat for wildlife, as well as soil stabilization.
The Project Site is divided into three vegetated zones. As previously mentioned, these zones were identified
based primarily on landscape position and hydrology. Zone 1, also referred to as the Streamside Area, is
situated along the headwater stream location. This zone will be planted with species similar to the
Headwater Forest, as identified by NCWAM (2010). Zone 2 includes the non - wetland areas and buffer areas
outside of the headwater stream. This zone will be planted with species similar to the Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest, as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The remaining areas, depicted as non -
riparian wetlands, are considered Zone 3. Zone 3 will consist of species similar to the Hardwood Flat
Community as described by NCWAM (2010). The proposed planting plan is depicted on Design Sheets 3 and
4. A listing of the preferred species associated with each zone is presented below.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 37
May 2012

Zone 1
Headwater Forest Community
Common Name
Scientific Name
Stratum
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
Canopy
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
Canopy
Laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
Canopy
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
Canopy
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
Canopy
River birch
Betula nigra
Canopy
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Understory
American holly
Ilexopaca
Understory
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
Understory
Red bay
Persea palustris
Understory
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
Understory
Zone 3
Hardwood Flat Community
Common Name
Scientific Name
Stratum
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
Canopy
Laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
Canopy
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagoda
Canopy
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
Canopy
American elm
Ulmus Americana
Canopy
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Understory
American holly
Ilexopaca
Understory
Red bay
Persea palustris
Understory
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
Understory
Wax myrtle
Morella cerifera
Understory
Zone 2
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
Common Name
Scientific Name
Stratum
American beech
Fagus grandifolia
Canopy
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
Canopy
White oak
Quercus alba
Canopy
Northern red oak
Quercus rubra
Canopy
Flowering dogwood
Cornus florida
Understory
Hop- hornbeam
Ostraya virginiana
Understory
American holly
Ilexopaca
Understory
Deerberry
Vaccinium stamineum
Understory
Prior to the planting of trees and shrubs, all disturbed areas associated with the Project Site will be seeded
first with a temporary seed mix. This mix will include either grain rye (Secale cereale), brown -top millet
(Panicum ramosum), or German millet (Setaria italica). The seed material will be selected according to the
time period selected for implementation. Currently, implementation is proposed for the spring of 2012, in
which grain rye would be the preferred seed mix. Table 4 summarizes this data, including time periods and
application rates.
TABLE 4. SEEDING SUMMARY FOR TEMPORARY VEGETATION
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Project Number 413
Temporary Seeding Throughout Disturbed Areas
Acres
TBD*
Year round
Secale cereale
Herb
Grain rye
130 Ibs /ac
Single
May - September
Panicum ramosum
Herb
Brown top millet
40 Ibs /ac
species to
May — September
Setariaitalica
Herb
German millet
25lbs /ac
be
applied
TBD* To be determined once final grading plans and areas of disturbance are finalized.
The permanent seed mix will be distributed per vegetated zone. The permanent seed mix will be applied at a
rate of approximately 12 to 15 Ibs per acre, although the individual species will be different in each zone.
Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus), autumn bentgrass (Agrostis perennans) and showy tick trefoil
(Desmodium canadense) will be utilized in all three zones. While switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), beggar
ticks (Bidens aristosa), coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolate), deer tongue (Panicum clandestinum), bushy
bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), partridge pea (Chamaecrista
fasiculata), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans) and river oats (Uniola latifolia) will be planted along the
Streamside Area and Riparian Area and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea), blue flag (Iris versicolor), black -eyed
Wattb riuperty wnugduun rmn— rerquimans County, w., rage Jo
May 2012

susan (Rudbeckia hirta), blue vervain (Verbena hastata), soft rush (Juncus effusus) and Pennsylvania
smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum) are planted within the Wetland Area. A complete description of
each zone, its proposed species and planting percentages and mix rates is provided in Table 5.
TABLE 5. SEEDING SUMMARY FOR PERMANENT VEGETATION PER PLANTING ZONE
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Project Number 413
Zone 1 and Zone 3 — Permanent Seeding for Wet /Sunny Conditions
Acres
21.3
Approved Date
Species Name
Stratum
Common Name
Total Ibs
n/a
Trifolium pratense
Herb
Red clover
128(30 %)
Mix to be
n/a
Panicum clandestinum
Herb
Deer tongue
85(20%)
applied at
n/a
Carex vulpinoidea
Herb
Fox Sedge
64(15%)
rate of
n/a
Elymus virginicus
Herb
Virginia wild rye
64(15%)
approx.
n/a
Juncus effusus
Herb
Soft Rush
43(10%)
20 Ibs/
n/a
Agrostis perennans
Herb
Upland bentgrass
43(10%)
acre
Subtotal
427(100%)
Zone 2 — Permanent Seeding for Dry/Sunny Conditions
Acres
26.8
Approved Date
Species Name
Stratum
Common Name
Total Ibs
Mix to be
n/a
Festuca rubra
Herb
Red fescue
107(20%)
applied at
n/a
Trifolium pratense
Herb
Red clover
161(30 %)
rate of
n/a
Panicum clandestinum
Herb
Deer tongue
107(20%)
approx.
n/a
Schizachyrium scoparium
Herb
Little bluestem
161(30 %)
20 Ibs/
Subtotal
536 (100%)J
acre
Total Ibs (Permanent
Seeding)
963
48.1
Note: Seed drilling is the preferred method of installation.
The planting of canopy and understory species will dominate Zones 1, 2 and 3. Due to the location and the
flooding regime of the Project Site, the majority of these species must be conducive to periodic flooding.
These species will be planted as bare roots and containerized individuals, with larger individuals placed
randomly throughout the area and especially along the existing non - forested boundaries. Specific species
listings, proposed quantities and other detailed information are provided on Design Sheets 3 and 4.
Vegetation will be planted in a random fashion in an effort to mimic natural plant communities. Colonization
of local herbaceous vegetation will inevitably occur, which will provide additional soil stability. Tree species
will be planted as bare root stock on random eight -foot centers at a frequency of approximately 680 stems
per acre. Understory species will be dispersed among the tree species also on random eight -foot centers.
Containerized plantings will occupy approximately 20 percent of each zone. These plantings will be installed
at a frequency of approximately 320 stems per acre. Planting stock will be culled to remove inferior
specimens, allowing only healthy, viable stock to be planted at the Project Site. Plantings will be dormant and
will be performed to the extent practicable between November 3rd and March 301h.
6.9.2.4 Invasive Species Management
The following list of exotic plant species poses a severe threat to native plant communities in North Carolina
(Table 6). These species have invasive characteristics and spread readily into native plant communities,
displacing native vegetation.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 39
May 2012

TABLE 6. INVASIVE SPECIES LIST
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
SCO Project Number 09- 0780401, EEP Project Number 413
High Concern
Vines — Common Name
Scientific Name
Shrubs /Herbs
Scientific Name
Kudzu
Pueraria montana
Japanese knotweed
Polygonum cuspidatum
Porcelain Berry
Ampelopsis brevipedunculata
Asian bittersweet
Celastrus orbiculatus
Japanese honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica
Multiflora rose
Rosa multiflora
Japanese Hops
Humulus japonicus
Russian olive
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Wisterias
Wisteria spp.
Chinese privet
Ligustrum sinense
Winter Creeper
Euonymus fortunei
Chinese Silvergrass
Miscanthus sinensis
Trees — Common Name
Scientific Name
Phragmites
Phragmitesaustralis
Tree of Heaven
Ailanthus altissima
Bamboos
Phyllostachys spp.
Mimosa
Albizia julibrissin
Sericea Lespedeza
Sericea lespedeza
Princess tree
Paulownia tomentosa
Garlic Mustard (Watch List)
Alliaria petiolata
China Berry
Melia azedarach
Cogon Grass (Watch List)
Imperata cylindrica
Callery Pear
Pyrus calleryana
Giant Reed (Watch List)
Arundo donax
White Mulberry
Morus alba
Tropical Soda Apple (Watch List)
Solanium viarum
Tallow Tree (Watch List)
Triadica sebifera
Japanese Spirea (Watch List)
Spiraea japonica
Low /Moderate Concern
Shrubs /Herbs
Scientific Name
Shrubs /Herbs
Scientific Name
Japanese Privet
Ligustrum japonicum
Bush Honeysuckles
Lonicera spp.
Glossy Privet
Ligustrum lucidum
Periwinkles
Vinca minor
Fescue
Festuca spp.
Morning Glories
Morning Glories
English ivy
Hedera helix
Bicolor Lespedeza (Watch List)
Lespedeza bicolor
Microstegium
Microstegium vimineum
Chinese Yams (Watch List)
Dioscorea oppositifolia
Burning Bush
Euonymus aiatus
Air Potato (Watch List)
Dioscorea bulbifera
Johnson Grass
Sorghum halepense
Japanese Climbing Fern (Watch List)
Lygodium japonicum
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) was the only invasive species observed during the site visits at the
Project Site. It is situated along the northeastern portion in several isolated areas. It is likely that past farming
operations utilized weed control and the use of herbicide. Although only one invasive species is currently
present, it is anticipated that soil movement from implementation will promote seed growth that is currently
dormant from within the soil column. It is essential that invasive species are documented and controlled
during the monitoring period to ensure that native species are afforded the opportunity to colonize the
Project Site.
The construction contractor will provide removal, as necessary, to any of the species listed above during
construction implementation. Removal will be conducted according to recommended control measures
made through the NC Cooperative Extension Service.
It is anticipated that invasive species management will occur throughout the monitoring period. As seedbeds
and their associated soils are disturbed, it is likely that other invasive species may appear within the Project
Site. Periodical assessments will be conducted to determine if these species are posing a threat to native
population levels. The threats will be determined on an annual basis as well as, their remedial activities, as
necessary.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 40
May 2012

SECTION 7.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
EEP shall monitor the site on a regular basis and shall conduct a physical inspection of the Site a minimum of
once per year throughout the post- construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine
maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following Site construction and may
include the following items depicted in Table 7.
TABLE 7. MAINTENANCE PLAN
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Project Number 413
Component/ Feature
Maintenance Through Project Close -Out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in-
stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel may
also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head - cutting.
Wetland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose
coir matting and supplemental installations of liver stakes and other target
vegetation within the wetland. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent scour.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may
include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching and fertilizing. Exotic invasive
plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and /or chemical methods. Any
vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance
with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the filed to ensure clear distinction between
the Mitigation Site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by
fence, marker, bollard, post, tree - blazing or other means as allowed by site
conditions and /or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged
or destroyed will be repaired and /or replaced on an as needed basis.
Utility Right -of -Way
Utility rights -of -way within the Site may be maintained only as allowed by
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way or
corridor agreements.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 41
May 2012

SECTION 8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Performance criteria set forth for this project will be provided according to current EEP monitoring criteria
and format. It will cover stream, wetland, and vegetation assessments.
8.1 Streams
Although stream restoration credit is being provided, common perennial -based stream monitoring activities
will not be conducted as part of the annual monitoring assessments. The existing headwater channel will
function to transport surface water; however, it will not maintain the characteristics and morphology of a
perennial channel. Therefore, profile, pattern and substrate monitoring will not be required. Rather,
monitoring activities will be concentrated primarily to observing whether or not the first order system is
stable and functioning similar to the reference sites. The majority of the monitoring will be based on visual
assessments. A Crest gage will be installed to document stream flow. Cross sections will be established along
sections of the valley to document any aggradation or degradation and photographs will be taken from
permanently established locations. These visual assessments, cross section surveys and photographs will be
completed annually. It is anticipated that the actual flow path will migrate across the section from year to
year, depending on flow regimes. The proposed success criteria will be based on the overall performance of
the headwater channel. In addition to aggradation and /or degradation, the channel should not experience
any head - cutting, down - cutting and excessive erosion.
8.2 Wetlands
Both Coastal Plain headwater wetland systems and non - riverine wet hardwood communities exhibit variable
water tables throughout the year. Six monitoring gauges are currently being monitored across the Project
Site to note existing groundwater elevations throughout the area. These gauges have been located
strategically across the site. They will be removed during construction implementation and be returned once
all ground disturbing activities are complete.
Based on the current USACE guidelines for hydrologic success, the area must be either inundated or
saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface by surface or groundwater for at least 12.5% of the growing
season, under normal conditions. The growing season for the area is 246 days. If inundation or saturation is
documented within 12 inches of the soil surface for 31 consecutive days, the Site would meet the hydrologic
success requirement. Any areas inundated or saturated between 5% and 12.5% (12 and 31 days) of the
growing season will be classified as wetlands when hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils are present.
8.3 Vegetation
The Watts Site will be planted with vegetative species appropriate for the three targeted community types.
The vegetation will be assessed using several variables. The post- construction document will outline these
variables, including plot layout locations, transect locations and /or any other methods pertinent to
determining vegetation success. Stem counts will be conducted within strategically placed vegetation plots.
The plots locations will be determined once implementation has been completed. Photos will also be
provided as part of this task. One this is complete, all information will be summarized with the
stream /wetland assessment information and inserted into the monitoring report.
The vegetation will be monitored on an annual basis. Stem densities that meet 320 stems per acre in the
third year and 260 stems per acre in the fifth year of monitoring will meet the vegetation success
requirement. Vegetation plots will be established for the collection of this data on an annual basis.
i
Wattb nuperty wf1L18dUUfl rmn— rerqufmans County, iv., Page 42
May 2012

SECTION 9.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template. The monitoring report shall
provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends,
population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes and assist in decision making regarding project
close -out.
TABLE 8. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Project Number 413
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
As per April 2003 USACE
Data assessments of stream pattern are not
No
Pattern
Wilmington District Stream
Annual
applicable for Coastal Plain Headwater Stream
Mitigation Guidelines
restoration projects.
As per April 2003 USACE
Permanent cross sections will be established along
Yes
Dimension
Wilmington District Stream
Annual
sections of the valley to document any aggradation
Mitigation Guidelines
or degradation
As per April 2003 USACE
Data assessments of stream profile are not
No
Profile
Wilmington District Stream
Annual
applicable for Coastal Plain Headwater Stream
Mitigation Guidelines
restoration projects.
As per April 2003 USACE
Data assessments of stream substrate are not
No
Substrate
Wilmington District Stream
Annual
applicable for Coastal Plain Headwater Stream
Mitigation Guidelines
restoration projects.
Surface Water
As per April 2003 USACE
A crest gage will be installed on Site; the device
Yes
Hydrology
Wilmington District Stream
Annual
will be inspected on quarterly basis to document
Mitigation Guidelines
the occurrence of bankfull events on the Project.
Quantity and Location of
Groundwater monitoring gauges with data
Yes
Groundwater
gauges will be determined
Annual
recording devices will be installed on Site; the data
Hydrology
in consultation with EEP
will be downloaded on a quarterly basis
throughout the year.
Quantity and Location of
Vegetation will be monitored using the Carolina
Yes
Vegetation
plots will be determined in
Annual
Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols.
consultation with EEP
Yes
Exotic and Nuisance
Annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be
Vegetation
mapped, as applicable.
Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage,
Yes
Project Boundary
Semi
boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped, as
Annual
applicable.
Quantity and Location of
Photo Points will be located throughout the
Yes
Visual Assessments
Photo Points will be
Annual
Project Site and depicted on a map. These
determined in consultation
photographs will provide a visual comparison of
with EEP
succession across the property.
9.1 Baseline Monitoring Document
A Baseline Monitoring Document will be prepared to mark the transition from the design /implementation
phase to the monitoring phase. This document along with the As -built record drawings provides a means to
compare the as -built condition to the design specifications and along with the baseline monitoring data
provides a means to assess change /trends during the monitoring period. Many of the tables and components
that originate here in this document will be carried through the monitoring reports and further populated as
the monitoring data is generated (EEP, 2010). According to EEP (2010), the document generally serves
several functions:
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 43
May 2012

• restates the project goals and objectives for stream, vegetation and hydrology components;
• details the project structure in terms of the restoration components /assets;
• provides a synopsis of the project and site background;
• finalizes the success criteria for stream, vegetation and hydrology components;
• finalizes the monitoring plan for stream, vegetation and hydrology components;
• compares the As -built baseline condition to the design specifications for stream, wetland and
vegetation components and encompasses the following:
• sealed As -built plan sheets
• morphological (where necessary) and vegetation data suitable to serve as a
monitoring baseline (year -0); and,
• describes maintenance and repair contingencies.
Although the first three bulleted items may be refined somewhat between the Mitigation Plan and the
Baseline Monitoring Document, in most cases they are simply carried through as they exist in the mitigation
plan. The fourth, fifth and seventh bullets will originate in the Mitigation Plan, but may undergo refinement
between that point and the final Baseline Monitoring Document. Bullet 6 is truly unique to the Baseline
Monitoring Document (EEP, 2010).
9.2 Schedule and Reporting
Schedule and reporting activities for the first year of monitoring will begin once construction implementation
activities have concluded. Initial work, including the establishment of fixed photograph locations, vegetation
plots and channel cross sections, will be completed with regard to future monitoring efforts. Monitoring
gauges will be reinstalled in the same pre- construction locations.
Monitoring reports will be submitted to the regulatory agencies by EEP on an annual basis. The first -year of
monitoring will include two submittals; the As -Built drawings and the First Year Annual Monitoring Report. All
drawings and monitoring will follow EEP protocols established during the project period. It is understood that
EEP will coordinate any necessary monitoring report submittals with the regulatory agencies. If the
monitoring reports indicate any deficiencies in achieving the success criteria on schedule, EEP will coordinate
with the resource agencies, as applicable, to determine the extent of remedial actions necessary. In some
cases EEP may be required to submit remedial action plan, as necessary, as part of the annual monitoring
report. Vegetative monitoring will be conducted during the late summer months of each monitoring year.
Monitoring reports will be provided no later than December 15. The projected schedule provided below is
contingent on completion of Site construction and planting by March 2012.
Proposed Monitoring Schedule
March 2012
Complete construction /planting activities.
May 2012
Submit As -Built Drawings and Mitigation Plan report in draft format.
October 2012
Conduct first year monitoring activities.
December 2012
Submit first year Monitoring Report in draft format.
September 2013
Conduct second year monitoring activities
December 2013
Submit second year Monitoring Report in draft format.
September 2014
Conduct third year monitoring activities
December 2014
Submit third year Monitoring Report in draft format.
September 2015
Conduct fourth year monitoring activities
December 2015
Submit fourth year Monitoring Report in draft format.
September 2016
Conduct fifth year monitoring activities
December 2016
Submit fifth year Monitoring Report in draft format.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 44
May 2012

SECTION 10.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the Site will be transferred to the
NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program (Stewardship
Program). This party shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions
required in the conservation easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds
required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to Site transfer to the
responsible party.
The NCDENR Stewardship Program currently houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting,
interest - bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the
Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A- 232(d)(3). Interest gained by
the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship
administration and land transfer costs, if applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage
the account as a non - wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used
to steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested
in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.
SECTION 11.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of Site construction, EEP will implement the post- construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described. If, during the
course of annual monitoring it is determined the Site's ability to achieve Site performance standards are
jeopardized, EEP will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. The Plan of
Corrective Action may be prepared using in -house technical staff or may require engineering and consulting
services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized, EEP will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements and monitoring requirements as
necessary and /or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
SECTION 12.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided the
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy
mitigation requirements assumed by EEP. This commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation
projects implemented by the program.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 45
May 2012

SECTION 13.0 REFERENCES
Community Planning Collaborative, Inc. (CPC), 2006. Perquimans County, North Carolina, CAMA Core Land
Use Plan Update 2005 -2006, Preliminary Draft. Available at:
http : / /www.perguimanscountync.gov /forms /planning /Perg Co LUP Predraft.pdf.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. La Roe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat
of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior. US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Environmental Data Resources (EDR), 2010. The EDR Radius Map with Geo- Check— Watts Site. Inquiry No.
2745210.2s.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual; Technical Report Y -87 -1.
United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2004. Flood Insurance Rate Map, North Carolina, Panel
8808 Map Number 3720880800J. National Flood Insurance Program. Available:
www.ncfloodmaps.com.
Fetter, C.W., 1994. Applied Hydrogeology, Third Edition.
Gregory, J.D., 2000. Hydric Soils and Growing Season: Wetland Delineation Data for North Carolina. A
Compilation of Information on Hydric Soil Mapping Units and Growing Season Dates by County.
Printed at University Graphic, NC State University, Raleigh, NC.
Lapham, J.E. and W.S. Lyman, 1905. Soil Survey of Perquimans and Pasquotank Counties, North Carolina. US
Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1905. Available
digitally at: http: / /digital .lib.ecu.edu /historyfiction.
Martof, Bernard S., William M. Palmer, Joseph R. Bailey, Julian R. Harrison and Jack Dermid, 1980.
Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel
Hill, NC.
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2010. Basin Overview, Pasquotank River Subbasin 03- 01 -52.
Available at: http: / /h20.enr.state.nc.us /tmdl /documents /303d Report.pdf.
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2009a. Modeling and TMDL Unit :: The N.C. Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (305(b) and 303(d) Report). Available:
http: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us /tmdl.
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2009b. Surface Water Classifications - BIMS. Available:
http: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us /bims/ reports / basinsandwaterbodies /03- 01- 52.pdf.
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2008a. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by County. Available
at: http: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us.
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2008b. Surface Water Classifications. Available at:
http: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 46
May 2012

NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2007. Basinwide Planning Program :: Pasquotank River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Available: http: / /h2o.enr. state. nc. us /basinwide /Pasguotank2007.htm.
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2006. Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1, Effective
February 28, 2005. Available at: http: / /h2o.enr. state .nc.us /ncwetlands /documents.
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2005. Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams, Version 3.1. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management; Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR, NC Division of Water Quality and the NC Wetlands Restoration Program, 2002. Watershed
Restoration Plan for the Pasquotank River Basin. Available via: http: / /www.nceep.net.
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North
Carolina - 4th Version. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management; Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2006. UT to Pembroke Creek Wetland and Stream Restoration
Site, Restoration Plan. Prepared by Natural Systems Engineering. Available: http: / /www.nceep.net.
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2005. Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan for Watts Property.
Prepared by Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA. Available: http: / /www.nceep.net.
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2009. Pasquotank River Basin Restoration Priorities, September
2009. Available via: http: / /www.nceep.net.
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2003. Pasquotank River Local Watershed Plan. Available via:
http://www.nceep.net.
NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), 2009. Element Search Results, Perquimans County, North Carolina.
Available: www. ncnhp.org /Pages /heritagedata.html.
North Carolina State Climate Office, 2010. Elizabeth City Station, Available:
http: / /www.ncclimate. ncsu. edu /cronos /normaIs.php ?station= 312719
NC State University (NCSU), 1999. Soil Systems in North Carolina. Technical Bulletin 314. Soil Science
Department, Raleigh, NC.
Pierce, Gary J., 1993. Planning Hydrology for Constructed Wetlands. Wetland Training Institute, Inc.
Pooleville, MD.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell, 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Rosgen, Dave, 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, A Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 47
May 2012

Schwab, G.O., Fangmeier, D.D., Elliot, W.J. and R.K Frevert, 1995. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering.
Street, M.W., A.S. Deaton, W.S. Chappell, and P.D. Mooreside. 2005. North Carolina Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC. 656 pp.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2010. NC Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM), User Manual,
Version 4.1, October 2010. Prepared by the NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team, including the
NC Department of Transportation, USACE, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, US
Environmental Protection Agency and US Fish and Wildlife Service.
US Army Corps of Engineers and NCDENR Division of Water Quality (USACE & NCDWQ), 2007. Draft
Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Version 2.
Wilmington, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2006. Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet, Updated August 2003.
Web: http: / /www.saw.usace.army.mil /wetlands /Forms /stream qualitv.pdf
US Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1997. Engineering Field Handbook._210-EFH, Part 650, 1/92, revised
1997.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2010a. Official Series
Descriptions. Available: http : / /www.2ftw.nres.usda.gov /osd /data.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2010b. Web Soil Survey.
Available: http:/ /.websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov /.
US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2011. Essential Fish
Habitat Mapper. Available: http: / /sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov /website /EFH Mapper /map.aspx.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2010. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of
Concern, and Candidate Species, Perquimans County, North Carolina. Updated January 31, 2008.
Available: www.fws.gov /nc -es /es /county.fr.html.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Page 48
May 2012

APPENDIX A
Regulatory Considerations
Note —
Seven comments were received as per the USACE review. All of the comments were addressed
as noted in the written response from EEP. Both letters ( USACE and EEP) are presented in this
appendix. Following these attachments, a brief summary is provided that denotes where these
updates took place in the document.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO r
ATTENTION OF February 16, 2012
Regulatory Division
Re: Request for Additional Information for the Watts Property Mitigation Site (SAW- 2005- 11813)
Mr. Michael Ellison
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Dear Mr. Ellison:
Please reference the letter of January 19, 2012, from Mr. Wyatt Brown with the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), which transmitted the Watts Property Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan and associated Preconstruction Notification Application. I have reviewed the Mitigation
Plan and have several questions related to the proposal, which I've listed below.
1. The mitigation plan refers to the 2005 guidance on stream restoration in the coastal plain, and didn't
use the 2007 update. Is there a reason for this?
2. The plan indicates monitoring for both the streams and wetlands will be for 5 years. I understand that
this project predates the 2008 change to 7 years for forested wetlands, but given the length of time that
the site has been in development, I encourage EEP to consider a 7 year monitoring cycle for both
wetlands and streams on this site (see comment 5 below).
3. The mitigation plan shows that the site will be graded down to the bed elevation of the central ditch
rather than filling the ditch to bring the site up. Because of this, the site will be sloped toward the ditch,
and much more earthwork will be required, with excavation of up to 3 feet in some areas based on the
grading plan. As we all know, we have historically had many problems with excavation, particularly
with vegetation growth. Also, the sloped site will tend to drain the wetlands that would normally be
expected develop next to the restored stream. Why was the site not brought up to the existing grade,
which would have eliminated these concerns? Inclusion of a vegetation vigor performance standard
may be appropriate given the extent of grading. I would suggest the following standard, which is based
on a 7 year monitoring cycle, but this can be adjusted if necessary:
"Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at year 7 in sites located in the
coastal and piedmont counties and 8 feet in height in each plot at year 7 in the mountain counties (as
defined in the 2003 SMGs). If this performance standard is met by year 5 and stem density is
trending toward success (i.e., no less than 260 five year -old stems /acre) monitoring of vegetation on

the site may be terminated provided written approval is provided by the USACE in consultation with
the NCIRT."
4. The plan shows that upland vegetation will be planted along the restored stream, but having an upland
boundary next to a 10 to 15 -foot wide coastal stream is not a reference condition. Ideally, these areas
should return to wetland and should be planted in riparian wetland vegetation even if they are not
monitored or receive wetland credit.
5. The stream monitoring as proposed in the plan is not sufficient to demonstrate a stream has developed
in the bed of the channel, particularly since this channel will count toward restoration credit. We are in
the process of revising the guidance for streams on the coastal plain again, and have dealt with this same
issue on other mitigation sites. Attached are some proposed performance standards that could be added
to the mitigation plan to help address our concerns (see attached). Please note that these standards were
originally developed for a 7 year monitoring cycle, and I believe it would be better to implement these
over 7 years, but they could be adapted for a 5 year period, if necessary.
6. The mitigation plan includes Juncus effusus in the wetland seed mix, which may have allelopathic
effects on planted species and should be removed from the seed mix if possible.
7. The PCN lists impacts to wetlands (0.058 acres) for planting trees, which is not a regulated activity.
These impacts should be removed from the PCN.
Please keep in mind that Section 332.80)(2) of the Mitigation Rule states "if a DA permit is
required for an in -lieu fee project, the permit should not be issued until all relevant provisions of the
mitigation plan have been substantively determined, to ensure that the DA permit accurately reflects all
relevant provisions of the approved mitigation plan ". Accordingly, the concerns which have been
identified in this correspondence must be addressed prior to our verification that impacts associated with
your mitigation project are authorized by NWP 27.
Thank you for working with us to address these issues. Please contact me if you have any
questions about this letter, or if there is any additional information you need. I can be contacted at
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
Wyatt Brown, NCEEP
Amy Adams, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
CESAW- RG- W/Wheeler
NCIRT Distribution List

Performance Standards for Coastal Streams on the Watts Property Site
Stream channels associated with the project that do not involve construction of pattern, dimension, and /or profile
were generally designed in accordance with the USACE guidance for stream restoration in the Coastal Plain.
Development of the streams in these systems will be achieved through the reestablishment of braided stream
morphology through passive measures, including ditch filling, and natural progression of the stream through
historic sloughs, braids and channels. These stream systems shall be subject to the performance standards listed
below:
1. Under normal climatic conditions, continuous surface water flow within the valley or crenulation must be
documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days within each monitoring year during the
prescribed monitoring period (7 years). Additional monitoring and /or analysis may be necessary in the
event of abnormal climactic conditions. Documentation of flow shall be accomplished using flow meters
and photographic evidence of observed flow taken from fixed photo stations located along the path of the
flow.
2. Evidence of channel formation within the valley or crenulation must be documented through the
identification of field indicators on an annual basis in accordance with the following schedule:
a. During monitoring years 1 through 4, the preponderance of documented field indicators must
demonstrate the accumulation of flow within the topographic low -point of the valley or
crenulation. Documented indicators may include any of the following indicators or any of the
indicators listed in part b:
i. Presence of litter and debris (wracking) indicating a surface water flow;
ii. Leaf litter disturbed or washed away;
iii. Matted, bent or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) indicative of surface
flow;
iv. Sediment deposition and /or scour indicating sediment transport by flowing water;
v. Water staining due to continual presence of water;
b. During monitoring years 5 through 7, the preponderance of documented field indicators must
demonstrate the accumulation of flow within the topographic low -point of the valley or
crenulation (documented by the field indicators listed in Part A) and the development of a
primary path of flow, stream channel, or ordinary high water mark. Documented indicators may
include any of the following:
i. Formation of channel bed and banks;
ii. Sediment sorting indicated by grain -size distribution within the primary path of flow;
iii. Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks;
iv. Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and /or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
hydrophytes)
v. Development of channel pattern (meander bends and /or channel braiding) at natural
topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems;
vi. Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow;
vii. Changes in soil characteristics (when compared to the soils abutting the primary path of
flow).

r "'o-
IN;J
stem
E a ement
PROGRAM
March 6, 2012
Todd Tugwell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: UT to Little River (Watts), Perquimans County
Mitigation Plan
Dear Mr. Tugwell,
Our project review team has completed a written response to the USACE comments.
Feel free to contact me with any questions at 919.715.5590 or Heather. C. Sm ith(a)-ncdenr. gov.
Sincerely,
Heather Smith
Project Manager
cc: Jeff Jurek, EEP
Jeff Schaffer, EEP
Wyatt Brown, EEP
Tracy Stapleton, EEP
Jenny Fleming, Ecological Engineering

1. The mitigation plan refers to the 2005 guidance on stream restoration in the coastal plain, and
didn't use the 2007 update. Is there a reason for this?
The mitigation plan will be changed to refer to the 2007 update.
2. The plan indicates monitoring for both the streams and wetlands will be for 5 years. I understand
that this project predates the 2008 change to 7 years for forested wetlands, but given the length of
time that the site has been in development, I encourage EEP to consider a 7 year monitoring
cycle for both wetlands and streams on this site (see comment 5 below).
EEP recognizes that the USACE prefers monitoring of 7 years but doesn't want to commit
to 7 years at this time. EEP will evaluate the project site at year 4 and determine if it is
ready for closeout with the regulatory agencies.
3. The mitigation plan shows that the site will be graded down to the bed elevation of the central
ditch rather than filling the ditch to bring the site up. Because of this, the site will be sloped toward
the ditch, and much more earthwork will be required, with excavation of up to 3 feet in some areas
based on the grading plan. As we all know, we have historically had many problems with
excavation, particularly with vegetation growth. Also, the sloped site will tend to drain the wetlands
that would normally be expected develop next to the restored stream. Why was the site not
brought up to the existing grade, which would have eliminated these concerns? Inclusion of a
vegetation vigor performance standard may be appropriate given the extent of grading. I would
suggest the following standard, which is based on a 7 year monitoring cycle, but this can be
adjusted if necessary:
"Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at year 7 in sites located in the
coastal and piedmont counties and 8 feet in height in each plot at year 7 in the mountain counties
(as defined in the 2003 SMGs). If this performance standard is met by year 5 and stem density is
trending toward success (i.e., no less than 260 five year -old stems /acre) monitoring of vegetation
on the site may be terminated provided written approval is provided by the USACE in consultation
with the NCIRT."
EEP has attempted to obtain an easement/purchase the upstream portion of the watershed
twice. The landowner has declined. Raising the elevation of the stream channel would
cause hydrologic trespass. The channel elevation is restricted by the upstream elevation
of the adjacent landowners ditch and the downstream culvert.
4. The plan shows that upland vegetation will be planted along the restored stream, but having an
upland boundary next to a 10 to 15 -foot wide coastal stream is not a reference condition. Ideally,
these areas should return to wetland and should be planted in riparian wetland vegetation even if
they are not monitored or receive wetland credit.
Ecological Engineering volunteered to include a cross - section that shows the wetter
species extending from the stream channel up the slope a little, and then transition to the
Mesic Mixed Hardwood community. They have taken landscape position, hydroperiod,
reference data and plant community descriptions into account in their planning. And
indeed, this is not Reference Condition. After the upstream landowner decided not to work
KP. tvrf . ... .. Nat"' Our f -fate, NCDDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N( 27699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / www.nceep.net

with us, we changed our plans to Priority 2 because there is still a fair amount of uplift and
treatment to be had at this site. Otherwise it will remain a chute for stormwater.
The mix of plants listed for the Mesic Mixed Hardwood community includes both wetland
and facultative upland species because this is a transition zone from stream /wetland up
the slope and then transitioning into the Non - Riparian flat. A mix of facultative wetland and
facultative upland species will ensure that the nuances in the transition zone are
addressed without breaking it into several tiny planting zones. Also, some species in this
transition zone mix are taken from the adjacent reference headwater stream.
5. The stream monitoring as proposed in the plan is not sufficient to demonstrate a stream has
developed in the bed of the channel, particularly since this channel will count toward restoration
credit. We are in the process of revising the guidance for streams on the coastal plain again, and
have dealt with this same issue on other mitigation sites. Attached are some proposed
performance standards that could be added to the mitigation plan to help address our concerns
(see attached). Please note that these standards were originally developed for a 7 year
monitoring cycle, and I believe it would be better to implement these over 7 years, but they could
be adapted for a 5 year period, if necessary.
This project follows the success criteria set forth in the 2007 guidelines for headwater
systems. A bed and bank are not expected to form in the valley. Flow of the headwater
stream will be documented using a crest gauge and visual observation as mentioned in the
2007 Coastal Plain guidance and vegetation establishment will be monitored.
6. The mitigation plan includes Juncus effusus in the wetland seed mix, which may have allelopathic
effects on planted species and should be removed from the seed mix if possible.
From our internet search, it appears that Juncus effusus has been found to have some
limited autotoxic allelopathy, that is, the decaying parts of the plant discourage some
reproduction of seedlings of the same plant. However, it is a native wetland species found
in most, if not all, of our coastal wetland sites. It establishes well (helping stabilize soil,
provide cover and refuge, protecting the soil surface from compaction, diffusing flow,
etc.), and is native and appropriate for the site. For these reasons, we do not feel Juncus
effusus should be removed from the seed mix.
http://www.amobot.org/content/87/6/853.full
7. The PCN lists impacts to wetlands (0.058 acres) for planting trees, which is not a regulated
activity. These impacts should be removed from the PCN.
We will remove 0.058 acres of impact from PCN.
EEP has been in contact with the DCM representative John CeCe. He is reviewing the
potential AEC and will be corresponding with EEP on this issue. EEP will provide email
correspondences to the USACE regarding the AEC.
K"l- DYI.�... .. Prat ctc oGf d' St t� Z
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / wwwnceep.net

Final Mitigation Plan Updates According to USACE Comments and EEP Responses.
Comment #1. The 2007 update was utilized, but references pointed to the original 2005
document. These references have been updated throughout the document to reflect the 2007
USACE document.
Comment #2. The performance standards and monitoring requirements are provided in Section
8.0 and 9.0 of the document, respectively. They still reflect a five -year monitoring period. EEP
will evaluate the project site at Year 4 and determine if it is ready for closeout with the
regulatory agencies.
Comment #3. A section depicting landowner coordination has been inserted as Appendix H.
Comment #4. Design Sheet #3 has been revised to illustrate the proposed channel cross section
that identifies species zones based on landscape position, hydroperiod, reference data and plant
community descriptions.
Comment #5. The performance standards and monitoring requirements are provided in Section
8.0 and 9.0 of the document, respectively. They follow the criteria set forth in the 2007
guidelines. Flow of the headwater stream will be documented using a crest gage and visual
observation as already mentioned.
Comment #6. The planting summary remains as is in the document.
Comment #7. EEP removed the 0.058 -acre wetland impact in the PCN.

APPENDIX B
Guidance pertaining to Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina (2007)

PLEASE NOTE: The following document is in draft and subject to change.
While the information contained herein may be used for planning purposes, final
plans should be coordinated with the Ecosystem Enhancement Program, The Corps
of Engineers and /or The NC Division of Water Quality as appropriate.
INFORMATION REGARDING STREAM RESTORATION
With Emphasis on the Coastal Plain
Prepared By:
US Army Corps of Engineers;;
Wilmington District, Regulatory'Divi
And
North Carolina Department of Environ�ment,and N
Division of Water Quality
Versic
April 4,
This document is intended to provide generalniformation to compensatory mitigation
providers for use when planning or evaluating potential strearri mitigation projects;
particularly in the coastal plain (defined astiihe Middle Atlariic Coastal Plain Ecoregion
as shown on Griffith, j et al: 2002) of North Carolina. The term "stream" as used in this
document, means that the flow Awater is contained in a natural channel or bed with
identifiable banks4"n . in,its unaltered state on the�coastal plain, usually has adjacent
wetlands. This dociunent" s *measit to cgmplemerit the April 2003, Stream Mitigation
Guidelines,:prepared,by the Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Environmental
Protection-Agency the'North Caiolina Division of Water Quality and the North Carolina
Wildlife:Resources Commission``(US,A`rmy Corps of Engineers, 2003).
INTRODUCTION
The decision whether to purse any potential mitigation site should hinge on what can
reasonably be accomplished considering current site conditions, and site constraints.
Mechanically returning a site to a historic condition may not be possible or in some cases
even preferable. The primary consideration must be what functions need to be returned
or improved upon. Designers must then examine to what degree they can control those
factors contributing to the loss or degradation of those identified functions. Together,
these considerations should indicate whether a project is viable and ultimately determine
the goals of the project.
Site Selection Considerations

The primary consideration in site selection for stream restoration efforts should be
whether the site historically supported a stream. Placing a stream or wetland in a
landscape position in which it does not naturally occur is considered "Creation" and
brings with it many potential factors of failure. In some instances, manmade channels
constructed in areas where no historic stream existed, have intercepted surface and/or
ground water sufficient to develop intermittent or perennial flow and exhibit functions
commonly associated with natural streams. While true stream restoration or
enhancement activities may not be appropriate in these systems, there may be
opportunities to meet watershed goals through application of best management practices
(BMP). BMP projects will be considered on an individual basis, Therefore, we will not
make effort to expand on the discussion in this document.
It is sometimes difficult to determine if a site histc
particularly true in areas of the outer coastal plain
or ditched. Direct evidence such as construction/i
is the most acceptable method of documenting�his
and USGS topographical maps are also oftern`rel a
noted that, especially on the lower coastal plain, n
sometimes identified as perennial and..intermittent
less altered systems in similar landscape positions
There are many acceptable indicators which nd
evidence. Streams exist primarily as a fu
topographic signatures exhibiting both latiti
historic presence ofwaferways: Tools such
LIDAR imaging can` aid`in determining pre:
also document the presen e of sufficient wa
drainage basin of -50,to l00 acres iri °size is`€
This is
channelized
cal conditions. USDA Soil' Surveys
indicators. However, ,it�should be
Wade ditclies and canals are also
may
these maps. Comparison to
in the /absence of specific
'slope and' watershed area. Local
and longitudinal slope can indicate
ual observation, onsite surveys or
end degree of slope. Designers should
d area. Recent studies indicate that a
lly sufficient to support the
development`of stieamTeatures in the coastal plain depending on the
hydrogeomorphology of -the site:4.,Consideration should be given to both historic
watershed°and present watei -,shed. 'It'is possible that a system historically had sufficient
hydrologic input to exhibit, flowing water but due to recent land- use /drainage practices,
this input has`been removed.]
Soils data can also\be`helpful in determining whether a stream or watercourse existed on
the site. Project designers should look at local, site specific soil information as well as
NRCS County Soil Surveys. The presence of soils classified as entisols or inceptisols
would indicate historical flow. Linear features exhibiting higher organic content than
surrounding soils or vertical layers of higher organic content may indicate historic
presence of water. Likewise, variation in soil texture may indicate past sorting of
sediment by a channel.
Project Design Considerations
2

Designers must consider what overall functional lift can be accomplished given current
conditions and what type of project can be accomplished given current land use practices.
If a stream historically relied on a watershed which has been significantly altered to the
point that a new hydrologic regime is now present, restoration of the historic feature may
no longer be appropriate. Likewise, if the stream has been channelized historically and
now possesses a mature wooded buffer and does not have significant stability /erosion
problems; restoring pattern and profile at the expense of the existing buffer may not result
in any real gain in aquatic function. This is particularly true where existing wetlands are
associated with these channels. Substantial channel work may not only lead to direct
damage for equipment and materials access but may also result in drainage of portions of
the wetland area.
When evaluating a site, designers must identify what
removed or diminished. Restoration efforts should b
functions to a stable state closer to that of the original
system to use as a target may be useful. The statedg
proposed functional lift. Success criteria should then
adequately demonstrate that goals have been accompl
returned. In the absence of true data collection ands
of function based on physical condition. It is critical
physical indicators.
In the Mountain and Piedmont regions, A
channelization and /or damage to the ripar
stream restoration sites ;The decreased si
these systems are good,indicators` ..that the
sediment input and`uinatural se'd'iment trE
and habitat. In these
natural'finzctions have been
A''
e focused n' rehuning those
system. Sel cting,a reference
oals of the project�sliould reflect the
be established which will;
fished' and function hays, been
analysis it is acceptable to infer level
however, to choose the appropriate
iafhave experienced some clearing,
er are,mos"t often targeted as potential
and eroding banks typically observed in
is experiencing increased direct
eading to degradation of water quality
efforts most often focus on restoring
pattern, stabilizing -banks and It'itroduci ng structure. It is widely accepted that restoring
the pre- lnipaet pattern'dimensioii,and profile to these system and replacing structure will
result in a more stableI'system with improved water quality and better habitat. In these
systems, measuring physicalipropeities of pattern, dimension and profile is typically
appropriate for estimating�fuiwtion:
Another importardconsidera ' tion in project design is the degree of control over the
immediate site and�;over -the watershed as a whole. The success and longevity of any
stream project is largely dependent on both present and future land uses within the
watershed. The quality and quantity of water entering a site can have a significant
bearing on the overall success of the site. Designers should make every attempt to
control these inputs. For example, if there are local storm water inputs, designers should
incorporate treatment of these storm water inputs into their design where possible.
Designers should not only consider present and planned development within the
watershed but must also consider the possibility of hydrologic trespass and /or hydrologic
bypass, particularly in the coastal plain. Project designers will often face legal
ramifications if the project causes the impoundment of water on adjacent sites. If sites
3

are located within established drainage districts, project designers must also be aware of
the possibility that water passing through the site may be diverted to other waterways if
the project affects overall drainage within the district. Designers may wish to contact the
local Natural Resources Conservation Service office and/or the Board of Drainage
Commissioners to explore this issue further.
COASTAL PLAIN STREAM MITIGA
In the Coastal Plain, the concept that simply restoring c]
profile will result in a net gain in function, does not neci
experience that existing channels, even when heavily in
direct sediment input is typically not a major concern; .�]
of the more likely physical links to decrease in function
from riparian wetlands and /or floodplain buffers 4�`Ripar
integral role in coastal plain stream function and design
wetlands into stream designs whenever possible. *heri
document, through achievement of appropriate success
effective floodplain it is possible to achieve restoration
a, dimension and
true. It has been our
inipulated,, are often stable and
a these coastal" lain systems one
Is the lack of o" Aisconnection
engineering. On a case -by -case basis, we wile also consider
without the restoration of pattern, dimension andprofile; pr(
document that lost key functions are bein&estored.
In deciding wheth&4 c
consider comparing the
This will Give sorne,nd
we
co
iould consider iuc'orporatir
.gners can adequately
ia, reconnection with an
1 with little or no channel
allowing restoration credit
,ded designers can
site is appropriate for mitigation, designers should
arby reference'area with similar landscape conditions.
Vhat-type of system the site may support and
of project goals. For the purposes of this document,
ystQms into three broad categories:
Riparian Headwater Systems — These systems are, for purpose of this guidance,
thosesystems that either do not appear or appear as first order streamsl on the
appropriate county /soil survey as published by the Natural Resources
Conservation'Seryice or its predecessor, the Soil Conservation Service and/or
USGS Topographic Map. These systems typically have small watersheds
draining into'defined valleys with little longitudinal slope. Relatively unaltered
riparian headwater systems will usually possess a braided, diffuse surface flow
pattern across a narrow floodplain of riparian, wooded wetlands.
2. Low energy streams — These systems may appear as first or higher order streams
on Soil Surveys or USGS maps. In a relatively unaltered state, these systems may
have either intermittent or perennial flow and exhibit true bed and bank and
1 A first order stream is that portion of a waterway from its identified point of origin downstream to the first
intersection with another waterway.
El

indicators of an ordinary high water mark. In headwater settings, these systems
are typically formed when a relatively large watershed drains into a well- defined
topographic feature with little to moderate slope. They are usually associated
with specific soil series (Table 1). Lower on the Coastal Plain, these systems may
be affected by lunar or wind tides causing bidirectional flow.
3. High energy streams - These systems are typically found in areas with a
relatively high slope. They tend to behave similar to piedmont type streams.
Riparian Headwater Systems
Many lower coastal plain riparian headwater systems havebeen converted to intense
agricultural or silvicultural use, making it difficult to determine wheth&,a true
intermittent or perennial stream was historically present. ~Depending oh,,, he degree and
success of the drainage system, some ditches mayhave intercepted sufficient °surface
and/or ground water so as to possess intermittenf or perennial.' *flow and exhibit functions
commonly associated with natural streams. These d6`hes'are often considered
jurisdictional waters of the United States and, in some cases, are classified as "streams"
for permitting purposes.
Mitigation project designers exploring pr`c
riparian system historically_ :existed on the
or non - alluvial hydric soils are'typically n
establishment.
exhibit flowing
little or
s,setting ririust first document that a
Areas %exhibiting non -hydric soils
site's /for riparian headwater
raphical relief would not likely
Designers should °then consider 1661 topography and watershed condition to determine
whether the systemaustorically, supported an intermittent or perennial stream. Typically,
sites th watersheds'less�than T00 'acres would not support a stream with defined bed
and<bb nkN,These sites may contaiji�a:valley with some longitudinal slope but it is likely
that historic�'low was not concentr' ted in a channel feature. If a channel feature is
present it is _ likely, man- ma4e'and typically does not appear on the county Soil Survey. In
this situation, restoration o. riparian headwater type system may be more appropriate
than channel construction .'According to data being assembled by NCDWQ ( Periann
Russell, DWQ, personal communication) watersheds less than 25 acres in size, will not
likely support a riparian headwater system.
Restoration of these riparian headwater systems could still be accomplished to provide
both stream and wetland mitigation credit without physically constructing a distinctive
stream channel. This type of mitigation would typically be appropriate for offsetting
impacts to those systems that either do not appear or appear as first order streams on
USGS maps or Soil surveys but would not necessarily be acceptable for mitigating
impacts to higher order systems. The limit of stream and riparian wetland mitigation
credit will be decided on a case -by -case basis and will typically depend on the width and
5

extent of a clearly visible valley in the landscape. A 50 -foot buffer is typically required
for stream mitigation projects in the coastal plain. Therefore, stream credit may only be
awarded where the discernible valley is a minimum of 100 feet wide. Areas outside this
100 foot corridor but within the valley feature may be used as riparian wetland
mitigation. Mitigation outside of and/or above the riparian boundary could be considered
non -riparian wetland mitigation assuming restoration of wetland hydrology, hydric soils
and appropriate wetland plants. The limits of the riparian area may be defined using
appropriate and identifiable topographical or soils boundaries. In -field confirmation of
the presence and limits of the valley may be needed in order to determine the extent of
riparian wetland and stream mitigation. Local topographic information, site - specific soil
/ A.
mapping and information on flood frequency and duration are often-helpful tools in
identifying these valleys in the outer coastal plain.
Success criteria for these systems should include vegetation establishment similar to the
restoration of a bottomland riparian (wetland) community. lAdditiorial considerations for
success criteria should include documenting an adequate flooding regime and presence of
at least periodic flow. Identification and examination of a1ocai reference`area -may be
helpful in establishing the appropriate target hydrogianh. 04pding regime may be
documented by continuous or semi - continuous monitoring' wells, periodic staff gauge
measurement, and/or visual observation` Potential methods. of flow documentation are
strategically placed flow meters, recording movement of wrack materials and/or periodic
dye testing. Monitoring changes in faunal species and distribution patterns to document a
shift from a terrestrial to an emergent aquatic comtriumty,may�also be appropriate.
Low Energy Stream"
These are typically existing streams with intermittent or perennial flow. In the coastal
plain, these systems,have often\beewchanneiized historically and many are being actively
maintained for drainage \purposes.,, The channelization work alone does not typically
result in' 4he destabilization�of tliese'systems therefore, simply returning pattern and
profile wilh not usually result in a lift in aquatic function. Designers should strongly
consider whether substanth mounts of engineering and construction are actually
necessary.
The loss or reducti n"in- function is more typically due to a lack of access to a flood plain
or significant alteratibri within the riparian zone. Designers should concentrate more on
connecting these systems to an adequate and functioning floodplain and less on restoring
historic morphology. In- Stream structures that serve to effectively raise the bottom
elevation of a stream channel so as to increase the frequency and duration of over -bank
flooding and/or to restore adjacent wetlands maybe appropriate but should be
scrutinized on a case -by -case basis. Designers must ensure that such structures do not
cause other adverse impacts such as restricting the passage of important aquatic
organisms for feeding and reproduction. If used, in- stream structures should be designed
so that long term maintenance is not required and so that, over time, the stream channel
will accumulate sediment to the level of the grade control that was installed.
G

Restoration of riparian wetlands and treatment of existing stormwater input is strongly
encouraged as a part of any stream restoration project in this setting.
Often these streams may have been historically channelized but due to abandoned
maintenance they have developed a semi - mature vegetated riparian areas. Since stability
is often not an issue, these systems can begin to function as well as unchannelized
systems. In these cases, substantial work within these systems resulting in damage to the
existing resources will seldom result in any substantial lift in aquatic function. This is
particularly true when existing wetlands will be impacted. Therefore, designers are
encouraged to avoid such projects. These systems may however have benefit if
approached as enhancement or preservation activities. The North Carolina Division of
Water Quality is currently working on guidance regarding the disturbance of riparian
zones for stream restoration projects (Appendix 1).
Generally, credit for this type of project would be calculated based on actual channel
length. As with riparian headwater systems, the riparian area may be defined by
identifying and documenting appropriate soilsfor topographic boundaries
Documentation of restoration could be tied to lifting key fiuletions rather than "returning
or installing pattern dimension and profile. Success eritei a could be based "on
documenting the return of the system;,to the floodplain` as `measured by increased
occurrence of overbank flooding and /or return of wetlana`conditions within the
floodplain where appropriate.
High Energy streams
Traditional stream mitigation mel ihods using natural channel design to predict and restore
pattern, dimension -and profile are)typically appropriate in systems indicated as second
and higher order streams, Generally, credit for /tl fs type project would be calculated
based on the;actual-length of the channel restored or enhanced. The restoration of
wetlands adjaceritto the,restoredchannel should be given strong consideration.
This�docuinent is intended as a general guide. The preparers realize there may be
exceptions,to ',the above info �rmatidn Natural channel design may, for instance, be
appropriate when a zero orjfirst order stream is located in a soil series that traditionally
supports strearns,(Table 1) and sufficient watershed area is available. The converse is
also true in that there maybe larger watersheds where stream mitigation as described for
zero to first order streams may be more appropriate. It is also likely that large mitigation
sites may have both`zero /first order streams and higher order streams as well as wetland
complexes thereby requiring multiple mitigation design techniques. Designers are
strongly encouraged, in all cases, to use reference sites with similar watershed size and
topographic conditions to determine the type of restoration that is appropriate for the site
Planning documents must adequately support the mitigation work proposed.
The guidance found in this document is subject to change if and when additional
information becomes available. The most current version of this document as well as
information on its applicability will be posted on the websites of both the Corps of
W

Engineers (http: / /www.saw.usace.army.mil /wetlands /notices.html) and Division of Water
Quality (4ttp: / /l2o .enr.state.nc.us /ncwetlands /rd pub not.html).
Citations
Griffith, G.E., et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston, VA. United
States Geological Survey.
US Army Corps of Engineers, et al. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Wilmington,
NC
DWQ. 2006. Stream Origin Assessment: South Creek N.C. (PCS Phosphate Company).
Available at http: //h2o .enr.state.nc.us /newetlands /doc iu neri s /pcsdocfir al.pdf
Brinson?
Evans?
Doyle?
N.

Table 12
Soils series in the coastal plain of NC which typically can contain streams
Beaufort Bertie New Craven
Soil Series
Hanover
Name
Altavista
X
X
Augusta
X
Autryville
X
Bibb
X
Chewacla
X
Craven
X
\X
Currituck
X'`
Doravan
X
X
X` ,\a X
Exum
; '.`
V X
Goldsboro
' %
X
Johnston
X
Lafitte
`
X
Masontown
,., X
Muckalee
X
Norfolk`
Onslow
rX
Seabrook
i `
�, X
State .
Suffolk-'-.1.
X
V\ X
X
X
09
2 These features normally occur on soils that typically contain streams. This table lists examples of some of
these soil series for several coastal plain counties and is intended to serve as a general guide for this
determination.
X

Appendix 1: Disturbance of Riparian Zones for Stream Restoration
The demand for stream restoration for mitigation of federal and state permitting
requirements is increasing in response to continued development in North Carolina. The
growing number of restoration projects has facilitated the need for additional guidelines
in malting restoration decisions. The following guidance is associated with existing
riparian zones and buffers adjacent to potential restoration sites. It is expected that this
policy will eventually be incorporated into the updated version of the joint state - federal
stream mitigation guidelines in North Carolina (US Army Corps of Engineers, et al
2003).
General Guidance: Where an established and
native trees and shrubs exists at a potential rest(
protection it provides to stream function and aq
restoration considerations. Given the existence
common in rural settings), stream restoration�tb
avoided.
Exceptions include but not limited
• Conditions (e.g. urban settings) "Mia
dominant and threaten most of the; ea
exists for stream restoration.
• Rural settings where stream incision
established'rib an zone kan be ma
constructed
o to "4he rid
ife :will take
established
zone* consisting of
an zone and the
riparian
in
(most
iould be
;es (degradation) are
sufficient space
;s are dominant and portions of
on one or both sides of newly
All exceptions must,be `fully justified and documented upon submission for 401
certification and 404 permitting. Exceptions will be reviewed and approved by DENR
Division of,Water Quality and the bS�Corps of Engineers through the 404 permit
process
*Established and4dnctioni 'g riparian zone consists of at least two species of abundant
(greater than 100 sterns'per acre) native overstory trees with a minimum of 5" DBH and
understory woody shrubs and herbaceous vegetation that functions to filter sediment and
nutrients, to provide shade and to supply small and large woody debris and leaf litter to
the stream. The width requirement of the functioning riparian zone is based on the
quality and quantity of native vegetation specific to a stream, that is, if a width of 1 or 2
large trees is providing an ecological benefit to the stream, then that width is the
`established and functioning' riparian zone. It may be necessary to evaluate select
riparian zones on a site by site basis as needed.
10

APPENDIX F
Reference Site Analyses

REFERENCE SITE ANALYSES
Ecological Engineering utilized several sources of existing reference information approved by EEP and the
regulatory agencies as part of the reference assessment for the proposed design. Information was obtained
from EEP, which recently implemented a similar Coastal Plain headwater stream restoration project
approximately 24 miles west of the Watts Site. In addition, previous work was completed for the Watts Site
under a pretense for natural channel design -based stream restoration. This work included a limited
assessment of potential wetland reference areas for riverine and non - riverine wetland restoration. Both
reference assessments were conducted by consultants under contract with EEP. Ecological Engineering also
qualitatively viewed the property immediately west of the Watts Site. Permission to conduct surveys was not
granted. Therefore, only visual surveys were recorded from the property boundary separating the Project
Site from this area. Photographs of the reference wetland sites are depicted later in this appendix.
Since data from multiple reference sites was available, a holistic approach was used to formulate the
conceptual design. More emphasis however, was associated with the data from Reference Wetland Sites 1
through 4 rather than Sites 5 and 6. This reasoning was based on raw data availability and confidence.
Target Reference Conditions
The Watts Site is currently fallow. It is drained via a network of linear and lateral drainages. Other than the
soil characterization, there is little evidence of the historical wetlands that would have existed on the site. As
a result, Ecological Engineering utilized physical parameters as well as other reference materials to ascertain
the target wetland types. The physical parameters included watershed size, soil mapping units and general
topography. Reference materials included information on vegetation community types.
According to EEP (2006), the following conditions summarized the search for a suitable Coastal Plain
headwater stream and wetland reference (Headwater Forest) site:
• location within the Outer Coastal Plain physiographic region;
• minimal hydrologic alteration;
• jurisdictional wetland status;
• watershed size between 30 and 300 acres (with the three sites spanning the range);
• climax community — Headwater Forest (Small Stream Swamp) or Hardwood Flat (Non - Riverine
Wet Hardwood Forest);
• similar watershed soil types;
• similar site soil types;
• minimal impervious surfaces within watershed;
• similar topography; and,
• minimal presence of invasive species.
Reference Site Search Methodology
According to EEP (2006), all of the parameters listed in the above section were used to find three appropriate
reference sites. A GIS -based search was initially conducted for the identification of reference wetland sites in
the Outer Coastal Plain. The GIS process was first based on an automated procedure which included the
overlay of CAMA wetland data, Chowan Soil Data, NC Gap Analysis Project (NCGAP) data, and public land. No
eligible sites were found on public land. After potential sites were identified, sites near the project area were
manually reviewed using other available GIS data such as aerial photography and topography. Once sites
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Appendix F -Page 1
May 2012

were identified, some were visited that could be easily viewed from public roads. Neither Chowan County
nor Edenton have GIS based parcel data; therefore, candidate reference site information was acquired at the
Chowan County Tax office and Register of Deeds office (EEP, 2006).
In 2003, Hurricane Isabelle impacted the northeastern portion of North Carolina and caused localized
damage. This storm knocked down many trees. Even more trees were taken down as the landowners
undertook clearcut operations in an effort to salvage available timber and reduce fire hazards. Several
potential reference sites identified during the reference site search suffered tree loss from Hurricane Isabelle
and were subsequently clearcut (EEP, 2006). Three reference sites were located during this search. The first,
adjacent to EEP's UT to Pembroke Creek headwater stream restoration project site, and two within 20 miles
of the Watts Site. All three reference sites are situated within Chowan County and may require permission
from the landowner prior to entry. The fourth site is adjacent to the Watts Site in Perquimans County. Sites 5
and 6 were ascertained from previous work done at the Watts Site in 2005. These two sites are located
approximately three miles northwest of the Project Site in Perquimans County.
The following table shows a general assessment of each reference wetland as they relate to the parameters
laid out above.
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Project Number 413
Compatibility
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Parameters
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Wetland 4
Wetland 5
Wetland 6
(Visual Only)
Outer Coastal Plain
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Amount of Hydrologic
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Unknown
Unknown
Alteration
Jurisdiction Wetland
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Likely
Likely
Status
Watershed Size
30 - 300 acres
30 - 300 acres
30 - 300 acres
30 - 300 acres
30 - 300 acres
30 - 300 acres
Climax Community
Mostly
Mostly
Young
Mostly
Young
Mostly
Type
Similar Watershed Soil
Some
Yes
Yes
Yes
Some
Some
Types
Impervious Surfaces
None
Minimal
Minimal
None
Unknown
Unknown
w /in Watershed
Topography
Similar
I Similar
I Similar
I Similar
I Similar
Similar
Invasive Species
None
None
None
None
Yes
Yes
Present
Source for Reference Wetland 1, 2 and 3 data is EEP (2006) and Wetland 5 and 6 is EEP (2005).
Reference Site Parameters
Wetland determination forms were completed for the first three reference wetland sites. Copies of these
forms are provided later in the appendix. Each reference wetland exhibits two forms, one from within the
wetland boundary and one from outside the boundary.
Reference Wetland 1
Reference Wetland 1 is situated approximately 3.5 miles northwest of Edenton and adjacent to the UT to
Pembroke Creek Restoration Site (Appendix F - Figure 5). According to EEP (2006), several parameters were
collected during the reference reach surveys to better understand the physical setting of the reference area
and to integrate the collected parameters into the restoration design. Reference wetland cross sections were
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Appendix F -Page 2
May 2012

surveyed and are provided at the end of the appendix. The drainage area for Reference Wetland 1 is
approximately 45 acres and significant ponded and flowing water was evident during the survey. Average
land slope down the wetland valley was 0.5% and water surface slope was 0.2 %. The flat portion of Cross
Section 1 was 143 feet
long and 58% of the distance was wet or had standing water. The flat portion of Cross Section 2 was 133 feet
long and 76% of the distance was wet or standing water. Reference Wetland 1 is located in a former Carolina
Bay and a significant portion of its upstream watershed was a former sandpit. Accordingly, a large portion of
the watershed has the soil designation Udorthents, indicating an area where natural soil has been altered
(EEP, 2006).
Soil Characterization
According to EEP (2006), soil borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 1. The wetland soils were
determined as Cape Fear loam bordered by Roanoke silt loam. Cape Fear loam is described as very poorly
drained, nearly level soils on stream terraces. These soils formed in alluvial sediment. A seasonal high water
table is at or near the surface. In a typical profile, the surface layer is black and very dark gray loam about 14
inches thick. The subsoil, about 26 inches thick is dominantly gray, firm clay mottled with yellowish brown.
Below the subsoil and extending to a depth of about 60 inches is light -gray coarse sand mottled with gray.
Natural fertility, the content of organic matter, and available water capacity are all medium. Permeability is
slow, and shrink -swell potential is high. In areas that have not received lime, reaction is very strongly acid. Its
taxonomic classification is fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic typic umbraquults. Soil maps and aerial
photographs are presented in Appendix F - Figures 6 and 7, respectively.
The following chart depicts the typical soil description for Reference Wetland 1.
Soil Name: Cape Fear Loam
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A 0 to 6 Black (10YR 2/1) loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, many fine
inches medium roots.
Eg 6 to 15 Gray (10YR 6/1) sandy loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, few fine
inches medium roots.
Btg1 15 to 24 Light gray (10YR 7/1) sandy loam, weak medium subangular blocky structure,
inches friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common fine pores, few medium faint
brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) soft iron masses, common medium prominent red
(2.5YR 4/6) soft iron masses.
Btg2 24 to 34 Light gray (10YR 5/1) sandy clay loam, moderate medium subangular blocky
inches structure, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common fine pores, many
medium distinct brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) soft iron masses.
BCg 34 to 48 Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) loamy sand, weak medium subangular blocky
inches structure, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic, many medium prominent
yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) soft iron masses.
Cg 48 to 56+ Cg 48 to 56+ inches
inches Gray (10YR 6/1) sand, single grained, loose.
Source: EEP, 2006
Vegetation
According to EEP (2006), Reference Wetland 1 was in fairly good condition for vegetation analysis. However,
many trees had been knocked over from Hurricane Isabelle and the transition area had a fairly high number
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC App -Page
May 2012

of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The following charts depict the community types and plant species list found at
Reference Wetland 1.
Transect 1 - Wetland Area
Community Type — Hardwood Flat (Non - Riverine
Wet Hardwood Forest
(Oak -Gum Slough
Subtype))
N
N
Canopy Subcanopy
5
N N
Acer rubrum
5
Liquidambarstyraciflua
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
5
Magnolia virginiana
Occasional
Nyssa biflora
50
Pinus taeda
5
Quercus laurifolia
25
Quercus michauxii
5
Ilex opaca
Occasional
Transect 2 - Wetland Area
Community Type — Hardwood Flat (Non - Riverine
Wet Hardwood
Forest (Oak -Gum Slough
Subtype))
N
N
Canopy Subcanopy
5
N N
Acer rubrum
25
Nyssa aquatica
20
Nyssa biflora
40
Pinus taeda
5
Quercus laurifolia
10
Pinus taeda
5
Ilex opaca
Occasional
Fraxinus caroliniana
Occasional
Source: EEP, 2006
Reference Wetland 2
Transect 1 - Wetland Edge
Community Type — Hardwood Flat (Non - Riverine
Wet Hardwood Forest (Transitional Disturbed))
Transect 2 - Wetland Edge
Community Type — Hardwood Flat (Non - Riverine
Wet Hardwood Forest (Transitional Disturbed))
Canopy
Subcanopy
N
N
Acer rubrum
5
Carya glabra
10
Corn us florida
Occasional
Liquidambarstyraciflua
10
Liriodendron tulipifera
25
Magnolia grandiflora
10
Occasional
Pinus taeda
40
Quercus alba
10
Quercus nigra
Occasional
Vaccinium atrococcum
Occasional
Prunus serotina
Occasional
Ilex opaca
Occasional
Transect 2 - Wetland Edge
Community Type — Hardwood Flat (Non - Riverine
Wet Hardwood Forest (Transitional Disturbed))
Reference Wetland 2 is situated approximately eight miles east of Edenton (Appendix F - Figure 8). According
to EEP (2006), the drainage area for Reference Wetland 2 was approximately 279 acres. Average land and
water surface slopes along the wetland valley was 0.5 %. The flat portion of Cross Section 1 was 133 feet long
and 53% of the distance was wet or had standing water. The flat portion of Cross Section 2 was 87 feet long
and 28% of the distance was wet or standing water (EEP, 2006). These cross sections are depicted in at the
end of the appendix.
Soil Characterization
According to EEP (2006), the site soil series for Reference Wetland 2 is Chowan silt loam (Appendix F - Figure
9). Reference Wetland 2 is very wet, but it does not have a defined stream channel. Therefore, this is
reflected in the proposed restoration efforts as no defined stream channel is proposed (EEP, 2006). Soil
borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 2. The taxonomic classification for Chowan silt loam is
Wattb riuperty rvnugduun rmn— rerqufmans County, wu Appendix F -rdge
May 2012
Canopy
Subcanopy
N
N
Acer rubrum
15
Liriodendron tulipifera
15
Magnolia virginiana
Occasional
Nyssa biflora
10
Pinus taeda
40
Quercus michauxii
10
Quercus nigra
5
Quercus phellos
5
Ilex opaca
Occasional
Fraxinus caroliniana
Occasional
Reference Wetland 2 is situated approximately eight miles east of Edenton (Appendix F - Figure 8). According
to EEP (2006), the drainage area for Reference Wetland 2 was approximately 279 acres. Average land and
water surface slopes along the wetland valley was 0.5 %. The flat portion of Cross Section 1 was 133 feet long
and 53% of the distance was wet or had standing water. The flat portion of Cross Section 2 was 87 feet long
and 28% of the distance was wet or standing water (EEP, 2006). These cross sections are depicted in at the
end of the appendix.
Soil Characterization
According to EEP (2006), the site soil series for Reference Wetland 2 is Chowan silt loam (Appendix F - Figure
9). Reference Wetland 2 is very wet, but it does not have a defined stream channel. Therefore, this is
reflected in the proposed restoration efforts as no defined stream channel is proposed (EEP, 2006). Soil
borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 2. The taxonomic classification for Chowan silt loam is
Wattb riuperty rvnugduun rmn— rerqufmans County, wu Appendix F -rdge
May 2012

mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Thapto - Histic Fluvaquents. The following is the typical soil description for
Reference Wetland 2.
Soil Name: Chowan Silt Loam
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A 0 to 6
Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam, weak granular structure, very friable,
inches
common
Canopy( %)
medium distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) soft iron masses.
Cg 6 to 36
Gray (10YR 5/1) silty clay, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common
inches
medium distinct
15
yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) soft iron masses.
20a 15 to 24
Black (10YR 2/1) sapric material, massive, very friable.
inches
Nyssa aquatica
Source: EEP, 2006
Vegetation
According to EEP (2006), the canopy of Reference Wetland 2 was impacted by Hurricane Isabelle. However,
all of the plant species are still represented, just present at lower densities. An aerial photograph is
presented in Appendix F - Figure 10. Overall, Reference Wetland 2 appeared to be very representative of the
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp and the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest community type (EEP, 2006).
Wetland Area
Community Type — Headwater
Forest (Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp)
Canopy( %)
Liriodendron tulipifera
21
Liquidambar styraciflua
12
Acer rubrum
15
Carpinus caroliniana
21
Quercus laurifolia
3
Nyssa aquatica
9
Nyssa biflora
12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3
Fraxinus caroliniana
3
Diospyros virginiana
3
Source: EEP, 2006
Reference Wetland 3
Wetland Buffer Area
Community Type - - Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Canopy( %)
Fagus grandifolia 20
Nyssa biflora 40
Liriodendron tulipifera 30
Liquidambar styraciflua 10
Reference Wetland 3 is also located approximately eight miles east of Edenton. It is approximately one mile
north of Reference Wetland 2 (Appendix F - Figure 8). According to EEP (2006), the drainage area for
Reference Wetland 3 was 30 acres and had the appearance of being slightly drier than Reference Wetland 2
with no standing water. Small channels were evident at the lower end of the reference. Average land surface
slope along the wetland valley was 1.6 %. Assuming flow in the observed channels, a range for valley width of
14 to 47 feet for this reference (EEP, 2006).
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Appendix F -Page 5
May 2012

Soil Characterization
According to EEP (2006), Soil borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 3. The wetland soils were
found to be Roanoke silt loam (Appendix F - Figure 11). The following is the typical soil description for
Reference Wetland 3 (EEP, 2006).
Soil Name: Roanoke Silt Loam
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
Ap 0 to 3 Grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam, weak fine granular structure, friable, slightly
inches sticky, slightly plastic, common fine roots.
A 3 to 12 Gray (10YR 6/1) loam, weak fine granular structure, friable, slightly sticky,
inches slightly plastic, few fine roots, common medium prominent yellowish brown
(10YR 5/6) soft iron masses.
Btg1 12 to 30 Gray (10YR 6/1) silty clay loam, moderate medium subangular blocky
inches structure, firm, moderately sticky, moderately plastic, few medium roots,
common coarse distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) soft iron masses.
Btg2 30 to 42 Dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy clay, weak medium subangular blocky structure,
inches firm, moderately sticky, moderately plastic, few medium roots.
Cg 42 to 48+ Gray (10YR 6/1) loamy sand, massive, loose.
inches
Source: EEP, 2006
Vegetation
According to EEP (2006), Reference Wetland 3 is a younger forest than the other two reference wetland sites.
This appears to have helped save the trees as they were more protected during Hurricane Isabelle. Even
though it was younger, it still has an enclosed canopy and no real invasive species problems. An aerial
photograph is provided in Appendix F - Figure 12.
Wetland Area
Community Type — Hardwood Flat (Non - Riverine
Wet Hardwood Forest)
Wetland Buffer Area
Community Type - - Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Source: EEP, 2006
Reference Wetland 4
Reference Wetland 4 is situated immediately adjacent to the Project Site (Appendix F - Figure 13).
Specifically, it is located adjacent to the western boundary and supports a stable Headwater Forest
community. Property access was denied by the landowner; however, a visual reconnaissance was completed
by walking along the property boundary. This visual reconnaissance along with a detailed map review
provided the following information regarding this reference site.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Appendix F -Page 6
May 2012
Canopy ( %)
Canopy ( %)
Liriodendron tulipifera
60
Carya glabra
5
Carya glabra
5
Fagus grandifolia
30
Acer rubrum
25
Liriodendron tulipifera
20
Carpinus caroliniana
80 (subcanopy)
Liquidambarstyraciflua
20
Liquidambarstyraciflua
5
Ulmus americana
20
Ulmus americana
5
Quercus pagoda
5
Source: EEP, 2006
Reference Wetland 4
Reference Wetland 4 is situated immediately adjacent to the Project Site (Appendix F - Figure 13).
Specifically, it is located adjacent to the western boundary and supports a stable Headwater Forest
community. Property access was denied by the landowner; however, a visual reconnaissance was completed
by walking along the property boundary. This visual reconnaissance along with a detailed map review
provided the following information regarding this reference site.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Appendix F -Page 6
May 2012

Reference Wetland 4 exhibits an overall drainage area of approximately 60 acres. One small channel was
observed with standing water throughout its length. Its immediate watershed is mostly forested surrounded
by network of agricultural lands. The vegetation within this area is mature and likely greater than 50 years in
age. Its understory is relatively sparse allowing for visual investigations to take place.
Soil Characterization
The following soil information is based exclusively on a literature and map review. As previously mentioned,
access to this area was not granted. According to NRCS (2010), Reference Site 4 is underlain primarily by
Roanoke silt loam (Appendix F - Figure 14). Dogue fine sandy loam and Dorovan muck also exist, but are
situated near the site's downstream confluence with the Little River. The taxonomic classifications for
Roanoke and Dogue soils are presented in Section 6.6. The taxonomic classification for Dorovan muck is
dysic, thermic typic haplosaprists (NRCS, 2010).
Soil Name: Roanoke Silt Loam (Typical Profile)
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
Ap 0 to 7
dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam; weak fine granular structure; friable, slightly
inches
sticky, slightly plastic; many fine roots; strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (5 to 9
inches thick)
Btg1 7 to 12
gray (10YR 5/1) silty clay loam; moderate fine subangular blocky structure; friable,
inches
slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many fine and medium roots; few faint clay films on faces
of peds; few medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) irregularly shaped masses
of iron accumulation; few fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid; clear smooth boundary.
Btg2 12 to 20
gray (10YR 5/1) clay; moderate medium and coarse angular blocky structure; firm,
inches
moderately sticky, moderately plastic; few medium and large roots; few faint clay films
on faces of peds; few medium prominent brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) irregularly shaped
masses of iron accumulation; few fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid; gradual smooth
boundary.
Btg3 20 to 40
gray (N 6/0) clay; moderate coarse prismatic structure parting to weak medium
inches
subangular blocky; firm, moderately sticky, moderately plastic; few medium and large
roots; common medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) irregularly shaped
masses of iron accumulation; common faint clay films on faces of peds; 2 percent quartz
gravel; few fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid; gradual smooth boundary. (Combined
thickness of the Btg horizon is 25 to 50 inches.)
BCg 40 to 50
light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) silty clay loam with a few pockets of sand; weak fine
inches
subangular and angular blocky structure; firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many
medium distinct pale yellow (2.5Y 7/4) and many medium prominent yellowish brown
(10YR 5/6) irregularly shaped masses of iron accumulation; 2 percent quartz gravel;
common fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid; gradual smooth boundary. (0 to 20
inches thick)
2Cg 50 to 72 gray (5Y 6/1) strata ranging from sand to clay; massive; many gray and green iron
inches depletions and yellow irregularly shaped masses of iron accumulation; some strata
contain up to 40 percent quartz gravel; few fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid.
Vegetation
Based on visual investigations of the reference area, a mature forest is present. Storm damage is obvious by
the gaps in the canopy, as well as evidence of downed trees. However, this damage does not seem to have
adversely effected the current type. An aerial photograph of the area is presented in Appendix F - Figure 15.
Vegetative species observed are presented below. Actual percentages and/ or dominance assessments were
not conducted since access to the property was restricted.
wattb riuperty wnugduun rmn— rerquimans County, w., Appenuix r -rage 7
May 2012

Wetland Area
Community Type — Headwater Forest
(Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp)
Liriodendron tulipifera
Quercus michauxii
Acer rubrum
Morella cerifera
Liquidambar styraciflua
Magnolia virginiana
Carpinus caroliniana
Reference Wetland 5
Wetland Buffer Area
Community Type - - Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Stratum
Stratum
Canopy
Quercus alba
Canopy
Canopy
Fagus grandifolia
Canopy
Canopy
Liriodendron tulipifera
Canopy
Understory
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Canopy
Understory
Ulmus americana
Canopy
Understory
Pinus taeda
Canopy
Understory
Quercus rubra
Canopy
Prunus serotina
Understory
Ostraya virginiana
Understory
Arundinaria sp.
Understory
Smilax sp.
Understory
Polystichum acrostichoides
Understory
According to EEP (2005), this wetland area is located approximately three miles northwest of the Watts Site
(Appendix F - Figure 16). Specifically, it is east of Red Bank Road (SR 1331) approximately one mile north of its
intersection with Woodville Road (SR 1329). This wetland site was identified as riverine. Based on the
information available, its underlying soils are mapped as Chowan silt loam (Appendix F - Figure 17). This soil
is very poorly drained and present along the floodplains of small streams that flow into the Perquimans River
(EEP, 2005).
The canopy is dominated red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and American elm
(Ulmus Americana). According to the document, it was evident that approximately 60 to 80% of the canopy
was damaged by the hurricanes that struck the area in 2004. The shrub stratum included Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), rattan vine
(Berchemia scandens) and various saplings from the species noted in the tree stratum (EEP, 2005). The
document also notes the manipulation of this site has occurred in the past, and the consultant recognized
that the reference vegetation lacks diversity (EEP, 2005). An aerial photograph of the reference area is
provided in Appendix F - Figure 18 and site photographs are also available in this appendix.
During March 2005, the consultant reportedly installed two gauges within this reference area to collect
groundwater data. These gauges were identified as WRR -1 and WRR -2. No data was available for these
gauges and it is unsure whether or not these gauges are still in place.
Ecological Engineering presented this information since it was available and associated with prior work at the
Project Site. Overall, the existing data was lacking in quantitative information and not utilized as a main
background source for the conceptual design.
Reference Wetland 6
In addition to Reference Wetland 5, the consultant also located and assessed a nearby non - riverine wetland
reference site. This site, referred to as Reference Wetland 6 is also located east of SR 1331 and approximately
three - fourths of a mile west - northwest of its intersection with SR 1329 (Appendix F - Figure 16). According to
EEP (2005), the area appears to flood much less frequently than the riverine reference wetland (Reference
Wetland 5) and although no areas of standing water were observed, soils were saturated to near the ground
Wattb riuperty rvnugduun ride— rerquimans County, ivy
May 2012
Appendix -rage o

surface. These soils were mapped as Tomotley fine sandy loam, a poorly drained soil with moderate
permeability (EEP, 2005).
The canopy was dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) with limited specimens of tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum) and an unidentified oak (EEP, 2005). The shrub stratum consists of wax
myrtle (Morelia cerifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American holly (Ilex opaca), greenbrier (Smilax
spp.) and saplings of species noted in the canopy. An aerial photograph of this area is depicted on Appendix F
- Figure 18 and site photographs are also provided in the appendix.
Ecological Engineering also presented this information since it was available and associated with prior work
at the Project Site. Overall, the existing data was lacking in quantitative information and not utilized as a
main background source for the conceptual design.
During March 2005, the consultant also reportedly installed two gauges within this reference area to collect
groundwater data. These gauges were identified as WRN -1 and WRN -2. No data was available for these
gauges and it is unsure whether or not these gauges are still in place.
Watts Property Mitigation Plan— Perquimans County, NC Appendix F -Page 9
May 2012

Reference Wetland 1 Photographs (source: EEP, 2006)
Photo 1--- Reference Wetland 1. MW 16 in foreground.
Photo 2 — Reference Wetland 1
Reference Site Photographs Page
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Perquimans County, NC 1
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Photo 3 --- Reference Wetland 1
Photo 4 - Reference Wetland 1
Reference Site Photographs Page
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Perquimans County, NC 2
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Reference Wetland 2 Photographs (source: EEP, 2006)
Photo I — Reference Wetland 2
Photo 2 — Reference Wetland 2
Reference Site Photographs Page
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Perquimans County, NC 3
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

i h
Photo 3 — Reference Wetland 2
i
v- P.. ay
Photo 4 — Reference Wetland 2
Reference Site Photographs Page
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Perquimans County, NC 4
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Reference Wetland 3 Photographs (source: EEP, 2006)
Photo 1 — Reference Wetland 3. Hanging blue /white tape indicates cross - section 2.
Photo 2 — Reference Wetland 3.
Reference Site Photographs Page
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Perquimans County, NC 5
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Photo 3 — Reference Wetland 3.
Photo A — Reference Wetland 3.
Photo 5 — Reference Wetland 3.
Photo 6 — Reference Wetland 3.
Reference Site Photographs Page
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Perquimans County, NC 6
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Photo 7 — Reference Wetland 3.
Photo 8 -- Reference Wetland 3.
Reference Site Photographs Page
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Perquimans County, NC 7
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Reference Wetland 4 Photographs
Reference Wetland 4 — Coastal Plain first order stream channel (May 2009)
Reference Wetland 4 — Coastal Plain first order stream channel (May 2009)
Reference Site Photographs
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Perquimans County, NC
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Reference Wetland 4 — Coastal Plain first order stream channel (May 2009)
Reference Wetland 4 — Coastal Plain first order stream channel (March 2010)
Reference Site Photographs
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Perquimans County, NC
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Reference Wetland 4 — Coastal Plain first order stream channel (March 2010)
Reference Wetland 4 — Coastal Plain first order stream channel (March 2010)
Reference Site Photographs
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Perquimans County, NC
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Reference Wetland 4 — Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (March 2010)
Reference Wetland 4 — Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (March 2010)
Reference Site Photographs
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Perquimans County, NC
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Reference Wetland 1 USACE Data Forms (Source: EEP, 2006)
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: 11-r Pep, C—" � f' r� 1
Date
County C,e�C wcrfl
Applicant I Owner: =
Investigator: ,r #fin SLI
State; Ott C4
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes t """ No
Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes- No -'
Transect IQ:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No
ID
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
x :.r
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant species Stratum Indicator
_ Aerial Photographs
,-
Other
10.
4.� Pr_ ' S(s mac% t,A
;•cam:
_
°-t
11. -- --
12.
Drift Lines
Field Observations:_
13.
14.
15.
6.1r t `6� ern„ 41',at p <i
7. ` ni �nu .<
8.
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
t}c
16.
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
t,--Water-Stained Leaves
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). �. e
Remarks:
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tid Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
Primary Indicators:
Other
_ Inundated
'Saturated In Upper 12"
41"'No Recorded Data Available
—Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations:_
Sediment Deposits
-4_,-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
t,--Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 2 v(io
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: /

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): �`_ =�'R'°
Drainage Class: t xz'�
Taxonomy (subgroup): € 4- rrk ti�•a �" ,: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes— No '—
Profile Description;
Depth Matrix Colors
(inches) Horizon tMunseB Moigtj
Mottle colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abund nee /Contrast Structure etc.
C�
11" LAY 'r*a:. ?1k�^`". Si...+,+.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
Histic Epipedon
_Concretions
—High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
t-- -'Sultidic Odor
__Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
_Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_
Reducing Conditions
_Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_
__4�°Gleyed or Low- Chroma Colors —Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:,
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No _ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No _ Within a Wetland? Yes t_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes `w` No
Remarks:

Reference Site 1
Upland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: UT /''i't,Lrf4t
Date:
Applicant ! Owner: i i'
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
County: CLoUx44
Investlgator. .r 'Crk, ,,
_ Other
State: A/Q a
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes
--"No
Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes
No r r
Transect:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes
No ✓
Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Sb (in.)
_ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
s
r3
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
— Aerial Photographs
Primary Indicators:
_ Other
10.
4.4 it arcta�l i
—L a''»C
C.?
12.
13.
yt
;le e
lie-a
C -
14.
Depth of Surface Water: (ia.)
$.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Sb (in.)
_ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
16.
u Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: /�
p _ (in.)
;,Local
Test
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC+ %
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
— Aerial Photographs
Primary Indicators:
_ Other
inundated
No Recorded Data Available
.Saturated In Upper 12"
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations:
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (ia.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Sb (in.)
_ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
u Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: /�
p _ (in.)
;,Local
Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: `H n

SOILS
Map Unit Name`,
(Series and Phase): i )0 r'I L 00t!,
tl1ii v `x n Drainage Class,
Taxonomy (Subgroup) q t'z_ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes—No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist) AbundancelContrast Structure_ etc.
R..: tom.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
_ Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon
_ High Organic Content In Surface Layer in Sandy Solis
idic Odor
_Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Sul
Aquic Moisture Regime
listed On Local Hydric Soils List
—Reducing Conditions
Listed on National Hydric Solis List
— Gleyed or Law - Chroma Colors —Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
Yes No is the Sampling Point
Yes No ! Within a Wetland? Yes No '
Yes No

Reference Wetland 2 USACE Data Forms (Source: EEP, 2006)
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/ Site: T b is
�..,
f P j-
� rr3C,-" (,t,�<..''ti a -r, =''
Date:
County: oek r
Applicant IOwn,e�r: :—
Investigator: S, I'an
7.
State, A%C
Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Yes V No
Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No—:;;,
Transect 10
Is the area a potential problem area?
Yes No �"
Plot ID:'z_ its
(explain on reverse if needed)
.� Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: -- (in.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
10.
12.
14.
15.
16.
2 �X?�t�sP�„ -
3. r U ,
r'
4. �7 k = t..
6.
7.
B.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC -)
Remarks:F
{
__ Water Marks
�y
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Wetiand Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
Primary Indicators:
Other
Inundated
✓aturated in Upper 12"
+ r° No Recorded Data Available
__ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations:
Sediment Deposits
.� Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: -- (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
--Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: — (in.)
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: JO (in.)
_ FAG Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

Soils
Map Unit Name
P
(Series and Phase):
-'-o Drainage Class:
ari `
Taxonomy (Subgroup): :` i "` :onfirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) -_ Horizon IMunsoll Moistl
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
g,�}g,
Fy
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
- Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Suifidic Odor
_ _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime
_Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
aOOleyed or Low- Chroma Colors
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes - –No _ is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -' No — Within a Wetland? Yes„ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No —

Reference Site 2
Upland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site:
Date:
County�
Applicant/ Owner:
Investigator: ZAP +eta
Stater(("
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Cs No
Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No -
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No
Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
11.- -- - —-
12.
13.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
_ Aerial Photographs
Primary Indicators:
_ Other
Inundated
3. r'r a r
4,
, °r
;v4 C _
rrt t
11.- -- - —-
12.
13.
5.
6.
_ Sediment Deposits
14.
15.
16.
7.
8.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-)..at'°
Remarks:
Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
Primary Indicators:
_ Other
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available
— Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations:
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in -}
Secondary Indicators:
_ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
xrs ` FAC - Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

Soils
Map Unit Naive
(Series and Phase): )o} !i 10 k
h)lv P` a � Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup) t# � r _ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon iMunselll Moist)
(Munsell Moist) AbundancelContrast Structure, etc.
y AT}
to �u f
�,. --,—
vre ? "i
'T
�! ! "" , �-+ •�
°.{ ^�'A �3�Mt- ?E� /�t+ � "T�, -rf �il4rT 5
Hydric Soil indicators:
Histosol
_ Concretions
_
_ Hisfic Epipedon
—High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor
_Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_.__ Aquic Moisture Regime
On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
_Listed
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
____ Gleyed or Law - Chroma Colors _Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes I—''- No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes — No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No _�
Hydric Soils Present? Yes— No-z----
rks:

Reference Wetland 3 USACE Data Forms (Source: EEP, 2006)

CD In 0
4
O E�i
1 �
Q
U
x U,
p R
U
❑ o
F
fl
U
U7 F
3 a
o
A E
ri
F�
a
(m) uo4updiaaad rr
M N N
4
O C
(.i3) .iajlcmpuno.iq o} gjda❑
90-unf -61
90 -unf-L l
9o-unf-t, l
90-u n f- I I
go -unf -6
90 -unf -9
g0 -unf -.V
90 -unf- I
90-f,)?W-6Z
90- ,(PW -LZ
9o-xe W -ZZ
90-,(VW-61
is
9o-Ku W -9 I 0
9044 W -P 1
9o-AT2 W - 11
904nW-6
904EW -9
g0-AtW-£
9o-x,e W- l
90- idb -8Z
9o- add -9Z
9o-adV-£Z
go- add -OZ
g0 -add -81
90-ad,V-S I
90-add -£
C
19
YJ Q
7
W_
F.
M
W
W
J
aZ
F
a=
Z W
EM
N M
ca
(m) uo4updiaaad rr
M N N
4
O C
(.i3) .iajlcmpuno.iq o} gjda❑
90-unf -61
90 -unf-L l
9o-unf-t, l
90-u n f- I I
go -unf -6
90 -unf -9
g0 -unf -.V
90 -unf- I
90-f,)?W-6Z
90- ,(PW -LZ
9o-xe W -ZZ
90-,(VW-61
is
9o-Ku W -9 I 0
9044 W -P 1
9o-AT2 W - 11
904nW-6
904EW -9
g0-AtW-£
9o-x,e W- l
90- idb -8Z
9o- add -9Z
9o-adV-£Z
go- add -OZ
g0 -add -81
90-ad,V-S I
90-add -£
C
19
YJ Q
7
W_
F.
M
W
W
J
aZ
F
a=
Z W
EM

�� Y 1 Q6 > � •, I � �/ �� t � _. � '� �� 'fie
c
��gir!
r
L 13s 1 i c = 3,00 a felt
e•
t
f
I 1
�� REFERENCE WETLAND 1_
Ld
� ~yam
Gil
-.f
�'.m
����` -. In 1 � ..y to _ � - Y ♦-
\ v5y l� Cpl "J ,♦
Gad
\I 1_' jj1 .tt :' Iloa ...i —,�— .... - � x.� -, of �ill6 •�
—
�n
U 4—
�� {.�-
�P. y ii
tO
q-
1j
C�q NAT VIAL
° r e i (tx e f r
�-
-
MEN
_ I
Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP REFERENCE WETLAND 1
128 Raleigh Street VICINITY MAP
Holly Springs, NC 27540
(919) 557 -0929 Watts Property FIGURE
Perquimans County, NC
Prepared For: NCEEP EEP Contract No. D090595 5
2728 Capital Boulevard February 21, 2011
Suite 1H 103 tem Source: NCDOT and NC Atlas & Gazetteer
Raleigh, NC 27604 41 1dI CellielI USGS Topographic Map- EDENHOUSE

Lo.
:
L
i
REFERENCE WETLAND 3 -
:
I ,
r
Y' F
g3.r I
A L, E M A A L E/ 1 .. 5 O -
1
Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP REFERENCE WETLANDS 2 AND 3
128 Raleigh Street VICINITY MAP
Holly Springs, NC 27540
(919) 557 -0929 Watts Property FIGURE
Perquimans County, NC
Prepared For: NCEEP EEP Contract No. D090595 $
2728 Capital Boulevard February 21, 2011
Suite 1H 103 tC1i1 Source: NCDOT and NC Atlas & Gazetteer
Raleigh, NC 27604 L,I 1d7 CRRII1CI7r USGS Topographic Map- YEOPIM RIVER

W
REFERENCE WETLAND 2
SOILS LEGEND
CO- Chowan silt loam
- DgA- Dogue fine sandy loam, 0 -2 % slopes
- DgB- Dogue fine sandy loam, 2 -6 % slopes
- Ro- Roanoke silt loam
W- Water
YeA- Yeopim loam, 0 -2 % slopes
Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP REFERENCE WETLAND 2
128 Raleigh Street NRCS SOILS MAP
Holly Springs, NC 27540
(919) 557 -0929 Watts Property FIGURE
Perquimans County, NC 9
Prepared For: NCEEP"'�
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D090595
November 9, 2010
Suite N 27 �,I lay l
Raleigh, NC 27604 li� lay ClI1C1 Source: NRCS Soil Data Mart and www.gisdatadepot.com

F� M 00ofiti-
a r,
REFERENCE WETLAND 2
E
i I
Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP
REFERENCE WETLAND 2
128 Raleigh Street
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Holly Springs, NC 27540
(919) 557 -0929
Watts Property
FIGURE
Perquimans County, NC
10
Prepared For: NCEEP �"`�
EEP Contract No. D090595
2728 Capital Boulevard
Suite
November 9, 2010
Raleigh, NC 27604 } Il Ie.1pIICIIf
N 27
Source: NCDOT and www.gisdatadepot.com

CO
I.:
Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
[phone]
Prepared For: NCEEP
2728 Capital Boulevard
Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
r�
SOILS LEGEND 14
CO- Chowan silt loam
Ch- Chapanoke silt loam
DgA- Dogue fine sandy loam, 0-2 % slopes
- DgB- Dogue fine sandy loam, 2-6 % slopes
7
Ro- Roanoke silt loam
k
REFERENCE WETLAND 31 4-' 1
REFERENCE WETLAND 3
NRCS SOILS MAP
Watts Property FIGURE
Perquimans County, NC 11
EEP Contract No. D090595
November 9, 2010
Source: NRCS Soil Data Mart and www.gisdatadepot.com

wnslnur �`
/ q
1 inch = 3,000 feet
Nlx ntonl zs
1329 � 1.-, " -. -. • -..
\ \
< I - %� - �r _3 _ lr i 7r�edlooSl _ J� Ai°
�.
_ 13H Wlh 1 r .� I• OeeY�c
REFERENCE WETLAND 4
!
1I 'k Irk �, \ �. ; f ,%"'`� ,� , �✓ e - .. 1�r , ,,x O
� t
--
-_
('
Fw - e a ATTS PROPERTY
� �
t
/
�1 �� �� tom••, s ' '� /. J;. \ / r' /- / !� . �, .,. /_: m
ice'
l3 Jy l R"7 / r
1
_. 1 _
r.
l � f
Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP REFERENCE WETLAND 4
128 Raleigh Street VICINTY MAP
Holly Springs, NC 27540
(919) 557 -0929 Watts Property FIGURE
Perquimans County, NC 13
Prepared For: NCEEP� EEP Contract No. D090595
2728 Capital Boulevard February 21, 2011
Suite 1H 103 tC1i1 Source: NCDOT and NC Atlas & Gazetteer
Raleigh, NC 27604 "1 1d7 Ccille,I7r USGS Topographic map- NIXONTON

N
S
REFERENCE WETLAND 5 _ — r
'�.I, � �.�1 � �1 � 1 inch = 3,000 feet
I
k /
I! �, IIj k �Nrx nton� zs j
.y,
1 —_�s
�— ' i
' REFERENCE WETLAND 6
lr � 7r�edrooSl _
I 4�
•� � � �� we � 1Y 9� � ", — J _ � � 4 \Oee Ic eA '`
1
! wigs
\�
!1
_ -i
- g WATTS PROPERTY
M27
l3 Jy l R"7 / r
r.
Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP REFERENCE WETLANDS 5 AND 6
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540 VICINITY MAP
(919) 557 -0929 Watts Property FIGURE
Perquimans County, NC 16
Prepared For: NCEEP� EEP Contract No. D090595
2728 Capital Boulevard February 21, 2011
Suite 1H 103 tC1i1 Source: NCDOT and NC Atlas & Gazetteer
Raleigh, NC 27604 1d7 Ccille,I7r USGS To o ra hic Map- NIXONTON

0
0
N
CL
LU
W
41
i
O
C
0
u
OJ
N
O
u
u
u
C
L
C�
I
�
I
Ix
WS d
FW
v
N.
�C
0
N 0
Yl
d
r
b�^
I
9'F n
rn .I
WIN
a
d
r
I
r,L!
rfJ
I - 1KP//YX.]WL 'IY.YSMYA
I � iN9fYlf]AO 'fY.'M/d9,i
a

....., ; ;�)
_§
,
; §
§ �
/
; |
§ |
; ! \!\� �" 2|
. §
| )
�§
` ; §
r §
; § §
w!� §
\ § N \ \
_!
§
|�
,!
. r.�
| |
\ ;
� |§
\ ;
|
■ ; . / �� � !�
�~ �(
�
! ��(
§ |
�§2
§ §§
B§�
|(§
|
§ �
�
�
� § �
/
� |
(m
�§
k§
\
I§
§�
I
�
$ i

APPENDIX D
Baseline Information Data
Contents:
Historical Aerial Photographs
FHWA Signed Categorical Exclusion Form
FEMA Compliance — EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
USACE Jurisdictional Determination and Associated Data Forms

Z'_
k
t_

= 1000'

rJ
;.
4
INQUIRY M 2745210.4 1 N
_ +
YEAR: 1993
= 750'
r
'cf
r,

do
M -
•' r
i
� 1
4
Y. Mme•
��
n�
• �J
.-
r' � 7
_ l

r
or

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part
1: General Project Information
Project Name:
WATTS PROPERTY STREAM AND WET LAN C7 RESTORATIQN
Count Name:
PERauIMANS
EEP Number:
413
Project Sponsor:
aENR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Project Contact Name:
G. LANE SAULS JR. - ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP
Project Contact Address:
128 RALEIGH STREET, HOLLY SPRINGS, NC 27540
Project Contact E -mail:
IsauLs@ew"icaleng -co.,
EEP Project Mana er:
HEATHER SMITH
Project Description
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
7- -to
_
Date
I`P Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are
outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8118105

Part 2: All Projects
Response
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
r❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project involve ground - disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
❑ NIA
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NIA
4, Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
a❑ No
❑ NIA
Comprehensive Environmental Resp2nse, Compensation and Liability Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project?
❑
Yes
❑
No
2. Has the zoninglland use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
0
Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
❑
No
0
NIA
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑
No
NIA
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
El
Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑
No
r
NIA
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑
No
0
NIA
B. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑
Yes
❑
No
[Z]
NIA
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
LJ
Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
0
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPQITHPQ concur?
Yes
❑
No
v
NIA
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
El
Yes
❑
No
a
NIA
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project?
El
Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
❑
Yes
❑
No
NIA
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑
Yes
❑
No
Q
NIA
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
Yes
• prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑
No
• what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑
NIA
Version 1.4, 8/18105

Version 1.4, 8118105
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
RegulationlQuestion Response
American Indian Ref ious Freedom Act AIRFA
1.
Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastem Band of
❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians?
r No
2.
Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
r N/A
3.
Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
NIA
4.
Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
El Yes
❑ No
j]r NIA
Anti uities Act AA
1.
Is the project located on Federal lands?
El
Yes
r
No
2_
Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
Yes
of
antiquity?
❑
No
r
NIA
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑
Yes
❑
No
0
NIA
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
Yes
❑
No
NIA
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1.
Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
r No
2.
Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
El Yes
❑ No
r N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
Yes
❑ No
0 NIA
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
Yes
❑ No
El NIA
Endangered Species Act ESA
I .
Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
❑
Yes
listed
for the county?
❑r
No
2,
Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑
Yes
❑
No
NIA
3.
Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Yes
Habitat?
❑
No
NIA
4.
Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify"
Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑
No
r
N/A
5.
Does the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑
Yes
❑
No
r
NIA
$.
Has the USFWS/NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑
Yes
❑
No
r
NIA
Version 1.4, 8118105

txecutive Urder 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
b the EBCI?
r No
2. Has the ESC1 indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
0 NIA
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
F71 NIA
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
❑ Yes
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique. statewide or locally
❑
❑ Yes No
important farmland?
❑ No
3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
V NIA
❑ Yes
❑ No
Q NIA
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any
Q Yes
water body?
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑r Yes
❑ No
M NIA
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section fi
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, ❑ Yes
outdoor recreation? [Z] No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? ❑ Yes
❑ No
>r N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? ❑ Yes
�
Z Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species? N❑ Yes
❑ No
Q NIA
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the Yes
project on EFH? ❑ No
r N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? ❑ Yes
❑ No
v NIA
5. Has consultation with NOAA- Fisheries occurred? Ll Yes
❑ No
r❑ NIA
Migratory Bird Treaty Act fMBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the META? ❑ Yes
r No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? ❑ Yes
❑ No
r NIA
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? ❑ Yes
❑� No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining ❑ Yes
federal agency? ❑ No
0 NIA
9 Version 1.4, 8118105

r�
{,I'�("O stern
Ilai -w 1pent
•�euuunnn
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain Mapping
program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be died for all EEP projects. The Inrm is
intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of the projects. The
farm should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with three copies submitted to
NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit (attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Namc of Projecl:
Name if stream or teaturo:
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration
tTI' to Little River
County:
Perquimans, NC
Name of* river basin:
Pasquotank River Basin
Is praiecl urban or rural?
Rural
Name orJurisdictionaI
municipality /county:
Perquimans County Unincorporated Areas, NC
FIRM panel number for
entire site:
88081
Consultant n.itne:
Ecological Engineering, LLP
Phone number:
(9I9)557 -0929
Address:
128 Raleigh Street
I [oily Springs, NC 27540
Walls FEMA Cnmpliancc FEP Checklist Page 1 of4

Design Information
Provide a general description o1'pr(liect (one paragraph )• Include project limits on a reference
orthop hot ograph at a scale oI' 1 "= 500 ".
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority
Evanmle
Reach Length Priority
LR c�rrclr 1 �]f](] Doc (Rc�srrrrrrlir�n)
T to Little River I500 11. Coastal Plain First Carder
Restoration
F If) iuIIIhIin IIIfoI - IIBtirin
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
VYCs- Ste (AarnrvLe -09 No
n-exI Qage.
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
I- Redelincation
T- Detailed Study
VLimited Detail Study
F- Approximate. Study
F- Don't know
List flood zone desiLmation:
Check if applies:
F /AE Zone
I -- Fk)odway
F- Nort- Encroachment
VNOne
A Zone
I- Local Setbacks Required
I- No Local Setbacks Require -rl
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: NIA
Watt, VLMA Compliancc_EEP Chveklisl Pajgc 2 vI'4

Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non- encroachtt>;ent /setbacks?
F Yes ry No
Land Acquisition (Check)
r
1`7 State owned (fee simple)
I- casimnt (Desi&m Bid Build)
F Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the prniccl property is state- owned, then all requirements should be addressed to the Department
of Administration, State Construction 011ice (alto: I Eerberl Nei ly, (919) 807 -4101)
Is community /counly participating in (lie NFIP program?
1 /Yes I` No
Note: iI'cotnmunity is not participating, then a I I requiretnettis should be addressed to NF IP (attti: Edward
Curtis, (919) 715 -8000 x309)
Name of Local Floodp]ain Administrator: Mr. Virgil Parrish
Phone Number: (252) 426 -8283
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant !following vcrilicaIion with the LFPA
F-' N o Action - Se a L o rn
I- No Rise
F- Letter of Map Revison
f Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
* Other Requirement`s
List other requirements-
Comments:
The pro ic l is located on an unstudied, unmapped tributary incurring backwater from a Limited Detail
Study stream with established BFE. f EM approval is not necessary. As per Mr. Bobby Darden with
the Perquimans Coutity Managers 0ftice on 5/14/10, no floodplain development permit is required
because there is no structure being put into the stream. No further coordination between NCEEP
(through Ecological Engineering, LLP) and Perquimans County will be required.
Name:
Jenny
S. Fleming, PE
Signatur
Title:
1'rinci
al
Date:
Il /t� ltv
Watis FEMA [ Compliance E. El' Cheek 11Hgc 3 of 4

Criteria for Flooding Requirements
( :rading Ivs,, than Sac:
Ncrrif)• I,I 1 "A
Nos Regiihltccl. No Cnmmunitl
Sct -had" <( ' %ulinl; nuu'r No irnhsicr Sluclv
111,111 5 ac: I.C)]Vtlt ii:
Srrc 131 l : nc1t � k,;1;1 jV h [ }fr < RISC < I fr
W C c1 1il (taro. - C] 10 MR c� LO Iv[ It iF:
E)rlinccl � � mmunily
Set- tricks Rise > 1 i'r
Regulated
(SI
clelinc•ci
(I h Nat -Rlsc)
I "If w)clw.ly Cie rtiled
[rl Fr Nct- Itisc]
Non Uncrcmchrncnl
Area [rl It No Rise
No Impact Study
(:l.C]MR, I.MIt if Risc not mcl
1.A)Mit, if ltise c 0A fr
Summary of Scenarios
one
FHA
BFE
FIoodway
Conirn.
Floodplain Criteria
[map]
IN
Or Non-
et -back
Encroachment
,S,C
o INo
No
No
}. Notify Floodplain Administration
b. FP Demo. Permit maybe required
Yes
No
No
No
a. if grading E 5 ac, notify LFPA.
yes
No
No
Yes
a. If No -Rise = 0 ft, LOMR not required
If Rise > 0 ft, LOMR is Required
If Rise > 1 ft, CLOMR is required
AE,
Yes
Yes
No
/a
. No -Rise study
Al -A30
CLOMR if > 1 Ft
LOMR
EFW
Yes
Yes
Yes
/a
. No -Rise Study
1 -A30
CLOMR if > 0 ft
LOMR
Watts FEMA Complinncc F,FT C'hec:klisl Pap:4 ol'4

Ili
LLf
08 LL
G a r
r �
Lai
_ gy
r G y < _
r �
C=
r ��
W C6 ti
a -
0
co g,°
CL
2 -
-.'.+.
I
. � ✓ibrfryly�
4
• "U �y a:
�fI Y
xr T s-
f'? I
x
w
z
Q
N
X
w
2
a
iV
x
W
z
0
N
s_
6
FAA
Y E o W�W
.o
n rP 7 C C
■
nE�$E
A
2E C7
Y
d0
D O L K
Y
��fjl
d N _
,p yY
On
CYC��774 0,
33
N
o
EELL
C2
m
�
y
_
E, 0
Y
NE
am P
� u
o � u
• "U �y a:
�fI Y
xr T s-
f'? I
x
w
z
Q
N
X
w
2
a
iV
x
W
z
0
N
s_

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 3I M to
Evaluator: L, eA,�
Total Points:
Stream is in least hurrnrittrue ty r .
If 49urperennialif�Jfl Ll7
Project: Eft - WA,-ff5
Site:
County:N644wm mg.
Latitude:
Longitude:
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomo holo Subtotal = 10.5v
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
1
2
2
3
2. Sinuosity
3. In- Channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
2
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
2
1.5
3
5. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Braided channel
Yes f 1.5
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
1
1
2
3
9". Natural levees
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
1.5
11. Grade controls
0
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1.5
sting
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence.
NCO
Yes = 3
" Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= . D }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or grovAng season
0
1
2
0
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
1
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
2
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines)
0
0.5
1
1.5
19. Hydric soils redoximor hic features) resent?
No = 0
Yes f 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 5 ■ r j
Absent
Weak
Mad to
Strong
200. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
0
210. Rooted plants in channel
3
2
0
22. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
1
2
3
24. Fish
1
1 1.5
25. Amphibians
0
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance)
.5
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri h tan
0
2
3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus
0
1
1.5
296. Wetland plants in streambed
FA -0. FACW =0.75; OBL =1.5; SAV =2.0;
Other-4
- .Items GU ano z Toctis on the presence oT upiano pants, item rj rocuses on ule preserrca vi a4uaIL; or weuniiu
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form For additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ?j 1tV�tp Project: ae- Wk"e Latitude:
Evaluator: site: L0011114-ft" Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least va, o ima, � ++ County
It 2i 9 ar nerennial it �Il t e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor hology (Subtotal = 1 U, 0 y
V. Continuous bed and bank
Absent
Weak
Moderate
S g
0
1
1
3
2. Sinuosity
0
1
CV
2
3. In- Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
0
1.5
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
ep
2
3
5. Activelrelic flood plain
0
1
&T3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
No = 0
2
3
7. Braided channel
0
CD
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0
2
3
9 . Natural levees
0
0
2
3
10, Headcuts
0
FAC =0.5; FA .75' BL=1.5; SAV =2A;
er =Q
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
1
1 5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
.5
1
1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
��
N� = o j
��
Yes = 3
° Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology {Subtotal = ►rs }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or grovAng season
0
1
2
0
16. Leafs itter
1.5
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles {Wrack lines )
0
&T3
1
.5
19. Hydric soils redoximor hic features) present?
No = 0
Yes
1.
C. Biology (Subtotal= ■� �J }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
20", Fibrous roots in channel
3
1
0
210. Rooted plants in channel
3
2
U
0
22. Cra h
0
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
1
2
3
24. Fish
Q
&T3
1
1 1.5
25. Amphibians
0
T5
1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversi and abundance
0
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
0
2
3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus
0
1
1.5
29". Wetland plants in streambed
FAC =0.5; FA .75' BL=1.5; SAV =2A;
er =Q
",Items zu and 21 tocus on in presence OT up1ano pi ants, Item zu rocutie5 U1 U I W Nrrarsru.:G ur oy um! u in vrrrueiru
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2005- -11813 County: Perquimans U.S.G.S_ Quad: Niaonton, NC
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner /Agent: Ms. Heather Smith, EEP Project Mana -aer
Address: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Ralei h North Carolin 27699 -1652
Telephone No.: (919) 715 -5590
Property description:
Size (acres) 48 acres Nearest Town New Home
Nearest Waterway Little River River Basin Pasguotank
USGS HUC 030I0205 Coordinates N 36.1454101 W 75.2562275
Location description The project area is located off Norma Drive near it's intersection with Little River Shore Road
{NCSR 132_.6],. northeast of the community of New Hone, in the vicinity of Durant's Neck. adiacent to the Little River.
in Perpuimans County (Property known as the Watts Site).
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps_ This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 33I).
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant_ To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed
and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA
jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 13814). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
Page 1 of 2

X The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Elizabeth City, NC, at (252) 264 -3901 to determine
their requirements.
Action Id. SAW - 2005-11813
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 30I of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Bill Biddlecome at (910) 251 -4558.
C. Basis For Determination
This waterbody exhibits an Ordinary High Water Mark as indicated by changes in soil character and absence of
terrestrial vegetation and is hydrologically connected to the Little River which is a tributa to the Albemarle Sound.
D. Remarks
Site visits by Tracey Wheeler and Dave Lekson (Corps of Engineers) on three separate occasions 12118/2003 9/1/2005
and 9/2712005
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wihhington Regulatory Division
Attn :Bill Biddlecome, Project Manager,
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.Q. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by November 13,_2010.
* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence. **
Corps Regulatory Official: i J
Date 49/13/2010 Expiration Date 09/13/2015
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at h : / /re Pau Iatorv.usacesurve .com / to
complete the survey online.
Copy furnished:
Mr. Lane Sauls Jr.
Ecological Engineering, LLP
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
(919) 557 -0929
Page 2 of 2

NOTIFICA'T'ION OF ADMINISTRATIVF, AN IFA1, OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST' 1�Olt All I'EAL
Applicant: EEP/Ecological Engineering LLP
File Number: SAW -2005-
11813
Date: 09/13/2010
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at http: / /www.usace. army .miljinet /functionslcwldecwolreg or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization_ If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section ll of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections roust be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (e) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below_
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by Contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative: record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record_
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Mr. Bill Biddlecome Mr_ Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Washington Regulatory Field Office CESAD- ET -CO -R
P.O. Box 1000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Washington, North Carolina 27889 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
(910) 2514558 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or ent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn:Bill Biddlecome, Project Manager,
Washington Regulatory Field Office, P.O Box 1400, Washington, //forth Carolina 27889
For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303 -8801

Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Watts Site
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
L. Sauls
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is this area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Date:
3/16/2010
County:
Perquimans
State:
NC
Community ID:
Wetland
Tran sect ID:
12.
Plot ID:
13.
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus herb FACW
9.
2. Polygonum sp. herb FACW
10.
3.
11.
4.
12.
5.
13.
6.
14.
7.
15.
8.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
x Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
x Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 4 (in.)
x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
x Water - Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
_
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
(Series and Phase)
Roanoke silt loam
Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup)
Typic endoaquults
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth
Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon
(Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
0 -10" A
10 YR 512
7.5 YR 514
Moderate /Distinct Silt loam
10 -16" Btg
10 YR 612
10 YR 516
Moderate /Distinct Clay
10 YR 511
Few /Distinct Clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
• Aquic Moisture Regime
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
• Reducing Conditions
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
• Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No
Hydric Soils Present?
Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approvea oy HQuNAuh siyz

Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Watts Site
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
L. Sauls
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is this area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Date:
3/16/2010
County:
Perquimans
State:
NC
Community ID:
Upland
Tran sect ID:
FAC
Plot ID:
Aster sp.
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Field Observations:
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
1. Rubus sp.
shrub
FAC
9.
Aster sp.
herb
FACU
2. Baccharis hahmifolia
shrub
FAC
10.
Vicia sp.
herb
NI
3. Rhus sp.
shrub
FACU
11.
Lamium sp.
herb
UPL
4. Eupatorium capillifolium
herb
FACU
12.
5. Andropogon sp.
herb
FAC-
13.
6. Festuca sp.
herb
FACU
14.
7. Stellaria sp.
herb
FACU
15.
8. Trifolium sp.
herb
FACU
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG).
18%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
_
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_
Water- Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12" (in.)
_
Local Soil Survey Data
_
FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12" (in.)
_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Yes No
(Series and Phase)
Roanoke silt loam
Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Hydric Soils Present?
Yes No
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup)
Typic endoaquults
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth
Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon
(Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
0 -10" A
10 YR 512 7.5 YR 514
Few /Distinct Silt loam
10 -16" Btg
10 YR 612 7.5 YR 514
Few /Distinct Clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_Reducing Conditions
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No
Hydric Soils Present?
Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approvea oy HQuNAuh siyz

APPENDIX E
Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Contents:
Groundwater Data
Groundwater Modeling/ Hydrologic Budget
Soil Characterization
HEC -RAS Model and Graphic

r-I y
� 41
MO a
i 3
i O
O i
�' C7
i -
O O
G �
M
(ui) uoi;e;idi3aad
I� lD Ln M N —A
O
OT- IDO -LT
OT -Ony -g
OT- /aeW -0£
v
OT- aeW -TZ 3
c
0
OT- uef -OT
0
t
CL
v
60 -AON -T o
60- OnV -£Z
0
c
0
60- unf - -VT
.Q
u
v
L
d
60 -ady -S 1
60- Uef -SZ
80- nON -9T
80 -daS -L
80- unf -6Z
0
0
N
l0
80- ady -OZ °o
N
80- qaj -OT
LO -Daa -Z
LO- daS -£Z
LO- Inf -ST
LO -Ae W -9
LO- qaj -SZ
v
u
co
90-N)(1-LT 3
c
3
90 -IDO -8 p bA
v
O
90- Inf -O£
v
s
u
C
90- /aeW -TZ
c
0
CL
90- aeW -ZT c
41
c�
90 -uef -T v
Ln
� ar
O Ln O Ln O Ln O N O Ln O
(ui) aa;empunoaE) o; q;daa

N y
� 41
G1 �
MO a
3
i O
O i
�' C7
r-
0 O
2 -*
00 r, �D
(ui) uoi;e;idi3aad
Ln M N -A
O
in O in O in ON N in OM M in 0 in
0 in
(ui) aa;empunoaE) o; q;daa
OT- IDO -LT
OT -Ony -g
OT- /aeW -0£
v
0
c
OT- aeW -TZ o
0
0
t
OT- Uef -OT a
v
0
60 -AON -T
60- OnV -£Z o
0
'ZI
m
.Q
60- unf - -VT v
a
1
60 -adV -S
60- Uef -SZ
80- nON -9T
80 -daS -L
80- unf -6Z
0
0
N
i
80- ady -OZ °o
N
80- qaj -OT
LO -Daa -Z
LO- daS -£Z
LO- Inf -ST
LO -Ae W -9
LO- qaj -SZ
90- Da(1-LT
90 -IDO -8
90- Inf -0£
90 -Ae W -T Z
90 -aeW -ZT
90 -u e f -T

M y
� 41
MO a
r- 3
i O
O i
�' C7
r-
0 o
IN
(ui) uoi;e;idi3aad
I� lD Ln M N —A
O
OT- IDO -T£
OT -IDO -£
OT -daS -S
OT -Ony -g
OT- Inf -TT
OT- unf -£T
OT- /aeW -9T
OT- ady -gT
v
OT- aeW -TZ 3
OT- qaj -TZ
OT- uef - -VZ 2
60- N)(1-LZ
t
60- AON -6Z a
v
60 -AON -T o
60 -4:)0 -,
60 -daS -9
60 -OnV -6
60- Inf -ZT
0
60- unf - ,VT
60- /aeW -LT Q'
v
60- adV -6T a
60- aeW -ZZ '
60- qaj -ZZ
60- Uef -SZ
80- Da(I-8Z
80- AON -O£
80 -AON -Z
80 -4:)O -S
80 -daS -L
80- OnV -OT
80- Inf -£T
80- unf -ST
0
80- /aeW -gT N
80- ady -OZ eo°�
80 -aeW -£Z
80- qaj -t,Z
80- Uef -LZ
LO- Daa -0£
LO -Daa -Z
LO -AON -t,
LO -IDO -L
LOADS-6
LO- OnV -ZT
LO- Inf -ST
LO- unf -LT
LO -Ae W -OZ
LO- adV -ZZ
LO -aeW -SZ
LO- qaj -SZ
LO- Uef -BZ
90- Da(1-T£ u
c�
90 -:)aa -£ 3
90 -nON -S c
3
90 -IDO -8 O
eo
90- daS -OT aj
90- Ony -£T m
c�
90- Inf -9T
aj
s
90- unf -gT u
90- /aeW -TZ N
M
90- ady -£Z
90- aeW -9Z a
90- qaj -9Z r-
.2
90- Uef -6Z
90 -uef -T
Ln U
O Ln O Ln ON N Ln OM M Ln 0
0
(ui) aa;empunoaE) o; q;daa

a1
MO 3
'i O
O i
O o
(ui) uoi;e;idi3aad
00 I, lD Ln M N —A O
c
0
u
U
C
3
m
c
aj
E
3
c
O Ln O Ln O Ln O N O M O in
(ui) aa;empunoaE) o; q;daa
OT- IDO -T£
OT -IDO -£
OT -daS -S
OT -Ony -g
OT- Inf -TT
OT- unf -£T
OT- /aeW -9T
OT- ady -gT v
n3
OT- aeW -TZ
c
OT- qaj -TZ o
OT- uef -t,Z 0
0
60- Daa -LZ
60- AON -6Z v
0
60 -AON -T
60 -4:)0 -,V
60 -daS -9
60 -Ony -6
n3
60- Inf -ZT °
c
60- unf - ,VT
n3
60- /aeW -LT a
60- ady -6T v
o_
60- aeW -ZZ
60- qaj -ZZ
60- Uef -SZ
80- :)D(I-8Z
80- AON -O£
80 -AON -Z
80 -4:)O -S
80 -daS -L
80- Ony -OT
80- Inf -£T
80- unf -ST o
80- /aeW -gT
80- ady -OZ °o
80- aeW -£Z N
80- qaj -t,Z
80- Uef -LZ
LO- Daa -0£
LO -Daa -Z
LO -AON -t,
LO -IDO -L
LOADS -6
LO- Ony -ZT
LO- Inf -ST
LO- unf -LT
LO -Ae W -OZ
LO- ady -ZZ
LO -aeW -SZ
LO- qaj -SZ
LO- Uef -BZ
90 -Daa -T £
90 -Daa -£
90 -AON -S
90 -IDO -8
90- daS -OT
90- Ony -£T
90- Inf -9T
90- unf -8T
90 -Ae W -T Z
90- ady -£Z
90 -aeW -9Z
90- qaj -9Z
90- Uef -6Z
90 -uef -T

L y
� 41
MO 3
i O
O i
�' C7
r-
0 o
M
(ui) uoi;e;idi3aad
I� lD Ln M N —A
O
OT- IDO -T£
OT -IDO -£
OT -daS -S
OT -Ony -g
OT- Inf -TT
OT- unf -£T
OT- /aeW -9T
OT- ady -gT
v
OT- aeW -TZ 3
OT- qaj -TZ
OT- uef -t,Z 0
60- N)(1-LZ
t
60- AON -6Z a
v
60 -AON -T o
60 -4:)0 -,
60 -daS -9
60 -OnV -6
60- Inf -ZT
0
60- unf - ,VT
60- /aeW -LT Q'
v
60- adV -6T a
60- aeW -ZZ '
60- qaj -ZZ
60- Uef -SZ
80- Da(I-8Z
80- AON -O£
80 -AON -Z
80 -4:)O -S
80 -daS -L
80- OnV -OT
80- Inf -£T
80- unf -ST o
0
80- /aeW -gT e�
80- ady -OZ °o
N
80 -aeW -£Z
80- qaj -t,Z
80- Uef -LZ
LO- Daa -0£
LO -Daa -Z
LO -AON -t,
LO -IDO -L
LOADS-6
LO- OnV -ZT
LO- Inf -ST
LO- unf -LT
LO -Ae W -OZ
LO- adV -ZZ
LO -aeW -SZ
LO- qaj -SZ
LO- Uef -BZ
90 -Daa -T £
90 -Daa -£
90 -AON -S
90 -IDO -8
90- daS -OT
90- OnV -£T
90- Inf -9T
90- unf -8T
90 -Ae W -T Z
90- adV -£Z
90 -aeW -9Z
90- qaj -9Z
90- Uef -6Z
90 -uef -T
O
LI?
O Ln O Ln O Ln O N O M O in
(ui) aa;empunoaE) o; q;daa

lC y
� 41
MO a
r- 3
i O
O i
�' C7
r-
0 o
M
(ui) uoi;e;idi3aad
I� lD Ln M N -A
O
OT- IDO -T£
OT -IDO -£
OT -daS -S
OT -Ony -g
OT- Inf -TT
OT- unf -£T
OT- /aeW -9T
OT- ady -gT
v
OT- aeW -TZ 3
OT- qaj -TZ �
OT- uef -t,Z
60- :)aa -LZ °
t
60- AoN -6Z
0
60 -AON -T
60 -4:)0 -,V
60 -daS -9
60 -Ony -6 0
0
60- Inf -ZT c
0
60- unf - ,VT o
60- /aeW -LT Q"
v
60- ady -6T a
60- aeW -ZZ '
60- qaj -ZZ
60- Uef -SZ
80- Da(I-8Z
80- AoN -O£
80 -AON -Z
80 -4:)O -S
80 -daS -L
80- Ony -OT
80- Inf -£T
80- unf -ST
0
80- /aeW -gT N
80- ady -OZ eo°�
80 -aeW -£Z
80- qaj -t,Z
80- Uef -LZ
LO- Daa -0£
LO -Daa -Z
LO -AON -t,
LO -IDO -L
LOADS-6
LO- Ony -ZT
LO- Inf -ST
LO- unf -LT
LO -Ae W -OZ
LO- ady -ZZ
LO -aeW -SZ
LO- qaj -SZ
LO- Uef -BZ
90 -Daa -T £
90 -Daa -£
90 -AON -S
90 -IDO -8
90- daS -OT
90- Ony -£T
90- Inf -9T
90- unf -8T
90 -Ae W -T Z
90- ady -£Z
90 -aeW -9Z
90- qaj -9Z
90- Uef -6Z
90 -uef -T
0
O Ln O Ln O Ln O in O in
(ui) aa;empunoaE) o; q;daa

Q o
m
C �
o
0 �
tv
-1--' L,
c
D
CL
E
E
D
4*6 M
U� C7
� D
D
z
vu- unr -trz
b0-unf -LL
ro -unr -o 4
1p -unr-
to-Ae W-Lz
,v0 -Apn -0
#0-A2"-Cl
-Ae W-9
i,o- adV -6Z
o
LO
CL
0
trD -qaj -6 L
Vo-ge_�-q
�p- uer -6�
tr0- uer -zZ
-uof -9 L
- user -g
-uerq
C;) u3 0 Lo o LO o w��
(aae}ans punoiG molaq)
s04aul 'joleM of WldaQ

Itt
0
0
C4
0
u
0
LV
CL
9+
0
ca
a
CCf �
L �
cm
C
0
F
(eaupne punoi6 nnufaq)
S ,agoui 'jajuM of glda(]
170-De ❑-9!
tro -oaa -6
tro -�WY K
*(Y- nosy -9z
b0 -noN -8 G
t?o -^°N- G G
tro-AON -t?
K -po -laz
-o- L z
VO-O-L
p •
0- dad -�
LO
�
m
jVp -d8 - Z
o
v0 -deS -9 6
mu
v0 -daS -6
0
b0,de -Z
.
p0- 5nv -9z
170- bny -64
r
#0 -bnV- 4
b0-bny -g
t,o-ln -6
170- inr -zz
va -inr -S L
17o -jars
vo -irlr -�

F
0
0
N
d
W
w
a
O
_ C
0
CD
Q
N
QmO m
Cc
7
E
m =
cu
�F
-W C
•ii
cn
*-}tt y..2
I
I
d7
� c
m W
� I ,
o o 40 q o
0 0 +q to
aL]3ul `t4eO I14uiem Apea
tfO -Unf - #z
tro -u n f -14
tro -u n f -0 G
va- Aew -Lz
w4l w-oz
bo-Ae4V-C L
#p -JdV -g
170 -1 dV -9 4
0
'C
-JdV -g
CL
c
170 -J dV- �
L
170-JEA-BL
�
0
-vO-gazj-s
yn -uer -L
0
O
0
z

F
0
0
N
d
LU
W
4)
-d-a
9
0
a
E
Clq
�I
#� C
cn
i
#O -nOWG
N- -17
W
I
b0-PO -6
O
o +° °o v°> o v°7
t*S rti ni f � o
irD ❑-9 4
tr0•� ❑•fir
Y&AGN-9E7
170- ,took -$ L
#O -nOWG
N- -17
y170-
YV -PO kF
b0-PO -6
O
•L
tro -PO -L
Vo-d8S•Z
to-gz
vo-CnV-6
t+U �V-Z L
vuAnv-S
vo-jnf`13Z
"- Inr -zz
1?0 -I n r-s 4
tr0'Inf •$
b0 -I n r- L
0
0
0
ai
0
z

Groundwater Modeling/ Hydrologic Budget
Methodology and Input Data
Development of the water budget follows equations presented in the Engineering Field
Handbook (USDA, 1997). The following equations were used to determine the inflow, outflow
and water available for storage on -site.
AS /At = Q - Qo
Where: AS /At = change in water volume per unit time
Q; = flow rate of water entering wetland
Qo = flow rate of water exiting wetland
Q;= P +R; +B; +G; +P; +T;
Where: P = direct precipitation
R; = stormwater runoff from contributing drainage area
B; = base flow from streams entering wetland
G; = groundwater entering wetland
P; = water pumped or artificially added to the wetland
T; = tidal flow into wetland
Qo= R +T +Ro +Bo +Go +Po +To
Where: E = evaporation from surface
T = transpiration
Ro =
stormwater outflow
Bo =
base flow leaving wetland
Go =
groundwater leaving wetland
Po =
water pumped or artificially removed from wetland
To =
tidal flow out of wetland
S =SS +SP
Where: S = total volume of stored water
Ss = volumes of stored surface water
Sp = volume of stored subsurface water
Site Data
The physical properties of Roanoke silt loam are presented below along with a chart of mean
monthly temperatures.
Soil Physical Properties
Soil Type Depth (in) Texture
Hydraulic Porosity (%)
Conductivity
(mm /hr)
Roanoke 0-8 Silty Loam
25 43
8 -19 Silty Clay Loam
8 49
19 -33 Silty Clay
3 51
Data obtained from Pierce, Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, fourth
edition and Schwab, Soil and Water Conservation Engineering

Mean Monthly Temperatures
Month
Mean Temperature ( °F)
Mean Temperature ( °C)
January
42.4
5.8
February
44.8
7.1
March
51.8
11.0
April
60.1
15.6
May
67.8
19.9
June
75.7
24.3
July
79.9
26.6
August
78.3
25.7
September
73.2
22.9
October
62.6
17.0
November
54.1
12.3
December
45.9
7.7
Data obtained from State Climate Center website, Elizabeth City Station, October 2010
Water Storage
The following chart depicts the calculated water storage available at the Project Site.
Water Storage
Soil Type Depth (in) Average Water Capacity Storage Capacity (ft)
(in /in) (depth) *(capacity) *(area)
Roanoke 0 -8 0.17 236,595.5
8 -36 0.175 851,743.6
Total 1,088,339
Data obtained from Soil Survey of Perquimans County
Using a storage depth of three feet, and a surface area of 2,087,604 square feet, a total
subsurface storage capacity of 1,088,339 ft3 was calculated. It is anticipated that minimal or no
surface water (ponding) will occupy the wetland areas, with exception of the channel flowing
through the Site. Due to the Site constraints, a conservative estimate of no surface water was
made for calculation purposes.
I nfl MAI
Precipitation
The average annual precipitation over the last 30 years was 48.2 inches, per the State Climate Office as
recorded in Elizabeth City. Over the square footage of the property, a volume of 8,385,209 ft3 of rainfall was
calculated.
Stormwater Runoff
To simplify calculations and to be more conservative, stormwater inputs are assumed to be zero
Base Flow
Base flow is assumed to be zero.
Groundwater Flow
Due to a perimeter ditch that circumvents the project site and extensive draining of adjacent properties,
zero groundwater inflow is assumed for conservative calculation purposes.
Artificially Added Water
There is no water artificially added to the Project Site.

Tidal Flow
The water level in the wetlands is not influenced by tidal flows.
Outflow
Evapotranspiration (E + T)
The loss of water due to evaporation and transpiration (ET) was calculated using the Thornthwaite Method.
Temperature data was obtained from the State Climate Office Website, Elizabeth City Station.
ET = 1.6 *(10 *Ta / I)a
Where: ET = Evapotranspiration
Ta = mean monthly air temperature ( °C)
I = heat index over 12 months
a = 0.49 + 0.0179 * 1 - 0.0000771 * 1 Z + 0.000000675 * 13
I = sum of 12 i values
i = (Ta / 5) 1.514
Where: i = monthly heat index
Ta = mean monthly air temperature ( °C)
Water loss due to evapotranspiration is 30.93 inches per year (5,338,011 ft3 /year) due to a heat
index of 77.61. The value of "a" calculates to 1.730.
Stormwater Runoff
To simplify calculations and to be more conservative, stormwater outputs are assumed to be zero.
Base Flow
Base flow is assumed to be zero.
Groundwater Flow
Groundwater flow exiting the project site was calculated from an equation presented in Applied Hydrology,
Third Frlitinn
Vx = ( K / ne ) * (dh /dl)
Where: Vx = ground water velocity
K = hydraulic conductivity of the soil
ne = soil porosity
dh /dl = change in vertical distance over change in horizontal
distance
The Watts property is underlain predominately by Roanoke silty loam. This soil type exhibits a K
of 25 mm /hr and ne of 43% up to a depth of eight inches. From eight to 36 inches the K is 8
mm /hr and ne is 49 %. For a conservative calculation, K of 25 and ne of 43% was used for the
entire three foot depth studied. A volume of 11,530 ft3 /year was calculated to leave the site via
groundwater flow.
Artificially Added Water
There is no water artificially removed from the Project Site.
Tidal Flow
The water level in the wetlands is not influenced by tidal flows.

Summary
Storage
SS = 0 ft3
S, = 1,088,339 ft3
S = 1,088,339 ft3
Inflow
P = 8,385,209 ft3
R; = 0 ft3
B; = 0 ft3
G; = 0 ft3
P; = 0 ft3
T; =0ft3
Q; = 8,385,209 ft3
Outflow
E + T = 5,338,011 ft3
Ro = 0 ft3
Bo = 0 ft3
Go = 11,530 ft3
Po = 0 ft3
To = 0 ft3
Qo = 5,349,541 ft3
Change in Volume
Q; = 8,385,209 ft3
Qo = 5,349,541 ft3
AS /At = 3,035,668 ft3
The water budget results verify the presence of adequate water to meet the proposed wetland
hydrology criteria for the majority of the Project Site. Calculations indicate excess water when
comparing inflow to outflow and by assuming that base channel flow and stormwater flow were
zero, these calculations present a conservative estimate of available water.

Component Name: Profile #1 Map Unit Symbol: Roanoke silt loam Date: November 2010
Depth
(in)
Horizon
Matrix Color
(Moist)
Texture
Structure
Consistency
(Moist)
Mottles
Color Abundance Size Contrast
Comments
1
0 -5
A
7.5YR 5/4
silt loam
granular
friable
'', ',,
many fine roots
2
6 -13
Btg1
10YR 4/1
silty clay loam
subangular blocky
friable
'..
weak structure
3
14 -30
Btg2
10YR 6/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 5/6 '.. common coarse distinct
ORCs present
4
31 -36+
Btg3
10YR 6/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 6/8 common ''., medium '', prominent
25YR 4/1 '. common coarse faint
ox id ized root cha n neIs(0RCs)
present
5
6
Component Name: Profile #2 Map Unit Symbol: Roanoke silt loam Date: November 2010
Depth
(in)
Horizon
Matrix Color
(Moist)
Texture
Structure
Consistency
(Moist)
Mottles
Color Abundance Size Contrast
Comments
1
0 -7
Ap
7.5YR 5/4
silt loam
granular
friable
..
many fine roots
2
8 -18
Btg1
10YR 6/1
silty clay loam
subangular blocky
friable
10YR 6/6 '., common medium distinct
weak structure
3
19 -26
Btg2
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 5/6 '.. common '.. medium '.. distinct
10YR 3/3 '.. few medium distinct
ORCs present
4
27 -36+
Btg3
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 5/6 common coarse distinct
2.5YR 4/1 '.. common coarse faint
few fine roots, ORCs present
5
6
Component Name: Profile #3 Map Unit Symbol: Roanoke silt loam Date: November 2010
Depth
(in)
Horizon
Matrix Color
(Moist)
Texture
Structure
Consistency
(Moist)
Mottles
Color Abundance Size Contrast
Comments
1
0 -7
Ap
7.5YR 5/4
silt loam
granular
friable
..
many fine roots
2
8 -12
Btg1
10YR 6/1
silty clay loam
subangular blocky
friable
10YR 6/8 '.. common medium prominent
weak structure
3
13 -30
Btg2
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 6/8 common ''., medium '', prominent
ORCs present
4
31 -36+
Btg3
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 6/8 common '., medium prominent
10YR 4/6 few medium distinct
ORCs present
5
6

Component Name: Profile #4 Map Unit Symbol: Roanoke silt loam Date: November 2010
Depth
(in)
Horizon
Matrix Color
(Moist)
Texture
Structure
Consistency
(Moist)
Mottles
Color Abundance Size Contrast
Comments
1
0 -7
Ap
7.5YR 5/4
silt loam
granular
friable
..
many fine roots
2
8 -32
Btg1
10YR 4/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 5/8 '.. common medium prominent
fine sandy streaking of
2.5YR 8/1
3
33 -36+
Btg2
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 4/6 '.. common medium distinct
thin striations of quartz gravel
and fine flakes of mica
4
31 -36+
Btg3
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
'..
ORCs present
5
6
Component Name: Profile #5 Map Unit Symbol: Roanoke silt loam Date: November 2010
Depth
(in)
Horizon
Matrix Color
(Moist)
Texture
Structure
Consistency
(Moist)
Mottles
Color Abundance Size Contrast
Comments
1
0 -9
A
7.5YR 5/4
silt loam
granular
friable
..
many fine roots
2
10 -21
Btg1
10YR 5/1
silt clay loam
subangular blocky
friable
10YR 7/8 '., few fine prominent
weak structure
3
22 -30
Btg2
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 5/8 common medium prominent
few fine roots, ORCs present
4
31 -36+
Btg3
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 6/8 many '.. medium '.. prominent
2.5YR 4/1 '.. common medium faint
ORCs present
5
6
Component Name: Profile #6 Map Unit Symbol: Roanoke silt loam Date: November 2010
Depth
(in)
Horizon
Matrix Color
(Moist)
Texture
Structure
Consistency
(Moist)
Mottles
Color Abundance Size Contrast
Comments
1
0 -7
Ap
7.5YR 5/4
silt loam
granular
friable
..
many fine roots
2
8 -36+
Btg
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 5/8 common medium prominent
2.5YR 4/1 common medium faint
few fine roots, ORCs present
3
'..
4
5
6

Component Name: Profile #7 Map Unit Symbol: Roanoke silt loam Date: November 2010
Depth
(in)
Horizon
Matrix Color
(Moist)
Texture
Structure
Consistency
(Moist)
Mottles
Color Abundance Size Contrast
Comments
1
0 -7
Ap
7.5YR 5/4
silt loam
granular
friable
'', ',,
many fine roots
2
8 -20
Btg1
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 6/8 '.. common medium prominent
few fine roots, small organic
bodies, and ORCs present
3
21 -36+
Btg2
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 6/8 '.. common medium prominent
2.5YR 4/1 few medium faint
ORCs present
4
23 -24
Oe
2.5YR 2/1
mucky peat
'..
5
25 -36+
2Btg
10YR 5/1
silty clay loam
subangular blocky
friable
10YR 6/8 many '.. medium '.. prominent
10YR 4/6 common coarse distinct
ORCs present
6
Component Name: Profile #8 Map Unit Symbol: Roanoke silt loam Date: November 2010
Depth
(in)
Horizon
Matrix Color
(Moist)
Texture
Structure
Consistency
(Moist)
Mottles
Color Abundance Size Contrast
Comments
1
0 -8
Ap
7.5YR 5/4
silt loam
granular
friable
..
many fine roots
2
9 -27
Btg1
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 6/8 '., common medium prominent
few fine roots, small organic
bodies, and ORCs present
3
28 -36+
Btg2
10YR 6/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 5/8 '.. common '.. medium '.. prominent
ORCs present
4
23 -24
Oe
2.5YR 2/1
mucky peat
5
25 -36+
2Btg
10YR 5/1
silty clay loam
subangular blocky
friable
10YR 6/8 many '.. medium '.. prominent
10YR 4/6 common coarse distinct
ORCs present
6
Component Name: Profile #9 Map Unit Symbol: Roanoke silt loam Date: November 2010
Depth
(in)
Horizon
Matrix Color
(Moist)
Texture
Structure
Consistency
(Moist)
Mottles
Color Abundance Size Contrast
Comments
1
0 -8
Ap
7.5YR 5/4
silt loam
granular
friable
..
many fine roots
2
9 -18
Btg1
2.5YR 5/2
silty clay loam
subangular blocky
friable
10YR 5/6 '.. common fine distinct
weak structure
3
19 -22
Btg2
10YR 5/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 4/6 common ''., medium ''., distinct
ORCs present
4
23 -24
Oe
2.5YR 2/1
mucky peat
5
25 -36+
2Btg
10YR 5/1
silty clay loam
subangular blocky
friable
10YR 6/8 many '.. medium '.. prominent
10YR 4/6 common coarse distinct
ORCs present
6

Component Name: Profile #10 Map Unit Symbol: Roanoke silt loam Date: November 2010
Depth
(in)
Horizon
Matrix Color
(Moist)
Texture
Structure
Consistency
(Moist)
Mottles
Color Abundance Size Contrast
Comments
1
0 -15
Ap
7.5YR 5/4
silt loam
granular
friable
many fine roots
2
16 -36+
Btg
10YR 6/1
clay
angular blocky
firm
10YR 6/8 '., common medium prominent
L.
few fine roots and ORCs
present
3
4
5
6

HEC -RAS River: UT Little River Reach: Watts
Reach
River Ste
Profile
Plan
Q Total
Min Ch El
W . Elev
Crit W .
E.G. Elev
E.G. Slope
Val Chnl
Flow Area
Top Width
Fronde # Chl
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/ft)
(ftls)
(sq ft)
(ft)
Watts
1365
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
3.20
5.32
5.36
0.001719
1.63
14.44
16.35
0.24
Watts
1365
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
3.20
4.49
4.50
0.001747
0.80
29.52
35.79
0.14
Watts
1365
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
3.20
5.92
5.97
0.001834
1.98
28.65
31.00
0.25
Watts
1365
5yr
Proposed
45.00
3.20
4.98
5.00
0.001870
1.07
49.43
45.58
0.15
Watts
1365
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
3.20
6.21
6.27
0.001984
2.25
39.74
50.15
0.27
Watts
1365
10yr
Proposed
65.00
3.20
5.31
5.33
0.001925
1.23
65.38
52.11
0.16
Watts
1365
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
3.20
6.51
6.58
0.002031
2.48
59.06
75.72
0.28
Watts
1365
25yr
Proposed
95.00
3.20
5.73
5.75
0.001912
1.40
89.16
60.55
0.16
Watts
1365
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
3.20
6.69
6.77
0.002093
2.65
74.11
90.78
0.29
Watts
1365
50yr
Proposed
120.00
3.20
6.02
6.05
0.001929
1.53
107.68
66.64
0.17
Watts
1365
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
3.20
6.86
6.94
0.002204
2.83
90.24
104.55
0.30
Watts
1365
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
3.20
6.31
6.35
0.002008
1.68
128.56
76.28
0.17
Watts
1165
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
2.83
4.93
4.98
0.002196
1.74
12.64
9.48
0.27
Watts
1165
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
2.80
4.17
4.18
0.001454
0.68
32.52
37.43
0.12
Watts
1165
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
2.83
5.50
5.57
0.002212
2.19
27.28
45.66
0.28
Watts
1165
5yr
Proposed
45.00
2.80
4.65
4.66
0.001508
0.91
52.74
47.01
0.13
Watts
1165
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
2.83
5.82
5.88
0.001883
2.25
45.39
68.32
0.27
Watts
1165
10yr
Proposed
65.00
2.80
4.96
4.98
0.001573
1.06
68.33
53.23
0.14
Watts
1165
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
2.83
6.15
6.21
0.001721
2.35
72.76
107.72
0.26
Watts
1165
25yr
Proposed
95.00
2.80
5.39
5.41
0.001524
1.21
95.20
72.78
0.15
Watts
1165
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
2.83
6.33
6.39
0.001685
2.44
95.52
140.54
0.26
Watts
1165
50yr
Proposed
120.00
2.80
5.68
5.71
0.001504
1.31
118.63
86.87
0.15
Watts
1165
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
2.83
6.49
6.55
0.001689
2.54
120.25
169.13
0.26
Watts
1165
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
2.80
5.97
6.00
0.001532
1.42
145.20
100.48
0.15
Watts
965
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
2.60
4.45
4.50
0.002532
1.89
12.21
1205 .
0.29
Watts
965
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
2.60
3.78
3.79
0.002812
1.04
25.57
33.51
0.18
Watts
965
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
2.60
4.87
4.98
0.004103
2.76
18.04
15.81
0.38
Watts
965
5yr
Proposed
45.00
2.60
4.19
4.22
0.003519
1.44
41.30
41.86
0.21
Watts
965
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
2.60
5.08
5.25
0.005746
3.49
21.86
25.82
0.46
Watts
965
10yr
Proposed
65.00
2.60
4.47
4.51
0.003843
1.69
53.71
47.42
0.22
Watts
965
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
2.60
5.29
5.55
0.007537
4.31
30.16
50.60
0.53
Watts
965
25yr
Proposed
95.00
2.60
4.94
4.98
0.003322
1.83
77.90
56.71
0.22
Watts
965
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
2.60
5.45
5.72
0.008092
4.68
39.10
67.80
0.56
Watts
965
50yr
Proposed
120.00
2.60
5.22
5.27
0.003475
2.03
95.99
73.92
0.22
Watts
965
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
2.60
5.61
5.88
0.008010
4.89
51.61
86.31
0.56
Watts
965
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
2.60
5.48
5.54
0.003650
2.22
118.12
93.25
0.23
Watts
765
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
2.10
4.05
4.07
0.001808
1.22
18.39
29.74
0.24
Watts
765
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
2.10
2.96
2.98
0.006395
1.09
2022 .
32.15
0.24
Watts
765
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
2.10
4.57
4.59
0.001000
1.26
48.27
83.97
0.19
Watts
765
5yr
Proposed
45.00
2.10
3.38
3.41
0.004704
1.30
35.73
40.67
0.23
Watts
765
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
2.10
4.80
4.82
0.000968
1.37
69.48
106.91
0.19
Watts
765
10yr
Proposed
65.00
2.10
3.78
3.80
0.003241
1.34
53.19
48.51
0.20
Watts
765
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
2.10
5.01
5.04
0.001038
1.55
95.05
129.26
0.20
Watts
765
25yr
Proposed
95.00
2.10
4.51
4.53
0.001556
1.22
101.46
91.31
0.15
Watts
765
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
2.10
5.16
5.19
0.001060
1.65
115.71
144.93
0.21
Watts
765
50yr
Proposed
120.00
2.10
4.80
4.82
0.001508
1.31
130.81
112.87
0.15
Watts
765
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
2.10
5.32
5.35
0.001069
1.74
139.83
161.32
0.21
Watts
765
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
2.10
5.05
5.07
0.001579
1.43
160.99
132.70
0.15
Watts
565
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
1.20
3.65
3.69
0.002052
1.53
14.55
18.95
0.25
Watts
565
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
1.20
2.33
2.34
0.001889
0.76
29.70
37.59
0.14
Watts
565
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
1.20
4.40
4.42
0.000763
1.32
54.24
88.03
0.17
Watts
565
5yr
Proposed
45.00
1.20
2.93
2.94
0.001395
0.92
55.68
49.52
0.13
Watts
565
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
1.20
4.62
4.64
0.000793
1.44
76.06
109.07
0.18
Watts
565
10yr
Proposed
65.00
1.20
3.46
3.47
0.000980
0.94
84.92
60.18
0.12
Watts
565
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
1.20
4.81
4.84
0.000965
1.69
98.48
127.11
0.20
Watts
565
25yr
Proposed
95.00
1.20
4.34
4.35
0.000568
0.91
148.92
96.24
0.09
Watts
565
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
1.20
4.95
4.98
0.001040
1.82
117.21
140.41
0.21
Watts
565
50yr
Proposed
120.00
1.20
4.62
4.63
0.000637
1.02
178.37
116.71
0.10
Watts
565
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
1.20
5.10
5.13
0.001092
1.94
139.19
154.47
0.21
Watts
565
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
1.20
4.84
4.86
0.000753
1.16
206.27
133.23
0.11
Watts
465
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
0.70
3.46
3.48
0.000592
1.02
26.51
4201 .
0.14
Watts
465
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
0.70
2.05
2.06
0.001054
0.57
38.68
42.10
0.10
Watts
465
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
0.70
4.33
4.34
0.000225
0.85
87.15
98.34
0.10
Watts
465
5yr
Proposed
45.00
0.70
2.72
2.72
0.000833
0.63
71.00
55.35
0.10
Watts
465
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
0.70
4.54
4.55
0.000285
1.01
108.99
112.23
0.11
Watts
465
10yr
Proposed
65.00
0.70
3.33
3.34
0.000469
0.62
108.72
67.41
0.08
Watts
465
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
0.70
4.70
4.71
0.000426
1.28
127.32
122.69
0.13
Watts
465
25yr
Proposed
95.00
0.70
4.27
4.28
0.000250
0.59
181.72
94.02
0.06
Watts
465
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
0.70
4.82
4.83
0.000523
1.46
142.39
130.66
0.15
Watts
465
50yr
Proposed
120.00
0.70
4.54
4.55
0.000290
0.67
209.22
112.00
0.07
Watts
465
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
0.70
4.95
4.97
0.000622
1.63
159.85
139.33
0.16
Watts
465
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
0.70
4.75
4.76
0.000357
0.78
233.80
125.93
0.08
Watts
365
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
0.67
3.42
3.43
0.000437
0.86
30.43
47.39
0.12
Watts
365
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
0.67
1.93
1.94
0.001402
0.63
34.88
40.25
0.12
Watts
365
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
0.67
4.32
4.32
0.000155
0.70
103.86
118.21
0.08
Watts
365
5yr
Proposed
45.00
0.67
2.63
2.64
0.000953
0.66
67.76
54.18
0.10
Watts
365
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
0.67
4.52
4.53
0.000198
0.84
129.60
135.65
0.09
Watts
365
1 0yr
Proposed
65.00
0.67
3.28
3.29
0.000484
0.62
107.59
67.24
0.08

HEC -RAS River: UT Little River Reach: Watts (Continued)
Reach
River Ste
Profile
Plan
Q Total
Min Ch El
W . Elev
Crit W .
E.G. Elev
E.G. Slope
Val Chnl
Flow Area
Top Width
Froude # Chl
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/ft)
(ftls)
(sq ft)
(ft)
Watts
365
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
0.67
4.66
4.67
0.000304
1.08
150.12
148.09
0.12
Watts
365
25yr
Proposed
95.00
0.67
4.25
4.25
0.000248
0.59
186.91
112.34
0.06
Watts
365
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
0.67
4.77
4.79
0.000379
1.24
167.07
157.62
0.13
Watts
365
50yr
Proposed
120.00
0.67
4.51
4.52
0.000285
0.67
219.45
134.97
0.07
Watts
365
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
0.67
4.90
4.91
0.000457
1.40
186.80
168.04
0.14
Watts
365
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
0.67
4.71
4.72
0.000351
0.77
248.17
152.18
0.07
Watts
315
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
0.68
3.38
3.39
0.000304
0.78
38.93
63.82
0.10
Watts
315
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
0.68
1.73
1.74
0.002884
0.82
26.88
36.06
0.17
Watts
315
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
0.68
4.31
4.31
0.000085
0.55
145.72
156.14
0.06
Watts
315
5yr
Proposed
45.00
0.68
2.52
2.53
0.001249
0.73
61.35
51.76
0.12
Watts
315
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
0.68
4.51
4.51
0.000107
0.65
178.28
168.65
0.07
Watts
315
10yr
Proposed
65.00
0.68
3.23
3.24
0.000542
0.64
103.49
66.06
0.08
Watts
315
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
0.68
4.65
4.65
0.000166
0.83
202.19
177.27
0.08
Watts
315
25yr
Proposed
95.00
0.68
4.22
4.23
0.000246
0.58
206.12
150.95
0.06
Watts
315
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
0.68
4.75
4.76
0.000209
0.95
221.37
183.90
0.10
Watts
315
50yr
Proposed
120.00
0.68
4.48
4.49
0.000274
0.65
247.49
167.18
0.07
Watts
315
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
0.68
4.87
4.88
0.000256
1.08
243.15
191.15
0.11
Watts
315
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
0.68
4.68
4.69
0.000332
0.74
281.12
179.28
0.07
Watts
265
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
0.35
3.38
1.50
3.38
0.000126
0.55
58.97
82.92
0.07
Watts
265
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
0.35
1.64
0.72
1.65
0.001268
0.61
36.17
40.89
0.11
Watts
265
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
0.35
4.30
1.97
4.31
0.000052
0.46
167.07
142.95
0.05
Watts
265
5yr
Proposed
45.00
0.35
2.48
0.92
2.48
0.000636
0.58
77.17
58.07
0.09
Watts
265
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
0.35
4.50
2.40
4.51
0.000073
0.57
196.74
154.71
0.06
Watts
265
10yr
Proposed
65.00
0.35
3.21
1.06
3.22
0.000314
0.54
126.77
82.38
0.07
Watts
265
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
0.35
4.64
2.78
4.64
0.000119
0.75
218.30
162.72
0.07
Watts
265
25yr
Proposed
95.00
0.35
4.21
1.23
4.22
0.000165
0.51
236.92
137.65
0.05
Watts
265
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
0.35
4.74
2.95
4.75
0.000157
0.88
235.58
168.87
0.09
Watts
265
50yr
Proposed
120.00
0.35
4.47
1.35
4.48
0.000194
0.58
274.50
152.91
0.06
Watts
265
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
0.35
4.86
3.11
4.86
0.000200
1.01
255.20
175.59
0.10
Watts
265
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
0.35
4.66
1.48
4.67
0.000243
0.68
304.86
164.21
0.06
Watts
215
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
0.00
3.20
1.43
3.33
0.001652
2.83
7.79
55.26
0.28
Watts
215
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
0.00
1.49
0.57
1.53
0.004612
1.64
13.39
44.75
0.24
Watts
215
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
0.00
4.30
2.24
4.30
0.000061
0.56
137.06
102.38
0.05
Watts
215
5yr
Proposed
45.00
0.00
2.32
0.92
2.40
0.004361
2.15
2091 .
61.55
0.25
Watts
215
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
0.00
4.50
2.84
4.50
0.000091
0.71
158.13
111.18
0.06
Watts
215
10yr
Proposed
65.00
0.00
3.07
1.18
3.16
0.003591
2.35
27.64
76.69
0.24
Watts
215
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
0.00
4.63
3.64
4.64
0.000156
0.95
173.10
117.03
0.09
Watts
215
25yr
Proposed
95.00
0.00
4.21
1.51
4.21
0.000121
0.47
241.16
103.41
0.04
Watts
215
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
0.00
4.73
4.10
4.74
0.000212
1.13
185.06
121.51
0.10
Watts
215
50yr
Proposed
120.00
0.00
4.46
1.77
4.47
0.000149
0.54
269.02
113.21
0.05
Watts
215
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
0.00
4.84
4.10
4.85
0.000280
1.32
198.58
126.37
0.12
Watts
215
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
0.00
4.65
2.05
4.66
0.000194
0.64
291.11
120.42
0.06
Watts
182
Culvert
Watts
150
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
0.00
1.44
1.44
2.11
0.021813
6.59
3.34
7.50
1.01
Watts
150
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
0.00
1.18
1.00
1.39
0.014326
3.70
5.94
7.09
0.71
Watts
150
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
0.00
2.26
2.26
3.34
0.018352
8.33
5.40
8.82
1.00
Watts
150
5yr
Proposed
45.00
0.00
2.02
1.43
2.22
0.007009
3.61
12.47
8.43
0.52
Watts
150
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
0.00
2.86
2.86
4.24
0.016984
9.43
6.89
9.78
1.00
Watts
150
10yr
Proposed
65.00
0.00
2.60
1.74
2.81
0.005240
3.70
17.57
9.36
0.47
Watts
150
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
0.00
3.50
3.50
3.67
0.003019
3.37
33.50
38.00
0.36
Watts
150
25yr
Proposed
95.00
0.00
3.26
2.13
3.52
0.004215
4.03
23.55
24.69
0.44
Watts
150
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
0.00
3.72
3.50
3.90
0.003156
3.64
43.37
50.49
0.38
Watts
150
50yr
Proposed
120.00
0.00
3.72
2.42
3.90
0.003156
3.64
43.37
50.50
0.38
Watts
150
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
0.00
4.07
3.50
4.22
0.002576
3.55
67.64
118.02
0.35
Watts
150
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
0.00
4.07
2.70
4.22
0.002576
3.55
67.64
118.02
0.35
Watts
100
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
-2.00
0.78
0.91
0.006019
2.85
7.72
5.56
0.43
Watts
100
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
-2.00
0.78
0.91
0.006019
2.85
7.72
5.56
0.43
Watts
100
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
-2.00
1.74
1.90
0.005146
3.21
14.01
7.49
0.41
Watts
100
5yr
Proposed
45.00
-2.00
1.74
1.90
0.005146
3.21
14.01
7.49
0.41
Watts
100
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
-2.00
2.36
2.55
0.004731
3.41
1905 .
8.73
0.41
Watts
100
10yr
Proposed
65.00
-2.00
2.36
2.55
0.004731
3.41
1905 .
8.73
0.41
Watts
100
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
-2.00
3.06
3.28
0.004493
3.70
25.77
13.63
0.41
Watts
100
25yr
Proposed
95.00
-2.00
3.07
3.28
0.004490
3.70
25.77
13.65
0.41
Watts
100
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
-2.00
3.52
3.73
0.003684
3.74
37.82
39.19
0.38
Watts
100
50yr
Proposed
120.00
-2.00
3.52
3.73
0.003684
3.74
37.83
39.20
0.38
Watts
100
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
-2.00
3.92
4.08
0.002859
3.58
57.72
61.35
0.34
Watts
100
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
-2.00
3.92
4.08
0.002859
3.58
57.72
61.35
0.34
Watts
50
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
-3.00
0.50
0.61
0.005459
2.69
8.17
4.67
0.36
Watts
50
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
-3.00
0.50
0.61
0.005459
2.69
8.17
4.67
0.36
Watts
50
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
-3.00
1.43
0.08
1.61
0.006530
3.44
13.07
5.90
0.41
Watts
50
5yr
Proposed
45.00
-3.00
1.43
0.08
1.61
0.006530
3.44
13.07
5.90
0.41
Watts
50
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
-3.00
2.03
0.58
2.26
0.007018
3.81
17.05
7.41
0.44
Watts
50
10yr
Proposed
65.00
-3.00
2.03
0.58
2.26
0.007018
3.81
17.05
7.41
0.44
Watts
50
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
-3.00
2.73
1.17
2.99
0.007079
4.16
22.85
9.27
0.47
Watts
50
25yr
Proposed
95.00
-3.00
2.73
1.16
2.99
0.007074
4.16
22.86
9.27
0.47
Watts
50
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
-3.00
3.18
1.60
3.47
0.006722
4.38
28.16
1995 .
0.47
Watts
50
50yr
Proposed
120.00
-3.00
3.18
1.60
3.47
0.006720
4.38
28.16
19.96
0.47

HEC -RAS River: UT Little River Reach: Watts (Continued)
Reach
River Ste
Profile
Plan
Q Total
Min Ch El
W . Elev
Crit W .
E.G. Elev
E.G. Slope
Val Chnl
Flow Area
Top Width
Froude # Chl
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/ft)
(ftls)
(sq ft)
(ft)
Watts
50
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
-3.00
3.61
2.06
3.88
0.005388
4.33
42.17
44.36
0.43
Watts
50
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
-3.00
3.61
2.06
3.88
0.005388
4.33
42.17
44.36
0.43
Watts
0
2yr
Ebsfing
2200 .
-3.00
0.00
-0.69
0.21
0.012449
3.67
6.00
4.00
0.53
Watts
0
2yr
Proposed
2200 .
-3.00
0.00
-0.69
0.21
0.012449
3.67
6.00
4.00
0.53
Watts
0
5yr
Ebsfing
45.00
-3.00
0.08
0.08
0.87
0.045190
7.11
6.33
4.11
1.01
Watts
0
5yr
Proposed
45.00
-3.00
0.08
0.08
0.87
0.045190
7.11
6.33
4.11
1.01
Watts
0
10yr
Ebsfing
65.00
-3.00
0.58
0.58
1.48
0.042202
7.60
8.55
4.78
1.00
Watts
0
10yr
Proposed
65.00
-3.00
0.58
0.58
1.48
0.042202
7.60
8.55
4.78
1.00
Watts
0
25yr
Ebsfing
95.00
-3.00
1.17
1.17
2.21
0.040341
8.21
11.57
5.55
1.00
Watts
0
25yr
Proposed
95.00
-3.00
1.16
1.16
2.21
0.040453
8.22
11.55
5.55
1.00
Watts
0
50yr
Ebsfing
120.00
-3.00
1.60
1.60
2.72
0.038316
8.51
14.11
6.26
1.00
Watts
0
50yr
Proposed
120.00
-3.00
1.60
1.60
2.72
0.038351
8.51
14.10
6.26
1.00
Watts
0
1 00y
Ebsfing
150.00
-3.00
2.06
2.06
3.23
0.036228
8.69
17.27
7.49
1.01
Watts
0
1 00y
Proposed
150.00
-3.00
2.06
2.06
3.23
0.036223
8.69
17.27
7.49
1.01

HEC -RAS Plan: ProonaeA River tJT I role River Rearh Watts
Reach
River Sta
Prohle
a Total
Min Ch El
W.S. Eisy,...,
Cro W.S.
E.G. Elev
E.G. Slope
Val Chnl
Flow Area
Top Width .
M Chl
Shear Chan
(c%)
(ft)
(ft) A
L ,.. (ft)
(ft)
(ft/ft)
(ft1s)
(sQ 1)
00 -
(IbNa ft)
Wafts
0
2yr
_ 2200 .
45.00
-3.00
0.00
-0.69
0.21
0.012449
3.67
6.00
4.00
0.53
0.65
Watts
0
Syr
-3.00
0.08
0.08
0.87
0.045190
7.11
6.33
4.11
1.01
2.41
Watts
0
10yr
65.00
3.00
0.58
0.58
1.48
0.042202
7.60
8.55
4.78
1.00
2.62
Watts
0
25yr
95.00
-3.00
1.16
1.16
2.21
0.040453
8.22
11.55
5.55
1.00
2.92
Watts
0
50yr
120.00
-3.00
1.60
1.60
2.72
0.038351
8.51
14.10
6.26
1.00
3.03
Watts
0
100yr
150.00
-3.00
2.06
2.06
3.23
0.036223
8.69
17.27
7.491
1.01
3.08
Watts
50
2yr; *' -
22.00
-3.00
0.50
0.61
0.005459
2.69
8.17
4.67
0.36
0.33
Watts
50
5yr�
45.00
-3.00
1.43
_
0.08
1.61
0.006530
3.44
13.07
5.90
0.41
0.50
Watts
50
10';
65.00
-3.00
2.03
0.58
2.28
0.007018
3.81
17.05
7.41
0.44
0.59
Watts
blahs
50
50
25
50yr
,.
95.00
120.00
-3.00
-3.00
2.73
3.18
1.16
2.99
0.007074
4.16
22.86
9.27
0,47
0.68
1.60
3.47
0.008720
4.38
28.16
19.98
0.47
0.72
Watts
50
100yr
150.00
-3.00
3.61
2.06
3.88
0.005388
4.33
42.17
44.35
0.43
0.67
Watts
100
2yr
22.00
-2.00
0.78
0.91
0.008019
2.85
7.72
5.58
0.43
0.37
Watts
100
Syr
45.00
-2.00
1.74
1.90
0.005146
3.21
14.01
7.49
0.41
0.43
Watts
100
10yr
65.00
-2.00
2.36
2.55
0.004731
3.41
19.05
8.73
0.41
0.46
Watts
100
25yr
_
95.00
-2.00
3.07
3.28
0.004490
3.70
25.77
13.65
0.41
0.51
Watts
100
50yr
120.00
-2.00
3.52
3.73
0.003684
3.74
37.83
39.20
0.38
0.49
Wafts
100
100"
150.00
-2.00
3.92
4.08
0.002859
3.58
57.72
61.35
0.34
0.43
Watts
150
2yr
1 22.00
0.00
1.18
1.00
1.39
0.014326
3.70
5.94
7.09
0.71
0.68
Watts
150
Syr
45.00
0.00
2.02
1.43
2.22
0.007009
3.81
12.47
8.43
0.52
0.55
Watts
1150
10yr ; -1-
25 --
65.00
0.00
2.80
1.74
2.81
0.005240
3.70
17.57
9.36
0.47
0.53
blahs
1150
95.00
0.00
3.26
2.13
3.52
0.004215
4.03
23.55
24.89
0.44
0.57
Watts
150
50yr-,.
120.00
0.00
3.72
2.42
3.90
0.003158
3.84
43.37
50.50
0.38
0.45
Waal
150
100
150.00
0.00
4.07
2.70
4.22
0.002576
3.55
67.64
118.02
0.35
0.41
Watts
182
Culvert
-
Watts
215
2yr
22.00
0.00
1.49
0.57
1.53
0.004612
1.64
13.39
44.75
0.24
0.43
Watts
215
Syr
45.00
0.00
2.32
0.92
2.40
0.004361
2.15
20.91
61.55
0.25
0.63
Watts
215
10yt
65.00
0.00
3.07
1.18
3.16
0.003591
2.35
27.64
76.69
0.24
0.89
Watts
215
25yr
95.00
0.00
4.21
1.51
4.21
0.000121
0.47
241.16
103.41
0.D4
0.03
Watts
215
50yr
120.00
0.00
4.46
1.77
4.47
0.000149
0.54
269.02
113.21
0.05
0.03
Watts
215
100yr
150.00
0.00
4.65
2.05
4.66
0.000194
0.64
291.11
120.42
0.06
0.05
Watts
265
2yr_: - -..
22.00
0.35
1.64
0.72
1.65
0.001265
0181
36.17
40.89
0.11
0.07
Watts
265
Syr
_
45.00
0.35
2.48
0.92
2.48
0.000636
0.58
77.17
58.07
0.09
0.06
Watts
265
lover -
65.00
0.35
3.21
1.06
3.22
0.000314
0.54
126.77
82.38
0.07
0.04
Watts
2e5
26yrj
95.00
0.35
421
1.23
4.22
01000165
0.51
238.92
137.65
0.05
0.03
Watts
Watts
265
285
50 :
100yf"
120.00
150.00
0.35
0.35
4.47
4.66
1.35
1.48
4.48
0.000194
0.58
274.50
152.91
0.06
0.04
4.67
0.000243
0.88
304.86
164.21
0.06
0.05
Watts
315
2yr
22.00
0.68
1.73
1.74
0.002884
0.82
26.88
36.06
0.17
0.13
Watts
315
Syr
45.00
0.68
2.52
2.53
0.001249
0.73
61.35
51.76
0.12
0.09
Watts
315
10yr
65.00
0.68
3.23
3.24
0.000542
0.64
103.49
66.06
0.08
0.06
Watts
315
25yr
95.00
0.68
4.22
4.23
0.000246
0.58
206.12
150.95
0.06
0.04
Watts
315
SOyr
_
120.00
0.68
4.48
4.49
0.000274
0.65
247.49
167.18
0.07
0.05
Watts
315
100 y
150.00
0.68
4.68
4.69
0.000332
0.74
281.12
179.28
0.07
0.07
Watts
365
2W
22.00
0.67
1.93
1.94
0.001402
0,63
34.88
40.25
0.12
0.08
Watts
365
Syr
45.00
0.67
2.63
2.64
0.000953
0.66
67.76
54.16
0.10
0.07
Watts
365
10yr
65.00
0.67
3.28
3.29
0.000484
0.82
107.59
67.24
0.08
0.08
Watts
365
25yr
95.00
0.67
4.25
4.25
0.000248
0.59
186.91
112.34
0.06
0.04
Watts
385
50yr
120.00
0.67
4.51
4.52
0.000285
0.67
219.45
134.97
0.07
0.06
Watts
385
t00yr
_
150.00
0.67
4.71
4.72
0.000351
0.77
248.17
152.18
0.07
0.07
Watts
465
2yr _; -; -
22.00
0.70
2.05
2.06
0.001054
0.57
38.68
42.10
0.10
0.06
Watts
465
Syr ,
45.00
0.70
2.72
2.72
0.000833
0.63
71.00
55.35
0.10
0.07
Wafts
485
1OyF.,;.. - -,
65.00
0.70
3.33
3.34
0.000469
0.62
108.72
67.41
0.08
0.06
Watts
465
25yr
95.00
0.70
4.27
4.28
0.000250
0.59
181.72
94.02
0.06
0.04
Watts
485
50yr
120.00
0.70
4.54
4.55
0.000290
0.67
209.22
112.00
0.07
0.06
Watts 1465
100yr A
150.00
0.70
4.75
4.76
0.000357
0.78
233.80
125.93
0.08
0.07
Watts 1585
2yr
1 2100
1.20
2.33
2.34
0.001889
0.76
29.70
37.59
0.14
0.11
Wafts INS
_
Syr - 45.00
1.20
2.93
2.94
0.001395
0.92
55.68
49.52
0.13
0.13
Watts I
565
1 65.00
1.20
3.46
3.47
0.000980
0.94
84.92
80.18
0.12
0.13
Watts ISO
25yis_, 95.00
1.20
4.34
4.35
0.000568
0.91
148.92
96.24
0.09
0.10
Watts
505
50yr - - -.y 120.00
1.20
4.82
4.63
0.000637
1.02
178.37
116.71
0.10
0.13
Watts
565
1 150.00
1.20
4.84
4.86
0.000753
1.16
206.27
133.23
0.11
0.16
Watts
765
2yr'!I-qM 22.00
2.10
2.98
2.98
0.006395
1.08
20.22
32.15
0.24
0.25
Watts
765
Syr -
45.00
2.10
3.38
3.41
0.004704
1.30
35.73
40.67
0.23
0.30
Watts
765
10yr ,;.
65.00
2.10
3.78
3.80
0.003241
1.34
53.19
48.51
0.20
0.29
Watts
Watts
76 5
785
25'"
50yF,
95.00
2.10
4.51
4.53
0.001556
1.22
101.46
91.31
0.15
0.21
120.00
2.10
4.80
4.82
0.001508
1.31
130.81
112.87
0.15
0.23
Watts
765
100yr " "' -
150.00
2.10
5.05
5.07
0.001579
1.43
160.99
132.70
0.15
0.27
Watts
BOB
2yr
22.00
2.60
3.78
3.79
0.002812
1.04
25.57
33.51
0.18
0.19
Watts
965
Syr
45.00
2.60
4.19
4.22
0.003519
1.44
41.30
41.86
0.21
0.33
Watts
965
10yr
65.00
2.60
4.47
4.51
0.003843
1.69
53.71
47.42
0.22
0.43
Watts
985
25yr
95.00
2.80
4.94
4.98
0.003322
1.83
77.90
58.71
0.22
0.48
Watts
965
1 50yr
120.00
2.60
5.221
5.27
0.003475
2.03
95.99
73.92
0.22
0.55

HEC -PAS PI- Prnnnsed Ri-, UT Little Riwr Reach Watt, ((- finwd)
Reach
River Sla
Profie
0 Total
Min Ch El -
W.S. Sev
Crd W.S.
E.G. Elev
E.G.
-:Val Chnl
Flow Area..
Top Width
Froud8 M Chl
Shear an
(cfs)
(f)
(f)
(ft) .
(ft)
(
d (fUs)
(-Cft
(fi)
Pia R)
Watts
965
1 00y
150.00
2.60
5.46
5.54
0.003650
2,22
118.12
93.25
_
0.23
0.64
Watts
7185
2yr ; 22.00
2.80
4.17
4.16
0.001454
0.68
32.52
37.43
0.12
0.09
Watts
1165
Syr 45.00
2.80
4.65
4.66
0.001508
0.91
52.74
47.01
0.13
0.13
Watts
1165
10yr; 65.00
2.80
4.96
4.98
0.001573
1.06
68.33
53.23
0.14
0.17
Watts
Watts
1165
1165
25yr -; 95.00
50yr 120.00
2.80
2.80
5.39
5.68
5.41
5.71
0.001524
0.001504
1.21
1.31
95.20
118.83
72.76
86.871
0.15
0.15
0.21
0.23
Watts
1165
100yf;: 150.00
2.80
5.97
6.00
0.001532
1.42
145.20
100.48
0.15
0.26
Watts
1365
2yr w 22.00
3.20
4.49
4.50
0.001747
0.80
29.52
35.79
0.14
0.11
Watts
1365
5yr -1: 45.00
3.20
4.98
5.00
0.001870
1.07
49.43
45.58
0.15
0.18
Watts
1365
10yr ` 65.00
3.20
5.31
5.33
0.001925
1.23
65.38
52.11
0.16
0.22
Watts
1365
25yr 95.00
3.20
5.73
5.75
0.001912
1.40
89.18
%55
0.16
0.27
Watts
1365
50yr - 120.00
120
6.02
6.05
0.001929
1.53
107.68
66.64
0.17
0.31
Watts
1385
100yrl- 150.00
3.20
6.31
6.35
0.002008
1.68
128.58
76.28
0.17
0.36

a O
M N
N O Ln N
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
O
N
T
O
O
N
co
N
0 o
�
0
N
X
W
N
>
O
0
0)
O 00
co
>
c
I
L
a
U
J
�U
c �
co
�j
O
N
O
o
O
O
N_
LO
O
LO
O O
v
O O
N
O
V
00 (O V N O N
(11) uOlIL'nal3

APPENDIX G
Project Plan Sheets

1Q0 50 0 100 200
11111 —
0
FILL EXISTING INTERIOR DITCHES TO GRADE y/
WITHIN PROPOSED PERIMETER BERM Y
PROPOSED UT TO
LITTLE RIVER CORRIDOR
MTYPICAL CHANNEL SECTIONS
CHANNEL PLAN VIEW DETAIL)
CHANNEL PLAN VIEW DETAIL
NOTE:
PLACE COURSE, WOODY DEBRIS AT
RANDOM INTERVALS THROUGHOUT
CHANNEL BOTTOM
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
TOP OF
I� BANK
I I
I
I I
BASES
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
FLOW
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I �
- - Al
V_
/
REPLACE EXISTING PIPE UNDER NORMA DRIVE WITH
2 @ 36" CORRUGATED ALUMINUM PIPES WITH HEADWALL
!l l if l
L.
_l/k�
_YYYY
-
�
Y Y
/
EL
y
PLUG EXISTING PIPES
- 1� __ 1� _" _" _" _" _"RA'MOV't
\,/EXTSTDK
Lk
r
i
W
i
/ Y
Y'
/4'�
PIPES
PROPERTY LINE
TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTIONS
(NOT TO SCALE)
STA. 10 +00 to 18 +50
70:1 to NG 10:1 10 NG
10.0'
STA. 18 +50 to 25 +06
]0 ,I \I 15.0' jo , to NG
FILLALL EXISTING INTERIOR DITCHES TO GRADE
WITHIN PROPOSED PERIMETER BERM
RETAIN EXISTING PIPE
�v
. «« EWA
LEGEND
PROPOSED NON - RIPARIAN
WETLAND AREAS
PROPOSED PERMANENT SPOIL AREA
PROJECT
ENGINEER
� x� v�sso�oNS�u��N
d
z
C) W
Ln
w � �
F4 N
z �
Ln C�
wo
I-� W4 w W O
Q 0 a U
zr�
z
cn
u�Qo�z
Z w
0
A
cn Q�cn
z U
W
N N
o� W O z
7 b
U Q-1
Q O In
H
W
z=
W
Q
J-1-1
�u g
�r
N
_u z
,
_ o
V
WELL 3
/
REPLACE EXISTING PIPE UNDER NORMA DRIVE WITH
2 @ 36" CORRUGATED ALUMINUM PIPES WITH HEADWALL
!l l if l
L.
_l/k�
_YYYY
-
�
Y Y
/
EL
y
PLUG EXISTING PIPES
- 1� __ 1� _" _" _" _" _"RA'MOV't
\,/EXTSTDK
Lk
r
i
W
i
/ Y
Y'
/4'�
PIPES
PROPERTY LINE
TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTIONS
(NOT TO SCALE)
STA. 10 +00 to 18 +50
70:1 to NG 10:1 10 NG
10.0'
STA. 18 +50 to 25 +06
]0 ,I \I 15.0' jo , to NG
FILLALL EXISTING INTERIOR DITCHES TO GRADE
WITHIN PROPOSED PERIMETER BERM
RETAIN EXISTING PIPE
�v
. «« EWA
LEGEND
PROPOSED NON - RIPARIAN
WETLAND AREAS
PROPOSED PERMANENT SPOIL AREA
PROJECT
ENGINEER
� x� v�sso�oNS�u��N
d
z
C) W
Ln
w � �
F4 N
z �
Ln C�
wo
I-� W4 w W O
Q 0 a U
zr�
z
cn
u�Qo�z
Z w
0
A
cn Q�cn
z U
W
N N
o� W O z
7 b
U Q-1
Q O In
H
W
z=
W
Q
J-1-1
�u g
�r
N
_u z
,
_ o
V

1Q0 50 0 100 200
o • - o • -• - o • -• - o o • - o •- ❖ -•-
X11 �1-•-•-•• •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- • -• -• -�
- - • - • - - - • - --- - • - -- -- -- -- • - -- -- • - - - • - -- - - -
o- 000 - wo•-
oo•- oo•- o• j j- �•Sdd•Zoddddddv
-•.
.o•.00•. -. - .•.--
-•.o"
•.-- --•-o--•.� / /:•- 000000000000•.
• . TO �••-- •••o -• -�
.- .- •- • -. -•- all /l.•- •- •- •- • -• -•. •y- •- • -• -• -•
LITTLE RIVER CORRIDOR
.-- oo•.00 -.
.- - ❖.- -•.mil /ll ►• -• -• -000" �- oo• -o•�
•.0000a/
.o•.o• -000
.00000•: �.- •0000�
.••-- •••• -••. .•---
•- o• -• -• .000 - - -. •---- -• - - -.
��Q•O.4•' .•O-
►•• ❖00: �•000a�0!1
O•O -O!/ /.pppp: V .•pppp
/ /l.-• -OOO« •�•OOOo
► -00i4� iiii-
iii -i /// ►-•O••O-• -000ai
�000�� -�-
-��/
� 0000
�000�! 0- 0000-
1�- 00� -�� r''.•000i
- - -i�l /►�•iiii� - iiiii.
►•iiiii •iiiiiiiii/
�iiiii� ` �iiiiiiii
/ /:- i- i -i -i -: �•i -i -ii
-il
• • • • • ��
►-- •••-- •••• -. �o- •oo••o
- - ❖ //: -add•.
►•iiiiiii iiii�ii -iii
Oi -ii -i- ►i-
►i- i- i- ii -i -i ��i- ii- i- i- i -ii��� Oiiii
•iiiiii�
iii4•ii
�
Oiiiiiiii� • - -
- - • - - - • -
♦ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • / �•- • - -••1
ice••••••- ••••• -•i
►••-••-•••••-•-•-•-•- •- •••••- •- •••- •- •- " /
• -• - -�
•- •- •- •- • -• -•�
/,.•-
ice•-
. --
---- - - - - --
WWWWPIN
-s .- :•:e
AREA TO BE PLANTED
WITH UPLAND SPECIES
-- -- - - - --- NG
PLANTING LEGEND
ZONE 1: STREAM BOTTOM SPECIES
ZONE 2: UPLAND SPECIES
ZONE 3: NON - RIPARIAN WETLAND
SPECIES
25' PLANTED WITH STREAM BOTTOM SPECIES AREA TO BE PLANTED
WITH UPLAND SPECIES
PROPOSED STREAM BED
LNG-- - - - - - --
ENGINEER
)?
]PRl_l]L_rr15EM r�P]G"�NS
N ��ssno�o T! N
z
0
U)
w
x
U
0 �0
a �W3aRww
z P4wo u U
� o 75 04
d d 0 2 w
ZH
QdL
z 0
w
o cV
N w O
AcV b
� o
O a
FW
W
z=
c�
w
Q
J -1-1
3 •4
L � z
cII 4J �
b ,�
O
V

PROJECT
ENGINEER
PLANTING SPECIES PRIELY = °Q`SSR`�y9
N� °�ssno�o�T,sv�N
BARE ROOT AND CONTAINERIZED PLANTING SPECIES PER ZONE Z N
O w w
U U
(n rn
Q W
SEEDING SUMMARY FOR PERMANENT VEGETATION PER PLANTING ZONE a
W
U O �0
a
�W W p Ix w� W W
C7 P4 Q0QpaU
O g N W
QZi dd0 QW
a 3 � az
�" �Z
Q Q L
z U
W
o cV
IV W O z
o N b
O
�Q o a
W
x
U
z=
c�
W
Q
ug
u� N
sU
_z
m
V Ne
♦�.� N C
_ a
O
O
V
Zone 1: Coastal Plain Headwater Forest Community Acres 0.9
Individual
Species Common Name Density Unit Type Stratum No. of Stems
S acin
Taxodium distichum Bald cypress Bare Root Canopy 50
N ssa bi ora Swam to elo Bare Root Cano 50
Quercus laurifolia Laurel oak Bare Root Canopy 50
Quercus lyrata Overcup oak Bare Root Canopy 50
Quercus michauxii Swam chestnut oak 680 stems per acre Bare Root Canopy 50
Approx. 8 fee
Betulanigra River birch (approx. 80 %of total Bare Root Canopy 50
on center
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood planting) Bare Root Understory 45
Ilex o aca American holl Bare Root Understor 45
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Bare Root Understory 45
Persea palustris Red bay Bare Root Understory 45
C rillaracemi ora Titi Bare Root Understor 45
Taxodium distichum Bald c ress Container Canopy 10
Nyssa biflora Swamp tupelo Container Canopy 10
320stems per acre
Quercuslauriolia Laureloak Container Canopy Approx. l2 10
(approx. 20% of total
Quercus I rata Overcu oak Container Cano feet on center 10
planting)
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak Container Can opy 10
Betulani ra River birch Container Canopy
Zone 2: Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
Acres
26.8
Species
Common Name
Density
Unit Type
Stratum
Individual
S acin
No. of Stems
Quercus michauxii
Swam chestnut oak
680 stems per acre
(approx.80% of total
planting)
Bare Root
Canopy
Approx. 8 fee
on center
2,080
Quercus alba
White oak
Bare Root
Canopy
2,080
uercus rubra
Northern red oak
Bare Root
Canopy
2,080
Cornus lorida
f
Flowerin do wood
g g
Bare Root
Understory
2,080
Ostraya virginiana
Hop- hornbeam
Bare Root
Understory
2,080
Ilex o aca
American holl
Bare Root
Understor
2,080
Vaccinium stamineum
Deerberr
Bare Root
Understor
2,080
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
320 stems per acre
(approx. 20% of total
planting)
Container
Canopy
Approx. 12
feet on center
566
Quercus alba
White oak
Container
Canopy
566
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
Container
Canopy
566
Quercus pagoda
Total
16,258
Canopy
325
Ulm us Americana
American elm
Container
325
Deer tongue
Total
12,400
n/a
Schizachyrium scoparium
Herb
Little bluestem
161(30%)
201bs/
Subtotal
536 (100%)
acre
10
Total
585
Zone 2: Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
Acres
26.8
Species
Common Name
Density
Unit Type
Stratum
Individual
S acin
No. of Stems
Quercus michauxii
Swam chestnut oak
680 stems per acre
(approx.80% of total
planting)
Bare Root
Canopy
Approx. 8 fee
on center
2,080
Quercus alba
White oak
Bare Root
Canopy
2,080
uercus rubra
Northern red oak
Bare Root
Canopy
2,080
Cornus lorida
f
Flowerin do wood
g g
Bare Root
Understory
2,080
Ostraya virginiana
Hop- hornbeam
Bare Root
Understory
2,080
Ilex o aca
American holl
Bare Root
Understor
2,080
Vaccinium stamineum
Deerberr
Bare Root
Understor
2,080
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
320 stems per acre
(approx. 20% of total
planting)
Container
Canopy
Approx. 12
feet on center
566
Quercus alba
White oak
Container
Canopy
566
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
Container
Canopy
566
Quercus pagoda
Total
16,258
Zone 3: Hardwood Flat Forest Community
Acres
20.4
Species
Common Name
Density
Unit Type
Stratum
Individual
S acin
No. of Stems
Quercus michauxii
Swam chestnut oak
680 stems per acre
(approx.80% of total
planting)
Bare Root
Canopy
Approx. 8 fee
on center
1,500
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel oak
Bare Root
Canopy
1,500
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
Bare Root
Canopy
1,500
N ssa bi ora
Swam to elo
Bare Root
Canopy
1,500
Ulm us Americana
American elm
Bare Root
Canopy
1,500
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Bare Root
Understory
1,200
Ilex opaca
American holly
Bare Root
Understory
1,200
Persea alustris
Red ba
Bare Root
Understor
1,200
Quercus michauxii
Swam chestnut oak
320 stems per acre
(approx. 20% of total
planting)
Container
nopy
Approx. l2
feet on center
325
Quercuslaurifolia
Laureloak
Container
Canopy
325
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
Container
Canopy
325
Ulm us Americana
American elm
Container
Canopy
325
Deer tongue
Total
12,400
Seeding Summary for Permanent Vegetation per Planting Zone
Zone 1 and Zone 3- Permanent Seeding for Wet /Sunny Conditions
Acres
21.3
Approved Date
Species Name
Stratum
Common Name
Total Ibs
n/a
Trifolium pratense
Herb
Red clover
128(30%)
Mixto be
n/a
Panicumclandestinum
Herb
Deertongue
85(20%)
applied at
n/a
Carexvulpinoidea
Herb
Fox Sedge
64(15%)
rate of
n/a
Elymusvirginicus
Herb
Virginia wild rye
64(15%)
approx.
n/a
luncus effusus
Herb
Soft Rush
43 (10%)
201bs/
n/a
Agrostis perennans
Herb
Upland bentgrass
43 (10%)
acre
Subtotal
427 (100%)
Zone 2 — Permanent Seeding for Dry/Sunny Conditions
Acres
26.8
Approved Date
Species Name
Stratum
Common Name
Tota I Ibs
Mix to be
n/a
Festucarubra
Herb
Red fescue
107(20%)
applied at
n/a
Trifolium pratense
Herb
Red clover
161(30%)
rate of
n/a
Panicumclandestinum
Herb
Deer tongue
107(20%)
approx.
n/a
Schizachyrium scoparium
Herb
Little bluestem
161(30%)
201bs/
Subtotal
536 (100%)
acre

APPENDIX H
Land Acquisition

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor State Property Office
Moses Carey, Jr., Secretary
April 20, 2011
Mr. William Taylor, Jr.
5523- 4h Street NW
Washington, DC 20011
Re: Proposed Acquisition of a Conservation Easement on Approximately 85 +/- Acres
Project: Property of the Estate of William Taylor
c/o William Taylor, Jr.
SPO File: 72 -M Perquimans County
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Thank you for speaking with Heather Smith of NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program and me this week. We discussed the
State's interest in acquiring a conservation easement on the 85 +/- acres which you and other family members own in
Perquimans County, NC. During that conversation, you requested that we forward a written summary.
The State is prepared to offer $2000 per acre for open areas and $560 per acre for wooded areas, subject to survey, for a
permanent conservation easement that extends in perpetuity. Per the Perquimans County Tax Office, there are
approximately 53 +/- acres of open land and approximately 24 acres of wooded land, subject to survey.
When a conservation easement is placed on a property, the landowner still owns the remaining fee interest and is
responsible for all taxes on said property. Each county has different policies regarding taxation value of land that has a
conservation easement on it.
Enclosed is a copy of the template used for a conservation easement with the State for your consideration. The document
covers activities allowed and restricted within the conservation area. For example, hunting is allowed within the
conservation easement area, however hunting structures are not.
It is my understanding that the property is currently leased for farming. We will work with you and your lessee to allow for
harvesting the current year's crop. After the conservation easement is placed on the property, farming will not be allowed.
Mailing Address: Telephone [phone] Location:
1321 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27699 -1321 State Courier #52 -71 -78 Raleigh, North Carolina
27603 -8003
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Web: http: / /www.nespo.org

If you and your family are agreeable to a conservation easement, then we will move forward with an option agreement:
which all persons having an interest in the property and their spouses would sign. During the option period, a title
examination and survey will be prepared at the State's expense and any necessary releases will be obtained. Information
from the title report will be provided to you. The preliminary survey will be submitted for your review and comment. The
final acreage shown on the survey will be used to calculate the acquisition cost of the property. Then, the conservation
easement deed will be prepared. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program will pay for costs associated with the property
acquisition except for outstanding taxes, commissions, and NC excise tax stamp. The completion of this transaction is
subject to approval by the Council of State and availability of funds.
If you and your family prefer to sell in fee simple, there is another process to go through. A request for permission to
appraise will be forwarded for your signature. An appraisal will be prepared and copy of said report provided to you. Then
an option agreement will be prepared and executed. Title and survey will be prepared as stated above. The NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program will pay for costs associated with the property acquisition except for outstanding taxes,
commissions, and NC excise tax stamp. The completion of this transaction is subject to approval by the Council of State
and availability of funds.
Thank you for your interest in the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Please contact Heather Smith, EEP project
manager at (919- 715 -5590) or Marion Patrick with the State property Office (919- 807 -4665) if there are any questions.
Respectfully yours,
A�, -° —
/�— la Rice
EEP Manager
cc: Heather Smith, EEP Project. Manager
Marion Patrick, State Property Office

of �p
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Moses Carey, Jr., Secretary
May 11, 2011
Via Electronic Mail
Mr. William Taylor, Jr.
5523 -46 Street NW
Washington, DC 20011
State Property Office
Subject: Permission to Appraise
Proposed Property Acquisition for Stream Restoration and/or Enhancement Project
Unnamed Tributaries to Little River
Approximate 85 - -/- Acres, PIN# 4- 0056 -0005
Perquimans County SPO File No.:72 -M
Dear Mr. Taylor,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) has requested the State Property Office to investigate the possibility
of acquiring the lands referenced above for inclusion in the stream restoration and/or enhancement project for the benefit of
Little River and its tributaries. EEP has indicated that the entire 85 +/- acre tract is needed for their proposed project.
The purpose of this letter is to confirm your ownership of the referenced land and to obtain your permission to
appraise and, if necessary, survey the property. An authorization letter is enclosed for your use. Please check the
appropriate blanks on the letter, add any comments you wish to make, sign, and return in the enclosed stamped envelope at
your earliest convenience. Please note that granting permission to appraise and survey your property places you under no,
obligation whatsoever to sell to the State.
Upon receipt of the signed. letter, the State will employ an independent fee appraiser to estimate the value of your
property. The appraiser will contract you and arrange a convenient time to inspect the property. You are invited to
accompany the appraiser on his inspection in order to point out any factors you feel should bear on the valuation. The
appraiser will be paid by the State.
Once the appraisal has been completed and reviewed by the State Property Office, our office will contact you to
initiate negotiations to purchase and further discuss any questions or concerns you might have about the State's interest in
the property.
Mailing Address:
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699 -1321
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
State Courier #52 -71 -78
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Web: http: / /www.ncspo.org
Location:
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
27603 -8003

If you would like to discuss any aspect of this matter prior to granting permission to appraise and survey, please
feel free to contact EEP project manager heather smith at 919 - 715 -5590 me at 919- 807 -4665. 1 am assigned to EEP as one
of their agents in the State Property Office.
Thank you for your consideration of the proposed conservation area.
ISincer 4Pac
Real Property Agent
Enclosures

PROPERTY OWNER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
COUNTY:
FILE #:
COMMENTS:
Mr. William Taylor, et al.
85 +/- acres o ff Little River Shore Drive
PIN# 4- 0056 -0005
Perquimans
72 -M
I hereby give my permission to have my property appraised
and surveyed, if necessary, with no obligation on my part.
I need more information concerning this matter.
DATE:
SIGNED:
William Taylor, Jr.
PHONE NO.: 202 - 486 -5523
E -MAIL: Elaine63taylor( &yahoo.com
(primary contact for landowners)

PO -56
PS -00010
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
APPRAISAL CONTRACT
TI IIS AGPE,EMENT, consisting of twenty -five (25) numbered provisions, entered into this the __ day of 2011 by and
between the North Carolina Department of Administration, hereinafter referred to as the "DEPARTMENT" and Josh Tunnell of Josh
Tunnell's Appraisal Service, 601 E. Lli :mbeth Street, Elizabeth City, NC 27909 (252- 335 -5219) hereinafter referred to as the
"APPRAISER"
WITNESSETH
It is mutually agreed between the parties Iteteto as follows:
(1) "N, APPRAISER shall furnish to the Department a pro- (2) For and in consideration of services in furnishing said
sessional appraisal of the fair mirket value of certain appraisals, the APPRAISER. shall be paid as follows:
parcels of land, or designated parts thereof as follows: ( see below)
Project: UT Little River, EEP 413 SPO File # 72 -M
County of Perquimans
Description: 84.20 +/- acre panel off Little River Shore Drive, New Hope Township; DB 189 PG 143, Plat Cabinet 2 Slide 19
Map 1
PARCEL C WNER
TYPE OF APPRAISAL APPRAISAL FEE,
Ii056 -0005 Taylor Estate Summary $1,950.00
(William B. Taylor, Jr. (not to exceed without prior written approval)
Liwrence L. Taylor
I-1 elena T. McDuffie)
(3) fhe following items have been furnished the APPRAISER, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
(4) 1 ['be APPRAISER agrees to fully complete all of the appraisals herein set out and to fumish the Department an original
and two (2) copies of each appraisal on or before 30 days from date of contract, it being fully understood and agreed that in the
,vent the APPRAISER shall fa 1 so to do, the Department shall consider the services of the said APPRAISER terminated and
:;hall not be liable for the payment for appraisals submitted after said date. In the event of extenuating circumstances and upon
,hritten application by the APPRAISER, a written extension of time may, at the option of the Department, be granted.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written.
APPRAISER
Tax I.D. or Social Security No.
n,.te
1
NORTH CAROLINA
EP TT7;T OF ADMINISTRATION
By
Direeto4 State Pro r Office

(51 I n the event it becomes necessai }, to enter into condemnation proceedings on any of the above parcels, the APPRAISER shall,
upon request of the Director of the State Froperty Office or TRIAL ATTORNEY, make himself available for reinspection of the property:
appraisal or pre -trial conferences. or to te,,lify as a witness for the DEPARTMENT at Commissioner's Hearing or in Superior Court. The
APPRAISER shall be paid for such services commensurate with the APPRAISER'S qualifications at a per diem rate agreed upon by and
between the APPRAISER and the DEPARrmfNT at the time the services are required.
(61 Hic aforementioned appraisals shall conform with all requirements set out in the current publication of the "Uniform
Standards o f Professional Appraisal Pract ce" and any additions, revisions or supplements thereto.
I , I should the DEPARTMENT for any reasons decide to cancel or terminate the APPRAISER'S services, it will furnish written
notice thereof to the APPRAISER, who shall, as instructed immediately terminate work or bring to a reasonable state of completion such
items of Nvork as may be directed by the DEPARTMENT, and will turn over all data and other records or information collected, whether
partial or completed. Upon termination, t 1e fee to be paid the APPRAISER will be equitable to cover all services actually rendered, based .
on a ratio of the amount of work done to the total amount of work which was to have been done.
(&i Tlo additional fee shall be allowed the APPRAISER for assistance by, or services of, supporting APPRAISERS, agents, or
employees except by express prior permission in writing by the DEPARTMENT.
(9 ( In the event the DEPARTMENT deems a correction of the above - described appraisals necessary because of APPRAISER'S error
or oversight, or failure to meet the requirements of paragraph 6 above, the APPRAISER shall submit: to the DEPARTMENT within ten
(10) days from receipt of such request and at no additional cost to the DEPARTMENT, such corrected appraisal. If revisions become
necessary because of revised plans or additional requirements on the part of the DEPARTMENT, it is agreed that a new contract covering
such revisions shall be entered into in writing before such work is performed.
(14) The APPRAISER agrees to indemnify and save harmless the State, its officers, agents and employees from any and all damages
or claims for damages accruing or resulting to any and all persons, firms or corporations furnishing or supplying work. services, materials
or supplies in connection with the performance of this contract, and from any and all damages or claims for damages accruing or resulting
to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by the APPRAISER, the APPRAISER'S employees, servants or agents,
in performance of this contract. The APPRAISER shall provide necessary workman's compensation insurance at APPRAISER'S own cost
and expense.
(1 l) During the performance of this contract, the APPRAISER (hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR ") agrees as follows
l) Compliance with Regulations: The contractor shall comply with the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination in
federally- assisted programs as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations),
which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract.
(2) Nondiscrimination: The CONTRACTOR. with regard to the work performed by it during the contract, shall not
discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex or religion in the selection and retention of
subcontractors, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment.
r 3) Solicitations for Subcontracts, Including Procurement of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by
competitive bidding or negotiation made by the CONTRACTOR for work to be performed under a subcontract,
including procurements of materials or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notified
by the CONTRACTOR of the CONTRACTOR'S obligations under this contract and the Regulations relative to
nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex or religion.
4) Information and Reports: The CONTRACTOR shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations
or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of
information, and its flcilities as may be determined by the State or the Federal Government to be pertinent to ascertain
compliance with suck Regulations, orders and instructions. Where any information required of a CONTRACTOR is in
the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information the CONTRACTOR shall so certify
to the State or the Federal Government as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the
information.
S) Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the CONTRACTOR'S noncompliance with the nondiscrimination
provisions of this contract, the State shall impose such contract sanctions as it or the Federal Government may
determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
(a) withholding of payments to the CONTRACTOR under the contract until the CONTRACTOR complies,
and/or
(b) cancellation, termination or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part.
(i) Incorporation of Pr,wisions: The CONTRACTOR shall include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (6) in every
subcontract, includin; procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or
directives issued pure cant thereto. The CONTRACTOR shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or
procurement as the S ate or the Federal Government may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including
2

sanctions for non -con pliance; provided, however, that, in the event a CONTRACTOR becomes involved in, or is
threatened with litigation with a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the CONTRACTOR may
request the State to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State, and, in addition, the CONTRACTOR.
may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
l: ?) /,II of the work to be performed under the provisions of this contract shall be accomplished by the named APPRAISER unless
prior written permission shall li rwc been secured from the DEPARTMENT to utilize services of others in the preparation of the
appraisals set forth in this contract.
1.3) None of the work provided for in this Agreement may be subcontracted by the named APPRAISER without the prior written
I ennission of the DEPARTMENT.
(14) This Agreement is not assignab e by the APPRAISER either in whole or in part.
(1 5) The I ) EPARTMENT and the FR,deral Government shall have the right to approve or reject any firm or individual that the
nWP RAISER may propose as a subcontractor or employee whose services will be employed in the preparation of the appraisals
1-erein set out.
(t ) The .APPRAISER shall not engage the services of any person, or persons now in the employment of the State or of any County or
c -ity in the State during the time covered by this Agreement, without written consent of the employer of such person.
The parties hereto agree that the APPRAISER, and any agents and employees of the APPRAISER in the performance of this
Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, representatives or agents of the State of North
Carolina.
(1 R) 'he APPRAISER agrees that a properly executed "Certificate of Appraiser" shall be attached to the original and one copy of
ach appraisal made under the terms of this contract.
(19) Fime is of the essence on each and all of the provisions of this Agreement, and the provisions of this Agreement shall extend to
and be binding upon and inure r o the benefit of the successor or the successors of the DEPARTMENT.
(201 I1 is agreed that the APPRAISER, its servants, agents and employees, shall keep the appraisals and all information pertaining
Thereto in strict confidence and shall not reveal the appraisals or information to any persons, firms, agencies or corporations
lrnless expressly authorized in writing by the DEPARTMENT to reveal such appraisals or information relating thereto; subject to
1 ('4) above.
(211 t. is mutually understood and a;-2reed that no alteration or variation of the terms of this contract shall be valid unless made in
vriting and signed by the parties hereto, and that no oral understandings or agreements not incorporated herein, and no alterations
or variations of the terms hereof; unless made in writing between the parties hereto, shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.
(22) n the event a dispute arises between the parties of this Agreement concerning a question or fact in connection with the
•equirements of this Agreemen or compensation therefor, the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Administration in
'he matter shall be final and conclusive for both parties.
(23) Me APPRAISER shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations, Federal, State, and local, applicable to the work
:ove.rcd by this Agreement.
(24) fhe APPRAISER warrants tha. he /she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
,vorking solely for the APPRAISER, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he /she has not paid or agreed to pay any
.ompany or persons, other thar a bona fide employee working solely for the APPRAISER any fee, commission. percentage.
brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For
breach or violation of this warninty, the DEPARTMENT shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability.
(2 5) In accordance with G.S. 14 -234 and G.S. 143 -63, no public official (including the Secretary of the Department of Administration.
any assistant of the Secretary, imy member of the Advisory Budget Commission or any employee of any State Department,
agency or institution) may direaly or indirectly benefit or otherwise participate in the expenditure of public funds, under this
contract. Nor shall any public official be awarded by rebate, gifts or otherwise any money or anything of value. Nor shall there
he any possible obligation or contract for future reward or compensation.
1-he ,APPRAISER warrants tha; no public official has any interest (whether personal of that of a corporation, partnership, or
association) in this Contract or its proceeds.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF PERQUIMANS
Prepared by State Property Office
Return after recording to:
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
FEE SIMPLE OPTION AGREEMENT
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
SPO File Number 72 -M EEP # 413
THIS OPTION AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as Option, made and entered into this
day of , 2011 by and between William B. Taylor, Jr. and wife, Elsie
Elaine Taylor, Lawrence L. Taylor (divorced), Helena T. McDuffie (divorced), and Wilbert
Turner and wife, Sylvia Turner hereinafter referred to as the Seller, and the State of North
Carolina, and its successors and assigns, hereinafter referred to as the State.
WITNESSETH
In consideration of $10.00 and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy
of which is hereby acknowledged, and of the agreements contained in this Option, Seller hereby
grants to the State, and its successors and assigns, the exclusive right and option to purchase,
those certain parcels of land, including all buildings and improvements, hereinafter referred to as
Property, located in New Hope Township, Perquimans County, North Carolina, containing 77
+/- acres more or less, and being that parcel of land more particularly described as follows
Deed Book 189 Page 143 and Plat Cabinet 2, Slide 197, Map 1 of the Perquimans County
Registry and further identified as PIN# 4- 0056 -0005. See attached "Exhibit A" map for
reference.
The following terms, provisions, and conditions are further agreed to:
1. OPTION PERIOD. This option shall remain in effect from the date that this Option has
been executed by the Grantor until the 31St day of December 2012. This Option shall be
exercised upon osting, by certified mail, a written notice to the Grantor at the following
address: 5523 -4t Street NW Washington DC 20011, attention William Taylor. Exercise
shall be deemed timely if such written notice is mailed on or before the date first set forth in
this paragraph.
I

2. PURCHASE PRICE. The total purchase price for the Easement Area shall be:
The sum of $ 3,500.00, (Thirty Five Hundred Dollars) per acre subject to final survey
($3,500.00 per acre) for agricultural land and
The sum of $1,166.00, (One Thousand One Hundred and Sixty -Six Dollars) per acre
subject to final survey ($1,166.00 per acre) for wood land.
(If donation, Seller elects to decline full fair market value compensation by placing
initials here .)
3. CLOSING. A closing of the sale of this Property under this Option shall be held within 90
days of the exercise of this Option; provided, however, in the event of objections to title or
condition of land at closing, and diligent efforts on Seller's part to cure said objections, a
closing shall be held within a reasonable time following the removal of said objections.
4. EVIDENCE OF TITLE. Upon receipt of this signed Option, the State will have title to the
Property examined, and if applicable, obtain a preliminary title insurance commitment on
the Property. The title examination and /or commitment must evidence the Seller's ability to
deliver title at closing as set forth below. All costs necessary to procure the title examination
and, if applicable, the title commitment and final title insurance policy to be issued at closing,
shall be the responsibility of the State.
5. TITLE. At closing, the Seller shall convey good, insurable and marketable title to the
Property together with all rights necessary to protect the Property in perpetuity, including
legal access, all mineral rights and all development rights, to the State free and clear of all
liens, encumbrances, restrictions, rights, or exceptions unless excepted of record as are
acceptable to the State.
6. TITLE DEFECTS. If for any reason the Seller cannot deliver title at closing as required by
Paragraph 5 of this Option, the State may elect to a) accept the Property with title as is; b)
refuse to accept the Property; or c) allow the Seller additional time to pursue reasonable
efforts to correct the problem, including bringing any necessary quiet title actions or other
lawsuits.
7. SUBJECT TO SURVEY. It is understood and intended that the Property under this option
is subject to final survey as agreed and approved by the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
with these costs paid by the State.
8. DOCUMENTS FOR CLOSING. The Seller shall execute and deliver at closing a General
Warranty Deed with restrictions as shown in "Exhibit B ", any owner's affidavits or
documents required by a title insurance company to remove the standard title policy
exceptions, and any other documents necessary to close in accordance with the terms of this
Option. These documents will be prepared at the expense of the State.
9. PROPERTY TAXES. Any delinquent real estate taxes and all levied assessments are the
Seller's responsibility and should be satisfied of record by the Seller at or before closing.
Any deferred taxes on the Property, which become due as a result of this conveyance, shall
2

be the responsibility of the Seller. Real estate taxes for the year in which the transaction is
closed shall be the responsibility of the Seller and not prorated, as the State is not receiving
fee simple title.
10. MISCELLANEOUS CLOSING EXPENSES. The Seller will pay any documentary stamp
tax, real estate transfer fee or any similar charge due upon conveyance of title to the State.
The State will pay recording fees.
11. POSSESSION. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the Seller will deliver possession of the
Property to the State at closing subject to no leases, mortgages, liens or other reserved
rights, and in the condition set forth below in Paragraph 12.
12. CONDITION OF PROPERTY/ RISK OF LOSS. The Seller shall not transfer or
encumber any interests in the Property prior to closing. The Seller shall keep the Property
in its current condition until closing and shall prevent and refrain from any use of the
Property, for any purpose or in any manner that would diminish its value or adversely affect
the State's intended use of the Property.
In the event of any adverse change in the condition of the Property, whether said change is
caused by Seller or by forces beyond Seller's control, the State may elect to a) refuse to
accept the Property; b) accept the Property, or a portion thereof, in which case there may be
an equitable adjustment of the purchase price based on a change in circumstances; or c)
require restoration of the Property to its condition at the time this Option was granted.
13. RIGHT OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION. The State and its agents shall have the right to
enter upon the Property at reasonable times for surveying, engineering, conducting
environmental inspections and assessments to detect hazardous or toxic substances, and other
reasonable purposes related to this transaction. Based upon the results of the environmental
inspections and assessments, or upon other conditions revealed to be unsuitable to the State,
the State may elect to refuse to accept the Property.
14. REMEDIES. In addition to any other remedy specifically set forth in this Option, the State
has the right to enforce the provisions of this Option through an action for specific
performance, injunctive relief, damages, contribution or any other available proceedings in
law or equity. The election of any one remedy available under this Option shall not
constitute a waiver of any other available remedies.
15. BINDING EFFECT. This Option becomes effective when signed by the Seller and shall
then apply to and bind the Seller and Seller's heirs, executors, administrators, successors,
and assigns.
16. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This Option agreement is subject to approval by the
Governor of North Carolina and the elected representatives comprising the Council of State
and availability of funds. If for any reason the Council of State does not vote to approve this
exchange, this entire agreement shall become null and void. The Ecosystem Enhancement
Program promotes the preservation, restoration and enhancement of streams and /or
wetlands. Any representations, contracts or agreements created by or for the Ecosystem
3

Enhancement Program are exclusive of this option unless specifically incorporated herein
by exhibit.
17. NO WAIVER. No provision of the Option shall be deemed amended or waived unless such
amendment or waiver is set forth in a writing signed by the State. No act or failure to act by
the State shall be deemed a waiver of its rights hereunder, and no waiver in any one
circumstance or of any one provision shall be deemed a waiver in other circumstances or of
other provisions.
18. ASSIGNMENT. The State has the right to assign this Option. In the event of such
assignment, the assignee will have all the rights, powers, privileges and duties held by the
State pursuant to this Option.
IN TESTIMONY THEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals, or if
corporate have caused this instrument to be executed in their corporate names by their duly
authorized representatives as of the dates indicated below.
Seller
By:
William B. Taylor, Jr.
By:
Elsie Elaine Taylor
By:
Lawrence L. Taylor
By:
Helena T. McDuffie
By:
Wilbert Turner
By:
Sylvia Turner
4

STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that , Grantor, personally
appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of '2011.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that , Grantor, personally
appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of '2011.
My commission expires:
5
Notary Public

STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that , Grantor, personally
appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of '2011.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that , Grantor, personally
appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of '2011.
My commission expires:
6
Notary Public

STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that , Grantor, personally
appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of '2011.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that , Grantor, personally
appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of '2011.
My commission expires:
7
Notary Public

"EXHIBIT A"
(Insert map here)
"EXHIBIT B"
RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
A. Motorized Vehicles. Usage of motorized vehicles in the Restricted Area is
prohibited, except as they are used exclusively for management, maintenance, or stewardship
purposes, and on existing trails, paths or roads for the purposes recited above.
B. Vegetative Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased
or damaged trees, and vegetation that obstructs destabilizes or renders unsafe the Restricted Area
to persons or natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees
and vegetation in the Restricted Area is prohibited.
C. Industrial, Agricultural, Residential and Commercial Uses. All are prohibited in
the Restricted Area.
D. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna,
utility pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Restricted Area.
E. Roads and Trails. There shall be no new construction of roads, trails, walkways, or
paving in the Restricted Area. Existing roads or trails located in the Restricted Area may be
maintained with loose gravel, soil, or permanent vegetation in order to minimize runoff, prevent
sedimentation and for access to the interior of the Property for management, maintenance,
stewardship purposes, or undeveloped recreational and educational uses of the Restricted Area.
F. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Restricted Area except interpretive signs
describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Restricted Area, signs
identifying the owner of the Property, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and
regulations for the use of the Restricted Area.
G. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances or machinery, or other material in the Restricted Area is
prohibited.
8

H. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. Unless related to approved
restoration activities, there shall be no grading, filling, excavation, dredging, mining, or drilling
within the Restricted Area.
I. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. Unless related to approved restoration
activities, there shall be no diking, draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping,
impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground
water in the Restricted Area. There shall be no altering or tampering with water control
structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage
patterns. Any use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.
J. Subdivision and Conveyance. No further subdivision, partitioning, or dividing of
the Restricted Area is allowed.
K. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Restricted Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and /or animal species is prohibited.
L. Restoration Activities Are Permitted. Includes but not limited to planting of trees,
shrubs and herbaceous vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy
equipment to grade, fill, and prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and
installation of natural and manmade materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and
subterraneous water flow according to a restoration plan as provided, contracted, or managed by
the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, successors or assigns.
M. Enforcement. The right of enforcement of these Restrictions is hereby granted to
and vested entirely with the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, its successors and assigns.
N. Notice. The owner of the Property shall notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
writing sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any amendment or change to these Covenants and
Restrictions or any transfer of all or any part of the Property. Such notification shall be
addressed to: Justin McCorkle, General Counsel, US Army Corps of Engineers, 69 Darlington
Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403.
9

d iw. 51'A7E a
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Moses Carey, Jr., Secretary
May 10, 2012
Mr. William Taylor, Jr.
5523- 4[' Street NW
Washington, DC 20011
Re: Proposed Acquisition in Fee of Approximately 77 +/- Acres
Project: Property of the Estate of William Taylor
c/o William Taylor, Jr.
SPO File: 72 -M Perquimans County
Dear Mr. Taylor:
State Property Office
Thank you for speaking with Heather Smith of NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program and me this week. We discussed the
State's interest in acquiring in fee the 77 +/- acres which you and other family members own in Perquimans County, NC.
During that conversation, you requested that we forward a written summary.
The State is prepared to offer $3,500 per acre for open areas and $1,166 per acre for wooded areas, subject to survey, for
the acquisition of the property in fee. Per the Perquimans County Tax Office, there are approximately 53 +/- acres of open
land and approximately 24 acres of wooded land, subject to survey.
If you and your family are agreeable, one copy of the attached option agreement will need to be signed by all parties having
an interest in the property, notarized, and returned to my attention. During the option period, a title examination and
survey will be prepared at the State's expense and any necessary releases will be obtained. Information from the title report
will be provided to you. The preliminary survey will be submitted for your review and comment. The final acreage shown
on the survey will be used to calculate the acquisition cost of the property. Then, the General Warranty deed will be
prepared. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program will pay for costs associated with the property acquisition except for
outstanding taxes, commissions, and NC excise tax stamp. The completion of this transaction is subject to approval by the
Council of State and availability of funds.
It is my understanding that the property is currently leased for farming. We will work with you and your lessee to allow for
harvesting the current year's crop. Thereafter farming will not be allowed on the property.
Mailing Address:
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699 -1321
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
State Courier #52 -71 -78
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Web: http: / /www.ncspo.org
Location:
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
27603 -8003

Thank you for your interest in the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Please contact Heather Smith, EEP project
manager at (919- 715 -5590) or Marion Patrick with the State Property Office (919- 807 -4665) if there are any questions.
Respectfully yours,
Blane Rice
EEP Manager
cc: Heather Smith, EEP Project Manager
Marion Patrick, State Property Office

Iwasontyesterday. Asl went through my a -maBsl Pound this from the Taylors. They are decliningtop- tiopate.
Please note my new a -mail address: Manon.Paiick2doa.nc.00v
Marion Patrick
Real Property Agent
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
Direct Line 919- 807 -4665 Fax [phone]
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Elaine Taylor fmailto :elaing63tavlor2vahoo.coml
Sent: Monday, October 17, 201111:01 AM
To: Patrick, Marion
Subject: Sale offer
Ms Patrick, The fatuity has made the decision to reject the offer of sale at this time We thank you for your assistance and patience- Bill Taylor
FW: Sale offer -
Me— e (HTML)
n x
Mes�llslage
C�
)) (
as Fnd
Related
Reply Reply Forvvartl Delete Move to Create
Other
block .J ry.t luny:
Categorize Follow Markas
to All Foltler• Rule
Anions•
Sentler
llp• llnreatl
� Select- -
Respontl Anions
Junk E -mail
Options
Find
You replied on 10118!2011 9:26 AM.
,
"."': Patrick, Marion
Sent: Tue10/18 12 011 9 :23AM
To: Smith, Heather
Cc: Rice, alone: Hnrmn, Sb2p-
Subl— RN: Sale offer
Iwasontyesterday. Asl went through my a -maBsl Pound this from the Taylors. They are decliningtop- tiopate.
Please note my new a -mail address: Manon.Paiick2doa.nc.00v
Marion Patrick
Real Property Agent
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
Direct Line 919- 807 -4665 Fax [phone]
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Elaine Taylor fmailto :elaing63tavlor2vahoo.coml
Sent: Monday, October 17, 201111:01 AM
To: Patrick, Marion
Subject: Sale offer
Ms Patrick, The fatuity has made the decision to reject the offer of sale at this time We thank you for your assistance and patience- Bill Taylor

Strickland, Bev
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 11:18 AM
To: Brown, Wyatt; Smith, Heather
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric; [e-mail]; Higgins, Karen; Wilson,
Travis W.; Sollod, Steve; Adams, Amy; Strickland, Bev; Wheeler, Tracey L SAW
Subject: RE: Watts Property Wetland and Stream Restoration Site (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: 2012-3-7 Watts USACE Comments.pdf; Watts Property Request for Additional Info
20120216.pdf
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
All, based on responses, let's go ahead a schedule the Watts meeting (Perquimans County) for July 23rd at 10:30 AM on-site.
I've attached our letter and the EEP responses for reference.
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is located
at: http://per2.nwp.usaee.army.mil/survey.html Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:53 PM
To: 'Brown, Wyatt'; 'Smith, Heather'
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW; eriakulznncdenr.gov;ag rnett.jeffrey(c,epamail.epa.gov; Karen Higgins
(Karen. Higgmsa]nedenr.gov); Travis Wilson(travis.wilsonnncwildlife.org);'Steve Sollod; Adams, Amy; Strickland, Bev;
Wheeler, Tracey L SAW
Subject: Watts Property Wetland and Stream Restoration Site (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Wyatt,
We have taken a look at the responses to our comments and revisions to the PCN and Mitigation Plan for the Watts Property
Mitigation site and still have several concerns regarding the proposal. Most of our original comments remain unanswered, and I
believe that at this point we need to set up a meeting between the agencies, EEP and the designers. I know that DWQ also
shares our concerns. Mainly, we would like to avoid approving a project that we have problems with just because we are trying
to get something out of the site. I think it would make most sense to meet on the site, since some the agency folks, including
myself, have not seen it.
I'll go ahead a throw out some dates in July and see if we all can agree on a date: July 18 - 20, or 23 - 27.
Thanks for working with us on this project,

Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is located
at: http://per2.nwp.usaee.army.mil/survey.html Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE