20130455 Ver 1_Compiled 404-401 Permit Application_20131107

o stem
a ernen
PROGRAM
November 4, 2013
Eric Kulz
Division of Water Resources
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
Re: Permit Application- Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Project, Duplin 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 Twin Bays wetland restoration project in Duplin 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.
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Packa
Final Mitigation Plan (2 originals)
Permit Application Fee Memo
CD containing all electronic files
Sincerely
Lin Xu a ��
@0V@-
ge (1 original) l40V - 7 2013
D
W tisnde � ►�r�� ��1Ty
e�er►�ch
Rju-toriptg— EKA4"... Pro"' 0" lt-&e'
PiCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / www.nceep.net

MEMORANDUM:
TO: Cindy Perry
FROM: Lin Xu LX
SUBJECT: Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
DATE: November 4, 2013
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program is implementing a mitigation project for
Twin Bays wetland restoration project in Duplin 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 # 2981, 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
e r
�� i.- : L�;.r j .,. �.•F �t✓'{.c"�' ✓✓ �..�;� ... . V pry.- r«.�,..�: -%^ :✓ r�ff ✓ f��.�„f.. -`is HCiiEHR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27649 -1652 / 414 -715 -0476 / www.nceep.net

404/401 Joint Permit Application
Twin Bays Wetland
Restoration Project
KCI Project Number — 20122265
EEP Project Number — 95363
ACOE Project Number —SAW 2012 -01285
cnNTFNTS
404 -401 Appli
PCN Form
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
cation
—Approved Categorical Exclusion Report
- 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 ma €ntaining 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 BY APPLICANT)
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 - ICCI Technologies, Inc.
E -mail Address - tiin.baumgartner @ncdenr.gov
E -mail Address - tin3,morris @kci.cont
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. wlAREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. w1AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
(919)707 -8543 [phone]
(919)783 -9214 (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)
'Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Upper New River
Address US HWY 258
City Richlands State- NC Zip- 28574
15, LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 34.926545 Longitude: -W - 77.607511
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID 239600252193 Municipality
Section - Township - Rockfish Range -
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
Proceed cast on I -40 for approximately 69 miles. Then travel on US -I 17 south toward Wallace. Turn right onto NC -41 South /East Main
Street. Travel for two miles (East Main Street turns into West Main Street and then Wallace Highway). Next, take a slight right onto
Cornwallis Road. The site will be approximately 0.5 mile ahead on the right.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site (TBWRS) is a full - delivery mitigation project being developed for the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP). The TBWRS is former non - riparian wetland system in the Cape Fear Basin (03030007 8 -digit HUC) in
southern Duplin County, North Carolina that has been substantially modified to maximize agricultural production. The site offers the
chance to restore impacted agricultural lands to non - riparian wetland habitat. The project goals will be addressed through the following
objectives: fill field ditches to restore surface flow retention and elevate local groundwater levels, redevelop longer wetland flow patterns
to increase surface flow retention time, modify an existing pond to its natural seep condition to feed the downslope wetland, restore a
native forested hardwood wetland community using; natives trees and seed mixes.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities state the goals for the TBWRS's 14 -digit HUC are to expand restoration opportunities
and repair riparian buffers (NCDENR EEP, 2009). The project goals for TBWRS are in line with the basin priorities and include the
following: slow and treat the runoff of upslope agricultural drainage, restore a hardwood flats community, develop valuable wetland habitat
niches within a drained agricultural landscape.
USE BLOCKS 20 -23 IF DREDGED AND /OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Fill will be discharged into jurisdictional tributaries for the purpose of restoring the hydrology to approximately 1 1 acres of drained
wetlands.
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 - 1,250 CY
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres 0.39
or
Linear Feet
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
In order to reestablish wetland hydrology throughout a much larger area drainage features (jurisdictional tributaries) 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. 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 FX�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- 1274 Redwind Red.
City - Fayettville State - GA zip - 30215
b. Address- 248 Cornwallis Rd.
City - Teachey State - NC Zip - 28464
c. Address- 6452 S NC 41 HWY
City - Wallace State - NC zip - 28466
d. Address- 478 Cornwallis Rd.
City - 'Teachey State - NC zip - 28464
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
FHWA Categorical Exclusion NA 10-11-12 10 -12 -12
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 €s
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.
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 �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:
Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
lc.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes [j No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
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 [j No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes C] 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 [] No
19,
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes 0 No
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes E] No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Twin Says Wetland Restoration Site
2b.
County:
Duplin
2c.
Nearest municipality 1 town:
Wallace, NC
2d. Subdivision name:
NA
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
NC EEP Project Number - 95363
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Danny B. Keir
3b,
Deed Book and Page No.
DB 1666 PG 116
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
NA
3d. Street address:
5114 Clear Run Drive
3e.
City, state, zip:
Wilmington, NC 28403
3f.
Telephone no.:
(910) 799 -5828
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):
NCIOENR 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
S.
AgenVConsultant 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)783 -9214
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):
2396 - 0025-2193
1b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 34.748418 Longitude: - 78.027129
1 c.
Property size:
11.72 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Rock Fish Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C SW
2c.
River basin:
Cape Fear
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 Cornwallis Road to the west, a ditch along the property line to the south, and agricultural land to the east and north. 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: 0.39
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 0
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
This project aims to restore impacted agricultural land to non- riparian wetland habitat
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will involve wetland restoration activities (ditch filling, grading, etc.). Detailed information and project plans are included as attachments.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property I
ro'ect (including all prior phases) in the past?
0 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:
Other: KCI Associates of NC
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
October 30, 2012
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑Yes 0 No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3of10
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑ Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers C] 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
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W2 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
`J`13 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
`J`14 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
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 w €11 ultimately be restored as part of the overall mitigation plan and thus are considered temporary
impacts for the purpose of this application. Ditches were determined to be "jurisdictional tributaries" during the JD process.
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 -
Choose one
-
-
S2 -
Choose one
-
-
S3 -
Choose one
-
-
S4 -
Choose one
-
-
S5 -
Choose one
-
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
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 individually 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 P
Man Made Drainage Ditches
Fill
Other
0.39
02 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
0.39
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
Tem ora T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 9
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1 -
Yes /No
B2 -
Yes /No
B3 -
Yes /No
64 -
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 wetland mitigation credits for impacts elsewhere within this 8 -digit
HUC. The site offers an ideal opportunity to restore areas of impacted agricultural land to wetland habitat.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
In order to reestablish wetland hydrotogy throughout a much larger area drainage features (jurisdictional tributaries) 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. 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 ❑x 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
❑ 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 Makin 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 flan
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 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:
Wage 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 El 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'
N�
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Duplin 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 Pro ram Review
❑Coastal counties
DHOW
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 461 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 8 of 10
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 (fed erallstatellocal) funds or the
El 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
[]Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c.
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
❑Q Yes ❑ No
letter. A Categorical Exclusion report has been prepared and is included as an attachment
Comments: to this permit application.
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 ❑ No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213,0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑Yes 0 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 n 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 project, 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
yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
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, nowildlife. orglfs _indox_07_conservation.htm
- United States Fish and Wild €ife Service. North Carolina's Threatened and Endangered Species. http: / /www.fws.gov /southeastles /county %20lists.htm
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes Cj No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http:llwww. saw. usace. army. m i llwetla nds /N W P2007 /specia lwaters. html
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 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?
❑ Yes [ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
HEC -RAS
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 applica nt is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

Attachment 1
Categorical Exclusion Report

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note; Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any aupporting documentation) as the
environmerdal document.
VPminn 1 d R I I RM.r,
Part
1: Gancral Project
Project i<Vame:
win Bas Non7i anan Wet and Miti ation Project
Count Name:
Du lire County, N
EEP Number:
85363
Project Sponsor.,
KG1 Technologies, Inc.
Project Contact Name:
Tim Morris
Project Contact Address:
4601 Six Forks Fed, Suite 220, Raleigh: NC 27609
Project contact E -mail:
tim.marfis kci.com
EEP Project Mane er:
Kristin Mi uez
Project Description
For Only
Reviewed By:
19 -19-191
Date
EEP Proje and r
Conditional Approved By:
Date �w
For Division Administrator
FHWA
Q Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval Sy:
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
VPminn 1 d R I I RM.r,

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
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 p
ATTENTION OF 28 June, 2013
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review of Twin Bays Draft Mitigation Plan; NCEEP# 95363; SAW 2012 -01285
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 Twin Bays Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 5 June,
2013. These comments are attached for your review. Additionally, this letter provides a brief account
of further review by the USACE, NCEEP, and the contracted provider, KCI Associates of North
Carolina, PC.
Based on our review of these comments, we have identified one major concern with the Draft Mitigation
Plan. This issue stems from the allowance of ditches adjacent to the project to remain open and the
credit generation of those areas affected by the ditch drainage. The USACE requested that those areas
subject to the permanent drainage be removed from credit generation as restoration, due to the known
drainage effect of the ditches. This issue was also present on another KCI project under portal review at
the same time (Bear Basin). Based on the concern, and comments provided by the USACE/NCIRT
during the portal review process (comments attached), KCI provided an email response and a request to
meet and discuss justification for the proposed credit generation on those affected areas for both
projects. Subsequently, a meeting was conducted on 27 June, 2013. The discussion included a review
of modeling results for pre -and post - construction ditch effect, lack of existing groundwater hydrologic
data, hydrologic inputs /exports of the sites, and potential for movement of ditches or ditch alterations.
It was agreed upon that a "non- credit generating" buffer be placed along all the ditches that are to
remain open. This buffer represents a zone of influence from the remaining ditches and will be at a
distance somewhere between the ditch edge and the previously modeled results of effective drainage (0'-
76' for Twin Bays) that will result in zero credit generation. There will be a secondary zone that may
result in generation of restoration credits. This zone will be determined by monitoring transects of wells
and the resulting data supporting the presumption that the work conducted will have a mitigating effect
on the influence of the remaining permanent ditches. Furthermore this area will be held to the stated
performance standard for hydroperiod in the Draft Mitigation Plan (8% of the growing season). Please

note that prior to finalizing the mitigation plan, we must approve the width of the zones discussed above.
The resolution of these issues must be included 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, please call us at 919 - 846 -2564.
Sincerely,
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW- RG/Wicker
CESAW -RG -L /Bailey
Jeff Jurek, NCEEP
Jeff Schaffer, NCEEP
Kristin Miguez, NCEEP

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW -RG /Crumbley 5 June, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Twin Bays- 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: Twin Bays Restoration Site, Duplin County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -01285
NCEEP #: 95363
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 5 June, 2013
1. Eric Kulz, NCDWQ, 8 May, 2013: The mitigation plan acknowledges that the ditch that is to
remain open along the southern property boundary will have an effect on the hydrology of
the site, but the various figures and wetland restoration totals do not take this effect into
account. Some reduction of wetland credit is likely. The proposed placement of hydrology
gauges should be adequate to determine this effect.
2. T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USACE, 4 June, 2013:
• The goals and objectives for this project are specific, related, and appropriate for this
site.
• Please review the indicator statuses of red maple, tulip poplar and water oak in section
7.1 Pg 18 of the plan. Insert "live, planted stems" at 210 /acre and remove the word
"mature" from the survivability discussion.
• Sec. 7.3, Proposed Conditions: Please remove the area directly adjacent to open ditch
(-76' based on modeling) from the acreage calculation at south portion of the site.
Move paired wells back to the edge of potential wetland (i.e. 75' from ditch).
• Sec. 9.0 Vegetation Success, Criteria for meeting performance standards should also
include the terms "live, planted stems" criteria for success.

Attachment 3
Mitigation Plan Response Letter from KCI

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLII'IA, PA.
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783 -9214 (919) 783 -9266 Fax
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 29, 2013
To: Todd Tugwell and Tyler Crumbley, USACE
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PA
Subject: Twin Bays- Final Mitigation Plan
IRT Mitigation Plan Review — Response to Comments
Cape Fear River Basin CU 03030007
Onslow County, North Carolina
Contract No. 4004739
EEP IMS 495363
KCI Project Number - 20122265
Please find below our responses (in italics) to the Mitigation Plan comments from the IRT received on
June 5, 2013, for the Twin Bays Non - Riparian Wetland Restoration Project.
IRT Comments
Comment #1 Eric Kulz, NCDWQ, 8 May, 2013: - The mitigation plan acknowledges that the
ditch that is to remain open along the southern property boundary will have an effect on the
hydrology of the site, but the various figures and wetland restoration totals do not take this
effect into account. Some reduction of wetland credit is likely. The proposed placement of
hydrology gauges should be adequate to determine this effect.
Response: In response to this and other similar IRT comments below, a meeting was conducted
with NC EEP and the ACOE to discuss the potential credit impacts associated with leaving
approximately 850" of the southern ditch open (unfilled). KCI requested that the Corps allow
monitoring results to elucidate the actual credit impact of the open ditch on the site. It is KCI's
belief that while there would be a drainage influence associated with the ditch, it was likely that
other modifications internal to the site may offset the drainage impacts associated with the ditch
and allow for hydrologic performance standards to be achieved. For example, water that is
currently being routed around the site in ditches would be directed through the site in the post -
construction condition. That coupled with surface roughening techniques should serve to store
more surface and shallow ground water and result in a lengthening of the hydroperiod throughout
the site but especially near the low lying area adjacent to the southern ditch. While the Corps
acknowledged this potential, they also expressed concern that they would be setting a double
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

standard by allowing KCI to claim that the ditches were effectively draining the site and impacting
the jurisdictionality of wetlands, and then claiming that not filling the ditches would not have an
effect on the success of the mitigation. As a result of the discussion, a compromise solution was
discussed and later agreed to that would define a no- credit zone directly adjacent to the ditch and a
second zone further from the ditch that would be monitored to determine the credit impact. The
width of the no- credit zone and the monitoring zone would be based on the zone of effect
determined by the Lateral Effect model (NCSU, 2011). Essentially the no- credit zone would be half
of the lateral effect shown by the model. In the case of Twin Bays, the lateral effect was determined
to be 76' so the no credit zone would be between 0' -38' from the edge of the ditch and the
monitoring zone would extend from 38' to 76' from the ditch. The monitoring zone will be
monitored using paired wells located at 40' and 75' from the edge of the ditch. A schematic
showing the proposed well placement can be found on page 113 of the Final Mitigation Plan.
Language in Sections 7.3 (Data Analysis) and 10.0 (Monitoring Requirements) was modified to
address the comment above as it relates to the area adjacent to the southern ditch.
Comment #2 T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USAGE, 4 June, 2013: - The goals and objectives
for this project are specific, related, and appropriate for this site.
Comment #3 T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USAGE, 4 June, 2013: - Please review the indicator
statuses of red maple, tulip poplar and water oak in section 7.1 Pg 18 of the plan. Insert "live,
planted stems" at 210 /acre and remove the word "mature" from the survivability discussion.
Using the Atlantic and Gulf Coast 2013 Regional Wetland Plant List, KCI checked and corrected
the indicator status of all trees and shrubs listed in Section 7.1. Also, all text corrections were
made as per the comment above.
Comment #4 T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USAGE, 4 June, 2013: - Sec. 7.3, Proposed
Conditions: Please remove the area directly adjacent to open ditch ( -76' based on modeling)
from the acreage calculation at south portion of the site. Move paired wells back to the edge
of potential wetland (i.e. 75' from ditch).
Refer to discussion on Comment #1.
Comment #5 T. Crumbley and T. Tugwell, USAGE, 4 June, 2013: - Sec. 9.0 Vegetation
Success, Criteria for meeting performance standards should also include the terms "live,
planted stems" criteria for success.
"Live, planted stems" terminology was inserted in the criteria for success.
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 4
Final Mitigation Plan

MITIGATION PLAN
Twin Bays Restoration Site
Duplin County, North Carolina
EEP Contract 004739
EEP Project Number 95363
Cape Fear Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030007
Prepared for:
r
1E
En amemem
PRC DRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1601
REVISED FINAL — OCTOBER 2013

MITIGATION PLAN
Twin Bays Restoration Site
Duplin County, North Carolina
EEP Contract 004739
EEP Project Number 95363
Cape Fear Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030007
Prepared for:
En'namement
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1601
Prepared by:
KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
KCIAND
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSTRUCTION. INC.
ASSOCIATES OF NC
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC
4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 783 -9214
REVISED FINAL — OCTOBER 2013

Mitigation Plan Twin Bays Restoration Site
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 Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site ( TBWRS) is a full - delivery mitigation project being developed for
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The TBWRS is former non - riparian wetland
system in the Cape Fear Basin (03030007 8 -digit HUC) in southern Duplin County, North Carolina that
has been substantially modified to maximize agricultural production. The site offers the chance to
restore impacted agricultural lands to non - riparian wetland habitat.
The Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities state the goals for the TBWRS's 14 -digit HUC are to
expand restoration opportunities and repair riparian buffers (NCDENR EEP, 2009). The project goals for
TBWRS are in line with the basin priorities and include the following:
- Slow and treat the runoff of upslope agricultural drainage
- Restore a Hardwood Flats Community
- Develop valuable wetland habitat niches within a drained agricultural landscape
The project goals will be addressed through the following objectives:
- Fill field ditches to restore surface flow retention and elevate local groundwater levels.
- Redevelop longer wetland flow patterns to increase surface flow retention time.
- Modify an existing pond to its natural seep condition to feed the downslope wetland.
- Restore a native forested hardwood wetland community using natives trees and seed mixes.
The site is located within a flat interstream divide that spans two unnamed tributaries to Rock Fish Creek
and is currently used for agriculture. The majority of the site will be restored to non - riparian wetland
with one smaller portion preserved as upland habitat. The ditches and ponds across the site will be filled
and redeveloped to retain and distribute surface flow across the site. Once site grading is complete, the
non - riparian communities will be planted as Hardwood Flats (NCWAM, v. 4.1 2010). The site will be
monitored for seven years or until the success criteria are met.
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement
Twin Bays Restoration Site, Duplin County
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Acres
10.6
Credits
10.6
TOTAL CREDITS
10.6

Mitigation Plan Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Twin Bays Restoration Site
1.0
RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................. ..............................1
2.0
SITE SELECTION ................................................................................... ..............................1
2.1
Directions ...................................................................................................... ..............................1
2.2
Site Selection ................................................................................................ ..............................1
2.3
Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. ..............................3
2.4
Watershed Map ............................................................................................ ..............................4
2.5
Soil Survey ..................................................................................................... ..............................5
2.6
Current Condition Plan View ........................................................................ ..............................6
2.7
Historical Condition Plan View ...................................................................... ..............................7
2.8
Site Photographs ........................................................................................... ..............................9
3.0
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ......................................................... .............................10
3.1
Site Protection Instrument Summary Information ...................................... .............................10
3.2
Site Protection Instrument Figure ............................................................... .............................11
4.0
BASELINE INFORMATION .................................................................... .............................12
4.1
Watershed Summary Information ............................................................... .............................13
4.2
Reach Summary Information ....................................................................... .............................13
4.3
Wetland Summary Information ................................................................... .............................13
4.4
Regulatory Considerations ........................................................................... .............................14
5.0
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................. .............................15
6.0
CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ................................................................ .............................16
7.0
MITIGATION WORK PLAN ................................................................... .............................18
7.1
Target Wetland Types and Plant Communities ........................................... .............................18
7.2
Design Parameters ....................................................................................... .............................18
7.3
Data Analysis ................................................................................................ .............................19
7.4
Proposed Mitigation Plan View ................................................................. ...............................
21
8.0
MAINTENANCE PLAN .......................................................................... .............................22
9.0
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .............................................................. .............................23
10.0
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ........................................................... .............................24
11.0
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................... .............................25
12.0
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................... .............................25
13.0
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .................................................................... .............................26
14.0
OTHER INFORMATION ........................................................................ .............................26
14.1
Definitions .................................................................................................... .............................26
14.2
References ................................................................................................. ...............................
27
14.3
Appendix A. Site Protection Instrument .................................................... ...............................
29
14.4
Appendix B. Baseline Information Data ....................................................... .............................43
14.5
Appendix C. Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses ................................ .............................87
14.6
Appendix D. Project Plan Sheets .................................. ............................... ............................115

Mitigation Plan
W
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan Twin Bays Restoration Site
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 Cape Fear River Basin RBRP identified HUC 03030007090040 (Rock Fish Creek) as a Targeted
Local Watershed (http: / /www.nceep. net / services /lwps/ cape_ fear/ RBRP%20Cape%20Fear%202008.pdf).
The watershed is characterized by 43% forested and 42% agricultural area with impacts to streams
including channelization and nonpoint source pollution.
Rock Fish Creek was listed on the North Carolina 303(d) list in 2006, 2008, and 2010 for impaired
biological integrity with the source of impairment undetermined; however, it is no longer listed in 2012.
The Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site ( TBWRS) Project was identified as a wetland opportunity to
improve habitat within the TLW.
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
- Slow and treat the runoff of upslope agricultural drainage
- Restore a Hardwood Flats Community
- Develop valuable wetland habitat niches within a drained agricultural landscape
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
- Fill field ditches to restore surface flow retention and elevate local groundwater levels.
- Redevelop longer wetland flow patterns to increase surface flow retention time.
- Modify an existing pond to its natural seep condition to feed the downslope wetland.
- Restore a forested hardwood wetland community using native trees and seed mixes.
2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions
The TBWRS is located on a single parcel located off of Cornwallis Road approximately two miles
northwest of Wallace, North Carolina. To reach the site from Raleigh: proceed east on 1 -40 for
approximately 69 miles. Then travel on US -117 south toward Wallace. Turn right onto NC -41 South /East
Main Street. Travel for two miles (East Main Street turns into West Main Street and then Wallace
Highway). Next, take a slight right onto Cornwallis Road. The site will be approximately 0.5 mile ahead
on the right.
2.2 Site Selection
The site is part of the 03030007 USGS Cataloging Unit (Cape Fear). The Cape Fear River Basin as a whole
is experiencing a large amount of habitat alteration due to population growth from Wilmington and its
surrounding metropolitan area. As a result, the focus in this watershed is on mitigating impacts from
stormwater and protecting and /or restoring existing habitat (NCDENR EEP, 2009).
1

Mitigation Plan Twin Bays Restoration Site
The project site is bounded by Cornwallis Road to the west, a ditch along the property line to the south,
and agricultural land to the east and north. The site has 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 03030007 unit, the Rock Fish Creek
drainage (03030007090040) remains relatively unaffected by urban development. The nearest named
downstream water body is a reach of Rock Fish Creek (DWQ 18- 74 -29b), which is classified as Class C
with the supplemental listing of Swamp Waters (Sw). Rock Fish Creek and its tributaries are not listed as
impaired under the 2012 303(d) listing. However, less than 0.1% of the 14 -digit HUC is protected and
approximately 42% of its land use is in agriculture (NCDENR EEP, 2009). The project watershed for the
TBWRS is comprised of 25.4 total acres. Current land use in the project watershed consists of agriculture
(23.6 ac /93 %), forest (0.6 ac /2 %), and low- intensity development (1.2 ac /5 %). The approximate total
impervious cover of the project watershed is 2.0 %.
Historic aerials from Duplin County were examined for any information about how the site hydrology
and vegetation have changed over the last century. They were obtained from the USGS Earth Explorer,
USDA NAIP, and NC OneMap for 1950, 1959, 1974, 1982, 1993, 1998, 2005, and 2010. The reviewed
aerials are found in Section 2.7. The first aerial photo from 1950 shows that a small portion of the site
may have been forested at this time, but this changed by 1959, when the majority of the site is cleared
and a ditch is visible running west to east through the center of the site. The site remained relatively
unchanged through 1974, although a dark signature of either vegetation or wetted land appears in the
middle of the site. In 1993, additional ditches have been installed that drain the site from the north to
the south. The land cover remains in agriculture currently. The surrounding area is rural with low
development pressure at this time. These land use trends indicated that restoring this property back to a
forested wetland will provide an important habitat enhancement in the watershed.
The site lies within the Carolina Flatwoods (Level IV 63h) ecoregion of the Coastal Plain physiographic
province. This low- gradient region generally has fine -loamy and coarse -loamy soils with high water
tables. The geology at the site is classified as part of the Peedee Formation, which has sand, clayey sand,
and clay with patches of limestone in the upper portions.
The soils at the site were also examined for their wetland potential. The Soil Survey of Duplin County has
the TBWRS mapped as the Rains fine sandy loam soils series. A detailed investigation confirmed that the
Rains series occupies the majority of the site, particularly around the perimeter, but also determined
that the central portion of the site contains Torhunta soils. The Rains series is described as a poorly
drained soil located on flats or broad interstream divides on marine terraces. Similarly, the Torhunta
series is a very poorly drained soil found on flats on marine terraces or depressions on stream terraces.
There is also a small inclusion of a Murville /Leon complex in the southwestern corner and an area of
Udorthents along the ponded seeps in the north - central wooded section of the site. The northeastern
corner of the TBWRS has a small area of Goldsboro. With the exception of the Goldsboro soil, all of the
mapped soils at the TBWRS site are hydric soils that have been drained through on -site ditching. The soil
data sheets and a map of the soil borings are included in Appendix C.
Based on these watershed and site - specific attributes, the TBWRS was selected as an ideal candidate for
wetland mitigation. The restored site will expand forested wetland habitat in an area that has been
actively used for agriculture since at least 1950.
2

Mitigation Plan
2.3 Vicinity Map
Twin Bays Restoration Site
3
WAYN E
LE N OIR rFta
gem
DONE S
SAMPSON
DUPLN
ON SLOW ' o�
RQM L
OR
N RS
PENDER
Charity Rd
m
a
a
MURPHY
FARMS T
ti
w a
E jka
m
V
a�
A
Rv
TEWH EY
4'
r
SAFE FIELD$
a
oa
O
L
x
W
r Rd
a
-
HENDERSON
�y FIELD
yeb
f`
Rv
vi
F�"acRd
�
U
°' 11
a
G.�
°
�
m
a
00P
Qa
Peram RD
°c
c
i°
NIATNA
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP
N
o.s
o
TWIN BAYS RESTORATION SITE
M�'
DUPLIN COUNTY, NC
3

Mitigation Plan
2.4 Watershed Map
Twin Bays Restoration Site
- I �
I
ROSE HILL QUAD
'Yell +
r
F J1J
-..ter -'7'' _ —
�_ 6
F r ^ '� •
't��t, � I a�1 aYl ��� a • 4
11 .
IN
60-
Cem
WALLACE WEST QUAD - g ;
• ,�'� l `ter' f � O r `I -� • \ \\ * �
Project Watershed (25.4 acres)
Proposed Project Boundary
PROJECT SITE WATERSHED MAP Source. USGSDRGs
800 400 0 800 Rose Fill (1984) and
Feet TWIN BAYS RESTORATION SITE Wallace West (1984).
DUPLIN COUNTY, NC
4

Mitigation Plan
2.5 Soil Survey
7 ^
NbB^
f
NbA
. l "
AuB 7
t.
Twin Bays Restoration Site
1, GoA q'
NbB,
NbA !'
RaA iM
6
NbB
'
LuA
d
i
GoA
MCC
M
PaA
-
V
,r GoA
r:
> NbB
•
,
-
w
,.f
+ '
Project Parcel
L
RUB �t y
Proposed Easement Area (11.7 ac)
PROJECT SITE NRCS SOIL SURVEY MAP
Sourt s USDA, MRCS Soil Data Mart
one a�r
� IF
TWIN BAYS RESTORATION SITE
NestatewmeOtnoimagery, zoto-
DUPLIN COUNTY, NC
6

Mitigation Plan
2.6 Current Condition Plan View
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
2.7 Historical Condition Plan View
Twin Bays Restoration Site
Project Site Boundary
r
r
1950
1959
�► 41'
00"1982
1974
PROJECT SITE HISTORICAL CONDITION PLAN VIEW
TWIN BAYS RESTORATION SITE
Sw ce. LsGSEarthEoore
DUPLIN COUNTY, NC

Mitigation Plan
Twin Bays Restoration Site
Project Site Boundary
1993 1998
�SOAlI " -J'
Y
' 2005 -.120101 _
PROJECT SITE HISTORICAL CONDITION PLAN VIEW solaces: 1993,1998- LSGS DOQQs, N
TWIN BAYS RESTORATION SITE `0°' rW..4 NIP, `ax-i
F D U P LI N COUNTY, NC zolo - NC Sraro,zde 0,rhormcga i

Mitigation Plan
2.8 Site Photographs
Twin Bays Restoration Site
tL
'Z; .
Looking south across the site along an existing ditch. 9/8/2011
Looking toward the west. 9/8/2011
e
f
4
x#e
# F .. � ��
4�,. •_ .r! :!"rte
� �. R'
Looking north across the site from Cornwallis Road. 9/27/2011
Looking toward the northeast over the site. 9/27/2011
S�
5 !
A view west toward the existing forested areas. 9/8/2011
Existing pond that is impounding seeps. 9/8/2011

Mitigation Plan
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
Twin Bays Restoration Site
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 in October
2012. A copy of the land protection instrument is included in Appendix A.
10
Site Protection
Deed Book and
Acreage
Landowners
PIN
County
Instrument
Page Number
protected
2396 -0025-
Conservation
Parcel A
Danny B. Keir
Duplin
DB 1666 PG 116
11.72 acres
2193
Easement
10

Mitigation Plan
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure
Twin Bays Restoration Site
r
L — Project Parcel
Project Easement
1
f ; , X' _
1A DANNY B KEIR
i
PIN:239600252193
do
�y
.a
+ a
W iiII
Y
R I'
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT FIGURE Source NC Statewide N
TWIN BAYS RESTORATION SITE Imagery, 2010
DUPLIN COUNTY, NC
11

Mitigation Plan
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Twin Bays Restoration Site
* Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B.
12
Project Information
Project Name
Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site
County
Duplin County
Project Area (acres)
11.72 acres
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.)
34.748418 N, - 78.027129 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030007
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030007090040
DWQ Sub -basin
18- 74 -29b
Project Drainage Area (acres)
25.4 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
2%
CGIA Land Use Classification
93% Cultivated, 2% Mixed Shrubland, and 5% Low - Intensity
Development
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland Area 1
Size of Wetland (acres)
11.1 acres
Wetland Type (non- riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non - riverine)
Non - riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Rains
(Torhunta, Murville /Leon and Udorthents by detailed soil investigation)
Drainage class
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Drained Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Hillside seepage/ precipitation
Hydrologic Impairment
Ditching and Crops
Native vegetation community
Crops
Percent composition of exotic
invasive vegetation
o
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
No
N/A
FEMA Floodplain
Checklist
Essential Fisheries Habitat*
No
N/A
N/A
* Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B.
12

Mitigation Plan
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
Twin Bays Restoration Site
The site is within the 03030007 USGS Cataloging Unit (Cape Fear). The Cape Fear River Basin as a whole
is experiencing a large amount of habitat alteration due to population growth from Wilmington and its
surrounding metropolitan area. According to 1996 land cover data from the North Carolina Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA), only 3% of the Cape Fear River Basin is developed, but the
area is expected to continue to grow. The predominant land uses are 48% forest and 14% agriculture.
The project watershed for the TBWRS is comprised of 25.4 total acres. Current land use in the project
watershed consists of agriculture (23.6 ac /93 %), forest (0.6 ac /2 %), and low- intensity development (1.2
ac /5 %). The approximate total impervious cover of the project watershed is 2.0 %. The nearest named
downstream water body is a reach of Rock Fish Creek. The project area is located in the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Rose Hill and Wallace West Quadrangles (1984).
4.2 Reach Summary Information
Not applicable for this project.
4.3 Wetland Summary Information
Currently, there are no existing wetlands present. The wetland data forms are included in Appendix B.
Based on field topographic survey data and LIDAR elevation data, the contours at the site range from 60
— 64 feet. The topography of the site begins with the higher elevations at the northern edge of the site,
which is the top of the small project watershed. The highest elevations curve around the two existing
forested portions in the north - central and northwestern portions of the site. The drained hydric soils at
the site experience approximately a 2' change in elevation as the slope grades down slightly toward the
southern end of the site.
A jurisdictional determination delineation was completed in which the ditch network installed at the site
was identified as jurisdictional tributaries (see Appendix B for jurisdictional determination plat). The
ditch network consists of channels that generally drain the site from the north to the south. Three
primary ditches carry water from the northern edge of the site toward the center of the project and all
discharge into a main ditch that runs west to east across the extent of the site. A small portion of runoff
is collected from Cornwallis Road. The central ditch then discharges into another ditch running north to
south. This southeastern ditch flows into an off -site ditch running west to east along the southern
property line. In addition to the modifications made to the site with ditching, the TBWRS also contains a
small pond in the north - central wooded portion of the site. A past landowner created a pond berm to
capture flow from two seeps to the north. This pond is hindering the dispersal of seepage flow across
the site to the south. Existing vegetation around the pond and in isolated sections along the ditches
includes laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), red bay (Persea borbonia), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
13

Mitigation Plan
4.4 Regulatory Considerations
Twin Bays Restoration Site
A jurisdictional determination was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers on October 9, 2012 and
approved on October 30, 2012. 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.
TBWRS is not located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain and therefore a flood study is not anticipated
for this project.
14

Mitigation Plan
5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Twin Bays Restoration Site
Twin Bays Restoration Site, Duplin County
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Riparian
Non - riparian
Stream
Buffer
Nutrient
Nutrient
Wetland
Wetland
Offset
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Acres
10.6
Credits
10.6
TOTAL CREDITS
10.6
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
Central and
Southern portion
Wetland Area 1
of project
10.6 acres
Restoration
10.6 acres
1:1
easement
Component Summation
Buffer
Restoration
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian Wetland
Upland
(square
Level
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
feet)
Non -
Riverine
Riverine
Restoration
10.6 acres
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
0.4 acre
High Quality
Preservation
TOTAL
10.6 acres*
0.4 acre
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement
*Additional 0.2 acre is under the utility easement and not included in the determination of credits.
15

Mitigation Plan
6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
Twin Bays Restoration Site
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of
the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release
schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be
released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended,
depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release
of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows:
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.
S.,

Mitigation Plan
Twin Bays Restoration Site
- 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.
17

Mitigation Plan Twin Bays Restoration Site
7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Target Wetland Types and Plant Communities
Wetland plantings shall consist of native species commonly found in the Hardwood Flats Community
(NCWAM, v. 4.1 2010). 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 sixty (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 consistent with a hardwood flat (NCWAM, v. 4.12010):
Common Name
Red maple
Red chokeberry
Tulip poplar
Sweetbay
Swamp red bay
Swamp chestnut oak
Water oak
Cherrybark oak
American elm
Highbush blueberry
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator
Acer rubrum
FAC
Aronia arbutifolia
FACW
Liriodendron tulipifera
FACU
Magnolia virginiana
FACW
Persea palustris
FACW
Quercus michauxii
FACW
Quercus nigra
FAC
Quercus pagoda
FACW
Ulmus americana
FAC
Vaccinium corymbosum
FACW
A herbaceous seed mix composed of appropriate native species will also be developed and used to
further stabilize and restore the wetland.
All of the above options will be marked and surveyed as per EEP's requirements contained within
http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /eep /fd- forms - templates. In addition, the easement boundaries will be
marked with salt- treated wooden posts placed approximately 100 feet apart. Each line post will be
marked with a conservation easement placard. Corner posts will be marked with signs stating
"Conservation Easement Corner."
7.2 Design Parameters
The mitigation approach for the TBWRS will aim to restore the hydrology and vegetation components to
this non - riparian wetland system. The available historic data, detailed soils mapping, and topographic
and geographic positions suggest that a hardwood flat used to exist at the TBWRS (NCWAM, v. 4.1
2010). The site will be restored to a condition that resembles the former wetland community. A local
comparable reference wetland system was identified approximately 0.5 mile north of the restoration
site and was used to aid in design of a wetland community most suited to the area. Please see the
mitigation overview in Section 7.4 and the wetland plans included in Appendix D. The following
elements of functional uplift 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
18

Mitigation Plan Twin Bays Restoration Site
Non - Riparian Wetland Restoration —10.6 acres
All of the existing drained hydric soils will be restored to a non - riparian wetland system. The primary
restoration action will be to fill the existing ditches across the site in order to restore hydrology. Clay
ditch plugs will be installed along the lengths of the ditches. Existing spoil will be used as available to fill
the remainder of the ditches. The primary receiving ditch, which runs west to east, will remain open.
Detailed topographic survey will be used to design slight grading modifications to redirect and lengthen
overland flow paths in order to retain and treat surface hydrology longer. Surface roughness variations
will also be enhanced in areas where the years of agricultural production have overly compacted the
soil.
The small wooded section with ponded seeps in the north - central portion of the site will also be
restored. The deep portions of pond will be filled in to recreate ephemeral ponding conditions and the
berms will be selectively breached, allowing the seeps that feed the ephemeral pond to flow into the
downslope wetlands, while still maintaining existing mature trees that have grown up in this area.
Following the completion of site grading, the non - riparian wetland will be planted as a Hardwood Flats
Community as described in Section 7.1. Proposed project conditions are shown in Section 7.4.
Upland Preservation — 0.4 acre
There are 0.4 acres of uplands located in the forested northeastern corner of the project boundary. This
area will remain undisturbed and will be included in the TBWRS conservation easement. Once the
grading is completed, the unvegetated portion of this upland area will be planted as a Hardwood Flats
Community as described in Section 7.1.
Reference Wetland
A suitable reference wetland was found approximately 0.5 mile north of the TBWRS. The reference
wetland is comprised of deciduous hardwoods over a shrub layer with broad - leaved evergreens and is
consistent with the Hardwood Flats Community that will be the primary wetland type at the project site.
A groundwater monitoring well has been installed to document the reference wetland hydrology during
the course of monitoring.
7.3 Data Analysis
The numerous modifications to the hydrology of the TBWRS have effectively drained the historic
wetlands on -site. The development of a network of field ditches has significantly altered the retention of
surface hydrology in these areas. The pre and post- restoration effects of ditching on wetland hydrology
was evaluated using a hydrologic budget for the site (see Appendix C).
Existing Conditions
Existing site hydrology was modeled by developing an annual water budget that calculates hydrologic
inputs and outputs in order to calculate the change in storage on a monthly time step. In order to set up
the water budget, historic climatic data were obtained from the North Carolina State Climatic Office.
The weather station in Maysville, North Carolina was used, which is the closest station with the longest
period of record and is approximately 46 miles to the northeast of TBWRS. Monthly precipitation totals
from the entire period of record (1945 -2011) were reviewed and three years were selected to represent
a range of precipitation conditions: dry year (1990), average year (1973), and wet year (1991).
Potential inputs to the water budget include precipitation, groundwater, and surface inputs. For
precipitation, the data from the three selected years were used in the budget. Groundwater inputs likely
19

Mitigation Plan Twin Bays Restoration Site
exist, particularly in the upper portions of the site, but they were considered to be negligible to be
conservative for the purposes of this study. Surface water input was calculated using the USDA Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) runoff curve number equation (USDA, SCS 1986).
Outputs from the site include potential evapotranspiration (PET), groundwater, and surface water
diversion. PET was calculated by the Thornthwaite method using mean monthly temperatures
determined from the chosen years of record: 1990, 1973, and 1991. Surface water was assumed entirely
lost since there is no surface storage in the existing conditions model.
Once the inputs and outputs were determined, a net monthly total was calculated in inches and used to
estimate a yearly water budget. The model assumes unsaturated conditions at the beginning of the
year. Because the TBWRS consisted of two separate soils (Rains and Torhunta), two models were used
for the water budget. A maximum wetland water volume of 5.4 inches was calculated based on the
specific yield of 0.15 for 36 inches of Rains soil and a maximum wetland water volume of 4.68 inches
was calculated based on the specific yield of 0.13 for 36 inches of Torhunta soil. The resulting
hydrographs for the average and wet years show a seasonal pattern. The model shows that the majority
of hydrologic inputs to the site come during the rainy spring months for the average year and during
both the spring months and late summer /early fall for the wet year. The site begins to lose saturation in
the upper twelve inches in the late spring and early summer months for both years. However, after late
spring, the wet year shows an increase in hydrologic inputs that continues through the summer months
and then decreases in fall. The average year does not see an increase in hydrologic inputs until the late
fall. The dry year shows very little hydrology overall. It is clear from the existing model output that the
deep ditches within the site are exerting a larger influence on the site's storage capacity than the water
budget is accurately able to predict. The site is currently not achieving the wetland hydrology that the
model predicts.
Proposed Conditions
A modified water budget was developed to analyze the effect of mitigation actions described in Section
7.2 on the site hydrology. Two models were used for the proposed conditions water budget to account
for both soil types observed in TBWRS. To estimate the impact from surface roughening, an additional
2.4 inches of hydrologic capacity was added to the calculations to represent surface roughness. All
surface flow is assumed to be retained in the proposed condition, because it will no longer be
immediately routed off the site. Based on these changes, the budget shows the site potentially attaining
jurisdictional wetland hydrology in portions of the spring and summer for the average and wet years
when compared to the existing conditions. The dry year remains relatively unchanged from the pre -
construction condition, indicating that the site's wetland hydrology may be susceptible to drought
conditions.
The southernmost ditch, adjacent to the restoration area, will be left open and not filled. It is anticipated
that leaving this ditch open will have minimal impacts to the overall hydrologic performance of the site.
The hydrologic influence of this ditch was modeled using Lateral Effect, a software program that
determines the lateral effect of a drainage ditch or borrow pit on adjacent wetland hydrology (NCSU
BAE, 2011). This software determined that the potential horizontal drainage influence averages 76'. Due
to the fact that the southern ditch cannot be filled because of the potential for hydrologic trespass, the
area immediately adjacent to the ditch will not be a credit generating part of the site. It is assumed that
with the other site modifications, such as filling ditches and surface roughening, the entire site will have
more surface and groundwater, which may decrease the effect of the ditch. For this reason the non-
credit generating portion of the site will be half of the zone of influence for the ditch.
20

Mitigation Plan
7.4 Proposed Mitigation Plan View
OP
4
4
Twin Bays Restoration Site
r.
t ,
Non - Riparian Wetland Restoration (10.6 aci
Upland Preservation (0.4 ac)
Proposed Easement Area (11.7 ac)
XXXDitches to be filled
= Utility Easement (0.2 ac)
PROJECT SITE PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN VIEW Solrc NCState.,de
ioo 50 0 TWIN BAYS RESTORATION SITE mayery,zo10
DUPLIN COUNTY, NC
21
X
X
�.ki l .
X
X
Twin Bays Restoration Site
r.
t ,
Non - Riparian Wetland Restoration (10.6 aci
Upland Preservation (0.4 ac)
Proposed Easement Area (11.7 ac)
XXXDitches to be filled
= Utility Easement (0.2 ac)
PROJECT SITE PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN VIEW Solrc NCState.,de
ioo 50 0 TWIN BAYS RESTORATION SITE mayery,zo10
DUPLIN COUNTY, NC
21

Mitigation Plan
8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
Twin Bays Restoration Site
The site will be monitored on a regular basis, with a physical inspection of the site 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 wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir
Wetland
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 include
Vegetation
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 identified by fence, marker,
Site Boundary
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.
Additionally, a utility right of way exists adjacent to the restored wetland, 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.
22

Mitigation Plan
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Twin Bays Restoration Site
The TBWRS 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 credits will be validated
upon confirmation that the success criteria described below are met. The site will be monitored for
performance standards for seven years after completion of construction.
Hydrologic Performance
Verification of hydrologic performance standards within the wetland mitigation area will be determined
through evaluation of automatic recording well data supplemented by documentation of wetland
hydrology indicators as defined in the 1987 US ACOE Wetland Delineation Manual (Manual). Fourteen
automatic recording gauges will be established within the restoration area of the site.
To meet success criteria, the upper 12 inches of the soil profile will display continuously saturated or
inundated conditions for at least 8% of the growing season with a 50% probability of reoccurrence
during normal weather conditions. A "normal" year is based on NRCS climatological data for Duplin
County 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 Duplin County does not contain growing season data; therefore, due to its close
proximity, the Sampson County soil survey was used. The estimated growing season begins March 18
and ends November 11 (239 days). KCI will monitor soil temperature to verify that the local growing
season is consistent with the NRCS published data and reserves the right to present this information as a
modifier to the number of days saturation is required to achieve jurisdictional status.
Due to the inherent variability in the sites soils and associated drainage characteristics, it is unlikely that
the project will exhibit uniform hydrologic conditions across the site, making a single hydrologic
performance criterion unrepresentative of the sites performance. As such, the gauge data can be
evaluated and presented as a spatial average with each gauge representing the area half the distance to
adjacent gauges. The spatial average will be the calculated value for comparison with the performance
standard for credit validation. Gauges representing areas not achieving a minimum of 6.5% saturation
will be considered non - attaining even if the spatial average exceeds the credit validation performance
standard.
Vegetation Success
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 live, planted stems /acre after three years, 260 live, planted
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.
23

Mitigation Plan
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Twin Bays Restoration Site
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template. The monitoring report shall
provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends,
population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding
project close -out.
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
Yes
Groundwater
6 gauges distributed
Annual
Groundwater monitoring gauges with data
Hydrology
throughout the restored
recording devices will be installed on site;
wetland and an additional 8
the data will be downloaded on a monthly
gauges to determine the
basis during the growing season
effect of the open ditch
Yes
Vegetation
Will be distributed to
During
Vegetation will be monitored using the
ensure sufficient coverage
monitoring
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols
of planted vegetation
years 1, 2, 3,
5, and 7.
Yes
Exotic and
Annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation
nuisance
will be mapped
vegetation
Yes
Project
Semi - annual
Locations of vegetation damage, boundary
boundary
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. Six automatic recording gauges will be
established within the mitigation areas. Daily data will be collected from the automatic gauges for a
minimum of a 5 -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). Additionally, to monitor the effect of the unfilled ditch described
in Section 7.3, four sets of coupled gauges will be established perpendicular to the unfilled ditch. Each
set will include a well that is 40' from the open ditch and one that is 75' from the ditch.
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
throughout the restored wetland. 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 the 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.
24

Mitigation Plan Twin Bays Restoration Site
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 site 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 site 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.
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.
25

Mitigation Plan
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Twin Bays Restoration Site
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.
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
PRO

Mitigation Plan
14.2 References
Twin Bays Restoration Site
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: / /portal.ncdenr.org /c/ document _library /get_file ?p_l_id= 1169848 &folderld = 2288101 &nam
e= DLFE- 39234.pdf
NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009.
Raleigh, NC. Last accessed 10/2012 at: http: / /www.nceep .net /services /lwps /cape_fear/
RBRP %20Cape %20Fea r %202008. pdf
NCSU BAE. North Carolina State University, Biological and Agricultural Engineering. 2011. Method to
Determine Lateral Effect of a Drainage Ditch on Adjacent Wetland Hydrology. Last accessed
11/2012 at: http: / /www.bae.ncsu.edu /soil_ water /projects /IateraI_effect.htmI
NCSU State Climate Office of North Carolina. 2012. Climate Data for Maysville, NC.
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_
l ibrary/get_fi le ?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
Sprecher, S.W. 2000. Accessing and Using Meteorological Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology.
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Operations Division, Regulatory Branch.
27

Mitigation Plan
Twin Bays Restoration Site
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
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 Duplin, North Carolina. Last accessed 11/2012 at:
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Survey.aspx?County=NC061
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.
Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service.
USDA. 1905. Soil Survey of Duplin County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture.
USDA. 1985. Soil Survey of Sampson County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture.
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.
28

Mitigation Plan
14.3 Appendix A. Site Protection Instrument
29
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
30
Twin Bays Restoration Site

lfllllll��llllllllllllllllll !!!lIIIII
B1737
Davis n02 25
H. Brinson PROP
Duplin County, NC Register of Deeds page 1 of 10
Davis H. Brinson Register of Deeds
11 -29 -2012 15:02:25.000 Duplin County, NC
NC REVENU7 STAMP: $282.00 ( #167948)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Ra rce- l -#$ 1c) -- 5 aql -- i
DUPLIN COUNTY
SPO File Number 31 -0
EEP Site ID Number 95363 (Twin Bays)
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
STATE OF NORTH CA80LINAI
COUNTY OF D11PtIN
This lnstrumenf has been !lied !or
Balk ,,, un the Rate, Trine and in the
Bunk acrd t age shown nn !lie First Pape
hereof, and fs being relurned far
Your safekeapfng,
pavis H. Brinson, lfisgrbtor of
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
DO
1
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this Z day of
NOVEMBER , 2012, by Danny B. Keir and wife, Annice Morrison Keir (collectively,
"Grantor "), whose mailing address is 5114 Clear Run Drive, Wilmington NC 28403, 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 s, eg.. 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 KC) 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 004739.

VIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII III 11 29 2512
B1131 P0105 15: ©2:25.4300
Davis H. Brinson PROP
Duplin County, NC Register of Deeds page 2 of 10
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 8`h 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 Rockfish Township, Duplin County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 31.958 net acres,
described as "Tract C" on plat recorded in Map Book 23, Page 315, Duplin County Registry, and
being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 1645 at Page 99 of the Duplin
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 Rockfish Creek.
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 containing a total of 11.72 acres as shown on the plat of survey entitled
"Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Project Name: Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site, EEP Project #: 95363, SPO #: 31 -0,"
dated August 20, 2012 by James M. Gellenthin., PLS Number L -3860 and recorded in the
Duplin County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at Map Book 26 Page 384.
('c�nsrr,aii�.ui i a; ►ttc,ti (T ,in f�i. I: irf �.'..rti 2

IIII1111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Davis H. Bri son 25PROP
Duplin County, NC Register of Deeds page 3 of 10
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:
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.
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.

IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIillllll IIIIIIIIIIIIII 81137 P @1 @15 il X02- 25PROP
Duplin County, NC Register of Deeds page 4 of 10
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.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
4

IIIIIIIIIII llllllllllll IIIII111111III Davis H. Bri 1,5:02:25.000
ROP
Duplin County, NC Register of Deeds page 5 of 10
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 Cornwallis Road is shown on the plat of survey entitled
"Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Project Name: Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site, EEP Project #: 95363, SPO #: 31 -0,"
dated August 20, 2012 by James M. Gellenthin, PLS Number L -3860 and recorded in the
Duplin County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at Map Book 26 Page 384.
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
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
C'uIIsc'I, <atinn i us rncnt (I , in lima I:�:it) v�..a'tl

IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
1111111 Jill III 81737 P009 15:02:25 Pcoo
Duplin County, NC Register of Deeds page Brinson of 10
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.
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
6

[1 ` B1737 P1116 15:02:25.000
III II IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII II IIII VIII III Davis H. Brinson PROP
Duplin County, NC Register of Deeds page 7 of 10
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
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.
Coii+er\otion 1.a tftltnt t V v iii i x,-. - v J'.! 7

IIIIIIIIIII !!�!!!lIIII! I III III II III Brinson 1-29-20 12
B113i P�111 m22.0 ©0
DuP i in County, NC Register of Deeds page 10 PROP
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.
� 0, (SEAL)
Danny B. K6 it
�EAL)
Annice Morrison Keir
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
1, ROBERT G COLLINS , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that Danny B. Keir and Annice Morrison Keir, Grantor,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing
instrument.
Tk
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the J _
day of NOVEMBER , 2012.
x;00 aria- .
Notary Public 6,
rJ a
3
My commission expires: ' • `
d
Z ' bblo
SEPTEMBER 19, 2015 '• �)) j••.• -•
8

IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111 Davis H. Brinson D2 25PROP
Duplin County, NC Register of Deeds page 9 of 10
Exhibit A
Conservation Easement Description
A parcel of land to be used for conservation easement purposes located on lands now or formerly owned by Danny
B. Keir (DB 1666 Pg 116), located in Rockfish Township, Duplin County, North Carolina and being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a found railroad spike in the center of Cornwallis Road (60 foot public right -of -way) at the
Southwest corner of said Danny B. Keir lands; said point having State Plane Coordinates (NAD '83) of
Northing:364604.71 and Easting:2291890.15; Thence South 82 °54'05" East on the South line of said lands owned
by Danny B. Keir, a distance of 34.37 feet to the intersection with the Easterly right -of —way line of Cornwallis
Road (NCSR 1101); Thence North 22 °07'18" West, on the said Easterly right -of -way line of Cornwallis Road, a
distance of 5.67 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Thence N 22 °07'18" W, continuing on the Easterly line of Cornwallis Road, a distance of 459.93 feet to a point;
Thence N 29 006'58" E a distance of 243.43 feet to a point on a Southwesterly line of lands now or formerly owned
by Larry Allen Keir, Jr. (DB 1645 PG 107);
Thence S 34 °16'08" E, on the said Southwesterly line of Larry Allen Keir, Jr. lands, a distance of 5.37 feet to a
point;
Thence N 28 °38'16" E on the Southeasterly line of said Larry Allen Keir, Jr. lands a distance of 93.28 feet to a point;
Thence N 06 °2639" E, on the Easterly line of said Larry Allen Keir, Jr. lands, a distance of 81.86 feet to a point;
Thence S 89 °35'35" E a distance of 82.68 feet to a point;
Thence S 06 °22'31" W a distance of 284.75 feet to a point;
Thence S 82 °4543" E a distance of 162.72 feet to a point;
Thence N 14 °37'28" E a distance of 266.95 feet to a point;
Thence S 75 °01'38" E a distance of 105.07 feet to a point;
Thence S 17 142'38" W a distance of 207.27 feet to a point;
Thence S 71'55'53" E a distance of 174.39 feet to a point;
Thence N 12 "11'01" E a distance of 195.71 feet to a point;
Thence S 70 °36'57" E a distance of 44.79 feet to a point;
Thence S 10 024'40" E a distance of 183.19 feet to a point;
Thence S 22 °51'13" E a distance of 624.43 feet to a point;
Thence N 82 °50'51" W a distance of 852.09 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 510721 square feet or 11.72 acres.
U I-) I 1-C rvaiinII Fa ;I L(v t cI.I rlt� o" i 9

�)IIIIIII�I IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII III 11 29 2012
81131 P0113 15 -02- 25.000
H.
Duplin County, NC Register of Deeds p Brinson PROP
page 10 of 10
Exhibit A (Continued)
Point Table (Table of Coordinates)
Point
Northing
Easting
Description
1
364605.59
2291922.18
Easement Corner
2
365031.66
2291748.98
Easement Corner
3
365244.33
2291867.43
Easement Corner
4
365239.90
2291870.45
Easement Corner
5
365321.77
2291915.16
Easement Corner
6
365403.11
2291924.35
Easement Corner
7
365402.52
2292007.03
Easement Corner
8
365119.54
2291975.41
Easement Corner
9
365099.04
2292136.83
Easement Corner
10
365357.33
2292204.23
Easement Corner
11
365330.19
2292305.74
Easement Corner
12
365132.74
2292242.68
Easement Corner
13
365078.65
2292408.47
Easement Corner
14
365269.95
2292449.77
Easement Corner
15
1 365255.09
2292492.02
Easement Corner
16
365074.91
2292525.13
Easement Corner
17
364499.50
2292767.64
Easement Corner
C'ovisc-rvatimi i_ascrncnt. f] win f=i<i� - I:cirl \_'..[-rf 10

-- Ia
I III
tn,
w I
w
p
xo rz a p
�a
--
i
a-
I -
ya
tto
F
moz
Z-
U c
w
I:; apo NNwoz
oz
-- Ia
I III
tn,
w I
w
p
xo rz a p
�a
--
I -
z `�
/
tto
w
moz
I:; apo NNwoz
oz
LL> WOm3
co zwmo ems
o�
� 11
LJ I
O �Z JQU
t) U ®
za IM
z_s
C]
g
i
1�0 �
y
�9 q

Mitigation Plan
42
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
14.4 Appendix B. Baseline Information Data
43
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
44
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
USACE Wetland Determination Forms
45
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
2,
Twin Bays Restoration Site

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
CitylCounty: Gr� LLiI� / :' . ?- ' Sampling Date: 9­2.Z,,-1")..--
Applicant /Owner: �C C al��/ f .s mil' C State lLi� Samwing point:
Investigator(s): 5 •t>; ._r.?" —___ Section, Township, Range:
Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc ). r ? " mm Local relief (Concave, convex, none): C f� <1/J Slope
") 19 ��c.) �} �� e, t .
Subregion (LRR or MLRA); Lid i�' _r.. _ Lat: _ �� .__ r J✓ Long: _ / a.r « Datum: •. - -_ --
Soil Map Unit Nan }e:._._ �f% ? ......._.__._...._.......,W. __...... _....._ ........... .._.... - - - - -- -.-- -- --- -- _..._.___._.___.___.__. m ..__ NI classiticakon: __...... -_I
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes v_° No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . - ✓, Soil _ or Hydrology w ' significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes , No - r=
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology __. naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �— No w 1s the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No._.___ within a Wetland? Yes No i, ..
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes __,_.....__ No __ ✓�
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland liydroEagy rndicators:
Secondary indicators fminimuin of twro.___required)
Pririadicators minimum of one is required'
check all €hat allxj
Su ?face Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) —
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) —
Mari Deposits (615) (LRR U)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) —
Hydrogen Su €fide Odor (C1)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
Water Marks (61) —
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
Dry - Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (82) —
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) —
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
Thin Muck Surface (C 7)
Geomorphic Position (172)
Iron Deposits (135)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (03)
_ Inundation Visibie on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ PAC - Neutral Test (D5)
Y Water - Stained Leaves (139)
— Sphagnurn muss (D8) (I-RR T, U)
i iald Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ._ No
—_ Depth ( inches ):.._.....__- ___W_,,._.,__,.-
Water Table Present? Yes No
v°' Depth (inches):
—_
Saturation Present? Yes No
___ Depth (inches): Wetland
Hydrology present? Yes No V
(inci�rd�s capillary frine� T
Descr"sl)e Recorded Qata (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 scientsfic names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size:._ )
1.
2.
Sampling Point: b pe)
av r aperies? tus Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across Ail Strata: (B)
" Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
= Total Cover
50% of totai cover. 20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: }
i . .5,a,- �C,<' ,a
2.
Total % Cover of:
3.
OBL species
4.
FACW species - _
5.
FAC species
6.
FACU species
7.
UPL species
8.
Column Totals:
9.
10.
11,
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
S
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply bv:,
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species - _
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) _ (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is _ <3.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydrie soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Saplingl5hrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall,
Herr — All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: kPol 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) % Loc
Texture Remarks
r
r
i
AA
'Type: C =Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to al€ LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilso:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR Q)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Hist €c (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Su €fide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
L °' ` Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A8) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (FG)
(MLRA 1536)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (178)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Mari (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_✓ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
W Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (1713) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR d, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
untess disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (SG)
T Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (1720) (MLRA 149A, 1530, 1530)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (ff 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
�,iC I;
Project/Site: � ��a =?�i:� City/County: h'�� 1.1'c'r'�� %h °.? %'�'�
Sampling Date: � ?- 1�
Applicant/Owner: State:
'�!�- Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.). 1 .- _ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ! <' . c ^: r -. Slope ( %): _ _
LRR : La
Subregion or MLRA i- �? -' y�_ � - -� r'' �
g ( ), t: ,��`�- +�"`�,5����n � ���" Long: �%� 1 ' c � 't/ Datum:
.;
Soil Map Unit Name: � r1� y�G ?. � -? �� NWI classification:
J
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes v" (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology ` " significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes _ No
Yes v' No
Yes
No t '"
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology indicators:
Secondarx.indicators (minimum of two required)
Primar I�adicators minirrivan of one is re u4ed' check ail that a i
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
— High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Drainage Patterns (690)
___. Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Moss Trim Lines (B 16)
Water Marks (131) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry - Season Water Table (C2)
____ Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soits (C6)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Geomorphic Position (l72)
_— Iron Deposits (65) —
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T. U)
Field Observations:
- --
- - -
Surface Water Present? Yes No__
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
v ' " Depth (inches): 1<
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
�incl� de, y ie } ..__ __.__..------
-..-- _-- ---- .- -- -___—_�
---------
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 :,'��'���
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) %ver Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
Total % Cover of:
4.
OSI_ species
5.
FACW species
6.
FAC species
7.
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply. b
OSI_ species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A=
Hydrophytic vegetation indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is -<3.0`
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vecietation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
SaplinglShrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tail.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
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 t'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
be to the depth needed to document the indicator or c
Depth
Matrix
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Redox Features
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) _
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color moist % Type Loc
Texture
n 17
Piedmont Floodpiain 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 (177) —
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
— Redox Depressions (178) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 om Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Ail)
— Depleted Ochric (Fl 1) (MLRA 951)
Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Sampling Point: �..Vva.
Remarks
21-ocation: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
— Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR 5, T, U) _
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) _
2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
— Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0) _
Reduced Vertic (Fl8) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy GI eyed Matrix (F2) ,,,,,,
Piedmont Floodpiain 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 (177) —
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
— Redox Depressions (178) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 om Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Ail)
— Depleted Ochric (Fl 1) (MLRA 951)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (1792) (LRR O, P, T)
3indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (At 6) (MLRA 150A) _
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, 5)
_ Delta Ochric (1717) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vert €c (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (55)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (Fl 9) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (SS)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (1720) (MLRA 149A, 1530, 153D)
Z Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Verson 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProjecUSite: �, _. !: r:r,.r_':, City /county: )^';:A1 Sampling Date: - 2.67, l w
ApplicanUOwner. �'�l" �'� ��`Gl "> c:i.Q /C`� -, :fir- _ State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): , Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): l� x C %E: "?:'<.<r Local relief (concave, convex, none): Cr:' I ''+ ^ Slope ( %)
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 1_ R, 1 j Lat: a ' .' l 'N Long: —I 1 1 % l� Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:. (C1 I ?rc >> �': - ..-... �..._- ................ ..._._....- ..-- NNII classificaiian:.._..._ A)6,,? _`'
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation v„ , Soil , or Hydrology ; ' significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ No ay
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (i€ needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ,.
within a wetland? Yes No �
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology fndicaFors:
__._._ ...... _ ...._...
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (At)
Aquatic Fauna (3 13)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B1 5) (LRR U)
— Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (61)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
— pry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish L3urrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (06)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
Algal Mat or Crust (84) _
i hin Muck Surface (C7)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (85)
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
Depth (inches) :.___ —__.__
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓" Depth (inches): _ 'Z!8
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 1�
includes capillary Trine
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:
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_ Speci es? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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 otall cover:
20% of total cover:
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
1
UPL species x 5 =
2
Column Totals: (A) (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A=
4.
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
= 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 ; " �� � °.,:`��� �
j liC� l�l T_'
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
3.
4.
more in diameter at breast height {DBH), regardless of
5
height,
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
6.
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb -Al herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
8.
9,
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover.
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
Present? Yes 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:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) _ % Type Lou
Texture Remarks
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Reduced Vertic (1`78) (outside MLRA 150A, B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Is
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
`T e: C= Concentration, D =Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
21_ocation: 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 Bark Surface (89) (LRR 5, T, U) _
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Reduced Vertic (1`78) (outside MLRA 150A, B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3) _
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (1`20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (1`6)
(MLRA 15313)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) W,,,
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) „M„„•
Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (e=xplain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (All 2) _,_,
Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (1713) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (35) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 1530)
Dark Surface (57) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V 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
"l �Project/Site:
AppiicantlOwner: /:'c-J J %?`: mac ✓�7, /rr> ��C.. State: /J Sampling Point: q
Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc ): 1s - )l'z.,:/r� C) "z o Local relief (concave, convex, none): _ <3 "^ c. 1 '(. Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA); L 8 � 7— Lat: .a r.t ° ri.r! long: W I llo. /r '1V Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NNl1 classification: ii 4:) Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ti' No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ , Soil , or Hydrology t'' significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology ______ naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soi€ Present? Yes ✓ No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks: /
A!/ l'v) � 1C', -✓, %':>
i
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that app$y)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Nigh Water Table (A2) —
Marl Deposits (B15) (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)
(gift Deposits (133)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled -Soils (C6)
Algal Mat or Crust (84)
Thin Muck Surface (07)
Iron Deposits (B5) _.,._
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
Water - Stained Leaves (69)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
-', Depth (inches): f
Surface Soil Cracks (BB)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (810)
Moss Trim Lines (B 16)
_ Dry - Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial tmagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC- Neutral Test (fly)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Remarks:
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: [)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 20
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree StrajuM (Plot size: }
%Cover .Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are 013L, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
FACW species x 2 =
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FAC species x 3 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FACU species x 4 =
1
UPL species x 5 =
2
Column Totals: (A) (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B /A=
4.
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6•
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7._
2 - Dominance Test is X50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover
problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total covcr:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: n 1 )
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1. SCJ -', " 'r :.
JUL? /J -
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
i
2.
Deflnitlons 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 tail.
10.
Woody vine —AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover.
Woody Vine Stratum- (Plot size:
)
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
5•
= Total Cover
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below),
V:q .. . .
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 20

SOIL
Profile Description:
Depth
Matrix
inches
Color (moist} %
_ Loamy GI eyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (173) _
10�����r
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
document the Indicator or
Redox Features
Color (moist) % TYAC- Loc
Sampling Point:
e absence of indicators.)
Texture Remarks
'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 Soi
Histosoi (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratifled Layers (A5)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
W _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
✓ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Poiyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) _ 1 em Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR 5)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR A) _
Reduced Veftic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,S)
_ Loamy GI eyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (173) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
(MLRA 1538)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (1711) (M LRA 151)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Reduced Vertic (1718) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
_ Piedmont Fioodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 1530, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Guif Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

Mitigation Plan
Reference Wetland
59
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
.1
Twin Bays Restoration Site

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: 7-/',,)/A) L1-5 Av. , r.:-...; f-4, 1 71 -AvW6 City/County: L%i; L L �?� P J �x > Iii ! Sampling Date: 11- S
Applicant/Owner: 1'' State: lJf Sampling Point: D00 1
Investigator(s): �nl'� 1' =. �) I >!'!,�11! Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hiilslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex`, none): L.l:? } exi a� e. Slope ( %), 0' 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): L" T- AR Lat ]� �7l „#I r� � �� j ", �? Long: W 67� r� � tgf.6 � � � Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: A/ 9� 4 _ _ _.___ _ NWI classification:.
....
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No ( €f no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No V-- No
within a Wetland? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V” No
Remarks:
IJIc.23- p7t.Y _� ellie f' %f /�.1 N > 1'�y,' �� J�c( 7 1u roc rhr�ca�r W -rc `r ° /_ct j).6 Asu�s >r}°46)
Z
19n r- Clii 1. b�s�� -r� ✓1 L. f,2.1!/ �3 � "' �y! /I.A -/Y
/,S �` -L � , /._f r 4 Qb�•" �rJ , ' -Fh� ht1 /fJr L
OF ot)hI�t R. Shrz.J� ( -� _ �.in.x�t (n0 % I3Pc�� ` LE.3.laCS °.."A (•C'ft5,
HYDROLOGY
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (01)
_✓ Mass Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (131) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
W Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
✓Geomorphic Position (D2)
mm_ Iron Deposits (85) __.
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
✓ FAC- Neutral Test (135)
✓ Water - Stained Leaves (B$)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �� No
(includes caillfrin a
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: `)(?t-� )
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 %nrorksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
% Cover
c s?
St us
Number of Dominant Species
f
1. ,Pew I ))n.i > /F.. /"j"xa�,
!Z- 0
✓
1 /¢C
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2. /:1j�If, f" ):{ (.�ia.u_ec'! S rl
3o
✓
3 Swc_ c7IL�ti- L��t1�N��fez :z {`:`�r,�;�sr. ^(',;,rr..
'7
✓
1=%it
Total Number of Dominant
Spees Across All Strata: 1i (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 « {AIB}
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: - Multipjy „by:
10 0
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1
50% of total cover:
> 0 20% of total cover:
L [)
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FAC species x 3 =
1. Sty (d L�o..aL_/J�rt.}�)nl( tlJr n,,v Ir2�]r
3n
✓
�iif ia3
FACU species x 4 =
2. €%-10f -C Oa1,! (1 {� `t/�}a. <, s' whet.,
p
UPL species x 5 =
3..SWki,to, �dboij -A r (A- u`•'"}r.iS
V
r- lr -_ 3
Column Totals: (A) (B)
;
4.�i "1C1j1[t V 1.
�U
�'
r.c,1
' Lr- c',I ,.,1� tr(
5. J'��t.';��`��, -t o,� #a 1
f qua
Prevalence Index = B/A=
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.I7:q�ibw3 ���.t. #.��;;# r;c't- �rrfrt! -� O�f�ti�U`,itr � 1``x'!0
7.
_✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53,0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Total Cover
50% of total cover:
52­ ' 20% of total cover:
{
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Cre_W
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
011.
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) tali.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tali.
10.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
5
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
4 L '.> 20% of
total cover:
?�
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3s )
1. .` >Ykirfl� }# �(t.ilt n` 5% t:�
y
(I•i.t,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: � • -�
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 % jy2e Loc.
Texture Remarks
_ 2. C VY)
E
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RMµReduced Matrix, MS- Masked Sand Grains-
21-ocation: PL =Pare Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Boil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ 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)
_ 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)
Loamy GI eyed Matrix (F2)
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 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (177)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (178)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (Ag) (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 (1712) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) jMLRA 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, 15 013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (56)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (1720) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Sail Present? Yes 4/. No
Remarks:
9
oi
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

^iai;v%r.4 may: ,w
m
KCI
SUBJECT
JOB NUMBER
DESIGN DATE
CHECK DATE
SHEET----.— OF
Loading through Excellence * www.kc€.com • [phone]
7-
th
L 4
L
�excxf�IeA 7 f/c4w.'
go
T. L

Mitigation Plan
�r
r
i t
Twin Bays Restoration Site
C Reference Wetland Gauge
' Project Easement
300 150 0
,, t
PROJECT SITE REFERENCE WETLAND
300 TWIN BAYS RESTORATION SITE
Feet DUPLIN COUNTY, NC
65
i
F
Source. -fUC Sfatewrde
i —ge,y, 2010.

Mitigation Plan
.:
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
67
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
C.3
Twin Bays Restoration Site

os stem
�n a ement
PROGRAM
October 15, 2012
Mr. Tim Morris
KCI Associates of NC, PA
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh NC 27609
Subject: Categorical Exclusion
Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Project
Cape Fear River Basin — CU# 03030007
Duplin County, North Carolina
Contract No. 004739, RFP No. 16- 004102
Dear Mr. Morris:
Attached please find the approved Categorical Exclusion form for the subject full delivery
project. Please include a copy of the approval form in your Mitigation Plan. You may submit
your invoice for completion of the Task 1 deliverable for review and approval.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at any time.
I can be reached at (910) 796 -7475, or email me at kristin.miguez(a)-ncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
Kristin E. Miguez, Project Manager
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA
file
Jz"t- 0riKg... ... Protest, oar St-a-te AMA R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service tenter, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / www.nceep.net

Categorical Exclusion Farm for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note; Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any aupporting documentation) as the
environmerdal document.
Version 1.4, 8{18105
Part
1: Gancral Project
Project i<Vame:
win Bas Non7i anan Wet and Miti ation Project
Count Name:
Du lire oor� N
EEP Number:
85363
Project Sponsor.,
KG1 Technologies, Inc.
Project Contact Name:
Tim Morris
Project Contact Address:
4601 Six Forks Fed, Suite 220, Raleigh: NC 27609
Project contact E -mail:
tim.marfis kci.com
EEP Project Mane er:
Kristin Mi uez
Project Description
For Only
Reviewed By:
19 -19-191
Date
EEP Proje and r
Conditional Approved By:
Date �w
For Division Administrator
FHWA
Q Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8{18105

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
74
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
Jurisdictional Determination
75
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
W
Twin Bays Restoration Site

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2012 -01285 County: Du lin U.S.G.S. Quad: Wallace West
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL, DETERMINATION
Property _ eir Agent: KCI Associates of NC
Owner: Danny,$ .K_
Address: 5114 Clear Run Drive attn: Steven F. Stokes
Wilmington, NC 28403 Address: Landmark Center 1I Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Property description:
Size (acres) —13 Nearest Town Wallace
Nearest Waterway UT to Rock Fish Creels River Basin Northeast Cave Fear
USGS HUC 03030007 Coordinates 34.748806 N - 78.027356 W
Location description: The property is located on the east side of Cornwallis Road approximately 0. 45 mi. north of its
intersection with NC 41 near Wallace Du lin County, North Carolina. The Pro'ect Area is located in the
southwestern half of PIN #: 239600252193
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
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).
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
OUT published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. on the above described project area 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.
X The waters of the U.S.s 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
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
(LAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at (252) 808 -2808 to
determine their requirements.
Page 1 of 2

Placement of dredged or fill material 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 Mr. David E. Baffle at 910 251 -44691
David .E.Bailey2(iD,usace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination
The site exhibits features with Ordinary High Water. The waters on -site include an 4 unnamed tributaries MO. io
Rock. Fish Creek and a small pond - all Relatively Permanent Waters RPWs ) which flow via another UT to Rock Fish
Creek PW) and Rock Nish Creek RPW to the Northeast Cape Fear River, a Traditionally Navigable Water.
D. Remarks
The Waters of the US were delineated by Steve Stokes KCl with changes made in the field by. Dave E. Bailey.
UUSACIF and are approximated as the shaded areas on the attached figure entitled "Jurisdictional Tributary
Delineation MaI2 of Twin Bays Wetland Restoration" dated 8/2012012.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1955. 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 (This 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 Army 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 District 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 December 29,2012.
* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence. **
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date October 30, 2012 Expiration Date October 30, 2017
Copy furnished:
Chad Coburn, NCDENR-DWQ, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405

S-
�z f
U
J F-
ter¢ -z�L
'z
-mz,
z3 t
O ce 6 Z a
aoW / r ♦ L
1 �
i
n
G
�1 I YQQ�
rgro
1 / " I / wr.Q fY
Z CL
m w z
iv
I - W
atrltlrJ � 1 1f � { °o a¢
EL !� 1
ir�a D
N
r
as
vi
#
¢
¢a
�7
O°
;
r
ii
0->
�
�
ma<
-M
G�
W L
LY p
3
so
zz
Irj
C) Q
I
-
-i
I
w
o
LLJ 0
O � 41
�N
q
M1
u
w e-
d�
W
O
z
x
y
S-
�z f
U
J F-
ter¢ -z�L
'z
-mz,
z3 t
O ce 6 Z a
aoW / r ♦ L
1 �
i
n
G
�1 I YQQ�
rgro
1 / " I / wr.Q fY
Z CL
m w z
iv
I - W
atrltlrJ � 1 1f � { °o a¢
EL !� 1
ir�a D

Mitigation Plan
L-IN
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
FEMA Floodplain Checklist
81
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
Em
Twin Bays Restoration Site

r
Enfa m nt
are e
PROGRAM
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:
Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Project
Name if stream or feature:
N/A
County:
Duplin
Name of river basin:
Cape Fear
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county:
Wallace, Duplin County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
2396J
Consultant name:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Phone number:
919- 783 -9214
Address:
4601 Six Forks Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27609
FEMA_ Floodplain Checklist4- 23- 12.docx Page 1 of 3

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.
Example
Reach
Length
Priority
Wetland I
11.1 acres
N/A
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
E Yes E No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
Redelineation
Detailed Study
Limited Detail Study
F- Approximate Study
r- Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
r- AE Zone
Floodway
Non - Encroachment
None
F- A Zone
Local Setbacks Required
No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non-
encroachment/setbacks?
FEMA_Floodplain Checklist4- 23- 12.docx Page 2 of 3

E: Yes E No
Land Acquisition (Check)
F State owned (fee simple)
F Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
F 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?
E Yes C 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:
Phone Number:
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
F No Action
F No Rise
F Letter of Map Revision
Conditional Letter of Map Revision
F Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Project is not located in a jurisdictional floodplain.
Name:
Title:
Signature:
Date:
FEMA_Floodplain Checklist4- 23- 12.docx Page 3 of 3

Mitigation Plan
E%
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
Twin Bays Restoration Site
14.5 Appendix C. Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
87

Mitigation Plan
E�3
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
Groundwater Modeling /Hydrologic Budget
EIR
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
.I
Twin Bays Restoration Site

Mitigation Plan
Twin Bays Restoration Site - Existina Conditions - Rains Soils
Twin Bays Restoration Site
Dry Year
Water Inputs
Wafer Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland
Volume
1990
P
Si"
Gi
PET
So
Go
January
2.07
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
2.80
-1.53
0.00
0.00
February
1.86
0.01
0.00
1.25
0.01
2.80
-2.19
0.00
0.00
March
5.96
1.03
0.00
1.60
1.03
2.80
1.56
0.06
1.56
April
2.50
0.02
0.00
2.39
0.02
2.80
-2.6f9
0.00
0.00
May
5.95
1 0.34
0.00
3.84
0 34
2.80
-C ,-,
0.00
0.00
June
0.86
0.00
0.00
5.99
0.00
2.80
-7.93
0.00
0.00
July
2.21
0.00
0.00
6.82
0.00
2.86
-7.41
0.00
6.00
August
5.72
0.15
0.00
5.99
0.15
2.80
-3.07
0.00
0.00
September
0.33
0.00
0.00
4.22
0.00
2.80
-6.69
0.00
0.00
October
3.64
0.60
0.00
2.71
0.50
2.86
-1.87
0.00
O.QQ
November
3.91
1.53
0.00
1.15
1.53
2.80
-0.04
0.00
0.06
December
1.60
0.01
0.00
0.90
0.01
2.80
-2.10
0.00
0.00
Annual Totals
36.6
3.7C
).CC
3'.C6
3.70
3.63
Avg. Year
Water Inputs
Wafer Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland
Volume
1973
P
Si"
Gi
PET
So
Go
January
4.61
0.08
0.00
0.45
0.08
2.80
1.26
0.00
1.26
February
4.34
0.14
0.00
0.32
0.14
2.80
1.22
0.00
2.48
March
4.97
0.29
0.00
1.84
0.29
2.80
6.33
0.00
2.82
April
5.53
1.07
0.00
2.19
1.07
2.80
0.54
0.00
3.36
May
3.06
0.24
0.00
3.65
0.24
2.80
-3.39
0.00
0.00
June
8.70
1.89
0.00
5.48
1.89
2.80
0.42
0.00
0.42
July
3.96
0.04
0.00
5.65
0.04
2.80
-4.45
0.00
0.00
August
7.73
0.73
0.00
5.53
0.73
2.80
-0.62
0.00
0.00
September
3.70
1.17
0.00
4.43
1.17
2.80
-3.53
0.00
0.00
October
1.05
0.03
0.00
2.41
0.03
2.80
-4.16
()-001
0.00
November
0.47
0.00
0.00
1.26
1 0.00
2.80
-3.59
0.00
0.00
December
7.84
1.17
0.00
0.58
1.17
2.80
446
0.00
4.46
Annual Tatars
55-841
6.85
0.00
33.79
8.85
33.60
Wet Year
Water Inputs
Wafer Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland
Volume
1991
P
Si'
Gi
PET
So
Go
January
7.8
0.69
0.00
0.62
0.69
2.80
4.38
0.00
4.38
February
1.97
0.07
0.00
0.90
0.07
2.80
-1.73
0.00
2.65
March
5.06
0.36
0.00
1.65
0.36
2 80
0.61
0.00
3.26
April
4.45
0.86
0.00
3.07
0.86
=
-1.42
0.00
1.83
May
3.13
1 0.06
0.00
5.31
0.06
2.86
-4.98
0.00
0.00
June
9.39
2.23
0.00
5.19
2.23
2.80
1.40
0.00
1.40
July
14.35
3.30
0.00
6.29
3.30
2.80
5.26
1.26
5.40
August
9.75
0.88
0.00
5.33
0.88
2.80
1.62
1.62
5.40
September
6.65
1.09
0.00
3.83
1.09
2.86
0.02
0.02
5.40
October
2.8
0.06
0.00
2.08
0.06
2.80
-2.08
0-001
3.32
November
2.04
0.07
0.00
0.95
0.07
2.80
-1.71
mc)j
1.62
December
1 3.04
0.09
0.00
0.63
0.09
2.80
C.P•
0.00
1.23
Annual Totals 1
70.431
9.76
0.00
35.84
9.76
33.60
91

Mitigation Plan
Twin Bays Restoration Site - Existinq Conditions - Torhunta. Soils
Twin Bays Restoration Site
Dry Year
Water Inputs
Water Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
wetland
Volume
1990
P
Si'
Gi
PET
So
Go
January
2.07
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
2.60
-1.33
0.00
0.00
February
1.86
0.01
0.00
1.25
0.01
2.60
-1.99
0.00
6.00
March
5.96
1.03
0.00
1.60
1.03
2.60
1.76
0.00
1.76
April
2.56
0.02
0.00
2.39
0.02
2.60
-2.49
()-001
0.00
May
5.951
0.34
0.00
3.84
0.34
1 2.60
-0.49
0.00
6.00
June
0.86
0.00
0.00
5.99
0.00
2.60
-7.73
0.00
0.00
July
2.21
0.00
0.00
6.82
0.00
2.60
-7.21
0.60
0.00
August
6.72
0.16
0.00
5.99
0.15
2.60
-2.87
0.00
0.00
September
0.33
0.00
0.00
4.22
0.00
2.60
-6.49
0.60
6.00
October
3.64
0.60
0.00
2.71
0.60
2.60
-1.67
1 0.60
6.00
November
1 3.911
1.53
0.00
1.15
1.53
2.60
0.16
0.00
0.16
December
1.601
o.ol
0.00
0.90
0.01
2.60
-1.90
0.00
0.00
Annual Totals
I I s
- ,
-•
-_ F- L,
-o
3 i 20
Rig. Year
Water Inputs
Water Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland
Volume
1973
P
Si '
Gi
PET
So
Go
January
4.51
0.08
0.00
0.45
0.08
2.60
3.46
0.00
1.46
February
4.34
0.14
0.00
6.32
0.14
2.60
1.42
0.60
2.88
March
4.97
0.29
0.00
1.84
0.29
2.60
0.53
0.00
3.42
April
5.53
1.07
0.00
2.19
1.07
2.60
0.74
0-001
4.16
May
3.061
0.24
0.00
3.65
0.24
1 2.60
-3.19
0.00
0.97
June
8.70
1.89
0.00
5.48
1.89
2.60
0.62
0.00
1.59
July
3.96
0.04
0.00
5.65
0.04
2.60
-4.29
0.00
0.00
August
7.71
0.73
0.00
5.53
0.73
2.60
-0.42
0.00
6.00
September
3.70
1.17
0.00
4.43
117
2.60
-3.33
0.00
0.00
October
1.05
0.03
0.00
2.41
0.03
2.60
-3.96
a0al
0.00
November
1 0.471
0.00
0.00
1.28
1 0.00
1 2.60
-3.39
o-C)OI
0.00
December
1 7.841
1.17
1 0.00
0.58
1 IAA
1 2.60
4.66
o-C)OI
4.66
Annual Totals
1 55.841
6.85
1 0.00
33.79
1 6.85
1 31.20
Wet Year
Water Inputs
Water Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland
Volume
1901
P
Si '
Gi
PET
So
Go
January
7.8
0.69
0.00
0.62
0.69
2.60
4.58
0.00
4.58
February
1.97
0.07
0.00
0.90
0.07
2.60
-1.53
0.06
3.05
March
5.06
0.36
0.00
1.65
0.36
2.60
0.81
0.00
3.86
April
4.45
0.86
1100
3.07
0.86
2.60
-1.22
0.00
2.63
May
3.131
0.06
0.00
5.31
0.06
1 2.60
-.78
0.00
0.00
June
9.39
2.23
0.00
5.19
2.23
2.60
1.60
0.60
1.60
July
14.35
3.30
0.00
6.29
3.30
2.60
5.46
2.38
4.68
August
9.75
0.88
0.00
5.33
0.88
2.60
1.82
1.82
4.68
September
6.65
1.09
0.00
3.83
1.09
2.60
6.22
0-221
4.68
October
2.8
0.06
1 0.00
2.08
0.06
2.60
-1.88
o-001
2.80
November
2.041
0.07
0.00
0.95
1 0.67
1 2.60
-1.51
0.00
1.30
December
3.04
0.09
0.00
0.63
0.09
2.60
-0.19
0.00
1.11
Annual Totals
70.431
9.76
0.00
35.84
9.76
31.20
ON

Mitigation Plan
G
8
� C•
u
_
8 5
a
7
a
m 4
a
a � .
2
1
Hydrologic Budget
Existing Conditions - Rains Soil Series
Growing Season
March 18 - Nov. 11
Maximum Capacity
(Ground Surface)
ik
5
A
t �k
t
� 1
� r
k
4 k
12" Below * ; r A
i
� Ground Surface ti ti --A
r k r
■ r
A s -
/'"
-
93
Twin Bays Restoration Site
1.8 in. -Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
5.4 in- Maximum
CapacitylSoil Surface
Dry Year (1990)
-- - -w - -- Average Year (197 3)
— —A— — Wet Y e ar (199 1)

Mitigation Plan
9
8
7
O
4
1
Hydrologic Budget
Existing Conditions - To rh u nta Soil Series
Growing Season
March 18 - Nov. 11
A
Maximum Capacity i
(Ground Surface)
12" Below
Ground Surface'
94
Twin Bays Restoration Site
1.56 in. - J uri scli cti on a]
Boundary (12" below
ground)
4.68 in- Maximum
CapacityiSoil Surface
— 4- - Dry Year (1990)
-- - -w - -- Average Year (19-73)
— --A— — Wet Year (1991)

Mitigation Plan
Twin Bays Restoration Site - Proposed Conditions - Rains Soils
Twin Bays Restoration Site
Dry Year
Water In uis
Water Out uts
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland Volume
1990
P
Si "
Gi
PET
So
Go
January
2.07
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
2.80
-1.53
0.00
0.00
February
1.86
0.01
0.00
1.25
0.00
2.80
-2.18
0.00
0.00
March
5.96
1.03
0.00
1.60
0.00
2.80
2.60
0.00
2.60
April
2.50
0.02
a.OD
2.39
0.00
2.80
-2.67
0.00
0.00
May
5.95
0.34
0.00
3.84
0.00
2.80
-0.35
0.00
0.00
June
0.86
0.00
0.00
5.99
0.00
2.80
-7.93
0.00
0.00
July
2.21
0.00
0.00
6.82
0.00
2.80
-7.41
0.00
0.00
August
5.72
0.15
0.00
5.99
0.00
2.80
-2.92
0.00
0.00
September
0.33
0.00
0.00
4.22
0.00
2.80
-6.69
0.00
0.00
October
3.64
0.60
0.00
2.71
0.00
2.80
-126
0.00
100
November
3.91
1.53
0.00
1.15
0.00
2.80
1.50
0.00
1.50
December
1.60
0.01
a.0o
0.90
0.00
2.80
-2.09
0.00
0.00
Annual Totals
Annual Totals
55.84
, ;.11
3r [ii;
r.•.nn
0.00
33.60
Av . Year
Water In uts
Water Outputs
Change In
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland Volume
1973
P
51 "
GI
PET
So
Go
January
4.51
0.08
0.00
0.45
0.00
2.80
1.34
0.00
1.34
February
4.34
0.14
0.00
0.32
0.00
2.80
1.36
0.00
2.70
March
4.97
0.29
0.00
1.84
0.00
2.80
0.62
0.00
3.32
April
5.53
1.07
0.00
2.19
0.00
2.80
1.62
0.00
4.93
May
3.06
0.24
0.00
3.65
0.00
2.80
-3.16
0.00
1.78
June
8.70
1.89
0.00
5.48
0.00
2.80
2.31
0.00
4.09
July
3.96
0.04
0.00
5.65
0.00
2.80
-4.45
0.00
0.00
August
7.71
0.73
0.00
5.53
0.00
2.80
0.11
0.00
0.11
September
3.70
1.17
0.00
4.43
0.00
2.80
-2.36
0.00
100
October
1.05
0.03
0.00
2.41
0.00
2.80
-4.13
0.00
0.00
November
0.47
0.00
0.00
126
0.00
2.80
-3.59
0.00
0.00
December
7.84
1.17
0.00
0.58
0.00
2.80
5.62
0.00
5.62
Annual Totals
55.84
6.85
0.00
33.79
0.00
33.60
Wet Year
Water In uts
Water Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland Volume
1991
P
si •
Gi
PET
So
Go
January
7.8
0.69
0.00
0.62
0.00
2.80
5.07
0.00
5.07
February
1.97
0.07
0.00
0.90
0.00
2.80
-1.66
0.00
341
March
5.06
0.36
0.00
1.65
0.00
2.80
0.97
0.00
4.37
April
4.45
0.86
0.00
3.07
0.00
2.80
-0.57
0.00
3.81
May
3.13
0.06
0.00
5.31
0.00
2.80
-4.93
0.00
0.00
June
9.39
2.23
0.00
5.19
0.00
2.80
3.63
0.00
3.63
July
14.35
3.30
0.00
6.29
0.00
2.80
8.56
4.39
7.80
August
9.75
0.88
0.00
5.33
0.00
2.80
2.51
2.51
7.80
September
6.65
1.09
0.00
3.83
0.00
2.80
1.12
1.12
7.80
October
2.8
0.06
0.00
2.08
0.00
2.80
-2.01
0.00
5.79
November
2.04
0.07
0.00
0.95
0.00
2.80
-1.64
0.00
4.15
December
3.04
0.09
0.00
0.63
0.00
2.80
-0.30
0.00
3.85
Annual Totals
70.43
9.76
0.00
35.84
0.00
33.60
Note: An increase in capacity of 0.2 feet (2.4 inches) of surface water is assumed based on the creation of mi crotopography during •,veil and restoration.
95

Mitigation Plan
Twin Bays Restoration Site - Proposed Conditions - Torhunta Soils
Twin Bays Restoration Site
Dry Year
Wafer In ufs
Wafer Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland Volume
1990
P
SI "
GI
PET
So
Go
January
2.07
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
2.60
-1.33
0.00
0.00
February
1.86
0.01
0.00
1.25
0.00
2.60
-1.98
0.00
0.00
March
5.96
1.03
0.00
1.60
0.00
2.60
2.80
0.00
2.80
April
2.50
0.02
0.00
2.39
0.00
2.60
-2.47
0.00
0.33
May
5.95
0.34
0.00
3.84
O-DD
2.60
-0.15
0.00
0.17
June
0.86
0.00
0.00
5.99
0.00
2.60
-7.73
0.00
0.00
July
2.21
0.00
0.00
6.82
0.00
2.60
-7.21
0.00
0.00
August
5.72
0.15
0.00
5.99
O-DD
2.60
-2.72
0.00
0.00
September
0.33
0.00
0.00
422
0.00
2.60
-6.49
0.00
0.00
October
3.64
0.60
D.00
2.71
0.00
2.60
-1.06
0.00
0.00
November
3.91
1.53
0.00
1.15
0.00
2.60
1.70
0.00
1.70
December
1.60
0.01
0.00
0.90
0.00
2.60
-1.89
0.00
0.00
Annual Totals
36.61
3.71'
0.00
'.1.66
0.00
31.:
Avg. Year
Water fn ut5
Water Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Wetland Volume
1973
P
Si "
GI
PET
So
Go
January
4.51
0.08
0.00
0.45
0.00
2.60
1.54
0.00
1.54
February
4.34
0.14
0.00
0.32
0.00
2.60
1.56
0.00
3.10
March
4.97
0.29
0.00
1.84
0.00
2.60
0.82
0.00
3.92
April
5.53
1.07
0.00
2.19
0.00
2.60
1.82
0.00
5.73
May
3.06
0.24
0.00
3.65
0.00
2.60
-2.96
0.00
2.78
June
8.70
1.89
0.00
5.48
0.00
2.60
2.51
0.00
529
July
3.96
0.04
0.00
5.65
0.00
2.60
-425
Q.00
1.04
August
7.71
0.73
0.00
5.53
0.00
2.60
0.31
0.00
1.36
September
3.70
1.17
0.00
4.43
0.00
2.60
-2.16
0.00
0.00
October
1.05
0.03
0.00
2.41
0.00
2.60
-3.93
Q.00
0.00
November
0.47
0.00
0.00
1.26
0.00
2.60
3.39
0.00
0.00
December
7.84
1.17
0.00
0.58
0.00
2.60
5.82
0.00
5.82
Annual Totals
55.8 =1
6.85
0.00
33.79
0.00
31.20
Wet Year
Water In ut5
Water Outputs
Change in
Storage
Excess
Water
Weiland Volume
1991
P
SI '
GI
PET
SP
Go
January
7.8
0.69
0.00
0.62
0.00
2.60
5.27
0.170
527
February
1.97
0.07
0.00
0.90
0.00
2.60
-1.46
0.00
3.81
March
5.Q6
0.36
0.00
1.65
0.00
2.60
1.17
0.00
4.97
April
4.45
0.86
0.00
3.07
0.00
2.60
-0.37
0-001
4.61
May
3.13
0.06
0.00
5.31
0.00
2.60
-4.73
0.00
0.00
June
9.39
223
0.00
5.19
0.00
2.60
3.83
0.00
3.83
July
14.35
3.30
0.00
6.29
0.00
2.60
8.76
5.51
7.08
August
9.75
0.88
0.00
5.33
0.00
2.60
2.71
2.71
7.08
September
6.65
1.09
0.00
3.83
0.00
2.60
1.32
1.32
7.08
October
2.8
0.06
0.00
2.08
001)
2.60
-1.81
0.00
5.27
November
2.D4
0.07
0.00
0.95
0.00
2.60
-1.441
mol
3.83
December
3.D4
0.09
0.00
0.63
0.00
2.60
-0.10
D.00
3.73
Annual Totals
70.43
9.76
0.00
35.84
0.00
3120
Note: An increase in capacity of 0.2 feet (2.4 inches) of surface water is assumed based on the creation of mi=topography during wetland restoration.
•-1

Mitigation Plan
9
8
dY
0
Hydrologic Budget
Proposed Conditions - Rains Soil Series
Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
97
Twin Bays Restoration Site
7.8 in - Maximum
Capacity at 2.4 inches
above sail surface
Ground Su rFa ce
1.8 in. - J Li risdicti on al
Boundary (12" below
grDu nd)
D ry Yea r (1990)
--- -5t - -- Average Year (1973)
- -A, - Wet Year (199 1 )
Growing Season
March 18 -Nov. 11
Maximum Capacity
(2.4 in. Above Ground Surface)
A-
k Ak.
%
IZ Below
Ground Surface
f
AL -------- Ow 09
Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
97
Twin Bays Restoration Site
7.8 in - Maximum
Capacity at 2.4 inches
above sail surface
Ground Su rFa ce
1.8 in. - J Li risdicti on al
Boundary (12" below
grDu nd)
D ry Yea r (1990)
--- -5t - -- Average Year (1973)
- -A, - Wet Year (199 1 )

Mitigation Plan
8
43
> 4
3
9
Hydrologic Budget
Proposed Conditions - Torhunta Soil Series
Growing Season
March 18 - Nov. 11
Ilk A At
Maximum Capacity
(2.4 in. Above Ground Surface) i %
%
I IT Below
Ground Su rface
L
Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
XE-1
Twin Bays Restoration Site
TgBin- MaAmurn
Capacity at 2.4 inches
above sDil surface
Ground Su Fra cc
—1.56 in. - Jurisdictional
3 Du nd aFy (12" below
grDu nd)
— 4- D Fy Yea F (1 'J90)
---- 0---- Average Year (197a)
— -*--Wet Year (1991)

Soil Delineation and Characterization
..

100

A detailed soils investigation at the TBWRS 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 Duplin 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 Rains (Fine - loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic
Typic Paleaquults) soil series and the Torhunta (Coarse - loamy, siliceous, active, acid, thermic Typic
Humaquepts) soil series. Inclusions of other soil series include Murville /Leon complex (Sandy, siliceous,
thermic Umbric Endoaquods), Udorthents, Goldsboro (Fine - loamy, siliceous, subactive, thermic Aquic
Paleudults). The Rains and Torhunta series are listed as hydric soils in Duplin County, North Carolina.
They are defined as hydric due to saturation for a significant period during the growing season. These
two soils are listed as hydric on the federal, state and local lists. The Rains and Torhunta series are also
listed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as hydric soils.
Profile Description
The Rains series is described as very deep, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils typically found
on flats and in depressions throughout the Coastal Plain. They are formed in loamy sediments with
slopes ranging from 0 to 2 percent. The Torhunta series is described as very poorly drained soils that
formed in upland bays and on stream terraces in the Coastal Plain. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
101

Typical Pedon Description of the Rains mapping unit:
RAINS SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine - loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Typic Paleaquults
TYPICAL PEDON: Rains loamy sand -- forested. (Colors are for moist soil, unless otherwise indicated.)
A--0 to 7 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam, dark gray (10YR 4/1) dry; weak fine granular
structure; very friable; many fine and medium roots; very strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (4 to 10
inches thick)
Eg - -7 to 12 inches; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) sandy loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable;
many fine and few medium roots; many fine pores; few fingers of A horizon in upper part; very strongly
acid; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 11 inches thick)
Btg1 - -12 to 20 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy loam; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; friable; few
fine and medium roots; many fine pores; many clay bridging between sand grains; few medium
prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron in lower half; very strongly acid; gradual
wavy boundary.
Btg2 - -20 to 40 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure;
friable; few fine and medium roots; many fine pores; few faint clay films on faces of peds; few coarse
pockets of gray sandy loam; common medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of oxidized
iron; few fine prominent red (2.5YR 4/6) masses of oxidized iron; very strongly acid; gradual wavy
boundary.
Btg3 - -40 to 52 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; firm;
few fine pores; few faint clay films on faces of peds; few fine and medium prominent red (2.5YR 4/6) and
yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Btg4 - -52 to 62 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure;
friable; few faint clay films on faces of peds; few medium prominent brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) masses
of oxidized iron; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of the Btg horizon is
more than 40 inches.)
BCg - -62 to 79 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay loam; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; friable;
few fine distinct brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) masses of oxidized iron; very strongly acid; gradual wavy
boundary. (0 to 20 inches thick)
2Cg - -79 to 85 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1) sand; single grain; loose; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Florence County, South Carolina; about 2.0 miles southeast of Timmonsville; 1.1 miles
south of intersection of State Highway 45 and U.S. Highway 76; 150 feet west of State Highway 45.
102

RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from about 60 to more than 80 inches. Depth to
bedrock is more than 5 feet. Content of rock fragments range from 0 to 5 percent by volume. The soil is
extremely acidic to strongly acidic throughout, unless the surface has been limed.
The A horizon or Ap horizon (where present) has a hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 2 to 5, chroma of 1 to 2,
or is neutral with value of 2 to 5. The texture is sand, loamy coarse sand, loamy sand, loamy fine sand,
coarse sandy loam, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, or loam.
The Eg horizon has a hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7, chroma of 0 to 2, or is neutral with value of 4 to
7. The texture is sand, loamy coarse sand, loamy sand, loamy fine sand, coarse sandy loam, sandy loam,
fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, or loam. Redoximorphic features (where present) have iron
depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray and masses of oxidized iron or iron - manganese
masses in shades of red, yellow, or brown.
The Btg horizon has a hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7, chroma of 1 to 2, or is neutral with value of 4 to
7. The texture is typically, sandy clay loam or clay loam and includes sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or
loam in the upper part and sandy clay in the lower part. Redoximorphic features have iron depletions in
shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray and masses of oxidized iron or iron - manganese masses in shades
of red, yellow, or brown.
The BCg horizon or BCtg horizon (where present) has a hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7, chroma of 1 to
2, or is neutral with value of 4 to 7. The texture is sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or
sandy clay. Redoximorphic features have iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray and
masses of oxidized iron or iron - manganese masses in shades of red, yellow, or brown.
The Cg horizon (where present) has a hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7, chroma of 1 or 2, or is neutral
with value of 4 to 7. The texture is coarse sandy loam, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, sandy clay
loam, or clay loam, and may be stratified with finer or coarser - textured materials. Redoximorphic
features have iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray and masses of oxidized iron or
iron - manganese masses in shades of red, yellow, or brown.
The 2Cg horizon has a hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7, chroma of 1 or 2, or is neutral with value of 4 to
7. The texture is coarse sand, sand, fine sand, loamy coarse sand, or loamy sand and may be stratified
with finer - textured material.
Typical Pedon Description of the Torhunta mapping unit:
TORHUNTA SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Coarse - loamy, siliceous, active, acid, thermic Typic Humaquepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Torhunta fine sandy loam -- cultivated. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise
stated.)
Ap - -O to 9 inches; black (10YR 2/1) fine sandy loam; weak medium granular structure; friable; many fine
roots; strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (0 to 12 inches thick.)
103

A - -9 to 15 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loamy sand; weak medium granular structure; very friable;
many fine roots; thin coats of organic matter on grains; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (4 to
15 inches thick.)
Bg - -15 to 40 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) fine sandy loam; weak fine subangular blocky
structure; friable; slightly sticky and slightly plastic; many fine roots in upper part; thin silt coatings on
sand grains; few loamy sand and sand pockets; extremely acid; gradual wavy boundary. (10 to 25 inches
thick.)
Cg1 - -40 to 48 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loamy sand; common medium faint gray (10YR 5/1)
and brown (10YR 5/3) mottles; single grained; very friable; few sand pockets; extremely acid; diffuse
wavy boundary. (0 to 10 inches thick.)
Cg2 - -48 to 80 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sand; single grained; loose; uncoated sand grains; very
strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Wayne County, North Carolina; 1.5 miles south of New Hope; 0.4 mile northeast of
intersection of Roads 1712 and 1713, 50 feet south of Road 1713 and 50 feet northeast of power line
poles.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Torhunta soil has loamy textured horizons that range from 20 to 50 inches
thick. The soil reaction ranges from extremely acid through strongly acid, unless the surface has been
limed.
The Ap or A horizon has hue of 10YR, 2.5Y, or it is neutral, value of 2 or 4, and chroma of 0 to 2. It is
sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, loamy sand or their mucky analogues.
The Bg horizon has hue of 10YR, 2.5Y, or it is neutral, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 0 to 2. Mottles are
in shades of brown or yellow. It is sandy loam or fine sandy loam.
The BCg horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR, 2.5Y, or it is neutral, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of
0 to 2. Mottles are in shades of yellow or brown. It is sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loamy sand, or sand.
The Cg horizon has colors of the BCg horizon and in addition, has hue of 5GY or 5G, value of 4 to 6,
and chroma of 1. It is loamy sand, loamy fine sand, sand, or sandy loam.
104

MMMMMMFA�
KC I
ASSOCIATES OF
NOR11I CAROLINA, PA
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Client:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Project:
Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site
County:
Duplin
Location:
Cornwallis Road Wallace, NC
Soil Series:
Rains
Soil Classification:
AWT: 60"
Elevation:
Vegetation: Soybeans
Borings terminated at
Date: September 21, 2011
Project #: 20110659P -CF 07
State: NC
Site /Lot: Boring # 1
Fine - loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Typic Paleaquults
SHWT: 0 -12" Slope: 0 -1% Aspect:
Drainage: Poorly Drained Permeability: Moderate
60 Inches
HORIZON
DEPTH (IN)
MATRIX
MOTTLES
TEXTURE
STRUCTURE
CONSISTENCE
BOUNDARY
NOTES
Ap
0 -4
1 OYR 3/1
fsl
l f r
mfr
cs
A
4 -6
1 OYR 3 /1
I OYR 4 /3flf
sl
Ifsbk
mfr
cs
Plow pan
Btg 1
6 -10
1 OYR 4/2
I OYR 4/41`1 d
scl
1 fsbk
mfr
gw
Bt g2
10 -15
l OYR 4/1
1 OYR 4 /6f2d
scl
2msbk
mfr
gw
B t3
15 -30
1 OYR 4/1
I OYR 4/6c2d
cl
2msbk
mfr
gw
Bt g4
30 -40
l OYR 4/1
1 OYR 4/6c2d
scl -sc
1 msbk
mfr
gw
sand lenses
Bt g5
40 -48
10YR 511
1 OYR 5/2c2f
scl
1 msbk
mfr
gw
l OYR 511 sand lenses
1 OYR 5/6fl d
BCg
48 -60
IOYR 5/1
10YR 5 /4cId
scl
lcsbk- massive
mfr
sand lenses
COMMENTS:
The Rains series is a poorly drained soil ofthe upper Coastal Plain that occur on Flats, depressions and Carolina bays.
This Rains soil almost meets the percent clay content criteria for the Coxsville series a clayey soil.
The Coxville series is a poorly drained soil of the Coastal Plain that occur on flats, carolina bays and depressions.
This Rains series is a drained hydric soil by ditching.
This Rains soil has slow runoff and a seasonally high water table at or near the surface during wet seasons, typically between 0 -12 inches.
DESCRIBED BY:
DATE: 9/21/2011

wm==_.W-dw�
--- wmri�
K C I
ASSOCIATES OF
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NOKM CAROLINA, PA
MOTTLES
Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Date: September 21, 2011
Project: Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site
Project #: 20110659P -CF 07
County: Duplin
State: NC
Location: Cornwallis Road Wallace, NC
Site /Lot: Boring # 2
Soil Series: Pant(
Soil Classification:
AWT: 162"
Elevation:
Fine - loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Umbric Paleaquults
SHWT: 0 -12" Slope: 0 -1% Aspect:
Drainage: Very Poorly Drained Permeability: Moderate slow
Vegetation: Soybeans
Borings terminated at 62 Inches
HORIZON
DEPTH (IN)
MATRIX
MOTTLES
TEXTURE
STRUCTURE
CONSISTENCE
BOUNDARY
NOTES
Ap
0 -7
1 OYR 3 /1
is
if r
mfr
cs
A
7 -12
I OYR 3 /1
10YR4 /3171 f
is
IM PI
mfr
cs
Bt 1
12 -19
l OYR 4/2
1 OYR 4/4171 d
A
1 msbk
mfr
gw
Bt g2
19 -23
I OYR 5 /2
1 OYR 4 /4fl d
sl
Imsbk
mfr
gw
Bt g3
23 -30
l OYR 5/2
7.5YR 5/8c2d
scl
2msbk
mfr
gw
I OYR 5/1
Bt g4
30 -42
IOYR 5/2
1OYR 511 c2
scl -sc
2msbk
mfr
gw
7.5YR 5/8c2d
Bt g5
42 -48
l OYR 5/2
1 OYR 5/1 c2d
scl
1 csbk
mfr
gw
IOYR 5/4171 d
BC g1
48 -54
I OYR 5/2
scl
1 csbk
mfr
gw
sand lenses IOYR 7/2
Cg
54 -62
l OYR 6/1
l OYR 5/6c2d
se
massive
mfi
COMMENTS:
This Pantego soil is an inclusion in the Rains series.
The Pantego series is a very deep, very poorly drained soil formed in thick loamy deposits in nearly level and slightly depressional areas
of the Southern Coastal Plain and Atlantic Coast Flatwoods.
This Pantego series is a drained hydric soil by ditching.
This Pantego soil is ponded to very slow runoff and the seasonally high water table is at or near the surface during wet seasons, typically between 0 -12 inches.
DESCRIBED BY:
DATE: 9/21/2011

NMMW-01i�
KC I
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROMN& PA
Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Project: Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site
County:
Duplin
Location:
Cornwallis Road
Soil Series:
Torhunta
NC
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Date: September 26, 2011
Project #: 20110659P -CF 07
State: NC
Site /Lot: Boring # 3
Soil Classification: Coarse-loamy, siliceous active, acid, thermic Typic Humaquepts
AWT: 50" SHWT: 0 -12" Slope: 0 -1% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Very Poorly Drained Permeability: Moderately rapid
Vegetation: Soybeans
Borings terminated at 50 Inches
HORIZON
DEPTH (IN)
MATRIX
MOTTLES
TEXTURE
STRUCTURE
CONSISTENCE
BOUNDARY
NOTES
Ap
0 -8
l OYR 3/1
Ifs
i f r
mfr
aw
B 1
8 -12
1OYR 5/2
s
sg
ml
gw
B 2
12 -16
IOYR 6/1
IOYR 5 /4fld
s
sg
ml
gw
B 3
16 -27
1 OYR 6/2
7.5YR 6/2c2d
sl
I fsbk
mfr
gw
B 4
27 -38
I0YR 6/2
l OYR 5/2c2d
sl
1 fsbk
mfr
gw
slightly cemented
I OYR 5/6m3d
B 5
38 -44
10YR 511
IOYR 5/4c2d
Is
Icsbk
mfr
gw
Cg
44 -50
l OYR 5/1
l OYR 5/2c2d
s
massive
ml -mfi
sand lenses with clay balls
5/1 OYc2
COMMENTS:
The Torhunta series consist of very poorly drained soils in upland bays and on stream terraces in Coastal Plain.
The Torhunta series is a drained hydric soil by ditching.
The Torhunta soil has slow runoff and the seasonally high water table is at or near the surface during wet seasons, typically between 0 -12 inches.
DESCRIBED BY
DATE: 9/26/2011

K C I
ASSOCIATES OF SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NORM CAROUNA, PA
Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. Date: September 26, 2011
Project: Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site Project #: 20110659P -CF 07
County: Duplin State: NC
Location: Cornwallis Road Wallace, NC Site /Lot: Boring # 4
Soil Series: Torhunta Variant
Soil Classification: Coarse -loamy, siliceous active acid thermic Typic Humaquepts
AWT: 22" SHWT: 0 -12" Slope: 0 -2% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Very Poorly Drained Permeability: Moderately rapid
Vegetation: Soybeans
Borings terminated at 45 Inches
HORIZON
DEPTH (IN)
MATRIX
MOTTLES
TEXTURE
STRUCTURE
CONSISTENCE
BOUNDARY
NOTES
Ap
0 -10
1OYR3 /1
fs
lm r
mfr
gs
B 1
10 -22
IOYR 6/1
s
sg
ml
gw
slightly cemented
B 2
22 -24
1OYR4 /1
Is
sg
ml
gw
slightly cemented
C 1
24 -32
1OYR 6/1
Is
massive
ml
gw
strongly cemented
C 2
32 -40
l OYR 6/1
5/1 OYc21 d
s -Is
massive
ml
gw
C 3
40 -45
1OYR 4/1
5/1 OYc2p
scl
massive
mfi
sand lenses with clay balls
COMMENTS:
Torhunta does not have scl texture in the C horizon. Additionally, Torhunta does not typically have a fragipan. This is an inclusion in Torhunta mapping unit.
The Torhunta series consist of very poorly drained soils in upland bays and on stream terraces in Coastal Plain.
The Torhunta series is a drained hydric soil by ditching.
The Torhunta soil has slow runoff and the seasonally high water table is at or near the surface during wet seasons, typically between 0 -12 inches.
DESCRIBED BY:
DATE: 9/26/2011

IMP
f
�.
1
Delineated Soils Proposed Easement Area ?11.7 ac)
(11.3 ac hydric 10.4 ac non- hydric) 01 Spring
Gofdshorc (non - hydric)
:° Sand Spot
MurvillefLeon ( hydric)
i� ♦ Soil Borings
Rains ( hydric) _
Existing Ditches -
Torhunta (hvdric)
Pond
=� Udorthents`Springs (formerly hvdric)
PROJECT SITE DETAILED SOILS MAP Image Souce:NG
5f —* imagery, 2010 -
teo so c ��o TWIN BAYS RESTORATION SITE la
Feet DUPLIN COUNTY, NC
109

110

Potential Wetland Gauge Locations
111

112

v0%
1
113

114

14.6 Appendix D. Project Plan Sheets
115

116

N
N
O
N
U
O
O
h
U
O
U
N fL0
cN�pc o°
COp\ 117 40
0
PROJECT
LOCATION HIGH SCHOOL RD
°hi cf� \NRO TEACHEY
NFC�yo ° °•P,y, 1
�a
4
Q� 41
\,00 ROCK FISH CREEK WALLACE
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
DIRECTIONS FROM RALEIGH:
PROCEED EAST ON 1-40 FOR APPROXIMATELY 70 MILES. TAKE EXIT 369,
US -117 S. TAKE A LEFT ONTO US -117 S. TRAVEL APPROXIMATELY 15 MILES
AND THEN TAKE A RIGHT ONTO E MAIN ST IN WALLACE, NC. TRAVEL 2 MILES
AND TURN RIGHT ONTO CORNWALLIS RD. THE SITE WILL BE ON THE RIGHT
APPROXIMATELY 0.4 MILES AHEAD.
INDEX OF SHEETS
I
TITLE SHEET
2
GENERAL NOTES & PROJECT LEGEND
3
DETAILS
4
GRADING PLAN
S
PLANTING PLAN
6
BOUNDARY MARRING PLAN
7-10
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
GRAPHIC SCALES
50 —25 0 50 100
GRADING, PLANTING PLANS,
AND BOUNDARY MARKING
—80 —40 0 80 120
EROSION CONTROL OVERVIEW
TWIN
PROJECT DATA
BAYS
RESTORATl011t SITE
1v 53fi3
STATE 88P PROIP('INObfBHR BaBaT TOTAL
x0. BaBgt9
,�, 95363 1
A B
BUBMITTED WITH MITIGATION PLAN N
NOV 2012
B S
SUBMITTED FOR EROSION CONTROL PERMIT M
�®
1v 53fi3
STATE 88P PROIP('INObfBHR BaBaT TOTAL
x0. BaBgt9
,�, 95363 1
A B
BUBMITTED WITH MITIGATION PLAN N
NOV 2012
B S
SUBMITTED FOR EROSION CONTROL PERMIT M
MAR 2072
REVISIONS
I
ROCK FISH CREEK WATERSHED
03030007090040
SHEET 4. 5. 6. 9
NONRIPARIAN WETLAND RESTORATION = 11.1 ACRES
PROJECT TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE = 12.0 ACRES
Prepared in the Office of PROJECT ENGINEER
Prepared for.
�="� KCI ms7s ®ciafes¶ .tN�
rim ®f NO]P1ELIl C81P ®lliIIIldL P.A. ���.� °; �--
9
SUITE 220 LANDMARK CENTER II, 4601 SIX FORKS RD., RALEIGH, NC 27609 32733 32733 ENGINEERS •PLANNERS •ECOLOGISTS
Lob..
GARY M. MRYNCZA, P.E. FF,,,, "" "te�
PROJECT ENG/AR
ER Enifian�ement
I•lenr. rrnrA
JEFFJUREK
JOE PFEIFFER CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
WETLAND DESrcx
ggill I'
I I NOW= W v 10 1 ... - -
P.E.

GENERAL NOTES
BEARING AND DISTANCES:
ALL BEARINGS ARE NAD 1983 GRID BEARINGS.
ALL DISTANCES AND COORDINATES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL (GROUND) VALUES.
ALL INFORMATION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING KCI CONTROL POINTS.
NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION
KCI #1 364644.92 2291890.51 59.67
KCI #2 365002.05 2291745.40 60.47
KCI #4 365181.14 2292298.01 64.06
GRADING:
- PROPOSED GRADE LINES IN THE PLANS ARE A GENERAL GUIDE FOR GRADING. EXACT TIE OUTS FROM THE DITCH TO THE
RESTORED WETLAND SHALL BE GRADED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
UTILITY /SUBSURFACE PLANS:
-NO SUBSURFACE PLANS ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS PROJECT. EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING A UTILITY LOCATOR AND ESTABLISHING THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY
AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE PROJECT REACH.
:4 ",
SEAL
32733
D
7
a
z
z
0
Z 0
5 0
a a
Z U
O
F
r
w
r
m
f/1
PROJECT
LEGEND
N
0-4 W
Ln
�Q
p0
WETLAND MITIGATION
TOPOGRAPHY
y
Z
a
OO
Proposed Filled Ditches------------------------ - - - - --
Minor Contour Line _____------------------------- - - - - --
W Z
X
ow
a
Z
2
W
Proposed Ditch Plug ®
P 9
Major Contour Line _____ - - - - -- - - - --
Proposed Contour --------------------------------- - - - - --
Q
Proposed Stabilized Drainage Outfall________
O
a
LU
H
a
U
H
CO
SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
MISCELLANEOUS
z
m °
Z
Z
z
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Existing Overhead Wire and Poles OHW
z
�
a
Silt Fence SF
Existing Woods Line------------------------------ - - - - -- ��
o
w
U
3
Limits of Disturbance ------------------------------- - - -LO°
J
Q
3
DAM MARCH 2013
Temporary Rock Silt Screen WALE: N.T.S.
GENERAL
NOTES &
® PROJECT
Temporary Bridge Mat Crossing LEGEND

L
DITCH
PLUG
EXISTING DITCH
B
-- A
PLAN VIEW
5EAl-
s 32733
Qty 1
'•.'CktiEtr M` ••
B
DITCH PLUG b
EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
VAR. EXISTING VAR.
DITCH WIDTH
SECTION B -B
3'
EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
4:A 4:1 EXISTING DITCH BOTTOM
0
SECTION A -A
DITCH PLUG DETAIL
SCALE: NTS
NOTE:
SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF DITCH PLUGS.
USE SELECT MATERIAL, CLASS I OR SUITABLE
SALVAGED MATERIAL, IF AVAILABLE FOR DITCH PLUGS.
FINISHED WETLAND GRADE
SELECT MATERIAL, D 5' MIN --� oo WETLAND OUTFALL TO RECEIVING WATER
CLASS I
cu � 0 �S TIE BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE INTO
0 0 g X00 0 0� EXISTING BANKS / OUTFACE AT LEAST
�� o�8, o 0Q o �o� o o� U0700 EXISTING 0.5' BELOW GRADE
00 0
—5 MIN'
CLASS ISTONE
PRf1Fll P \ /IFW
STABILIZED DRAINAGE OUTFALL
SCALE: NTS
NOTE:
IF AVAILABLE SUITABLE SALVAGED MATERIAL
MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SELECT MATERIAL, CLASS I.
D
7
O
K
z
z
0
z o
a
z U
O
0
W
C
m
f/1
y
z
W
�o N
Q �
G W
Ifli ■ I
Lu
Z
0
z
W
DAM
W
t_
z
QO
m
z_
O
H
W
oc
C
0
N
WN
fQ
�z
Hl �
0
O
K=
00
00
LLZ
X3
Fa 0
W
t0
a
z
z
J
O
Q
U
H
O
z
z
z
D
O
U
z
J
a
D
0
w
3
J
DETAILS

V� 01
.
�
I III
II
5EAL =
°_ 1 32733
>
a
II II v
!
'• .'CkA EL K`.••
`1
/
III
COA,
RVA7j0
�SEME
z
OJ
\
�1 '1/1le
\
I
z
o
A
q'Ill/
111 I1 // /j 1
I I11111)1111r 1 \ll
/ PARTIALLY FILL DEPRESSION
l WITH ADJACENT SPOIL CREATING
a
z
a
/ / ///////! ��II
AN EPHEMERAL POND.
0 0
/
BREACH POND SELECT
EN (
E
o
LOCATIONS TO ENCOURAGE
L OW
DISPERSAL. LOCATE BERM BREAKS
TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO MATURE
i
TREES.
r
`V l l
/ / /lllllllllr Jl lI
111111111 //
\
w
C
V I vv
///
/ 1111111111/ � / �/
m
v I
� y�ll�Ipl11�J lyq/
�
' — Illll
4i A
l
l
KCI#4 /
as
o
-50 -25 0 50 100
GRAPHIC SCALE
a'
v
-61,_ � V
—62-,
A \
�
�� AAVAV A
H L n
\ \ \�\
INSTALL DITCH
W
W N
� z
59
PLUG (IYP.)
R w o
�vvI�
5�
_
x0
Lu
Lu
z
a
V AVA
SQ
z
w
\
AA\\
V
C% �A`\
\ vA
vvvw
6
�v
U
v \ \v
\A\
LLI 2
H H
N �vvw
- - - --
Of
Of
O
�O �v
s , 5� v
Z z
z
z g o
� Ivey v v
v
v `
v
r
fn a
W
LLf
�
Q
_
CONSERVA7YON EASEMENT
\ / /
r
/ / — — — — —
\
are MARCH 2013
WALE: GRAPHIC
c
NOTE: SURFACE ROUGHENING WILL
I
_�$ � ����� 5g - -a —m
g =
GRADING
OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE EASEMENT
�g���
PLAN
TO ALLEVIATE SOIL COMPACTION AND
INSTALL STABILIZED
DRAINAGE OUTFALL
TO ENHANCE SURFACE WATER STORAGE.
(TYP.)
SHEET 4 OF 10

�; �
IIII i
°1
II �� SEAL e > a
II I v 's 32733
CONSERVq ..
nON�sEMENT
/
1111x -60")) O
III�/a N
�
p y
WETLAND PLANTING PLAN
V l
NON- RIPARIAN WETLAND RESTORATION
HARDWOOD FLATS VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY o
III//II /� l /l �/ I11/ 117 AC C
f
a�f/ v / /l� IIII 111 l 18" - 24" BARE ROOT MATERIAL
5 \ — IIIIII 968 STEMS /ACRE (9' X 5' SPACING), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT y
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME WETLAND INDICATOR %OF TOTAL # OF PLANTS Q
RED MAPLE ACER RUBRUM FACW 5 600
SWEETBAY MAGNOLIA MAGNOLIA VIRGINIANA FACW 4 500
SWAMP RED BAY PERSEA PALUSTRIS FACW 4 500
TULIP POPLAR LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA FACW 13 1,500
AMERICAN ELM ULMUS AMERICANA FACW 13 1,500
CHERRYBARK OAK QUERCUS PAGODA FAC 18 2,000
SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK QUERCUS MICHAUXII FACW 26 3,000
WATER OAK QUERCUS NIGRA FAC 13 1,500
RED CHOKEBERRY ARONIAARBUTIFOLIA FACW 2 250
HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY VACCINIUM CORYMBOSUM FACW 2 250 } _
100 11,600
\ \ \p '60- /l I _ -� _ �1 NOTE: THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE STEMS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE ENGINEER'S
DISCRETION. HOWEVER, ONE SPECIES MAY OCCUPY NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE
\ \ \\ // / //� \ I TOTAL STEMS AND AT LEAST FIVE SPECIES MUST BE USED. }L
V QAAA p — 1_ —
VAVA\ -
1 1AVAA VAS � // / IIIII
1 VAVA\ VAV A
I
III n $�
VAVv �V w Lua
`o
z
\
00
Lu
Lu
z <
W
\0%1 _ III al
—
IIII \ J
\ \ \ \\ _ _ - -_— — IIII c�S 0
V A \ \V
4-- w
LU
\V
A
_— 111
\ \� III � � � z
p v vvw v pl —50 —25 0 50 100 Q 0
z
GRAPHIC SCALE Z 0
v� v0 0
v v0v �, 4111 z
VAV IIQQ 8- (n d
v 11 W
Ld
\ U
NSE ON I /I11 / — — — —
EAS —ENT
on7e MARCH 2013
SCUF: GRAPHIC
PLANTING
PLAN
SHEET 5 OF 10

\1 AAVA\ OVA \\
\\\\ \
ail ul \
\ SEAL
's 32733
I II `\ \ p7� •gip
1
c �a
TTF o
T \
//x
/A
—50 —25 0 50 100
fl /kl1v
GRAPHIC SCALE
� A 1
/� \ l I / /IIIIIIIIIr�A l/ V 1�1
W 11
VA
JAVA � Al
CIO vvv`y
AAk
N \\
-p-
0
I
cbIIIIIIIIfi 11 /ly/ c.i i 11
EASEMENT BOUNDARY MARKING
\ U.JI
THE EASEMENT BOUNDARY WILL BE MARKED
v / / /II` u111 WITH METAL POSTS AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SIGNS AT THE CORNERS AND AT A MINIMUM OF 200'
INTERVALS ALONG THE BOUNDARY.
CE
_ -- t
y - - -- C i 11111
/ � � / 1111
1
1
V // 111111
v /I � 11111
Iti pp
V lI Il II II � �
518" REBAR 30" IN LENGTH WITH 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAPS
ON ALL EASEMENT CORNERS. CAPS SHALL MEET EEP
SPECIFICATIONS (BERNSTEN RBD5325 IMPRINTED WITH
NC STATE LOGO B9087 OR EQUIVALEN . AFTER
INSTALLATION, CAPS SHALL BE STAMPE WITH THE
CORRESPONDING NUMBER.
6-FOOT TALL DURABLE WITNESS POST AT EACH CORNER
IN THE 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 POST AND PLACE ADDITIONAL SIGNS
AT NO MORE THAN 200 -FOOT INTERVALS ON BOUNDARY LINES.
5
z
O
r
C
f=/1
0
rn
0w
yl
0
% N�
ICI w Lu
V yo
Fil w �
z
a 000
X 3f Lu Z o w
0 a
w
LU
� H
cf) z
Z
m 0
z9
O
O L)
Z
C/) a
W
O o
LU
U
3
J
DATE
BOUNDARY
MARKING
PLAN

NOTES:
1. IT IS THE INTENT OF THESE PLANS THAT AS SOON AS AN AREA OF GRADING
S COMPLETE IT SHALL BE STABILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EROSION
CONTROL PRACTICES DESCRIBED IN THESE PLANS.DUE TO THE ANTICIPATED
DURATION AND SEQUENCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE
CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THE AMOUNT
OF THE AREA THAT IS DISTURBED AT ONE TIME.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE EVERY REASONABLE PRECAUTION
THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT TO PREVENT EROSION
AND SEDIMENTATION. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND
MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT PLANS, NORTH CAROLINA
SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL GUIDELINES AND AS DIRECTED BY
THE DESIGNER.
3. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE FOR LATER USE AS EMBANKMENT MATERIAL. THE CONTRACTOR
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING APPROPRIATE STABILIZATION MEASURES
AROUND THE STOCKPILE AREA(S) AND ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT SPOIL
AND TOPSOIL PILES TO PREVENT EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION.
4. IN THE EVENT OF A STORM, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
REMOVAL OR PROTECTION OF ANY EQUIPMENT, TOOLS, MATERIALS OR
OTHER ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE WORK THAT COULD BE AFFECTED
BY STORMWATER.
5. AFTER THE WETLAND GRADING CALLED FOR IN THE PLANS IS COMPLETED,
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY INSTALL APPROPRIATE STABILIZATION
MATERIALS AS CALLED FOR IN THE PLANS TO STABILIZE THE SOIL AND PROVIDE
IMMEDIATE SEDIMENT /EROSION CONTROL.
6. EACH SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE WILL BE REMOVED AFTER ALL
WORK IN THE CORRESPONDING CONSTRUCTION PHASE HAS BEEN
COMPLETED AND THE AREAS HAVE BEEN STABILIZED.
7. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND STAGING AREA IDENTIFIED ON THE
PLANS PROVIDE THE ONLY ACCESS POINTS INTO THE LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE. NO ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE USED WITHOUT
APPROVAL OF THE DESIGNER.
8. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE LOW SIDE OF ANY TEMPORARY
OR PERMANENT SPOIL AND TOPSOIL PILES. THESE SPOIL PILES SHALL ALSO
BE SEEDED AND MULCHED FOR VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION ON THE SAME
DAY THEY ARE CREATED. ALL SPOIL MATERIAL SHALL STAY ON THE SITE
AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
9. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES WILL BE CHECKED FOR
STABILITY AND FUNCTIONAL OPERATION FOLLOWING EVERY RUNOFF
PRODUCING RAIN EVENT AND /OR AT LEAST ONCE PER WEEK. ANY NEEDED
MAINTENANCE OR REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY TO MAINTAIN ALL
MEASURES AS DESIGNED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM
CONTROL MEASURES WHEN THEY REACH APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THEIR
FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY. THESE MEASURES SHALL BE REPAIRED IF DISTURBED
DURING MAINTENANCE. ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZED, RESEEDED
AND MULCHED, AS NECESSARY, TO PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
VEGETATION COVER.
10. THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND EROSION CONTROL CONTACT FOR THIS SITE
IS TIM MORRIS. OFFICE PHONE - 919 -783 -9214 CELL PHONE - 919 - 793 -6886
GROUND STABILIZATION
SITE AREA
STABILIZATION
DESCRIPTION
TIME FRAME
PERIMETER DIKES,
BRIDGE MAT STREAM CROSSING ------------- - - - - --
SWALES, DITCHES
7 DAYS
AND SLOPES
MIXTURE FOR A TOTAL OF 30 LBS /ACRE
HIGH QUALITY
WATER (HQW)
7 DAYS
ZONES
SLOPES STEEPER
7 DAYS
THAN 3:1
TEMPORARY SEED MIX
SLOPES 3:1 OR
7 DAYS
FLATTER
J
ALL OTHER AREAS
4
WITH SLOPES FLATTER
7 DAYS
THAN 4:1
MIX IN SEEDING ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS:
INSPECTIONS
WEEKLY INSPECTIONS REQUIRED
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, AS DIRECTED BY THE
DESIGNER. CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED IN THE SPECIFIED MANNER UNLESS OTHERWISE
DIRECTED OR APPROVED BY THE DESIGNER. THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, ALONG WITH THE
INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE PLANS, CONSTITUTE THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
PHASE 1: INITIAL SITE PREPARATION
A. IDENTIFY PROJECT BOUNDARY, LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE, SENSITIVE AREAS, STAGING AREAS,
STABILIZED ENTRANCES, AND ACCESS POINTS WITH THE DESIGNER.
B. CONSTRUCT ENTRANCE AND STAGING AREAS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED SEDIMENT AND EROSION
CONTROL DEVICES IN A MANNER TO SUPPORT EXECUTION OF THE WETLAND RESTORATION IN
PHASES AS INDICATED IN THE PLANS AND AS DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER.
PHASE 2: WETLAND RESTORATION GRADING
A. FILLING EXISTING DITCHES /DEPRESSIONS
i. CLEAR VEGETATION AS NEEDED TO INSTALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES.
INSTALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS DEPICTED ON THE PLANS.
ii. INSTALL PROPOSED OUTLET STABILIZATION STRUCTURES.
iii. FILL DITCHES /DEPRESSIONS AS INDICATED IN THE PLANS USING ADJACENT SPOIL MATERIAL,
MAKING SURE TO DEWATER THE EXISTING DITCHES AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS.
iv. INSTALL ROCK SILT SCREENS AT OUTLET STABILIZATION STRUCTURES.
v. SEED AND MULCH COMPLETED WORKAREAS. THIS SHALL BE DONE WITHIN 72 HOURS OF
REACHING FINAL GRADE WHEN FILLING DITCHES /PONDS /DEPRESSIONS AND MAY OCCUR PRIOR
TO PHASE 2.A.iii.
B. SURFACE ROUGHENING
I- BEGINNING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WETLAND RESTORATION AREA AND PROGRESSING
TOWARDS THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE SITE, ROUGHEN THE SOIL TO AN APPROXIMATE DEPTH OF
8" TO ALLEVIATE COMPACTION AND MIMIC NATURAL WETLAND MICROTOPOGRAPHY. THIS WILL
INCREASE THE STORAGE OF SURFACE WATER IN THE WETLAND AND PROMOTE VEGETATION
ESTABLISHMENT.
ii. SEED AND MULCH COMPLETED WORK AREAS. THIS SHALL BE DONE WITHIN 72 HOURS OF
SURFACE ROUGHENING.
PHASE 3: TREE PLANTING
A. PLANTS SHOULD BE PLANTED DURING THE DORMANT SEASON (NOVEMBER 17 - MARCH 17).
B. PREPARE AND PLANT TREES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN SHEETS 7 -10 AND AS DIRECTED BY THE
DESIGNER.
PHASE 4: COMPLETION OF PROJECT SITE
A. PHASE 4 CAN BE INITIATED AFTER THE WETLAND GRADING WORK IS COMPLETED, AFTER THE SITE IS
STABLIZED WITH REQUIRED VEGETATIVE COVER, AND PRIOR TO PHASE 3.
B. REMOVE ALL REMAINING WASTE MATERIALS, AND THE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND RESTORE THE
REMAINING STAGING AND STOCKPILING AREAS AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES TO THEIR PRIOR
CONDITION. SEED AND MULCH ALL DISTURBED AREAS UTILIZING THE SEED /MULCH MIXES SPECIFIED IN
THE PLANS.
RAIN GAUGE MUST BE PRESENT AT SITE.
INSPECTIONS REQUIRED AFTER 0.5" RAIN EVENTS
INSPECTIONS ARE ONLY REQUIRED DURING
"NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS ".
INSPECTION REPORTS MUST BE AVAILABLE
ON -SITE DURING BUSINESS HOURS UNLESS A SITE
SPECIFIC EXEMPTION IS APPROVED.
RECORD MUST BE KEPT FOR 3 YEARS AND
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
ELECTRONICALLY - AVAILABLE RECORDS MAY BE
SUBSTITUTED UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL PLAN LEGEND
DITCHES TO BE FILLED----------------------- - - - - -_ ERD
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE----- - - - - --
o
SILT FENCE
SF
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE---------------------- - - - - --
-LOD
BRIDGE MAT STREAM CROSSING ------------- - - - - --
ROCK SILT SCREEN (STD. DRAWING 1636.01) -----
-
D
O
K
4ic�7•.,•
r SEAL o
MULCHING
SEEDED AREAS ARE TO BE PROTECTED BY SPREADING STRAW MULCH
UNIFORMLY TO FORM A CONTINUOUS BLANKET (75% COVERAGE = 2
TONS /ACRE).
PERMANENT SEED MIX
SUMMER MIX (MAY 15 -- AUGUST 15)
APPLICATION RATE (IN MIX)
SPECIES % MIX LBS /ACRE
REDTOPPANICGRASS - PANICUMRIGIDULUM 28 5.6
BEAKED PANICGRASS - PANICUM ANCEPS 20 4.0
RIVER OATS - CHASMANTHIUM LATIFOLIUM 20 4.0
VIRGINIA WILDRYE - ELYMUS VIRGINICUS 20 4.0
SWITCHGRASS - PANICUM VIRGANTUM 10 2.0
LEATHERY RUSH - JUNCUS CORIACEUS 2 0.4
NOTE: 100 20
m
W
o U
x w
z
l a
Lu
I Lu
z
w
N
fQ
=Z
do
0
w�
oz
o=
w
U
z
ADD 10 LBS /ACRE OF MILLET TO ABOVE
a
0
in
MIXTURE FOR A TOTAL OF 30 LBS /ACRE
0
o
Q
Z
TEMPORARY SEED MIX
0
�
J
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE THE FOLLOWING SEED /FERTILIZER
4
°
O
MIX IN SEEDING ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS:
o
w
w
SUMMER MIX (MAY 15 - AUGUST 15)
o
U
GERMAN MILLET - - - - - - SETARIA ITALICA - - - - - - - 20 LBS / ACRE
°w
LU_
SPECIES
BROWNTOP MILLET - - - .UROCHLOA RAMOSA ---- 20 LBS / ACRE
C
H
REDTOPPANICGRASS - PANICUM RIGIDULUM
WINTER MIX (AUGUST 15 - MAY 15)
y
CO
O
BEAKED PANICGRASS - PANICUM ANCEPS
RYE GRAIN- - - - - - - - - - - - SECALE CEREALE -------- 120 LBS /ACRE
4.0
} Z
Z
RIVER OATS - CHASMANTHIUM LATIFOLIUM
m
4.0
�
VIRGINIA WILDRYE - ELYMUS VIRGINICUS
FERTILIZER-------------------------------- - - - - -- 750 LBS /ACRE
4.0
LIMESTONE-------------------------------- - - - - -- 2000 LBS /ACRE
FERTILIZER SHALL BE 10 -10 -10 ANALYSIS. UPON SOIL ANALYSIS
SWITCHGRASS - PANICUM VIRGANTUM
A DIFFERENT RATIO OF FERTILIZER MAY BE USED.
2.0
SEEDBED PREPARATION
_
THE SEEDBED SHALL BE COMPRISED OF LOOSE SOIL AND NOT
COMPACTED. THIS MAY REQUIRE MECHANICAL LOOSENING
2
OF THE SOIL. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHOULD FOLLOW THE FERTILIZER
01�
AND LIMING DESCRIPTION IN THE ABOVE SECTIONS. FOLLOWING
SEEDING, MULCHING SHALL FOLLOW THE BELOW APPLICATION
METHODS AND AMOUNTS. AREAS CONTAINING SEVERE SOIL
COMPACTION WILL BE SCARIFIED TO A DEPTH OF 8 INCHES.
100
MULCHING
SEEDED AREAS ARE TO BE PROTECTED BY SPREADING STRAW MULCH
UNIFORMLY TO FORM A CONTINUOUS BLANKET (75% COVERAGE = 2
TONS /ACRE).
PERMANENT SEED MIX
SUMMER MIX (MAY 15 -- AUGUST 15)
APPLICATION RATE (IN MIX)
SPECIES % MIX LBS /ACRE
REDTOPPANICGRASS - PANICUMRIGIDULUM 28 5.6
BEAKED PANICGRASS - PANICUM ANCEPS 20 4.0
RIVER OATS - CHASMANTHIUM LATIFOLIUM 20 4.0
VIRGINIA WILDRYE - ELYMUS VIRGINICUS 20 4.0
SWITCHGRASS - PANICUM VIRGANTUM 10 2.0
LEATHERY RUSH - JUNCUS CORIACEUS 2 0.4
NOTE: 100 20
m
W
o U
x w
z
l a
Lu
I Lu
z
w
N
fQ
=Z
do
0
w�
oz
o=
w
U
ADD 10 LBS /ACRE OF MILLET TO ABOVE
MIXTURE FOR A TOTAL OF 30 LBS /ACRE
Q
Z
J
O
w
WINTER MIX (AUGUST 15 — MAY 15)
U
APPLICATION RATE (IN MIX)
LU_
SPECIES
% MIX
LBS /ACRE
H
REDTOPPANICGRASS - PANICUM RIGIDULUM
28
5.6
CO
O
BEAKED PANICGRASS - PANICUM ANCEPS
20
4.0
} Z
Z
RIVER OATS - CHASMANTHIUM LATIFOLIUM
20
4.0
Q 0
VIRGINIA WILDRYE - ELYMUS VIRGINICUS
20
4.0
m
Z
SWITCHGRASS - PANICUM VIRGANTUM
10
2.0
Z
D
LEATHERY RUSH - JUNCUS CORIACEUS
2
0.4
O
NOTE:
100
20
O
Z
ADD 10 LBS/ACRE OF RYE TO ABOVE
MIXTURE FOR A TOTAL OF 30 LBS ACRE
W
Of
o
Li
FERTILIZER AND LIMESTONE SHALL BE APPLIED AT THE RATE
U
OF 750 LBS / ACRE AND 2000 LBS / ACRE, RESPECTIVELY.
g
FERTILIZER SHALL BE 10 -10 -10 ANALYSIS. UPON SOIL ANALYSIS
Q
A DIFFERENT RATIO OF FERTILIZER MAY BE USED.
NOTE: FERTILIZER IS ONLY TO BE APPLIED ONCE.
IF TEMPORARY
SEED
AND FERTILIZER IS APPLIED PRIOR TO PERMANENT SEED, THEN FERTILIZER
SHALL NOT BE APPLIED WITH THE PERMANENT SEED.
1 DATE MARCH 2013
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN

NOTES
USE CLASS I STONE FOR
STRUCTURALSTONE-
USE STONE NO. 57 FOR
SEDIMENT CONTROL.
CONSTRUCT SILT SCREEN A
MAXIMUM OF 1 FT_ ABOVE
NORMAL FLOW DEPTH.
TOP OF BANK
CROSS SECTION FRONT VIEW
TEMPORARY ROCK SILT SCREEN
NOT TO SCALE
STREAM CROSSING MAINTENANCE:
1. INSPECT TEMPORARY CROSSING
AFTER EACH RAINFALL EVENT FOR
ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS,
BLOCKAGE, EROSION OF ABUTMENTS
AND OVERFLOW AREAS, CHANNEL
SCOUR, RIPRAP DISPLACEMENT, OR
PIPING ALONG CULVERTS.
2. REMOVE DEBRIS, REPAIR AND
REINFORCE DAMAGED AREAS
IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT FURTHER
DAMAGE TO THE INSTALLATION.
A]
AJ
PLAN
MAT
"1" STONE
FOR APPROACH
STABILIZATION
EXISTING
CHANNEL
FILTER FABRIC
FOR DRAINAGE
SECTION AA
NOT TO SCALE
I. BRIDGE LOCATIONS DEPICTED ON SITE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND
ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE AREA THAT IS BEING
WORKED UPON.
2. WIDTH OF EACH MAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE SIZE OF THE EQUIPMENT
MEANT TO CROSS IT.
3. DISTANCE BETWEEN MATS IS DEPENDENT ON THE DISTANCE BETWEEN
TRACKS ON THE EQUIPMENT MEANT TO CROSS IT.
4. APPROACH STABILIZATION, COMPOSED OF CLASS 1 STONE, WILL BE
REQUIRED FOR EACH SECTION OF THE BRIDGE.
BRIDGE MAT CROSSING
PLACE AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANS AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGNER
/
/
CLASS'A' STONE
8 IN. MIN. DEPTH
(OVER FILTER FABRIC)
NOTES:
1. TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMODATE LARGE
TRUCKS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
2. ENTRANCE(S) SHOULD BE LOCATED TO PROVIDE FOR UTILIZATION
BY ALL CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES.
3. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT
TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC
TOPDRESSING WITH STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
4. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE CLEANED
UP IMMEDIATELY.
5. GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE LOCATED AT ALL
POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED.
FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE DEVICE AND TIMELY MAINTENANCE
MUST BE PROVIDED.
6. INSTALL A CULVERT IF NECESSARY TO ACCOMODATE ROADWAY
DRAINAGE.
7. SIDE SLOPES FOR ENTRANCE MUST BE AT LEAST 2:1 SLOPE.
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
SCALE: NTS
• SEAL '� -
+ lt733 =
8' MAX.
METAL POST
TOP VIEW
(1.33 lb PER
MIDDLE AND VERTICAL WIRES
LINEAR FOOT)
TOP OF BANK
1'1" MIN.
10 GAUGE MIN.
2
1�
TOP AND BOTTOM
2
STRAND
1�1
� a
3'MAX.
I 1
FILTER FABRIC —
STONE #57
STREAM BED
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
STRUCTURAL
USE WIRE A MINIMUM OF 32"
IN WIDTH AND WITH A MINIMUM
STONE
OF 6 LINE WIRES WITH 12" STAY
l'-6" MIN.
CROSS SECTION FRONT VIEW
TEMPORARY ROCK SILT SCREEN
NOT TO SCALE
STREAM CROSSING MAINTENANCE:
1. INSPECT TEMPORARY CROSSING
AFTER EACH RAINFALL EVENT FOR
ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS,
BLOCKAGE, EROSION OF ABUTMENTS
AND OVERFLOW AREAS, CHANNEL
SCOUR, RIPRAP DISPLACEMENT, OR
PIPING ALONG CULVERTS.
2. REMOVE DEBRIS, REPAIR AND
REINFORCE DAMAGED AREAS
IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT FURTHER
DAMAGE TO THE INSTALLATION.
A]
AJ
PLAN
MAT
"1" STONE
FOR APPROACH
STABILIZATION
EXISTING
CHANNEL
FILTER FABRIC
FOR DRAINAGE
SECTION AA
NOT TO SCALE
I. BRIDGE LOCATIONS DEPICTED ON SITE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND
ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE AREA THAT IS BEING
WORKED UPON.
2. WIDTH OF EACH MAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE SIZE OF THE EQUIPMENT
MEANT TO CROSS IT.
3. DISTANCE BETWEEN MATS IS DEPENDENT ON THE DISTANCE BETWEEN
TRACKS ON THE EQUIPMENT MEANT TO CROSS IT.
4. APPROACH STABILIZATION, COMPOSED OF CLASS 1 STONE, WILL BE
REQUIRED FOR EACH SECTION OF THE BRIDGE.
BRIDGE MAT CROSSING
PLACE AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANS AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGNER
/
/
CLASS'A' STONE
8 IN. MIN. DEPTH
(OVER FILTER FABRIC)
NOTES:
1. TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMODATE LARGE
TRUCKS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
2. ENTRANCE(S) SHOULD BE LOCATED TO PROVIDE FOR UTILIZATION
BY ALL CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES.
3. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT
TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC
TOPDRESSING WITH STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
4. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE CLEANED
UP IMMEDIATELY.
5. GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE LOCATED AT ALL
POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED.
FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE DEVICE AND TIMELY MAINTENANCE
MUST BE PROVIDED.
6. INSTALL A CULVERT IF NECESSARY TO ACCOMODATE ROADWAY
DRAINAGE.
7. SIDE SLOPES FOR ENTRANCE MUST BE AT LEAST 2:1 SLOPE.
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
SCALE: NTS
• SEAL '� -
+ lt733 =
w
a
0
0
O
0
rc
w
0
LL
r
y
D
J
O
K
a
O
N
0 w
yl
0
C
N
�y w �- ¢
V yo
Fil W �
Z vv��
a 000
X 3f Lu Z o w
z a
w
DATE
Q
Z
J
O
LUa
U
H H
cl) Z
0
Z
m 0
z9
O
O 0
Z
� a
W
� D
W
3
J
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN
8' MAX.
METAL POST
12Y2 GAUGE MIN.
(1.33 lb PER
MIDDLE AND VERTICAL WIRES
LINEAR FOOT)
10 GAUGE MIN.
TOP AND BOTTOM
STRAND
-- m-- m- m-- m - -m -m- �- T- �-m- -m -m -raj. i - �r��-r�-r�-n
I I
—'
I 1
FILTER FABRIC —
WIRE
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
USE WIRE A MINIMUM OF 32"
COMPACTED FILL
IN WIDTH AND WITH A MINIMUM
OF 6 LINE WIRES WITH 12" STAY
SPACING.
USE FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM
o 1
OF 36" IN WIDTH AND FASTEN
I �� 8" (-
ADEQUATELY TO THE WIRE AS
1 I I
DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER.
EXTENSION OF L o I I
PROVIDE 5' STEEL POST OF THE
FABRIC AND I 4" II STEEL POST
WIRE INTO TRENCH
4" 1 1 2' -0" DEPTH
SELF - FASTENER ANGLE STEEL TYPE. I I
SILT FENCE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
w
a
0
0
O
0
rc
w
0
LL
r
y
D
J
O
K
a
O
N
0 w
yl
0
C
N
�y w �- ¢
V yo
Fil W �
Z vv��
a 000
X 3f Lu Z o w
z a
w
DATE
Q
Z
J
O
LUa
U
H H
cl) Z
0
Z
m 0
z9
O
O 0
Z
� a
W
� D
W
3
J
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN

D
7
6K
SEAL
's 32733
rc
a
1
w
z
0
a
�
o
rn
�
z
o
LARRY ALLEN KEIR , SR
U
z
o
N
PIN 239 6 00261 271
w
DB 1645 PG 103
/
w
0
w
C
y
-80 -40 0 80 160
GRAPHIC SCALE
a
h,p- N
CC
LARRY ALLEN KEIR, JR.
o
PIN 239600157401
y III
DANNY B. KEIR
MB 23 PG 315
— ��
PIN 239600252193
DB 1645 PG 107 /
MB 23 PG 315
DDB 1666 PG 116
Lu
mz
��
p0
DANNY B. KEIR
/\
I// / � --
/ / /�
�
r
PIN 239600252193
/II�II //
/II��I lll
z
z
MB 23 PC 315 �2
DB 1666 PG 116
V I
/1 l A
Oz
X3
i o
ON
z
DANNY B. KEIR
PIN 239600252193
MB 23 PG 315
RICHARD WIGGINS C/O
Q
DB 1666 PG 116
GEORGE LARKIN, JR
Z
PIN 239600351896
zi
DB 947 PG 197
O
V
PROJECT LOCATION
\V
��-- � � _ _ _ —
LAT:34.478418 N \ \� — \/
q/j
LONG: 78.027129 W \ \ I
vv
J
��
O
} Z z
Qp
--- -____-
�`
m H z
��vvJA
s�---
III
z O
vv
z
S
J
C/)
7, v�vv
--
o
C, c
__
��I
SITE ACCESS �0 4`
e ��
I
V
�
J
_
—58
are MARCH 2013
WALE: GRAPHIC
CONSERVgTIpN / h
EASEMENT 1 --
NOTE:
/
ALL DITCHES WITHIN SITE ARE DEFINED
EROSION
\
MARY LILLIAN WELLS
e
TO ROCKFISH
"JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARIES' BY THE
CONTROL
PIN 239603331632
— — _ _
CREEK ---->
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
PLAN
\
DB 1538 PG 422
SHEET 9 OF 10
\
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 11.7A

/ /// //f �q�ll/ / O Q
O lIII�III / /lA /Ilf /
toD
l l l /j /lllllllll� � /lIllll A
/v o // loll/ pllil /vv lli�U / O o
v // ry rl/ 10111 lir/ l ,
\ LOD ,
MoD
`INSTALL ROCK
SILT SCREEN \ — —
\ VA I \
v vv`v
O V v�
N \\
Q A AVA
vvvvv
V vVe
\
INSTALL SCE IN LOCATION
OF EXISTING REINFORCED
CONCRETE PIPE
NOTE: TEMPORARY BRIDGE MAT
CROSSING MAY BE MOVED AS
NECESSARY AND AS APPROVED
BY THE DESIGNER.
INSTALL ROCK
SILT SCREEN
I S�AGING I
SF —AREA
V AAAA
V AAAA
INSTALL TEMPORARY
BRIDGE MAT CROSSING
SEAL Y
-50 -25 0 50 100
GRAPHIC SCALE
INSTALL ROCK
SILT SCREEN
- SF
pIIIIIR
a rn
z
rc a
U y
0
K
4,,,,1
y
f
W
�o N
Q �
W
Ifli ■ I
LU
Z
0
W
DATE
LU
Z
m O
Zz9
F0
I—
LL
of
C
0
N
WN
fQ
�2
Hl �
D O
O lfa..ii
K=
00
OZ
LL
X2
N 0
W
m
a
z
O
U
z
J
a
0
W
3
J
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN
VA �\
all III
�� II III
\
A
II III
�
I
L'DD \ sl \\
II � i
III
�
p A /
I
\
/ /// //f �q�ll/ / O Q
O lIII�III / /lA /Ilf /
toD
l l l /j /lllllllll� � /lIllll A
/v o // loll/ pllil /vv lli�U / O o
v // ry rl/ 10111 lir/ l ,
\ LOD ,
MoD
`INSTALL ROCK
SILT SCREEN \ — —
\ VA I \
v vv`v
O V v�
N \\
Q A AVA
vvvvv
V vVe
\
INSTALL SCE IN LOCATION
OF EXISTING REINFORCED
CONCRETE PIPE
NOTE: TEMPORARY BRIDGE MAT
CROSSING MAY BE MOVED AS
NECESSARY AND AS APPROVED
BY THE DESIGNER.
INSTALL ROCK
SILT SCREEN
I S�AGING I
SF —AREA
V AAAA
V AAAA
INSTALL TEMPORARY
BRIDGE MAT CROSSING
SEAL Y
-50 -25 0 50 100
GRAPHIC SCALE
INSTALL ROCK
SILT SCREEN
- SF
pIIIIIR
a rn
z
rc a
U y
0
K
4,,,,1
y
f
W
�o N
Q �
W
Ifli ■ I
LU
Z
0
W
DATE
LU
Z
m O
Zz9
F0
I—
LL
of
C
0
N
WN
fQ
�2
Hl �
D O
O lfa..ii
K=
00
OZ
LL
X2
N 0
W
m
a
z
O
U
z
J
a
0
W
3
J
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN