20071378 Ver 1_Closeout Report_20130301

091-,31S
Armstrong Property Wetland and Stream Mitigation Project
EEP ID (IMS #) 92487
FDP Contract Number D06012 -A
USACE Action ID # SAW- 2007 - 03020 -148
DWQ Project# 07 -1378
CLOSEOUT REPORT
STREAM AND WETLAND
Project Sett in and Classifications
County
Hyde County
General Location
Ponzer
Basin
Chowan
Physiographic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecore ion
8.5.1 Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
USGS Hydro Unit
03020104
NCDW Sub -basin
03 -03 -07
Cowardin Classification
PEM, PSS, PFO
Thermal Regime
Warm
Trout Water
No
Project Performers
Source Agency
EEP
Provider
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
Designer
Ecotone, Inc.
Monitoring Firm
Woods, Water and Wildlife, Inc.
Channel Remediation
Woods, Water and Wildlife, Inc.
Plant Remediation
Carolina Silvics, Inc
Property Interest Holder
EEP
Project Activities and Timeline
Activity or Report
Date
of Deliver
Restoration Plan
July 2007
Final Design -90%
July 2007
Construction
November 2007
Temporary S & E mix applied
February 2008
Permanent seed mix applied
February 2008
Containerized and Bare Root Planting
January 2008
Mit. Plan/As -built
March 2008
Year 1 monitoring
December 2008
Year 2 monitoring
January 2010
Partial subsoiling
September 2010
Year 3 monitoring
November 2010
Partial replant subsoiled area)
January 2011
Year 4 monitoring
December 2011
Year 5 monitorin
December 2012
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 1 of 18

Proiect Setting and Background Summary
The Armstrong Property Wetland Mitigation Site is a headwater riverine wetland and stream mitigation project located just east of State Route 45
near its intersection with State Route 264, in Hyde County, North Carolina It was constructed by Albemarle Restorations, LLC, under contract with
EEP to provide compensatory wetland mitigation credits in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin Construction activities, in accordance with the approved
restoration plan, began October 1, 2007, and were completed on November 30, 2007 Tree and shrub planting on the project site occurred on January
28 and 29, 2008.
Hydrologic monitoring began in 2008 after construction and tree planting was completed Five water level monitoring gauges are located at varying
elevations throughout the riverine wetland areas of the site to measure subsurface water elevations Two additional gauges are located in the
headwater stream (swamp run) to help monitor flow and water level within the stream Two more gauges are installed at the reference site
Corrective action to improve hydrologic performance on a portion of the project was taken in September, 2010 in the form of subsoiling on 11 acres
with the intent of improving water penetration and retention It appears the treatment has had a positive effect by enhancing infiltration and
groundwater recharge.
Water flow in headwater projects can be difficult to measure and document, but flow events were both video documented and measured with the use
of hydrologic monitoring gauges Flow events were video recorded /measured for each year from 2008 -2012 and the data show evidence of rainwater
charged flow events occurring over the entire length of the project.
Goals and Objectives:
The goal of the Armstrong Property Mitigation Project was to create a riverine wetland system typically found in the middle to upper reaches of first
or zero order tributary systems The project is to serve as compensation for wetland loss in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin The restoration plan was
developed and implemented to eliminate pattern drainage and restore topography and hydrology that more closely resembled that of similar
undisturbed land. Construction resulted in the development of a broad, frequently flooded swamp run following a historical path as evidenced by
archived aerial photographs and signature topography Subsequent planting was designed to restore a wetland forest ecosystem that is typically
found in the immediate area characteristic of similar soils, topography and hydrology
Ecological benefits of the restored riparian headwater system and its associated riverine wetlands are the following
1 Water quality improvements, including nutrient, toxicant and sediment retention and reduction, increasing dissolved oxygen levels, as well as
reducing excessive algae growth, and reducing surface water temperatures in receiving waters by providing permanent shading in the form of
a shrub /scrub and forested headwater wetland system
2 Wildlife habitat enhancement by adding to the existing adjacent forested areas creating a continuous travel corridor between habitat blocks
and providing a wide range of habitat areas (open water, emergent, shrub /scrub and forested) for amphibians, reptiles, birds, insects and
mammals
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 2 of 18

3 Flood flow attenuation during storm events which reduces sedimentation and erosion downstream, and improves long term water quality
within the Pungo River
4 Passive outdoor recreation and educational opportunities for the landowner and the surrounding community
Success Criteria
Vegetation The vegetation success criterion was developed in accordance with the CVS -EEP protocol The Armstrong project was designed to
include both riverine and bottomland hardwood plant communities The project was planted with a mixture of tree and shrub species that would
resemble that of naturally occurring swamp runs and adjacent riverine wetlands in the local area The run and area immediately adjacent were
planted heavily with cypress, oaks and tupelo The riverine wetland zone beyond the swamp run is populated by a broader mix of native hydrophytic
tree and shrub species The species mix was based on the vegetation noted at the reference site and all species are classified from FAC to OBL The
success criterion in year 5 is to have a minimum of 260 live stems per acre
Hydrology The hydrologic success criterion is to achieve a minimum of 21 consecutive days (8 1/o) where the groundwater level is within 12 inches
of the soil surface during the growing season. The growing season for this site is from March 11 to November 27, a period of 261 days (WETS Table
for Belhaven, NC) Success for any particular monitoring location is to show soil saturation to within 12 inches of the surface for 21 consecutive days
during that period
Flow Measured or otherwise documented flow events during the monitoring period over the entire length of the project
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 3 of 18

MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Pre - Construction
Mitigation
Watershed
As Built Acres/
Mitigation
Mitigation
Restoration Type
Acres/Linear Feet
Approach
Acreage
Linear Feet
Ratio
Units
Wetland
Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient Offset
SMU/WMU
Riverine Wetland
20 0 acres
R
25200
20 0 acres
1 1
20 0 WMUs
Stream Swam Run
2,200 linear feet
R
2,200 linear feet
1.1
2,200 SMUs
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 4 of 18
Non-
Stream Mitigation
Riverine
Riverine
Total
Riparian
Units (SMU)
Wetland Units
Wetland
Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient Offset
Units
25200
20
20
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 4 of 18

!s,
,f Z
x a x
r%Nc�%c�`
05TRON6 MOTIM
r�
F169 2
ALBEMARLE RESTORA DONS, LLC WlFENi4"*v51em951Wh*I@,
d4d1^R+2W
wmwrc wiow. now. Bll6�1YNMOwoft
}_,(,
CORY 4" UMA
11 11I i l llt't - eiv cair f #: c 2-A

w
� o
•
,�•Anf y r � �f�
�-
--EASEMENT
wit
Mt o
Ch
` A • 'IGI 3:1�5G510 �'GGWHC MPyp
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 6 of 18

Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 7 of 18

I i~
#_ r
i
0
LWw
�G�A%WU.I�'vn.' •5
FAMUMU
KIL" �
�!'1J�WiYIN `I'
® AV59XX W a RAVED (DO)
4. F -
i •� rr
�:� t
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 8 of 18
�S
w
v
gig
(n 1
Jill i
AME
i

Discussion of headwater system flow:
Since there is no established stream channel and hence no true bankfull events to measure,
documentation of flow on the Armstrong project was done by means of measuring the above
ground water levels using hydrologic monitoring devices and verifying that water was indeed
moving through the project when water levels were sufficient to produce flow.
After five years of monitoring, it was found that data from the monitoring devices correlates
precisely with visual confirmation of flow events. Flow events were video documented when it
was believed there had been enough rainfall to create visually verifiable flow. However,
evidence of flow can be determined by examination of the data captured by the monitoring
devices.
Other evidence of water moving through the project is shown in both still and video shots taken
over the monitoring period. Some of the indicators that were verified and recorded are:
destruction of terrestrial vegetation, presence of litter and debris after flow events, vegetation
matted down or absent and change in plant community. In fact, the change in vegetation
accurately maps the extent of flooding during a normal flow event. Cattails (Typha latifolia) are
the main non -woody vegetation in the stream bed area of the project and fairly well dominate the
area.
Table 1. Verification of Flow Events
Year
Number of flow events
documented
Those that were video
documented also
Time of Year
2008
2
1
Aug, Sept
2009
2
Aug, Sept
2010
1
1
October
2011
2
1
Aug, Sept
2012
2
2
March, June
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 9 of 18

10
9
8
7
v
c
6
C
5
Y
a
� 4
v
a
Start of growing
season
End of growing
- season
Below average rainfall Rainfall below
for almost entire average 50% of
monitoring period monitoring
i
— period
or
'G
2
r �
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May
2008 Totals 2009 Totals — 2010 Totals
y June July Aug Sep Oct Nov
2011 Totals — 2012 Totals 30th %A 70th %A
Dec

Figure 7. 5 -year average of onsite rainfall vs. normal expected range of rainfall. Rainfall
during the critical periods at the beginning and end of the growing season over the five
years the project was monitored, was drastically below normal. For the two months at
the beginning of the growing season - March and April - rainfall was below average for
almost the entire monitoring period. For the two months at the end - October and
November - rainfall was below average for 50% of the entire monitoring period.
Table 2. 5 -Year On -Site Preci itation vs. Historic Averages
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
5- r avg
30 %^
70 %^
Jan
2.05
2.37
4.25
3.33
2.31
2.86
3.27
4.94
Feb
4.33
1.33
3.28
2.94
3.10
3.00
2.14
3.73
Mar
0.69
3.36
1.93
2.44
2.57
2.20
3.11
4.79
Apr
8.98
1.98
0.33
1.36
1.28
2.79
1.92
4.12
May
1.66
5.50
1.22
1.15
4.78
2.86
2.81
5.43
June
0.23
4.20
1.54
1.05
1.66
1.74
3.54
5.42
Jul
5.63
5.48
4.26
2.09
5.70
4.63
4.08
6.41
Au
7.00
6.92
4.27
17.97
6.76
8.58
3.68
7.05
Se
2.29
2.57
9.12
5.01
3.01
4.40
2.97
5.98
Oct
2.65
1.31
1.61
1.08
4.34
2.20
1.46
4.21
Nov
1.98
5.72
10.15
1.46
0.33
3.93
2.06
3.43
Dec
1 2.50
4.65
6.62
0.45
3.06
3.46
2.16
3.95
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 11 of 18

5% of growing season is 13 days, 8% is 21 days
The three previous graphics and tables, when taken together show a pattern of consistently low
rainfall at the beginning and end of the growing season, the most critical time for the site to
achieve positive hydrology Perceived problem areas around Gauges 1, 2, 3 and 4 were
subsoiled and replanted in 2010 in an effort to improve water penetration and retention and the
favorable results of those activities are seen in Table 3 Gauges 1 -4 showed their longest
hydrologic period typically at the end of the growing season when rainfall was more close to
normal, but after subsoiling in 2010, those four gauges began to show longer hydroperiods at the
beginning of the growing season despite the continued below normal rainfall during that time
period
Other patterns that can be seen Run Reference Gauge 6 closely mirrors the average hydrology
seen between Run Gauges 1 and 2 All three gauges are at or near the center of their runs
Wetland Reference Gauge 7 shows similarities in performance to the average performance of the
other wetland gauges
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 12 of 18
Table 3 Summary of Hydrologic Monitorin Data
Longest h drolo is period in days and % of Growing Season and Time of Year Period Began
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Gauge
Days
%
ToY
Da s
%
ToY
Days
%
ToY
Days
%
ToY
Days
%
ToY
1
9
3
Nov
19
7
July
14
5
Mar
19
7 Mar
29
11
Au
2
4
2
Nov
17
7
Nov
9
3
Mar
12
4 Mar
26
10
Au
3
12
5
Nov
17
7
Nov
13
5
Mar
12
4 Mar
12
4
Au
4
8
3
Mar
13
5
Mar
30
12
Mar
18
7 Mar
14
5
Oct
5
18
7
Aug
27
10
Mar
51
20
Set
67
i 26 Aug
58
22
Au
6 Re
100
38
Aug
98
38
Aug
99
38
Aug
108 41 Jul
119
46
Mar
7 e
14
5
APL_
17
7
Nov
28
11
Mar
19
7 Mar
19
7
Mar
Run 1
35
13 Aug
124
48
Mar
49
19
Set
65
25 Aug
54
21
Mar
Run 2
1 140
54
July
261
100
Mar
92
35
Mar
1 93
36 Mar
261
100
Mar
5% of growing season is 13 days, 8% is 21 days
The three previous graphics and tables, when taken together show a pattern of consistently low
rainfall at the beginning and end of the growing season, the most critical time for the site to
achieve positive hydrology Perceived problem areas around Gauges 1, 2, 3 and 4 were
subsoiled and replanted in 2010 in an effort to improve water penetration and retention and the
favorable results of those activities are seen in Table 3 Gauges 1 -4 showed their longest
hydrologic period typically at the end of the growing season when rainfall was more close to
normal, but after subsoiling in 2010, those four gauges began to show longer hydroperiods at the
beginning of the growing season despite the continued below normal rainfall during that time
period
Other patterns that can be seen Run Reference Gauge 6 closely mirrors the average hydrology
seen between Run Gauges 1 and 2 All three gauges are at or near the center of their runs
Wetland Reference Gauge 7 shows similarities in performance to the average performance of the
other wetland gauges
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 12 of 18

Table 4 Planting schedule
Quantity
Botanical Name
Common Name
Percent
of Total
Trees
938
Taxodium disuchum
Bald ress
I I
938
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
11
186
N ssa au uatica
Water tupelo
2
938
N ssa bi ota
Swamp black gum
11
937
Owercus phellos
Willow oak
11
186
Quercus bicolor
Swamp white oak
2
186
uercus ni ra
Water oak
2
752
Quercus rnichauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
9
751
Quercus palusiris
Pin oak
9
751
Lr uidambar styraciflua
Sweet um
9
6563
Total tree stems
75
Shrubs
109
Vaccinium corymbosum
Blueberry
1
109
Loma lucida
Fetterbush
1
456
/tea vii inica
Virginia sweets ire
5
347
M rica ceri era
Wax myrtle
4
347 1
Ma noha vii iniana
Sweet bay
4
347
Baccharis halms oha
High tide bush
4
457
Ce halanthus occidentahs
Buttonbush
5
2172 Total shrub stems
25
8735 Total of all stems
Table 5 Tree Survival
Plot
Stems per acre for these years
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1
364
454
412
784
660
2
486
577
577
907
619
3
243
536
371
454
454
4
162
371
289
330
330
Run 1
162
371
371
371
330
Run 2 1
243 1
247
i 495
495
i 495
A portion of the project area was subsoiled in 2010 to improve hydrologic performance That area was replanted to 2010 with the following stems
Cephalanthus occidentalls (Buttonbush) 300 stems, Magnolia virglnlana (Sweet bay) 300 stems, Myrica cer fera (Wax myrtle) 500 stems, Quercus
bicolor (Swamp white oak) 300 stems, Taxodium distichum (Bald cypress), 2,450 stems See Figure 4, Contingencies Map for locations of
subsoiling and replanting
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 13 of 18

EEP Recommendations and Conclusions
The Armstrong site has completed 5 years of vegetative, hydrologic, and coastal stream monitoring Coastal
stream morphology and vegetative growth appear to have met success criteria.
Wetland hydrologic data show the coastal stream valley to be moderately wet and easily meets the flow
requirements for coastal stream restoration requirements The gauges outside the stream valley, while in
general do not meet the 8% target (except for gauge 5), average at least 5% for the monitoring period The
hydrologic data shows these gauges are - trending towards a wetter hydroperiod from year 1 through 5(gauges
average yr 1 -4 %, yr 2 -7 2 %, yr 3 -9 %, yr 4 -9.6 %, and yr 5- 10.4 %).
The coastal stream portion of the site has shown appropriate flow in the upper, middle and lower sections of the
stream valley The wetland portion of the site is trending toward success EEP is recommending the Armstrong
site for a closeout site visit
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 14 of 18

Pre - Construction Photos — 2007
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 15 of 18

Post - Construction Photos — 2008
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 16 of 18

Post Construction 2012 photos
Armstrong Mitigation Project Closeout Report Page 17 of 18

Armstrong Property Project
The Armstrong Property project is in Hyde County, roughly 10 miles east of the town of
Belhaven in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin It is located within HUC 03020104090010, the Pungo
Lake watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the 2010 Tar - Pamlico
River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan, as well as in the previous 2004 RBRP
(http //portal ncdenr org /web /eep /rbrps /tar - pamlico) Currently, the EEP has no other project
located within this TLW The project site drains immediately into Clark Mill Creek, which then
flows into the Pungo River located about 1 mile to the southwest The 2010 RBRP plan states
that roughly 67% of streams and ditches in this TLW are unbuffered, 57% of wetlands are
forested, virtually all soils are hydric, and 33% is designated conservation land There are no
designated 303(d) impaired waters, nor any HQWs or ORWs found in this TLW, though 20% is
designated a SNHA and 27 NHEOs are located here Thirty -six percent of the watershed is in
agriculture, including 11 swine operations and 2 permitted cattle farms The RBRP recommends
that projects in this TLW address the impacts of extreme ditching and reduce agricultural runoff
The more general basin -wide goals are to promote nutrient and sediment reduction through
agricultural and municipal practices, through restoration /preservation projects, and to protect,
expand, and connect Natural Heritage Areas and other conservation lands
The Armstrong Property is a 25 -acre project that restored over 2,000 feet of stream and roughly
20 acres of adjacent riparian wetlands from its heavily degraded condition as a straightened
agricultural ditch with row crops planted right up to the top of bank The stream has been
returned to its natural condition as a headwater tributary to Clark Mill Creek and its surrounding
cypress swamp The project contributes to the general river basin and TLW - specific water
quality improvement goals as it includes significant amounts of both stream and wetland
restoration These will serve to re- connect the stream to the floodplain, increase stream stability
(thus reducing sediment loss), and improve overall nutrient removal capacity, which should
reduce the volume of pollutants draining into the Pungo River and ultimately into the Pamlico
River and Estuary

Phelps Lake
TYRRELL
Lake
j
`'
P ° � a ' l4rrTlStrOr19 HYDE New take
v
Property
_ a
a � g
z a
♦' I
BEAU FORT
�/f v
take Mettemusk eat.
Is
lb z
Legend
• EEP Projects (Tier I) i a ��
a AgricuturalBMPs(thisCUonly) -.. ," 4 r y
A6 319 Projects Z, fiat
♦ CWMTF Sites
EEP Local Watershed Plans t�
EEPTargeted Local Watersheds N i
Catalog W +E EEP 2013 Project Closeout 0 1.5 3 6 r7
O Miles I
p County Boundaries s Armstrong Property (Tar - Pamlico 03020104) Rev: 28Feb2013

Appendix B. Land Ownership and Protection
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project
includes a portion of the following parcels.
http: / /www.nceep.net /GIS DATA /PROPERTY /92487 ArmstrongP rope rty.pdf
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred
to the DENR Stewardship Program, which will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.
Site Protection
Deed Book &
Acreage
Grantor
County
Instrument
Page Number
protected
Bobby Armstrong and wife,
Hyde
Conservation
225/031
25.008
Lou M. Armstrong
Easement
http: / /www.nceep.net /GIS DATA /PROPERTY /92487 ArmstrongP rope rty.pdf
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred
to the DENR Stewardship Program, which will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID SAW- 2007 - 03020 -148 County Hyde USGS Quad Ponzer
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent Albemarle Restorations LLC
Address P.O. Box 204
Gatesville, North Carolina 27938
Telephone No (252) 333 -0249
Size and location of property (water body, road name /number, town, etc) The ro'ect area is approximately 25 acres
located on the north side of US Hwy 264 and northeast of NC Highway 45 adiacent to Clark Mill Creek
Description of projects area and activity Restoration of former waters impacting 3,180 linear feet (40 acres) of
waters of the U.S.
Applicable Law ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization Regional General Permit Number
Nationwide Permit Number # 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted plans Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the
pennittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide permit If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i e, are
under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the
activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA),
prior to begmmng work you must contact the N C Division of Coastal Management
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the peimittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals /permits
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permmt, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Bill Biddlecome at (252) 975 -1616 ext 26
Corps Regulatory Official
ate
Expiration Date of Verification 09/18/2009
09/18/2007
The Wilmington District is con mtted to providing the highest level of support to the public To help us ensure we continue to do so,
please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit httn / /www saw usace army mil /WETLANDS /index html to
complete the survey online
Page 1 of 2

Determination of Jurisdiction:
❑ Based on prelummary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above described project area
This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process
( Reference 33 CFR Part 331)
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification
® There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the pernut requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Watei Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification
❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action Please reference
Jurisdictional determination issued Action ID
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination This waterbodv exhibits an Ordinary Hieh Water Mark as indicated by changes in soil
character and absence of terrestrial ve etation and is h drolo ically connected to Clark Mill Creek which is a tributary to the
Pungo River.
Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved Jurisdictional determinations.)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site If you object to dus
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331 Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn Bill Biddlecome, Project Manager,
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P O Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27858
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 3315, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP Should you
decide to submmt an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Novemeber 18. 2007
"It is not necessary to subnut an RFA form to the Drs et Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence"
Corps Regulatory Official
Date 09/18/2007 Expiration Date 09/18/2009
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC, MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE
Copy Furnished
Mr Scott McGill
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
P O Box 5,1204 Baldwin Mill Road
Jatrettsvtlle, MD 21084
Page 2 of 2

\O�0 WATF9pG
GO
O �
Mr Scott McGill
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
P O Box 204
Gatesville, NC 27938
Michael F Easley, Governor
William G Ross Jr, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
September 17, 2007
Subject Property Armstrong Property Wetland Restoration
Duke Swamp [030101, 25 -17 -1, C, NSW]
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr McGill
Coleen H Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project # 07 -1378
Hyde County
You have our approval, to accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
within or otherwise impact 3,180 linear feet of intermittent stream and impact 0 00 square feet of Zone 1
Tar - Pamlico River basin protected riparian buffers and impact 0 00 square feet of Zone 2 Tar - Pamlico
River basin protected riparian buffers as described in your application dated July 27, 2007, and received
by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on August 13, 2007, to construct the proposed wetland
restoration at the site After reviewing your application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by
General Water Quality Certification Number(s) 3626 (GC3626) The Certiftcation(s) allows you to use
Nationwide Permit(s) NW27 when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) In addition,
you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other required federal, state or local permits before you
go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control, and Non -
discharge regulations Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA
Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application If the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H 0506 (h) This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met No other impacts are
approved mcludm g incidental impacts
Type of Impact
Amount Approved nits
Plan Location or Reference
Stream - intermittent
3,180 (linear feet)
PCN page 8 of 13
Zone 1 TPBR
0 00 (square feet)
Page 12 of 13
Zone 2 TPBR
0 00 (square feet)
Page 12 of 13
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone 919 - 733 -1786 / FAX 919 - 733 -6893 / Internet http //h2o enr state nc us /ncwulands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled /109/o Post Consumer Paper
AdONM
4I—b9l~aR

Albemarle Restorations, LLC
Page 2 of 3
September 17, 2007
2 No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre - Construction Notification. All construction
activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion
control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur
3 Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in
order to protect surface waters standards
a The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual
b The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project
c Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair of erosion control measures and
stormwater routing and treatment shall be on site at all times
4 Sediment and Erosion Control Measures
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that
the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
5 Protective Fencing
The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary and along the construction corridor within these
boundaries approved under this authorization shall be clearly marked with orange warning fencing
(or similar- -high visibility- material)_for_+he areas-that have_been approved to infringe within the
buffer, wetland or water prior to any land disturbing,
6 Wetland Restoration Plans
You have our approval for your proposed final wetland restoration at the site The wetland
restoration at the site must be constructed, maintained, and monitored according to the plans
approved by this Office Any repairs or adjustments to the site must be made according to the
approved plans or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs or
adjustments The restored wetland must be preserved in perpetuity by use of a conservation
easement or other similar mechanism as part of the approved plans
7 Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached

Albemarle Restorations, LLC
Page 3 of 3
September 17, 2007
certificate of completion to the 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699 -1650.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification, shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that.
you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699 -6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
Any disputes over determinations regarding this Authorization Certificate (associated with the approved
buffer impacts) shall be referred in writing to the Director for a decision. 'The Director's decision is
subject to review as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of G.S. 150B.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly or Ian McMillan at 919 - 733 -1786.
r
Sinc e ,
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
CHS /gym
Enclosures: GC3626
Certificate of Completion
cc: USACE Washington Regulatory Field Office
Kyle Barnes, DWQ Washington Regional Office
DLR Washington Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 0713 78 Armstron gProperty WetlandRestoration(Hyde)401 _TPBR

Mitigation Project Name Armstrong Property
EEP IMS ID 92487
River Basin TAR - PAMLICO
Cataloging Unit 03020104
ADolied Credit Ratios 1'1 1 5'1 7 5'1 5'1 1 1 3'1 2 1 5'1 1'1 3 1 9 1 5'1 1'1 3 1 7 1 5'1 1 1 3 1 n 41 1 1 1 1
Information as of 3/17/2013
V=20.
o
mE
u
mz
'c a°
0
zw
�o
m
oU
z
•cE
of
z W
c
Z
o
zp,
12
'°°
o
m y
V R
12
mo
'
mU
U
16E
mt
U W
A
U°•
'�
z 0
u$
m
VVVN!!!
Fm
Z
O
z
o
ii
O
z
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
2,200.00
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
2005 -0785
1999- 301143
NCDOT TIP R -2510 -
Washington Bypass
2,200.00
17.06
2008 -0231
2007 - 041981
Cypress Corner Sec. 4
0.29
2007 -0278
2008 -01047
Bay Harbour Lot 46
0.08
2007 -1960
2007 - 02972 -107
Bridge Harbor
0.32
2009 -0143
2009 -00066
Dowry Creek
Subdivision
0.20
2008 -1775
2009 -00211
Shady Shores
0.26
NCDOT ILF Credit Purchase
1.79
Riparian Buffer ILF Credit Purchase
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
0.001
1
1
1 0.00
Information as of 3/17/2013