Leonards Fork Creek Mitigation Bank

Rummel,
Klepper
&- Dahl, LLP
William K Hellmann
David W. Wallace
Stephen W. Kagay
Robert J. Halbert
Stephen G. Zentz
Charles M. Easter, Jr.
John G. Mintiens
Joseph A. Romanowski, Jr.
Michael L. Krupsaw
James A. Zito
Geoffrey V. Kolberg
Lars E. Hill
J. Tommy Peacock, Jr.
Michael W. Myers
Martin C. Rodgers
Kenneth A. Goon
Gregory J. Lebo
Richard J. Adams, Jr.
John A. d'Epagnier
Barbara J. Hoage
Christopher F. Wright
Owen L. Peery
Nancy R. Bergeron
Stuart A. Montgomery
David G. Vanscoy
J. Michael Potter
Henry J. Bankard, Jr.
Peter C. D'Adamo
James F. Ridenour, Jr.
Robert J. Andryszak
5800 Faringdon Place,
Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina
27609-3960
Ph: 919-878-9560
Fax: [phone]
www.rkkengineers.com
March 13, 2002
Mr. Steve Lund
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
MAR 2 1 2002
WETLANDS GROUP
Reference: Leonards Fork Creek Mitigation Bank
Lincoln County, North Carolina
Mitigation Banking Prospectus
Dear Mr. Lund:
We are submitting, herewith, one (1) copy of the Mitigation
Banking Prospectus for the Leonards Fork Mitigation Site in
Lincoln County for your review and use in scheduling a meeting
with the MBRT. As you requested, we are also submitting a copy
of this prospectus to each of the other MBRT members - Rebecca
Fox (EPA), Marella Buncick (USFWS), Mary. Ellen Haggard
(NCWRC), and Jason Guidry (NCWRP).
Thank you for your assistance in developing this wetland
and stream mitigation bank. Please call if you have any questions
or need additional information.
Very truly yours,
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
v
J. T. Peacock, Jr., P.E.
Associate
JTP/;b DECEIVED
cc: Rebecca Fox, EPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS MAR 19 2002
Mary Ellen Haggard, NCWRC
Jason Guidry, NCWRP NC WETLANDS
Rich Mogensen, MR[
KS_ RESTORATION
L
NND
300-040
F:\WORD\DOCUMENT\300040\Reports/final plan/Mitigation Banking Prospectus.doc
Baltimore, MD Raleigh, NC Virginia Beach, VA Richmond, VA
York, PA Norristown, PA Bangor, ME Keyser, WV Washington, DC

i
' PROSPECTUS FOR THE LEONARDS FORK BANK IN THE SOUTH FORK CATAWBA
RIVER BASIN USGS CATALOGING UNIT 03050102
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP, (RK&K) with support from Marsh Resources Inc (MRI) is
' submitting for approval a prospectus for a 73.8-acre site for development of a wetland
and stream mitigation bank in Cataloging Unit 03050102 (South Fork Catawba River
' Basin). The purpose of the mitigation being to provide NCDOT with mitigation credits
needed to compensate for various projects occurring within the same watershed. It is
estimated in the next five to ten years that highway construction will impact 55 acres of
' riverine wetlands and 20 acres of non-riverine wetlands in the Catawba River Basin.
The South Fork Catawba River Basin has received a "Priority" designation by the North
Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). The site is located where Leonards
' Fork Church Road (SR 1179) crosses Leonards Fork Creek in Lincoln County, North
Carolina. The site is situated on the east side of Leonards Fork Creek and north of
Leonards Fork Church Road (SR 1179). Leonards Fork Creek flows south along the
western boundary of the site. The site is located west of George Brown Road (SR
' 1180) and south of Highway NC 182. A vicinity map can be found in Figure 1.
' The site is currently owned by Marsh Resources Inc. It was used as a livestock and hay
pasture until 2000. Upon purchase, MRI had the cattle removed and took the property
out of agricultural production.
Approximately 50 acres of the site have been cleared, ditched and drained (floodplain
areas) and approximately 24 acres are forested (riparian buffers along Leonards Fork
' Creek and tributaries and upland areas not in the floodplain). The soil in the pasture
has been compacted by the historic livestock production, thereby decreasing infiltration
and groundwater recharge while increasing the volume of stormwater runoff. A
' drainage ditch running the length of the floodplain field effectively drains that area by
diverting runoff from upland areas into the middle tributary of Leonards Fork Creek.
' Based on a wetland delineation performed by RK&K there is one 0.5-acre jurisdictional
wetland located along the southeastern tributary of the site. RK&K delineated a 3.4-
acre area along the middle tributary and a 0.9-acre area along the southeastern
tributary, both of which contain restorable soils. Groundwater monitoring gauges have
been installed near this delineated area to verify jurisdictional hydrology. If jurisdictional
wetland hydrology is present, these areas will be considered preservation; if hydrology
' criteria are not met, the restorable soils area (4.3-acre) will be considered restoration.
Hydrology determinations will be based upon groundwater monitoring data to be
gathered during the 2002 growing season.- A review of this delineation by the U.S.
' Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is forthcoming.
The State Historic Preservation Office determined in a letter dated June 27, 2000 that
the project will have no impact on archaeological or cultural resources. The. N.C.
Natural Heritage Program has reviewed the site and stated in a letter dated July 20,
2000 that there are no documented rare species, significant natural heritage areas, or

?I

I

U
high quality natural communities within a one-mile radius of the proposed mitigation
project and provided a list of threatened and endangered species known to occur in
Lincoln County. In a letter dated August 18, 2000 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) provided a list of federally protected species and commented on the proposed
mitigation. The Habitat Assessment Restoration Program (HARP) conducted surveys
for vascular plant species listed as threatened and endangered in Lincoln County and
found no occurrences. Per recommendation by representatives of HARP, Project Bog
Turtle staff of the NC State Museum of Natural Sciences conducted a survey for the
state and federally threatened Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi) which has listed
occurrences in adjacent Gaston County and found no species present. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service issued a letter of concurrence dated November 1, 2001.
Correspondence with the above agencies is included in Appendix C.
Upon implementation, the following mitigation totals are expected to be derived:
Mitigaton Type Acreage Linear Feet
Restoration 4.3*
Creation 18.2
Preservation 0.5*
Stream Restoration 9,685
Total Mitigation Acreage 23.0
Upland Buffer 50.8
Total Site Acreage 73.8
*Final Restoration and Preservation acreages will be dependent upon groundwater
gauge monitoring data from those areas.
Credit Composition and Number of Credits:
Wetlands Ratio Credits
Restoration 1:1 4.3*
Creation 3:1 6.1
Preservation 5:1 0.1*
TOTAL 10.5
Streams Ratio Linear Feet Credits
Restoration 1.5:1 9,685 6,457
*Final Restoration and Preservation Credits will be dependent upon acreages
determined for those areas based on groundwater gauge monitoring data.
' Information contained in this prospectus along with subsequent data and design plans
as well as comments from the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) members will be
the basis for a draft Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) for the Leonard's Fork

L
' Mitigation Bank. The draft MBI will be finalized and submitted soon after the first MBRT
meeting. Restoration activities are scheduled to begin in the fall of 2002.
I
I

n

it

1

1

H
n
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 1
2.1 Site Location 1
2.2 Site Ownership 1
2.3 Existing Use and General Conditions 1
2.4 Hydrology 1
2.5 Soils 7
2.6 Existing Vegetation and Plant Community Descriptions 9
2.7 Present and Future Development in the Area 10
2.8 Agency Correspondence and Hazardous Materials Report 10
2.8.1 State Historic Preservation Office 11
2.8.2 Natural Heritage Program 11
2.8.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 12
2.8.4 Lincoln County Soil and Water Conservation District 12
2.8.5 Hazardous Materials Report 12
3.0 CON CEPTUAL MITIGATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 12
3.1 Present and Future Wetland Ecological Functions 12
3.2 Mitigation Types and Areas 13
3.2.1 Jurisdictional Preservation Wetlands 13
3.2.2 Proposed Restoration Areas 13
3.2.3 Proposed Creation Areas 14
3.3 Wetland Reference Areas 14
3.4 Stream Restoration 14
3.5 Mitigation Types and Area Summary 17
3.6 Conceptual Mitigation Design Description 18
3.6.1 Restoration of Natural Grade, Surface Hydrology
and Vegetation 18
3.6.2 Vegetation Planting Plan, Planting Criteria
and Wildlife Benefits 19
3.7 Mitigation Credit Calculations 21
3.8 Construction 22
4.0 MONITORING PLAN 22
4.1 Hydrologic Monitoring 22
4.2 Vegetation Monitoring 22
4.3 Stream Monitoring 22
4.4 Annual Monitoring Report 24
4.5 Remedial Actions 25
5.0 GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA 25
iv
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE
6.0 FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY 25
7.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES 25
8.0 CREDIT TRANSACTION AND ACCOUNTING 25
9.0 LITERATURE CITED 25
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map 2
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map 3
Figure 3. FEMA FIRM Map and Site Location 5
Figure 4. Historic Groundwater Gauge Locations 6
Figure 5. NRCS Soils Map 8
Figure 6. National Wetlands Inventory Map 15
Figure 7. Proposed Mitigation Areas 16
Figure 8. Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Locations 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary Descriptions of Soils Found on Leonards
Fork Creek Mitigation Site 9
Table 2. Leonards Fork Creek Mitigation Bank Land Uses,
Areas, Zones and Lengths 18
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Site Survey
Appendix B. Water Budget and Cumulative Saturation Graphs
Appendix C. State Historic Preservation Office, N.C. Natural Heritage
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Lincoln County Soil
and Water Conservation District Letters
Appendix D. Hazardous Materials Report
Appendix E. Wetland Delineation Map Indicating Wells and Restorable Soils-
Delineation Forms Included
Appendix F. Final Disposition of Property
Appendix G. Financial Assurances
v

1.0 INTRODUCTION
' Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP, (RK&K) with support from Marsh Resources Inc (MRI) is
submitting for Mitigation Bank Review Team approval a 73.8-acre wetland and stream
mitigation bank. The purpose of the bank is to provide NCDOT with mitigation credits
t needed to compensate for various projects occurring within the same watershed. The
site is located on Leonards Fork Creek, southwest of Lincolnton in Lincoln County, N.C.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Location
'
The Leonards Fork Creek Mitigation site is in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Cataloging Unit 03050102 (South Fork Catawba River Basin). This subbasin has
' received a "Priority" designation by the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
(NCWRP). The 73.8-acre site is located where Leonards Fork Church Road (SR 1179)
crosses Leonards Fork Creek in Lincoln County, North Carolina, west of George Brown
' Road (SR 1180) and south of Highway NC 182. It is situated on the east side of
Leonards Fork Creek and north of Leonards Fork Church Road (SR 1179). Leonards
Fork Creek flows south along the western boundary of the site. Figure 1 is the vicinity
' map that indicates the site's location on the Lincolnton West USGS 7.5 minute
topographic quadrangle.
' 2.2 Site Ownership
The site is currently owned in fee simple by Marsh Resources Inc. Property boundaries
t are shown on the site survey in Appendix A.
' 2.3 Existing Use and General Conditions
The site was used as a livestock pasture and hay fields for decades until 2000 when
' MRI purchased the property, removed the cattle and took the property out of agricultural
production.
' There are approximately 50 acres of cleared land on the site consisting of 18 acres of
the floodplain along Leonards Fork Creek which have been ditched and drained for
pasture and 32 acres of upland. Approximately 24 acres are forested, including riparian
' buffers along Leonards Fork Creek and two tributaries and upland areas not in a
floodplain. Approximately 5 of the 24 forested acres were disturbed about 5-8 years
ago and are in a scrub-shrub condition.
2.4 Hydrology
' The site lies within the Catawba River Basin, DWQ subbasin 03-08-35, USGS eight-
digit subbasin 03050102 (Figure 2) and 14-digit hydrologic unit 03050102040010,

-44
trr ( ff 4 ?- ?•. !?• ???..?
HowAacd?(?repk..
( { Schr
Lincoln Count
1 ,_ 4
•? I'?. ?? l , - <f ? __ szo.-_ 11
ortl rn'' Trib?1
M?ddlo,, ributa t ?I' ,'?,t 1
"?? ? t, +1 '?,I `` . ;1?(,?N J9?J ?i ,i I r •, ?3 '? j ? J' ? `?, '•?` I i , _ ?Y , ??
?' i ;! t; I +r? /? I Soyithe4te n ??firi#?titaryr'L /f
•? ' ty ? '..?r I y ''?`\.,?; 1 ,? i .` ?__ -lam • ?? ?, 1 ? • .,.
\ 1 _ 1
/V:,
5 I I ,a,• ,_, ? ? . ? t .5 4 +-•? 866 '-i? I?`? `' •%• ?? ?] j /?? ? r.:'_1 h
ZI,
.yr?J-') ?? r s'? \ _ f_,r?r.--? 1?`_ 1't ,t- .?;r UI ' ? ? `?l?^? .,.V:. [ ? 1•f'" `^ ?``,` ,
lfl(Y(h `f + r?1?4 t , ?.. - .( f• '? `t'? ?-V _^?.? I, ' ` f `? L. ? I S"'• ? ?.?. i ! /?? ' ' S
f y' + ti ,} ???I •,I' r t iyy`•y ,. ? ?? / \ ? \ ? 4 ,'t.:? yY/"??1 It 1. f? ? f-1 _
?'? .^3:? ,f ?"^?'. .? t+ ' / '' , ti_ri?, r.:,, '?-?._ ., `'`t, h ?. ? .,,. 4' } ? 1 1 •f?sy? ??x''w?i ?? •kJr{'?
Legend:
Parcel BoundaryFigure 1. Site Vicinity Map
ti
Lincolnton West Quad 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet
to
Source of Mapping: IMMO
USGS Quadrangle Maps and
"?,
' GIS Data from NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis

[J

C?
G
.E
D
V
_O
O
L.
N
a)
LL
o
C
o Lf)
o a
27) o
'E
C ?
Y C
O
LL U ro O
U p
'O O m
co
C ? ? C
N > O
is

J
u
0

which corresponds to Unit 10 as defined by N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program-
Division of Water Quality (NCWRP). This subbasin has received a "Priority" designation
by the NCWRP. Leonards Fork Creek is classified as C from the source to a point 0.2
mile downstream of SR 1180 (George Brown Road). Class C designates appropriate
uses as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and secondary recreation.
These waters are found in moderately to highly developed watersheds where point
source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted; local programs to control
nonpoint source and stormwater discharge are required. Leonards Fork Creek is not
listed as a 303(d) water in the 2000 North Carolina listing.
Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (FIRM) from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (1978) indicates that a substantial portion of the floodplain bordering Leonards
Fork Creek and portions of the floodplain of two tributaries to Leonards Fork are located
in the 100-year flood zone, Zone A, as shown in Figure 3.

L

Leonards Fork Creek forms the western boundary of the site (see Appendix A). On the
north end of the property a first order tributary, hereafter referred to as the northern
tributary, enters the site from the east and flows west across the site for approximately
550 feet before joining Leonards Fork Creek. A second tributary to Leonards Fork
Creek flows into the property from the northeast and continues to flow to the southwest
for approximately 3,650 feet across the site until it joins with Leonards Fork Creek on
the southern end of the property. This tributary will be referred to hereafter as the
middle tributary. A third stream, which originates on the southeastern side of the
property, flows for approximately 500 feet until it reaches its confluence with the middle
tributary, approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the middle tributary's confluence with
Leonards Fork Creek. This stream will be referred to hereafter as the southeastern
tributary (see Figure 1).
The hydrology of the site is driven by three main components: stormwater runoff from
upland areas that provides surface and subsurface flow to the three small tributaries to
Leonards Fork Creek, the discharge of the three small tributary streams and movement
of water through their associated floodplains, and the discharge and movement of water
through the channel and floodplain of Leonards Fork Creek itself.
1

L

A ditch is located at the toe of the upland slope in the large cleared floodplain area
adjacent to Leonards Fork Creek. It is approximately 2,600 feet long. This ditch
intercepts runoff from the uplands to the east, and effectively drains the floodplain of
Leonards Fork Creek (see Figure 4).
Ten Remote Data Systems groundwater monitoring gauges were installed on the site at
various locations (see Figure 4 for locations) and groundwater elevations were
recorded from June 1, 2000 through January 2002. Gauges were moved to new
locations in January 2002 to collect hydrology data necessary to determine if the
restorable soils areas exhibit jurisdictional hydrology.
4

Figure 4. Historic Gauge Locations
Parcel ...?.... Leonards Fork Church Road
® Monitoring Gauge [?:::;s Preservation (.5 acres)
Ditch Restoration (4.3 acres)
Leonards Fork Creek Creation (18.2 acres)
500 0 500 1000 Feet
of '?? C49o.
ti y
ti v
4
9?y?NT OF TS OP
Q

'7

H

0

1

WETS meteorological data from the station in Lincointon (station NC4996) was used to
determine growing season dates for the site. The data indicates that a 50% probability
of temperatures of 280 F or higher occurs between March 24 and November 7, a period
of 228 days. Guidance from the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual states in
Table 5, Hydrologic Zones-Nontidal Areas, that an area which experiences inundation
or saturation for a period of 5-12.5% of the growing season is not necessarily a wetland,
but could be. Five percent of the growing season on the site (228 days) equals
approximately 11 days. 12.5% of the growing season equals approximately 28 days,
therefore the range of days of consecutive inundation or saturation is 11 to 28 days.
Using this range, none of the gauges on the site recorded jurisdictional hydrology in
2000, the longest period recorded was five consecutive days for gauges 2 and 10
(gauge nos. S3699C5 and S369A6D respectively). In 2001, gauges 1, 2, 3, and 7
recorded periods of saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface on consecutive days
that fall within or exceed the 11 to 28 day period. Gauge 1 (S3698DA) recorded 51
days, gauge 2 (S3699C5) recorded 228 days, gauge 3 (S3697A4) recorded 23 days,
and gauge 7 (S3696F5) recorded 15 days. Gauge 1 was installed beside the seep that
produces the flow in the southeastern tributary. Gauges 2 and 3 were installed beside
the middle tributary, just above its streambed elevation. Gauge 7 recorded the 15-day
period during March of 2002, when according to the WETS data, 6.64 inches of
precipitation fell. The average monthly precipitation for March is 4.53 inches, with a
30% probability that precipitation will exceed 5.37 inches, indicating that the amount that
fell during March of 2001 was unusually high. This would explain why jurisdictional
hydrology was recorded during this abnormally wet period, and not at any other time
during monitoring.
A water budget has been calculated for the site, for dry, normal and wet years, and is
located in Appendix B.
2.5 Soils
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Lincoln County
indicates that there are five soil types found onsite:
• Riverview loam (RvA), 0 to 2% slopes, occasionally flooded
• Chewacla loam (ChA), 0 to 2% slopes, frequently flooded
• Gaston sandy clay loam (GnB2), 2 to 8% slopes, eroded
• Gaston sandy clay loam (GnC2), 8 to 15% slopes, eroded
• Helena sandy loam (HeB), 1 to 6% slopes
Summary descriptions of each soil series from the NRCS Lincoln County Soil Survey
(1995) are found in Table 1. Figure 5 is the soils map of the site from the Soil Survey.
The Riverview loam (RvA) soil series area is located in the western and southern
portions of the site, in the floodplain of Leonards Fork Creek and the lower floodplain of
the middle tributary to Leonards Fork Creek. This series is characterized by well-
drained, moderately permeable soils on floodplains, formed from recent alluvium
7
GnB2
GnC2 -' ?
HeB
Figure 5. NRCS Soils Map
Soils Masada
Lnewacla _ Pacolet
Gaston Loam .? Ya Riverview
- -1 Gaston sandy clay loam 2-8%) slope Leonards Fork Creek
Gaston sandy clay loam ?8-15%) slope - Leonards Fork Church Road
-i Helena 0 Property Boundary
600 0 600 1200 Feet
NOflTH
9
N
A0
4
y tT
9r??Nr OF TRPNSPOP

R?O??
j

Figure 7. Proposed Mitigation Areas
F``''? Preservation (0.5 acres) Proposed Stream Restoration
Parcels Em Preservation ?.
Leonards Fork Creek Restoration (4.3 acres) ® Rosgen Stream Restoration Priority Number
Leonards Fork Church Road L? Creation (18.2 acres) (D Monitoring Gauge
500 0 500 1000 Feet
Of NORTH C4
^? 9
?Y O?Z
y
o p
~ hQ
9T??Nl OF lvlp ?QOP

n

F1

H

0

An estimate of the proposed stream restoration through the Leonards Fork Creek
floodplain is 4,160 feet.
Stream restoration on the middle tributary (see Figure 7) will consist of Rosgen Priority
2 restoration (reconfigured new channel within a newly graded flood prone area) on a
reach from the upstream property line extending downstream for approximately 1,550
feet. From the downstream endpoint of the Priority 2 restoration, the dimension of the
channel will be adjusted to accommodate bankfull flow and the channel will be stabilized
using in-stream structures and live-staked vegetation for approximately 950 feet
downstream. The remaining reach of the middle tributary to Leonards Fork Creek will
be restored using a Rosgen Priority 2 strategy for approximately 2,050 feet. An
estimate of the proposed stream restoration on the middle tributary is 4,550 feet.
Stream restoration on the southeastern tributary will consist of Rosgen Priority 2
restoration, from the source to the confluence with the middle tributary, a distance of
approximately 975 feet (see Figure 7).
The total amount of estimated stream restoration will equal approximately 9,685 feet.
3.5 Mitigation Types and Area Summary
Three types of wetland mitigation and stream restoration are proposed at the site, as
shown in Figure 7 (also shown are current groundwater monitoring gauge locations).
Preservation is proposed for a 0.5-acre wetland, P1, delineated on the southeastern
tributary for preservation. Restoration is proposed in two areas, R1 and R2, with a total
of 4.3 acres. Restoration will be dependant upon the 2002 growing season data
obtained from groundwater monitoring gauges distributed across R1 and R2. This total
area could change based on that data, accordingly. A total of 18.2 acres are proposed
for creation. Jurisdictional hydrology will be restored in this area by filling the existing
ditch at the toe of the upland slope to eliminate drainage. Wetland vegetation will be
restored by planting appropriate tree species (see planting plans in Vegetation
Section 3.62).
A total of 50.8 acres of upland areas onsite will be preserved and will function as an
upland buffer for the mitigation site.
The total amount of estimated stream restoration will equal approximately 9,685 feet.
A summary of project site areas and their proposed uses is presented in Table 2.
17

1

1

F

C?

Table 2. Leonards Fork Creek Mitigation Bank Proposed Areas, Zones and
Lengths
Proposed Future Land Use Area (acres)
Wetland Restoration 4.3*
Wetland Creation 18.2
Wetland Preservation 0.5*
Upland Buffer Preservation 50.8
TOTAL 73.8

Proposed Future Stream Zone Length (linear feet)
Stream Restoration 9,685

'Hotential areas dependant upon groundwater monitoring data for the 2002 growing season. I hese
numbers will be adjusted according to the presence/absence of jurisdictional hydrology.
3.6 Conceptual Mitigation Design Description
3.6.1 Restoration of Natural Grade, Surface Hydrology and
Vegetation
The natural grade and surface hydrology of the proposed project site have been
extensively altered by the construction of the ditch and the erosional incision of the
tributary channels. Rectification of the hydrologic changes made to the drainage
patterns that likely existed before development of the site will require the relocation and
movement of soil and flowing water onsite. Important features of the proposed
conceptual mitigation design include:
• filling of the drainage ditch to the surrounding grade,

0

• construction of a Rosgen Priority Level I E5 channel in the floodplain
area beside Leonards Fork Creek,
• Rosgen-based restoration of the middle and southeastern tributary
channels,
• planting of appropriate riparian buffer vegetation along the stream
restoration reaches,
• planting of appropriate tree species throughout the wetland restoration
and creation areas,
• planting of appropriate species in the upland buffer restoration areas.
The conceptual mitigation design areas (Figure 7) graphically depict where the
proposed activities will restore the natural wetland functions of the site.
18

3.6.2 Vegetation Planting Plan, Planting Criteria and Wildlife
Benefits
' The mitigation areas on the site will consist of two community types, Riparian Buffer and
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Hardwood. The Riparian Buffer type will be established
' adjacent to restored stream channels. The species mix is based on information in the
Wetland Restoration Program Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration (2001). The
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Hardwood type species composition will follow Schafale
' and Weakley (1990).
The intent of the restoration planting is to introduce vegetative species to the site
' consistent with the target communities. Success will be gauged by survival rates of the
tree plantings. However, species already established on the site or upstream will
naturally colonize and provide further wildlife habitat and benefits. Species identified on
the site and expected to colonize naturally include:
Common Name Scientific Name
' Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata
Blackberry Rubus cuneifolius
Arrow Arum Peltandra virginica
' Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Soft Rush Juncus effusus
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanicum
' Smooth Alder Alnus serrulata
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis
t Natural colonization will result in the distribution of early succession herbaceous and
woody species across the site. The project focus will be to establish natural vegetative
communities in the appropriate landscape position. In addition, wildlife benefits are of
particular interest and species providing good habitat and food resources have been
chosen accordingly.
' Riparian Fringe- Zone A

11

A variety of species will be planted along the riparian fringe of the restored channel.
This zone will extend approximately 10 feet on either side of the channel and will be
planted with species tolerant of regular inundation to provide further stabilization in the
channel design. Plantings proposed for this zone include a mix of:
Common Name
Wildlife/wetland seed mix
with erosion control matting
Silky Dogwood
Buttonbush
Tag Alder
Scientific Name
Corpus amomum
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Alnus serrulata
19

r Piedmont-Mountain Bottomland Forest- Zone B
Moving farther along the topographic gradient perpendicular to the creek, soil
permeability is slower due to finer alluvial soil. The soil moisture regime is
characterized by extended hydroperiods, compared to the Piedmont/Mountain Levee
' Forest found bordering Leonards Fork Creek. The vegetative community reflects the
increase in moisture and is commonly found on Chewacla soils. Species proposed for
planting in this zone include:
Common Name Scientific Name
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii
' Cherrybark Oak Quercus falcata var. pagodafolia
Pin Oak Quercus palustris
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
' River Birch Betula nigra
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata
' Planting Criteria
Disturbed areas will be planted with a wildlife/annual grass mix. The wildlife mix
' contains Japanese Millet and white prosso millet (Pennisetum spp.), buckwheat
(Fagopyrum esculentum) and grain sorghum (Sorghum vulgare). The annual grass mix
will contain species such as barley (Hordeum spp.) and rye (Secale cereale). This
' herbaceous mix will be used to stabilize the soil as natural native vegetation begins
recruitment on the site.

1
1

F

Tree species will be planted in the wetland mitigation areas on a 8 X 10-foot spacing, or
545 trees per acre, with the goal of a survival rate of 320 trees per acre at the end five
years. A combination of containerized and bare root seedlings will be planted on the
site depending upon availability and robustness of the species.
Wildlife Benefits
Current transitional vegetation on the site such as Rubus cuneifolius , Asclepias
incarnata, and Carex spp. provide food for many species including the cottontail rabbit
(Sylvilagus nuttalli), bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), prairie warbler (Dendroica
discolor), yellow-breasted chat (lcteria virens) and whitetail deer (Odocoileus
virginanus). The production of seeds from these plants furnishes food for rodents like
the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus).
In addition, host plants such as Asclepias incarnata provide important habitat for
Lepidoptera where they lay eggs.
The riparian fringe of the proposed stream channel, Zone A, will include shrub plantings
such as Cephalanthus occidentalis and Alnus serrulata. This vegetation, supplemented
with understory species that naturally colonize, will form thickets that provide important
food and shelter for many species.
20

A variety of mast and drupe producing species have been included in the planting plan
in Zone B. Among these, Quercus michauxii , Quercus falcata var. pagodafolia,
Fraxinus pennsylvanica and Celtis laevigata provide important habitat for a variety of
wildlife including wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavvo), wood ducks (Aix sponsa), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), scarlet tanager (Piranga
olivacea), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). Stands of
these trees also provide food for rodents and thus benefit predators such as the red-
shoulder hawk (Buteo lineatus), barred owl (Strix varia) and black racer snake (Coluber
constrictor).
' The proposed planting plan has been developed with the intent of developing a
successful, stable and mature vegetative community that provides habitat and food
resources for a diversity of wildlife species common to the piedmont of North Carolina.
3.7 Mitigation Credit Calculations
I Upon implementation, the following mitigation acreages are expected from the site:
Mitiqaton Type Acreage Linear Feet
' Restoration 4.3*
Creation 18.2
Preservation 0.5*
' Stream Restoration 9,685

F
L

Total Mitigation Acreage 23.0
Upland Buffer 50.8
Total Site Acreage 73.8
Tinal Restoration and Preservation acreages will be dependent upon groundwater gauge
monitoring data from those areas.
Credit Composition and Number of Credits:
Wetlands Ratio Credits
Restoration 1:1 4.3*
Creation 3:1 6.1
Preservation 5:1 0.1*
TOTAL 10.5
Streams Ratio Linear Feet Credits
Restoration 1.5:1 9,685 6,457
*Final Restoration and Preservation Credits will be dependent upon acreages determined for
those areas based on groundwater gauge monitoring data.
21
1
3.8 Construction
' Construction will be performed by a contractor licensed and insured in the State of
North Carolina. All construction and planting will be monitored by the RK&K/MRI team
for quality control and for assurance that the project scope and schedule is maintained.
' As-Built Plans will be prepared and submitted to the MBRT after construction is
completed.
' 4.0 MONITORING PLAN

0

1

7
L

I1
4.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
Sixteen groundwater monitoring gauges will be used to monitor groundwater levels in
the mitigation areas. Twelve gauges will be located in the Creation area in two linear
transects of six gauges each, parallel to the position of the existing drainage ditch. Four
gauges will be used to monitor the restoration areas, two on the middle tributary and
two on the southeastern tributary. Proposed monitoring gauge locations are depicted in
Figure 8.
The groundwater levels recorded at each of these gauges will be compared to the
groundwater levels recorded at the reference wetland location. The jurisdictional
hydroperiod will be adjusted based on the data obtained from the reference gauge if
below-normal amounts of precipitation occur during the monitoring period.
4.2 Vegetation Monitoring
A total of 11 random 0.05-acre plots will be established on transects across the site to
monitor the survival, growth, and species composition of the vegetation established in
the mitigation areas. This number of plots will provide a 2.5% sample of the mitigation
areas. Success criterion is 320 stems/acre survival after 5 years.
4.3 Stream Monitoring
The stream restoration monitoring protocol will follow the Wetlands Restoration
Program's Draft Physical and Vegetation Monitoring Outline and the USACE Draft
Stream Guidelines, Monitoring Level I.
Duration: The stream will be monitored for five years after construction, through a
minimum of two bankfull flood events.
Reporting: Three (1St, 3ra, 5th years) Monitoring Reports will be sent at the end of yearly
monitoring period to USACE and 401-Wetlands group.
22
a .RRR y s 4
,?'" "53 ???? fit, ?,?' ? ?? " } ?• •
..:tae
-x yg¢
}

d'
t
r ! .
. 1
i 9

c t,

t,!
'y
sts:'

?r ?' x#14° - ? r> .
r g` ??A
r.
! i 3 Nk
? • ?. w+ t ??4 1t{
A
s
P i

Figure 8. Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Locations
Parcels Preservation (0.5 acres)
® Monitoring Gauge Restoration (4.3 acres)
Leonards Fork Creek j? Creation (18.2 acres)
Leonards Fork Church Road
500 0 500 1000 Feet
OF NOHTN C49
N 9
O
4
,Q
_"OF ta4•N?'QCP

Stream Geomorphology
' Dimension:
• permanent cross-sections (surveyed or GPS) will be established (1 per 20
bankfull-width lengths)
• based on reference reach and stream curves
• measurements: W/D ratio, Entrenchment ratio, Low Bank Height ratio (low bank
height/max. bankfull depth)
' Pattern:
• Plan view of project site based on valley type/stream type
• Measurements: sinuosity, meander width ratio, and radius of curvature (on newly
' constructed meanders only for 1 st year monitoring)
Profile:
' • Longitudinal Profile based on stream type
• Measurements: slope (average, pool, riffle), pool to pool spacing

n
C

Materials:
• Pebble counts based on reference stream and stream type
• Established D50 and D85 should increase in coarseness in riffles, increase in
fineness in pools
• Measurement: sampling based on percent of pools and riffles
Photo Reference Points:
• One per cross-section (show banks and channel)
• Several structures (rock/cross vanes, rootwads, etc.)
Streams-Vegetative
• Riparian buffer zones will be established
• Zones will be planted with native vegetation based on reference stream
vegetation and riparian vegetation common to the region
• Survival must be 320 stems/acre for trees after 5 years
Streams-Biological
• Macrobenthic monitoring based on 401-Wetlands protocol
• Fish sampling when protocol is developed
4.4 Annual Monitoring Report
An annual report will be generated documenting groundwater levels across the site and
vegetation growth, survival and species composition. This report will indicate whether
the restoration and creation areas are exhibiting jurisdictional hydrology and will
24

' describe the status of the vegetation in those areas. A stream monitoring report will be
submitted in the first, third and fifth year.
' 4.5 Remedial Actions
Based on the results of the annual monitoring reports, the need for remediation will be
determined by the authorizing agency(ies) in consultation with the MBRT and bank
sponsor. If performance criteria set forth in this plan are not met, remedial actions such
' as the replanting of trees or the repair of eroded stream banks will be proposed to the
MBRT for approval before work begins. If jurisdictional hydrologic criteria are not met,
appropriate remedial actions will be proposed to the MBRT.
' 5.0 GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA
I The geographic service area for the site will be Cataloging Unit 03050102, the South
Fork Catawba River Basin, which is depicted graphically in Figure 2.
' 6.0 FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY
The property is now owned by MRI. The letter of intent to donate the property to
Catawba Lands Conservancy and the Conservancy's positive response, from Director
Ron Altmann, to the intent to donate, are included in Appendix F.
' 7.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

RK&K has a performance bond (Bond Number 929107581) with American Casualty
Company of Reading, Pennsylvania for $1,019,000 and a monitoring and site
management bond (Bond Number 929170582) for $1,628,000 totaling $2,647,000.
Documentation of the bonding is in Appendix G.
8.0 CREDIT TRANSACTION AND ACCOUNTING
Credit generation and transfer will be recorded by the bank Sponsors and also by
NCDOT. The MBRT will be notified of each deduction and the Sponsors will provide the
USACE with an annual transaction sheet, in a suitable format.
9.0 LITERATURE CITED
Carter, Virginia. 1986. An overview of hydrologic concerns related to wetlands in the
United States. Canadian Journal of Botany. 64:364-374.
Carter, Virginia, M.S. Bedinger, R.P. Novitzki, and W.O. Wilen. 1979. Water resources
and wetlands. In Greeson, P.E., J.R.Clark, and Judith E. Clark (eds). 1979.
Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. American
Water Resources Association. Technical Publication Number: TPS79-2,
Minneapolis, Minnesota. 674pp.
25

' North Carolina State Data Center, Office of the State Budget and Management.
2001. County Population Growth 2000-2010.
Pierce, Gary J. 1993. Planning hydrology for constructed wetlands. Wetland Training
Institute, Inc., Poolesville, Md.
' Richardson, Curtis J. 1994. Ecological functions and human values in wetlands: a
framework for evaluating forestry impacts. Wetlands 14:1, p. 1-9.
Schafale, Michael P. and Alan S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh N.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey of
Lincoln County, North Carolina.

1
u
u
u
C

26

Water Budget Explanation and Assumptions
' A water budget is used to describe and estimate how water enters, moves
through, and leaves a particular site. It is a method of "accounting" for water
inputs and withdrawals. Carter (1986) and Carter et al. (1979) formulated an
' accepted equation for wetland water balance, as found in Pierce (1993) as
follows:
' P + SWI + GWI = ET +SWO + GWO + S
Where

P = Precipitation
SWI = Surface water inflow
' GWI _ Ground water inflow
ET Evapotranspiration
SWO = Surface water outflow
' GWO Ground water outflow
_
S Change in storage (excess or deficit water)
' The above equation can also be rearranged and expressed as
P+SWI+GWI-ET-SWO-GWO-S=0
' There are a wide variety of methods for estimating these parameters. The level
of effort involved ranges from using empirically-based functions derived from
previous studies to estimate values, to the highest level of effort of gathering
long-term physical data onsite and developing site-specific estimates. This water
budget uses accepted empirically-derived equations for estimating parameters
' since limited site data is available.
This water budget was developed to generate a conservative estimate of monthly
' surplus or excess water, if any. It is not intended to be anything more than a
good-faith estimation of the potential monthly water surplus, which includes a
graphical depiction of the effect that the cumulative soil moisture surplus (or
' deficit) could have on the soil moisture regime. The graphed amounts of
cumulative depth of saturation represent an estimate of the total potential depth
of soil saturation given the excess amount of water predicted by the model and
do not take into account soil permeability rates, which allow the soil to drain. It
also should be noted that groundwater has not been factored into this equation.
' Although groundwater will play a role in the depth of saturated soils on the site, it
has not been included as input in order to develop a conservative estimate.
The weather data used in this water budget was acquired from the NRCS
' (WETS) and from the State Climate Office of NC. Monthly and annual
precipitation averages and monthly temperature averages were obtained from

' the WETS data (1961-1990 period of record) and daily precipitation amounts
were taken from the State Climate Office data (1952-2000 period of record).
' Using the average annual precipitation value reported in the WETS data of
46.85"/yr, two wet years, two normal years and two dry years were selected
' between 1952 and 2000. These data were selectively pared down to one year
for each wet, normal and dry year category. The years that were selected were
those with few occurrences of unusually large or small monthly amounts of
' precipitation during the growing season, thus decreasing the likelihood of
analyzing a tropical storm or drought event. The wet year selected was 1974,
the normal year was 1983 and the dry year was 1988.
' Surface water and Groundwater inflow (SWI and GWI) were assumed to be zero
(conservative estimate), consequently the only input into the system was
' assumed to be precipitation. Evapotranspiration was estimated using the widely
accepted Thornthwaite method which predicts potential evapotranspiration based
on an assumption that soil moisture is not limiting. The formula is
' Et = 1.6(10Ta/1)a
' Where
Et= potential evapotranspiration in cm/month (which is subsequently
' converted to inches)
Ta =mean monthly air temperature
I = the monthly heat index where
' i= 1
1 = E (Ta/5)1.5
' i= 12
a = 0.49 + 0.01791 - 0.000077112 + 0.00000067513
' The calculated value of potential evapotranspiration must be adjusted to latitude and
month using a correction factor for the equation, found in Pierce (1993). The average of
' the values for 30 N and 40 N was used for each month for the Leonards Fork Site,
located at 35 N latitude.
' Runoff was calculated using the USDA TR-55 empirical equation
Q = (P-0.2S )2/(p +0.8S)

1
Where
'1

E

F
Q = runoff volume expressed in inches of depth over the watershed
P = 24-hour precipitation expressed in inches
S = retention, with an estimation of S being
S = (1000/CN) - 10
And CN is the curve number calculated for the watershed using the
TR-55 methodology. Simply put, a Curve Number is assigned to an area based
on soil type, vegetation cover and impervious area characteristics. The higher
the curve number, the more runoff is generated by the area. The weighted curve
number was calculated to be 74.
The runoff equation is used to calculate the amount of precipitation
generate runoff, given the CN number, and that "threshold" amount of rain for
each curve number is then used to screen the daily precipitation amounts for
each budget year. When rainfall exceeds the threshold amount, the runoff
amount is calculated for that event, and all the events are summed for each
month.
In this water budget, precipitation is the input with potential evapotranspiration
and runoff calculated as the outflows as shown in Figures 1-3 of Appendix B.
Anything remaining ( i.e. a positive value in the excess water column) is assumed
to infiltrate into the soil. Figures 1-3 show that there is excess water during the
months of March and April and Figures 1 and 2 indicate an excess of water
during October and November.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 in Appendix B are a depiction of how deep the excess water
would saturate the Chewacla soil (the water holding capacity of this soil was
computed by taking the average of values listed in the Lincoln County Soil
Survey for Chewacla soils). The average water holding capacity was computed
to be 0.20 Inches/inch meaning 0.20 inches of water will saturate 1 inch of soil.
The graphed depth is the total depth of soil saturation that would result if all the
excess water for the month was allowed to infiltrate into the soil at one time. It
does not depict any natural interruptions that occur in the saturated soil profile
caused by lack of rain or moisture. The cumulative depth of saturation is used to
convey graphically the additive effect consecutive wet months have on the total
possible depth of soil saturation. Figures 4, 5 and 6 indicate cumulative depth of
saturation is generally greatest during March through May. The soil saturation
graphs are not intended to be a realistic depiction of soil moisture conditions, but
they are helpful in visualizing the total amount of soil saturation potential that is
present in a soil over a month's time.
required to

r
O
Z
cC
t
?U
Z
N
m
a U
M =
co O
C
i J
U)
O
O +'
Q
c=a ?
L Y
? O
++ LL
d N
3 cu
m ?
L- O
r
iL

rl LL
E77 --

mm
m? C
T

O CO to N O N ?Y (fl 00
Satpul
a?
U
X
w
¦
0
c
7
w
CL
¦
C
O
.Q
U
m

O
Z
U
?U
3 ?
c
o ?
cli c U
011
. c
?- o
co co IL)
T
L
V/
0
L O
Q
L
C
? G
Y
am p
U.
CO)
m ?
L L
+Q)+ r
J
N
L
7
EL
0
Q
A?l
1-75
i
L
U
-MIN
c
m
CO O N O N CO o0
sayaul

U)
U)
U
X
w
i'
0
D
wi
0
® I
C
0
.a
U

qtT
ti
O
Z
U
?U
M
q 7
L O
U) U
d ?
O
? V
C
? J
r
i ?
++ 0
0 i:+
O ?
L
O
LL
M?
W
lC O
J
M
0
L
iTL
00 (D 'IT N O N d (O co
s8t43ul
L
a?
co
U
x
W
¦
0
C
I- ?
W
a_
?
C
0
((f
U
N
d

Z
U
3
V
C006 Z
i =
4) 0
v
> _
a?
o cn
0
O
O
N
p Li
cn u)
-a
O L
- C
Q O
W d
a J
q*
d
L
LL
m
0
a? II
U)
a
7,-
cz
a.
z
I
cr1
It 0 0 0 00
say?u?
c
O
M
O
L
Q
m
0
a?
.Z6
7
E
7
U

c
O
U)
.o
0
Q
a?

a?
i?
m
U
X
W
0

Rt
ti
Z
U
U
C6
0
? C
T
i O
?U
} O
>' U
D ?
? J
O ?
C N
O =
O
N
O ?
(n O
4- LL
O N
t 'C
p O
a)
u J
m
LL

Q
a
a>
73
- - 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
co N T T N Cf)
SOMOUI
C=
0
0
a
0
0
a?
.Z6
7
E
Z3
U
c
0
co
CO
.o
0
a
(D
i?
U)
m
0
x
w
u

Z
U
t
ti
a? c
T
O
?U
O ?
? o
? J
L Q?
N
O ?
? O
Cl)
O L
U
v- LL
O (J)
L ?
Q. M
O O
Q
J
d
L
rn
LL
N ?N 0O0 O O
I I I I T ?
say:)ul
c
0
7
N
Cl)
t
a
a?
0
a?
E
U
c
0
m
0
0
L
Q
iz
U)
U)
m
U
X
W
m
CU

' APPENDIX C
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, NATURAL
' HERITAGE PROGRAM, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE AND LINCOLN COUNTY SOIL AND WATER
' CONSERVATION DISTRICT LETTERS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

F

0
u
Sent By: RK&K BALTIMORE;
4107282992;
SrAlr
Feb-^-k 00 10:07AM; Page 3
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Aduliniarator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and IIislory
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
February 21, 2000
Steven A. Morsbergcr
Rummel. Klepper, & Kahl
81 Mosher St.
Baltimore, MD 21217-2900
Re: Leonards Fork Wetland Mitigation Project, Lincoln County, ER 00-8659
Dear Mr. Morsbergcr:
' Thank you for your letter of January 24, 2000, concerning the above project.
There are -no known recorded';archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the
project area. has.never,be'en systematically surveyed to determine the locatioil.or'signiticance of
archaeological:resources. '
Our records indicate numerous archaeological sites are recorded-in the-region;
The area plotted on your map includes topographic settings with potential for archaeological
sites that may be significant.
' We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to
identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources should be assessed
prior to the initiation of construction activities.
' We look forward to reviewing your Scope of Work for the requested archaeological survey.
Should you need assistance with development of the archaeological Scope of Work please do not
hesitate to contact our office. We suggest you urge the archaeological firm you hire to contact
' our office prior to the survey to clarify our concerns about the portion of this particular parcel
that should be surveyed.
' Enclosed is a list or archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in
conducting contract work in North Carolina. Individual files providing additional .information on
the consultants may be examined at the State Historic Preservation Office's Office of State
Archaeology,'421-North Blount Street, Raleigh. If additional names are desired, you may
consult the current fisting of the'inelribers of the Register of Professiorial=Archaeologists, or
contact the register's mirfent office manager, Ainy Chetelat, 5024-R Campbell 13ouleva'rd, "
' Location Mailing AddresA Telephono?/ltwa
ADMINISTRA'rI[ON 507 N. Blount St., Ralcigh N(: 4617 Mail Service Center, Ralcigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 731-8653
ARC HAEOL(H.:Y 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh N(: 27699-4619 [phone] - 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801
' SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 46 13 Mail Service Center, Ralcigh NC 27699-4618 (919) 733.654) - '/L)-4801
Sent By: RK&K BALTIMORE; 1 4107282992; Feb-"- 00 10:07AM; Page 4
i

page 2
Baltimore, Maryland 21236-5974,410/933-3486, FAX [phone], WWW.RPANET.ORC.
Any of the above persons, or any other experieheed archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct
the recommended investigation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your, cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley., environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.

Sincerely,
a,"
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DI3:scb
I enclosure

n

0
cc: Steve Chapin, ACOE, Asheville
John Dorney, NCDWQ, NCDENR
Rf,c
? ?? ?' ? 2004
ANL.
R?MMEI?:Kl?pptiC? &.Y

Sent By: RK&K BALTIMORE;
J

F1

1

RUMMEL-KLEPPER & KAHL
' ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
4107282992;
•?WwWA'?
Feb-^°,00 10:08AM; Page 7
North Carolina Departrrrnient of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
CONSULTANTS ANb CONSULTING FIRMS
February 2000
The follMng list is provided by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as a service
to the agencies, organizations, and individuals planning to conduct terrestrial or underwater archaeological
surveys, site evaluations, excavations, architectural surveys, or preparation of National Register
Nominations for review and compliance purposes. the list contains names of firms and individuals who
have previously conducted such studies in North Calrolina or have otherwise notified the SHPO of their
interest in performing contracted studies. The SHPO assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of
this list and does not attest to the personal or corporate qualifications of persons or firms
appearing herein. Contracting agencies are encouraged to consult other listings of potential contractors
such as the membership list of the Society of Professional Archaeologists, and to carefully examine the
credentials of any firm or person contracted.
Additional details on the current listings, as well as information concerning the SHPO-accepted contractual
procedures, guidelines for report writing and review and professional qualifications are available through
the Environmental Review Coordinator, State Historic Preservation Office, 4617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617, 91917334763.
An asterisk r) following an individual or company name indicates that at least one principal investigator (PI)
attended and completed the SHPO's two-day Environmental Review and Compliance Laws and
Procedures Workshop in 1992. A double asterisk (*) indicates that the consultant attended the SHPO's
1993 Consultant's Workshop,
Lacatlon Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617:mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 ('919) 733-4763 • 733-8653
421 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4619:Mail Service Center, Kaleigh NC 27699-4619 (919) 737-734-1 • 71>-3671
51S N. 8104thl St., Ralcitgh NC. 4613:Mail Scrvice Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801
5 tS N. Blount St., Rulcigh NC 4618'Mall Service C.rnter, Raleigh N(: 27699.4618 (919) 731 6.545 'Y i 5-4801
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2000
i
' JUL 5 2000
N, RUMIVItL, KLWPF=R & KAHL
'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources RAIRP-u nip
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
' June 27, 2000
Mr. Mark Seelinger
Rummel, Klepper, &
5800 Faringdon Plac
' Raleigh, NC 27609-
Re: Leonards Fo
' Dear Mr. Seelinger:
mfitting the plans for the subject project.
' Thank you for trans
In a letter of Februar
' Based upon a review
project is recommen
The above comment
the Advisory Counc
at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your
' comment, please co
Sincerely,
??bavid Brook
?j Deputy State Histor
DB:scb
Kahl
e, Suite 105
3960
rk Wetland Mitigation Project, Lincoln County, ER 00-8659
y 21, 2000, we recommended an archaeological survey of the subject project.
of the plans we are rescind that recommendation. No survey for the subject
ded.
s are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
it on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified
cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
ntact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
&It
is Preservation Officer
cc: Steve Chapin, ACOE - Asheville

Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] • 715-2671
'
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] • 715-4801

JUL ROOM
2 6 2000
RUMMEL, KLEPPER & KAHL
RALEIGH N('
Ms. Kimberly S. Leight
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
?C..? V- v T V ?• f\ Cw r%i` 5
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
July 20, 2000
SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas at a Proposed NCDOT
Leonards Fork Wetland Mitigation Project Site in Lincoln
County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Leight:
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) does not have a record of rare species,
high quality natural communities, or Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs) at
or within a 1.0 mile radius of the proposed NCDOT Leonards Fork wetland
mitigation site in Lincoln County, North Carolina.
I have enclosed a rare species list of known occurrences in Lincoln County. If habitat
at the site is conducive to any of these species, they may exist there. Consultant
acquired knowledge of the site should determine if a survey is necessary.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below or call me at (919) 715-
8703 if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Susan Reece Giles
Information Specialist
NC Natural Heritage Program
Enclosure
r
1615 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1615
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

11

Richard Mogensen
Marsh Resources Inc.
236 Transco Road
Mooresville, NC 28115
Dear Rich,
21 August 2001
Thank you for allowing us to include your site in the Lincoln County Natural Heritage Inventory.
This letter provides information for your use. On 17 August 2001 John Soule and I visited the
tract of land known as Leonard's Fork Wetland Mitigation Site. Our goal was to inventory the
natural areas, to document the plant species, and to identify any natural communities present.
During the course of our inventory there. were no federally listed plant species found within the
area we surveyed, specifically Hexastylis naniflora and Rhus michauxii. The only remaining
natural areas within the site are very narrow strips of trees along the stream corridors and the
manmade ditch. The natural community type present approximates a Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest. Cattle grazing have heavily impacted the entire area. In most places the herb
layer has been replaced by the invasive exotic Microstegium vimineum. Overall, from a Natural
Heritage standpoint, the integrity of this site is poor.
Although Hexastylis naniora does occur in Lincoln County, it requires a specific habitat of
wooded bluffs and slopes adjacent to seeps and streams. The areas on this site that would have
provided possible habitat for H. naniflora have been so adversely impacted by cattle grazing that
the habitat no longer exists. As expected, no plants were found.
There is a historical record of Rhars michauxii reported in 1917 for Lincoln County, but none
since then. During the course of field work for the Lincoln County Natural Heritage Survey,
which is in its second year, Rhars michauxii has not been found anywhere in the county. The
habitat where this species is typically found is described as sandhills, sandy forests, woodland and
' woodland edges, perhaps associated with basic soils. In my opinion there is no habitat present on
this site to support Rhars michauxii, and as expected, no plants were found.
' Once again, thank you for participating in the inventory. If you would like additional information
I will be happy to provide it upon request.
' Sincerely,
' Lisa Gaffney
Botanist
Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program (HARP)
P.O. Box 655
Newell, NC 28126
704-502-7799

b
' 09 September, 2001

' Marsh Resources, Inc.
Attn.: Christine Edmonds
236 Transco Road
Mooresville, NC 28115

i
11

Dear Ms. Edmonds:
This is a conclusion to date regarding the presence/absence of Bog
Turtles (Clemmys muhlenbergii) at your company's two (2) sites in Lincoln
county, NC - Pott Creek and Leonard's Fork Creek. By way of the existing
highways, they are circa nine.(9) miles apart.
I visited.Pott Creek Site a total of six (6) times looking for them but
found none, nor evidence of them, at any time nor would I expect to find any
Bog Turtles there due to some environmental conditions.
Regarding the Leonard's Fork Creek Site, I visited there two (2) times
and found no Bog Turtles; or evidence of them, nor would I expect to find
them due to some environmental conditions.
Due to the lateness in the year/season when this year's searches began,
I recommend that I be allowed to return to both sites in 2002 during late
winter/early to late spring when they are naturally more active. If they are to .
be found at either site, April - June is the best time frame to find them. Not
only do I desire to actively continue searching for them, I would like to set
traps to aid in the site investigations even though I do not believe they are
there. Historically, they might have been at both sites but due, possibly in
part to human impact, they seem to be absent now.

' lry , i
Also, especially at Leonard's Fork Creek Site, I would like to have
permission to use a large plant cutting device to trim the vegetation from
around the water flow channel in the main wetland. And,1 would like to look
further along the intersecting water channels and the main channel - part of
' which I. briefly examined 06 Sept., '01. Considering the endangered status of
Bog Turtles, l prefer. to be conservative in my regard for them, and thus wish
to continue searching into the near future.
Continued Bog Turtle investigations would be of no financial cost to
you unless you chose to reimburse me for my basic expenses. My time in
Project Bog Turtle has been voluntary.

1
u

1

1
0

G
1 will be glad to send you a copy of my field activity reports if you
want them. Let me know. If I can help with your extended herpetological
inventory (written communication of 29 Aug., '01) let me know. I will be
happy to help with it.
Sincerely,
James F. Green, Sr.
1617 Georgetown Dr.
Gastonia, NC 28054-5714
Phone, Home: 704-866-4367
e-mail: [e-mail]

ANOM
wilibilik.
' MARSH RESOURCES INC.
' e-c Fl 3`6 - a 3 `}
K8
September 13, 2001 ?,? rte, ;.
' Marella Buncick X r fl
US Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
1
RE: Proposed Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Project- Federal Threatened
t and Endangered Species Clearance

r

0
Dear Ms. Buncick:
Marsh Resources Inc..(MRI) in partnership with RK&K Engineers, Inc. (RK&K) is
proposing to restore, enhance and create approximately 30 acres of forested and emergent
wetlands and restore approximately 4,000 linear feet of stream channel on our Leonard's
Fork Creek Mitigation Bank site in Lincoln County, North Carolina. Based on our review
of the listed species from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs County Species
List and the letter from your office dated August 18, 2000 we have determined that there
are two listed species of concern in Lincoln County. These are the Dwarf-flowered
heartleaf (Hexastylis naniora), listed as threatened and the Michaux. sumac (Rhus
michauxii) listed as endangered.
Because there is the potential for these species to be present and potentially impacted,
MRI had a survey done by the Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program (HARP)
which is currently working on the Lincoln County Natural Heritage Inventory. The -
survey for the Leonard's Fork Creek site was completed on August 17, 2001 and
included the areas of the site with potential habitat for the two listed species. As noted in
the letter (copy enclosed) from Lisa Gaffney of HARP, "The areas on this site that would
have provided possible habitat for Hexastylis nanij7ora have been so adversely impacted.
that habitat no longer exists." Regarding the Rhus'Michauxii, as noted in HARP's letter,
"Rhus-michauxii has not been found anywhere in the county" and "in my opinion there is
no habitat present on this site to support Rhus michauxii, and as expected no plants were
found."

In addition, due to suggestions by Lisa Gaffney, MRI had a Bog Turtle (Cleminys
muhlenbergi) survey done despite the fact that this species is not listed in Lincoln
County. The Bog Turtle is known to exist in Gaston County, the adjacent county to the .
south, and potential habitat exists on the Leonard's Fork Creek site. Therefore, we have
had Mr. James F. Green, Sn who represents Project Bog Turtle, Living Collections, NC
State Museum of Natural Sciences conduct.a survey (letter enclosed) for this species.

' 2800 Post Oak Boulevard ¦ P.O. Box 1396 ¦ Houston, Texas 77251-1396 ¦ 713-215-4001 ¦ Fax:[phone]
Field Office c/o ¦ Transco ¦ 236 Transco Rd Mooresville,-North Carolina 28115 ¦ 704-655-9707 Fax [phone]
Results'for this initial survey indicated no Bog Turtles, but that enough potential habitat
may exist on the site to continue looking. We will be having Mr. Green continue his
survey. It should be noted that the' area of potential habitat will not b( disturbed; in fact,.. c' `
i ' % the restoration proposal will expand potential habitat for this federally listed reptile.'.
. .
' Based on the above information, the.field surveys and literature review, it is MRI's
opinion the proposed mitigation project will not negatively impact any-listed species;
Please provide us with your written concurrence of this assessment.
MRI and RK&K appreciate your time in reviewing this information and your valuable '
input to our mitigation projects. We look forward to meeting with you and the entire
' MBRT and showing you our sites this fall. Any questions and/or correspondence can be
sent to Mr. Richard Mogensen or myself at the listed address. You may also call us
anytime, at [phone] or [phone], respectively'.
Sincerely,
' Christine A. Edmonds
Environmental Scientist
Marsh Resources Inc. -
236 Transco Road
Mooresville; NC 28115
Attachment(s)
' Cc:' Dan Merz, MRI Project Director -
Rich.Mogensen, MRI Field Project Manager
' Tommy Peacock, RK&K Engineers.
Kim Leight, RK&K Engineers
' Steve,Lund, USACE, Asheville Regulatory Field Office -
08/18/00 _E& I_,15:55 FAX 828 25P FWS ASHEVILLE

H

n
F,

NT
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
y -=aAa Asheville Field Office
qCM 9 160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, Noah Carolina 28801
August 18, 2000
Ms. Kim Leight
Rummel,. Klepper & 1:Cahl
Consulting Engineers
5800 Fm ingdon Place::, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Dear Ms. Leight:
Subject: Proposed NVetland Mitigation Sites, Lincoln County, North Carolina
In your fax of June 1=1, 2000, you requested scoping comments on two potential wetland
mitigation sites in Lirteoln County, North Carolina. The following comments are provided in
accordarice with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and
Section'7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
0002
Listed Species. Enclosed is a list of federally protected species and species of Federal concern
known from Lincoln -County. Could the sites be enhanced for any of these listed species?
Stream IN/litigation. What are the existing stream conditions on the sites? What restoration is
planned for the streana channels? Based on the site map, we recommend the acquisition and
restoration of both sides of Pott Creek. We recommend that your plan include details of the
watershed area, stream type, discharge desigrt, substrata distribution, stream slope, bank-full
width, vvidth/depth ratios, meander length, and radius of curvature, Have you identified
reference, reaches nearby for comparative purposes and as a design template? If not, we would
be glad to assist in th:-, identification of streams in the area for reference to natural morphology.
We urge you to use reference reaches and the regional discharge relationships for the rural North
Carolina. Piedmont (Jessup et al. 1999). We will request the opportunity to review the new
stream channel, along; with the other review agencies, prior to the diversion of water.
Reference Sites. We: recommend that you visit and use examples of natural communities in the
vicinity of the sites and develop a template for the sites to include in your conceptual plan.
These examples can be important for defining the objectives of the restoration effort and for
providing a reference to measure success at the sites. Mapped locations of natural communities

08/18/00 FRI 15:55 FAX 828 25' )0 FWS ASHEVILLE

' are available from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database. Most of these
community examples were identified by Mike Sehafale and Alan Weakley. We hope the use of
reference: sites will result in the development of measurable and meaningful criteria for providing
' functional replacement of the impacts associated with those unavoidable impacts that are to be
mitigated here. We encourage you to utilize reference sites as templates for your design as well
as to compare the results of your restoration. In that way, reference sites provide a better image
of the de:?ired outcoms.
Service Area. We do not agree with the definition of service area in the most recent plan. We
' believe that the bank could compensate for permitted wetland and stream losses in similar and
appropri::ite streams in the same or adjacent sub-basins within the Foothills of North Carolina,
We do not agree that the use of this bank would ever be appropriate for permitted losses that
' occur in the Blue Ridge Province or in Tennessee basins.

1

H

H
Credits. We believe -the determination of wetland credits and stream credits will be dependent
on the degree of success attained. Therefore, we reiterate the importance of clearly defining
measurable goals and objectives in the plan. We expect that mitigation ratios of 2:1 and 4:1,
respectively, are appropriate for restoration and creation.
Monitoring. How Ari.ll community structure and composition be measured? Monitoring should
be, designed to closely parallel the goals and objectives of the project. Also, we suggest that your
plan include detailed objectives relative to fish and wildlife functions of the mitigation sites.
Monitoring would therefore include, at a minimum, some monitoring of faunal assemblages, or
guilds, to measure the progress toward the objectives stated in the plan. Obviously, these
objectives will vary b;y natural community type. We recommend gauging the faunal response of
your restoration eff'oris by monitoring the following basic guilds: (i) Lepidoptera, (2)
amphibians, (3) fishes:, (4) birds, (5) mammals, and (6) water quality. The design of the
monitoring schemes should consider the seasonality of habitat use and ease of detection. We
suggest that you use standard survey methods that would provide a general index of use by these
species, which, over time, would be quantified as a trend. A wealth of literature is available
about biotic corrimunities in wetlands and streams (Brooks and Hughes 1988, Whittaker 1975)
and the assessment of'related animal communities (Bookhout 1996, Skalski 1991).
U003
1. e i.;lontera. We recommend binocular surveys for butterflies (Glassberg 1999) during
major flight periods and standard light trapping for night-flying moths.
2. A=hibiara . Surreys for amphibians should follow standard techniques, including audio
strip samples and drift fence and/or pitfall trapping around breeding pools; Heyer et al.
(1994) provide a good reference for qualitative and quantitative methods for amphibians.
3. hidm,s. Standard seining and electro-fishing techniques should readily quantify the condition
of th ; fisheries at the sites. The U.S. Geological Survey provides standardized techniques for
sampling fish conununities as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program
Ne<<dor et al. 1993). Others have documented the seasonal use of wetland areas by fishes
(Guiillory 1979).

I 1 ..-
08/18/00 FRI 15:56 FAX 828 258 FIVS ASHEVILLE

' 4, Bi ?;, Wakeley provides methodology for avian line-transect methods (1987a), avian
territory mapping (1987b), and avian plot methods (1987c). Bird use and abundance in
riparian areas hav°, been quantified (Simpson 1969, Smith 1977, Stauffer and Best 1980,
' Swift et al.1984). Also, check with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(Mr. Mark Johns, 919/362-9257) about how monitoring of these sites and reference sites may
be incorporated into the statewide Partners in Flight effort.
' 5. Marnlmala. Standardized track counts (Skalski 1991), scent-station indices, and small
mammal trapping would adequately describe mammalian response to the restoration efforts.
' Warren and Hurst (1980) include methods for describing mammal use of riparian areas.
6. yL U ;r Quality. Since improved water quality is often a goal of the wetland or stream
' rnitic;ation, it would be appropriate to define which parameter(s) will be enhanced and how
success will be determined. We recommend that, at a minimum, you measure stream
temperature (maximum summer) and dissolved oxygen, which are important parameters of
' the habitat for aquatic species.
Banking Instrument:. We would like to see the following issues addressed in any mitigation
' banking instrument: service area, property dispensation, and mitigation credit/debit tracking.
With regard to servict: area, we favor a fairly narrow area that recognizes the unique regional
wetland and stream values of the sites as well as their position within the Cataivba River
watershed. We favor dispensation of the sites to an agency or organization with a long-term
commitment to managing the property in a manner consistent with the wetland and stream
restoration proposed here. Whatever the dispensation, we believe an endowment must be
' established to afford the perpetual management and monitoring of the sites, allowing for
unforeseen contingencies. We discourage debits from wetland banks prior to approval of a
' wetland mitigation brinking instrument and proof of restoration success.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and look forward to receiving a
' prospectus and conceptual plwi for each of the sites. We would like to visit the sites to review
the potential wetland and stream restoration potential. If you have any questions about these
comments, or to schedule a site visit, please contact Mr. Mark Cantrell or Ms. Marella Buneick
' of our staff (88/258•.3939, Exts. 227 and 237, respectively). In any future correspondence
concerning this matter, please reference our Log Number 4-2-00-290.
' Si ely, ? .?
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
01004

08/18/00 FRI 15:56 FAX 828 25P 1o FWS ASHEVILLE

I

u

0

ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
This list ?bvas adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Lincoln Comity, of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete list of rare species in the state, please
contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The information in this list is compiled from a
variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herbariums, literature, and personal
communic,,ations. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database is dynamic, with new records
being addod and old records being revised as new information is received. Please note that this list cannot
be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal species of concern, and it should not be
considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical babitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated.
Aquatic species- Fishcs and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
LINCOLN COUNTY
Vascular Plants Threatened
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis nanii lora Endangered"
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A tax on "tin danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatene(] A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
0005
1 June 16, 2000 _ page I of I

fl

0

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
November 1, 2001
Ms. Christine Edmonds
Environmental Scientist
Marsh Resources Inc.
236 Transco Road
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
Dear Ms. Edmonds:
?D
NOV 0 5 2001
40-
p13o6. aka
cc; KSL
,Kra'
NM,p
r-_wqxg
N
ova 6 2001
RUMMEL, KLEPPER & KAHL
Subject: Review of Listed Species Information for the Leonard's Fork Creek Mitigation Site
We have reviewed the information provided for the Leonard's Fork Creek mitigation site. The
following comments are in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act), and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e).
According to the information in your letter, you conducted field surveys for two federally listed
species in Lincoln County--the federally threatened dwarf flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis
naniflora) and the federally endangered Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Additionally, you
considered the threatened (due to.similarity of appearance) bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii).
Field surveys for both the dwarf-flowered heartleaf and Michaux's sumac indicate that no
individuals of either species are present. The habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf is described as
degraded, and no suitable habitat exists for Michaux's sumac. While the bog turtle is not listed
for Lincoln County, since it is known to occur in Gaston County, your firm also conducted
surveys for this species. However, although suitable habitat is present at the site, no individuals
were located. We appreciate the fact that you will continue to monitor for this species in the
future and that acres of suitable habitat will be increased as the site is developed.
We concur with your conclusion. of no effect for federally listed species in the project area. In
view of this, we .believe the requirements under Section 7(c) of.the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not

considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may
be affected by the identified action.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-02-033.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Steve Lund, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
. Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
t

LINCOLN SOIL & WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
August 14, 2000
Kim Leight
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Kim,
300 - t7 4- O
p( 1
D
AUG i
RUMMEL, KLEPPER & KAHL
RALEIGH. N^
CITIZENS CENTER - 115 W MAIN ST.
LINCOLNTON, N.C. 28092
(704) .736-8501
I am returning the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form for the Pott Creel: Wetland
Mitigation Site (Corriher Farm) and the Leonards Fork Wetland Mitigation Site (Beam
Farm). l also researched these two sites for Prior Converted Cropland (PC). We have no
records showing that a PC determination has been completed on either of these sites.
If you need any other information, feel free to call or come by our office. As a note, we
have old aerials for 1938, 1951, 1956, 1960, 1965 and 1982. We also have notes and
drawings on the ditching that tools place on these farms in the past years.
Sincerely,
Rick McSwain
Natural Resources Conservationist
RM/phd
t'
U.S. Department of Agriculture
' FARMLANI
RT 1 (770 be cornoterea by =edero! Agency)
me 'It arolee
rooosed L; U a
D CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Data Of Untl Eyalwt1o CCr?rlxpurt00
F*oanl Agency Involved -
P +4
--? County And Stage N C.
1.1c?0T? (_ tr-, co t r?
Date Request Received By SCS
II (To be completed by SCS)
es the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes/Vo Acrel Irrigated Aver+ge Farm Sipe
()f no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parrs of this form)- cT ? NA ----------- ? /P
Ior Croo(s) Fzrmaola Und in Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of FarmlagndoAa Oafinad in PPA
1 't?s-4t?v? (ou^d Acts: a . ??? % 9c7 ' Acres; sC?L-----
Plart++ Of Und Evaluation SYStem Used I Karma Of Local Site Anasmant System Oate Und Evalwcior' Returned By SCS
I11 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site a Sita 6 Site C Site O
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly o 0
Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
Total Acres in Site e?0o
RT IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information '
Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland -3 a
Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 1
Pertvn age Of Farmland in Govt. Juritdicrion With Sane Or Higher Relative Value 17 lp
V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (ScaleofOro IOOPoinm)
vi (To be completed by Federal Agency) _
ant Criteria (]"bets criterfo are oxalainrd In 7 CFR 638.5(bl maximum
.Pointt
Area In Nonurban Use
rban Use
N
I
i
onu
n
meter
2. Per
Percent Of Site Being Farmed
Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Oimnce From Urban Builtun Area
Oistancs To Urban Support Services
Sze Of Present Farm Unit Compared To AveraW
B. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
. Availability Of Farm Suv ort Services
. On-Farm Investments
Effects Of Conversion On Farts Supoort Serv*csn
1 Comoatibili With Existin Acricuitural Use
TAI. SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
RT V I1 (To be completed by Federal Agetricy)
ativ• Value Of Farmland (From Parr VI 100
tai Site Assessment ( rom Parr Vl above Ora loo/ 160
sits a=e=menr)
TAI. POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260

it Selected: D:te Of Selection

jWw A Local site Asaeam V'No C3
Yes Q
t For Sel*=Ion:

APPENDIX D
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REPORT
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
A
A
A

The EDR-Radius Map
with GeoCheek®
Leonards Fork
S.R. 1179
Lincoln County, NC 28033
Inquiry Number: 519494.1s
July 20, 2000
Effl ': Environmental
Data
Resources, Inc.
an.:: edr„company
The Source
For Environmental
Risk Management
Data
3530 Post Road
Southport, Connecticut 06490
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edrnet.com

I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary ------------------------------------- ----------------- ES1
Overview Map----------------------------------------- ----------------- 2
Detail Map-------------------------------------------- ----------------- 3
Map Findings Summary ---------------------------------- ----------------- 4
Map Findings------------------------------------------ ----------------. 5
Orphan Summary --------------------------------------
-
----------------
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum-----------------------------------------. A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary ------------------------------------------- A-2
Physical Setting Source Map----------------------------------------------. A-6
Physical Setting Source Map Findings---------------------------------------. A-7
Physical Setting Source Records Searched-----------------------------------. A-8
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer and Other Information
This Report contains information obtained from a variety of public and other sources and Environmental
Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) makes no representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, reliability, quality,
suitability, or completeness of said information or the information contained in this report. The customer
shall assume full responsibility for the use of this report.
NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR
IMPLIED, SHALL APPLY AND EDR SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF SUCH WARRANTIES. IN NO
EVENT SHALL EDR BE LIABLE TO ANYONE FOR SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES. COPYRIGHT (C) 2000 BY ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Unless otherwise indicated, all trademarks used herein are the property of Environmental Data Resources,
Inc. or its affiliates.
TC519494.1 s Page 1
1?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
(EDR). The report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments, E 1527-00. Search distances are per ASTM standard or custom
distances requested by the user.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
S.R. 1179
LINCOLN COUNTY, NC 28033
COORDINATES
Latitude (North): 35.442500 - 35° 26'33.0"
Longitude (West): 81.328800 - 81 ° 19'43.7"
Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 17
UTM X (Meters): 470158.1
UTM Y (Meters): 3921967.2
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property: 2435081-D3 LINCOLNTON WEST, NC
Source: USGS 7.5 min quad index
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
A
1
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the ASTM E 1527-00 search radius around the target
property for the following databases:
FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD
NPL------------------------ National Priority List
Delisted NPL--------------- NPL Deletions
CERCLIS-------------------- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
. System
CERC-NFRAP--------------- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CORRACTS----------------- Corrective Action Report
RCRIS-TSD------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RCRIS-LQG-----------------. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RCRIS-SQG----------------- Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
ERNS------------------------ Emergency Response Notification System
STATE ASTM STANDARD
SHWS----------------------- State Haz. Waste
SWF/LF---------------------. Solid Waste Facilities
LUST ------------------------ Incidents Management Database
TC519494.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1
UST------------------------- Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
CONSENT------------------- CONSENT
ROD------------------------- ROD
FINDS----------------------- Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report
HMIRS----------------------- Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
MLTS------------------------ Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES----------------------- Mines Master Index File
NPL Lien-------------------- NPL Liens
PADS-----------------------. PCB Activity Database System
RAATS---------------------- RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
TRIS------------------------- Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA ------------------------ Toxic Substances Control Act
STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
NC HSDS-------------------- Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
IMD-------------------------- Incident Management Database
EDR PROPRIETARY DATABASES
Coal Gas-------------------- Former Manufactured gas (Coal Gas) Sites.
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were identified.
TC519494.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
Site Name _ Database(s) _
CATAWBA TIMBER CO. - CROUSE W UST
ONE STOP #113 UST
CROUSE HANDY MART UST
1
TC519494.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1

OVERVIEW MAP - 519494.1s - Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
`t
t
,t
t
/
b j
Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
Sites at elevations lower than

1 the target property
Coal Gasification Sites (if requested)
0 National Priority List Sites
0 Landfill Sites

TARGET PROPERTY: Leonards Fork CUSTOMER: Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
ADDRESS: S.R. 1179 CONTACT: Marc Seelinger
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Lincoln County NC 28033 INQUIRY #: 519494.1s
LAT/LONG: 35.4425 / 81.3288 DATE: July 20, 2000 6:55 pm

0 1/4 12 1 Mlles
f1,1 Power transmission lines
Oil & Gas pipelines
Wetlands per National
Wetlands Inventory (1994)
Hazardous Substance
'""' Disposal Sites
DETAIL MAP - 519494.1s - Rummel, Klepper & Kahl

i
LEONAROS FORK OHUR RO
?= <EOHARDS F
1 CHURCH RD
t,
i
* Target Property
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
L Coal Gasification Sites (if requested)
r Sensitive Receptors
El National Priority List Sites
E] Landfill Sites

TARGET PROPERTY: Leonards Fork CUSTOMER: Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
ADDRESS: S.R. 1179 CONTACT: Marc Seelinger
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Lincoln County NC 28033 INQUIRY#: 519494.1s
LAT/LONG: 35.4425 / 81.3288 DATE: July 20, 2000 6:55 pm

0 1/16 1/6 1/4 Mlles
mod
P,1 Power transmission lines Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
® Wetlands per National
Wetlands Inventory (1994)
1
I
1
I
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CERC-NFRAP 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRIS-TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
RCRIS Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
STATE ASTM STANDARD
State Haz. Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MILTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
IMD TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
EDR PROPRIETARY DATABASES
Coal Gas 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
AQUIFLOW - see EDR Physical Setting Source Addendum
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC519494.1 s Page 4

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.)
u
I•?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAP FINDINGS
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
Elevation Site
Coal Gas Site Search: No site was found in a search of Real Property Scan's ENVIROHAZ database.
NO SITES FOUND
TC519494.1s Page 5
O I N ? In
M t` ro
U O O O
0
LL O 6 6
N
N
N
a
o > j D
000
N I NCO roN 000
}
Q
?G N
N
C
Q Q
S u
w
O
d
E
2
m
U
D
0
w
D
U
S
N
O
Z
0
00
Cn U? n
m M
2 S S
S = S

w
U
H
O Q
S
co
M O
F ZQ
Q (L
=
3 O U)
F w O
Q Z R'
000
v o ?
1? O N
•- N ?
r Coro
co Cn -
It It .
0 0 0
000
w w w
C/) OJ U)
000
w Of w
000
CD
N
m
N
a
v
rn
U
F
1
1
1
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency
on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required.
Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90-day updating requirement
of the ASTM standard.
FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RECORDS
NPL: National Priority List
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority
cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon
coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC).
Date of Government Version: 06/13/00
Date Made Active at EDR: 07/06/00
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 06/27/00
Elapsed ASTM days: 9
Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/09/00
DELISTED NPL: NPL Deletions
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.
Date of Government Version: 06/13/00 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 06/27/00
Date Made Active at EDR: 07/06/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 9
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/09/00
CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities,
private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities
List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Date of Government Version: 02/14/00 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 03/02/00
Date Made Active at EDR: 03/15/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 13
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/28/00
CERCLIS-NFRAP: No Further Remedial Action Planned
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
As of February 1995, CERCLIS sites designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned" (NFRAP) have been removed
from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found,
contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination
was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. EPA has removed approximately
25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them
as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. This policy change is
part of the EPA's Brownfieids Redevelopment Program to help cities, states, private investors and affected citizens
to promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites.
Date of Government Version: 02/14/00
Date Made Active at EDR: 03/15/00
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 03/02/00
Elapsed ASTM days: 13
Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/28/00
TC519494.1s Page GR-1

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Date of Government Version: 01/31/00
Date Made Active at EDR: 05/09/00
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 03/13/00
Elapsed ASTM days: 57
Date of Last EDR Contact: 06/12100
RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: [phone]
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate,
transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
Date of Government Version: 03/28/00 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 04/07/00
Date Made Active at EDR: 05/15/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 38
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/23/00
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: [phone]
Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Date of Government Version: 05/30/00 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 06/02/00
Date Made Active at EDR: 07/06/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 34
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/16100
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS
BRS: Biennial Reporting System
Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: [phone]
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG)
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/97
Database Release Frequency: Biennially
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/20/99
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/20/00
CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
Source: EPA Regional Offices
Telephone: Varies
Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released
periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
ROD: Records Of Decision
Source: NTIS
Telephone: [phone]
Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical
and health information to aid in the cleanup.
Date of Government Version: 01/31/99
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/10/00
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/10/00
TC519494.1s Page GR-2

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric
Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal
Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities
Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System).
Date of Government Version: 10/13/99
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
R
I
Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/29/00
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/10/00
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Telephone: [phone]
Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT.
Date of Government Version: 06/30/99
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/15/00
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/24/00
MILTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Telephone: [phone]
MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which
possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency,
EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 04/23/00
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/10/00
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/10/00
MINES: Mines Master Index File
Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 08/01/98
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/03/00
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/03/00
NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order
to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability.
USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens.
Date of Government Version: 10/15/91
Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/22/00
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/00
PADS: PCB Activity Database System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, comme1rcial storers and/or brokers and disposers
of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities.
Date of Government Version: 01/01/00 Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/15/00
Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/14/00
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA
pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration
actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of
the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources
made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database.
Date of Government Version: 04/17/95 Date of Last EDR Contact: 06112/00
Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/00
TC519494.1s Page GR-3
1
1
1
1
i
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and
land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/97
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/15/00
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/26/00
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant
site.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/98 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/24/00
Database Release Frequency: Every 4 Years Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/24/00
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ASTM STANDARD RECORDS
SHWS: Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites
may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds
(state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. Available information varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 03/15/00
Date Made Active at EDR: 06/23/00
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 05/12/00
Elapsed ASTM days: 42
Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/19/00.
LF: List of Solid Waste Facilities
Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities
or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal
sites.
Date of Government Version: 04/11/00
Date Made Active at EDR: 05/30/00
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 05/22/00
Elapsed ASTM days: 8
Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/01/00
LUST: Incidents Management Database
Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural, Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground
storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 04/24/00
Date Made Active at EDR: 06/23/00
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 05/01/00
Elapsed ASTM days: 53
Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/01/00
UST: Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available
information varies by state program.
Date of Government Version: 11/16/99
Date Made Active at EDR: 12/27/99
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/13/99
Elapsed ASTM days: 14
Date of Last EDR Contact: 06/13/00
TC519494.1s Page GR-4
1
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS
HSDS: Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
Locations of uncontrolled and unregulated hazardous waste sites. The file includes sites on the National Priority
List as well as those on the state priority list.
Date of Government Version: 06121/95
Database Release Frequency: Biennially
Date of Last EDR Contact: 06/05/00
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/00
IMD: Incident Management Database
Source: Department of Health and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 04/24/00
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/01/00
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/31/00
EDR PROPRIETARY DATABASES
1
Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to
EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. ©Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types
of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative.
Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan, Inc.
The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entities
other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report, Real Property
Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund
of the amount paid. No claim is made forthe actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal
opinion.
HISTORICAL AND OTHER DATABASE(S)
A

w
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be
complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the
area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily
mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.
Oil/Gas Pipelines/Electrical Transmission Lines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by
USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including
some oil, but primarily gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines.
Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity
to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all
sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers,
and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located.
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in March 1997 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
TC519494.1s Page GR-5
GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM
I
1
1
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
LEONARDS FORK
S.R. 1179
LINCOLN COUNTY, NC 28033
TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
35.442501 - 35° 26'33.0"
81.328796 - 81' 19'43.7"
Zone 17
470158.1
3921967.2
EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum has been developed to assist the environmental professional
with the collection of physical setting source information in accordance with ASTM 1527-00, Section 7.2.3.
Section 7.2.3 requires that a current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (or equivalent, such as the USGS Digital
Elevation Model) be reviewed. It also requires that one or more additional physical setting sources be sought
when (1) conditions have been identified in which hazardous substances or petroleum products are likely
to migrate to or from the property, and (2) more information than is provided in the current USGS 7.5 Minute
Topographic Map (or equivalent) is generally obtained, pursuant to local good commercial or customary practice,
to assess the impact of migration of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. Such
additional physical setting sources generally include information about the topographic, hydrologic, hydrogeologic,
and geologic characteristics of a site, and wells in the area.
Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components:
1. Groundwater flow direction, and
2. Groundwater flow velocity.
Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics
of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the geologic strata.
EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in
forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.
TC519494.1s PageA-1
1
1
1
1
GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other
sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data
collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,
should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE
Target Property: 2435081-D3 LINCOLNTON WEST, NC
Source: USGS 7.5 min quad index
GENERAL TOPOGRAPHIC GRADIENT AT TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property: General WSW
Source: General Topographic Gradient has been determined from the USGS 1 Degree Digital Elevation Model and
should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of
close proximity should be field verified.
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist
the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways
and bodies of water).
FEMA FLOOD ZONE
Target Property County
LINCOLN, NC
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property:
Additional Panels in search area:
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
y
NWI Quad at Target Propert
LINCOLNTON WEST
FEMA Q3 Flood
Data Electronic Coverage
NO
Not Reported
Not Reported
NWI Electronic
Coverage
YES
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator
of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the
environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
TC519494.1s PageA-2
GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
AQUIFLOW°"
Search Radius: 2.000 Miles.
I
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory
authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined
hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.
LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION
MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW
Not Reported
GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary
to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil
characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes
move more quickly through sandy-gravelly types of soils than silty-clayey types of soils.
Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed
at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION
Geologic Code: mm1 Category: Metamorphic Rocks
Era: Paleozoic
System: Pennsylvanian
Series: Felsic paragneiss and schist
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology
of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman
Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil
Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information
for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns
in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps.
The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data.
Soil Surface Texture: sandy clay loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained. Soils have intermediate water holding capacity. Depth to
water table is more than 6 feet.
TC519494.1s PageA-3
GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: HIGH
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 60 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 60 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeabilit
Rate (in/h r)
1 0 inches 7 inches sandy clay loam Silt-Clay COURSE-GRAINED Max: 2.00
Materials (more SOILS, Sands, Min: 0.60
than 35 pct. Sands with
passing No. fines, Silty
200), Silty Sand.
Soils.
2 7 inches 11 inches sandy clay loam Silt-Clay COURSE-GRAINED Max: 2.00
Materials (more SOILS, Sands, Min: 0.60
than 35 pct. Sands with
passing No. fines, Silty
200), Silty Sand.
Soils.
3 11 inches 50 inches clay Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00
Materials (more SOILS, Silts Min: 0.60
than 35 pct. and Clays
passing No. (liquid limit
200), Clayey 50% or more),
Soils. Elastic silt.
4 50 inches
i
75 inches
variable
i
Not reported
Not reported
Max: 0.00
I I Min: 0.00
OTHER SOIL TYPES IN AREA
Based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data, the following additional subordinant soil types may
appear within the general area of target property.
Soil Surface Textures: sandy loam
loam
clay loam
silt loam
very channery - silt loam
gravelly - sandy loam
Surficial Soil Types: sandy loam
loam
clay loam
silt loam
very channery - silt loam
gravelly - sandy loam
Shallow Soil Types: silt loam
sandy clay
clay
silty clay loam
very channery - silt loam
loam
Deeper Soil Types: weathered bedrock
TC519494.1s Page A-4
GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
fine sandy loam
silty clay loam
unweathered bedrock
sandy clay loam
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES
According to ASTM E 1527-00, Section 7.2.2, "one or more additional state or local sources of environmental
records may be checked, in the discretion of the environmental professional, to enhance and supplement federal
and state sources... Factors to consider in determining which local or additional state records, if
any, should be checked include (1) whether they are reasonably ascertainable, (2) whether they are sufficiently
useful, accurate, and complete in light of the objective of the records review (see 7.1.1), and (3) whether they
are obtained, pursuant to local, good commercial or customary practice." One of the record sources listed in Section
7.2.2 is water well information. Water well information can be used to assist the environmental professional in
assessing sources that may impact groundwater flow direction, and in forming an opinion about the impact of
contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.
WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)
Federal USGS 1.000
Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile
State Database 1.000
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No Wells Found
FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No PWS System Found
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No Wells Found
TC519494.1s PageA-5
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 519494.1 s
N I1
m
m
x
? o
HIGHWAY 182
Py
87J
850
? 825
w?
1
775
8p
875 ° ? ?' gyp,, Opyr
850 / ? ,Z?G Qp
// ?P00p
825 /?'
/ .NpY 1
/ e5 w0c" NC
yo roR0 ?.
?OV
N Major Roads
N Contour Lines
® Water Wells
Q Public Water Supply Wells
Groundwater Flow Direction
c I Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location
c v Groundwater Flow Varies at Location
i Cluster of Multiple Icons

TARGET PROPERTY: Leonards Fork CUSTOMER: Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
ADDRESS: S.R. 1179 CONTACT: Marc Seelinger
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Lincoln County NC 28033 INQUIRY #: 519494.1s
LAT/LONG: 35.4425 / 81.3288 DATE: July 20, 2000 6:56 pm

a 1/2 1 2 miles.
OO Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater F;'.,I Wildlife Areas
0 Natural Areas
o Rare & Endangered Species
GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON
AREA RADON INFORMATION
Federal EPA Radon Zone for LINCOLN County: 2
Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L.
Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L.
Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L.
Zip Code: 28033
Number of sites tested: 1
Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L
Living Area - 1st Floor 18.800 pCi/L 0%
Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported
Basement Not Reported Not Reported
% 4-20 pCi/L % >20 pCi/L
100% 0%
Not Reported Not Reported
Not Reported Not Reported
TC519494.1s PageA-7
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in March 1997 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
AQUIFLOWTM Information System
Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has
extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table
information.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit
Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital
representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the national Cooperative
Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey
information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of
soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil
survey maps.
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES
FEDERAL WATER WELLS
PWS: Public Water Systems
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at
least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources.
PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after
August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
USGS Water Wells: In November 1971 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) implemented a national water resource
information tracking system. This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected
data on surface water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on more than 900,000 wells, springs, and
other sources of groundwater.
TC519494.1s Page A-8
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
STATE RECORDS
North Carolina Wildlife Resources/Game Lands
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
All publicly owned game lands managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and as listed in Hunting
and Fishing Maps for North Carolina Game Lands, 1989-90.
North Carolina Rare/Endangered Species and Natural Areas
Source: Natural Heritage Occurrence Sites Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina Public Water Supply Wells
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: [phone]
RADON
Area Radon Information: The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey. The
study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources
such as universities and research institutions.
EPA Radon Zones: Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for
elevated indoor radon levels.
OTHER
Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater
Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
TC519494.1s Page A-9

.r r
7,;
I
?a
t f• a??
i tfr. ? t

P,, I
.,R1
.1
V.
%
%
r l.$ t? r r 19Yn ?i
Appendix E. Delineated Wetland Areas
Leonards Fork Creek Parcel
t? Leonards Forck Church Road [ 7: Delineated Area
Gauge Locations Restorable Areas
NOATJl ?
ti
V1 ?•q c
y9
F
""OF TRPN`>

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINE' ?N
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Leonard's Fork Project No: L. Fork
Applicant/Owner: Marsh Resources, RK&K
Investigators: MRI & RK&K
County: Lincoln II
State: North Carolina
Plot ID: SOUTHEASTERN TRIBUTARY
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? es o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side) Southeastern branch of property
VEGETATION (USFWS Region No. 2)
Dominant Plant Species(Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species(Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
a ix nigra ree upa ovum pe o is um er +
i low, ack oneset, ommon
yp a a i o is er u wigia a emi ora er
797-
Cattail, Broad-Leaf see ox- us y
oe mena cy in nca Herb + exia virginica Herb +
False- ett e, ma - pie Meadow- eauty,Virginia
arex cnni a er + ep a an us occi en a is er
Sedge, Fnnge Buftonbush, Common
o ygonum sage a um er a anus occi en a is ru -
eartum rrow- ea Sycamore, American

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 10/10 = 100.00% FAC Neutral: 10/10 = 100.00%
Numeric Index: 15/10 = 1.50
Remarks:
MYUKULUVY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/A Aerial Photographs YES Inundated
N/A Other YES Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data NO Water Marks
- NO Drift Lines
NO Sediment Deposits
Field Observations NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: = 2 (in.) NO Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) NO Water-Stained Leaves
NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
YES Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Soil contains low-chroma colors and is listed in the Lincoln County Soil Survey (1995) as containing inclusions of Worsham soils and wet spots.
Page 1 of 2
WetFormtm

DATA FORM
-TIN ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINA )N
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Leonard's Fork Project No: L. Forl
Applicant/Owner: Marsh Resources, RK&K
Investigators: MRI & RK&K
SOILS
County: Lincoln
State: North Carolina
Plot I SOUTHEASTERN TRIBUTARY
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Helena sandy loam
Map Symbol: HeB Drainage Class: moderately well drained Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Hapludults Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
- Common Distinct Silty clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon NO High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Solis
NO Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
YES Aquic Moisture Regime YES Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
NO Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
YES Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Helena is listed in the Lincoln County Soil Survey (1995) as containing inclusions of Worsham soils and wet spots.
Vvt_ I LAND Ut 1 tKMINA I IUN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? es No
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? es No
Remarks:
Page 2 of 2
WetFormtm
SH RESOURCES INC.
March 23, 2001
MARSH RESOURCES
Willis s.
Catawba Lands Conservancy
105 W.,Morehead Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. Ron Altman
Letter of Intent to Donate Lands at the Pott Creek Mitigation Bank Site and the.
Leonard's Fork Mitigation Bank Site in Lincoln County, North Carolina
Dear Catawba Lands Conservancy,
P. 04/05
The intent of this letter is to declare Marsh Resources Inc.'s (MRI) support -for and
involvement in the land protection efforts to our Lincoln County, North Carolina
properties also, known as the Pott Creek Mitigation Bank and the Leonard's. Foik
Mitigation Bank. We acknowledge and agree that this is a joint effort by and between the
Catawba•Lands Conservancy and MRI in preserving the unique qualities of this land on a
voluntary basis. This effort is wholly consistent with our long-term interest.in preserving
our land's restored, nattfral character, aesthetic quality, and ecological integrity within the
expanding Charlotte and Lincolnton urban areas.
It is our intention to donate the fee-sirdple land along ..with a permanent conservation'
easement on all, of our two properties in Lincoln County. We understand that such an
easement will operate as a deed restriction that legally assures that the land will .remain in
its -restored, natural, non-developed state into the foreseeable future. We understand that .
the specific terms of this easement will be written to accommodate the needs and wetland
mitigation responsibilities that we have for the future use of these properties. MRI
further understands that the Catawba Lands Conservancy must review the property and
its intended uses in order to evaluate its consistency with the Land Acquisition criteria
established as an act-of the Board of Directors. Any such conservation easement is-
subject to the conditions precedent of approval by the Board of Directors, as well as the'
availability of funding. - -
We also understand that there•ar6 associated financial. obligations along with the donation
of this property and conservation easement, including a current boundary survey,
conservation plan, legal fees, and appraisal fees:- MRI anticipates making a charitable
pledge approximating the dollar amount for these transactions or will have these
transactions done at our expense. We can supply the Catawba Lands Conservancy with a
boundary survey no later than 60 days from the date setout below, as time is of the
essence.
2600 Post Oak Boulevard ¦ P.O. Box 1396
Field Office c/o ¦ 'Transco ¦ 236 Transco Rd
¦ Houston, Texas 77251-1396 ¦ 713-215-4001 . Fax:[phone]
¦ Mooresville. North Carolina 28115 ¦ 704-655-9707 ¦ Fax [phone]
11:04 MARSH RESOURCES
P. 05/05
Catawba Lands Conservancy
March 23, 2001
Page 2 _
We 'also understand that a stewardship fund must be established for the perpetual'
monitoring and defense of this conservation easement. This fund, is created to ensure the
permanent protection of the conservation values of the property. We anticipate and agree
to make a contribution to this stewardship fund in an amount to be determined and agreed
upon between MRI and the Catawba Lands Conservancy - prior to land. transfer. We
understand that the amount and timing of this donation will be arranged to accommodate
our financial considerations.
Because both of these properties will be federally and state recognized wetland mitigation
banks, MRI will be restoring the streams and wetlands on both properties at our expense,
and specifications. After restoration, NMI will retain monitoring and iilaintenance'
responsibilities for the restored streams and wetlands until all appropriate federal and
state agencies declare the stream and wetland restoration to be a long-term success. This
is anticipated to be for a period of no less than five years and will be defined in a legal
document known as a Mitigation Banking Instrument'(MBI). The MBI will be signed by
MRI and the federal and state agencies that make up the Mitigation Bank Review Team
(MBRT). MRI and the MBRT ma , ask the Catawba Lands Conservancy to be a
signatory on these legally binding documents. MRI will coordinate with the Catawba
Lands Conservancy during this monitoring and maintenance period to ensure that any .
necessary maintenance activities comply with the ednservation easement.
r Date
Signature
9,0 3 e- `r Duct coroR -
Signature Date
Address
Telephone
Email
T('1T/11 f1 !7C
MARSH RESOURCES
(ONSERVAN(Y
Daniel L. Merz, Project Director
March Resources Inc.
Post Office Box 1396
Texas 77251-1396
March 29, 2001
Merz,
P. 02/05
want to thank you for your company's commitment to donate a conservation easement
and eventual fee simple title to the Catawba Lands Conservancy on the Pott Creek and
Leonard's. Fork Mitigation Bank sites in Lincoln County. We are excited to be working with
you on this projectl
The Conservancy currently protects over 2800 acres in our six-county region, including
over 1500 acres in the South Fork River watershed. The two mitigation bank properties
will be a significant expansion of the Conservancy's South Fork watershed protection
program, and Marsh Resource's participation in these efforts is quite complementary.
We look forward to working with you, Rich Mogensen, and the MBRT on the wetland
restoration efforts and on completing the conservation easements and fee simple donations.
Please do not hesitate to call our office if we can be of any assistance to you.
With sincere thanks,
?VA4A???
Ron M. Altmann
Executive Director
cc: Richard K. Mogensen, Field Project Manager
105 W. Morehead Street • Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 • Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail] • http://www.catowbolands.org
J
LII
Form OC-13

11

u

SECTION 307 FORM OF PERFORINIANCE BOND
Date cf Contract:
Bond No. 929170581
Date cf ?xecsti.on: December 22, 2000
Name of P=inc=Da? : Rummel Klepper & Kahl LLP
(Contractor)
81 Mosher Street Baltimore MD 21217
Name of Surety: 'American Casualty Company of Reading Pennsylvania
N----me of Contracting Body: State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation.
P.-nount cf Bc^d: One Million Nineteen Thousand and 00/100 ( $1,019,000.00 )
Project: Wetland Construction and Stream Restoration Project Leonard's Fork,
Lincoln County North Carolina
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, the principal and surety a'aove named,
r,e held and firmly botmd unto the above named contracting body, hereinafter called the contracting
body, in the penal sum of the amount stated above for the payment of which sum w-,d and truly to be
made, we bird, ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, jointly and severally,
Fu-mly by these presents.
T14E CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas the principal ente:,d
into a ccrtair. contract tivith the contracting body, identifi--d as shown above and herem attached
NOW, THEREFORE, if the principal shall well and truly pe-.forin and fulfill all the
undertakiuos, covenants, terns; conditions and agecnaents of said contract during the origical term of
said contract and any extensions thereof that may be granted by the contracting body, with or without
notice to the surety, and during the life of any guaranty regwred under the contract, and shall also
dell and truly perform and fulfill all the undertakings, covenants,. terms, conditions and agreeii,=ts of
any and all duly authorized modifications of said contrast that niay hereafter be made, notice of which
modifications to the surety bezna hereby waived, then, this obligation to be void; otherwise to remaux
in.full ford and virtue, '

W WITNESS WHEREOF, the above-bounden parties have executed this instrument under
their several scats on the date indicated above, the name and -.orporate sea? of each corporate party
being hereto affixed and these presents duty signed by its uad.ersigncd represcntazive, pursuant to
authority of its governing body.
Executed in counternarzs.
WI tness :
Contractor.; (Trade or Corporate
Name)
Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP. Sy
(Praorietorshiv or Fa_tnersh2.-)
Attest: (Corporaticn)
Tit? e : Partner
(Owner, partner,. or Corp.
Pres, or Vice Pres. only)
By:
Title:
(Corp. Sec. cY Asst. sec.
only)
W` s .
' Christine M. Hrabos
' Counters4. .ed;
.l P NnffctPtlpr
(V.C. Licensed Resid°^? Agent)

1
Amer^^ M Harris & Co.
P 0 Box 220748, Charlotte NC 28222
'`Tanta a, P.ad=es.s-S*_, e*_1 Agency
(Corporatc Sea-)
American Casualtv ComDdRL of Reading. Pennsv'Ivania
(Skr=zv Con„zany)
By:?`??
Title Barbara- 5-Heeter
Urh:ttorney zn tact)
(Surety Corporate Seal)
American Casualtv Company of Reading, Pennsylvania
P 0 Box 470697. Charlotte NC 28226
Surety Company Name and N.C.
Regional or Branch Office Address

11

POWER OF ATTORNEY APPOINTING INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
Know All Men By These Presents, That CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, NATIONAL FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, a Connecticut corporation, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING,
PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation (herein collectively called 'the CCC Surety Companies"),:are duly organized and existing
corporations having their principal offices in the City of Chicago, and State of Illinois, and that they do by virt! ie of.the signature and seals
herein affixed hereby make, constitute and appoint
Daniel T. Humphries Barbara S. Heeter, Samuel D: Alt, Joseph A. Corriere, Ella M. Phipps, Christine M- Hrabos, Individually
of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
•`•'':' true a^-! !a.v`ul Attorney(s)-in-Fact with full power and authority hereby conferred to sign, seal and execute for and on their behalf
bonds, undertakings and other obligatory instruments of similar nature
- In Unlimited Amounts -
and to bind them thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such instruments were signed by a duly authorized officer of their corporations
and all the acts of said Attorney, pursuant to the authority hereby given are hereby ratified and confirmed.
This Power of Attorney is made and executed pursuant to and by authority of the By-Laws and Resolutions, printed on the reverse
hereof, duly adopted, as indicated, by the Boards of Directors of the corporations.
In Witness Whereof, the CCC Surety Companies have caused these presents to be.signed by their Group Vice President and their
corporate seals to be hereto affixed on this .6th day of March 2000
GASU,? ttisUq MY 0,0 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
fly qNp ?o ?k NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD
?? C+ ??2 `?? eatoaq AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA
ccproa,trf ? q ? d ?? Tfo '<
2 2 a JULY 71,
L S EAL Y .r e 1902 ?? /
1997 ? HdHTF? • ? /?????J??"' " ? V .
Marvin J. Cashion Group Vice President
State of Illinois, County of Cook, ss:
. On this 6th day of March 2000 before me personally came
Marvin J. Cashion, to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say: that he resides in the City of Chicago, State of Illinois;
that he is a Group Vice President of CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD,
and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA described in and which executed the above instrument; that he
knows the seals of said corporations; that the seals affixed to the said instrument are such corporate seals; that they were so affixed
pursuant to authority given by the Boards of Directors of said corporations and that he signed his name thereto pursuant to like authority,
and acknowledges same to be the act and deed of said corporations.
"OFFICIAL SEAL"
DIANE FALIVNER
No" pub8o. State of Inlna•
• MY wag !?.j ,mains 9/17101 e
1
FI
i
u

11

My Commission Expires September 17, 2001 Diane Faulkner Notary Public
CERTIFICATE
I, Mary A. Ribikawskis, Assistant Secretary of CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
' HARTFORD, and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA do hereby certify that the Power of Attorney herein
above set forth is still in force, and further certify that the By-Law and Resolution of the Board of Directors of each corporation printed on the
reverse hereof are still in force. In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seals of the
said corporations this 22nd day of December 2000 .
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
GI?U'?<T UISUggNDANYOt NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD
?AY ypp ??Q c`? Oyu 4 AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA
co"VOMif i ORfORArF.0
Z JULY ]I,
0
0 SEAL 1902
1897 HA1r •
Assistant Secretary
' 41 -k is
(Rev.10/1/97) Mary Ribika
G

Form OC-10
SECUON 303 FORM OF PAYMENT BOND Bond No. 929170581

n
u

Date of Contract:
Date of Execumi on: December 22, 2000
NaIrie of Principal : Rummel Kle er & Kahl UP.
(Contxacto=)
81 Mosher Street Baltimore 217
Name of Surety: American Casualty Company of Reading Pennsylvania
;tame c- Contract:i.,.ig Bocy: State of North Carolina Department of Transportation
Amount of Bond: One Million, Nineteen Thousand and 00/100 ( $1,019,000.00.)___._
ProjACt: Wetland Construction and Stream Restoration Project Leonard's Fork
Lincoln Count North Carolina
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,-that we, the principal and surety above named,
are held and firr zly bound unto the above named contracting body, hereinafter called die contracting
body, in the penal sum of the amount stated above for the payment of which sum well and truly to be
made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, .administrators, and successors. jointly &-id severally,
fraUy.by these presents.
TID?, C01"M TION OF THIS OBLICrATION IS SUCH, that whereas the principal entered
into a certain contract with the contracting body identified as shown above and hereto attached:
NOW, THEREFORE, if the principal shall promptly make payment to all persons supplying
laboshnaterial in the prosecution of the work. provided for in said contract, and any and all duly
authorized modifications of said contract that may hercafftef be made, notice of which modi:Ftcations
to the sur::ty being hereby waived, then this obligatioa to be void; otherwise to remain in full force
and virtue.
IN -WITNESS WHEREOF, the above-bounden parties have executed this instrument under
their several seals on the date indicated above, the names and corporate seal of each, corporate party
being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to
authority of its governing body.
' Executed in
WL-ness :
' Rummel Kle Ar R Kahl - I l P
(Dropriezorsh2.p or Partnership
I Attest: (Corporation)
counterpa*ts.
Ccr_Zracror : (Trade or ;:crporate
N ame
'By:
Title: Partner
(owner, Partner, or Corp.

0

u
C

1

f.

u
fl

0
BV:
Title:
(Coro. Sac. or Asst.
Sac, only)
Pres, or vice Pres. only)
(Corporate Seal)
Comoanv of Readin_q, Pennsylvania
Wig s:
Christine M. Hrabos
Countersig
1 P Huffstetler
(N.C. Licensed Resident Agent)
Cameron M. Harris & Co.
P 0 Box 220748, Charlotte NC 28222
American Ca5u?lty Company of Readin Pennsylvania
Name and Address-Surety Agency
American Casjalty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania
P 0 Box 470697, Charlotte NC 28226
Surety Company Name and N.C.
Regional or Branch Office Addrsss
(Surety Company) /
By:!l/??J?z9.
Title : Barbara S. Heeter
(Attorney in Facc)
(Surety Corpo=ate Sea?)

r.

1
11
u
n
11

E

POWER OF ATTORNEY APPOINTING INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
Know All Men By These Presents, That CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, NATIONAL FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, a Connecticut corporation, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING,
PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation (herein collectively called "the CCC Surety Companies"), are duly organized and existing
corporations having their principal offices-in-the City of Chicago, and State of Illinois, and that they do by virtue of the signature and seals
herein affixed hereby make, constitute and appoint
Daniel T Humphries Barbara S Heeter -Samuel D Alt Joseph A Corriere Ella M: Phipps, Christine M. Hrabos, Individually
of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact with full power and authority hereby conferred to sign, seal and execute for and on their behalf
bonds, undertakings and other obligatory instruments of similar nature
- In Unlimited Amounts -
and to bind them thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such instruments were signed by a duly authorized officer of their corporations
and all the acts of said Attorney, pursuant to the authority hereby given are hereby ratified and confirmed:
This Power of Attorney is made and executed pursuant to and by authority.of the By-Laws and Resolutions, printed on the reverse
hereof, duly adopted, as indicated, by the Boards of Directors of the corporations.
In Witness Whereof, the CCC Surety Companies have caused these presents to be signed by their Group Vice President and their
corporate seals to be hereto affixed on this 6th day of March 2000
OAS0"04* RY oe CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
p? ?yuo +kb NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD
AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA
coswon.tre d ,pC°Rt°agTfp
91
i g ; 5 JULY 11,
SEAL "c `s e isaz a?
1897 HAR11 L .
Marvin J. Cashion Group Vice President
State of Illinois, County of Cook, ss:
On this 6th day of March 2000 ,before me personally came
Marvin J. Cashion, to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say: that he resides in the City of Chicago, State Illinois;
that he is a Group Vice President of CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAR RTFORD,
and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA described in and which executed the above instrument; that he
knows the seals of said corporations; that the seals affixed to the said instrument are such corporate seals; that they were so affixed
pursuant to authority given by the Boards of Directors of said corporations and that he signed his name thereto pursuant to like authority,
and acknowledges same to be the act and deed of said corporations.
OFFICIAL SEAL"
DIANE FAULKNER
Notary Puhiio, Mats of Minals
• My t„ mmLssi *a Explris 9/17101 ;
My Commission Expires September 17, 2001 Diane Faulkner Notary Public
CERTIFICATE
1, Mary A. Ribikawskis, Assistant Secretary of CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
HARTFORD, and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA do hereby certify that the Power of Attorney herein
above set forth is still in force, and further certify that the By-Law and Resolution of the Board of Directors of each corporation printed on the
reverse hereof are still in force. In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seals of the
said corporations this 22nd day of December 2000
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
GASUq?T? \Q? lNSURq?c? y`ypKroo,1 NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD
oo AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA
APOA?rf
Z 2 y JULY 11,
°v SEAL. c `? 19az ah ,
A` HAS r • 6d
1e97
Mary . Ribikawskis Assistant Secretary
(Rev.10/1 /97)
U___"
SURETY
PERFORMANCE BOND
Bond No. 929170582
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That we Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP
' 81 Mosher Street, Baltimore, MD 21217 , Principal,
and American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania , Surety, are held and firmly bound
unto North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, Room 462, NCDOT,
1 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, NC 27601 , Obligee
in the sum of One Million Six Hundred Twenty Eight and no/100 Dollars ( $ 1, 628,000.00 ),
for the payment of which we bind ourselves, our legal representatives, successors and assigns, jointly
' and severally, firmly by these presents.
WHEREAS, Principal has entered into a contract with Obligee, dated January 2000
' for
Monitoring and Site Management -
Leonards' Fork Wetland and Stream Restoration Site
' copy of which contract is by reference made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, if Principal shall faithfully perform such contract or shall indemnify and save
harmless the Obligee from all cost and damage by reason of Principal's failure so to do, then this
obligation shall be null and void; otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect. Provided, however, it
is hereby agreed and understood that this bond shall be effective on , and
' notwithstanding anything in the contract or specifications to the contrary, shall remain in full force and
effect thereafter for a period of only one year. At its sole option, the Surety may extend the term of
this bond for additional one year periods by Continuation Certificate. Should the Surety elect not to
' extend the term of this bond, it will provide to the Obligee not less than ninety (90) days written notice
of its intent to non-renew the bond. Regardless of the number of extensions for additional terms, this
bond shall not be extended beyond May 1, 2007.
Regardless of the number of extensions for additional terms and the number of premiums that
shall be payable or paid, the liability of the Surety hereunder shall not be. cumulative from year to year
nor period to period.
The penalty of the bond may be reduced by notice from the Obligee and by execution of a rider by
the Surety specifying such reduction and its effective date.

1

POWER OF ATTORNEY APPOINTING INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
Know All Men By These Presents, That CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, NATIONAL FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, a Connecticut corporation, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING,
PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation (herein collectively called 'the CCC Surety Companies"), are duly organized and existing
corporations having their principal offices in'the City of Chicago, and State of Illinois, and that they do by virtue of the signature and seals
herein affixed hereby make, constitute and appoint
Daniel T. Humphries, Barbara S. Heeter, Samuel .D. Alt, Joseph A. Corriere, Ella M. Phipps, Christine M. Hrabos, Individually
of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania -
thelr true and lawful Attorney(s)-in- Fact with full power and authority hereby conferred to sign, seal and execute for and on their
bonds, undertakings and other obligatory instruments of similar nature
- In Unlimited Amounts -
and to bind them thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such instruments were signed by a duly authorized officer of their corporations
and all the acts of said Attorney, pursuant to the authority hereby given are hereby ratified and confirmed.
This Power of Attorney is made and executed pursuant to and by authority of the By-Laws and Resolutions, printed on the reverse
hereof, duly adopted, as indicated, by the Boards of Directors of the corporations.
In Witness Whereof, the CCC Surety Companies have caused these presents to be signed by their Group Vice President and their
corporate seals to be hereto affixed on this 6th day of March 2000
G/SU,t?l If15URq? y`?pAxr o??,
z c0gPORAr6 a q13+ , °?p?TF
GJ SEAL R? JULY 71,
4. ?, e 1902 * .
1897 ? MqR?? ? ? d?a
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD
AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA

State of Illinois, County of Cook, ss: Marvin J. Cashion Group Vice President
' On this 6th day of March , 2000 , before me personally came
Marvin J. Cashion, to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say: that he resides in the City of Chicago, State of Illinois;
that he is a Group Vice President of CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD,
and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA described in and which executed the above instrument; that he
t kriows the seals of said corporations; that the seals affixed to the said instrument are such corporate seals; that they were so affixed
pursuant to authority given by the Boards of Directors of said corporations and that he signed his name thereto pursuant to like authority,
and acknowledges same to be the act and deed of said corporations.
' • "OFFICIAL
omE FAU KNirR +
notary htJl'AW, &&to of pllnols
• My Cot,IwW*sIoe Expim 9/17/01 ;
My Commission Expires September 17, 2001 Diane Faulkner Notary Public
' CERTIFICATE
1, Mary A. Ribikawskis, Assistant Secretary of CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
HARTFORD, and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA do hereby certify that the Power of Attorney herein
above set forth is still in force, and further certify that the By-Law and Resolution of the Board of Directors of each corporation printed on the
reverse hereof are still in force. In testimony whereof 1 have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seals of the
said corporations this 22nd day of December 2000 .
POngrB l
' 0 SEAL
1897 IfAR
e v.10/ 1 /97)
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
yc`OANATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD
All-
S
` r AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA
oRroriq to ?
IDLY 71,
1902 ?
Z), Ribikawskis Assistant Secretary

The Chewacla loam (ChA) soil series area is located in the lower flood plain areas of
the property. This series consists of frequently flooded, somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils formed from recent alluvium on floodplains. This series is
listed in the Lincoln County Hydric Soils List as containing hydric inclusions. The
Chewacla soil on the Leonards Fork Creek floodplain has been effectively drained by
the ditch described in Section 2.4.
The Gaston sandy clay loam (GnB2 and GnC2) soil series consists mainly of very deep,
well drained, soils located on gently to strongly sloping soils on side slopes and
uplands. These soils occur along the upland slopes draining to the middle and
southeastern tributaries as well Leonards Fork Creek.

I

L

fl

fl
The Helena sandy loam (HeB) soil series consists of moderately well drained, slowly
permeable soils in the uplands on smooth ridges between drainageways, on toe slopes,
and along drainageways. These soils formed from weathered igneous and
metamorphic rock. The lower elevations of the southeastern stream site are occupied
by the Helena series, which is also listed on the Lincoln County Hydric Soils List as
having hydric inclusions.
Table 1. Summary Descriptions of Soils Found on the Leonards Fork Creek
Mitigation Site
Soil Acres Taxonomic Hydric Soil High Water Depth (ft.) Potential as
Series (approx.) Class Status Table Habitat for
(months) Wildlife
Riverview loam 14.8 Fluventic Non-Hydric Dec. - March 3.0-5.0 Woodland -
(RvA) Dystrochrepts Good
Chewacla loam 26.2 Fluvaquentic Hydric Nov. - Apr. 0.5-1.5 Wetland -
(ChA) Dystrudepts Inclusions Fair
Gaston sandy 7.5 Humic Non-Hydric ------- >6.0 Woodland -
clay loam (GnB2) Hapludults Fair
Gaston sandy 19.3 Humic Non-Hydric ------- >6.0 Woodland -
clay loam (GnC2) Hapludults Fair
Helena sandy 6.2 Aquic Hydric Jan. - Apr. 1.5-2.5 Woodland -
loam (He6) Hapludults Inclusions Good
2.6 Existing Vegetation and Plant Community Descriptions
There are cleared upland areas along the property boundary fringe on the southeastern
tributary, the middle tributary and to the east of the drainage ditch that roughly parallel
Leonards Fork Creek. These areas support an array of upland herbaceous and woody
vegetation dominated by broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus). Other species include
blackberry (Rubus spp.), rose (Rosa spp.), and woody seedlings of sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and red maple (Acer
rubrum).
Andropogon spp. dominates the cleared 18-acre bottom bordering Leonards Fork
Creek. Other species occurring there include Rubus spp., Rosa spp., green ash
9
F
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). The forested
area along Leonards Fork Creek is best described as a Piedmont Levee Forest in
Schafale and Weakley (1990). Species include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river
' birch (Betula nigra), Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera and box elder (Acer
negundo).
' The forested riparian area bordering the middle tributary consists of Acer rubrum,
Liquidambar styraciflua, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, arrow arum (Peltandra virginica),
swamp knotweed (Polygonum hydropiperiodes), duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia), and
soft rush (Juncus effusus).
' The southeastern tributary supports early successional woody vegetation such as black
willow (Salix nigra), Cephalanthus occidentalis, and Acer rubrum in the upper portions
of the property near the head of the tributary, along with broomsedge Andropogon spp.,
Rubus spp. and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). The lower section of the tributary
supports more mature woody vegetation consisting of Acer rubrum, Liquidambar
styraciflua and Liriodendron tulipifera along with a scattered herbaceous understory of
Polygonum hydropiperiodes, Rubus spp. and sedges (Carex spp.).
2.7 Present and Future Development in the Area

According to the North Carolina State Data Center (2001), the population in the
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill area of the state grew 35% faster than the state as a
1 whole during 1990-1999. The population of Lincoln County increased from 50,319 in
1990 to 63,780 in 2000, a 26.8% change. During the same period the population of
Lincolnton increased 43.3% from 6,955 to 9,965. The population density per square
' mile in Lincoln County is expected to increase 42% by 2020.
The increase in impervious area associated with development will increase the amount
of runoff entering Leonards Fork Creek as well as the South Fork of the Catawba River,
which is designated as Support-Threatened by DWQ. Mitigation of stream channels
' and wetlands on the Leonards Fork Creek site will play an important role in containing
flood flows and reducing sediment deposition before it reaches the South Fork. Given
the growth and development predicted for the surrounding area, this wetland and
stream mitigation bank will have an increasingly vital function in improving and
protecting the water quality of Leonards Fork Creek and the South Fork of the Catawba
River in the future.
' 2.8 Agency Correspondence and Hazardous Materials Report
In year 2000, letters were sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
' (SHPO) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) to inquire about possible
impacts to archaeological and natural resources from the implementation of the
proposed mitigation. RK&K consulted with the Habitat Assessment and Restoration
Program (HARP) and Museum of Natural Sciences-Project Bog Turtle Program to
determine possible impacts to two federally listed plants, the dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hexastylis naniflora) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), as well as with the NC
10

1

Museum of Natural Sciences-Project Bog Turtle Program to determine the
presence/absence of the federally threatened (due to similarity of appearance) reptile,
bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). A hazardous materials search was also performed
to determine if any mapped storage facilities exist within or adjacent to the project study
area. The following summarizes the responses from agencies and consultants
pertaining to possible impacts resulting from the Leonards Fork Wetland Mitigation Site.
2.8.1 State Historic Preservation Office
In a letter dated February 21, 2000, SHPO states that there are no known recorded
archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the area has never been
systematically surveyed for archaeological significance. SHPO recommended that a
comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify the
presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. After reviewing the mitigation plans, SHPO replied
on June 27, 2000, stating that the recommendation for archaeological study be
rescinded. No survey for the subject project is currently recommended. The
correspondence with SHPO and the following agencies is included in Appendix C.
2.8.2 Natural Heritage Program
In a letter dated July 20, 2000, NHP stated that it does not have a record of rare species,
high quality natural communities, or significant natural heritage areas (SNHAs) at or
within a 1.0-mile radius of the proposed Leonards Fork Wetland Mitigation Site. In
addition, NHP provided a list of threatened or endangered species known to occur in
Lincoln County and recommended the site be evaluated for potential habitat.
RK&K and MR[ consulted with representatives of the Habitat Assessment and
Restoration Program (HARP) and requested field surveys for two plant species,
Hexastylis naniflora and Rhus michauxii, listed as threatened and endangered,
respectively. In a letter dated August 21, 2001, HARP indicated that in the course of the
inventory, there were no federally listed plant species found within the survey area.
Additionally, upon recommendations from HARP representatives, RK&K and MRI
contacted staff with the NC State Museum of Natural Sciences to conduct a survey for
the state and federally threatened Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi) which has listed
occurrences in adjacent Gaston County. James F. Green, Sr., with the NC Museum of
Natural Sciences - Project Bog Turtle Program, examined the site for possible impacts
resulting from mitigation. In a letter dated September 9, 2001, he indicated that no
Clemmys muhlenbergii were found nor would be expected due to adverse environmental
impacts to the site, but recommended the search be extended during the year 2002 in
late winter/early to late spring when the species is naturally more active. Mr. Green is
scheduled to survey the site in 2002 and any occurrences will be coordinated with
USFWS.
11

' 2.8.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
' In a letter dated August 18, 2000, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
provided comments on the proposed mitigation project and provided a list of federally
protected species occurring within Lincoln County, North Carolina. Two species,
Hexastylis naniflora, federally threatened and Rhus michauxii, federally endangered,
occur within Lincoln County. Pursuant to this letter, RK&K and requested surveys for
these species as described in Section 2.8.2. In a letter dated November 1, 2001 the
' USFWS concurred that the proposed project would not negatively affect federally-listed
species and stated that the requirements for Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
had been fulfilled.
2.8.4 Lincoln County Soil and Water Conservation District
' The Lincoln County Soil and Water Conservation District stated in a letter dated August
14, 2000 that there is no record of a Prior Converted Cropland determination and
specified the Farmland Conversion Impact Ratings for the Leonards Fork Creek site.
' 2.8.5 Hazardous Materials Report

In an Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) report, dated July 20, 2000, no mapped
sites were found in the search of available government records either on the target
property or within the ASTM E 1527-00 search radius around the target property. The
report is included in Appendix D.
3.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
3.1 Present and Future Wetland Ecological Functions
Wetlands perform a wide range of ecological functions in unique ways. These functions
are both inherent characteristics of wetlands, and the result of wetland function
interactions. Wetland functions include hydrologic flux and storage, biological
productivity, biogeochemical cycling and storage and community/wildlife habitat
(Richardson 1994). The present condition of wetland functions onsite can be described
as being considerably altered from their historic natural state. The natural hydrologic
flux and storage of the site has been modified by ditching, drainage, stream channel
entrenchment and soil compaction. These alterations have increased the total volume
and rate of stormwater runoff from large areas of the site. Previous land uses have
decreased the site's ability to infiltrate and treat stormwater runoff as well as perform
groundwater recharge functions.
Approximately two-thirds of the site has been cleared of its natural vegetation,
decreasing primary production and diversity of the flora. The loss of wetland hydrology
and primary productivity in the ditched wetland and in former wetlands in the middle
tributary floodplain has had a negative effect on overall wetland biological productivity.
12

Anaerobic conditions in wetland soils have been shown to transform available forms of
nitrogen and phosphorus to unavailable forms, improving water quality (Richardson
1994). This biogeochemical cycling and nutrient-filtering function is lost when wetlands
are drained as those have been at this site. Another important biogeochemical function,
dissolved organic export, is an important food source for microorganisms in the
downstream waters, which are themselves important food sources for organisms higher
in the food chain. The dissolved organic export function is largely lost when. wetlands
are drained.
When forested wetlands are drained and converted to pasture, the wetland plant
community and the habitat for organisms which are adapted to it are essentially lost.
The proposed mitigation efforts will restore hydrologic flux and storage, biological
production, biogeochemical flux and storage and community/wildlife habitat to
historically natural conditions.
3.2 Mitigation Types and Areas
3.2.1 Jurisdictional Preservation Wetlands
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (Figure 6) indicates a Palustrine, Scrub-
Shrub, Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PSS1A) wetland located along the middle tributary.
Palustrine, Forested, Broadleaf Deciduous (PF01A) wetlands are mapped upstream on
the middle tributary in a narrow band along the channel. Riverine, Intermittent,
Streambed (R4SBCX) wetlands are mapped downstream from the PSS1 wetland to
Leonards Fork Creek. Additional PSS1A wetlands are mapped along Leonards Fork
Creek, on the western boundary of the property.
RK&K performed a wetland delineation on the site in December of 2001 and February
2002. A 0.5-acre wetland, hereafter referred to P1, was delineated on the southeastern
tributary of the site. A map of the delineated wetlands, along with delineation forms is
included in Appendix E.
' 3.2.2 Proposed Restoration Areas
Two areas of the site exhibiting redoximorphic depletions and hydric soil colors (chroma
' of 2 or less) within 12 inches of the surface were delineated by Kevin Nunnery, a
Licensed Soil Scientist in the State of North Carolina. One 0.9-acre area, R1, located
on the southeastern tributary was identified as an area where restorable soils are
' present but the hydrology is questionable. An additional 3.4-acre area with restorable
soils, R2, is located on the middle tributary.
' Three gauges were installed to monitor groundwater within R1 and six groundwater
gauges were installed in the R2 to verify jurisdictional hydrology in areas that appear to
' be relatively more dry. If jurisdictional hydrology is not recorded, these areas will be
proposed for restoration. If jurisdictional hydrology is recorded at these gauges, the
1
13
1
1

I

u
n

11
1

delineated wetland boundary will be adjusted accordingly. A site map of proposed
mitigation areas is found in Figure 7.
3.2.3 Proposed Creation Areas
Wetland creation is proposed on a 18.2-acre area, C2, located on the floodplain of
Leonards Fork Creek. It coincides with the area of NRCS-mapped Chewacla soils.
Jurisdictional hydrology will be restored in this area by filling the existing ditch at the toe
of the slope of the bordering uplands to eliminate drainage. Also, a Rosgen Priority I
restored E5-type stream channel is proposed to flow through this area as shown in
Figure 7. The restored channel will be much shallower than the entrenched channel of
Leonards Fork Creek and the ditch onsite. Consequently overbank flooding will be
more frequent and the natural elevation of the floodplain water table will be raised so
that it approaches the soil surface more frequently. Wetland vegetation will be restored
by planting appropriate tree species (see Planting Plan, Section 3.72).
3.3 Wetland Reference Areas
The reference area for the Chewacla floodplain creation area and the restoration areas
is proposed to be the 0.5-acre delineated wetland, P1, located along the southeastern
tributary described in Section 3.2.1 and displayed in Figure 7. Wetland vegetation and
hydrology criteria will be based on that displayed by the reference wetland. Should
review agencies request a different reference area, RK&K and MRI will provide an
alternative reference site.
3.4 Stream Restoration
The primary goals of the stream restoration efforts onsite include the construction of a
stable channel, the improvement of water quality of water flowing across and from the
site into receiving waters downstream, the restoration of native vegetation along the
stream channel, and the restoration of wildlife habitat/plant community functions along
the restored reach. Rosgen Priority I stream restoration will be performed on the first
order tributary to Leonards Fork Creek that flows onsite on the northernmost part of the
property. A new E5 channel will be established on the Leonards Fork Creek floodplain
roughly paralleling Leonards Fork Creek to the southern property boundary, where it will
flow into Leonards Fork Creek (see Figure 7). The old channel will be filled in. The
new channel will be designed for stable dimension, pattern and profile characteristics
based on the dimensionless ratios from a reference reach provided by NCWRP. The
re-establishment of the stable channel on the floodplain will:
• reduce bank height and streambank erosion
• reduce land loss
• raise the water table
• decrease excess sediment export
• and improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
14
t

k Npp`
?i
g a
o ` S+yT
N
CL 4)
CCU LL
G O
O
O
O
a-+
C
Q1
C
? O
C: O
cu O
W
cu
c
O O
cu
II
CO
? O
O
LL
rn
c
n
CL
m
U Z'
? fA
7 w C
0
C
U
L -O N
a o3
<0
C N to
j LL O
o 16
J U)
Z
2 - 0I
line Beoring Distance
L1 N 2' 36' 13" E 52,45' ~ ~
L2 N 53' 46' 40" E 228.48' L3 S 86' 05' 01" E 102,95' NORTH v o NC GRID ~
L4 S 35' S1' 01" E 187,39' MARTHA H, ENGARD 3
" ~ M L5 S 63 O6 52 E 108.85 , " ~ D DEED BOOK 501 PAGE 199 ° o
L6 N 47' 00 53 E 207.46 , ~ F PIN 3602-0045-8323 ~ ~ •v v
L7 N 12' 32 35 E 147,80 L8 S 55' 18' 43" W 113.33' rn a
L9 S 19' 23' 34" w 238,71' ti o °m s~ ~ rn
L10 N 18' 43' 11" E 272.96' WALTER EARL HULL and
L11 S 57' 56' 01" W 20.00' wife MARY KAY WEHUNT HULL L12 S 23' 17' 44" E 25.18' DEED BOOK 593 PAGE 519 g, leonord's fork church road
L13 S 3' 53' 46" E 56.36' PIN 3602-0053-1999 m. F
L14 S 14' 42' 12" E 88,71' J
l15 S 5' 17' 48" E 78,61'
L16 S 18' 58' 10" E 66,31' L17 S 10' 06' 41" E 141.87' VICINITY MAP -NTS-
L18 S 6' 54' 40" E 66,39'
L19 S 14' 16' 59" E 97,17'
L20 S 7' 50' 54" E 80.52' SPECIAL NOTE
L21 S 18' S1' S6" E 53,31' L22 S 7' 15' S0" E 92,70' The survey which resulted in this
L23 S 15' 10' 02" E 53.47' plot used only the record information noted hereon and makes no certifi-
L24 S 2' 42' 38" E 69.13' cation os to title or ownership of
L25 S t5' 21' 39" E 90.43' L26 S 3' 30' 57" W 52.02' any parcels shown. Other documents
L27 S 3' 38' 02" E 162.16' HUGH HAUSS FORMERLY) may exist that would affect these MITTIE HOYLE AUSS parcels. Declaration is mode fo the
L28 S 2' 15~ 15p W 78.37' CREEK ~s ~ DEED BOOK 199 PAGE 203 on ino/ urchaser of the surve . Ib!',£
S FORK L29 S 5' 30 21 E 75,62 LEONARD PIN 3602-0057-6371 9 p y s~ survev is not transferable to addi-
L30 S 0' 58' 30" W 203.01' L31 S 1 T 01' 28" E 59,51' tianol institutions or owners and is 6`~ S~• invalid without on ori~ino/ siQ on Pure.
L32 S 3' 39' 48" E 109.41'
l33 S i' 29' 44" E 269,27' 1- s• 1, Robert J. Wr7kins, certify that
L34 S 6' 36' 04" E 145,92' (~1 L35 S 1' 57' 31" W 76.03' Q ~ this plat was drawn by me from
L36 S 3' 36' 31" E 173.16' Z an actual field survey mode under
L37 S 1' 08' 17" E 94.83' my direct supervision; that the
L38 S 7' 47' 20" E 70.09' ~ L39 S 2' S8' 23" E 137,87' ~ N=6 3 309.842 , „ W> N 8. 4 ~ boundaries shown ore from the ' 00 3 44 e
2, L40 S 19' 10~ 26" w 103.00 ~ E=1 305 941,2 12. 32 ~ 583,4 ~ ~ record information noted hereon; N 16•l0 1 that the actual ratio of rec~s~on 5 p
L41 S 11 54 26 W 65.37 exceeds 1:10,000; and that this
L42 S 3' 41' 45" E 71,65' " ~ 1 17" W> C ] V~~ plot represents an ex/sting parcel
L43 S 8' 26 15 E 105.59 p N 5' S6 0 , L44 S 4' 19' 03" E 72,47' { 846.82 1' ZO 0' 19 of loud, Witness m on ina/ si - 2 ~ y 9 g
4 6' 18' 21" E 92.93' b 13• N ~ X59 L 5 S " Op O6" 6 N 659 nature, seal, and registration
L46 S 9~ 23 09" W 33.23 ~ 3]4. E > number this the 16 th day of
L47 S 5 56 41 E 102.39 n S 9~ L48 N 82' 45' 02" E 287.01' = Ai• November, 2000.
L49 N 84' 41' 00" E 54,21' C sr 0 , v
L50 N 19 10 51 E 32,56 P~ ~ p s .~5,• ~9+ o ~
0 0~ ~ I ~ !y r This document on inall issued 9 Y
~ ~ s. and sealed b Robert J. Wilkins, PLS,
~~0 ~ m ~a~• O •dS.S. Y
~ ~ c S o ~ L3393 on 11 16 2000 . CHARLES GRIER BEAM and
wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM This media shall not be considered
AO Ss, DEED BOOK 406 PAGE 186 ertifie d c d ocument,
OCCUPIED , 2 + NCGS "GROUSE" 0 ~ TRACT 2
= 1 7 7 ,88 M, w ~ N 8 , 22 5
E = 400,247.532 M. C
CF=0,9998408 ~ 8 r
O N A '1^ ~O ~ s~
COMBINED FACTOR NN ap ^ S ~ • s
0,9998412 p~ 1" ~ AS. s
1M.=3.2808333 FT, N~ ~'~o A 0 cn z o6 0•
Z ~ ~ `~6• Ad's
~ 4i !y
h ~ " 3~ `~S• DEED l]N NCGS SCOUT" h o ~ , S E
~ 9 0
N = 187,818,456 M. OCCUPIED ~ h • SO AS+ E = 400,616.561 M. ~o h~ 8S• F
F=0,9998416 0~' N~ ~ C ~ N
h~ ~o
2
r s
~ s~. s ,

'ss. ~ o v FFt)
CHARLES GRIER BEAM and ~ wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM ~ m ~i v NF
DEED BOOK 407 PAGE 281 ti
S~, r Z
~ U~, m
~ 04

J
CHARLES GRIER BEAM and wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM
DEED BOOK 406 PAGE 186
i TRACT 1
3,213,728 SF Ski gyp.
73.777 Ac 's~•
CHARLES GRIER BEAM and
wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM 2106529 SF DEED BOOK 407 PAGE 281 48.359 Ac ti N

s se, 6 Se, 64539 Sf
~a Ai+ A 1.482 AC la o a17
CHARLES GRIER BEAM and 1018191 Sf 24469 SF wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM 23.374 Ac 0.562 ~c F , F
DEED BOOK 406 PAGE 186 J ~ 96
TRACT 2 ~ g9•
~ ~
n
CHARLES GRIER BEAM and N
wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM 64539 SF
DEED BOOK 406 PAGE 186 1.482 Ac ~ O N Survey for:
TRACT 1 w'
N + MARSH RESOURCES INC,
' BOUNDARY SURVEY
PSD; 200004-1
DwGc 100004-1o.dw9 Cgo~rfght 0 ?00'0 Robtrt J. NNkint, PLS C-JJ9J NC C. GRIER BEAM PORPERTY
Wilkins & Associotes Post Office Box 665 195-A West Plazo Drive Pro 'ect 200004 LEONARD'S FORK
Land Surveying Consultants Moaresvrlle, NC 28115 Tel. (704J 663-5566 Surve Dote.• 16 N01/EMBER 200 y HOWARD'S CREEK TOWNSHIP, LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

line Beoring Distance
L1 N 2' 36' 13" E 52,45' ~ ~
L2 N 53' 46' 40" E 228.48' L3 S 86' 05' 01" E 102,95' NORTH v o NC GRID ~
L4 S 35' S1' 01" E 187,39' MARTHA H, ENGARD 3
" ~ M L5 S 63 O6 52 E 108.85 , " ~ D DEED BOOK 501 PAGE 199 ° o
L6 N 47' 00 53 E 207.46 , ~ F PIN 3602-0045-8323 ~ ~ •v v
L7 N 12' 32 35 E 147,80 L8 S 55' 18' 43" W 113.33' rn a
L9 S 19' 23' 34" w 238,71' ti o °m s~ ~ rn
L10 N 18' 43' 11" E 272.96' WALTER EARL HULL and
L11 S 57' 56' 01" W 20.00' wife MARY KAY WEHUNT HULL L12 S 23' 17' 44" E 25.18' DEED BOOK 593 PAGE 519 g, leonord's fork church road
L13 S 3' 53' 46" E 56.36' PIN 3602-0053-1999 m. F
L14 S 14' 42' 12" E 88,71' J
l15 S 5' 17' 48" E 78,61'
L16 S 18' 58' 10" E 66,31' L17 S 10' 06' 41" E 141.87' VICINITY MAP -NTS-
L18 S 6' 54' 40" E 66,39'
L19 S 14' 16' 59" E 97,17'
L20 S 7' 50' 54" E 80.52' SPECIAL NOTE
L21 S 18' S1' S6" E 53,31' L22 S 7' 15' S0" E 92,70' The survey which resulted in this
L23 S 15' 10' 02" E 53.47' plot used only the record information noted hereon and makes no certifi-
L24 S 2' 42' 38" E 69.13' cation os to title or ownership of
L25 S t5' 21' 39" E 90.43' L26 S 3' 30' 57" W 52.02' any parcels shown. Other documents
L27 S 3' 38' 02" E 162.16' HUGH HAUSS FORMERLY) may exist that would affect these MITTIE HOYLE AUSS parcels. Declaration is mode fo the
L28 S 2' 15~ 15p W 78.37' CREEK ~s ~ DEED BOOK 199 PAGE 203 on ino/ urchaser of the surve . Ib!',£
S FORK L29 S 5' 30 21 E 75,62 LEONARD PIN 3602-0057-6371 9 p y s~ survev is not transferable to addi-
L30 S 0' 58' 30" W 203.01' L31 S 1 T 01' 28" E 59,51' tianol institutions or owners and is 6`~ S~• invalid without on ori~ino/ siQ on Pure.
L32 S 3' 39' 48" E 109.41'
l33 S i' 29' 44" E 269,27' 1- s• 1, Robert J. Wr7kins, certify that
L34 S 6' 36' 04" E 145,92' (~1 L35 S 1' 57' 31" W 76.03' Q ~ this plat was drawn by me from
L36 S 3' 36' 31" E 173.16' Z an actual field survey mode under
L37 S 1' 08' 17" E 94.83' my direct supervision; that the
L38 S 7' 47' 20" E 70.09' ~ L39 S 2' S8' 23" E 137,87' ~ N=6 3 309.842 , „ W> N 8. 4 ~ boundaries shown ore from the ' 00 3 44 e
2, L40 S 19' 10~ 26" w 103.00 ~ E=1 305 941,2 12. 32 ~ 583,4 ~ ~ record information noted hereon; N 16•l0 1 that the actual ratio of rec~s~on 5 p
L41 S 11 54 26 W 65.37 exceeds 1:10,000; and that this
L42 S 3' 41' 45" E 71,65' " ~ 1 17" W> C ] V~~ plot represents an ex/sting parcel
L43 S 8' 26 15 E 105.59 p N 5' S6 0 , L44 S 4' 19' 03" E 72,47' { 846.82 1' ZO 0' 19 of loud, Witness m on ina/ si - 2 ~ y 9 g
4 6' 18' 21" E 92.93' b 13• N ~ X59 L 5 S " Op O6" 6 N 659 nature, seal, and registration
L46 S 9~ 23 09" W 33.23 ~ 3]4. E > number this the 16 th day of
L47 S 5 56 41 E 102.39 n S 9~ L48 N 82' 45' 02" E 287.01' = Ai• November, 2000.
L49 N 84' 41' 00" E 54,21' C sr 0 , v
L50 N 19 10 51 E 32,56 P~ ~ p s .~5,• ~9+ o ~
0 0~ ~ I ~ !y r This document on inall issued 9 Y
~ ~ s. and sealed b Robert J. Wilkins, PLS,
~~0 ~ m ~a~• O •dS.S. Y
~ ~ c S o ~ L3393 on 11 16 2000 . CHARLES GRIER BEAM and
wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM This media shall not be considered
AO Ss, DEED BOOK 406 PAGE 186 ertifie d c d ocument,
OCCUPIED , 2 + NCGS "GROUSE" 0 ~ TRACT 2
= 1 7 7 ,88 M, w ~ N 8 , 22 5
E = 400,247.532 M. C
CF=0,9998408 ~ 8 r
O N A '1^ ~O ~ s~
COMBINED FACTOR NN ap ^ S ~ • s
0,9998412 p~ 1" ~ AS. s
1M.=3.2808333 FT, N~ ~'~o A 0 cn z o6 0•
Z ~ ~ `~6• Ad's
~ 4i !y
h ~ " 3~ `~S• DEED l]N NCGS SCOUT" h o ~ , S E
~ 9 0
N = 187,818,456 M. OCCUPIED ~ h • SO AS+ E = 400,616.561 M. ~o h~ 8S• F
F=0,9998416 0~' N~ ~ C ~ N
h~ ~o
2
r s
~ s~. s ,

'ss. ~ o v FFt)
CHARLES GRIER BEAM and ~ wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM ~ m ~i v NF
DEED BOOK 407 PAGE 281 ti
S~, r Z
~ U~, m
~ 04

J
CHARLES GRIER BEAM and wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM
DEED BOOK 406 PAGE 186
i TRACT 1
3,213,728 SF Ski gyp.
73.777 Ac 's~•
CHARLES GRIER BEAM and
wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM 2106529 SF DEED BOOK 407 PAGE 281 48.359 Ac ti N

s se, 6 Se, 64539 Sf
~a Ai+ A 1.482 AC la o a17
CHARLES GRIER BEAM and 1018191 Sf 24469 SF wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM 23.374 Ac 0.562 ~c F , F
DEED BOOK 406 PAGE 186 J ~ 96
TRACT 2 ~ g9•
~ ~
n
CHARLES GRIER BEAM and N
wife LENA SUE BRAWLEY BEAM 64539 SF
DEED BOOK 406 PAGE 186 1.482 Ac ~ O N Survey for:
TRACT 1 w'
N + MARSH RESOURCES INC,
' BOUNDARY SURVEY
PSD; 200004-1
DwGc 100004-1o.dw9 Cgo~rfght 0 ?00'0 Robtrt J. NNkint, PLS C-JJ9J NC C. GRIER BEAM PORPERTY
Wilkins & Associotes Post Office Box 665 195-A West Plazo Drive Pro 'ect 200004 LEONARD'S FORK
Land Surveying Consultants Moaresvrlle, NC 28115 Tel. (704J 663-5566 Surve Dote.• 16 N01/EMBER 200 y HOWARD'S CREEK TOWNSHIP, LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA