20111108 Ver 1_Final Mitigation Plan_20120217

MITIGAATION PLLAN
SLLIVER MOOON NONN-RIPARIIAN WETTLANDMMITIGATION SITE
CRAAVEN COUNNTY, NORTHH CAROLINAA
EEP PROOJECT ID: 955017
IN THE NEUSE RIVER RBASIN
CATALOGIING UNIT 033020202
PREPPARED FORR:
NC DEPARTTMENT OF ENVIIRONMENT & NNATURAL RESOUURCES
ECOSYSTEM ENNHANCEMENT PPROGRAM
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENNTER
RALEIGGH, NC 27699-16652
FEBRRUARY 20122

MITIGAATION PLLAN
SLLIVER MOOON NONN-RIPARIIAN WETTLANDMMITIGATION SITE
CRAAVEN COUNNTY, NORTHH CAROLINAA
EEP PROOJECT ID : 995017
IN THE NEUSE RIVER RBASIN
CATALOGIING UNIT 033020202
PREPPARED FORR:
NC DEPARTTMENT OF ENVIIRONMENT & NNATURAL RESOUURCES
ECOSYSTEM ENNHANCEMENT PPROGRAM
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENNTER
RALEIGGH, NC 27699-16652
PREEPARED BY::
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNEES STREET, SUIITE 211
RALEIGH, NOORTH CAROLINNA 27604
AXIOM ENNVIRONMENTALL, INC.
218SSNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NOORTH CAROLINNA 27603
FEBRRUARY 20122

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(14).
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28,
2010
These documents govern NCEEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
Sliver Moon Non-Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site
This mitigation report describes the (Site) and is
designed specifically to assist in fulfilling North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program wetland
restoration goals. The Site is located approximately 4 miles east of Dover in western Craven County
(Figures 1 and 2) and within theTargeted Local Watershed03020202080010 of the Neuse River Basin
(8-digit HUC 03020202). The Site encompasses approximately 17.1 acres of land currently used for row
crop production. Within the Site, 17.1 acres of non-riparian hydric soils have been cleared and ditched.
A total of 14 non-riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs) are being offered, as depicted in the
following table.
Acres Percentage of WMUs Non-riparian WMUs
Nonriparian Wetland Restoration 14 100 14
Total 14 Total Non-riparian WMUs 14
The Site is contained within one parcel owned by Mr. H.L. Mitchell. Located within an interstream flat
C;NSW, Sw
north of Core Creek, which has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of and is
considered biologically impaired. Adjacent to the rim of a Carolina bay the Site has been cleared of
native forest vegetation, ditched to remove groundwater hydrology, and is currently utilized for row crop
production. Based on preliminary analyses, the primary goals of this non-riparian wetland restoration
project focus on improving water quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring wildlife habitat and
will be accomplished by the following:
1.Remove nonpoint sources of pollution associated with vegetation maintenance including a) the
cessation of broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals into and adjacent
to Site drainage ditches and b) providing a vegetated wetland to aid in the treatment of runoff.
2.Restore wetland hydroperiods that satisfy wetland jurisdictional requirements and approximate
the Site’s natural range of variation.
3.Promote floodwater attenuation by filling ditches and enhancing groundwater storage capacity.
4.Restore and reestablish natural community structure, habitat diversity, and functional continuity.
5.Enhance and protect the Site’s full potential of wetland functions and values in perpetuity.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Executive Summary
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.Restoration Project Goals and Objectives 1
1.1Project Goals 1
1.2Project Objectives 1
2.Site Selection 2
2.1Directions to Site 2
2.2Physiography and Land Use 2
2.3Water Quality 2
2.4Soil and Land Form 3
2.5Hydrology 3
2.6Protected Species 4
2.7Summary of Anticipated Effects 5
3.Site Protection Instrument 11
3.1Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information 11
4.Baseline Information 12
5.Determination of Credits 13
6.Credit Release Schedule 13
6.1Initial Allocation of Release Credits 14
6.2Subsequent Credit Release 14
7.Mitigation Work Plan 14
7.1Target Wetland Type, and Plant Communities 15
7.2Design Parameters 16
7.3Data Analysis 17
8.Maintenance Plan 18
9.Performance Standards 19
10.Monitoring Requirements 20
11.Long-term Management Plan 21
12.Adaptive Management Plan 21
13.Financial Assurances 21
14.Other Information 22
13.1Definitions 22
13.2References 23
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Site Protection Instruments
Appendix B. Baseline Information Data
Appendix C. Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix D. Project Plan Sheets
Appendix E. Performance Bond
Appendix F. NCIRT Approval Letter
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Table of Contents
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map 4
Figure 2 Watershed Map 5
Figure 3 NRCS Soil Survey 6
Figure 4 Existing Conditions Map 7
Figure 5 Site Photographs 8
Figure A Title Page
Appendix D
Figure B Boundary Plan
Appendix D
Figure C Mitigation Plan
Appendix D
Figure D Planting Plan
Appendix D
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. NRCS Soils Mapped within the Site 3
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Craven County 4
Table 3. Site Parcel Information 10
Table 4. Baseline Project Information 11
Table 5. Site Credit Determination 12
Table 6. Credit Release Schedule 13
Table 7. Reference Vegetation Species 13
Table 8. Planting Plan 15
Table 9. Boussinesq Equation Results 16
Table 10. Site Maintenance Plan 16
Table 11. Site Monitoring Requirements 18
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Table of Contents
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
The EEP develops River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) to guide its restoration activities within
each of the state’s 54 cataloging units. RBRPs delineate specific watershed that exhibit both the need and
opportunity for wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds are called Targeted
Local watersheds (TLWs) and receive priority for EEP planning and restoration project funds. The 2002
Neuse River Basin RBRP identified 03020202080010 as a Targeted Local Watershed (Online:
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/FINAL%20RBRP%20Neuse%2020110523.pdf). The Watershed
is characterized by 67.3% Forest / Wetland (Final Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, 2009).
Located within an interstream flat north of Core Creek, Stream Index Number 27-90, has been assigned a
C;NSW, Sw
Best Usage Classification of (NCDWQ 2010a) .
According to the Final Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2009), the upper portion of
Core Creek watershed has a severe bioclassification due to biological impairment. The periodic toxic
inputs from agricultural activities, inadequate macro-invertebrate habitat due to channelization and lack
for hydrologic flow are listed as the mostly likely stressors to the Core Creek system. The Sliver Moon
Non-Riparian Wetland Mitigation Project was identified as a non-riparian wetland opportunity to improve
water quality, flood attenuation and non-riparian habitat within the TLW.
1.1Project Goals
Improving Water Quality
-Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities, including
a) eliminating the application of fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials
into ditches that flow to adjacent streams and wetlands; and b) providing a vegetated
wetland to aid in the treatment of pollutants such as sediment and/or agricultural
pollutants from the adjacent landscape.
-Reducing sedimentation onsite and in adjacent ditches by a) reducing ditch erosion
associated with tillage and b) planting a diverse woody vegetative to reduce runoff.
Enhancing Flood Attenuation
-Promoting floodwater attenuation by a) removing ditches to reduce the amount of runoff
that occurs during high precipitation; b) restoring wetland hydroperiods that satisfy
wetland jurisdictional requirements and approximate the Site’s natural range of
variation; c) restoring non-riparian wetlands, resulting in increased storage capacity
during precipitation events within the Site d) re-vegetating the Site to reduce sheet flow
off the Site.
Restoring Non-riparian Habitat
-Restore and reestablish natural community structure, habitat diversity, and functional
continuity.
-Enhance and protect the Site’s full potential of wetland functions and values in
perpetuity.
1.2 Project Objectives
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
Providing 14 non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Units, as calculated in accordance with the
requirements stipulated in RFP #16-003571. This will be accomplished by restoring 14 acres
of non-riparian wetland by eliminating row crop production, filling agricultural ditches,
restoring water table elevations to its previous depth, redirecting ditches located near the Site
to avoid possible draw down of groundwater on the Site, and planting with native nonriparian
forest vegetation.
Protecting the Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 1
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions to Site
Situated approximately 4 miles east of Dover, NC in western Craven County the Site is within the
Targeted Local Watershed03020202080010 of the Neuse River Basin. From Kinston, NC head East on
US 70 By-Pass for 7.2 miles and turn left at SR 1005, Dover Rd, to the town of Dover. Continue onto Old
US Hwy. 70 for approximately 5 miles. At which point take a left onto Daisy Ln. Site lies approximately
¾ mile down Daisy Ln.
2.2 Physiography and Land Use
The Site is located in the Carolina Flatwoods section of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic
province of North Carolina in United State Geological Survey (USGS) HUC 03020202 (North Carolina
Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin Number 03-04-08) of the Neuse River Basin. Regional
physiography is characterized by flat plains on lightly dissected marine terraces; swamps, low gradient
streams with sandy and silty substrates; and Carolina bays (Griffith et al. 2002). Elevations within the
Site are nearly level averaging approximately 59 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (USGS Cove
City, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle). Topography within the Site is depicted on Figure 3.
The Site is located in a 1,065-square mile headwater watershed of Core Creek that has been ditched and
cleared to promote drainage. The watershed is dominated by agricultural land, forest, pasture, and sparse
residential property. Impervious surfaces account for less than 5 percent of the watershed land surface.
Surrounding area land use is primarily agricultural, with some sparse, low-density residential housing.
Onsite land use is characterized by agricultural land (row crop production). Vegetation at the Site has
been removed in support of agriculture practices.
2.3 Water Quality
Targeted Local
The Site is located within the Neuse River Basin in 14-digit USGS Cataloging Unit and
Watershed03020202080010
of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (NCDWQ sub-basin number 03-04-08).
The Site is located within an inter-stream flat adjacent to the rim of a Carolina bay. The inter-stream flat
lies between two stream systems, Core Creek to the south which has been assigned Stream Index Number
27-90 and Mill Branch to the North which has been assigned Stream Index Number 27-90-2. Both stream
C; NSW, Sw
systems have been assigned a Best Usage Classification of (NCDWQ 2010a). Streams
C
classified as are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving
Sw
human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. is intended to recognize those
waters which are topographically located so as to generally have low velocities and other natural
NSW
characteristics which are different from adjacent streams draining land with steeper topography. is
intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive
growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Local programs to control nonpoint sources and
stormwater discharges of pollution are required.
NCDWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
and 40 CFR 130.7, which is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies in the state.
An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality standards including designated uses,
numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. Core Creek
between SR 1239 and Grape Creek is listed on the NCDWQ final 2010 303(d) list for a severe
bioclassification due to reduced aquatic life integrity (NCDWQ 2010b).
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 2
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

m
2.4 Soils andd Land Formm
Based onn county soil survey mappping (USDA 1989), the SSite contains two soil serries: Torhuntaa fine
sandy loaam (Typic huumaquepts)aand Pantego fine sandy lloam (Umbricc Paleaquultts). Site soils are
depictedoon Figure 4 (AAppendix A) and describedd in Table 1.
Restorable portions off the Site aree predominanntly underlainn by soils of the Torhuntaa series. Torrhunta
soils are 880 percent hyddric soils thatt are characterized by a darrk gray matrix. Soils havee been impactted by
land clearring, ditching,, and till fromm row plant prroduction.
Table 1.NNRCS Soils MMapped within the Site
Soil SerriesHydric%FamilyDescrription
Thiss series consistss of nearly leveel stream terracces and uplandd bays
Typicin thhe Coastal Plaiin. Torhunta soils are very pooorly drained, have
Torhunnta 80
Humaqquepts modderately rapid ppermeability, aand a seasonal high water tabble at
the ssurface for 2 too 6 months annnually.
Thiss series consistts of very poorrly drained, mooderately permeeable
Umbric soilss that formed inn thick loamy ssediments on thhe Southern Cooastal
Panteggo 85
Paleaqquults Plaiin and Atlanticc Coast Flatwoods. The wateer table is at or near
thee surface durinng the wet seasson.
Detailedssoil mapping conducted bby licensed sooil scientists in January 20011 indicatethat the entirre 17-
acre Site iis currently uunderlain by nnonriparian hyydric soils off the Torhuntaa and Pantegoo Series (Figuures 4
and 5, Apppendix A).AA detailed soil profile incluudes the followwing.
Soil Profile 1 Soil Profile 22
0to 3 inches; blaack (10YR 2/1) sandy loam00 to 10 inches; black (10YR 22/1) sandy loamm
10+ inches; black ((10YR 2/1) sanndy loam; commmon
3tto 6 inches; blaack (5YR 2.5/11) sandy loam
medium distinnct brown (10YYR 4/3) mottless
6tto 15 inches; ggray (10YR 5/1) sandy loam
15 to 16+ inches; ligght gray (10YRR 7/2) sandy loaam
2.5 Hydrologgy
As statedd in the USDDA Soil Surrvey of Cravven County, NC grounddwater levels for the Sitee and
surrounding area are aat or near thhe surface duuring the dormmant and earrly growing season, and is fed
explicitly by rain events. Torhunta aand Pantego are both nearrly level, slowwly permeatinng soil types wwhich
drain poorrly. The curreent ditching oof the Site hass capped surfaace and sub-suurface hydrollogy.
Sliver Moon NNon-riparian Wetlland Mitigation Site pg. 3
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

2.6 Protected Species
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in North
Carolina as posted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) at http://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html, seven federally protected species are listed for Craven County (accessed
Tuesday, November 1, 2011). Table 2 lists the federally protected species and indicates if potential
habitat exists within the Site for each species. For additional communication between Restoration
Systems and regulatory agencies regarding federally protected species please refer to the Categorical
Exclusion, Appendix B.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Craven County
Habitat Present
Common Name Scientific Name Status*
Within Site
Vertebrates
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A) Yes
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA No
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E No
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E No
Plants
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E No
Sensitive joint-vetch Aeschynomene virginica T No
*Endangered (E) = a taxon “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range”; Threatened (T) = a taxon “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range”; Threatened [T(S/A)] = a species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its
protection; these
species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) = prohibits take of bald and golden
eagles and
provides a statutory definition of “take” that includes “disturb”.
American Alligator
Habitat for the American alligator is present in ditches throughout the Site; however, this species is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is not subject to Section 7
No Effect
consultation. Therefore, the project will have on this species.
Bald Eagle
Habitat is present adjacent to the Site for bald eagle and in open water areas due north of the Site. Open
water and forested areas that the bald eagle may inhabit do not have any proposed impacts. Therefore, it is
No Effect
reasonable to conclude the project will have on this species.
Leatherback Sea Turtle & West Indian Manatee
Habitat for the leatherback sea turtle and West Indian manatee does not exist at the Site. Based on the
No Effect
absence of suitable habitat, it is reasonable to conclude the project will have on these species.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
Habitat is present adjacent to the Site for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Mature longleaf pines are
present in wooded areas that surround the site. Forested areas the red-cockaded woodpecker may inhabit
No Effect
do not have any proposed impacts. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the project will have
on this species.
Rough-Leaved Loosestrife
Habitat is present around and in mature forests adjacent to the Site. However the area of impact will be
limited to post agricultural areas, where farming activities have removed any chance establishment for the
Rough-leaved loosestrife. Based on the absence of suitable habitat for the species, it is reasonable to
No Effect
conclude the project will have on the species.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 4
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

Sensitive Joint-Vetch
Habitat for the sensitive joint-vetch does not exist at the Site. Habitat for the sensitive joint-vetch is that
of intertidal zones where plants are flooded twice daily. Based on the absence of suitable habitat for the
No Effect
species, it is reasonable to conclude the project will have on sensitive joint-vetch.
2.7 Summary of Anticipated Effects
We anticipate that the immediate effects of this project (construction phase) will cause ground disturbance
within the project area due to the use of heavy machinery to complete construction. Again, the Site has
historically received extensive ground disturbance due to agricultural operations. The long term effects of
this project (post construction) will result in an overall enhancement to the integrity of the immediate
ecosystems and result in long term beneficial effects to fish or wildlife. This site will be protected in
perpetuity with a conservation easement.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 5
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

SITE
^_
RESTORATIONSYSTEMS,LLC
FIGURE1:
SITECONTEXT

^_
^_
^_
«
_
^
SiteLocationMarker
RESTORATIONSYSTEMS,LLC
FIGURE2:
USGSHYDROLOGICALUNITMAP

Ct
Ud
To
To
Pa
Pa
Ra
«
Legend
Se
Pa
RESTORATIONSYSTEMS,LLC
FIGURE3:
NRCSSOILSURVEY

Existingculvertunder
DaisyLn.
«
Legend
RESTORATIONSYSTEMS,LLC
FIGURE4:
EXISTINGCONDITIONS

.
Figurre 5Site Phhotographs
Sliver Moon NNon-riparian Wetlland Mitigation Site pg. 10
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project is within
one parcel. The Site is currently not protected, but will be done so by the purchase and subsequent
transfer of a conservation easement to the NCEEP during Task 2. Restoration Systems will await approval
of Task 3 before this purchase and transfer is conducted.
Table 3. Site Parcel Information
Landowner PIN County Site Deed Book Acreage
Protection and Page protected
Instrument Number
Parcel A Mitchell, Horace Lee 03-044-011 Craven Book 2229 17.00
Pg. 1011
When available, the recorded document will be provided. The template document associated with the
contract, (outlined in RFP # 16-003571), will be used and is attached within Appendix A.
The conservation easement will require 60-day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to
any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by
the State.
A site protection instrument figure will be completed once a final survey of the Site has been completed,
after the conservation easement is purchased
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 11
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 4. Baseline Project Information
Project Information
Project Name Sliver Moon
County Craven
Project Area (acres) 17.02
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35.204817, -77.360605 (NAD 83/WGS 84)
Project Watershed Summary Information
Carolina Flatwoods section of the Middle Atlantic Coastal
Physiographic Province
Plain
River Basin Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03020202 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03020202080010
DWQ Sub-basin 03-04-08
Project Drainage Area, Total Outfall (acres) +/- 130
Groundwater Treated by Site (acres) +/- 20
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area < 1%
CGIA Land Use Classification Cropland and Pasture
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland 1
Size of Wetland (acres) 14.00
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non
Non-riparian
riverine)
Mapped Soil Series Torhunta & Pantego
Drainage class Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric Status Class A
Source of Hydrology Rain Events
Hydrologic Impairment Ditches
Native vegetation community Non-Riverine Wet Harwood Flat
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 0%
Regulatory Considerations
Supporting
Regulation Applicable? Resolved?
Documentation
E-mail correspondence
Waters of the United States – Section 404 Yes No
Appendix B
E-mail correspondence
Waters of the United States – Section 401 Yes No
Appendix B
Categorical Exclusion
Endangered Species Act No
Appendix B
Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act No
Appendix B
Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA/Coastal Area Management Act
No
(CAMA)] Appendix B
Categorical Exclusion
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Appendix B
Categorical Exclusion
No
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Appendix B
Yes No
Sediment & Erosion Control Plan (S&EC)
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 12
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon Site design. Upon completion of
Site construction the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as-built
condition.
Table 5. Site Credit Determination
Summit Seep Wetland Mitigation Site, Davidson County, Contract # 003244
Mitigation Credits
Non-
NitrogenPhosphorous
Riparianriparian
Stream Buffer Nutrient Offset Nutrient Offset
Wetland Wetland
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals
14
Project Components
Restoration –
Project Restoration
or-
ComponentExistingApproach Footage or
Stationing/Location Restoration Mitigation Ratio
-or- Reach ID Footage/Acreage (PI,PII etc.) Acreage
Equivalent
Non-riparian
NA 17.02 NA Restoration 14 1:1
restoration

Component Summation
Non-
riparian
Restoration Stream RiparianBuffer
Wetland Upland (acres)
Level (linear feet) Wetland (acres) (square feet)
(acres)
Non-
Riverine
Riverine
Restoration
0 0 0 14 0 0
Enhancement
0 0 0 0 0
Enhancement 1
0
Enhancement II
0
Creation
0 0 0
Preservation
0 0 0 0 0
High Quality
0 0 0 0 0
Preservation
CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as-built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of the
mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules
below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released
depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending
on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project
credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows:
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 13
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

Table 6. Forested Wetland Credits
Monitoring Interim Total
Credit Release Activity
YearReleaseReleased
30% 30%
0 Initial Allocation – see requirements below
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
110% 40%
standards are being met
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
210% 50%
standards are being met
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
310% 60%
standards are being met
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
410% 70%
standards are being met
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met; Provided that all performance standards are met,
5the IRT may allow the NCEEP to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after 10% 80%
the fifth year, but vegetation monitoring must continue for an additional two
years after the fifth year for a total of seven years.
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
610% 90%
standards are being met
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
7standards are being met, and project has received close-out 10% 100%
approval
6.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCEEP
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a.Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b.Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property
c.Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCEEP Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as-built
report has been produced. As-built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d.Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
6.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve of
15% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after two bank-full events have occurred, in separate
years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less
than two bank-full events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at
the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the NCEEP will
submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of
criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring
report.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 14
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Target Wetland Type & Plant Communities
The EPA classification of a wetland is based on soil, hydrology, and vegetation characteristics. The Sliver
Moon project contains of Torhunta and Pantego fine sandy loam hydric soils. Regional ground level
water is at or near the surface, specifically during winter and spring months (USDA Soil Conservation
Service 1994). Restoration efforts aim to reproduce characteristic pre-disturbed vegetation and hydrology.
Soils
Hydric A, fine sandy loam Torhunta and Pantego soils are the primary types present within project.
Torhunta fine sandy loam is 80% hydric and is located on Nearly level stream terraces and upland bays
within the Coastal Plain. Torhunta soils are very poorly drained, have moderately rapid permeability, and
a seasonal high water table at the surface for 2 to 6 months annually. Characteristically Torhunta fine
sandy loam is defined at the surface by a black fine sandy loam to a depth of 12 inches. From 12 to 37
inches the subsoil turns to a dark drown sandy loam.
Pantego fine sandy loam consists of very poorly drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in thick
loamy sediments on the Southern Coastal Plain and Atlantic Coast Flatwoods. The water table is at or
near the surface during the wet season. As described in the Craven County USDA Soil Survey, Pantego
fine sandy loam is typically black fine sandy loam to a depth of 15 inches. Subsoil extends to 62 inches
and is characterized by dark gray sandy clay loam in upper layers to gray sandy clay in lower layers.
Hydrology
As stated in the USDA Soil Survey of Craven County, NC groundwater levels are at or near the surface
during the dormant and early growing season, and is fed explicitly by rain events. Torhunta and Pantego
are both nearly level, slowly permeating soil types which drain poorly. The current ditching of the Site
has capped surface and sub-surface hydrology. Filling ditches will restore hydrology to characteristic
levels.
Vegetation
Native, non-riparian forest species will be restored within the entire Site. Planting vegetation is proposed
to reestablish vegetation community patterns, to provide soil stability, habitat for wildlife and filter
pollutants prior to entering the groundwater table. Planted species composition will mimic Schafale and
Weakley’s Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (1990) description of a Non-
Riverine Wet Harwood Flat, supplemented by reference forest and onsite observations (Table 7).
Table 7. Reference Vegetation Species
Canopy Species Understory Species
cherrybark oak (Quercus pagota) wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera)
laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana)
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) red bay (Peresa borbonia)
water oak (Quercus nigra)
tulip poplar(Liriodendron tulipifera)
swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
willow oak (Quercus phellos)
black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
7.2 Design Parameters
The Site was evaluated for the presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential to hinder
restoration activities. The evaluation focused primarily on the presence of hazardous materials, utilities
and restrictive easements, rare/threatened/endangered species or critical habitats, and the potential for
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 15
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

hydrologic trespass. Existing information regarding Site constraints was acquired and reviewed. In
addition, any Site conditions that have the potential to restrict the restoration design and implementation
were documented during the field investigation.
No evidence of natural and/or man-made conditions was identified that has the potential to impede
proposed restoration activities.
Please refer to Appendix B e-mail correspondence between Todd Tugwell (USACE) and Guy Pearce (NC
EEP), indicating that no jurisdictional wetland delineation is need for the Site. The primary goals of this
restoration concept include:
(1)Enhancement of water quality functions (reduce non-point source nutrient inputs and
sedimentation);
(2)Establishment of a natural non-riparian wetland community;
(3) Restoration of jurisdictional wetland hydrology by filling ditches; and
(4) Placement of a conservation easement over the site that will encompass and protect all
restoration activities in perpetuity.
Primary activities, designed to restore 14.0 acres of non-riparian wetland, include filling ditches and
planting native, deep rooted forest species (Appendix D). Wetland restoration is designed to restore a
fully functioning non-riparian wetland system that will provide water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of
imported elements and compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat.
The entire Site is underlain by non-riparian hydric soils have been impacted by vegetation clearing, ditch
excavation and agricultural practices. Wetland restoration will focus on the restoration of non-riparian
hydric soils, forest communities, elevation of groundwater tables, and the reestablishment of soil structure
and micro-topographic variations.
Restoration of wetland hydrology and wetland soil attributes will involve 1) ditch cleaning prior to
backfill, 2) ditch plug installation, and 3) ditch backfill. These activities will restore 14 acres of non-
riparian wetland at the Site (Figure C, Appendix D).
Ditch Cleaning
Ditches identified for backfilling will be cleaned, as needed, to remove unconsolidated sediments.
Removal of unconsolidated sediments is particularly critical in areas where ditch plugs are proposed.
Accumulated sediment within the ditches provides a relatively high permeability material that may act as
a conduit for drainage after restoration. The unconsolidated sediments will be lifted from the channel to
expose the underlying, relatively undisturbed soil material beneath the ditch invert. The unconsolidated
sediment will be incorporated into top soils and spread evenly throughout the Site.
Ditch Plugs
Impermeable ditch plugs will be installed within ditches at critical locations throughout the Site. The
plugs will consist of low density earthen material. Each plug will be backfilled in 2-foot lifts of
vegetation-free material and compacted into the bottom of the ditch. The earthen material may be
obtained from upland areas within the easement. The plugs will consist of a core of impervious material
and shall be of sufficient width and depth to form an imbedded overlap in the existing ditch banks and
ditch bed (Figure C, Appendix D).
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 16
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

Ditch Backfilling
Ditches will be backfilled using onsite material excavated from spoil piles adjacent to ditches and borrow
material from upland areas within the easement. Where vegetation has colonized fields or spoil areas,
rooting debris will be removed to the maximum extent feasible before insertion of earthen material into
the ditch. The ditches will be filled, compacted, and graded to the approximate elevation of the adjacent
wetland surface (Figure C, Appendix D).
Figure C, Appendix D details the redirecting of an existing ditch while perimeter ditches are filled. The
filling of perimeter ditches will not result in hydrological trespassing, as the Site itself is situated below
surrounding elevations, a sand berm along the northern boundary of the site and a compacted elevated
road along the eastern boundary will prevent hydrological trespassing in those directions. Additionally,
hydrology for the Site is primarily rain driven and surface runoff will not be obstructed, the piping and
reworking of the existing ditch will insure unobstructed surface runoff from rain events.
Vegetation Planting
Bare-root seedlings of native region-specific tree and shrub species will be planted within the Site at a
st
density up to 1000 stems per acre (6.6-foot centers). Planting will be performed between December 1
th
and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring
season. Bare-root seedlings will be hand planted to minimize Site soil disturbance, thus minimizing
potential for sedimentation / siltation runoff from the Site. A total of 14,000 native, region-specific, tree
and shrub seedlings will be planted in support of Site wetland restoration (Table 8). The 14-acre
restoration area will be re-vegetated during the implementation of this plan (Figure D, Appendix D).
Table 8. Planting Plan
Species Spec'd % Ordered % Nursery
Overstory
Black gum 1,600 11% 1,600 11% ArborGen
Cherrybark oak 1,600 11% 1,600 11% ArborGen
Laurel oak 1,300 9% 1,300 9% ArborGen
Swamp chestnut oak 1,300 9% 1,300 9% ArborGen
Swamp red bay 1,300 9% 1,300 9% Superior Trees
Sweet bay magnolia 1,300 9% 1,300 9% ArborGen
Water oak 1,500 10% 1,500 10% ArborGen
Willow oak 1,300 9% 1,300 9% ArborGen
Yellow-poplar 1,300 9% 1,300 9% ArborGen
Midstory
Wax myrtle 1,200 9% 1,200 9% ArborGen
14,000 100% 14,000 100%
7.3 Data Analysis
Groundwater modeling was conducted in January of 2011 by a licensed soil scientist from Axiom
Environmental, Inc. For this study, the Boussinesq equation was utilized to predict groundwater impacts
associated with ditching. The Boussinesq equation represents a two-dimensional general flow equation
for unconfined aquifers. The equation has been applied in the past to predict the decline in elevation of
the water table near a pumping well as time progresses.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 17
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

The Boussinesq equation was applied to Site ditches to predict the linear distance of groundwater
drawdown that exceeds 1 foot for 7.5 percent of the growing season. The percentage of the growing
season (7.5 percent) was selected based upon guidance from the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The equation is solved for wetland impacts with data for the
following variables: 1) equivalent hydraulic conductivity, 2) drainable porosity, 3) and estimated depth to
the impermeable layer or aquiclude, 4) the time duration of the drawdown, 5) target water depth (1 foot
below the soil surface), and 6) minimum ditch depth.
Results from the Boussinesq equation predicted lateral drainage effects to the groundwater table from
agricultural ditches. Results of the Boussinesq equation are summarized in Table 9. Ditch impacts at the
Site range from 179 feet to 315 feet, measuring horizontally from the ditch edge. Using existing ditch
depths and applying the Boussinesq equation, it has been determined that17 acres have been effectively
drained (Figure 4) by the ditches that are currently in place. Rerouting the southern drainage ditch will
result in post restoration drainage within approximately three acres of the southeastern corner of the Site.
Therefore, 14 acres of restoration will be available as depicted in Figure C.
Table 9. Boussinesq Equation Results
Depth to
Ditch Depth Growing Drainable Ditch Impact
SoilAquaclude Ksat (cm/hr)
(ft)Season (hrs) Porosity (cm) (ft)
(cm)
2 61.0 10.2 675* 0.033 174
3 91.4 10.2 675* 0.033 243
Torhunta/Pantego
(Craven County)
4 121.9 10.2 675* 0.033 281
6 182.9 10.2 675* 0.033 305
*Based on 7.5% growing season
MAINTENANCE PLAN
Restoration Systems will monitor the site on a regular basis and will conduct a physical inspection of the
site a minimum of once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site
construction and may include the following:
Table 10. Site Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities will occur. Areas where stormwater and
Wetland
floodplain flows intercept the wetland may require maintenance to prevent scour.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning,
Vegetation mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and/or
chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation
site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree-
Site Boundary
blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary
markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
Utility right-of-way within the site may be maintained only as allowed by Conservation Easement
Utility Right-of-Way
or existing easement, deed restriction, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 18
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Monitoring of Site restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring for
wetland components include hydrology and vegetation.
Hydrology Monitoring
A total of nine (9) groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed to take measurements after
hydrological modifications are performed at the Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the
growing season at intervals necessary to satisfy jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (EPA 1990).
Hydrology Success Criteria
Located within an interstream-flat, the Site’s hydrology is precipitation driven and thus, subject to
drought periods during the growing season. Based on the Sites location and hydrology source, target
hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 7.5 percent of the growing season, during
average climatic conditions. During growing seasons with atypical climatic conditions, groundwater
gauges in reference wetlands may be used by the USACE/NCIRT to evaluate hydrology success.
Vegetation Monitoring
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to
verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting
and additional Site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During quantitative vegetation sampling, fourteen (14) sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) will be
installed within the Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.0 (Lee et al. 2006). Each sample plot monitoring will follow CVS Level II protocol,
parameters to be monitored include species composition and density. Visual observations of the percent
cover of shrub and herbaceous species will be documented by photograph.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for forest development. Success of vegetation criteria at the Site indicates successful
restoration of non-riparian habitat within and adjacent to aquatic wetland resources as well as
improvement of overall water quality resulting from the treatment of runoff from agriculture fields.
Success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of living, planted stems throughout the
planted areas of the Site including Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Flat community. The presence of
desirable volunteer species will also be considered by the USACE/NCIRT in making a determination
whether the Site has successfully met the stated goals and objectives.
An average density of 320 stems per acre of living, planted stems must be surviving in the first three
monitoring years. Subsequently, 260 living, planted stems per acre must be surviving in year 5 and 210
living, planted stems per acre in year 7.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 19
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

Hydrologic Contingency
The Site is bound by culvert that runs under Daisy Ln. (Figure 4), if hydrologic success criteria is not
achieved adjustments to the outfall level would raise the Site’s groundwater table. Recommendations for
contingency to establish wetland hydrology may be implemented and monitored until Hydrology Success
Criteria is achieved.
Vegetation Contingency
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from combined plots
over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting may be performed with tree species approved by
regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting may be performed as needed until achievement of vegetation
success criteria. If, within the first 3 years, any species exhibits greater than 50 percent mortality, the
species will either be replanted or an acceptable replacement species will be planted in its place as
specified in the contingency plan.
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template. The monitoring report shall
provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends,
population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding
project close-out.
Table 11. Site Monitoring Requirements
Required Parameter Quantity FrequencyNotes
As per April 2003 USACE
Wilmington District Stream
NoPattern annual
Mitigation Guidelines
As per April 2003 USACE
Wilmington District Stream
NoDimensionannual
Mitigation Guidelines
As per April 2003 USACE
Wilmington District Stream
NoProfile annual
Mitigation Guidelines
As per April 2003 USACE
Wilmington District Stream
NoSubstrateannual
Mitigation Guidelines
As per April 2003 USACE
Surface Water
NoWilmington District Stream
Hydrology annual
Mitigation Guidelines
Groundwater monitoring gauges with data
As per April 2003 USACE
Groundwaterrecording devices will be installed on site;
Wilmington District Stream
YesHydrology annualthe data will be downloaded at least every
Mitigation Guidelines
30 days during the growing season
*Vegetation will be monitored using the
As per April 2003 USACE
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level
Vegetation Wilmington District Stream
YesannualII protocols. 14 Vegetation survey plots
Mitigation Guidelines
will be installed and monitored.
Exotic and nuisance Location of exotic and nuisance vegetation
Yes annual
vegetation will be mapped
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 20
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

Table 11. Site Monitoring Requirements Continued
Required Parameter Quantity FrequencyNotes
Locations of fence damage, vegetation
Semi-
Yes Project boundary damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will
annual
be mapped
* “The Carolina Vegetation Survey is a collaborative, multi-institutional research program designed to document the composition and status of
the natural vegetation of the Carolinas for purposes of inventory, monitoring of environmental impacts, and assessment of conservation status.”
)
(http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close-out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), responsibility for long-term
stewardship of the Site will be transferred to theEEP. This party shall be responsible for periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the deed
restriction document(s) are upheld.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction Restoration Systems will implement the post-construction
monitoring protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as
described previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the
Site’s ability to achieve site performance standards are jeopardized, Restoration Systems will notify the
EEP of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared
using in-house technical staff or may require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective
Action Plan is prepared and finalized RS will:
1.Notify the EEP as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2.Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE / EEP.
3.Obtain other permits as necessary.
4.Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5.Provide the EEP a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
As required by RFP # 16-002835, Restoration Systems will provide a performance bond for 55% of the
total value of the contract to be submitted with this document. This bond will remain in effect until the
successful completion of Task 6. See Appendix E.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 21
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

OTHER INFORMATION
14.1 Definitions
Cataloging Unit (“CU”)
– A geographic area representing part or all of a River Basin and identified by
an 8-digit number as depicted on the “Hydrologic Unit Map – 1974, State of North Carolina, published by
the U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey”.
Categorical Exclusion
– Categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human or natural environment and for which, therefore, neither an Environmental
Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.
Categorical Exclusion Action Form and Document
– An abbreviated environmental document,
prefaced by an Action Form, that briefly describes the mitigation site, the plan for its implementation, and
documents that it will have minimal or no impact on the environment.
Conservation Easement
– A restriction landowners voluntarily place on specified uses of their property
to protect its natural, productive, or cultural features. It is recorded as a written legal agreement between
. TheState of North Carolina must receive directly from
the landowner and the “holder” of the easement
the landowner a conservation easement as prepared and facilitatedby the full delivery provider for all
Ecosystem Enhancement Program full delivery projects.
EEP
– The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Hydrologic Unit (“HU”)
– A geographic area representing a portion of a Cataloging Unit as depicted on
the “Hydrologic Unit Map – 1974, State of North Carolina, published by the U.S. Department of Interior,
Geological Survey,” and identified by a 14-digit number.
Jurisdictional Wetland
- A wetland as defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual.
Mitigation mitigation,
– The term when used throughout this RFP and any subsequent contracts that
Compensatory MitigationCompensatory Mitigation
may be executed is .is defined as those mitigation
Avoid Minimize
activities implemented after all practicable measures toandadverse impacts to waters of
the United States have been carried out.
Mitigation Plan
– A written document, supplemented with graphics, which describes: the existing site
conditions, the goals and objectives of the project and other pertinent information. The Mitigation Plan is
developed and submitted prior to the implementation of the project.
Morphological description
– The stream type; stream type is determined by quantifying channel
entrenchment, dimension, pattern, profile, and boundary materials; as described in Rosgen, D. (1996),
nd
Applied River Morphology, 2 edition.
Native Vegetation Community
– A distinct and reoccurring assemblage a populations of plants, animals,
bacteria and fungi naturally associated with each other and their population; as described in Schafale,
M.P. and Weakley, A.S. (1990), Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third
Approximation.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 22
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

Non-Riparian Wetland
– an area underlain with hydric soils that has developed and is located in
interstream divide physiographic areas. The hydrology of non-riverine wetlands is driven by precipitation
and is characterized by groundwater being at or near the surface for much of the year. Must meet US
Army Corps of Engineers wetlands definition (33 CFR 328.3(b)).
Project Area
– Includes all protected lands associated with the mitigation project.
RFPDepartmentProposals
– Request For Proposals; the document issued by the to solicit from
Offerors.
interested
River Basin
– The largest category of surface water drainage; there are seventeen (17) river basins in
North Carolina.
SiteOfferor Proposal
– Property or properties identified by an in a as having potential to provide either
wetland, stream, or buffer mitigation.
USACE
– United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District
USGS
– United States Geological Survey.
Wetland Mitigation Unit (“WMU”)
– The unit of measurement of the extent of wetland mitigation
Proposal. SiteRestoration
being offered in a The WMU value for a is the sum of the acres, one-third of
CreationEnhancementPreservation
theacres, one-half of the acres, and one-fifth of the acres.
14.2 References
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification (MiST). EPA
Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, NCSU,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Faber-Langendoen, D., Rocchio, J., Schafale, M., Nordman, C., Pyne, M., Teague, J., Foti, T., Comer, P.
(2006), Ecological Integrity Assessment and Performance Measures for Wetland Mitigation.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina.
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.0. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lindenmayer, D.B., and J.F. Franklin. (2002), Conserving forest biodiversity: A comprehensive
multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, DC.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 23
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2007. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) (online).
Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/303d_Report.pdf [February 19, 2010]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008. Draft North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2008 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) (online).
Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2008Cat4and520100215.pdf [February 19,
2010]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2010 a. Draft North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2010 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) (online).
Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/draft_2010_Cat_5.pdf [February 19, 2010].
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2010 b. North Carolina Water Bodies Report
(online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/03-07-04.pdf
[February 19, 2010]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration
Priorities (online). Available:
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/FINAL%20RBRP%20Neuse%2020110523.pdf
[October 31, 2011]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. Soil Survey of Davidson County, North
Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Fort
Worth, Texas.
Young, T.F. and Sanzone, S. (editors). (2002), A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological
condition. Ecological Reporting Panel, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. EPA.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site pg. 24
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

APPENDIX A
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT(S)
When available, the recorded document will be provided. The template document associated with the
contract, (outlined in RFP # 16-003571), will be used and is below, also available online at
http://www.nceep.net/business/landowner/10-
13/Template_Full_Delivery_EEP_Conservation_Easement_Final_1.23.06-1.pdf
All site protection instruments require 60-day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to any
action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by the
State. A site protection instrument figure will be completed once a final survey of the Site has been
completed, after the conservation easement is purchased.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix A
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

APPENDIX B
BASELINE INFORMATION DATA
USACE & NC EPP Correspondence Regarding a Jurisdictional Determination
FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
FEMA Compliance -EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist NCEEP Mitigation Plan
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix B
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

Raymond Holz
From:Pearce, Guy <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, September 01, 2011 10:35 AM
To:Worth Creech
Subject:FW: Wetland Determination/Delineation at Sliver Moon Non-Riparia
(UNCLASSIFIED)
IhavesavedanelectroniccopyandplacedahardcopyofthiscorrespondenceintheEEPfilesforfuturereference.
Pleaseretainforyourrecords.
Thanks,Guy
OriginalMessage
From:Pearce,Guy
Sent:Thursday,September01,201110:14AM
To:'Steffens,ThomasASAW'
Cc:Tugwell,ToddSAW
Subject:RE:WetlandDetermination/DelineationatSliverMoonNonRiparianWetlandProject(UNCLASSIFIED)
ThanksThomasandTodd,
Guy
OriginalMessage
From:Steffens,ThomasASAW[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,September01,20118:35AM
To:Tugwell,ToddSAW;Pearce,Guy
Cc:Steffens,ThomasASAW
Subject:RE:WetlandDetermination/DelineationatSliverMoonNonRiparianWetlandProject(UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification:UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats:NONE
Todd,
Yourrecollectionsarecorrectanddescriptionsaccurateconcerningthejurisdictionalaspects.
Thanks
toms
OriginalMessage
From:Tugwell,ToddSAW
Sent:Monday,August29,20114:35PM
To:Pearce,Guy
Cc:Steffens,ThomasASAW
Subject:RE:WetlandDetermination/DelineationatSliverMoonNonRiparianWetlandProject(UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification:UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats:NONE
1

Guy,IdidspeakwithTomafterthemeetingandheagreedthatthesitewasdrainedandthatnodelineationneededto
beconducted.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthepriorconverteddeterminationiswhythesitehasnojurisdiction.
Also,theactualditchesthemselveswouldstillbeconsideredtributaries,soapermitisstillrequiredweareonlytalking
aboutanywetlands.
Tom,letmeknowifthisdoesn'tgoalongwithyourrecollections.
Thanks,
Todd
OriginalMessage
From:Pearce,Guy[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Tuesday,August16,201111:41AM
To:Tugwell,ToddSAW
Subject:WetlandDetermination/DelineationatSliverMoonNonRiparianWetlandProject
GoodmorningTodd.
As,youknow,asitevisittothesubjectpropertywasconductedonJuly25,20011.Attheconclusionofthatmeeting,
therewasdiscussionaboutwhether
ornotawetlanddetermination/delineationwouldberequired.Thesiteis
rowcrop(corn)aglandthathasbeenextensivelyditched/drained.IfIrecallcorrectly,ThomSteffansoftheWashington
USACEOfficewantedtotalk
itoverwithhisfolksbeforemakingadecision.Igotacallfrom
RestorationSystemsthismorningandtheywereaskingifadecisionhadbeenmade.Asyouwouldexpect,theywould
preferthatthelandbedeemedpriorconvertedwetlandandnothavetodothewetlanddelineation,butwilldo
whateverisrequired.CouldyoucheckwiththeWashingtonUSACEandletmeknowwhatyouguysdecide.
Thanks,Guy
Classification:UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats:NONE
Classification:UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats:NONE
2

APPENDIX C
MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA and ANALYSES
Groundwater Modeling/Hydrologic Budget
Groundwater modeling was conducted in January of 2011 by a licensed soil scientist, from Axiom
Environmental, Inc. For this study, the Boussinesq equation was utilized to predict groundwater impacts
associated with ditching. The Boussinesq equation represents a two-dimensional general flow equation
for unconfined aquifers. The equation has been applied in the past to predict the decline in elevation of
the water table near a pumping well as time progresses.
The Boussinesq equation was applied to Site ditches to predict the linear distance of groundwater
drawdown that exceeds 1 foot for 7.5 percent of the growing season. The percentage of the growing
season (7.5 percent) was selected based upon guidance from the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The equation is solved for wetland impacts with data for the
following variables: 1) equivalent hydraulic conductivity, 2) drainable porosity, 3) and estimated depth to
the impermeable layer or aquiclude, 4) the time duration of the drawdown, 5) target water depth (1 foot
below the soil surface), and 6) minimum ditch depth.
Results from the Boussinesq equation predicted lateral drainage effects to the groundwater table from
agricultural ditches. Results of the Boussinesq equation are summarized in Table 3. Ditch impacts at the
Site range from 179 feet to 315 feet. Using existing ditch depths, 17 acres have been effectively drained
(Figure 4). Rerouting the southern drainage ditch will result in post restoration drainage within
approximately three acres of the southeastern corner of the Site. Therefore, 14 acres of restoration will be
available as depicted in Figure C.
Table 9. Boussinesq Equation Results
Depth to
Ditch Depth Growing Drainable Ditch Impact
SoilAquaclude Ksat (cm/hr)
(ft)Season (hrs) Porosity (cm) (ft)
(cm)
2 61.0 10.2 675* 0.033 174
3 91.4 10.2 675* 0.033 243
Torhunta/Pantego
(Craven County)
4 121.9 10.2 675* 0.033 281
6 182.9 10.2 675* 0.033 305
*Based on 7.5% growing season
CVS Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation surveys will begin after construction, and be monitored just before, during and just after
the growing season. Based on the Microsoft Access CVS template the Site will hold fourteen (14)
vegetation plots. Nine (9) groundwater modeling wells will also be installed during construction.
These wells and plots will be marked and referenced in the Sites as built documents. Planned
vegetation distribution is detailed in Figure D, Appendix D.
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix C
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

APPENDIX D
PROJECT PLAN SHEETS
Figure A. Title Page
Figure B. Boundary Plan
Figure C. Mitigation Plan
Figure D. Planting Plan
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix D
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

SLIVERMOON
NON-RIPARIANWETLANDMITIGATIONSITE
PROJECTPLANSHEETS
^_
PROJECTDESCRIPTIONPROJECTLOCATION
RESTORATIONSYSTEMS,LLC
FIGUREA:TITLEPAGE

"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
")
)
"
)
«
Legend
"
)
RESTORATIONSYSTEMS,LLC
FIGUREB:BOUNDARYPLAN

Legend
«
&3
RESTORATIONSYSTEMS,LLC
FIGUREC:MITIGATIONPLAN

PlantList
SpeciesSpec'd%Ordered%Nursery
Overstory
«
Legend
Midstory
RESTORATIONSYSTEMS,LLC
FIGURED:PLANTINGPLAN

APPENDIX E
PERFORMANCE BOND
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix E
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

APPENDIX F
NCIRT APPROVAL LETTER
Sliver Moon Non-riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix F
Mitigation Plan
February 2012

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
February9, 2012

ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
Re:NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Sliver MoonMitigation Plan(SAW-2012-00096)
Mr. Michael Ellison
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Ellison:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) with all comments generated bythe North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT)
duringthe 30-day comment period for the Sliver MoonMitigation Plan, which closed on January 15,
2012.These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been
identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan. However, several minorissues were identified,as shown
below, that must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
1.The mitigation plan indicates that “Characteristic Tree Species” based on Schafale and Weakley’s
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (1990) will be used to determine if the site
successfully meets the vegetation performance standards. Depending on the community, typical
Characteristic Tree Species include volunteer species such as loblolly pine and sweetgum that are not
desirable and will not be counted toward vegetation success. The vegetation performance standards
must be changed to reflect a minimum requirement of 210living,plantedstems per acre.The presence
of desirable volunteer species will be considered by the USACE/NCIRT in making the determination
whether a mitigation project has successfully met the stated goals and objectives.
2.The hydrology performance standards must be change to reflect that groundwater gauges in reference
may be used by the USACE/NCIRT to evaluate hydrology success, but not that they will“dictate
threshold hydrology success criteria”. Additionally, if wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by
vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, the mitigation plan must not indicate that a jurisdictional
determination (JD) will be used to determine success. A JD may indicate whether an area is a
jurisdictional wetland that meets only the minimal standards, which is not the intent of a wetland
restoration project, and accordingly, a JD will not indicate success where vegetation and/or hydrology
monitoring indicate otherwise. The USACE may choose to conduct a JD to provide additional
information, but this will be a site-by-site decision made by the USACE in consultation with the NCIRT.

The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Application
for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter.Issues identified above
must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. If it is determined that the project does not require a
Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a
copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning
construction of the project.Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit
conditions in the permit authorizationfor the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not
satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but
this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you
are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the project thatmayrequire
maintenance or reconstruction andmay lead to reduced credit.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and ifyou have any questions regarding this
letter, the mitigation plan review process,or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at
919-846-2564.
Sincerely,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW-RG/McLendon
CESAW-RG-W/Steffens
Jeff Jurek, NCEEP
Kristie Corson, NCEEP

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/TugwellJanuary 17, 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: NCIRT Comments During 30-day Mitigation Plan Review
Purpose: The comments and responseslisted belowwere posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan
Review Portal during the 30-day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the
2008 Mitigation Rule.
NCEEP Project Name:Sliver MoonMitigation Project, CravenCounty, NC
USACE AID#:SAW-2012-00096
30-Day Comment Deadline:January 15, 2012
1.Travis Wilson, NCWRC, January 13, 2012:No significant concerns with this site.
NCEEP Response:None.
2.Steve Sollod, NCDCM, December 19, 2011:Based on the project location and the worked
described in the mitigation plan, it appears the proposed projec
development permit. In North Carolina, federal consistency under
Management Act (CZMA) is conveyed to non-federal projects when the USACE issues
Nationwide or Regional General permits. As a point of clarificat-federal projects
that require a USACE Individual Permit require the applicant to
impact on the coastal zone and certifythat the project is consistent with the state's Coastal
Management Program, in accordance with 15 CFR 930.
NCEEP Response:None.