20140107 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20140730

Pat McCrory
Governor
Eric Kulz
Division of Water Resources
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center -
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
Michael Ellison, Director
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
July 29, 2014
Re: Draft Final Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture and Norman's Pasture II Wetland Restoration Projects
EEP Project 4: 95717 & 96310
Cape Fear 03030006, Sampson County
Dear Eric,
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
Please find enclosed two hardcopies of the draft final mitigation plan for the Norman's pasture and
Norman's pasture II restoration site for your review. This document was posted on the EEP Portal,
July 29, 2014. Please forward to the appropriate DWR Field Representative for their review.
If you have any questions or comments, please call Kristin Miguez @ 910- 796 -7475 or email her at
kristin.mi uezgncdenr.gov with any questions regarding this plan.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Lin Xu
NC EEP Review Coordinator
Attachment: Draft Final Mitigation Plan (2 originals)
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: 919 - 707 -89761 Internet: www,ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

MITIGATION PLAN
Norman's Pasture Restoration Site
EEP Contract 005010
EEP Project Number 95717
Norman's Pasture II Restoration Site
EEP Contract 5787
EEP Project Number 96310
Sampson County, North Carolina
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030006
Prepared for:
r ",
Am 4.1- 1
E kancemeht
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Final Draft - July 2014
D ��" N
JUL
3 0 2014
0
JUL 2 3 2014
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENi1ANC00ENT PROGRAM

MITIGATION PLAN
Norman's Pasture Restoration Site
EEP Contract 005010
EEP Project Number 95717
Norman's Pasture II Restoration Site
EEP Contract 5787
EEP Project Number 96310
Sampson County, North Carolina
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030006
Prepared for:
IE� �o stem
e�e��
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
tea®
KC I
GIES
p
�® ENVIGOHMF�NNpp�ES
K C I A COMMUC"ON. INC.
ASSOCIATES Or INC
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC
4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 783 -9214
Final Draft -July 2014
I

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture II Restoration Sites
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).
• NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
These documents govern NCEEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
The Norman's Pasture Restoration Site (NPRS) is a full - delivery mitigation project being developed for
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The NPRS is former riparian wetland system
in the Cape Fear River Basin (03.030006 8 -digit cataloging unit) in eastern Sampson County, North
Carolina that has been substantially modified to maximize agricultural production. The site offers the
chance to restore impacted agricultural lands to riparian wetland habitat.
The Norman's Pasture II Restoration Site (NPII) is located directly upgradient to NPRS and consists of a
first - order stream and wetland system. NPII will expand on the restoration efforts of the NPRS by'
extending' restoration and protection initiatives to the headwater extents of much of the local
watershed. 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.
The 2009 Cape Fear River Basin RBRP identified HUC 03030006110040 (Stewarts Creek) as a Targeted
Local Watershed (NCEEP 2009). The goals and priorities for NPRS's and NPII's are based on the
information presented in The Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities, to protect and improve water
quality throughout the Basin by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs into streams and rivers and to
support efforts to restore local watersheds (NCEEP 2009). The project goals are in line with the basin
priorities and include the following:
- 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
Additional goals for the project include:
- Increase the local hydroperiod by encouraging both surface and subsurface storage and
retention
- Restore and establish a functional and diverse stream /wetland complex
The project goals will be addressed through the following objectives:
- Redevelop a stream /wetland complex that has previously been impacted by ditching and cattle
grazing
- Fill field ditches to restore surface flow retention and 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 and NPII.

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 1l Restoration Sites
The NPRS will aim to restore and establish a functional stream /wetland complex with 16.2 acres of
riparian wetland restoration (15.5 acres of re- establishment and 0.7 acre of wetland rehabilitation).
Select ditches across the site will be modified or filled and seeps will be redirected and redeveloped to
retain and distribute surface flow across the site. The two project tributaries (Tributaries 1 and 2 to
Stewarts Creek) will be restored to integrated headwater /stream systems, but no stream mitigation
credit is included in NPRS. Approximately 9.0 acres of wetland preservation is included throughout the
NPRS, but for no additional credit.
The NPII will aim to restore and establish a stream /wetland complex with 10.2 acres of riparian wetland
restoration (8.8 acres of re- establishment and 1.4 acres of rehabilitation). Approximately 843 linear feet
of Tributary 1 to Stewarts Creek will be improved with Enhancement II and reconnected to the historic
floodplain. Also, approximately 0.8 acre of existing wetlands will be included as preservation at NPII (no
mitigation credit).
The two sites are located approximately five miles west of Magnolia, North Carolina in Sampson County.
The projects begin southwest of the intersection of Cornwallis Road and MJ Johnson Road, and Stewarts
Creek, a fourth -order stream, forms the southern boundary.
Once site grading is complete, the riparian communities will be planted as Riverine Swamp Forest and
Headwater Forest communities (NCWAM, v. 4.1 2010). The sites will be monitored for seven years or
until the success criteria are met.
Norman's Pasture Restoration Site, Sampson County
EEP Contract 005010; EEP Project Number 95717
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Linear Feet /Acres
843
16.2
Credits
337
16.0
TOTAL CREDITS
337
16.0
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement
Norman's Pasture 11, Sampson County
EEP Contract 5787; EEP Project Number 96310
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Linear Feet /Acres
843
10.2
Credits
337
9.7
TOTAL CREDITS
337
9.7
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................. ..............................1
2.0
SITE SELECTION ..................................................................................... ..............................1
2.1
Directions ...................................................................................................... ..............................1
2.2
Site Selection ............................................................................................... ...............................
2
2.2.1
Historic Site Geology /Geomophic Setting ................................................... ...............................
2
2.2.2
Chronology of Impacts ................................................................................. ...............................
3
2.3
Project Site Vicinity Map .............................................................................. ...............................
5
2.4
Project Site Watershed Map ........................................................................ ...............................
6
2.5
Soil Survey ..................................................................................................... ..............................7
2.6
Project Site Current Condition Plan View ................................................:.... ..............................8
2.7
Project Site Historical Condition Plan View .................................................. ..............................9
2.8
Site Photographs ........................................................................................ ...............................
11
3.0
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ......................................................... ...............................
15
3.1
Site Protection Instrument Summary Information ...................................... ...........................'.15
3.2
Site Protection Instrument Figure ............................................................... .............................16
4.0
BASELINE INFORMATION ................................................................... ...............................
17
4.1
Watershed Summary Information ............................................................. ...............................
20
4.2
Reach Summary Information ................................................................'..... ...............................
21
4.3
Wetland Summary Information ................................................................. ...............................
23
4.3.1
Existing Seeps ......................................................... . ........................... :.......................................
24
4.4
Regulatory Considerations ......................................................................... ...............................
25
5.0
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................ ...............................
26
6.0
CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ................................................................ ...............................
28
7.0
MITIGATION WORK PLAN .................................................................. ...............................
29
7.1
Target Wetland Types and Plant Communities ........................................... .............................29
7.2
Design Parameters ....................................................................................... .............................30
7.3
Data Analysis ........................................'...................................................... ...............................
34
7.4
Proposed Mitigation .................................................................................. ...............................
36
7.5
Proposed Mitigation Type ......................................................................... ...............................
37
8.0
MAINTENANCE PLAN ......................................................................... ...............................
38
9.0
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .............................................................. ........................0......
38
10.0
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... ...............................
39
11.0
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................... ...............................
41
12.0
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................ ..........................:....
41
13.0
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .................................................................... ...............................
41
14.0
OTHER INFORMATION ....................................................................... ...............................
42
14.1
Definitions .................................................................................................... .............................42
14.2
References ................................................................................................... .............................43

Mitigation Plan
Appendix A. Site Protection Instrument
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture II Restoration Sites
APPENDIX
Appendix B. Baseline Information Data
USACE Weiland Determination Forms
Reference Sites
Reference Locations
Jurisdictional Determination
FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
FEMA Floodplain Checklist
Appendix C. Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Existing Conditions Cross- Sections
DRAINMOD Model Results
Soil Delineation and Characterization
Proposed Monitoring Plan
Appendix D. Project Plan Sheets

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
EEP develops River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) 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 03030006110040 (Stewarts Creek) as a Targeted
Local Watershed (NCEEP 2009). The watershed is characterized by 54% forest and 40% agricultural areas
with past impacts to streams including channelization and nonpoint source pollution. This watershed is a
TLW due to the number of animal operations within its boundary and the many opportunities for
mitigation.
The Norman's Pasture Restoration Site (NPRS) and Norman's Pasture II Restoration Site (NPII) were both
identified as opportunities to improve and protect stream and wetland habitat and functions within the
TLW. The goals and priorities for NPRS's and NPII's are based on the information presented in The Cape
Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities, to protect and improve water quality throughout the Basin by
reducing sediment and nutrient inputs into streams and rivers,and to support efforts to restore local
watersheds (NCEEP 2009). The project goals are in line with the basin priorities and include the
following:
- 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
Additional goals for the project include:
- Increase the local hydroperiod by encouraging both surface and subsurface storage and
retention
- Restore and establish a functional and diverse stream /wetland complex
The project goals will be addressed through the following objectives:
- Redevelop.a stream /wetland complex that has previously been impacted by ditching and cattle
grazing
- Fill field ditches to restore surface flow retention and 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 and NPII.
2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions i
NPRS and NPII are located on two parcels located off of Cornwallis Road approximately five miles west
of Magnolia, North Carolina. To reach the sites from Raleigh: proceed east on 1 -40 for approximately 65
miles until Exit 364 for US -24. Then travel on US -24 west towards Clinton for approximately one mile.
Turn left onto Carrolls Road and then take the first right onto Blanchard Road. Blanchard Road will turn
into Cornwallis Road and the sites will be approximately six miles ahead on the right.
1

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
2.2 Site Selection
NPRS and NPII are part of the 03030006 Watershed Cataloging Unit (South River and Great Coharie
Creek) located within the Cape Fear River Basin. The Cape Fear River Basin is the largest in the state and
contains a number of North Carolina's larger cities, including Greensboro, High Point, Burlington,
Durham, Fayetteville and Wilmington. The population within the watershed in 2000 was, 3.6 million
people, and it is expected to grow to 5.2 million by 2020. As a result, the focus in this watershed is on
mitigating impacts from stormwater and protecting and /or restoring existing habitat (NCEEP, 2009).
The project sites are bounded by Cornwallis Road to the east, Stewarts Creek to the south, agricultural
land to the north, and woodlands to the west. The sites have a long history of hydrologic modification in
order to allow for farming and grazing 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 8 -digit cataloging unit, the
Stewarts Creek drainage (03030006110040) remains only moderately affected by urban development,
having its start in Warsaw, NC before crossing under 1 -40 and ending in Clinton, NC.
The soils at the sites were examined for their wetland potential. The Soil Survey of Sampson County
describes several predominant soil series at the NPRS and NPII, including Lumbee sandy loam, Bibb and
Johnston, Johnston loam, Norfolk loamy sand, and Chipley sand. Lumbee sandy loam is a nearly level,
poorly drained soil on smooth flats and in shallow depressions on stream terraces. The Bibb and
Johnston soil series is described as frequently flooded and having soils that are poorly or very poorly
drained along major streams. Johnston loam is a very poorly drained series 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, and 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 at both of the sites found the soils described above in
addition to Johns fine sandy loam, Lynn Haven sand, and Torhunta fine sandy loam. Johns fine sandy
loam is a somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained series found on stream terraces. Lynn
Haven sand is a poorly drained soil typical of flat areas or found in large, shallow depressions. Torhunta
fine sandy loam is a very poorly drained soil found on upland bays and stream terraces. The soil data
sheets and a map of the soil delineation and borings are included in (Appendix C, Soil Delineation and
Characterization).
2.2.1 Historic Site Geology /Geomorphic Setting
NPRS and NPII occupy a unique position in the geologic landscape. Effective development of the
mitigation plan relies on both an understanding of the process that lead to the formation of the
resources and the actions that created the site impairments.
The sites lie within the Rolling Coastal Plains (Level IV 65m) ecoregion of the Coastal Plain physiographic
province. This region is described as a rolling, hilly, dissected portion of the Inner Coastal Plain that is
made up of sedimentary material. The geology at the sites are 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 (Winner and Coble 1996). Glauconitic,
fossiliferous clayey sand lenses exist in the upper part. Also, it is landward of the Surry Scarp and sits on
the unconformity that separates the Cretaceous Black Creek formation from the Peedee formation (NC
Archaeological Council 2011). Intertonguing of the formations is common and form ravinements, which
are disconformities resulting from surf zone beveling. Ravinements in the Cretaceous are associated
with the termination of delta construction and deposition of the destructive strata (Benson 1968).
2

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Deltas formed landward of the Surry 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 (Benson 1968). 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 (Benson 1968).
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 ramp /terrace.
NPRS and NPII are bordered on the south by Stewarts Creek. Stewarts Creek's incision into the
landscape occurs perpendicular to the depositional features of the buried deltas (SW). 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 (NC Archaeological Council 2011). 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 under sufficient pressure to be classified as artesian.
Water discharging from the seeps flows toward Stewarts Creek, and.perches on clay lenses between less
erodible formations on the terraces.
2.2.2 Chronology of Impacts
Historic aerials from Sampson County were examined for any information about how the sites'
hydrology and vegetation have changed over the last century. They were obtained from the USGS
EarthExplorer, USGS DOQQs, and NC OneMap for 1938, 1951, 1966, 1981, 1989, 1993, 1998, and 2008.
The reviewed aerials are found in Figure 2.7. The 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 sites.
1938 — This is the earliest photo available for the sites. It shows the matrix of exposed high points as
agricultural fields and surrounding wetland drainages. The aerial shows that the two main ditches near
Tributary 2 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 to 1951 — By 1951, the majority of the forested portions of the sites had been cleared and
additional ditches are visible in the middle portion of NPRS and in the floodplain of Stewarts Creek.
Evidence of wetness in the fields is still prominent.
3

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
1951 to 1966 - By 1966, the sites show evidence of agricultural production in the cleared areas;
additional ditching along the eastern boundary is evident below 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 NPRS were also cleared and converted to ponds.
1981 to current — The ditching in the system has been maintained and the sites are 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.
The historic aerial photographs available for the site confirm that the sites are characterized by a series
of seeps feeding into broad wetland channels that then discharge into the broad flat floodplain of
Stewarts Creek, supporting an extensive stream /wetland complex.
4

M
Mitigation Plan
Z.s rroject bite vicinity ma
ARNETT JOHNSTON
WAYNE
' I
l SAMPSON
DUPLIN
y _
BLADEN
FENDER
:.�
"MPSON
COUNTY
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
s
Miq �
DUPLIN
COUNTY
r h�4 zT/
Ro i
snm9 Rd
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP There are no airports within N
05 025 0 0.5 5 miles of the project site
® Miles NORMAN'S PASTURE /NORMAN'S PASTURE 11
SAMPSON COUNTY, NC
/
I

Mitigation Plan
V1 UJC%.% a4w vvaw4 Dncu ma
%
r`
z 7•
� 11• J �
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
�.�
1
n�
/1 1�Ji NPRS Project Watershed (186 ac)
J 1 NPII Project Watershed (139 ac)
f�—•�..._ ® NPRS Easement
NPII Easement
PROJECT SITE WATERSHED MAP
aoo zoo o aoo USGS DRG
Soule.
NORMAN'S PASTURE /NORMAN'S PASTURE II
® Feet
Turkey Quad. 1984
SAMPSON COUNTY, NC
6

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan
2.6
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Site Current Condition Plan View
L —J Extent of Project Parcels
NPRS Easement
NPII Easement
Seep #3 "®
— Existing Project Streams
Pond s 'F — Other Streams
► Ditch
= Swale
Dispersed Flow
Seep . : +� Seeps (Artesian)
`� • Seeps
Seep 01 �Ah Drained Hydric Soils
tti � Degraded Wetland
Existing Wetland
w. <.
Pond
yam,
see p 04 i►.
e,
v
014"712
tnaV
PROJECT SITE CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW tmace: EastemPedmont V
0 150 300 Orthoimage�magery.2073.
Feet NORMAN'S PASTUREINORMAN'S PASTURE II
SAMPSON COUNTY, NC
'Ll.���
J
�U

- Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
9

#J �
s
Project low
Bounii
.. -
1 998
2008
� � 4
Im
1 998
2008
� � 4

Mitigation Plan
2.8 Site Photographs
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
11

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
12

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
13

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
14

Mitigation Plan
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the following parcels. The conservation easement documents for NPRS was finalized in June
2013. A copy of the land protection instrument is included in Appendix A.
Norman's Pasture Restoration Site
Landowners
Instrument
PIN
County
Site Protection
Deed Book
and
Acreage
Number
Number
Instrument
Instrument
KCI Technologies &
protected
18023960004;
Conservation
Construction Inc.
Page Number
18023960005
KCI Technologies &
03608
18023960004;
Sampson
Conservation
DB 1862 PG
36.92
Construction Inc.
18023960005
Easement
104
Norman's Pasture II
Landowners
Instrument
PIN
County
Site Protection
Acreage
Number
Instrument
protected
KCI Technologies &
18023960004;
Conservation
Construction Inc.
18023960005
Sampson
Easement
16.3
15

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
16

Mitigation Plan
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
17
Project Information
Project Name
Norman's Pasture Restoration Site
County
Sampson County
Project Area (acres)
36.92 acres
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.)
34.904893 N , - 78.151460 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030006
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030006110040
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -06 -19
Project Drainage Area (acres)
186.0 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
1%
Managed Herbaceous Cover 42% (77.3 ac), Cultivated 24% (44.3 ac), Bottomland
CGIA Land Use Classification
Forest /Hardwood Swamps 17% (31.0 ac), Southern Yellow Pine 10% (19.5 ac),
Mixed Hardwoods /Conifers 5% (9.2 ac), and Evergreen Shrubland 2% (4.2 ac)
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
T1
T2
Length of reach
(linear feet)
1,585
1,612
Valley
classification
Valley Type X
Valley Type X
Drainage area
(acres)
112 acres
36 acres
NCDWQ Water
Quality
Project Reach Not Classified;
Project Reach Not Classified;
Classification
Receiving water = Stewarts Creek (C; SW)
Receiving water = Stewarts Creek (C; SW)
Morphological
Description
Portions ditched channel; other C5
Portions headwater stream; other ditched
(stream type)
channel
Evolutionary
trend
Channelized 1
Channelized
Mapped Soil
Series
Chipley Johnston; Torhunta
Bibb and Johnston; Johnston; Lumbee
Drainage class
Somewhat poorly drained; very poorly drained;
Poorly drained; very poorly drained; poorly
very poorly drained
drained
Soil Hydric status
Drained hydric
Drained hydric
Slope
0 -2%
0 -2%
FEMA
classification
Zone AE
Zone AE
Existing
vegetation
Pasture, Headwater Forest
Pasture, Riverine Swamp Forest
community
Percent
composition of
exotic invasive
<5%
<5%
vegetation
17

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Existing Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Area 1*
Area 4*
Area 9*
Area 10*
Size of Wetland (acres)
1.99 acres
5.20 acres
2.19 acres
0.02 acre
Wetland Type
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Bibb and Johnston
Lumbee
Bibb and Johnston
Bibb and Johnston
Drainage class
Poorly or very poorly
Poorly Drained
Poorly or very poorly
Poorly or very poorly
drained
drained
drained
Soil Hydric Status
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Seepage/
Seepage/
Seepage/
Seepage/
Precipitation
Precipitation
Precipitation
Precipitation
Hydrologic Impairment
Ditching and Crops
Ditching and Crops
Ditching and Crops
Ditching and Crops
Existing vegetation
Crops, Pasture,
Crops, Pasture,
Crops, Pasture,
community
Wetland
Forested Wetland
Forested Wetland
Crops, Pasture
Percent composition
of exotic invasive
<5%
<5%
<5%
0%
vegetation
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section
Jurisdictional
404
Yes
Applying for NWP 27
Determination
Waters of the United States — Section
Jurisdictional
401
Yes
Applying for NWP 27
Determination
Endangered Species Act **
No
N/A
N/A
Historic Preservation Act **
No
N/A
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act **
(CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management
No
N/A
N/A
Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
In process
FEMA Floodplain
Checklist
Essential Fisheries Habitat **
No
N/A
N/A
Keter to Junsciictionai uetermination wetland delineation map in Appendix B for numbering.
* *Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B.
18

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
19
Project Information
Project Name
Norman's Pasture II
County
Sampson County ,
Project.Area (acres)
16.3 acres
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.)
34.906839 N, 78.151797 W
Project Watershed Summary information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030006
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030006110040
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -06 -19 '
Project Drainage Area (acres)
139.0 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
1�
CGIA Land Use Classification
Cultivated 32% (44.3 ac), Managed Herbaceous Cover 31% (42.9 ac), Bottomland
Forest /Hardwood Swamps 14% (19.5 ac), Southern Yellow Pine 14% (19.5 ac), Mixed
Hardwoods /Conifers 6% (9.0 ac), and Evergreen Shrubland 3% (4.2 ac)
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
T1
Length of reach (linear feet)
843
Valley classification
Valley Type X
Drainage area (acres)
112 acres
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
Project Reach Not Classified;
Receiving water = Stewarts Creek (C; SW)
Morphological Description (stream type)
Modified E5
Evolutionary trend
Stage III
Mapped Soil Series
Johnston
Drainage class
Very Poorly drained
Soil Hydric status*.
Drained hydric
Slope
0 -1%
FEMA classification
Zone AE & Zone X
Existing vegetation community
Headwater Forest Community
Percent composition of exotic invasive
vegetation
<S%
Existing Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Area 6*
Area 7*
Area 8*
Area 9*
continued from
NPRS
Area 11*
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.09 acre
0.17 acre
0.37 acre
0.02 acre
0.08 acre
Wetland Type
Riparian
Riparian
Pond and'Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Bibb and
Johnston; Lumbee
Johnston
loam
Lynn Haven
Bibb and
Johnston
Torhunta Variant
Drainage class
Poorly or very
poorly drained
Very poorly
drained
Poorly or very
poorly drained
Poorly or very
poorly drained
Very poor) drained
Y
Soil Hydric Status
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Drained Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Seepage/
Precipitation
Seepage/
Precipitation
Seepage/
Precipitation
Seepage/
Precipitation
Seepage/
Precipitation
Impairment Hydrologic Im
p
Ditching and
Crops
Ditching and
Crops
Ditching and Crops
Ditching and
Crops
Ditching
Existing vegetation
community
Crops, Pasture,
Wetland
Crops,
Pasture,
Wetland
Crops, Pasture
Crops, Pasture,
Forested
Wetland
Forested Wetland
19

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture ll Restoration Sites
Percent composition of
exotic invasive
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
vegetation
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section
Jurisdictional
Yes
Applying I in g for NWP 27
404
Determination
Waters of the United States — Section
Jurisdictional
Yes
Applying I in g for NWP 27
401
Determination
Endangered Species Act **
No
N/A
N/A
Historic Preservation Act **
No
N/A
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act **
(CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management
No
N/A
N/A
Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
In process
FEMA Floodplain Checklist
Essential Fisheries Habitat **
No
N/A
N/A
* Refer to Jurisdictional Determination wetland delineation map in Appendix B for numbering.
* *Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B.
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
The sites are 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 (TLW). Section 2.4
Watershed Map shows the site in relation to the project watershed, which is comprised of 186 acres as
it reaches Stewarts Creek. 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
draft 2014 303(d) list (add reference). The project site is also not within a water supply watershed.
Stewarts Creek (DWQ Index 18- 68 -2 -10) is classified as Class C water 'with the supplemental
classification of swamp waters (Sw).
The project watershed for the NPRS is comprised of 186 total acres. Current land use in the project
watershed consists of Managed Herbaceous Cover 42% (77.3 ac), Cultivated 24% (44.3 ac), Bottomland
Forest /Hardwood Swamps 17% (31.0 ac), Southern Yellow Pine 10% (19.5 ac), Mixed
Hardwoods /Conifers 5% (9.2 ac), and Evergreen Shrubland 2% (4.2 ac). The project watershed drains to
the west, north, and east into the project site. The project watershed for NPII is made up of 139 acres
and is located within the watershed for NPRS. Current land use in the project watershed is
approximately Cultivated 32% (44.3 ac), Managed Herbaceous Cover 31% (42.9 ac), Bottomland
Forest /Hardwood Swamps 14% (19.5 ac), Southern Yellow Pine 14% (19.5 ac), Mixed
Hardwoods /Conifers 6% (9.0 ac), and Evergreen Shrubland 3% (4.2 ac). The impervious surface within
the project watershed is limited to the surfaces of MJ Johnson Road and Cornwallis Road and impervious
areas within rural residential properties, amounting to approximately 1% of the total area project
drainage area. The nearest named downstream water body is Stewarts Creek. The project area is
located in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Turkey Quadrangle.
20
J

Two separate unnamed tributaries to Stewarts Creek flow through the site. Neither stream will be used
for mitigation credit, but both are described here since they will be integrated into the project design.
Tributary 1 (T1) begins northwest of the project site from a farm pond and flows south approximately
350 linear feet onto the project. Tributary 2 (T2) flows west, approximately 1,440 linear feet to join T1
and forms on the site from the southeast. T1 and T2 are both headwater channels due to their small
drainage areas. The broad flat topography of the site means that the streams have minimal slope and
are slow- moving systems. The Current Conditions Plan View in Section 2:6 shows the existing conditions
at the NPRS and site photographs are included in Section 2.8.
T1 enters NPRS in the northwestern corner of the project. The channel has been ditched through an
open agricultural field, and continues in this form until the edge of the field where an artesian spring is
located. The channel has been further excavated in this location and the remaining spoil can be seen to
the left of the stream. Further downstream, T1 transitions into a channel type with little evidence of
ditching and with access to its floodplain. T2 joins T1 coming in from the west and then T1 travels along
the property line as a straightened channel with spoil piles adjacent to the right bank until it enters into
Stewarts Creek.
T2 begins in the middle of the NPRS site and flows to the north and then to the west before joining T1
along the western edge of the site. T2 receives its primary hydrologic input from an artesian spring.
Based on landowner reports, this artesian spring provides a consistent source of hydrology. Currently,
T2 is a functional headwater stream at its beginning and is surrounding by high - quality wetlands. Unlike
a single- thread channel, the stream has multiple flow paths throughout the wetted section that moves
in a linear direction. The braided system is largely shaped by the existing trees. T2 flows through a more
heavily wooded area where it receives additional drainage from hillside seepage entering from the
northeast. At this point, T2 flows toward the west, where it becomes a wide channelized ditch until it
reaches the confluence with T1. There is little to no movement within the channel, leaving the water
essentially ponded with large amounts of duckweed. Along the left bank of this lower section of T2,
there is no riparian vegetation. The right bank has a narrow strip of trees.
The jurisdictional determination delineation identified both tributaries as jurisdictional tributaries (see
Appendix B for jurisdictional determination plat).
Norman's Pasture II
Existing Conditions
An upper reach of T1 flows through the northwestern corner of NPII before reaching NPRS, and this
portion of T1 will be included for mitigation credit. T1 begins upstream of NPII from a farm pond and
flows south onto the site. As it initially comes onto the project site, it is a stable stream within a forested
riparian wetland buffer. However, after a downstream headcut, it begins to'incise and T1 flows 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 bare and exposed. There is a farm field just to the east of the left bank. This tributary
is surrounded by hydric soils that have evidently been drained as the channel has incised over the years.
-
21
•
Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
4.2 Reach Summary Information
i
Norman's Pasture Restoration Site
Existing Conditions
Two separate unnamed tributaries to Stewarts Creek flow through the site. Neither stream will be used
for mitigation credit, but both are described here since they will be integrated into the project design.
Tributary 1 (T1) begins northwest of the project site from a farm pond and flows south approximately
350 linear feet onto the project. Tributary 2 (T2) flows west, approximately 1,440 linear feet to join T1
and forms on the site from the southeast. T1 and T2 are both headwater channels due to their small
drainage areas. The broad flat topography of the site means that the streams have minimal slope and
are slow- moving systems. The Current Conditions Plan View in Section 2:6 shows the existing conditions
at the NPRS and site photographs are included in Section 2.8.
T1 enters NPRS in the northwestern corner of the project. The channel has been ditched through an
open agricultural field, and continues in this form until the edge of the field where an artesian spring is
located. The channel has been further excavated in this location and the remaining spoil can be seen to
the left of the stream. Further downstream, T1 transitions into a channel type with little evidence of
ditching and with access to its floodplain. T2 joins T1 coming in from the west and then T1 travels along
the property line as a straightened channel with spoil piles adjacent to the right bank until it enters into
Stewarts Creek.
T2 begins in the middle of the NPRS site and flows to the north and then to the west before joining T1
along the western edge of the site. T2 receives its primary hydrologic input from an artesian spring.
Based on landowner reports, this artesian spring provides a consistent source of hydrology. Currently,
T2 is a functional headwater stream at its beginning and is surrounding by high - quality wetlands. Unlike
a single- thread channel, the stream has multiple flow paths throughout the wetted section that moves
in a linear direction. The braided system is largely shaped by the existing trees. T2 flows through a more
heavily wooded area where it receives additional drainage from hillside seepage entering from the
northeast. At this point, T2 flows toward the west, where it becomes a wide channelized ditch until it
reaches the confluence with T1. There is little to no movement within the channel, leaving the water
essentially ponded with large amounts of duckweed. Along the left bank of this lower section of T2,
there is no riparian vegetation. The right bank has a narrow strip of trees.
The jurisdictional determination delineation identified both tributaries as jurisdictional tributaries (see
Appendix B for jurisdictional determination plat).
Norman's Pasture II
Existing Conditions
An upper reach of T1 flows through the northwestern corner of NPII before reaching NPRS, and this
portion of T1 will be included for mitigation credit. T1 begins upstream of NPII from a farm pond and
flows south onto the site. As it initially comes onto the project site, it is a stable stream within a forested
riparian wetland buffer. However, after a downstream headcut, it begins to'incise and T1 flows 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 bare and exposed. There is a farm field just to the east of the left bank. This tributary
is surrounded by hydric soils that have evidently been drained as the channel has incised over the years.
-
21

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
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 (See Appendix C, Existing
Conditions Cross - Sections). Side channels have formed and downcut perpendicular to the channel and
further drained adjacent wetland /seep areas.
The Current Conditions Plan View in Section 2.6 shows the existing conditions at the NPII and the site
photographs are included in Section 2.8. The jurisdictional determination that identified T1 as a
jurisdictional tributary is included in Appendix B.
Channel Morphology (Pattern, Dimension, and Profile)
A Rosgen Level II assessment was conducted to gather existing stream dimension data from the NPII
reach of Ti to determine the degree of channel instability. Two channel cross - sections were surveyed at
two representative locations and classified T1 as a G5 channel. The cross - sectional data developed from
this survey is presented in Appendix C.
Channel Stability Assessment
As reflected in the project goals and objects, sediment is not a large concern at this site. For this reason,
a Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) evaluation was not conducted for the project.
eankfull Verification
The standard methodology used in natural channel design is based on the ability to select the
appropriate bankfull discharge and generate the corresponding bankfull hydraulic geometry from a
stable reference system(s). The determination of bankfull stage is the most critical component of the
natural channel design process.
Bankfull can be defined as "the stage at which channel maintenance is most effective, that is, the
discharge at which moving sediment, forming or removing bars, forming or changing bends and
meanders, and generally doing work that results in the average morphologic characteristics of the
channels," (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Several characteristics that commonly indicate the bankfull stage
include: incipient point of flooding, breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, highest depositional features
(i.e. point bars), and highest scour line. The identification of bankfull stage, especially in a degraded
system, can be difficult. Therefore, verification measures were undertaken to validate the correct
identification of the bankfull stage on all project reaches.
Regional curves are typically utilized in ungauged areas to approximate bankfull discharge, area, width,
and depth as a function of drainage area based on interrelated variables from other similar streams in
the same hydrophysiographic province. Regional curves and corresponding equations from " Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams" (Harman et al., 1999) were used to
approximate bankfull in the project reaches. Based on the regional curves, a bankfull discharge and
cross - sectional area were estimated for all reaches. For T1, the regional curve estimates a bankfull
discharge of 26.6 ft3 /s and a cross - sectional area of 6.8 ft2. A reference reach, located approximately
300 linear feet upstream of T1 was surveyed for a reference stream by KCI in April 2014. The reference
cross - sections resulted in a cross - sectional area of 3.7 ft2 and 2.7 ft2, respectively. KCI analyzed the
relationship between drainage area and discharge to the NC coastal regional curve data and the
reference reach. The results indicated the cross - sectional area and discharge for the reference stream
22

r
Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
were slightly lower to the regional curve data. This is due to the reference reach being further upstream
in a smaller watershed resulting in a smaller cross - sectional area. Since the reference stream is located
in close proximity of T1 and flows through a headwater forest community that has a stable planform and
contains lower banks and a high width /depth ratio, KCI feels that it is a suitable reference for the project
reaches. The dimensionless hydraulic geometry relationships were developed from stable channel
dimensions to assist in the design of the proposed channel cross - sectional data for the T1 enhancement
reach.
T1 will be enhanced by reconnecting the channel grade to its historic elevations. The bankfull bench will
be similar to the reference cross- sections.
4.3 Wetland Summary Information
Wetlands historically formed at both the NPRS and NPII sites due to on -site seeps and streams making
their way down to the floodplain of Stewarts Creek. The topography of the site begins with the highest
elevations at the northern edge of the NPII Site. The elevation decreases sharply as one moves from
north to south until about the center of the sites when the slope becomes much gentler. Water on the
sites exits via the southern boundary into Stewarts Creek. The drained hydric soils at,the site experience
approximately a 2 -foot change in elevation as the slope grades down slightly from the center towards
the northeastern corner of the site and along the main ditch out of the southern edge of the site.
Norman's Pasture Restoration Site
Existing Wetlands
NPRS has been impacted by a history of channelization, farming production, and cattle grazing. Despite
efforts to effectively drain wetlands on the property, several areas of existing wetland exist within the
NPRS. These areas were delineated by KCI wetland scientists and the boundaries were confirmed
through a jurisdictional determination with the US Army Corps of Engineers (Section 4.4) and are
identified as Wetlands 1, 4, 9, and 10 in the Baseline Information Table. The project includes existing
forested wetlands along the southeastern and middle portion of NPRS and a small portion to the
northwest. The goal of this project will be to join these areas to a larger whole braided stream /wetland
complex. The wetland data forms are included in (Appendix B, USACE Wetland Determination Forms).
Vegetation
The NPRS includes forested wetland areas generally located along T1, T2, and the man -made drainage
features. The existing wetlands support a variety of tree species, including: green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), ironwood (Corpinus caroliniana), willow oak (Quercus phellos), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), -river birch (Betula nigra), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum),
red maple (Acerrubrum), Sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus toeda), American elm
(Ulmus americana), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and American hawthorn (Crataegus sp.).
Existing herbaceous vegetation throughout the wetlands and the ditches includes soft rush (Juncus
effusus), strawcolored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosis), creeping charlie ground ivy (Glechoma hederaceo),
knotweed (Polygonum sp.), bahia grass (Paspolum notatum), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), lizards tail (Saururus cernuus), and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis).
23

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Norman's Pasture II
Existing 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. Despite
efforts to effectively drain wetlands on the property, several areas of existing wetland exist within the
NPII. These areas were delineated by KCI wetland scientists and the boundaries were confirmed through
a jurisdictional determination with the US Army Corps of Engineers (Section 4.4) and are identified as
Wetlands 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 in the Baseline Information Table. The project includes existing forested
wetlands throughout'the portion of NPII. The goal of this project will be to join these areas to a larger
whole braided stream /wetland complex. The wetland data forms are included in Appendix B.
Vegetation
The NPII includes forested wetland areas generally located along T1 and the man -made drainage
features. The existing wetlands and ditches support the same variety of tree species and herbaceous
vegetation as located at NPRS as described above.
4.3.1 Existing Seeps
The fluvial geomorphic processes that developed this landscape evolved into numerous seeps and
confining layers 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 seven major seeps (five seeps and 2 artesian wells) with continuous
flow located on NPRS and NPII (see Section 2.6). They have been impacted as described below:
1. The first seep is located on NPII along the western border. This seep flows into T1 and has
incised into the landscape, draining the adjacent hydric soils. 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 hydrologic sources. In addition, the creation of the drainage ditch led to the head cut
and degradation of T1.
2. The second seep is located approximately 200 yards to the east of Seep 1 along the center
portion of NPII. This seep is in the center of the field and 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 other ditch draining Seep 1.
Instead of flowing to the southwest to T1, this drainage pattern historically went toward the
southeast and into the large wetland in the center of the site, as evidenced by relic hydric soils
below the point of diversion.
3. The third seep is located 150 yards to the east of Seep 2 along the NPII boundary near
Cornwallis Road. This seep was excavated between 1966 and 1981 to create a pond. A ditch
leads from the pond and several adjacent seepage areas to carry 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 small stream -swamp complex on the floodplain of Stewarts Creek.
24

i
r
Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
4. The fourth seep is located 300 yards south of Seep 3 along the southern portion of NPII. 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 to hold back water.
5. The fifth seep is located 250 yards south of Seep 4 along the NPRS project boundary. This seep
is lower in elevation than Seeps 1 through 4 and is artesian in nature. This seep historically
created a continuous source of water for the cypress swamp adjacent to Cornwallis Road. The
seep was redirected to flow north and then west along the toe of the floodplain through the
excavated channel of T2, and bypasses the relic hydric soils on�the floodplain.
6.' The sixth seep is located 50 yards east of the western easement boundary of NPRS and 200
yards north of Stewarts Creek. This seep lies immediately adjacent to T1 carrying the flow from
Seep 1 through the residual mound at the point where it ties in to the wooded cypress swamp.
This seep is artesian in nature and forces water out of a pipe three feet above the ground.
7. The seventh seep is located 20 yards west of the eastern easement boundary of NPRS along
Cornwallis Road. This seep is located at the top of Wetland 1. V
4.4 Regulatory Considerations
A jurisdictional determination was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers on December 19, 2012
and approved on February 1, 2013 for the NPRS. An addendum to the jurisdictional determination was
approved on May 10, 2013 for NPII. The approved jurisdictional determinations are included in
Appendix B. 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.
NPRS is located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE) for Stewarts Creek as well as a small
portion of NPII. A no -rise flood study is expected for-this project.
25

Mitigation Plan
5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Norman's Pasture Restoration Site, Sampson County
Mitigation Credits, "
Riparian
Non - riparian
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Stream
Wetland
Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient
Nutrient
Offset
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Linear
Feet /Acres
16.2
Credits
16.0
TOTAL CREDITS
16.0
Project Components
Project
Existing
Restoration
Restoration
ComComponent
p
Station g/
Footage/
Approach
-or-
Footage
Mitigation
-or-
Location
(PI, PH etc.)
Restoration
Ratio
Reach ID
Acreage
Equivalent
or Acreage
Wetland
Reestablishment
Restoration
15.5
1:1
Wetland
Rehabilitation
Restoration
0.7
1.5:1
Wetland
Preservation
Preservation
9.0
N/A
Component Summation
Buffer
Restoration
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non- riparian Wetland
Upland
Level
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
(square
(acres)
feet)
Non-
Riverine
Riverine
Restoration
16.2
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
9.0
High Quality
Preservation
TOTAL CREDITS
16.0
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement
26

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Norman's Pasture II, Sampson County
Mitigation
Credits
Riparian
Non- riparian
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Stream
Wetland
Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient
Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Linear
'
Feet /Acres
843
10.2
Credits
337
9.7
TOTAL CREDITS
337
9.7
Project Components
Project
Existing
Restoration -or
Restoration
Component
Stationing/
Footage/
Approach
Restoration
Footage
Mitigation
or
Location
Acreage
(PI, PH etc.)
Equivalent
or Acreage
Ratio
Reach ID
Tributary 1
10 +00 -19+43
843
Enhancement II
843
2:5
Wetland
Restoration
8.8
1:1
Reestablishment
Wetland
Restoration
1.4
1.5:1
Rehabilitation
Wetland
Preservation
0.8
N/A
Preservation
Component Summation
Buffer
Restoration
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian Wetland
Upland
(square
Level
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
feet)
Non -
Rivenne
Riverine
Restoration
9.7
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II .
337
Creation
Preservation
0.8
High Quality
Preservation
TOTAL CREDITS
337
9.7
R= Restoration RE= Restoration Equivalent of Creation or Enhancement
27

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of
the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release
schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be
released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended,
depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release
of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows:
Forested Wetlands Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
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 th?SACE
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.
- Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required
28

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture II Restoration Sites
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.
7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Target Wetland Types and Plant Communities
The NPRS and NPII will be planted as a Riverine Swamp Forest and Headwater Forest communities
(NCWAM, w,4.1 2010) based on the location within the Stewarts Creek floodplain. Disturbed areas of
NPII will also be planted as a Headwater Forest Community. The planting plan is shown in the attached
project plan sheets (Appendix D). Any areas that have a low density of existing vegetation will be
supplementally planted with the species listed below. Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of
968 stems per acre (9 feet x 5 feet spacing) to achieve a mature survivability of two hundred ten (210)
stems per acre after seven years. Woody vegetation planting will be conducted during dormancy.
Species to be planted may consist of the following and any substitutions from the planting plan will be
taken from this list:
Riverine Swamp Forest— 22.44 acres
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator
River birch
Betula nigra
FACW
Sweet bay
Magnolia virginiana
FACW
Water tupelo
Nyssa aquatica
OBL
Swamp bay
Persea palustris
FACW
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrato
OBL
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
FACW
Laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
FACW
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
OBL
Headwater Forest -16.00 acres
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
FACW
River birch
Betula nigra
FACW
Sweet bay
Magnolia virginiana
FACW
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
FACW
Laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
FACW
Water oak
Quercus nigra
FAC
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
FACW
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
OBL
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
OBL
A herbaceous seed mix
composed of appropriate native
species will also be developed and used to
further stabilize and restore the wetland.
29
0

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture ll Restoration Sites
The project easements will be marked and surveyed as per EEP's requirements contained within
http: / /porta1.ncdenr.org /web /eep /fd- forms - templates. The boundary marking plan is described in the
attached project plan sheets (Appendix D).
7.2 Design Parameters
Norman's Pasture Restoration Site
The mitigation approach for NPRS will aim to restore and establish a functional stream /wetland complex
with 16.2 acres of wetland restoration. All of the existing drained hydric soils will be restored to a
riparian wetland system. Mitigation actions will focus on re- establishing an appropriate wetland
hydroperiod by filling ditches, installing ditch plugs, restoring integrated headwater streams, developing
and redirecting productive seeps, and planting the site with appropriate vegetation. Existing spoil will be
used as available to fill the remainder of the ditches. After filling in ditches and bringing up the
elevations of the channelized streams, the restored wetlands will have a diffuse flow, creating a shallow
braided stream /wetland system. The existing channelized reaches, T1 and T2, will be graded to a natural
condition for the integrated stream /wetland complex, but no stream mitigation credit is included in the
NPRS project. Approximately 9.0 acres of wetland preservation (no wetland mitigation credit) are
dispersed throughout the NPRS. The proposed project conditions are shown in Section 7.4.
While the credit type and ratio for this project generally follow the framework of the restoration
mitigation type, these mitigation types have been further refined to be considered either re-
establishment or rehabilitation, which are both forms of restoration. Re- establishment occurs where the
functions are returned to the site in a location where an aquatic resource previously existed.
Rehabilitation results in an improvement in most, if not all, aquatic resource functions at a degraded,
existing wetland site (40 CFR Part 230). The USACE has approved restoration credits for both "re-
establishment" and "re- habilitation" through the 2008 mitigation rules and subsequently on other EEP
projects. The outcome from these discussions has been different ratios for rehabilitation and re-
establishment, although they are both considered forms of restoration credit.
Riparian Wetland Restoration —16.2 acres (15.5 ac Re- establishment and 0.7 ac Rehabilitation)
The mitigation actions at NPRS will focus on bringing up the elevation of the channelized streams of T1
and T2' and creating a shallow braided stream /wetland system. A ditch plug will be installed at the
beginning of T1, which will allow water to spread out and develop a braided channel system to the west.
A detailed topographic survey was used to design slight grading modifications to redirect and lengthen
overland flow paths in order to retain and treat surface hydrology longer. The minor grading will also
create multiple flow paths. Surface roughness variations will also be enhanced in areas where the years
of agricultural production have overly compacted the soil. The ditched channel of T1 will be filled for
approximately 480 If until it reaches an artesian well. The artesian well will have seep protection
installed to protect the water source and distribute the flow downstream into the multi- thread
headwater /stream wetland. After the artesian well, this section of T1 will remain unfilled through the
confluence of T2. After the confluence with T2, the existing channel of T1 transitions into an existing
sinuous channel for approximately 200 If. This section of channel has the appropriate pattern and
dimensions with access to its floodplain and will remain unfilled. This section of channel will be
connected to the restored upstream headwater stream. Further downstream, the ditched channel of T1
will continue to be brought up in grade for approximately 320 If until the confluence with Stewarts
Creek. The adjacent spoil pile along the right top of bank will be used to fill the old channel and allow
floodplain access.
30

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
The head of T2 will not be disturbed as it is currently functioning as a stream /wetland complex. This area
had previously been impacted by cattle compacting the ground, which has caused water to pond and
prevented additional herbaceous vegetation from forming. The surrounding buffer will be planted with
Riverine Swamp Forest species in those areas without established vegetation. A ditch plug will be
installed approximately 160 If south of the start of T2, along the southern portion of the site near
Stewarts Creek. At thestart offi2, the adjacent ditch to the northeast will be filled by using the existing
spoil pile along the top of bank. As T2 begins to flow west, it becomes a wide channelized ditch and
flows for approximately 560 If until it reaches the confluence of T1. The channelized reach will be filled
in its entirety and three ditch plugs will be installed along the reach. The new flow path of T2 will be
realigned through the center- of the field where Lidar topography shows a defined headwater
stream /wetland valley. The restored stream will not be a single- thread channel, but instead will have
multiple threads that will meander through the valley bottom toward Stewarts Creek.
A seep located in the southeastern portion of NPRS, adjacent Cornwallis Road, will be redirected and
redeveloped to retain and distribute surface flow across the site. A 50' by 50' water quality BMP will be
installed in this area to maximize seep production.
There are two man -made ditches located at the southern portion of the easement that run east to west.
The southern ditch will be filled for approximately 864 If, while the northern ditch will be filled for
approximately 870 If until the confluence with T1. Filling these two ditches will allow the hydrology that
fed these ditches to instead flow southwest into the downslope wetlands.
Where there are currently drained hydric soils adjacent to the ditches, the wetlands will be
reestablished, by the grading and filling of drainage features. By eliminating the ditched channels and
returning the flow to a braided system, all of the wetland /stream functions will be improved and the
functions of the system will be significantly increased compared to the existing conditions.
Rehabilitation of the existing wetlands will be accomplished by restoring the historic flow paths through
the system and re- forestation.
Once the grading is completed, the southern and middle portion will be planted as Riverine Swamp
Forest while a portion in the north and southeastern sides will be planted as the Headwater Forest
Community as described in Section 7.1 and as shown on the planting plan in Appendix D.
An overview map of the proposed mitigation is shown in Section 7.4 and the project plan sheets are
included in Appendix D. The following elements of functional uplift, increase, and improvement are
expected from this project:
1. Increase in flood storage
2. Increase in groundwater recharge
3. Increase in sediment trapping and filtration
4. Increase in carbon storage
5. Increase in biochemical cycling of nutrients and other pollutants
6. Increase in habitat utilization by wildlife (migrants and residents)
7. Increase in landscape patch structure
Riparian Wetland Preservation — 9.0 acres
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.
31

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Reference Wetland
A suitable reference wetland was found approximately 1,584 feet northeast of the eastern edge of the
NPII, adjacent to Cornwallis Road. The reference wetland is comprised of deciduous hardwoods over a
shrub layer and is consistent with the Headwater Forest Community that will be a target wetland type at
the project site (see Appendix B, Reference Sites). A groundwater monitoring well was installed in
September 2013 to document the reference wetland hydrology during the course of monitoring (see
Appendix B, Reference Sites).
Norman's Pasture 11
The mitigation approach for NPII will aim to restore and establish a functional stream /wetland system
with 10.2 acres of wetland restoration. All of the existing drained hydric soils will be restored to a
riparian wetland system. Mitigation actions will focus on filling ditches, developing and redirecting
productive seeps, and integrating the wetland area into the adjacent stream /wetland complex. Tributary
1 will be improved using Enhancement II to a first -order stream /wetland system. Approximately 0.8 acre
of wetland preservation is located at the southern portion of NPII, which connects to the existing
wetlands on NPRS.
The credit types and ratios for the NPII wetlands follow the same framework discussed above for NPRS,
where wetland re- establishment and rehabilitation are both considered forms of restoration, but with
different credit ratios.
Riparian Wetland Restoration —10.2 acres (8.8 ac Re- establishment and 0.7 ac Rehabilitation)
A seep located in the northern portion of NPII, adjacent to the pond, will be redirected and redeveloped
to retain and distribute surface flow across the site. A 50' by 50' water quality BMP will be installed in
this area to maximize seep production. The pond is approximately 0.4 acre and will be filled.
There are two primary man -made ditches located in the central, portion of NPII and along the eastern
portion of the easement bordering Cornwallis Road. The central ditch flows south and will be filled for
approximately 840 If until the confluence of Ti. The eastern ditch flows south and will be filled for
approximately 870 If until it encounters Cornwallis Road with an existing 24" corrugated metal pipe. The
swale adjacent to the CMP will be graded to redirect drainage away from the 24" CMP and into the field.
The eastern ditch he
two smaller joined ditches that flow southwest and they will be filled for
approximately 160 If and 250 If, respectively. The last ditch to be filled is located at the southeastern
portion of the NPII and flows southwest for approximately 376 If. Filling the pond and ditches will allow
the historic flow paths to reform and to slow the rate of water movement through the system to the
downslope wetlands.
The current functionality of the seeps is limited. Rehabilitation of the seeps will improve the water
quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and provide connectivity of habitat types and flow between the
down and up gradient resources. Rehabilitation of the existing wetlands will be accomplished by
restoring the historic flow paths through the system and re- forestation. The current drained hydric soils
within the project site will be reestablished to riparian wetland and the marginal existing wetlands will
be improved. By eliminating the ditched channels and returning the flow to a braided system, all of the
wetland /stream functions will be improved and the functions of the system will be significantly
increased compared to the existing conditions.
32

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
The wetland located at the head of Tributary 1 will be restored. The incision of T1 has led to the loss of
hydrology in the adjacent hydric soils. In order to restore hydrology to the wetland community, the
channel grade of T1 will be re- established at historic elevations and rehabilitating the wetland area.
Once the grading is completed, the disturbed'areas will be planted as Headwater Forest Community as
described in Section 7.1 and as shown on the planting plan in Appendix D.
Riparian Wetland Preservation - 0.8 acre
There are areas of existing forested wetlands that 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.
Reference Wetlands
The NPRS reference wetland will also be used for NPII.
Stream Enhancement 11 of Tributary 1— 8431f
The existing wetland located at the head of Tributary 1 will be rehabilitated. The incision of T1 has led to
the partial loss of hydrology in the adjacent hydric soils. In order to restore hydrology to the wetland
community, the channel grade of T1 will.be re- established at historic elevations to lengthen the wetland
hydroperiod and restore lost hydrologic function to the system. 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 planform 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. Invasive species removal and supplemental planting (as needed) will also occur in.
this area.
In the project plan sheets (Appendix D, Sheet 6), there is a typical cross - section for T1. Given this typical
cross - section and the designed grade of the floodplain, the designer will work with the equipment
operator to grade this low -flow channel through the valley. T1 will be graded to reconnect the channel
to its historic floodplain. It is the intention of the design for the low -flow channel to be sized so that
during most precipitation events and dependent on the seasonal elevation of the water table, the low -
flow channel capacity is exceeded and overbank flow is spread throughout the valley, accessing multiple
flow paths. A reference example of the proposed channel cross - section is best illustrated by the two
reference cross - sections (Appendix B). These cross - sections have a primary channel, but there are also
low areas adjacent to the channels that have flow in them during storm events.
In- stream structures, including riffle enhancement and log drops, will be used to stabilize the channel
(refer to Appendix D, Plan. Sheets 3 and 6). These structures are designed to reduce bank erosion,
influence secondary circulation in the near -bank region of stream bends, and provide grade control.
Riffle areas will also be enhanced with graded gravel material to mimic existing stable riffle features.
During construction, the number of mature trees removed from the existing riparian areas will be
minimized as much as possible. Any valuable trees that may provide immediate shade to the restored
channel will be left in place if feasible.
33

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Reference Stream
A short reach of T1, located approximately 300 If upstream of the existing project reach, was surveyed
by KCI in April 2014 (see Appendix B, Reference Sites). The sediment distribution and transport are the
same as at the project reach. Two stable riffle cross - sections were surveyed and classified as a C5
channel to be used as a dimensional reference. The stream flows through a headwater forest
community and has stable planform and banks with lower banks and a high width /depth ratio. Small
sand riffles are present and there is no evidence of bed degradation. The reach contains stable and
functional riffles and pools. The dimensionless hydraulic geometry relationships were developed from
stable channel dimensions to assist in the design of the proposed channel cross - sectional data for the T1
enhancement reach.
7.3 Data Analysis
Wetlands
In order to model the effect of filling the onsite ditches and the grading of the wetland restoration areas
of Norman's Pasture, DRAINMOD was used to simulate the before and after conditions. DRAINMOD is a
computer simulation water balance model that follows the groundwater elevation in the surface profile
using soil inputs, climatic data, and drainage conditions (NCSU 2013). It was originally developed for
agricultural drainage design, but has been adapted for evaluating wetland hydrology due to its modeling
of poorly drained soils over a time step.
Two different models were used for the site based on the two sets of recorded groundwater gauge data
available for model calibration from the growing season in 2012. Climatic data (daily rainfall and
maximum and minimum daily temperatures) were obtained from the Elizabethtown 3 SW COOP Station
(312732), approximately 35 miles southwest from the site and the closest station with at least 50 years
of daily rainfall data. For the model simulation, 54 years of available data were used (1959- 2012). The
daily rainfall was distributed to an hourly increment within the computer program. The temperatures
were used in the Thornthwaite potential evapotranspiration calculations. The soils data were obtained
from the NRCS parameters for the Bibb Johnston soil series and from onsite observations. Once the
baseline model was created in DRAINMOD, the parameters were calibrated to match the gauge data as
much as feasible. Variations between the recorded groundwater data and modeled levels exist due to
the difference in rainfall intensity between the site and the weather station. The gauge data also
showed more seasonal variation than could be accounted for in the model, likely from upslope seepage.
The wetland criteria were set to evaluate the groundwater saturation over the growing period of Feb 28
— Nov 21 (267 days) at 12% continuous saturation (32 days). Wetland hydrology was considered
achieved if the model reached 12% continuous saturation for 50% or more of the simulated years.
The Gauge 1 model was developed for the southern portion of the restoration area of NPRS in the open
field. For the existing conditions model, the average drain spacing for this area is approximately 145 feet
and the average drain depth is 1.0 foot between the field drains. The proposed conditions model has the
same drain spacing with a minimal depth to assume a small influence from the regraded wetland and
dispersed surface flow. The surface storage was also increased to 2.0 inches to account for increased
surface roughness in the restored wetland. Based on these conditions, the existing conditions model
showed that wetland hydrology was achieved 19 out of 54 years, or 35% of modeled years. For the
proposed conditions, the site achieved wetland hydrology for 45 out of 54 years, or 83 %.
34

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
The Gauge 2 model was used for the central field of the proposed restoration wetland of- NPRS. The
ditch spacing in this area was an average of 165 feet. The average drain depth is also 1.0 feet deep. For
the proposed. condition, the drain spacing was again kept the same and the surface storage was also
increased to 2.0 inches. The existing conditions model indicated 2 out of 54 years (4 %) with wetland
hydrology whereas the proposed conditions model predicted 42 out of 54 years, or 78 %.
Based on the model results, the site should show an increase in groundwater hydrology following
restoration that will lead to jurisdictional wetland conditions. The model results are included in
Appendix C.
35

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture II Restoration Sites
36

Mitigation Plan
7.5 Proposed
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
N
r�
1 •• ei 0)
i
P rt_
•a..._�•+ mot• ��
•J
' + +Oa t
Ile, t+
'::Extent of Project Parcels
NPRS Re- establishment (15.5 ac 115.5 WMUs)
NPRS Easement (36.9 ac)
NPRS Rehabilitation (0 7 ac 10 5 WMUs)
0 NPII Easement (16.3 ac)
NPRS Preservation (9.0 ac 10 WMUs)
— T1 - Enhancement It 843 If 1 337 SMUs
NPII Re- establishment (8 8 ac 18 8 WMUs)
Dispersed Flow Project Streams
NPII Rehabilitation (1.4 ac / 0.9 WMUs)
Other Streams
NPII Preservation (0.8 ac 10 WMUs)
PROPOSED MITIGATION TYPE
Image Source Eastern Piedmont
150 75 0 150 Or7rotmagery. 2013
NORMAN'S PASTUREINORMAN'S PASTURE II
®Feet
SAMPSON COUNTY, NC
37

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
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.
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The NPRS and NPII 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.
Stream Visual Assessment
During site walks, KCI will document any areas of erosion, invasive species problems, tree and shrub
mortality issues, bed aegradation or degradation, or other'problem area and evaluate whether or not
corrective actions are needed.
Wetland hydrology monitoring will be conducted to determine if the restored wetland areas meet the
proposed performance criteria for wetland hydrology. The site must present continuous saturated or
inundated hydrologic conditions for at least 9% of the growing season for the Headwater Forest
Community and 12% for the Riverine Swamp Forest Community during normal weather conditions
based on a conservative estimate. A "normal" year is based on NRCS climatological data for Sampson
County, and using the 30th to 70th percentile thresholds as the range of normal, as documented in the
USACE Technical Report "Accessing and Using Meteorological Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology, April
2000." The soil survey for Sampson County estimates that the growing season begins February 28 and
ends November 21 (267 days).
38

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Section 10 describes the monitoring requirements for the sites. Monitoring will comply with guidance
included in "Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland
Mitigation" (NCDENR EEP, 2011). Hydrologic performance will be determined through evaluation of
automatic recording gauge data supplemented by documentation of wetland hydrology indicators as
defined in the 1987 USACE Wetland.Delineation Manual. Daily data will be collected from automatic
wells over the 7 -year monitoring period following implementation. These data will determine if the
wetland meets the hydrology success criterion of the water table being within 12 inches of the ground
surface continuously for greater than 9% and 12% of the growing season.
Vegetation Success
The vegetation success criteria will comply with guidance included in "Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation" (NCEEP, 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.
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template. The monitoring report shall
provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends,
population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding
project close -out.
Norman's Pasture Restoration Site
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
Groundwater monitoring gauges with data
Yes
Groundwater
9 gauges
Annual
recording devices will be installed on -site;
Hydrology
the data will be downloaded on a monthly
basis during the growing season
During
Yes
Vegetation
18 permanent vegetation
monitoring
Vegetation will be monitored using the
monitoring plots
years 1, 2, 3,
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols
5, and 7.
Exotic and
Yes
nuisance
Annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation
vegetation
will be mapped
Yes
Project
Semi-annual
Locations of vegetation damage, boundary
boundary
I
encroachments, etc. will be mapped
39

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture II Restoration Sites
Norman's
Pasture II
Required
Parameter
Quantity
frequency
Notes
Groundwater monitoring gauges with data
Groundwater
recording devices will be installed on -site;
Yes
Hydrology
13 gauges
Annual
the data will be downloaded on a monthly
basis during the growing season
Surface
One pressure transducer gauge will be
Yes
Water
1 gauge
Annual
installed on site; the device will be inspected
Hydrology
every two months to document the
occurrence of bankfull events on the project
During
Yes
Vegetation
12 permanent vegetation
monitoring
Vegetation will be monitored using the
monitoring plots
years 1, 2, 3,
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols
5, and 7.
Exotic and
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation
Yes
nuisance
Annual
will be mapped
vegetation
Project
Locations of vegetation damage, boundary
Yes
boundary
Semi - annual
encroachments, etc. will be mapped
The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted during the first full growing season following project
completion. Monitoring shall subsequently be conducted annually for a total period of seven years or
until the project meets'its success criteria.
Groundwater elevations will be monitored to evaluate the attainment of jurisdictional wetland
hydrology. Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data
collected within the project area and reference wetland. Automatic recording gauges will be established
within the mitigation areas to document the presence of surface water (Refer to Appendix C, Proposed
Monitoring Plan). Daily data will be collected from the automatic gauges for a minimum of a 7- year
monitoring period following wetland construction. A nearby reference wetland will also be monitored
using the same procedures for comparative analysis (Refer to Appendix B for Reference Sites).
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 -m2 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. 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.
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.
40

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the sites will be transferred to the
NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program. This party shall
be responsible for periodic inspection of the sites to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed
restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently
houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands
Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North
Carolina General Statute GS 113A- 232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only
for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the
compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the
Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
. Upon completion of site construction KCI will implement the post- construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in
this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve
- site performance standards are jeopardized, KCI will notify the EEP and the USACE of the need to
- develop a Plan of Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in -house
technical staff or may require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is
prepared and finalized KCI will:
1. Notify the EEP and USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and /or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
has provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP. This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.
41

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
14.0 OTHER INFORMATION
14.1 Definitions
8 -digit Catalog Unit (CU) — The USGS developed a hydrologic coding system to delineate the country into
uniquely identified watersheds that can be commonly refe'i enced 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.
Taylor time — A geological time period during the black creek formation.
Refer to The Depositional Environment of the Upper Cretaceous Black Creek Formation in North and
South Carolina. Benson, PH lll. 1968. (Page iii and 110).
Carolina Geological Society. Guidebook of Excursion in The Coastal Plain of North Carolina. October 8 -9,
1955. H.E. LeGrand and P.M. Brown (Page 3, Table 1).
http:// www .carolinageologicalsociety.org /CGS /1950s— files /gb%201955.pdf
TLW - Targeted Local Watershed, are 14 -digit hydrologic units which receive priority for EEP planning
and restoration project funds.
USGS — United States Geological Survey
42

Mitigation Plan
14.2 References
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Benson, PH III. 1968. The Depositional Environment of the Upper Cretaceous Black Creek
Formation in North and South Carolina. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Environmental Laboratory._ 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report
Y -87 -1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J. R. Everhart, and
R.E. Smith, 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. Edited by D.S.- Olsen and,J.P. Potyondy.
American Water Resources Association. June 30 —July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2013. Surface Water Classification. Last accessed 5/2014 at:
http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /ps /csu
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2014 Draft 303(d) list. Raleigh, NC. Last accessed 5/2014 at:
http: // portal. ncdenr .org /web /wq /ps /mtu /assessment
NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009.
Raleigh, NC. Last accessed 2/2014 at:
http: / /www. nceep. net/ services /lwps/ cape_ fear /RBRP%20Cape%2OFear%202008.pdf
NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation. Last accessed 11/2012 at:
http:HPortal.ncdenr.org /c/ document _library /get file ?p_l_id = 1169848 &folderld = 2288101 &nam
e= DLFE- 39234.pdf
,NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2010. NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) User
Manual, version 4.1. Last accessed 11/2012 at: http:HPortal.ncdenr.org /c /document_
libra ry /get_file ?u u id= 76f3c58b -da b8- 4960- ba43 -45 b7faf06f4c &grou pl d =38364
NOAA, National Climatic Data Center. 2013. Climate Data Online - Elizabethtown, NC COOP Station
312732. Last accessed 6/2013 at: http: / /www.ncdc.noaa.gov /cdo -web /.
North Carolina Archaeological Council. 2011. The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological
Symposia. Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and R.P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
http: / /www.rla.unc.edu /NCAC /Publications /NCAC30 /index.html
North Carolina State University. 2013. DRAINMOD Computer Model. Last accessed 10/2013 at:
www. bae .ncsu.edu /soil_water /drainmod/
Schafale, M.P. and Weakley, A. S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC
43

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Sprecher, S.W. 2000. Accessing and Using Meteorological Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology.
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Operations Division, Regulatory Branch.
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. 1985. Soil Survey of Sampson County. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Winner M.D., JR. and Coble, R.W. 1996. Hydrogeologic Framework of the North Carolina Coastal Plain.
Regional Aquifer- System Analysis Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1404 -1.
44

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Appendix A. Site Protection Instrument

BK:01862 PG-0104
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
SAMPSON COUNTY
SPO File Number 82 -J
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
FILED
SAMPSON COUNTY
ELEANOR N. BRADSHAW
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FILED Jun 17, 2013
AT 0417,17 pm
BOOK 01862
START PAGE 0104
END PAGE 0113
INSTRUMENT # 03608
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL. DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this � -day of
�✓,C 2013, by KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction Inc., a
Delaware corporation ( "Grantor "), whose mailing address is Landmark Center 11, Suite 220,
4601 Six Forks Road, Raleigh NC 27609, to the State of North Carolina; ( "Grantee "), whose
mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property Office,
1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee
as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include
singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating arid preserving wetland
and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality. flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities, and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between KCI Technologies,
Inc., Landmark Center II, Suite 220, 4601 Six Points Road, Raleigh NC 27609 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 005010.

BK:01862 PG:0105
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of' this
instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Turkey Township, Sampson County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 69.70 acres and
being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book at Page Hof
the Sampson County Registry, North Carolina; and 116 �1 jes -9BI
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 Stewart 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 "1" containing a total of 3.51 acres and Conservation Easement "2"
containing a -total of 33.41 acres as shown on the plats of survey entitled "Final Plat,
Conservation Easement for North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Project Name:
Norman's Pasture Wetland Restoration Site, EEP Site No. 95717, SPO File No. 82 -3:
Property of KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction, Inc.," dated April 15, 2013
by Matthew M. Crawford, PLS Number L -4257 and recorded in the Sampson County, North
Carolina Register of Deeds at Plat Book --- SZ3 Page 39
2

B K: 01862 PG: 0106
See attached "Exhibit A ", Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
"Easement Area ".
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and /or riparian resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Easement Area in its natural
condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will
significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following
conditions and restrictions are set forth:
L DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
IL GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly reserved as a
compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is prohibited
as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation credits, including, but
not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived from each site within
the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the Grantee. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are prohibited, restricted, or
reserved as indicated:
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.
3

BK:01862 PG -0107
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.
1. 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.
W 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

BK -01862 PG:0108
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,
Ill. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of 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.
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
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 alter 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
5
w

BK:01862 PG -0109
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.
1). 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. 'Phis instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property. except as expressly
provided, herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
N

BK:01862 PG-0110
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.
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
7

BK :01862 PG:0111
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.
KCI Environ a tal chnologies and Construction Inc., C010:T
a Delaw e c ion �
L
[CORPORATE SEA 9 "i
IV
B : ,'t� : at 40
ep if r, Jr., Vice President �,g
too #804,110'
ST TE O R CAROLINA t °� ie A,.r.r,sdmr�'
UNTY OF WAKE Sf
I, k i Notary Public for said County and State, certify that Joseph P.
Pfeiffer, Jr. person came before me this day and acknowledged that he is Vice President of
KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction Inc., a corporation, and that by authority
duly given and as the act of the corporation the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by
him as its Vice President.
Witness my hand and official seal, this the day of , 2013.
(Notary Se l J
tNIPt��
(R4 124 LLNotary Public
�pTAIp ��n :.LP
My Commission Expires:
E c0�'

BK -01862 PG-0112
Exhibit A
KCI ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES AND CONSTRUCTION, INC
CONSER VA TION EASEMENT I
A parcel of land to be used for Conservation Easement purposes located on lands now or
formerly owned by KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction, Inc. located in Turkey
Township, Sampson County, North Carolina and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a found pk nail in the centerline of a bridge on Cornwallis Road (60 foot right -
of -way) at the Southeast corner of said lands owned by KCI Environmental 'Technologies and
Construction, Inc. point having North Carolina State Plane Coordinates of N: 420546.49. E:
2255707.65; Thence South 41 °23'38" West on the centerline of Stewart Creek a distance of
31.15 feet to the Fast line of Cornwallis Road; Thence North 32 °58'20 " West on the Westerly
line of Cornwallis Road a distance of 338.94 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Thence S 10 °43'26" E a distance of 155.93 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 14 004'47" W a distance of 147.75 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap,
Thence S 79 °42'41 " W a distance of 277.40 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 2211514" 14" W a distance of 171.74 feet to a found capped iron pin;
Thence N 13 °48'35" W a distance of 355.51 feet to a found capped iron pin;
Thence N 58 1155'19" E a distance of 324.39 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 31 °34'08" W a distance of 153.99 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence N 57 °04'31 " E a distance of 116.22 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap on the
Westerly line of Cornwallis Road;
Thence S 35 °05'23" E on the Westerly line of Cornwallis Road, a distance of 36.36 feet to a 5/8
inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 33 °38'37" E, continuing on the Westerly line of Cornwallis Road, a distance of 167.01
feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 32 °58'20" E. continuing on the Westerly line of Cornwallis Road, a distance of 39.64
feet to the Point of Beginning.;
Containing 152,808 square feet or 3.51 acres, more or less.
KCI ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES AND CONSTRUCTION, INC
CONSER VA TION EASEMENT 2
A parcel of land to be used for Conservation Easement purposes located on lands now or
formerly owned by KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction, Inc. located in Turkey
Township, Sampson County, North Carolina and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said lands now or formerly owned by KCI Environmental
Technologies and Construction, Inc; said point being in the center of Stewart Creek and having
North Carolina State Plane coordinates of N: 1019404.12, E:2485678.80;
"Thence on the centerline of Stewart Creek the following 36 calls:
(1) S 63)'10'39" W a distance of 39.44 feet to a point;
9

BK:01862 PG -0113
(2)
S 7710'36"
W a distance of 39.50 feet to a point;
(3)
N 83 °55'22"
W a distance of 39.67 feet to a point;
(4)
N 40'56'16"
W a distance of 71.95 feet to a point;
(5)
S 81'51'57"
W a distance of 41.05 feet to a point;
(6)
S 40 °35'46"
W a distance of 58.75 feet to a point;
(7)
S 15'19'45"
W a distance of 60.41 feet to a point;
(8)
S 42 °52'50"
W a distance of 29.34 feet to a point;
(9)
S 75 °21'05"
W a distance of 24.34 feet to a point;
(10)
S 86 °59'32"
W a distance of 114.21 feet to a point;
(.11)
S 71-40'00",
W a distance of 64.17 feet to a point;
(12)
S 46 °55'35"
W a distance of 31.70 feet to a point;
(13)
S 82-13'50"
W a distance of 94.99 feet to a point;
(14)
S 44 °17'03"
W a distance of 56.69 feet to a point;
(15)
S 12 °32'33"
W a distance of 28.61 feet to a point;
(16)
S 39 °09'29"
W a distance of 69:91 feet to a point;
(17)
S 64 °29'35"
W a distance of 120.63 feet to a point;
(18)
S 71-24'0 1 "
W a distance of 65.52 feet to a point;
(19)
N 82 °08'34"
W a distance of 42.83 feet to a point;
(20)
N 21-32'48"
W a distance of 59.95 feet to a point;
(21)
N 44-11'25"
W a distance of 52.77 feet to a point;
(2 2)
S 84-16'02"
W a distance of 47.71 feet to a point;
(23)
S 42 °24'17"
W a distance of 36.51 feet to a point;
(24)
S 11-58'33"
E a distance of 90.17 feet to a point;
(25)
S 28 °05'41"
W a distance of 35.46 feet to a point;
(26)
S 05 °31'43"
E a distance of 30.19 feet to a point;
(27)
S 46-59'18"
E a distance of 29.46 feet to a point;
(28)
S 23 °52'03"
W a distance of 46.07 feet to a point;
(29)
S 62-1515" 15"
W a distance of 41.74 feet to a point;
(30)
N 77 °11'46"
W a distance of 55.60 feet to a point;
(31)
N 40 °07'39"
W a distance of 121.17 feet to a point;
(32)
N 49 °42'46"
W a distance of 105.86 feet to a point;
(33)
N 24 °05'26"
W a distance of 149.79 feet to a point;
(34)
N 47 °29'42"
W a distance of 38.20 feet to a point;
(35)
N 86 °00'22"
W a distance of 50.94 feet to a point;
(36)
S 83-0017"
W a distance of 30.88 feet to a point at the Southeast corner of lands
now or formerly
owned by Melvin Koregay (DB 1383 PG 363);
• Thence N 01'06'33" E, on the East line of said lands owned by Melvin Koregay, a distance of
• 111 1.24 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
"Thence N 57 °58'50" E a distance of 247.50 feet to a a 5/8 inch rebar set with aluminum cap;
Thence S 75 °15'00" E a distance of 618.24 feet to a found capped iron pin;
• Thence S 44 °27'58" E a distance of 687.41 feet to a found capped iron pin;
• Thence S 13 °48'35" E a distance of 355.51 feet to a found capped iron pin;
Thence S 34 °56'04" E a distance of 74.12 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 1,455,436 square feet or 33.41 acres, more or less.
IN

--.1 ":771-
CERTIFICATE OF RE IATION BY REGISTER OF DEEDS
XJ JOHNSON ROAD
T.1
SIR NO 1942 °' ='M' 2
-IN I- GFEG E A,
Tx
110
toll
0
x
;F.
T
D, '!'57`G I0
VICINITY MAP
LEGEND
'4-
110
toll
0
x
;F.
T
D, '!'57`G I0
VICINITY MAP
FINAL PLAT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1-
PR NOR- lAFClEYSTElFNNAN-lENIlN=,,.
­CT NAME I-- RASWRE ­0 RESTO
EEP P-7 1 9577
EYO FILE NO - PROPERTY - -
IF,
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS, SUP-ORS A;'D FLA-EPS
KCI
LEGEND
FINAL PLAT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1-
PR NOR- lAFClEYSTElFNNAN-lENIlN=,,.
­CT NAME I-- RASWRE ­0 RESTO
EEP P-7 1 9577
EYO FILE NO - PROPERTY - -
IF,
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS, SUP-ORS A;'D FLA-EPS
KCI

in I I IRA
HIE A
A A I i�

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Appendix B. Baseline Information Data

•
A
Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
USACE Wetland Determination Forms

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: �/�Jr1'% t',� �c,/I �,�
City/County: � Sampling Date:
12-
Applicant/Owner: ed,7i e' - ��
State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): -5, Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ):G_ -/ - -� ..n' �.c. / c r�Ai "" Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLR /A): LA h 1 " Let: 3�� °S� / � " Long: � 78 •o ©$ `j " Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Gl{. ZI L V")/" ,.c "` NWI classification: _ r Vti! B
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V✓ No (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.
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes t-"' No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V' No
within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No
a
r"
MYOKOLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
_ Water Marks (B1) _
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 Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
✓ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ ✓FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (89)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
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 capillary fin e
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: n P-0 I
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1• That Are 0BL, FACW, or FAC:
2.
3 Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
4.
5,
6.
7.
8.
= Taal Cover
50% of total 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:
2. 'Je6 le, /)P;�`. /J75f� <C: C'I�D f'i /S x`171 ?zismS 0 i C IAJ
3.C2FCnt ;� C /r %.i �r 19ic�, e, etrrl_e /e. 2D ✓ f
4. o i ivy h
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: u 20% of total cover: 1 g
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
7- (A)
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A(B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
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 53.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall.
Woody vine -Ali woody vines greaterthan 3.28 ft In
height.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 204'0 of total cover: Present?
hological adaptations
C12." t,n7 C/�t. 6;1 'c' <<. 1114 .7'V
US Army Corps of Engineers
Yes No
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3:
(inches)
Color (moist)
% Color (moist) % Type'
Loc' Texture Remarks
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
-fs L.
y_
ICtig- ` ;L
�7,5u 2
L.
_ 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 (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
'Type: C= Concentration, D=De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Mesked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3:
_ Histosol (A1) -
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A8) (LRR O)
_ Histic Wpedon (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 (1718) (outside M LRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed 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 (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)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ ,Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
, Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochnc (F17) (M LRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Sails (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (M LRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
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
ProjectlSite: %JDl2r'r A-.) ,5 r;t +x, y/,l �r� City/County: �i;y,Y,�S�3„ Sampling Date: f '�a °I ?.,
ApplicanUOwner. x� �% 55c7 C "ice %pS G>r' !��' r State: AIC Sampling Point: b P i�= -c!N'
Investigator(s): S. SXGl.s Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc,): A612 4 6 11-141' Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) :: LA R % Let: .� hl X 551 /A Long: %do n U9 ' 57 rr / Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: _ C!1 �Q I erg NWI classification: 1104
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V' No (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? Yes No Y"
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No V--' Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Remarks: �
Jb'c,t1! -1 /t� l ,t �°��/� L_�•r�,1 %,�'�£xJ�e.l,�tt.f
HYDROLOGY
and Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum
ary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
rH!gh
of two required)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
urface Water (At)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Water Table (A2)
_ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dr¢- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
1Z 1.
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
`�. Depth (inches): > 1 t7
Saturation Present? Yes No
includes ca il ia ri n e
i
W' Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
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.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1,
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
Sampling Point: i`r '�.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
°°/ Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
= Total 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: /f) )
4, lxt�F_t111L�`(!t%aA�GIF'$luFYl flipl��1 tl�ldfiYj e�} C.tv
5. !
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
� 0 d = Total Cover
501/6 of total cover: 96 20% of total cover: 2-0
50% of total cover:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: :) (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: -5 (NB)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A=
nyoropnync vegeiauon indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
V" 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 Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
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.
Hydrophyttc
=Total Cover Vegetation
20% of total cover.
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

•
•
•
•
•
Sampling Point: pPd% 9- /J"'
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
Matrix
Color (moist)
%
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Twel
Loc Texture Remarks
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Hisfic 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 Gleyed Matrix (F2)
w_
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
f I � t,
_n � ���,
roo
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
s•2
(MLRA 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
sp,
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains
�Locat(on PL =Pore Linin M- Matrix
Hydric Soll.lndicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Hisfic 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 Gleyed Matrix (F2)
w_
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (AS)
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 (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)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ 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) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Type:
Depth (inches):
19tC!• <.';6r� }° (card °LCr{ ti�4.i�-.t.4L[!l 4� /L•.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 4-`'
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
r
Project/Site: * 6 -tar f) b /f6�`ft'hc. City/County: `I fl /S.•�ELt, �r�f'17�JS62At Sampling Date: _1 ? -" `] 11—
Applicant/Owner: )V' // State: AC Sampling Point: L P Ioq -15 q
Investigator(s): S..5�614eS Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ): _ f E..e t24.S51'.4 Local relief (concave, convex, none): (evuu. + "a Slope ( %), 0 - I
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): L R P, Let: o:%/ '/� r Long: °� c y `i C1 '
" � 9 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: T4�✓1 ct,yt yes NWI classification: pF 1'Y) I {
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes i.. No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓, Soil —,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No t%
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. irnnnrtnnt faahrrac ate
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓" No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Is the Sampled Area
l-'' -• No ,rte
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes 11 No—
Remarks: / �t
P Ae, / f7t t�� fF C -f� I• i eF,(� :'�Af f.' f! ,
fl l IJRVLVV r
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required- check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (BB)
_ Surface Water (A1)
✓ High Water Table (A2)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
` Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (82)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (83)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aenal Imagery (CO)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
=11 Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_✓ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
If Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes y/ No
Depth (inches): 1 1-
Saturation Presents Yes No Depth (inches): ICS
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes yr No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

r
i
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) OACaver Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sampling Point: b P y `k
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: - 100 (AB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6' _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7' _✓"2 - Dominance Test is >500/6
8. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% oft otal cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1. &Fr f4u,,A Sri Rlt.rfg dY N tj a 9,j y`
2.5T- ,cAr .0f` /.✓�;1°_ '!
s
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
/0 =Total Covet
50% of total cover: 35 200/6 of total cover: 1 `�
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
'Indicators of hydric 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.
SaplinglShrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
then 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater then 3.28 It in
height.
4.
5' Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation f'
501/6 of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Present? Yes }` No
US Army Corps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point 3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matnx
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) °/a
Color (moist) % Type' Loc'
Texture Remarks
4p_ 1/1 100
1<
G,- r /0o2
I
'Type- Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS--Masked Sand Grains.
2 Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic EpIpedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 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 Gleyed 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 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (Ag) (LRR P, T)
_ Mart (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (M LRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
d Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes v/ No
�uny��cG- azG "°c�t�if i c 40 r�. /� >i ek .
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2,0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: -1J :�; F);t,<A I' %r,?f,tir. City /County: -:;J1 ts, Sampling Date: i)-- %- 12
Appllcant/Owner: State: NG —�W— a <bt 15�
Sampling Point: )> - ! /J W H i
Investigator(s): `�, t�i�3�;,.1, � Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ): X11 ZI L4'It 5 Local relief (concave, convex, none): �.r i +� �! r k Slope ( %). I 7
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): L 2 r Lat: 3 4%' o r�/ y Long: r�� ©d q , 0S 'I Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: i!b /P NWI classification: njos) N:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No 6"'
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed. exntain nnv Ancwa- t„ Qe. rt— ,
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.
Hydrophyhc Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓
Hydrlc Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No w''' within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
Uzi
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators +two
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
(mi r guired)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (At) _ 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 (Cl)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (82)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) _
Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ 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):
Saturation Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
I
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf •Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sampling Point: Dp=
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
"_ /o Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
7.
x 1 =
FACW species
8
FAC species
x 3 =
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum 0
Stratum (Plot size: 1 )
1._heerhl,5rd9r16. tt1:i- �•4dRt9lttn.yVipt.it. i5
= Total Cover
20% of total cover.,
� � ✓ 611e
2.
Ar,r0 n 1601; '13 ill;'PoLiu M
20 ✓ FhCit-
3.
&Aiz 6,eA a5oa.Luh, ' iio4iL -tit rn
.20 V" FAe-K,
4.
���r_�'�iXo^f,.E, °77 �U.��ri±, fti�d a�.1Ltt�j
� r/1 r-
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.-
10.
11.
12.
1.05 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 50 20% of total cover: 2LO
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
7.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x4=
UPI. species
x5=
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 53.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater then 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
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.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No V
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Pant: bP#
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (mast) %
Color (moist) % T e Loc Texture Remarks
0 _ � Ifl ' 3
11
St 0-5 �3r y� r�t/1�<,•�r,
1. t 1e,14 s!
5I 7 4'�
_ SIC
— 15 l O y(< "n
7. S o 51r PO
S - 113 ) n YR 109 Cl 0
10 Yw 5/-s 1 o [°. KA
,05
�P za Y /2,
'Type: 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 Hyddc SoIW:
_ 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 Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_, Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (1`3)
_, Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1518)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_, Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_, Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
! Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) _ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T. U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochnc (1717) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (86)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A,151C,153D)
_ Dark Surface (87) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
/
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
US Army Corps of Engineers
•
Atlantic and Guif Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: RJ6r- 1- ,V:L"1•S At5%icAf City/County: SA %r„p l,t Sampling Date:
Appllcant/Owner: eo f /�, f ,A�.jx�, Sampling Point: ��( ^�; >r 01.'� 111)
State:
Investigator(s): S, s ye kf . Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): L-P-)7 rll s,/ Slope ( %): 6) j
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): r Let: 31Z- o ' f : 0 Long: — %2 c d 9 ' 0 3 u Datum:
^y ,
Soil Map Unit Name: 7 _ 1AJ, NWI classification: Pr 4ti1 I
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes v''µ No (it no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓", Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No V-"
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 c• "' No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes c No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauir d)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired' check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
High
Aquatic Fauna (813)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U)
✓Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (82) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
M'Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (03)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (69)
_ Sphagnum moss (08) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 10
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring welt, 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.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sampling Point: 5
%Cover Species Status Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
= Total Cover
50% of total 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: )
2, 5'&4 r.J �u0[RU5 .S,P- 85 _ jrP V' CI,i1
-�--r
3. SOFrf ,S /,- 'ama�, t,(YasttS` 30 ✓ OLL
4. ionlwinPiei ni -%p
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
FO =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 106 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
X5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is X50%
_ 3 - Prevalence index is 53.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Veaetation Strata!
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tail.
Herb -Ali herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It 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: n LL '3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loci
Texture Remarks
160
'Type: 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 Solis':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Fp1pedon (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 Gleyed 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 (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (1711) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (81) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ 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 – Version 2.0

i
•
•
•
•
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProjecbSite: I(/ 1)(r1 -; ,� /iC1`al�,rllf Ci t /Count : Sampling Date:—,,',, c..
r% -1
Applicant/Owner: JC`ii'• �`.�5l9C� fY -_S Ir A)e-- State: AIL'— Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): -5- SyeA05 Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc,): c ? r�',fl�e� .. Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LP 2• i' Lat: .3�f r r �/ u Long: — 78 O Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes t,,.. No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No "yV
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 Soil Present? Yes �_ No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓'�
Remarks:
h TUKULU(i Y
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two re uir d)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (A1)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
i Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (810)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ 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 Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
` Geomorphic Positron (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (DS)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (DB) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): ---
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: b P"`'
12.
SO =Total Cover
50% of total cover: L• D _ 20% of total cover: I
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5• Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
�
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC- (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total %Cover of: Multipivbv:
OBL species x 1 =
8.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size: )
FAC species x 3 =
1
FACU species x 4 =
UP species X5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A=
2
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
_✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
B.
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hyddc soil and wetland hydrology must
1,
�cLhl2raP•'�Y�• /fiS Ci�t(n� no��tri.m'.,',: �o FAe-v-
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
4 em sorime - (2nir;ope),7c�, %iLh�ollCue 30 ✓ FA
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
3. /fir. ��i,�.i?s; - l w��S 4yza��4 ) 0-=
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous non -woody) ( ody) plants, regardless
5
6.
7,
8•
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
10.
11.
height.
12.
SO =Total Cover
50% of total cover: L• D _ 20% of total cover: I
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5• Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Pant:
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 (mast) - % Loc'
Texture Remarks
y' '// 160
5 C.
7 3
- 'r
10 •• �? ! � �r2 �'� ! b EJ
:5
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Send Grains.
2 Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosd (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 Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3) 1
_ 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 (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)
_ Marl (1710) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
✓Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (M LRA 151)
_
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochhc (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1506)
_ Sandy Redox (85)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (M LRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Type:
Depth (inches):
L61�1eC're°
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓r No '
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: _ Ak�f`/ '*-". rJ} -'!x T ? /rfF'r,. City /County: Sampling Date: % -
Applicant/Owner: M cr State: /✓�_ Sampling Point: �'' "` r _(� tJl • 1
Investigator(s): 15. 5 xOt'S Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, eta): Local relief (concave, convex, none): - Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): G 2 E' 7- Let:.3� 0.5il- 1 06" Long: - 78 61' 07" Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: - L 1.(/991ie� NWI classification: AJP,rlL
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V" No (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? Yes No �
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ll No within a Wetland? Yes No d�
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
7 l/J17t�13r e-D60 rv'e,�!dG6cs o
%2(1 Ef it- i "��d <jfc! r l+�Z,(rr f��4•r.xY`. AP-- % Ou ik
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required- check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ Aquatic Fauna (813)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Hydrogen Suede Odor (Cl)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ 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 (134)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
— Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (69)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No V"' Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No ✓ Depth (inches): ?
Saturation Present? Yes
No _V"' Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. `
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover species? Status
1.
OBL species
2.
FACW species
3.
FAC species
4.
FACU species
5.
UPL species
6.
Column Totals:
7.
8.
= Total Cover
50,6 of total 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: )
1.�u�) ".�i(ylknl �. ��t,:i{`��taw9 ^t f10ill�L(hj �CIL�
2.
3.
4.
5. ,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
I erO = Total Cover
50% oft otal cover: 5 20% of total cover: ZO
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2:
3.
4.
5.
(If
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: _
S
Sampling Point: �) 10
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: I (B)
Percent of Dominant Species O
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_✓ 2 - Dominance Test is X50%
_
3,- Prevalence Index is 53.0' "
_ Problematic Hydrophytc Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tail.
Herb -AII herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3,28 It in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No °f
US Anny Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

SOIL
n:
or confirm the
Sampling Pant: i ��»�F- f✓� -
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc" Texture Remarks
p ' I fG1 "'.' �i�i' ,k
1i1' %ter ) % C VY%
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
'Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Salle:
_ Histosoi (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 (171) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (1718) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (1720)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
(M LRA 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochdc (1711) (M LRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
✓Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (1718) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (1720) (M LRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
F � � A�'�i� cSCt.- ('� /LG'% !. °•?I d2. <�Z• ?�- �.dS1r,l%'�te] C�J�'- .t��!,; , °�.J .�i.� .r: %'' = °-:.',= !�t1:+�t,,
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
i
•
•
•

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Able l:kl,y,IJ tu'`s`,J' +n;?- 4.000', -4-00e'019-1e-Al e+. City /County: 1 ka.�:l der i/)gi7. ,;ri Sampling Date: 3 - -9-i.3
Applicant/Owner: State: NG Sampling Point: ���*
8 L4- Wiq °5
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
c
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): tr Q,og,� ', S! nn Local relief (concave, convex, none); ('.(} r1 Cr11�f- Slope ( %) 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): L. fS '"f I-at: are 5 " 2, �, (� PJ Long: ° r0 P d �t l 2 • .� A 'VJ Datum: i /4 j.) ?r
Soil Map Unit Name: _ %�U /'.T,br.;rs !IIA e'; e,OJy- NWI classification: f
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (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, transacts, important features. etc_
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes v' No
within a Wetland? Yes ti No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes t-' No
Remarks:
NYUKULUUY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ _ Surface Soil Cracks (86)
✓Surface Water (A1) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
` Moss Trim Lines (B76)
_ Water Marks (B1) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aenal Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
✓ Water- Stairied Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
-
Surface Water Present? Yes i✓ No
Depth (inches): O
Water Table Present? Yes \-'' No
Depth (inches): S u rzF ✓1 Eu?
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �- ' No
includes ca ills frin e
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
3Q. Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree 9Stratum ([Plot size: ) u C e Species? Status
2. % -!4 ?'t pft,Ln[i iz, rV, f'a', t -�
VIL41, Q+tEi dC) C*:t1
4. �
5.
6,
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 161
1. 1/6 4a e.rti
= Total Cover
50 20% of total cover: 2L
)
36 rAr-
2.
x 1 =
FACW species
3.
FAC species
x 3 =
4.
x4=
U PL species
5.
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
6.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
7.
height.
12
8.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: I M )
1. SCr,fri'ttirttS cerraciia'�
3 D = Total Cover
15 20% of total cover. 6
2C3 �-°" O(*�
3.
4.
5.
6' Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
Samplinq Point: ()P#1 9
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: r 50 (A/B)
Tote % Cover of
Multiply by-
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x4=
U PL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A=
Mydrophytic 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 Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
10.
11.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
12
30 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: r )
1. G� ✓ I�f1C..1
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
30 =Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: JQ 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: bp# 6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth_ needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains.
'Type: C= Concentration. D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix MS--Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining M= MatrIxC=
2Location: PL =Pore Lining M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histoscl (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 Gieyed Matrix (F2)
— Piedmont Floodplain Sods (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 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
— Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbdc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy, Mucky Mineral (31) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochri c (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A,150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
— Stripped Matrix (S6)
^ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
.✓' Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (ifobserved):
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
Project/Site: _it �!' s /;' ji 'f;: + ='f, City/County: J €,, FS r Sampling Date: 3-29-1
Applicant/Owner: C Z fl �Sf :re r JT ,VC f State: NG. Sampling Point: Dew, g Al tti)
Investigator(s):..-..5- Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( %)
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Z-Ak 7- ` Let. 3 +� 54 , �44, g' Long: °r /, o r"?, f : w d Datum: IVA -b &'3
Soil Map Unit Name:­ ltlok - =<sr . E�.2r %:
NWI classification: AkI.Od.
Are climatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓' No (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, 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 %,I'
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two —required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that apply)
f Surface Soil Cracks (86)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (615) (LRR, U)
— Drainage Patterns (1310)
— Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (13 1) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ 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 (CO)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): 1 "
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No V° '
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: LE tl
Trer Stratum (Plot size: )
vununalu uiuwcawi
°oC e e i Status
uuimnance lest wontsneet:
�n "C-lk
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant t�
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species ff//
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: rItJ /!t (A/g)
2.
3. _ _ /Ill t4S iE&e clfk .
4.
5
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
8.
1 Q = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
55 20% of total cover: 2-?.
FACW species x 2 =
Saolina/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size:
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A=
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
7.
= Total Cover
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators
1.
of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be disturbed
present, unless or problematic.
2'
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
3.
4'
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 -All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
8.
9'
of size, and woody plants less then 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
10.
11.
12.
) n = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover. 2
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. _!%was
roYu �aCi (��r�
9-Q ✓ /3G
2.
Hydrophytic
3.
4.
5.
D = Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
I Q 20% of total cover: _
Present? Yes 4'° No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-t�-q A/Inl
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solle:
Redox Features
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist)
% Type' Loc
Texture _ Remarks
0-R
o VIZ 2f , /
DO
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
5,9
$ -/D
l0 y z `)_'
la0
(MLRA 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
/45-13
fp
104)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Is
).3° i r
�j
1�� Lj�L. /
-1 5
Lf Y
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
5 z�
lo�a ;/�s'
%6
A 0-
_
,Z
unless disturbed or problematic.
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains.
'Location: PL =Pore Lining M= Matrix
Hydric Boll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solle:
_ 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 (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed 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 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
e Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Merl (1`70) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F71) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
91ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150 B)
_ Sandy Redox (85) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I%"
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Reference Sites

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Reference Wetland
r
r
r

K C
ASSOCIATES or SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NOM CAMIXNA, PA
Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P A. Date: September 27, 2013
Project: Norman's Pasture Project #: 20111232P -CF 06
County: Sampson State: NC
Location: Corwalhs Road at Stewart's Cieek Site/Lot: Reference Wetland
Soil Series: Torhunta
Soil Classification: Coarse - loamy, siliceous, active, acid, thermic Typic Humaquepts
AWT: 24" 0 -12" Slope: 0 -3% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly to Very Poorly Drained Permeability: Moderately rapid or Moderate
Vegetation: Forested Wetland
Borings terminated at _
50 inches
HORIZON
DEPTH (IN)
MATRIX
MOTTLES
TEXTURE
STRUCTURE
CONSISTENCE
BOUNDARY
NOTES
Al
0 -8
10YR 2/1
IN
If r
mfr
cs
A2
8 -11
10YR 3/1
ifs
I mgr
mfr
cw
B I
I1 -17
10YR 3/2
2.5YR 3/4c2p
A
Ifsbk
mfr
cw
B 2
17 -23
1 OYR 4/1
IOYR 4/3c2d
sl
1 fsbk
mfr
cw
B 3
23 -27
10YR 3/1
1 fsl
1 fsbk
ml
9w
B 4
27 -31
IOYR 4/1
is
I fsbk
ml
gw
B 5
31 -40
1 OYR 5/2
s
sg
ml
gw
B S
40 -50
10YR 5/2
I OYR 4/3c2f
s
sg
ml
COMMEN'T'S:
The Torhunta series is a very poorly drained sod in upland bays and on stream terraces in Coastal Plain.
The'l'orhunta series is formed in coarse to medium textured, marine or fluvial deposits
This Torhunta series Is a hydnc soil
This Torhunta sod has slow runoff, moderately rapid permeability
DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE 9/27/2013

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
/n1�
Project/Site: l'ijf.)/L,�w)nl �"5�'1ey" /� fa,2c"tct Ciry /Count : I.r /�.: tt ,
Y / f ?u% < -c.7 %I Sampling Date: ,x. I 1
ApplicanUOwner: I " -i i:r;; >�i % %,; ,7rr. r; —fir State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): �? �;� %L %c_ `;i ; t` _ %i - Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc.): %r -> „ear` <`•' lfpY.� Local relief (concave, convex, none), (.'.E;tt.c'r';' . Slope (%):l.)- .3
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LA (` P Let: ftl ;) `' ' '31, i' Long: %c1 /% %<t; "0c''S ' 417, ? Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: irn 4,A cc;,;; ,K_• NWI classification: P i C) i A
Are climatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (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? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes -' No within a Wetland? Yes �'r No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes v- No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired� check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (At)
_ Aquatic Fauna (813)
, Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Marl Deposits (Bt 5) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
✓ Saturation (A3)
_ Hydrogen Suede Odor (C1)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (81)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Presence of Reduced fron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (133)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No ✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes k,'" No
includes capillary, fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

i
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 004 1
US Army Corps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: Ci )
u Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: tC� (A/B)
2. A4 A11,,-!)
3._ltc'QCttt titti,t,.�_ 2�i ✓ 1=ti'.
YHrSA� t,,, %_, jtx;.cc�7�s:.t`� ;.?�? v`" •r'�
'
5, W
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
8.
i l = Total Cover
50% of total cover: ru^ t
20% of total cover: -
FACW species x2=
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: i n )
FAC species x3=
1. _�,�P. ! /;i„ c`rl! rn ha, )11 .. L1a i ' ' f.. Pik -,Z
(a
/ f 1, !,�
FACU species x4=
UPL species X5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A=
; c;
2. f' f >r:; V, , .i.a , Pc %l f k,; ` ) ti ' / r GtaJ
�—'
3.
4•
5•
Hydrophylle Vegetation Indicators:
6•
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7
Z2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8•
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
�O = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 15
20% of total cover: (p
_
Herb Stratum (Plot size: i 617 )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1. P,9 IA he. A y , i /,ti,Ai irDQ�/, tDJt >Y.':'s i 0
F!,� t !
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2. (`` =1r ;= ; f,= !;}s„ .; w'hr ? t..
}t
1" e.va
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
height.
SaplinglShrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
then 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tell.
Herb —All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
5
6•
7,
8.
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
10.
11.
height.
12.
q0
= Total Cover
50% cf total cover:
20% of total cover: €:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 )
1,- Spux�rg t���:<; �� , "��,i;.�.fC: €�,,,,,- �,�t�;rtt ��.,_;��
,
roe_
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
2. SD—tefixf- ;Altb,( ('(ttL",eY. n ,j 14' i Ifs �"' ��•!1'
3. �j {
4.
5.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: `) 5
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes V No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
r f
US Army Corps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Pant:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) °/a
Cdor (mastl % Type ' Loc'
Texture Remarks
0. I O u' I� '41 loo
w�
ar'�
2 >'a9 I0cf� JOCK
`!
I bo
5
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2 Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (SS) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside fdILRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (173)
_ 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 (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (AS) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (AS) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochhc (1`17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (85)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Ho
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

I
ll V

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites -
Reference Stream

River Basin: ICape
Fear
Watershed:
Normans Pasture Q, TI Reference
XS ID
XS I Reference
Drainage Area (sq nu):
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Date:
4/14/2014
Field Crew:
A. French, T. Seelin er
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
8.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.9
Flood Prone Width:
120
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
21.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
105
103
j
0 101
99
97 J_
0
Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Site
XSl- Reference
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Station 66-1)

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Normans Pasture B, TI Reference
XS ID
XS2 Reference
Drainage Area mi):
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Date:
4/14/2014
Field Crew:
A. French, T. Seelin er
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
99.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area:
2.7
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.1
Flood Prone Width:
110
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W -/D Ratio:
19.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
1503
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
105
103
G
2 101
99
Norman's Pasture Il Restoration Site
XS2- Reference
97
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Station (feel)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Reference Locations

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture II Restoration Sites

•
•
r
•
•
i
•
Mitigation Plan - Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Jurisdictional Determination

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW- 2013 -00109 County: Sampson U.S.G.S. Quad: Turkey
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Mr. Larry Ronald Corbett Agent: KCI Associates-of -NC
Attn: Steve Stokes
Address: 1904 Eleanor Drive Address: 4601 Six Forks Road
Kinston, North Carolina 28504 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Property description:
Size (acres) ---60 Nearest Town Turkey
Nearest Waterway Stewarts Creek River Basin Black River
USGS HUC 03030006 Coordinates 34.903889N, - 78.149167 W
Location description: Property is known as Normans Pasture, located at 5712 Cornwallis Road, Turkey, North
Carolina. PIN 18023960001.
Indicate Which of the Following A
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property.
We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part 331). if you wish, you may request an approved JD (which maybe appealed), by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the
JD.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC & 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date
of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on vour property have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey
should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all
areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published
regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on _. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
Page 1 of 2

published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at (252) 808 -2808 to
determine their requirements.
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 at
C. Basis For Determination
This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and Coastal Plain
Supplement and is adjacent to Stewarts Creels a tributary to the Black River, a Navigable Water of the U.S. The site
also contains a stream feature (UT to Stewarts Creek) and three jurisdictional tributaries which display Ordinary High
Water Marks and drain to Stewarts Creels. This determination is based on information yrovided by KCI Associates of
NC and a site visit by Emily Hughes on 1/16/2013
D. Remarks
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 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
- in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
- F. Appeals Information (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 l OM 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 4/1/2013.
* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence. * * c
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: 2/1/2013 $xpir ion ate: 11/2018
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit http://pei-2.nwp.tisace.ariiiy.mil/SLirvey.htiilf to
complete the survey online.

SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at hqp: / /www.usace. army. mil /inet/ftinctions /ew /ceewo /reg or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
You may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the fonn to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
�.S.r
N OT'IF ICATIO N =OFD`'
ADIVIINI"
STRA.
T, -'APP
IUE. E'Ati:UPTIONS'AN �P
D ROCESS�AND
E
- UEST. F O R�APP L.
EA'
,Q
".. ,., ,., .. .._.., ... -. r. ._. .,,_ .,, . ,•,,..- ,...,,
: .,..,.... ,,..
A licant• Larry Corbett File Number: SAW- 2013 -00109
Date: 2/1/2013
Attached is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
®
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
❑
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at hqp: / /www.usace. army. mil /inet/ftinctions /ew /ceewo /reg or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
You may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the fonn to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. if you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION 11- REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and /or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process' you may contact: '
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Emily Hughes, Regulatory Specialist
CESAD -PDO
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
69 Darlington Ave.
60 Forsyth Street, Room l OM 15
Wilmington, NC 28403 -1343
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of a pellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Emily Hughes, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD -PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]

lIPo1Y RuIAVI wlsrr \
\ \ \ \�O'
\
,pa
`90
I SHEET ]
I I I I \\\
SITEc,.
v
I
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
GRAPHIC SCALE
in 290 600
1 Ma .200 FEET
WETLAND
DELINEATION MAP
FaR
NORMAN'S PASTURE
WETLAND RESTORATION
TURKEY TWP, SAMPSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
M01 4X FMS ROAD. 4111E 220
9uEicN, Nc nao9
PHONE (919) >6Y921� • fM (919) ]11 -9269

1
/ F ,, 1
LIMITS OF
STUDY AREA
74 IF
♦r
3S n �amre�nau r'O "`�
r DPNa 3r mw� f v.
OPp1
MATCHLINE-
•
N \
NEIUMDP< �
DPalo ..`
— — — — — — —
��1t►Ijl
GRAPHIC SCALE
m rw wo
INGI .130 iEET

i
1
_
MATCHLINE
I f{
x,RPW 9B. �D2�BOmm
PC
r •ww
� / f �f � �f n . P ��
��
J�
N
4 DPeS +`
�� �'fi
♦ 1 � �
�.� � ar
+msu lMaeu
,A695 SE
BB LBa
W E
+"
TA y.
S
eDPp] 1'y
nm'A�s C ({ E
?
A p
GRAPHIC SCALE
]6 i50 bD
STEM
16D FEE1
WETLAND
DELINEATION MAP
7
NORMAN'S PASTURE
WETLAND RESTORATION
TURKEY TWP, SAMPSON COUNTY
DAIL
NORTH CAROLINA
SN
c 10 2012 - 150' ] OF
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
KC I 1601 51% FORKS R01P. SUITE 22D
ASSOCIATES Of
eAU:ILN. NC 21608
Nd11X LARgINA PHONE (9197 16 }9211 • FAK (8197 ID }9266
C -0]61

s
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW - 2013 -00109 County: Sampson U.S.G.S. Quad: Turkey
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Applicant/Agent: KCl Associates of NC
Attn: Steve Stokes
Address:' 4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
r �
u
Property description:
Size (acres) 69.38 Nearest Town Turkey
- Nearest" Waterway Stewarts Creek River Basin Black River
USGS HUC 03030006 Coordinates 34.903889N, - 78.149167 W
Location description: Property is known as Normans Pasture, located at 5712 Cornwallis Road, Turkey, North
Carolina. PIN 18023960001.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property.
We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the
JD.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date
of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your property 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 subiect to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published
regulations, may be relied upon for fi period not to exceed five years.
The waters of die U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on _. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our'
Page 1 of 2

published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at (252) 808 -2808 to
determine their requirements.
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 at
C. Basis For Determination
This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and Coastal Plain
Supplement and is adjacent to Stewarts Creek, a tributary to the Black River, a Navigable Water of the U.S. The site
also contains a stream feature (UT to Stewarts Creek) and three jurisdictional tributaries which disvlav Ordinary High
Water Marks and drain to Stewarts Creek. This determination is based on information provided by KCI Associates of
NC and a site visit on 1/16/2013 and a desktop determination on 5/10/13 by Emily Hughes.
D. Remarks
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This del ineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The del ineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (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 1 OM IS
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 7/10/2013.
* *It is not necessary to sub RFA form to the Di sion Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence." Ez• , /1
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: 5/10/2013
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit http:// per2 .nwp.usace.armv.mii /survey.html to
complete the survey online.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
:�iOTIFiCAT10N.OF ADIVIIN T TIV)C P
IS RA A PEAL:OPTI(}NS AND,P120Ck SS A'ND.
R>v+ 1
Q IJEST•;FOR�APPIJ A.1,°
A
plicant: Steve Stokes, KCl Associates File Number: SAW- 2013 -00109 Date: 5/10/2013
Attached is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter o]'permission) ,
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
I❑
-11r]
PERMIT DENIAL
C
®
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL, DETERMINATION
E
SECTION 1 - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found athttp://www.usace.ai-i-ny.t-nit/inet/fLinctioiis/cw/cccwo/l,e or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit,
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
Permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. if you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature oil the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the foam to the division engineer. "]'his form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDIC'T'IONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: if you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJEGTIONS,TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT -'
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
`record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:'
If you have questions regarding this decision and /or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Emily Hughes, Regulatory Specialist
CESAD -PDO
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
69 Darlington Ave.
60 Forsyth Street, Room IOM15
Wilmington, NC 28403 -1343
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Emily Hughes, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]

10
mwl AYIE Ra�ar
eouxeal
oe,w ww
MJ JOHNSON ROAD
_ — _ — — (W PDBuc B/R) _ _ — I
__- _______,
it
11
auaes 681N aoREErt 1� 1
WEIY Rtt1IlD OOI�R
W 1N�1 W2t1' '� I
�1 I
1,1
1
11
-
'! _
wsrs a � i
------ __
APRIL mll )
Ij
1�
,
,1
1
\
\ LO
\ J
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
N
I
W I, / E
S
GRAPHIC SCALE
o�,ao�Eyoo�wlo
1 as . ma rtE'r
WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
NORMAN'S PASTURE
WETLAND RESTORATION
ADDENDUM 1
TURKEY TWP, SAMPSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
RCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
Hbl BM Fl]2(S WA .1. 2m
RIONE ( %E) JE.I -Y111� vul�(si o) res -ame
.yTE.
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
N
I
W I, / E
S
GRAPHIC SCALE
o�,ao�Eyoo�wlo
1 as . ma rtE'r
WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
NORMAN'S PASTURE
WETLAND RESTORATION
ADDENDUM 1
TURKEY TWP, SAMPSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
RCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
Hbl BM Fl]2(S WA .1. 2m
RIONE ( %E) JE.I -Y111� vul�(si o) res -ame

\ EXISTING
BARN — __ -- - - -- _ �
V 211
/ f
� bWNB Gf)NI COXBtIf / � L -1
DP" .r „ "B L
OF \ \ �o
------ - - - - -� \ FpINiEMWN
ip
n 11LTLAND 10
3,556 S.F. I
no- \ 005 ACRE \\ \\ \ Oy ^
2 \ \\ \ W E
CARRIES NALD 00RBETT
LARRY RONALD 01 \ \
OB 1141 PG 211
\ \
STREAM \ \
2,609 SE \
J' 0 06 ACRES
\
\
3' \\ GRAPHIC SCALE
w \ 00 00 m mo
g / 1 IXd . 100 FEET
/ WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
/ m
NORMAN'S PASTURE
WETLAND RESTORATION
M �ISDICt NAL ��a�� s ADDENDUM 1
SsF �- TURKEY NORTHSCAROONACOUNTY
002 ACRES J1'X
,* / 5
NO3 WS KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
W9 3JflI501CTIWaI ENGINEERS, SNNEYORS AND PIAN1ERS
219 ACRES 11d9UTART
(PRENOUS 893
JO 02 ACRM Epf9Ci ROAD. SUI1E 220
MPR 0ES K C I P9N pP1E1d, XC 298W
(PRENWS AMM) NOIOXO-0 WNA —(919)T61 -921a- FAR(Y19) l"M

GRAPHIC SCALE
iNa.iro rm
WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
NuR
NORMAN'S PASTURE
WETLAND RESTORATION
ADDENDUM 1
TURKEY TWP, SAMPSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENONEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
401 9Y NYU(9 IpIL, MO
BIOME W-) )0.1 -Y214 'A. (11.) -1.

w
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture l/ Restoration Sites
FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part
Project Name:
1: General Project •
Norman's Pasture Wetland Restoration Site
County Name:
Sampson County, NC
EEP Number:
95717
Project Sponsor:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Project Contact Name:
Tim Morris
Project Contact Address:
14601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220, Raleigh, NC 27609
Project Contact E -mail:
I [e-mail]
EEP Project Mana er:
I Kristin Mi uez
Project Description
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date
PTWManagtr
Conditional Approved By:
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are
outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date
For Division Aft-in-73trator
FHWA
CEWD
JAN 292013
NC ENH AN CEMENT PROGRAM
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question R• .
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 Liability 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 II 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
1 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question ..
American Indian Religious Freedom Act J&RFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? a ® 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
Anti uities 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
2 Version 1.4, 8/18/05
i

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 -1,006 been submitted to NRCS?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FACA
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
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 NOAA- Fisheries occurred?
❑"Yes
❑ No
® N/A
MigratoEy 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
3 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
+�
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
° rqpc., M ionv,.-..,
Project Name: Norman's Pasture II Wetland Restoration Site
Count Name: Sampson County, NC
EEP Number: 96310
Project Sponsor:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
#�
Project Contact Name:
Tim Morris
Project Contact Address:
4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220, Raleigh, NC 27609
Project Contact E -mail:
[e-mail]
EEP Project Mana er: Kristin Mi uez
i
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Proje Ma ger
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
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 Liability 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 II 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
1 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
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?
F1 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
2 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
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
Ma nuson- 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
Miciratory 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
3 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
FEMA Floodplain Checklist

r�
E�a�� t
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:
Norman's Pasture Restoration Site
Norman's II Restoration Site
Name if stream or feature:
Stewarts Creek
County:
Sampson County
Name of river basin:
Cape Fear
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county:
Sampson County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
2442
Consultant name:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Phone number:
919- 783 -9214
Address:
4601 Six Forks Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27609
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Norman's Pasture 0 Page 1 of 4

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500 ".
The proposed work will restore drained wetlands at two adjacent EEP projects, Norman's
Pasture and Norman's Pasture II. These two projects exist on the upper portion of the
mapped 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE) of Stewarts Creek in Sampson County. The
actions to restore the wetlands will include redirecting seepage flow to historic wetland
flow patterns, filling field ditches, reestablishing wetland roughness, and restoring or
enhancing native wetland vegetation. A small section (843 If) of stream enhancement is
also included in Norman's Pasture II. The channel of Stewarts Creek will not be changed
as part of this project.
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas accordina to their rectnratinn nrinrity
Reach
Length
Priority
Wetland Re- establishment
Restoration
(Norman's Pasture
.
15.5 acres
Re- establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
(Norman's Pasture
0 7 acre
.
Rehabilitation
Wetland Preservation
(Norman's Pasture
9.0 acres
Preservation
Wetland Restoration
Restoration
(Norman's Pasture II
8.8 acres
Re- establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
(Norman's Pasture II
1.4 acres
Rehabilitation
Wetland Preservation
(Norman's Pasture II
0.8 acre
Preservation
Stream Enhancement H
Norman's Pasture II
843 if
Stream Enhancement II
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
E Yes O No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
Redelineation
r Detailed Study
1✓ Limited Detail Study
I- Approximate Study
r_7 Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
FEMA_Floodplain_Cheeklist Norman's Pasture Q Page 2 of 4

i
r
P-i AE Zone
U Floodway
M Non- Encroachment
® None
F A Zone
U 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?
1: Yes M No
Land Acquisition (Check)
17 State owned (fee simple)
r Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
r 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?
M 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: Lyle Moore
Phone Number: 910 299 -4904, ext. 3035
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
No Action
Pi No Rise
Ei Letter of Map Revision
Conditional Letter of Map Revision
G Other Requirements
FEMA Floodplain_Checklist Norman's Pasture v3 Page 3 of 4

List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: Signature:
Title: Date:
FEMA_Floodplain Checklist Norman's Pasture 0 Page 4 of 4

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Appendix C. Mitigation Work Plan Data and.Analyses

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Existing Conditions
Cross- Sections

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Normans Pasture H, Existing Conditions (TI)
XS ID
XS1
Drainage Area (sq mi):
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Date:
4/14/2014
Field Crew:
A French, T. Seelin er
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
19993.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
7.1
Bankfull Width:
5.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
19994.9
Flood Prone Width:
10
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
Mean De th at Bankfull:
1.2
IMan
D Ratio:
4.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.7
Bank Height Ratio:
2.8
20002
20000
19998
0 19996
19994
19992
19990
Norman's Pasture II Restoration Site
XS1 -TI
--------- --------------------------
-------------------------------------- ------------- . nw rwi
R-d Prom Area
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
70 80 90
J
100

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Normans Pasture B, Existing Conditions TI
XS ID
XS2
Drainage Area (sq mi):
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Date:
4/14/2014
Field Crew:
A. French, T. Seelin er
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
19994.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
7.0
Bankfull Width:
7.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
19996.1
Flood Prone Width:
10
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean De that Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
7.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.4
Bank Height Ratio:
3.2
20004
20002
m 20000
J
0 19998
3
Q 19996
19994
19992
Norman's Pasture II Restoration Site
XS2 -TI
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
—' Firma
80 90 100

•
•
• Mitigation Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
DRAINMOD Model Results

Normans_Gaugel_Existing.WET
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 6.1
* Copyright 1980 -2011 North Carolina state University
----------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Proposed Normans Gauge 1
Elizabethtown, NC 312732
------- - - -RUN STATISTICS ---- - - - - -- time: 10/16/2013 @ 9:58
input file: C: \DrainMod\ inputs \Normans_Gaugel_Existing.pr.
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 4420. cm drain depth = 27.5 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
DRAINMOD - -- WET PERIOD EVALUATION
* * * * ** version 6.1 * * * * **
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 32 days. Counting starts on day
59 and ends on day 325 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods, Longest Consecutive
of 32 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------ - - - - -- --------------- - - - --
1959 1. 44.
1960 0. 30.
1961 0. 26.
1962 1. 32.
1963 0. 27.
1964 0. 31.
1965 1. 33.
1966 0. 23.
1967 1. 44.
1968 1. 33.
1969 0. 30.
1970 1. 37.
1971 2. 44.
1972 1. 32.
1973 0. 22.
1974 1. 33.
1975 1. 50.
1976 1. 34.
1977 0. 24.
1978 1. 36.
1979 0. 23.
1980 0. 28.
1981 0. 15.
1982 0. 31.
1983 1. 43.
1984 1. 39.
1985 0. 22.
1986 0. 0.
1987 1. 41.
1988 0. 24.
Page 1

Number of Years with at least one period =
Page 2
19. out of 54 years.
Normans_Gaugel_Existing.WET
1989
0.
29.
1990
0.
0.
1991
0.
27.
1992
0.
0.
1993
0.
31.
1994
0.
18.
1995
0.
16.
1996
0.
27.
1997
0.
22.
1998
0.
18.
1999
1.
33.
2000
0.
0.
2001
0.
0.
2002
1.
35.
2003
0.
26.
2004
0.
14.
2005
0.
29.
2006
2.
37.
2007
0.
21.
2008
0.
30.
2009
1.
34.
2010
0.
27.
2011
0.
24.
2012
0.
15.
Number of Years with at least one period =
Page 2
19. out of 54 years.

Normans_Gaugel_Proposed.WET
---------------=-------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 6.1
* Copyright 1980 -2011 North Carolina State University
----------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Proposed Normans Gauge I
Elizabethtown, NC 312732
--- - - - - -- -RUN STATISTICS ---- - - - - -- time: 10/16/2013 @ 9:59
input file: C: \Drainmod\ inputs \Normans_Gaugel_Proposed.pr].
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 4420. cm drain depth = 2.5 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
DRAINMOD - -- WET PERIOD EVALUATION
* * * * ** version 6.1 * * * * **
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 32 days. Counting starts on day
59 and ends on day 325 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 32 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------ - - - - -- --------------- - - - --
1959 3. 67.
1960 3. 79,
1961 3. 68.
1962 2. 59.
1963 1. 40.
1964 2. 86.
1965 2. 69.
1966 2. 58.
1967 1. 82.
1968 2. 33.
1969 3. 57.
1970 3. 55.
1971 3. 52.
1972 2. 34.
1973 1. 54.
1974 1. 72.
1975 2. 59.
1976 1. 34.
1977 3. 62.
1978 3. 53.
1979 2. 54.
1980 1. 54.
1981 2. 63.
1982 0. 31.
1983 1. 74.
1984 2. 81.
1985 1. 47.
1986 0. 0.
1987 2. 63.
1988 2. 122.
Page 1

Number of Years with at least one period =
Page 2
45. out of 54 years.
Normans_Gaugel_Proposed.wET
1989
2. 57.
1990
0. 0.
1991
2. 63.
1992
0. 0.
1993
2. 72.
1994
0. 29.
1995
2. 64.
1996
1. 123.
1997
1. 32.
1998
1. 32.
1999
1. 68.
2000
0. 0.
2001
0. 0.
2002
4. 45.
2003
2. 64.
2004
0. 26.
2005
4. 62.
2006
3. 83.
2007
0. 28.
2008
2. 113.
2009
2. 56.
2010
2. 56.
2011
1. 92.
2012
2. 63.
Number of Years with at least one period =
Page 2
45. out of 54 years.

Normans_Gauge2_Existing.WET
------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 6.1
* Copyright 1980 -2011 North Carolina State University
----------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Pre- existing Normans Gauge 2
Elizabethtown, NC 312732
************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
--- - - - - -- -RUN STATISTICS ---- - - - - -- time: 10/16/2013 @ 10: 0
input file: C: \DrainMod\ inputs \Normans_Gauge2_Existi'ng.pr.
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 5029. cm drain depth = 27.5 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
DRAINMOD - -- WET PERIOD EVALUATION
* * * * ** version 6.1 * * * * **
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 32 days. Counting starts on day
59 and ends on day 325 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 32 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 ,cm
------------ - - - - -- --------------- - - - --
1959 1. 36.
1960 0. 27.
1961 0. 20.
1962 0. 19.
1963 0. 24.
1964 0. 18.
1965 0. 29.
1966 0. 13.
1967 0. 10.
1968 0. 16.
1969 '0. 26.
1970 1. 35.
1971 0. 16.
1972 0. 16.
1973 0. 18.
1974 0. 23.
1975 0. 16.
1976 0. 23.
1977 0. 12.
1978 0. 14.
1979 0. 15.
1980 0. 22.
1981 0. 9.
1982 0. 17.
1983 0. 20.
1984 0. 19.
1985 0. 12.
1986 0. 0.
1987 0. 26.
1988 0. 14.
Page 1

Normans_Gauge2_Existing.WET
1989 0. 18.
1990 0. 0.
1991 0. 13.
1992 0. 0.
1993 0. 16.
1994 0. 10.
1995 0. 14.
1996 0. 12.
1997 0. 10.
1998 0. 15.
1999 0. 17.
2000 0. 0.
2001 0. 0.
2002 0. 13.
2003 0. 15.
2004 0. S.
2005 0. 14.
2006 0. 14.
2007 0. 8.
2008 0. 15.
2009 0. 11.
2010 0. 21.
2011 0. 14.
2012 0. 13.
Number of Years with at least one period = 2. out of 54 years.
Page 2

i
Normans_Gauge2_Proposed.WET
DRAINMOD version 6.1
Copyright 1980 -2011 North Carolina State University
----------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Pre- existing Normans Gauge 2
Elizabethtown, NC 312732
--- - - - - -- -RUN STATISTICS ---- - - - - -- time: 10/16/2013 @ 10: 1
input file: C: \DrainMod\ inputs \Normans_Gauge2_Proposed. pr'
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 5029. cm drain depth = 5.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
DRAINMOD - -- WET PERIOD EVALUATION
* * * * ** version 6.1 * * * * **
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 32 days. Counting starts on day
.59 and ends on day 325 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 32 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------ - - - - -- --------------- - - - --
1959 3. 43.
1960 3. 52.
1961 3. 63.
1962 2. 58.
1963 0. 27.
1964 2. 82.
1965 2. 43.
1966 2. 42.
1967 1. 74.
1968 1. 32.
1969 3. 36.
1970 2. 49.
1971 2. 52.
1972 1. 32.
1973 1. 53.
1974 1. 50.
1975 2. 58.
1976 1. 34.
1977 2. 60.
1978 2. 51.
1979 2. 47.
1980 1. 45.
1981 2. 60.
1982 0. 31.
1983 1. 71.
1984 2. 78.
1985 1. 37.
1986 0. 0.
1987 1. 44.
1988 1. 84.
Page 1

Number of Years with at least one period =
Page 2
42. out of 54 years.
Normans_Gauge2_Proposed.WET
1989
1.
57.
1990
0.
0.
1991
1.
38.
1992
0.
0.
1993
2.
65.
1994
0.
22.
1995
1.
41.
1996
1.
110.
1997
0.
30.
1998
0.
31.
1999
1.
68.
2000
0.
0.
2001
0.
0.
2002
2.
44.
2003
2.
51.
2004
0.
19.
2005
3.
47.
2006
3.
78.
2007
0.
27.
2008
2.
95.
2009
1.
55.
2010
1.
38.
2011
1.
87.
2012
1.
62.
Number of Years with at least one period =
Page 2
42. out of 54 years.

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
'1
- Soil Delineation and Characterization

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
A detailed soils investigation at the NPRS was conducted by a licensed soil scientist (# 187) to determine
the extent and distribution of the hydric soils and to classify the predominate soils to the soil series
level. The investigation consisted of delineating the hydric soil boundaries with pink flagging and
wooden survey stakes in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Delineation Manual
(1987) and the USDA Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and
Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0 (2010). Areas that were identified as possible hydric soil mapping
units were surveyed at a higher intensity until the edge of the mapping unit was identified. The
boundary of the hydric and non - hydric soil mapping units were then followed by continual sampling and
observations as the boundary line was identified and delineated. In those areas where the boundary was
found to be a broad gradient rather than a distinct break, microtopography, landscape position, soil
textural changes, redoximorphic features, and depleted matrices were additionally considered to
identify the extent of the hydric soils.
In developing a detailed soils map, several soil borings were advanced on the site in the general hydric
soil areas identified by landscape position, vegetation and slope. Once the hydric soil borings were
identified, the soil scientist marked the points and established a visual line to the next auger boring
where again hydric soil conditions were confirmed by additional borings. The soil scientist moved along
the edges of the mapping unit and marked each point along the line. To confirm the hydric soil mapping
unit and taxonomic classification, soil borings were advanced to a depth of SO 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 Sampson
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 Lumbee sandy loam (Fine -loamy over sandy or
sandy - skeletal, siliceous, subactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults), Bibb and Johnston (Coarse - loamy,
siliceous, active, acid, thermic Typic Fluvaquents), Johnston loam (Coarse - loamy, siliceous, active, acid,
thermic Cumulic Humaquepts), Chipley sand (Thermic, coated Aquic Quartzipsamments), Johns fine
sandy loam (Fine -loamy over sandy or sandy - skeletal, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Aquic Hapludults),
Lynn Haven sand (Sandy, siliceous, thermic Typic Alaquods), and Torhunta fine sandy loam (Coarse -
loamy, siliceous, active, acid, thermic Typic Humaquepts) soil series. All of these series except for Chipley
sand are listed as hydric soils in Sampson County, North Carolina. They are defined as hydric due to
saturation for a significant period during the growing season. This soil is listed as hydric on the federal,
state and local lists. They are also listed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as hydric
soils.
Profile Description
Typical Pedon Descriptions:
LUMBEE SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine -loamy over sandy or sandy - skeletal, siliceous, subactive, thermic Typic
Endoaquults
TYPICAL PEDON: Lumbee find sandy loam -- woodland. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
A--0 to 6 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) fine sandy loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable; many
fine and coarse roots; very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (6 to 10 inches thick)
Eg - -6 to 14 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very friable;
common fine and medium roots; very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 12 inches thick)
Btgl - -14 to 30 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1) sandy clay loam; common fine and medium brownish yellow
(10YR 6/6) masses of oxidized iron; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; few clay films
in pores; 2 percent, by volume quartz pebbles; few fine and medium pores; very strongly acid; gradual
irregular boundary.
Btg2 - -30 to 36 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure;
friable; 2 percent, by volume quartz pebbles; very strongly acid; gradual irregular boundary. (Combined
thickness of the Btg horizons is 14 to 32 inches.)
2Cg - -36 to 60 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1) loamy sand; common medium distinct very pale brown (10YR
7/4) and brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) masses of oxidized iron; 10 percent, by volume fine quartz pebbles;
very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Scotland County, North Carolina; about 4.0 miles north of Maxton on State Road 1407;
0.5 mile east of Laurinburg - Maxton Airbase hangers, 25 feet north of farm road.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Thickness of the sandy surface and subsurface layers: 6 to 19 inches
Depth to top of the Argillic horizon: 6 to 19 inches
Depth to the base of the Argillic horizon: 14 to 40 inches
Depth to contrasting soil material (lithologic discontinuity): 14 to 40 inches
Soil reaction: Very strongly acid or strongly acid throughout, except where limed
Depth to bedrock: Greater than SO inches -
Depth to Seasonal High Water Table: 0 to 12 inches, November to April
Rock Fragment content: 0 to 15 percent, by volume; mostly fine quartz pebbles
RANGE OF INDIVIDUAL HORIZONS:
A horizon or Ap horizon (where present):
Color- -hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 2 to 5, chroma of 1 to 3, or is neutral with value of 2 to 5
Texture - -loamy sand, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, or silt loam
Eg horizon:
Color - -hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, chroma of 1 or 2
Texture - -loamy sand, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, or silt loam
Redoximorphic features (where present) -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and
iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
EBg or BEg horizon (where present):
Color- -hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, chroma of 1 or 2
Texture - -sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or loam
Redoximorphic features (where present) -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and
iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture II Restoration Sites
Btg horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, chroma of 1 or 2
Texture - -sandy loam, loam, sandy clay loam, or clay loam
Redoximorphic features (where present) -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and
iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
BCg or CBg horizon (where present):
Color- -hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, chroma of 1 or 2
Texture -- loamy coarse sand, loamy sand, or sandy loam
Redoximorphic features (where present) -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and
iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
Cg horizon (where present):
Color- -hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 8, chroma of 1 or 2 or is variegated in shades of these colors
Texture - -loamy sand or sandy loam
Redoximorphic features (where present) -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and
iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
2Cg horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 8, chroma of 1 or 2 or is variegated in shades of these colors
Texture -- coarse sand, sand, fine sand, loamy coarse sand, loamy sand, or loamy fine sand. Some pedons
below 40 inches have thin lenses of sandy loam, loam, or clay loam
Redoximorphic features (where present) -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and
iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
BIBB AND JOHNSTON SEIRES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Coarse - loamy, siliceous, active, acid, thermic Typic Fluvaquents
TYPICAL PEDON: Bibb sandy loam -- forested. (Colors are for moist soils.)
A­0 to 4 inches; brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam; weak fine granular structure; friable; common fine roots
and pores; strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (2 to 6 inches thick)
Ag - -4 to 12 inches; mottled dark gray (N 4/) and dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam; weak fine
granular structure; friable; few fine roots and pores; common fine strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) stains
around old roots; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 19 inches thick)
Cg1 - -12 to 37 inches; gray (5Y 5/1) sandy loam; massive; friable; few fine roots and pores; common
medium strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) stains around old roots; common thin strata of silt loam to loamy
sand; some strata have bits of partially decomposed organic materials; very strongly acid; clear wavy
boundary. (10 to 40 inches thick)
Cg2 - -37 to 60 inches; gray (N 5/) silt loam; massive; slightly sticky; common strata of sandy loam and
loamy sand; common thin strata with partially decomposed organic materials; strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Autauga County, Alabama; 300 yards north of where Martin Boulevard crosses Pine
Creek in Prattville, in the SE1 /4, SW1 /4, SW1 /4 of Sec. 26, T. 13 N., R. 16 E.

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture II Restoration Sites
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Reaction ranges from extremely acid to strongly acid throughout. Content
of mica flakes ranges from none to common. Content of rounded gravel typically ranges from 0 to 10
percent throughout, but may range to 35 percent in thin strata below a depth of 40 inches. Buried soil
horizons, present in many pedons, have the same range in color and texture as the Ag horizon.
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 7.5YR or 10YR, value of 2 to 5, and chroma of 1 to 3. It is sand, loamy
sand, loamy fine sand, fine sandy loam, and sandy loam, loam, or silt loam.
The Ag horizon, present in most pedons, has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 3 to 7, and chroma of 2 or
less; or it is neutral with value of 3 to 7. Combined thickness of the A and Ag horizons with value of 3 or
less is less than 6 inches. Mottles in shades of brown and yellow range from none to common. Texture is
sand, loamy sand, loamy fine sand, fine sandy loam, and sandy loam, loam, or silt loam.
The Cg horizon has hue of 10YR through SBG, value of 3 to 7, and chroma of 2 or less; or it is neutral
with value of 3 to 7. Mottles in shades of red, yellow, and brown range from few to many. The upper
part of the Cg horizon is sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, or silt loam; or is stratified with these
textures. Thin strata of finer or coarser textured material are in most pedons. Texture of the lower part
of the Cg horizon includes sand, loamy sand, and loamy fine sand in addition to those of the upper part.
- JOHNSTON SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Coarse - loamy, siliceous, active, acid, thermic Cumulic Humaquepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Johnston mucky loam -- forested. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
A--0 to 30 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loam; massive; friable; very strongly acid; abrupt smooth
boundary. (24 to 48 inches thick)
Cg1 - -30 to 34 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) loamy fine sand; single grained; loose; very strongly acid;
abrupt smooth boundary.
Cg2 - -34 to 60 inches; gray (10YR 5/1) fine sandy loam; lenses and pockets of loamy sand and sand;
massive; very friable; dark colored loam in old root channels; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Scotland County, North Carolina; 3 miles south of Wagram; 50 feet west of Shoe Heel
Creek; 1.5 miles north of Lee's pond; 25 feet south of a paved road.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Depth to Bedrock: Greater than 80 inches
Depth to Seasonal High Water Table: 0 to 12 inches, November to May
Rock fragment content: Below 40 inches, 0 to 35 percent, by volume, mostly rounded quartz gravel
Soil Reaction: Extremely acid to strongly acid
Other Features: Some pedons have a few inches of recent alluvium deposited over the dark colored a
horizon or thin (less than 8 inches thick) organic layers.
RANGE OF INDIVIDUAL HORIZONS:
Oa horizon (where present):

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Color- -hue of 10YR, value of 2 or 3, chroma of 1 or 2, hue of 2.SY, value of 2.S or 3, chroma of 1 or 2, or
is neutral with value of 2.5 or 3
Texture - -muck
A horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR, value of 2 or 3, chroma of 1 or 2, hue of 2.5Y or 5Y, value of 2.5 or 3, chroma of 1 or
2, or is neutral with value of 2.5 or 3
Texture (fine -earth fraction) -- coarse sandy loam, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or loam and may include
the mucky texture modifier.
Redoximorphic features (where present) -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and
iron depletions in shades of gray
Other features -- Organic matter content of the A horizon ranges from 3 to about 20 percent
Cg horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 8, chroma of 1 to 2, or is neutral with value of 4 to 7
Texture (fine -earth fraction) -- coarse sand, sand, fine sand, loamy coarse sand, loamy sand, loamy fine
sand, coarse sandy loam, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or loam. Some pedons have thin strata of sandy
clay loam.
Redoximorphic features (where present) -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and
iron depletions in shades of gray
CHIPLEY SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Thermic, coated Aquic Quartzipsamments
TYPICAL PEDON: Chipley sand -- wooded. (Colors are for moist soil.)
A1--0 to 3 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sand; single grained; loose; many fine roots; strongly acid;
gradual smooth boundary.
A2--3 to 6 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) sand; single grained; loose; many fine roots; strongly acid;
gradual irregular boundary. (Combined thickness of the A horizons range from 3 to 16 inches.)
C1--6 to 16 inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sand; common fine and medium distinct yellowish
brown coats and few medium distinct dark gray (10YR 4/1) streaks along the root channels; single
grained; loose; few fine roots; strongly acid; gradual irregular boundary. (8 to 13 inches thick)
C2--16 to 32 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sand; single grained; loose; few fine roots; common fine
and medium faint strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation; few fine faint streaks of light
gray (10YR 7/1) iron depletions; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (14 to 24 inches thick)
C3--32 to 55 inches; 34 percent brownish yellow (10YR 6/6), 33 percent light gray (10YR 7/2) and 33
percent strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) sand; single grained; loose; few fine roots; the areas in colors of
brownish yellow and strong brown are masses of iron accumulation and the areas in colors of light gray
are iron depletions; strongly acid; gradual irregular boundary. (10 to 24 inches thick)
Cg - -55 to 77 inches; light gray (10YR 7/2) sand; single grained; loose; very few fine roots; many coarse
distinct very pale brown (10YR 7/4) and common medium distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of
iron accumulation; strongly acid; gradual smooth boundary.

r
Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
TYPE LOCATION: Washington County, Florida, approximately 0.75 mile southwest of Greenhead
Community, NW1 /4, NW1 /4, sec. 17, R. 14 W., T. 1 N.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Silt plus clay content between depths of 10 and 40 inches is 5 to 10
percent. Reaction ranges from extremely acid to moderately acid in the A horizon except where limed
and from very strongly acid to slightly acid in the C horizon.
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 10YR, value of 2 to 5, and chroma of 1 to 3. Where value is 3.5 or less,
thickness is less than 10 inches. Texture is sand or fine sand.
The C horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 8, and chroma of 1 to 8. Redoximorphic features in
shades of gray, red, brown or yellow range from few to many. Some pedons have a few streaks of gray
to light gray uncoated sand grains along root channels in the upper part of the C horizon. Texture is sand
or fine sand.
The Cg horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 8, and chroma of 2 or less; or it is neutral with value
of 4 to 8. Redoximorphic features in shades of red, brown, yellow or gray range from few to many. Some
pedons have a few streaks of gray to light gray uncoated sand grains along root channels in the upper
part of the C horizon. Texture is sand or fine sand.
JOHNS SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine -loamy over sandy or sandy - skeletal, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Aquic
Hapludults
TYPICAL PEDON: Johns fine sandy loam -- cultivated field. (Colors are for moist soils unless otherwise
stated.)
Ap - -O to 8 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) fine sandy loam; weak medium granular structure; very friable;
many fine and medium roots; strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (5 to 10 inches thick)
E--8 to 15 inches; very pale brown (10YR 7/3) loamy sand; weak medium granular structure; very friable;
few brittle areas at contact with Bt horizon; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 10 inches thick)
F Bt1 - -15 to 18 inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; friable; few medium faint strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) and brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) masses of
oxidized iron and light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) iron depletions; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary.
Bt2 - -18 to 32 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; friable; thin patchy clay films on faces of peds; many medium and coarse distinct gray (10YR
6/1) iron depletions and strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) masses of oxidized iron; very strongly acid; gradual
smooth boundary. (Combined thickness of Bt is 12 to 25 inches thick.)
2Cg - -32 to 60 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1) sand; single grained; loose; lenses and pockets of sandy loam
and loamy sand; common coarse distinct brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) masses of oxidized iron; very
strongly acid.

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
TYPE LOCATION: Scotland County, North Carolina; 4 miles north of Maxton on North Carolina Highway
71, and 1 mile northwest of Sycamore Hill Church.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Thickness of the sandy surface and subsurface layers: 6 to 19 inches
Depth to top of the Argillic horizon: 5 to 19 inches
Depth to the base of the Argillic horizon: 18 to 40 inches
Depth to Contrasting Soil Material (lithologic discontinuity): 15 to 40 inches
Rock Fragment Content: 0 to 5 percent, by volume in the A, E, and B horizon and 0 to 15 percent in the C
horizon
Soil Reaction: Very strongly acid to moderately acid, except where limed
Depth to Bedrock: Greater than 80 inches
Depth to Seasonal High Water Table: 12 to 36 inches, December to April
Other features: Average content of 18 to 35 percent clay in the particle -size control section and less
than 30 percent silt.
RANGE OF INDIVIDUAL HORIZONS:
Ap horizon or A horizon (where present):
Color - -10YR or 2.5Y, value of 3 to 5, and chroma of 1 to 4, or is neutral with value of 3 to 5
Texture - -loamy sand, loamy fine sand, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam
E horizon:
Color - -10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, chroma of 3 or 4, or is neutral with value of 5 to 7
Texture - -loamy sand, loamy fine sand, sandy loam, or fine'sandy loam
BE horizon (where present):
Color - -10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, chroma of 3 to 6, or is neutral with value of 4 to 8
Texture - -sandy loam or fine sandy loam
Bt horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, chroma of 3 to 8
Texture - -sandy clay loam or sandy loam
Redoximorphic features -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and iron depletions
in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
Btg horizon (where present):
Color- -hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, chroma of 1 or 2
Texture - -sandy clay loam or sandy loam
Redoximorphic features -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and iron depletions
in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
BCg horizon (where present):
Color- -hue of 10YR or 2.SY, value of 5 to 7, chroma of 1 or 2
Texture - -loamy sand, loamy fine sand, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam. Some pedons are thinly stratified
with heavier textures.
Redoximorphic features -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and iron depletions
in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
2C horizon (where present):
Color- -hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 8, chroma of 3 to 8
Texture -- coarse sand, sand, loamy coarse sand, or loamy sand. Some pedons have thin lenses of sandy
loam or loam.
Redoximorphic features -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and iron depletions
in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
2Cg horizon:
Color- -hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 8, chroma of 1 or 2, or is neutral with value of 4 to 8
Texture -- coarse sand, sand, loamy coarse sand, or loamy sand. Some pedons have thin lenses of sandy
loam or loam.
Redoximorphic features -- masses of oxidized iron in shades of red, yellow, or brown and iron depletions
in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray
LYNN HAVEN SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Sandy, siliceous, thermic Typic Alaquods
TYPICAL PEDON: Lynn Haven fine sand -- range. (Colors are for moist soil)
A--0 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1) fine sand; weak fine granular structure; friable; many fine and
medium roots; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (8 to 20 inches thick)
Eg - -12 to 16 inches; gray (N 6/0) fine sand; single grain; loose; common fine and medium roots; many
uncoated sand grains; very strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (2 to 18 inches thick)
Bh1 - -16 to 22 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2) fine sand; weak fine granular structure; friable;
many fine and medium roots; few fine and medium pores; sand grains coated with organic matter; very
strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Bh2--22 to 30 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) fine.sand; weak fine granular structure; friable; few fine
roots; few fine pores; most sand grains are coated with organic matter; few small pockets of uncoated
sand grains; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of the Bh horizons is from
6 to more than 50 inches thick.)
Cg - -30 to 75 inches; gray (5Y 6/1) fine sand; single grain; loose; common medium distinct brown (10YR
5/3) and light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) masses of iron accumulation; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Bay County, Florida. Approximately 1 mile south of intersection of U. S. Highway 98 and
State Highway 392 and about 50 feet east of Highway 392 in Sec. 4, T. 4 S., R. 15 W.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Reaction ranges from extremely acid to strongly acid throughout the
profile.
The Oa, horizon, where present, is less than 7 inches thick. It has hue of 5YR to 10YR, value of 2 or 3, and
chroma of 1 to 3. Texture is muck.

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
The A horizon has hue of 10YR, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 1 or 2; or is neutral with value of 2 or 3.
When dry, this horizon has a salt- and - pepper appearance due to mixing of organic matter and white
sand grains. Texture is sand, fine sand or mucky fine sand.
The Eg or E horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR or 2.5YR, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2; or is
neutral with value of 5 to 7. Redoximorphic features in shades of yellow and brown range from none to
common. Texture is sand or fine sand.
The Bh horizon has hue of 5YR to 10YR, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 1 to 4. Sand grains are coated
with organic matter. Vertical or horizontal tongues or pockets of grayish sand occur in the Bh horizon in
some pedons. Texture is sand, fine sand, loamy sand or loamy fine sand.
Some pedons have a C/B horizon with hue of 10YR to 5YR, value of 3 to 5, and chroma of 3 or 4 with
redoximorphic features in shades of gray, brown, or yellow. Texture is sand, fine sand, loamy sand or
loamy fine sand.
Some pedons have a bisequum of E'g and B'h. Colors and textures are similar to the Eg and Bh horizons.
The Cg horizon has hue of 7.5YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 1 to 3. Redoximorphic features in
shades of brown, yellow, or red range from few to many. Texture is sand, fine sand, loamy sand or
loamy fine sand.
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.)
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.

Mitigation Plan
Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
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.

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Proposed Monitoring Plan

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites

Mitigation Plan Norman's Pasture /Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Sites
Appendix D. Project Plan Sheets

o STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT ]PROGRAM
00
NN
;;
NORMAN'S PASTURE /NORMAN'S PASTURE II
RESTORATION SITES - -
U�
6 PRoJRcr
r LOGITTON SAWSON COUNTY, NORW CAROL[NA
CAPE FEAR RI[BR BASIN
!6A
STEWARTS CREEK LOCAL WATERSEED
tlo
,0 0303OWGIO040
qb
VICINITY MAP �t
O O
Ot�
NOT TO SCALE
L__________________1
EN~'1
___ ____ __ __ ___ _ ____
mW auEwx rA� Fa EA[f TTAYNDB t71 �t SHEET 5, B, 10
TARE Off BSE /JIO�NPN fWHTONfO
'p �t
.—T .ABOUT—' T—.
�eT WOxf 0�0 ®ANLNMO�POW 1
.EPAE
EUONRYm THE.O TO—
-SROMM
JUST NW9E NINE TUOM \\
I �
I
IIII �\
'
III cx �. �TejAPA6�UlEU .3
i 5
U
SHEETS 4, 7, 9
ORAPIUC SCALES PROJECT DATA >•Rq=a
P,.P...r.
` SCI A.Ai...
-8a s B so ,AO �A
n, -,Qs ®.A,.... ..w . .
$HEM 4, 5, 7, a
o.Q 1'cocy;icul
IA 16LI
_,50_75 B 150 000n u u'�'E
33, cv
O
r ,
..,.
141•-lil•.rl SHE�_Ei HL ~ -J ;.; a� �. a

GENERAL NOTES:
BEARING AND DISTANCES:
ALL BEARINGS ARE NAD 1885 GRID BEARINGS.
ALL DISTANCES AND COORDINATES SHORN ARE HORIZONTAL (GROUND) VALUES.
GRADING'
- PROP09ED GRADING NOTES IN THE PLANS ARE A GENERAL GUIDE FOR GRADING,
EXACT TIE OUT 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.
PROJECT LEGEND:
Existing Ditch to be Filled ..
Proposed Ditch Plug . ..... ...
Proposed Stabilized Drainage Outfoll
FASTING
Proposed Seep Enhancement . .
KCINI
CONTROL POINTS:
NORTHING
FASTING
ELEVATION
KCINI
42132702
225518003
84.25
KC1N2
42080202
225552470
SOA4
KC1N3
421074.46
225409657
71.81
KC #4
KCI45
42071993
42015995
2254192.33
2254533.95
78.53
76.72
KCINfi
42002091
225398321
75.53
KCN7
KCI NB
420589 fit
42034762
2254676.16
2255065.72
7612
77.47
KC1N9
42049706
225537018
77.48
KON30
KCINI1
421978.76
42305096
225464955
2254450 D9
95.68
115.17
KC! 412
420425A4
225397207
75.46
KCIN33
42026767
225483242
76.59
KC! 24
KCN15
42145693
421798.55
225404076
2253885.11
66.27
68.59
KCIN16
42158892
225388454
9593
KCN17
KCINIs
42194333
42209354
2253888.17
225383907
91.11
9646
Existing Woods Line _ _ . /VY'Y)
Minor Contour Line _.
Major Contour Line .. - -- n - --
A�
IA
w
rc
N y
7
Zo
Z
w �
z
OEHER
NOTE9 6
PROJECT
LEGEND

DITCH PLLJGG DETAIL
1000ROPhIF All.
RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT DETAIL
— - ----------------- ---
LIVE STAKES
Ell
Imll fill
Ho LL
rc
DUALS

•
•
•
•
•
•
i-,;
-BO JIO�
GRAPHIC SCALE
. v
Mi
M.
ME-
<; ; jljll� FFq
-- --------
Rlu svaU y
O
M ANOCROMECTION 2 _

11 111 � Fuoiao:garwFVUi�
WETIANDGi055SECTION
............
-W 0 80 160
QWHIC
W=UQM
z
0
mm

8
anal WSe
1
.
_
_
.. _ .•�
RYA
!I-
• . -
''
� 1
� aeon
rn
vnrt
tM.Eno
r
navA
.
m
.
• -'VR
--
9
if
F A
t' m'-
esn.
I
n4 BiA
I.nn
GT-
.. -a
ti.vAn
Es Ti '
r.
Ag
I
V%rtA l
W
J
"AT"
tl
irA WI
Tgxr
iTA 1Mr
A
I -
eEVA11W
r
-
- •
I
ATroxel.r
•
•- rl
-_
ifA twit
'
'
ErVI
A1E.hI.EO
y
y
-1
4
nplpoT
t
', VR
t0•
_'
�I
I
aevA
_
w
1
, vW
k l6ahAP
- .-
_. 1•
VPI
AleglW
Twnn
-�-
• I,
Vp BTA
tMOW
•
I'
vw to
swtr
• •
•wieiAt
�
..:T'
aEVA
wivao
rA•
J'
rtA
1 rmW
•
• ' • _I
: 9EVA
EOM•
1
nA 1
,,]ice
a
O
I
_VR
a VA
IDSi
.:t
O
ror a eua _
� 4
—_ +__BO W
OF BIJIN
B
~ mD
I O�
z_ mo
I m �A
i
- - -T s g N
O j !
m i==1
1 BOTMM
—_ __.OF BWK
� I �
I,
V TOV OF 9NIK
A NORMAN'S PASTURE a NORMAN'S PASTURE II = KC I
RESTORATION SITES s
Tom ala vIxwitEw•.cmnwrE
Q F n SAMPSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1',C(hy',1r('lll
rm .aFawW xwo, aulresx BtTe
au>:gx. xartrxavaTUKA neoe WAS"

.44
+44
MVERWE SWAMP FOREST
0
HEA—AMRFMESTWW-
ZO
w 160 12
PLAN No
GRAMIC SCALE

Q
0
l �
0 l (�
-a so ,w �
A l
GR I�
rime
l
l
1
ux E0IEPVJIII�icsrtrcwe
B➢uFIIRr ax1�JEW GV�mm \
\
wl.WmaaYxfwixe \
\
\
\
\
\ ppN
♦\ \\ 2 O
\ W
♦ a

OE-4, GE \ ce �OE
\
CE 9 \
OR
ILI-
OE \
j
W�� a
m Ny
� WW
t
ilyN'5 2 O �F
5 EASEMENT BOUNDARY MARKING p o
THE FASEMENT BOUNDARY HALL BE MARKED K
WITH METAL POSTS AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SI0NSATTHEC0RNERSANDATAMINIMUM0F20d
INTERVALS ALONG THE BOUNDARY
Q O
�� xYK�3'4v Z
-80 X11 0 90 160 ar�o"°�w"m.W"ir em�46fia a°uu°e BOUNDARY
MARNYA
GWHIC SC LLF nwYnarnw �mrvmnnr�rvusoxm�rvwiu�rs PIAN
•

i:i
-eo ��o�o ..o��a{{o --��ieo
GMMILLLIl �
aYa8e� 1
1
1
1
°cwa°"MOe � 1
O 1
1
1
CE�
m \
S
1
f
g
1 E
EASEMENT BOUNDARY MARKING
1 T
THE EASEMENT BOUNDARY WALL BE MARKED
WITH METAL POSTS AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SIGNS AT THE 8
1
c \
\\
\ ti
ce,
�^ \\
CF

1�
I
.. all
� C
i
ME