20130596 Ver 1_401 Application_20130813

'`.-
o Pe tem� 3 ^ ° 'S E i a �.er�
PROGRAM
August 15, 2013
Eric Kulz
Division of Water Resources
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
Re: Permit Application- Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II Stream and Wetland Restoration
Project, Northampton County (EEP Full Delivery Project)
Dear Mr. Kulz,
Attached for your review are two sets of copies of 401/404 permit application package and
mitigation plans for Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II stream and wetland restoration project in
Northampton County. A memo for the permit application fee is also included in the package.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
J
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package (2 originals)
Final Mitigation Plan (2 originals)
Permit Application Fee Memo
CD containing all electronic files
AUG 1 9 2013
Rfs f1Y'"Jg.., ��... Pro� OU-r Std NG?ENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N( 27699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / www.nceep.net

MEMORANDUM:
TO: Cindy Perry
FROM: Lin Xu 1,%1
SUBJECT: Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
DATE: August 16, 2013
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program is implementing a mitigation project for
Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II Site in Northampton County. The activities associated
with this restoration project involve stream restoration related temporary stream impact.
To conduct these activities the EEP must submit a Pre - construction Notification (PCN)
Form to the Division of Water Resources (DWR) for review and approval. The DWR
assesses a fee of $570.00 for this review.
Please transfer $570.00 from Fund # 2984, Account # 535120 to DWR as
payment for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be
reached at 919 - 707 -8319. Thanks for your assistance.
cc: Eric Kulz, DWR
9�� L9
AUG 1 9 2013
... j'��%�; ��:� .. OFF „.��,- /,';•�'�v:.�'�.F`�... s ���v't.sv�� {� L.f �';r r awi”
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -71S -0476 / www.nceep.net

404/401 Joint Permit Application
Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II Stream and Wetland
Restoration Project
KCI Project Number — 20122005/20133815
EEP Project Number — 95356/95838
ACOE Project Number — SAW- 2012 -01918
cnNTFNTS
404 -401 Appli
PCN Form
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
cation
—Approved Categorical Exclusion Report
— FEMA "No Action" Certification
- Mitigation Plan Approval Letter from ACOE
- Mitigation Plan Response Letter from KCI
- Final Mitigation Plan

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB APPROVAL N0.
EXPIRES: 28 FEBRUARY RY 20 2013 3
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW -CO -R.
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710- 0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320 -332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and /or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICAN7)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Tim Middle - Last - Baumgartner
First - Timothy Middle -J. Last - Morris
Company - NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Company - KCI Technologies, Inc.
E -mail Address - tim.baumgartner @ncdenr.gov
E -mail Address - tim.morris @kci.com
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 217 West Jones St., Suite 3000A
Address- 4601 Six Forks Rd., Suite 220
City - Raleigh State - NC Zip - 27603 Country -USA
City - Raleigh State - NC Zip-27609 Country-USA
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. w /AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. MAREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
(919)707 -8291 (919)707 -8976 (919)278 -2511 (919)783 -9266
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, Timothy J. Morris to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Tributary to Meherrin River
Address Margarettsville Road
City - Margarettsville State NC Zip- 27853
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 36.539006 Longitude: -W - 77.348222
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID 4081 -58 -2207, 4081 -49 -0166 Municipality Margarettsville, NC
Section - Township - Wiccancanee Range -
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
To reach the site from Raleigh: proceed east on US -64 for approximately 45 miles. Then travel on I -95 north towards Richmond for
approximately 37 miles. Turn onto NC 46 towards Gaston /Garrysburg and travel approximately 3 miles then turn left onto US 301 north.
Travel 0.1 miles and then make a slight left onto NC 186 north. Travel about 13 miles and then turn left onto Margarettsville Road. The site
will be approximately 0.3 miles straight ahead.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II Stream and Wetland Restoration Sites are two full- delivery mitigation projects being developed for
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The projects are part of a former riparian wetland system in the Chowan
River Basin (03010204 8 -digit HUC) in northern Northampton County, North Carolina that has been substantially modified to maximize
agricultural production. The site offers the chance to restore impacted agricultural lands to riparian wetland and stream habitat. The project
goals will be addressed through the following objectives: Restore a diverse headwater stream /wetland vegetation community through
maintenance and germination of existing seed stores, planting of native trees and shrubs and incorporation of a custom native seed mix,
elevate the local groundwater table through the elimination of lateral drainage ditches and modification of existing channelized streams,
and reconnect site hydrology to historic flow paths.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The Chowan River Basin Restoration Priorities state the goals for the 14 -digit HUC are to protect and improve water quality throughout
the Basin by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs into streams and rivers and to support efforts to restore local watersheds (NCEEP
2009). The project goals for these projects are in line with the basin priorities and include the following: restore streams and riparian
buffers to provide shade and temperature control and increase in stream woody debris for habitat, restore and protect sensitive aquatic
resources to improve habitat and species diversity through the restoration of wetlands streams and riparian buffers, implement wetland,
stream and shoreline restoration projects that reduce sources of sedimentation, nutrient pollution and surface runoff by restoring hydrology
and vegetation, stabilizing banks and restoring natural geomorphology where appropriate, increase the local hydroperiod by encouraging
both surface and subsurface storage and retention, and restore and establish a functional and diverse headwater stream /wetland community
USE BLOCKS 20 -23 IF DREDGED AND /OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Fill material will be discharged into existing wetlands and streams to allow for the proper restoration of the impacted aquatic resources.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Fill Dirt - Approximately 4,896 CY
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres 1.52 acres (0.19 acres wetlands, 1.33 acres of streams)
or
Linear Feet 3,600 linear feet of streams
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
In order to reestablish wetland hydrology throughout a much larger area, these impacted drainage features (and existing wetlands and
streams) will be filled. We anticipate that filling these ditches will result in the upward movement of groundwater that would in turn serve
to extend the hydroperiod and allow the growth and propagation of hydrophytic vegetation. A pump around will be utilized to conduct all
stream restoration work in the dry. Sediment and erosion control measures such as silt fence, straw wattles, rock silt screens and daily
stabilization will be used to minimize impacts during construction.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 2 of 3

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes OX No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
a. Address- 213 Margarettsville St.
City - Margarettsville State - NC Zip - 27853
b. Address- 189 Margarettsville St.
City- Margarettsville State - NC Zip - 27853
c. Address- 3715 Oaklawn Rd.
City - Fort Washington State - MD Zip - 20744
d. Address- 972 Jordan Mill Rd.
City - Seaboard State - NC Zip - 27876
e. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals /Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
* Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
tim.morris @kci.com
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3

o�pF W A 7gpG
r
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑ No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes X❑ No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes 0 No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II Stream and Wetland Restoration Sites
2b.
County:
Northampton
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Margarettsville, NC
2d.
Subdivision name:
NA
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
NA
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
W.E. Vaughn /Stanley Garriss
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
DB 336 PG 148/DB 875 PG 760
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
NA
3d.
Street address:
253 Margarettsville Street/6523 NC Highway 186
3e.
City, state, zip:
Margarettsville, NC 27853
3f.
Telephone no.:
(252)589- 9301/(252)589 -3131
3g.
Fax no.:
NA
3h.
Email address:
NA
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Tim Baumgartner
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
4d.
Street address:
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A or 1652 Mail Service Center
4e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603 or Raleigh NC 27699 -1652
4f.
Telephone no.:
(919)707 -8543
4g.
Fax no.:
(919)707 -8976
4h.
Email address:
tim.baumgartner @ncdenr.gov
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Timothy J. Morris
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
KCI Technologies, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 220
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27609
5e.
Telephone no.:
(919)278 -2511
5f.
Fax no.:
(919)783 -9266
5g.
Email address:
tim.morris @kci.com
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
4081 -58 -2207, 4081 -49 -0166
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.539006 Longitude: - 77.348222
1 c.
Property size:
254 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Meherrin River
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C NSW
2c.
River basin:
Chowan
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project site is bounded by NC 186 to the south and by agricultural land on all other sides. The site has a long history of hydrologic modification in
order to allow for farming to take place on the property. The surrounding area is rural with low development pressure at this time.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 2.4
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 9,000
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
This project is an environmental mitigation project that will restore approximately 9.5 acres of riparian wetlands and approximately 4,300 If of streams.
3e.
A mitigation
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
plan has been included as an attachment to this application. The mitigation plan explains the project in detail.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Steve Stokes
Agency /Consultant Company: KCI Associates of NC
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
November 29, 2012
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes X❑ No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑X Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 T
Type In (Other)
Small -Basin Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.07
W2 T
Fill
Small -Basin Wetland
No
Corps
0.07
W3 T
Fill
Small -Basin Wetland
No
Corps
0.05
W4
Choose one
Choose one
No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.19
2h. Comments:
Existing fringe wetlands along man -made drainage features will be filled to allow the local groundwater elevation to restore jurisdictional hydrology
within surrounding areas. Impacted (filled) areas will ultimately be restored as part of the overall mitigation plan and thus are considered temporary
impacts for the purpose of this application.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Relocation /Fill
UT1 to Meherrin River
PER
Corps
16
3,600
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
7,584
3i. Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
O2
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
BI
Yes /No
B2
Yes /No
B3
Yes /No
B4
Yes /No
B5
Yes /No
B6
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
We are applying for a Nationwide 27 permit. This permit authorizes impacts to jurisdictional waters for the purpose of conducting aquatic habitat
restoration, establishment and enhancement activities. This project will provide stream and wetland mitigation credits for impacts elsewhere within this
8 -digit HUC. The site offers an ideal opportunity to improve a series of headwater streams and to restore areas of impacted agricultural land to wetland
habitat.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
In order to reestablish wetland hydrology throughout a much larger area, these drainage features (and existing wetlands) will be filled. We anticipate
that filling these ditches will result in the upward movement of groundwater that would in turn serve to extend the hydroperiod and allow the growth and
propagation of hydrophytic vegetation. A pump around will be utilized to conduct all stream restoration work in the dry. Sediment and erosion control
measures such as silt fence, straw wattles, rock silt screens and daily stabilization will be used to minimize impacts during construction.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non- riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
® Yes OX No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
This
is a wetland restoration project and so no impervious area will be created.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Northampton County
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8of10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑X Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑X Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA /SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
Yes
❑X No
letter.) A Categorical Exclusion report has been prepared and is included as an attachment
to this permit application.
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑Yes
❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
X❑ No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
This
is a wetland restoration protect, no wastewater will be generated.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
FX-1 Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
0 Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
- NCDENR, Wildlife Resources Commission. Carolina Wildlife Profiles. http:// www. ncwildlife. org /fs_index_07_conservation.htm
- United States Fish and Wildlife Service. North Carolina's Threatened and Endangered Species. http: / /www.fws.gov /southeast/es /county %201ists.htm
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http: / /www.saw. usace. army. mil /wetlands /N WP2007 /specialwaters. htmi
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
See attached Categorical Exclusion Report and Correspondence with John Mintz, State Archaeologist
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
We have coordinated with the Northampton County Floodplain Administrator (William E. Flynn) for this project. They have determined the project has
been approved as a "No Action" required. Documentation is enclosed as an attachment to this permit application.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
HEC -RAS
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
NC DENR, EEP
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

Attachment 1
Categorical Exclusion Report

00
pe
ON
pe
00
ON
PW
00
ON
0W
00
00
00
PW
ON
00
ON
ON
00
ON
ON
ON
PW
00
rW
WE
ON
WIP
rP
ON
ON
ON
WE
00
ON
ON
0W
r/
w!
r
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Project Part 1: General
Project Name: Stanley's Slough Stream Restoration Project
Count Name: Northampton County, NC
EEP Number: 95356
Project Sponsor: KCI Technologies, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Tim Morris
Project Contact Address: 4609 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220, Raleigh, NC 27609
Project Contact E -mail: [e-mail]
EEP Project Manager: Heather Smith
Project Description
The Stanley's Slough stream and wetland restoration project will restore 4,248 linear
feet of coastal plain stream and 2.8 acres of riparian wetland that have impacted by
years of agricultural use. This work will occur on two headwater streams that drain
directly to the Meherrin River.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By: -
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
'z- Z, ),— '
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
SEA' 2 8 2012
NC ECOSYSTEM
Version 1 4$ /ti105oGrtA

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Q . Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Does the project involve ground- disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
® N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning /land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
® No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
® No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
® No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform Act
1. Is this a "full - delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
® Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Q . Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? ® No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and /or Designated Critical Habitat
® Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
3. Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
® No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and /or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
® N/A
5. Does the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
® Yes
(By virtue of no- response)
❑ No
❑ N/A
6. Has the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
® No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
® N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or local
® Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any
® Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
® No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAH- Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
'
General
Project Name.
Stanley's II Wetland Restoration Project
Count Name:
Northampton County, NC
EEP Number:
95838
Project Sponsor:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Project Contact Name:
Tim Morris
Project Contact Address:
4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220, Raleigh, NC 27609
Project Contact E -mail:
[e-mail]
EEP Project Manager: Heather Smith
Project Description
The Stanley's II wetland restoration project will restore 6.5 acres of riparian wetland
that have impacted by years of agricultural use. This work will occur on two headwater
streams that drain directly to the Meherrin River.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date
EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
,�--
9,& /, &-,—,
/0, - /3
Date
-
For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8118105

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Q . Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Does the project involve ground- disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
® N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning /land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
® No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
® No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
® No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO /THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full - delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
® Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Q . Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? ® No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and /or Designated Critical Habitat
® Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
3. Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
® No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and /or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
® N/A
5. Does the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
® Yes
(By virtue of no- response)
❑ No
❑ N/A
6. Has the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
® No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
® N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or local
® Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any
® Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
® No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAH- Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Attachment 2
FEMA Checklist

EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping
Unit (attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site /
Stanley's 11 Wetland Restoration Site
Name if stream or feature:
Backwater of Meherrin River
County:
Northampton County
Name of river basin:
Chowan
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county:
Northampton County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
4080
Consultant name:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Phone number:
919 -783 -9214
Address:
4601 Six Forks Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27609
FEMAAFloodplain_Checklist Stanley's Slough (2) Page 1 of 4

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500 ".
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority
Reach
Length
- --- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -
Priority
Tributary 1
3, 097 eet
Headwater Restoration
Tributary 2
1, 221 feet
Headwater Restoration
Wetland Reestablishment
(Stanley's Slough)
2.8 acres
Reestablishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
(Stanley's Slough)
0.8 acre
Rehabilitation
Wetland Reestablishment
(Stanley's II)
6.4 acre
Reestablishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
(Stanley's II)
1.1 acre
Rehabilitation
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r Yes I- No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r Redehneation
r Detailed Study
W Limited Detail Study
r Approximate Study
F- Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
r AE Zone
Floodway
r Non - Encroachment
t* None
T" A Zone
d" Local Setbacks Required
r No Local Setbacks Required
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Stanley's Slough (2) Page 2 of 4

If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non-
encroachment/setbacks?
Yes f- No
Land Acquisition (Check)
r- State owned (fee simple)
l-'" Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
1v Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
(919) 807 -4101)
Is community /county participating in the NFIP program?
0 Yes f- No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: State NFIP Engineer, (919) 715 -8000)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: William Flynn
Phone Number: (252) 534 -1905
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
17 No Action
fi No Rise
l- Letter of Map Revision
F Conditional Letter of Map Revision
r- Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
FEMA Floodplai€ — checklist Stanley's Slough (2) Page 3 of 4

Name: Signature:
Title: 13 t r�Q Date: -1-1-
FEMA Floodplain_Checklist Stanley's Slough (2) Page 4 of 4

Attachment 3
Mitigation Plan Approval Letter from ACOE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF 12 August, 2013
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Stanley's Slough (Sections I and II) Combined Draft
Mitigation Plan; SAW 2012 - 01918; EEP # 95356 (I) and 95838 (II)
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 by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team ( NCIRT)
during the 30 -day comment period for the Stanley's Slough Combined Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on 17 July, 2013. 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, the minor issues with the Draft as discussed in the
attached comment memo must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Application
for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter and a summation of the
addressed comments. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army
permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project.
Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit
authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed.
Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that
the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues
may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or
reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this
letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at
919 - 846 -2564.
Sincerely,
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW- RG/Wicker
CESAW- RG -R/T. Brown
Jeff Jurek, NCEEP
Heather Smith, NCEEP

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
CESAW -RG /Crumbley
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
26 July, 2013
SUBJECT: Stanley's Slough I and Stanley's II- NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan
Review
Purpose: The comments and responses listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan
Review Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(8) of the
2008 Mitigation Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II Stream and Wetland Restoration Site,
Northhampton County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01082
NCEEP #: 95356 and 95358
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 17 July, 2013
1. Eric Kulz; NCDWQ, 2 July, 2013:
Our only comment involves what appear to be field ditches discharging via " "stabilized
drainage outfalls" (these appear to resemble riprap dissipator pads) into the conservation
easement. It is unclear if these are discharging to wetland retention depressions, or if the
water discharged from the ditch will flow directly to the restored stream. Most recent
projects where ditches were required to discharge to the stream, the flow is routed to
wetland depressions for treatment prior to entering the stream channel.
2. Tyler Crumbley USACE, 3 July, 2013:
• On pg. 27, Section 7.1 and pg. 36: please insert "live planted stems" at the appropriate
# /acre and remove the word "mature" from the survivability discussion.
• Please review and correct the indicator statuses of the species proposed (eg. Tulip
poplar, and American holly)
• In addition to the gauge locations shown on pg. 215, please show the proposed
locations of vegetation monitoring plots in Final Mitigation Plan.

• As discussed during the field site visit on 6 Sep, 2012, there is a lack of OHWM indicators
at the head of T2 (only present in ponded /ditched area). We still have a concern about
the size of the contributing watershed to this feature, especially since the hydrologic
contributions from T1 will be diverted into the relic channel in the woods and not to T2.
It is understood from the review of the Draft mit plan (Section 10, pg. 37) that these
headwater features will have gauges installed within the braided channels along with
visual documentation of surface water flow for 30 consecutive days. Please be advised
that if T2 or T1 does not meet the 30 day flow requirement, or exhibit a prevalence of
OHWM indicators as defined in RGL 05 -05, these areas may be removed from stream
credit generation.

Attachment 4
Mitigation Plan Response Letter from KCI

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLM, RA.
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
MEMORANDUM
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783 -9214 (919) 783 -9266 Fax
Date: July 29, 2013
To: Todd Tugwell and Tyler Crumbley, USACE
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PA
Subject: Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II Mitigation Plan
IRT Mitigation Plan Review
Chowan River Basin - 03010204
Northampton County, North Carolina
Contract No. 4004635 (Stanley's Slough) and 4005151 (Stanley's II)
EEP IMS 495356 (Stanley's Slough) and 495838 (Stanley's II)
Please find below our responses in italics to the Mitigation Plan comments from the IRT received on July
26, 2013, for the Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II Restoration Projects. NCEEP's comments are below
with KCI responses in Italics.
IRT Comments
1. Eric Kulz; NCDWQ, 2 July, 2013:
Our only comment involves what appear to be field ditches discharging via " "stabilized
drainage outfalls" (these appear to resemble riprap dissipater pads) into the conservation
easement. It is unclear if these are discharging to wetland retention depressions, or if the
water discharged from the ditch will flow directly to the restored stream. Most recent
projects where ditches were required to discharge to the stream, the flow is routed to
wetland depressions for treatment prior to entering the stream channel.
There are two stabilized drainage outfalls noted in the project grading plans. These are on
page 5 and page 7 of the project plans. The first outfall is located within an area that is
currently in pasture but will be taken out of pasture production as a result of this project
and incorporated in the Stanley's II project. The area draining to the proposed drainage
outfall is an eroded swale that will be filled to enhance upslope seep development. The
grading plan has been modified to better show the grading that will occur in this area. The
stabilized drainage outfall will be installed both to dissipate surface and subsurface flows at
the tow of the slope and to act as a stable channel block to ensure that the eroded drainage
feature does not re- develop over time. Because it will not be draining active agricultural
land and because of the proposed filling of the channel, we do not feel that water quality

treatment is necessary prior to entering the Coastal Plain stream corridor. The second
stabilized drainage outfall is located at the very end of the project where Tributary 2 exits
the easement onto an adjacent property. This structure was installed in this location to
allow the dendritic pattern of the coastal plain stream to transition back into a single thread
channel as it leaves the easement. Although we do not anticipate significant flows or
erosive velocities in this area, a measure of safety was designed into the project to ensure
that the flow convergence would be adequately transitioned onto the adjacent property.
Tyler Crumbley USACE; 3 July, 2013:
• On pg. 27, Section 7.1 and pg. 36: please insert "live planted stems" at the appropriate
4/acre and remove the word "mature" from the survivability discussion.
Inserted "live planted stems " and removed "mature ", as requested.
• Please review and correct the indicator statuses of the species proposed (eg. Tulip poplar,
and American holly)
Reviewed indicator status of species list. Modified list on page 13 of the project plans
based on the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain 2013 Regional Wetland Plant List.
• In addition to the gauge locations shown on pg. 215, please show the proposed locations of
vegetation monitoring plots in Final Mitigation Plan.
Proposed locations of vegetation monitoring plots have been included on page 215 of the
MP.
Additional Changes to the MP — During the review period the Northampton County Floodplain
Administrator responded that the project qualified for a "no action" Floodplain requirement. The
signed checklist was inserted in the report.

• As discussed during the field site visit on 6 Sep, 2012, there is a lack of OHWM indicators at the head
of T2 (only present in ponded /ditched area). We still have a concern about the size of the contributing
watershed to this feature, especially since the hydrologic contributions from T1 will be diverted into
the relic channel in the woods and not to T2. It is understood from the review of the Draft mit plan
(Section 10, pg. 37) that these headwater features will have gauges installed within the braided
channels along with visual documentation of surface water flow for 30 consecutive days. Please be
advised that if T2 or T1 does not meet the 30 day flow requirement, or exhibit a prevalence of
OHWM indicators as defined in RGL 05 -05, these areas may be removed from stream credit
generation.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like clarification concerning these responses.
Sincerely,
Tim Morris
Project Manager
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

Attachment 5
Final Mitigation Plan

MITIGATION PLAN
Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Contract 004635
EEP Project Number 95356
Stanley's II Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Contract 5151
EEP Project Number 95838
Northampton County, North Carolina
Chowan River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03010204
Prepared for:
EMancemem
"'
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
FINAL - AUGUST 2013

MITIGATION PLAN
Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Contract 004635
EEP Project Number 95356
Stanley's II Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Contract 5151
EEP Project Number 95838
Northampton County, North Carolina
Chowan River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03010204
Prepared for:
F owstem � �
eMe
PROGRA
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Prepared by:
i\ C 1
TECHNOLOGIES
MMMMMAkimm
MMMEV4�
MMMV4�
KC I EwFz0NMEMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
ASS(1CIATFS OF N:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC
4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 783 -9214
FINAL - AUGUST 2013

Mitigation Plan Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
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.
The Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (SSS) is a full - delivery mitigation project being
developed for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The SSS is a former
headwater stream and riparian wetland system in the Chowan River Basin (03010204 8 -digit HUC) in
northern Northampton County, North Carolina, that has been substantially modified to maximize
agricultural production. The site offers the chance to restore impacted agricultural lands to riparian
wetland habitat.
The Stanley's II Wetland Restoration Site (SII) is located directly adjacent to SSS and consists of a drained
wetland complex. This site offers the opportunity to restore, enhance, and protect wetlands within a
productive headwater stream /wetland system.
The Chowan River Basin Restoration Priorities state the goals for the SSS and SII's 14 -digit HUC are to
protect and improve water quality throughout the Basin by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs into
streams and rivers and to support efforts to restore local watersheds (NCDENR EEP, 2009). The project
goals for SSS and SII are in line with the basin priorities and include the following:
- Restore streams and riparian buffers to provide shade and temperature control and increase
instream woody debris for habitat.
- Restore and protect sensitive aquatic resources to improve habitat and species diversity
through the restoration of wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers.
- Implement wetland and stream restoration projects that reduce sources of nutrient
pollution and surface runoff by restoring hydrology and vegetation, stabilizing banks, and
restoring natural geomorphology where appropriate.
Additional goals for the project include:
- Increase the local hydroperiod by encouraging both surface and subsurface storage and
retention.
- Restore and establish a functional and diverse headwater stream /wetland community.
The project goals will be addressed through the following objectives:
- Restore a headwater stream /wetland vegetation community through planting of native
trees and shrubs, and incorporation of a custom native seed mix
- Elevate the local groundwater table through the elimination of lateral drainage ditches and
modification of existing channelized streams.
- Reconnect site hydrology to historic flow paths.
Both sites are located approximately 0.3 miles north of Margarettsville, North Carolina, in Northampton
County. The projects begin just north of Margarettsville Road. The SSS will aim to restore and enhance
the stream /wetland complex. The dredged channels will be filled creating a shallow braided headwater
stream /wetland complex. Additionally, flow will be reconnected to a relic stream channel and adjacent

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
drained wetlands in a forested portion of the site. The SII will aim to restore and enhance the headwater
wetland complex. Select ditches will be filled and productive seeps will be redirected or developed to
integrate the wetland area into the adjacent headwater stream /wetland complex. Once grading is
complete at both sites, the riparian communities will be planted as Headwater Forest Communities
(NCWAM, v. 4.1 2010). Both sites will be monitored for seven years or until the success criteria are met.
Stanley's Slough Restoration Site, Northampton County
EEP Contract 004635; EEP Project Number 95356
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Linear Feet /Acres
4,274
3.6
Credits
4,274
3.1
TOTAL CREDITS
4,274
3.1
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement
Stanley's II Restoration Site, Northampton County
EEP Contract 5151; EEP Project Number 95838
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Linear Feet /Acres
7.6
Credits
6.9
TOTAL CREDITS
6.9
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement

Mitigation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
1.0
RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................. ............................... 1
2.0
SITE SELECTION .................................................................................... ............................... 1
2.1
Directions ...................................................................................................... ..............................1
2.2
Site Selection ............................................................................................... ...............................
2
2.3
Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. ..............................4
2.4
Watershed Map ............................................................................................ ..............................5
2.5
Soil Survey ..................................................................................................... ..............................6
2.6
Current Condition Plan View ....................................................................... ...............................
7
2.7
Historical Condition Plan View ..................................................................... ...............................
8
2.8
Site Photographs ........................................................................................ ...............................
10
3.0
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ......................................................... ............................... 12
3.1
Site Protection Instrument Summary Information .................................... ...............................
12
3.2
Site Protection Instrument Figure ............................................................. ...............................
13
4.0
BASELINE INFORMATION ................................................................... ............................... 14
4.1
Watershed Summary Information ............................................................. ...............................
18
4.2
Reach Summary Information ..................................................................... ...............................
18
4.3
Wetland Summary Information ................................................................. ...............................
20
4.4
Regulatory Considerations ......................................................................... ...............................
22
5.0
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................ ............................... 23
6.0
CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ................................................................ ............................... 25
7.0
MITIGATION WORK PLAN .................................................................. ............................... 27
7.1
Target Wetland Types and Plant Communities ......................................... ...............................
27
7.2
Design Parameters ..................................................................................... ...............................
29
7.3
Data Analysis .............................................................................................. ...............................
32
7.4
Proposed Mitigation Plan View ................................................................. ...............................
34
8.0
MAINTENANCE PLAN ......................................................................... ............................... 35
9.0
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .............................................................. ............................... 36
10.0
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... ............................... 37
11.0
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................... ............................... 38
12.0
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................ ............................... 38
13.0
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .................................................................... ............................... 39
14.0
OTHER INFORMATION ....................................................................... ............................... 40
14.1
Definitions .................................................................................................... .............................40
14.2
References ................................................................................................. ...............................
41
14.3
Appendix A. Site Protection Instrument .................................................... ...............................
43
14.4
Appendix B. Baseline Information Data ....................................................... .............................89
USACE Wetland Determination Forms ....................................................... .............................91
Reference Wetland Information ................................. ............................... ............................105
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form ......................... ............................... ............................113
Jurisdictional Determination ...................................... ............................... ............................117
Field Memorandum and Agency Response ................ ............................... ............................127
FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form .............................. ............................... ............................143
FEMAFloodplain Checklist ......................................... ............................... ............................153
14.5
Appendix C. Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses ............................... ............................159

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Channel Morphology (Rosgen Analysis) ..................... ............................... ............................161
DRAINMOD Model Results ..................................................................... ............................... 183
Soil Delineation and Characterization ........................ ............................... ............................195
Potential Vegetation Plot and Wetland /Stream Gauge Locations ....... ............................... 213
14.6 Appendix D. Project Plan Sheets .............................................................. ............................... 217
IPI

Mitigation Plan Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
EEP develops River Basin Restoration Priorities to guide its restoration activities within each of the
state's 54 cataloging units. RBRPs delineate specific watersheds 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 2009 Chowan River Basin RBRP identified HUC 03010204180040 (Cypress Creek) as a Targeted Local
Watershed (http: // portal .ncdenr.org /c /document_libra ry /get_file ?uuid= 87802543- d3e1- 4e0a- 803fcc3
354f75cd9 &groupld= 60329). The watershed is characterized by 57.4% forested land, 40.1% agricultural
area, and 1.5% developed land with impacts to streams including channelization and nonpoint source
pollution.
Stanley's Slough Restoration Site (SSS) Project and Stanley's II Restoration Site (SII) Project were
identified as stream and wetland opportunities to improve habitat within the TLW.
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
- Restore streams and riparian buffers to provide shade and temperature control and increase
instream woody debris for habitat.
- Restore and protect sensitive aquatic resources to improve habitat and species diversity
through the restoration of wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers.
- Implement wetland and stream restoration projects that reduce sources of nutrient
pollution and surface runoff by restoring hydrology and vegetation, stabilizing banks, and
restoring natural geomorphology where appropriate.
Additional goals for the project include:
- Increase the local hydroperiod by encouraging both surface and subsurface storage and
retention.
- Restore and establish a functional and diverse headwater stream /wetland community.
The project goals will be addressed through the following objectives:
- Restore a headwater stream /wetland vegetation community through maintenance and
germination of volunteer wetland vegetation from adjacent seed sources, planting of native
trees and shrubs, and incorporation of a custom native seed mix
- Elevate the local groundwater table through the elimination of lateral drainage ditches and
modification of existing channelized streams.
- Reconnect site hydrology to historic flow paths.
2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions
SSS and SII are located just north of Margarettsville Road approximately 0.3 miles north of
Margarettsville, North Carolina. To reach the sites from Raleigh: proceed east on US -64 for
approximately 45 miles. Then travel on 1 -95 north towards Richmond for approximately 37 miles. Turn
onto NC 46 towards Gaston /Garysburg, travel approximately 3 miles, and then turn left onto US 301
north. Travel 0.1 miles and then make a slight left onto NC 186 north. Travel about 13 miles and then
turn left onto Margarettsville Road. The sites will be approximately 0.3 miles straight ahead.
1

Mitigation Plan
2.2 Site Selection
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
The sites are part of the 03010204 USGS Cataloging Unit (Meherrin Watershed) located within the
Chowan River Basin. The Chowan River Basin straddles the border of North Carolina and Virginia and is
populated throughout with small municipalities. The populations of the counties within the watershed
are stable or minimally declining and land use is predominately agricultural. For this reason, the
restoration priorities laid out by EEP focus on mitigating impact to streams and wetlands from
agricultural use (NCDENR EEP, 2009).
The project sites are bounded by NC 186 to the south and by agricultural land on all other sides. The
sites have a long history of hydrologic modification in order to allow for farming to take place on the
property. The existing site conditions are shown in Section 2.6 and seen in site photographs (Section
2.8). Within the Meherrin Watershed, the Cypress Creek watershed remains only minimally affected by
urban development, having its start in Seaboard, North Carolina, before flowing into southern Virginia
and emptying into the Chowan River. Approximately 57.4% of the 14 -digit HUC is forested and 40.1% is
used as agricultural land (NCDENR EEP, 2009). Although the project sites are located in the Cypress
Creek 14 -digi HUC, the nearest named water body downstream of the sites is Fountains Creek
(030102040706), which is located in southern Virginia. Fountains Creek is currently listed as impaired
under the Virginia 2012 303(d) listing for aquatic life and recreation designated uses (VA DEQ, 2012).
The project watershed for the SSS comprises 113 acres to the bottom of project site. Current land use in
the project watershed consists of forested land (49.2 ac/ 43.7 %), rangeland (38.1 ac/ 33.8 %), and
agriculture (25.3 ac/ 22.5 %). The project watershed drains from the south and east into the project site.
The project watershed for the SII is made up of 80 acres and is located within the watershed for the SSS.
Current land use in the SII project watershed consists of forested land (42.6 ac/ 53.0 %), rangeland (28.0
ac/ 34.9 %), and agriculture (9.7 ac/ 12.1 %). The impervious surface within both project watersheds is
limited to the impervious areas within rural residential properties, amounting to less than 1% of the
total drainage area.
Historic aerials from Northampton County were examined for any information about how the site
hydrology and vegetation have changed over the last century. Historic aerials were obtained from the
USGS Earth Explorer for 1950, 1959, 1961, 1973, 1978, 1989, 1998, and 2010. The reviewed aerials are
found in Section 2.7. The photographs show that since as early as 1950 most of the site has been under
agricultural production, with a similar footprint to the sites today. An area of forest to the northwest of
the site was cleared between 1950 and 1973. The ditch that cuts through the drainage divide to join
Tributary 1 (T1) to the top of Tributary 2 (T2) is not visible until the 1973 photo. It is unclear whether the
ditch was not there before that or if it was not discernible in earlier photos. The photos clearly show
that the area around the upstream section of T1 in the southwestern portion of the site was cleared
between 1950 and 1959. After it was cleared, the stream was channelized and surface drains were built
to connect to the stream and drain the field. Since the area was cleared, it has been used for livestock
grazing and the cattle have had unrestricted access to the channel. The eastern half of the site appears
to be relatively unchanged since 1950. The surrounding area is rural with low development pressure at
this time. These land use trends indicate that restoring this property back to a forested wetland will
provide an important habitat enhancement in the watershed.
The sites lie within the Rolling Coastal Plains (Level IV 65m) ecoregion of the Coastal Plain physiographic
province. This region is described as a rolling, hilly, dissected portion of the Inner Coastal Plain that is
made up of sedimentary material. The geology at the site is classified as part of the Yorktown formation,
K

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
which is comprised of fossiliferous clay with varying amounts of fine - grained sand. Bluish gray, shell
material is commonly concentrated in lenses.
The soils at both sites were also examined for their wetland potential. The soil data sheets and a map of
the soil borings are included in Appendix C.
Stanley's Slough
According to the soil survey of Northampton County, the soils within the project site are mapped as
Tomotley loam for the southernmost tributary, Roanoke silt loam for the central and eastern part of the
site, Altavista fine sandy loam for the western tributary, and Wehadkee loam for the most northern
tributary (USDA, NRCS Web Soil Survey, 2011). A soils investigation by KCI's licensed soil scientist
confirmed that the Roanoke series occupies a central portion of the site. The Roanoke series, a hydric
soil, is described as a poorly drained soil located on terraces and drainage ways in the piedmont and the
upper and middle coastal plains. There are also two inclusions of the Altavista series, which is nonhydric.
This area has relic braided channels, drained wetlands, and some existing wetlands. The hydrologic
sources for the existing wetlands are seeps at the base of the upland area to the south. The hydrologic
source that historically contributed wetland hydrology to all of the hydric soils was the headwater
stream /wetland complex that previously flowed through this area, but has been diverted to the north
away from this part of the site.
Stanley's 11
According to the soil survey for the project area, the soils within the project site are primarily mapped as
Tomotley loam for the southern portion of the SII and Roanoke silt loam for the northern portion of the
SII easement. Small areas of Winton loam and Altavista fine sandy loam are also present within the
southern restoration area (USDA, NRCS Web Soil Survey, 2011). A soils investigation by KCI's licensed
soil scientist confirmed that the Roanoke series occupies the northern portion of SII but extends
approximately 150 feet to the west of its current location. The Roanoke series, a hydric soil, is described
as a poorly drained soil located on terraces and drainage ways in the piedmont and the upper and
middle coastal plains. The soil investigation also confirmed the presence of Tomotley loam, also a hydric
soil, in the southern portion of SII. The evaluation also confirmed an area of Winton soils along the bluff
slope. Where seepage occurred along the bluff, inclusions of Pelham soils were noted within the Winton
unit. A small area of Augusta silt loam was also mapped along the southern project boundary. This was
mapped as a non - hydric area within the project boundaries.
Based on these watershed and site - specific attributes, the SSS and SII were selected as candidates for
wetland mitigation. The restored sites will expand forested wetland habitat in an area that has been
actively used for agriculture since at least 1950.
3

Mitigation Plan
2.3 Vicinity Map
NORTHAMPTON
HERTFORD
HALIFAX
BERTIE
/NASH
1
ASK]
M-1 R0
5kae Read, V-9
¢a
�i
Rs jzt k Rd
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Virginia
r h Carolina
A
...m Rd
A
Sv`RLz
305 wamP (ToWors Upvow)
Cordu�°'I 5 �
Jacks BYp v°
.g 158
m plea., 8
Yp
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP There are noairposiswdhm N
0.8 04 0 08 STANLEY'S SLOUGH I STANLEY'S II 5raresof the poled site
-
miles RESTORATION SITES
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
:l

Mitigation Plan
2.4 Watershed Map
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
--w - ..
....
f ?' C ee swill county,--VA
f Northampton County;'
N.
11'5 ���� � - �_ 5� l'.. 4 1� � �S V �• 64'• �..
Co
V11
'��• r• I • Lr r -1I it 1T i � ` ; 1 r
-
�j I rt " • :� r�
, 4
�`..
.sue 40.
SII Proposed Easement
SSS Proposed Easement
l� —
'"� SSS Project Watershed (113 acres)
SII Project Watershed (80 acres)
PROJECT SITE WATERSHED MAP Sa rce_ uscSORG
600 300 0 600 STANLEY'S SLOUGH I STANLEY'S II MftaretsvQ
Feet RESTORATION SITES
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
61

Mitigation Plan
2.5 Soil Survey
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Ta "B WkA
AtA
Wt AtA AtA
StA
Stk `
Wlr
StA R StA
AtA
AtA
�A�tA
VVII CnB
r M" CnB StA
AfA
Ta B
TaB WaA
AtA
aB
Ro
�,-
TaB
}!. ABoB
CrIB c�' NoA
Te
NoB
AtA S
TaB
TaB* W;E NoB 't• •GoA
- --
WtE CnB
NoB BOB Ta '
JTe , ` x AtA
} NoC.� -
r
GoA NOB �.
c:�• k�i
NoA ` ' SSS Proprosed Easement (17.6 ac)
TaB
NoB Te _ SI I Proposed Easement (9A ac)
AtA �+ AtA _ 4 %'* ' NOB Bb Project Parcels da�
PROJECT SITE NRCS SOIL. SURVEY MAP Image Source : NC 2070
400 200 0 400 STANLEY'S SLOUGH /STAN LEY'S II statew+deCrihoimagery.
Feet RESTORATION SITES
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
L

Mitigation Plan
2.6 Current Condition Plan View
k
rrx._
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
4
Trib 2
AL
t �
.T
f
Drainage ditch .
L
through
utter- fluvial ^ '
divide
2 B:
i
t
1
Trib`y1
Abandoned
relic channel It
and riparian
wetlands
S
r
r
r .
A
OF 'ALM
IlaN
0 SSS Proposed Project Boundary (17.6 ac) — Existing Ditched Stream Channels ,A, SSS Soil borings
SII Proposed Project Boundary (9.4 ac) — - Relic Channel Q SII Soil Borings
Project Parcels — — Existing Ditches I Drained Hydric Soils
® Utility Easement Other Streams Existing Wetlands
PROJECT SITE CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW Source NC 2010
300 150 0 300 STAN LEY'S SLOUGH I STAN LEY'SI1 Olhmmagery
Feet RESTORATION SITES
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
7

Mitigation Plan
2.7 Historical Condition Plan View
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
i
Ak�- .
1978
.a
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
SlI Project Site Boundary
SSS Project Site Boundary
fl&�!ww wo
+ It �s
i ■ r a
ar 1989
a
k ` 1998 � ' �' � � 2010
PROJECT SITE HISTORICAL CONDITION PLAN VIEW S LAGS Eanh Erpia ff,
saa 2.50 0 500 STAN LEY'S SLOUGH /STAN LEY'S II rv�s, 19x9, m:d1998, ,.d
Feet RESTORATION SITES WSra¢ mk Onharmrgzry7olo.
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
A

Mitigation Plan
2.8 Site Photographs
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
NOW"- -
View looking southwest across SII mitigation area. View looking north from hill slope seepage area in SII.
9/22/2011 9/22/2011
View looking west across SI I mitigation area.
9/26/2012
View looking north from existing stream mitigation
project (SSS). 10/4/2011
10
View looking northwest across portions of SSS and SII
mitigation areas. 9/22/2011
View of farm pond across portions of SSS and SII
mitigation areas. 9/22/2011
.F
View looking west across SI I mitigation area.
9/26/2012
View looking north from existing stream mitigation
project (SSS). 10/4/2011
10
View looking northwest across portions of SSS and SII
mitigation areas. 9/22/2011
View of farm pond across portions of SSS and SII
mitigation areas. 9/22/2011

Mitigation Plan Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
View of existing wetland looking north across the SII View of northern SII mitigation area looking east from
mitigation area. 9/22/2011 the existing farm road. 9/22/2011
h -4.
View of proposed wetland restoration area looking east View of northern SII mitigation area looking north
across the SSS project and northern portion of the SII from the existing farm road. 9/22/2011
ro'ect. 10/4/2011
- N
View of toe seep wetland area looking northeast in SII. View of southern wetland area in SII looking west.
9/25/2012 9/26/2012
11

Mitigation Plan
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the following parcels. The conservation easement documents were finalized for SSS in March
2013. A copy of the land protection instruments are included in Appendix A.
Stanley's Slough
Stanley's II
Landowners
PIN
County
Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book and
Page Number
Acreage
protected
Parcel
Conservation
w E. Vaughn
4081 -58 -2207
Northampton
DB 336 PG 148
9.0
A
Easement
Parcel
Conservation
Stanley Garriss
4081 -49 -0166
Northampton
DB 875 PG 760
8.5
B
Easement
Stanley's II
12
Landowners
PIN
County
Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book and
Page Number
Acreage
protected
Parcel
Conservation
w E. Vaughn
4081 -58 -2207
Northampton
DB 336 PG 148
0.4
A
Easement
Parcel
Conservation
Stanley Garriss
4081 -49 -0166
Northampton
DB 875 PG 760
8.9
B
Easement
12

Mitigation Plan
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure
i
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
STANLEY GARRISS
PIN: 4081- 49.0166
W. E. VAUGHN Y a
PIN: 4081.58 -2207
i� >w SSS Project Easement
� SII Project Easement
—
„�,«` x _ Project Parcels
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT FIGURE Image Source NG2010
400 2_00 0 400 STANLEY'S SLOUGH [STANLEY'S II Statewide Crthoimagery.
Feet RESTORATION SITES
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, INC
13

Mitigation Plan
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
14
Project Information
Project Name
Stanley's Slough Restoration Site
County
Northampton County
Project Area (acres)
17.6 acres
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.)
36.539006 N, - 77.348222 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Chowan
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03010204
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03010204180040
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -01 -02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
113 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
43.7% forested land, 33.8% rangeland, 22.5% agriculture
Reach Summery Information
Parameters
T1
T2
Length of reach (linear
feet)
3,054
1,220
Valley classification
Valley Type X
Valley Type X
Drainage area (acres)
84 acres
29 acres
NCDWQ Water Quality
Classification
Project Reach Not Classified;
Receiving water = Meherrin River (C; NSW)
Project Reach Not Classified;
Receiving water = Meherrin River (C; NSW)
Morphological Description
(stream type)
N /A— ditched channel
N /A— ditched channel
Evolutionary trend
Channelized
Channelized
Mapped Soil Series
Tomotley, Roanoke, Altavista, Wehadkee
Altavista, Roanoke
Drainage class
Poorly drained, poorly drained, moderately
well drained, poorly drained
Moderately well drained, poorly drained
Soil Hydric status
Drained hydric
Drained hydric
Slope
0.2%
0.06%
FEMA classification
Zone X, parts in Zone AE(backwater of
Meherrin River)
Zone X, parts in Zone AE (backwater of
Meherrin River)
Existing vegetation
Crops, pasture
Crops, pasture
Percent composition of
exotic invasive vegetation
o
0/
0
0/
14

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Project Information continued - Stanley's Slough Restoration Site
Existing Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Area 1*
Area 2*
Area 11*
Size of Wetland (acres)
2.26 acres
0.88 acres
0.01 acres
Wetland Type
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Roanoke
Roanoke
Tomotley
Drainage class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Hillside seepage and precip.
Hillside seepage and precip.
Hillside seepage and precip.
Hydrologic Impairment
Ditching and Cattle damage
Ditching and Cattle damage
Ditching and Cattle damage
Existing vegetation
Crops, Pasture
Crops, Pasture
Crops, Pasture
Percent composition of
exotic invasive vegetation
0%
0/ o
0
0/
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States— Section
404
Yes
Applying for NWP 27
Jurisdictional
Determination
Waters of the United States— Section
401
Yes
Applying for NWP 27
Jurisdictional
Determination
Endangered Species Act **
No
N/A
N/A
Historic Preservation Act **
No
N/A
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act **
(CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
In process
FEMA Floodplain Checklist
Essential Fisheries Habitat **
No
N/A
N/A
* Refer to Jurisdictional Determination wetland delineation map in Appendix B for numbering.
** Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B.
15

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
M
Project Information
Project Name
Stanley's II Restoration
Site
County
Northampton County
Project Area (acres)
9.4 acres
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.)
34.922569 N , - 77.319871 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Chowan
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03010204
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03010204180040
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -01 -02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
80 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
53.0% forested
land, 34.9% rangeland, 12.1% agriculture
Existing Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Area 3*
Area 7*
Area 8*
Area 9*
Area 10*
Area 11*
Size of
Wetland
0.01 acres
0.02 acres
0.20 acres
0.72 acres
0.14 acres
0.04 acres
(acres)
Wetland
Type
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Roanoke,
Mapped Soil
Roanoke
Tomotley
Tomotley
Tomotley,
Winton with
Tomotley
Series
Roanoke
Pelham
inclusions
Drainage
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
class
Soil Hydric
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Status
Source of
Hillside
Hillside
Hillside
Hillside
Hillside
Hillside
Hydrology
seepage and
seepage and
seepage and
seepage and
seepage and
seepage and
precip.
precip.
precip.
precip.
precip.
precip.
Hydrologic
Ditching and
Ditching and
Ditching and
Ditching and
Ditching and
Ditching and
Impairment
Crops
Crops
Crops
Crops
Crops
Crops
Existing
Crops, Pasture
Crops, Pasture
Crops, Pasture
Crops, Pasture
Crops, Pasture
Crops, Pasture
vegetation
Percent
composition
of exotic
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
invasive
vegetation
M

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Project Information continued - Stanley's II Restoration Site
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section
Jurisdictional
Yes
Applying for NWP 27
404
Determination
Waters of the United States — Section
Jurisdictional
Yes
Applying for NWP 27
401
Determination
Endangered Species Act **
No
N/A
N/A
Historic Preservation Act **
No
N/A
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act **
(CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management
No
N/A
N/A
Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
In process
Checklist
Essential Fisheries Habitat **
No
N/A
N/A
* Refer to Jurisdictional Determination wetland delineation map in Appendix B for numbering.
** Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B.
17

Mitigation Plan
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
The sites are part of the 03010204 USGS Cataloging Unit (Meherrin Watershed) located within the
Chowan River Basin. The Chowan River Basin straddles the border of North Carolina and Virginia and is
populated throughout with small municipalities. The populations of the counties within the watershed
are stable or minimally declining and land use is predominately agricultural. For this reason, the
restoration priorities laid out by EEP focus on mitigating impact to streams and wetlands from
agricultural use (NCDENR EEP, 2009).
The project watershed for the SSS comprises 113 acres. Current land use in the project watershed
consists of forested land (49.2 ac/ 43.7 %), rangeland (38.1 ac/ 33.8 %), and agriculture (25.3 ac / 22.5 %).
The project watershed drains from the south and east into the project site. The project watershed for
the SII is made up of 80 acres and is located within the watershed for the SSS. Current land use in the
project watershed consists of forested land (42.6 ac/ 53.0 %), rangeland (28.0 ac/ 34.9 %), and agriculture
(9.7 ac/ 12.1 %). The impervious surface within both project watersheds is limited to impervious areas
within rural residential properties, amounting to less than 1% of the total drainage area. The nearest
named downstream water body is Fountains Creek located in southern Virginia, which drains to the
Meherrin River. The project area is located in the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Margarettsville, North Carolina, Quadrangle (2010).
4.2 Reach Summary Information
Stanley's Slough
Existing Conditions
The streams at the SSS have historically been impacted by channelization, surrounding row crop
production, and cattle grazing. Two separate streams make up the site: Tributary 1 (T1) begins in the
southwestern project corner and flows north. Tributary 2 (T2) flows east to join T1 and comes onto the
site from the west. T1 then flows north to the project boundary where it continues to flow north into
the swamp system surrounding the Meherrin River. Both streams are headwater channels due to their
small drainage areas. The broad flat topography of the site means that the streams have minimal slope
and are slow- moving systems. Section 2.6 Current Conditions Plan View shows the existing conditions at
the SSS and site photographs are included in Section 2.8.
T1 begins in the southwestern corner of the property and is a perennial first -order stream that is
channelized for approximately 1,700 linear feet before being ditched through the middle of a slight
drainage divide until connecting with T2. T1 originates from a perennial seep in the middle of a field
used for livestock grazing. This part of the stream has been ditched and numerous surficial field drains
have been cut into the field that drains to T1. After T2 joins T1, T1 flows east with row crops on either
side of it. T2's hydrology comes from the surface flows from a swale that drains from a forested area to
the west, surface flows from the surrounding fields, and groundwater. After T1 reaches a wood line, it
continues to be ditched until it turns north at the end of the project into a forested section that appears
to have been clear cut within the past 10 years.
The project was evaluated using the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form on October 19, 2011 (Appendix
C). The NCDWQ form was used to determine if the tributaries were classified as perennial or
intermittent streams. A numerical value of at least 30 points is determined from the NCDWQ stream
identification form to classify the stream as a perennial stream (NCDENR, 2010). Project reach T1, which
18

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
is currently an upstream reach of T2, scored a numerical value of 31.75 points and was classified as a
stream.
Channel Classification
Channel Morphology (Pattern, Dimension, and Profile)
A Rosgen Level II assessment was conducted to gather existing stream dimension, pattern, and profile
data to determine the degree of channel instability. Channel cross - sections were surveyed at seven
representative locations along the project; three locations on T1, two locations on T2, and two locations
on the relic channel in SSS. Data developed from these surveys are presented in a channel morphology
summary in Appendix C.
Channel Stability Assessment
The channels being restored in the SSS are maintained as agricultural ditches and are not considered
highly unstable. As reflected in the project goals and objects, sediment is not a large concern at this site.
For these reasons, a Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) evaluation was not conducted for the project.
eankfull Verification
The standard methodology used in natural channel design is based on the ability to select the
appropriate bankfull discharge and generate the corresponding bankfull hydraulic geometry from a
stable reference system(s). The determination of bankfull stage is typically the most critical component
of the natural channel design process. However, given that this is a headwater project, the channel
design will not have traditional bankfull -based morphology. Therefore, bankfull is not relevant to this
particular project.
With the exception of the relic channel in the woods, project reaches within the SSS are altered
(ditched) channels. T1 is a perennial first -order channelized stream that receives hydrology from a
perennial spring at the beginning of the reach. T2 is also a perennial first -order channelized stream that
receives hydrology from T1 in addition to groundwater sources. The relic channel of T1 is not
channelized and follows a more natural stream morphology. This channel was historically part of an
existing wetland /stream complex with lower banks and high width /depth ratios.
While KCI is not developing a traditional bankfull channel based on specific reference reach ratios or
regional curve geometry, an alternative design process has been used to develop the criteria for the
restoration of the headwater wetland /streams on site. As evidenced by the data collected in the relic
channel in the wooded section of the project and from visual observations in adjacent reaches with
more natural flow patterns, these headwater wetland /stream systems generally have a low flow
channel associated with them. These low flow channels are morphologically highly variable and the
conditions in the wooded section were used as a guide to develop what the headwater stream /wetland
restoration should look like. Some of the observations that contributed to this concept include: in many
instances the low flow channel not being in the center or even the lowest part of the valley; that
numerous side channels can be almost the same size as the low flow channel; that sometimes side
channels are nonexistent and the low flow channel conveys a greater concentrated flow; that the size
and dimensions of the low flow channel vary depending on governing valley morphology; and that the
profiles have some areas of high variability and other areas with little grade change. These qualities, and
the morphological parameters of the relic channel, contributed to the design plan for the restoration of
the ditched streams on site.
19

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
In the project plan sheets (Appendix D), there is a set range of dimensions for the low flow channel.
Given this range of dimensions and the designed grade of the floodplain, the designer will work with the
equipment operator to grade this low flow channel through the valley. Similar to the wooded area, the
low flow channel will be experience minor variations in size, the profile and planform will vary
depending on the controlling valley morphology, and there will be smaller side channels throughout the
width of the valley. It is the intention of the design for the low flow channel to be undersized, so that
during most precipitation events and dependent on the seasonal elevation of the water table, the low
flow channel capacity is exceeded and additional overbank flow is spread throughout the valley,
accessing multiple flow paths. An example of what the constructed channel cross - section could look like
is best illustrated by existing Cross - Section 6. This cross - section has a primary channel, but there are also
low areas adjacent to the channel that have flow in them during storm events. The other cross - section
from the wooded area, Cross - Section 7 is an example of how the primary channel is not in the exact low
point in the valley. Here the channel has a depression adjacent to it that may or may not have an outlet
to the primary channel. These two cross - sections are indicative of the natural variation found in these
systems and discussed above. It is expected that as vegetation grows in and around the stream valley,
the form of the channels could experience minor variations, with some portions becoming thick with
vegetation and causing a rerouting of the predominant low flow channel to occur. The final stable form
of this channel evolution is a low flow channel whose location and morphological condition are set by
the mature vegetation around it. This is the natural progression for these systems. As these systems
change over time, they are still considered stable, with any rate of change happening slowly and over
long time periods. Erosion is not a problem in these systems because the minimal sediment that is
generated from the changing channel form is captured within the site's dense vegetation.
Stanley's II
Not applicable for this project.
4.3 Wetland Summary Information
Based on field topographic survey data and LIDAR elevation data, the contours at SSS and SII range from
42 — 78 feet. The topography of the sites begins with the highest elevations at the southeastern edge of
the site boundaries, and extending from there to the west and up towards the northeastern most
corner. The elevation decreases quickly as one moves from the southeastern corner to the center of the
sites. The drained hydric soils at the sites experience approximately a 4 feet change in elevation as the
slope grades down slightly from the center and out of the northeastern corner.
Stanley's Slough
Existing Wetlands
Currently, small areas of wetland exist along the relic channel in the forested portion of the site as well
as throughout T1 and T2. These areas were delineated by KCI wetland scientists and the boundaries
were confirmed through a jurisdictional determination with the US Army Corps of Engineers (Section
4.4). The goal of this project will be to join these areas to a larger whole with a braided stream /wetland
complex. The wetland data forms are included in Appendix B.
T1 drains the site south to north until the confluence with T2, where the site drains west to east. The
relic channel is primarily dry, but during rain events the channel picks up seepage from the southern
hillside and flows to the east. Any flow through these woods is separated from the downstream wetland
system because of the farm road that cuts off flow from west to east. Pockets of standing water are
20

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
present throughout this area. Wetlands outside of the forested area are found within the banks of T1
and T2.
Vegetation
The project includes a mature wooded area east of the existing T1 channel and south of T2. This
bottomland area contains the relic channel for T1 and a series of drained braided channels that weave
through mature trees. The bottomland has a variety of tree species, including: persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), American holly (Ilex opaca), willow oak (Quercus phellos), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii). A more mature forest is located north of the
SSS and is composed of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), swamp tupelo (Nyssa aquatic), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak (Quercus nigra), American holly (Ilex
opaca), American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla), river
birch (Betula nigra), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana).
Stanley's ll
Existing Wetlands
SII has been impacted by a history of ditching, surrounding row crop production, and cattle grazing.
Despite efforts to effectively drain wetlands on the property, several small areas of existing wetland
exist within the SII. These areas were delineated by KCI wetland scientists and the boundaries were
confirmed through a jurisdictional determination with the US Army Corps of Engineers (Section 4.4). The
existing wetlands are generally located in depressions or along man -made drainage features created to
drain the adjacent pastureland. Approximately 1.1 acres of existing wetlands exist within SII. The goal of
this project will be to join these areas to a larger whole with the stream /wetland complex of the SSS.
The wetland data forms are included in Appendix B.
Drained wetlands within the SII generally flow in a northwesterly direction towards T1. Strong
indications of seepage flow exist along the terrace slope that runs along the eastern boundary of the SII.
Three ditched channels are located within the southern portion of the SII easement. These ditches serve
to drain the surrounding areas along T1.
The northern portion of the SII is currently a soybean field that shows evidence of prolonged exposure
to inundation in many areas of the field. The northern portion of SII is drained by a tributary that runs to
the north of the site as well as by a ditch that runs to the east of the field. A 100' wide electric
transmission line easement is located along the tree line in the southern portion of the field. South of
the soybean field, this section of SII extends into the woods and joins with the proposed easement for
the SSS project. This area which includes degraded and drained wetland areas is characterized by a mix
of forested and scrub -shrub species.
Vegetation
The bottomland has a variety of tree species, including: persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American holly (Ilex opaca), willow oak (Quercus
phellos), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii). A ditch
serves to drain a portion of this area and hydrology has been diverted from the area by upstream
ditching.
21

Mitigation Plan
4.4 Regulatory Considerations
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
A jurisdictional determination was approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers on November 29, 2012
for the SSS and on October 3, 2012 for the SII. Following the completion of the mitigation plan, a pre -
construction notification (PCN) will be completed to apply for a Nationwide 27 Permit (NWP) to comply
with Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act with the Wilmington District of the US Army Corps of
Engineers and the NCDENR Division of Water Quality.
Once the jurisdictional boundaries of the wetlands were determined and formalized through the
jurisdictional determination process, KCI evaluated the potential of restoring functions of the existing
and drained wetland areas using the definitions of "rehabilitation" and "reestablishment" provided in 40
CFR Part 230 (Final Rule). Although these definitions were adopted in 2008, the use of these terms to
justify restoration had not previously been applied to NC EEP full delivery projects. As such, KCI initiated
discussions with the US Army Corps of Engineers regarding the applicability of these definitions to this
project. Appendix B contains the negotiated results of KCI's discussions of the assets associated with
both the SSS and SII projects. This negotiation was used as the basis for the credit scenarios presented
in this report.
SSS and SII are located within a FEMA Zone AE for the backwater of the Meherrin River. A no -rise flood
study is expected for this project.
22

Mitigation Plan
5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Stanley's Slough Restoration Site, Northampton County
EEP Contract 004635; EEP Project Number 95356
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Stream
Riparian
Non - riparian
Buffer
Nutrient
Nutrient
Wetland
Wetland
Offset
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Linear Feet/ Acres
4,274
3.6
Credits
4,274
3.1
TOTAL CREDITS
Project Components
Project
Restoration
Component
Stationing/
Existing
Approach
-or-
Restoration
Mitigation
Footage/
Footage
-or-
Location
(PI, PH etc.)
Restoration
Ratio
Reach ID
Acreage
Equivalent
or Acreage
Trib 1
10 +00 -41 +55
2,600
N/A
Restoration
3,054
1:1
Trib 2
50 +00 —62+85
1,220
N/A
Restoration
1,220
1:1
Wetland
Reestablishment
Restoration
2.8
1:1
Wetland
Rehabilitation
Restoration
0.8
2.5:1
Wetland
NA
0.5
NA
Preservation
Component Summation
Buffer
Restoration
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian Wetland
Upland
(square
Level
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
feet)
Non -
Riverine
Riverine
Restoration
4,274
3.1
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
High Quality
Preservation
TOTAL
4,274
3.1
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement
23

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Stanley's II Restoration Site, Northampton County
EP Contract 5151; EEP Project Number 95838
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Riparian
Non - riparian
Stream
Buffer
Nutrient
Nutrient
Wetland
Wetland
Offset
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Acres
7.6
Credits
6.9
TOTAL CREDITS
Project Components
Project
Restoration
Component
Stationing/
Existing
Approach
-or-
Restoration
Mitigation
Footage/
Footage
-or-
Location
(PI, PH etc.)
Restoration
Ratio
Reach ID
Acreage
Equivalent
or Acreage
Wetland
Reestablishment
Restoration
6.5
1:1
Wetland
Rehabilitation
Restoration
1.1
2.5:1
Component Summation
Buffer
Restoration
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian Wetland
Upland
(square
Level
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
feet)
Non
Riverine
Riverine
Restoration
6.9
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
High Quality
Preservation
TOTAL
AL
6.9
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement
24

Mitigation Plan
6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation sites. 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:
Forested Wetlands Credits
Monitoring
Interim
Total
Credit Release Activity
Year
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation — see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
40%
standards are being met
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
50%
standards are being met
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
60%
standards are being met
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
70%
standards are being met
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
80%
standards are being met; Provided that all performance standards are
met, the IRT may allow the NCEEP to discontinue hydrologic monitoring
after the fifth year, but vegetation monitoring must continue for an
additional two years after the fifth year for a total of seven years.
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
90%
standards are being met
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
100%
standards are being met, and project has received close -out
approval
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:
- Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
- Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property
- 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.
25

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
- Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve
of 15% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bank -full events have occurred, in
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. 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.

Mitigation Plan Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Target Wetland Types and Plant Communities
Stanley's Slough
Disturbed areas of T1 and T2 will be planted with species from the Headwater Forest Community
(NCWAM, v. 4.1 2010) as well as other similar species that have been observed in the adjacent wetland
areas. The planting plan in the attached project plan sheets (Appendix D) lists these areas as the
Wetland Planting Plan and the Stream Planting Plan. These two areas have many of the same species,
differing only slightly based on the distribution of species. The restored wetlands and the part of T1 that
will be returned to the relic channel will not receive wholesale planting because these areas are already
forested. Any areas that have a low density of existing vegetation will be supplementally planted with
the species listed above for T1 and T2. Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of 968 stems per
acre (9 feet x 5 feet spacing) to achieve a survivability of two hundred ten (210) live planted stems per
acre after seven years. Woody vegetation planting will be conducted during dormancy. Species to be
planted may consist of the following and any substitutions from the planting plan will be taken from this
list:
Headwater Forest Communitv - Wetland and Stream Plantine Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator
Tag alder
Alnus serrulata
FACW
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
FACW
Persimmon
Diospyros virginiana
FAC
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
FACW
River birch
Betula nigra
FACW
Tulip poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
FACU
Sweet bay
Magnolia virginiana
FACW
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
OBL
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
OBL
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
FACW
Laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
FACW
Water oak
Quercus nigra
FAC
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
FAC
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
OBL
Red maple
Acer rubrum
FAC
American elm
Ulmus americana
FAC
An herbaceous seed mix composed of appropriate native species will also be developed and used to
further stabilize and restore the wetland.
Stanley's 11
Restored riparian wetland areas will be planted with species from the Headwater Forest Community
(NCWAM, v. 4.1 2010) as well as other similar species that have been observed in the adjacent wetland
areas. For the SII areas, it is called the Wetland Planting Plan in the project plan sheets (Appendix D).
Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of 968 stems per acre (9 feet x 5 feet spacing) to achieve a
survivability of two hundred ten (210) live planted stems per acre after seven years. The unvegetated
areas that are not in hydric soils and are upland will be planted as a transitional zone. The planting plan
27

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
lists these areas as the Upland Planting Plan. Woody vegetation planting will take place during
dormancy. The headwater stream /wetland systems will be planted as Headwater Forest communities
(NCWAM, v. 4.12010) and may consist of the following:
Headwater Forest Communitv - Wetland Plantine Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator
Tag alder
Alnus serrulata
FACW
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
FACW
Persimmon
Diospyros virginiana
FAC
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
FACW
River birch
Betula nigra
FACW
Tulip poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
FACU
Sweet bay
Magnolia virginiana
FACW
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
OBL
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
OBL
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
FACW
Laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
FACW
Water oak
Quercus nigra
FAC
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
FAC
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
OBL
Red maple
Acer rubrum
FAC
American elm
Ulmus americana
FAC
Transitional Zone - Upland Plantine Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator
Beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
FACU
Persimmon
Diospyros virginiana
FAC
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
FACW
American holly
Ilex opaca
FACU
Tulip poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
FACU
Sweet bay
Magnolia virginiana
FACW
Black cherry
Prunus serotina
FACU
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
FACW
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
FAC
Pin oak
Quercus palustris
FACW
Southern red oak
Quercus falcata
FACU
American elm
Ulmus americana
FAC
A herbaceous seed mix composed of appropriate native species will be developed and used to further
stabilize and restore the headwater stream /wetland complex and buffer zones following construction.
The project easements will be marked and surveyed as per EEP's requirements contained within
http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /eep /fd- forms - templates. The boundary marking plan is described in the
attached project plan sheets (Appendix D).
28

Mitigation Plan
7.2 Design Parameters
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Stanley's Slough
The mitigation approach for the SSS will aim to restore the headwater stream /wetland complex that
drains to the Meherrin River. The available historic data, detailed soils mapping, and topographic and
geographic positions suggest that a headwater forest used to exist in the lowland areas of the site
(NCWAM, v. 4.1 2010). The site will be restored to a condition that resembles the former
stream /wetland community.
While the credit type and ratio for this project generally follow the framework of the restoration
mitigation type, these mitigation types have been further refined to be considered either
reestablishment or rehabilitation, which are both forms of restoration. Reestablishment occurs where
the functions are returned to the site where an aquatic resource previously existed. Rehabilitation
results in an improvement in most, if not all, aquatic resource functions at a degraded site (40 CFR Part
230). Based upon discussions with the IRT, it was decided that using these more specific mitigation types
was the best way to address the fact that the existing conditions and current suite of functions are
different for these restoration areas. The results of these discussions are different ratios for
rehabilitation and reestablishment, although they are both considered restoration credit. The
correspondence related to this discussion is included in Appendix B.
Mitigation actions will focus on filling the dredged channels and creating a shallow braided headwater
stream /wetland complex. Each of the individual restoration reaches have valley widths >100' and will be
approached in a manner consistent with the guidance document Information Regarding Stream
Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (USACE, 2007). This design aims to restore the function
of these systems, applying the guidance as described in that document for restoring riparian headwater
systems.
The restored streams will not be a single thread channel, but instead there will be multiple threads that
will meander through a valley bottom, similar to existing reference systems found at the site. In these
areas (channelized portions of T1 and T2), the stream /wetland valley will be protected by a 120' wide
conservation easement (60' on either side of the wetland valley). T1 will also be reconnected to the relic
forested headwater stream /wetland complex, which in turn will restore hydrology to the adjacent
drained riparian wetlands
For the first 1,700 linear feet of T1, the channelized stream will be redeveloped into a gently sloping
(0.2 %, matching the slope of the channel in the existing wooded area) headwater stream valley. This will
place shallow diffuse flow at the surface, creating a braided stream system. In this part of T1, the
resource will be rehabilitated, since there will be an improvement to the entire suite of functions for the
stream system. By eliminating the ditched channel and returning the flow to a braided system all of the
wetland /stream functions will be improved and the functions of the system will be significantly
increased compared to the existing conditions.
When T1 approaches the tree line where it is currently ditched to the north, the restoration will connect
the stream to the relic forested headwater stream /wetland system. By returning the hydrologic source
to this relic stream /wetland system, the resource will be reestablished. By effectively rebuilding the
system in this location the historic functions will be returned to this resource and there will be an overall
gain in the resource area and function. Because there is already a stable system of braided channels that
will be reclaimed, there will be minimal impact to the existing forested buffer. This diffuse channel will
29

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
continue until it reaches an existing road and flows through a culvert under an existing road. The ditch
to the north of T1, which currently connects drainage from T1 to T2, will be filled. Hydrology in T2 will
continue to be driven by groundwater and precipitation inputs upstream of the ditch.
Adjacent to the section of T1 through the forested area, wetlands will be reestablished and
rehabilitated. Where the hydric soils are anticipated to regain wetland hydrology because of the stream
being reconnected to the adjacent historic channel, wetland functions will be returned to these
resources, resulting in wetland reestablishment. Where there are currently low lying areas that exhibit
compromised wetland functions, the suite of functions will be greatly improved with this hydrologic
regime change, resulting in wetland rehabilitation. At the current farm road, there will be culverts
installed to continue the proper alignment of the wetland /stream valley. Currently there is no hydrologic
connection between the western and eastern sides of the road, except when the road is overtopped.
This will extend the stream reestablishment to the eastern side of the road where it flows into a channel
that leads north to the confluence with T2.
Similarly to T1, T2 will be rehabilitated by grading the channelized stream into a headwater
stream /wetland valley in its place. The restored stream will leave shallow diffuse flow at the surface,
creating a braided stream system similar to the rehabilitation for the upper portion of T1. At the
beginning of T2 the area will be developed into a wetland seep, where the headwater stream /wetland
valley begins. There is an existing culvert approximately halfway down T2, which will remain in place.
Please see the mitigation overview in Section 7.4 and the project plan sheets included in Appendix D.
The following elements of functional uplift, increase, and improvement are expected from this project:
1. Increase in groundwater recharge
2. Increase in sediment trapping and filtration
3. Increase in carbon storage
4. Increase in biochemical cycling of nutrients and other pollutants
5. Increase in habitat utilization by wildlife (migrants and residents)
6. Increase in landscape patch structure
Summary
Stream Restoration (Rehabilitation and Reestablishment) — 4,274 linear feet
The existing channelized reaches, T1 (3,054 linear feet) and T2 (1,220 linear feet), will be filled and
graded to a headwater stream /wetland complex. The restored streams will have shallow diffuse flow,
creating a braided stream system. The relic channel will be restored to reconnect site hydrology to
historic flow paths.
Riparian Wetland Restoration (Rehabilitation and Reestablishment) — 3.6 acres
The drained hydric soils adjacent to the relic forested stream /wetland valley will be restored to riparian
wetland as part of the restoration of T1. There are also existing riparian wetlands that will be included
within this part of the project and protected under the conservation easement. Wetland hydrology will
be restored to the drained hydric soils when T1 is redirected to the existing relic channel, raising the
groundwater elevations and providing overbank flow. The functional uplift will be significant in this
wetland system because there is already a mature canopy of appropriate tree species. Following the
completion of site grading, the riparian wetland will be planted as Headwater Forest Community as
described in Section 7.1. Proposed project conditions are shown in Section 7.4.
30

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Reference Wetland
A suitable reference wetland was found approximately 900 feet north of the northeastern edge of the
SSS, within the Garriss parcel. The reference wetland is comprised of deciduous hardwoods over a shrub
layer and is consistent with the Headwater Forest Community that will be the target wetland type at the
project site. A groundwater monitoring well has been installed to document the reference wetland
hydrology during the course of monitoring.
Stanley's 11
The mitigation approach for SII will aim to restore and enhance the headwater wetland complex that
drains to the Meherrin River. The restored riparian system will resemble a Headwater Forest community
(NCWAM, v. 4.1). Mitigation actions will focus on filling ditches, developing and redirecting productive
seeps, enhancing soil structure through targeted surface manipulation, and integrating the wetland area
into the adjacent headwater stream /wetland complex. When the grading work is complete, the site will
be stabilized with a native seed mix and planted with woody species typically found in a Headwater
Forest community.
While the credit type and ratio for this project generally follow the framework of the restoration
mitigation type, these mitigation types have been further refined to be considered either
reestablishment or rehabilitation, which are both forms of restoration. Reestablishment occurs where
the functions are returned to the site where an aquatic resource previously existed. Rehabilitation
results in an improvement in most, if not all, aquatic resource functions at a degraded site (40 CFR Part
230). Based upon discussions with the IRT, it was decided that using these more specific mitigation types
was the best way to address the fact that the existing conditions and current suite of functions are
different for these restoration areas. The results of these discussions are different ratios for
rehabilitation and reestablishment, although they are both considered restoration credit. The
correspondence related to this discussion is included in Appendix B.
With the upper portion of T1 to the west, the southern portion of SII contains a mix of existing and
drained wetlands. The existing drainage ditches and low lying areas, which drain SII to T1, will be graded
to reconnect the wetland complex as a whole. This will be considered wetland rehabilitation in the low
lying areas where there are minimally functioning wetlands currently. Where there are currently drained
hydric soils adjacent to these wet areas, the wetlands will be reestablished, by the grading and filling of
drainage features. This will maximize the functional uplift potential of both the SII and the SSS by
incorporating upland buffers as well as additional and improved wetland acreage in this area of the site.
The northern portion of the SII easement also contains a mix of existing and drained wetlands. The
majority of this area will be reestablished through ditch filling, drainage area re- establishment (from the
SSS), and development of the adjacent wetland areas within the soybean field. Please see the mitigation
overview in Section 7.4 and the project plan sheets included in Appendix D. The following elements of
functional uplift, increase, and improvement are expected from this project:
1. Increase in flood storage
2. Increase in groundwater recharge
3. Increase in sediment trapping and filtration
4. Increase in carbon storage
5. Increase in biochemical cycling of nutrients and other pollutants
6. Increase in habitat utilization by wildlife (migrants and residents)
7. Increase in landscape patch structure
31

Mitigation Plan Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
8. Increase in shade and temperature control for the aquatic resources
Summary
Riparian Wetland Restoration (Rehabilitation and Reestablishment) — 7.6 acres
The drained hydric soil areas within the project site will be restored to riparian wetland as part of this
project and the marginal existing wetlands will be improved.
Reference Wetland
The same reference wetland used for the SSS will also be used as a reference site for the SII.
7.3 Data Analysis
In order to model the effect of filling the onsite ditches and grading the wetland restoration areas of SSS
and SII, DRAINMOD was used to simulate the before and after conditions. DRAINMOD is a computer
simulation water balance model that follows the groundwater elevation in the surface profile using soil
inputs, climatic data, and drainage conditions (NCSU, 2013). It was originally developed for agricultural
drainage design, but has been adapted for evaluating wetland hydrology due to its modeling of poorly
drained soils over a time step.
Two different models were used for SII based on the restoration areas that have primarily either
Tomotley or Roanoke soils. Climatic data (daily rainfall and maximum and minimum daily temperatures)
were obtained from the Jackson, North Carolina COOP Station (314456), approximately 10 miles from
the site and the closest station with at least 50 years of data. For the model simulation, 60 years of
available data were used (1953- 2012). The daily rainfall was distributed to an hourly increment within
the computer program. The temperatures were used in the Thornthwaite potential evapotranspiration
calculations. The soils data were obtain from the NRCS parameters for the two soil series and from
onsite observations (USDA 1994). The wetland criteria were set to evaluate the success of meeting 9%
continuous saturation (23 days) over the growing period of March 11— November 20 (254 days).
The Tomotley model was developed for the southern portion of the SII restoration area. For the existing
conditions model, the average drain spacing for this area is approximately 200 feet and the average
drain depth is 1.0 between the existing ditches and the channelized stream. The proposed conditions
model has the same drain spacing (assuming a restored headwater stream - wetland complex), but with a
drain depth of 0.5 feet. The surface storage was also increased to 2.0 inches to account for increased
surface roughness in the restored wetland. Based on these conditions, the existing conditions model
showed that wetland hydrology was achieved 0 out of 60 years. For the proposed conditions, the site
achieved wetland hydrology for 41 out of 60 years, or 68% probability of reoccurrence.
The Roanoke model was used for the northern section of SII. The ditch spacing in this area is closer
together at an average of 120 feet. The average drain depth is 1.5 feet deep, primarily due to the
channelized stream. For the proposed condition, the drain spacing was again kept the same and the
drain depth was limited to 0.5 feet with 2 inches of surface storage. The existing conditions model
indicated 1 out of 60 years (2 %) with wetland hydrology whereas the proposed conditions model
predicted 51 out of 60 years, or 85 %.
For the section of wetland in the wooded section of SSS, a relic stream channel exists in this area that
will be reclaimed. Using the existing conditions within this area, the channel is approximately 1 foot
32

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
deep and averages 75 feet wide within the drained hydric soils. Given these conditions, DRAINMOD
models marginal wetland conditions, with hydrology being achieved 32 out 60 years. By restoring the
stream through this section, additional hydrology within the channel will elevate the groundwater table
and produce overbank flooding to restore the hydrologic conditions.
The model results are included in Appendix C.
33

Mitigation Plan
7.4 Proposed Mitigation Plan View
Trib 2 1 IL
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
' a q
r! �.
r
Trib
I Q SSS Proposed Project Boundary (17.6 ac)
! SII Proposed Easement (9.4 ac)
r ® Utility Easement
r
+ – – Headwater Stream Valley Centerline (4,274 If- 3,054 If T1 11,220 if T2)
r Wetland Reestablishment (9.3 ac - 2.8 ac SSS 16.5 ac SI I)
Wetland Rehabilitation (1.9 ac - 0.8 ac SSS 11.1 ac SII)
t Wetland Preservation (0.5 ac SSS)
Stream Reestablishment (3.5 ac SSS)
Stream Rehabilitation (8.0 ac SSS)
o J�
Upland Inclusion (3.6 ac - 1.8 ac SSS 11.8 ac SII)
PROJECT SITE PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN VIEW Source NC2010 rl
200 100 0 200 STANLEY'S SLOUGH ! STANLEY'S II arhop —gery
Feet RESTORATION SITES
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
34

Mitigation Plan
8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
The sites will be monitored on a regular basis, with a physical inspection of the sites conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post- construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years
following site construction and may include the following:
Component /Feature
Maintenance Through Project Close -Out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in-
stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and
Stream
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel
may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head - cutting
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose
Wetland
coir matting and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target
vegetation within the wetland. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the wetland may also 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
Vegetation
include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive
plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and /or chemical methods. Any
vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be
Site Boundary
identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree - blazing, or other means as
allowed by site conditions and /or conservation easement. Boundary markers
disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and /or replaced on an as
needed basis.
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Road Crossing
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or
corridor agreements.
Additionally, a utility right of way exists adjacent to the northern extent of the SII, but because there is
no creditable acreage within this right of way, it is not expected that the utility maintenance will affect
the restored wetland.
35

Mitigation Plan
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Both the SSS and SII will be monitored to determine if the development of the wetland indicators on site
meet the standards for mitigation credit production as presented in Section 5.0. The site will also be
monitored to document the development of the headwater stream system. The credits will be validated
upon confirmation that the success criteria described below are met. The sites will be monitored for
performance standards for seven years after completion of construction.
Headwater Stream Performance
Stream hydrology monitoring will be conducted to determine if the restored headwater streams meet
the proposed performance criteria for headwater stream hydrology and form. The headwater stream
will have continuous surface water flow within the valley, every year for at least 30 consecutive days.
Additionally, the stream must show signs of supporting the restored channel form as documented with
photos. These indicators may include evidence of: scour, sediment deposition and sorting, multiple flow
events, wrack lines and flow over vegetation, leaf litter, or water staining.
Hydrologic Performance
Wetland hydrology monitoring will be conducted to determine if the restored wetland areas meet the
proposed performance criteria for wetland hydrology. The sites will present continuous saturated or
inundated hydrologic conditions for at least 9.0% of the growing season for riparian mitigation areas (2.8
acres for SSS and 6.4 acres for SII) during normal weather conditions based on a conservative estimate.
A "normal" year is based on NRCS climatological data for Northampton County, and using the 30th to
70th percentile thresholds as the range of normal, as documented in the USACE Technical Report
"Accessing and Using Meteorological Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology, April 2000." The soil survey
for Northampton County estimates that the growing season begins March 11 and ends November 20
(254 days).
Section 10 describes the monitoring requirements for the sites. Monitoring will comply with guidance
included in "Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland
Mitigation" (NCDENR EEP, 2011). Hydrologic performance will be determined through evaluation of
automatic recording gauge data supplemented by documentation of wetland hydrology indicators as
defined in the 1987 US ACOE Wetland Delineation Manual, daily data will be collected from automatic
wells over the 7 -year monitoring period following implementation. These data will determine if the
wetland meets the hydrology success criterion of the water table being within 12 inches of the ground
surface continuously for greater than 9.0% of the growing season. Visual monitoring will also be
conducted two times per year in each monitoring year as per the NC EEP guidance referenced above.
Vegetation Success
For both sites, the vegetation success criteria will comply with guidance included in "Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation" (NCDENR EEP, 2011),
which states that the plots must achieve a stem density of 320 stems /acre after three years, 260
stems /acre after five years, and 210 live planted stems /acre after seven years to be considered
successful. In addition to density requirements, plant height will be monitored within the monitoring
plots to ensure that trees average 10 feet in height after seven years.
9 L1.1

Mitigation Plan Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template. The monitoring reports
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.
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
Yes
Groundwater
SSS — 3 gauges distributed in
Annual
Groundwater monitoring gauges with data
Hydrology
the wetland reestablishment
recording devices will be installed on site;
areas; 1 gauge in the wetland
the data will be downloaded on a monthly
rehabilitation area
basis during the growing season
SII - 7 gauges distributed in
the wetland reestablishment
areas; 1 gauge in the wetland
rehabilitation area
Surface Flow
SSS — 9 gauges will be installed
Annual
In addition to the gauge data, physical
throughout the
indicators of flow will be documented and
stream /wetland areas to
reported in the annual monitoring reports.
document surface water
Yes
Vegetation
SSS — 11 permanent
During
Vegetation will be monitored using the
vegetation monitoring plots
monitoring
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols
SII — 9 permanent vegetation
years 1, 2,
monitoring plots
3, 5, and 7.
Yes
Exotic and
Annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation
nuisance
will be mapped
vegetation
Yes
Project
Semi-
Locations of vegetation damage, boundary
boundary
annual
encroachments, etc. will be mapped
The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted during the first full growing season following project
completion. Monitoring shall subsequently be conducted annually for a total period of seven years or
until the project meets its success criteria.
Groundwater elevations will be monitored to evaluate the attainment of jurisdictional wetland
hydrology. Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data
collected within the project area and reference wetland. Automatic recording gauges will be established
within the mitigation areas. Daily data will be collected from the automatic gauges for a minimum of a 7-
year monitoring period following wetland construction. A nearby reference wetland will also be
monitored using the same procedures for comparative analysis (see Appendix B for reference wetland
data sheet and location map).
In the headwater stream /wetland areas of SSS automatic recording gauges will also be installed to
document the presence of surface water. In addition to the presence of surface water, flow indicators,
will also be documented to demonstrate that there are surface flows through the stream /wetland
valley.
Beginning at the end of the first growing season, KCI will monitor the planted vegetation in monitoring
years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 or until the success criterion is met. The survivability of the vegetation plantings
will be evaluated using a sufficient number of 100 mZ vegetative sampling plots randomly placed
37

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
throughout both restored sites. Permanent monuments will be established at the corners of each
monitoring plot and documented by either conventional survey or GPS. These plots will be monitored
according to the current CVS /EEP monitoring protocol. The vegetation monitoring will follow the Level 2
method of the current CVS -EEP protocol ( http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm).
Photograph reference points (PRPs) will be established to assist in characterizing each site and to allow
qualitative evaluation of the site conditions. The location of each photo point will be marked in the
monitoring plan and the bearing /orientation of the photograph will be documented.
Annual monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted after all monitoring tasks for each year are
completed. The report will document the monitored components and include all collected data,
analyses, and photographs. Each report will provide the new monitoring data and compare the most
recent results against previous findings. The monitoring report format will be similar to that set out in
the most recent EEP monitoring protocol.
11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the sites will be transferred to the
NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program. This party shall
be responsible for periodic inspection of the sites to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed
restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently
houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands
Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North
Carolina General Statute GS 113A- 232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only
for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the
compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the
Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction KCI 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, KCI will notify the EEP and the USACE 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 KCI will:
1. Notify the EEP and USACE 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.
38

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
has provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP. This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.
39

Mitigation Plan Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
14.0 OTHER INFORMATION
14.1 Definitions
8 -digit Catalog Unit (CU) — The USGS developed a hydrologic coding system to delineate the country into
uniquely identified watersheds that can be commonly referenced and mapped. North Carolina has 54 of
these watersheds uniquely defined by an 8 -digit number. EEP typically addresses watershed — based
planning and restoration in the context of the 17 river basins (each has a unique 6 -digit number), 54
catalog units and 1,601 14 -digit hydrologic units.
14 —digit Hydrologic Unit (HU) — In order to address watershed management issues at a smaller scale, the
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) developed methodology to delineate and uniquely
identify watersheds at a scale smaller than the 8 -digit catalog unit. A hydrologic unit is a drainage area
delineated to nest in a multilevel, hierarchical drainage system. Its boundaries are defined by
hydrographic and topographic criteria that delineate an area of land upstream from a specific point on a
river, stream or similar surface waters. North Carolina has 1,601 14 -digit hydrologic units.
DWQ— North Carolina Division of Water Quality
EEP — The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement combines existing wetlands restoration initiatives
(formerly the Wetlands Restoration Program or NCWRP) of the N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources with ongoing efforts by the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to offset
unavoidable environmental impacts from transportation- infrastructure improvements.
Native vegetation community — a distinct and reoccurring assemblage of 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.
Project Area - includes all protected lands associated with the mitigation project.
RBRP - The River Basin Restoration Priorities are documents that delineate specific watersheds
(Targeted Local Watersheds) within a River Basin that exhibit both the need and opportunity for
wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration.
TLW - Targeted Local Watershed, are 14 -digit hydrologic units which receive priority for EEP planning
and restoration project funds.
USGS — United States Geological Survey
40

Mitigation Plan Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
14.2 References
40 CFR Part 230. 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. Office of
the Federal Registry, Washington, DC. pp. 19594 - 19705.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report
Y -87 -1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
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.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Lindenmayer, D.B., and J.F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity: A comprehensive multiscaled
approach. Island Press, Washington, DC.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2012a. Surface Water Classification. Last accessed 11/2012 at:
http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /ps /csu
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2012b. 2012 Final 303(d) list. Raleigh, NC. Last accessed 11/2012 at:
http: // portal. ncdenr .org /web /wq /ps /mtu /assessment
NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation. Last accessed 11/2012 at:
http: / /porta1.ncden r.org /c/ document _library /get_file ?p_I_id= 1169848 &folderld = 2288101 &nam
e= DLFE- 39234.pdf
NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Chowan River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009.
Raleigh, NC. Last accessed 12/2012 at: http: // portal .ncdenr.org /c /document_library /
get_file ?uuid= 87802543- d3e1- 4e0a- 803f- cc3354f75cd9 &groupld =60329
North Carolina State University, Soil & Water Management Group. DRAINMOD computer simulation
program. Last accessed 4/2013 at http: / /www.bae. ncsu. edu /soil_water /drainmod /index.html
NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2010. NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) User
Manual, version 4.1. Last accessed 11/2012 at: http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /c /document_
I bra ry /get_file ?u u id= 76f3c58b -dab8- 4960- ba43 -45 b7faf06f4c &grou pfd =38364
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 Weakley, A. S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United
41

Mitigation Plan Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
States: a Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0.
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Water and Climate Center. 2007. RUSLE2 Related
Attributes Table for Northampton, North Carolina. Last accessed 11/2012 at:
http: / /soildatamart .nres.usda.gov /Survey.aspx ?County =NC061
USDA. 1994. Soil Survey of Northampton County, North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture.
VA DEQ. 2012. Draft 2012 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report. Richmond, VA.
Last Accessed 5/2013 at: http: / /www.deq. state. va .us /Programs /Water /WaterQuality
InformationTMDLs/ WaterQualityAssessments /2012305b303d Integrated Report .aspx
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 Science
Advisory Board. Washington, DC.
42

Mitigation Plan
14.3 Appendix A. Site Protection Instrument
43
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
44
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

BK:00976 PG:0760
Northampton CO. 03 -22 -2013
NORTH CAROLINA
Real Estate
Etcise T. =x $401.00
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
SPO File Number 66 -K (1)
EEP Site ID Number 95356 (Stanley's Slough)
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
FILED
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
PAULINE: E. DELOATCH
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FILED Mar 22, 2013
AT 01:51:12 pm
BOOK 009-4 7 6
START PAGE 0760
END PAGE 0769
INSTRUMENT # 005,157
PED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this z� "). day of
AA cz_r c t-,_ , 2013, by Stanley T. Garriss and Wife Linda B. Garriss (collectively,
"Grantor "), whose mailing address is 6523 NC Highway 186, Margarettsville, NC 27853, to the
State of North Carolina, ( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina,
Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699 -1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or
neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 - 214..8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland
and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between KCI Technologies,
Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to provide
stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number 004635.

BK- 00976 PG-0761
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf' of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 81" day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this
instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Wiceacanee Township, Northampton County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 214 net acres,
described on plat recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 178, Northampton County Registry, and being
conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 875 at Page 760 of the
Northampton County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement over the herein
described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the included areas of
the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing
to accept such Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement shall be for the protection
and benefit of Meherrin River.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Easement Area consists of the following:
Conservation Easement #3 containing a total of 5.67 acres as shown on the plat of survey
entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program, Project Name: Stanley Slough Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP
Project #: 95356, SPO #: 66 -K and 66 -L," dated August 23, 2012, revised March 13, 2013 by
James M. Gellenthin, PLS Number L -3860 and recorded in the Northampton County, North
Carolina Register of Deeds at Map Book 43 Page 68 (the "Easement Plat ").
2

BK- 00976 PG: 0762
The Conservation Easement tracts described above are conveyed together with and including a
perpetual nonexclusive right and easement appurtenant for ingress, egress and regress to the
above described Conservation Easement tracts over and across farm paths, crossings and access
areas in- between the Conservation Easement Areas as depicted on the Easement Plat referred to
aboN e.
See attached "Exhibit A ", Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
"Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and /or riparian resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Easement Area in its natural
condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will
significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following
conditions and restrictions are set forth:
L DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly reserved as a
compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is prohibited
as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation credits, including, but
not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived from each site within
the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the Grantee. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are prohibited, restricted, or
reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Easement Area for
the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Easement Area is prohibited.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes including organized

BK:00916 Pt -:0763
educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the property shall
not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Vegetative Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased or
damaged trees, or vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Easement Area is prohibited.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantor reserves the right to mow and maintain vegetation
inside the easement within 6 feet of the fence as shown on the Survey Plat and extending along
the entire length of the fence. The Grantee is not responsible for fence maintenance, but reserves
the right to maintain, repair or replace the fence at the sole discretion of the Grantee.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Easement Area
including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways, or paving
in the Easement Area.
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive signs
describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Easement Area, signs
identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement, signs giving
directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Easement Area is
prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals, or
other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Easement Area. No altering or tampering
with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or
created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into
waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the Easement Area is
prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage of all other water sources,
4

SK-00976 PG -0764
water from within the Easement Area may temporarily be used for good cause shown as needed
for the survival of livestock and agricultural production on the Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the underlying Property owned by the Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ")
that is subject to this Easement is allowed. Unless agreed to by the Grantee in writing, any future
conveyance of the underlying fee and the rights conveyed herein shall be as a single block of
property. Any future transfer of the fee simple shall be subject to this Conservation Easement.
Any transfer of the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and
egress over and across the Property to the Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
0. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non - native plants,
trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC
27699 -1652.
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, are hereby granted and receive a perpetual non - exclusive easement for
access to the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to
restore, construct, manage, maintain, enhance, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the
rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights. The
recommended access to the site from Margarettsville Street is shown on the Easement Plat
referred to above.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place fencing on the Property to restrict livestock access. Although the Grantee is not

EX 00976 PG: 0761
responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the right to repair the fence, at its sole
discretion.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes
of this Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features in the Easement Area
that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or use. Upon any breach of the germs
of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify
the Grantor -in writing of such breach and the Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of
such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the breach. and damage remains
uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing
appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and
other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and authority, consistent with its statutory
authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful
or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in
the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary
restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the
Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law
inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to,
and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this
Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times
for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action
taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
I). Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
0

BK:00976 PG -0766
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either part), establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any rnerger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. 'The owner of the
Property shall notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days prior to the
initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property. Such notification shall be addressed
to: Justin McCorkle, General Counsel, US Army Corps of Engineers, 69 Darlington Avenue,
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be :required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
7

B K: 00976 P G 0707
H. Linda B. Garriss is not an owner of the Property, and joins in this instrument solely for
the purpose of releasing and quitclaiming any rights in or to the Property that she may have or
hereafter acquire under law by virtue of her marriage to Stanley T. Garriss.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Easement
Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment of the
Easement Area
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes.
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in Iree and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
(SEAL)
Stanley T. G# 1s
(SEAL)
Linda B. Garriss

BK:00976 PG-0768
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF n% U R t 14 A hi P% Al
1, L kc,, -(e r JA - .Sl ocA, --J�1— ' a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that Stanley T. Garriss and wife Linda B. Garriss, Grantor,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing
instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of 2013.
Print name: 6.3,- S � Notary Public
My commission expires:
A
U 1
Z S jDUB-0
!!!lllli11111111`"�
9

BK- 00976 FIG-0769
"Exhibit A"
STANLEY T. GARRISS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 3
A parcel of land to be used for Conservation Easement purposes located on lands now or
formerly owned by Stanley T. Garriss (Deed Book 875 Page 760) located in Wiccacanee
Township, Northampton County, North Carolina and being more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of lands now or formerly owned by John William Vaughan
(Deed Book 366 Page 148, Estate Re£# 85 E 71) being on the South line ofa 100 foot Virginia
Electric and Power Company Right of Way, said point having North Carolina State Plane
coordinates of N:1018881.86, E:2484517.06; Thence S 08 °21'37" E on the West line of said
lands owned by John William Vaughan, a distance of 313.33 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Thence S 08 °21'37" E, continuing on the said West line of John William Vaughan, a distance of
222.82 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 24 °59'05" W a distance of 329.96 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 02 °22'26" E a distance of 114.69 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 12 °01'46" W a distance of 278.89 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 20'l F43" W a distance of 346.60 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 11'03'05" W a distance of 294.07 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 19 °13'32" W a distance of 311.40 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 74'19'33" W a distance of 139.72 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 19° 14'58" E a distance of 3 11.3 2 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 12 °00'06" E a distance of 385.06 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 17° 10'59" E a distance of 366.04 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 38 °11'22" E a distance of 18.35 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 21 ° 15'07" E a distance of 132.80 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 04 °50'15" W a distance of 150.91 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 26 °43'54" E a distance of 524.30 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 246,930 square feet or 5.67 acres, more or less.
10

BK :00976 PG-0770
Northampton CO. 03 -22 -2013
(NORTH CAROLINA
Real Estate
Excise Tax $267.00
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
SPO File Number 66 -L
EEP Site ID Number 95356 (Stanley's Slough)
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
l 1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
FILED
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
PAULINE E. DELOATCH
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FILED
Mar 22, 2013
AT
01:53:24 pm
BOOK
00976
START PAGE
0770
END PAGE
0778
INSTRUMENT # 00558
PED
CONSERVATION (EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this day of
0 w- C �1 , 2013, by John William Vaughan, widower ( "Grantor "), whose mailing
address is 253 Margarettsville Street, Margarettsville, NC 27853, to the State of North Carolina,
( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of Administration,
State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 - 132.1. The designations of
Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns,
and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by context.
k "AMILYeI_MR31111 Y: A
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland
and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between KCI Technologies,
Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to provide
stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number 004635.
Vaughan - Conscrvation Easement Arca 4 (3 -13 -1 --;l.cicc.

BK:00976 PG:0771
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this
instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Wiccacanee Township, Northampton County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 40.3 net
acres, and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 366 at Page 148
and 85 -E -71 of the Northampton County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement over the herein
described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the included areas of
the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set forth., and Grantee is willing
to accept such Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement shall be for the protection
and benefit of Meherrin River.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Easement Areas consist of the following:
Conservation Easement 4 containing 8.87 acres as shown on the plat oil survey entitled "Final
Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Project
Name: Stanley Slough Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Project #: 95356,
SPO #: 66 -K and 66 -L," dated August 23, 2012, revised March 13, 2013 by James M.
Gellenthin1 PLS Number L -3860 and recorded in the Northampton County, North Carolina
Register of Deeds at Map Book 43 Page 68 (the "Easement Plat ").
The Conservation Easement tracts described above are conveyed together with and including a
perpetual nonexclusive right and easement appurtenant for ingress, egress and regress to the
Vauwlian - Conservation F�isement ;Area 4 (3 -1 3- l.'�l.dcc
2

BK- 00976 PG:0772
above described Conservation Easement tracts over and across Margarettsville Road ( a public
right of way), farm paths, crossings and access areas in- between the Conservation Easement
Areas as depicted on the Easement Plat referred to above.
See attached "Exhibit A ", Legal Description of areas of the Property hereinafter referred to as
the "Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and /or riparian resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Easement Area in its natural
condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will
significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following
conditions and restrictions are set forth:
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly reserved as a
compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is prohibited
as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation credits, including, but
not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived from each site within
the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the Grantee. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are prohibited, restricted, or
reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Easement Area for
the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Easement Area is prohibited.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes including organized
educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the property shall
not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
Vaughan - CoI1SCl"Vatl011 Easement Arca 4 (3- 13- 13).doc.

BK:00976 PC.;: 077;
D. Vegetative Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased or
damaged trees, or vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Easement Area is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Easement Area
including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways, or paving
in the Easement Area.
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive signs
describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the :Easement Area, signs
identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation ]Easement, signs giving
directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Easement Area is
prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals, or
other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Easement Area. No altering or tampering
with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or
created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into
waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the Easement Area is
prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage of all other water sources,
water from within the Easement Area may temporarily be used for good cause shown as needed
for the survival of livestock and agricultural production on the Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the underlying Property owned by the Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ")
that is subject to this Easement is allowed. Unless agreed to by the Grantee in writing, any future
conveyance of the underlying fee and the rights conveyed herein shall be as a single block of
property. Any future transfer of the fee simple shall be subject to this Conservation Easement.
Any transfer of the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and
egress over and across the Property to the Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
Vau,(0han - Conservation Easement Area 4 (3- 13- 13).doc
4

BK:00976 PG:0774
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non - native plants,
trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC
27699 -1652.
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, are hereby granted and receive a perpetual non - exclusive easement for
access to the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to
restore, construct, manage, maintain, enhance, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the
rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights. The
recommended access to the site from Margarettsville Street is shown on the Easement Plat
referred to above. Without limitation of the foregoing, Grantor grants to Grantee, its employees
and agents, successors and assigns, a perpetual non - exclusive easement for access to the land
located North of the Property (now owned by Stanley T. Garriss), along the farm path or road
leading from Margarettsville Street across the Northeast corner of the Property.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place fencing on the Property to restrict livestock access. Although the Grantee is not
responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the right to repair the fence, at its sole
discretion.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation. Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes
of this Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features in the Easement Area
Vat.iglian - Conservation Casement Area 4 (3- 13- 13).d��c

BK:00976 PG-0715
that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms
of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify
the Grantor -in writing of such breach and the Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of
such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the breach and damage remains
uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing
appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and
other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and authority, consistent with its statutory
authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful
or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in
the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary
restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the
Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law
inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to,
and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this
Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times
for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action
taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life- or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
Vaughan - Conservation Casement Area 4 (3- 13- 13).doc
6

BK-00976 PG.-0776
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion. thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee; under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days prior to the
initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property. Such notification shall be addressed
to:.lustin McCorkle, General Counsel, US Army Corps of Engineers, 69 Darlington Avenue,
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Easement
Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted. herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment of the
Easement Area
Vau��han - Conservation Eascinent Area 4 (3- 13- 131.dec
7

BK:00976 PG -0771
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes.
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
s
Jon William Vaughan
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON
1, a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that John William Vaughan, Grantor, personally appeared before
me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WIT ESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the L�-
day of 0-'Q- � , 2013.
Print name: C h &� (er Notary Public
My commission expires: ��� °° ��° �R;•• °••.
' )
Vau-han - Conservation Easement Area 4 (3- 13- 131.dc�c
8

BK- 00976 PG:0778
"Exhibit A"
(Legal Description)
JOHN WILLIAM VAUGHAN
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 4
A parcel of land to be used for Conservation Easement purposes located on lands now or
formerly owned by John William Vaughan (Deed Book 366 Page 148, Estate Ref.# 85 E 71)
located in Wiccacanee Township, Northampton County, North Carolina and being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of said lands owned by John William Vaughan and being on
the South line of a 100 foot Virginia Electric and Power Company Right of Way, said point
having North Carolina State Plane coordinates of N:1018881.86, E:25845117.06;
Thence S 78 °22'05"
E a distance of 274.93 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 71'35'24"
E a distance of 410.13 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 89 °25'53"
E a distance of 76.27 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with ,aluminum cap;
Thence N 50 °22'49"
E a distance of 186.00 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 11 °55'16"
E a distance of 116.11 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 70° 17'48"
E a distance of 65.48 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 51 ° 17'22"
E a distance of 107.30 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 40 °07'40"
E a distance of 98.12 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 06 °08'39"
E a distance of 64.55 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 49 °51'00"
W a distance of 358.82 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 69 °38'33"
W a distance of 230.15 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 08 °47'20"
W a distance of 263.34 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 82 °29'55"
W a distance of 328.41 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 56 °30'16"
W a distance of 164.20 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 19 °51'14"
W a distance of 137.52 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap on the
West line of said lands
owned by John William Vaughan;
Thence N 08 °21'37"
W, on the said West line of John William Vaughan, a distance of 536.15
feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 386,293
square feet or 8.87 acres, more or less.
Vat.i han - Conservation Easement Area 4 (3 -13- 1 3 ).doc

BK:00043 PG0068
10�
F0 4
4tia
CA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
I W&I"11C, REVIEW OFFICER
OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THE MAP
OR PLAT WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED
MEETS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR
RECORDING.
REVI OFF ER DATE
% C
pqisrr3tion at
C
in the office of the R^ Oar
tseeds of Northampton County N C in
:L3- Page
ry �
D L
-doeb A----
Register ;)t 'Deeds
0 .
1, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS MAP WAS DRAWN
UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION,
THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY INDICATED, AS
DRAWN FROM INFORMATION AS SHOWN HEREON; THAT THE RATIO OF
PRECISION AS CALCULATED IS GREATER THAN 1:10,000; THAT THIS MAP
DOES REPRESENT AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY AND HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30 AS AMENDED. WITNESS
MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER AND SEAL TI'A"llrof'o
19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013 " "411 fte,
A.
FURTHER CERTIFY TO THE FOLLOWING AS REQU
E SURVEY IS OF ANOTHER CATEGORY,
S
ATION OF EXISTING JAW eVEY, OR �'A
PARCELS, A COU
PTION TO THE DEF ION OF 1013 IS14.
zm
71 , ]TV
TE
z
AROLINA REGISTRATION NUMBER "L�4 39
I
N/F
U
ES M. GELLENTI IIN N, STANLEY GARRISS
PIN 4081-37-0391
DB 924 PG 170
Liffil
. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
PAULINE E. DELOATCH
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FILED Mar 19, 2013
AT 11:51:33 am
BOOK 00043
START PAGE 0068
i END PAGE 0068
INSTRUMENT # 00528
CCS
STANLEY T. GARRISS
PIN 4081-49-0166
D8 875 PG 760
COJVSERVA 77ON
EA SEAW V r 2
2.29 A CXES
FEE TITLE
TO LAND WTHIN
R/W UNKNOWN
AT TIME OF SURVEY
Poe (I
POO CE
TRANSM. 1 N*101 .86
TOWER I-:"',. 017-06
POB
CE 4
I. THIS PLAT DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PARENT
TRACTS. THE PARENT TRACT BOUNDARIES ADJACENT TO THIS EASEMENT ARE NOT
CHANGED BY THIS PLAT. BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS DERIVED
FROM DEEDS AND MAPS OF RECORD IN NORTHAMPTON COUNTY ALONG WITH
MONUMENTATION FOUND IN THE FIELD.
2. DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES IN U.S. SURVEY FEET
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3. AREA COMPUTED BY COORDINATE TVIFTHOD.
4. THE BASIS OF THE MERIDIANS AND COORDINATES FOR THIS PLAT IS THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM
1983 (NAD 83), BASED ON DIFFERENTIAL GPS OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED IN
AUGUST 2012. ALI, DISTANCES ARE GROUND UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
5. DEED REFERENCES: AS SHOWN HEREON.
6. SUBJECT PROPERTIES KNOWN AS TAX NUMBER: AS SHOWN HEREON.
7. SUBJECT PROPERTIES PARTIALLY LIE PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AREA DESIGNATED AS
ZONE "AE", BASED ON FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 372140800001 EFFECTIVE
FEB. 4, 2009.
8. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATING PERFORMED DURING THE COURSE OF THIS
SURVEY.
9. THE STATE PLANE COORDINATES FOR THIS PROJECT WERE PRODUCED WITH RTK CPS
OBSERVATIONS. THE NETWORK POSITIONAL ACCURACY OF THE RTK DERIVED
POSITIONAL INFORMATION IS 0.02 METER, HORIZONTAL POSITIONS ARE REFERENCED
TO NAD 83 (NSRS2007). VERTICAL POSITIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NAVD88 (GEOID09).
COMBINED SCALE FACTOR= 1.00012880
10, NO AERIAL TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION LINES WERE NOTED OR LOCATED
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND AS SUCH THIS
PROJECT WILL NOT IMPACT AGREEMENTS CONTAINED IN BOOK 509 PAGE 123 AND
BOOK 385 PAGE 151
11. LIVESTOCK EXCLUSION FENCING WILL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAS 1,
2, AND 3 A MAINTENANCE 7
ONE WILL EXTEND 6' INTO THE EASEMENT FROM 'IFIE
F I ENCE LINE. THE PROPERTY OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MOW AND
MAINTAIN THIS 6' WIDE AREA ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE FENCE.
FOUND
CONC.
MON
#12
#42
C0)V$EJTVA rION
EASLrAfLrNr I
f.26 ACRES
EXISTING 50'
WOE CULVERTED
CROSSING TO -
REMAIN
TRANSM.
* TOWER-
X�
DIRT
PATH
POS CE
POC CE #1 02
N:1419 12 (7 E:- 248W78.80
TRANSM.
AA TOWER
#1
PT # NORTHING
1 1019404.12
DIRT
PATH
POINT TABLE
ip
LENGTH 7
0"W"A I W#V
DECRIPTION
82.01
N68'35'44"W
2485678.80
ESMT COR
2
LrASLW6Nr 4
2485602.45
ESMT COR
N/F
1019446.67
STANLEY T. GARRISS
PIN 4081-49-0166
ESMT COR
8.87ACRES
JOHN & KAREN
VAUGHAN
2485256.85
DS 875 PG 760
5
IRON
PIN
2485151.85
PIN 4081-58-6085
6
128
2485398.74
ESMT COR
7
DB
671 PG 354
ESMT COR
8
1019410.74
2485201.83
ESMT COR
9
1019342.01
2484857.71
ESMT COR
10
1019208.72
2484441.39
ESMT COR
11
1019339.50
#27
ESMT COR
JOHN V#IWAM VAUGHAN FOUND
1019464,43
2484783.35
ESMT COR
13
#17
2485088.92
PIN 4081-58-2207 9"
\
1018571.87
2484562.62
tXlS-njVG
15
DS 366 PG 148 POST
2484595.02
ESMT COR
16
1018052.33
POND #26
5
�41
ESTATE REF# 85 E 71
40
2484460.40
ESMT COR
18
1017664.97
2484402.28
ESMT COR
19
1017339.68
2484282.62
ESMT COR
CONSERVA rMA(
1017051.06
2484226.25
ESMT COR
I Q
1016757.03
2484123.71
EAq0WLrNr 3 #18
22
N/F
WILKINS & ELOISE
2483989-19
--411>
mix
10
23
1017088.70
5.67ACRES
ESMT COR
HARRISON
1017465.34
Im
ESMT COR
25
=s rVI
2484280.03
PIN 4081-57-7713
D8 841 PG 526
26
1017829.46
2484291.37
ESMT COR
27
1017953.24
2484339.51
ESMT COR
14F
I t7 I<
1018103.61
POINT TABLE
ip
LENGTH 7
EASTING
DECRIPTION
82.01
N68'35'44"W
2485678.80
ESMT COR
2
1019434.05
2485602.45
ESMT COR
3
1019446.67
-'2-485474.12
ESMT COR
4
1019428.06
2485256.85
ESMT COR
5
1019519.68
2485151.85
ESMT COR
6
1019565.59
2485398.74
ESMT COR
7
1019543.69
2485665.53
ESMT COR
8
1019410.74
2485201.83
ESMT COR
9
1019342.01
2484857.71
ESMT COR
10
1019208.72
2484441.39
ESMT COR
11
1019339.50
2484396.03
ESMT COR
12
1019464,43
2484783.35
ESMT COR
13
1019508.43
2485088.92
ESMT COR
14
1018571.87
2484562.62
ESMT COR
15
1018351.41
2484595.02
ESMT COR
16
1018052.33
2484455.65
ESMT COR
17
1017937.73
2484460.40
ESMT COR
18
1017664.97
2484402.28
ESMT COR
19
1017339.68
2484282.62
ESMT COR
20
1017051.06
2484226.25
ESMT COR
21
1016757.03
2484123.71
ESMT COR
22
1016794.78
2483989-19
ESMT CDR
23
1017088.70
2484091 ,82
ESMT COR
24
1017465.34
2484171.89
ESMT COR
25
1017815.04
2484280.03
ESMT COR
26
1017829.46
2484291.37
ESMT COR
27
1017953.24
2484339.51
ESMT COR
28
1018103.61
2484326.78
ESMT COR
29
1018881.86
248-451706
ESMT COR
30
1018826.43
2484786.35
ESMT COR
31
1018955.96
2485175.49
ESMT COR
32
1018956,71
2485251.76
ESMT COR
33
1019075.32
2485395.03
ESMT COR
34
1019188.93
2485419.02
ESMT COR
35
1019211.01
2485480.66
ESMT COR
36
1019143.91
2485564.39
ESMT COR
37
1019068.88
2485627.62
ESMT COR
38
1019004.70
2485634.53
ESMT COR
39
1018773.34
24853 .26
ESMT CDR
40
1018693.27
2485144.49
ESMT COR
41
1018433.02
2485104.25
ESMT COR
­ESMT
42
1018390.1-1-78.65
COR
43
1018480.76
1 2484641.72
ESMT COR
#24 "M . .9 Ir- pNGSMOM
POST MARGARETTSVILLE
AlT RELAY TOWER
G N! 100079-89
EXISTING N/F E-24WOS.77
LINE TABLE
ip
LENGTH 7
BEARING
LEGEND
82.01
N68'35'44"W
L2
128.95
EXISTING PK NAIL
L3
218.06
S85*06'1 2"W
L4
EXISTING IRON
N48'53'41".W
L5
251,13
N79*27'54"E
L6
19
S8518 25"E
(60
0
5/8" REBAR SET W/ 3.25- ALUMINUM
L8
57.69
S72*31'55"W
L9
CAP WITH STATE SEAL
S78'42'21"W
L10
437.14
A
CALCULATED POINT
138.42
N19*07'46"W
L12
El
EXISTING MONUMENT
L13
308.72
N81*48'23"E
L14
NEW CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR
.01
L15
222.82
508*21'37"E
Llj
"THE STATE OF NC, ECOSYSTEM
S24-59'05"W
L17
114.69
S02 22'26 "E
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM."
278-89
S12 01 46 "W
1-19
POB
POINT OF BEGINNING
L20L
2 0
--294,07
51103 °05 "W
POC
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
Sl 91 3'32"W
L22
139.72
CE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LINE TABLE
LINT
LENGTH 7
BEARING
Lt
82.01
N68'35'44"W
L2
128.95
N84*22'57"W
L3
218.06
S85*06'1 2"W
L4
139.36
N48'53'41".W
L5
251,13
N79*27'54"E
L6
267,68
S8518 25"E
L7
140,20
S05*26'02"E
L8
57.69
S72*31'55"W
L9
350.92
S78'42'21"W
L10
437.14
572'14'47 "W
C11
138.42
N19*07'46"W
L12
406.97
N72*07'21"E
L13
308.72
N81*48'23"E
L14
149.31
549 08'02 "E
L15
222.82
508*21'37"E
Llj
329.96
S24-59'05"W
L17
114.69
S02 22'26 "E
1 8
L18
278-89
S12 01 46 "W
1-19
346.60
S201 1'43"W
L20L
2 0
--294,07
51103 °05 "W
L1
2 1
L21
311.40
Sl 91 3'32"W
L22
139.72
N74'1 9'33 "W
L23 23
311.32
NI 9*1 4'58"E
L24 24
385.06
N12*00'06"E
L
L25
366.04
Nl 7'1 0'59"E
-
L26
15
-
F
8.35
N38- 11'22 "E
L27_
L
132.80
N21-15'07"E
L28
150.91
N04'50'1 5 "W
L29
524.30
N26*43'54"E
L30
274.93
S78*22'05"E
L31
410.13
1\171'35'24 "E
L32
76.27
N89*25'53*'E
L33
186.00
N50*22'49'*E
L34
116.11
N 11 *551 6"E
L35
65,48
N70'1 7'48 "E
L36
107.30
S51 *1 7'22"E
L37
98.12
S40'07'40"E
L38
64.55
506*08'39"E
L39
358.82
S49'51'00"W
L40
230.15
S69*38'33"W
L41
263.34
508*47'20"W
L42
328.41
582*29'55"W
L43
164,20
N56*30'16"W
L44
137.52
S19 51'1 4"W
-1-45
536.15
N08-21.'37'*W
I
I hereby certify that this plat is exempt from the
Subdivision Ordinance of Northampton County, and
may be recorded with the Northampton Co. Register
Of p g a' a other conditions for review
.
Date
GRAPHIC SCALE
250 0 125 250 500
I M
1 INCH - 250 FEET
FINAL PLAT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
FOR
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT NAME: STANLEY SLOUGH WETLAND
AND STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP PROJECT #: 95356
SPO FILE NO. 66-K: PROPERTY OF STANLEY T. GARRISS
SPO FILE NO. 66-L: PROPERTY OF W.E. VAUGHAN HEIRS
WICCACANEE TOWNSHIP, NORTHAMPTQN COUNTY, NC
DATE. SCALE:
AUGUST 23, 2012 1 250' 1 OF 1
REVISED: 3/18/13
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N. C.
I I
a ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
K1 4601 SIX FORKS R6AD, SUITE 220
ASSOCIATES OF RALEIGH, NC 27609
NORTH CAROLINA PHONE [phone] - FAX [phone]
C-0764

Mitigation Plan
.:
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
SPO File Number 66 -N
EEP Site ID Number 95838 (Stanley's I1)
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this day of
, 20, by Stanley T. Garriss and Wife Linda B. Garriss (collectively,
"Grantor "), whose mailing address is 6523 NC Highway 186, Margarettsville, NC 27853, to the
State of North Carolina, ( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina,
Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699 -1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or
neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland
and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between KCI Technologies,
Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to provide
1

stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number 005151.
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this
instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Wiccananee Township, Northampton County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 214 net acres,
described on plat recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 178, Northampton County Registry, and being
conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 875 at Page 760 of the
Northampton County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement over the herein
described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the included areas of
the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing
to accept such Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement shall be for the protection
and benefit of Meherrin River.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Easement Area consists of the following:
Conservation Easement # 5 containing 0.73 acres and Conservation Easement # 6 containing
7.58 acres for a total of 8.31 acres as shown on the plat of survey entitled "Final Plat,
Conservation Easement for North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Project Name:
4

Stanley's 11 Wetland Restoration Project, EEP Project #: 95838, SPO #: 66 -N and 66 -M,"
dated May 17, 2013 by James M. Gellenthin, PLS Number L -3860 and recorded in the
Northampton County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at Map Book Page
The Conservation Easement tracts described above are conveyed together with and including a
perpetual nonexclusive right and easement appurtenant for ingress, egress and regress to the
above described Conservation Easement tracts over and across Margarettsville Road, farm paths,
crossings and access areas in- between the Conservation Easement Areas as depicted on the
above described survey entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Project Name: Stanley's II Wetland Restoration Project,
EEP Project #: 95838, SPO #: 66 -N and 66 -M " dated May 17, 2013 by James M. Gellenthin,_
PLS Number L -3860 and recorded in the Northampton County, North Carolina Register of
Deeds at Map Book Page
See attached "Exhibit A ", Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
"Easement Areas"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and /or riparian resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Easement Area in its natural
condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will
significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following
conditions and restrictions are set forth:
L DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
IL GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly reserved as a
compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is prohibited
as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation credits, including, but
not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived from each site within
the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the Grantee. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are prohibited, restricted, or
reserved as indicated:
3

A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Easement Area for
the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Easement Area is prohibited.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes including organized
educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the property shall
not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Vegetative Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased or
damaged trees, or vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Easement Area is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Easement Area
including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways, or paving
in the Easement Area.
L Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive signs
describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Easement Area, signs
identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement, signs giving
directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Easement Area is
prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals, or
other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Easement Area. No altering or tampering
with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or
M

created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into
waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the Easement Area is
prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage of all other water sources,
water from within the Easement Area may temporarily be used for good cause shown as needed
for the survival of livestock and agricultural production on the Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the underlying Property owned by the Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ")
that is subject to this Easement is allowed. Unless agreed to by the Grantee in writing, any future
conveyance of the underlying fee and the rights conveyed herein shall be as a single block of
property. Any future transfer of the fee simple shall be subject to this Conservation Easement.
Any transfer of the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and
egress over and across the Property to the Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non - native plants,
trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC
27699 -1652.
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, are hereby granted and receive a perpetual non - exclusive easement for
access to the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to
restore, construct, manage, maintain, enhance, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the
rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights. The
recommended access locations to the site from NC Highway 186 and Margarettsville Street are
shown on the plat of survey entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Project Name: Stanley's II Wetland Restoration Project,
EEP Project #: 95838, SPO #: 66 -N and 66 -M," dated May 17 2013 by James M. Gellenthin,
PLS Number L -3860 and recorded in the Northampton County, North Carolina Register of
Deeds at Map Book Page
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
E

prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place fencing on the Property to restrict livestock access. Although the Grantee is not
responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the right to repair the fence, at its sole
discretion.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes
of this Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features in the Easement Area
that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms
of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify
the Grantor -in writing of such breach and the Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of
such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the breach and damage remains
uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing
appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and
other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and authority, consistent with its statutory
authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful
or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in
the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary
restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the
Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law
inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to,
and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this
Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times
for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action
Con

taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life, or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days prior to the
7

initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property. Such notification shall be addressed
to: Justin McCorkle, General Counsel, US Army Corps of Engineers, 69 Darlington Avenue,
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Easement
Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment of the
Easement Area
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes.
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
Stanley T. Garriss
Linda B. Garriss
(SEAL)
(SEAL)

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that Stanley T. Garriss and wife Linda B. Garriss, Grantor,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing
instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 2013.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
I

"Exhibit A"
(Legal Description- Stanley T. Garriss)
STANLEY T. GARRISS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 5
:m
STANLEY T. GARRISS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 6
:m
10

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
SPO File Number 66 -M
EEP Site ID Number 95838 (Stanley's I1)
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this day of
, 20 , by John William Vaughan, widower ( "Grantor "), whose mailing
address is 253 Margarettsville Street, Margarettsville, NC 27853, to the State of North Carolina,
( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of Administration,
State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The designations of
Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns,
and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland
and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between KCI Technologies,
Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to provide
stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number 005151.
Vaughan - Conservation Easement Area 7.rtf 1

WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this
instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Wiccananee Township, Northampton County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 40.3 net
acres, described as on plat recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 178, Northampton County Registry,
and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 366 at Page 148 and 85-
E-71 of the Northampton County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement over the herein
described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the included areas of
the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing
to accept such Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement shall be for the protection
and benefit of Meherrin River.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Easement Areas consist of the following:
Conservation Easement 7 containing 0.52 acres as shown on the plat of survey entitled "Final
Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Project
Name: Stanley's H Wetland Restoration Project, EEP Project #: 95838, SPO #: 66 -N and 66-
M," dated May 17, 2013 by James M. Gellenthinz PLS Number L -3860 and recorded in the
Northampton County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at Map Book Page
Vaughan - Conservation Easement Area 7.rtf 2

The Conservation Easement tracts described above are conveyed together with and including a
perpetual nonexclusive right and easement appurtenant for ingress, egress and regress to the
above described Conservation Easement tracts over and across Margarettsville Road ( a public
right of way), farm paths, crossings and access areas in- between the Conservation Easement
Areas as depicted on the above described survey entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Project Name: Stanley's 11 Wetland
Restoration Project, EEP Project #: 95838, SPO #: 66 -N and 66 -M " dated May 17, 2013 by
James M. Gellenthin, PLS Number L -3860 and recorded in the Northampton County, North
Carolina Register of Deeds at Map Book Page
See attached "Exhibit A ", Legal Description of areas of the Property hereinafter referred to as
the "Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and /or riparian resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Easement Area in its natural
condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will
significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following
conditions and restrictions are set forth:
L DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly reserved as a
compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is prohibited
as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation credits, including, but
not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived from each site within
the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the Grantee. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are prohibited, restricted, or
reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Easement Area for
the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Easement Area is prohibited.
Vaughan - Conservation Easement Area 7.rtf 3

C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes including organized
educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the property shall
not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Vegetative Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased or
damaged trees, or vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Easement Area is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Easement Area
including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways, or paving
in the Easement Area.
L Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive signs
describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Easement Area, signs
identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement, signs giving
directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Easement Area is
prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals, or
other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Easement Area. No altering or tampering
with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or
created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into
waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the Easement Area is
prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage of all other water sources,
water from within the Easement Area may temporarily be used for good cause shown as needed
for the survival of livestock and agricultural production on the Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the underlying Property owned by the Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ")
Vaughan - Conservation Easement Area 7.rtf 4

that is subject to this Easement is allowed. Unless agreed to by the Grantee in writing, any future
conveyance of the underlying fee and the rights conveyed herein shall be as a single block of
property. Any future transfer of the fee simple shall be subject to this Conservation Easement.
Any transfer of the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and
egress over and across the Property to the Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non - native plants,
trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC
27699 -1652.
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, are hereby granted and receive a perpetual non - exclusive easement for
access to the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to
restore, construct, manage, maintain, enhance, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the
rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights. The
recommended access to the site from Margarettsville Street is shown on the plat of survey
entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program, Project Name: Stanley's II Wetland Restoration Project, EEP Project #: 95838,
SPO #: 66 -N and 66 -M," dated May 17, 2013 by James M. Gellenthin1 PLS Number L -3860
and recorded in the Northampton County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at Map Book
Page
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place fencing on the Property to restrict livestock access. Although the Grantee is not
Vaughan - Conservation Easement Area 7.rtf 5

responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the right to repair the fence, at its sole
discretion.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes
of this Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features in the Easement Area
that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms
of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify
the Grantor -in writing of such breach and the Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of
such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the breach and damage remains
uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing
appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and
other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and authority, consistent with its statutory
authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful
or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in
the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary
restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the
Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law
inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to,
and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this
Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times
for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action
taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life, or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
Vaughan - Conservation Easement Area 7.rtf 6

V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days prior to the
initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property. Such notification shall be addressed
to: Justin McCorkle, General Counsel, US Army Corps of Engineers, 69 Darlington Avenue,
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Vaughan - Conservation Easement Area 7.rtf 7

Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Easement
Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment of the
Easement Area
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes.
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
(SEAL)
John William Vaughan
Vaughan - Conservation Easement Area 7.rtf 8

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that John William Vaughan, Grantor, personally appeared before
me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 2013.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Vaughan - Conservation Easement Area 7.rtf 9

"Exhibit A"
(Legal Description)
JOHN WILLIAM VAUGHAN
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 7
:m
Vaughan - Conservation Easement Area 7.rtf 10

o •`D
�yOr 00��0 OOOyx�
rAM R��� �zy�xH
rw"�y0 cOOi,Hoozya
gayP y p yytHr
O>S tn0 nrott yyzr
rni zn., nz
pb mp ly n• O
��z�z a 0 or�o��
`N7 Hz a °o y� °y
0ty��l lSJ � tn�ttlnH N� Ny'�7
Z.
yozao
r
C)
�n y
xo °z���
0.1 9 y zz X8 d o
00 � c o°z�xc
No m air
0 N @O o
r�
Z
C °CC CC Q
7J6 bi bi ComoO M � O Ox�� cn
[s1 Ow.� ry Oyn�
S �A��a
°w trl p;jH
aro ro Pyy-'S�t a14,� titn
c r� z
o�ry��yi
00 OH Rnn
y F�tr%r td=0 GGi 'tOy
r0 r a wtntdw0
009 ° ° o
z O ° o
0 � � >�
v r� 0 00
jz zoo
z oo
N Q ZO y y'b
o
n A z
rza y r t
a y y
\ \
\ 95'454 0 0
000 0
\ zzc
0 0
\
\
\
\
\ �
N
\ N
� N
\ o w
m
\
\ N
\
° ci
. Z
\ \\ z
s
D Z
D u
� O ft-A
Ln
\\ 0) 0
\ 6-
\ J 0)
\ m
Cj X
zz
^ \ c�
Q \ s
'O o a� C
G = \\ o
z
O
S
C O
D
m o
cn z
D
M
G-) C)
Fli cn
F
r Z)
FTl D
z
= o
z z
c
K
CD
M
r
I
w
00
0
ozCf)
cc] D
� Z
QD V 00 l
I
-0 CISC)9
O J D
I �
J o�
O CA C/)
�R C,()
l6' L9ZZ
=11C)
0
Q c5
o �-
o_
91
. M H
Qoom
0Dcb
myc
Z<
ZM
0
yn
0QO
m z
z
M 00
�0�
nn
°zr�
°D�
U 00
0
<ACD
wD00
? o u
m
H
vM
M
w
c
0
.T1
90,45.50N
, LO'499 L
O
� 2 O, M�OHC p=
_< ;(12Z�
m DD
p G) ;0 x m
O mcnz
o -m Omm3m
°Dp�Z�-<�
3 >zumivDi� ,-�m
Dy DmnZZmr
02 >z �DODn2x�Z,
��zc3myx
WmzOmOO?x
M D0 D(/) °1,i1
�=oo�mCD<
�PCDO <cm
pAD�z0m5
Z 'pj�H M>x -M< m
c°p�='XM m H
www'zof -nnDOx
�3m� �DCy
Dm{o=lro-6=
zZDoy <mm
vvzoy_�3
m�vx==v3�
=zm=�mvy
CDcnZ�OP�0
cn >0yy�
Z z
0
C7
�Cf)
— �
0 Z D
CO Z
00 om
J OD
cn
� I
G7 � G7
ID
p0(n
in
.� \ r
�000 00 °z� 00 �C,
\ZZ z O zo 1� 1 D
N
\\ \� m D \m N W C
Z `� N)
\ \ J -9 O - Z r fT1 00 0 =
\ \\ Jvz 0DO =z J z
cn U
Z F-
C J O
\ \ OZD �J (n -0 200
\ \ ��� w m zZ
\ \ CD O = 95'6L9 � z z ° o
CY1 F- \ 0 cn
-u n Zl Ti
\ C N
\ G) -I D 0 0 o
m OO 0 0 0 \ \\ °' N Oz o \ I o
cyi \ \
0c) U)
—J m0Z
0�
FTI C)
O cn
m
m m
O O O
Z�FT
X D
D\
X
X X
Z Z Z
= f=Tl
D
r
O
°�
cI)
cn cn
fTl
Z N O
.O
fV
Z
Z Z
� 0
m D OZ
O D=
•
G)
G) G)
CD
..
mm
v
:
Ul
D
C„ i
LD
zmz
O
• p
D
-D
0 z
fV
O
z
Iv
—
CD
Z
z
CD
�I
M
FTI
D
D z z
.� \ r
�000 00 °z� 00 �C,
\ZZ z O zo 1� 1 D
N
\\ \� m D \m N W C
Z `� N)
\ \ J -9 O - Z r fT1 00 0 =
\ \\ Jvz 0DO =z J z
cn U
Z F-
C J O
\ \ OZD �J (n -0 200
\ \ ��� w m zZ
\ \ CD O = 95'6L9 � z z ° o
CY1 F- \ 0 cn
-u n Zl Ti
\ C N
\ G) -I D 0 0 o
m OO 0 0 0 \ \\ °' N Oz o \ I o
cyi \ \
0c) U)
—J m0Z
N
0
o �
I
II =
N Nn n
o n
M r
N m
0
u
0
0
mzDKz
N 1- - D O
? O
AOK
°LDF-m0
rn� >�
J O CA
J D O r
mr-
I m
o
rn�o <
Z
W (> � \
Ln -Ti
DT
�Izz
U o z
00
Cn
000
zzz
°
D
O
m� ym
c Z R1
O Z p
Z r
O
z� =m
<z z
F9
NC GRID NORTH (NAD 83)
X mmwI
0�
FTI C)
O cn
m
m m
O O O
Z�FT
X D
D\
X
X X
Z Z Z
= f=Tl
D
r
O
°�
cI)
cn cn
fTl
Z N O
Z�
fV
Z
Z Z
� 0
m D OZ
O D=
M
G)
G) G)
;0 X�M
mm
v
W
�
D
C„ i
0 0 M
zmz
O
N
D
-D
0 z
fV
O
z
Iv
—
CD
Z
z
r
�I
M
o
D
D z z
moo
m�
z
m
O
J
o
O o z
-
cn
-
OD
Cn
O
N
00
0D
W
fTl m
D O D
Z
r (,.)
Z
Z Z
O N
O
O�D
O
00
CD
0)
0
O
-,1
U) M
J
Iv
O
C)'
O
W
O
Cn
0D
N M
IV
O
O
S
O
0)
O
C,.1
Z
C)
FTl
W
W
7
Cn
p
W
O
Cn
c
M
Cn
0
O
f l
Z7
Z
Zl
c
M
�
Z
O
IV
fV
N
IV
IV
fTl
CD
zzzcnzzz_zz_z_cnzU)
IV
IV
U)
�
N
0
o �
I
II =
N Nn n
o n
M r
N m
0
u
0
0
mzDKz
N 1- - D O
? O
AOK
°LDF-m0
rn� >�
J O CA
J D O r
mr-
I m
o
rn�o <
Z
W (> � \
Ln -Ti
DT
�Izz
U o z
00
Cn
000
zzz
°
D
O
m� ym
c Z R1
O Z p
Z r
O
z� =m
<z z
F9
NC GRID NORTH (NAD 83)
X mmwI
0�
< 8M-Z
z(D 5z
nD
=m
v�1 �
O
K
O
-n �)CO K
v
�0
m �2�
Z�
j -10
O 2
O
Omn
�2OC
Z D7
.Z
cD
�O
m;a z
z
M-
D
m ;Mo�
fV
M m0 -�
Z
M
M O
[D
I CD 1 T 1
CD D=Tn
O
0 -n
M
Cn
;0 X�M
mm
v
W
�
D
C„ i
W
00
��d
OD
m N O Z D
c0 Z
Z� ® 00 0 m
00
N � �� ��
O O
CD G)
�o>
O0)
O C)� Ul
Ul
v� o
A
0
v
f
O
C)
rntio�
� Z
W
O N
0 ID
M z N�
w mo
0 o. o
O � � D
w O O
N O M
U) D m O N O C ■1 O
=_� Z
.Zm1�0�
O �l C CA D =1
CD * D W W
D m O Ph C
rn� -< > rn
�Dm o
c�iCO, z W M
yH0
m;U Dz
0 �ou
o ° �ti �W
00'949
—LZ-1 6 Cl J 3 „Z0,9Z.50S
3 „LO,O LAOS
,69'9ELl <�o o `D
O mz _0 _0
oul z
W �Wmm 0�m \��
���z s3�o nom °_L r
Fll F- J U) \ T im C O O
y %I
� o
� 00 \ \
OI<
�
W
Iv
N
OI.D
M
J
O
(r
�
(,.I
fV
—0
W
cD
M
J
O
Cn
-P�,
W
fV
-P,
Z
M
[D
fv
IV
O
N
0')
M
Cn
W
IV
IV
J
W
�
M
�
C„ i
W
00
O
IV
CD
M
Cn
O
Cn
fV
O
IV
Iv
—
CD
IV
o0
r
frl
r
�I
M
Cn
J
cD
CD
00
O
J
O
-
Cn
Cn
OD
Cn
O
N
00
0D
W
W
Z
Z
d7
cD
J
J
J
N
J
O
O�D
O
00
CD
0)
0
O
-,1
0
J
Iv
O
C)'
O
W
O
Cn
0D
N
W
IV
O
O
CD
CP
O
0)
O
C,.1
O)
0=
C)
FTl
W
W
7
Cn
p
W
O
Cn
J
Cn
0
D
O
z
IV
fV
N
IV
IV
N
CD
zzzcnzzz_zz_z_cnzU)
IV
IV
U)
�
cncn�cncncnzZCn
m
00
00
ul
o0
00
F-
m
oo
�
o0
00
O�
�
CD
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
-ps,
�
O�
�
�
Cn
W
W
O
M
W
O
p
O
Cn
O
O-Psl
Nf
fV
p
J
Cn
p
�
-P:
J
O
-
W
00
W
Cn
CO
CO
Z
M
—
O
Cn
O
°
Cn
cD
CP
8
Cn
fV
p
O
CD
00
J
of
En
,
-P,
N
C,.
IV
p
O
MMMMMMMMMMMO
D
�I
Cn
V
O
Cl
,�
O
-
Iv
-p
C
Cn
IV
O
Cn
�I
Z7
�
Ul
O
O
N)
�
�
O
W
W
Cj
�
Cn
O
�
CS
-P-
Cn
-
O
�
z
Co
60,
N
�
Cn
C
C
Cj
Cn
M
W
0
0
W
O
cD
J
0
J
M
0
00
G7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
z
Cn
Cn
W
f�
V
�
0
O
�D
Oo
J
O
Ui
-P,
CD
CD
CD
J
CO
IV
CD
O
O
Cp
O
W
p
J
O
CD
N
J
Cn
OD
(A
�0
�
W
O
O
O
j
P
CA
fv
D)
z
CD
Cn
CD
p
O)
J
CD
CD
W
W
7
Cn
p
W
O
Cn
J
Cn
0
O
z
IV
fV
N
IV
IV
N
IV
N
IV
IV
fV
�
m
00
00
ul
o0
00
�
oo
�
o0
00
00
D
D
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
-ps,
�
-fs,
�
�
Cn
W
Cn
O
M
J
O
O
O
Cn
Cn
O-Psl
r
O
O
J
Cn
00
O
Cn
OD
O
�
O
O
-
W
00
W
Cn
M
O
J
Z
M
ND
Cn
Cn
O
W
En
cD
Cn
fV
O
L7
W
CD
00
CP
of
En
O
Cn
J
J
�
MMMMMMMMMMMO
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
�u
z
Z
O _
� Z
o
U
D
m D

Mitigation Plan
E�3
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
14.4 Appendix B. Baseline Information Data
E
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
.I
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
USACE Wetland Determination Forms
91

Mitigation Plan
ON
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Ci Y !Count y: ( '. )._,:..(, t �1) Sampling Date: t f
3
Applicant/Owner: � Q— State: / f '., Sampling Point: 1 = I fJ? J
Investigator(s): u SFr1,22 •` 3 �' {`11'> Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Ca,1 !P >4 Slope ( %):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): L� ; )' Lot Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: W 14,1 oil NWI classification: Z)1�IYe-
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time Of year? Yes _
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
No v" (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No W,.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Y Is the Sampled Area
Hydria Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ,
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Seconda Indicators minimum of two re aired
Primary indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
— Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (813)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
— Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Saturation (A3) —
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
— Moss Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (61) ^
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (02)
_— Sediment Deposits (82) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (83) —
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
— Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (09)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64) —
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
� Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (65) W....
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (DS)
Water-Stained Leaves (89)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (i T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
+.7,e
Water Table Present? Yes No =,f Depth (inches): ? I e
Saturation Present? Yes Na Depth (inches): Wetland hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes canillary fringe?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aeriat photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -w Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants,
1-1 ,r ; e
Sampiing Point: I. i'?. ;
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
%Cover species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
3
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: > D (A1B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
7
8
OBL species x 1 =
Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FAC species x 3 =
1
FACU species x 4 =
2
UPL species x 5 =
3
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
2 - Dominance Test is ?50%
8.
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ryr )
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1, a e'l
)� C} �i� /Tie`
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 ! /� a �fi]� l iJ��c G {,r.1 �cf�� ,; `�
;.��.) CID "
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree -- Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling /Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (9 m) talc.
8.
Herb —All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: !� t.y
20% of total cover.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: `) ljy)
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise rioted.)
Redox Features
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist)
% Type
Loc
Texture Remarks
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Ftoodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depieted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (177)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U) —
Redox Depressions (FB)
_ Very Shallow Dario Surface (TF12)
1 em Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (M LRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 451)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150€3)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
Jo
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, 5, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise rioted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 'I cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR 5, T, U)
_ 2 em Muck (A40) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Ftoodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depieted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (177)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U) —
Redox Depressions (FB)
_ Very Shallow Dario Surface (TF12)
1 em Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (M LRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 451)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150€3)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, 5, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERr
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner;
Investigator(s): �• Ste? £>
AINATION I:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LP- P Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: K) t 11
)ATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
City /County: Sampling Date:
State: Sampling Point: ('-�� 2._�
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): 3 "r.. -rl c./, r..F , Slope
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?
Long: Datum:
NWI classification: �E, r "1 2–
No V` (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No t f
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes w'` No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes �' No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes L'' No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators minimum of one is re aired'
check all that apply)
✓ Surface Water (A1) _
Aquatic Fauna (813)
High Water Table (A2) —
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Water Marks (8 1) —
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
— Sediment Deposits (82) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ DriH Deposits (133) —
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84) —
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
— Iron Deposits (85) —
Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (89)
Field Observations:
1 - -�
Surface Water Present? Yes `' No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes v %` No Depth (inches): ,, 0�
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary frinae)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspe
1,
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Moss Trim Lines (6 16)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (CO)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO)
' Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Shallow Aquitard (03)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (05)
Sphagnum moss (08) (LRR T, U)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 4-- No
e:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2,0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) -- Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: � f�,r'; • y9
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ILL (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata:
a.
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
J
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A(B)
I G.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% off dial cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FAC species x 3 =
1
FACU species x a =
2
UPL species x 5 =
3
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A=
5,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
S.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size is)'1 )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
-10
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2. Ear) }1 p'•p�, 1
0
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. \+t >,a,c:,;a : -r,!„ cs,i
'" CAE
Tye
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in, (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
G.
SaplinglShrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb —All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3,28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
0C) = Total Cover
50% of total cover: `
20% of total cover: ;20
WoodyVine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
50% oft otal cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes ` No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations betow),
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % .....
Color (moist) I\Zpe Loc'
Texture Remarks
0
,Z)
VIC%
`V V11
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
�Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
— Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR 3, T, U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
— Thin Dark Surface (39) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR 3)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (1`2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 15313)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F3)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TFl 2)
I cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (Flo) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (1713) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (31) (LRR 0, 8)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F16) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (55)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (Fl 9) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, $, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
0 Ise,
Project !Site: -? t� "`3A-,('4, `. �� <`` �C/� /�-t �r r� >�. CitylCounty: Ikla ifc. a, ax: �r�t Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: /)L Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): `k %' ' l,::,c Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): f C.iz../ d�ct-
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Z_ Apia P
Soil Map Unit Name:
r
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typi.
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology
Local relief (concave, convex, none): e 01) 00.a: Slope ( %)
/0
tat: Long: Datum:
NWI classification:
ml for this time of year? Yes No V,,. (lf no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No l J
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V"` No within a Wettand? Yes No V
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No f
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators minimum of one is re wired' check all that apply)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
— High Water Table (A2) —
Marl Deposits (6 15) (LRR U)
____ Saturation (A3) —
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Water Marks (81) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Sediment Deposits (B2) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
— Drift Deposits (83) —
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
— Algal Mat or Crust (134) ,�,
, Thin Muck Surface (C7)
— Iron Deposits (65) —
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
W
Surface Water Present? Yes N4
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
;- ` Depth (inches):
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
— Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Crayfish Burrows (CB)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
__ _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ FAG-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
(stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling POInL
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
%Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC; (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (8)
4.
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
t�
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC: (A/8)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
8
Total % Cover ofT Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FAC species x 3 =
1.
FACU species x 4 =
2
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B /A=
5,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
^_
7.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
= Total Cover
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: % )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2. eo se �
r"I K NDefinitions
of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
3.
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
5.
6.
Sapling /Shrub -- Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7,
than 3 in. D8H and greaterthan 3.28 ft (1 m) tail.
8.
Herb —Ali herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
S.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine —Ali woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11,
height.
12.
Total Cover
50% oft otal cover: J
20% of total cover: t ;)
Woody Vine Stratum {Plot size: )
1.
2,
3,
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL.
- -- - - - - - --
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence
Depth
Matrix
Hisft Epipedon (A2)
Redox Features
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
(inches)-
moist )
°!o
Color (racist) % Type__
Loc' Texture
,
r Stratified Layers (A5)
!� Depleted Matrix (F3) _,__
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
— Redox Dark Surface (56)
(M LRA 1538)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
,,,,,,,,, Redox Depressions (F8) ,,.,,W.
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iran - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (M LRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
,,,_, Reduced Vertic (1718) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5)
— Piedmont Ffoodplain Soils (F19) (M LRA 149A)
Sampling Point:
Remarks
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. `Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sol
Histosoi (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (88) (LRR S, T, U) _
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Hisft Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) _
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) „_,,,_
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A, B)
M Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodpiain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
r Stratified Layers (A5)
!� Depleted Matrix (F3) _,__
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
— Redox Dark Surface (56)
(M LRA 1538)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
,,,,,,,,, Redox Depressions (F8) ,,.,,W.
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iran - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (M LRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
,,,_, Reduced Vertic (1718) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5)
— Piedmont Ffoodplain Soils (F19) (M LRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (36)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (M LRA 149A, 1530, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (37) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (Inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V11- No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Citylcounty: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: kwl Sampling Point: h '
Investigator(s): -> TY Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): `/' , 6 Irr_ Loca #relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( %). r
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LR R ? Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: ­T "1"5 -'14' e-� NWI classification: ,,.' & ,i -,.,
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
No 1F" (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No t ^''
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Prlpry Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soit Cracks (86)
Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (813)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (8 16) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3)
" Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (al) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (82) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (E33) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
— Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO)
Algal Mat or Grust (84) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
✓Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (85) —
Other (Explain in Remarks)
" Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
FAG - Neutral Test (D5)
Water - Stained Leaves (89)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes i, No Depth (inches): 5e.t
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, a
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: }
% Cover Soecies? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 31 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
J
3.
Species Across All Strata: {B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ! 05 {A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species X 1 =
= Total Cover
FACW species x 2 =
50% oft otal cover:
20% of total cover:
FAC species x 3 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: }
FACU species x 4 =
9.
UPL species x 5 =
2.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
3.
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators;
6•
d 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7._
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
r 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
M Total Cover
problematic Hydrophyiic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% oft otal cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
q, i¢: E,i.r r, =. ' C;, ;.r:;
i• Ct �j 5 f.)'!
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
—r
(ILL L 081-
Deflnittons of Four Vegetatlon Strata:
3. l_u�Ltctlgi�! /�'t t.
30
--�—
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -• All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
31.
height.
12.
�(� = Total Cover
50% oft otal cover: 0
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation /
Present? Yes No
50% oft dal cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
N
Sampling Point:
r or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0) _
Redox Features
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) —
(inches)
Color moist
%
Color (moist) _ %
Type 107
— Depleted Dark Surface (F7) —
Red Parent Material (TF2)
t)t)
-7
— Mari (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
TE YR 1,;/R- is
...
_ Llmbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F 17) (M LRA 151)
unless d €sturbed or problematic.
i
_ Piedmont Floodp €ain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Texture Remarks
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Locatiow PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix,
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soi
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Y Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, S)
SandyGieyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (36)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Polyvalue Below Surface (38) (LRR S, T, U) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) —
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0) _
Reduced Vertic (F18) (Outside MLRA 150A, 6)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) —
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ ✓Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
— Depleted Dark Surface (F7) —
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8) _,_,
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— Mari (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Llmbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F 17) (M LRA 151)
unless d €sturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (1718) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
_ Piedmont Floodp €ain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 1530)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V f No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastaf Plain Region –Version 2.0

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Reference Wetland Information
105

Mitigation Plan
M
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project /Site: Stanley's Slough Reference City /County: Margarettsville /Northampton Sampling Date: 4 -18 -2013
Applicant /Owner: KCI Associates of NC State: NC Sampling Point: DP #1
Investigator(s): S. Stokes Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave /flat Slope ( %): 0.1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P L at: N 36 32' 33.2 Long: W 077 20' 50.6" Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Roanoke NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑
Surface Water (Al) El Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑High
Water Table (A2)
I--I Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑✓
Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑
Water Marks (131)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑
Sediment Deposits (132)
El Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑
Drift Deposits (133)
I--I Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
El
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
El
Iron Deposits (135)
0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑.
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(137)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
❑.
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches): 11
Saturation Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches): 9
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge,
monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP #1
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Quercus michauxii (Swamp Chestnut)
30
X
FACW-
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2
Acer rubrum (Red Maple)
30
X
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3
Betula nigra (River Birch)
25
X
FACW
9
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4
Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweetgum)
20
FAC+
5
Magnolia virginiana (Sweetbay)
10
FACW+
Percent of Dominant Species 77
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A /B)
6
Quercus laurifolia (Laurel Oak)
5
FACW
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
120
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
60
20% of total cover:
24
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1
Ilex opaca (American Holly)
40
X
FAC-
FACU species x 4 =
2
Carpinus caroliniana (American Hornbeam)
40
X
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica (Green Ash)
20
X
FACW
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4
Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweetgum)
15
FAC+
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5'
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
El 2 - Dominance Test is >50 °k
8.
1:1 3 - Prevalence Index is < -3.0'
115
= Total Cover
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
50% of total cover:
57.5
20% of total cover:
23
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1
Arundinaria gigantea (Giant Cane)
25
X
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2
Woodwardia areolata (Netted Chain Fern)
10
X
OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling /Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
35
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
17.5
20% of total cover:
7
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1
Smilax rotundifolia (Common Greenbrier)
5
X
FAC
2.
3.
4.
5
Hydrophytic
5
= Total Cover
Vegetation
1
1
Present? Yes X No
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP #1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -4 10YR 2/2 100
1 mucky loam
4 -7 10YR 4/1 100
1
7 -12 10YR 4/1 70 7.5YR 4/6 c2d 15 C C, PL
sl
10YR 5/4 f1 d 5 C M
10YR 6/1 c2f 1 D M
12 -18 10YR 5/1 65 10YR 5/8 30 RM M
scl
7.5YR 4/6 5 C PL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced
Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
.❑
Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
.❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
T�❑I---II
LJ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
.❑
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
_❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
.❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
F] Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
.❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
Q✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 15313)
.❑
.❑
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Red Parent Material (TF2)
.F]
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
LJ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
.❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
.❑
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
.❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
❑ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
❑
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
.❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C9 153D)
.❑
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

Mitigation Plan
110
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
.7' v
1
k
\r .
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
300 150 0 300
Foet
111
Reference Wet €and Gauge
SSS Project Easement
�• - }i. _ r
SII Project Easement
PROJECT SITE REFERENCE WETLAND
rmage5ovrce.NC2010
STANLEY'S SLOUGH ! STANLEY'S II
�atewde0rthamagery
RESTORATION SITES
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
111

Mitigation Plan
112
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form
113

Mitigation Plan
114
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 10 -10 -2011
ProjectlSite: Stanley's Slough
Latitude:
Evaluator: A. Spiller, T. Morris
County: Northampton
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent 31.75
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30*
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal ='� )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
13'Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
CED
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
C
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
(E)
1
2
3
T Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
i_
5
11, Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
° artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 13.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
175 )
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _L3_75___)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
COD
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1,5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
Q-A)
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; fOBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Mitigation Plan
116
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Jurisdictional Determination
117

Mitigation Plan
118
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS COPY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2012 -01918 County; Northampton U.S.G.S. Quad: VA- MARGARETTSVILLE
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Stanlev Garriss Agent: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Steven Stokes
Address: 6523 NC Highway 186 Address: Landmark Center II, Suite 220
Margarettsville, NC 27853 4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC, 27609
Property Owner: John Vaughan
Address: 253 Maraarettsville St
Maragarett_sville, NC 27853
Coordinates Latitude: 36.5373984395785 Longitude: - 77.349050034246
Location description: The property is located on the north side of NC Hwy 186, west, east and north of
Mar arettsville Rd Mar arettsville Northampton County, NC.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may
request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may
provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the pemnit 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 U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on _. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
Page 1 of 2

published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA), You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at (252) 808 -2808 to
determine their requirements.
Placcinent of dredged or fill €naterial within waters of the US and /or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Thomas Brown at 919 - 554 -4884
x22/ Thormas .L.Brow €[e-mail].
C. Basis For Determination
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and appropriate Re ional Supplement.
D. Remarks
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineatiorr/deter €nination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delincatio €r /determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (his information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Arrny Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by
"It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence."
Corps Regulatory Official:: -��; -:
Date: November 29, 2012 ,- "° Expiration Date: November 29,_2017
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Surveyor visit ljttp:l /p-e12,nw hmil to
complete the survey online.
Copy furnished:

Applicant: Bile Number: SAW -2012- 01918 Date: November 29, 2012
Attached is: _ See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission A
_❑ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL C
❑ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
F1 PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an adianirstrative aooeal of the above decision.
Additional informiation may be found at littp : / /www.usace.army.iiiil /iriet /functions /ew /cec_wo /reg or
Corns regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFI +FRED PERMIT: Yon may accept or object to the permit.
® ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terins and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section lI of this forni and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You niay accept or appeal the permit
® ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This foriii must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
® APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form, to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
_SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
14owever, you may provide additional infonnation to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact: also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Thomas Brown CESAD -PDO
Raleigh Regualtory Field Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Suite 105 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Ware sorest, NC 27587 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investi ation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations._
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Thomas Brown, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD -PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]

i J /
L I I \ 1 1 I
\ 1 1 \ \ I \ I
1 /
\\ I 11 I `I \�♦ I 1/
• r � 1 1 \\ '\ ' ` \\ � l 11 1
tt
It
MARGARETTSVI LE ROAD
ZD N
;u
N
ul
O
S (7
OD\ L
D m
m
0
O N
r O
D m
m 1�
= Z
O
Z
m m
M
In
J ;U VL
wDm c O
(m
o
x w m -
. A 0 1y.1
DNO A
x D
HOC Z
o:A p O
m
J N a
OD N
o E
W Z Fj J e I
co Z Ly { Y
N)
(n O °P
n
al
N m O
Z X lei
o O
z
Z � C7 cn D
N O�y�
In
D Z Q �� O (•� Z x ,
m =� Z r o N
�mm m O
D O m N Z m f l ® OItl9 �I D D ' m,
o D� O > mm o o* I
mDOZN= z
ml � m °o
Ti
F

I
I I
I I,
/ II
I
I
Z>
00u
AN
--1 O
S p
OD\ L
D m
m
0
O N
D �
-0 �E
0 z
m
,0>
m W C
I c)
05
p 00�z
_._
�Nm
000x
-lI N
m u
Z jl
S
Z� m
z V) r
=DD Z =
0
O
0
0
D
2
o 0
I
r
c
o
I
O Z
m D
o
T
o
m
I
0, 02
Ji°
cn
C
m
'
o
{
1
�
D
m
om p O
o�°�M
N � J
I
J N C
OD O Y
W Z
m
(0 Z ,
m
ZJ
N
m
I II
\ \ \ �
\I I I I
_
m
I I cm,
I I I I I\
Im \\
ID /
b k„� � � _ �
I✓I II Ip \I
Z
C-0
° m
ICA
1-in I
\
\
0
I
I
Z>
00u
AN
--1 O
S p
OD\ L
D m
m
0
O N
D �
-0 �E
0 z
m
,0>
m W C
I c)
05
p 00�z
_._
�Nm
000x
-lI N
m u
Z jl
S
Z� m
z V) r
=DD Z =
0
O
0
0
D
2
o 0
Z Z 1-1
r
m m
M
o
U)
l
J ;U VL
OD wD X c O
o
m
MC) G
II
=;,\ m 1-4
(A
m
. ) o 0
o
1y.1
DNO A
X �. D
o
�yccn=
� 0 C Z
om p O
m
N � J
I
J N C
OD O Y
W Z
m
(0 Z ,
m
ZJ
N
m
I II
o
N
Z� m
z V) r
=DD Z =
0
z
p
0
0
D
2
o 0
��DDZ
r
-umm
o
0
N
l
C) m -< -,M
D z
o
m
C7
r
II
N° Z
'� 0 r
m
IM
o
m
0 00 D
M
C4 o
o
�yccn=
Z O Z
o
\ \ I
m
Z= Z
I
u-nI°
m
o
N
D
I II
\ \ \ �
\I I I I
_
m
I I cm,
I I I I I\
O
C
1
O
T
c
IM
D
\
11ar
6
j I /
/ I �
l
c \
1
W Z D
\
az
W
L
Oi)O
W m
(PI<
-U
OZ
AO
OoD
O F Y
�
0;0
o m
C,
� \ I
y2 n
.c
11ar
6
j I /
/ I �
l
c \
a
m
//
\
1
\
I \ \ La I
9$
46 6�Q° I
� \ I
M
C4 o
; \`
\ \ I
b y
Z 1
\
41*.
I
u-nI°
I
'k
I °
1
o
I II
\ \ \ �
\I I I I
I \
I I cm,
I I I I I\
Im \\
ID /
b k„� � � _ �
I✓I II Ip \I
Z
C-0
ICA
1-in I
\
0
a
m
//
\
1
\
I \ \ La I
9$
46 6�Q° I
� \ I
\
I\
I
\
41*.
I
a
I
'k
\ \
I ;II I
I
I II
I
IL
Im \\
ID /
b k„� � � _ �
I✓I II Ip \I
Z
C-0
ICA
1-in I
L--v
\ II d \ \
N m \
\ II I \
v --1
my
n v . /®
O
C
O
T
c
IM
D

\ O
\ „
CD
\ y / / /i / /i /// / / — / -- / // �I I o
\ rrt
\ _ ��/ /i/ �/ / / // VIII ✓ I // / / I
� oz�
\ m D
Ji00m
;o
0) U)
/VD I cC i ° o \ -- \ o�
om
Cil
\ {,� �`
\ I � - - -_-- iyp __ —� �\i/ �l� __ - -- ---
� -- - - -__�
Z `2 m
O
Z�C7(n r
O =DD Z
�DDZ p
z
x
/ � Z
0o
C)
m
Cil
DOm or
m
D
�ZOr—�m
m
r
m
No
O
E:Q*C D
\
Cl) Z
\
\
M
M
_ \
O
\ O
\ „
CD
\ y / / /i / /i /// / / — / -- / // �I I o
\ rrt
\ _ ��/ /i/ �/ / / // VIII ✓ I // / / I
� oz�
\ m D
Ji00m
;o
0) U)
/VD I cC i ° o \ -- \ o�
om
Cil
\ {,� �`
\ I � - - -_-- iyp __ —� �\i/ �l� __ - -- ---
� -- - - -__�
O O �7 ; \ I
x�cn D cn
° C 0 \ �. 1 I
°m o
� m \
OD
J N r \ \
w --
Z
0>1 \
j,
o
N
Z `2 m
O
Z�C7(n r
O =DD Z
�DDZ p
z
x
/ � Z
0o
C)
m
Cil
DOm or
m
D
�ZOr—�m
m
r
m
No
O
E:Q*C D
\
Cl) Z
ZOz
O
Z= Z
M
M
_ \
„v
o
w
D
o
\
CD
o
CP
M
\
n
\
m
A G
T D
� C
\ \
\ \
I O
O O� Z
;u
\ \
I
0, O ;u
OD\ L
D --I
\ \
O N
\ \
D m
\ \
O
Z
m a
m
\ \
J ;U
D
C,
VL
C O
\ \
m
MC)
(A
\ \
\ \
Z A
-<
O
\ \
O O �7 ; \ I
x�cn D cn
° C 0 \ �. 1 I
°m o
� m \
OD
J N r \ \
w --
Z
0>1 \
j,
o
N
Z `2 m
O
Z�C7(n r
O =DD Z
�DDZ p
z
x
0
°
D
2
o 0
C)
l
DOm or
m
D
�ZOr—�m
m
r
m
No
O
E:Q*C D
nyC(n=
ZOz
O
Z= Z
M
M
o
w
D
a
m
//
MARGARETTSVILLE ROAD

Mitigation Plan
126
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Field Memorandum and Agency Response
127

Mitigation Plan
128
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Memoranda
ENGINEERS ♦ SURVEYORS ♦ SCIENTISTS ♦ CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
KCI LANDMARK CENTER II, SUITE 220 ♦ 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD ♦ RALEIGH, NC 27609 ♦ 919 - 783 -9214 ♦ (FAX) 919 - 783 -9266
TO: Heather Smith, EEP PM
Tyler Crumbley, ACOE
FROM: Tim Morris, KCI
DATE: Site Meeting - September 6, 2012
Memo Date — December 7, 2012
SUBJECT: Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
MT Site Review Meeting
KCI Project Number: 20122005
EEP Project Number 95356
Attendees:
Eric Kulz, NC DWQ
Todd Tugwell, ACOE
Tyler Crumbley, ACOE
Jeff Garnett, EPA
Travis Wilson, NC WRC
Maria Dunn, NC WRC
Tim Morris, KCI
Joe Pfeiffer, KCI
Adam Spiller, KCI
Jeff Shaffer, EEP
Heather Smith, EEP
Guy Pearce, EEP
An IRT field review was conducted for the above referenced proj ect on September 6th, 2012.
Field conditions were overcast and hot with storm activity in the general area. Recent rains were
apparent. Local rainfall data indicated above average rainfall (10.73 ") for the month of August
including two rainfall events of above 3" within 10 days of the site visit. Joe Pfeiffer and Tim
Morris from KCI presented the project to the attendees. The following issues and concerns were
documented at the meeting and will be addressed in the future development of the site.
1. ACOE expressed concern regarding the anticipated hydrology of Tributary 2 (northern
tributary) after a large portion of its drainage area would be diverted and restored to its

Memorandum
Page 2 of 6
December 7, 2012
natural course. The main concern was that the reduced size of the drainage area to
Tributary 2 would not support a perennial or potentially even an intermittent stream
classification. It was mentioned that the area may be a stream at some point along the
channel length but that it may be downstream of its current inception point as described in
the Proposal. Streamflow data and /or streamflow indicators (development of a clearly
defined high -water mark, rack/drift lines, etc.) would need to be provided to justify
credits on Tributary 2. A more clearly defined drainage area map would also help to
clarify the disposition of the resource. ACOE acknowledged that if it was determined
that the inception point of Tributary 2 was further downstream than its current location,
wetland restoration potential would exist above that point, assuming KCI could
demonstrate pre- existing hydric soils.
Prior to leaving the area ACOE indicated that they believed there was a credit risk in
developing portion of the project due to the hydrology issue.
- KCI will further examine the drainage area to Tributary 2 and attempt to refine
the inception point of the stream in this area. A detailed analysis of this work will
be presented in the mitigation plan. The monitoring plan will address the
specifics of documenting the jurisdictional status of the stream (or wetland) for
credit purposes. At this point, KCI has no intent to remove this stream from the
mitigation plan, but will consider the Corps concerns and recommendations in
determining and potentially revising the future credit yield from the area.
2. The IRT group was generally in agreement with the rest of the proposal from a stream
credit perspective. The group walked the entire channel including the area of the channel
that would be diverted back into the wooded area (Vaughan Property). DWQ indicated
that stream function would be increased significantly by diverting the stream back into its
historic location. It was noted that the stream within the wooded area had been
channelized; however the channel size and shape seemed consistent with the downstream
reference condition. Credit generation through this area would be 1:1. Grading would be
required at the tie -in points as well as targeted areas within the woods to allow the stream
to better access its historic floodplain.
The IRT group had several issues associated with the call to consider portions of the
wooded floodplain on the Vaughan property as wetland "restoration ". Currently there are
2.8 acres (out of approximately 8.5 wooded easement acres) proposed for wetland
restoration. The 2.8 acres are located outside the proposed 100'- stream mitigation
corridor. The wetland restoration areas contain hydric soils, however the hydrology
component was determined to be lacking during previous visits to the site. KCI

Memorandum
Page 3of6
December 7, 2012
explained that the area could be considered restoration if additional hydrology could be
added back into the system from the abandoned drainage area. The group questioned
whether the site was already jurisdictional and therefore more appropriately considered
being enhancement or perhaps re- establishment or rehabilitation (forms of restoration).
According to 40 CFR Part 230 "Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic
Resources; Final Rule," Restoration (including re- establishment and rehabilitation)
differs from enhancement in that "it results in either the reestablishment of an aquatic
resource or the rehabilitation of a suite of functions at a degraded aquatic resource. In
contrast enhancement activities focus on the improvement of a subset of specific
functions." Discussion ensued and there was a general consensus that since the
hydrology of the site would be restored, the entire floodplain area may be more
appropriately described as rehabilitation and /or reestablishment as opposed to
enhancement as significant uplift would occur to a suite of functions through the re-
introduction of the historic drainage area to the site. The group agreed that the first order
of business would be to get a Jurisdictional Determination (JD). If the JD concurred that
the entire area was jurisdictional, then a call of "rehabilitation" might be appropriate
based on the circumstances. Credit ratios would then need to be determined prior to the
development of the mitigation plan. If the local Corps office agreed with the delineation,
then appropriate methods to determine functional uplift within the 2.8 acre restoration
area would need to be documented during development of the mitigation plan.
Post hoc:
- A JD meeting was held on 10 -3 -12 with Thomas Brown of the Raleigh
Field Office of the ACOE. Three flags were moved at the direction of Mr.
Brown. The final delineation plat is attached along with the Corps JD
Concurrence Notification (dated November 29, 2012) is included in
Attachment A. Of the approximately 8.5 -acre wooded area, 3.30 acres are
in the existing 100 foot stream buffer, 0.77 acres are existing wetland that
can be rehabilitated, 2.81 acres contain hydric soils that lack appropriate
hydrology (restoration /re- establishment), 0.80 acres contain upland soils
(upland preservation) and 0.52 acres of jurisdictional wetlands exists that
KCI believes will not be appropriate for rehabilitation. These wetlands
would be non - credit bearing units (preservation only).
- A second Full Delivery proposal has been submitted to add approximately
65 acres of wetland restoration Stanley's Slough project. Although this
project has not been awarded at this time, we have included the project
boundaries and a similar analysis of the sites rehabilitation/re-
establishment potential. KCI would like to solicit pre - contract comments
from the agencies on the "Stanley's II" project since the two projects are

Memorandum
Page 4 of 6
December 7, 2012
so closely linked together. Attachment B shows the boundaries of both
projects along with soil delineation information and a proposed asset
map. KCFs proposed recommendations for rehabilitation and re-
establishment are included for both project areas. We have also included
recommendations for ratios. These are included in the tables below:
Stanley's Slough - Mitigation
Mitigation Category
Mitigation Category
Acres
Linear Feet Ratio /I
WMUs
SMU's
Wetland Preservation
0.52
0
0.00
2
Wetland Reestablishment
2.81
1
2.81
5.75
Wetland Rehabilitation
0.78
1.5
0.52
Upland Inclusion
Stream Reestablishment
3.56
1437 1
0.00
1437
Stream Rehabilitation
6.36
2884 1
0.00
2884
Upland Inclusion
0.75
0
0.00
TOTALS
14.78
3.33
4321
Stanley's II
Mitigation Category
Acres
Ratio
WMUs
*Constrained Reestablishment
0.47
1.5
0.31
*Constrained Rehabilitation
0.09
2
0.05
Wetland Reestablishment
5.75
1
5.75
Wetland Rehabilitation
1.12
1.5
0.75
Upland Inclusion
1.87
0
0.00
9.29
6.85
* Under Electric Transmission Line
- We understand that the interpretation of the CFR as it relates to
rehabilitation and re- establishment is un- vetted at this point in time. KCI
would like to meet with the Corps /IRT to discuss this concept and come to
an equitable resolution prior to the submittal of our mitigation plan.

Memorandum
Page 5of6
December 7, 2012
ATTACHMENT A — 7D Plat and Letter

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Attachment A Not Included —
Refer to Jurisdictional Determination Letter and Plat in Appendix
134

Memorandum
Page 6 of 6
December 7, 2012
ATTACHMENT B — Soils and Proposed Asset Maps

�.. " -
'll
.r
r`
Eliminated area
under power line due
to access issues and
ROW conflicts with
* terms of
Conservation
Ar Easement
rr
t
:. k1ir
�r PY
r 19
- �,�.n y• � ,..h. �� - 'T��; 1. •�,
�I
ylyy{ �
1 r ��41,o:
1
T - - �• l
Added sliver of land
to offset loss of
power line acreage.
Approximately .4
acres.
s
,y
J � J
r i
A.
Stanley's Slough Mitigation - SSS and SII
,,b.. r--J SSS Project Boundary Constrained Wetland Rehabilitation (0.09 ac SII)
SII Project Boundary Wetland Preservation (0.52 ac SSS) w�
i® Approximate Utility Easement - Stream Reestablishment (3.56 ac SSS) 1:2,400 1 inch =200 feet
Wetland Reestablishment (8.55 ac - 2.80 ac SSS / 5.75ac SII)= Stream Rehabilitation (6.36 ac SSS) 0 50 100 200
K C
I - Constrained Wetland Reestablishment (0.47 ac SII) Upland Inclusion (2.62 ac - 0.75 ac SSS / 1.87 ac SII) Feet r� TM o6 5
- Wetland Rehabilitation (1.90 ac - 0.78 ac SSS / 1.12 ac SII) Source: NC 2010 Orthoimagery

W611 W612 W69
W5 -10 .� W55� �' OW5 , _.wil
�.
5 _ '- W54W5_3 615" _r•
W6 -2 �yWs
¢4 6 H27 }. 50 yJ
J + 2f2 �H ..
!_ 4
fi -36 W6 -37l._
6y70. H'6 H21
� 232fk1 � W43W�
W6 -12 _- - �, -1� H2 -5 r
I. W61, �°'z�.JN6 -34 � Y W3 -1 � 5 '1
.f d.�'— "'�'_'� W35 W62 > Hz -z - I
c..- y3 W1 -71, _ W3 -3 23 4
_���,���rµ / y
W 632 . -'J ~'T ✓ //l W3 4 _
y� ' /(� W35
A•' 1'W6 -31 'Wil W36
Wl 0
W616W630 -
- )' _ A5 W1 -69
- 1_2 1 2 O
Al
�` 1 1 4
4 C
�4 l 68
-n1 �T �.. � •5 .A
. 6<��'�y��., �.. �,. 15 Wl 65';
r W6_1 W628
wW1 -. �i -1-
•� �@w1 -s3 ..
N 11 -62
W1577 1 Al91�I -
++.i• , y i. iK�b/i - _7 O 1 -60
krr .6 8 +, T f. /!!r', y � - M5 4 DPS P6 18
•'n _ •8 9 __— W1 -55
W. A 23
A6 7
Wl 104J ` 7 -10. W1
A8 qg W151VV1 -52- 1 1 u
9 iG t
H1 1 r ,2 � a1 •�
W6 14 A10 W1 W Wl 48 DP�A
`I W1 -21 A13 Al2 A11 W1 -115 W1- H1 -52
W6 -19 H1 -18 ,V1 -1 A 5 i J
q2 A22 W1 .�
- -I Al W1 -19 W1 -17 W1-0 - t
W1- - Wl 43 A20
F '.i *Wl 44 A21 •�•j': 16� ' W _."
71 W1 -37 3 H
*i H1 -19 36 H1 -35
4a ■
-25
,.I W620 135
0 6 {_ - r '�- !• "' r
' W2
W
t
=' a•I 1 3� WW2 -7 {
O VV2 . DP9
A34 2 �'' 6 W24 OA30 li �'' •i ''r f'
O * 1 W2 A29 t l
1
37
17 H W2 -3 W22 Vc
V 1 -22 W1 1 -3 17 H _ �• 1 -37W29 1 _ :} i...- { • 11 S �.
` 1 -29 1 -28 Al D A33
-38 z �., 11'rr��.lf I►'I. ti.i. �.p
23 WW2 -11 yyfj't+ r'. Yee.
*W2 10
1 -39
�A35 H1 -43 H1- 44
A H 1 -4 •�- ,
40
H1 W �� s � •.
o
k T' 1s A
r
H1 -6
H1 -5
H1 -4
H1 -3ti—
10- 10 -3\J10 7' S
W11,9 1 ,
0-
W10-10 y
W10 -11
t j•. '�1 62
9 12
&11
1L,
y H1 -1
W 9 13
- W &14 1
,W9 10 H1 -O ti—, W &16
W9 -15 .y
W9 -16 i
W 17
W &18 9
W9 -19 { •� .f
1 > 2 F,.
w9 7"
ti +
DP -3
W8 -4W8.5 W8 -6 1 W9 6 ON
. - - O
fnr N/8 2 67 06 W9-07 W9 -2 O W9 24 T „! - i
5 _.. �.. Vq -3 -
g_g 11 \
W7 9 N SSS Project Boundary L Ditch Bottoms
3 ® 77 SII Project Boundary ❑ Drained Roanoke
Will
112W11 -8 W7 -1 fjj +W7 -13 ® Soil Profile Description Locations from Proposal 8 Roanoke Wetland
O W11 -3 71
O,1,Wi4,5 87 W'3 s Survey Points ❑Drained Stream Buffer
0OV11 -6
® Approximate Utility Easement ❑ Drained Tomotley
® Tomotley Wetland
❑ Drained Winton with Pelham inclusions
® Winton with Pelham inclusions Wetland
Stanley's Slough Soils
y
is 1:2,400
+ 1 inch =200 feet
I L u ca !.lr+lw licwenl —F
------ j-K C FY 200 100 0 200 �vm COrv51kuC1,OVf. 1rvC.
Source: NC 2010 Orthoimagery Feet

Mitigation Plan
138
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Tires Morris
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW <Todd,Tugwell @usace.army.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:35 PM
To: Tim Morris; Crumbley, Tyler SAW
Cc: Smith, Heather (heather.c,smith @ncdenr.gov); Joe Pfeiffer
Subject: RE: Stanley's Slough - Rehabilitation /Re- establishment Assessment (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Tim,
Our guidance regarding wetland ratios has never been fixed to the point where we can't adjust ratios based on our best
professional judgment. Typically, in enhancement scenarios, the functional degradation can be very easily identified,
but in the system you are proposing for enhancement, we feel that the existing wetland is already very high functioning
(no major ditching, mature and appropriate vegetation structure, and acceptable hydrology). In comparing this to what
the site might be like after the work is complete, we don't see a substantial improvement - basically the site will be a bit
wetter. This could actually bring some potential negatives (e.g., mortality of the existing trees). The goal should be to
look at the function provided by the site in its current condition and compare that to what it will be like once the
improvements have been made, then base the ratio on the uplift. In this case, I don't believe that uplift will be that
much, so considering the unique circumstances of what is proposed on the site, we feel that a ratio of 2.5: 1 is
appropriate.
We have spent a lot of time thinking though this very issue as we have been working on the NC WAM implementation.
Even once NC WAM is fully implemented, it will not necessarily address these scenarios since it is not intended to be
used to predict /measure functional uplift from mitigation sites, but it may at least provide some insights into what
functional categories we consider when making that determination.
Hope this helps,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
(919) 846 -2564
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: http:// per2 .nwp.usace.army.mil /survey.html Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the
survey.
Todd
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tint Morris [mailto:Tim.Morris @kci.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 1:19 PM

To: Crumbley, Tyler SAW
Cc: Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Tugwell, Todd SAW; Joe Pfeiffer
Subject: RE: Stanley's Slough - Rehabilitation /Re- establishment Assessment (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks for the quick response Tyler. I think we can live with the 2.5:1 ratio for this particular project, but wanted to let
you know our thought process on the ratios that we provided. Wetland enhancement is generally give a 2:1 ratio for the
improvement of a single function. Rehabilitation, based on the description provided in the CFR, is considered an
improvement in a suite of functions. This led us to propose a ratio that was slightly better than what we typically get for
enhancement. I understand the grey area in all this, but would you consider a 2:1 so that we are at least the same as the
typical enhancement ratio? Seems like if this type of analysis comes up on future projects there would be an
inconsistency between the ratio and the definition. if the ratios will be evaluated case by case and this is just more of a
gut feeling for this particular site, we can live with that too.
Thanks for your feedback and have a great holiday!
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW [ mailto :[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:26 AM
To: Tim Morris
Cc: Smith, Heather ([e-mail]); Tugwell, Todd SAW; Joe Pfeiffer
Subject: RE: Stanley's Slough - Rehabilitation /Re- establishment Assessment (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Tim,
Thanks again for sending the notes from the meeting. Most of the minutes capture what was discussed on -site
accurately. There are however a few discrepancies between what was shown in the associated table and where we
think we should go with the credit proposals. We believe that the potential functional uplift for the stream and wetland
areas slated for Rehabilitation may be lower than anticipated and a ratio of 2.5:1 would be more appropriate.
Additionally, as noted in your response to item #1, there will be further discussions on the Reestablishment portion of
the streams and we can address that issue during the review process on the portal.
We are glad to see that you were able to incorporate the other parcel for Stanley II. That should be beneficial to site and
the project success of Stanley I.
Let me know if you have any questions.
v/r
-Tyler
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
(919) 845 -2564

- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tim Morris [mailto:Tim.Morris @kci.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:17 AM
To: Crumbley, Tyler SAW
Subject: RE: Stanley's Slough - Rehabilitation /Re- establishment Assessment (UNCLASSIFIED)
10 -4, thanks.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW [ma ilto :Tyler.Crumbley @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:14 AM
To: Tim Morris
Subject: RE: Stanley's Slough - Rehabilitation /Re- establishment Assessment (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Thanks Tim,
Todd and I will take a look at it and get back with you soon.
-Tyler
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tim Morris [mailto:Tim.Morris @kci.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:53 AM
To: Crumbley, Tyler SAW
Cc: Smith, Heather ([e-mail]); Tugwell, Todd SAW; Joe Pfeiffer
Subject: Stanley's Slough - Rehabilitation /Re- establishment Assessment
Hey Tyler,
Sorry for the delay in getting this to you, but attached are meeting minutes from our September 6 IRT field review
meeting as well as an assessment of the credit potential at the Stanley's Slough site. As you may recall, we talked in the
field review meeting about whether this site could be a candidate to test out some of the new -ish terminology
contained in the CFR (08 Final Mitigation Rule). Specifically the definitions of rehabilitation and re- establishment, since
a good portion of the project would be improving multiple functions by reintroducing hydrology and drainage area to
degraded aquatic resources. The piece of data that was missing at the time of the meeting was a JD for the property
which we recently received from Thomas Brown. The attached letter report details what we believe is a fair
interpretation of the rule. We recognize that this is unchartered waters to some extent so we would like to get some
feedback from the Corps and /or the IRT before developing our mitigation plan for the site. A meeting is probably the
best way to hash this all out.

Also, we have included the boundaries and details for "Stanley's II" which is a FDP proposal that we recently submitted
to EEP. This expands the Stanley's Slough project to add close to 7 acres of additional RWMU's. We recognize that this
project has not been awarded yet, but the projects are so closely tied together we figured we should include the project
boundaries and credit analysis should the project come to be (we were the only submittal, so there is good potential -
knock on wood).
Your feedback is appreciated.
Thanks,
Timothy J. Morris
Senior Environmental Scientist
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center ll, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh NC 27609
Office Phone - 919 - 278 -2511
Mobile Phone - 919 - 793 -6886
Fax - 919 -783 -9266
Email - tim.morris @kci.com
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
143

Mitigation Plan
144
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

00
pe
ON
pe
00
ON
PW
00
ON
0W
00
00
00
PW
ON
00
ON
ON
00
ON
ON
ON
PW
00
rW
WE
ON
WIP
rP
ON
ON
ON
WE
00
ON
ON
0W
r/
w!
r
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Project Part 1: General
Project Name: Stanley's Slough Stream Restoration Project
Count Name: Northampton County, NC
EEP Number: 95356
Project Sponsor: KCI Technologies, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Tim Morris
Project Contact Address: 4609 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220, Raleigh, NC 27609
Project Contact E -mail: [e-mail]
EEP Project Manager: Heather Smith
Project Description
The Stanley's Slough stream and wetland restoration project will restore 4,248 linear
feet of coastal plain stream and 2.8 acres of riparian wetland that have impacted by
years of agricultural use. This work will occur on two headwater streams that drain
directly to the Meherrin River.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By: -
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
'z- Z, ),— '
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
SEA' 2 8 2012
NC ECOSYSTEM
Version 1 4$ /ti105oGrtA

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Q . Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Does the project involve ground- disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
® N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning /land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
® No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
® No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
® No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform Act
1. Is this a "full - delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
® Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Q . Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? ® No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and /or Designated Critical Habitat
® Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
3. Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
® No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and /or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
® N/A
5. Does the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
® Yes
(By virtue of no- response)
❑ No
❑ N/A
6. Has the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
® No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
® N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or local
® Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any
® Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
® No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAH- Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Part
1: General • •
Project
Project Name:
Stanley's II Stream Restoration Project
Count Name:
Northampton County, NC
EEP Number:
95
Project Sponsor:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Project Contact Name:
Tim Morris
Project Contact Address:
4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220, Raleigh, NC 27609
Project Contact E -mail:
[e-mail]
EEP Project Manager: Heather Smith
Project Description
The Stanley's II wetland restoration project will restore 6.5 acres of riparian wetland
that have impacted by years of agricultural use. This work will occur on two headwater
streams that drain directly to the Meherrin River.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Q . Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Does the project involve ground- disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
® N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning /land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
® No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
® No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
® No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO /THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full - delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
® Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Q . Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? ® No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and /or Designated Critical Habitat
® Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
3. Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
® No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and /or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
® N/A
5. Does the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
® Yes
(By virtue of no- response)
❑ No
❑ N/A
6. Has the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
® No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
® N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or local
® Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any
® Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
® No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAH- Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Mitigation Plan
154
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
FEMA Floodplain Checklist
153
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping
Unit (attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site /
Stanley's 11 Wetland Restoration Site
Name if stream or feature:
Backwater of Meherrin River
County:
Northampton County
Name of river basin:
Chowan
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county:
Northampton County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
4080
Consultant name:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Phone number:
919 -783 -9214
Address:
4601 Six Forks Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27609
FEMAAFloodplain_Checklist Stanley's Slough (2) Page 1 of 4

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500 ".
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority
Reach
Length
- --- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -
Priority
Tributary 1
3, 097 eet
Headwater Restoration
Tributary 2
1, 221 feet
Headwater Restoration
Wetland Reestablishment
(Stanley's Slough)
2.8 acres
Reestablishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
(Stanley's Slough)
0.8 acre
Rehabilitation
Wetland Reestablishment
(Stanley's II)
6.4 acre
Reestablishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
(Stanley's II)
1.1 acre
Rehabilitation
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r Yes I- No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r Redehneation
r Detailed Study
W Limited Detail Study
r Approximate Study
F- Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
r AE Zone
Floodway
r Non - Encroachment
t* None
T" A Zone
d" Local Setbacks Required
r No Local Setbacks Required
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Stanley's Slough (2) Page 2 of 4

If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non-
encroachment/setbacks?
Yes f- No
Land Acquisition (Check)
r- State owned (fee simple)
l-'" Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
1v Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
(919) 807 -4101)
Is community /county participating in the NFIP program?
0 Yes f- No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: State NFIP Engineer, (919) 715 -8000)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: William Flynn
Phone Number: (252) 534 -1905
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
17 No Action
fi No Rise
l- Letter of Map Revision
F Conditional Letter of Map Revision
r- Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
FEMA Floodplai€ — checklist Stanley's Slough (2) Page 3 of 4

Name: Signature:
Title: 13 t r�Q Date: -1-1-
FEMA Floodplain_Checklist Stanley's Slough (2) Page 4 of 4

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
14.5 Appendix C. Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
159

Mitigation Plan
160
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Channel Morphology (Rosgen Analysis)
161

Mitigation Plan
162
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

46
45
44
0
43
a�
W
42
41
40
Tributary 2 at XS -1 & XS -2
Profile
0 50
Water surface was not surveyed
100 150 200 250 300
Station
350 400 450 500 550
+Thalweg ■ Top of Bank
■
■
■
0 50
Water surface was not surveyed
100 150 200 250 300
Station
350 400 450 500 550
+Thalweg ■ Top of Bank

52
50
48
0
46
a�
W
44
42
40
0
Tributary 1 at XS -3 & XS -4
Profile
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
Station
+Thalweg ■ Top of Bank
Water surface was not surveyed

50
49
48
47
46
0
� 45
a�
W 44
43
42
41
40
0
Tributary 1 at XS -5
Profile
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station
+Thalweg ■ Top of Bank
Water surface was not surveyed

Tributary 1 -Relic Channel at XS -6
Profile
50
48
46
■
•
0
a�
W
44
42
40
0 10
20
30
40
50
60 70
Station
80 90 100 110 120 130
s XS 6 Profile ■ Top of Bank — + — Water Surface

50
48
0
46
a�
W
44
42
Tributary 1 -Relic Channel at XS -7
Profile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station
sThalweg ■ Top of Bank —Water Surface

Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Existing Conditions
River Basin:
Chowan
Watershed:
Meherrin Watershed
XS ID
Tributary 2 (XS 1)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.045 (29 acres)
Date:
February 2013
Field Crew:
French, Helms
Station
Elevation
0.0
47.28
13.5
46.99
26.9
46.73
39.4
46.40
53.2
45.93
68.2
45.58
82.4
45.15
91.2
45.00
96.4
44.73
97.6
43.66
100.0
43.17
103.7
43.07
108.1
42.91
113.5
42.87
117.2
43.22
119.9
43.71
121.1
44.34
121.4
44.75
121.9
44.78
128.3
44.96
137.0
45.00
149.1
45.19
163.1
45.30
176.5
45.31
189.8
45.53
200.3
45.45
212.5
45.58
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
44.8
Banld'ull Cross - Sectional Area:
38.4
Banl full Width:
25.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
46.6
Flood Prone Width:
>180
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.9
Mean Depth at Banld'ull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
16.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Chowan River Basin, Meherrin Watershed, Tributary 2 (XS 1)
50
48
- - --
46
0
ti
----------------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- ----------------------------
W
44
-
42
- -- -Flood Prone Area
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210
Station (feet)

Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Existing Conditions
River Basin:
Chowan
Watershed:
Meherrin Watershed
XS ID
Tributary 2 (XS 2)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.045 (29 acres)
Date:
February 2013
Field Crew:
French, Helms
Station
Elevation
0.0
46.78
12.6
46.41
25.1
46.05
38.7
45.89
49.5
45.78
60.3
45.43
71.0
45.42
77.2
45.17
79.3
45.00
79.8
44.81
81.3
43.71
83.7
43.01
86.5
42.69
90.4
43.08
94.5
43.57
97.7
44.66
100.8
45.10
111.6
45.32
123.0
45.68
132.8
45.93
143.0
45.97
156.3
46.08
167.9
46.13
180.0
46.39
192.4
46.46
204.7
46.38
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
44.8
Banld'ull Cross - Sectional Area:
25.7
Banl full Width:
18.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
46.9
Flood Prone Width:
>200
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Banld'ull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
13.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Chowan River Basin, Meherrin Watershed, Tributary 2 (XS 2)
50
48
0
46
-------------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------------------------------------
ti
W
44
- - -- Bankfull
42
Flood Prone Area
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195
Station (feet)

Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Existing Conditions
River Basin:
Chowan
Watershed:
Meherrin Watershed
XS ID
Tributary 1 (XS 3)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.131 (84 acres)
Date:
February 2013
Field Crew:
French, Helms
Station
Elevation
0.0
49.85
13.5
49.86
27.1
49.89
40.7
49.58
51.9
49.50
63.6
49.72
76.8
49.80
84.0
50.07
87.1
49.69
89.2
48.34
90.8
47.59
90.2
47.72
91.8
47.43
93.4
46.99
95.2
47.11
97.4
48.10
100.1
48.32
101.1
49.38
102.9
49.86
109.2
50.16
118.5
50.05
130.4
50.15
143.8
50.03
155.7
50.15
168.1
49.91
178.5
50.13
186.5
49.99
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
48.2
Banld'ull Cross - Sectional Area:
6.0
Bankkfull Width:
8.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
49.4
Flood Prone Width:
14.0
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.2
Mean Depth at Banld'ull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.6
Bank Height Ratio:
2.4
Chowan River Basin, Meherrin Watershed, Tributary 1 (XS 3)
53
51
ti
W
47
- Bankfull
45
-Flood Prone Area
I
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Station (feet)

Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Existing Conditions
River Basin:
Chowan
Watershed:
Meherrin Watershed
XS ID
Tributary 1 (XS 4)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.131 (84 acres)
Date:
February 2013
Field Crew:
French, Helms
Station
Elevation
0.0
49.04
10.0
48.77
21.6
48.78
33.2
48.79
44.6
48.75
56.0
48.69
68.6
48.27
80.8
48.20
88.2
48.08
90.8
47.51
92.6
46.86
93.6
45.84
95.9
46.16
97.9
45.64
99.2
45.77
100.6
45.77
102.3
46.26
103.3
46.16
104.2
47.58
106.5
48.16
112.5
48.17
120.9
48.09
128.1
48.49
136.1
48.24
144.0
48.23
155.2
48.71
166.0
48.61
177.3
48.46
187.5
48.45
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
46.9
Banld'ull Cross - Sectional Area:
9.7
Bankkfull Width:
11.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
48.1
Flood Prone Width:
18.0
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.2
Mean Depth at Banld'ull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
12.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.6
Bank Height Ratio:
2.0
Chowan River Basin, Meherrin Watershed, Tributary 1 (XS 4)
55
53
X51
0
49
w_______________________
_ _ _ _ __ - - - -- ____ __ --------- - - - - --
47
-------------------------- - - - - -- -- -------- - - - - --
- --- Bankfull
45
- -- -Flood Prone Area
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Station (feet)

Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Existing Conditions
River Basin:
Chowan
Watershed:
Meherrin Watershed
XS ID
Tributary 1 (XS 5)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.131 (84 acres)
Date:
February 2013
Field Crew:
French, Helms
Station
Elevation
0.0
49.74
8.9
49.61
18.8
49.41
26.7
49.41
37.0
49.04
47.0
48.78
56.6
48.63
66.1
48.36
74.7
48.27
82.9
48.20
86.8
47.90
88.7
47.01
90.1
46.13
90.4
45.98
90.7
45.62
92.1
44.95
94.0
44.71
96.4
44.74
98.3
45.19
99.5
46.15
100.8
47.17
102.3
47.58
106.2
48.00
114.4
48.26
123.4
48.40
130.1
48.88
138.5
48.68
145.1
48.80
151.5
49.04
160.3
49.43
171.2
49.72
180.7
49.97
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
46.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
8.5
Bankkfull Width:
8.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
47.3
Flood Prone Width:
12.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
9.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.3
Bank Height Ratio:
2.5
Chowan River Basin, Meherrin Watershed, Tributary 1 (XS 5)
54
52
50
0
48
ti--------------------------
W
- - - - -- - -- ------------------------------
46
- - -- Bankfull
44
- -- -Flood Prone Area
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Station (feet)

Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Existing Conditions
River Basin:
Chowan
Watershed:
Meherrin Watershed
XS ID
Tributary 1 -Relic Channel (XS 6)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.131 (84 acres)
Date:
February 2013
Field Crew:
French, Helms
Station Elevation
0.0
46.04
10.4
45.80
19.6
45.55
29.8
45.65
40.5
45.65
51.9
45.61
61.3
45.33
69.0
45.51
75.1
45.38
81.0
45.19
84.3
45.60
90.8
45.37
91.2
45.12
92.5
45.01
94.4
45.02
95.5
45.20
96.2
45.45
98.3
45.55
102.3
45.32
106.7
45.38
113.0
45.38
121.6
45.56
133.6
45.90
142.7
152.0
158.8
167.2
U4707
178.9
188.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
45.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
4.1
Banl full Width:
20.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
46.1
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
7.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
48
0 46
a
ti
W
44 +
0
Chowan River Basin, Meherrin Watershed, Tributary 1 -Relic Channel (XS 6)
-- ---- - - - - -- ---- 1------- - - - - -- --------------------------
----Bankfull
-- -Flood Prone Area
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Station (feet)

Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Existing Conditions
River Basin:
0.0 4
Chowan
11.6 4
46.38
Watershed:
Meherrin Watershed
February 2013
.:
French, Helms
XS ID
Tributary 1 -Relic Channel (XS 7)
d.5j I
r ft:
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.131 (84 acres)
•
S
•�
,. _*
Chowan River Basin,
Meherrin Watershed, Tributary 1 -Relic Channel (XS 7)
48
47
-------------------------------------------
- - - - -- -----------------
____ _ _ _
_ __ _ -- ------------------------------
0
46
,22
W
- - -- Bankfull
45
- -- -Flood Prone Area
0 15
30 45 60
75 90 105 120 135
150 165 180
Station (feet)
Station Elevation
0.0 4
46.59
11.6 4
46.38
Date:
February 2013
Field Crew:
French, Helms
Station Elevation
0.0 4
46.59
11.6 4
46.38
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 46.5
Banull Cross - Sectional Area: 4.0
Banlull Width: 14.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 47.2
Flood Prone Width: >135
Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7
Mean Depth at Banull: 0.3
W / D Ratio: 9.6
Entrenchment Ratio: 9.6
Bank Height Ratio: 1.0

Pebble Count Plots
Size (mm)
Cross - Section
1
D35
Particle Size Distribution
Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
(XS1) Tributary 2
100%
Particle
Millimeter
D65
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
> 80 %
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
E
60%
40%
tXS1
_
LL
20%
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0 °% °
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
Type
silt/clay
100%
sand
0%
gravel
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
cobble
0%
Total
100
boulder
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood/det
0%
artificial
0%
Size (mm)
D 16
0.62
D35
0.62
D50
0.62
D65
0.62
D84
0.62
D95
0.62
Size Distribution
mean
0.1
dispersion
1.0
skewness
-

Cross - Section
2
Particle Size Distribution
Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
(XS2) Tributary 2
100%
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
I < 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
>
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
8000
E
L) 60%
R
40%
xs2
_
20%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
Size (mm) Size Distribution
D16 0.62 mean 0.1
D35 0.62 dispersion 1.0
D50 0.62 skewness -
D65 0.62
D84 0.62
D95 0.62
Type
silt/clay
100%
sand
0%
gravel
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
cobble
0%
Total
100
boulder,
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood/det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross - Section
3
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
(XS3) Tributary 1
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
96
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
4
>
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
E
8000
L) 60%
R
40%
txss
_
20%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 1.0
skewness -
Type
silt/clay
96%
sand
4%
gravel
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
cobble
0%
Total
100
boulder
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood/det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross - Section
4
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
(XS4) Tributary 1
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
I < 0.062
S/C
95
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
5
>
gp %
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
E
°%
U 6o °
R
40%
t XS4
_
20%
o °% °
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 1.0
skewness il
Type
silt/clay
95%
sand
5%
gravel
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
cobble
0%
Total
100
boulder
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood/det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross - Section
5
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
(XS5) Tributary 1
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
g1
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
9
>
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
E
8000
L) 60%
R
40%
t XS5
_
20%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.085
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 1.0
skewness -
Type
silt/clay
91%
sand
9%
gravel
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
cobble
0%
Total
100
boulder,
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood/det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross Section Photographs
Cross Section 1 —T2
2/25/2013
tr
y:,.A' .AUii�1EJLLL.ddl.�ffd - — ""!�.:tl?'S:.i'•.:;F
Cross Section 2 —T2
2/25/2013
Cross Section 3 —T1 Cross Section 4 —T1
2/25/2013 2/25/2013
Cross Section 5 —T1 Cross Section 6 — Relic Channel
2/25/2013 2/25/2013

Cross Section Photographs
Cross Section 7 — Relic Channel T2 looking upstream
2/25/2013 2/22/2013
E,
T1 from road looking downstream T1 floodplain
2/22/2013 2/22/2013

Mitigation Plan
182
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
DRAINMOD Model Results
183
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
184
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

SII_Tomotley Existing.WET
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 6.1
Copyright 1980 -2011 North Carolina State University
----------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Pre - existing Conditions Stanley's II wetland Site - Tomotley
7ackson, NC 314456 station
--- - - - - -- -RUN STATISTICS ---- - - - - -- time: 4/29/2013 @ 13:56
input file: C: \DrainMod\ inputs \stanleys_slough_Tomotley_v2.p
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 6100. cm drain depth = 30.5 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
DRAINMOD - -- WET PERIOD EVALUATION
...... *** version 6.1 ...... ***
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 23 days. Counting starts on day
70 and ends on day 324 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 23 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------ - - - - -- --------------- - - - --
1953 0. 6.
1954 0. 10.
1955 0. 5.
1956 0. 19.
1957 0. 9.
1958 0. 19.
1959 0. 10.
1960 0. 16.
1961 0. 8.
1962 0. 7.
1963 0. 10.
1964 0. 6.
1965 0. 13.
1966 0. 8.
1967 0. 9.
1968 0. 7.
1969 0. 5.
1970 0. 9.
1971 0. 7.
1972 0. 6.
1973 0. 5.
1974 0. 8.
1975 0. 11.
1976 0. 17.
1977 0. 5.
1978 0. 8.
1979 0. 7.
1980 0. 16.
1981 0. 11.
Page 1

Page 2
SII_Tomotley Existing.WET
1982
0.
7.
1983
0.
7.
1984
0.
7.
1985
0.
5.
1986
0.
4.
1987
0.
11.
1988
0.
10.
1989
0.
13.
1990
0.
7.
1991
0.
9.
1992
0.
10.
1993
0.
9.
1994
0.
8.
1995
0.
9.
1996
0.
7.
1997
0.
11.
1998
0.
8.
1999
0.
9.
2000
0.
9.
2001
0.
8.
2002
0.
13.
2003
0.
8.
2004
0.
8.
2005
0.
14.
2006
0.
9.
2007
0.
7.
2008
0.
7.
2009
0.
10.
2010
0.
7.
2011
0.
12.
2012
0.
13.
Number
of Years with at least one period =
0. out of 60 years.
Page 2

SII_Tomotley Proposed.WET
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 6.1
Copyright 1980 -2011 North Carolina State University
----------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Proposed Conditions Stanley's II wetland Site - Tomotley
7ackson, NC 314456 station
--- - - - - -- -RUN STATISTICS ---- - - - - -- time: 4/29/2013 @ 13:58
input file: C: \DrainMod\ inputs \stanleys_slough_Tomotley_v2.p
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 6100. cm drain depth = 12.3 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
DRAINMOD - -- WET PERIOD EVALUATION
...... *** version 6.1 ...... ***
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 23 days. Counting starts on day
70 and ends on day 324 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 23 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------ - - - - -- --------------- - - --
1953 0. 15.
1954 0. 20.
1955 0. 20.
1956 3. 34.
1957 1. 23.
1958 1. 40.
1959 1. 52.
1960 2. 34.
1961 1. 44.
1962 1. 43.
1963 0. 17.
1964 2. 33.
1965 1. 30.
1966 1. 24.
1967 0. 16.
1968 0. 17.
1969 0. 22.
1970 2. 40.
1971 1. 46.
1972 1. 26.
1973 0. 21.
1974 1. 34.
1975 1. 43.
1976 1. 31.
1977 1. 38.
1978 1. 25.
1979 1. 37.
1980 2. 30.
1981 0. 21.
1982 1. 27.
Page 1

Stanleys_II_Tomotley Proposed.WET
1983 1. 44.
1984 1. 51.
1985 0. 16.
1986 0. 22.
1987 0. 18.
1988 1. 29.
1989 3. 44.
1990 0. 22.
1991 0. 17.
1992 1. 32.
1993 1. 51.
1994 1. 31.
1995 0. 15.
1996 2. 40.
1997 0. 20.
1998 0. 19.
1999 3. 33.
2000 0. 19.
2001 1. 30.
2002 2. 40.
2003 2. 24.
2004 2. 36.
2005 1. 40.
2006 1. 45.
2007 1. 27.
2008 0. 16.
2009 2. 75.
2010 1. 26.
2011 2. 33.
2012 2. 43.
Number of Years with at least one period = 41. out of
Page 2
60 years.

SII_Roanoke Existing.WET
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 6.1
Copyright 1980 -2011 North Carolina State University
----------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Pre - existing Conditions Stanley's II wetland site - Roanoke
7ackson, NC 314456 station
--- - - - - -- -RUN STATISTICS ---- - - - - -- time: 4/29/2013 @ 14: 3
input file: C: \DrainMod\ inputs \stanleys_slough_Roanoke_v2.pr
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 3700. cm drain depth = 46.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
DRAINMOD - -- WET PERIOD EVALUATION
...... *** version 6.1 ...... ***
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 23 days. Counting starts on day
70 and ends on day 324 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 23 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------ - - - - -- --------------- - - --
1953 0. 8.
1954 0. 11.
1955 0. 5.
1956 0. 20.
1957 0. 9.
1958 1. 23.
1959 0. 11.
1960 0. 17.
1961 0. 9.
1962 0. 11.
1963 0. 12.
1964 0. 7.
1965 0. 13.
1966 0. 9.
1967 0. 10.
1968 0. 10.
1969 0. 6.
1970 0. 19.
1971 0. 8.
1972 0. 6.
1973 0. 13.
1974 0. 8.
1975 0. 11.
1976 0. 18.
1977 0. 7.
1978 0. 10.
1979 0. 8.
1980 0. 16.
1981 0. 6.
1982 0. 8.
Page 1

Page 2
SII_Roanoke Existing.WET
1983
0.
7.
1984
0.
14.
1985
0.
5.
1986
0.
4.
1987
0.
12.
1988
0.
10.
1989
0.
17.
1990
0.
13.
1991
0.
9.
1992
0.
9.
1993
0.
10.
1994
0.
9.
1995
0.
9.
1996
0.
8.
1997
0.
11.
1998
0.
8.
1999
0.
10.
2000
0.
9.
2001
0.
8.
2002
0.
14.
2003
0.
9.
2004
0.
15.
2005
0.
15.
2006
0.
15.
2007
0.
8.
2008
0.
7.
2009
0.
18.
2010
0.
8.
2011
0.
16.
2012
0.
13.
Number
of Years with at least one period =
1. out of 60 years.
Page 2

SII_Roanoke Proposed.WET
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 6.1
Copyright 1980 -2011 North Carolina State University
----------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Proposed Conditions Stanley's II wetland site - Roanoke
7ackson, NC 314456 station
--- - - - - -- -RUN STATISTICS ---- - - - - -- time: 4/29/2013 @ 14: 6
input file: C: \DrainMod\ inputs \stanleys_slough_Roanoke_v2.pr
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 3700. cm drain depth = 15.2 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
DRAINMOD - -- WET PERIOD EVALUATION
...... *** version 6.1 ...... ***
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 23 days. Counting starts on day
70 and ends on day 324 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 23 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------ - - - - -- --------------- - - --
1953 0. 19.
1954 2. 40.
1955 2. 23.
1956 3. 65.
1957 1. 40.
1958 2. 41.
1959 2. 52.
1960 3. 36.
1961 3. 49.
1962 1. 46.
1963 0. 19.
1964 2. 41.
1965 3. 39.
1966 1. 25.
1967 0. 19.
1968 0. 19.
1969 1. 32.
1970 2. 43.
1971 2. 51.
1972 1. 31.
1973 2. 38.
1974 1. 38.
1975 2. 45.
1976 1. 31.
1977 1. 38.
1978 2. 28.
1979 2. 45.
1980 2. 32.
1981 1. 24.
1982 2. 27.
Page 1

Stanleys_II_Roanoke Proposed.WET
1983 1. 53.
1984 1. 53.
1985 0. 22.
1986 1. 27.
1987 2. 32.
1988 3. 40.
1989 2. 73.
1990 1. 27.
1991 1. 35.
1992 1. 36.
1993 1. 54.
1994 1. 33.
1995 0. 18.
1996 3. 75.
1997 0. 20.
1998 0. 20.
1999 3. 41.
2000 1. 24.
2001 1. 31.
2002 3. 40.
2003 3. 45.
2004 2. 116.
2005 2. 42.
2006 3. 45.
2007 1. 27.
2008 0. 19.
2009 2. 75.
2010 3. 28.
2011 3. 51.
2012 2. 122.
Number of Years with at least one period = 51. out of
Page 2
60 years.

SSS_Roanoke_woods.WET
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 6.1
Copyright 1980 -2011 North Carolina State University
----------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Pre - existing Conditions SSS wetland site - Woods
7ackson, NC 314456 station
--- - - - - -- -RUN STATISTICS ---- - - - - -- time: 4/29/2013 @ 14:11
input file: C: \DrainMod\ inputs \Stanleys_Roanoke_woods.prj
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 2286. cm drain depth = 25.4 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
DRAINMOD - -- WET PERIOD EVALUATION
...... *** version 6.1 ...... ***
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 23 days. Counting starts on day
70 and ends on day 324 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 23 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------ - - - - -- --------------- - - --
1953 0. 13.
1954 0. 21.
1955 0. 15.
1956 2. 34.
1957 0. 21.
1958 1. 39.
1959 1. 52.
1960 2. 26.
1961 0. 21.
1962 1. 42.
1963 0. 17.
1964 1. 26.
1965 1. 29.
1966 1. 23.
1967 0. 15.
1968 0. 15.
1969 0. 20.
1970 2. 30.
1971 0. 22.
1972 0. 12.
1973 0. 20.
1974 1. 33.
1975 1. 29.
1976 1. 31.
1977 1. 26.
1978 1. 24.
1979 1. 37.
1980 2. 26.
1981 0. 15.
1982 1. 27.
Page 1

Number of Years with at least one period = 32. out of 60 years.
Page 2
SSS_Roanoke_woods.WET
1983
1.
23.
1984
1.
51.
1985
0.
16.
1986
0.
19.
1987
0.
17.
1988
0.
19.
1989
2.
43.
1990
0.
19.
1991
0.
15.
1992
0.
22.
1993
1.
46.
1994
0.
15.
1995
0.
15.
1996
1.
31.
1997
0.
20.
1998
0.
18.
1999
2.
31.
2000
0.
18.
2001
1.
25.
2002
1.
40.
2003
1.
23.
2004
2.
31.
2005
1.
27.
2006
1.
45.
2007
0.
21.
2008
0.
15.
2009
2.
65.
2010
0.
18.
2011
1.
23.
2012
2.
42.
Number of Years with at least one period = 32. out of 60 years.
Page 2

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Soil Delineation and Characterization
195

Mitigation Plan
i•.
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
A detailed soils investigation at the NPRS was conducted by a licensed soil scientist (# 187) to determine
the extent and distribution of the hydric soils and to classify the predominate soils to the soil series
level. The investigation consisted of delineating the hydric soil boundaries with pink flagging and
wooden survey stakes in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Delineation Manual
(1987) and the USDA Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and
Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0 (2010). Areas that were identified as possible hydric soil mapping
units were surveyed at a higher intensity until the edge of the mapping unit was identified. The
boundary of the hydric and non - hydric soil mapping units were then followed by continual sampling and
observations as the boundary line was identified and delineated. In those areas where the boundary was
found to be a broad gradient rather than a distinct break, microtopography, landscape position, soil
textural changes, redoximorphic features, and depleted matrices were additionally considered to
identify the extent of the hydric soils.
In developing a detailed soils map, several soil borings were advanced on the site in the general hydric
soil areas identified by landscape position, vegetation and slope. Once the hydric soil borings were
identified, the soil scientist marked the points and established a visual line to the next auger boring
where again hydric soil conditions were confirmed by additional borings. The soil scientist moved along
the edges of the mapping unit and marked each point along the line. To confirm the hydric soil mapping
unit and taxonomic classification, soil borings were advanced to a depth of 50 inches. The soil profile
descriptions identified the individual horizons in the topsoil and upper subsoil as well as the depth,
color, texture, structure, boundary, and evidence of restrictive horizons and redoximorphic features.
Delineated hydric soils boundaries were in contrast to those mapped in the Soil Survey of Northampton
County, North Carolina. The delineated hydric soil boundaries are shown in the following figure, Detailed
Soils Map.
Taxonomic Classification
The predominant soils identified on the site were of the Wehadkee (Fine - loamy, mixed, active, nonacid,
thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts), Altavista (Fine - loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Aquic
Hapludults), Roanoke (Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults), and Tomotley (Fine - loamy,
mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults) soil series. Other soil series include Tarboro, Winton, and
Winton with Pelham inclusions. All of these series except for Altavista and Augusta are listed as hydric
soils in Northampton County, North Carolina. They are defined as hydric due to saturation for a
significant period during the growing season. This soil is listed as hydric on the federal, state and local
lists. They are also listed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as hydric soils.
Profile Description
Typical Pedon Descriptions:
WEHADKEE SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine - loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Wehadkee fine sandy loam -- cultivated (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise
stated.)
Ap - -O to 8 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) fine sandy loam; weak medium granular structure; very
friable; few flakes of mica; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 14 inches thick)
197

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Bg1 - -8 to 17 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) loam; common medium prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/6)
soft masses of iron accumulation; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few flakes
of mica; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (8 to 20 inches thick)
Bg2 - -17 to 40 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay loam; common medium prominent strong brown (7.5YR
5/6) soft masses of iron accumulation; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common
flakes of mica; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. ( 0 to 30 inches thick)
Cg - -40 to 50 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy loam; common medium faint grayish brown (10YR 5/2) iron
depletions and prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) soft masses of iron accumulation; massive; friable;
common flakes of mica; moderately acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Catawba County, North Carolina; 1/2 mile south of Witherspoon Crossroads on SR
1801, 3/4 mile east on SR 1807, and 650 feet north of bridge on Hogan Creek.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from about 20 to more than 60 inches. The
content of mica flakes ranges from few to many. The soil ranges from very strongly acid through neutral,
but some part of the 10 to 40 inch control section is moderately acid through neutral. Content of rock
fragments ranges from 0 to 5 percent by volume in the A and B horizons, and from 0 to 20 percent by
volume in the C horizons. Fragments are dominantly pebbles in size.
The Ap or A horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y or is neutral, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 0 to 4. Some
pedons have soft masses of iron accumulation in shades of brown or red. Texture is fine sandy loam,
very fine sandy loam, loam, silty clay loam, sandy loam, or silt loam. Some pedons have recent layers of
overwash as much as 20 inches thick that are loamy and variable in color. Many pedons have an Ab
horizon that has the same color and texture range as the A horizon.
The Bg horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 0 to 2. Soft masses of
iron accumulation are in shades of red, yellow, and brown. Texture is sandy clay loam, silt loam, loam,
clay loam, or silty clay loam.
The Cg horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to 2. Soft masses of
iron accumulation are in shades of brown, red, and yellow. Texture is commonly sandy loam, loam, or
silt loam, but in some pedons the Cg horizon contains stratified layers of sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty
clay loam, loamy sand, sand, and gravel. Sandy textures are restricted to depths below 40 inches.
ALTAVISTA SEIRES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine - loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Aquic Hapludults
TYPICAL PEDON: Altavista fine sandy loam -- cultivated. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise
stated.)
Ap - -O to 8 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) fine sandy loam; weak medium granular structure; very
friable; many fine roots; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (5 to 12 inches thick)
E--8 to 12 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3) fine sandy loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable; few
fine roots; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (0 to 12 inches thick)
198

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
BE - -12 to 15 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sandy clay loam; weak fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; few medium roots; moderately acid; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 6 inches thick)
Bt1 - -15 to 20 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure;
friable; common fine prominent yellowish red (5YR 5/8) masses of iron accumulation; few fine roots;
few flakes of mica; common faint clay films on faces of peds; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary.
Bt2 - -20 to 35 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; friable; few fine roots; common medium prominent light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) iron
depletions; few flakes of mica; common faint clay films on faces of peds; strongly acid; gradual smooth
boundary. (Combined thickness of the Bt horizon is 14 to 40 inches.)
BC - -35 to 42 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sandy loam; weak fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; many medium prominent light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) iron depletions; few flakes of mica;
strongly acid; gradual smooth boundary. (0 to 25 inches thick)
C--42 to 60 inches; mottled yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) and gray (10YR 6/1) coarse sandy loam; massive;
very friable; many gravel; few flakes of mica; strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Wake County, North Carolina; 12 miles south of Raleigh on Old Stage Road, 1.5 miles
southwest of Plymouth Church on farm road; near Middle Creek, 200 yards east of farm road.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Solum Thickness: 30 to more than 60 inches
Depth to Bedrock: Greater than 60 inches
Depth to Seasonal High Water Table: 18 to 30 inches, December to April
Soil Reaction: Extremely acid to moderately acid except where the surface has been limed
Gravel Content: 0 to 5 percent in the A and B horizons and 0 to 35 percent in the C horizon
Other Features: Flakes of mica range from none to common in the B and C horizons
A or Ap horizon:
Color- -hue of 7.5YR, 10YR, or 2.5Y, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 1 to 4
Texture - -loamy sand, loamy fine sand, fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, silt loam, sandy loam, or
loam
E horizon, (where present):
Color- -hue of 10YR to 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 3 to 8
Texture - -loamy sand, loamy fine sand, fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, silt loam, sandy loam, or
loam
The BE horizon (where present):
Color- -hue of 7.5YR, 10YR, or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 3 to 8
Texture - -fine sandy loam, sandy loam, loam, or sandy clay loam
Bt horizon:
Color- -hue of 7.5YR, 10YR, or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 3 to 8.
Texture -- dominantly loam, clay loam, or sandy clay loam. Subhorizons of the Bt horizon in some pedons
are fine sandy loam or sandy loam. Content of silt is less than 30 percent
199

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Redoximorphic features -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron depletions
in shades of olive or gray (iron depletions occur within the upper 24 inches of the Bt horizon)
Btg horizons (where present):
Color -- neutral or hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2
Texture - -loam, clay loam, or sandy clay loam; subhorizons horizons in some pedons are fine sandy loam
or sandy loam; content of silt is less than 30 percent
Redoximorphic features -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron depletions
in shades of olive or gray (iron depletions occur within the upper 24 inches of the Bt horizon)
BC horizon (where present):
Color- -hue of 7.5YR, 10YR, or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 3 to 8.
Texture - -sandy loam, loam, sandy clay loam, fine sandy loam, loamy fine sand, or loamy sand
Redoximorphic features -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron depletions
in shades of olive or gray
C horizon:
Color- -hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 3 to 8
Texture - -loamy sediment, commonly sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, sandy clay loam, or clay loam;
some pedons have 2C horizons that are clayey
Redoximorphic features -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron depletions
in shades of olive or gray
Cg horizon (where present):
Color -- neutral or hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2
Texture - -loamy sediment, commonly sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, sandy clay loam, or clay loam
Redoximorphic features -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron depletions
in shades of olive or gray
ROANOKE SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
TYPICAL PEDON: Roanoke silt loam - on a 1 percent slope in a pasture. (Colors are for moist soil.)
Ap - -O to 7 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam; weak fine granular structure; friable, slightly
sticky, slightly plastic; many fine roots; strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (5 to 9 inches thick)
Btg1 - -7 to 12 inches; gray (10YR 5/1) silty clay loam; moderate fine subangular blocky structure; friable,
slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many fine and medium roots; few faint clay films on faces of peds; few
medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) irregularly shaped masses of iron accumulation; few fine
flakes of mica; very strongly acid; clear smooth boundary.
Btg2 - -12 to 20 inches; gray (10YR 5/1) clay; moderate medium and coarse angular blocky structure; firm,
moderately sticky, moderately plastic; few medium and large roots; few faint clay films on faces of peds;
few medium prominent brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) irregularly shaped masses of iron accumulation; few
fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid; gradual smooth boundary.
200

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Btg3 - -20 to 40 inches; gray (N 6/0) clay; moderate coarse prismatic structure parting to weak medium
subangular blocky; firm, moderately sticky, moderately plastic; few medium and large roots; common
medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) irregularly shaped masses of iron accumulation;
common faint clay films on faces of peds; 2 percent quartz gravel; few fine flakes of mica; very strongly
acid; gradual smooth boundary. (Combined thickness of the Btg horizon is 25 to 50 inches.)
BCg - -40 to 50 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) silty clay loam with a few pockets of sand; weak fine
subangular and angular blocky structure; firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many medium distinct pale
yellow (2.5Y 7/4) and many medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) irregularly shaped masses of
iron accumulation; 2 percent quartz gravel; common fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid; gradual
smooth boundary. (0 to 20 inches thick)
2Cg - -50 to 72 inches; gray (5Y 6/1) strata ranging from sand to clay; massive; many gray and green iron
depletions and yellow irregularly shaped masses of iron accumulation; some strata contain up to 40
percent quartz gravel; few fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Halifax County, Virginia; 2 miles north of Clover, 100 yards from the Southern Railroad
on east side of highway VA -600.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Solum Thickness: 40 to 60 inches
Depth to Bedrock: Greater than 60 inches
Depth to Seasonal High Water Table: 0 to 12, November to May
Soil Reaction: Extremely acid to strongly acid in the solum unless limed, and extremely acid to slightly
acid in the Cg or 2Cg horizon
Other Features: Particle -size control section has more than 30 percent silt; flakes of mica range from few
to common in most pedons; quartz gravels make up 0 to 10 percent of the solum and 0 to 50 percent of
the C horizon
A or Ap horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 2 to 6, and chroma of 0 to 2; where value is 2 or 3 it is less than 6
inches thick
Texture - -fine sandy loam, loam, silt loam, clay loam, or silty clay loam
Eg horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to 2
Texture - -fine sandy loam, loam, silt loam, clay loam, or silty clay loam
BA or BE horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to 2
Texture - -loam, silt loam, clay loam, or silty clay loam
Redoximorphic features (if they occur) - -iron masses in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron
depletions in shades of olive or gray
Btg horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to 2
Texture - -clay loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, or clay.
201

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Redoximorphic features - -iron masses in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron depletions in shades of
olive or gray
BCg horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -has hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to 2
Texture - -clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay loam, sandy clay, or clay; some pedons have pockets or
strata of coarser textures
Redoximorphic features (if they occur) - -iron masses in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron
depletions in shades of olive or gray
Cg or 2Cg horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to 2
Texture -- commonly stratified ranging from sand to clay in the fine -earth fraction.
TOMOTLEY SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine - loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
TYPICAL PEDON: Tomotley fine sandy loam -- cultivated. (Colors are for moist soil.)
Ap - -O to 7 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) fine sandy loam; weak medium granular structure; very
friable; common fine and medium roots; slightly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (5 to 10 inches thick)
Btg1 - -7 to 12 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1) fine sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure;
friable; few fine prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) soft masses of iron accumulation; few faint clay
films on faces of peds; few fine and medium roots; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary.
Btg2 - -12 to 42 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) sandy clay loam; moderate medium subangular
blocky structure; friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; common medium prominent strong brown (7.5YR
5/8) and yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) soft masses of iron accumulation; few distinct clay films on faces of
peds; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (Combined thickness of the Btg horizon is 20 to 40 inches.)
BCg - -42 to 50 inches; 35 percent light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2), 35 percent gray (10YR 6/1), and 30
percent yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy loam with pockets of loamy sand; weak fine subangular
blocky structure; friable; very strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to 30 inches)
Cg - -50 to 72 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) loamy sand; massive; friable; many medium prominent yellowish
brown (10YR 5/6) and strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) soft masses of iron accumulation; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Chowan County, North Carolina; 0.3 mile southeast of the
intersection of N.C. Highway 32 and Bypass U.S. 17; 100 feet east of N.C. Highway 32.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Solum Thickness: 30 to more than 60 inches
Depth to Bedrock: Greater than 60 inches
Depth to Seasonal High Water Table: 0 to 12, November to April
Soil Reaction: Extremely acid to strongly acid in the A, Eg, BEg, BA, and Btg horizons and extremely acid
to moderately acid in the BCg and Cg horizons.
202

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Other Features: Few to common fine flakes of mica and fine black minerals are in the lower B and C
horizons of some pedons. The content of rounded pebbles range from 0 to 5 percent throughout the
solum.. Some pedons have a few concretions of ironstone in one or all horizons.
A or Ap horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 2 to 4, and chroma of 0 to 2
Texture - -loamy sand, loamy fine sand, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, or silt loam
Eg horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 10YR or 2.5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 8, and chroma of 0 or 2
Texture - -loamy sand, loamy fine sand, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, or silt loam
Redoximorphic features (if they occur) - -iron masses in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron
depletions in shades of olive or gray
BEg or BA horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 10YR or 2.5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to 2.
Texture - -sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, or silt loam
Redoximorphic features (if they occur) - -iron masses in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron
depletions in shades of olive or gray
Btg horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to 2.
Texture -- commonly sandy clay loam, clay loam, loam, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam; some pedons
have thin subhorizons of silt loam or silty clay loam; some pedons are clay or sandy clay below 40 inches
Redoximorphic features - -iron masses in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron depletions in shades of
olive or gray
BCg or CBg horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 8, and chroma of 0 to 2.
Texture - -fine sandy loam, sandy loam, loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam, silt loam, or sandy clay; this
horizon commonly has thin strata or pockets of contrasting textures
Redoximorphic features - -iron masses in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron depletions in shades of
olive or gray
Cg horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR, 2.5Y, 5Y, SBG, 5GY or is neutral, value of 4 to 8, and chroma of 0 to 2
Texture - -is variable, ranging from sand to clay; pockets or strata of
contrasting textures are common
Redoximorphic features - -iron masses in shades of brown, yellow, or red and iron depletions in shades of
olive or gray
COMPETING SERIES:
Partlow soils - -have angular quartz fragments in the solum, may be underlain by saprolite, and the
geographic setting is in the Piedmont Province.
203

Mitigation Plan
204
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

MMMMMMFIS�
mmmnmmrqb�
NMUWW-&�
wmmmma�
mmmmmmmndo�
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROMIlk PA
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Client:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Project:
Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
County:
Northampton
Location:
Margarettsville, NC
Soil Series:
Roanoke
Soil Classification:
AWT: 52"
Elevation:
Vegetation: Hardwc
Borings terminated at
Date: September 29, 2011
Project #: 20110659P -CH 04
State: NC
Site/Lot: Boring # 1
Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
SHWT: 0 -12" Slope: 0 -1% Aspect:
Drainage: Poorly Drained Permeability: Slow to Very Slow
55 Inches
COMMENTS:
The Roanoke series is a poorly drained soil formed in clayey fluvial sediments on terraces and drainageways of the piedmont and upper and middle coastal plain.
The Roanoke soil has slow to very slow runoff and permeability and a seasonally high water table at or near the surface during wet seasons,
typically between 0 -12 inches.
DESCRIBED BY:
DATE: 9/29/2011

KCI
ASSOCIATES F SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NORTH CAROMIK PA
Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. Date: September 29, 2011
Project: Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Project #: 20110659P -CH 04
County: Northampton State: NC
Location: Margarettsville, NC Site/Lot: Boring # 2
Soil Series: Roanoke
Soil Classification:
AWT: >60"
Elevation:
Vegetation: Hardwoods
Borings terminated at
Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
SHWT: 0 -12" Slope: 0 -1% Aspect:
Drainage: Poorly Drained Permeability: Slow to Very Slow
60 Inches
HORIZON
DEPTH (IN)
MATRIX
MOTTLES
TEXTURE
STRUCTURE
CONSISTENCE
BOUNDARY
NOTES
Al
0 -4
l0YR 3/2
l OYR 4/3A f
fsl
l f r
mfr
cs
I OYR 2/2171 f
Eg
4 -8
l OYR 5/2
l OYR 6/2171 f
fsl
l f r
mfr
cs
BA
8 -15
I OYR 6/2
l OYR 5/4c2d
sl
1 fsbk
mfr
98
7.5YR 5 /8fl
Bt I
15 -26
10YR 6/1
7.5YR 5 /8c2d
SO
2msbk
mfr
gs
Btg2
26-46
1 OYR 511
I OYR 5/6m2d
sc
2msbk
mfl
gs
BCg
46 -60
1 OYR 6/1
7.5YR 4/6c2d
SO
1 csbk
mfr
COMMENTS:
The Roanoke series is a poorly drained soil formed in clayey fluvial sediments on terraces and drainageways of the piedmont and upper and middle coastal plain.
The Roanoke soil has slow to very slow runoff and permeability and a seasonally high water table at or near the surface during wet seasons,
typically between 0 -12 inches.
DESCRIBED BY:
DATE: 9/29/2011

�-dh�
WOOMM-4h.-
mmmm-d�
K C T 1
DEPTH (IN)
ASSOCIATES OF
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NORTH CAROLIINA, PA
STRUCTURE
Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Date: September 29, 2011
Project: Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Project #: 20110659P -CH 04
County: Northampton
State: NC
Location: Margarettsville, NC
Site /Lot: Boring # 3
Soil Series: Roanoke
]f r
Soil Classification:
AWT: >60"
Elevation:
Vegetation: Hardwoods
Borings terminated at
Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
SHWT: 0 -12" Slope: 0 -1% Aspect:
Drainage: Poorly Drained Permeability: Slow to Very Slow
60 Inches
HORIZON
DEPTH (IN)
MATRIX
MOTTLES
TEXTURE
STRUCTURE
CONSISTENCE
BOUNDARY
NOTES
Al
0 -4
10YR 4/2
vfsl -sil
]f r
mfr
cs
BA
4 -8
10YR 5/2
vfsl -sil
1 fsbk
mfr
es
Bt 1
8 -18
10YR 5/2
l OYR 5/6c2d
sc
2msbk
mfi
gs
Btg2
18 -25
10YR 5/2
7.5YR 5/8c2d
c
2msbk
mfi
gs
Bt F3
25 -36
I OYR 6/1
l OYR 5/6c2d
sic -c
2msbk -2csbk
mfi
gs
BCg
36-45
10YR 6/1
10YR 5/6c2d
sc
I fsbk
mfi
gs
clay skins
Cg
45 -60
10YR 6/1
1OYR 7/3171£
sc
Iesbk -mass
mfi
tending to massive
COMMENTS:
The Roanoke series is a poorly drained soil formed in clayey fluvial sediments on terraces and drainageways of the piedmont and upper and middle coastal plain.
The Roanoke soil has slow to very slow runoff and permeability and a seasonally high water table at or near the surface during wet seasons,
typically between 0 -12 inches.
DESCRIBED BY:
DATE: 9/29/2011

K C
ASSOCIATES OF SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NORTH CAROLINA, PA
Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. Date: September 29, 2011
Project: Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Project #: 20110659P -CH 04
County: Northampton State: NC
Location: Margarettsville, NC Site /Lot: Boring # 4
Soil Series: State
Soil Classification:
AWT: 56"
Elevation:
Vegetation: Hardwoods
Fine - loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Hapludults
SHWT: >36" Slope: 2 -3% Aspect:
Drainage: Well Drained Permeability: Moderate
Borings terminated at 60 Inches
COMMENTS:
The State series is a well drained soil occuring on stream terraces of the piedmont and upper and middle coastal plain.
The State soil has moderate permeability and a seasonally high water table of greater than 36 inches.
This State soil is an inclusion within the moderately well drained Altavista soil mapping unit as shown on KCI soil maps.
DESCRIBED BY:
DATE: 9/29/2011

WMENNMNNW-6�
MEMMMW`
mmmw-*�
mmmmdp�
K C T y
ASSOCIATES OF SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NORM CAROLL & PA
Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. Date: September 29, 2011
Project: Stanley's Slough Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Project #: 20110659P -CH 04
County: Northampton State: NC
Location: Margarettsville, NC Site/Lot: Boring # 5
Soil Series: Roanoke
Soil Classification: Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
AWT: 22" SHWT: 0 -12" Slope: 0 -1% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Drained Permeability: Slow to Very Slow
Vegetation: Hardwoods
Borings terminated at 45 Inches
COMMENTS:
The Roanoke series is a poorly drained soil formed in clayey fluvial sediments on terraces and drainageways of the piedmont and upper and middle coastal plain.
The Roanoke soil has slow to very slow runoff and permeability and a seasonally high water table at or near the surface during wet seasons,
typically between 0 -12 inches.
DESCRIBED BY:
DATE: 9/29/2011

Mitigation Plan
210
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
a f,
Y Y
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
/Tarboro
RoanagW4 !1 i4
Roanoke
Altavista r �/
e
0 _
` RAno�r
I
Roanoke �,,
XeSnoke
v :y
Augus
Won with Pelham inclusions
Hydric (21.7 ac - 14.2 ac SSS 1 7.5 ac SII)
Nonhydric (2.4 ac - 0.6 ac SSS 1 1.8 ac SII)
Existing Wetland
r' OZI Drained Hydric Soils
e
1 — Existing Ditched Stream Channels
' – – Relic Channel
– Existing Ditches
Other Streams
s A SSS. Soil Borings
Augusta % S11 Soil Borings
{ SSS Proposed Project Boundary (17.6 ac)
SII Proposed Project Boundary (9.4 ac)
Project Parcels
PROJECT SITE DETAILED SOILS MAP Source: hC5laletivide N
200 100 0 200 STANLEY'S SLOUGH !STANLEY'S 11 2010Orthojmagery
Feet RESTORATION SITES
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
211

Mitigation Plan
212
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Potential Vegetation Plot and Wetland /Stream Gauge Locations
213

Mitigation Plan
214
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites
Trib 2 —
G
1V 1 0 �J'
r o•
01 v;�.r�g'9�
O
�,<< #�,
Trib
i . Q SSS Proposed Project Boundary (17.6 ac)
511 Proposed Easement (9.4 ac)
® Utility Easement
r • — — Headwater Stream Valley Centerline (41274 If- 3,054 If T1 1 1,2201f T2)
Wetland Reestablishment (9.3 ac - 2,8 ac SSS 16.5 ac SII)
r
Wetland Rehabilitation (1.9 ac - 0.8 ac SSS 1 1.1 ac 51 1)
I • Wetland Preservation (0.5 ac SSS)
C. Stream Reestablishment (3.5 ac SSS)
r • Stream Rehabilitation (8.0 ac SSS)
y Upland Inclusion (3.6 ac - 1.8 ac SSS 11.8 ac 511)
O
• Gauge
~ R C Vegetation Plot
POTENTIAL GAUGE AND VEGETATION PLOT LOCATIONS source. NC2010
200 100 0 200 STAN LEY'S SLOUGH I STAN LEY'S IIthoimagery
Feet RESTORATION SITES
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NC
215

Mitigation Plan
216
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
14.6 Appendix D. Project Plan Sheets
217
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
218
Stanley's Slough /Stanley's 11 Restoration Sites

O
O
N
0
N
0
U
II
v J
Oil
_J
^J ^J
WW
rw� r�ww
_J _J
V
0
V
824 PROJECT
VIRGINIA LOCATION — — — — — — — — — — /_
NORTH CAROLINA
nlri JOHN STna.. _
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
FROM RALEIGH TAKE US-64 EAST TOWARDS
ROCKY MOUNT. TAKE 1 -95 NORTH AND FOLLOW
FOR APPROX 40 MILES. TAKE EXIT 176 FOR
NORTH CAROLINA 46. TURN RIGHT ONTO NC46
AND FOLLOW FOR 3 MILES. TURN LEFT ONTO
US -301 N AND QUICKLY MERGE RIGHT ONTO
NC 186 EAST. THE SITE WILL BE APPDX 13 MILES
DOWN ON THE LEFT, EAST OF BIG JOHNS STORE
ROAD AND MARGARETTSVILLE ROAD.
INDEX OF SHEETS
I
TITLE SEIBET
2
GENERAL NOTES 6 PROJECT LEGEND
3
DETAILS
4 - 7
SITE PLAN
8-H
CROSS -SECTION SBEETS
12
MITIGATION CLASSIFICATION
13
PLANTING PLAN
14
BOUNDARY MARKING PLAN
*' EROSION CONTROL PLAN
*' TO RE SUBMITTED WITH FINAL PLANS
GRAPHIC SCALES
—40 —20 0 40 80
REACH T1
—50 —25 0 50 100
REACH T2
—100-50 0 100 200
MITIGATION, BOUNDARY
AND PLANTING PLANS
I (0)�� MI :A I I �� 1 �Imuff I�:A "ImI "i'v(�)( I i'�
STANLEY'S SLOUGH ISTANLEY'S H
RESTORATION SITES
CHOWAN WATERSHED
03010204180040
Prepared in the Office of
�,I
3TATA EEP PROI2CINUIdBAIt BN�r 3I833T8
°�'° STANLEY'S SLOUGH=
A SUBMITTED MATH MITIGATION PI-AN MAY 2013
B REVISED PER II
��E 220 LOANDMl�RK CENTER PI® OIDSI� FORKS °RD., RALEIGH, NC 27609
MMMMIO� ENGINEERS -PLANNERS
•ECOLOGISTS
GARY M. MRYNCZA, P.E.
PROJECT
ENGDIEER
ALEX FRENCH /TIM MORRIS
STREAM /WETTAND DESIGN
PROJECT ENGINEER
COMMENTS AUG 2013
REVISIONS
i
i
i
/
i
i
/
i
i
i
i
t�
P.E.
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
CHOWA11t RIVER BASIN
Prepared for:
lir _.w_
EkaVe
t
PRGSRaeA
JEFFJUREK
coNTRacr ADMIN/sTRATOR
8 95356
��E 220 LOANDMl�RK CENTER PI® OIDSI� FORKS °RD., RALEIGH, NC 27609
MMMMIO� ENGINEERS -PLANNERS
•ECOLOGISTS
GARY M. MRYNCZA, P.E.
PROJECT
ENGDIEER
ALEX FRENCH /TIM MORRIS
STREAM /WETTAND DESIGN
PROJECT ENGINEER
COMMENTS AUG 2013
REVISIONS
i
i
i
/
i
i
/
i
i
i
i
t�
P.E.
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
CHOWA11t RIVER BASIN
Prepared for:
lir _.w_
EkaVe
t
PRGSRaeA
JEFFJUREK
coNTRacr ADMIN/sTRATOR
i
i
i
/
i
i
/
i
i
i
i
t�
P.E.
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
CHOWA11t RIVER BASIN
Prepared for:
lir _.w_
EkaVe
t
PRGSRaeA
JEFFJUREK
coNTRacr ADMIN/sTRATOR

D
K
Y
Q
Z
O
Z
0
co
Eu
a
a
GENERAL NOTES:
CONTROL:
Z
U
BEARING AND DISTANCES:
NAME
NORTHING
EASTING
ELEV.
w
ALL BEARINGS ARE NAD 1983 GRID BEARINGS.
KCI #1
1016720.93
2484608.74
57.91
r
m
ALL DISTANCES AND COORDINATES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL (GROUND) VALUES.
KCI #3
1019481.32
2485120.13
45.15
y
ALL INFORMATION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING KCI CONTROL POINTS.
KCI#4
1019310.06
2485382.05
45.13
GRADING:
KCI #5
1019310.06
2485382.05
45.13
PROPOSED CROSS SECTIONS IN THE PLANS ARE A GENERAL GUIDE FOR GRADING.
KCI #6
KCI #7
1019084.72
1019042.88
2485651.46
2485242.23
46.48
46.39
EXACT TIE OUTS FROM THE DITCH TO THE RESTORED WETLAND SHALL BE GRADED
KCI #8
1018912.52
2484912.50
46.93
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
KCI #9
1018851.22
2485361.74
45.21
KCI #10
1018757.42
2485093.29
45.52
UTILITY /SUBSURFACE PLANS:
KCI #11
KCI #12
1018753.50
1018588.72
2484753.72
2484677.15
45.96
47.00
NO SUBSURFACE PLANS ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS PROJECT. EXISTING UNDERGROUND
KCI #13
1018462.81
2484569.90
47.61
UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
KCI #14
1018856.12
2485685.87
50.98
T
CONTACTING A UTILITY LOCATOR AND ESTABLISHING THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY
KCI #15
1019391.62
2485748.55
44.27
AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE PROJECT REACH.
KCI #16
1019474.14
2485792.29
44.58
KCI #17
1016535.09
2484118.26
63.17
KCI #18
1018586.87
2485169.82
50.87
KCI #19 1019249.87 2484417.07 45.99
KCI #21
1016989.95
2484843.11
72.67
KCI #30
1017598.27
2485864.81
67.03
0.4 Z
lu"
�Q
KCI #31
1017838.59
2485845.29
71.83
y
N Z
KCI #32
1017838.59
2485845.29
71.87
do
x Z
Z
a
0z
Z
X 3f
o W
a
Z
w
PROJECT LEGEND:
0 0
-
�,
Z
Proposed Stream Valley Centerline Existing
Woods Line
w
0
U
Z W
Minor Contour
Line ------------------------------
- - - - --
� N
Proposed Braided Channel ------------- - - - - --
Z
Z
Major Contour Line
- --
720 - - --
j
Existing Ditch to be Filled
� �
o
------------------ - - - - --
J
O
U
c
Z
Proposed Ditch Plug ----------------------------- - - - - --
w ww
Q
Proposed Stabilized Drainage Outfall
0
cn
o
Z
DATE MAY 2013
WALE: N.T.S.
GENERAL
NOTES &
PROJECT
LEGEND
SHEET 2
OF 14

100 FEET+ VALLEY WIDTH
PILOT CHANNEL
WIDTH e
DEPTH
CROSS - SECTION
PILOT �� �� 4
CHANNEL
SECONDARY
BRAIDED
�\ Y
CHANNELS
PLAN VIEW
A
DITCH
PLUG
EXISTING DITCH
�B
-- A
PLAN VIEW
BRAIDED CHANNEL DETAIL
SCALE: NTS
SECONDARY
BRAIDED
CHANNELS
PER DIRECTION OF THE DESIGNER,
CONTRACTOR TO GRADE PILOT CHANNEL
IN A RANDOM MANNER, USING THE WIDTH
AND DEPTH RANGES STATED ABOVE FOR
THE APPROPRIATE REACH.
EXACT LOCATION OF PILOT CHANNEL AND
CORRESPONDING PILOT CHANNELS TO BE
DETERMINED IN FIELD BY DESIGNER.
SEE SHEET 8 FOR VALLEY GRADE CROSS -
SECTIONS. FINAL GRADE TO BE DETERMINED
IN FIELD BY DESIGNER.
PILOT CHANNEL FOR REACH T1 TO BE TIED
INTO EXISTING CHANNEL AT APPROXIMATELY
STATION 28 +25.
IF NECESSARY, WOODY DEBRIS TO BE
INCORPORATED THROUGHOUT STREAM
SYSTEM TO ACT AS WATER DIVERSION
AND GRADE CONTROL. EXACT LOCATION
AND QUANTITY TO BE DETERMINED BY
DESIGNER REPRESENTATIVE IN THE FIELD.
DITCH PLUG b
r EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
VAR. EXISTING I VAR.
DITCH WIDTH
SECTION B -B
3'
EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
4:A 4.1 EXISTING DITCH BOTTOM
0
SECTION A -A
NOTE:
SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF DITCH PLUGS.
USE SELECT MATERIAL, CLASS I OR SUITABLE
SALVAGED MATERIAL, IF AVAILABLE FOR DITCH PLUGS.
DITCH PLUG DETAIL
SCALE:NTS
ED WETLAND
SELECT MATERIAL,
CLASS I
5 MIN'
5' MIN �pWETLAND OUTFALL TO RECEIVING WATER
CLASS ISTONE
PROFILE VIEW
NOTE:
IF AVAILABLE SUITABLE SALVAGED MATERIAL
MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SELECT MATERIAL, CLASS I.
STABILIZED DRAINAGE OUTFALL
SCALE: NTS
TIE BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE
INTO EXISTING BANKS/
OUTFALL AT LEAST
0.5' BELOW GRADE
a
0
w
C
m
f/1
D
O
K
X
0
fn
�I
0
C
N
u fQ
V yo
Fil W �
Z
a 0z
X 3f Lu Z o w
0 a
2
W
— z
W
Z W U
C/) cl)
= Z z
j0 z
O 0
J O
�O z
U) C/) o
5. w n
J Q
Z =
H
C/) z
DATE
DETAILS
PILOT CHANNEL SIZING
REACH T1
REACH T2
WIDTH
2.5 - 4 FT
1.5 - 2.4 FT
DEPTH
0.5 - 1.0 FT
0.3 - 0.6 FT
PER DIRECTION OF THE DESIGNER,
CONTRACTOR TO GRADE PILOT CHANNEL
IN A RANDOM MANNER, USING THE WIDTH
AND DEPTH RANGES STATED ABOVE FOR
THE APPROPRIATE REACH.
EXACT LOCATION OF PILOT CHANNEL AND
CORRESPONDING PILOT CHANNELS TO BE
DETERMINED IN FIELD BY DESIGNER.
SEE SHEET 8 FOR VALLEY GRADE CROSS -
SECTIONS. FINAL GRADE TO BE DETERMINED
IN FIELD BY DESIGNER.
PILOT CHANNEL FOR REACH T1 TO BE TIED
INTO EXISTING CHANNEL AT APPROXIMATELY
STATION 28 +25.
IF NECESSARY, WOODY DEBRIS TO BE
INCORPORATED THROUGHOUT STREAM
SYSTEM TO ACT AS WATER DIVERSION
AND GRADE CONTROL. EXACT LOCATION
AND QUANTITY TO BE DETERMINED BY
DESIGNER REPRESENTATIVE IN THE FIELD.
DITCH PLUG b
r EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
VAR. EXISTING I VAR.
DITCH WIDTH
SECTION B -B
3'
EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
4:A 4.1 EXISTING DITCH BOTTOM
0
SECTION A -A
NOTE:
SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF DITCH PLUGS.
USE SELECT MATERIAL, CLASS I OR SUITABLE
SALVAGED MATERIAL, IF AVAILABLE FOR DITCH PLUGS.
DITCH PLUG DETAIL
SCALE:NTS
ED WETLAND
SELECT MATERIAL,
CLASS I
5 MIN'
5' MIN �pWETLAND OUTFALL TO RECEIVING WATER
CLASS ISTONE
PROFILE VIEW
NOTE:
IF AVAILABLE SUITABLE SALVAGED MATERIAL
MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SELECT MATERIAL, CLASS I.
STABILIZED DRAINAGE OUTFALL
SCALE: NTS
TIE BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE
INTO EXISTING BANKS/
OUTFALL AT LEAST
0.5' BELOW GRADE
a
0
w
C
m
f/1
D
O
K
X
0
fn
�I
0
C
N
u fQ
V yo
Fil W �
Z
a 0z
X 3f Lu Z o w
0 a
2
W
— z
W
Z W U
C/) cl)
= Z z
j0 z
O 0
J O
�O z
U) C/) o
5. w n
J Q
Z =
H
C/) z
DATE
DETAILS

/ / I
/ / l
/ I
C)j \VA
BEGIN
/
/
REACH T7 /' // / / / / / / / / / ADDITIONAL GRADING
MAY BE REQUIRED TO
DRAINAGE
POSITIVE
I
O
/
I \ 1
I \
I 1 \ \ \
I \ \
I \ \
I A A
I A (
I A A
I A A
I \ \
I A A
1 \ \
ADDITIONAL GRADING A A
MAYBE REQUIRED TO \ \
MAINTAIN 1\
DRAINAGE \ \
O
\
INSTALL DITCH
PLUG(TYP.) \
\ CONSERVATION EASEMENT - STANLEY'S SLOUGH
\ \
1✓ W
T
qg--- - - - - --
1` __ --
5
0
x
0
N �
a
O V //
N
N
V A
I\
I I
PROPOSED / V
1 v v
/'
- - - - --
CHANNEL
/
I
I
I
/
\
I
/
I
\
I
1
\
I
cl
)
\
I
\V�VA
\
\
I
II
vv vvgip v
—
,ate------- - - - - --
INSTALL DITCH
PLUG(TYP.) \
\ CONSERVATION EASEMENT - STANLEY'S SLOUGH
\ \
1✓ W
T
qg--- - - - - --
1` __ --
5
0
x
0
N �
a
O V //
N
N
V A
I\
I I
PROPOSED / V
1 v v
/'
- - - - --
CHANNEL
cl
\V�VA
II
vv vvgip v
—
,ate------- - - - - --
53
' ' -
GRAPHIC SCALE
D
O
°d
0
0
frn n
i- w
�I
0
f �
uu N
W fa
V yo
- y Q�
w w K
z
a 0z
X 3f
Lu z o w
0 a
w
— z
J
Lu
Z W U
� H
C/) cl)
=Z Z ~
O
C7 H C)
og w
O
U) f jz
O
5. W a
LU
J Q
Z =
H
fn Z
DATE
SITE PLAN

�ZO
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
II
II
I\
I \
_ 1
p
Iv
v
I
I
/
I
I
I �
/
ma/
/
I
I i
r - - - -4
I +
i PROPOSED
/ BRAIDED
CHANNEL
- - -5e --
NSTALL DITCH
\ 1 PLUG LL D
- _ - - _ STABILIZE OUTLET
WITH CLASS I
RGE STONE E M XTURE
Gil
- - - - - /- - •+ CONSERV PrO
N
D
O
K
°d
5
a
gSVOJG 0 i
I w
/ a
I / I
N �
0
-47
PROPOSED BRAIDED \ \ \
lillem
w fQ
o U �z
CHANNEL TO BE TIED A \
d
Qo
- y �
� O
w
z
\
INTO EXISTING CHANNEL \ \ \
\ \
w
v
V I
i PROPOSED
/ BRAIDED
CHANNEL
- - -5e --
NSTALL DITCH
\ 1 PLUG LL D
- _ - - _ STABILIZE OUTLET
WITH CLASS I
RGE STONE E M XTURE
Gil
- - - - - /- - •+ CONSERV PrO
N
D
O
K
°d
5
a
gSVOJG 0 i
I w
/ a
I / I
N �
0
-47
PROPOSED BRAIDED \ \ \
-48_
w fQ
o U �z
CHANNEL TO BE TIED A \
d
Qo
- y �
� O
w
z
\
INTO EXISTING CHANNEL \ \ \
\ \
w
v
V I
q
\
I
A \
\
I
V
I
I
I
I
\
yG
\
9�
oy
\
RyT
NT
NCO
�
Gc
\s
y
o
0
fn
i- w
yl
0
!Z
— Z
Lu
Z W U
� H
co cl) O
Z z F
D z
o9 = W
O �
c O z
fA f j O
5- w D_
W W 2
J Q
Z =
H
cn z
DATE
SITE PLAN
\\
\
w fQ
o U �z
d
Qo
- y �
� O
w
z
a 0z
x=
Lu Z o w
0 a
w
— Z
Lu
Z W U
� H
co cl) O
Z z F
D z
o9 = W
O �
c O z
fA f j O
5- w D_
W W 2
J Q
Z =
H
cn z
DATE
SITE PLAN

MATCHLINE
- SEE SHEET 7 FOR REACH T2
I�
z
0
SF
S
W
Cl
D
O
z
°d
0
0
fn
i- w
�I
0
uu N
W fQ
V yo
w w K
z
a 0z
X 3f
z o w
0 a
w
— Z
W
Z LU U
vJ N o
2 Z Z ~
O
D z
O� 0 o W
w
�O z
C/) cn ~n o
>- w D_
LU
J Q
Z =
H
fn z
DATE
SITE PLAN
_45 I
\ �o
-40' -20' 0' 40' 80'
\
\
-4
GRAPHIC SCALE
- - - - - -
- - //
INSTALL 18" \
I
I
/
/ CORRUGATED A
II
METAL PIPE AT \ \
I
ROAD CROSSING
—44-
i
44 --
/
—47— /
SSL
OH
—
_MENT- TAN
N ERVATI N
/ o /
SN /
INSTALL 18" CORRUGATED
METAL PIPE AT ROAD CROSSING
°
°
+
,
n 46-
°
M
I
END REACH TI
N
--- -- ---
- -M
`*
— - -�P�
//�
T
------------------ - -
- - --
— _ —_
/
?
`._� /�
_-- \-- _- 51-
----- - -
- - --
/
- - --
GO
z
m
z
0
SF
S
W
Cl
D
O
z
°d
0
0
fn
i- w
�I
0
uu N
W fQ
V yo
w w K
z
a 0z
X 3f
z o w
0 a
w
— Z
W
Z LU U
vJ N o
2 Z Z ~
O
D z
O� 0 o W
w
�O z
C/) cn ~n o
>- w D_
LU
J Q
Z =
H
fn z
DATE
SITE PLAN

°
O
°d
Y
Q
o�
'a
f°O
Z
O
fn
Eu
—50'-25' 0' 50' 100'
S
a
GRAPHIC SCALE
2
O
U
°
w
C
m
WATER QUALITY BMP:
N
a
A 50' BY 50' WATER QUALITY BMP WILL BE INSTALLED IN THIS AREA TO
MAXIMIZE SEEP PRODUCTION AND TREAT AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF PRIOR TO
ENTERING THE STREAM. THIS BMP WILL BE CREATED BY UNDERCUTTING
APPROXIMATELY 2' OF EXISTING SUBSOIL AND REPLACING THAT MATERIAL
WITH A 6" LAYER OF 57 STONE OVER FILTER FABRIC. THE STONE WILL BE
COVERED BY V LIFT OF A CERTIFIED COMPOST PRODUCT COVERED BY 6" OF
-
\
WOOD CHIPS. LOG SILLS WILL BE USED TO LOCK THE BMP IN PLACE.
\ EXISTING CULVERT
\
_ _
TO REMAIN
_ - -
_ `
\
- - - -
_
- --- q� - - - - -�
INSTALL DI)CH
\
EMENf- g7ANLEYS SLOUGH
- _ /
—\ ��
- - - - -
— PLUG (TYP.
CONSERVATION EAS
_— __
_
\
/
CONSERVATION EASEMENT -
INSTALL STABILIZED
DRAINAGE OUTFALL
\
- - - ate\_ °+
-
_
i
95 }
- - -a6-
- - - \ -46- - - - T -B ANLEYS SLOUGH
\
\ \
-
CID SERVATON T
f N n
Lu ~
EAS EY'
FNT-STANLEy811L
ryry y0
/ \
REACH U BEGIN
\\
—
p
�a N o
O v
\
\
0
tea/, \ �
\
CHANNEL
a z
I
\
S
END
REACH T2
X 2
Lu n�
cs
/
i W
a
Z
z
W
44—
= Q
cA z
O
W D!
\
\\ \
\
\\ \\ \_ - -45'I
I
Q W
vJ v, O
Z Z
c�
U
D Z
c/) I.- Z
U) \
0
W
5- d
sue
LU
\
J Q
Z z
44—
H O
cA z
10 \
DATE MAY 2013
WALE: GRAPHIC
—
/
I
/' \\ /
`\
—
SITE PLAN
i
SHEET 7 OF 14
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEETS 48 FOR REACH TI

14 +00.00
17 +50.00
0
—40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
HORIZONTAL SCALE
w
(1 BLOCK =10')
EL 46
EL 44
VERTICAL SCALE
(1 BLOCK =1')
z
0
13 +50.00
17 +00.00
z
'"
a
a
NOTES:
z
0
�
U
c
CROSS SECTIONS SHOWN FOR CUT /FILL QUANTITIES
ONLY. EXACT GRADING TO BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
ALL TOPSOIL TO BE STOCKPILED AND STREA
r
UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT HEADWATER R STREAM
VALLEY.
�
w
ALL TRANSITIONS FROM HEADWATER STREAM
r
VALLEY TO ADJACENT UPLANDS TO BE 3:1 OR LOWER.
m
EL 46
EL 44
a
13 +00.00
16 +50.00
20 +00.00
EL 46
EL 44
EL 44
12 +50.00
16 +00.00
19 +50.00
N
w �a
_ y
1� z
d
Q�
O
w w
K x
z
F
0
�I
I a
Oz
EL 46
EL 45
EL 44
�jJ�
{�
L
X =
w
N`?
III
I z �w
v
12 +00.00
15 +50.00
19 +00.00
z
w
Q
Z
L Of
G7
EL 47
EL 45
EL 44
H
G7 N
11 +50.00
15 +00.00
18 +50.00
O
Z Z
= O_ }
~
Z
U
D 0
O
0
W
�
c/)O
~ z
C/) U) n o
LLI D
—J Q
Z 2
EL 47
EL 45
EL 43
�
cn z
11 +00.00
14 +50.00
18 +00.00
onre MAY 2013
WALE: GRAPHIC
CROSS
SECTIONS
(REACH T1)
SHEET 8 OF 14
EL 46
EL 46
EL 44

23 +50.00
27 +00.00
0
—40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
HORIZONTAL SCALE
w
(1 BLOCK =10')
—4' —2' 0' 4' 8'
EL 44
EL 44
VERTICAL SCALE
(1 BLOCK =1')
z
O
23 +00.00
26 +50.00
z
'"
a
a
NOTES:
z
0
�
U
c
CROSS SECTIONS SHOWN FOR CUT /FILL QUANTITIES
ONLY. EXACT GRADING TO BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
ALL TOPSOIL TO BE STOCKPILED AND STREA
r
UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT HEADWATER R STREAM
VALLEY.
�
w
ALL TRANSITIONS FROM HEADWATER STREAM
r
VALLEY TO ADJACENT UPLANDS TO BE 3:1 OR LOWER.
m
EL 44
EL 44
f/1
a
22 +50.00
26 +00.00
EL 44
EL 45
22 +00.00
25 +50.00
N
w �a
y0
_ y
Q�
w w
z
K
-TT
z
o:
a
Oz
EL
45
EL 44���
X 3f
w
1 i o
21 +50.00
25 +00.00
28 +50.00
z v
w
Q
� Z
L Of
G7
EL 45
EL 44
EL 46
H
N O
21 +00.00
24 +50.00
28 +00.00
Z z
= O_ }
~
C9 F Z
U
=
Og
W
of
c/) �O z
U) C/) o
5-- LLI o
LU
LU Q
Z 2
EL 44
EL 44
EL 43
f
n Z
20 +50.00
24 +00.00
27 +50.00
onre MAY 2013
WALE: GRAPHIC
CROSS
SECTIONS
(REACH T1)
SHEET 9 OF 14
EL 44
EL 44
EL 44

53 +00.00
56 +50.00
0
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
HORIZONTAL SCALE
w
(1 BLOCK =10')
-4' -2' 0' 4' 8'
EL 42
EL 42
VERTICAL SCALE
(1 BLOCK =1')
z
0
52 +50.00
56 +00.00
z
0
a
a
NOTES:
z
0
�
U
c
CROSS SECTIONS SHOWN FOR CUT /FILL QUANTITIES
ONLY. EXACT GRADING TO BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
ALL TOPSOIL TO BE STOCKPILED AND STREA
r
UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT HEADWATER R STREAM
VALLEY.
�
w
ALL TRANSITIONS FROM HEADWATER STREAM
r
VALLEY TO ADJACENT UPLANDS TO BE 3:1 OR LOWER.
m
EL 41
EL 42
a
52 +00.00
55 +50.00
59 +00.00
EL 42
EL 42
EL 41
51 +50.00
55 +00.00
58 +50.00
N
w �a
_ y
d
Q�
w w
K
z
x
F
o:
pz
EL 42
EL 42
EL 41
�jJ�
{�
L
X =
w
N`?
III
I z �w
v
51 +00.00
54 +50.00
58 +00.00
z
w
Q
77—
cn Z
Lu Of
G7
EL 42
EL41
EL 42
H
G7 N
50 +50.00
54 +00.00
57 +50.00
O
Z Z
N
= O
~
I-
D0g z
Q
O O
111
G7 I.- z
Un G7 0
5- w D_
LU
J Q
Z 2
EL 42
EL 42
EL 42
�
cn z
50 +00.00
53 +50.00
57 +00.00
onre MAY 2013
WALE: GRAPHIC
CROSS
SECTIONS
Er(REACH
T2)
SHEET 10 OF 14
EL 42
EL 42
EL 42

62 +50.00
0
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
w
HORIZONTAL SCALE
(1 BLOCK =10')
-4' -2' 0' 4' 8'
EL 41
VERTICAL SCALE
(1 BLOCK =1')
z
O
62 +00.00
z
0)
a
a
NOTES:
z
0
�
U
c
CROSS SECTIONS SHOWN FOR CUT /FILL QUANTITIES
ONLY. EXACT GRADING TO BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
ALL TOPSOIL TO BE STOCKPILED AND STREA
r
UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT HEADWATER R STREAM
VALLEY.
�
w
ALL TRANSITIONS FROM HEADWATER STREAM
r
VALLEY TO ADJACENT UPLANDS TO BE 3:1 OR LOWER.
m
EL 41
a
�
61+50-00
EL 41
61+00-00
N
w �-a
y0
_ y Q�
w w K
z
z
o:
a Oz
EL 41
X 3f
i Sw
v
60 +50.00
z
w
Q
� Z
71
Lu Of
G7
z Lu
EL 41
G7 N O
60 +00.00
Z Z
N
= O
~
I-
D0gz
7
Q
111
O O
G7 I.— z
U) G7 0
5- w D
—J Q
z =
~
EL 41
fn Z
59 +50.00
onre MAY 2013
WALE: GRAPHIC
CROSS
SECTIONS
(REACH T2)
SHEET 11 OF 14
EL 41 1

D
O
K
°d
Y
Q
NC GRID
RpD '63
- 200' -100' 0' 100' 200'
N
Z
GRAPHIC SCALE "'
5
a a
z U
O
F
r
o°
oo w
N 00 I-
t O)
H p O N
n O
� O
t
O
N O
t o
N + # O
N O
O
f �
N
p° 52 }00
N o �
0
ro
N
x
(YO' S3 }00
S
5A }� z N
w Q
Sz
N y0
O
56+00 - 2
3z +oo z F
a Oz
LL
X3
W 0
0
W W
33}00 z v
w
5+00
34+00
Q
pppQQQ +00 Z
Q Lu
J Q
Z U Lu
36 }� 59+00 ~ ~ ~
cn N
o� Z z
o =O }
3� }0° 2y 60+00 (7 � Z
y� 0 9
J O
o O Z
�$ o U) co O
61 +00 } LU n
00 W �' <
�9x J =
Z
Op 62 +00 � Z
aox
STANLEY'S SLOUGH EASEMENT
STANLEY'S 2 EASEMENT DATE MAY 2013
SCAO=: GRAPHIC
HEADWATER STREAM
VALLEY CENTERLINE MITIGATION
CLASSIFICATION
SHEET 12 OF 14
WETLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
STREAM
STREAM
UPLAND
REESTABLISHMENT
REHABILITATION
PRESERVATION
REESTABLISHMENT
REHABILITATION
INCLUSION
(1:1)
(2.5:1)
(N.C.)
(1:1)
(1:1)
(N.C.)
STANLEY'S
2.8 AC./
0.8 AC./
0.5 AC./
3.5 AC./
8.0 AC./
1.8 AC./
SLOUGH
CREDITS
2.8 CR.
0.3 CR.
0 CR.
1465 L.F./
1465 CR.
2809 L.F./
2809 CR.
0 CR.
STANLEY'S I I
6.5 AC. /
1.1 AC. /
1.8 AC. /
CREDITS
6.5 CR.
0.5 CR.
—
—
—
0 CR.
TOTAL
9.3 AC./
1.9 AC./
0.5 AC./
3.5 AC. /
1465 L.F./
8.0 AC. /
2809 L.F./
3.6 AC./
CREDITS
9.3 CR.
0.8 CR.
0 CR.
7465 CR.
2809 CR.
0 CR.

WETLAND PLANTING PLAN (STANLEY'S II)
HEADWATER FOREST COMMUNITY
6.37 AC
18" - 24" BARE ROOT MATERIAL
968 STEMS /ACRE (9' X 5' SPACING), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
WETLAND INDICATOR
% OF TOTAL
# OF PLANTS
SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK
QUERCUS MICHAUXII
FACW
20
1,300
GREEN ASH
FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA
FACW
20
1,300
WILLOW OAK
QUERCUS PHELLOS
FACW
20
1,300
RIVER BIRCH
BETULA NIGRA
FACW
20
1,300
LAUREL OAK
QUERCUS LAURIFOLIA
FACW
10
700
SWEETBAY
MAGNOLIA VIRGINIANA
FACW
5
400
RED MAPLE
ACER RUBRUM
FAC
5
400
100 6,700
NOTE: THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE STEMS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DESIGNER'S
DISCRETION. HOWEVER, ONE SPECIES MAY OCCUPY NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE
TOTAL STEMS AND AT LEAST FIVE SPECIES MUST BE USED.
UPLAND PLANTING PLAN (STANLEY'S II)
TRANSITIONAL ZONE
1.84 AC
18" - 24" BARE ROOT MATERIAL
968 STEMS /ACRE (9' X 5' SPACING), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
WETLAND INDICATOR
% OF TOTAL
# OF PLANTS
SOUTHERN RED OAK
QUERCUS FALCATA
FACU
20
400
GREEN ASH
FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA
FACW
20
400
WILLOW OAK
QUERCUS PHELLOS
FACW
15
300
TULIP POPLAR
LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA
FACU
15
300
AMERICAN ELM
ULMUS AMERICANA
FAC
10
200
PIN OAK
QUERCUS PALUSTRIS
FACW
10
200
PERSIMMON
DIOSPYROS VIRGINIANA
FAC
5
100
BLACK CHERRY
PRUNUS SEROTINA
FACU
5
100
100 2,000
NOTE: THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE STEMS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DESIGNER'S
DISCRETION. HOWEVER, ONE SPECIES MAY OCCUPY NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE
TOTAL STEMS AND AT LEAST FIVE SPECIES MUST BE USED.
NC GRID
RpD '63
- 200' -100' 0' 100' 200'
GRAPHIC SCALE
WOODED
AREA
STREAM PLANTING PLAN (STANLEY'S SLOUGH)
HEADWATER FOREST COMMUNITY
8.74 AC
18" - 24" BARE ROOT MATERIAL
968 STEMS /ACRE (9'X 5' SPACING), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
WETLAND INDICATOR
%OF TOTAL
# OF PLANTS
SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK
QUERCUS MICHAUXII
FACW
20
1,700
GREEN ASH
FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA
FACW
20
1,700
WILLOW OAK
QUERCUS PHELLOS
FACW
15
1,300
BALD CYPRESS
TAXODIUM DISTICHUM
OBL
15
1,300
RIVER BIRCH
BETULA NIGRA
FACW
10
900
WATER OAK
QUERCUS NIGRA
FAC
10
900
SWAMP TUPELO
NYSSA BIFLORA
OBL
5
500
SWEETBAY
MAGNOLIA VIRGINIANA
FACW
5
500
NOTE: THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE STEMS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DESIGNER'S
DISCRETION. HOWEVER, ONE SPECIES MAY OCCUPY NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE
TOTAL STEMS AND AT LEAST FIVE SPECIES MUST BE USED.
100 8,800
5
z
2 N
O i
a w
t7 �
~ O
� U
F K
cS z
O w
w a
C °w
N
m S
w
N D!
D
O
K
°d
Z
O
ffn n
Iw
hl
0
N N �
N
�y w �- ¢
do
_ N �
Fil w �
z
a 0z
X 3f
Lu z o w
z a
w
Q
U) Z
W
Z W U
H H
C/) N O
Z z
2
D 0 z
O� 0
J 0
cn O z
U) f j O
5- W a
F-
LU
J Q
Z =
H
c/) z
DATE
PLANTING
PLAN

NC GRID
RpD '63
- 200' -100' 0' 100' 200'
GRAPHIC SCALE
x
� �xx
CONSERVA ON E95EME�_ S SLOUGH x
- CO X
�NF CONSERV nON EASE iL
P9�OZ ATION Eq'SEMEH -STgNL S�SLlUGF{ k \� no
N
CONSERVATION EASEMENT- STAN LEY'SIJ �(
X x X
f X
X
EASEMENT BOUNDARY MARKING
THE EASEMENT BOUNDARY WILL BE MARKED
WITH METAL POSTS AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SIGNS AT THE CORNERS AND AT A MINIMUM OF 200'
INTERVALS ALONG THE BOUNDARY.
O 5/8" REBAR 30" IN LENGTH WITH 3 -1/4" ALUMINUM CAPS
ON ALL EASEMENT CORNERS. CAPS SHALL MEET EEP
SPECIFICATIONS (BERNSTEN RBD5325 RINTED WITH
NC STATE LOGO B9087 OR EOUIVALEN IMP . AFTER
INSTALLATION, CAPS SHALL BE STAMPE WITH THE
CORRESPONDING NUMBER.
• 6 -FOOT TALL DURABLE WITNESS POSTALONG BOUNDARY
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT. POSTS SHALL BE MADE
OF MATERIAL THAT WILL LAST A MINIMUM OF 20 YEARS.
THE PROVIDER SHALL ATTACH A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SIGN TO EACH WITNESS POSTAND PLACE ADDITIONAL SIGNS
AT NO MORE THAN 200 -FOOT INTERVALS ON BOUNDARY LINES.
-X- WOVEN WIRE FENCING
I-
sk
ZEN
A� A
t
D
ilZ
m13
ml m
yl y
al Z
ZN
5
z
z
0
c
f=/1
X
O
fN n
Iw
yl
0
V 0_
H w
f/J N �
N
W fQ
p N �z
V yo
z O
W a.
z
a 0z
X 3f
Lu z O W
z a
z
W
vJ
w
J
z
V
O
J
U)
w
J
z
DATE
w
z
O
9
O
w
w
z
O
Q
U
x
O
z
z
z
7
O
U
z
O
F-
n
2
O
z
BOUNDARY
MARKING
PLAN