20160405 Ver 1_Final Mitigation Plan_20181016

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) i
October 2018
FINAL MITIGATION PLAN

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina

NCDEQ Contract No. 6832
DWR ID No. 20160405
DMS ID No. 97086
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2016-00882
RFP No. 16-006477

Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201

Prepared for:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

October 2018

October 12, 2018

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Plan; SAW-2016-
00882; NCDMS Project # 97086

Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Dear Mr. Baumgartner:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) during
the 30-day comment period for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Plan, which closed on August 27,
2018. These comments are attached for your review.

Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been
identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this correspondence.
However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached comment memo, which must
be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.

The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues identified
above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final Mitigation Plan
should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document. If it is determined
that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the
Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office at least 30
days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does not preclude
the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues
mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the
Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of
mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the
project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this
letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at
919-554-4884.

Sincerely,

Todd Tugwell
Mitigation Project Manager

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:

NCIRT Distribution List
Jeff Schaffer, NCDMS
Lindsay Crocker, NCDMS

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) ii
October 2018
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
NCDEQ Contract No. 6832
DWR ID No. 20160405
DMS ID No. 97086
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2016-00882

Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201

Prepared for:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Prepared by:

Restoration Systems, Inc.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]

Contributing Staff:

Raymond Holz – Restoration Systems
Kevin Tweedy, PE – Ecosystem Planning & Restoration
Thomas Barrett, RF – Ecosystem Planning & Restoration
Grant Lewis, PWS – Axiom Environmental

October 05, 2018

Cover Letter

To: Interagency Review Team

Subject: Alliance Headwaters Stream & Riparian Riverine Wetland Mitigation Site, Final Mitigation Plan
Submittal with Permits (USACE AID#: SAW-2016-00882, NCDMS #: 97086)

Dear Interagency Review Team Members,

Responses to comments provided by the IRT on August 27th, 2018 from the review of Alliance Headwaters
Draft Mitigation Plan are provided below.

Mac Haupt, NCDWR, 6 August, 2018:
1. For the potential wetland credit areas identified, DWR recommends a gauge in each wetland
area/polygon, in addition to the gauge data, DWR would want to know what hydric indicator is
present at closeout.
Additional gauges have been added to each potential wetland credit area (Figure 11). All wetland
areas within the project easement are proposed to have consistent monitoring and success
criteria, including 10% wetland hydroperiod and vegetation indicative of a jurisdictional wetland
as defined by USACE guidelines. In addition, potential wetland restoration areas would be
required to develop hydric soil indicators such as depletions/concretions within the soil matrix.
Hydric soil indicators will be described by a licensed soil scientist and will be consistent with
descriptions for hydric soils as outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plan Region (Version 2.0). Wetland
hydroperiod will be monitored by continuously recording groundwater gauges and will be
presented in annual monitoring reports. Areas that do not exhibit sufficient hydroperiod and/or
hydric soil indicators will be not be added to wetland restoration credit upon completion of the
monitoring period. (Section 7.1.2 Target Wetland Types)

2. There are three wetland potential (and wetland creation) areas identified that do not have a
gauge. DWR recommends a gauge be installed in these areas/polygons (WC1, PWR1, WC2).
Monitoring gauges have been added to these areas (Figure 11).

3. For Section 8.0, DWR would prefer, in the future, there be a separate sub-section for wetland
hydrology as well, not just listed as in Table 13.
Understood. In the future, we will make sure to provide a separate wetland sub-section.

4. DWR concurs with the wetland performance criterion of a 10% hydroperiod during the growing
season. Thank you.

5. DWR does not believe bank pins is an effective method to assess instability for these type of
streams.
Bank pins have been removed from the document.

6. For measuring soil temperature, DWR will require measurement be carried through until the end
of April, and as is stated in the Plan, reported (location and temperature) in each monitoring
report.
Understood.

7. DWR noted a few areas in the design sheets where EPR is calling for constructed riffles with stone.
DWR would prefer that these riffles would be a mix of smaller Class A and 57 stone rather than
the proposed Class A and B mix.
EPR engineers have specified and approved a mixture of Class A, B, and No. 57 Stone.

8. DWR noted the summary letter of issues, June 21, 2018, that was sent with the Mitigation Plan.
While this letter was sufficient and covered the major topics, typically the IRT receives a letter
which responds to each agencies comments. This letter is extremely helpful making sure all the
prior agency comments were covered.
Understood.

Todd Tugwell, USACE, 27 August 2018:
1. Concur with the comment regarding the gauge placement mentioned by DWR.

2. Be sure to account for impacts to existing wetlands in the permit application for NWP 27, including
specifying if the impacts are temporary or permanent.
The permit application has been written with this in mind.

3. The “potential wetland” proposed for the project are identified separately in the mitigation plan
because these areas are underlain with Lynchburg soils, which as you note are non-hydric soil
with hydric inclusions. Because these soils are not comprised primarily of hydric soil, we are
concerned that areas underlain by Lynchburg soils may not become wetland. Section 7.1.2 of the
mitigation plan states that these areas currently do not display indicators indicative of a Class A
hydric soil. The plan also states that they will not be counted unless groundwater gauge data is
provided that shows jurisdictional wetland hydrology during the annual monitoring period;
however, groundwater gauge data must show jurisdictional wetland hydrology on all proposed
wetland restoration areas on the site, so it is not clear why these areas are differentiated.
Additionally, this statement causes confusion by suggesting that these areas are successful if they
only have “jurisdictional wetland hydrology”, not necessarily the 10% that is required for all
wetlands on the site. What differentiates these areas from the other restoration areas is that they
do not currently have hydric soil indicators, so if the intent is to claim wetland credit within these
potential wetland areas, additional performance standards should be included to demonstrate
that hydric soil characteristics are developing within potential wetland areas (consistent with
DWR comment 1). Additionally, all potential wetland cells must be monitored with groundwater
gauges, which should be positioned closer to the proposed wetland/upland boundary than shown
in the current monitoring map. If areas do not develop hydric soil characteristics during
monitoring, they may not be approved to provide wetland credit.

Section 7.1.2 Target Wetland Types has been updated with the following language to include the
language identified in Mr. Haupt’s fist comment.

4. Recent monitoring reviews of existing mitigation sites indicates that groundwater gauges are
often not installed properly or maintained appropriately to ensure accurate readings. All
groundwater gauges must be installed and maintained in accordance with the USACE document
entitled “Technical Standard for Water-Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites” (ERDC TN-
WRAP-05-2, June 2005), available on the Wilmington District’s Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank
Information Tracking System (RIBITS) website. In particular, bentonite seals must be installed and
properly maintained on all wells. Please include a groundwater gauge maintenance log in the
annual monitoring report to document gauge maintenance.
Understood.

5. It appears on the monitoring map (Fig 11) that the flow gauge for UT1A is very close to the
confluence with UT1, which will likely cause the gauge to register flow events due to backwater
from UT1. Additionally, because the drainage for this reach is so small (21 acres), the gauge should
be relocated to the top of this reach. Please note that streams on site must also display evidence
of OHWM formation in order to receive credit per current guidance.
The flow gauge for UT1A on Figure 11 has been moved to reflect this comment.

6. The flow gauge on UT1-R2 should be moved upstream near the upper end of the channel, or
another gauge should be added in this area. The intent of these gauges is to demonstrate flow,
and the reaches most likely to have questionable flow are near the upper end of the channel.
The flow gauge for UT1-R2 on Figure 11 has been moved to reflect this comment.

7. In section 7.2.2, there is discussion of modifications to the existing drainage network to address
concerns of hydrologic trespass. Be sure to include any such modifications in a map included in
the final mitigation plan so that potential impact on restored or existing resources can be
determined.
EPR prepared two additional figures showing the existing and proposed drainage networks
(Figures 4B and 9B). Figures were also updated to show the new conservation easement and to
correspond to the mitigation plan document (sequential order).

8. In Section 12.0, Determination of Credits, the plan states “Upon completion of construction, the
project components and credit data will be adjusted, if necessary, to be consistent with the as-
built condition, and any changes will be described in the As-Built Monitoring Report”. Please note
that credits should generally not change from the proposed credit amounts in the approved
mitigation final plan. Per District guidance (see Credit Reporting Memo, available on the RIBITS
website and attached for reference), any change in the approved credit amount is considered a
modification to the approved mitigation plan and must be done according to the procedures
outlined in the Mitigation Rule. Please adjust Section 12.0 to reflect this requirement.
EPR has updated Section 12 in response to this comment. The Section now includes the following
language. “Although not expected, if site conditions such as unidentified bedrock, utility
easements, discovery of cultural resources, etc., are encountered during construction of stream
channels that result in significant deviations from the approved plan or credit amount (i.e. more
than would typically result from measurement variations), the as-built report must clearly identify
the difference in the length and associated credit amount and explain how project design and
construction were altered, to include updated plan sheets. These changes, including the revised
credit totals, should be submitted to the District for approval as a project modification.

For projects that include wetland mitigation, restored wetland boundaries are not surveyed
because wetland areas must still be monitored before they are determined to meet hydrology
standards, so wetland credit amounts should not change at as-built unless project limits are
altered during construction (e.g. property is removed or added to a project, planned hydrologic
alterations are not carried out, etc.).”

Sincerely,

Raymond Holz
Project Manager – Restoration Systems

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) iii
October 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Alliance Headwaters Full Delivery Mitigation Project (Project; Site) is located in the Hannah Creek
watershed of the Neuse River Basin, in NCDENR subbasin 03-04-04 and NCDMS targeted local watershed
03020201-150020. The Project is located in Johnston County, approximately six miles southeast of Four
Oaks and one mile east of US 701, and will involve the restoration of channelized streams, the
preservation of existing headwater streams and jurisdictional riparian riverine wetlands; the restoration
riparian riverine wetlands as the result of stream restoration and ditch plugging; the creation of wetlands
in areas requiring bench excavation; and the restoration of stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions
on four unnamed tributaries (UTs) systems to Hannah Creek. Hannah Creek is listed by the NCDWR as a
class “C; NSW” water, indicating that it and its tributaries support aquatic life and secondary recreational
uses. These waters also carry the nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) designation, meaning that such waters
are subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Due to this NSW classification,
the restoration of the proposed streams, adjacent wetlands, and riparian buffers, as well as their
permanent conservation, will ensure the protection of the stream and wetland systems from future
growth and development in the Neuse River basin.

The project area encompasses land that consists of drained agricultural fields and natural, mixed
hardwood timber land. The area has been drained by the installation of ditches and the channelization of
streams and headwater wetlands. By restoring and preserving these headwater streams as well as their
associated riparian riverine wetlands, the Project will improve the water quality of receiving waters and
improve habitat for biota.

The plan for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project involves the restoration of headwater stream and
wetlands on four UT systems. The proposed mitigation activities for this Project will provide an estimated
6,029 SMUs and up to 39.4 riparian riverine WMUs within a 71.7-acre conservation easement. The
headwater streams and wetlands proposed for restoration have been impacted by channelization,
ditching, the removal of native, forest vegetation, and intensive agricultural production practices.

This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:

 Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register
Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs
(c)(2) through (c)(14).

 NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.

These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) iv
October 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Site Directions ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Property Ownership and Boundary .............................................................................................. 2
1.3 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Site Access ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection .......................................................................................... 2
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Landscape Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 3
3.1.1 Physiography, Topography, and Soils ................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Land Use and Land Cover ...................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Existing Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Project Resources .......................................................................................................................... 5
4.0 Functional and Ecological Uplift ........................................................................................................ 6
5.0 Regulatory Considerations ................................................................................................................ 9
5.1 401/404 ......................................................................................................................................... 9
5.2 Categorical Exclusion for Biological and Historical Resources ...................................................... 9
5.2.1 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 10
5.2.2 Historical Resources ............................................................................................................ 10
5.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................. 10
6.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................. 11
7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ................................................................................... 12
7.1 Target Stream and Wetland Types ............................................................................................. 12
7.1.1 Target Stream Types ........................................................................................................... 12
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types ......................................................................................................... 13
7.2 Design Analysis and Parameters ................................................................................................. 14
7.2.1 Sediment Transport Analyses ............................................................................................. 19
7.2.2 Project Risks and Uncertainties .......................................................................................... 20
7.3 Stream Reference Sites ............................................................................................................... 21
7.3.1 Reference Streams .............................................................................................................. 22
7.4 Wetland Reference Sites ............................................................................................................. 23
7.4.1 Reference Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 23
7.5 Vegetation and Planting Plan ...................................................................................................... 23
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) v
October 2018
8.0 Performance Standards .................................................................................................................. 25
8.1 Restored Stream Channels .......................................................................................................... 25
8.2 Riparian Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 25
8.3 Compatibility with Project Goals ................................................................................................ 25
9.0 Monitoring Plan .............................................................................................................................. 27
9.1 Stream Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 27
9.2 Wetland Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 28
9.3 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................................. 29
9.4 Visual Assessment Monitoring .................................................................................................... 29
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan ........................................................................................................ 30
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan ........................................................................................................... 30
12.0 Determination of Credits ................................................................................................................ 30
12.1 Restoration and Creation Ratios ................................................................................................. 31
12.1.1 (West of Joyner Bridge Road) .................................................................................................. 31
12.1.2 (East of Joyner Bridge Road) ................................................................................................... 31
12.2 Enhancement Ratio ..................................................................................................................... 31
12.2.2 (East of Joyner Bridge Road) ................................................................................................... 31
12.3 Preservation Ratio ....................................................................................................................... 31
13.0 Financial Assurances ....................................................................................................................... 35
14.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 36

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Existing Condition Map
Figure 3. USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4 A. Existing Watershed Map
Figure 4B. Existing Drainage Network Map
Figure 5A. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5B. Hydric Soils Map
Figure 6A – 6E. Historic Aerial Photographs
Figure 7. FEMA Map
Figure 8. Existing Hydrological Features Map
Figure 9A. Proposed Watershed Map
Figure 9B. Proposed Drainage Network Map
Figure 10. Reference Reach Location Map
Figure 11. Monitoring Plan Map
Figure 12. Mitigation Potential Map

LIST OF TABLES
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) vi
October 2018
Table 1. General Project Information
Table 2. Project Land Use and Watershed Characteristics
Table 3. Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Tables 4A and 4B. Jurisdictional Resources within the Proposed Conservation Easement Boundary
Table 5A. Summary of Existing and Proposed Functional Ratings for the Project Reaches
Table 5B. NC WAM Summary
Table 5C. Wetland Work Plan Components and Functional Objectives
Table 6. Summary of Regulatory Considerations
Table 7. Summary of Goals and Objectives for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project
Table 8. Project Design Stream Types and Information
Table 9A and 9B. Morphology Tables for Project Streams
Table 10. Summary of Stream Reference Reach Information
Table 11. Species Identified within the Reference Forest Ecosystem
Table 12. Tree Species and Planting Zones
Table 13. Project Goals and Associated Performance Criteria
Table 14. Stream Monitoring Summary
Table 15. Wetland Monitoring Summary
Table 16. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Table 17A. Determination of Stream Mitigation Credits
Table 17B. Determination of Riparian Riverine Wetland Mitigation Credits
Table 17C. Determination of Riparian Riverine Wetland Mitigation Credits for Areas of
Potential Wetland Restoration

LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1. Expected Channel Form Assessment
Graph 2. Regional Curve Information for Alliance Headwaters Site

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 2. Site Photographs
Appendix 3. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package
Appendix 4. Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
Appendix 5. DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Appendix 6. Assessment Data
Appendix 7. Plan Sheets
Appendix 8. Maintenance Plan
Appendix 9. Credit Release Schedule
Appendix 10. Land Use Communication between Restoration Systems and the USACE
Appendix 11. Financial Assurance
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 1
October 2018
1.0 Project Introduction
The Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (Site) is in Johnston County, approximately six miles southeast of
Four Oaks and one mile east of US 701 (Figure 1). The project is located within NC Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) targeted watershed for the Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03020201150020 and
the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-04-04.

The Site was selected to provide stream and riparian riverine wetland mitigation units (SMUs and WMUs)
in the Neuse River Basin 03020201 (Neuse 01). The project includes three existing unnamed tributaries to
Hannah Creek and two existing wetlands; the distinct naming conventions for these stream reaches are
shown on Figure 2. Site mitigation activities, which will provide an estimated 6,029 SMUs and 39.4 riparian
riverine WMUs within a 71.7-acre conservation easement includes the following.

 Restoration of 6,529 linear feet of stream channels that have been straightened and channelized
for agricultural purposes
 Restoration of 32.6 acres of drained hydric soil to riparian riverine wetlands as the result of stream
restoration activities and ditch plugging
 Areas of potential wetland riparian riverine restoration total approximately 7.0 acres of drained
soils with hydric inclusions
 Enhancement of 0.38 acres of jurisdictional riparian headwater forest through stream
realignment activities and supplemental wetland plantings
 Creation of 1.99 acres of riparian riverine wetlands in areas of drained hydric soil requiring bench
excavation
 Preservation of 16.39 acres of jurisdictional riparian riverine wetlands located within forested
headwater systems

Table 1. General Project Information.
Project Information
Project Name Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site
County Johnston
Easement Area (acres) 71.7
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35° 22' 19.30" N, 78° 20' 25.85" W
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted) 49.5 acres

1.1 Site Directions
From Raleigh: Take I-40 East to Exit 328B for I-95 North, then take Exit 87 for Four Oaks, NC. Turn right
onto Keen Road southeast until you reach US 701. Turn right onto US 701 and travel south approximately
2.5 miles and turn left (east) onto Peach Orchard Road. Travel approximately 1.7 miles until you reac h
the intersection with Joyner Bridge Road. Turn right (south) onto Joyner Bridge Road and travel
approximately 0.7 miles. The farm entrance road will be on your left.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 2
October 2018
1.2 Property Ownership and Boundary
The property is held by William Frank Lee. A perpetual conservation easement will be prepared that
incorporates the results of this Mitigation Plan (template provided in Appendix 1). The conservation
easement will be depicted on a recordable plat, signed by the owner, and recorded in the Johnston County
Register of Deeds. The conservation easement boundary will be marked with monuments at every corner
and every 200 feet along straight portions of the easement. Adjacent land use will not require the
installation of fencing.

1.3 Utilities
There are no underground or overhead utilities within the conservation easement boundary and are
therefore not considered a constraint for this project. There is an existing culvert under a state-maintained
road (Joyner Bridge Road) on UT1. The project will not affect this culvert, which will remain in place in its
current configuration once the project is complete.

1.4 Site Access
All portions of the conservation easement which do not abut state-maintained roads will have a
permanent, 20-foot ingress, egress, and regress easements granted to the easement holder to provide
perpetual access. These access easements will be shown on the conservation easement plat and recorded
at the Johnston County Register of Deeds. The portion of the conservation easement located along UT1 is
broken by Joyner Bridge Road and a 60-ft wide access easement. All other stream reaches within the
conservation easement have contiguous boundaries and no internal easement breaks.

2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
The Site was selected for its ability to provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the
Hannah Creek and Neuse River watersheds. As described in the Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) document developed by NCDMS (2010), a major goal for the entire Neuse River Basin is to reduce
nutrient and sediment inputs from agricultural areas by restoring and preserving wetlands, streams, and
riparian buffers. In both the 2010 RBRP and the 2015 RBRP Update, Project HUC 03020201-150020
(Hannah Creek) is identified as a targeted local watershed, with threats to water quality from agricultural
lands, animal operations, and disturbed buffers. In the 2010 RBRP, the Hannah Creek watershed is
described as 54% agricultural land use, with 44 permitted animal operations (cattle and swine), and an
estimated 42% of stream miles without forested buffers. Buffer and wetland restoration projects were
considered a high priority for this watershed.

In addition, the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ, 2009) recommends the
implementation of conservation practices on agricultural lands along Hannah Creek, from NC 96 to its
confluence with Mill Creek (the reach where the Project is located). This segment of Hannah Creek is also
designated as a Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) by the NC Natural Heritage Program. Hannah
Creek contains a mature swamp forest that extends approximately 12 miles and represents one of the
few remaining swamp forests of any significant length in the County.

3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
The project area consists of drained agricultural fields and natural, mixed hardwood timber land. The area
has been drained by the installation of ditches and the channelization of streams and headwater wetlands.
The Site has been in row crop production for the last 18 to 20 years.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 3
October 2018
The existing watersheds were delineated using a variety of information, including USGS 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangles (Figure 3), field investigations to determine ditch flow paths, site-specific
topographic survey data, Johnston County GIS data, and USGS StreamStats. Land use and watershed areas
for each stream reach is shown in Table 2, existing watershed boundaries are illustrated in Figure 4A, and
the existing drainage network is depicted on Figure 4B.

Table 2. Project Land Use and Watershed Characteristics.
Land Use and Watershed Characteristics
Physiographic Province Coastal Plain
Level III, IV Ecoregions Southeastern Plains, Rolling Coastal Plain
River Basin Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Units 8-digit, 14-digit 03020201, 03020201150020
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-04
Reaches UT1 UT2 UT3 ^ UT4
Drainage area (acres)* 546 147 354 132
Drainage area (sq. miles)* 0.85 0.23 0.55 0.21
NCCGIA Land Cover Classification
Agriculture 52% 48% 37% 44%
Forested/Scrubland 38% 37% 59% 55%
Residential 9% 13% 4% <1%
Impervious Area 1% 2% <1% <1%
* Represents the most downstream portion of the existing reach.
^ - Since there is no jurisdictional feature for UT3, this column provides the watershed information for area occupied by what
will be UT3-R1 and UT3-R2.

3.1 Landscape Characteristics

3.1.1 Physiography, Topography, and Soils
The Site lies within the inner portion of the Coastal Plain physiographic province and the Level III
Southeastern Plains ecoregion. This area is characterized by broad interstream divides with gentle to steep
side slopes dissected by numerous small, low to moderate gradient sandy bottomed streams. The annual
average rainfall ranges from 44 to 51 inches (locally 48 inches), with most of the precipitation falling during
early spring and mid-summer. Sediments are typically unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and small gravel.
Soils found within this area are generally comprised of Ultisols, which are intensely weathered with an
appreciable clay component and are slightly acidic. The soil moisture regime is typical of humid regions
where the amount of stored moisture plus rainfall is approximately equal to, or exceeds, the amount of
evapotranspiration (udic). Typical, undisturbed vegetation might include mesic pine flatwoods, oak-
hickory forest, and mesic mixed hardwood forest. Soil mapping units are based on the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Johnston County. Soil
types within the project area mapped by the NRCS Web Soil Survey are described below in Table 3 and
depicted in Figure 5A.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 4
October 2018
Table 3. Project Soil Types and Descriptions.
Soil Name Description Hydric Status
Dogue fine sandy
loam, 0 to 2 %
slopes
Dogue fine sandy loam is a moderately well drained soil
located on stream terraces. It has a moderately high-water
capacity and is occasionally flooded for brief periods.
Non-hydric
Goldsboro sandy
loam, 0 to 2 %
slopes
Goldsboro sandy loam is a moderately well drained soil
located on flats and broad, interstream divides on marine
terraces. It has a moderately high to high water capacity and
is not subject to flooding.
Hydric B
(Rains
inclusions)
Leaf silt loam, 0 to
2 % slopes
Leaf silt loam is a poorly drained soil located on flats on broad,
interstream divides. It has a very low to moderately low water
capacity and is not subject to flooding.
Hydric A
Lynchburg sandy
loam, 0 to 2 %
slopes
Lynchburg sandy loam is a somewhat poorly drained soil
located on flats and broad, interstream divides on marine
terraces. It has a moderately high to high water capacity and
is not subject to flooding.
Hydric B
(Grantham,
Rains, and
Toisnot
inclusions)
Norfolk loamy
sand, 0 to 2 %
slopes
Norfolk loamy sand is a well-drained soil located on flats and
broad, interstream divides on marine terraces. It has a
moderately high to high water capacity and is not subject to
flooding.
Non-hydric

Hydric soils were delineated by a licensed soil scientist (NC LSS # 1233) during January 2017; results of
the delineation are depicted on Figure 5B. Hydric soils within the Site include ditched and drained soils
within agricultural fields proposed for wetland restoration or creation, and jurisdictional wetlands within
headwater forest systems proposed for wetland preservation.

3.1.2 Land Use and Land Cover
A review of historic aerials of the site and adjacent parcels from 1939, 1965, 1971, 1988 and 2005 (Figures
6A through 6E) reveal that while agriculture has been the prevalent land use in the area likely since before
1939, much of the site itself was not converted to agricultural uses until after 1997/1998. Additional aerial
photographs from Google Earth show that the project site has been manipulated for agricultural
production numerous times. The channelization of perimeter ditches to carry stream flow served to
undermine the hydrologic connection between the headwaters of UT3 and UT4 (located in the forested
sections of the Project) from their downstream channels. In addition, two small impoundments were
excavated on the historical flow paths of UT1 and UT3 during this time. The Site has existed in its current
condition since approximately 2005.
Current land use near the Site is predominately agriculture (crop and livestock production) and
silviculture. While the Site is near (< 6 miles) to two major interstates (I-95 and I-40), there are no
foreseeable signs of impending land use changes or development pressure that would impact the Project’s
watershed. The conservation easement will eliminate the potential for future development and/or
agricultural use in the floodplain areas of the restored streams.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 5
October 2018
3.2 Existing Vegetation
Existing vegetation within the conservation easement is separated into two distinct subsets, agricultural
cropland and forest. Common plant species that are found in these two areas are described below.
Photographs of these areas can be found in Appendix 2.

Agricultural Cropland
Plant species found within the agricultural fields are the result of intensive agricultural production
methods that include annual herbicide applications, irrigation, mowing, and drainage ditch maintenance.
The most common crop grown at the Site is soybeans (Glycine max), potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) sweet
potatoes (Ipomoea batatas), and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum).

Species found within and immediately adjacent to the existing stream channels (UT1, UT2, and parts of
UT3) are generally low growing species that have been maintained through mechanical and chemical
means. Herbaceous species found generally include dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisifolia), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), soft rush (Juncus effusus), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), woolgrass (Scripus cyperinus), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum),
cattail (Typha latifolia), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), Chinese lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata),
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), and dock
(Rumex sp.). Trees and shrubs within these areas include red maple (Acer rubrum), titi (Cyrilla
racemiflora), and black willow (Salix nigra).

Forest
The headwaters of UT3 and UT4 remain wooded, with a canopy and mid-story composed of loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), American holly (Ilex opaca),
Northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), red bay (Persea palustris), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Shrubs present
include titi, sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), inkberry (Ilex glabra), and giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), with greenbrier and grape (Vitis rotundifolia) in the vine layer.

3.3 Project Resources
Axiom Environmental, Inc. (Axiom) conducted investigations for jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on
January 26, 2017, February 7, 2017, and February 23, 2017. Wetlands were assessed using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On-site Determination Method. This method is defined by the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional
Supplement. Potential jurisdictional wetlands were assessed using the USACE Wetland Determination
Data Form and the NC Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). Streams were assessed using the NCDWR
Stream Identification Form and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. Six potential
jurisdictional streams and two wetlands were delineated during the on-site investigations by Axiom
(Tables 4A and 4B). A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) package was submitted to the USACE
on March 16, 2017. An initial Site visit with the USACE to confirm jurisdictional waters was conducted on
June 1, 2017 and was attended by Samantha J. Dailey, CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
([e-mail]). Verbal confirmation of existing wetland areas was given at the
conclusion of the site visit; however, it was determined and agreed to by Restoration Systems and
Samantha Daily that final confirmation of UT-3 and UT-4 within the forested areas of the Site would
require an additional review by IRT members given their ephemeral/intermittent nature and location
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 6
October 2018
within the watershed (headwater streams). A follow-up site visit was conducted on October 24th, 2017.
During this site visit, it was determined that tributaries originally included in the PJD (UT3A, UT3B, and
UT3C within the existing wooded wetland) were not jurisdictional. A revised PJD package was resubmitted
to Samantha Dailey (USACE). The notification of jurisdictional determination (SAW-2016-00882) was
received on September 4th, 2018 and can be found in Appendix 3.

Table 4A. Jurisdictional Resources Within the Proposed Conservation Easement Boundary.
Existing Jurisdictional Stream Features
Reach UT-1 UT-2 UT-4
Existing Length (LF) 4,761 <1 1,142
EPR - NCDWR Stream
Score Blue line Blue line 27.25
Perennial or Intermittent P P I
NCDWR Classification C; NSW
Rosgen Classification of
Existing Conditions Incised Bc 5/6 G5/6 Incised Bc 5/6
Simon Evolutionary Stage II II II
FEMA Zone Classification X X ---

Table 4B. Jurisdictional Resources Within the Proposed Conservation Easement Boundary.
Wetland Summary
Wetland No. 1 No. 2
Size of Wetland 16.39 0.38
Wetland Type (non-riparian,
riparian riverine, or riparian
non-riverine)
Riparian riverine Riparian riverine
NRCS Mapped Soil Series Leaf/Lynchburg Goldsboro/Norfolk
Drainage Class Poorly drained/somewhat
poorly drained
Well drained/moderately well
drained
Soil Hydric Status Hydric A/ Hydric B (Grantham,
Rains, Toisnot inclusions)
Hydric B (Rains inclusions)/ Non-
hydric
Source of Hydrology Surface/Groundwater Groundwater
Hydrologic Impairment NA Lack of overbank flooding
Native Vegetation
Community Headwater Forest Headwater Forest
% Exotic Invasive Vegetation <2% <2%

4.0 Functional and Ecological Uplift
Based on field evaluations of the project stream reaches and the proposed mitigation practices described
in this document, functional ratings were developed for the existing and proposed conditions of the
project reaches (Table 5A), following the methodology and definitions described in Harman, et al., 2012.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 7
October 2018
This information is provided to assist in communicating project goals and objectives related to functional
lift but is not proposed for use in setting performance standards. Performance standards are specifically
discussed in Section 8 and follow guidance provided by the NCDMS and USACE Wilmington District.

Of the impairments present on the site, past stream channelization and clearing of riparian vegetation are
the most severe, resulting in channel instability and erosion, lack of bedform diversity, increased nutrient
and sediment loading, and loss of wetland function. Ecological uplift will come from restoring the project
streams to a stable, functioning condition, restoring wetland connections and natural vegetation, and
reconnecting restoration areas with remnant headwater streams. In-stream structures will ensure
channel stability and improve aquatic habitats while the restored system matures. Restored riparian
buffers will: 1) provide woody debris and detritus for aquatic organisms; 2) provide shading and reduce
water temperatures; 3) increase dissolved oxygen concentrations; and 4) provide a diversity of aquatic
and terrestrial habitats appropriate for the ecoregion and landscape setting. Approximately 58 acres of
riparian buffer will be restored and/or protected as part of the proposed project.

Table 5A. Summary of Existing and Proposed Functional Ratings for the Project Reaches.
Functional Category
Stream Reaches
UT1 UT2 UT3 UT4
Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop.
Hydrology 1 FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR F FAR F
Hydraulics 2 NF F NF F NF F NF F
Geomorphology 3 NF F NF F NF F NF F
Physiochemical 4 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed
Biology 5 Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed
Note 1: Hydrology – all reaches are listed as Functioning At-Risk (FAR) in their existing condition. The
hydrology of UT1 and UT2 will remain FAR after restoration because of modifications to their
watersheds above the project site. UT3 and UT4 are predicted to go from FAR to Functioning
(F) after restoration, because the restoration reaches will connect with historic channel
features that are functioning.
Note 2: Hydraulics – all restoration reaches are incised and channelized and are no longer connected
to their adjacent floodplains and are therefore listed as Not Functioning (NF). Restoration
practices will restore proper floodplain connection and channel hydraulics. Groundwater and
surface water connections will also be restored.
Note 3: Geomorphology – all reaches exhibit significantly larger and deeper channels than would
naturally occur. Channel instability is apparent in all reaches to varying degrees, therefore all
reaches are listed as Not Functioning (NF). Restoration practices will restore stable
headwater stream/wetland systems that are self-sustaining over time.

Site specific wetland mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of degraded and reference systems (NC WFAT
2010). This method rates functional metrics for wetlands as high, medium, or low based on field data
collected on forms and transferred into a rating calculator. Using Boolean logic, the rating calculator
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 8
October 2018
assigns a high, medium, or low value for each metric and overall function. Table 5B summarizes NC WAM
model output for forested wetlands on the Site proposed for preservation (Wetland 1) and a disturbed
wetland located upstream of UT2 within the agricultural fields (Wetland 2).

Table 5B. NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub-function Rating Summary
Wetland 1
(Onsite Reference
located in forested
headwater system)
Wetland 2
(Disturbed, located
upstream of UT2 in
agricultural fields)
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Headwater Forest
(1) HYDROLOGY HIGH LOW
(2) Surface Storage & Retention HIGH LOW
(2) Sub-surface Storage and Retention HIGH LOW
(1) WATER QUALITY HIGH LOW
(2) Pathogen change HIGH LOW
(2) Particulate Change HIGH LOW
(2) Soluble change MEDIUM LOW
(2) Physical Change HIGH LOW
(1) HABITAT HIGH LOW
(2) Physical Structure HIGH LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure HIGH LOW
(2) Vegetative Composition HIGH LOW
OVERALL HIGH LOW

Based on the above NCWAM analysis, in areas proposed for wetland restoration and creation, all
metrics are being targeted for functional improvements. Table 5C provides an overview of the Sites
wetland functional improvement objectives and the specific actions proposed to accomplish them.

Table 5C. Wetland Work Plan Components and Functional Objectives
Functional Improvement Objectives Proposed Actions
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention Cessation of agricultural plowing followed by ditch
backfilling, deep ripping, and planting native forest
vegetation. Sub-surface Storage and Retention

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 9
October 2018
Table 5C. Wetland Work Plan Components and Functional Objectives (Continued)
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Conversion of agriculture fields to native forest vegetation,
treating surface runoff from adjacent agriculture fields and
roadside ditches, backfilling adjacent ditches, and restoring
ditched streams.
Particulate Change
Soluble Change
Physical Change
Habitat
Physical Structure
Plant native forest vegetation that connects with natural
areas up and downstream of the Site. Landscape Patch Structure
Vegetation Composition

5.0 Regulatory Considerations
Regulatory considerations for the Site are shown in Table 6 and described in the following sections.
Table 6. Summary of Regulatory Considerations.
Regulatory Parameter Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs.
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes No Appendix 3
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes No Appendix 3
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix 4
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix 4
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A Appendix 5
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

5.1 401/404
Wetlands within the Site easement have been delineated and verified (Figure 2 and Table 4B). There will
be minor impacts (less than 0.05 acre) to the headwater wetland system of UT3 and UT4 due to
reconnection of a channel feature between the preservation reaches and downstream restoration
reaches. Onsite stream channels that are impacted will be due to restoration activities and relocation of
the restored channels to their historic alignments.

5.2 Categorical Exclusion for Biological and Historical Resources
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) document for the Alliance Headwaters Site was originally approved by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on February 24, 2017 (Appendix 4). Due to changes in the
project, the CE document was resubmitted and was re-approved on May 11, 2018 (Appendix 4). The CE
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 10
October 2018
document investigates the presence of threatened and endangered species and any historical resources
that may occur within the Site.

5.2.1 Biological Resources
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.), defines protection for
species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An “Endangered Species” is
defined as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range”
and a “Threatened Species” is defined as “any species which is likely to become an Endangered Species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C 1532).

RS requested review and comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on December 16, 2016,
regarding the project’s potential impacts to threatened or endangered species. The USFWS responded
via letter on January 12, 2017 and stated that the proposed project is “not likely to adversely affect any
federally-listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species
currently proposed for listing” and that the requirements of Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species
Act “have been satisfied” for the project. The USFWS letter is included in the Categorical Exclusion
document found in Appendix 4.
Since the approval of the Categorical Exclusion document on February 24, 2017, the yellow lance mussel
(Elliptio lanceolata) has become proposed for future listing in Johnston County. The yellow lance is a sand-
loving species often found buried deep in clean, coarse to medium sand substrates and sometimes gravel
substrates. The yellow lance depends on clean, moderately flowing water with high dissolved oxygen,
and is found in smaller streams to medium-sized rivers (USFWS 2017). Intensive agricultural production
coupled with the annual maintenance of the stream channels and riparian vegetation has resulted in low
quality stream habitat on the Site. Because of these ongoing activities, no habitat is present for the yellow
lance at the Site. RS and the Division of Mitigation Services exchanged email correspondence with Donnie
Brew (preconstruction & environmental engineer with the Federal Highway Administration) in September
of 2017 discussing the yellow lance mussel. This correspondence can be found at the end of Appendix 4.

5.2.2 Historical Resources
The CE document investigates the occurrence of any historical resources protected under The National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. The NHPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), defines the policy of
historic preservation to protect, restore, and reuse districts, sites, structures, and objects significant in
American history, architecture, and culture. Section 106 of the NHPA mandates that federal agencies take
into account the effect of an undertaking on any property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion in,
the National Register of Historic Places.

RS sent an email to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on December 16, 2016,
requesting review and comment for the potential of cultural resources potentially affected by the project.
Following a review of the project, SHPO responded with a letter on December 29, 2016, and stated that
“they were aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project”. All correspondence
with SHPO is included in the Categorical Exclusion document found in Appendix 4.

5.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
Upon review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance
Program’s Digital Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (DFIRM) panel 3720158800J, effective December 2, 2005,
the downstream terminus of both UT1 and UT2 exists within the 0.2 Percent Chance Annual Flooding Zone
(Zone X) associated with Hannah Creek (Figure 7). Therefore, under the current regulations, work
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 11
October 2018
associated with this project would not be regulated nor would the work influence the flood elevations
associated with this zone.
However, pending map revisions are being considered and review of the preliminary DFIRM panel
3720158800K, dated April 30, 2014, indicates the downstream terminus of UT1 and UT2 will be within the
1.0 Percent Chance Annual Flooding Zone (Zone AE) of Hannah Creek. Upon this mapping becoming
effective, the project would be regulated, and the grading of the project would influence the mapping of
Zone AE and Zone X. However, the elevations of these zones would be established from Hannah Creek,
which is outside the Site’s boundaries; therefore, the project will not influence the determination of the
flooding elevations, just the topographic extents of the zones themselves.
The local floodplain manager for Johnston County was contacted on August 24, 2017. The floodplain
manager concurred with the finding that UT1 and UT2 occurred within the Zone X under the current
regulations and the project would not require any additional review from FEMA. The completed NCDMS
Floodplain Requirements Checklist can be found in Appendix 5.

6.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
Project goals and associated objectives are summarized in Table 7 below:

Table 7. Summary of Goals and Objectives for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project
Goals Objectives
Current
Functional
Status
Proposed
Functional
Status
Goals Specific to the Neuse River and Hannah Creek Watershed Discussed in the
RBRP (NCDMS, 2010 and 2015) and Neuse River Basinwide Plan (NCDWQ, 2009)
Remove Direct
Nutrient Inputs
from
Agricultural
Lands
 Restoration and enhancement of minimum 50-
foot riparian buffers along all project reaches.
 Protection of riparian buffers with a perpetual
conservation easement.
 Reducing the amount of land in active row crop
agriculture.
 Decreasing drainage to restore wetlands,
promoting higher water table conditions, and
denitrification.
Not
Functioning Functioning
Remove Direct
Sediment Inputs
from
Agricultural
Lands
 Restoration of stabilized headwater stream
systems.
 Restoration of wetlands and riparian buffers to
filter runoff.
 Increase distance between active farming
operations and receiving waters.
 Stabilization of gullies and ditches.
Not
Functioning Functioning

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 12
October 2018
Additional Benefits to Hannah Creek Significant Natural Heritage Area
Improved
Aquatic Habitats
 Restoration of appropriate bed form diversity,
headwater stream/wetland form, and in-stream
structures to provide appropriate habitat.
 Restoration of self-sustaining stream/wetland
headwaters.
 Restoration of riparian buffer vegetation to
provide organic matter and shade.
Not
Functioning Functioning
Improved
Connectivity
 Restore connectivity to historic remnant channel
features.
 Improved aquatic connectivity to Hannah Creek.
Not
Functioning Functioning

7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

7.1 Target Stream and Wetland Types

7.1.1 Target Stream Types
A design approach was developed that will return Coastal Plain headwater stream functions to a stable
state, as described in the guidance document entitled “Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the
Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina” (USACE, DWQ 2005). Existing condition assessments were used to
assess the current functional condition of the site and set functional uplift goals, as described in Sections
4.0 and 6.0. Data sources used in these assessments included existing hydrogeomorphic conditions,
historical aerials and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) mapping, detailed site topographic mapping,
evaluation of stable reference reaches, and a comparison of results from similar past projects in Coastal
Plain headwater systems.

After examining the assessment data collected at the site (Appendix 6) and exploring the potential for
restoration, a mitigation approach was developed that would address restoration of both stream and
wetland functions within the project area. On-site topography and soils indicate that the project area
most likely functioned in the past as a headwater tributary stream system with associated wetlands,
eventually flowing downstream into the larger Hannah Creek system. Assigning an appropriate stream
type for the corresponding valley that accommodates existing and future hydrologic conditions and
sediment supply was considered prior to selecting the proposed design approach. The stream type
assignment was primarily based on the range of the reference reach data available and the desired
performance of the site. A Rosgen “C” type channel was selected as the design stream type for all reaches.
The expectation is that the design channels will narrow to form “E” or lower width-to-depth ratio “C”
channels within the first few years after restoration, due to herbaceous vegetation establishment along
the banks, and the associated deposition of sediment. As canopy becomes established over the site at 10
to 15 years post-restoration, herbaceous vegetation will become less dense and channels often evolve to
wider width-to-depth ratios that approximate the design and reference conditions.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 13
October 2018
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types
The restoration approach of the riparian and wetland areas intends to mimic the conditions of a “Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp” (Blackwater subtype), as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Hydrology of this system will be palustrine, and “intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded”, as
the restored channel is designed to carry the bankfull flow, and to flood (flow out of its banks) at
discharges greater than bankfull. Areas proposed for restoration, enhancement, and creation are
comprised of the Leaf soil series, which is listed as a Hydric A soil in Johnston County.

Areas of the site considered for “potential” wetland restoration are underlain by the Lynchburg soil
series, which is listed as a Hydric B soil in Johnston County (non-hydric soils with hydric inclusion -
Grantham, Rains, and Toisnot soil series - and are currently not characterized by hydric soil indicators).
As such, these areas are not classified as wetland restoration areas; however, the areas are likely to
support wetlands upon completion of the project. Soils underlying Areas of Potential Wetland
Restoration do not display hydric soil indicators indicative of a Class A hydric soil due to 1)
anthropogenic manipulation (plowing, spoil overburden, excavation, or disruption of hydric soil
indicators), 2) position on the margins of hydric inclusions which may develop hydric soil indicators,
and/or 3) soil properties supporting jurisdictional hydrologic regime without fully displaying hydric soil
indicators. Potential wetland restoration areas currently do not exhibit hydric soil indicators but have a
reasonable expectation of developing hydric soil indicators upon implementation of the restoration
project.

Areas of Potential Wetland Restoration will not be counted towards wetland mitigation credit unless
groundwater gauge data is provided that shows jurisdictional wetland hydrology during the annual
monitoring period and consultation with the IRT has occurred.

All wetland areas within the project easement are proposed to have consistent monitoring and success
criteria, including 10% wetland hydroperiod and vegetation indicative of a jurisdictional wetland as
defined by USACE guidelines. In addition, potential wetland restoration areas would be required to
develop hydric soil indicators such as depletions/concretions within the soil matrix. Hydric soil indicators
will be described by a licensed soil scientist and will be consistent with descriptions for hydric soils as
outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and
Gulf Coastal Plan Region (Version 2.0). Wetland hydroperiod will be monitored by continuously recording
groundwater gauges and will be presented in annual monitoring reports. Areas that do not exhibit
sufficient hydroperiod and/or hydric soil indicators will be not be added to wetland restoration credit
upon completion of the monitoring period.

The goal of the wetland design component of the project is to restore functions in areas where evidence
of hydric soil conditions is present. Four main activities will be employed to restore on-site wetlands:

 Fill existing ditches and raise stream bed elevations of the restored reaches;
 Minor grading to remove overburden and spoil piles from buried hydric soil layers, where present;
 Plant native wetland species to establish buffer vegetation; and
 Restore the overbank flooding regime by connecting channels to their relic floodplains.

As a result of these activities, significant hydrologic lift will occur across the project area, raising the local
water table and restoring wetland hydrology to drained hydric soils adjacent to the restored streams.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 14
October 2018

7.2 Design Analysis and Parameters
Selection of design criteria is based on a combination of approaches, including review of reference reach
data, regime equations, evaluation of monitoring results from past projects, and best professional
judgment. Evaluating data from reference reach surveys and monitoring results from multiple Coastal
Plain headwater stream and wetland projects provided pertinent background information to determine
the appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and overall site potential. The design
parameters for the Site also considered guidelines from the USACE and NCDEQ guidance document
entitled “Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina.” (USACE,
DWQ 2005).

The restoration activities and structural elements are justified for the following reasons:

1. Site streams have been channelized or otherwise manipulated during the conversion of the
surrounding area for agricultural use. Re-establishing historic stream and wetland conditions will
reduce bank erosion, improve floodplain connectivity, and improve wetland hydrology;

2. Site streams are incised and function more as drainage ditches and canals rather than headwater
stream systems;

3. Past agricultural activities have resulted in erosion and sedimentation, silt-clogged stream
channels, and the loss of woody vegetation within the riparian zone;

4. Some restored stream segments will connect with less impacted wooded reaches upstream and
downstream; and

5. Enhancement or preservation measures would not achieve the highest possible level of
restoration or functional lift for the degraded stream and wetland system.

For design purposes, the project was divided into five main reaches (UT1, UT1A, UT2, UT3, and UT4). Full
restoration of the streams on the site was chosen as the preferred method to provide the maximum
functional uplift, due to the disturbed and manipulated condition of the site, lack of existing function, and
the relative lack of constraints.

An analysis was performed regarding the likely channel forms that would have been present through the
site, prior to its conversion to agriculture. EPR has collected data on headwater stream systems in the
Coastal Plain of the Southeastern U.S., and found a strong relationship between channel form, drainage
area, and valley slope (Tweedy, 2008). As drainage area and valley slope increase, drainages tend to form
more defined stream channels. EPR has used this tool successfully to evaluate the proper design form for
Coastal Plain restoration projects. Topography data for the Site were used to evaluate both drainage area
and valley slope for the project streams. Data from the evaluated project reaches are presented in Graph
1, where reach drainage areas are plotted against the estimated design valley slope.

The results of this analysis indicate that all proposed design reaches would be expected to have a
moderately to well-defined channel form under natural conditions, with a visible ordinary high- water
mark (OHW). Therefore, the stream reaches were designed using Natural Channel Design (NCD), which
has been used successfully in the past for small Coastal Plain streams.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 15
October 2018
Graph 1. Expected Channel Form Assessment.

Since a NCD approach using moderately to well-defined channels was selected as the appropriate design
approach, regional curve and reference reach analyses were performed to develop specific channel design
criteria. The regional curve analysis involved identifying stream reaches on the site with stable, visible
bankfull indicators. Since all the streams within the agricultural fields have been channelized and
maintained in the past, wooded reaches were assessed to identify visible bankfull indicators. In total, five
stable cross-sections were located for this assessment, and were located on reaches UT1 (downstream of
the project limits), UT4 (in the wooded preservation section), and a non-project stream located in the
adjacent woods less than 0.25 mile from the site. The cross sections were plotted on the NC Coastal Plain
Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003), along with internal reference reach data points developed by EPR staff
within the upper and middle Coastal Plain of North Carolina and were found to agree well with the regional
curve relationship (Graph 2). It should be noted that EPR has worked on other Coastal Plain streams in
the area over the years and has usually found good agreement with the NC Coastal Plain Curve. Therefore,
the regional curve regression relationship was used to determine the appropriate cross-sectional area of
the design reaches.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 16
October 2018
Graph 2. Regional Curve Information for Alliance Headwaters Site.

For all the project stream reaches, restoration activities will focus on reconnecting the streams to their
historic floodplain elevations whenever feasible. This approach will provide optimal functional uplift and
will also allow for restoration of adjacent riparian wetlands by raising the local water table. In some
locations, such as tie-ins to existing culverts, floodplain benches will be constructed to allow active
floodplain access and reduce energies placed on streambanks.
The designs will use NCD techniques to restore a meandering Rosgen C5 channel type, generally with a
width-to-depth ratio of between 10 and 14. A C stream type allows for lower channel depths, promoting
higher water table conditions in the surrounding floodplain and aiding in the restoration of wetland
hydrology. Rosgen C stream types are also common for Coastal Plain reference systems with similar
drainage areas and slope. Woody structures such as woody riffles and log vanes, along with
bioengineering practices, will be used to stabilize the outside meander bends and other areas of higher
bank stress. Grade control and instream riffle habitat will be enhanced with the use of constructed riffles
and woody debris that promote stability and provide refugia for aquatic organisms. Design plan form is
based on reference reach information collected from similar sites in the past, and on the past performance
of implemented projects with similar characteristics, with design sinuosities typically ranging from 1.2 to
1.4.
The ditches within the project area will be plugged and partially to completely filled, depending on the
availability of fill material and the location. Fill material will be developed from channel grading, bench
excavation, and removal of spoil piles in several locations of the site. Three ponds located along the design
reaches of UT1, UT2, and UT3, will be filled to match the approximate natural ground and floodplain
elevation. These ponds are relatively small and do not contain large amounts accumulated sediment.
Two of the ponds are excavation ponds, which will be partially to completely filled as part of the proposed
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 17
October 2018
work, while the third pond has a small earthen dam to form the impoundment. The water in this third
pond will be pumped down and the dam then removed. Any excess sediment will be removed, and the
valley will be reformed to approximate historic valley elevations. No excess sediment will be discharged
downstream as a result of these methods. Other reach considerations are summarized in Table 8 below.
Existing stream morphology for all project reaches can be found in Tables 9A and 9B, while existing
watersheds, the existing drainage network, jurisdictional features and cross section locations are shown
on Figures 4A, 4B, and 8. Proposed project reach watersheds and the proposed drainage network are
shown on Figures 9A and 9B, respectively.

Table 8. Project Design Stream Types and Information.
Reach
Proposed
Stream
Type
Approach/Considerations
UT1 C
Restoration: Split into sub-reaches UT1-R1, UT1-R2, and UT1-R3, based on
changes in drainage area. Benching will be required at the top of UT1-R1, the
bottom of UT1-R2, and the top of UT1-R3, due to tie-in with ditches/culverts. The
restoration of UT1-R2 will require filling a farm pond to restore the floodplain
topography. A farm road that crosses the lower end of UT1-R3 will be relocated
to reduce easement breaks. The reach ends at the confluence with UT2.
UT1A C Restoration: Short restoration reach that will intercept and route flows from the
southwest portion of the site to UT1.
UT2 C
Restoration: Restoration reach will start below a culvert for the relocated farm
road. Near the end of the design reach, a small pond will be filled to restore the
floodplain topography and wetlands that have been converted to pond habitat.
The reach ends at the wood line, where it will tie to an existing channel that is
relatively stable.
UT3 C
Restoration: The restoration will begin in the woods to restore a short section of
wooded stream that has been lost due to spoil material and drainage. The reach
will begin at the historic floodplain elevation and continue through the farm field.
Near the top of the reach, the ditch and farm road along the wood line will be filled
and graded back to floodplain elevation. At the low end, a pond will be filled to
form the restored floodplain of UT3 before it flows into a newly culverted farm
road crossing at the end of the project.
UT4 C
Restoration: Like UT3, the restoration will begin in the woods to restore a short
section of wooded stream that has been lost. The ditch and farm road at the wood
line will be removed to reform the historic floodplain. The reach ends at its
confluence with UT3.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 18
October 2018
Table 9A. Morphology Table for Project Streams.
* Reaches UT1-R1, UT1-R2, and UT1A are currently part of a single ditch system that flows through the project area; therefore,
the same existing morphological data is provided for all three reaches.
^ Existing discharge and velocity not calculated since existing system is not representative of design.
+ Reference stream information can be found in Section 7.3.1 and Figure 10.
Parameter Existing Reference
Condition+
Proposed
Reach UT1A
*
UT1 –
R1*
UT1 –
R2*
UT1 –
R3 UT1A UT1 –
R1
UT1 –
R2
UT1 –
R3
Valley Width (ft) 5 – 7 13 --- 35 66 52 66
Contributing
Drainage Area (acres) 26 - 45 546 166 - 640 21 183 219 543
Channel/Reach
Classification Incised B5c Incised
B5c C5 / E5 C5 C5 C5 C5
Design Discharge
Width (ft) 2.5 – 4.8 7.4 6.5 – 9.7 5.3 6.5 7.5 9.9
Design Discharge
Max Depth (ft) 0.6 – 0.8 1.6 0.75 -1.00 0.51 0.60 0.71 0.93
Design Discharge
Area (ft2) 1.0 – 2.5 7.5 3.8 – 8.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 7.0
Design Discharge
Velocity (ft/s) ----^ ----^ 1.3 – 2.0 1.7 1.4 2.1 1.5
Design Discharge
(cfs) ----^ ----^ 8.0 – 11.0 3.4 4.2 8.4 10.7
Water Surface Slope 0.0070 0.026 0.0027-
0.0088 0.0090 0.0026 0.0049 0.0018
Sinuosity 1.0 1.0 1.22 – 1.59 1.0 1.26 1.29 1.35
Width/Depth Ratio 6.6 – 10.6 7.3 9.0 – 12.0 14 14 14 14
Bank Height Ratio 3.3 – 2.7 2.4 1.0 – 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 – 2.0 1.7 > 3.0 6.6 10.2 6.9 6.7
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84
/ d95 / dip / disp
(mm)
sand sand sand sand sand sand sand
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 19
October 2018
Table 9B. Morphology Table for Project Streams.
* Reaches UT3-R1 and UT3-R2 are part of the same ditch system in their existing condition, and therefore one surveyed cross-
section was used to assess the reach.
^ In its existing condition, UT4 flows from the preservation reach (stable), directly into the UT3 channelized system; therefore,
there is no existing UT4 channel to assess.
# Existing discharge and velocity not calculated since existing system is not representative of design.
+ Reference stream information can be found in Section 7.3.1 and Figure 10.

7.2.1 Sediment Transport Analyses
The purpose of a sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a
stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. In Coastal Plain sand-bed systems, all particle
sizes are mobile during bankfull flows; therefore, there is no need to determine the competency or
maximum particle size that the stream can transport. However, comparing the design shear stress and
stream power values for a project reach to those computed for sand-bed reference reaches is useful to
Parameter Existing Reference
Condition+
Proposed
Reach UT2 UT3 –
R1*
UT3 –
R2* UT4^ UT2 UT3 –
R1
UT3 –
R2 UT4
Valley Width (ft) 9.3 14
N/A
--- 42 40 40 40
Contributing
Drainage Area (acres) 147 354 166 - 640 162 201 354 133
Channel/Reach
Classification G5 Incised B5c C5 / E5 C5 C5 C5 C5
Design Discharge
Width (ft) 5.8 8.0 6.5 – 9.7 7.5 7.5 9.2 6.5
Design Discharge
Max Depth (ft) 1.3 1.6 0.75 -1.00 0.7 0.7 0.86 0.61
Design Discharge
Area (ft2) 5.0 9.3 3.8 – 8.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 3.0
Design Discharge
Velocity (ft/s) -----# ----# 1.3 – 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.6 2.1
Design Discharge
(cfs) -----# -----# 8.0 – 11.0 8.4 7.5 15.4 6.2
Water Surface Slope 0.0040 0.0030 0.0027-
0.0088 0.0049 0.0038 0.0040 0.005
7
Sinuosity 1.0 1.0 1.22 – 1.59 1.22 1.38 1.21 1.36
Width/Depth Ratio 6.7 6.8 9.0 – 12.0 14.0 14 14 14
Bank Height Ratio 3.6 1.8 1.0 – 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 1.8 > 3.0 5.6 5.3 4.3 6.2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84
/ d95 / dip / disp
(mm)
sand sand sand sand sand sand sand
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 20
October 2018
evaluate whether the values predicted for the design channels are within the range of those found in
stable systems. Empirical relationships from stable Coastal Plain sand-bed channels in North Carolina are
used in this analysis. The shear stress and stream power values for the design reaches were calculated
and compared with stable reference stream data. The design shear stress and stream power values were
somewhat lower than the reference streams when using a design width-to-depth ratio of 14, with stream
power generally ranging from 1.5 to 8.5 W/m2 and shear stresses ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 lbs/ft2. In past
projects that a similar, we have seen design channels narrow over the first few years as a result of
herbaceous vegetation growth on the channel banks and subsequent sediment deposition that tends to
lower the width-to-depth ratio of the restored channels. When the sediment transport relationships are
re-evaluated for width-to-depth ratios between 8 and 10, the shear stress and stream power relationships
closely match those observed in reference systems, with stream power generally ranging from 2 to 12
W/m2, and shear stress ranging from 0.08 to 0.23 lbs/ft2. It should also be noted that sediment supply
for the restored reaches is expected to be low, since most of the upstream watershed and drainages are
relatively stable. Woody and constructed riffles are being incorporated the design to protect against scour
during larger than bankfull storm events, with the frequency of woody/constructed riffles increasing as
stream slope increases (i.e. areas of greater shear stress). This analysis provides evidence that the stresses
predicted for the design channels will be within the range of stable values calculated for the reference
reaches.

7.2.2 Project Risks and Uncertainties
Listed below are identified project risks and uncertainties that have been evaluated in the development
of design plans for the site, along with methods that have been/will be used to address these concerns.

 Hydrologic Trespass: Since the project streams are going to be restored by raising the bed elevations
and reconnecting to historic floodplains, drainage will be decreased to the adjacent streams. The
existing watersheds and drainage networks are shown on Figures 4A and 4B and the proposed
watersheds and drainage networks are shown on Figures 9A and 9B to document these changes. The
proposed Site changes will ultimately provide greater on-site water storage capacity which will help
attenuate stream flows to areas outside the proposed project limits.

This concern was expressed by an adjacent landowner in a letter dated May 26, 2017 to the USACE in
response to the public comment period for the project. The landowner expressed concern that
additional water would be discharged onto their property as a result of the project.

o Methods to Address: Low-lying areas adjacent to the proposed stream buffers that may
experience increased wetness after project implementation will be purchased by
Restoration Systems. Drainage for other areas outside of the project limits are being
carefully evaluated and modifications to the existing drainage network are being designed
to eliminate the potential for adverse impacts to the restored resources.

In regard to the concern expressed by the adjacent landowner, there is no increase in
drainage area proposed at the outlets of the project. Since the project areas will be
restored with adjacent wetlands, it is likely that discharge from the project site to adjacent
parcels will actually be decreased somewhat as a result of greater surface storage and
plant uptake on the project site.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 21
October 2018
 Land use development: There is potential for increased land development around the site in the
future that could lead to additional runoff and changes to watershed hydrology.

o Methods to Address: The project area has seen little development in recent years and it
is unlikely that development will threaten the site in the foreseeable future. Restoration
of the site to reconnect streams to their floodplains will reduce the likelihood of future
degradation from watershed changes, as increased flows will spread over a wider
floodplain. There is also little elevational fall across the site, so the risk of channel
instability is low once vegetation is established.

 Easement Encroachment: There is potential for landowner encroachment into the permanent
conservation easement.

o Methods to Address: Restoration Systems has had considerable discussions with the
landowner regarding the project requirements and limitations of easement access and is
confident that the landowner fully understands and will maintain the easement
protections. The easement boundaries will also be clearly marked per NCDMS
requirements. Any encroachments that do occur will be remedied by Restoration Systems
or the long-term steward to remedy any damage and provide any other corrections
required by NCDMS and/or the IRT.

 Drought and Floods: There is potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring period
of the project.

o Methods to Address: Restoration Systems will apply adaptive management techniques as
necessary to meet the site performance criteria. Such adaptive management may include
replanting, channel damage repair, irrigation, or other methods. If adaptive management
activities are significant, additional monitoring may be required by the IRT.

 Channel Formation: Since the project involves headwater systems, flow duration and channel
formation performance standards may not be met.
o Methods to Address: The design team is confident that the headwater stream systems will
form as designed. This conclusion is based on observations of upstream and downstream
wooded reaches, site wetness condition, soils, topography, and watershed sizes. Flow
gauges will be installed, and observations of channel formation and ordinary high-water
mark features will be recorded. In the first few years, channels may become obscured by
dense herbaceous vegetation. Over time as trees grow and provide shade, the herbaceous
species will be reduced, and the channels will typically become more defined and
pronounced.

7.3 Stream Reference Sites
Stream reference reach information for the project was collected from two sources. First, as described in
Section 7.2, five stable cross-sections were located near the Site, and were located on reaches UT1
(downstream of the project limits), UT4 (in the wooded preservation section), and a non-project stream
located in the adjacent woods less than 0.25 mile from the site (Figure 8). These surveyed cross sections
were used to evaluate channel dimension (specifically cross-sectional area and discharge) regional curve
relationships within the project watershed. While the cross-section locations surveyed were considered
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 22
October 2018
stable and well-connected to the adjacent floodplains, the reaches themselves exhibited evidence of past
disturbance, such as spoil piles, re-alignments, and immature vegetation. Therefore, these reaches were
not used as stream pattern references.

Vegetation communities along these reaches were documented. While the sites were not considered
true reference reaches with mature, reference quality vegetation, the sites did contain several native
species that apparently grow well in the area soils and climate. Canopy species include tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), water oak,
American holly, and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), with titi, possumhaw (Viburnum nudum),
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), sweet bay, giant cane, and elderberry in the shrub layer. Herbs
and vines include Japanese stilt grass, lizard tail (Saururus cernuus), violets (Viola spp.), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), laurel-leaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia), grape, and greenbrier.

7.3.1 Reference Streams
EPR reviewed internal reference reach database information collected over time from the region near the
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site. These reference reaches were surveyed in the past to establish the
range of conditions observed in the region for reference quality streams, particularly small, headwater,
single-thread, Coastal Plain streams. The reference information collected was used for the Alliance
Headwaters Site to evaluate appropriate ranges of sinuosity, pattern ratios, and sediment transport
relationships (as described in Section 7.2). The locations of the reference streams are provided in Figure
10, and summary information is provided in Table 10.

Table 10. Summary of Stream Reference Reach Information.
Parameter
Reference Reach
Johanna Creek Still Creek Cole Property
County Johnston Wayne Wayne
Distance from Site (mi) 3.7 28 28
Stream Type C5/E5 E5 E5/C5
Drainage Area (sq mi) 1.0 0.35 0.26
W/D Ratio 12.0 9.0 10.0
Bankfull Area (ft2) 8.0 6.1 3.8
Bankfull Width (ft) 9.7 7.4 6.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.80 0.82 0.60
Valley Slope (ft/ft) 0.0027 0.0088 0.0059
Sinuosity 1.22 1.33 1.59
Meander Length Ratio 5.2 5.9 – 11.5 9.8
Radius of Curvature Ratio 1.5 – 2.8 2.9 – 6.4 1.2 – 2.3
Meander Width Ratio 1.4 – 2.1 2.1 – 6.6 5.4 – 8.2

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 23
October 2018
7.4 Wetland Reference Sites
A Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) is a forested area on which to model restoration efforts at the Site in
relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically stable climax communities and should be a
representative model of the Site forested ecosystem as it likely existed prior to human disturbances. Data
describing plant community composition and structure were collected at the RFEs and subsequently
applied as reference data in an attempt to emulate a natural climax community.

7.4.1 Reference Wetlands
Reference vegetative communities for the Site were identified in the upstream wetland preservation area
of the Site. Tree and shrub species identified in this area are listed in Table 11 and were utilized, in
addition to other relevant species, to supplement community descriptions for the Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) (Schafale & Weakley 1990).
Table 11. Species Identified within the Reference Forest Ecosystems.
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status
Acer rubrum Red maple FAC
Betula nigra River Birch FACW
Diospryos virginiana Persimmon FAC
Ilex opaca American Holly FAC
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar FACU
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar FACU
Magnolia virginiana Sweet Bay FACW
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum FAC
Persea palustris Red Bay FACW
Pinus palustris Longleaf Pine FACU
Pinus serotina Pond Pine FACW
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine FAC
Quercus alba White Oak FACU
Quercus nigra Water Oak FAC
Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak FACW
Quercus nigra Water Oak FAC
Quercus phellos Willow Oak FACW

7.5 Vegetation and Planting Plan
The 71.7-acre conservation easement will provide extensive protection for the restored stream channels
because of the surrounding restored, enhanced, and created wetlands. Approximately 50 acres of newly
forested areas will be established within the conservation easement with buffer widths ranging from 50-
feet to 500-feet.

Species selection for re-vegetation of the conservation easement will generally follow those suggested by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) for the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater subtype) and the
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest and wetness tolerances cited in WRP Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (WRP
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 24
October 2018
1997). Vegetative planting will be based on topography and hydrologic soil conditions and designated by
planting zones.

Tree species selected for planting across the Site are shown in Table 12 and Appendix 7. These species
will be planted as bare-root seedlings at a density of 680 stems per acre. Species will be planted during
the dormant season (November 15 – March 15) following the handling and installation procedures
outlined on the plan sheets to achieve the vegetative success criteria outlined in Section 8.2.

Table 12. Tree Species and Planting Zones.
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status A
Zone 1 – Stream Banks B
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush OBL
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood FACW
Salix nigra Silky Dogwood OBL
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry FAC
Zone 2 – Riparian and Wetland Buffer B
Betula nigra River Birch FACW
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar FACU
Magnolia virginiana Sweet Bay FACW
Nyssa biflora Swamp Black Gum OBL
Persea palustris Red Bay FACW
Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak FACW
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak OBL
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress OBL
Ulmus americana American Elm FAC
Zone 3 – Upland Buffer C
Acer saccharum Sugar Maple FACU
Diospryos virginiana Persimmon FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar FACU
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum FAC
Prunus serotina Black Cherry FACU
Quercus alba White Oak FACU
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak FACW
A – National Wetland Plant List (Atlantic Gulf Coastal Plain) (Lichvar et al. 2016)
B – Species are representative of the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp - Blackwater subtype
C – Species are representative of the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest

Stream banks will be live staked in specific areas using species shown on the plan sheets (see Plan Sheets).
Temporary and permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas (see Plan Sheets).
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 25
October 2018
8.0 Performance Standards
Performance criteria outlined in the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Template (ver. 10/2015), and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers – Wilmington District Public Notice: Notification of Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District (October 24, 2016), will be followed
and are briefly outlined below. Monitoring data collected on the site will include reference photos, plant
survival analyses, channel stability analyses, wetland hydrological analysis, and biological data if
specifically required by permit conditions.

Monitoring will be conducted for a period of seven years, unless the USACE, in consultation with the
Interagency Review Team (IRT), agrees that monitoring may be terminated early. Early closure will only
be provided through written approval from the USACE in consultation with the IRT. Annual monitoring
reports will be submitted to the NCDMS by RS no later than November 30 of each monitoring year.

8.1 Restored Stream Channels
The performance criteria for restored stream channels, per USACE Guidance (October 24, 2016) are
summarized below:

 All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
 Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
 Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 for a majority of measured cross sections on a
given reach.
 Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be 2.2 or above for a majority of measured riffle cross-
sections on a given reach.
 BHR and ER should not change by more than 10% in any given year for a majority of a
given reach.
 Must document occurrence of at least 4 bankfull events in separate years during the
monitoring period.

8.2 Riparian Vegetation
The performance criteria for planted riparian vegetation, per USACE Guidance (October 24, 2016) are
summarized below:

 Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at
year 3; a minimum of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of
210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
 Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7.
 Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved
planting list for the site.
 Any single species can only account for 50% of the required stems per monitoring plot.

8.3 Compatibility with Project Goals
The performance criteria described above allow evaluation of whether the project goals have been met
after the site has been completed. In Table 13, the Project goals and objectives are listed, along with the
performance criteria that will allow documentation of whether the goals have been achieved.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 26
October 2018
Table 13. Project Goals and Associated Performance Criteria.
Goals Objectives Performance Criteria
Goals Specific to the Neuse River and Hannah Creek Watershed Discussed in the
RBRP (NCDMS, 2010 and 2015) and Neuse River Basinwide Plan (NCDWQ, 2009)
Remove
Direct
Nutrient
Inputs from
Agricultural
Lands
Restoration and enhancement of
minimum 50-foot riparian buffers
along all project reaches.
 Vegetation success criteria of 260 native stems/acre in Year 5 and
210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
Restoration of wetlands.
Decreased water table depths and
increased saturation to promote
denitrification.
 Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable sections (shallow
channels) over the monitoring period.
 Water table gauges and wells document appropriate stream flow and
extended saturated conditions.
 Wetland hydrology success criteria of saturation or inundation for 10
percent of the growing season.
Protection of riparian buffers with
a perpetual conservation
easement.
 Recordation of a conservation easement meeting NCDMS guidelines.
Remove
Direct
Sediment
Inputs from
Agricultural
Lands
Restoration of appropriate aquatic
in-stream habitat.
 Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable channels and differences
between pools and riffles.
 Visual documentation of stable channel condition and in-stream
structures.
Restoration of wetlands and
riparian buffer communities.
 Vegetation success criteria of 260 native stems/acre in Year 5 and
210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
 Wetland hydrology success criteria of saturation or inundation for 10
percent of the growing season.
Reduce sediment loads to
downstream receiving waters
from bank erosion
 Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable sections over the
monitoring period.
Additional Benefits to Hannah Creek Significant Natural Heritage Area
Improved
Aquatic
Habitats

Restoration of appropriate
channel and bed form diversity
and in-stream structures to
provide appropriate habitat.
 Geomorphic cross sections that document a variety of channel
depths and forms.
 Visual documentation of in-stream structure stability during annual
monitoring.
Restoration of self-sustaining
headwater stream/wetland
systems.
 Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable sections over the
monitoring period.
 Water table gauges and wells document high water table conditions.
 Wetland hydrology success criteria of saturation or inundation for 10
percent of the growing season.
Restoration of riparian buffer
vegetation to provide organic
matter and shade.
 Vegetation success criteria of 260 native stems/acre in Year 5 and
210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
 Recordation of a conservation easement meeting NCDMS guidelines.
Improved
Connectivity
Reconnecting restoration reaches
with remnant headwater
channels.
 Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable sections over the
monitoring period.
Restoration and protection of
riparian buffers that connect to
existing wooded areas.
 Vegetation success criteria of 260 native stems/acre in Year 5 and
210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
 Recordation of a conservation easement meeting NCDMS guidelines.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 27
October 2018
9.0 Monitoring Plan
The monitoring plan for the Site will follow the guidance outlined in the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Template
(ver. 10/2015), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Wilmington District Public Notice: Notification of
Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District
(October 24, 2016). Monitoring data collected on the site will include reference photos, plant survival
analyses, channel stability analyses, wetland hydrological analyses, and biological data if specifically
required by permit conditions.

Monitoring will be conducted for a period of seven years, unless the USACE, in consultation with the IRT,
agrees that monitoring may be terminated early. Early closure will only be provided through written
approval from the USACE in consultation with the IRT. Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to
the NCDMS by RS no later than November 30 of each monitoring year.

The As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template (ver. 06/2017) will be used to document the baseline
conditions and to prepare the as-built record drawings for the Site. As-built surveys will be conducted
within 60 days after project implementation is completed (following planting and monitoring installations)
to document the recently constructed features and conditions of the Site.

Annual monitoring data will be reported using the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template (ver. 06/2017).
The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of
project status and trends, population of DMS databases for analysis, and assist in decision making
regarding project close-out.

Wetland hydrology is proposed to be monitored annually for a period of seven years (years 1 - 7). Stream
morphology and riparian vegetation is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years with
measurements completed in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Additionally, in years 4 and 6, a brief narrative of site
developments, a representative photo log, and a Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) will be submitted,
barring any need for supplemental reporting.

9.1 Stream Monitoring
Stream monitoring will include monitoring of the hydrologic and geomorphic functions of UT1, UT1A, UT2,
UT3, and UT4. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are summarized in Table
14. Monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also allow monitoring of parameters to
document site performance related to the project goals listed in Section 6. The proposed locations of
monitored cross sections are shown in Figure 11.

Space Purposefully Left Blank

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 28
October 2018
Table 14. Stream Monitoring Summary.
Parameter Method Schedule/ Frequency Number/ Extent
Stream
Profile
Full longitudinal
survey
As-built, (unless
otherwise required) All restored stream channels
Stream
Dimension Cross sections Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 Two per 1,000 ft of restored
channel
Channel
Stability
Visual Assessment Yearly All restored stream channels
Additional Cross
sections Yearly Only if instability is documented
during monitoring
Stream
Hydrology
Continuous
monitoring water level
gages
Continuous recording
through monitoring
period
One flow gauge on UT1 – R2, UT1
– R3, UT1A, UT2, UT3 – R1,
UT3 – R2, and UT4

9.2 Wetland Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed to take measurements after hydrological modifications
are performed at the Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals
necessary to satisfy the jurisdictional hydrology success criteria within each wetland restoration area
(USEPA 1990). According to the Soil Survey of Johnston County, the growing season is from March 21-
November 4 (USDA 1994). However, for purposes of this project gauge hydrologic success will be
determined using data from March 1-November 4 to more accurately represent the period of biological
activity. Based on growing season information outlined in the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (USACE 2010) and
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (IRT 2016), this will be
confirmed annually by soil temperatures exceeding 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 20 inches depth and/or bud
burst.

A March 1 start of the growing season is proposed to allow for extending the growing season during critical
portions of the year for wetland ecology. Specifically, soil biological activity during saturated conditions
is the driving force behind the development of hydric soils and/or hydrophytic vegetation. An extension
of the growing season at the beginning of the year, if early growing season indicators are present, more
accurately depicts actual growing season length at the Site.

Soil temperatures will be collected in late February/early March of each monitoring year and will be
reported in the annual monitoring report. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and
extent are summarized in Table 15. The proposed locations for groundwater gauges are shown in Figure
11.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 29
October 2018
Table 15. Wetland Monitoring Summary.
Parameter Method Schedule/
Frequency Number/ Extent Data Collected
Wetland
restoration
Groundwater
gauges
As-built, Years 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
26 gauges spread
throughout
restored and
created wetlands
Soil temperatures at the
beginning of each
monitoring period,
groundwater and rain data
for each monitored period.

9.3 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring will evaluate the establishment of planted and volunteer vegetation across the
site. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are summarized in Table 16.
Monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also allow monitoring of parameters to document
site performance related to the project goals listed in Section 6.

Table 16. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Summary.
Parameter Method Schedule/
Frequency
Number/
Extent Data Collected
Vegetation
establishme
nt and vigor
Permanent vegetation
plots, 0.02 acre in size
(minimum)
As-built, Years
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
32 plots spread
across site
Species, height,
location, grid location,
planted vs. volunteer,
and age
Annual random
vegetation plots, 0.02
acre in size (minimum)
As-built, Years
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
18 plots
randomly
selected each
year
Species, and height

During quantitative vegetation sampling, sample plots (100 square meters, or 0.02 acre) will be installed
within the site as per guidelines established by the Level 1 and 2 protocols in CVS-DMS Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and
herbaceous species will also be documented by photograph. The proposed locations of permanent
vegetation plots are shown in Figure 11.

9.4 Visual Assessment Monitoring
A visual assessment of the entire project will be conducted on an annual basis. The culmination of this
data will be presented in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV), with supporting documentation
presented in the tables outlined by NCDMS’s guidance Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Format,
Data Requirements, and Content Guidance, dated February 2014. Specifically, problem areas of
vegetation, in-stream structures, and channel migration will be noted and documented with photos. After
NCDMS’s review of the documentation, additional monitoring protocols may be required to ensure
project success can be achieved.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 30
October 2018
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan
The site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation
easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by
the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQ
Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the non-reverting, interest‐bearing
Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account will be
governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A‐232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund
may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land
transaction costs, if applicable.

The Site Protection Instrument will be recorded once the mitigation plan has been approved.

11.0 Adaptive Management Plan
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary
performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the members of the
IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.

A maintenance plan is provided in Appendix 8, summarizing the types of issues that may arise during
monitoring and how those issues would be addressed.

12.0 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 17A and 17B are projections based upon site design.

Although not expected, if site conditions such as unidentified bedrock, utility easements, discovery of
cultural resources, etc., are encountered during construction of stream channels that result in significant
deviations from the approved plan or credit amount (i.e. more than would typically result from
measurement variations), the as-built report must clearly identify the difference in the length and
associated credit amount and explain how project design and construction were altered, to include
updated plan sheets. These changes, including the revised credit totals, should be submitted to the
District for approval as a project modification.

For projects that include wetland mitigation, restored wetland boundaries are not surveyed because
wetland areas must still be monitored before they are determined to meet hydrology standards, so
wetland credit amounts should not change at as-built unless project limits are altered during construction
(e.g. property is removed or added to a project, planned hydrologic alterations are not carried out, etc.)

Upon completion of site construction, the project components and credit data will be adjusted, if
necessary, to be consistent with the as-built condition, and any changes will be described in the As-built
Monitoring Report. The project proposes to provide stream credits derived from stream restoration
activities, as shown in the Mitigation Plan Conceptual Map (Figure 12). A description of the stream
restoration ratios are presented below. The proposed credit release schedule is provided in Appendix 9.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 31
October 2018
12.1 Restoration and Creation Ratios
12.1.1 (West of Joyner Bridge Road)
The proposed ratios for streams and riparian wetlands on the west side of Joyner Bridge Road will be 1:1
for all proposed and potential restoration areas and 10:1 for creation based on the following:

1. Per USACE discussions during the post-award, initial site evaluation conducted in the spring of 2016.

12.1.2 (East of Joyner Bridge Road)
The proposed ratios for streams and riparian wetlands on the east side of Joyner Bridge Road will be 1.3:1
for all proposed and potential restoration areas and 13:1 for creation based on the following:

1. Per USACE discussions during the post-award, initial site evaluation conducted in the spring of 2016
and subsequent conversations. The Tract of land East of Joyner Bridge Road was subject to land-use
change in 1997/98. At the time, the Tract was not owned by the current landowner. Discussions were
held between the Sponsor and Todd Tugwell, Special Projects Manager with the Wilmington District,
US Army Corps of Engineers during the initial vetting of the Alliance Headwaters project. The Sponsor
was unable to located NRCS or FSA paperwork regarding the land-use change though a timber lease
between Weyerhaeuser and the previous landowner was located. As a result of mutual agreement,
all mitigation credit being derived on the subject Tract will receive a 30% reduction (i.e. restoration
based mitigation ratio would go from 1:1 to 1.3:1). Correspondence between Restoration Systems
(Sponsor) and Todd Tugwell detailing the reduction is attached for reference in Appendix 10.

12.2 Enhancement Ratio
12.2.2 (East of Joyner Bridge Road)
The proposed ratios for riparian wetlands on the east side of Joyner Bridge Road will be 3.25:1 for
enhancement based on the following:

1. Per USACE discussions during the post-award, initial site evaluation conducted in the spring of 2016
and subsequent conversations. The Tract of land East of Joyner Bridge Road was subject to land-use
change in 1997/98. At the time, the Tract was not owned by the current landowner. Discussions were
held between the Sponsor and Todd Tugwell, Special Projects Manager with the Wilmington District,
US Army Corps of Engineers during the initial vetting of the Alliance Headwaters project. The Sponsor
was unable to located NRCS or FSA paperwork regarding the land-use change though a timber lease
between Weyerhaeuser and the previous landowner was located. As a result of mutual agreement,
all mitigation credit being derived on the subject Tract will receive a 30% reduction (i.e. enhancement-
based mitigation ratio would go from 2.5:1 to 3.25:1). Correspondence between Restoration Systems
(Sponsor) and Todd Tugwell detailing the reduction is attached for reference in Appendix 10.

12.3 Wetland Preservation Ratio

The proposed ratio for wetland preservation on the project is 10:1 based on the following:

1. The approved jurisdictional delineation of existing forested wetlands.
a. Wetlands specifically proposed for preservation are located up valley and adjacent to the
start of UT3 and UT4 restoration.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 32
October 2018
Table 17A. Determination of Stream Mitigation Credits.
A A PJD package was resubmitted to Samantha Dailey (USACE) and is currently under review for the existing stream channels.
* Restoration Systems is under contract with the Division of Mitigation Services to provide 6,657 Stream Mitigation Credits.
Project Components
Reach ID Existing
Footage A
Stationing/
Location
Restored/
Preserved
Footage
Creditable
Footage
Restoration
Level
Approach
(P1, P2, etc.)
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Credits
UT1A -- 10+00 – 10+87 87 87 R P1 1:1 87
UT1 – R1
4,761
10+00 – 14+33 433 433 R P2 1:1 433
14+33 – 16+71 238 238 R P1 1:1 238
UT1 – R2
16+71 – 21+10 439 439 R P1 1:1 439
21+10 – 22+34 124 124 R P2 1:1 124
22+34 – 29+44 710 710 R P1 1:1 710
29+44 – 30+18 74 19 R P2 1:1 19
30+18 – 30+33 15 0 R P1 1:1 0
UT1 – R3 10+00 – 22+56 1,256 1,107 R P2 1.3:1 852
22+56 – 24+63 207 207 R P1 1.3:1 159
UT2 <1
10+00 – 10+88 88 0 R P1 1.3:1 0
10+88 – 15+29 441 383 R P2 1.3:1 295
15+29 – 15+95 66 66 R P1 1.3:1 51
15+95 – 16+52 57 57 R P2 1.3:1 44
16+52 – 19+97 345 345 R P1 1.3:1 265
UT3 – R1
3,313
10+00 – 16+39 186 186 R P1 1:1 186
11+86 – 12+49 63 63 R P2 1:1 63
12+49 – 16+39 390 390 R P1 1:1 390
UT3 – R2
16+39 – 23+27 688 688 R P1 1:1 688
23+27 – 26+53 326 326 R P2 1:1 326
26+53 – 27+88 135 130 R P1 1:1 130
27+88 – 29+15 127 0 R P2/P1 1:1 0
UT4 1,142
10+00 – 11+73 173 173 R P1 1:1 173
11+73 – 12+38 65 65 R P2 1:1 65
12+38 – 15+31 293 293 R P1 1:1 293
Totals ~9,217 7,026 6,529 6,029 *
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 33
October 2018
Table 17B. Determination of Riparian Riverine Wetland Mitigation Credits
Project Component Wetland Mitigation Type Type Acreage Mitigation Ratio* WMUs
WR1 Restoration Riparian Riverine 7.11 1:1 7.11
WR2 Restoration * Riparian Riverine 6.97 1.3:1 5.36
WR3 Restoration Riparian Riverine 18.47 1:1 18.47
WE1 Enhancement * Riparian Riverine 0.38 3.25:1 0.12
WC1 Creation Riparian Riverine 0.54 10:1 0.05
WC2 Creation * Riparian Riverine 0.55 13:1 0.04
WC3 Creation Riparian Riverine 0.90 10:1 0.09
WP1 Preservation Riparian Riverine 16.39 10:1 1.64
Totals 51.31 32.88
* The Tract of land East of Joyner Bridge Road was subject to land-use change in 1997/98. At the time, the Tract was not owned by the current landowner.
Discussions were held between the Sponsor and Todd Tugwell, Special Projects Manager with the Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers during the
initial vetting of the Alliance Headwaters project. The Sponsor was unable to located NRCS or FSA paperwork regarding the land-use change though a timber
lease between Weyerhaeuser and the previous landowner was located. As a result of mutual agreement, all mitigation credit being derived on the subject Tract
will receive a 30% reduction (i.e. restoration based mitigation ratio would go from 1:1 to 1.3:1). Correspondence between Restoration Systems (Sponsor) and
Todd Tugwell detailing the reduction is attached for reference in Appendix 10.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 34
October 2018
Table 17C. Determination of Riparian Riverine Wetland Mitigation Credits for Areas of Potential Wetland Restoration
Project Component Wetland Mitigation Type Type Acreage Mitigation Ratio* WMUs
PWR1 Potential Restoration A Riparian Riverine 0.29 1:1 0.29
PWR2 Potential Restoration A Riparian Riverine 0.95 1:1 0.95
PWR3 Potential Restoration A Riparian Riverine 0.90 1:1 0.90
PWR4 Potential Restoration A Riparian Riverine 0.28 1:1 0.28
PWR5 Potential Restoration A * Riparian Riverine 1.47 1.3:1 1.13
PWR6 Potential Restoration A * Riparian Riverine 0.87 1.3:1 0.67
PWR7 Potential Restoration A Riparian Riverine 1.11 1:1 1.11
PWR8 Potential Restoration A Riparian Riverine 0.97 1:1 0.97
PWR9 Potential Restoration A Riparian Riverine 0.17 1:1 0.17
Totals 7.01 6.47
A These areas may become wet after the project has been constructed. Monitoring will be conducted in these areas to determine if they meet the requirements
of a restored wetland.

* The Tract of land East of Joyner Bridge Road was subject to land-use change in 1997/98. At the time, the Tract was not owned by the current landowner.
Discussions were held between the Sponsor and Todd Tugwell, Special Projects Manager with the Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers during the
initial vetting of the Alliance Headwaters project. The Sponsor was unable to located NRCS or FSA paperwork regarding the land-use change though a timber
lease between Weyerhaeuser and the previous landowner was located. As a result of mutual agreement, all mitigation credit being derived on the subject Tract
will receive a 30% reduction (i.e. restoration based mitigation ratio would go from 1:1 to 1.3:1). Correspondence between Restoration Systems (Sponsor) and
Todd Tugwell detailing the reduction is attached for reference in Appendix 10.

Alliance Headwaters
DMS Project 97086

Asset Summary: Mitigation Plan

Stream Riparian Wetland
lf ratio credit ac ratio credit Restoration 4,364 1.000 4,364 30.250 1.000 30.250 R special Ratio 2,165 1.3 1,665 9.310 1.300 7.162 EI/Enhancement 0.380 3.250 0.117
EII
Creation 1.440 10.000 0.144 C Special Ratio 0.550 13.000 0.042 Preservation 16.390 10.000 1.639 TOTAL 6,529 6,029 58.320 39.354

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 35
October 2018

13.0 Financial Assurances
A statement regarding the financial assurances for the project can be found in Appendix 11.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 36
October 2018
14.0 References

Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, and C. Miller. 2012. A Function-Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.

Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016
wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X.

North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team (NC WFAT). 2010. N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.

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

Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.

Sweet, W.V. and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships and recurrence intervals
for North Carolina’s coastal plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA)
39(4):861-871.

Tweedy, K.L. 2008. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems.
Conference Proceedings: Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and
Practice. November 3 - 6, 2008, Asheville, NC.

WRP Technical Note VN-RS-4.1. 1997. Species Match Ensures Conversion of Wet Agricultural Fields to
Bottomland Hardwood Wetlands.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Figures

03020201150020
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1 PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Conservation Easement
HUC (14-Digit)
Water Supply Watersheds (WSW)
Protected State Lands
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs)
Z Massengill Airport
PROJECT LOCATION35° 22' 19.30" N 78° 20' 25.85" W
0 1 2 3 4
Miles
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdUT2
UT1
UT4
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
UT1
OPW1
OPW2
OPW3
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP
FIGURE 2 PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
0 800400
Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement
Alliance Headwater Parcels
Jurisdictional Streams
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Open Water
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
FIGURE 3 PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013
National Geographic Society, i-cubed
UT4
UT1
UT2
UT1
UT1
Note: The drainage network and ditching associated with UT3 was not considered jurisdictional; however the extent
of the existing watershed for UT 3 is shown for consistency and comparison purposes with Figure 4B.
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
EXISTING WATERSHED MAP
FIGURE 4A PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
0 1,200 2,400600
Feet
Legend
Jurisdictional Streams
UT1 Existing Watershed
UT2_Existing Watershed
UT3 Existing Watershed
UT4 Existing Watershed
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
Service Layer Credits: NC Center for Geographic
Information & Analysis
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdFIGURE 4B
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC PREPARED BY:DATE:
SEPT. 2018
£
0 500 1,000 1,500250
Feet EXISTING DRAINAGE NETWORK MAP
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Existing Drainage Network
Conservation Easement (71.7 Acres)
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdLe
Ly
Ly
Ly
GoA
GoA
GoA
DoA
GoA NoA
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
NRCS SOILS MAP
FIGURE 5A PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Conservation Easement
Dogue fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Goldsboro sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Leaf silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Lynchburg sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS06001,200300
Feet
Service Layer Credits: NC Center for Geographic
Information & Analysis & Web Soil Survey
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
HYDRIC SOILS MAP
FIGURE 5B PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Hydric Soils Mapping by Axiom
Conservation Easement
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS06001,200300
Feet
Service Layer Credits: NC Center for Geographic
Information & Analysis
Joyner Bridge RdJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
HISTORICAL AERIAL MAP (1939)
FIGURE 6A PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Conservation Easement
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS06001,200300
Feet
Joyner Bridge RdJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
HISTORICAL AERIAL MAP (1965)
FIGURE 6B PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Conservation Easement
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS0600300
Feet
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
HISTORICAL AERIAL MAP (1971)
FIGURE 6C PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Conservation Easement
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS06001,200300
Feet
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
HISTORICAL AERIAL MAP (1988)
FIGURE 6D PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Conservation Easement
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS06001,200300
Feet
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
HISTORICAL AERIAL MAP (2005)
FIGURE 6E PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Conservation Easement
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS06001,200300
Feet
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP
FIGURE 7 PREPARED BY:
#
Service Layer Credits: NC Center for
Geographic Information & Analysis
PREPARED FOR:
0 600300
Feet
LEGEND
PROPOSED STREAM CHANNELS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
X - 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD
AE - 1.0 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD (BFE EST.)
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdUT2
UT1
UT4
OPW1
OPW2 OPW3
XS3 XS2X
S
14-11-1
1-2
3-3
3-1 3-21-32-11-41-5
1-64-2JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
EXISTING HYDROLOGIC FEATURES MAP
FIGURE 8 PREPARED BY:
#
Service Layer Credits: NC Center for
Geographic Information & Analysis
PREPARED FOR:
0 600 1,200300
Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement
Reference Cross Sections
Cross Sections
Jurisdictional Streams
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Open Water
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
UT4
UT3-R1
UT3-R2
UT1-R3
UT1-R2
UT1-R1
UT1A
UT2
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
PROPOSED WATERSHED MAP
FIGURE 9A PREPARED BY:
#
Service Layer Credits: NC Center for
Geographic Information & Analysis
PREPARED FOR:
0 1,200 2,400600
Feet
Legend
Proposed Stream Channels
UT1A Proposed Watershed (0.03 sq. miles)
UT1-R1 Proposed Watershed (0.29 sq. miles)
UT1-R2 Proposed Watershed (0.34 sq. miles)
UT1-R3 Proposed Watershed (0.85 sq. miles)
UT2 Proposed Watershed (0.25 sq. miles)
UT3-R1 Proposed Watershed (0.32 sq. miles)
UT3-R2 Proposed Watershed (0.55 sq. miles)
UT4 Proposed Watershed (0.21 sq. miles)
Conservation Easement
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdFIGURE 9B
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC PREPARED BY:DATE:
SEPT. 2018
£
0 500 1,000 1,500250
Feet PROPOSED DRAINAGE NETWORK MAP
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,
DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Conservation Easement (71.7 Acres)
Proposed Drainage Network
Proposed Channel Plugs
Proposed Fill
Wetlands
Proposed Road Removal
^_
^_
^_
Still Creek Reference Site
Cole Property Reference Site
Johanna Branch Reference Site
PROJECT LOCATION35° 22' 19.30" N 78° 20' 25.85" W
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
REFERENCE SITES MAP
FIGURE 10 PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
^_Reference Sites
Conservation Easement
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS0482
Miles
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdUT1A
UT1-R1
UT1-R2
UT1-R3
UT2
UT3-R1
UT3-R2
UT4
WC1
UT2
PWR1
PWR3
PWR2
PWR4
PWR6
PWR7
PWR8
PWR9
WC3
PWR5
WE1
WC2
WR3
WR1
WR2
WP1
FIGURE 11
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC PREPARED BY:DATE:
SEPT. 2018
£
0 400 800 1,200200
Feet MONITORING MAP
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,
DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Flow Gages (7)
^_Wetland Gages (29)
Permanent Vegetation Plots (32)
Random Vegetation Plots (18)
Cross- Sections (15)
Stream Assets
Wetland Creation
Wetland Creation - Lower Ratio
Wetland Enhancement - Lower Ratio
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Restoration - Lower Ratio
Potential Wetland Restoration
Potential Wetland Restoration - Lower Ratio
Wetland Preservation
Conservation Easement (71.7 Acres)
Old Willia
m
s
R
d Joyner Bridge RdUT1A
UT1-R1
UT1-R2
UT1-R3
UT2
UT3-R1
UT3-R2
UT4
WC1
UT2
PWR1
PWR3
PWR2
PWR4
PWR6
PWR7
PWR8
PWR9
WE1
WC3
WC2
PWR5
WR3
WR1
WR2
WP1
FIGURE 12
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC PREPARED BY:DATE:
SEPT. 2018
£
0 400 800 1,200200
Feet MITIGATION POTENTIAL MAP
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Stream Assets (6,529 linear feet = 6,029 SMUs)
Wetland Creation (1.44 acres at 10:1 = 0.14 WMUs)
Wetland Creation - Lower Ratio (0.55 acres at 13:1 = 0.04 WMUs)
Wetland Enhancement - Lower Ratio (0.38 acres at 3.25:1 = 0.12 WMUs)
Wetland Restoration (25.58 acres at 1:1 = 25.58 WMUs)
Wetland Restoration - Lower Ratio (6.97 acres at 1.3:1 = 5.36 WMUs)
Potential Wetland Restoration (4.66 acres at 1:1 = 4.66 WMUs)
Potential Wetland Restoration - Lower Ratio (2.34 acres at 1.3:1 = 1.80 WMUs)
Wetland Preservation (16.39 acres at 10:1 = 1.64 WMUs)
Conservation Easement (71.7 acres)
Service Layer Credits: NC Center for
Geographic Information & Analysis
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Appendix 1

Site Protection Instrument

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 1 of 12

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
JOHNSTON COUNTY

SPO File Number: 51-CQ
DMS Project Number: 97086

Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321

THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this ________day of ________________, 2018, by William Frank Lee, Managing Member of M
& B LEE, LLC, (“Grantor”), whose mailing address is PO Box 148 Smithfield, NC 27577, to
the State of North Carolina, (“Grantee”), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina,
Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or
neuter as required by context.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 2 of 12

protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Restoration Systems,
LLC and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, to provide stream, wetland
and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Purchase and Services Contract Number 6832.

WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, (MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU
recognized that the Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory
mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring,
enhancing and preserving the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service entered into an agreement to continue the In-Lieu Fee operations of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem
Enhancement Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces
the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and

WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and

WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environmental
Quality, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and Council of State
to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 3 of 12

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 109 and 63.82 acres
and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 3507 at Page 60 of the
Johnston County Registry, North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Hannah
Creek.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.

The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:

Tracts Number Easement Areas Two (2), Four (4), Five (5), and Six (6) containing a total of
22.34 acres, 12.58 acres 12.87 acres, and 0.75 acres, respectively, as shown on the plats of
survey entitled “Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services, Project Name: Alliance Headwaters, SPO File No. 51-CQ, DMS Site No. 95017,
Property of M and B LEE, LLC,” dated ___________, 2018 by John Rudolph of K2 Design
Group, PLS Number L-4194 and recorded in the Johnston County, North Carolina Register of
Deeds at Plat Book _______ Pages __________.

See attached “Exhibit A”, Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
“Conservation Easement Area”

The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:

I. DURATION OF EASEMENT

Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 4 of 12

use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor’s heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.

II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units,
derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:

A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes thereof.

B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat.

C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
purposes including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.

D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or
vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.

E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.

F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.

G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 5 of 12

H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.

All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.

I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conservation Easement Area.

J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.

K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.

L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering
or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property.

M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple (“fee”) that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee’s right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.

N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.

O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.

The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 6 of 12

Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.

III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES

A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities on the property to restore,
construct, manage, maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities
or a long-term management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation
Easement, the rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.

B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in-stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.

C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.

D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the
investment and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would cause financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are
required to restrict livestock access to the Conservation Easement area.

E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.

IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 7 of 12

power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages
from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.

B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.

C. Acts Beyond Grantor’s Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor’s control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.

D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor’s acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.

E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.

V. MISCELLANEOUS

A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.

B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 8 of 12

obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.

C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.

D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.

E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.

F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any
request to void or modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification
requests shall be addressed to:

Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321

and

General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 9 of 12

VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT

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

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,

AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 10 of 12

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.

___________________________________ (SEAL)
William Frank Lee, Managing Member of M & B Lee, LLC

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF JOHNSTON

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 ___________________, 20__.

________________________________________
Notary Public

My commission expires:

______________________________

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 11 of 12

Exhibit A

CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 2
All of the Conservation Easement Area 2 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):

Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 1 and being a Southwestern
corner of the Conservation Easement Area 2 and being located North 85°52'16" West 3,733.45
feet from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates N=591,642.1501’,
E=2,198,576.8332’ (NAD ’83, 2011).

Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No. 1), thence North 01°02'11" East 1045.25' to an
iron stake; thence North 01°02'11" East 428.45' to an iron stake; thence North 75°06'37" East
154.72' to an iron stake; thence South 64°50'21" East 975.12' to an iron stake; thence South
01°37'16" East 114.62' to an iron stake; thence South 33°09'19" West 257.92' to an iron stake;
thence South 50°47'14" West 228.27' to an iron stake; thence South 37°32'45" West 433.28' to an
iron stake; thence South 85°59'53" West 161.70' to an iron stake; thence South 28°31'04" West
288.20' to an iron stake; thence South 00°12'59" West 41.01' to an iron stake; thence South
88°29'01" West 146.56' to an iron stake; thence North 01°20'55" East 30.08' to an iron stake;
thence South 88°28'04" West 35.21' to an iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No.
1), having an area of 22.34 acres.

CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 4
All of the Conservation Easement Area 4 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):

Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 29 and being a Northeastern
corner of the Conservation Easement Area 4 and being located South 84°16'44" West 1,540.72
feet from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates N=591,642.1501’,
E=2,198,576.8332’ (NAD ’83, 2011).

Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No. 29), thence South 00°14'58" West 352.98' to an
iron stake; thence South 51°20'17" West 140.04' to an iron stake; thence South 43°56'14" West
181.68' to an iron stake; thence South 27°20'24" West 190.14' to an iron stake; thence South
46°57'48" West 578.25' to an iron stake; thence South 05°22'39" West 173.93' to an iron stake;
thence South 89°46'24" West 323.72' to an iron stake; thence North 00°12'57" West 463.53' to an
iron stake; thence North 65°29'39" East 183.15' to an iron stake; thence North 48°11'13" East
625.25' to an iron stake; thence North 44°16'34" East 193.01' to an iron stake; thence North
63°28'05" East 54.39' to an iron stake; thence North 66°08'43" East 77.02' to an iron stake;
thence North 29°20'05" East 144.82' to an iron stake; thence North 19°52'17" East 113.64' to an
iron stake; thence North 89°34'31" East 18.49' to an iron stake; thence South 45°03'18" East
104.72' to an iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No. 29), having an area of 12.58
acres.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 12 of 12

CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 5

All of the Conservation Easement Area 5 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):

Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 44 and being a Southeastern
corner of the Conservation Easement Area 5 and being located South 63°15'05" West 377.93 feet
from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates N=591,642.1501’,
E=2,198,576.8332’ (NAD ’83, 2011).

Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No.44), thence South 38°22'05" West 36.41' to an
iron stake; thence South 77°04'19" West 176.92' to an iron stake; thence North 78°11'46" West
758.95' to an iron stake; thence North 63°59'03" West 121.47' to an iron stake; thence North
30°05'05" East 257.74' to an iron stake; thence North 51°37'25" East 159.65' to an iron stake;
thence North 40°47'05" East 102.40' to an iron stake; thence North 84°59'13" East 230.22' to an
iron stake; thence North 42°53'29" East 165.04' to an iron stake; thence South 64°53'46" East
148.28' to an iron stake; thence South 82°27'05" East 322.01' to an iron stake; thence South
06°51'44" West 580.04' to an iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No. 44), having
an area of 12.87 acres.

CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 6

All of the Conservation Easement Area 6 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):

Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 48 and being a Northeastern
corner of the Conservation Easement Area 6 and being located South 60°14'05" West 606.04 feet
from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates N=591,642.1501’,
E=2,198,576.8332’ (NAD ’83, 2011).

Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No.48), thence South 40°01'42" West 332.33' to an
iron pipe; thence North 00°44'13" West 299.97' to an iron pipe; thence South 78°11'46" East
222.30' to an iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No. 48), having an area of 0.75
acres.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 1 of 12

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
JOHNSTON COUNTY

SPO File Number: 51-CR
DMS Project Number: 97086

Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321

THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this ________day of ________________, 2018, by William Frank Lee, (“Grantor”), whose
mailing address is 922 Peach Orcjard Road, Four Oaks, NC 27524, to the State of North
Carolina, (“Grantee”), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of
Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. The
designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs,
successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as
required by context.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 2 of 12

protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Restoration Systems,
LLC and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, to provide stream, wetland
and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Purchase and Services Contract Number 6832.

WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, (MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU
recognized that the Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory
mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring,
enhancing and preserving the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service entered into an agreement to continue the In-Lieu Fee operations of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem
Enhancement Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces
the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and

WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and

WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environmental
Quality, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and Council of State
to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 3 of 12

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 29.646 acres and
2.79 acres and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 2019 at Page
418 and Deed Book 3538 at Page 685, respectively, of the Johnston County Registry, North
Carolina; and

WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Hannah
Creek.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.

The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:

Tracts Number Easement Area One (1) and Three (3) containing a total of 22.65 acres and 0.60
acres, respectively, as shown on the plats of survey entitled “Final Plat, Conservation Easement
for North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services, Project Name: Alliance Headwaters, SPO
File No. 51-CR, DMS Site No. 95017, Property of William Frank Lee,” dated ___________,
2018 by John Rudolph of K2 Design Group, PLS Number L-4194 and recorded in the Johnston
County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at Plat Book _______ Pages __________.

See attached “Exhibit A”, Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
“Conservation Easement Area”

The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:

I. DURATION OF EASEMENT

Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor’s heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 4 of 12

II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units,
derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:

A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes thereof.

B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat.

C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
purposes including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.

D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or
vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.

E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.

F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.

G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.

H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 5 of 12

All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.

I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conservation Easement Area.

J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.

K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.

L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering
or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property.

M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple (“fee”) that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee’s right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.

N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.

O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.

The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 6 of 12

III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES

A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities on the property to restore,
construct, manage, maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities
or a long-term management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation
Easement, the rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.

B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in-stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.

C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.

D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the
investment and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would cause financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are
required to restrict livestock access to the Conservation Easement area.

E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.

IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 7 of 12

from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.

B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.

C. Acts Beyond Grantor’s Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor’s control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.

D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor’s acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.

E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.

V. MISCELLANEOUS

A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.

B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 8 of 12

C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.

D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which an y
interest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.

E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.

F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any
request to void or modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification
requests shall be addressed to:

Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321

and

General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.

VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT

Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 9 of 12

Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet
enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area,

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,

AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 10 of 12

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.

___________________________________ (SEAL)
William Frank Lee

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF JOHNSTON

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 ___________________, 20__.

________________________________________
Notary Public

My commission expires:

______________________________

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 11 of 12

Exhibit A

CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 1

All of the Conservation Easement Area 1 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):

Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 1 and being the
Southeastern most corner of the Conservation Easement Area 1 and being located North
85°52'16" West 3,733.45 feet from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates
N=591,642.1501’, E=2,198,576.8332’ (NAD ’83, 2011).

Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No. 1), thence South 88°28'04" West 40.00' to an iron
stake; thence South 88°28'04" West 192.73' to an iron stake; thence South 89°33'57" West
775.69' to an iron stake; thence North 02°05'04" East 883.51' to an iron stake; thence North
72°43'26" East 209.64' to an iron stake; thence North 78°17'01" East 303.82' to an iron stake;
thence North 84°13'33" East 499.95' to an iron stake; thence South 01°02'11" West 1045.25' to
an iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No. 1), having an area of 22.65 acres.

CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 3

All of the Conservation Easement Area 3 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):
Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 18 and being the
Southeastern most corner of the Conservation Easement Area 3 and being located North
86°04'02" West 3,551.13 feet from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates
N=591,642.1501’, E=2,198,576.8332’ (NAD ’83, 2011).

Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No. 18), thence South 00°12'59" West 185.02' to an
iron stake; thence North 85°33'27" West 150.25' to an iron stake; thence North 01°20'55" East
169.55' to an iron stake; thence North 88°29'01" East 146.56' to an iron stake, which is the Point
of Beginning (Point No. 18), having an area of 0.60 acres.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Appendix 2

Site Photographs

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS – SEPTEMBER 2015 AND MARCH 2017 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC Appendix 1 UT 1: Upstream portion of ditched network facing South. UT1: Downstream portion below Joyner Bridge Road. UT1: Upstream portion of ditched network facing North. UT1: Downstream portion upstream of existing farm road crossing.
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS – SEPTEMBER 2015 AND MARCH 2017 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC Appendix 1 UT2: Near where the stream enters the property. Channelized along the property line. UT3: Upstream forested reach (preservation) – Sept. 2015. UT3: Upstream forested reach (preservation) – March 2017. UT3: Ditched section near outlet of the project site.
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS – SEPTEMBER 2015 AND MARCH 2017 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC Appendix 1 UT3: Severe erosion in northwest corner. UT3: Upstream forested reach (preservation) – March 2017. UT4: Upstream forested reach (preservation) – March 2017. UT4: Upstream forested reach (preservation) – March 2017.
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS – SEPTEMBER 2015 AND MARCH 2017 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC Appendix 1 UT1: Wooded section downstream of the project site (off-site). Cross-sections surveyed for reference stream dimension. Off-site channel surveyed for reference stream dimension.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Appendix 3

Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2016-00882 County: JOHNSTON U.S.G.S. Quad: NEWTON GROVE NORTH
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Applicant: Mr. William Lee
Address:Post Office Box 148
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
Authorized Agent: Restoration Systems, LLC
Mr. Raymond Holz
Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Size (acres) 202 Nearest Town Four Oaks
Nearest Waterway Hannah Creek River Basin Upper Neuse River
USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates Latitude: 35.373455
Longitude: -78.337891
Location description:The Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site is identified as an approximate 202 acre tract of land,
located on Johnston County, North Carolina Parcels: 159900529471, 159900423303, and 159900814225. These parcel
are located at 1080 Joyner Bridge Road, Four Oaks, Johnston County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,
including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation
requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all
waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an
appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an
effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area, which is
not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the
waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC
§ 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
SAW-2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
There are waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on ______________. Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit
may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,
construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the
Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If
you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Ms. Samantha
Dailey at 919-554-4884, ext. 22 or by email at [e-mail].
C. Basis For Determination:N/A. An Approved JD has not been completed.
D. Remarks: Refer to the enclosed Preliminary JD Form and Figure 1 (dated October 2017) for a
detailed evaluation of the Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information for Approved Jurisdiction Determinations (as indicated in Section B. above)
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:
SAW-2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by N/A.
It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.
Corps Regulatory Official: ______________________________________________________
Date:September 4, 2018 Expiration Date:N/A
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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.
DAILEY.SAMANTH
A.J.1387567948
Digitally signed by
DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J.1387567948
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
ou=USA, cn=DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J.1387567948
Date: 2018.09.04 09:22:53 -04'00'
SAW-2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Requestor:Restoration Systems, LLC
Mr. Raymond Holz
File Number: SAW-2016-00882 Date: September 4, 2018
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.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx 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 II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
•ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for 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 division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
SAW-2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
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
and/or the appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory
Division
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Samantha Dailey
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also
contact:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
________________________________________
Signature of appellant or agent.
Date: Telephone number:
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,Attn: #PM_FULLNAME#, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
APPENDIX 2
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
September 4, 2018.
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Property Owner/Applicant: Mr. William Lee
Address:Post Office Box 148
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
Authorized Agent: Restoration Systems, LLC
Mr. Raymond Holz
Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington, Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site, Restoration
Systems, LLC, Johnston County, SAW-2016-00882
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State:NC County/parish/borough: Johnston County City: Four Oaks
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.373455°N, Long. -78.337891°W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest water body:Hannah Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLIES):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:September 4, 2018
Field Determination. Date(s):June 15, 2017
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE” SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this
PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed
decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be
appropriate.
Site Number Latitude
(°N)
Latitude
(°W)
Estimated Amount of
Aquatic Resources in
Review Area
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e.
wetland vs. non-
wetland)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e. Section 404 or
Section 10/404)Linear
Feet Acres
Wetland 1 35.375485 -78.346730 16.84 Wetland Section 404
Wetland 2 35.372973 -78.336046 0.39 Wetland Section 404
UT1 35.372836 -78.342624 4761 Non-Wetland Section 404
UT2 35.372477 -78.336353 484 Non-Wetland Section 404
UT4 35.377040 -78.347911 1142 Non-Wetland Section 404
OPW1 35.377685 -78.343901 0.68 Non-Wetland Section 404
OPW2 35.372892 -78.339642 1.20 Non-Wetland Section 404
OPW3 35.374679 -78.335438 0.48 Non-Wetland Section 404
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other
general permit verification requiring “pre-construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made
aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms
and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual
permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever
mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a
permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by
that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial
compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)whether the applicant elects to
use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and
all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R.
Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be” navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and
identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply):Checked items should be included in
subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:Axiom Environmental, Inc., submitted a
jurisdictional determination to our office on March 16, 2017, with revisions received on October 30, 2017.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps: .
Corps navigable waters’ study: .
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: .
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24K, NC-Newton Grove North
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Web Soil Survey: June 2017.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:Corps of Engineers SimSuite – June 2017.
State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
FEMA/FIRM maps: .
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): .
or Other (Name & Date): .
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: .
Other information (please specify): .
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should
not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
_________________________ __________________________
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED)(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
Impracticable)
DAILEY.SAMANT
HA.J.1387567948
Digitally signed by
DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J.1387567948
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government,
ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA,
cn=DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J.1387567948
Date: 2018.09.04 09:36:44 -04'00'
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
OW1
OW2
OW3
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
UT1UT4
UT2
UT1
GJ
GH
SD07
GC10
GF03
100100100100120140
160 Joyner BridgeOld William
s
Rhodes
F
a
r
m
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ/CLF
OCT 2017
1:5400
17-002
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Johnston County, NC
LEAF SWAMPWETLANDMITIGATION SITE
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
3
³
Legend
Leaf Swamp Mitigation Site parcels
Jurisdictional wetlands
Headwater Forest = ~17.23 acres
Jurisdictional streams
^_Stream dataform locations
^_Wetland dataform locations
Open water
2-foot LiDAR elevation contours
NCDOT roads
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500250Feet
Braided
stream
reach not included
in stream linear footage
totals
1
ATTACHMENT

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):

B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604

C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:

D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In Johnston County approximately 8 miles south of Smithfield and 1.5 miles
northeast of Strickland Crossroads.

(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Johnston County
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.375485°, Long. -78.346730°

Name of nearest waterbody: Hannah Creek

Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 10,491 linear feet: 3-6 width (ft)
Cowardin Class: R4SB4/5, R3UB2/3
Stream Flow: Intermittent/Perennial
Wetlands: 17.23 acres
Cowardin Class: PFO1/4

Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal: 0
Non-Tidal: 0

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
2

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the United
States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party who
requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain
an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site. Nevertheless, the permit
applicant or other person who requested this preliminary JD has declined to exercise the
option to obtain an approved JD in this instance and at this time.

2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an approved JD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the following: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a preliminary JD, which
does not make an official determination of jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has
the option to request an approved JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the
permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could
possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special
conditions; (3) that the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than
accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all
the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the
Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking any activity in reliance upon
the subject permit authorization without requesting an approved JD constitutes the
applicant’s acceptance of the use of the preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be
processed as soon as is practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a
proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all wetlands
and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity are jurisdictional
waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to such jurisdiction in any
administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative
appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an
approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD will be processed as soon as is practicable.
Further, an approved JD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions
contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant
to 33 C.F.R. Part 331, and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be
raised (see 33 C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes
necessary to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site,
or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there “may be” waters of the United States on the subject
project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be affected by the
proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply -
checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and requested,
appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
please see attached Figures 1-3.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
3
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps: .
Corps navigable waters’ study: .
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: .
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Four Oaks NE, NC
(1997) and Newton Grove North, NC (1997) 7.5-minute quadrangles.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil
Survey (online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov), and Soil Survey of Johnston
County (1994).

National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Online mapping tool at
State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
FEMA/FIRM maps: .
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of
1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): NC OneMap 2013 Orthoimagery.
or Other (Name & Date): .
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: .
Other information (please specify): .

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.

_________________________ __________________________
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED) (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)

4
Site number Latitude Longitude
Cowardin
Class
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
Class of aquatic
resource
1. Wetland 1 35.375485 -78.346730 PFO1/4 16.84 acres non-section 10 –
wetland
2. Wetland 2 35.372973 -78.336046 PFO1/4 0.39 acre non-section 10 –
wetland
3. UT1 35.372836 -78.342624 R4SB4/5,
R3UB2/3 4761 linear feet non-section 10 –
non-wetland
4. UT2 35.372477 -78.336353 R4SB4/5 484 linear feet non-section 10 –
non-wetland
5. UT4 35.377040 -78.347911 R4SB4/5 1142 linear feet non-section 10 –
non-wetland
6. OW1 35.377685 -78.343901 R3UB2/3 0.68 acres non-section 10 –
non-wetland
7. OW2 35.372892 -78.339642 R3UB2/3 1.20 acres non-section 10 –
non-wetland
8. OW3 35.374679 -78.335438 R3UB2/3 0.48 acres non-section 10 –
non-wetland

FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ/CLF
MAR 2017
1:20,000
17-002
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Johnston County, NC
LEAF SWAMPWETLANDMITIGATION SITE
SITE LOCATION
1
³
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:- Take I-40 East out of Raleigh for approximately 27 miles,- Take exit 328B to merge onto I-95 North,- After 6.5 miles, take exit 87 toward Four Oaks,- Turn right onto Keen Road and travel 2.3 miles,- Turn right onto US-701 South and travel 2.5 miles,- Turn left onto Peach Orchard Road and travel 1.7 miles,- Turn right onto Joyner Bridge Road.- After 0.7 miles, the Site is on both sides of Joyner Bridge Road,- Parts of the Site can be accessed via Old Williams Road.- Site Latitude, Longitude 35.375485, -78.346730 (WGS84)
Four Oaks NE, NC (1997) and Newton Grove North, NC(1997) 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangles Provided by theU.S. Geological Survey
Smithfield
£¤701
§¨¦95
£¤70
Strickland Crossroads
Peach Orchard Ro a d
H
a
n
n
a
h CreekJoyner
Br
i
dge RoadStrickland Crossroads Road
Devils Racetrack Road
O ld W illia m s R o a d
Legend
Leaf Swamp Mitigation Site parcels
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ/CLF
FEB 2017
1:16,000
17-002
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Johnston County, NC
LEAF SWAMPWETLANDMITIGATION SITE
PROJECTMAPPING
2
³
Legend
Leaf Swamp Mitigation Site parcels
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000 Feet
³
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
OW1
OW2
OW3
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
UT1UT4
UT2
UT1
GJ
GH
SD07
GC10
GF03
100100100100120140
160 Joyner BridgeOld William
s
Rhodes
F
a
r
m
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ/CLF
OCT 2017
1:5400
17-002
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Johnston County, NC
LEAF SWAMPWETLANDMITIGATION SITE
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
3
³
Legend
Leaf Swamp Mitigation Site parcels
Jurisdictional wetlands
Headwater Forest = ~17.23 acres
Jurisdictional streams
^_Stream dataform locations
^_Wetland dataform locations
Open water
2-foot LiDAR elevation contours
NCDOT roads
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500250Feet
Braided
stream
reach not included
in stream linear footage
totals
^_
^_
UT4
OW1
Wetland 1
GF03
SD07
sh15
sh14
sh13
sh12sh11
sh10sh08
sh09sh07sh06
sh05sh04
sh03
sh02
sg29 sg28 sg27
sg26
sg25
sg24
sg23sg22sg21
sg20sg19
sg19
sg18sg17sg16
sg15
sg14
sg13
sg12sg11
sg10
sg09
sg08sg07
sg06
sg05
sg04
sg03
sg02
sg01
sf08 sf07
sf06
sf04
sf03
sf02
sf01 se03
se02
se01
sd08 sd06
sd05
sd04
sd03
sd02
sd01
sh01=strm lb
sg30=strm rb
120140NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ/CLF
OCT 2017
1:2000
17-002
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Johnston County, NC
LEAF SWAMPWETLANDMITIGATION SITE
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
WETLANDDETAIL
4
³
Legend
Leaf Swamp Mitigation Site parcels
Jurisdictional wetlands
Headwater Forest = ~17.23 acres
Jurisdictional streams
^_Stream dataform locations
^_Wetland dataform locations
Open water
Wetland GPS Points
2-foot LiDAR elevation contours
NCDOT roads
0 500 1,000250Feet
NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation
Site Date of Evaluation February 7, 2017
Applicant/Owner Name Restoration Systems Wetland Site Name Leaf Swamp WMS Wetland 2
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Smith/Axiom
Level III Ecoregion Southeastern Plains Nearest Named Water Body Hannah Creek
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Johnston NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.37287, -078.33603
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in
the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the
assessment area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration
(Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch >
1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change )
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area a nd
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment
area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands .
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Streams at the upper end of the wetland are ditched; not so from the middle down. The lower portion of the wetland is bounded by a field ditch,
which likely lowers local surficial groundwater.

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Leaf Swamp WMS Wetland 2 Date of Assessment
February 7,
2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Smith/Axiom

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation
Site Date of Evaluation January 26, 2017
Applicant/Owner Name Restoration Systems Wetland Site Name Leaf Swamp WMS Wetland 1
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Smith/Axiom
Level III Ecoregion Southeastern Plains Nearest Named Water Body Hannah Creek
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Johnston NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.37587, -078.34652
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in
the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the
assessment area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration
(Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch >
1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change )
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area a nd
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment
area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands .
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Streams at the upper end of the wetland are ditched; not so from the middle down. The lower portion of the wetland is bounded by a field ditch,
which likely lowers local surficial groundwater.

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Leaf Swamp WMS Wetland 1 Date of Assessment
January 26,
2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Smith/Axiom

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition HIGH
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure Condition HIGH
Vegetation Composition Condition HIGH

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition HIGH

Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Appendix 4

Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion

Alliance Headwaters Stream Mitigation Site 
NC DMS Contract # 6832    RFP # 16‐006477    IMS/Project # 95017 

TASK 1 b.) Categorical Exclusion Summary:  

Part 1: General Project Information (Attached) 

Part 2: All Projects Regulation/Questions 

Coastal Zone Management Act   
Not applicable – project is not located within a CAMA county.  

CERCLA  
No Issue – please see the attached Executive Summary from a Limited Phase 1 Site Assessment 
performed by Environmental Data Resources, Inc on May 31st, 2016. 

National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) 
No Issue – please see attached letter from Renee Gledhill‐Earley State of the Historic Preservation 
Office.  

Uniform Act 
   Please see the attached letter, sent to the landowner April 1th 2016.  

Part 3: Ground‐Disturbing Activates Regulation/Questions 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) 
Not applicable – project is not located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of 
Cherokee Indians. 

Antiquities Act (AA) 
   Not applicable – project is not located on Federal land. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) 
   Not applicable – project is not located on federal or Indian lands. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
Below is a summary of federally protected species for Johnston County, NC and our summary of NO 
anticipated effects do to the project. A letter was sent to USFWS Raleigh Field Office on 12/16/2016. RS 
received a letter of concurrence on 1/12/2017. All documents are attached 

Federally Protected Species for Johnston County 
Scientific Name Common Name Federal 
Status 
Habitat 
Present 
Biological 
Conclusion 
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel E No No effect 
Elliptio steinstansana Tar River spinymussel E No No effect 
Picoides borealis Red‐cockaded woodpecker E No No effect 
Rhus michauxii Michaux’s sumac E No No effect 
Notes:   E – Endangered denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
T – Threatened denotes a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable     
      future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Alliance Headwaters Stream Mitigation Site 
NC DMS Contract # 6832    RFP # 16‐006477    IMS/Project # 95017 

Summary of Anticipated Effects 
No potential habitat is known to exist on the project site.  The proposed project will occur in existing 
agricultural fields which are intensively managed for soybeans and other crops.  The likelihood of 
any habitat occurring on the project site is extremely low. 

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) 
Not applicable – project is not located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of 
Cherokee Indians. 

Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) 
Please find the attached Form AD‐1006 dated 00/00/0000. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) 
Please find the attached letter from Pete Benjamin USFWS Field Supervisor indicated the project is 
“not likely to adversely affect any federally‐listed endangered or threatened species.” 

Land & Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f)) 
Not applicable 

Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and management Act (Essential Fish Habitat) 
Not applicable – project is not located within an estuarine system 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 
   USFWS has no recommendation with the project relative to the MBTA 

Wilderness Act 
   Not applicable – the project is not located within a Wilderness area. 

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 7

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities

Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the species and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 8
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
important farmland?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
water body?
Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
No
N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?

Yes
No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
project on EFH?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 9
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

April 1, 2016 

Mr. William F. Lee  
922 Peach Orchard Road 
Four Oaks, NC 27524 

Dear Mr. Lee –  

 The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Restoration Systems, LLC, in offering to purchase 
your property in Johnston County, North Carolina, does not have the power to acquire it by eminent 
domain.  Also, Restoration Systems’ offer to purchase your property is based on what we believe to be its 
fair market value. 

 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 919‐755‐9490. 

Sincerely, 

Raymond Holz 
Project Manager

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

December 29, 2016

Raymond Holz
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604

Re: Alliance Headwaters Stream Mitigation Site, 61 Old Williams Road, Four Oaks, Johnston County,
ER 16-2347
Dear Mr. Holz:
Thank you for your email of December 16, 2016, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

January 18, 2017

Mr. Raymond Holz
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604

Subject: Request for Environmental Information for the Alliance Headwaters Stream Restoration Site,
Johnston County, North Carolina.

Dear Mr. Holz,

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (as amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).

Restorations Systems, LLC proposes to complete a stream restoration project for the North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services. The subject site, referred to as the Alliance Headwater Stream
Restoration Site, is located at the intersection of Joyner Bridge and Old Williams Roads, southeast of
Four Oaks, in the Neuse River Basin USGS HUC 02020201. The proposed work will restore headwater
stream channels through degraded cropland.

Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. The NCWRC recommends the use of biodegradable and
wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products
should have loose-weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing and similar products that have been reinforced with plastic or
metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt
and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning
habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills. Any invasive plant species that are found onsite should
be removed.

Page 2

January 18, 2017
Scoping – Alliance Headwaters Stream Mitigation Project

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture’s
Natural Resources mission.

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
February 21, 2017

Raymond Holz
Senior Project Manager
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604

Dear Mr. Holz:

Thank you for your letter dated February 6, 2017, Subject: Request for
Comments – Alliance Headwaters Stream Mitigation Site, Johnston County, NC.
The following guidance is provided for your information.

Projects are subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements
if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to non-
agricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a
federal agency. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section
1540(c)(1) of the FPPA or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or
unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture to be farmland of statewide local importance.

For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland,
and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be
forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land.

Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development
or water storage. Farmland already in urban development or water storage
includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40-acre area. Farmland
already in urban development also includes lands identified as urbanized area
(UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a tint overprint
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, or as
urban-built-up on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Important Farmland Maps.

The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland.
Farmland area will be affected or converted. Enclosed is the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating form AD1006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation,
according to the Code of Federal Regulation 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection
Policy Act.

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

North Carolina
State Office

4407 Bland Road
Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Voice 919-873-2171
Fax [phone]
Raymond Holz
Page 2

If you have any questions, please contact Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist at
919-873-2171 or by email: [e-mail].

If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist

cc:
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC

Milton Cortes
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County and State
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By
NRCS
Person Completing Form:
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO
Acres Irrigated

Average Farm Size

Major Crop(s)

Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: %
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
Name of Land Evaluation System Used

Name of State or Local Site Assessment System

Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Site Rating PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria
(Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106)
Maximum
Points Site A Site B Site C Site D
1. Area In Non-urban Use (15)
2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use (10)
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20)
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (20)
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15)
6. Distance To Urban Support Services (15)
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10)
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland (10)
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (5)
10. On-Farm Investments (20)
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10)
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use (10)
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

Site Selected:

Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES NO
Reason For Selection:

Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)
STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM

Step 1 - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place
of form AD-1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, http://fppa.nrcs.usda.gov/lesa/.

Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)of project site(s), to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the
U.S. The USDA Office Information Locator may be found at http://offices.usda.gov/scripts/ndISAPI.dll/oip_public/USA_map, or the offices can usually be
found in the Phone Book under U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State
Office in each State.)

Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime,
unique, statewide or local important farmland. (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days.

Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts II, IV and V of the form.

Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records.

Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing
NRCS office.

Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent
with the FPPA.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
(For Federal Agency)

Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land
use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.

Part III: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following:

1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the
conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture.
2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways,
utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion.

Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS
assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA).

1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor-type
project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero,
however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points.

2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the
FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other
weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites
where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse
impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation).

Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total
maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160.
Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:

For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center.

NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD-1006 form.

Total points assigned Site A 180
Maximum points possible 200 =X 160 = 144 points for Site A
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Appendix 5

DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist

20170830_AllianceHeadwaters_FEMA Floodplain Checklist v4-23-12.docx Page 1 of 4

EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist

This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of
the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with
three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.

Project Location

Name of project:

Alliance Headwaters
Name if stream or feature:

UT to Hannah Creek
County:

Johnston
Name of river basin:

Neuse
Is project urban or rural?

Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:

Johnston County, Unincorporated Areas
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:

3720158800J
Consultant name:

Erin Bennett, Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
Phone number:

919.388.0787
Address:

559 Jones Franklin Rd
Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606

20170830_AllianceHeadwaters_FEMA Floodplain Checklist v4-23-12.docx Page 2 of 4

Design Information

Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1” = 500”.

Restoration of a headwater system in Johnston County. The downstream terminus of the
project exists within the 500 year floodplain (Zone X) of Hannah Creek. The project will
have no effect on the existing floodplain mapping.

Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.

Alliance Headwaters Reach Summary Table
Reach Length (linear feet) Priority
UT 1A 87 One (Restoration)
UT 1 3,263 One/Two (Restoration)
UT 2 865 One/Two (Restoration)
UT3 1,973 One/Two (Restoration)
UT 3A 977 Preservation
UT 3B 431 Preservation
UT 3C 2 Preservation
UT 4 1,090 One/Two (Restoration)
UT 4 1,080 Preservation

Floodplain Information

Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
Yes

20170830_AllianceHeadwaters_FEMA Floodplain Checklist v4-23-12.docx Page 3 of 4
None
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Appendix 6

Assessment Data

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 13.4 ft2 Cross Section 1-1
Width = 8.4 ft View facing south toward the start of the ditch
Mean Depth = 1.6 ft
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 12.9 ft2 Cross Section 1-2
Width = 8.4 ft View facing north toward the start of the ditch
Mean Depth = 1.54 ft
need photo
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 17.8 ft2 Cross Section 1-3
Width = 12.0 ft View upstream toward Joyner Bridge Road
Mean Depth = 1.48 ft
UT 1 Cross Section Summary
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 5 10 15
Cross Section 1-2
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 5 10 15
Cross Section 1-3
-5
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0 5 10 15
Cross Section 1-1
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 27.0 ft2 Cross Section 1-4
Width = 12.0 ft View upstream toward Joyner Bridge Road
Mean Depth = 2.25 ft
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 42.0 ft2 Cross Section 1-5
Width = 24.0 ft View downstream toward farm road and culvert
Mean Depth = 1.75 ft
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 20.0 ft2 Cross Section 1-6
Width = 14.0 ft View downstream toward farm road and culvert
Mean Depth = 1.43 ft
UT 1 Cross Section Summary
-5
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0 5 10 15
Cross Section 1-4
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cross Section 1-5
-5
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0 5 10 15
Cross Section 1-6
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 18.7 ft2 Upstream of Cross Section 2-1
Width = 11.5 ft View downstream along ditch channel and upstream
Mean Depth = 1.63 ft of pond and cross section 2-1
UT 2 Cross Section Summary
-5
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0 5 10 15
Cross Section 2-1
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 23.8 ft2 Cross Section 3-1
Width = 9.5 ft View north along ditch channel
Mean Depth = 2.51 ft
need photo
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 27.5 ft2 Cross Section 3-2
Width = 11.0 ft
Mean Depth = 2.50 ft
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 7.5 ft2 Cross Section 3-3
Width = 5.0 ft View northeast along channel near pond
Mean Depth = 1.5 ft
UT 3 Cross Section Summary
-5
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0 5 10 15
Cross Section 3-1
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 5 10 15
Cross Section 3-2
-5
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0 5 10 15
Cross Section 3-3
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
Bankfull Dimensions
Area = 2.6 ft2 Cross Section 4-1
Width = 5.2 ft View downstream
Mean Depth = 0.5 ft
Bankfull Dimensions
Area = 2.1 ft2 Cross Section 4-2
Width = 4.2 ft View downstream
Mean Depth = 0.45 ft
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
XS 4-1
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
XS 4-2
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
Bankfull Dimensions
Area = 10.2 ft2 Cross Section 1-Riffle
Width = 12.2 ft View downstream
Mean Depth = 0.84 ft
Bankfull Dimensions
Area = 8.6 ft2 Cross Section 2 - Run/Riffle
Width = 12.8 ft View downstream
Mean Depth = 0.67 ft
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
Reference Reach XS 1
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
Reference Reach XS 2
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
Bankfull Dimensions
Area = 3.0 ft2 Cross Section 3-Riffle
Width = 5.0 ft View downstream
Mean Depth = 0.6 ft
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
Reference Reach XS 3
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Appendix 7

Plan Sheets

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Appendix 8

Maintenance Plan

Maintenance Plan

The Site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be
conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until
performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and
features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often
in the first two years following site construction and may include the following:

Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include 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.
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.
Beaver Beaver and associated dams are to be removed as they colonize and until the project is
closed.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
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.
Road Crossing Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by Conservation
Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Appendix 9

Credit Release Schedule

Credit Release Schedule

All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey
of the mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the
necessary DA authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE)
has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is
required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency
Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to
meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance
standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case.
Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site
fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject
to the criteria described as follows:

Stream Credit Release Schedule and Milestones – 7-year Timeframe

Monitoring
Year

Credit Release Activity
Interim
Release
Total
Released
0 Initial Allocation – see requirements below 30% 30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 40%
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 50% (60%*)
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 60% (70%*)
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 65% (75%*)
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 75% (85%*)
6 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 80% (90%*)
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met and project has received closeout approval 10% 90% (100%)
*Subsequent Credit Releases

Wetland Credit Release Schedule and Milestones – 7-year Timeframe

Monitoring
Year

Credit Release Activity
Interim
Release
Total
Released
0 Initial Allocation – see requirements below 30% 30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 40%
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 50%
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 15% 65%
4 A
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 70%
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 15% 85%
6 A Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 90%
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met and project has received closeout approval 10% 100%
A – Please note that vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring
years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.

Initial Allocation of Released Credits

The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by
the NCEEP without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the
following activities:

a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to
the USACE
covering the property.
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological
improvements to the mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the
NCEEP Instrument, construction means that a mitigation site has been
constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built report has been
produced. As-built reports must be sealed b y an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects
where DA permit issuance is not required.

* Subsequent Credit Releases

All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based
on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream
projects a reserve of 15% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after two bank-full
events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance
standards are met. The reserve will be 10% for 7-year monitoring timeframes. In the event that
less than two bank-full events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the NCEEP will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be
included with the annual monitoring report.

Initial Allocation of Released Credits

The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by
the NCEEP
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following
activities:

a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to
the USACE
covering the property.
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological
improvements to the mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the
NCEEP Instrument, construction means that a mitigation site has been
constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as-built report has been
produced. As-built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects
where DA permit issuance is not required.

* Subsequent Credit Releases

All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based
on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream
projects a reserve of 15% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after two bank-full
events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance
standards are met. The reserve will be 10% for 7 year monitoring timeframes. In the event that
less than two bank-full events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the NCEEP will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be
included with the annual monitoring report.

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Appendix 10

Land Use Communication between RS and the USACE

1
RaymondHolz
From:Tugwell,ToddJCIVUSARMYCESAW (US)<[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday,December09,20165:23PM
To:RaymondHolz
Cc:TimBaumgartner([e-mail]);Crocker,Lindsay;JohnPreyer
Subject:RE:AllianceHeadwatersDMS
Raymond,
Afterreviewingtheinformationyoupresentedandthetec hnicalinformationfromthe originalproposal,wecanagreeto
theapproachyou'vedescribed,withafewcaveats.Iwouldlikeittobeclearthatthe totalstreamcredit providedbythe
streamstotheeastofJoynerBridgeRoad(UT 1&2),whichwillbecreditedata1.3:1 ratio,cannotresultinadditionalcredit
beyondthecontractamountoncesinuosityhasbeencalculated intotheproject.Additionally,theproposedchangestoUT
3&4stillneedtobereviewedt odetermineifthechannelsarepresenton thesiteandappropriateforpreservationcredit.
YoualsomentionedthatRSmaybepursuingwetlandcredi tadjacenttotheDMSproject.Thiswouldbeaseparate
proposalthatwewouldneedtoconsider,andasyouindica ted,wemayagainhave concernsregardingpastactivitieson
thesitewithanynewproposal.Lastly,keepi nmindthattherearea numberofissuesthatcome upanytimeyouhavetwo
adjacentprojectslikethisthathavedifferentsponsors.Concernscomeupabou tpotentialconflictssuchasresponsibility
forperformancefailures,financialassurances,andlongtermmana gementofthesites.Just somethingtokeepinmind
movingforward.
Pleaseletmeknowifyou haveanyotherquestions.
ToddTugwell
SpecialProjectsManager
WilmingtonDistrict,USArmyCorpsofEngineers
3331HeritageTradeDrive
Suite105
WakeForest,NorthCarolina27587
Office:9195544884ext58
TheWilmingtonDistrictiscommittedto providingthehighestlevelofsupporttothep ublic.Tohelpusensurewecontinue
todoso,pleasecompletetheCustomer SatisfactionSurveylocatedatourwebsiteat
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0to completethesurveyonline.
OriginalMessage
From:RaymondHolz[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Tuesday,November29,20163:40PM
To:Tugwell,ToddJCIVUSARMYCESAW (US)<Todd.Tu [e-mail]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]RE:AllianceHeadwatersDMS
Todd
FollowinguponavoicemailIleftyoubeforethebreak,IhadEPRpulltogethertwofiguresrelevanttoyourquestions
below,aprojectmapw/existingd itchflowdirection andaLiDARmap oftheupperportionofUT2(seeattached).When
youhaveachance,pleasegivemeacallon mycellandwecandisc ussthequestionsraisedinyourlastemail919604
9314.
Thankyoufortime,
2
RaymondH.
RaymondJ.Holz|RestorationSystems,LLC
1101HaynesSt.Suite211|Raleigh,NC27604
tel:[phone]|cell:919.604.9314|fax:[phone]
email:[e-mail]
OriginalMessage
From:Tugwell,ToddJCIV USARMYCESAW(US)[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Wednesday,November09,20163:50PM
To:RaymondHolz <[e-mail]>
Cc:JohnPreyer<[e-mail]>;Baumgartner,Tim <[e-mail]>;Crocker,Lindsay
<[e-mail]>
Subject:RE:AllianceHeadwatersDMS
Raymond,
Ihavetakenalookatthei nformationyousubmitted.Theadditionof easementonthewestern tractseemstobe
independenttotheissuesrelatedtothestreamcreditwithinareasthat arepotentiallyinviolation.Wereacquiringthesea
requirementofreachingasettlementwiththe landowner?Also,canyougivea nestimateofhowmuchadditional
mitigationcredityouwouldproposeforpreservingtheheadwaterfeatures?
WithregardtotheratiosonUT's1&2,eastofJoynerRoad,itappearsthatthe locationoftheproposedease mentforUT2
hastotallyshiftedfromwhatwaspresented intheoriginalsubmittal.Whatisthe reasonbehindthis?Wouldthisincrease
thecreditablelengthofstreamrestoration inthisarea?Howdidyougettothe453 SMUreduction?
Thanks,
Todd
OriginalMessage
From:RaymondHolz[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Monday,November07,201612:22PM
To:Tugwell,ToddSAW<[e-mail]>
Cc:JohnPreyer<[e-mail]>;Baumgartner,Tim <[e-mail]>;Crocker,Lindsay
<[e-mail]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]RE:AllianceHeadwatersDMS
Todd
Pleasefindattachedtwomapsoverviewing alterationstotheproposedconservationeasement atAllianceHeadwaters.RS
hasbeenabletonegotiatewiththelandowneronexpandingthe preservationportionoftheeasement from3.6acresto10
acres,preservingallheadwaterfeaturesonsite.RS hadEPRpreformadditionalsurveywork toinsurewewereincludingall
featuresandadjacentwetlands.Credit forthesepreservedstreams,iscontingentonan IRTsitevisitduringthemitigation
planreviewasdiscussedatthe524me etinganddetailedintheattachednotes.Regardlessofcreditapproval,the
proposedpreservationacreagewillremainapartoftheproject.
Inconjuncturewiththeaddedpreservationacreageattributedto theproject(6.4acres),RS proposesa1.3:1mitigation
ratioonUT's1and2,eastofJoyner BridgeRoadasaresolutiontoanyviolationconcernonthe property.Usingthe
attacheddesign,thiswouldequatetoa453 SMUreduction.Weappreciateyour reviewandconsiderationofourproposal
toresolvethisissue.Ifyouhaveany questions,pleasedonothesitatetocon tactmedirectlyat9196049314.
3
Sincerely,
RaymondH.
RaymondJ.Holz|RestorationSystems,LLC
1101HaynesSt.Suite211|Raleigh,NC27604
tel:[phone]|cell:919.604.9314|fax:[phone]
email:[e-mail]
OriginalMessage
From:Tugwell,ToddSAW[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,September29,201611:14AM
To:Crocker,Lindsay<Lindsay.Crocker@ncde nr.gov>;RaymondHolz<[e-mail]>
Cc:Baumgartner,Tim<[e-mail]>;JohnPreyer<[e-mail]>;Hughes,Andrea
WSAW<[e-mail]>;Wicker,HenryMJRSAW<[e-mail]>
Subject:RE:AllianceHeadwatersDMS
Lindsay/Raymond,
Iapologizeforthedelayinthis.Wespoke internallytodayaboutthissite,andthesitua tioningeneral.Asyouknow,our
mainconcernis approvingasiteformitigationwhere theactivitythatledtothedegradat ioninthefirstplacewasin
violationwithCleanWaterActregulationsinplacea tthetimeoftheactivity.There areobviouslymanyfactorsthatmake
eachcircumstanceunique,buttotheextentthatwecan,wetryt oapplythesamestandardstoallsituations.
InthecaseofAlliance,wehavealready concurredthattract1226canmove forwardbasedontheinformationyou
submittedthatincludedanonwetlanddeterminationmadeby USDA,whichweagreedtoatthetime(eventhoughit
appearsthatthesitedidcontainwetlandsatthetime).Asfortract4344,locatedeast ofJoynerBridgeRoad,wehaveno
evidencethatsuchadeterminationwasmadebyUSDA,thoughtheydidprovide aletterstatingthattheycurrently
considerthetracttobeinfullcompliance.Unfortunatelythisdoesnotaddress ourregulations,andareviewofaerial
photographsindicatesthatthereweredefinitel ystreamsonthepropertyandalmost certainlywetlands,thatwereditched
andfilledwithoutreceivingrequiredpermit authorizations.Wealsonotethatthiswas probablydonebythepriorownerof
theland,mostlikelyjustbeforetheland waspurchasedbyMr.Lee,thecurrentowner.Thisi sobviouslyveryconcerning
forus.
Intryingtodecidehowtoproceedi nthiscircumstance,Ihaveconsideredwhatpotential actionswemaytakeonthe
propertyifitwerenotusedfor amitigationsite.Insomepastcases,we havepursuedenforc ementactionsinsteadof
allowingthesitetobeusedformitigation,butthisisabitdifferentbecausethe factsarelessclear,USDAhasindicated
theywouldnotpursueanyviolation,and thepropertyownershiphaschanged.We havealsohadsituationswherewehave
setupagreementswiththesponsorwherethemitigation workconductedwithinthearea wheretheviolationoccurred
wasapproved,butatlowercreditvaluetoa ccountforthefactthattheactivitythat ledtothepropertyb eingapotential
mitigationsiteinthefirstplacewasnotincompliancewithourregulations.Inthis case,Ithinktheeasiestwaywewills ee
thesiterestoredisbyallowingthemiti gationtogoforward,whichwouldprobably leadtothebeste nvironmental
outcome.Thatsaid,wouldDMSandRSconsideraslightlyreducedm itigationratiofortherestorationworkconductedon
Tract4344?Ibelievethestreamsinthe thattractareproposedfor restorationata1:1ratio.Ifw eagreetoa1.5:1ratio
instead,whichwouldalsoresolveanyconcernw iththeviolation,wouldthatbeacceptable?
Thanks,
ToddTugwell
SpecialProjects Manager
WilmingtonDistrict,USArmyCorpsofEngineers
3331HeritageTradeDrive
4
Suite105
WakeForest,NorthCarolina27587
Office:9195544884ext58
TheWilmingtonDistrictiscommittedtoprovidingthehighestlevelo fsupporttothepublic.Tohelpusensurewecontinue
todoso,pleasecompletetheCustomer SatisfactionSurveylocatedatourwebsiteat
BlockedBlockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0to completethesurveyonline.
OriginalMessage
From:Crocker,Lindsay[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Tuesday,September27,20162:56PM
To:RaymondHolz<[e-mail]>;Tugwell,ToddSAW<[e-mail]>
Cc:Baumgartner,Tim<[e-mail]>;JohnPreyer<[e-mail]>;Hughes,Andrea
WSAW<[e-mail]>;Wicker,HenryMJRSAW<[e-mail]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]RE:AllianceHeadwatersDMS
Todd,
Ileftyouavm,butjustcheckingback inonthis.Wearecurrentlypastanumberofcontractdeadlines,andneedyour
decisiontomovethisoneforward.
Pleaseadvise.
Hopeyouarewell,
LC
LindsayCrocker
NCDEQDivisionofMitigationServices
217WestJones St.
Raleigh,NC27603
Office919.707.8944
Cell919.594.3910
[e-mail]
Emailcorrespondencetoandfromthisaddress issubjecttotheNorthCarolinaPublicRecordsLawandmaybedisclosedto
thirdpartiesunlesstheconten tisexemptby statuteorotherregulation.
OriginalMessage
From:RaymondHolz[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Monday,August29,201612:59PM
To:Tugwell,ToddSAW<[e-mail]>
Cc:Crocker,Lindsay<[e-mail]>;Baumgartner,Tim<[e-mail]>;JohnPreyer
<[e-mail]>;Hughes,AndreaWSAW<[e-mail]>;Wicker,HenryMJR
SAW<[e-mail]>
Subject:RE:AllianceHeadwatersDMS
Todd
Thankyoufortheupdate.IhaveonelastpieceofinformationI wouldliketopassalongregardingthetimelineof
ownershipandtheclearing.
5
AttachedisaJune1997TimberDeedbetween MassengillJr.andtheWeyerhaeuse rCompany.AttachmentAoftheDeed
isasketchofthe"SaleArea"whichalignswiththeareaofquestionand reflectsthattheclearingo fthelandoccurredprior
tothepurchasebyMr.Lee.T heAttachmentAsketchisalittle difficulttoorientbutthecorner ofSR1188andSR.1231is
thecorneroftoday'sJoynerBridge Rd.andOldWilliamsRd.
Again,justpassingalongeverythingIhav euncovered.Lookforwardtohearingbackfrom youbytheendoftheweek.
Thanksforthetime,
RaymondH.
RaymondJ.Holz|RestorationSystems,LLC
1101HaynesSt.Suite211|Raleigh,NC27604
tel:[phone]|cell:919.604.9314|fax:[phone]
email:[e-mail]
OriginalMessage
From:Tugwell,ToddSAW[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Friday,August26,20161:50PM
To:RaymondHolz<[e-mail]>
Cc:Crocker,Lindsay<[e-mail]>;TimBau mgartner([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>;JohnPreyer<[e-mail]>;Hughes,AndreaWSAW
<[e-mail]>;Wicker,HenryMJRSAW<[e-mail]>
Subject:RE:AllianceHeadwatersDMS
Raymond,
Ihavelookedovertheinformation,includingtheletterfromtheFSAoffice.Tometheletterisclearthat theUSDAdoes
notconsiderthetractinquestionto beinviolation.Nevertheless,Iamstilltryingt odealwiththefactthattheavailabl e
historicaerialsstillshowthattherewereclearlyjurisdictionalareas,includingstreams andwetlands,thatwereinthe
processofbeingditched/filledas lateasFebruary21,1999.Itisnotcleari ftheworkwasco mpletewhenMr.Lee
purchasedthelandfivemonthslateron July6,1999.Regardless,theregulationsinplaceatthetimewouldhaverequireda
permitauthorizationfortheseactivities.Thefact thatFSAdoesnotconsiderthist obeaviolationnow(astherewasno
decisiononthisatthetime)doesnotchangethefactthatpermitswererequiredfortheseactions.
IamgoingtobringthisupwithHenry&Scottandseehowthey wouldliketomoveforward.Iamconcernedabout
approvinganysiteasamitigationsite thatisapast(potentiallyongoing)violation,regardlessofwhetherweendup
pursuingaviolationonthesiteornot.Idon't feelit'sappropriateforlandownerstobene fitfrompastviolationsofour
ownrules,anddoingsocouldalsoincentivizesuchactionsinthefuture.
I'llbringthisupASAPandletyou knowbytheen dofnextweek.
ToddTugwell
SpecialProjectsManager
WilmingtonDistrict,USArmyCorpsofEngineers
3331HeritageTradeDrive
Suite105
WakeForest,NorthCarolina27587
Office:9195544884ext58
6
TheWilmingtonDistrictiscommittedtoprovidingthehighestlevelo fsupporttothepublic.Tohelpusensurewecontinue
todoso,pleasecompletetheCustomer SatisfactionSurveylocatedatourwebsiteat
BlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0tocompletethesurveyonline.
OriginalMessage
From:RaymondHolz[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,August11,20164:38PM
To:Tugwell,ToddSAW<[e-mail]>
Cc:Crocker,Lindsay<[e-mail]>;TimBau mgartner([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>;JohnPreyer<[e-mail]>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]RE:AllianceHeadwatersDMS
Todd
Asdiscussedonthephoneearliertoday,Ihaveadditionalinformationandcorrespondencef romtheJohnstonCountyFSA
regardingtheeasternparceloflandofourproposedAllianceHeadwaters MitigationSite(JohnstonCountyFSAFarm
Number22612,Tract4344).Asdetailedbelow,currentownerFrank Leewasnottheownerof Tract4344atthetimeof
timberingandclearing.
WhenwemetonMay24th,itwasagreedthatRSwould workwiththelandownerandthe JohnstonCountyNRCSandFSA
officestoprovidealetterr e:Tract4344currentlybeing inandhavingbeeninregulatorycompliance;andproviding
assurancethatthetimberingandclearingof theparcelforagriculturalpurposesbetwe enFebruary1993andMarchof1998
hadbeendonewithproperregulatoryapproval.
AtourMaymeeting,RShadlocatedandprovidedpaperworkdatedNovember181997 fromMr.York,theJohnstonCounty
DistrictConservationist,regardingthewesternparcelofourproposedproject whichwasalsologged duringthesametime
period(JohnstonCountyFSAFarmNumber12610,Tract1226).ThepaperworkfromMr.Yor kstated,"Thewoodedarea
notedinblueisnonwetlandandhasnorestrictionsforagricultural use."Itwasourassumptionat thetimeofourMay
meetingthatMr.LeeownedbothTractsof landduringtheclearing(sinceheowns thembothnow),and thatherequested
adelineationbeperformedonTract4344ashe hadonTract1226,andthepa perworkfromTract4344 hadbeenlost.
Sincethen,furtherresearchhas determinedthatMr.Leewasnottheownero fTract4344duringthet imeoftimberingand
clearing.AttachmentD,isthe WarrantyDeedfromthesaleo ftheparcelfromRaymondA Massengill,Jr.toWilliamFrank
LeeonJuly6th1999.Ihavegonebackt oboththeJohnstonCountyFSAandNRCS officetohavethemresearchtheir
recordsforcorrespondencewithMr.Massengillbut assuspected,thispaperworkcouldstill notbefound.Thisdidnot
surpriseFSAandNRCSstaffastheirrecordsareorganizedbytractnumberandnotnam e.BothFSAandNRCShavetoldme
thepaperworkonthisparcelissimplylost.
Althoughhistoricalwrittendocumentationcould notbelocated,TheJohnstonCounty FSAofficewasabletoprovideMr.
Leewithaletterwhichdef initivelystatesthatthesubjecttractisinfullcomplianceandnoviolationsareknown
AttachmentC.Ifpriororcurrentviolationsexisted,FSAwouldnotmakesuchastatement.
Feelfreetocallmeat9196049314todiscuss further.Iappreciatethetimeandtalksoon,
RaymondHolz
Attachments
A.)Figures
Overview
CurrentOwnershipMap
B.)HistoricalAerialImageryOverview1993,1998,&1999
7
C.)LetterfromJohnstonCounty FSAOfficeRegardingTract4344
D.)WarrantyDeedRegardingSale ofWesternParcelTract4344
E.)JohnstonCountyFSA FarmNumber12610,Tract1226 PaperworkfromMr.York
RaymondJ.Holz|RestorationSystems,LLC
1101HaynesSt.Suite211|Raleigh,NC27604
tel:[phone]|cell:919.604.9314|fax:[phone]
email:[e-mail]
OriginalMessage
From:RaymondHolz
Sent:Thursday,July07,20161:50PM
To:'Tugwell,ToddSAW'<[e-mail]>;TimBaumgartner([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>
Cc:MacHaupt([e-mail])<[e-mail]>;JeffSchaffer(jeff.s [e-mail])
<[e-mail]>;Crocker,L indsay<[e-mail]>
Subject:RE:MartinDairy&Alliance Headwaters
ToddyourrecollectionofourMay24thm eetingiscorrectandRSalongwithMr.Lee(propertyowner)areintheprocess
ofgettingaletterfromN RCS/FSA.Attachedarethenotesnot onlyfromourMay24thmeeting butthepostawardsitevisit
onApril8th.Pleasefeelfreetoaddtothemasyouoranyone ontheIRTseefit.Ican bereachedat919.604.9314ifthere
areanyquestions.
Thanks,
RaymondH.
RaymondJ.Holz|RestorationSystems,LLC
1101HaynesSt.Suite211|Raleigh,NC27604
tel:[phone]|cell:919.604.9314|fax:[phone]
email:[e-mail]
OriginalMessage
From:Tugwell,ToddSAW[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,July07,201612:37PM
To:TimBaumgartner ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>
Cc:MacHaupt([e-mail])<[e-mail]>;JeffSchaffer(jeff.s [e-mail])
<[e-mail]>;Crocker,Lindsay <[e-mail]>;RaymondHolz
<[e-mail]>
Subject:MartinDairy&AllianceHeadwaters
Tim,
Alsoto followupontheotherNeuse01sites notcoveredinmylastemail,we mettodiscussAllianceHeadwatersonMay
24th,andasIrecall,RSistryingtotrackdownmoreinfofromNRCSforthestreamo ntheeastsideofJoynerBridgeRoad,
butweconcurredwiththeNRCSdeterminationfortheremainderofthesite.Letmeknowifyourrecollectionsare
different.
8
Lastly,forMartinDairy,wereceivedthenotes andhadnofurthercommentonthose.
Thanks,
ToddTugwell
SpecialProjectsManager
WilmingtonDistrict,USArmyCorpsofEngineers
3331HeritageTradeDrive
Suite105
WakeForest,NorthCarolina27587
Office:9195544884ext58
TheWilmingtonDistrictiscommittedtoprovidingthehighestlevelofsupporttothe public.Tohelpusensurewecontinue
todoso,pleasecompletetheCustomer SatisfactionSurveylocatedatourwebsiteat
BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0tocompletethesurveyonline.
OLD WI
L
LI
A
M
S
R
D.JOYNER BRIDGE RD.RHODES FAR
M

R
D
.
Legend
Alliance Headwaters FSA Tract Registration
Johnston County, NC FSA Registration ID
Farm No. 22612, Tract No. 4344 (66.33 Ac.) Not owned by Mr. Lee Until July 6th, 1999
Farm No. 12610, Tract No. 1226 (109.45 Ac.) Paperwork from Mr. York (Jo. Co. NRCS) to Mr. Lee Attached
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE : [phone]
FAX : [phone]
This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Restoration Systems, LLC expressly
disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is
the sole responsibil ity of the user to determine if the data on this map is compatible with the user’s needs. This map
was not created as survey data, nor should it be used as such. It is the user’s responsibility to obtain proper survey
data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required by law.
SCALE:
DATE: 9 - 2017
1 in = 667 ft
Coordinate System:
NAD_1983_SP_NC_FIPS_3200_Ft.
Aerial Imagery: (c) ESRI
0 300 600 900 1,200150
Feet
SITE: R-04 004
ATTACHMENT A - OVERVIEW FIGURE
* * * DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the information represented here.
Scale: 1:14171 - 1 in. = 1180.94 feet
(The scale is only accurate when printed landscape on a 8 1/2 x 11 size sheet with no page scaling.)
Johnston County GIS
August 11, 2016
Result 1
id:02K15024
Tag:02K15024
Tax Unique Id:4337608
NCPin:159900-81-4425
Mapsheet No:1599
Owner Name 1:M AND B LEE LLC
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
Mail Address 2:P O BOX 148
Mail Address 3:SMITHFIELD, NC 27577-0000
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book:03507
Page:0060
Market Value:208750
Assessed Acreage:63.82
Calc. Acreage:63.82
Sales Price:0
Sale Date:2008-03-06
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
TIMBER DEED - 06-10-1997 BETWEEN WEYERHAEUSER & MASSENGILL

May 26, 2017

Corps Action ID# SAW-2016-00882

Ms. Browning,

I am an adjacent land owner of one of the mitigation sites off Joyner Bridge Road in Johnston County. It
appears that my property will be greatly affected by the amount of water discharged onto my property.
This letter is advising that I would like a set of construction plans showing width, depth and potential
CFS of water discharged onto my property.
I am sure if this project is approved there will be other concerns pertaining to my property.

Sincerely,

JC Rhodes

Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018
Appendix 11

Financial Assurance

Financial Assurances

Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Services' In-Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy
mitigation requirements assum ed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all
mitigation projects implemented by the program.

As required by RFP # 16-006476, upon approval by the DMS of the ‘Final Draft’ Mitigation Plan, Restoration
Systems will provide financial assurance in one of the following forms:

1. Performance Bonding – The contractor must provide security in the form of acceptable performance
bonds as described in the following paragraph to guarantee delivery of the maximum number of
originally contracted credits. The performance bonds must be obtained from a company licensed in
North Carolina as shown in the Federal Treasury Listing of Approved Sureties (Circular 570). The
maximum allowable amount provided by a surety may not exceed the “underwriting limitation” for
the surety as identified in the Federal Treasury Listing. Although this RFP is a request for mitigation
and not construction, the performance bonds shall follow the prescribed wording provided in N.C.G.S.
§ 44A-33. The contractor must provide two performance bonds.

The first bond must be for 100% of the total value of the contract and must be in effect and submitted
with the Task 3 deliverable before NCDMS will authorize payment for that deliverable. The bond must
remain in effect until the contractor has received written notification from the NCDMS that the
requirements of Task 6 (submittal of baseline monitoring report) have been met (the financial
assurance document must indicate that it is in effect through approval of task 6 and must include
the NCDENR contract number). After the successful completion of Task 6, the bond can be retired
and a second bond, the Monitoring Phase Performance Bond (MPPB) must be substituted for the first.
The second bond must be for 25% of the value of the contract, which covers the monitoring period.
The MPPB can be reduced yearly concurrent with the payment schedule once the yearly deliverable
is approved by NCDMS. Therefore, the MPPB can be reduced to 20% of the contract value AFTER
release of the mitigation credit for monitoring year 1, to 18% of the contract value AFTER release of
the mitigation credit for monitoring year 2, continuing with a reduction of the MPPB by 2% of the
contract value through monitoring year 6. A MPPB of 10% of the contract value MUST be maintained
through monitoring year 7 AND project close-out (including final determination/release of mitigation
credits) by the IRT.

2. Letters of Credit- LOCs must be drawn from a reputable bank identified by the FDIC as “Well
Capitalized” or “Adequately Capitalized” and follow the submittal timing, contract amounts and
schedules for reduction as those described above for the performance bonds. Evergreen or
irrevocable LOCs shall be required to provide a 120 day notice of cancellation, termination or non-
renewal.

3. Casualty Insurance on underlying performance of credits of mitigation, must follow the same
submittal timing, contract amounts and reduction schedules as those described above in performance
bonds. The insurance must contain the following information: a. The “NCDENR” must be named as
the “Regulatory Body”. NCDENR shall have the sole right to place a claim against the policy. NCDENR
shall have the sole right and obligation as the responsible “regulatory body” to approve any claim
settlement, Initial insurance must be for a 10 year period.