20181461 Ver 1_Draft Mitigation Plan_20181030

ID#* 20181461 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Mitigation Project Submittal -10/30/2018
Type of Mitigation Project:*
W Stream W Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * r Yes f No
Project Contact Information
Company/Owner:* Weyerhaeuser
Contact Name:*
Daren Pait
Project Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Project Name: Beaufort 56 DRAFT Mitigation Plan - Middle
Neuse UMBI
Project Type:* r DMS
f• Mitigation Bank
County: Beaufort
Document Information
File Upload: Beaufort 56 - DRAFT Mitigation Plan - 2018-09-
181.35MB
13.pdf
Rease upload only one RDF of the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Daren Fait
Signature:*
R ��

The Middle Neuse Stream
and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Bank
SPONSORED BY:
Weyerhaeuser NR Company
SUBMITTED TO:
Interagency Review Team
PREPARED BY:
AND
Prospectus
HUC 03020202
NOVEMBER 2017
Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 2018
Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan - DRAFT
1 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

THE MIDDLE NEUSE STREAM AND
WETLAND UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
Middle Neuse River Basin – HUC 03020202
Beaufort County, North Carolina
USACE ACTION ID NUMBER:
SAW-2017-02019

Sponsor:
Weyerhaeuser NR Company
Attn: Doug Hughes
406 Cole Road
Hattiesburg, MS 39402
601 341 6054

PREPARED BY:

Attn: Daren Pait, P.E., CFM
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28202
704 319 7699
Coggin Asset Management, LLC
Attn: Daniel S. Coggin
P.O. Box 476
Amory, MS 38821
662 825 0058
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).
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Site Selection..................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Mitigation Site Location, Size, and Service Area ............................................................................... 7
1.4 Ownership ......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 Watershed Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Watershed environmental concerns and mitigation needs ................................................................ 9
2.2 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 9
2.3 Assurance of Sufficient Water Rights, Control of Minerals, and Access .......................................... 10
2.4 Site Protection ................................................................................................................................. 10
3.0 Site Baseline .................................................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Existing Watershed Conditions ........................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................................... 11
4.0 Functional Uplift Potential .............................................................................................................................. 17
5.0 Mitigation Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 19
5.1 Reference Site and Design Parameters .......................................................................................... 19
5.2 Mitigation Work Plan ........................................................................................................................ 22
6.0 Determination Of Credits ............................................................................................................................... 31
6.1 Stream Mitigation Credit Calculations .............................................................................................. 31
6.2 Wetland Mitigation Credit Calculations ............................................................................................ 31
7.0 Credit Release Schedule ............................................................................................................................... 32
8.0 Monitoring Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 33
8.1 Stream Monitoring Requirements .................................................................................................... 33
8.2 Wetland Monitoring Requirements .................................................................................................. 34
8.3 Performance Standards ................................................................................................................... 34
8.4 Early Closure Provision ................................................................................................................... 35
8.5 Adaptive Management Plan............................................................................................................. 35
8.6 Post-Construction Documentation ................................................................................................... 35
8.7 Long-Term Management Plan ......................................................................................................... 35
8.8 Financial Assurances ...................................................................................................................... 35
9.0 References .................................................................................................................................................... 37
3 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

TABLES
Table 1 – Site Mitigation Potential Summary ................................................................................................................. 6
Table 2 – Wetland Mitigation Summary ......................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3 – Watershed Overview .................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 4 – Existing Wetlands ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 5 - Stream Mitigation Work Plan ......................................................................................................................... 17
Table 6 – Distribution of Intermittent and Perennial Origin Contributing Drainage Area (acre) .................................... 21
Table 7 - Mitigation Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Table 8 – Wetland Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 27
Table 9 – Proposed Buffer Widths ............................................................................................................................... 29
Table 10 – Zone 1 planting summary ........................................................................................................................... 29
Table 11 – Zone 2 Planting Summary .......................................................................................................................... 30
Table 12 – Zone 3 Planting Summary .......................................................................................................................... 30
Table 13 – Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits ........................................................................................................... 31
Table 14 – Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits ......................................................................................................... 31
Table 15 – Credit Release Schedule - Streams ........................................................................................................... 32
Table 16 – Credit Release Schedule - Wetlands.......................................................................................................... 32
Table 17 – Vegetative Monitoring Plots ........................................................................................................................ 33
Table 18 – Estimated Amount Required for Performance Bond .................................................................................. 36
Table 19 – Performance Bond Reduction Schedule. ................................................................................................... 36

The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
4

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Figures
Appendix B – Photo Pages
Appendix C – Geomorphic Cross-Sections
Appendix D – Geomorphology
Appendix E – Buffer Credit Calculations
Appendix F – Mitigation Plan Sheets
Appendix G – NCSAM Forms
Appendix H – Wetland and Stream Data Forms
Appendix I – Conservation Easement Documents
Appendix J – Performance Bond

5 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Beaufort 56 Mitigation Site (“B56 Site” or “Site”) is in Beaufort County, NC and consists of three
separate stream systems that include headwater restoration and stream and wetland systems restoration,
enhancement and preservation. The on-site headwater systems and stream channels will be restored
using a holistic approach that seeks to restore or enhance the valley and riparian wetlands adjacent to the
stream channels. This site is proposed to be included in the Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Bank (the “Middle Neuse UMBI”). The Site is identified as having potential to help meet the
compensatory mitigation requirement for stream and freshwater wetland impacts in Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 03020202 of the Neuse River Basin. It was selected based on the site’s ability to provide
improvements to aquatic resources within the middle Neuse 8-digit HUC through a combination of
restoration, enhancement, and preservation.
All mitigation areas within the site will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement as described
in the Middle Neuse UMBI. The Site is separated into three mitigation areas that include the stream
systems, riparian buffer, and riparian wetlands. Most of the on-site streams were historically impacted by
extensive ditching and currently have diminished functionality within any or all five of the functional
categories identified in the stream functional pyramid (Harman, Starr, Tweedy, Clemmon, Suggs, Miller.
2012). Based on these areas of impacted functionality and potential for functional uplift, this mitigation
plan has been produced identifying the proposed mitigation activities and associated credit generation
shown in Table 1 and Table 2 (on the following page).

The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
6

Table 1 – Site Mitigation Potential Summary
Site Reach Mitigation
Approach
Begin
Station End Station Existing Length
(ft.)
Proposed
Length (ft.)
Credit
Ratio SMUs
Beaufort
56A
UT1 - R1 Headwater 3+50 26+15 2,265 2,265 1:1 2,265
UT1 - R2 Restoration 26+15 59+00 2,953 3,233 1:1 3,233
UT1 - R3 Restoration 59+00 64+30 467 530 1:1 530
UT2 Headwater 103+00 109+55 711 655 1:1 655
UT3 Headwater 201+27 210+24 788 897 1:1 897
Beaufort
56B
UT1 - R1 Headwater 5+90 13+64 774 774 1:1 774
UT1 - R2 Restoration 13+64 38+41 2,208 2,477 1:1 2,477
UT1 - R3 Preservation 38+93 51+90 1,341 1,297 10:1 130
UT1 - R4 Enhancement I 52+41 71+15 1,874 1,874 1.5:1 1,249
UT1 - R5 Restoration 71+65 84+15 1,250 1,250 1:1 1,250
UT2 Preservation 101+07 117+91 1,684 1,684 10:1 168
Beaufort
56C
UT1 - R1 Headwater 2+05 19+35 1,730 1,730 1:1 1,730
UT1 - R2 Preservation 19+35 29+35 1,000 1,000 10:1 100
UT2 Headwater 101+34 110+26 892 892 1:1 892
Total stream lengths and sub-total SMU’s 19,937 20,558 16,350
BUFFER ADJUSTMENT TO STREAM CREDITS (SEE “WILMINGTON DISTRICT STREAM BUFFER CREDIT CALCULATOR”
WORKSHEETS IN APPENDIX E) 1,115
TOTAL STREAM CREDITS (SMU’s) 17,465

Table 2 – Wetland Mitigation Summary
System Adjacent to
Reach Mitigation Approach Mitigation Area
(ac.)
Wetland Mitigation
Ratio WMU’s
56A UT1 - R1, UT2
and UT3 Restoration 7.57 1:1 7.57
56B UT1 - R1 Restoration 0.59 1:1 0.59
56B UT1 - R1 Enhancement 3.90 3:1 1.30
56B UT1 - R1 Preservation 10.9 10:1 1.09
56B UT2 Preservation 5.79 10:1 0.58
56C UT1 – R1 and
UT2 Restoration 5.77 1:1 5.77
TOTAL WETLAND CREDITS (WMU’s) 16.90

1.2 SITE SELECTION
As part of the Middle Neuse UMBI, the B56 Site is proposed to provide compensatory mitigation for
permitted impacts within the Middle Neuse Watershed (HUC 03020202). The larger Neuse River Basin
has been a focal point for water quality concerns for almost three decades due to sediment disturbances
in upstream rural development as well as nutrient loading from upstream agricultural land use.
Development within this basin is predicted to increase—especially with the proposed Kinston Bypass
7 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

construction, which will likely increase development around the proposed interchanges. As such, the B56
Site aims to provide protection and the potential for significant water quality and aquatic habitat
improvements in this sensitive region through restoring and conserving aquatic resources in the Middle
Neuse. The B56 Site was identified as a strong candidate for mitigation based on its potential for uplift as
well as the following criteria as originally documented in the prospectus phase:
· Access—Potential sites must have permanent, deeded access.
· Proximity to Impacts—Potential sites must be within the 8-digit HUC in which impacts are
anticipated to occur.
· Watershed Impact—Restoring, enhancing, and protecting a potential site must contribute to the
overall improvement of the watershed in which it is found.
· Restoration Potential—Potential sites must have a combination of wetland and stream
restoration, enhancement, and/or preservation. Sites with historical alterations, such as
silviculture, will generally be given priority for development.
· Habitat Connectivity—Potential sites must contribute to creating larger, contiguous conservation
properties to help support habitat diversity, quality, and stability.
· Sufficient Water Rights/Resources—Potential sites must have sufficient water rights/resources to
sustain restored, enhanced, and/or protected wetlands and streams.
· Mineral Rights—The Bank Sponsor must own/control the surface mineral rights, including gravel,
sand, salt, and coal.
1.3 MITIGATION SITE LOCATION, SIZE, AND SERVICE ARE A
The B56 Site is in southwest Beaufort County, NC, about 23 miles north of New Bern. It can be accessed
from Pollard Road off State Road 102, approximately 3 miles east of U.S. Highway 17. The Site is
separated into three distinct sections—Beaufort 56A (“56A”), located at 35.4126° North and -77.1526°
East; Beaufort 56B (“56B”), at 35.4198° North and -77.1810° East; and Beaufort 56C (“56C”), at 35.4260°
North and -77.1615° East (see Figure 1). Overall, the Site includes the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of multiple tributaries and riparian wetlands, some of which currently are within narrow bands
of hardwood forest near active timber production.
The Site is in the Creeping Swamp sub-basin of the Middle Neuse River Basin (HUC 030202020403) and
the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecoregion. The Site sits in the Department of Water Resources (DWR)
Sub-basin 03-04-09. HUC 03020202 is situated downstream of HUC 03020201 (which contains Raleigh
and Durham) and HUC 03020203 (which includes Smithfield, Goldsboro, Farmville, and other heavily
agricultural areas). The local Creeping Swamp sub-basin is predominantly used for timber production,
with some agriculture and very little existing commercial, industrial, or residential development.
The B56 Site, as a mitigation site under the framework of the Middle Neuse Umbrella Mitigation Bank
(“Bank”), is proposed to produce stream credits that will be used to offset permitted impacts to aquatic
resources within the Bank’s service area. The service area associated with the B56 Site is defined as the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit HUC within which the Site is located - the Middle Neuse
02 HUC (HUC 03020202).
1.4 OWNERSHIP
BANK OWNER, SPONSOR, AND LONG-TERM STEWARD
Weyerhaeuser NR Company
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
8

Contact: Doug Hughes
Address: 406 Cole Road
Hattiesburg, MS 39402
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
As the landowner, Weyerhaeuser NR Company will provide access to the property for establishment
(including granting the conservation easement), operation, management of the Site, and long-term
management of the property within the framework of the Middle Neuse UMBI. The owner will retain all
rights and responsibilities of ownership subject to the terms of the conservation easement (included as
Appendix I), which shall be placed on the property prior to the first release of mitigation credits.
As the Bank Sponsor, Weyerhaeuser NR Company maintains the rights to permit, develop, maintain, and
operate the Middle Neuse Bank and its associated sites, including The B56 Site, in accordance with the
terms of the Middle Neuse UMBI and the Mitigation Plan and subject to the terms and conditions of the
conservation easement that will be established over the property.
As the long-term steward, Weyerhaeuser NR Company will be responsible for maintenance of the Site’s
aquatic resources as described in the Long-Term Management Plan, in Section 8.7 of this document.
Long-term stewardship responsibilities will begin at the end of the bank’s operational phase (after all
credits are released and sold) and continue in perpetuity.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT HOLDER
The conservation easement will be held by Unique Places to Save, a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit conservation
organization located in North Carolina. A copy of the conservation easement document is included as
Appendix I.

9 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH
2.1 WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND MITIGATION NEEDS
The Middle Neuse River Basin (HUC 03020202) has been significantly impacted by agricultural land
uses, extensive ditching, and lack of riparian buffer. Development within this basin is predicted to
increase, especially with construction of the Kinston Bypass. This bypass will increase mobility in the area
and spur development around proposed interchanges, likely creating additional impacts to the area. The
Middle Neuse River Basin (HUC 03020202) consists of 1,008 square miles with more than 340 miles of
stream and is primed for significant local growth. Between the five counties that make up the watershed
(Beaufort, Craven, Lenoir, Pitt, and Wayne Counties), Pitt County is forecasted to grow by 5.8% by 2020,
and Wayne County is expected to grow by 4.1%**. Overall, the Middle Neuse watershed is expected to
see 2.4% growth by 2020. The B56 Site represents a valuable opportunity to restore natural streams and
headwater systems to offer long-term protection to essential habitat and aquatic resources as growth and
development comes to the area.
This Site’s goals and objectives described below are consistent in addressing the major stressors
identified in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document produced by the North
Carolina Department of Mitigation Services (NCDMS).
**https://files.nc.gov/ncosbm/demog/countygrowth_2020.html
2.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
WATERSHED SCALE GOALS
The Neuse RBRP 2010 document produced by the NCDMS spells out the Middle Neuse Basin
restoration and protection goals. Applicable goals stated are as follows:
· Promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving
wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers.
· Continue targeted implementation of projects under the Nutrient Offset and Buffer programs, as
well as focusing Department of Transportation (DOT)-sponsored restoration in areas where they
will provide the ecosystem’s most functional improvement.
Mitigation proposed as part of the B56 Site addresses these specific RBRP goals. A significant length of
stream mitigation, wetland mitigation, and riparian corridor enhancement and preservation will improve
water quality within the Middle Neuse Basin. Additionally, these projects are being implemented now to
offset future impacts that could occur as part of the Kinston Bypass construction and future development
that may occur because of the roadway improvements.
SITE-SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
· Fill ditches that currently are draining headwater valley systems and reestablish the historic
headwater valley system to accomplish the following:
o Restore hydrology to the headwater valley system to enhance and restore wetland systems
within the headwaters
o Restore original headwater stream system to provide more frequent flooding of the adjacent
headwater wetlands and valley
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
10

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

11 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

3.0 SITE BASELINE
3.1 EXISTING WATERSHED CONDITIONS
There are three separate systems proposed for mitigation as part of the B56 Site (systems A, B, and C).
The watersheds for all three systems originate on-site. Silviculture is the primary land use within all three
of these headwater systems. In some reaches, a hardwood buffer has been left intact where the adjacent
floodplain typically is too inundated for pine harvesting. In these reaches, the center of the valley typically
has been ditched, draining the headwater system. Watershed summary information and drainage areas
for each separate system are provided in the table below.
Table 3 – Watershed Overview
Level IV Ecoregion 63e Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods
River Basin Neuse
USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit 03020202
USGS 12-digit Hydrologic Unit 030202020403
DWR Sub-Basin 03-04-09
Project Drainage Area / Percent Impervious
Beaufort 56A 807 Ac 0.11%
Beaufort 56B 929 Ac 0.32%
Beaufort 56C 785 Ac 0.43%
These watersheds sit within the Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion (Level IV), which occur in the nearly level
coastal plain with frequently high-water tables and large areas of poorly drained soil. While the watershed
currently is occupied by significant plantations of loblolly pine forests, the large areas of loamy, organic
soils historically were home to significant biological diversity compared to the Mid-Atlantic Flatwood region
to the north. Restoring and preserving headwater systems is especially valuable to the health and water
quality of the watershed because of its shallow topography.
3.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION
All reaches identified on-site, including each unnamed tributary and named swamp systems (Pollard
Swamp, Creeping Swamp, and Gorham Swamp), are identified as Class C waters with additional
designations of nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) and swamp waters (SW). The three systems join in the
Clayroot Swamp, which is listed as impaired and drains to an impaired segment of Swift Creek.
SITE SOILS
The on-site soils are derived from deposits on marine terraces within the coastal plain. These soils were
deposited between the Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs, where ocean levels were high enough to form
flat terraces across the coast of North America and deposit marine sands, silts, and clays. The on-site
soils are described by site section and soil type below. The soils that occur on-site are presented in
Figure 4.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
12

Beaufort 56A Soils
Leaf Silt Loam
Leaf Silt Loam (La) soils predominantly exist on terraces that form on broad interstream divides and
consist of clayey marine deposits. The profile is made up of 0 to 6 inches of silt loam, a depth from 6 to 67
inches of clay, and a final depth from 67 to 80 inches of clay loam (end of profile). This soil type is poorly
drained and trends with a 0-2% slope. It has a hydric rating of 90. Leaf soil occurs on-site in the lower
portion of the Pollard Swamp reach.
Leon Sand
Leon Sand (Lo) is a sandy soil that forms on flats in marine terraces created from sandy fluvio-marine
deposits during prehistoric periods of high sea levels. The profile consists of medium sand from 0 to 15
inches and fine sand from 15 to at least 80 inches (end of profile). The soil is highly conductive, with
hydraulic conductivity values in the most confining layers (fine sand) of as high as 1.98 inches per hour.
The Leon soil occurs on-site adjacent to the stream corridors of Pantego loam. The water table is
consistently at 0 to 12 inches in depth and the soil has a hydric rating of 80.
Pantego Loam
Pantego Loam (Pa) forms in broad interstream divides on marine terraces and consists of mostly loam
and sandy loam. The soil profile consists of loam from 0 to 18 inches and a sandy clay loam from 18 to 80
inches (end of profile). The soil is poorly drained with high available water storage and a hydric rating of
90. Fitting with its description, the Pantego soils occur within the tributary corridors.
Tomotley Fine Sandy Loam
Tomotley Fine Sandy Loam (To) forms in depressions on terraces along the coastal plain and consists of
medium-to-fine sandy loam. The soil profile is made up of fine sandy loam from 0 to 12 inches, sandy clay
loam from 12 to 42 inches, sandy loam from 42 to 50 inches, and loamy sand from 50 to 80 inches (end
of profile). The soil profile is poorly drained, but has a high hydraulic conductivity rating and a hydric rating
of 91. Tomotley soils occur in the western edge of the Site.
Beaufort 56B Soils
Craven Fine Sandy Loam
Craven Fine Sandy Loam (CrB) soils form in ridges on marine terraces. The profile consists of 0 to 9
inches of fine sandy loam, a stretch of clay from 9 to 54 inches, and sandy loam from 54 to 80 inches
deep (end of profile). The water table sits consistently between 24 and 36 inches, and the clay layer has a
hydraulic conductivity that varies from 0.06 to 0.20 inches per hour. Craven soils are mapped on the
southwest edge of the primary stream corridor.
Croatan Muck
Croatan Muck (Ct) soils form from woody organic material and the water table is frequently at the surface
or no more than 6 inches below the surface. The soil profile consists of muck from 0 to 28 inches, mucky
sandy loam soils from 28 to 33 inches, sandy clay loam from 33 to 60 inches, and loamy sand from 60 to
80 inches (end of profile). Croatan Muck occurs in the headwater area of the stream system and has a
hydric rating of 90.
13 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

Goldsboro Fine Sandy Loam
Goldsboro Fine Sandy Loam (GoA) forms on the broad interstream divides on marine terraces and its soil
profile has a fine sandy loam layer from 0 to 13 inches and a sandy clay loam layer from 13 to 80 inches
(end of profile). The soil profile has a high to moderately-high weighted hydraulic conductivity and the
water profile is consistently at a depth between 24 and 36 inches. Goldsboro soils occur adjacent to the
stream corridor in relatively small areas along each side.
Leaf Silt Loam
See description included in the previous Beaufort 56A section. Leaf (La) soils are mapped around the
tributary at the western end of the site.
Lenoir Loam
Lenoir loam (Le) soils are poorly drained and form on marine terraces and in broad interstream divides.
The soil has a low hydric rating, with a water table between 1 and 3 feet below the surface and
significantly varying hydraulic conductivity. The soil profile consists of a layer down to 8 inches
predominantly of loam, followed by a layer down to 63 inches of clay. The final layer is from 63 to 80
inches below the surface consisting of sandy clay. These soils are found on either side of the western
tributary outside of the stream valley.
Lynchburg Fine Sandy Loam
Lynchburg Fine Sandy Loam (Ly) soils form from loamy marine deposits, and have a soil profile made up
on fine sandy loam from 0-9 inches, medium sandy loam 9-14 inches, a medium sandy clay loam from 14
to 65 inches, and clay from 65-80 inches (end of profile). The water table fluctuates from 6 to 18 inches
below the water surface and has a low hydric rating. A small area of Lynchburg soils occurs midway
along the main tributary adjacent to the stream corridor.
Rains Fine Sandy Loam
Rains Fine Sandy Loam (Ra) soils are highly hydric and are made up of Loamy marine deposits formed
on marine terraces along the Coastal Plain. The soil profile consists of fine sandy loam in depths from 0
to 16 inches and sandy clay loam from 16 to 80 inches (end of profile). The soil profile is poorly drained
but with high hydraulic conductivity. The water table fluctuates between 0 and 12 inches of the water
surface. An area of Rains soil occurs adjacent to the Croatan soils in the site headwaters.
Tomotley Fine Sandy Loam
See description in Beaufort 56A section above. Tomotley soils occur in the southern portion of the site
headwaters.
Beaufort 56C Soils
Muckalee Loam
The Muckalee Loam (Me) is a frequently flooded hydric soil that originates from sandy and loamy alluvium
that deposits on broad floodplains. The water table fluctuates at a depth between 0 and 12 inches from
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
14

the surface. The profile consists of 0 to 24 inches of loam and a sandy loam layer from 24 to 80 inches
(end of profile). Muckalee soil occurs within the site stream corridor.
Rains Fine Sandy Loam
See description in Beaufort 56B section above. Rains soils occur within the headwaters of the site
streams.

BASELINE STREAM CONDITIONS
Descriptions of each existing reach condition are outlined below. Figure 6 provides drainage area
acreages for each reach and Table 1 provides existing lengths. Additionally, representative photos are
included in Appendix B.
Beaufort 56A
UT1 Reach 1, UT2, and UT3
Historically, reaches UT1, UT2, and UT3 are headwater systems that have been ditched and
disconnected from the adjacent floodplain to drain adjacent areas. North Carolina Stream Assessment
Method (NC SAM) scores for each reach are low, due to the incised and disconnected nature of the
existing conditions, and bank ratios for each reach range from 2.5 to 4.0. NCSAM forms for the stream in
Appendix G.
UT1 – Reaches 2 and 3
The lower portion of UT1 is an incised channel that has been ditched and currently acts as a roadside
ditch. Historically, reaches 2 and 3 were shallow E-type stream channel that formed at the downstream
extent of the UT1 headwater system. Currently, due to the incised and ditched nature of the channel, it is
disconnected from the floodplain and lacks natural pattern and bedform diversity. The NC SAM rating of
the lower reach of UT1 is low, primarily due to its entrenched condition and inability to frequently access
its historic floodplain.
Beaufort 56B
UT1 - Reach 1
UT1 - Reach 1 is a headwater system that has been incised and channelized through a riparian wetland
system. The channel historically was ditched coming out of the existing forested wetland system to
facilitate increased drainage of the wetland systems. This reach has an NC SAM rating of low due to past
manipulation and ditching practices.
UT1 - Reach 2
UT1 - Reach 2 is a ditched intermittent stream channel that historically was incised and channelized to
drain the adjacent valley for silviculture production. This system lacks any riparian buffer in the upper
reach. The entire reach down to the gravel road crossing has been ditched and disconnected from its
historic valley/floodplain. This reach has an NC SAM rating of low due to past manipulation and ditching
practices.
15 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

UT1 - Reach 3
UT1 - Reach 3 is the reach bounded on the upstream end by the on-site gravel road and on the
downstream end by Pollard Road. Historically, this reach has been ditched but is relatively stable. The
residence located adjacent to the south side of Reach 2, east of Pollard Road, prevents implementing a
Priority 1 stream restoration approach along this reach. A Priority 1 approach could increase base flood
elevation (i.e., hydrologic trespass) on the property and structure. The existing channel has a narrow
mature mix of pine and hardwood buffer along the channel. The NC SAM rating along this reach is low
due to its disconnection from the channel’s historic valley and riparian floodplain.
UT1 - Reach 4
UT1 - Reach 4 has an NC SAM rating of medium and has good connectivity with its right floodplain, but is
disconnected on the left side by spoil piles on the bank from historic ditching and straightening.
UT1 - Reach 5
Baseflow for UT1 - Reach 5 currently is blocked and redirected to the 4- to 10-foot-deep ditch located
along the northeast side of the on-site gravel road. The baseflow then follows the ditch northwest along
the side of the road until it flows into Creeping Swamp. Due to an existing perched culvert under the
gravel road and the road’s low profile, flood flows still run down the historic valley and relic channel of
Reach 5 during periods of high flows. The relic stream channel is well-established with existing riparian
vegetation and dense root systems in the channel banks to provide immediate stability and habitat when
baseflow is returned. Once baseflow is returned to the system, it will have an immediate NC SAM rating
of high.
UT2
UT2 is a proposed headwater preservation reach with an NC SAM rating of high because of flow within
the valley having good connectivity with the floodplain and valley bottom. No distinct channel exists along
the upstream/North end of the reach. The contributing drainage area half way down the reach is 80 acres,
enough to provide 30 days of continuous flow. Along the Southwest end of the reach flow begins to
concentrate enough to form a stable small channel that then ties into the roadside ditch located along the
north side of the existing gravel road. This roadside canal then flows northwest along the canal.
Beaufort 56C
UT1 - Reach 1
UT1 - Reach 1 is a headwater system that historically has been ditched to aid in draining the system and
connected ditches within the valley. The reach currently has an NC SAM rating of low due to the system’s
ditched and incised nature.
UT1 - Reach 2
UT1 - Reach 2 is a preservation reach with a shallow type-E channel that transports flow from the
headwater systems of Ut1 - Reach 1 and UT2. The channel has stable geomorphology and habitat and
will be preserved within the proposed conservation easement.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
16

UT2
UT2 is a ditched headwater system that forms below the large upstream headwater wetland system. The
system historically was ditched. This ditched system ties into the ditched reach of UT1 - Reach 1. Due to
its straightened and incised nature, UT2 has an NC SAM rating of low.

BASELINE WETLAND CONDITIONS
All areas within the Beaufort 56 site boundaries have been field reviewed and existing wetlands have
been delineated. Data forms have been included in Appendix H. While large portions of riparian areas
along all three systems (A, B, and C) have hydric soils and, historically, have been headwater and
riparian wetlands, many of these areas are non-jurisdictional due to the extensive ditching that exists on-
site. The table below provides an overview of wetland resources on the Site. Figure 5 shows existing
hydric soils and Figure 7 shows the jurisdictional areas as delineated on all three systems. Only site 56B
has extensive wetlands now. The presence of wetlands on each of these systems is dependent on
headwater system hydrology and some are more dependent on floodplain connectivity and overland flow
for hydrology. Most of these systems have been impacted through ditching the headwater systems as
well as ditching and incising the downstream intermittent and perennial stream systems. Depressional
hardwood swamp areas along 56A UT1 and 56B UT1-Reaches 3 and 4, are rated excellent in the Natural
Heritage Program’s rating system, but site delineations show that much of those systems have altered
hydrology and no longer meet wetland criteria.
Table 4 – Existing Wetlands
Site Wetland Adjacent to
Reach Wetland Type Wetland
Acreage
Beaufort
56B
UT2 Bottomland Hardwood 5.8 Ac.
UT1 – Reach 1 Bottomland Hardwood 20.5 Ac.

17 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
Based on data and observations collected from the watershed analysis, site visits, and reference material,
Table 5 was produced to outline areas of potential uplift and a work plan associated with the uplift of each
design consideration. These parameters, and their associated design considerations, have been
developed to fit under the framework of the Harman Stream Functions Pyramid. Maximum practical uplift
potential for each functional level, including stream hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology, physical
chemistry, and biology, were scrutinized based on the existing conditions and limitations associated with
adjacent land use, watershed condition, and landscape variables. The content of the mitigation plan was
guided by these observed functional uplift areas to best serve the project and improve overall site
conditions.
Table 5 - Stream Mitigation Work Plan
Parameter Design Consideration Work Plan (if not functioning or functioning at-risk)
Hydrologic Function
Surface Flow and
Watershed Contribution
Overland Flow
Restore multi-zone hardwood and vegetative buffer to slow overland
flow and reduce sedimentation. Identify areas of concentrated flow
such as lateral ditches that enter the proposed conservation
easement and fill these ditches and locations of concentrated flow.
Also, implement vernal pool or pocket wetlands to dissipate energy
and slow water entering the conservation easement.
Vegetative Buffer
Hydraulic Function
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratios
(BHR)
Restore natural bankfull dimensions and reestablish hydrologic
access to the floodplain by raising existing channel bottoms or
designing new channel with appropriate base width and bankfull
dimensions based on regional curves and reference reach data. The
primary approach throughout all reaches is to reconnect the channel
to its historic floodplain by filling in ditches through headwater
systems and implementing Priority 1 restoration where feasible.
Floodplains and adjacent wetlands will be restored to promote the
storage and infiltration of surface water.
Entrenchment Ratio
(ER)
Dimensionless Rating
Curve
Flow Dynamics
Bankfull Velocity Reduce channel erosion and stabilize sediment transport within the
channel by selecting bankfull dimensions and channel
geomorphology to optimize stream power and velocity, and
minimize negative impacts from excess shear stress. Changes to the
dimensions of the channels will include construction of a channel
with appropriate bank height ratios (1.0) and appropriate bedform
diversity to dissipate energy across the floodplain and channel.
Bankfull Shear Stress
Bankfull Stream Power
Groundwater/Surface
Water Exchange
Meander Width Ratios
Reestablish channel pattern and profile, removing existing ditches
that drain surrounding groundwater areas. Raised groundwater
conditions along the stream banks restores hyporheic zones and
allows for groundwater and surface water exchange. Floodplains and
adjacent wetlands will be restored to promote the storage and
infiltration of surface water. Priority 1 combined with decreasing
floodplain drainage capacity will impose a higher water table across
the site.
Bedform diversity
Geomorphic Function
Large Woody Debris Large Woody Debris Reestablish hardwood buffer along riparian zone to provide shade,
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
18

Transport and Storage Index (LWDI) compared
to reference
detritus, and large and small woody debris to supplement habitat
provided by in-stream structures in the channel and buffer area.
Channel Evolution
Rosgen Stream Channel
Succession Scenarios
(2010) Design new channel with intentional P-P spacing, radius of curvature,
riffle slopes, and bankfull dimensions to regulate channel type and
development. Simon Channel
Evolution Model Stages
(1989)
Bank Migration/
Lateral Stability
Meander Width Ratios Design channels with appropriate width-to-depth ratios and
meander widths, as well as radius of curvature, to prevent unnatural
bank erosion and excess sedimentation. Plant stabilizing vegetation
and live stakes on the banks to reduce bank recession and
sedimentation.
Bank Erosion Hazard
Index (BEHI)
Width-to-Depth Ratios
Riparian Vegetation Vegetative Buffer
Varying widths of vegetative buffers will provide valuable hydrologic
and hydraulic benefits to the overbank and transitional areas of the
stream reaches and headwater systems, including stabilization,
energy dissipation, and natural habitat.
Bed-form Diversity
Percent Riffle Provide mechanism for channel bedform revitalization through
appropriate channel profile and dimensions that will subsequently
alter sediment deposition, transport, and channel stability.
Introducing proper pool-to-pool spacing and riffle/ripple grades will
support deposition of sediment and establishment of stable natural
channel bed material. Additionally, wood structures such as log
vanes, log cross vanes, brush and roll riffles, and toe wood will be
used to provide immediate bedform diversity creating habitat
transitions like references
Pool-to-Pool Spacing
Depth Variability
Bed Material
Characterization
Bed Material
Composition Relative to
Reference
Physicochemical Function
Water Quality Vegetative Buffer and
Bank Stability
Establish vegetative buffer to decrease sediment erosion from
overbank areas and from incoming surface flow from outside of the
conservation easement. The buffer also will reduce runoff velocities,
decreasing potential to erode channel banks. Regrading and planting
channel banks (where applicable) will reduce the potential for bank
erosion and further reduce sediment loading.
Water Temperature Establish Riparian
Buffer
Establish riparian buffer along headwater systems, as well as
ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams within the
conservation easement. Narrowing low flow when channel is
overwide will further reduce temperature.
Nutrients
In-Stream Riffle
Structures
Reestablish appropriate channel dimensions and pool-to-pool
spacing to restore groundwater to surface water exchange in the
channel banks and revitalize hyporheic zones where micro bacteria
breakdown and consume complex nutrients from fertilizers, like
nitrates into atmospheric Nitrogen.
Profile and Bankfull
Dimensions
Biological Function
Aquatic organism
communities
Aquatic Habitat Revitalize riparian buffer conditions, install instream structures for
stability and habitat (brush and roll rifles, brush toe, log vanes, and
log cross vanes), and raise channel bed to reconnect flow to the
floodplain and enhance hyporheic activity. The installation of riffle
structures provides areas for aquatic habitat, as well as areas for
turbulence that oxygenates water.
Wetland Habitat
Groundwater and
Surface Water
Connectivity
19 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

5.0 MITIGATION PLAN
5.1 REFERENCE SITE AND DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design of the proposed restoration and enhancement reaches within the B56 Site were based on multiple
considerations and sources of design parameters. The following were used for the stream and wetland
design:
· Four reference stream sites located within the Carolina Flatwoods level-IV ecoregion
· On-site relic channels (56B, UT1-Reach 5) and relic wetland systems
· Multiple coastal plain regional curves and accompanying data
· Current USACE and NCDMS guidelines/design parameters
Searches were conducted upstream/downstream of the Site and into surrounding watersheds to find
suitable references that contained similarities to the Site streams including level IV physiographic
ecoregion, drainage area, valley slope, and morphology. No reference reaches were identified
immediately upstream or downstream of the site or in the surrounding watershed. Four reference reaches
from multiple reference databases (NCDOT and Sweet/Geratz) were selected outside of the watershed
but within the Carolina Flatwoods level-IV physiographic eco-region. The reference reaches were
selected to represent the probable configurations for the proposed streams. The data shown in Table 6
helped to provide a basis for evaluating the project site and determining the stream systems that may
have been present historically and/or how they may have been influenced by changes within the
watershed. A description of each reference reach is included below. Geomorphic parameters for these
reference reaches are summarized in Appendix D.
Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can be used to inform
design of stable channels of similar stream types in similar landscapes and watersheds. While reference
reach data can be a useful aid in designing channel dimension, pattern, and profile, there are limitations
in smaller stream systems. The flow patterns and channel formation for most reference reach quality
streams is often controlled by slope, drainage areas, groundwater inputs and larger trees and/or other
deep-rooted vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters, such as radius of curvature, are
particularly affected by vegetation control. Pattern ratios observed in reference reaches may not be
applicable or are often adjusted in the design criteria to create designs that are less likely to erode after
construction, before the permanent vegetation is established.
REFERENCE STREAM REACHES
Beaverdam Branch
The Beaverdam Branch reference reach is located approximately 1,000 ft downstream of SR 1119
outside Trenton, NC in Jones County. Beaverdam Branch is classified as a Rosgen E5 stream type. The
stream flows through a wide wooded swamp floodplain with a valley slope of 0.1%-0.4% and sinuosity of
1.9. Most of floodplain would be considered wetland with numerous seeps and side tributaries. The 3.0
square mile watershed is mostly agricultural (70.4% cultivated) with the remainder being bottomland
forest/hardwood swamps, shrublands, mixed upland hardwoods, and some single-family residences.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
20

Black Branch
Black Branch is in Craven county just north-west of New Bern off SR 1101, within Croatan National
Forest. This site was classified as a blackwater E stream type and has a drainage area of 1.2 square
miles. The reach has a valley slope of 0.6% and channel slope of 0.4% giving it a sinuosity of 1.7. The
stream maintains an entrenchment ratio of 15-25. The watershed of the reference reach lies almost
entirely within the National Forest boundaries made up of predominantly silviculture southern yellow pine
with some bottomland forest, mixed upland hardwoods, and mixed shrubland.
Tributary to Town Creek
The unnamed tributary (UT) to Town Creek is located north of SR 1413 (Town Creek Rd NE) near
Belville, NC in Brunswick county. The stream was classified as a blackwater E stream type with a
drainage area of 0.6 square miles. This reach flows through a semi mature bottomland forest and has an
average valley slope of 0.72% and an average channel slope of 0.35%. The channel has a width-to-depth
ratio of 8.9, an entrenchment ratio of over 20, and a sinuosity of 2.0. The watershed for this reference
reach is mostly used for cultivated silviculture with some forested land and shrubland.
Tributary to Hunters Creek
The UT to Hunters Creek is in Jones County, south of Great Lake Road, Croatan National Forest. The
drainage area is 0.7 square miles and the land use within the drainage area is comprised of cultivated
silviculture, semi mature-mature bottomland forest/hardwood swamps, shrublands, and mixed upland
hardwoods. The UT to Hunters Creek reference site was classified as a C6 stream type with a sinuosity of
1.5. The channel has a width to depth ratio of 19 and an entrenchment ratio of 16. The reach has a valley
slope of 0.4% while the channel slope is 0.2%.
HYBRID ECOREGION-SPECIFIC REGIONAL CURVE
The published Rural NC Coastal Plain regional curve (Doll, et al., 2003) along with an additional NC
Coastal Plain regional curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) was used to check hydraulic geometry based on
drainage area using regional relationships. A hybrid level IV ecoregion-specific curve was developed for
the Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion using data from the two published regional curves and supplementary
data from Kimley-Horn’s internal reference reach database. Analytical review of applicable streams from
multiple stream reference databases and developing a hybrid regional curve, provided the most pertinent
background information to determine the appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and
overall site functional uplift potential. Additionally, reference parameters from Kimley-Horn’s internal
database based on successful past projects were consulted and analyzed. Appendix D illustrates the NC
Coastal Plain curves along with other data used for these analyses.
HEADWATER REFERENCE
In addition to design criteria reference data (mentioned above), design and placement of the headwater
restoration reach systems required consideration of the valley slope, contributing drainage area, ground
water inputs, curvature, soils, precipitation and Ecoregion. Research provided in “Mapping Headwater
Streams: Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Stream Model Development and Spatial Application” by
Russell (2008) shows that contributing drainage area is the usually the dominating factor in predicting
intermittent and perennial stream points of origin. For the Coastal Plain it was found that the mean
21 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

contributing drainage area at the point of origin of intermittent streams is about 40 acres. For perennial
streams that value is about 100 acres.
Table 6 – Distribution of Intermittent and Perennial Origin Contributing Drainage Area (acre)
Carolina Slate
Belt-A
Carolina Slate
Belt-B
Eastern Blue
Ridge Foothills
Northern Outer
Piedmont
Rolling Coastal
Plain Triassic Basin
int per int per int per int per int per int per
Min 0.20 0.72 0.05 2.04 0.23 0.24 1.55 2.54 0.16 7.16 0.10 0.13
10% 1.47 7.53 0.77 2.39 2.17 1.02 1.80 4.07 7.52 10.76 1.24 1.89
25% 2.85 11.58 4.89 9.52 3.72 2.91 4.48 10.05 11.15 28.82 1.95 3.27
50% 7.36 15.99 23.80 37.50 4.60 4.98 8.82 16.18 25.67 84.00 3.70 6.85
Mean 11.20 23.74 50.86 60.85 5.16 5.27 12.72 20.52 40.66 95.59 5.11 10.40
75% 14.47 35.40 69.96 68.16 6.34 7.04 15.06 27.11 55.15 122.00 7.16 15.79
90% 27.39 43.33 142.41 187.26 8.16 9.81 22.99 41.31 101.33 217.34 11.87 27.80
Max 74.63 107.00 322.27 328.28 14.60 15.85 115.95 64.81 173.65 343.66 16.51 32.49
(Russell, 2008)
REFERENCE SITE WETLANDS
Wetland enhancement and restoration adjacent to the headwater systems will be based on hydrology
restored through the process of restoring headwater stream systems and implementing Priority 1 stream
restoration. Relic wetlands within the headwater systems are primarily impacted by extensive ditching
through the middle of the valley, which has drained the systems. The relic hydric soils and valley features
are already in place. The system uplift will be based on the headwater channel and Priority 1 channel design
which will raise the groundwater table. Any wetland enhancement or restoration that results from the stream
restoration work will be monitored and tracked. On-site reference wetland systems (preservation area -
upper 56B) in similar landscape positions (i.e., headwater or riparian) and mapped soils will provide design
and monitoring success criteria for hydrology and vegetative community reference (see Figure 5 for hydric
soils and Figure 10 for monitoring locations).
DESIGN PARAMETER DEVELOPMENT
Design parameters were first based on the existing valley shape and slope, on-site relic stream systems,
the reference stream dimensionless parameters, and finally checked and confirmed using multiple
regional curves for North Carolina’s Coastal Plain region. Appendix D outlines these developed
parameters.

The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
22

5.2 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
STREAM MITIGATION WORK PLAN
The B56 Site is separated into three distinct sections—56A, 56B, and 56C. A summary of the mitigation
approach and lengths for each reach is provided in the table below.
Table 7 – Stream Mitigation Approach Summary
Site Reach Mitigation Approach Existing Length (ft.) Proposed Length (ft.)
Beaufort 56A
UT1 - R1 Headwater 2,265 2,265
UT1 - R2 Restoration 2,953 3,233
UT1 - R3 Restoration 467 530
UT2 Headwater 711 655
UT3 Headwater 788 897
Beaufort 56B
UT1 - R1 Headwater 774 774
UT1 - R2 Restoration 2,208 2,477
UT1 - R3 Preservation 1,341 1,297
UT1 - R4 Enhancement I 1,874 1,874
UT1 - R5 Restoration 1,250 1,250
UT2 Preservation 1,684 1,684
Beaufort 56C
UT1 - R1 Headwater 1,730 1,730
UT1 - R2 Preservation 1,000 1,000
UT2 Headwater 892 892

Overall Stream Channel Mitigation Approach Description
All three systems within the B56 Site historically have been extensively ditched, which has altered the
wetland and stream systems that used to be located within the headwater valleys of systems A, B, and C.
The overall approach to all three systems is to reverse the damage created through ditching. More
detailed and reach-specific approaches are outlined below for restoration, enhancement, and
preservation reaches, but the overall goal of these approaches is to reconnect the channel flow with its
adjacent riparian floodplain and wetlands and restore native vegetation communities to restore lost
functions of the system.
The design process began with a thorough analysis of existing and historic conditions and functions
within the catchment area for each reach and analysis of hydrologic, hydraulic, and geomorphic functional
impairments within each reach, wetland, and floodplain. From this data, reference systems (e.g., streams,
headwaters, wetlands, and riparian buffers) were selected that represented a stable, healthy system that
manages the same or similar baseline conditions. Through a comparison of existing conditions and relic
performance, as well as historic conditions, major areas of concern and potential uplift were identified.
The concerns include, but are not limited to, bank instability, disconnection from the natural floodplain due
to significant ditching, incision, over-widening of existing channels, and wetland and floodplain drainage.
Site analysis also identified a significant loss of in-stream and riparian wetland habitat (including sources
of shade, woody detritus, and large woody debris for future habitat development).
23 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

These issues will be addressed with a watershed-based approach. Starting at the top of the watershed,
we will fill in the ditches within the valley reaches that show potential for headwater system restoration.
Downstream of these headwater systems, a Priority 1 approach will be used on systems A and B to
continue a reconnection of the stream hydrology to the adjacent floodplain through the valley; thus,
raising the water table. This is a valley restoration approach that will benefit adjacent wetland areas and
the channel instead of only providing uplift to the channel itself. In addition to raising the invert of the
channel back to its historic elevation, the channel will be returned to its original location along the lower
portion of its valley and appropriate pattern and bedform diversity (profile) will be restored.
Headwater Restoration Approach Description
The on-site headwater systems have been ditched to accelerate drainage, damaging the hydrological and
ecological functions of these systems. When functioning properly, with gradual progression from linear
wetland systems to channelized stream-wetland system, headwaters offer a vital ecological resource and
mitigate against nonpoint source pollution from the contributing watershed, as well as critical habitat for
aquatic and terrestrial species. Species diversity and frequency benefit from enhanced habitat in the
headwater and buffer areas along the entire B56 Site. As such, special focus has been given to addressing
major deficiencies in on-site headwater resources and the transitions from upland to headwater and
headwater to stream-wetland-floodplain.
Reaches UT1 - Headwaters, UT2, and UT3 within the 56A system; reach UT1 - Upper in the 56B system;
and reaches UT1 - Reach 1 and UT2 in the 56C system, each represent headwater mitigation and aim to
remove ditching and enhance riparian/wetland vegetation for a buffering mechanism. They also aim to
provide stabilized flow pathways for overland flow that will reduce sediment contributions from off-site
runoff and dissipate energy from potential sources of concentrated flow. Where relevant, new planted
vegetation will be selected based on its uplift potential for stability and erosion reduction, as well as its
functional value as wetland wildlife habitat. Headwater restoration is proposed to begin on each reach
where the cumulative drainage area becomes 40 ac. Research has documented that 40 acres is the
average watershed size in the coastal plain region that can support the formation of an intermittent
channel. (Russell, 2008) The headwater restoration will continue until the watershed size reaches 100
acres, at which point the work will transition to traditional priority I stream restoration.
In general, the headwater restoration approach applied to the reaches listed above will include the
following:
· Fill the existing ditch (use adjacent spoil piles from original ditching activity).
· Fill lateral ditches that tie-in to the existing centerline ditch (using adjacent spoil pile material).
· Ensure appropriate organic topsoil exists (site investigations confirmed plenty of organic topsoil
material on-site).
· Rip and disk the freshly placed soil and areas of construction to ensure soil is not compacted.
· Reestablish natural overland flow patterns within the adjacent buffers by removing berms and
planted rows and disrupting the drainage effect of ditches within the buffer.
· Restore natural topography in the wetland-floodplain, including minor depression and small
mounds that promote diversity of hydrologic conditions and habitats.
· Restore or enhance site hydrology by promoting surface water storage, increasing surface
ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing a higher water table across
the valley.
· Plant appropriate headwater system woody and herbaceous vegetation.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
24

· Install woody debris structures to provide immediate stabilization to the freshly filled portions of
the ditch footprint (e.g., log sills or brush mattresses).
· Install coir fiber matting (as necessary) in some locations where concentrated flow is anticipated.
Plant native vegetation within all restored areas as the contractor works their way out of the headwater
restoration area and down to the lower stream restoration reaches
Stream Restoration Approach Description
Priority 1 restoration is proposed for UT1 - Reaches 2 and 3 of system 56A and UT1-Reaches 1 and 5 of
system 56B. Restoration activities aim to reconnect flow to the floodplain and provide stable, natural
bankfull dimensions, pattern, and profile. These goals are accomplished by filling the existing ditched,
incised, and eroding channel and redirecting flow into a newly constructed natural channel that has been
sized and aligned based on the following:
· Relic stream location
· Valley topography/centerline location
· Consideration of dimensionless ratios from reference reach conditions
· Regional curve data
The following specific improvements are incorporated into the restoration reaches on the Site:
· Dimension—The channel will be reconnected to its historic valley and floodplain by raising the
stream back up from its incised/ditched condition and the channel will have an appropriate
bankfull depth. This will restore the groundwater depths in areas directly adjacent to the channel
and will allow for more frequent floodplain access for storm flows.
· Pattern—The channel will be returned to its historic location within its valley as opposed to its
current straight/ditched location. Within the confines and boundary of its historic valley center, the
channel’s pattern will be returned based on on-site relic channel patterns, reference reach
dimensionless ratios, and regional curve data.
· Profile—With a restored dimension and pattern, the profile also will be designed to incorporate
bedform diversity with well-defined pools and shallow riffle reaches. In-stream structures will be
installed to provide scour for pools and initial grade control until the new riparian vegetation has
time to establish the root system necessary to hold the restored system in place. In addition,
woody structures—such as the proposed brush and roll riffles and toe-wood—will provide
immediate habitat and stabilization for the newly constructed channel.
· Riparian Buffer—Beyond restoring the natural channel, the stream restoration approach also
reestablishes a native riparian buffer protected with a permanent conservation easement that
provides uplift to site hydrology, channel stability, and availability of natural habitat.
· Flow Patterns—Within the adjacent buffers, natural overland flow patterns will be reestablished
by removing berms, planted rows, etc. and disrupting the drainage effect of ditches within the
buffer.
· Natural Topography—Natural topography in the floodplains, including minor depression and
mounds that promote diversity of hydrologic conditions and habitats, will be restored.
· Site Hydrology—Site hydrology will be restored or enhanced by promoting surface water storage,
increasing surface ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing a higher
water table across the floodplain and wetlands.
25 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

Stream Enhancement Approach Description
Reach 4, along the Beaufort 56B section of the site, is the only enhancement reach proposed as part of
the Site. The enhancement approach aims to provide uplift to existing conditions by modifying existing
banks, buffer conditions, and altering drainage hydrology. Enhancement Level 1 stream system
improvements include the following:
· Removing berms and spoil piles adjacent to the existing channel to improve overbank flooding
frequency.
· Stabilizing the outer meander where BEHI or NBS is high or very high by installing log vanes,
grading, and installation of coir fiber matting, and bio-engineering (i.e., live stakes and seeding).
· Uplift to the profile of the system through the installation of log cross vanes and brush and roll
ripples.
· Establishing a 150-foot-wide riparian buffer along the left side of the channel and converting
existing vegetation from young pine to a hardwood buffer.
· Locations of concentrated flow from surrounding land uses will be addressed through the
installation of vernal pools or pocket wetlands to slow the water down as it enters the riparian
buffer.
· Re-establish natural overland flow patterns within the adjacent buffers by removing berms,
planted rows, etc. and by disrupting drainage effect of ditches and berms from the buffer
Mitigation Approach for Individual Reaches
Mitigation approaches for each reach in the B56 Site have been outlined below. Table 7 provides an
overview of the suggested mitigation activities that will be employed to achieve the targeted objectives
within each reach.
Beaufort 56A
UT1 – Reach 1
Headwater Restoration – Mitigation activities will aim to restore headwater stream-wetland-floodplain
system functionality by filling in the existing ditched channel and restoring appropriate grade, hydrology,
and vegetative communities. Existing buffer hardwoods will be preserved and will continue to provide a
stabilized flow path for restored stream and riparian wetlands, and a 100 ft buffer will be added to each
side of the valley centerline to protect the restored system and regulate incoming surface flow from
outside the conservation easement.
UT1 - Reach 2 and 3
Priority 1 Restoration – Mitigation activities include raising and re-meandering the channel with
appropriate dimensions to reconnect hydrology with the floodplain and restore/enhance riparian wetlands
adjacent to the stream. Within the channel, in-stream structures will be installed, including log cross
vanes, toe wood, and other woody debris to protect restored banks, maintain channel grade in riffles, and
enhance natural habitat within the restored profile. A 150 ft buffer will be added on either side of the
stream valley.

The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
26

UT2
Headwater Restoration – Mitigation activities will restore headwater stream systems by filling in existing
ditched channel and restoring gradual grade and hydrology. Existing trees and roots will be supplemented
by tree, shrub, and herbaceous plantings to provide a stabilized flow path for the restored system, and a
100 ft buffer will be planted on either side of the valley.
UT3
Headwater Restoration - Mitigation activities will restore headwater stream systems by filling in existing
ditched channel and restoring gradual grade and hydrology. Existing trees and roots will be supplemented
by tree, shrub, and herbaceous plantings to provide a stabilized flow path for the restored system, and a
100 ft buffer will be planted on either side of the valley.
Beaufort 56B
UT1 - Reach 1
Headwater Restoration – Mitigation activities will restore headwater stream systems by filling in existing
ditched channel and restoring gradual grade and hydrology. Existing trees and roots will be supplemented
by tree, shrub, and herbaceous plantings to provide a stabilized flow path for the restored system, and a
100 ft buffer will be planted on either side of the valley.
UT1 – Reach 2
Priority 1 Restoration – Mitigation activities include raising and re-meandering the channel with
appropriate dimensions to reconnect hydrology with the floodplain and restore/enhance riparian wetlands
adjacent to the stream. Within the channel, in-stream structures will be installed, including log vanes, toe
wood, and other woody debris to protect restored banks, maintain channel grade in riffles, and enhance
natural habitat within the restored profile. A 150 ft buffer will be added on either side of the stream valley.
UT1 – Reach 3
Preservation – This reach will be preserved by maintaining a 50 ft buffer on either side of the valley and
establishing a permanent conservation easement to protect the natural channel.
UT1 – Reach 4
Level 1 Enhancement – Mitigation activities include enhancing the channel by removing spoil piles along
the left bank and establishing a buffer (100 ft on the right bank, 50 ft on the left bank) to reduce surface
erosion and dissipate overland concentrated flow. Additionally, pocket wetlands will be established along
the buffer in areas where concentrated flow from offsite enters the conservation easement.
UT1 - Reach 5
Priority 1 Restoration – Mitigation activities include blocking the existing roadside canal that diverts flow,
and restoring baseflow and hydrology to the relic channel and valley. A conservation easement will be
placed along the existing buffer (150 ft average along both sides of the valley).
UT2
27 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

Preservation – This reach will be preserved by maintaining a 100 ft buffer on either side of the valley and
establishing a permanent conservation easement to protect the natural channel.
Beaufort 56C
UT1 - Reach 1
Headwater Restoration – Mitigation activities will restore headwater stream systems by filling in existing
ditched channel and restoring gradual grade and hydrology. Existing trees and roots will be supplemented
by tree, shrub, and herbaceous plantings to provide a stabilized flow path for the restored system, and a
100 ft buffer will be planted on either side of the valley.
UT1 - Reach 2
Preservation - This reach will be preserved by maintaining a 50 ft buffer on either side of the valley and
establishing a permanent conservation easement to protect the natural channel.
UT2
Headwater Restoration – Mitigation activities will restore headwater stream systems by filling in existing
ditched channel and restoring gradual grade and hydrology. Existing trees and roots will be supplemented
by tree, shrub, and herbaceous plantings to provide a stabilized flow path for the restored system, and a
100 ft buffer will be planted on either side of the valley.
WETLAND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
Through restoration of the headwater stream systems and Priority 1 restoration of the downstream
systems, riparian and headwater wetlands will be enhanced and restored throughout systems A, B and C.
No wetland credits are being proposed for wetland enhancement or restoration along the Priority 1 stream
restoration reaches, rather the extra wide buffers (150 feet to each side of channel) will be used for an
increase in stream credits where applicable. Based on topography/LIDAR and presence of hydric soils,
there are wetlands that are anticipated to be restored through filling of the ditches and restoration of the
headwater systems (hydrology and vegetation). These areas will be monitored after restoration to
determine the extent of restoration achieved. A summary of the mitigation approach and areas for each
system is provided in the table below.
Table 8 – Wetland Mitigation Approach Summary
System Adjacent to
Reach
Mitigation
Approach
Mitigation Area
(ac.)
56A UT1 - R1,
UT2, and UT3 Restoration 7.57
56B UT1 - R1 Restoration 0.59
56B UT1 - R1 Enhancement 3.90
56B UT1 - R1 Preservation 10.9
56B UT2 Preservation 5.79
56C UT1 – R1 and
UT2 Restoration 5.77

The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
28

Wetland Restoration Approach Description
Wetland restoration and enhancement activities aim to uplift site hydrology, surface and subsurface
hydrologic connectivity, vegetation diversity/density/composition/vigor, and to provide improvements that
benefit downstream waters. On site wetlands will be restored as part of the headwater stream restoration
activities and by converting vegetation from pine plantation to bottomland hardwood forest species. These
new plantings will provide flow velocity control, soil stability, habitat, and additional essential ecosystem
functions that will provide essential, permanent habitat for local fauna in areas where loblolly pine
timbering makes habitat variable and less diverse.
Included below is a bulleted list of the proposed activities to be completed to accomplish wetland
restoration and wetland enhancement on the site. There are no differences between the restoration and
enhancement approaches, both will include improvements in hydrology and vegetation. For tracking
potential credits wetland enhancement is designated within areas that have already been delineated as
existing jurisdictional wetlands, and wetland restoration is designated within low lying areas adjacent to
the stream channel that have hydric soils and appear to be drained relic wetland systems. Activities to
restore and enhance these wetland systems include:
· Fill existing ditch as part of the headwater stream restoration approach
· Fill any lateral ditches that currently drain the wetland restoration areas to the primary ditch
· Remove berms and spoil piles that exist along ditches
· Remove pine planting rows within the wetland restoration and enhancement areas (as applicable)
because they adversely affect drainage
· Disk the disturbed areas prior to planting.
· Re-establish native wetland vegetation within areas currently in pine production and within
disturbed areas
· Monitor the restored or enhanced wetland areas for invasive species and treat as necessary to
comply with the success criteria outlined in this document

VEGETATION AND PLANTING PLAN
Planting within the conservation easement has been separated into three zones to reflect differences in
purpose and location, as well as differences in vegetation. Zone 1 is located along the stream bank and
serves to provide bank stability and in-stream habitat along the channel. Zone 2 makes up the upland
riparian buffer of each reach, providing a wide range of benefits including physicochemical and
hydrological uplift to the channel as well as overbank habitat and erosion prevention. Zone 3 includes
wetland plantings within the riparian buffer. Buffer widths for either side of each reach are provided in
Table 9. The plant species proposed for zones 1 and 3 were selected based on reference vegetative
conditions and various resources providing guidance on healthy North Carolina Coastal Plain bottomland
hardwood communities. Planting ratios were identified based on relevant guidance to restore natural
bottomland hardwood conditions that were impacted historically by land use and site manipulations. Tree
seedlings will be planted at a density of 500 stems per acre. There is a total of 63 acres to be planted at
this Site, which will require 31,500 seedlings.
Due to the differences in hydrologic purpose and ecological benefit, different planting profiles are
proposed for Headwater and stream mitigation areas. Typical planting sections are provided in the project
plan set, Appendix F, sheet 37.
29 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

Table 9 – Proposed Buffer Widths
Site Reach Proposed
Length
Left Buffer
width (ft)
Right Buffer
width (ft)
Beaufort 56A
UT1 - R1 2,265 100 100
UT1 - R2 3,233 150 150
UT1 - R3 530 150 150
UT2 655 100 100
UT3 897 100 100
Beaufort 56B
UT1 - R1 774 150 150
UT1 - R2 2,477 150 150
UT1 - R3 1,297 50 50
UT1 - R4 1,874 50 100
UT1 - R5 1,250 150 150
UT2 1,684 100 100
Beaufort 56C
UT1 - R1 1,730 100 100
UT1 - R2 1,000 50 50
UT2 892 100 100
Zone 1 – Stream Bank
Channel stability and geomorphology are dependent in large part on the health and strength of stream bank
vegetation. As such, live stakes selected for Zone 1 have been identified for their rapid growth rate and
high success rates in channel bank conditions. Long term, stream bank vegetative conditions will evolve
through natural secondary succession, eventually transitioning to shade tolerant hardwoods like the riparian
buffer conditions. The table below provides Zone 1 species for live stake planting within these buffer areas.
Table 10 – Zone 1 Planting Summary
Stream Bank Live Stake Planting
Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator
Status
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum) FACW
Black Willow (Salix nigra) OBL
Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) FACW
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) OBL
Zones 2 and 3 – Riparian Upland and Wetland
Riparian wetland conditions suffer in absence of a stable vegetative stream buffer. Table 9 outlines
proposed buffer widths along either side of each reach. Tables below provide Zone 2 and 3 species for
planting within these buffer areas. Based on wetland conditions, different vegetation has been identified.
The wetland delineation for each site is shown in Figure 7.

The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
30

Table 11 – Zone 2 Planting Summary
Upland Zone Planting
Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator
Status Percent Planted
Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) FACW 20%
American Sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) FACW 20%
Green Ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica) FACW 20%
Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) FACW 20%
Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) FAC 20%

Table 12 – Zone 3 Planting Summary
Wetland Zone Planting
Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator
Status
Percent
Planted
Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum) OBL 18%
Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora) OBL 16%
Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatic) OBL 16%
Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) FACW 18%
American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) FACW 16%
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) FACW 16%

31 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

6.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
6.1 STREAM MITIGATION CREDIT CALCULATIONS
Proposed stream mitigation ratios and credits are included in the table below. These credits are based on
the lengths and approaches as included in the draft Mitigation Plan Sheets as of September 6th, 2018.
These numbers are subject to change based on the final design plan drawings that will be produced for
construction and based on the actual constructed project and as-built survey.
Table 13 – Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits
System Reach Mitigation
Approach
Existing
Length (ft.)
Proposed
Length (ft.)
Stream Credit
Ratio SMU’s
56A
UT1 - R1 Headwater 2,265 2,265 1:1 2,265
UT1 - R2 Restoration 3,024 3,233 1:1 3,233
UT1 - R3 Restoration 467 530 1:1 530
UT2 Headwater 711 655 1:1 655
UT3 Headwater 788 897 1:1 897
56B
UT1 - R1 Headwater 774 774 1:1 774
UT1 - R2 Restoration 2,208 2,477 1:1 2,477
UT1 - R3 Preservation 1,341 1,297 10:1 130
UT1 - R4 Enhancement I 1,874 1,874 1.5:1 1,249
UT1 - R5 Restoration 1,250 1,250 1:1 1,250
UT2 Preservation 1,684 1,684 10:1 168
56C
UT1 - R1 Headwater 1,730 1,730 1:1 1,730
UT1 - R2 Preservation 1,000 1,000 10:1 100
UT2 Headwater 892 892 1:1 892
SUB-TOTAL STREAM CREDITS 16,350
BUFFER ADJUSTMENT TO STREAM CREDITS (SEE “WILMINGTON DISTRICT STREAM BUFFER CREDIT
CALCULATOR” WORKSHEETS IN APPENDIX E) 1,115
TOTAL STREAM CREDITS (SMU’s) 17,465
6.2 WETLAND MITIGATION CREDIT CALCULATIONS
Proposed wetland mitigation ratios and credits are included in the table below. These credits are based
on the delineated areas and restoration approaches as included in the draft Mitigation Plan Sheets as of
September 6th, 2018. These values are subject to change based on the final design plan drawings that
will be produced for construction and based on the actual constructed project and as-built survey.
Table 14 – Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits
System Adjacent to
Reach
Mitigation
Approach
Mitigation
Area (ac.)
Wetland
Mitigation Ratio WMU’s
56A UT1 - R1, UT2,
and UT3 Restoration 7.57 1:1 7.57
56B
UT1 - R1 Restoration 0.59 1:1 0.59
UT1 - R1 Enhancement 3.90 3:1 1.30
UT1 - R1 Preservation 10.9 10:1 1.09
UT2 Preservation 5.79 10:1 0.58
56C UT1 – R1 and UT2 Restoration 5.77 1:1 5.77
TOTAL WETLAND CREDITS (WMU’s) 16.90
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
32

7.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
The credit release schedules shown in the tables below for stream and wetland milestones have been
produced in accordance with guidance provided by the Wilmington USACE:
Table 15 – Credit Release Schedule – Streams
Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Streams
Credit Release
Milestone Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Site Establishment 15% 15%
2 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan 15% 30%
3 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 10% 40%
4 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 10% 50%
5 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 10% 60%
6 Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 5% 65%
7 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 10% 75%
8 Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 5% 80%
9 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
performance standards have been met 10% 90%
NOTE: 10% reserve credits will be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.

Table 16 – Credit Release Schedule – Wetlands
Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Forested Wetland
Credit Release
Milestone Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Site Establishment 15% 15%
2 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan 15% 30%
3 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 10% 40%
4 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 10% 50%
5 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 15% 65%
6 Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 5% 70%
7 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 15% 85%
8 Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 5% 90%
9 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that performance standards
have been met 10% 100%
33 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

8.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Site will be monitored based on the performance standards and monitoring requirements provided
below. Annual monitoring reports will be provided using the IRT monitoring template for the duration of
the 7-year monitoring window. The monitoring plan is outlined in Figure 10.
8.1 STREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Vegetative Monitoring
Vegetative monitoring will be conducted per the October 24, 2016 “Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update” (“NCIRT guidance”) with the exception that the sites are
relatively small and the sponsor will increase the percent monitored to obtain an accurate measurement
of survival, species variability, and trees per acre. 5% of the total planted portion of the site will be
monitored with vegetation plots. The NCIRT guidance states that this area requirement can be adjusted
on a case by case basis for these types of sites. A combination of fixed (50%) and random (50%) 0.05 Ac
plots will cover 5% of the planted area on site. Planted area acreage was determined based on
anticipated supplemental planting to expand existing hardwood areas and replace absent buffers. Tree
seedlings will be planted at a density of 500 stems per acre. Planted acreages and monitoring plot counts
are provided in the table below. Locations are shown in Figure 10.
Table 17 – Vegetative Monitoring Plots
Site Planted Area Number of Tree
Seedlings to be Planted
Vegetative Monitoring Plots
Permanent Random
Beaufort 56A 23 Ac 11,500 12 11
Beaufort 56B 20 Ac 10,000 10 10
Beaufort 56C 10 Ac 5,000 5 5
Headwater Stream Monitoring
Headwater monitoring will be conducted every year for 7 years. Surface flow will be documented using
gauges or photo(s) (i.e. time lapse/game cameras) and will be monitored in accordance with the 2016
guidance.
Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology Monitoring
Channel stability and hydrology monitoring will be conducted, per the 2016 guidance. Due to the narrow
width of the channels in the B56 Site, the Bank Sponsor will place two cross sections per 1000 feet of
stream. Crest gauges will be installed to monitor channel hydrology and will be capable of monitoring
frequency and duration of overbank events.
Visual Monitoring
Monitoring will be conducted with a walkthrough of the entire project area, looking to identify areas of low
stem density, poor plant vigor, prolonged inundation, native and exotic invasive species, beaver activity,
herbivory, encroachments, indicators of livestock access, or other areas of concern. Results of both
monitoring walkthroughs each year will be reported in the annual monitoring report, where-in
recommended courses of action shall be identified where necessary. Any areas of concern will be
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
34

reevaluated on all subsequent visual assessments. Monitoring in preservation areas will be conducted
only for ensuring no activities are occurring that are in violation of the restrictions included in the
preservation mechanism.
8.2 WETLAND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
MONITORING HYDROLOGY AND REPORTING HYDROLOGIC DATA
Monitoring of areas of wetland restoration and enhancement hydrology will be conducted per the 2016
guidance. Installation of groundwater equipment will be in accordance with techniques and standards
described in the USACE Technical Standard for Water Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites. Wells
will be installed in wetland mitigation areas along Beaufort 56B, and the location of these wells is shown
in Figure 10. Hydrologic success of wetlands will be determined based on published guidance (IRT 2016)
or through comparison to measured reference condition.
8.3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
VEGETATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Success will be identified based on interim stem density criteria provided in the 2016 NCIRT guidance:
· Survival of at least 320 stems per acre at the end of year 3, 260 stems per acre by the end of
year 5, and 210 stems per acre at the end of year 7.
· Per IRT guidance, coastal plain projects must maintain vegetation that averages 7 feet in height
at year 5 and 10 feet in height at year seven.
· No one species may comprise more than 50% of the total composition within any plot at year 3, 5,
or 7.
STREAM CHANNEL STABILITY AND STREAM HYDROLOGY PERFO RMANCE
STANDARDS
Stream Channel Flow
All channels shall receive sufficient flow throughout the monitoring period to maintain an ordinary high-
water mark. Continuous surface flow within tributaries must be documented to occur every year for at
least 30 consecutive days during the prescribed monitoring period, per the 2016 NCIRT guidance.
Channel Stability
Bank Height Ratios and Entrenchment Ratios shall meet minimum/maximum requirements as provided in
the 2016 NCIRT guidance, and not differ by more than 10% from baseline conditions. Bank Height Ratios
shall not exceed 1.2. Entrenchment Ratios shall not be less than 2.2.
Bankfull Events
The project shall remain stable during 4 separate bankfull events occurring in separate years during
monitoring years 1 through 7.
35 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

Headwater Stream Flow Performance Standards
Success will be based on the standards outlined in the 2016 NCIRT guidance for Headwater Stream
Performance Standards with the exception that continuous surface water flow must be documented to
occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days for monitoring years 4 through 7. The extensive ditch
drainage system that will be filled during restoration activities will require a large amount of material to be
moved and placed in the existing ditches. To reduce disturbance within the headwater system existing
spoil material from on-site will be used to fill the ditches and some small portions of the ditches will be
graded to act as vernal pools. It will take a few seasons for an appropriate number of fines to wash into
the system naturally to fill the voids of the newly placed material therefore sealing it up. During years 1
through 3 these fines will work their way into the system and return baseflow to the flow path of the
headwater valley system. Visual identification of natural channel formation indicators will be performed in
accordance with the schedule provided in the 2016 NCIRT monitoring guidance will.
8.4 EARLY CLOSURE PROVISION
If at year 5 the site has demonstrated through monitoring that mitigation activities have been successful
without concerns identified, the Sponsor may propose to terminate monitoring of the site and forego
monitoring requirements of year 6 and 7.
8.5 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.
8.6 POST-CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION
An as-built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel condition and provide
baseline data for comparison to future monitoring reports. Information included in the as-built will be in
accordance with USACE guidance and has been identified in the monitoring requirements and
performance standards sections.
Monitoring reports will be provided to the Wilmington District USACE for review no later than April 1st of
the year following the monitoring activity.
8.7 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Land use and property boundaries along with the proposed mitigation plan were designed to minimize
long-term management conflicts. As a result, the potential for hydrologic and boundary conflicts have
been minimized. The Sponsor has identified Unique Places to Save (a 501 (c)(3) entity) as the grantee of
the conservation easement deed. The Bank Sponsor will serve as long-term steward of the site. The
recorded conservation easement deed will ensure the protection of the project in perpetuity. The site-
protection instrument is provided in Appendix I.
8.8 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
In accordance to Section IX (Financial Assurances) found in the Middle Neuse UMBI, the Bank Sponsor
shall provide financial assurances in the form of a Performance Bond to the IRT sufficient to assure
completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work required.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
36

Financial assurances shall be payable at the direction of the USACE to its designee or to a standby trust.
Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank
Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the USACE
receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
The amount of the Performance Bond shall be based on costs to implement the Site through monitoring.
The Performance Bond shall be in place prior to the first credit release. Since the Bank Sponsor is
developing six other mitigation sites simultaneously with this Site, the Bank Sponsor is proposing the use
of one Performance Bond to cover all seven mitigation sites. Thus, the costs that are detailed in the table
below include the construction and monitoring costs for all seven mitigation sites.
Table 18 – Estimated Amount Required for Performance Bond
Activity Cost
Site Prep Mechanical Rip $5,854.73
Site Prep Disking (to remove any remaining planting beds) $8,131.57
Site Prep Chemical Application (If needed) $5,529.47
Site Prep Prescribed Burn (if needed) $2,276.84
Planting Labor and Seedlings (bottomland hardwood restoration and
enhancement areas) $76,255.00
Stream Construction Work (in-stream and riparian buffer work) $2,948,651.06
As-built Report $133,440.00
Annual Monitoring $1,232,323.43
Total Estimated Amount of Performance Bond $4,412,462.10
The USACE will review the as-built and annual monitoring reports to evaluate the success of the
ecological restoration. Success will be evaluated based on the Site’s adherence to performance
standards specified in Section 8.3. As performance standards are met, the Bank Sponsor will request a
reduction in the amount of the performance bond based on the reduction schedule provided in below. The
reduction schedule assumes that all seven sites will meet all performance standards on an annual basis.
Table 19 – Performance Bond Reduction Schedule.
Activity Reduction Amount (%) Reduction Amount ($) Bond Amount
Establishment of Performance Bond N/A N/A $4,412,462.10
USACE approval of As-Built Report 65% $2,868,100.37 $1,544,361.74
USACE approval of Year 1 Monitoring 5% $220,623.11 $1,323,738.63
USACE approval of Year 2 Monitoring 5% $220,623.11 $1,103,115.53

USACE approval of Year 3 Monitoring 5% $220,623.11 $882,492.42
USACE approval of Year 4 Monitoring 5% $220,623.11 $661,869.32
USACE approval of Year 5 Monitoring 5% $220,623.11 $441,246.21
USACE approval of Year 6 Monitoring 5% $220,623.11 $220,623.11
USACE approval of Year 7 Monitoring 5% $220,623.11 $0.00
Total 100% $4,412,462.10
A copy of the proposed Performance Bond is attached as Appendix J.

37 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

9.0 REFERENCES
Sweet, W. V. & Geratz, J. W. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals for
North Carolinas Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39, 861–
871 (2003).
Doll, Barbara A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton and D.A. Bidelspach, Hydraulic Geometry
Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams, NC Stream Restoration Institute,
Report to N.C. Division of Water Quality for 319 Grant Project No. EW20011, www.ncsu.edu/sri.
11 pp. (2003).
Russell, Periann 2008. Mapping Headwater Streams: Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Stream
Model Development and Spatial Application. Final Report for Federal Highway Administration
Contract Feasibility Study WBS: 36486.4.2. January 28, 2008.
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District (2003), Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring
Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O’Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart. 1999.
Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Harmon, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. (2012) A Function-Based
Framework for Stream Assessments and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006. .
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016a. River Basin Classification Schedule
(online). Available: https://deq.nc.gov/river-basin-classification-schedule [August 01, 2018]. North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. Floodplain Mapping Information System.
http://floodmaps.nc.gov/FMIS/Default.aspx Raleigh, NC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2018. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
38

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
The Stream Stats web program for North Carolina. Available online at:
https://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/north_carolina.html
National Land Cover Database 2011. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php
United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Land Cover Dataset 1992. [Online WWW]. Available
URL: https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd1992.php
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 6-8-2015. Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Beaufort County, NC. Available online at:
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/beaufort.html
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and
R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database for North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at
https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/. (FY2016 release date).
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2003. Reference Reach Database. In publication.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. NC
Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. NC
Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Beaufort County, NC.
39 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

Appendix A – Figures

030202020503
030202020404
030202020503
030201030603
030201040102030202020403
030202020502
030202020501
030202020404
030202020404 ±
0 1 2 Miles
Beaufort 56AFigure 1Vicinity MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: Michael.Knepper date: 8/31/2018timer: 8:54:02 AM
Legend
County Boundary
Conservation Easement
12-Digit HUC
8-Digit HUC
03020202
03020103
03020104
Craven County
Beaufort CountyPitt County
Legend
Conservation Easement
Weyerhaeuser Properties
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56AFigure 2USGS Topographic MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: Michael.Knepper date: 8/31/2018time: 8:56:53 AM
Beaufort 56AFigure 3Historic Aerials Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Legend
Conservation Easement 0 2,0001,000 Feet
1993 Aerial1958 Aerial
1977 Aerial 2010 Aerial
Legend
Conservation Easement
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56AFigure 4NRCS Soil Survey - Beaufort CountyMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: Michael.Knepper date: 8/31/2018time: 9:03:43 AM
GoA
GoA
GoA
La
Ct
GoA
Ra
Ly
GoA
GoA
BoB
Lo
GoA
GoA
Ct
Lo
GoA
Ra
Pa
Pa
Tr
Lo Ly
Ly
To
Pa
CrA
Pa
GoA
Me
SbLe
Le
La
Ra
Ra
Legend
Conservation Easement
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56AFigure 5Hydric Soils MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: Michael.Knepperdate: 8/31/2018time: 9:16:34 AM
Map unit symbol Map unit name Hydric Rating
BoB Bonneau loamy sand, 0 t o 4 perc ent slopes 5
GoA Goldsboro fine sandy loam, 0 t o 2 perc ent slopes 5
La Leaf silt loam 90LoLeon sand 80
Ly Lync hburg fine sandy loam 7
Pa Pant ego loam 90RaRains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 perc ent slopes, At lantic Coast Flatwoods 92
T o Tomot ley fine sandy loam 91
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stream Contributing W atershed
USGS NHD Flowline
±
0 1,500 3,000 Feet
Beaufort 56AFigure 6Watershed MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: Michael.Knepper date: 8/31/2018time: 9:22:21 AM
UT1 - Reach 1Drainage Area: 41 Acres
UT3Drainage Area: 41 Acres
UT1 - Reach 3Drainage Area: 807 Acres
UT2Drainage Area: 42 Acres
UT1 - Reach 2 Drainage Area: 307 Acres
Legend
Conservation Easement
USGS NHD Flowline
Delineated Feature (Jurisdictional)
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Jurisdictional Ditch
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56AFigure 7Existing ConditionsMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: Michael.Knepperdate: 8/31/2018time: 9:28:50 AM
Legend
Conservation Easement
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Elevation
AMSL High : 60
Low : 30
Beaufort 56AFigure 8 LiDAR ElevationsMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
user: Michael.Knepper date: 8/31/2018K:\CHL_GIS\PRJ\017506_Weyerhaeuser\Neuse_02_Mitigation_Banks\Workspace\Beaufort56A_Site10A\Beauford56A_Site10A_Fig8_Lidar.mxd
Legend
Conservation EasementWeyerhaeuser PropertiesMitigation ApproachHeadwater RestorationRestoration (Priority 1)Wetland Restoration
±
0 750 1,500 Feet
Beaufort 56AFigure 9Proposed MitigationMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
UT2 (655 LF) Restore headwater stream system by filling in existing channeland establishing a 100' buffer to each side of the valley centerline. Existing treesand roots will be supplemetned by tree,shrub and herbaceous plantings to providea stabilized flow path for the restored system.
UT3 (897 LF) Restore headwaterstream system by filling in existing channeland establishing a 100' buffer to eachside of the valley centerline. Existing treesand roots will be supplemetned by tree,shrub and herbaceous plantings to providea stabilized flow path for the restoredsystem.
Conservation Easement: 39.3 Acres
user: Michael.Knepper date: 9/13/2018time: 11:16:16 AM
UT1 - Reach 1 (2,265 LF) Restore headwater stream system by filling in existing channeland establishing a 100' buffer to each side of the valley centerline. Existing treesand roots will be supplemetned by tree,shrub and herbaceous plantings to providea stabilized flow path for the restored system.
UT1 - Reach 2 (3,233 LF) Priority 1 restoration approach. Elevate invert of channel to reconnect with historic floodplain to the extent feasible. Re-meander channelwith appropriate dimensions, restore riparian wetlandsadjacent to the channel, and install in-stream log cross vanes, toe-wood and other woody debris to help maintainpools/restored profile. Proposed buffer and conservation easement will exend out to150' wide on both sidesof the channel.
UT1 - Reach 3 (530 LF) Priority 1 restoration approach. Elevate invert of channel to reconnect with historic floodplain to the extent feasible. Re-meander channelwith appropriate dimensions, restore riparian wetlandsadjacent to the channel, and install in-stream log cross vanes, toe-wood and other woody debris to help maintainpools/restored profile. Proposed buffer and conservation easement will exend out to150' wide on both sidesof the channel.
Wetland Restoration: 7.6 Acres
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Legend
Conservation EasementMonitoring Site
!Crest Gauge
!Groundwater Monitoring Well
!Headwater Flow MonitoringCross Section
Permanent Vegetation PlotMitigation ApproachHeadwater RestorationRestoration (Priority 1)Wetland Restoration
±
0 750 1,500 Feet
Beaufort 56AFigure 10Monitoring PlanMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: Michael.Knepper date: 9/13/2018time: 11:23:00 AM UT1 - Reach 1UT1 - Reach 2UT1 - Reach 3UT2UT3
UT1 - Reach 2NOTE: Vegetative Monitoring will cover5% of planted areas on site. Permanent monitoring plots will make up 50%.The remaining 50% will be made up of random plots, per the 2016 guidance.
030202020503
030201030603
030201040102
030202020403
030202020502
030202020501
030202020404
030202020404 ±
0 1 2 Miles
Beaufort 56BFigure 1Vicinity MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Legend
Conservation Easement
County Boundary
12-Digit HUC
8-Digit HUC
03020202
03020204
03020104
03020103
Craven County Beaufort CountyPitt County
Legend
Conservation Easement
Weyerhaeuser Properties
County Boundary
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56BFigure 2USGS Topographic MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Beaufort County
Craven County
Beaufort 56BFigure 3Historic Aerials Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Legend
Conservation Easement 0 4,0002,000 Feet
1993 Aerial1958 Aerial
1977 Aerial 2010 Aerial
Legend
Conservation Easement
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56BFigure 4NRCS Soil Survey - Craven CountyMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: kyle.halchindate: 9/13/2018time: 2:16:59 PM
Le
GoA
La
Ly
La
GoA
Pa
Le
CrB
Tr
CrA
CrB
GoA
Le
GoA
Ct
Tr
GoA
To
GoA
GoA
GoA
La
GoA
To
Ly
GoA
Ra
Ra
CrA
Ba
LyMe
Me
Me
Le
Le
To
Ra
GoA
GoA
Le
La
La
CrB
Le
Le
MM
To
GoA
Ro
LoA
By
Le
LoA
ExB
By
ExB
Legend
Conservation Easement
County Boundary
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56BFigure 5Hydric Soils MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Map unit symbol Map unit name Hydric RatingAaAAltavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 perc ent slopes 5
Ba Bayboro loam 90BoBBonneau loamy sand, 0 to 4 perc ent slopes 5
CrA Craven fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 0
CrB Craven fine sandy loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes 6
Ct Croatan muck 90GoAGoldsboro fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 5
La Leaf silt loam 90LeLenoir loam 8LoLeon sand 80LyLynchburg fine sandy loam 7MeMuckalee loam, frequently flooded 80PaPantego loam 90RaRains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Atlantic Coast Flatwoods 92
Sb Seabrook loamy sand 3
Map unit symbol Map unit name Hydric RatingToTomotley fine sandy loam 91
Tr Torhunta sandy loam 90AuBAutryville loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 2
MM Masontown mucky fine sandy loam and Muckalee sandy loam, frequently flooded 70
NoA Norfolk loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0
Ro Roanoke fine sandy loam 90ToTorhunta fine sandy loam 90
Bb Bibb complex 85ByByars loam 90ExAExum fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 0ExBExum fine sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 0LoALenoir loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 8NaNahunta silt loam 5WWater0
Beaufort County
Craven County
user: kyle.halchin date: 9/13/2018K:\CHL_GIS\PRJ\017506_Weyerhaeuser\Neuse_02_Mitigation_Banks\Workspace\Beaufort56B_Site10B\Beaufort56B_Site10B_Fig5_ HydricSoils.mxd
±
0 1,500 3,000 Feet
Beaufort 56BFigure 6Watershed MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stream Contributing W atershed
USGS NHD Flowline
Total Drainage Area: 929 Acres
UT2 Drainage Area: 313 Acres
UT1 - Reach 1Drainage Area: 142 Acres Beaufort County
Craven CountyPitt Countyuser: kyle.halchin date: 9/13/2018time: 2:18:14 PM
Legend
Conservation Easement
USGS NHD Flowline
Delineated Feature (Jurisdictional)
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Jurisdictional Ditch
Wetland
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56BFigure 7Existing ConditionsMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: kyle.halchindate: 9/13/2018time: 2:17:07 PM
Legend
Conservation Easement
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Elevation
AMSL 50'
20'
Beaufort 56BFigure 8 LiDAR ElevationsMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
user: kyle.halchin date: 9/13/2018K:\CHL_GIS\PRJ\017506_Weyerhaeuser\Neuse_02_Mitigation_Banks\Workspace\Beaufort56B_Site10B\Beaufort56B_Site10B_Fig8_Lidar.mxd
Legend
Conservation Easement
Mitigation Approach
Enhancement 1
Headwater Restoration
Preservation
Restoration
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Preservation
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56BFigure 9Proposed MitigationMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
UT1 - Reach 5 (1,250 LF) - Restore channel andadjacent wetlands by returning flow to the valley.Flow is currently diverted northwest by the roadsidecanal. A conservation easement will be put in placealong the existing buffer which will average 150' wide along both sides of the valley.
user: kyle.halchin date: 9/13/2018K:\CHL_GIS\PRJ\017506_Weyerhaeuser\Neuse_02_Mitigation_Banks\Workspace\Beaufort56B_Site10B\Beaufort56B_Site10B_Fig9_Proposed.mxd
user: kyle.halchin date: 9/13/2018time: 1:41:13 PM
UT1 - Reach 2 (2,477 LF) - Priority 1 restoration approach.Elevate invert of channel to reconnect with historicfloodplain to the extent feasible. Re-meander channelwith appropriate dimensions, restore riparian wetlandsadjacent to the channel, and install in-stream log crossvanes, toe-wood and other woody debris to help maintainpools/restored profile. Proposed buffer and conservationeasement will extend out to 150' wide on both sides ofthe channel.
UT1 - Reach 1 (774 LF) - Restore headwaterstream system by filling the existing channel andestablishing a 100' wide buffer to each side of thevalley centerline. Existing trees and roots will besupplemented by tree, shrub, and herbaciousplantings to provide a stablized flow path for therestored system.
UT1 - Reach 4 (1,874 LF) - Enhance this reach by removingportions of the spoil pile/berm locted along the left edge ofthe channel, placing a conservation easement along anaverage 150' wide buffer along the right bank and establishinga 50' wide native riparian buffer along the left bank. Also,propose placing pocket wetlands along locations whereconcentrated flow from adjacent land enters the conservationeasement.
UT2 (1,684 LF) - Preserve existing systemby placing conservation easement an averageof 100' wide along both sides of the centerline.
UT1 - Reach 3 (1,297 LF) - Preserve this reachby establishing a 50' wide native riparianbuffer along both sides of the channeland placement of a conservation easementover this reach to prevent future disturbance.
Conservation Easement: 61.6 Acres
Wetland Restoration: 0.6 Acres
Wetland Enhancement: 3.9 Acres
Wetland Preservation: 10.9 Acres
Wetland Preservation: 5.8 Acres
!(
!(
!
!Legend
Conservation Easement
Monitoring Site
!(Crest Guage
!Groundwater Monitoring W ell
Cross Section - 50% Riffle, 50% Pool
Permanent Vegetation Plot
Mitigation Approach
Enhancement 1
Headwater Restoration
Preservation
Restoration
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Preservation
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56BFigure 10Monitoring PlanMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: kyle.halchin date: 9/13/2018K:\CHL_GIS\PRJ\017506_Weyerhaeuser\Neuse_02_Mitigation_Banks\Workspace\Beaufort56B_Site10B\Beaufort56B_Site10B_Fig10_Monitoring.mxd
user: kyle.halchin date: 9/13/2018time: 1:40:25 PM
UT1 - Reach 1
UT1 - Reach 2
UT1 - Reach 3UT1 - Reach 4UT2UT1 - Reach 5NOTE: Vegetative Monitoring will cover5% of planted areas on site. Permanent monitoring plots will make up 50%.The remaining 50% will be made up of random plots, per the 2016 guidance.
030202020503
030202020604
030201030603
030201040106
030202020603
030201030606
030201040102
030202020506
030201030604
030202020505
030202020403
030202020502
030202020501
030202020405
030202020404
030201040103 ±
0 1 2 Miles
Beaufort 56CFigure 1Vicinity MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Legend
Conservation Easement
County Boundary
12-Digit HUC
8-Digit HUC
03020104
03020202
03020103
03020204
03010107
Craven County
Beaufort CountyPitt County
Legend
Conservation Easement
Weyerhaeuser Properties
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56CFigure 2USGS Topographic MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Beaufort 56CFigure 3Historic Aerials Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Legend
Conservation Easement 0 2,4001,200 Feet
1993 Aerial1958 Aerial
1977 Aerial 2010 Aerial
Legend
Conservation Easement
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56CFigure 4NRCS Soil Survey - Craven CountyMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: Michael.Knepper date: 8/31/2018time: 12:49:12 PM
GoA
CrA
Ly
Ly
La
Pa
Ly
GoA
BoB
Lo
GoA
Ct
Ct
Ra
GoA
GoA
La
Lo
GoA
GoA
To
To
Ly
GoA
Ly
Pa
Ra
Ra
Ly
Pa
Pa
CrA
Ba
GoA
GoA
Ly
Ly
Me
Me
Le
Le
Le
Le
Pa
AaA
Ra
GoA
Legend
Conservation Easement
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56CFigure 5Hydric Soils MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Map unit symbol Map unit name Hydric RatingBaBayboro loam 90GoAGoldsboro fine sandy loam, 0 t o 2 perc ent slopes 5
La Leaf silt loam 90LeLenoir loam 8LoLeon sand 80LyLynchburg fine sandy loam 7MeMuckalee loam, frequently flooded 80PaPantego loam 90RaRains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 perc ent slopes, Atlantic Coast Flatwoods 92
user: Michael.Knepper date: 8/31/2018time: 12:51:36 PM
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stream Contributing W atershed
USGS NHD Flowline
±
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Beaufort 56CFigure 6Watershed MapMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
UT1 - Reach 1 Drainage AreaUpstream: 464 AcresUT1 Drainage AreaDownstream: 785 Acres
UT2 Drainage AreaUpstream: 82 Acres
user: Michael.Knepper date: 8/31/2018time: 12:55:40 PM
Legend
Conservation Easement
USGS NHD Flowline
Delineated Feature (Jurisdictional)
Intermittent Stream
Jurisdictional Ditch
±
0 500 1,000 Feet
Beaufort 56CFigure 7Existing ConditionsMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: Michael.Knepper date: 8/31/2018time: 12:58:42 PM
Legend
Conservation Easement
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Elevation
AMSL High : 65
Low : 30
Beaufort 56CFigure 8 LiDAR ElevationsMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
user: Michael.Knepper date: 8/31/2018time: 12:59:49 PM
Legend
Conservation Easement
Weyerhaeuser PropertiesMitigation Approach
Headwater Restoration
Preservation
Wetland Restoration
±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Beaufort 56CFigure 9Proposed MitigationMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
Conservation easement: 14.9 Acres
UT1 - Reach 2 (1,000 LF) - Preserve existing system by placing conservation easement an average of 50' wide alongboth sides of the channel.
UT1 - Reach 1 (1,730 LF) - Restore headwatersystem by filling the existing ditched channel, establishing a 100' buffer to each side of the valley centerline. Existing trees and roots will be supplemented with tree, shrub and herbaceousplantings to provide a stable flowpath for the restored system.
UT2 (892 LF) - Restore headwater systemby filling the existing ditched channel, establishing a 100' buffer to each side of the valley centerline. Existing trees and roots will be supplemented with tree, shrub and herbaceousplantings to provide a stable flowpath for the restored system.
user: Michael.Knepper date: 8/31/2018time: 1:20:51 PM
Wetland Restoration: 5.8 Acres
Legend
Conservation Easement
Monitoring Site
Headwater Flow Monitoring
Groundwater Monitoring W ell
Permanent Vegetation Plot
Mitigation Approach
Headwater R estoration
Preservation
Wetland Restoration 0 500 1,000 Feet
Beaufort 56CFigure 10Monitoring PlanMiddle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prepared For:Prepared By:
user: Scott.Miller date: 9/11/2018time: 9:12:33 AM UT1 - Reach 1UT2
UT1 - Reach 1
UT1 - Reach 2
NOTE: Vegetative Monitoring will cover5% of planted areas on site. Perm anent monitoring plots will m ake up 50%.The remaining 50% will be m ade up of random plots, per the 2016 guidance.
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
40

Appendix B – Photo Pages

Photo 2 – Beaufort 56A – UT1 Reach 1
Photo 3 – Beaufort 56A – UT1 Reach 2 Photo 4 – Beaufort 56A – UT1 Reach 2
Photo 1 – Beaufort 56A – UT1 Reach 1
Photo 5 – Beaufort 56A – UT1 Reach 3 Photo 6 – Beaufort 56A – UT1 Reach 3
Photo 7 – Beaufort 56A – UT2 Photo 8 – Beaufort 56A – UT2
Photo 9 – Beaufort 56A – UT3 Photo 10 – Beaufort 56A – UT3
Photo 11 – Beaufort 56B – UT1 Reach 2 Photo 12 – Beaufort 56B – UT1 Reach 2
Photo 13 – Beaufort 56B – UT1 Reach 3 Photo 14 – Beaufort 56B – UT1 Reach 3
Photo 15 – Beaufort 56B – UT1 Reach 4 Photo 16 – Beaufort 56B – UT1 Reach 4
Photo 19 – Beaufort 56B – UT2
Photo 17 – Beaufort 56B – UT1 Reach 5 Photo 18 – Beaufort 56B – UT1 Reach 5
Photo 20 – Beaufort 56B – UT2
Photo 21 – Beaufort 56C – UT1 Reach 1 Photo 22 – Beaufort 56C – UT1 Reach 1
Photo 23 – Beaufort 56C – UT1 Reach 2 Photo 24 – Beaufort 56C – UT1 Reach 2
Photo 25 –Beaufort 56C – UT2 Photo 26 – Beaufort 56C – UT2
41 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

Appendix C – Geomorphic Cross-
Sections

BEAUFORT 56A
XS1 - UT1 Reach 1
Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points
Elevation(ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)
85
87
89
91
93
95
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wbkf = 4.17 Dbkf = .76 Abkf = 3.17
XS2 - UT1 Reach 2
Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points
Elevation(ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)
0
2
4
6
8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wbkf = 6.2 Dbkf = 1.07 Abkf = 6.61
BEAUFORT 56A
XS3 - UT1 Reach 2
Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points
Elevation(ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)
87
89
91
93
95
97
0 30 60 90 120
Wbkf = 8.84 Dbkf = .74 Abkf = 6.55
XS4 - UT2
Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points
Elevation(ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)
85
87
89
91
93
95
0 20 40 60 80
Wbkf = 4.43 Dbkf = .39 Abkf = 1.72
BEAUFORT 56A
XS5 - UT3
Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points
Elevation(ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)
85
87
89
91
93
95
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wbkf = 4.21 Dbkf = .55 Abkf = 2.3
BEAUFORT 56B
XS1 - UT1 Reach 2
Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points
Elevation(ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)
85
87
89
91
93
95
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wbkf = 9.73 Dbkf = .96 Abkf = 9.33
XS2 - UT1 Reach 4
Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points
Elevation(ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)
0
2
4
6
8
0 20 40 60 80
Wbkf = 14 Dbkf = 2.7 Abkf = 37.8
BEAUFORT 56B
XS3 - UT1 Reach 5
Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points
Elevation(ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Wbkf = 10.1 Dbkf = .44 Abkf = 4.47
BEAUFORT 56C
XS1 - UT1 Reach 1
Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points
Elevation(ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 6 12 18 24 30
Wbkf = 4 Dbkf = 1.34 Abkf = 5.37
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
42

Appendix D – Geomorphology

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Avg Max
1 Stream Type (Rosgen)
2 Drainage Area (square miles)
3 Bankfull Width (Wbkf)11.6 19.8 8.1 14.9 7.0 13.2
4 Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf)1.2 1.7 1.0 1.5 0.9 1.3
5 Width/Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf)9.7 11.6 8.1 9.9 7.8 10.2 8.5 10.9 10.6
6 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf)17.1 28.8 10.1 21.7 7.4 11.9
7 Bankfull Mean Velocity, ft/s (Vbkf)0.6 1.0 0.8 1.3
8 Bankfull Discharge, cfs (Qbkf)16.9 18.4
9 Bankfull Maximum Depth (dmax)2.1 2.8 1.4 2.6 1.7 2.1
10 Max dmax/dbkf ratio 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.8
11 Low Bank Height to Max Bankfull dbkf ratio 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.5
12 Width of Flood Prone Area (Wfpa)164.6 216.3 200.0 225.0 175.0 180.0
13 Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf)10.4 34.5 13.4 27.8 13.3 25.7 12.4 20.2 29.3
14 Meander Length (Lm)92.0 125.0
15 Ratio of Meander Length to Bankfull Width (Lm/Wbkf)4.9 6.7 4.9 6.2 6.7
16 Radius of Curvature (Rc)30.0 40.0
17 Ratio of Radius of Curvature to Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf)1.6 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.1
18 Belt Width (Wblt)49.0 105.0
19 Belt Width Ratio (Wblt/Wbkf)2.6 5.6 2.6 3.5 5.6
20 Sinuosity (k) (Stream Length / Valley Length) 1.70 2.10 1.60 1.70 1.7 1.8 1.9
21 Valley Slope (Svalley) (ft/ft)0.0007 0.0044 0.0017 0.0048
22 Average Stream Slope (Savg) = (Svalley/k)0.0004 0.0021 0.0011 0.0028
23 Riffle Slope (Sriff)
24 Ratio of Riffle Slope to Avg. Slope (Sriffle/Savg)
25 Pool Slope (Spool)
26 Ratio of Pool Slope to Avg. Slope (Spool/Savg)
27 Maximum Pool Depth (Dpool)2.9 4.1 1.3 3.1 2.2 3.0
28 Ratio of Pool Depth to Bkf Depth (Dpool/dbkf)0.9 1.5 1.0 2.2 2.0 2.7 1.3 2.0 2.1
29 Pool Width (Wpool)13.4 18.1 9.2 17.0 9.7 12.5
30 Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width (Wpool/Wbkf)0.8 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.3
31 Pool Area (Apool)20.3 34.8 8.8 30.5 10.4 15.8
32 Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area (Apool/Abkf)0.8 1.3 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.7 0.9 1.2 1.5
33 Pool to Pool Spacing (p - p)
34 Ratio of Pool to Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width (p-p/Wbkf)4.2
REFERENCE REACH MORPHOLOGICAL DATA
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Beaufort County, North Carolina
Beaverdam
Branch Black Branch Tributary to
Town CreekVARIABLES
(All units are in Feet)
Tributary to
Hunters Averaged Ratios
E5 E E C6 --
3.20 1.20 0.60 0.70 --
17.0 --
0.9 --
18.9
15.0 --
-- 2.8 --
13.1 -- 42.0 --
1.8 --
2.0
-- -- --
278.5 --
16.4
-- -- 120.0 --
-- -- 7.1
-- -- 31.0 --
-- -- 1.8
-- -- 40.0 --
-- -- 2.4
2.00 1.50
0.0072 0.0040 --
0.0036 0.0027 --
-- -- -- ----
-- -- -- ----
-- -- -- ----
-- -- -- ----
51.0 --
3.0 --
3.4
11.5 --
0.7
5.4 -- -- 3.0
----
--
100.0 -- --
Hybrid Carolina Flatwoods Regional Curvey = 12.004x0.7118R² = 0.94NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve - Sweet/Geratzy = 9.43x0.74R² = 0.96NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve - Dolly = 14.25x0.66R² = 0.8811010010000.1110100Bankfull Area (ft2)Drainage Area (square miles)Beaufort 56 Site Design Bankfull Area PlotNC Coastal Plain Regional Curve - DollNC Coastal Plain Regional Curve - Sweet/GeratzHybrid Carolina Flatwoods Regional CurveHybrid Carolina Flatwoods DataExisting ConditionsReference ReachesDesign Values
Min Max Min Avg Max Min Max Min Max Min Avg Max Min Max Min Max MinAvg Max Min Max1 Stream Type (Rosgen)2 Drainage Area (square miles)3Bankfull Width (Wbkf)4Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf)5Width/Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf)8.5 10.9 10.6 8.5 10.9 10.6 8.5 10.9 10.66Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf)7Bankfull Mean Velocity, ft/s (Vbkf)8Bankfull Discharge, cfs (Qbkf)9Bankfull Maximum Depth (dmax)1.2 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.0 0.9 1.0 1.010Max dmax/dbkf ratio1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.811Low Bank Height to Max Bankfull dbkf ratio1.2 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.012Width of Flood Prone Area (Wfpa)113.9 186.2 270.2 102.0 306.0 159.5 260.8 378.4 154.0 462.0 85.4 139.6 202.6 78.0 234.013Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf)12.4 20.2 29.3 10.0 30.0 12.4 20.2 29.3 10.0 30.0 12.4 20.2 29.3 10.0 30.014Meander Length (Lm)45.1 57.4 61.7 51.0 71.4 63.2 80.4 86.4 77.0 107.8 33.8 43.0 46.3 39.0 54.615Ratio of Meander Length to Bankfull Width (Lm/Wbkf)4.9 6.2 6.7 5.0 7.0 4.9 6.2 6.7 5.0 7.0 4.9 6.2 6.7 5.0 7.016Radius of Curvature (Rc)14.7 16.9 19.3 16.3 25.5 20.6 23.7 27.1 24.6 38.5 11.0 12.7 14.5 12.5 19.517Ratio of Radius of Curvature to Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf)1.6 1.8 2.1 1.6 2.5 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.6 2.5 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.6 2.518Belt Width (Wblt)24.0 32.6 51.6 25.5 56.1 33.5 45.6 72.2 38.5 84.7 18.0 24.4 38.7 19.5 42.919Belt Width Ratio (Wblt/Wbkf)2.6 3.5 5.6 2.5 5.5 2.6 3.5 5.6 2.5 5.5 2.6 3.5 5.6 2.5 5.520 Sinuosity (k) (Stream Length / Valley Length) 1.651.77 1.90 1.65 1.77 1.90 1.65 1.77 1.9021Valley Slope (Svalley) (ft/ft)22Average Stream Slope (Savg) = (Svalley/k)23Riffle Slope (Sriff)0.0042 0.0113 0.0042 0.0113 0.0055 0.014524Ratio of Riffle Slope to Avg. Slope (Sriffle/Savg)1.5 4.01.5 4.01.5 4.025Pool Slope (Spool)0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.000426Ratio of Pool Slope to Avg. Slope (Spool/Savg)0.0 0.10.0 0.10.0 0.127Maximum Pool Depth (Dpool)1.0 1.5 1.7 1.4 2.2 2.4 0.8 1.1 1.228Ratio of Pool Depth to Bkf Depth (Dpool/dbkf)1.3 2.0 2.1 1.3 2.0 2.1 1.3 2.0 2.129Pool Width (Wpool)8.9 10.0 12.3 12.5 14.0 17.2 6.7 7.5 9.230Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width (Wpool/Wbkf)1.0 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.331Pool Area (Apool)6.4 8.5 10.7 12.7 17.0 21.2 3.6 4.7 5.932Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area (Apool/Abkf)0.9 1.2 1.5 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.9 1.2 1.533 Pool to Pool Spacing (p - p)30.6 71.446.2 107.8 23.4 54.634Ratio of Pool to Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width (p-p/Wbkf)3.0 7.03.0 7.03.0 7.0BEAUFORT 56 SITE MORPHOLOGICAL DATABeaufort 56B - UT1 - Reach 3 Beaufort 56B - UT1 - Reach 2DesignRegional Curve & Reference ReachesExistingExistingRegional Curve & Reference ReachesDesignDesignRegional Curve & Reference ReachesExisting-- 1.1-- 5.2-- 1.2-- 29.0-- 4.2-- ---- ---- 1.1-- 2.0-- 8.60.0044 -- 0.00440.0041 -- 0.0036-- ---- --1.07 1.213.621.82.9-------------- 1.3 1.1-- 5.0 5.01.2 0.81.5 1.47.6 6.9 7.80.8 0.6 0.69.3 14.16.2 4.0 4.3E E C0.21 0.21 0.21-- 54.2-- 4.2----0.0031 --17.6-- 1.2-- 16.91.1-- ---- 1.9-- 2.00.00310.0030 -- 0.0028-- ---- ---- --6.2 16.26.22.11.71.614.23.0------------1.04 1.1112.9 15.41.1 1.10.489.214.70.00310.00281.11--1.41.51.013.6-- 1.1 1.0-- 15.0 15.0B E C1.26 1.26-- 1.6--------0.0031--------------1.266.6------------ 1.2-- 9.5-- 2.0-- 11.238.74.2-- 1.18.32.113.63.01.6 1.50.0030--1.041.7 1.2-- 8.36.2 7.96.2 13.11.1 0.80.87.1-- 1.01.2 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation BankBeaufort County, North CarolinaB CEBeaufort 56A - UT1 - Reach 26.6 10.20.48 0.48VARIABLES (All units are in Feet)
43 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

Appendix E – Buffer Credit
Calculations

Site Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor:
County:Beaufort
Minimum Required Buffer Width1:50
Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio
Multiplier2
Creditable Stream
Length3 Baseline Stream Credit
Restoration (1:1)1 3763 3763.00
Enhancement I (1.5:1)1.5
Enhancement II (2.5:1)2.5
Preservation (5:1)5
Other (7.5:1)7.5
Other (10:1)10
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals 3763.00 3763.00
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 35 feet >35 to 40 feet >40 to 45 feet >45 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)4 112890 37630 37630 37630 37630 37630 37630 37630 188150 188150 188150 188150
Ideal Buffer (square feet)5 113622.00 38181.00 38302.00 38282.00 38186.00 38080.00 37974.00 37875.00 188502.00 188932.00 191059.00 194001.00
Actual Buffer (square feet)6 112807.00 37553.00 37448.00 37233.00 36980.00 36727.00 36481.00 36110.00 166570.00 148701.00 148064.00 137172.00
Zone Multiplier 50%10%10%10%5%5%5%5%7%5%4%4%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 1881.50 376.30 376.30 376.30 188.15 188.15 188.15 188.15 263.41 188.15 150.52 150.52
Percent of Ideal Buffer 99%98%98%97%97%96%96%95%88%79%77%71%
Credit Adjustment -13.50 -6.19 -8.39 -10.31 -5.94 -6.69 -7.40 -8.77 232.76 148.09 116.65 106.43
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required
Buffer
Credit Gain for
Additional Buffer
Net Change in
Credit from Buffers Total Credit
3763.00 -67.18 603.92 536.74 4299.74
Weyerhauser NR Company
4This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
6Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non-forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non-creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
5Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non-creditable stream
reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
2Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet-to-credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
1Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
3Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Beaufort 56A
SAW-2017-02019
Site Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor:
County:Beaufort
Minimum Required Buffer Width1:50
Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio
Multiplier2
Creditable Stream
Length3 Baseline Stream Credit
Restoration (1:1)1 2477 2477.00
Enhancement I (1.5:1)1.5
Enhancement II (2.5:1)2.5
Preservation (5:1)5
Other (7.5:1)7.5
Other (10:1)10
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals 2477.00 2477.00
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 35 feet >35 to 40 feet >40 to 45 feet >45 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)4 74310 24770 24770 24770 24770 24770 24770 24770 123850 123850 123850 123850
Ideal Buffer (square feet)5 68128.90 23010.60 23078.90 23133.90 23188.60 23243.40 23298.60 23355.10 117825.50 120332.80 123533.70 127032.40
Actual Buffer (square feet)6 67438.30 22623.40 22613.30 22589.80 22565.90 22542.30 22518.90 22496.90 112357.50 112098.80 109748.20 73276.40
Zone Multiplier 50%10%10%10%5%5%5%5%7%5%4%4%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 1238.50 247.70 247.70 247.70 123.85 123.85 123.85 123.85 173.39 123.85 99.08 99.08
Percent of Ideal Buffer 99%98%98%98%97%97%97%96%95%93%89%58%
Credit Adjustment -12.55 -4.17 -5.00 -5.83 -3.33 -3.74 -4.14 -4.55 165.34 115.38 88.02 57.15
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required
Buffer
Credit Gain for
Additional Buffer
Net Change in
Credit from Buffers Total Credit
2477.00 -43.30 425.89 382.59 2859.59
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Beaufort 56B - UT1 R2
SAW-2017-02019
Weyerhauser NR Company
4This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
6Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non-forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non-creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
5Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non-creditable stream
reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
2Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet-to-credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
1Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
3Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
Site Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor:
County:Beaufort
Minimum Required Buffer Width1:50
Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio
Multiplier2
Creditable Stream
Length3 Baseline Stream Credit
Restoration (1:1)1 1250 1250.00
Enhancement I (1.5:1)1.5 1874 1249.33
Enhancement II (2.5:1)2.5
Preservation (5:1)5
Other (7.5:1)7.5
Other (10:1)10
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals 3124.00 2499.33
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 35 feet >35 to 40 feet >40 to 45 feet >45 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)4 93720 31240 31240 31240 31240 31240 31240 31240 156200 156200 156200 156200
Ideal Buffer (square feet)5 94411.90 31975.20 32238.90 32530.70 32757.10 32709.90 32758.70 32839.50 165642.20 168552.60 171936.30 175505.20
Actual Buffer (square feet)6 93203.10 30939.20 30871.40 30815.40 30734.10 30631.70 29041.90 24035.70 108265.00 108142.70 107692.40 88510.90
Zone Multiplier 50%10%10%10%5%5%5%5%7%5%4%4%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 1249.67 249.93 249.93 249.93 124.97 124.97 124.97 124.97 174.95 124.97 99.97 99.97
Percent of Ideal Buffer 99%97%96%95%94%94%89%73%65%64%63%50%
Credit Adjustment -16.00 -8.10 -10.60 -13.18 -7.72 -7.94 -14.18 -33.50 114.35 80.18 62.62 50.42
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required
Buffer
Credit Gain for
Additional Buffer
Net Change in
Credit from Buffers Total Credit
2499.33 -111.22 307.57 196.35 2695.68
Weyerhauser NR Company
4This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
6Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non-forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non-creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
5Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non-creditable stream
reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
2Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet-to-credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
1Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
3Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Beaufort 56B - UT1 R4&5
SAW-2017-02019
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
44

Appendix F – Mitigation Plan Sheets

BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
COVER SHEET01 WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANYBEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAVICINITY MAPNORTHENGINEER:CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202200 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 200KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. [phone]DAREN PAIT, P.E., CFMOWNER:HATTIESBURG, MS 39402406 COLE ROADWEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY(601) 341-6054DOUG HUGHESPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBEAUFORT 56DRAFT MITIGATION PLANSforSURVEY:BASE MAPPING PROVIDED BY:2014 QL2 LIDARMETADATA CONTACT:NC FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM4105 REEDY CREEK DRIVERALEIGH, NC 27607(919) 715-5711Sheet List TableSheetNumberSheet Title
GENERAL NOTES02BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
PROPOSED PLAN LEGENDPROPOSED PROFILE LEGENDEXISTING PLAN LEGEND1035+00LEGENDS AND
SYMBOLS03BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
RIFFLERIFFLERIFFLEMEANDERINGPOOLMEANDERINGPOOLSTRAIGHTPOOLTYPICAL PLAN AND
PROFILE04BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
TYPICAL SECTIONS05BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
TYPICAL SECTIONS06BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
SHEET 29SHEET 28SHEET 27SHEET 30S
H
E
E
T

0
8
SH
E
E
T

0
9
SH
E
E
T

1
0
SH
E
E
T

1
1
SH
E
E
T

12
SHEET 13
S
H
E
E
T

1
4 SHEET 15SHEET 16SHEET 17SHEET 18SHEET 19SHEET 20SHEET 21SHEET 22SHEET 23SHEET 25SHEET 26SHEET 24BEAUFORT 56BBEAUFORT 56CBEAUFORT 56AUT
1

-
R
E
AC
H

1
U
T
1

-

R
E
A
C
H

3 UT3UT2UT1 - REACH 2UT1 - REACH 3UT1 - REACH 5UT1 - REACH 4UT2UT1
-
REACH
1UT1 - REACH 2UT2UT1 - REACH 1U
T
1

-

R
E
A
C
H

2
OVERALL PLAN AND
KEY SHEET07 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 1MATCH LINE STA 10+00
SEE SHEET 09 0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56A - UT1
REACH 108 NORT
H
BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 1MATCH LINE STA 10+00SEE SHEET 08
MATCH LIN
E

S
T
A

2
0
+
0
0
SEE SHEET

1
0 10+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+0019+5020+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56A - UT1
REACH 109 NORTH
BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 1UT1 - REACH 2MATCH LINE STA 20+00SEE SHEET 09
MATCH LIN
E

S
T
A

3
0
+
0
0
SEE SHEET

1
1 20+0020+5021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+0024+5025+0025+5026+0026+5027+0027+5028+0028+5029+0029+5030+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56A - UT1
REACH 1&210 NORTH
BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 2MATCH LINE STA 30+00SEE SHEET 10
MATCH LINE STA 4
0
+
0
0
SEE SHEET 12 30+0030+5031+0031+5032+0032+5033+0033+5034+0034+5035+0035+5036+0036+5037+0037+5038+0038+5039+0039+5040+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56A - UT1
REACH 211 NORTH
BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1
-
REACH
2
UT2(SEE SHEET 15)
U
T
3
(
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
6
)
MATCH LINE STA 40+00SEE SHEET 11
MATCH LINE STA 50+00
SEE SHEET 13 40+0040+5041+0041+5042+0042+5043+0043+5044+0044+5045+0045+5046+0046+5047+0047+5048+0048+5049+0049+5050+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56A - UT1
REACH 212 NORT
H
BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
50+0050+5051+0051+5052+0052+5053+0053+5054+0054+5055+0055+5056+0056+5057+0057+5058+0058+5059+0059+5060+00UT1 - REACH 2UT1 - REACH 3MATCH LINE STA 50+00SEE SHEET 12
MATCH LINE STA 60+00
SEE SHEET 14
PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56A - UT1
REACH 2&313 NORTH
BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 3MATCH LINE STA 60+00SEE SHEET 1360+0060+5061+0061+5062+0062+5063+0063+5064+0064+5065+0065+50PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56A - UT1
REACH 314 NOR
T
H
BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 2UT2UT3100+00100+50101+00101+50102+00102+50103+00103+50104+00104+50105+00105+50106+00106+50107+00107+50108+00108+50109+00109+50110+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56A - UT215 NOR
T
H
BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 2UT3200+00200+50201+00201+50202+00202+50203+00203+50204+00204+50205+00205+50206+00206+50207+00207+50208+00208+50209+00209+50210+00210+50PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56A - UT316 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 -
REACH
1
MATCH LINE STA 10+
0
0
SEE SHEET 18 0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56B - UT1
REACH 117 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 2UT1 - REACH 1MATCH LINE STA 10+00SEE SHEET 17
MATCH LIN
E

S
T
A

2
0
+
0
0
SEE SHEET

1
9 10+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+0019+5020+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56B - UT1
REACH 1&218 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 2MATCH LINE STA 20+00SEE SHEET 18
MATCH LINE STA 30+00SEE SHEET 2020+0020+5021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+0024+5025+0025+5026+0026+5027+0027+5028+0028+5029+0029+5030+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56B - UT1
REACH 219 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 2UT1 - REACH 3MATCH LINE STA 30+00SEE SHEET 19MAT
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

4
0
+
0
0
SEE
S
H
E
E
T

2
1 30+0030+5031+0031+5032+0032+5033+0033+5034+0034+5035+0035+5036+0036+5037+0037+5038+0038+5039+0039+5040+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56B - UT1
REACH 2&320 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 3UT1
-
REACH
3
MATCH LINE STA 40+00SEE SHEET 20
MATCH LINE ST
A

5
0
+
0
0
SEE SHEET 22 40+0040+5041+0041+5042+0042+5043+0043+5044+0044+5045+0045+5046+0046+5047+0047+5048+0048+5049+0049+5050+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56B - UT1
REACH 321 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1
-
REACH
4UT1 - REACH 3MATCH LINE STA 50+00SEE SHEET 21
MATCH LINE STA 60+00
SEE SHEET 23 50+0050+5051+0051+5052+0052+5053+0053+5054+0054+5055+0055+5056+0056+5057+0057+5058+0058+5059+0059+5060+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56B - UT1
REACH 3&422 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 4MATCH LINE STA 60+00SEE SHEET 22MATCH LINE STA

7
0
+
0
0
SEE SHEET 24 60+0060+5061+0061+5062+0062+5063+0063+5064+0064+5065+0065+5066+0066+5067+0067+5068+0068+5069+0069+5070+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56B - UT1
REACH 423 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 4UT
1

-
REACH

5UT2(SEE SHEET 26)MATCH LINE STA 70+00SEE SHEET 23
MATCH LINE STA 80+00SEE SHEET 2570+0070+5071+0071+5072+0072+5073+0073+5074+0074+5075+0075+5076+0076+5077+0077+5078+0078+5079+0079+5080+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56B - UT1
REACH 4&524 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 5MATCH LINE STA 80+00SEE SHEET 2480+0080+5081+0081+5082+0082+5083+0083+5084+0084+5085+0085+5086+0086+5087+0087+5088+0088+5089+0089+5090+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56B - UT1
REACH 525 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT2UT - REACH 4UT1 - REACH 5PLAN BEAUFORT 56B
- UT226 NORTH
BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1
-
REACH
1UT2MATCH LIN
E

S
T
A

1
0
+
0
0
SEE SHEET
2
8 0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56C - UT1
REACH 127 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 1UT1 - REACH 2MATCH LINE STA 10+00SEE SHEET 27M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
0
+
0
0
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

2
9 10+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+0019+5020+00PLAN AND PROFILE
BEAUFORT 56C - UT1
REACH 1&228 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT1 - REACH 2MATCH LINE STA 20+00SEE SHEET 28 20+0020+5021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+0024+5025+0025+5026+0026+5027+0027+5028+0028+5029+0029+5030+0030+5031+0031+5032+00PLAN AND PROFILE -
BEAUFORT 56C - UT1
REACH 229 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
UT2UT1 - REAC
H

1 100+00100+50101+00101+50102+00102+50103+00103+50104+00104+50105+00105+50106+00106+50107+00107+50108+00108+50109+00109+50110+00110+50PLAN AND PROFILE -
BEAUFORT 56C - UT230 NORTHBEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
Not to ScaleBRUSH AND ROLL RIFFLE1STREAM DETAILS31BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
Not to ScaleLOG SILL3Not to ScaleLOG VANE2STREAM DETAILS32BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
Not to ScaleLOG CROSS VANE4Not to ScaleBRUSH TOE PROTECTION5STREAM DETAILS33BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
Not to ScaleCHANNEL BLOCK6STREAM DETAILS34BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
Not to ScaleINSTALLATION GUIDE FOR EROSION CONTROL MATTING7Not to ScaleTEMPORARY SILT FENCE8EROSION CONTROL
DETAILS35BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
Not to ScaleEXAMPLE OF PUMP-AROUND OPERATION9EROSION CONTROL
DETAILS36BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
VEGETATION NOTES
AND DETAILS37BEAUFORT 56
STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR
45 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

Appendix G – NCSAM Forms

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
June 13, 2017
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ia2
Stream Site Name Weyerhaeuser - Site B-56-A - UT1-Reach 1 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
LOW
Stream Site Name Weyerhaeuser - Site B56-A - UT1-Reach 2 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
June 13, 2017
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ia2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NO
LOW
Stream Site Name Weyerhaeuser - Site B56-A - UT1 - Reach3 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
June 13, 2017
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ia3
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
LOW
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
NA
NA
LOW
Stream Site Name
LOW
NA
Weyerhaeuser - Site B56-A - UT2 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
June 13, 2017
YES
YES
YES
Intermittent
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ia1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
June 13, 2017
YES
YES
YES
Intermittent
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ia1
Stream Site Name
LOW
NA
Weyerhaeuser - Site B56-A - UT3 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
NA
NA
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NO
LOW
Stream Site Name Weyerhaeuser - B56-B - UT1-Reach 2 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
June 13, 2017
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ia2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NO
LOW
Stream Site Name Weyerhaeuser - B56-B - UT1 - Reach 4 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
June 13, 2017
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ia3
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
HIGH
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NO
LOW
Stream Site Name Weyerhaeuser - B56-C - UT1-Reach Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
June 13, 2017
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ia2
The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
46

Appendix H – Wetland and Stream
Data Forms

North Carolina Division of Wa#er Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date:/r /5)
Project/Site: S? dkw ew
Latitude:
Evaluator: J
County:
Longitude:
Total Points: Q S
Stream Determination e
then
Stream is at least intermittent /�
Ephemeral Intermitte t Perennia
e.g. quad Name:
ifs 19 or perennial if ? 30
0
1
A. Geomorp
0
Weak
Moderate
St ng
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
01
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosit of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
oolsequence
0
1
0,5
3
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0
0.5
3
1
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
24. Amphibians
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
25. Algae
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
9. Grade control
Co.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
es =
B. Hydrology Subtotal = [„ S
12. Presence of Baseflow
C. Biology Subtotal = 457
0
1
2
3
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19. Rooted up an plants in streambed
1
2
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
(0,60
2
3
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0,5
1
1.5
3
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = D
es = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted up an plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75' BL = 1.5;)Other = 0
S
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Nates:
BKFW: 12-
BKFD:
W W: 7
Substrate: dCj 114113. j
Clarity:
Flow:

North Carolina Division of W�a lr Quity1 eam Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date:
f n
V/
�Q
Project/Site:
U 4w
Latitude:
Evaluator:
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
'^ Iv
YV+
County:
v
Longitude:
14. Leaf litter
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
Total Points:
0
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
po0lsequence
0
1
2
3
0
1
Stream Determ n
(circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
No = 0
5. Active/relic floodplain
Ephemer Intermitten
Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if t 19 or perennial
if >! 30
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
art
0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
po0lsequence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
No = 0
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
S. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
inaai drccnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
Q
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
t
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
1
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
O
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
r w \V c 1�ati.w� • 1
to
1
nJ
BKFW: -S r
BKFD: /z
ww: ti�a I
Substrate:SrA ci
Clarity: t,�
Flow: �'v(6 '

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
r rr � 7_
Date:�y
Project/Site: /V
�P
Latitude:
Evaluator: AeA-6 vf�r l
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
27
Stream Determinatio (circle one)
Other
f
Stream is at least intermittent f
4
Ephemeral I rmitte Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if >_ 30
0
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = (
artificial
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
0
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
poolsequence
0
®
2
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active/relic floodplain
23. Crayfish
1
2
3
3
6. Depositional
24. Amphibians
bars or benches
0
1
2
3
25. Algae
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
L=1
2
3
26. Wetland plants in streambed
8. Headcuts
KV
1
2
3
p
9. Grade control
0
51
1
1.5
p .
10. Natural valley
0
1
1.5
b .
11. Second or greater order channel
o =
Yes 7T'
ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = ! 0 S
12. P1+esence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
I
13.
Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
2
3
1.5
22. Fish
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = >
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
Notes: C
3
1
0
I
19.
Rooted upland plants in streambed
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
5
L=1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
ACW = 0.7 ; OBLO-
*perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of ma
ual.
C karne.\
ai 14" ()r-Jev �vtr
BKFD: d-S�
ww: w(a
Substrate:
Clarity: (,�(A Lll
Flow: v iQ'

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic
1and GulfVCoastal Plain Region
Project/Site: oeau bl� D l � City/County: a v rp/It `b Sampling Dale:
Applicant/Owner l�✓� State: // � Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): - Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): l9 Slope Lyle
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Let: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hyd I is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes M No= (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soilor Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Y—J No=
Are Vegetation Soil H or Hydrolo9YR naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No I1,CX��JI�
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 14 No4 / –
Remarks:
9??
5 W P a f-1 d 1 wl e�C�1 d,,* -C,
YC %
HYDROLOGY
ace Water(A7)
Water Table (A2)
iration (A3)
sr Marks (B1)
ment Deposits (B2)
Deposits (B3)
I Mat or Crust (B4)
Deposits (B5)
dation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
�r-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Surtace Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (610)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfsh Burrows (CS)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Neutral Test Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (DB) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes No epth (inches):
Water Table Present. Yes No Depth (Inches): % Z k 1/\
� r
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): I Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes L�lNo
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
K p k o/vo ( n cU ca�*o''5
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Cwar S.�es? Status
3. �� Q.w% _ CGJ
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
�0 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 7� 20% of total cover:
Sa lin /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:.) ��
1 UP t ly A"
z. 1`�-Z�VJ 1� CL tw y ,
3. l.7 Vy�Q.P�- ICJ(��(%�
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Coder /
50% of total cover: 20 % of total cover: 1,x.
9 erb Stra m� t size: 'Indicators
)
2.
3.
4. more
5.
6.
7 =Total Cover
0% of total cover: 20% of total cover: _
Sampling Point:y/
fest
Number of Dominant Species
That TotaAre OBL, FACW, or FAC:
�"1l Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Prevalence Index worksheet
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Total % Cover of:
MultioN bv:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
species
F.
x4=.
UP species
X5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless tlisturbed or problematic.
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
in dameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
SaplinglShrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater then 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
height.
W�ood�Vine Stratum_ (Plot size: ) j
25.. 1 PIC IIC% F4Gocl
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
=Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: S 20% of total cover: Z Present?
Remarks: (If observ
ed, list morphological adaptations below)
YesII No�
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: D(`1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (moist) (�%
i+` Q.
��y(oqp Z 1y5
I$Z (j ty-1 r N 2 1 ) vu
needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type,oc LTexture Remarks
— —
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De pletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
°Location: PL=Pcro Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (All 2)
Coast Prairie Redox (At 6) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Metrix (84)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sails':
Polyvalue Below Surface (58) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vedic (1718) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Mad (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochdc (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
L=j
Lj
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No EL
Remarks:
UW co aid S ayv d c� va,i KA. wvfa62
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

Map unit
symbol
Ma nit name
p
Hydric
Rating
Bob
Baraboo loartry sand, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
5
GoA
Goldsboro fine sandy loam, o to 2 percent
slopes
s
La
Leaf slit loam
90
to
Leon sand
80
Ly
Lynchburg fine sandy loam
Pa
Pantego loam
190
Ra
Pains fine santly loam, o to 2 percent
s Aelanee coast Flatwoods
92
ro
ronnney rine santly loam
91
,r
>Y r1 xR
j u^
l
vi
� h
op
C • < "Iiiiir
r
ISM
4^K i a 4
GoA I
Legend »� t jD
0 15000 2,000 Feet
Conservation Easement � $'
DA
Prepared For: . Prepared By. �/� Beaufort t56 -A
/p/�// Figure 5
A Weyerhaeuser Kimley>>Horn ,,,� Hydric Soils Map
Middle euse tream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
4/5/2018

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
/ 1T _ I
Date: 3 7
Project/Site:9112u" r si (3
Latitude:
Moderate
Strong
Score
14. Continuity of channel bed and bank
Evaluator:Oils
1
County AO1
-.
Longitude:
Total Points: I M
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
Stream Determination PFFc Vie),
Other
Stream is at least intermit
Ephemeral IntermitteOt Perennial '
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if >_3r),
2
3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =®'
- artincial finches are not rated; see discussions in manual C)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
14. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
poolsequence
0
��
2
3
J
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
3
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
11
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
e7
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
I
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
es = 3
3
C / t
B. Hydrology Subtotal = (a
12. Presence of Baseflow
2
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
f6D
1
2
3
e
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
(OV
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
2
1.5
J
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = b
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
9
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other -
e7
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Sfb& c,rek
PAF
f
/
WW: ✓1.��..
WD: tn�a j I IK POJ5
Substrates )�
Clarity:
Flow:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: ��
Project/Site: 5111, 01
2L::
LatitudeUT
Evaluator:U>15 A L L
County:
Longitude:
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
Total Points:Z I'
Stream Determ' circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermi ent
Ephemera termitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
If >_ 19 or perennial if z 30
3
1.5
i
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = U
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
S
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1.5
1
3. In structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
poolsequence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle
size of stream substrate
0 -
1
2
3
/
5. Active/relic floodplain
1
0
1
2
3
zj
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
25. Algae
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
26. Wetland plants in streambed
8. Headcuts
C 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
2
3
D
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
d
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
In manual
B. Hvdrologv Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
Fibrous roots in streambed
1
3
3
1
13.
Z
Iron oxidizing
bacteria
2
1
0
2
3
O
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment
on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris
lines or piles
0
.5
1
1.5 lit
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3 -
C. Biology Subtotal =
18.
Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
Z
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
g.
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Othe
O
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
irZ
WI•N e.
i
i S � �` �c I�e� t �� • C�v�µe I
�.eav( Lv� oc� U
c $ �,•scl
BKFW:
BKFD: 1�
ww: Z
wD: 6r• n
Substrate: 5� l k I,)ttky
Clarity: Gl2cr✓
(w-

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProjecVSile:. A itoc, 01= racy-ar �b City/County: ✓� Sampling Dale:
Applicant/Owner: _1� l State; �C- Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): ��'l 1 Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.);5�j�3/,�-�l e..+"K Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Let: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic I hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No= (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No=.
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes LNo Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No "
within a Wetland? YesEl No s]
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No // I
Remarks:
�ww� 5,y S �Z^, (ti� .. �✓� ,'n. d � � L T' t"r�� � , ✓t / � ..-'��� .._
S� -err p
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (62)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (85)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iran (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
In Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (816)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (CB)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aqultard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (08) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No%� Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No iLJ
includes capillary fringe)7�
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
1. I J '11p
Sampling Point: 'V
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree (Plot size:
1Stratum, 6
) % Cover
S cies?
Status
,-��
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 10 (A)
Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: /0 (B)
2. ZTotal
3. -� rQG
4.
Percent of DominantSpecies
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
5.
6.
7.
-
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Tote l%Cover of: Multiply bY:
8.
Saolina/Shrub
1
=Total coyer,OBL
50% of total cover: JOU %,. 20% of total cover: 7t.9 /.
Stratum (Plot size: )
VK .,/CJ� A I �C
AI SSL
species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B(A=
3 l � V l �-
4.
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
T.
8._
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'Total
Cover
50% of total cover: J;f " . 20 % of total cover:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
11.4Q
)
h�
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2,
fjc-.
Y jg'_",4jl
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3'
1
N
osee�
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants, excluding vines, less
4. K wE
08 C
5 AAT) Ci a
io '� (�
6.
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12
Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: 47
Woody Vine Stratum (Plotsize)
1
z.
5
-7--
3.
4.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yas No�
VO4 V-�� 1 Total Cover
C IQ %of total cover: 20%of total cover. 2 �
lhological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: hd[A�'
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color moist %
Lj11Z 3
1b�22JOY931,L
needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
RedoxFeatures
Color(moist) % Tvoe Loc Texture Remarks
-
'Type:
Hydric
C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced
SoU Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
Thick Dark Surface (At 2)
Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (85)
Stripped Matrix (56)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (89) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F7) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
Depleted Dark Surface (177) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (178) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (1713) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (1718) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
L=1
_
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yos a No)S
Remarks:
vV
US Army Corps of Engineers - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

o WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region �2
ProjectlSite: �jeCl.1)•(-a:g `–lam //v P.(j&�t/Z City/County: �— Sampling Date: r
—L 1
ApplicanUOwner. &D State: !�– Sampling Point: ltd
Investigator(s): L Sectiont Township Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): f!�tl "` Local relief (concave, convex, none): PWX4= Slope �l
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Let: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic I hydrologic condf�itions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No = (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation R Soil H or Hydrology significantly distur V ed? re "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes/ No=
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes:LL No within a Wetland? Yesl / A No El
Wetland Hydrology Present? YesA. No _ / \
Remarks: (�I %jO IM4 (,Oo /%4017 (,J( r� IrdCOR
1 r`S / _ n
N(pu� `yt(i ackvk" z 6C3 Sro d
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A7)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (BI)
Sediment Deposits (82)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (65)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
Marl Deposits (B1 5) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (06)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Drainage Patterns (610)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Pield Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
includes capillary fringe)
No
NoDepth
Nori
Depth (inches): —r
(inches):> U k
Depth (inches): 16"
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yesr No Ll
e*
zi
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
t,�qo ki( k� 01 (Wu1M)(l 4
aQu V; �(f� C61 5egc) 6 roc
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
n
Sampling Point: 1 –
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratu (Plot size: ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 7/ti1� Y .�.- That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2. ---� Total Number of Dominant
3_ Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 700 (AB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total %Cover of: Multiply bv:
OBLB.
= species x 1
Total Cover FAC =
50% of total cover: i07. 20 % of total cover: FAC species x2=
FAC species x3=.
Sa lin /Shrub ratum (Plot size: )
1 5 lr/ FACU species x4=
�
2 v,t M2� L �/ UPL species x5=
3 � � –. L —F�— Column Totals: (A) (8)
4. IMVJgln6_ 7 t61—"t[ Prevalence Index = B/A=
5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7. iC:2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
ZS Total Cover / _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: %J 20%. of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot
size: )
1. Ir/ttr ,� L GO Y
3: �AIA.tp t`e^ s Et/
4.
5.
6,
.� � =Total Cover
50% of total cover: CI'� 20% of total cover:
WoodWood Vi o (P��)
z 21ir�L tAtrvkt 6 �t6yrf� \�S-
J
3.
4.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree –Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in, (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter et hreast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
then 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb –AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine –AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
ht.
heig
Hydrophytic
v % =Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: �'� 20 % of total cover:
�/ Presents
h oloaical adaptations below).
Yes n–" No�
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: �✓H,%)e7,
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color moist Color (moist) % Ty2e Loc Texture Remarks
t 3Z lD /
'Type:
Hydric
C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Raduced
Sall Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
,Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
filed Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T; U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redac (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Salle:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
Depleted Dant Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Mad (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbria Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (1718) (MLRA 150A, 1506)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
.
-
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Still Present? Yes No=
721
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

Q,,� WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region c+�
ProjecVSile: 'Fle�cUtOfli' t�� f� r .NCAJ'h't_ f�Z Clty/County: Kk ✓�e Sampling Dale: i d
ApplicanUOwner: -ts
0.1 State: tie- Sampling Point: k�R�U'I
Investlgator(sy r = I.
Landform (hillslope, tenace,
Section, Township, Range: cL II /
Local relief (concave, convex, none): "LAO, Slope (%);
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Let: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes F?C No= (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are VegetationSoil = or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes EI No=
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area �� j(��
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? YesE] No L -x
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No p
Remarks: „ ( -/i
wsi- uP {-I�t� -�o ���„ GC
I> l KckGi
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (Ai )
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (61)
Sediment Deposits (82)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (64)
Iron Deposits (85)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
Surtace Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
Aquatic Fauna (613)
Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (01)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Soll Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Drainage Patterns (810)
Moss Trim Lines (816)
DrySeason Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (132)
Shallow Aquitard (03)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (138) (LRR T. U)
Yes No Depth (inches):
Yes No Depth (inches):
Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes L..t Ix
No V 'I
gauge,
if
US Army Corps of Engineers ' Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1. dLol/t
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
R
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.-
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12
Sampling Point: ��- u
Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
-- That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:. (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All strata: (B)
�' =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: -"
FA
iplinhrub Stratum (Plot size: )
(beioa 6 05
r
f6 A! l
5 .v
t✓pe.
9s i=Total Cover�p/
% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
�� =Total Cover C�
Loy'p.�rc, 50% of total cover: �20%oftotal cover: 6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2. wi
3.
Percent of Dominant Species J ;I/
That Are 013L, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total %Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
o/SCW species x2=
FAC species x3=.
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A=
_ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four
Vegetation Strata:
Tree
more- Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb -AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
Woody vine -AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
4.
5. Hydrpphytic
F U L =Total Cover�/ Vegetation
50% of total cover: � 20% of total cover:
2/ Present? Yes NoIMMI
USArmy Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: (n)3� U
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color moist %.
()Ww i2lam Ell
needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Redox Features
Color moist % Type Loc Texture Remarks
to YL7y+ (meq 540Aw 410/1 v. c. s.
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Send Grains.
Location: PL=Pare Lining M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P. T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoIW:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A, B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (173) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Mad (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochdc (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils IN 9) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Sail Present? Yes .L1 No
Remarks:
soN1s,c�w VC,+tet �%L'VeD
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

n�WEDETERMINATION D TERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic
/and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProjectlSite: II / f 596 of 16(YMOZ City/County: """" Sampling Date:
ApplicantlOwner:. /.f ) y State: ltE- Sampling Point: 4�43:{ �Ca7EC
Investigalor(s): fdTrJ & 1 R 1 U,
/ /yt ► �y " Section, Township, Range:
`—[
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):-FIA.'F' Local relief (concave, convex, none): vta Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Let: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic I hydroI is conditions on me site typical for this time of year? Yes No= (If no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil � or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
M
Are Vegetation Soil
or Hydrology
naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -
Attach site map
showing sampling
point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sall Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes l I No El
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
U) 1 J
5 a w z V✓C)CX � �a} Aa i 5 giro QWa�-t/
� v,� . 4 u W} AILoC % &\ 1 O MZ, (I '
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (At)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (84)
Iron Deposits (B5) l
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B?)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Ci)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6)
In Muck Surface
(C?)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sudace Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
(Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (816)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (CB)
Saturation Visible on Aedei Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X+ No Depth (inches): jAj r��,-��
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): o Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye f_ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Lei
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: („J3�wc7
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratu(Pilot-size:
1. I
) _
Vkcrn
%Cover
Species?
StatusNumber
of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across Al Strata: (B)
4,
Percent of Dominant Species
5
rtr;
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: �w' (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by
OBL species x 1 =
8
= Total Cover
Se lin /Shrubr�Srtratum
1 Y1�1.
50% of total cover:
(Plot size:
N
C 20% of total cover:
)
(� Y
`
FA(w
FACW species l x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A.=
z. i`la� .t,to _� �Ac�,l
r���c.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophyto Vegetation Indicators:
6.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
,K 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <2.0'
_ problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Total Cover
50% of total cover: ZS/. 20% of total cover: %CYr
Herb Stratum
(Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 _ "k
—b
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
3.
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5
6.
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb -AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
8.
g,
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine -AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
10.
11.
height.
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
i 20% of total cover:
—
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 t3
�qG
2.y�r-2P iouvVI1fte" lQC
3.
Hydrophyfle
Vegetation
Present? Yesz Noll
4.
5.
/S� = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% Of total cover: ,�'�
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (moist) %
11_ Li Y
/CO
fflvo 112 YR 2 W
2.32 / !L 1�{Z
needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
;'p r`zc'
VAOAl 1
G�( W� Scc7s,J
S c[w.
'Type:
Hydric
C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced
Sol[ Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
anic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5i Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
M k Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 mMuck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (At 6) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solle:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150")
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA153B)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Mad (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain In Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface IN 3) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C7 153D)
L.J
_
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
/
Hydric Soil Present? Yesi-No=
Remarks:
US Army Corps. of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

CaB
Lel
a t
GoA
VTI
G,,B f
GoA
a a m�..me 1 11 It=. .._M, I .P..e..m.
GaA
Legend
Q Conservation Easement 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
QCounty Boundary
R
Prepared For. Prepared BY: L j Beaufort 56 - B
79r" 1 VC �'��T Figure 5
A Weyerhaeuser Kimley»>Horn Hydric Soils Map
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
4/5/2018

North Carolina Division of Wat"uality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.111
(Irrt
Date:
Project/Site: S6G
4/tuse OL
Latitude:
Evaluator: 4
County: .I-
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Detergeggnycle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemer ntermlttent erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if _> 19 or perennial if> 30
0
CP
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
artinaai mmnes are not
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
V. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
15
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
CP
0.5
2
3
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
poolsequence
0
1
2
3
If
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
No = 0
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
D
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
tv
2
3
1.5
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
0.5
9. Grade control
0
0
1
1.5
ho
10. Natural valley1
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o = 0*
Yes = 3
rarea; see aiscussions in manual
er c7
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
15
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
3
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1.5
5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
D
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity
and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Pd ae
tACEW
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
= 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
BKFD:L '
Substrate:
Clarity: r,/,
Flow: �

North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: j�
Project/Site: raj `4 s`G
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
0
1
2
Stream Deter clr one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Epheme Intermittent Pe nial
e.g. Quad Name:
if 2 19 or perennial if >_ 30
3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = ,5
artinctai artcnes are not rates; see ciscussions in
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
l3_%
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple.0
poolsequence
15. Sediment on plants or debris
1
2
3
1 5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1.
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
No = 0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
6
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
= 0.75; OBL = J.',Other =
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Naturalvalley
0
0.
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o =
Yes = 3
manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = � S
12. Presence of Baseflow
C. Biology Subtotal = 13? q
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
3
1
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1
2
0.
21. Aquatic Mollusks
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
2
1
1 5
22. Fish
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1
1.
23. Crayfish
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
.CSM
3
2
0
19. Rooted up an plants in stream bed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
tcw
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
= 0.75; OBL = J.',Other =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
L/7� .s .� c�-..-�/. )z��l�l , :�r�.....•H,�/ � Ste._.,_
y" �O v Cvev C...�yi.-r �,,.� S,G•-y..-�
BKFW: �
BKFD: z
WW: �
Substrate: s ��•
Clarity:
Flow;
4

a Ra
FPO "h, 7111117
A
c w.
UA
Ly
Ly
Iwo s
�A.
Le
CrH
GoA R -
I_a
Lih.; �..�
jam I
V�Pa
Le
L
PFF
rA Ra
Ilea j A
Bai
0
17
GoA
F La
GoA C�
P
.t
16OS
Y
Legend t
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
OConservation Easement oA
L 7
Prepared For: Prepared By: Beaufort 56 - C
JjI14 OV al/i Yet y Figure 5
A Weyerhaeuser Kimley»Horn Hydric Soils Map
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
4/5/2018
mi5ymbo
Hydri
ap
Map unit name
Hydric
9ayboro loam
90
,A
f Idsbom ane sandy loam, o to 2 percent
5
slopes
Le
Leaf slit loam
90
Le
Lenoir loam
a
Leon sand
s0
' Ly
Lynchburg fine sandy loam
7
Muck lee lean, frequently flooded
e0
Pan[ego loam 90
Fa
Refers fine sandy loam, 0 to z percent slopes, 92
Atlantic Coast Flatwoods
a Ra
FPO "h, 7111117
A
c w.
UA
Ly
Ly
Iwo s
�A.
Le
CrH
GoA R -
I_a
Lih.; �..�
jam I
V�Pa
Le
L
PFF
rA Ra
Ilea j A
Bai
0
17
GoA
F La
GoA C�
P
.t
16OS
Y
Legend t
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
OConservation Easement oA
L 7
Prepared For: Prepared By: Beaufort 56 - C
JjI14 OV al/i Yet y Figure 5
A Weyerhaeuser Kimley»Horn Hydric Soils Map
Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
4/5/2018

The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
September 2018 │
48

Appendix I – Conservation Easement
Documents

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT

THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT (“Conservation Easement”) made this
day of , 201_ by and between ,
(“Grantor”) and _________________ (“Grantee”).

The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine,
feminine or neuter as required by context.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and
being in ___________ County, North Carolina, more particularly described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”);

WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not-for-profit or educational corporation,
association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue
Code, the purposes or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) – (d)
listed below;

(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open-space aspects of real
property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational, educational,
or open-space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following
natural communities: add or delete as appropriate: wetlands, streams and riparian
buffers. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain streams, wetlands
and riparian resources and other natural values of approximately ___acres, more or
less, and being more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated fully herein by reference (the “Conservation Easement Area”), and
prevent the use or development of the Conservation Easement Area for any purpose
or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation
Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation Banking Instrument
(MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the ___________ Mitigation Bank, Department of the
Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW-_____________, entitled “Agreement to Establish
the ____________ Mitigation Bank in the _________ River Basin within the State of
North Carolina”, entered into by and between ___________ acting as the Bank Sponsor
and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in consultation with the North
Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The __________ Mitigation Site has been
approved by the Corps for use as a mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable
stream and wetland impacts authorized by DA permits.

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third-party rights of enforcement
shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (“Third-Party,” to
include any successor agencies), and may be exercised through the appropriate
enforcement agencies of the United States, and that these rights are in addition to, and
do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the Department of the Army instrument
number SAW- _____________ (“Mitigation Banking Instrument”), or any permit or
certification issued by the Third-Party.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby
unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors
and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and
character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area
described on Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:

ARTICLE I.
DURATIONOF EASEMENT

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

ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent with
the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Conservation
Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and restricted from any
development that would impair or interfere with the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and
uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder:

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

B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising
display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other
temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the Conservation
Easement Area.

C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or
commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes are
prohibited.

D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area are prohibited.

E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming,
cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the Conservation Easement
Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan. Mowing of invasive and herbaceous
vegetation for purposes of enhancing planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved
in the Mitigation Plan is allowable once a year for no more than five consecutive years
from the date on page 1 of this Conservation Easement, except where mowing will
negatively impact vegetation or disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed
by ___________ and shall not violate any part of Item L of Article II.

F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or modification to existing
roads, trails or walkways.

G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation Easement
Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation
values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving directions or proscribing rules
and regulations for the use of the Conservation Easement Area and/or signs identifying
the Grantor as owner of the Conservation Easement Area.

H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage,
waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or
other materials on the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.

I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any
manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to restore natural topography or
drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and enhancing streams and wetlands
within the Conservation Easement Area, ___________is allowed to perform grading,
filling, and excavation associated with stream and wetland restoration and
enhancement activities as described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by
Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 27.

J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or
alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition,
diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into,
within or out of the easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is
prohibited.

K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered
or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.

L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited other than for
temporary or occasional access by the Enter Sponsor Name, the Grantee, its
employees and agents, successors, assigns, and the Corps for purposes of
constructing, maintaining and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area..

M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Conservation
Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant,
the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area substantially in its natural
condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is prohibited.

ARTICLE III
GRANTOR’S RESEVERED RIGHTS

The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation Easement Area
for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, including, but not
limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area, the rights
of ingress and egress, the right to hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement
Area, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement
Area, in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to
the terms of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its
successors and assigns, including __________ acting as the Bank Sponsor, the right to
construct and perform activities related to the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area in accordance with the approved ___________ Mitigation Plan, and the
Mitigation Banking Instrument described in the Recitals of this Conservation
Easement.

ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE’S RIGHTS

The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and the
Corps, shall have the right to enter the Property and Conservation Easement Area at all
reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to
determine if the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns,
is complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation
Easement. The Grantee, Enter Sponsor Name, and its authorized representatives,
successors and assigns, and the Corps shall also have the right to enter and go upon the
Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making scientific or educational
observations and studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do
not include public access rights.

ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, and the Corps are
allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation Easement Area that is
inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to require the restoration of such
areas or features of the Conservation Easement Area that may be damaged by such
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by
Grantor that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the
Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of such
notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach remains
uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by
appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without
notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if
the breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances
damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate.
The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to,
and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection
with this Conservation Easement. The costs of a breach, correction or restoration,
including the Grantee’s expenses, court costs, and attorneys’ fees, shall be paid by
Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps
shall have the same rights and privileges as the said Grantee to enforce the terms and
conditions of this Conservation easement.

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

C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to
entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the
Conservation Easement Area resulting from causes beyond the Grantor’s control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except
Grantor’s lessees or invitees; or from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor
under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life,
damage to property or harm to the Conservation Easement Area resulting from such
causes.

ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS

A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which
may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property
which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor
further warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived
from and arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend title to the Property against the claims of all persons.

B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any
interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor agrees to
provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of the
transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement
shall survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Conservation
Easement Area or any portion thereof and shall not be amended, modified or
terminated without the prior written consent and approval of the Corps.

C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this
Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however that the
Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or assigns this
Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a qualified
holder pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 501 (c)(3)
and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and
agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or
assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes
described in this document.

D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The Mitigation Banking Instrument: MBI
with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and this Conservation Easement sets forth the
entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and
supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to
the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be void or unenforceable by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.

E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes,
assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the Property
free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor, except
those incurred after the date hereof, which are expressly subject and subordinate to the
Conservation Easement. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any
kind related to the ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the
Property, except as expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor
of the obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits
that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.

F. Long-Term Management. If livestock operations will be maintained on the
property, Grantor is responsible for all long-term management activities associated
with fencing to ensure livestock do not have access to the Protected Property. These
activities include the maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures, as deemed
necessary by the Grantee, to ensure the aquatic resource functions within the
boundaries of the Protected Property are sustained.

G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the
continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the conservation purposes, this
Conservation Easement may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial
proceeding.

H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation Easement Area
is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the
Restrictions imposed by this Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in
appropriate actions at the time of such taking to recover the full value of the taking,
and all incidental and direct damages due to the taking.

I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest
immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the Conservation
Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an
extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair
market value of this Conservation Easement as determined at the time of the
extinguishment or condemnation.

J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication
required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter
specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):

To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Sponsor:

To the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a
reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to
make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee’s
interest shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an
appropriate proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.

L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in
a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not
affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee
under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation purposes of this
grant.

M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The wetlands, scenic,
resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Conservation
Easement Area, and its current use and state of improvement, are described in Section
____ of the Mitigation Plan, prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor
and Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and
Grantee have copies of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any
future changes in the use of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with
the terms of this Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to
preclude the use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the
Conservation Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use.

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

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

[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]
49 The Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank │ Beaufort 56 Site Mitigation Plan – DRAFT
│ September 2018

Appendix J – Performance Bond

Maintenance and Monitoring
Performance Bond
Bond No. Penal Sum: $
Know All Men By These Presents,
That we, [name] of [address] (hereinafter called the Principal), as Principal, and [bonding
company] with an office at [address], a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of
[state] (hereinafter called the “Surety”), as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, (hereinafter called the “USACE”) and the [name
and address of party that will receive the funds in the event of default], (hereinafter called
the “Obligee”), up to the maximum penal sum of [amount] Dollars ($ amount) (hereinafter
called the “Maximum Penal Sum”), for the payment of which we, the Principal and the Surety,
bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally,
firmly by these presents.
WHEREAS, the Principal has entered into the Middle Neuse Stream and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Banking Instrument (hereinafter called the “MBI”) with the USACE, dated the
_______ day of __________, ___________, which includes the Final Mitigation Plan for the
[name of mitigation site] (the “FMP”) to ensure that aquatic resources within the boundaries of
the mitigation site will be [enter appropriate activities (ex. restored, enhanced, monitored).]
WHEREAS, the principal promised to deliver to the USACE and the Obligee a Bond substantially
in the form hereto upon completion and compliance with construction and other criteria of the
UMBI, FMP, and permits.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH that this Bond will
not be released in whole or in part until the Principal receives written verification from the
USACE that the conditions for release in the FMP have been fully met. If the above bounden
Principal shall meet the final performance standards as defined in the FMP, then this obligation
shall be null and void; otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect. This bond is subject to
the following conditions:
1) This bond shall remain in full force and effect for a period of [number] years. [If the bond
will be reduced on an annual basis, include the following statement and fill in the columns
below.] The Maximum Penal Sum of this bond may be reduced by the USACE, by these
scheduled amounts:
Year Reduction Revised Penal Sum
1 $ $
2 $ $
3 $$
4 $ $
5 $$
6 $$
7 $ $
2)USACE shall issue a full and final release of this Bond when the [enter event. Ex:
construction activities are complete and/or seven year monitoring period is complete; all
monitoring reports have been submitted and have been approved by the USACE; and the
success criteria identified in the FMP have been achieved and approved by the USACE.]
This Bond shall not be released in whole until the Principal receives written verification from the
USACE that all the conditions for release have been satisfied.
3)If any payment under this Bond, as set forth in subsection 4 (b) below, is made, then the
outstanding penal sum of the Bond shall be reduced by the corresponding amount of such
payment. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the aggregate liability of
the Surety is limited to the Maximum Penal Sum stated above, regardless of the number or
amount of claims brought against this bond and regardless of the number of years this bond
remains in effect. The USACE shall issue a full and final release of this Bond and any and all of
Surety’s obligations hereunder when Surety has tendered payment in whole, or in parts equal to
the aggregate sum, of the Maximum Penal Sum of this Bond.
4)The Surety’s obligation under this Bond shall arise after the USACE has notified the
Principal of their failure to abide by, or cure default conditions related to, the terms and
conditions of the FMP. Upon notice of the Principal’s default under the FMP, the Surety, in its
sole discretion and notwithstanding any of the provisions of the above, shall remedy the
Principal’s default by taking action under 4) a) or 4) b) below. In the event that the Surety either
fails to respond to USACE’s notice of default within thirty (30) business days of receipt of said
notice, or fails to honor Surety’s commitments under this bond to the full satisfaction of the
USACE, then Surety shall remedy such default in accordance with subsection 4) c) below:
a) Remedy the default of the Principal to the full satisfaction of the USACE by a
reasonable date determined by the USACE; or
b)Immediately tender to the Obligee, that portion of the Maximum Penal Sum that the
Obligee determines, in their discretion, is due and owing and necessary to remedy the
default. If payment is tendered to the Obligee under this subsection, the Obligee shall
immediately become a Surety or Sureties to this Bond, or
c)In the event that the Surety fails to respond within thirty (30) business days to the
USACE’s notice of default, or to honor commitments to the full satisfaction of the
USACE under paragraph a) or b) of this section within a reasonable time to be
determined by the USACE, the remaining portion of the Maximum Penal Sum may, at
the election of the Obligee, immediately become due and owing and paid to the Obligee.
The Obligee under this paragraph shall immediately become a Surety or Sureties under
this bond for the remaining term of the bond.
5) Surety shall have no obligation to the Principal, USACE, the Obligee, or any other person
or entity for any loss suffered by the Principal, USACE, the Obligee, or any other person or
entity by reason of acts or omissions which are or could be covered by the Principal’s
general liability insurance, products liability insurance, completed operations insurance or any
other insurance. Under no c ircumstance shall the USACE be responsible to arbitrate any
insurance claims made, declined or disputed under this Bond.
6)The Surety hereby waives notification of amendments to the UMBI, permits, applicable
laws, statutes, rules, and regulations, and agrees that no such amendment shall in any way
alleviate its obligation on this Bond.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT TO THE
CONTRARY, THE LIABILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL AND SURETY UNDER THIS BOND IS
LIMITED TO THE TERM BEGINNING THE DAY OF , 20 , AND
ENDING THE DAY OF , 20 . AND
ANY EXTENSIONS OR RENEWALS OF THE REFERENCED AGREEMENT SHALL BE
COVERED UNDER THIS BOND ONLY WHEN CONSENTED TO IN WRITING BY THE
SURETY. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT THE REFUSAL BY THE SURETY TO EXTEND
THE TERM OF THIS BOND SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A DEFAULT BY THE
PRINCIPAL, AND SHALL NOT GIVE RISE TO A CLAIM OR DEMAND AGAINST THE
SURETY UNDER THIS BOND.
In accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 332.3(n)(5), the Surety shall provide the USACE and the Obligee
written notification at least 120 days in advance of termination, revocation, or modification of
this Bond.
No right of action shall accrue on this bond to or for the use of any person or corporation other
than the USACE or the Obligee named herein, or their successors or assigns.
The above-bounden parties have executed this instrument under their several seals, dated this
____ day of ______________, 2016, the name and corporate seal of each corporate party being
affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to authority of
its governing body.
Principal: Weyerhaeuser NR Company
By:
[enter name and title]
Surety: [bond company]
By:
Attorney-in-Fact
Obligee: [name of person to receive
funds]
By:
Director or Acting Director