20140107 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20140204

PART V: TECHNICAL APPROACH
20140 10 7
12@19ongl
FEB - 4 2014

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
KCi TechnoWes Inc./KCI Associates of North Carolina PA/KCI Environmental Technolomes and Construction. Inc
PART 5 - TECHNICAL APPROACH
5.1 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Site (NPII) is a headwater stream and wetland system in Sampson
County that has been substantially modified to maximize grazing and agriculture. The site is located
directly up gradient of an existing EEP Full - Delivery site known as Norman's Pasture Restoration Site
(NPRS). NP II will expand on the restoration efforts of the Norman's Pasture Site by extending
restoration and protection initiatives to the headwater extents of much of the local watershed. The
Norman's Pasture II site consists of a collection of tributaries and drainage swales that drain down
moderately - sloped valleys onto the floodplain of Stewarts Creek, a large fourth -order blackwater stream.
The streams within the project limits have been moved and straightened and the wetlands have been
ditched in order to clear and drain the land for agricultural uses. The site offers the potential to restore
and protect a range of unique aquatic resources in one setting — existing riparian wetlands, a forested
tributary that has lost connection with its historic floodplain, lower gradient seep -fed headwaters, and
adjacent upland buffers.
In the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (NCEEP 2009), the goals for the 8 -digit hydrologic
unit include focusing on water quality improvements and protecting Outstanding Resource Waters. The
project goals will support these larger aims and include:
Reconnect a continuous stream and wetland headwater wetland system to Stewarts Creek
- Expand and protect riparian habitat along Stewarts Creek
Buffer nutrient inputs from adjacent agricultural and grazing practices
The following objectives will be implemented to achieve these goals:
- Redevelop headwater stream - wetland complexes that have previously been impacted by ditching
and cattle grazing
- Restore historic flow paths
- Protect and integrate existing riparian wetlands into the project design
- Re- forest riparian areas with native plant communities
Re- connect headwater seeps to the broader swamp forest community of Stewarts Creek being
restored by NPRS.
5.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NPII is headwater wetland and stream system located approximately five miles west of Magnolia, North
Carolina in Sampson County. The project begins southwest of the intersection of Cornwallis Road and
MJ Johnson Road. The location of the project is shown in Figure 1.
Watershed Description
The site is situated within the 03030006 (Cape Fear 06) Watershed Cataloging Unit (8 -digit HUC) and
the Local Watershed Unit 03030006110040 (14 -digit HUC). The project's 14 -digit HUC has been
identified by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) as a targeted local watershed.
Figure 2 shows the site in relation to the 135 -acre project watershed. The drainage features within the site
generally drain south towards the floodplain of Stewarts Creek within the existing Norman's Pasture Full -
Delivery Project. Below the project site, Stewarts Creek continues for approximately four river miles
before it flows into Six Runs Creek. Neither Stewarts Creek nor Six Runs Creek are listed on the 2012
303(d) list as impaired streams. The project site is also not within a water supply watershed. Stewarts
Creek (DWQ Index 18- 68 -2 -10) is classified as a Class C water with the supplemental classification of
swamp waters (Sw).

IHARNErT) JOHNSTON
SAMPSON
COUNTY
Ff
DUPLIN
COUNTY
'). -1
R d Project Site Location
County Boundaries
Major Streams
Major Roads
Other Roads
FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP N
NORMAN'S PASTURE 11 RESTORATION SITE Them are no auports
Miles SAMPSON COUNTY, NC wollin 5 miles of the sore.

ti
A
1 �2
N,
Ll
r
-j
77, r
Project Watershed (135 acres)
IL J
r Proposed Easement
0 500 1,000 FIGURE 2. PROJECT WATERSHED N
NORMAN'S PASTURE 11 RESTORATION SITE Source USGSDRG,
Feet SAMPSON COUNTY, NC Turkey Quad, 1984.
>
C
If
A
1 �2
N,
Ll
r
-j
77, r
Project Watershed (135 acres)
IL J
r Proposed Easement
0 500 1,000 FIGURE 2. PROJECT WATERSHED N
NORMAN'S PASTURE 11 RESTORATION SITE Source USGSDRG,
Feet SAMPSON COUNTY, NC Turkey Quad, 1984.

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
KCI Technolodies hic./KCI Associates of North Carolina PA/KCI Environmental Technoloaus and Construction. Inc.
Historic and Current Land Use/Land Cover
Historic aerials from Sampson County were examined for any information about how the site hydrology
and vegytation have changed over the last century. They were obtained from the USGS EarthExplorer,
USGS bOQQs, and NC OneMap for 1938, 1951, 1966, 1981, 1989, 1993, 1998, and 2008. The reviewed
aerials are found in Appendix A. NPRS and NPII were systematically impacted over the past 100 years.
The primary impacts to the system were associated with ditching and draining in an attempt to remove
hydrologic sources, seeps, springs and groundwater from the site.
1938 — This is the earliest photo available for the site. It shows the matrix of exposed high points as
agricultural fields and surrounding wetland drainages. The aerial shows that the two main ditches near on
the NPRS running from east to west were already in place by that time, although some of the southern
portion of the land was still forested at this time.
1938 tol951 — By 1951 the majority of the forested portions of the site had been cleared and additional
ditches are visible in the middle portion of the site and in the floodplain of Stewarts Creek. Evidence of
wetness in the fields is still prominent.
1951 to 1966 - By 1966 the site shows evidence of agricultural production in the cleared area and
additional ditching along the eastern boundary from the seep south of the farm residence.
1966 to 1981 — By 1981 the seep south of the residence was cleared and excavated and turned into a
shallow pond. The ditches conveying flow from the seep were further refined and straightened. In
addition, the two seeps in the east central portion of the site were cleared and converted to ponds.
1981 to current — The ditching in the system has been maintained and the site primarily used for row crop
agriculture and pasture. 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.
In addition to' the historical aerials, KCI also reviewed the available historic topographic maps.
Topographic maps from 1962 and 1984 were found (see Figure 3). KCI inquired at the local NRCS office
for any older topographic or drainage maps, but no other maps were available. The 1962 topographic map
indicates that the site hydrology generally flows north to south and then drains to the southwest comer of
Stewarts Creek. The 1984 topographic map shows this trend in greater detail, but also-displays the
existing ditches and their influence on the site.
Currently, the land use in the 135 -acre project watershed is comprised mainly of forest, animal production
and agriculture. This project watershed spans the project parcels plus an additional area upstream of MJ
Johnson Road. The land use is approximately 34.4% agricultural, 45.6% forest, 14.8% pasture, 0.8%
high - density development (roads), 3.3% low - density development (rural residences), and 1.1% water (see
Figure 4). The impervious surface within the project watershed is estimated to be 1 %. The nearest
municipalities to the site are Turkey and Magnolia. The surrounding area is rural and has low
development pressure at this time.
FEMA Floodplain Issues
A small portion of the NPII site is located within the 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE) of Stewarts Creek. A
flood study is expected for this project, but it is not anticipated that the project will raise the flood
elevations for this area.

1962 1
+ 1
Li
1984 ,.-�
+-r,
\�..�
J A
fL
r: �i�Y r��r f % ! r ``- +._•" C 1 C_ r,,� II p t JJ' :} 1 1 `✓ _ .. �"`�. _
rr
✓-
+g Extent of Project Parcels
S ,1 •
FIGURE 3. HISTORIC TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
0 750 1,500 Sources: 1962 - NC Stale Historic
Feet NORMAN'S PASTURE II RESTORATION SITE Topo Maps, Rose Hitt; 1984 -USGS
SAMPSON COUNTY, NC DRGs. Turkey Quad

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
KCI Technolomes Inc /KCI Associates of North Carolina PA/KCl Environmental Technologies and Construction, Inc.
Site Constraints
There are six anticipated easement crossings that will be included with the project to access to upland
areas left out of the conservation easement. The crossings will have appropriately -sized culverts or
alternative devices installed to ensure that there are no detrimental water quality effects on the project.
Airports
There are no airports located within five miles of the project site.
Geology and Soils
The NPII occupies a unique position in the geologic landscape. Effective development of the mitigation
actions on this site relies on both an understanding of the process that led to the formation of the resources
as well as the actions that created the site impairments.
The site lies within the Rolling Coastal Plains (Level IV 65m) ecoregion of the Coastal Plain
physiographic province. This region is described as a rolling, hilly, dissected portion of the Inner Coastal
Plain that is made up of sedimentary material. The geology at the site is classified as part of the Black
Creek formation, which is comprised of gray to black, lignic clay and contains thin beds and laminae of
fine- grained micaceous sand and thick lenses of cross - bedded sand. Glauconitic, fossiliferous clayey sand
lenses exist in the upper part. Also, it is landward of the Suny Scarp and sits on the unconformity that
separates the Cretaceous Black Creek formation from the Peedee formation. Intertonguing of the
formations is common and form ravinements, which are disconformities resulting from surf zone
beveling. Ravnnements in the Cretaceous are associated with the termination of delta construction and
deposition of the destructive strata.
Deltas formed landward of the Sury Scarp in Sampson County. This process created several small
overlapping coalescing deltas with sediments brought in by fluvial systems and deposited in deep water
subsiding basins. The sediments were interdistributed, covered and reworked until Taylor time and
gradually declined as the sediment supply decreased. As each delta lobe ceased its seaward movement,
the lens of sediments would subside and become inundated by marine water. These processes created a
transitional fluvial - deltaic shoreline facies between the Middendorf and Peedee formations.
Subsequent weathering of the Black Creek formation sediments resulted in an incised paleovalley
complex with terraced floodplains and ramps. This process exposed the varying lenses of sediment
created by the deltaic environment. For the majority of the formation, the Cape Fear River and its
tributaries incised into the landscape parallel to the channels and subaqueous/subaerial levees of the
buried deltas SE. This linear development exposes layered sediments in the same orientation as they were
deposited, resulting in consistent material composition along each rampRerrace.
The NPII site drains to Stewarts Creek. Stewarts Creek's incision into the landscape occurs perpendicular
to the depositional features of the buried deltas. This process is likely the result of the position of the
Surry Scarp and the seam of unconformity between the Black Creek and Peedee formations at this
location. The paleovalley complex created by Stewarts Creek cross cuts the deltaic deposits resulting in a
highly varied landscape with lenses of material with varying densities and compositions being exposed
along the ramps and terraces it creates. The resulting exposed landscape is a mosaic of exposed delta
deposits mimicking the braided channels that once were part of this feature.
The cross cut orientation of the paleovalley complex created by Stewarts Creek also creates a unique
interface with the groundwater hydrology. Groundwater discharge in the valley occurs at the toes of
floodplain terraces within the incised valley. These seeps discharge water loaded much higher and distant
in the landscape along the buried distributary channels in the formation. As a result, the seeps are
continuous and on the lower terraces are they are under sufficient pressure to be classified as artesian.

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
KC1 Technologies Inc /KCI Associates of North Carolina PA/KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction. Inc.
1
Water discharging from the seeps flows toward Stewarts Creek and perches on clay lenses between less
erodible formations on the terraces.
The historic nature of the site was that of seeps feeding into broad wetland channels around residual
mounds that discharged into the broad flat floodplain of Stewarts Creek, supporting an extensive wetland
complex. This type of formation is clearly evident in the 1938 aerial photo (Figure 5).
The Soil Survey of Sampson County describes several predominant soil series at the NPII, including
Lumbee sandy loam, Johnston loam, Norfolk loamy sand and Chipley sand (see Appendix E for NRCS
map). Lumbee sandy loam is a nearly level, poorly drained soil found on smooth' flats and in shallow
depressions on stream terraces. Johnston loam is a very poorly drained soil found on narrow to
moderately broad floodplains. Norfolk loamy sand is a well- drained soil located on low ridges and side
slopes in uplands. The Chipley Sand series has 0 to 2 percent slopes, which is described as being a nearly
level, moderately well- drained soil on smooth ridges. (Soil Survey of Sampson County, USDA SCS
1985).
A soils investigation by KCI's licensed soil scientist found the soils described above in addition to Lynn
Haven sand and Torhunta fine sandy loam. Lynn Haven sand is a poorly drained soil typical of flat areas
or in large, shallow depressions. Torhunta fine sandy loam is a very poorly drained soil found on upland
bays and stream terraces. A detailed map of the soils found at the site and soil boring logs are included in
Appendix C.
Existing Conditions
The project drainages have all been impacted by grazing, agricultural, and other hydrologic modifications.
At this time, the northwest portion of the property is still being farmed for row crops and hay while the
remainder of the property has been predominately used for cattle grazing for at least 75 years. Despite
these impacts, there are still remnant stream and wetland resources on the project area that remain in
moderate to good condition. An overview of the existing site conditions is displayed in Figure 6.
Alternative views of the existing conditions are seen in Figure 7, which shows the existing site
topography based on recent LIDAR, and Figure 8, which displays the existing modified drainage pattern.
A jurisdictional wetland delineation (JD) was completed on the property in December 2012. Maps
showing the results of the JD are included in Appendix D. Site photographs illustrating the current site
conditions are included in Appendix B.
Tributary 1 (Irl): This unnamed tributary to Stewarts Creek begins northwest of the project site from a:
farm pond. Once it comes onto the project site, it is a stable stream within a forested riparian wetland
buffer. However, it begins to incise shortly thereafter and flows for approximately 750 linear feet in a
narrow, steep valley. In this section, the right bank has a steep valley wall while the left bank has a higher
bank that is raw and exposed. There is a farm field just to the east of the left bank. This tributary is
surrounded by drained hydric soils that have evidently been drained as the channel has incised over the
years. Historic evidence of the incision includes exposed tree roots, active headcuts, and the exposed soil
profile that is apparent throughout much of the project reach. The first major headcut is thought to have
been initiated circa 1938 with the placement of a drainage ditch intended to improve drainage and allow
access to a tar kiln that was located on the opposite side of the channel. Three major knick points are
visible along the profile and the bank height ratios are in excess of 2. Side channels have formed and
downcut perpendicular to the channel and further drained adjacent wetland/seep areas.
Existing Impacted Wetlands
There are many incoming seeps and riparian wetlands that have been modified to accommodate
agriculture and grazing at the NPII as the slope transitions down to the NPRS floodplain area The fluvial
geomorphic processes that developed this landscape evolved into numerous seeps and confining layers

t`

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
KCI Technologies lncJKCI Associates of North Carolina PA/KCl Environmental Technologies and Constriction. Inc
along the toe of the various terraces and ramps on the site which in turn created the unique wetland
complex seen in the historic photographs. The hydrologic sources that supported this complex were
manipulated over a period of 70 years, resulting in significant degradation of the existing wetland/stream
complex. There are four major seeps with continuous flow located on NPIL These seeps are displayed
on Figure 5. The seeps have all been impacted as described below:
The first seep, or seep system, is located along Tributary 1. This series of seeps flows down gradient into
the incised T1, draining the adjacent hydric soils. Further down T1, at the point of dispersion onto broader
wetland flats around the periphery of a residual mound, a ditch was excavated to carry the flow through
the mound to a lower elevation, thus depleting several adjacent wetland areas of their hydrologiy sources .
fin addition_ , the manipulation of the stream led to the headcut and degradation of TI described above.
The second seep is located approximately 200 yards to the east of Seep 1 in the center of the active
aincalturitt field. This seep is drained by a ditch excavated into the landscape along its .historic
connection to the wetland channel. Hydric soils exist in this corridor and in the seep area. A ditch was cut
across-an - interfluve to join the ditch that was cut to drain Seep 1. The historic location of this drainage is
the large wetland in the center of the site, as evidenced by relic hydric soils below the point of diversion.
The third seep is located 150 yards to the east of Seep 2 near Cornwallis Road. This seep was excavated
between 1%6 and 1981 to create a pond. A ditch leads from the pond and several adjacent seepage areas
to QTY the discharges through a large area of relic hydric soils and into the large existing wetland in the
center of the site. The ditches effectively removed the hydrologic source from the surrounding hydric soil
areas. This seep historically supported a broad complex of wetlands on the terrace that parallels
Cornwallis Road before draining to the wetland complex on the floodplain of Stewarts Creek.
The fourth seep is located 300 yards south of Seep 3. This seep was excavated and manipulated between
1966 and 1981 to create two shallow ponds. This seep maintains its historic drainage path to the wetland
in the center of the site, but exhibits areas of fill around the periphery that hold back water.
Based on these watershed and site - specific attributes, the NPII was selected as a candidate for wetland
mitigation. The restored site will expand forested wetlanAabitat in an area that has been actively used
for agriculture since at least 1938.
5.3 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
A mitigation approach has been developed for NPII that aims to balance the potential to return the NPII
wetland system to its historic condition while also integrating existing high - quality habitat features that
have developed since anthropogenic modifications have taken place. Each of the proposed mitigation
elements will be described and then a summary of the offered options will follow in the next section.
Tributary 1— 8301f of Stream Enhancement H
The incision of this tributary has led to the loss of hydrology in the adjacent hydric soils. In order to
restore this tributary and its adjacent wetland community the channel grade will be re- established at
historic elevations. This will be accomplished by placement of grade control structures at critical points
along the channel, and raising the invert with a stone mixture that is consistent with the existing gradation
of material in the channel. The plan form will not be altered as a result of this work. Channel work will
be limited to only the specific location of the grade control placement. In preliminary discussions with
ACOE and DWQ regarding the approach for this stream specifically, positive comments were received.

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
KCI Technologies Inc /KCI Associates ofNorth Carolina PA/KCI Environmental Technologies and Constructim Inc
Riparian Wetland Restoration /Re- Establishment, 8.9 -9.0 acres
The primary focus for restoration of the riparian wetlands on site will be through re- development of the
existing seeps and restoring of the historical flow paths from the seeps. Under the current conditions flow
from the seeps is routed through the system through ditches to the floodplain of Stewarts Creek or off site.
Seeps will be re- developed by removal of cattle- trodden soil that is inhibiting discharge, and installation
of a gravel bed to reconnect back to the point of discharge. In addition, berms and dams constructed to
retain water will be removed to allow free flow of water. The ditches will be filled to allow the historic
flow paths to reform and to slow the rate of water movement through the system. The restored wetlands
will be re- forested with native species.
Riparian Wetland Restoration/Rehabilitation, 0.8 acre
These areas are currently supported by seeps sufficient to establish them as jurisdictional wetlands, but
have been cleared and heavily impacted by cattle grazing. Their current functionality is limited. Re-
habilitation will improve the water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and provide connectivity of
habitat types and flow between the down gradient and up gradient resources. Re- habilitation of the
existing wetlands will be accomplished by restoring the historic flow paths through the system and re-
forestation.
Riparian Wetland Preservation - 0.7 acre
These areas are currently forested wetlands and require no specific actions to improve their condition. No
actions will be taken in wetlands identified for preservation, and no units will be generated by their
preservation.
Transitional Forest Preservation/Establishment — 6.1 -6.3 acres
There are numerous areas within the proposed conservation easement that are not hydric soils. These
areas will be either preserved or re- forested as a transitional forest type between the upland and wetland
system. These areas will add additional buffer and/or provide ecotone edge that will improve water
quality and habitat functions of the overall system.
Upland Forest Establishment —16.0 acres (Option E Only)
All remaining upland areas on the site will be reforested.
Riparian and Wetland Vegetation
Riparian and wetland plantings will consist of native species and will be incorporated as outlined in the
restoration actions. In areas where the entire riparian buffer will be planted, a minimum density of.six
hundred eighty (680) stems per acre will be planted to achieve a mature survivability of two hundred ten
(210) trees per acre after seven years. In locations where there are existing trees and the area is to be
enhanced, plants will be installed at densities ranging between 100 and 200 stems per acre. Woody
vegetation planting will be conducted during dormancy.
Disturbed areas of TI will be planted as a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype). This
community is typically found on moist upland soils with canopy species such as American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), southern sugar maple (Acer flo)idanum), white oak
(Quercus alba), and northern red oak (Q. rubra). The conditions along T1 are more similar to the
bluff /slope variant of this community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Potential species to
be planted in this area could include:
American Hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana Swamp Chestnut Oak Q. michauxii
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera S. Red Oak Q. falcata var. pagodaefolia
White Oak Quercus alba Common Sweetleaf Symplocos tinctoria

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhamxment Program
KCI Technolo0es Inc./KCI Associates of North Carolina PA/KCI Environmental Technologies and Constrwooa Inc
In open canopy areas of the enhanced stream banks of T1, live stakes will be used in conjunction with the
native herbaceous seed mix to provide natural stabilization. Appropriate species identified for live staking
may include:
Carolina Willow SaRv caroliniana
Black Willow Salix nigra
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Restored riparian wetland areas will be planted with riparian plantings consisting of native woody species
and will be incorporated as outlined in the mitigation plan. The headwater wetland systems will be
planted as Headwater Forest communities (NC Wetland Assessment Method v4.1) and may consist of the
following:
Tag Alder
Swamp Tupelo
Persimmon
Green Ash
Sweet Bay
Silky Dogwood
Tulip Poplar
Alnus serrulata
Ajusa biflora
Diospyros virginiana
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Magnolia virginiana
Cornus amomum
Liriodendron tulipifera
Water Oak -
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Willow Oak
Overcup Oak
Bald Cypress
American Elm
Quercus nigra
Quercus michauxli
Quercus phellos
Quercus lyrata
Taxodiwn distichum
Ulmus americana
An herbaceous seed mix composed of,appropriate native species will also be developed and used to
further stabilize and restore the riparian and bank zones. Invasive species will be treated in order to reduce
the competition against other native species.

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
KCI Technologies Inc /KCI Associate of North Carolina PA/KCl Environmental Technolomes and Construction. Inc
5.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION
The following descriptions of mitigation type and extent are based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines,
April 2003 US Army Corps of Engineers Vilmington Dittrict, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and North Carolina Division of Water Quality
as well as April 2008 40 CFR Parts 230 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, Final
Rule.
Normans Pasture 11 offers the EEP five options to address the requested 10 riparian WMU's and 2,000
SMU need. The RFP requires all WMU's be derived from restoration. The ACOE has approved_ - -
restoration credits for both "re- establishment" and "re- habilitation" through the 2008 mitigation rules and
subsequently on other EEP projects. The options presented for this project primarily differ by the
interpretation of this rule. The wetland/stream restoration actions conducted on the site will be the same
in all options; however, the various options are offered to address potential concerns by EEP as to the
iRT's consideration of restoration credit from the re- habilitation elements as it relates to complying with
the RFP request for 100% restoration derived WMU's.
Five different options are being offered in order to best meet the mitigation needs of the State. These
options are displayed in Figure 9 (Options A -D), and Figure 10 (Option E). Restoration work on the site
for all options includes; removal of all hydrologic impediments that re- direct/convey (ditches, pipes)
flow, re- development of existing seeps, removal of pond/berm, re- establishing historic grade to tributary
1, re- establishing historic flow patterns, re- forestation of all areas within the conservation easement and
preservation of existing wetlands.
Option A — This option only considers WMU's derived from restoration/re- habilitation of areas with
hydric soils that were not identified as wetlands as part of the approved ACOE jurisdictional
determination. It will yield 8.9 riparian WMU's. Option A also includes ancillary, non - credit bearing
assets including 0.7 acre of wetland preservation, 0.8 acre of wetland rehabilitation, 6.1 acres of
transitional forest Establishment/preservation and 830 linear feet of Stream Enhancement H.
OPTION A
Riparian Wetland
Stream
Acres WMU's
LF Swes
Restoration/
Re- establishment
8.9
=
8.9
Restoration
0
=
0
Restoration/
Rehabilitation
0.8
=
0
Enh. I
0
=
0
Wetland Preservation
0.7
=
0
Enh. II
830
=
0
Total
10.4
=
8.9
Total
830
=
0

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
KCI Twhnolo¢ies Inc /KCI Associates of North Carolina PA/KCl Environmental Tochnolo¢ies and Constrwaom IrK
Option B — This option is the same as Option A, but also includes the SMU's derived from Enhancement
II of tributary 1. It will yield 8.9 WMU's and 332 SMU's.
OPTION B
Riparian Wetland k
Stream
Stream
Acres WMtrs
Acres WMlrs
LF SMtrs
Restoration/
Re- establishment
8.9
=
8.9
Restoration
0
=
0
Restoration/
Rehabilitation
0.8
=
0
Enh. I
0
=
0
Wetland Preservation
0.7
=
0
Enh. II
830
=
332
Total
10A
=
8.9
Total
830
=
332
Option -C - This option considers WMU's derived from restoration/re- establishment of areas with hydric
soils that were not identified as wetlands as part of the approved ACOE jurisdictional determination. In
addition, it recognizes an additional 0.53 WMU's derived from the re- habilitation of existing wetland
areas where improvement to a suite of wetland functions is anticipated from the proposed actions. It will
yield 9.43 WMU's.
OPTION C
Riparian
Wetland
Stream
Acres WMtrs
Acres WMlrs
LF SMLI's
LF Mrs
Restoration/
Re- establishment
8.9
=
8.9
Restoration
0
=
0
Restoration/
Rehabilitation
0.8
=
0.53
Enh. I
0
=
0
Wetland Preservation
0.7
=
0
Enh. II
830
=
0
Total
10.4
=
9.43
Total
830
=
0
'Wetland Rehabilitation is being offered at a 15:1 mitigation ratio
Option D - This option is the same as Option C, but also includes the SMU's derived from Enhancement
11 of Tributary 1. It will yield 9.43 WMU's and 332 SMU's.
OPTION D
Riparian Wetland
Stream
Acres WMtrs
LF SMLI's
Restoration/
Re-establishment
8.9
=
8.9
Restoration
0
=
0
Restoration/
Rehabilitation
0.8
=
0.53
Enh. I
0
=
0
Wetland Preservation
0.7
=
0
Enh. II
830
=
332
Total
10.4
=
9.43
Total
830
=
332
Wetland Rehabilitation is being offered at a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio

North Carolina Fcosystem Enhancement Program
KCI Technolouies Inc /KCI Associates of North Carolina PA/KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction. Inc
Option E — This option restores the entire site to its full ecosystem potential. It is similar to Option C
but also includes the reforestation of 16 acres of upland inclusions on site. Option E will also eliminate
all easement crossings found in the previous options. Combined with the NPRS, it restores and preserves
a unique 70 -acre ecosystem. Option E will yield 9.53 WMU's and 332 SMU's.
OPTION E
Riparian Wetland
Stream
Acres WMLrs
LF SMU's
Restoration/
Re- establishment
9.0
=
9.0
Restoration
0
=
0
Restoration/
Rehabilitation
0.8
=
0.53
Enh. I
0
=
0
Wetland Preservation
0.7
=
0
Enh. 11
830
=
332
Total
10.5
=
9.53
Total
830
=
332
• Wetland Rehabilitation is being offered at a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio

Noah Carolina Ecosystem Enhancanent Program
KCI Tedmloo es MOM Associates of North Carolma PA/KCI Environmental Technologies and Conanagion. htc
5.5 CURRENT OWNERSHIP
The proposed restoration project is located on private properties owned by:
KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction Inc.
Landmark Center II
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
The Offeror holds a Deed of Title to the land necessary to undertake this project and this Deed has been
recorded with the Register of Deeds in Sampson County (Appendix E). If awarded, the mitigation will be
protected by a conservation easement in perpetuity.
KCI has obtained a proposal from Atlantic Coast Conservancy (ACC) to undertake the long-term
stewardship for the conservation easement. ACC has been approved by ACOE to hold the CE for other
projects in the State of NC and is willing to adopt the current CE language used by the state for its long-
term stewardship.
5.6 PROJECT PHASING
The project schedule assumes a notice to proceed on or before 3/15/2014. Adjustments to the schedule
will be required if the construction window is missed due to a delayed NTP.
Environmental Screening/Public Meeting
Record Easement
Mitigation Plan
Permits Acquisition and Earthwork
Planting and Monitoring Device Installation
As -Built Drawings and Baseline Monitoring Report
Monitoring Report # 1
Monitoring Report #2
Monitoring Report #3
Monitoring Report #4
Monitoring Report #5
Monitoring Report #6
Monitoring Report #7
5.7 SUCCESS CRITERIA
Completion Period (Following NTP)
60 Days
120 Days
365 Days (1 Year)
548 Days (1.5 Years)
607 Days
730 Days (2 Years)
913 Days (2.5 Years)
1,278 Days (3.5 Years)
1,643 Days (4.5 Years)
2,008 Days (5.5 Years)
2,373 Days (6.5 Years)
2,738 Days (7.5 Years)
3,103 Days (8.5 Years)
Monitoring will consist of the collection and analysis of data to support the evaluation of the project in
meeting established restoration objectives. Specifically, project success will be assessed utilizing
measurements of vegetation survivability and stream/wetland hydrologic monitoring.
Duration - Monitoring will be conducted for a period of seven years following project implementation.
The first scheduled monitoring event will be conducted during the first full growing season following
project completion.

North Carolina Ecomium Enhmceme nt Program
KCI Technologies Inc./KCI Associetes of North Carolina PA/KCI Emuarunanal TechnoloWes and Conswcaon. Ira;.
Reporting - Monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted following the completion of each growing
season. Eaph report will provide the new monitoring data and compare the new data against previous
findings. The monitoring report format will follow the latest EEP monitoring report template, currently
Version 2.2, published June 8, 2012.
Visual Assessment
During yearly site walks, KCI will document any areas of erosion, invasive species problems, tree and
shrub mortality issues, bed aggradation or degradation, or other problem area and evaluate whether or not
corrective actions are needed.
Photograph Reference Points
Photograph reference pbints (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 permanently marked
in the field and the bearing/orientation, of the photograph will be documented.
Vegetation Survivability
The survivability of the vegetation plantings will be evaluated using a sufficient number of 100-m2
vegetative sampling plots randomly placed throughout the restored wetlands to cover a minimum of 2%
of the planted portion of the site._ Permanent monuments will be established at the corners of each
monitoring plot and documented by either conventional survey or GPS. The vegetation monitoring will
follow the Level 2 method of the current CVS -EEP protocol ( http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm).
Monitoring will also comply with guidance included in "Monitoring Requirements and Per
Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation" (NC EEP, November 7, 2011), which states that the
plots must achieve a stem density of 320 stems/acre after three years, 260 stems/acre after five years, and
210 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 7
years. A photograph will be taken of each monitoring plot, allowing yearly qualitative comparison of
vegetation conditions.
Stream Stability Monitoring
If Option B, D or E is chosen, the stream elements of this project will be monitored. The purpose of
monitoring is to evaluate the stability of the restored stream. The monitoring for this part of the restored
stream will comply with guidance included in "Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for
Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation" (NC EEP, November 7, 2011).
Dimension
Permanent cross - sections will be established along the restored and enhanced reaches and will be used to
evaluate stream dimension stability. Permanent monuments will be established at the left and right extents
of each cross - section by either conventional survey or GPS. The cross- section surveys shall provide a
detailed measurement of the stream and banks. It shall include points on the slopes leading down to the
channel, at the top of bank, bankfull, at all breaks in slope, and the thalweg. Subsequently, width/depth
ratios, entrenchment ratios and low bank height ratios will be calculated for each cross - section.
Photographs will be taken of each cross - section during each monitoring event. Sets of bank pins in outer
meander bends will also be monitored during each of the monitoring events.
Profile
A longitudinal profile for the project reaches will be established during the baseline conditions survey.
After the initial survey, the longitudinal profile will only be surveyed if there is demonstrated bed
instability.

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Prog m
KC] Technolosies Inc /KCI Associates of North Carolna PA/KCI Environmental TecMmlomes and Construction. Inc
Strewn Hydrologic Monitoring
The success of restoring the bankfull return period will be evaluated using automatic stream monitoring
gauges to record daily stream depth readings. The site must experience a minimum of two bankfull events
(in separate years) over the seven -year monitoring period.
Wetland Hydrology Monitoring
Wetland hydrology monitoring will be conducted to determine if the restored wetland areas meet the
proposed performance criteria for wetland hydrology. Monitoring will comply with guidance included in
Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation (NC EEP,
�- November 7, 2011). Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well
data collected within the project area. Automatic recording wells will lae established within the wetland
r v'_ restoration areas. Daily data will be collected from automatic wells -oYer_ -the 7 -year monitoring period
= - following implementation. These data will determine if the wetland meets the hydrology success criterion
of the water table being within 12 inches of the ground surface continuously,for greater than 7.5% of the
r - _growing season. Visual monitoring will also be conducted two times per:year`tn each monitoring year as
per the NC EEP guidance referenced above. "_ _ . _
�� _ >