20040639 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 7_20141230

Burdette, Jennifer a
From:
Smail, Ed <ESmail @mbakerintl.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:10 PM
To:
Higgins, Karen
Cc:
Burdette, Jennifer a; Brown, Craig J SAW (Craig.J.Brown @usace.army.mil); Farthing,
Jim; Elliott, Jason L; Murphy, Gordon; Elliott, Jason L; ralphjohnson540 @msn.com;
dentond @halifaxnc.com
Subject:
Halifax- Northampton Regional Airport - Year Seven Mitigation Monitoring (DWQ
Project # 04 -0639)
Ms. Higgins,
Please find attached in the link below, the 2014 (year seven) Mitigation Monitoring Report for the construction of the
Halifax- Northampton Regional Airport, in Halifax County, NC (Action ID 200420672 and 200421162, DWQ Project # 04-
0639). This report represents the second year of two additional years of supplemental monitoring (for stream buffer
site only). If you require a hard copy, please let me know and one will be provided.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or need additional information.
Link to 2014 Monitoring Report:
https: / /eftpclassic. m ba kercorp.com: 443 ?wtcQI D =U EI ITIVKVkVPW Fk6MXpsZDI KYmg=
Access to this information will expire on 1/6/2015 12:00:00 AM
Happy New Year!
Thanks
es
Edward J. Smail I Environmental Technical Manager I LPA, a Company of Michael Baker International
4401 Belle Oaks Drive, Suite 105 1 North Charleston, SC 29405 1 [O] 843 - 745 -8808 1 [M] 843 - 834 -0988
esmail @mbakerintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com
JNIT'E RNAT101N JOE.
"W l r 9 ;;°cif,, K9 a 6M➢SHI
ILq 1110111 ''Nuu
1

Innovation Done Right ... We Make a Difference
ference
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
December 30, 2014
Ms. Karen Higgins
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Section 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
SUBJECT: Halifax - Northampton Regional Airport
Year Seven Mitigation Monitoring
Action ID 200420672 and 200421162, DWQ Project # 04 -0639
Ms. Higgins:
Please find attached the 2014 (year seven) Mitigation Monitoring Report for the construction of
the Halifax- Northampton Regional Airport. This report represents the second year of two
additional years of supplemental monitoring.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
Edward J. S ail
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Craig Brown, USACE (w /enclosures)
Mr. Jim Farthing, P.E., Baker (w /enclosures)
Mr. Gordon Murphy, Baker (w /enclosures)
Project File (w /enclosures)
4401 Belle Oaks Drive, Ste. 105 1 North Charleston, SC 29405
Erna Lf►sEuy ,�'SALLYPORT MBAKERINTL.COM
C.I.-TI- Office: 843.329.00501 Fax: [phone]

HALIFAX - NORTHAMPTON REGIONAL AIRPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING 2014
YEAR SEVEN
USACE Action ID 200420672 and 200421162
NCDWQ # 04 -0639
Submitted by
Michael Baker Jr. Incorporated
December 2014

Halifax- Northampton Regional Airport
Mitigation Monitoring Year Seven (2014)
December 2014
Introduction
On June 30, 2004, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a Section
404 Permit (Action ID 200420672 and 200421162, DWQ Project # 04 -0639) to the
Halifax- Northampton Regional Airport located in Halifax, North Carolina (refer to
Figure 1) for 0.36 -acre of fill placed in USACE jurisdictional wetlands, 280 linear feet of
impact to an unnamed tributary to Quankey Creek, and 1,642 linear feet of impacts to
unnamed intermittent drainages (refer to Figure 2). These impacts were the result of the
runway site preparation for construction of the Airport in a new location. Wetlands that
were impacted were low quality wetlands consisting of former farm ponds and
naturalized ditches. Streams that were impacted were located in former agricultural
fields, channelized, and did not have vegetated riparian buffers. It was determined by the
USACE and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) at an on -site meeting in
March 16, 2004, that the channelized intermittent drainages did not provide any
important biological function, and mitigation would not be required for impacts to these
drainages.
Construction of Airport Site
Construction began in September of 2004, and the Airport opened to the public in the
Summer of 2009. The project consisted of approximately 596,000 cubic yards of
unclassified excavation and disturbed approximately 192 acres on the Airport property.
This included grading of the runway, parallel taxiway, connector taxiways, and the apron
area. Impacts resulting from the construction of these facilities, 0.36 -acre of wetland
impacts and 280 linear feet of stream impacts, required mitigation. The project also
included construction of three permanent sediment basins to capture on -site runoff. All
on -site runoff was routed to the sediment ponds. A variety of erosion and sediment
control measures were employed during construction to protect adjacent waters and
wetlands. A sequence of riprap check dams, rock dams, and temporary sediment traps
were used to control sediment in the grassed drainage ditches on the site. Additional
sediment was trapped using three stormwater detention basins during construction. Silt
fence was also used to contain runoff from slopes and to protect surrounding wetlands
during construction. A combination of Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 erosion control
matting was used on side slopes and in ditches to prevent erosion and enable growth of
permanent vegetation. Side slopes on ditches and fill slopes were steepened to 3:1 in
order to minimize the disturbed area and avoid impacts to adjacent wetlands. Where
ditches were required to be located adjacent to, or, in the edges of wetlands, the soil
adjacent to the ditches was compacted and a low berm was constructed adjacent to the
ditches to prevent inadvertent wetland draining. Additionally, Best Management
Practices including, but not limited to the use of silt fencing, straw bales, and seeding and
mulching were used where appropriate.
1

Establishment of Mitigation Sites
On -site wetland mitigation consisted of wetland restoration, which involved replanting a
1.5 -acre on -site wetland with native hardwood tree species (refer to Figure 3). The
wetland mitigation site met success criteria in 2010 (year five), so no additional
monitoring occurred in 2013.
To compensate for impacts to the channelized perennial stream, a 7.25 -acre buffer area
was planted with native hardwood species along a 1,485- linear foot section of two
perennial streams, located on Airport property south of SR 1619 (refer to Figures 3 and
4). The buffer site is located along a portion of Little Marsh Swamp and one of its
tributaries, both of which are in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin. The establishment of
vegetated riparian buffer provides water quality benefits to streams by creating a forested
buffer between the stream and future development at the Airport, in an area that consisted
of former agricultural fields vegetated with successional herbaceous species.
Tree seedlings were planted in the wetland restoration and stream buffer sites in the
spring of 2006. They were planted on 10 -foot centers, in rows spaced 10 feet apart,
which provided a total of 436 trees per acre (refer to Figure 4). A total of 654 trees were
planted in the wetland restoration site and 3,161 trees were planted in the stream buffer.
The trees were planted by hand to avoid disturbance to the soil. Table 1 lists the tree
species that were originally planted within the mitigation sites.
Table 1
Planted Tree Species (2006)
Common Name
Species
Wetland Indicator
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
FACW-
Black gum
Nyssa sylvatica
FAC
Water oak
Quercus nigra
FAC
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
OBL
Based on the results of the 2006 and 2007 monitoring events, it was determined that
replanting the wetland and buffer sites would be necessary to establish the prescribed tree
survivability rates. Using the survival rate calculated after the 2007 count an estimate of
the amount of trees needed to replant the site was determined. Based on these
calculations, approximately 3,400 trees were replanted within the wetland restoration site
and the stream buffer site in December of 2007. Due to species shortages of the original
planted species at the time of the replanting, the species detailed in Table 2 below were
used in the wetland site and Table 3 details species planted in the stream buffer site. The
site was replanted by installing the seedlings throughout the sites following the original
planting specifications (10 -foot centers). Live trees that remained from the original
planting were left in place and used as a baseline for determining where to plant the new
seedlings.
W

F-M Table 2
Wetland Restoration Site
Planted Tree Species (2 7)
Common Name
Species
Wetland Indicator
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
FACW-
Tulip poplar
Driodendron tulipifera
FAC
Water oak
Quercus nigra
FAC
River birch
Betula nigra
FACW
After the fifth year of monitoring (2010) the wetland restoration site met the success
criteria of 260 trees per acre, but the stream buffer site fell short of the 320 trees per acre
set forth by DWQ. Therefore at the request of DWQ (refer Appendix A), additional
planting occurred in 2012. To determine the amount of trees necessary to meet the
DWQ's 320 -tree per acre criteria, the data from the 2010 monitoring effort was used,
which indicated that a minimum of 48 additional trees per acre would need to be added to
the site. Based on the sample plot data from the monitoring period, walking the project
site, and review of aerial photography, portions of the site were identified as deficient of
existing trees and in need of replanting (refer to Figure 5). Using this data,
approximately 3.7 acres of the stream buffer site was identified for replanting with
approximately 450 trees (122 per acre). The 450 -tree figure was determined using the
deficiency identified in the 2010 monitoring period, and walking the site to determine the
planting density that would fit within the existing trees. The addition of 122 trees per
acre would increase the likelihood of success, since the total trees per acre using the 2010
data would be 394. This allows for mortality to occur during the monitoring while still
meeting the 320 -tree per acre requirement.
In October of 2012, approximately 3.7 acres of the site was replanted by hand with 450
one - gallon container trees. The 450 trees include the species listed in Table 4 below.
Table 4 '
Stream Buffer Site
L Planted Tree Species (2012)
Table 3
Stream Buffer Site
Planted Tree Species (2007)
Common Name
Species
Wetland Indicator
River birch
Betula nigra
FACW
Black gum
Nyssa sylvatica
FAC
Water oak
Quercus nigra
FAC
After the fifth year of monitoring (2010) the wetland restoration site met the success
criteria of 260 trees per acre, but the stream buffer site fell short of the 320 trees per acre
set forth by DWQ. Therefore at the request of DWQ (refer Appendix A), additional
planting occurred in 2012. To determine the amount of trees necessary to meet the
DWQ's 320 -tree per acre criteria, the data from the 2010 monitoring effort was used,
which indicated that a minimum of 48 additional trees per acre would need to be added to
the site. Based on the sample plot data from the monitoring period, walking the project
site, and review of aerial photography, portions of the site were identified as deficient of
existing trees and in need of replanting (refer to Figure 5). Using this data,
approximately 3.7 acres of the stream buffer site was identified for replanting with
approximately 450 trees (122 per acre). The 450 -tree figure was determined using the
deficiency identified in the 2010 monitoring period, and walking the site to determine the
planting density that would fit within the existing trees. The addition of 122 trees per
acre would increase the likelihood of success, since the total trees per acre using the 2010
data would be 394. This allows for mortality to occur during the monitoring while still
meeting the 320 -tree per acre requirement.
In October of 2012, approximately 3.7 acres of the site was replanted by hand with 450
one - gallon container trees. The 450 trees include the species listed in Table 4 below.
Table 4 '
Stream Buffer Site
L Planted Tree Species (2012)
Common Name
Species
Wetland Indicator
Amount
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
FACW
120
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
I
FACW
110
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
FACW
110
Red maple
Acer rubrum
FAC
110
TOTAL
450
3

The site was replanted by strategically placing the trees throughout the site following the
original planting specifications (10 -foot centers). Live trees that remained from the
original planting were left in place and used as a baseline for determining where to plant
the new seedlings.
In addition to the plantings, the restored wetland area and created stream buffer are
protected through the establishment of a conservation easement. Halifax County is
currently preparing a conservation easement; when it is officially recorded at the Halifax
County Courthouse a copy will be provided to the USACE and DWR. An example copy
of the easement is included in Appendix B.
Methodology
As specified in the mitigation plan, ten sample plots located within the stream buffer
were established during the first sampling event in 2006 (refer to Figure 4). To determine
the location of the ten sample plots within the stream buffer site, the 30 -foot by 100 -foot
plots were drawn on the site plan along the steam channel. The plots were located in the
field by pulling a measuring tape along the channel and marking every 100 feet with
survey flagging. Then ten sample plots were selected in the field to include an overall
sample area that was representative of the entire site. Once the locations of the plots
were determined, the corners were permanently established using 1 -inch diameter,
schedule 40 PVC pipe, placed approximately two feet into the ground using a soil auger.
The approximate location of the ten sample plots selected from the site plan for annual
monitoring are shown on Figure 4.
The data included in Table 5 document the results of the vegetative sampling conducted
in each of the ten stream buffer sample plots. Each living planted tree that was identified
within the sample plots was marked with pink survey tape and counted. Trees were only
counted if living shoots were present. Invasive volunteer species observed in the sample
plots, were also noted. Native volunteer tree species were also counted, but are included
as a separate data set.
Eight permanent photographic stations were established within the stream buffer site.
The locations of the photo stations are depicted on Figure 4. Photographs from these
stations taken on November 13 and 14, 2014, are included in Appendix C.
Vegetation Monitoring and Success Criteria
The wetland and stream buffer sites were monitored annually for five years, starting at
the end of the growing season in 2006. A report detailing the findings of each sample
events was prepared and submitted to the USACE and DWQ annually. This report
presents the results of the seventh year (year two of two for supplemental monitoring) of
monitoring for the stream buffer site.
The 2004 Mitigation Plan set forth the success criteria of the survival of 320 of the
planted trees per acre at the end of the five -year monitoring period in the stream buffer
site. Data collected during the monitoring events were evaluated to determine what, if
any, adjustments would need to be undertaken at the wetland restoration site and stream
2

buffer site to ensure mitigation success. This has included the replanting of trees in 2007
and 2012.
2014 Vegetative Sampling Results (Year Seven)
As specified in the mitigation plan, success within the restoration areas will be achieved
when at the end of the five -year monitoring period 320 of the planted trees per acre
survive in the stream buffer site.
Stream Restoration Site
As indicated in Table 5 below, the live tree counts within the stream buffer
restoration site ranged from 20 to 45 without volunteer species and from 24 to 73
when volunteers were included in the total counts. The total trees counted
without volunteers totaled 312 and 433 when volunteers are included. Since the
plots represent 10 percent of the total site, multiplying the total by 10 extrapolates
the data to calculate estimates for the entire site. Dividing the extrapolated total
by the total acreage (7.25 acres) results in 430 trees per acre without counting
volunteer species, and 597 trees per acre with volunteer species included in the
total counts.
Adaptive Management
A small portion of the stream restoration site was accidently cleared since the last
monitoring period. This is a fringe area where mowing of the adjacent managed area
encroached on the site. The Airport has coordinated with maintenance personnel to
preclude this from occurring again and the limits of the site have been marked in this
5
Table 5
Tree Count Results
Stream Buffer Restoration Site A -A
Sample
Plot
Number
Counted
(2006)
Number
Counted
(2007)
Number
Counted*
(2008)
Number
Counted
(2009)
Number
Counted
(2010)
Number
Counted*
(2013)
Number
Counted*
w/Vols.
(2013)
Number
Counted
(2014)
Number
Counted
w/Vols.
(2014)
Plot 1
1
0
3
2
7
11
29
21
28
Plot 2
3
1
7
8
10
45
45
36
41
Plot 3
3
0
10
14
25
39
41
33
39
Plot 4
9
2
10
12
15
31
31
20
25
Plot 5
1
2
9
6
7
18
18
22
24
Plot 6
5
7
11
16
21
44
44
37
44
Plot?
7
4
17
16
30
51
55
45
59
Plot 8
8
0
13
16
33
34
40
39
45
Plot 9
20
5
8
16
29
33
86
29
73
Plot 10
17
13
13
17
21
23
43
30
55
TOTAL
74
34
101
123
198
329
432
312
433
Trees /acre
1 100
48
135
174
272
454
596
430
597
*The site was replanted in December of 2007 and October of 2012.
Volunteer counts only included nativespecies.
Adaptive Management
A small portion of the stream restoration site was accidently cleared since the last
monitoring period. This is a fringe area where mowing of the adjacent managed area
encroached on the site. The Airport has coordinated with maintenance personnel to
preclude this from occurring again and the limits of the site have been marked in this
5

area. Trees in these areas appear to be re- sprouting (from roots) and since the tree
density goals are currently being met, no immediate action will be taken.
Conclusions
In the seventh monitoring period (2014) the goal of 320 trees per acre set forth in the
2004 Mitigation Plan is currently being met in the stream buffer restoration site using
data both including and not including volunteer tree species. Therefore, it is
recommended that the site be considered a success and relieved from future vegetation
monitoring requirements. Once a recorded conservation easement is provided to DWR
and the USACE, all permit /mitigation conditions will have been met. Once this occurs, it
is proposed that mitigation associated with Action IDs 200420672 and 200421162, and
DWQ Project # 04 -0639 be formally closed out by DWR and the USACE.
Con

FIGURES

i I A I l r n X //` ` 1
_ Legend
Airport Property
l - ' : �.
jib 9031 ;
a�L_aGp. —
it f. _ � r _•._ �1 _ :;tom . '�;'
1 .•.r• r ` � . '`,`- ' y yr
? 1 \ 1
p Ope � ) —r'
lb
Rf _ • ' •
� J
561.
1 inch = 2,000 feet
s Feet
DATE
Project Location Map 12 -7 -2012
Halifax- Northampton Regional Airport
Halifax County, North Carolina FIGURE
1 OF 5

Permitted Wed and and Stream Impacts
SAW- 2004- 20672/SAW- 2004 - 21162 /DW 04 -0639 ) I Legend
Acres /Linear Feet aF Mifigafian
WetlanNStream R) Im t Wetland/Strearn Type Required )
�` WN) - -% _ _ �) I Creek, Pond, Lake
I 0.01 Freshwater Marsh No r
2 0401 Freshwater Marsh Y �1 II
Airport Property
3 0.2 Freshwater Marsh /Forest No 1 II I
4 0.04 Freshwater Marsh Yes
1
5 0.05 Freshwater Marsh Yes r•�I / III 1 L _ _ I Limits of Disturbance
6 0401 Freshwater Marsh Yes
7 0.04 Freshwater Marsh Yes Intermittent Stream
A 280 Perennial
B 199 Intemuttent Linear Wetland
C 13430 Intemuttent No B 1 )
D 13 Intemrittent No - )
4 I / Perennial Stream
I /
µ Wetland
now-
J
f
5
I
y f,
M
II v
I � )
+ j'—
tAl. �R I
1
I I.
I I
I _
D
1111 gilt
1
I
I •_
I
Permitted Impacts
Halifax- Northampton Regional Airport
Halifax County, North Carolina
Op ,
0 500 1,000
Feet
DATE
12 -7 -2012
FIGURE
2 OF5

Replanting area of
approximately 3.7 acres
Legend
– — Creek, Pond, Lake
Replanting Area
Airport Property
Mitigation Site
4
F' Stream Buffer Site
Planted Tree Species (2012)
Common Name Species Wetlandlndicator Amount
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis FACW 120
N_ Green ash Fraxinuspennsylvanica FACW 110
Willow oak Quercus phellos FACW 110
Red maple Acer rubrum VAC "0
TOTAL 450
0 100 200
Feet
DATE
Replanting Areas within Stream Mitigation Site 12 -7 -2012
Halifax - Northampton Regional Airport
Halifax County, North Carolina FIGURE
50F5

APPENDIX A
AGENCY COORDINATION

-��
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
January 4, 2010
Mr. Rick Benton
Halifax- Northampton Regional Airport Authority
P.O. Box 38
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870 -2809
Re: Halifax- Northampton Regional Airport
Year 5 Mitigation Monitoring Report
Halifax County
DWQ #04 -0639
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Oversight and Express Review Permitting Unit has reviewed
the Monitoring Report for the above - referenced site. Our comments on the report are as follows:
• The vegetation monitoring for the wetland restoration area appears to meet the success criteria of
an average of 260 stems per acre after five years.
The tree density in the buffer restoration area is 275 trees per acre. While the report states that
"The vegetative success criteria set forth in the mitigation plan have been met for both sites
(wetland and buffer) for the fifth year (as the plan prescribed).... ", the 401 Water Quality
Certification and Tar - Pamlico Buffer Authorization, issued on June 18, 2004, states that the
required tree density is 320 stems per acre (15A NCAC .02B .0260 (9)(d)(ii). In addition, a letter
dated July 24, 2004 from Terry G. Bumpus (LPA Group of North Carolina) to John Dorney
(DWQ) states that "trees will be monitored to ensure that a minimum of 320 trees per acre will be
alive in the buffer areas at the end of five years ".
If this buffer restoration site is to serve as compensatory mitigation to offset impacts approved in your
Buffer Authorization, the success criteria must be met. Your options are to do supplemental planting to
sufficiently meet the 320 stems per acre requirement and monitoring the site for an additional two (2)
years, or to abandon the site and purchase buffer mitigation credits from either an approved private buffer
mitigation bank or the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Failure to provide adequate compensatory mitigation for authorized buffer impacts would represent a
violation of the Tar - Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules.
Within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, please submit a written response describing your plan for
complying with the success criteria for the buffer mitigation site, and a schedule for completing the
replanting work.
In addition, the wetland mitigation portion of the project will not be considered by DWQ to be closed out
until a copy of the recorded conservation easement is provided.
Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz at (919) 807 -6301 if you have any questions regarding this project or
our comments.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650 One
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] NorthCarolina
Internet: http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /ws /
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer Y%tura i / y

Mr. Benton, Halifax- Northampton Regional Airport
Year 5 Mitigation Monitoring Report
Page 2 of 2
January 4, 2011
Sincepply,
Ian McMillan, Acting Supervisor
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Lauren Witherspoon — DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Cyndi Karoly DWQ Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
James Lastinger — USACE, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Edward J. Smail — LPA Group Incorporated, 700 Huger Street, P.O. Box 5805, Columbia, SC 29250
Filename: 040639Hal ifaxNorthamptonRegionalAirport( Ilalifax )5YearMitigationMonitoringReport

ALT;.KWA
74
_�JFA
OL
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resouces
Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder
Governor Director
February 6, 2014
Halifax- Northawton Regional Airport Authority
P -0. Box 38
Roanoke Rapids, NC ?787(01.,2809
Re: Halifax- Northarjapton Regional AhTort
Year 6 Mitigation Supplemental Monitoring Report
Halifax County
DWQ #04 -0639
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit has reviewed the
Monitoring Rene =rt for flie abnve- referenced sites Our com;�ieitts on Ebe report are as follows-.
According to the report, supplemental planting was done in the buffer restoration area in
October of 2012. It appears that the number of stems planted was adequate to bring up
the stem counts to meet the performance standard of at least 320 stems per acre. The
2014 monitoring effort will provide data on the survival of the planted trees at the site.
Assuming the performance standard is met following the 2014 monitoring effort, a site
visit should be coordinated with you and your consultant, DWR and USACE personnel to
confirm the mitigation requirements in the 404, 401 permits have been satisfied.
T�lle A o c �j� �.-� �k? �j1rP the �.nnc .rv;?t?+r?n e�S���?"':t 1S su f f,c��Pt-�th rn �� to
_ i ice, a is L.. A. i J t _Lc .1r ��.t ♦.>
prevent additional encroachment activities such as mowing. A requirement of the
404/401 permitting process is that the mitigation site be protected in perpetuity.
Please verify that a. conservation easement 4as been. recorded for both the wetland' and
buffer mitigation sites by providing a copy of the recorded conservation easement.
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 1650
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919 - 807 -63001 FAX: 919 - 807 -64941 Customer Service: 1- 877 - 623 -6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
Air Equal Oppciunity \Affirmative Action Employer
NofthCarolina
)Vah(rally

Mr. Benton
Halifax - Northampton Regional Airport
Year 6 Mitigation Monitoring Report
Page 2 of 2
Pease feel free to c orltact Eric- Kulz at (919' ) 8 ► 7 -6476 if you have any questions
regarding this project or our com - ments:
�nVLrery,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
x:01 and Buffer Permitting Unit
cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Danny Smith — DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
James Lastinger - USACE, Raleigh Regulatory
Edward J. Smail — Michael Baker Jr., Inc., 4401
North Charleston, SC 29405
Field Office
Belle Oaks Drive, Suite 105,

APPENDIX B
SAMPLE CONSERVATION EASEMENT

MODEL DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
August, 2003
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY
CONSERVATION DECLARATION
This DECLARATION of CONSERVATION COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, and
RESTRICTIONS (" ") is made on this day of ,
200_, by [NAME AND ADDRESS OF DECLARANT] "Declarant ").
RECITALS & CONSERVATION PURPOSES
A. Declarant is the sole owner in fee simple of the certain Conservation
Property (Property) being approximately acres, more particularly described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein [reference to a
recorded map showing a survey of the preserved area may be required]; and
B. The purpose of this Conservation Declaration is to maintain wetland and/or
riparian resources and other natural values of the Property, and prevent the use or
development of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would conflict with
the maintenance of the Property in its natural condition. The preservation of the Property
in its natural condition is a condition of Department of the Army permit Action ID
issued by the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), required
to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States authorized by that
permit, and this Conservation Declaration may therefore be enforced by the United States
of America.
NOW, THEREFORE the Declarant hereby unconditionally and irrevocably declares that
the Property shall be held and subject to the following restrictions, covenants and
conditions as set out herein, to run with the subject real property and be binding on all
parties that have or shall have any right, title, or interest in said property.
ARTICLE I. PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Property inconsistent with the purposes of this
Conservation Declaration is prohibited. The Property shall be maintained in its natural,
scenic, and open condition and restricted from any development or use that would impair
1

or interfere with the conservation purposes of this Conservation Declaration set forth
above.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses are
expressly prohibited or restricted.
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Property or any introduction of non - native
plants and/or animal species is prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display,
antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or
permanent structure or facility on or above the Property.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or
commercial activities, including any right of passage for such purposes are prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Property are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming, cutting
or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation on the Property.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the property.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Property, except the
posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation values of the Property,
signs giving directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Property
and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the property.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or other
materials on the Property is prohibited.
I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any manner
on the Property, except to restore natural topography or drainage patterns.
J. Water Qualfty and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration
of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition, diverting or causing
2

or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into, within or out of the
easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters,
springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered or
extinguished by this Conservation Declaration shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all- terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited.
M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Property which is or
may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Property
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is
prohibited.
ARTICLE II. ENFORCEMENT & REMEDIES
A. This Declaration is intended to ensure continued compliance with the
mitigation condition of authorizations issued by the United States of America, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, and therefore may be enforced by the United
States of America. This covenant is to run with the land and shall be binding on all
parties and all persons claiming under the Declarant.
B. Corps, its employees and agents and its successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Property at reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting the Property to determine whether the Declarant, Declarant's representatives,
or assigns are complying with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation
Declaration.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Declaration shall be construed to
entitle Corps to bring any action against Declarant for any injury or change in the
Conservation Property caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Declarant's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement,
or from any prudent action taken in good faith by the Declarant under emergency
conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to Property or
harm to the Property resulting from such causes.
ARTICLE III. PUBLIC ACCESS
A. This Conservation Declaration does not convey to the public the right to
enter the Property for any purpose whatsoever.
3

ARTICLE IV. DOCUMENTATION AND TITLE
A. Conservation Property Condition. The Declarant represents and
acknowledges that the Property is currently undeveloped land, with no improvements
other than any existing utility lines, Declarations and rights of way.
B. Title. The Declarant covenants and represents that the Declarant is the
sole owner and is seized of the Property in fee simple and has good right to make the
herein Declaration; that there is legal access to the Property, that the Property is free and
clear of any and all encumbrances, except Declarations of record.
ARTICLE V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Conservation Purpose.
(1) Declarant, for itself, its successors and assigns, agrees that this
Conservation Property shall be held exclusively for conservation purposes.
B. Entire Agreement. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the
parties with respect to the Conservation Declaration and supersedes all prior discussions,
negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Declaration. If
any provision is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Conservation
Declaration, 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.
C. Recording. Declarant shall record this instrument and any amendment
hereto in timely fashion in the official records of County, North Carolina,
and may re- record it at any time as may be required to preserve its rights.
D. Environmental Condition of Conservation Property. The Declarant
warrants and represents that to the best of its knowledge after appropriate inquiry and
investigation: (a) the Property described herein is and at all times hereafter will continue
to be in full compliance with all federal, state and local environmental laws and
regulations, and (b) as of the date hereof there are no hazardous materials, substances,
wastes, or environmentally regulated substances (including, without limitation, any
materials containing asbestos) located on, in or under the Property or used in connection
therewith, and that there is no environmental condition existing on the Property that may
prohibit or impede use of the Property for the purposes set forth in the Recitals.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day and
year first above written.
[Signature of Declarant in proper form)

APPENDIX C
STREAM SITE PHOTOGRAPHIC STATIONS

Site Photographs - Stream Buffer Restoration Site
Photographic Station 1 (PS -1) — November 13, 2014
Photographic Station 1 (PS -1) — November 13, 2014

Photographic Station 2 (PS -2) — November 13, 2014
Photographic Station 2 (PS -2) — November 13, 2014

I .- I r-I
F�.
x-
�xc°„yy

Photographic Station 4 (PS -4) — November 14, 2014
Photographic Station 4 (PS -4) — November 14, 2014

Photographic Station 5 (PS -5) — November 14, 2014
Photographic Station 6 (PS -6) — November 14, 2014

Photographic Station 6 (PS -6) — November 14, 2014
Photographic Station 7 (PS -7) — November 14, 2014

Photographic Station 7 (PS -7) — November 14, 2014
Photographic Station 8 (PS -8) — November 14, 2014

Photographic Station 8 (PS -8) — November 14, 2014

Photographic Timeline (2006 -2014)
Stream Buffer Restoration Site
Photograph 1— Stream buffer restoration site from Photographic Station PS -1 (November 2006)

Photograph 2 — Stream buffer restoration site from Photographic Station PS -1 (September 2007)

Photograph 3 — Stream buffer restoration site from Photographic Station PS -1 (October 2008)

Photograph 4 — Stream buffer restoration site from Photographic Station PS -1 (October 2009)

Photograph 5 — Stream buffer restoration site from Photographic Station PS -1 (October 2010)

Photograph 6 — Stream buffer restoration site from Photographic Station PS -1 (November 2014)