20150350 Ver 1_401 Application_20150415

o�oF wn rF9o�
0
20)5n��.
%W V
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 1 4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009
to
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 27 or General Permit (GP) number
1c
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑X Yes ❑ No
1 d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program
❑ Yes ❑X No
1g
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h
below
❑X Yes ❑ No
1 h
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2.
Project Information
2a
Name of project
South Clayton Blocks Hydrology Restoration Pilot Project
2b
County
Hyde
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Pantego, NC
2d
Subdivision name
N/A
2e
NCDOT only, T I P or state project no
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
3b
Deed Book and Page No
Vol 137, Pages 392 -398
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
Refuge Manager, Howard Phillips APR 0 0 2015
3d
Street address
205 South Ludington Drive DENR -
3e
City, state, zip
PE
Columbia, NC 27925 BUFFER RMITTING
3f
Telephone no
252- 796 -3004 x226
3g
Fax no
252- 796 -3010
3h
Email address
howard_phillipsCfws gov (note underscore between first and last names)
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

Er
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a Applicant is
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify
4b Name
4c Business name
(if applicable)
4d Street address
4e City, state, zip
4f Telephone no
4g Fax no
4h Email address
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a Name
5b Business name
(if applicable)
5c Street address
5d City, state, zip
5e Telephone no
5f Fax no
5g Email address
t
1•�,• }_i• _RUC ,4•
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
#84- 064 -6091
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 35 629257 Longitude -76 502843
1c
Property size
1,325 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project
Pungo River
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
SC, NSW
2c
River basin
Pasquotank and Tar - Pamlico water basins
3.
Project Description
3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
See attached B 3a
3b
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property See attached B 3b
3c
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property See attached B 3c
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project
See attached B 3d
3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
See attached B 3e
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments
4b
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
Preliminary ❑ Final
4c
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known) Kyle Barnes
Agency /Consultant Company USFWS
Other Emily Jernigan and Rose Railey
4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
Field Data collection was conducted on August 5 -6 2014 Kyle Barnes with USACE field verified the delineation with Emily Jernigan FWS on
September 17, 2014 Preliminary JD data and appropriate forms are included
5.
Project History
5a
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
5b If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions
see attached B 5b
6.
Future Project Plans
6a
Is this a phased project?
❑X Yes ❑ No
6b If yes, explain
This protect is part of a broader effort to restore hydrology on 17,200 acres of refuge lands known as Watershed 1 on historically drained pocosin
wetlands In this specific, 1,325 acre project area, there is no further work planned
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
❑ Wetlands ❑X Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b
Type of impact
2c
Type of wetland
2d
Forested
2e
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
2g Total Wetland Impacts:
2h Comments
No wetland impacts associated with this project
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b
Type of impact
3c
Stream name
3d
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e
Type of
jurisdiction
3f
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Water Control Structure
N/A Canal
PER
Corps and DWQ
20
8
S2 P
Water Control Structure
N/A Canal
PER
Corps and DWQ
20
8
S3 P
Water Control Structure
N/A Canal
PER
Corps and DWQ
20
8
S4 P
Bank Stabilization
N/A Canal
PER
Corps and DWQ
20
5
S5 P
Bank Stabilization
N/A Canal
PER
Corps and DWQ
20
5
S6 P
Bank Stabilization
N/A Canal
PER
Corps and DWQ
20
5
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
39
31 Comments
See attached C 31
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U S then indivii ually list all open water impacts below
4a
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c
Type of impact
4d
Waterbody
type
4e
Area of impact (acres)
01
02
03
04
4f Total open water impacts
4g Comments
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below
5a
Pond ID number
5b
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
P2
5f Total:
5g Comments
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
5j Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other
6b
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Stream name
6e
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
61
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
6h Total Buffer Impacts:
61 Comments
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
In order to completely avoid all wetlands impacts associated with this project, the proposed canal /berm construction has been designed to avoid a
wetland area in Block C14 It will leave an area of 35 feet adjacent to the existing canal undisturbed by rerouting the new berm within that block 35
feet to the east The only anticipated impacts to waters of the U S will be the WCS, and they will be minimized by selecting the properly sized WCS for
this feature
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
To minimize impacts, dredging the canal and building the berm will occur during dry conditions An excavator will be used to dredge the new canal
parallel to the new berm location, placing the fill material on existing uplands at the new berm location as it is dredged A bulldozer will be used to
shape the material once it has dned Silt fences will be installed where needed to prevent release of sediment from the protect area
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Type
Type
Quantity
Quantity
Quantity
3c Comments
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
4h Comments
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
Page 6of10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation
Yes ❑X No
6b If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
Zone
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1 5
6f Total buffer mitigation required:
6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund)
6h Comments
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
%
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why
The protect goal is to restore historically drained wetland, there is no proposed creation of impervious surfaces
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
N/A
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply)
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply)
❑Session Law 2006 -246
❑Other
4b
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑X Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
lb
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑X No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter)
Comments
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a
Is the site In violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑Yes ❑X No
2c
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s)
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description
The
proposed project would restore, to the greatest extent possible, the natural sheet flow hydrology on the Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
The
project will return lands to a saturated condition, re- establishing their nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon sequestration function This restoration
project will have positive, not negative, effects to off -site water quality It will improve water quality in surrounding nutrient sensitive lakes and rivers
such as Pungo Lake and Pungo River
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
N/A
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

S. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
© Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
Raleigh
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Past Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge surveys, NC Natural Heritage Data Explorer, and Raleigh FO GIS Information
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑Yes ®No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Past Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge surveys and EFH mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
I
E] Yes XQ No
status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Consultation with Richard Kanaski, Regional Historic Preservation Officer and Archaeologist, USFWS, Southeast Region Also the publication "A
Cultural Resource Investigation of the Pungo National Wildlife Refuge, Hyde and Washington Counties, North Carolina" (1978, Soil Systems, Inc )
B. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ❑ No
8b If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements
I
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Accessed internet websites http //www ncfloodmaps com, then selected DFIRM panels #7740 and #7648, which show the project area Accessed soil
types in the project area from the NRCS Web Soil Survey at http / /websoilsurvey sc egov usda
HOWARD PHILLIPS
REFUGE MANAr
'
sc
Date
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided
Page 10 of 10

Clayton Road PCN — Attached answers
B. PROJECT INFORMATION AND PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY
3. Project Description
B. 3a.
The project area is within a 1,325 acre parcel of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in pocosin habitat
characterized by deep peat. The current unnatural dry state of the peat is dangerously combustible and erodible.
Prior to refuge ownership, ditches and canals were constructed to drain the pocosm wetlands to provide access
for timber harvest, agriculture and pasture purposes.
The project area is bordered on the north and east by additional refuge lands. Agricultural croplands border the
project area on the south and west. There are no residential areas in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project area. (See attached Map #2)
B. 3b.
Historically there were 1,300 acres of wetlands in the project area, but due to historical drainage prior to refuge
establishment, the wetland acreage on the property has been greatly reduced. A preliminary jurisdictional
determination (JD) was done to ensure that none of the proposed construction occurred in jurisdictional
wetlands. The estimated acreage of the preliminary JD is 2.5 acres of wetland, which is outside of the
construction area. There are pockets within the greater 1,300 acres and outside of our construction footprint
that potentially still meet the wetland criteria, but for this preliminary JD they weren't distinguished due to the
purpose of restoring the area to wetland conditions.
B. 3e.
The project area has 31,680 linear feet of canals. These include main canals and collector canals. These canals
have been deemed waters of the US and are jurisdictional, and therefore are treated as streams
B. 3d. Purpose of Project
The purpose of this project is to restore pocosin wetland hydrology, a high priority at the Pocosin Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge. Due to the concerns over hydrological impacts on privately held lands adjacent to the
project area, the refuge cannot manage water to optimal levels. The proposed action would restore, to the
greatest extent practicable, the natural sheet flow hydrology on these refuge wetlands while maintaining
adequate road accessibility and avoiding impacts on adjacent landowners.
The project will return lands to a seasonally saturated condition and re- establish their nitrogen, phosphorus, and
carbon sequestration function. In combination with previous hydrological restoration projects, this restoration
will aid in reducing the potential for local water quality degradation. The restored hydrology will also restore

and enhance wildlife habitat for native species, and thus increase wildlife quantity and diversity of wildlife on
the refuge for the continuing benefit of the American people. In summary, the purpose and associated positive
effects of this project are: restored pocosin hydrology, improved water quality, reduced risk of wildfire, carbon
sequestration and enhanced wildlife habitat
B. 3e. Overall Description
The proposed project area is approximately 1,325 acres of historically drained pocosin wetland, on the property
of the 110,000 acre Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. It is comprised of four sections called "blocks"
within two Hydrology Management Units, and is situated south of Coulbourn Road, north of Fred Gall Road,
east of Clayton Road and west of DeHoog Road (See attached map #1)
This project consists of building approximately three miles of berm by excavating a canal and using the borrow
material for the berm The berm has been designed to be the smallest size possible and still fulfill the purpose
of the project. To manage water levels, the project calls for installing flashboard riser water control structures
(WCS) in three locations within the new canal.
The new berm construction will be within Hydrology Management Units C -14 and C -15, moving from north to
south. It will include two miles along the western boundary of the project area, parallel to Clayton Road, and
one mile along the southern boundary of the project area, parallel to Fred Gall Road. All spoil placement and
associated berm work will be conducted on uplands and will be outside of jurisdictional wetland areas to avoid
wetland impacts. Upon conducting a preliminary delineation, there was only one area that was jurisdictionally
determined to have met wetland criteria. This area will be specifically avoided by having construction
performed outside of a 35 foot wide, half mile long area on the western side of Block C14. (See map # 3 and
figures # 1 and 2)
For this new three mile berm and canal system, the total footprint would be approximately 25 acres. When the
berm is constructed it will measure 5' high by 12' wide at the top and 36' wide at the bottom. After settling, the
height of the berm will decrease to approximately 3.5 to 4 feet, the top and bottom widths (12 ft and 36 ft.) will
remain the same. Calculations and drawings use the 4 foot height to be conservative. At the 4 foot height, the
slope is 3 to 1. These are typical dimensions for low- elevation berms in this area. (See attached figure # 2)
The three WCSs will each be single 72" diameter culvert flashboard risers They will all be placed within the
two mile canal on the western side of the project area. One of the WCSs will allow for water flow into the two
management units and the other two will control water flow out of each of the management units. Two WCS
will be installed in Unit C -14: one in the NW corner and one in the SW corner. The other WCS will be in unit
C -15 at the SW corner. (See attached figure # 1, 3, and 4)
For the WCS placed at the NW corner of C -14, the impact will be approximately 8 linear feet. The total length
of the structure is 44 feet. This structure will be placed in an existing berm with a bottom width of
approximately 36 feet. The front of the structure will be flush with the north edge of the berm. The proposed
impact is 8 feet of outflow culvert extending into the canal. (See attached figures #4 and 5)
For the WCS placed at the SW corner of C -14, the impact will be approximately 8 linear feet The total length
of the structure is 44 feet. This structure will be placed in an existing berm with a bottom width of

approximately 36 feet The front edge of the structure will be flush with the north edge of the berm. The
proposed impact is 8 feet of outflow culvert extending into the canal. (See attached figures #4 and 5)
For the WCS placed at the SW corner of C -15, the impact will be approximately 8 linear feet. The total length
of the structure is 44 feet This structure will be placed in a new berm with a bottom width of approximately 36
feet, which will be constructed on existing uplands.The front edge of the structure will be flush with the north
edge of the berm. The proposed impact is 8 feet of outflow culvert extending into the canal. (See attached
figures # 4 and 5)
The bank around the front of each of the three WCS will be stabilized with an aluminum bulkhead and
well - packed onsite soil and plantings. The aluminum bulkhead will extend for 6 feet on either side of the 8 foot
wide WCS. The outflow side of the bank will be stabilized with riprap, well - packed onsite soil, and plantings.
The riprap will extend for approximately the same width of the aluminum bulkhead on the front of the WCS,
which would be approximately 7 feet on either side of the 6 foot wide culvert. The riprap will be placed above
and below the high water mark, but will not extend more than 5 linear feet into the canal. (See attached figures
#3, 4, and 5)
Construction will require the use of a long reach excavator and a bulldozer and will proceed as follows:
1) Dredge a canal parallel to the proposed berm location, placing the fill borrow material in the designated
upland area for the new berm as it is dredged. Silt fences, placed at the existing C -15 WCS, will be used to
prevent any release of sediment from the project area. Equipment to be used: Excavator.
2) Build berms, using dredged material. The berm will be constructed during dry conditions. It will consist of
only the dredged fill borrow material and will not be capped. Equipment to be used: An excavator to place the
borrow material from the new canal and a bulldozer to shape the material once it has dried.
3) Install the WCS's and associated culverts. Installation will be done in -house with refuge staff and equipment.
4) Erosion and sediment control — To prevent erosion and provide stabilization, seeding will be done using a
combination of creeping red fescue and some of the following species: red clover, German foxtail, browntop
millet, annual ryegrass, oats, wheat and /or rye. Creeping red fescue is fairly tolerant of deer browse and
provides non - invasive perennial grass cover. Of the grains listed, species selection will depend on time of year
that the construction is undertaken to allow for quick green -up cover. These species were chosen based on their
relative low cost, availability, adaptability, ease of handling, non - invasive natures, and effectiveness. The area
will be prepped with 2000 pounds per acre of ground lime, and fertilized with 400 pounds per acre of 10- 10 -10.
Following the seeding, the area will be mulched at a rate of approximately 3000 pounds per acre.
5) After project is completed, Refuge Staff members will monitor recent work to ensure the seeding and
stabilization is occurring as planned. Additionally, after heavy rain events the site will be reviewed and any
sedimentation issues will be addressed and brought back to permit specs to ensure consistency.
B. 5b.
The proposed project is in an area of the refuge called Watershed One where prior work for hydrology
restoration was permitted. The prior work in the Clayton Blocks area involved installing water control structures

in the existing canal adjacent to private landowners The current proposed action is separate from this prior
work, none of the older structures are being used in this plan.
The proposed action will allow the refuge to restore approximately 1,300 acres without impacting adjacent
landowners, something that was not possible with the prior work. After this project is completed, no further
work is planned in the 1,300 acre project area.
See attached two permits previously issued for Watershed One•
• Individual Permit # SAW- 1995- 03799, Issued 11/03/1995 — 12/31/1998.
• General Permit # SAW - 200801166 (NW27), Issued 4/2/2008 —04/02/2010.
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
C. 3i
For each water control structure (WCS) installed, there is an estimated 8 linear feet of impact.
For the WCS placed at the NW corner of C -14, the impact will be approximately 8 linear feet. The total length
of the structure is 44 feet. This structure will be placed in an existing berm with a bottom width of
approximately 36 feet. The front of the structure will be flush with the north edge of the berm. The proposed
impact is 8 feet of outflow culvert extending into the canal. (See attached figures # 1, 4, and 5)
For the WCS placed at the SW corner of C -14, the impact will be approximately 8 linear feet. The total length
of the structure is 44 feet. This structure will be placed in an existing berm with a bottom width of
approximately 36 feet. The front edge of the structure will be flush with the north edge of the berm. The
proposed impact is 8 feet of outflow culvert extending into the canal. (See attached figures # 1, 4, and 5)
For the WCS placed at the SW corner of C -15, the impact will be approximately 8 linear feet. The total length
of the structure is 44 feet. This structure will be placed in a new berm with a bottom width of approximately 36
feet, which will be constructed on existing uplands. The front edge of the structure will be flush with the north
edge of the berm. The proposed impact is 8 feet of outflow culvert extending into the canal. (See attached
figures # 1, 4, and 5)
For the riprap associated with each WCS, the impact will be no more than 5 linear feet.
The outflow side of the bank will be stabilized with riprap, well - packed onsite soil, and plantings. The riprap
will extend for approximately the same width of the aluminum bulkhead on the front of the WCS, which would
be approximately 20 feet. The riprap will be placed above and below the high water mark, but will not extend
more than 5 linear feet into the canal. (See attached figures # 4 and 5)

Columbia
Hwy 64
Pocosin Lakes NWR
Pungo
Lake
rn
3
2
HiyY 45
Pantego
Hwy 264
Creswell
Q
Id
cn Newland F , \
0
m
o �
Lake Phelps
r ,
r '
r
r
r
a,
0
o�
.c,
o,
New Lake
r
r
Miles
0 1.5 3 6 9 12
Map 1
N
Legend
r
Water Bodies
Refuge Lands
Paved Roads
- - Gravel Roads

M
Q
cu
2
I . 1 C)
_ --
_ N N
W V/ T
0 O O
O O
Eo
C CD C O (D
•� I ++ v +- C C C
a W W W c� z
(D i 4 a C
LO
U
N
N
� r
ti
0
U-)
O
N
O
M
G1
-
L
a
'o
L
r
a
�
I . 1 C)
_ --
_ N N
W V/ T
0 O O
O O
Eo
C CD C O (D
•� I ++ v +- C C C
a W W W c� z
(D i 4 a C
LO
U
N
N
� r
ti
0
U-)
O
N
O
M

Top View of Existing and Proposed Figure 1

Figure 2
Cross Sectional View of Existing
and Proposed Berms and Canals
C -14 block
Approximate
3:1 slope New Berm
Existing Berm
12'
3S' � 4, 30' Ground Level
------ ------ - - - - --
Existing Canal/ < 36' New Canal
Approximate
New Berm
Existing Berm
3:1 slope
12'
20 4'
30'
Existing Canal 36' New Canal /
Rest of construction
Ground Level

Figure 3
Frontal View of Water
Control Structure
Flashboard riser
Top of berm
aluminum bulkhead with
earthen fill behind
Boards in riser
6' diameter culvert
.J. J�.J•..l. n r.�
•r••r•.ti,f.ti ,f.
6' 8' 6'

11'
Water in
canal
Cross Section of Water
Control Structure
Not to Scale
4.5'
H Top of berm
6'
Figure 4
Earthen fill
Riprap
40'
Flow
Boards Aluminum corrugated culvert
Cross - sectional view
6'
Figure 4

Figure 5
Top View of Water Control Structure in Berm
Not to scale
31

Supporting Information for South Clayton Blocks Hydrology
Restoration Pilot Project PCN
1. Topographic Maps
2. National Wetland Inventory Maps and USDA Soil Maps of Project
Area
3. Prior Permits
4. NEPA documentation - Categorical Exclusion
5. Section 7
6. Cultural Resources finding of no impact
7. FEMA floodplain determination

ELM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U. fl GEOIAGICAL SURVEY
O US Topo
NEW LAKE NW QUADRANGLE
NOR"
I
m X.a
naa�.a b. =unto Rm cweyol w..., SCALE 1:24 000 —
....w n. ..• ^ NEW LAKE NW, NC
201)

Close -up of Prior Map
I
36 °37'30' -
'65 '66
-
12 750000 FEET 367
76 °30
Produced by the United States Geological Survey
North Amerton Datum d 19B31NAD831
v ,ld raadetk System of 1sU J /G%41. Pro3ectlan and
1 000 colter gnd: Uniservl Transverse Mercator, Z.- 1M
1000D foot ticks: North Carolina Coardndte System of 1983
if�WT
1
yn ........................ .......................NNP..Mie 2011
agery..
RRQI TWdf MT1QNl
—tR M nnN
Roads .................... ..........................020D6 2012 T—T-
Na— s— ............................. .......................... GNIS, 2013
u.5. NMbna One
ItydroVaphy ....................National Hydropaphy Datnet, 2012
�m.wo. soi,.m io
Contours.... ........................National Elevation Data , 2008
Bourd.n L ...................Call IBNC, IBC, USGS. 1972 201I
u[
27'30'
SCALE 1:24 000
O.s 0 DLOMETEPS 1 2
IDm 500 0 MEttltS t000 i900
05 0
MafS
1000 0 low 2000 ?000 +000 5000 6000 1100 8600 w 'OWO
N17
CONTOUR MTEBVAL 5 FEET
NORTH AMERIUN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
This map was produced to conform with the
NatbnM Geaspe0aI Pro ,ram U5 Topo Product Standard, 2011.
A meadea We ._toted Mtl1 this poduct Is drag version 0.6. 11

O
D N
N
'�o
y N c
N m
r
(0
Q7
Q
71 N Is
LL ()
is r
!t
v
0
.L r
19
N a
Q
O ?
m
co
°c
no
8 E ,o'
x`03
3`+
no£
iao
=e�
fox
sk.
.y
E�6
.W
LL
u
W
c
w
Z
�
N�
r
y
�
�
C
C1
v
N
d

3 Hydric Rating by Map Unit —Hyde County, North Carolina
(Clayton Road project)
353210 364000 364800 365600
35° 40' 12'N
�S
l \ C1�Si�i
\ 1
lrlirid
y�-
Ki
»41t
i
N'I
i.-A
1 �
35" )G' 79' N
�i 362400 3632DO 364000 364800 365600
3
Map Scale: 1:31,900 K punted on A portart (8.5'x 11 ") §wet.
Meters
N 0 450 900 1800 2700
k FeCt
0 1500 3000 6000 9000
Map pro)e<tion: Web Mercator Corner mordh3tes: WGS84 Edge =: UTM Zone 18N WGS84
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
's
367200 ,3y4gQ(,
iii 35° 4C lY N
Myy
g
A
y�
Ki
y�
Xi
35" 36'!7 N
367200
3
r
ae
7/29/2014
Pagel of 5

so
0
U
L
t
O
Z
T
C y�O N+
U o
m n
a a
T �
2 O
C
� O
G i0
" J
O
u
2
a�
O
00
N
p
O
° N 2
O
N
O
m
N O
C-
� c
10
a
o
c
Q
a! r
N 4
r- m
d
N
y p
O)
C
N
I
3 C
7 0
C
io
Z .o
a y C
d
o
c �E
E
of
Z
C
y a
U
tC
o.
A
T
N O O
N
O
y
C ao
7+
Sv d m N
C m y
f1J
U
C
O
E
W
L N
L
67
a
Cpp
OL d 7
67
Z
t0O
U N
w
L N
Q3
? a
�w
d 9
Or
O
r�
t
L
3 °c
O
Q
E
U
'm
a
N
Q
/y
LL
U
yy
` a r0
0
y 0 0 N w
=1
% O
>'
O
O• � 5
O
O
T
N
7 U
3
:zz
- U L-. O !0
T y N
C
0
C
W
Q
N a y
y
O
N
n
O a
)
E O
=O C
N
L
N .O E-0
Z
07
2 L a
7 N� 'p '�
o` d
U o
%
61
m a a' M
a
E
N
fp g
!2 Z p Q O
L
'CO N
v N
3
a E
d L
N
Q
O U
M
N
m N
T >
C
L �
a
ZEE
2 m.
..
m
rn
° m
r
T d
>
m
O/ y
y
R
o
N
N
CO C
i>
> U
Y L A
p
M
E
L c
a
o o
c°
2¢
A
v
y
o m
oc_
-0
o y d
o f
a
N
a
Mc
L o
t°—'2a
.Q N
N
N N
M
c p
N U ` 7
n.� m y
N
H
(%J
- Z
E
- O
m r
O l9
v E m E
a E
gag�
in 5 U
a E v
VJ
<°n `o
O c°�
T
d
Z
V1
� O
�
c
O �
�
c
r
d
O_
O
°
C
T
N
�
N
y O
i
O
m
T
`o m
=
v
y m
.. o
a
B
z
E=
O !0
E e
O L
a E
.�'. N
m
o
m R
N O
g z
g h CW
z?
U7 N
_
d
Q
m
c
c
I
u
LU
J
ID
m
10
`°
d
v`
r
>
o
7r�
O
00
td
O O p
N
T
�
m
0
(
m C
O
O
J
N
O a
O
Q
o=
am oa a0z
z
g
a
z z a
0
" o
a ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
1
:
t
1
�z
M
N
0
�N
03 C
O
Q
N
d) A
� d
7 N
C
f0 O
2 U

Hydric Rating by Map Unit —Hydo County. North Carolina
Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Clayton Road project
Hydric Rating by Map Unit— Summary by Map Unit — Hyde County, North Carolina (NC095)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
BmA
! Belhaven muck. 0 to 2
190 746.4
19.9%
it percent slopes. rarely
flooded
PnA
Ponzer muck. 0 to 2
90 1,002.2
26.7%
percent slopes, rarely
flooded
PuA
Pungo muck, 0 to 2 90 676.8
18.1%
percent slopes, rarely
flooded
ScA Scuppernong muck, 0 to 90
1,321.9
36.3%
2 percent slopes,
rarely flooded
1
Totals for Area of Interest 3,747.2
,1
10"%
',[)\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/29/2014
'"aa Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5

Hydric Rating by Map Unit —Hyde County, North Carolina
Description
This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric
soils Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types,
each of which is rated as hydric sod or not hydric Map units that are made up
dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in
the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly
of nonhydric sods may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower
positions on the landform Each map unit is rated based on its respective
components and the percentage of each component within the map unit
The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components
The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99
percent hydric components 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent
hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components
In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the
map pane contains a column named'Rating' In this column the percentage of each
map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed
Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
( NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the
upper part (Federal Register, 1994) Under natural conditions, these sods are either
saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the
growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation
The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with
wetness In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric
soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and
duration of the water table, is needed Thus, criteria that identify those estimated
soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register,
2002) These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are
associated with wetlands The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties
that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff 1999) and "Keys to Soil
Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey
Division Staff, 1993)
If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric,
they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field These
visible properties are indicators of hydric soils The indicators used to make onsite
determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006)
References
Federal Register July 13, 1994 Changes in hydric soils of the United States
Federal Register September 18, 2002 Hydric soils of the United States
Hurt, G W , and L M Vasilas, editors Version 6 0, 2006 Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States
Clayton Road project
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/29/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5

Hydric Rating by Map Unit —Hyde County, North Carolina
Soil Survey Division Staff 1993 Soil survey manual Sod Conservation Service
U S Department of Agriculture Handbook 18
Soil Survey Staff 1999 Sod taxonomy A basic system of soil classification for
making and Interpreting soil surveys 2nd edition Natural Resources Conservation
Service U S Department of Agriculture Handbook 436
Soil Survey Staff 2006 Keys to soil taxonomy 10th edition U S Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Aggregation Method Percent Presem
Component Percent Cutoff None Specified
Tie -break Rule Lower
Clayton Road project
USI _V\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/2912014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5

a
- 4— f is
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT '
The United States Departmont of the Interior
Permittae Fish and Wildlife Service
Permit No
Issuing Office
199503799
CESAW -CO -RW
NOTE, The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the porrnittee or any future transferee The term
"this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted
activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below
Project Description
To install thirteen f 13) paired flashboard risers and three (3) ditch plugs at various locations for the
restoration of wetland hydrology to appromimtely 17,280 acre wetland restoration site.
Project Location
Site located south of Phelps Lake and North of Fred Gall Road, east of Pungo Lake and
West of Evans Road, on Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Rofuge property, near Creswell, Hyde and
Washington County, North Carolina.
Permit Conditions.
General Condition!;-
1 The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on 171pi a 'hwr 31 J. 19,C)R If you find that you need
more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least
one month before the above date is reached
2 You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and In conformance with the terms and condi.
Lions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement it you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make
a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below Should you wish to cease to maintain
the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of
this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area
3 If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while nceornplishing the activity authorized by
this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found We will initiate the Federal and state coordina-
ion required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or it the site Is eligible for listing In the National Register
of Historic Places
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE (33 CFR 325 fApporida A))

e, Damage ctnims associated i& ith any future modification, suspcniaon, or tcvocLation of this permit
4 Reliance on Applicant's Data The determinntion of this office that issuance of this permit is not cortaary to the public
Interest was made in reliance on the information you provided
5 Ree%aluatior. of Permit Decision This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances
warrant Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following
a You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit,
b The information provided by you in support of your permit application proses to have been false, mcomplete, or
inaccurate (See 4 above
c, Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation
procedures contained in 83 CFR 325,7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 38 CFR 326.4 and $26 S. The
referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terma
and conditions of yout permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any
corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fall to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations
(such as those specified in 33 CFR 209,170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the
cost,
6 Extensions General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit Unless
there are circumstances requiring either a prom pc completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest
decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit
Your signature belol,(A perm►ttee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit
THE UNITED S ES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DATE)
FISH AND WILIXIFE SERVICE
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below,
{DISTRICT ENGINES ROBERT J SPERBERG, COLONEL, EN (DATE)
I
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and
conditions of this permit will continue to be boiding on the new owner(m) of the property To val►datc the transfer of this permit
and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below
(TRANSFEREE)
(DATE)
*US GOVEFiNIAENi PRINTI1,13 OFF M 1080 — 717 425

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG(Nj�,ERS
WILNONG'I ON DISTRIC f
ton ID 200801166 County T3orrell USGS Quad- New Lnke 1W
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL ANI) NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
PIopetty (?wirer /A uthot ized Aoent USFWS Pocosin Lanes NWR
Addiess: 295 South Ludington Drily
00umbia, North Carohna
27925
Telephone No. Z52- 796 -3004
Size and location of property (water body, road namefnumbcr town, etc,): Approx 17,280 rte Parcel alca Watershed I
located south of Lalce Phelps, north of flied Call Road east of Pungo Lake and west of Evans Road. in Pocosin
L flies National Wildlife Refuge Property near Creswell, Hyde and Washington Counties North Carolina
Descripttoti of prolects ai ea and activity Approx. 17,280 acres of agi icultural fields known as M- aterched 1
Installation of 5 watet control structureslflashboard riser system~ designed to retain stormwater and surface
runoff to complete a hydrology restoration praieet This proiect ivas originally permtttett under now expired
lntl Mid ual Permit #SAW -1995- 03799.
Applicable Law; ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivets and hldrbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Auithoiication Regional GenetaI Permil Niwmbei
Nationwide Permit Number: 1YW27
Your work is authorized by the above referent,ed permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
dittons and your subinitted plans ,Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation fi om your Submitted plans may subject the
pet trattee to a stop woi k orclei, a restoration order andr'oi appropr rate legal action.
This vetification will remain valid until flit expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is moaffled,
suspended of revolted. It, prior to the expratron date Identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is rri,;sued and�'or
modified, this vertlication will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nation%rrde pernut, If the nationwide permit authorization expires oI IS suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the natlomvtclo permit, activities which have commenced (r e , are
under construction) or ate under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will reinam authaiized provided the
activity is completed within twelve inonths of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification of revocation. unless
discretionary author ity has been ererctsed on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the author Izanon
Activities Subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also iequue an Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification You
Should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occuu ing within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation undei the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA),
prio, to beginning wotk you must contact the N C. Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at (252) 946 -6481
1 his Department of the Ai my vet ideation does not relieve the permittee of the I espoasibilrty to obtain any other requited Fedeial.
State of local approvalsrpennits
if there are any questions re-aiding this verification any of the conditions of the Permit, of the Coips of Engineers regulatory
pio; rain, please contact Tom Steffens at 252- 975 -1016 evi 25
Cot ps Regulatory Official I r4 7r J � L-jj1 Date• 04102/2008
Expiration Date of V'ci itictrtion./ 04/02/2010
'I he Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest ICVeI of aupporK to the public: I'o help us ensure we continue to do so,
i%e complete the Custontel Satisfaction Survey IOC Itcd tit our stebsite at http /!i ceulatai v usacesurygy.comi to complete the survey
me
Pagc 1 o1`2

Determination of Jurisdiction:
❑ Based on preinninary infonnauon, there appeai to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above descr,bed project area,
This piielunniary deteu•iination is not an appealable actren under the Regulatory Ptotitain Adnitmslialive Appeal Process
( Reierence 33 CFR Pant 33 1)
❑ 'there are Navigable Watei s of the United States within the above described project area Snbteet to the permit requuemcnts of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Hai born Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Unless there is a change in the law of our
published regulations, this determination may be jelled upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
® cat e waters of the US .and/or %vetlands within the above desci ibcd project at ea subject to the pet snit requnetnents of SeC11011
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC; § 1344) Unless there is i c,hange in the law ai out published iegulations, this
determination may be i elied upon foi a per rod not to exceed five years fi oin the ;late of this notification.
❑ The jui isdictional areas mvrthin the above described project area have been identified under a previous action. Please reference
jui isdictional determination issued 07/03.2003, Action II) 200310728
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination This site exhibits wetland criteria as described to the 198? Corns Wetland Dehneation
Manual and is part of it veto broad continuum of tivetlaods abutting Lake Phelps and iriteicounected h� named four drainage
canals drainine south to the Puueo R<<er, a TNW.
Appeals Information (This information applies Only to appioved jurisdictional determinattons.)
rirtached to 11his veiificattion is an approved jut hdictional deter muiation if you air not to agieement with that approved jurisdictional
determination, Sou can make an administrative apperil unclui 33 CFR 331 Enclosed you will find a Notiftcaaton of Appeal Process
(NAP) fact sheet and tequest foi appeal (RHA) forni If you iequcst to appeal this dcminination you must submit a coinpleted RFA
form to the lollowing address
District Filgineet, Wilmington Reggulatory Division
Attn.Toin Steffens, Piolect 1A.inagei,
Washington Regulatoiy Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, Noi th Cniolnia 27889
In order foi an RFA to be accepted by the Coils, the Corps niust detei comic that it is cc >inplctc, that it meets the ci itei m for appeal
undet 33 CFR part 331 5_ and that it hits been teccived by the Distiact Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP Should you
decide to submit an RFA forin, it must be reLeivcd at the above address by 06102/20118
**It i5 not necessary to submit an FA foam to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this col respondence
Corps Regulatory Official /1j� ! 77C-`FcG��
Date 04102f2OQ Expnation Date 4/02/2010
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKE'l CH, WETLAND DL1,1NEATiON' I.ORMS, PROJECT PLANS, E1'C , MUST BE
A17AC141,A) TO T1-lE rlLC- COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE
Copy Furnished,
'ULNRCential Office 401!Buffeis Unit
Page 2 of 2

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
:�►u._ WM41181MI4 1wrimal
Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other statutes, orders, and
policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, I have established the following administrative
record and determined that the action of building berms and adding water control structures to
control water levels
_ xx,_ is a categorical exclusion as provided by 516 DM 8.5 Section B.(3) No further NEPA
documentation will therefore be made.
is found not to have significant environmental effects as determined by the attached
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
is found to have significant effects and, therefore, fin-ther consideration of this action
will require a notice of intent to be published in the Federal Register announcing the
decision to prepare an EIS.
is not approved because of unacceptable environmental damage, or violation of Fish
and Wildlife Service mandates, policy, regulations, or procedures.
is an emergency action within the context of 40 CFR 1506.1 1. Only those actions
necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency will be taken. Other
related actions remain subject to NEPA review.
Attached narrative
Ar%r%rnva1: -- VV 1�
(I) Originator Date (2) Project Leade Date

Proposed Action
One of the primary objectives of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is to protect
and restore pocosm wetlands This proposed action would restore, to the greatest extent
possible, the natural sheet flow hydrology on these wetlands Pocosms, also known as southeast
shrub bogs and "swamp on a hill," are normally slightly higher in elevation than surrounding
lands They have high organic content soil, called peat, which holds water like a sponge Due to
the higher elevations, the water source is primarily rainfall and the natural flow of water across
these peat soils is called sheet flow In natural conditions, the peat soils are normally saturated
with water and in an anaerobic condition These wetlands serve as ecological filters by binding
mercury and other impurities to the peat
Currently, the peat soils in the project area are in an unnaturally dry state due to the extensive
ditching that occurred prior to refuge establishment, and the adjacent landowner concerns about
hydrological impacts on private lands Under these aerobic conditions, the peat soil oxidizes and
erodes The oxidation reaction releases mercury, carbon, and nitrogen, which leach into the
canals The drier peat is also highly combustible, which contributes to the potential for
catastrophic wildfires Historically, catastrophic wildfires have resulted in severe ground fires
causing drops in elevation of up to three feet Due to the potentially high fire danger and other
refuge objectives, maintaining adequate road accessibility is a priority
Under current conditions (i e without the described restoration activities), water cannot be
managed to mimic natural hydrology The proposed action would allow the refuge to control
water levels and restore wetland This would improve water quality, enhance wildlife habitat,
reduce the chance of wildfire and improve drainage conditions on adjacent downstream farms
The proposed action would achieve these goals while maintaining adequate road accessibility
and avoiding impacts on adjacent landowners This project consists of building three miles of
berm using material from an adjacent newly excavated canal This berm and associated canal
would allow the refuge to manage water levels in the project area without affecting privately
held lands Water levels would be controlled by installing flashboard riser water control
structures in three locations within the new canal Silt fences, placed at an existing water control
structure, will be used to prevent release of sediment from the project area
Categorical Exclusion
The proposed work is a categorical exclusion as described in 516 DM 8 5 B (3) and does not
trigger an exception
516 DM 8 5 B (3) The construction of new, or the addition of, small structures or
improvements, including structures and improvements for the restoration of wetland, riparian,
mstream, or native habitats, which result in no or only minor changes in the use of the affected
local area The following are examples of activities that may be included
(a) The installation of fences
(b) The construction of small water control structures
(c) The planting of seeds or seedlings and other minor revegetation actions

(d) The construction of small berms or dikes
(e) The development of limited access for routine maintenance and management purposes
The size of the proposed berms and water control structures are similar to those used throughout
road and drainage systems in peatland areas of Eastern North Carolina The only change in the
affected local area will be an enhancement of the wetlands and water quality There will be no
change in the use of the local area, which will remain wildlife and wetland conservation and
management, and wildlife dependent recreational uses compatible with the purposes for which
the refuge was established
Permits /Approvals
I Clean Water Act Section 404 permits are required Nationwide Permit No 27 covers the
described work and will be obtained
2 General Water Quality Certification 3689 from the NC Division of Water Quality is required
for Nationwide Permit No 27 activities and will be obtained
3 An Intraservice Section 7 (ESA) consultation will be obtained
4 A Federal Consistency Determination will be submitted to the NC Division of Coastal
Management for review
5 Section 106 (NHPA) compliance The Regional Archeologist coordinated with the State
Historic Preservation Officer and the Tuscarora Tribe and has made a determination of no
impact
Public Involvement /Interagency Coordination
No specific public involvements are required by law when categorically excluding an action
from further NEPA analysis and documentation State and federal agencies are involved
throughout permitting process
Supporting Documents
Hmsesly, L Eric 1999 Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Forest Habitat Management
Plan North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 79p
USDA- Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) 1994
Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Hydraulic and Hydrologic Study and Water
Management Plan Plymouth, North Carolina 189 p

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Office of the Regional Archaeologist
Savannah Coastal Refuges
694 Beech Hill Lane
Hardeevdle, South Carolina 29927
(843) 784 -6310
CELL (912) 257 -5434
FAX [phone]
email: richard_kanaski @fws gov
November 6, 2014
Ms Renee Gledhill- Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -4617
Dear Ms. Gledhill- Earley
FISH & I DLIFE
SERVICE
oI TKO
Re South Clayton Blocks Hydrology Restoration Pilot
Project, Pocosm Lakes National Fish Hatchery, Hyde
County, North Carolina
The U S Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to restore the hydrology of a degraded pocosin
wetland located on the southern end of Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Hyde County,
North Carolina (Fig 1) This undertaking is a modification of an earlier restoration project
reviewed your office in 2008 The assigned project number is ER -08 -0964 Based upon the
project location, the past landscape modification associated with the ditching of the peaty
pocosms, and past archaeological investigations, the 2008 undertaking would have "no effect"
upon any historic properties
The current undertaking involves the following tasks
• Dredging of a canal parallel to the proposed berm The dredged material will be used to
create the berm.
• Construction of the berm, which will be approximately 3 miles in length, 5 feet high, and
20 feet wide at its base
• Install three water control structures and associated culverts that will control water flow
on and off the diked pocosm
• To prevent erosion and provide slope stabilization, a combination of creeping red fescue,
red clover, German foxtail, browntop millet, annual ryegrass, oats, wheat, and rye will be
planted on the slopes and summit of the newly berm (Figs 3 & 4)
The proposed work occur immediately adjacent to the footprint of the 2008 project The
potential for archaeological sites is low to nil primarily due to the presence of deep organic peats,
the past and current hydrological regimes, and the extent of ground disturbance associated with
past peat mining and drainage operations Most, if not all of the proposed work, will occur in the
ditched pocosm The berm, while allowing for the Refuge to manage hydrological flows, will

maintain the current road access and avoid impacts to the adjacent privately owned lands The
hydrological restoration pilot project will have "no effects" upon any of the Refuge's historic
properties or the adjacent Phelps Lake Archaeological District Garrow and Watson conducted
an archaeological survey of the Refuge in 1978 [NC BIB #227] They noted that much of this
portion of the state had been by past commercial peat mining and drainage project The Phelps
Lake Archaeological District is located dust north of the Refuge, but is outside the project's "area
of potential effect " Garrow and Watson (1978 vu) stated that "no additional investigation be
undertaken for the majority of the remaining Refuge property As with the 2008 project, I do not
recommend further archaeological investigations of this part of Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge. To facilitate your review and comment, maps showing the location of proposed pilot
restoration work are enclosed.
The FWS appreciate your office's timely review and comment Should you require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (843) 784 -6310 or at
richard_kanaski @fws gov
Sincerely,
Richard S Kanaski
Regional Historic Preservation Officer &
Regional Archaeologist
Southeast Region
cc- Railey, Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Reference Cited
Garrow, Patrick H., and G Michael Watson
1978 A Cultural Resource Investigation of the Pungo National Wildlife Refuge, Hyde
and Washington Counties, North Carolina Project No. ES -962. Soil Systems, Inc., Marietta,
Georgia.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Office of the Regional Archaeologist
Savannah Coastal Refuges
694 Beech Hill Lane
Hardeevllle, South Carolina 29927
(843) 784 -6310
CELL (912) 257 -5434
FAX [phone]
email: richard_kanaski @fws gov
Mr Richard Hill, Historic Preservation Officer
Tuscarora Nation of New York
2235 Mount Hope Road
Sanborn, New York 14123
Dear Mr Hill
November 6, 2014
FISH WIILDUFE
SERVICE
Re South Clayton Blocks Hydrology Restoration Pilot
Project, Pocosin Lakes National Fish Hatchery, Hyde
County, North Carolina
The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to restore the hydrology of a degraded pocosin
wetland located on the southern end of Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Hyde County,
North Carolina (Fig 1) This undertaking is a modification of an earlier restoration project
submitted to the Tuscarora Nation for review in 2008 (Fig. 2) Based upon the project location,
the past landscape modification associated with the ditching of the peaty pocosms, and past
archaeological investigations, the 2008 undertaking would have "no effect" upon any historic
properties
The current undertaking involves the following tasks.
• Dredging of a canal parallel to the proposed berm The dredged material will be used to
create the berm
• Construction of the berm, which will be approximately 3 miles in length, 5 feet high, and
20 feet wide at its base.
• Install three water control structures and associated culverts that will control water flow
on and off the diked pocosin
• To prevent erosion and provide slope stabilization, a combination of creeping red fescue,
red clover, German foxtail, browntop millet, annual ryegrass, oats, wheat, and rye will be
planted on the slopes and summit of the newly berm (Figs 3 & 4).
The proposed work occur immediately adjacent to the footprint of the 2008 project The
potential for archaeological sites is low to nil primarily due to the presence of deep organic peats,
the past and current hydrological regimes, and the extent of ground disturbance associated with
past peat mining and drainage operations. Most, if not all of the proposed work, will occur in the
ditched pocosin The berm, while allowing for the Refuge to manage hydrological flows, will

maintain the current road access and avoid impacts to the adjacent privately owned lands The
hydrological restoration pilot project will have "no effects" upon any of the Refuge's historic
properties or the adjacent Phelps Lake Archaeological District Garrow and Watson conducted
an archaeological survey of the Refuge in 1978 [NC BIB #227] They noted that much of this
portion of the state had been by past commercial peat mining and drainage project The Phelps
Lake Archaeological District is located just north of the Refuge, but is outside the project's "area
of potential effect " Garrow and Watson (1978. vii) stated that "no additional investigation be
undertaken for the majority of the remaining Refuge property. As with the 2008 project, I do not
recommend further archaeological investigations of this part of Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge. Pursuant to Section 101(d)(6)(B) of the National Historic Preservation Act and to
Section 800.2(3) of 36 CFR 800, the FWS is seeking to consult with the Tuscarora Nation
regarding potential impacts to significant archaeological sites and other historic properties of
religious and cultural significance To facilitate the Nation's review and comment, maps
showing the location of the proposed pilot restoration project are enclosed.
The FWS appreciate the Tuscarora Nation's timely review and input Should you require
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (843) 784 -6310 or at
richard—[e-mail]
Sincerely,
Richard S. Kanaski
Regional Historic Preservation Officer &
Regional Archaeologist
Southeast Region
cc. Railey, Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Reference Cited
Garrow, Patrick H , and G Michael Watson
1978 A Cultural Resource Investigation of the Pungo National Wildlife Refuge, Hyde
and Washington Counties, North Carolina Project No ES -962 Soil Systems, Inc, Marietta,
Georgia

pit E ti, United States Department of the Interior
vg 1'
a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
e Post Office Box 33726
gRCH S $A Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
March 27, 2015
Memorandum
To Howard Phillips, Refuge Managci, Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge,
North Carolina A 0 1
Fiom Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Office, Raleigh, N
Subject Intia- Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation for Pocosm Lakes NWR South
Clayton Block Hydrology Restoration
This follows review of your March 25, 2015, memorandum and Intia- Service Section 7
Biological Evaluation Form (BE Form) iegaiding the proposed Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge South Clayton Block Hydiology Restoration project, in Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington
counties, North Carolina Per Intra- Service Section 7 consultation guidelines you have
requested Field Office review of the proposed project to determine if there is a potential to affect
federally listed threatened and endangered species listed in the table below
1 he hydrology restoration project would be accomplished by creating an additional canal and
berm parallel to the existing one, and installing three new water control structures at strategic
points in the new canal The first step is to dredge a canal parallel to the proposed berm location.
A long -reach excavator would be used to excavate the new canal As material is excavated, the
berm will be built using the excavated material Once the material has dried, a grader would be
used to shape and level the berm The three water control structures and associated culverts will
be installed after berm construction. Silt fences, placed at an existing water control structure, will
be used to prevent release of sediment hom the project aica. This project would increase water
quality on the refuge and in the waters that drain from the refuge into Pungo River, northwest
fork of the Alligator River and New Lake Our comments are provided in accordance with
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq )
SPECIES /CRITICAL HABITAT
STATUS
Red - cockaded wood eckei (Picoides borealis)
E
American alligator (Alligator mrvvissippiensis)
T(S /A)
Bald eagle (Halweetus leucocephalus)
BGPA
Red wolf (Canis rules)
EXP
Sensitivejomt -vetch (Aeschynomeme virgamca)
T
Northern long -eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
P

All known red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis, RCW) cavities, clusters, and potential
foraging habitat occur on the eastern portions of the Refuge, which are not in close proximity to
the proposed project area 1 he potential for the project to affect undetected woodpecker groups
is considered insignificant
The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) has been observed on the Refuge, but not in
the vicinity of this proposed project While suitable habitat for the American alligator is
contained within the Refuge along the Northwest Fork of the Alligator River and Gum Neck
areas, the potential foi direct effects from the South Clayton Block pioject is believed to be
minor
While bald eagles have been obseived on the Refuge, no nests have been detected in the
pioposed piolecl aiea, therefoie no negative impacts to bald eagles should result from this
pioposed project. The bald eagle was officially de- listed in accoi dance with provisions of the
section 4 of Endangered Species Act, as Amended but remains protected under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) For future reference, the Service has implemented the
National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, to enable agencies planning piojects to avoid of
minimize potential effects on bald eagles and their habitat
A portable document file containing the Guidelines may be downloaded from the following web
link http //www.fws gov/ southeast/ es/ baldeag, le/ NationalBaldEauleManagementGuidelineti ndf
A tool for assessing the likelihood of a pioposed activity's affecting nesting bald eagles can be
found at the following web link hap / /www fws prov /southeast /es /baIdeagle/
The BE Form states that red wolves (Canal rufus) have historically been observed in the general
area wheie the above - listed project is proposed Red wolf denning season extends from March
thiough July Pioject components will be closely cooidinated with Red Wolf Recoveiy Program
biologists to prevent potential impacts to the federally listed red wolf
At this time, Sensitive Joint -vetch (Aeschynomene vi ginica) has not been documented on the
refuge
Although there is a recoid for northern long -eared bat (117)ohs septentrionah%) (NLEB) in
Washington County, NLEB has not been detected on Pocosin Lakes NWR The Service
proposed listing of the NLEB as an endangered species under the Act on October 2, 2013 and
issued interim conference and planning guidance foi NLEB on January 6, 2014 Based on the
relatively limited extent of the proposed hydrological restoration and the scope of current
guidance for assessing forest management activities on Region 4 refuges, we believe the project
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the NLEB

Based on the mfoimation contained in the Biological Evaluation Form and provided maps, we
concur with your determination that the proposed Pocosin Lakes NWR South Clayton Block
Hydrology Restoration Project is not likely to adversely affect the red - cockaded woodpecker, red
wolf, American alligator, sensitive joint -vetch or their critical habitat The Service believes that
the proposed project will not Jeopardize the continued existence of the northern long -eared bat, a
species proposed for listing under the Act We remind you that obligations under section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if (1) new information ieveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2)
this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or, (3) a
new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action
If you have questions concerning this response please call Emily J Wells at (919) 856 -4520, ext
25

ENT OP Pd
H
�4aCN %sAo
IVIC1110landunl
United States Department of the Interior
F ISI I AND W11 DLIFE SERVICI=
Pocotiul I ales National Wildlife Reline
205 South Ludington Dme
P O Bo\ 329
Columbia NC 27925 -0329
Phone [phone]
3/25/15
to fete Iienlamnl- l=coloumal Set1-ILes Field Office Ralciol-i NC
Flom I- lovv,ud Phillips Refuge Mana�(el Pocosln I ales NWR Clllll111hm NC
Z11—
Subluct 1111Ua- SCI -VILC Suction 7 Consultation - South Clayton Block t-lvdlolOOV RCSaolatlon Plolect
PICLIW find enclosed an Int1a- iclvice '�cctlon 7 13lolo()lcal Fyalllali011 fol the South ( Ia\tOII Block-,
Ilvcholos\ Restotatlon I'llot Plolect on Pocosln 1 aheti NN %R i his ploiLet \\ould Icstole to the gleatest
extent possible the natulai sheet ll(m hydrology on apptoxlmately 1 325 acte5 of lefugc land~ The
ptolect \10lild benefit pocosin \\etlands and \\Ildhl'e and enhance \\,ttel quality on and ofl ol'the IClu(e
Please ICVIC\\ the e\,aluatlon and ptollde ant comments \ou may h,1ve 1 1111 ICgllCSh11`7 concullence
honl gout of lice with the findings in the evaluation
"I hank you
r

REGION 4
INTRA- SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM
Originating Person Howard Phillips, Refuge Manager
Telephone Number 252/796 -3004 E -Mail howard_phillips @fws gov
Date March 25, 2015
PROJECT NAME (Grant Title/Numbei) South Clanton Blocks I I dY rology Restoration Pilot
Protect
Service Program
Ecological Services
Federal Aid
Clean Vessel Act
Coastal Wetlands
Endangered Species Section 6
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Sport Fish Restoration
Wildlife Restoration
Fisheries
X Ref ages /Wildlife
II State /Agency USFWS
III Station Name Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
IV Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed).
The proposed action would restore, to the greatest extent possible, the natural sheet flow
hydrology in Hydrology Management Units C 14 and C15, within Watershed I on the refuge
Previously, in each of the years 1995 and 2008, an Intra- Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation
was concurred for the Watei shed 1 project The currently proposed work will contribute toward
the completion of this long term hydrological restoration project
Prior to refuge ownership, ditches and canals were constructed to drain the pocosin wetlands to
provide access for timber harvest, agriculture and pasture purposes Due to concerns over
flooding on privately held lands adjacent to the project area, the refuge has been unable to
perform optimal water management One of the primary goals of the refuge is to protect and
restore the fragile pocosin wetlands on the refuge Pocosins, also known as southeast shrub
bogs, are characterized by deep peat or organic soils In natural conditions, the peat soils are
saturated with water and in an anaerobic condition. Excess water would flow across the
saturated soils as sheet flow The pocosin wetlands serve as ecological filters by binding
mercury and other impurities to the peat

Presently, the peat soils are in an unnaturally dry state which results in oxidation and erosion of
the peat The oxidation reaction releases mercury, nitrogen and other sediments from the peat to
leach and erode into the canals The drier peat is also highly combustible, which contributes to
catastrophic wildfires Historically, catastrophic wildfires have resulted in severe ground fires
causing drops in elevation of up to three feet Due to the potentially high fire danger and other
refuge objectives, maintaining adequate road accessibility is a priority The proposed action
would restore, to the greatest extent possible, the natural sheet flow hydrology on these refuge
wetlands, while maintaining road accessibility and avoiding impacts on adjacent landowners
The hydiology restoration project would be accomplished by creating an additional canal and
berm parallel to the existing one, and installing three new water control structures at strategic
points in the new canal The first step is to dredge a canal parallel to the pioposed berm location
A long -teach excavator would be used to excavate the new canal As material is excavated, the
berm will be built using the excavated mateiial Once the material has dried, a grader would be
used to shape and level the berm The three water control structures and associated culverts will
be installed after berm construction Silt fences, placed at an existing water control structure,
will be used to prevent ielease of sediment from the project area This project would increase
water quality on the refuge and in the waters that drain from the refuge into Pungo River,
northwest fork of the Alligator River and New Lake
V. Pertinent Species and Habitat
A Include species /habitat occurrence map Please see attached map
Complete the following table
SPECIES /CRITICAL HABITAT
STATUS
i
Red wolf (Canis rufus)
E
Southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
De- listed
Red - cockaded woodpecker (Prcoides borealis)
E
American alligator (alligator mississippiensis)
TSA
Sensitive point vetch (Aeschynomene virginica)
T
'STATUS E= endangered, T= threatened, PE= proposed endangered, PT= proposed threatened,
CH= critical habitat, PCH= proposed critical habitat, C= candidate species
VI Location (see attached map)
A Ecoregron Number and Name Southeast Region, Area II -
Roanoke /Tar/Neuse /Cape Pear Ecosystem
B County and State Tyrrell, Washington, and Hyde Counties, North Carolina
C Section, township and range (or latitude and longitude)
76 °35'00 ", 36° 43'00"

D Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town Refuge office is located in
Columbia, North Carolina
E Species/habitat occurrence Historically, bald eagles and red wolves have been
observed in the project areas As of this time, the southern bald eagle has been
de- listed and no bald eagle nests have been documented on the refuge. The red
wolf denning season occurs from March through July To prevent potential
effects on red wolf denning, the project will be closely coordinated with the red
wolf biologists All known RCW cavities and potential foraging habitat are
located primarily on the east side of the refuge, which is several miles away from
the hydrology restoration project Potential American alligator habitat is located
along the Northwest Fork of the Alligator River and Gum Neck areas As of this
time, sensitive point vetch has not been documented on the refuge The hydrology
restoration project will not likely adversely affect endangered species or critical
habitat
VII Detennination of Effects
A Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V
SPECIES /CRITICAL HABITAT
IMPACT TO SPECIES /CRITICAL
Red wolf (Canis rufus)
HABITAT
Red wolf (Canis rufus)
Not likely to adversely affect species or
critical habitat
Southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Not likely to adversely affect species or
critical habitat De- listed August 2007
Red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Not likely to adversely affect species or
critical habitat
American alligator (alligator mississippiensis)
Not likely to adversely affect species or
critical habitat
Sensitive joint vetch (Aeschynomene virginica)
Not likely to adversely affect species or
critical habitat
B Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects
SPECIES /CRITICAL HABITAT
Actions to mitigate /minimize impacts
Red wolf (Canis rufus)
Denning season occurs from March through
July To prevent impacts, proposed work
would be coordinated closely with the red
wolf program

Southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Work will be conducted in pre - determined
Response
boundaries De- listed August 2007
Red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Work will be conducted in pre - determined
Red wolf (Canis rufus)
boundaries The documented RCW Cavity
X
trees are not located in the proposed project
area
American alligator (alligator mississippiensis)
Work will be conducted in pre - determined
boundaries
Sensitive point vetch (Aeschynomene virginica)
Work will be conducted in pre - determined
X
boundaries This plant has not been
documented on the refuge
VIII Effect Determination and Response Requested
SPECIES /CRITICAL HABITAT
Determmation
Response
_NEj
N
A
A
A
Red wolf (Canis rufus)
X
Southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
X
Red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
X
American alligator (alligator mississippiensis)
X
Sensitive point vetch (Aeschynomene virgimca)
X
Determination/Response Requested
NE = no effect This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly,
indnectly or cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate
species of designated /proposed ci itical habitat Response Requested is optional but A
Concurrence" is recommended for a complete Administrative Record
NA= not likely to adveisely affect This determination is appiopriate when the proposed action
is not likely to adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated /pioposed
critical habitat or there may be beneficial effects to these resources Response Requested is A
Concurrence
AA= likely to adversely affect This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is
likely to adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated /proposed critical

habitat Response Requc,,ted lot listed species is A 1'otmal Consultation Response Requested
lot ptoposed of candidate species is A Conscience
PROJECT NAML (Giant I itle /Nunibet) South Clayton Blocks I- Ndiologw Restotation Pilot
Ptoject
§-tgnatuic (originating Station)
I'ItIC G�.Ci_C -I—
Title — \.3—
Y251, 5
date
IX Reviewing 1'cologtcal Seivices Office Evaluation
A Cone ut i ence --- V -- NonOCCUI i ence
- - - - - --- - - - - --
B 1'011nal consultation iequucd
C Conference iequned
D lnl'otmal conteicnce tequned
F Remaiks (attach additional pages as needed)
SignatuiL
�t itit
L5 _Z-7 -201 S
date
P-C, E S
viiice

JI
Pocosin Lakes NWR- South Clayton Blocks
Hydrology Restoration Pilot Project I
Phelps Lake
Pungo Lake'
N
3 .5
0 1.5 3
South Clayton Blocks
Project Area
New Lake
9 12
Miles
Alligator
tiU, I
River
Legend
State Roads
Water Bodies
South Clayton Blocks
Refuge Boundary
X RCW Habitat
Potential American
Alligator Habitat

t
Miles
0 0.25 , 0.5 0.75 1
Blocks Project Area
C14
C15 I
ntrol Structure
ntrol Structure
[Boundary
ology
anagement
Existing Canal
Planned Canal
Planned
Miles
0 0.25 , 0.5 0.75 1
Blocks Project Area
C14
C15 I

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
memorandum
DATE April 2, 2015
REPLY TO
ATTNOF Richard S Kanaski, Regional Historic Preservation Officer & Regional Archaeologist,
U S Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region
SUBJECT South Clayton Blocks Hydrological Restoration Pilot Project, Pocosin Lakes National
Wildlife Refuge, Hyde County, North Carolina
TO Mike Bryant, Project Leader, North Carolina Coastal Plain National Wildlife Refuge
Complex
In the title block of the November 6, 2014 letter to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office [ NCSHPO], my office erroneously indicated that the South Clayton Blocks Hydrological
Restoration Pilot Project occurred on Pocosin Lakes National Fish Hatchery and not Pocosin
Lakes National Wildlife Refuge This error was missed during the editorial process
However, the project was correctly identified as occurring at Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge throughout the text of the letter, the attached maps, and the archaeological assessment
The typographical error does not alter the original determination that "no historic properties
would be affected by the project" or the concurrence of the NCSHPO as stated In their
November 24, 2014 letter [Project No ER -08 -0964]
Should you have any questions or require additional Information, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (843) 784 -6310 [Office], (912) 257 -5434 [Cell], or at rich ard_kanaskl @fws gov
RICHARD Digitalc =ly by RICHARD KANASKI
DN U o—U S o =U 5 Government
u= Department of the Interior ou =U5 Fish
and Wildlife Service — RICHARD KANASKI
09 KANASKI Date3201 5 0402 0
4020 3 3148 1
1 481 04 00001 00 79 71 90
Richard S Kanaski
Regional Historic Preservation Officer &
Regional Archaeologist
U S Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region

kilt■ �> ��`
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Histonc Preservation Office
Ramona M Bartos, Admtatstrator
Go%cmor Pat McCrory
h-eretary Susan Mum
November 24, 2014
Richard Kanaski
Savannah Coastal Refuges
694 Beech Hill Lane
Hardeeville, SC 29927
fs Office of ArCl11t l5 and I Itstory
DrTuty Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re South Clayton Blocks Hydrology Restoration Pilot Project, Pocosin Lakes National Fish Hatchery,
Hyde County, ER 08 -0964
Dear Mr Kanaslu
Thank you for your letter of November 6, 2014, concerning the above project
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Histonc Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Histonc Preservation's Regulations for Comphance .vith Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579 or
environmentaLreview@ncdcrgov In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number
Sincerely,
�WRamona M. Bartos
Location 109 Last Jones Street, Balogh N(. 27601 Mailing Address 4017 Ni" hen ict Ccna r. Ralugh NC 27697 -4617 Telephone /Fax [phone] -6599

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SEIMM
Office of the Regional Archaeologist
Savannah Coastal Refuges
694 Beech Hill Lane
Hardeeville, South Carolina 29927
(843) 784 -6310
CELL (912) 257 -5434
FAX [phone]
email: richard_kanaski @fws gov
November 6, 2014
Ms Renee Gledhill- Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -4617
Re South Clayton Blocks Hydrology Restoration Pilot
Project, Pocosm Lakes National Fish Hatchery, Hyde
County, North Carolina
Dear Ms Gledhill- Earley
The U S Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to restore the hydrology of a degraded pocosm
wetland located on the southern end of Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Hyde County,
North Carolina (Fig 1) This undertaking is a modification of an earlier restoration project
reviewed your office in 2008 The assigned project number is ER -08 -0964 Based upon the
project location, the past landscape modification associated with the ditching of the peaty
pocosms, and past archaeological investigations, the 2008 undertaking would have "no effect"
upon any historic properties
The current undertaking involves the following tasks
• Dredging of a canal parallel to the proposed berm The dredged material will be used to
create the berm
• Construction of the berm, which will be approximately 3 miles in length, 5 feet high, and
20 feet wide at its base
• Install three water control structures and associated culverts that will control water flow
on and off the diked pocosm
• To prevent erosion and provide slope stabilization, a combination of creeping red fescue,
red clover, German foxtail, browntop millet, annual ryegrass, oats, wheat, and rye will be
planted on the slopes and summit of the newly berm (Figs 3 & 4)
The proposed work occur immediately adjacent to the footprint of the 2008 project The
potential for archaeological sites is low to nil primarily due to the presence of deep organic peats,
the past and current hydrological regimes, and the extent of ground disturbance associated with
past peat mining and drainage operations. Most, if not all of the proposed work, will occur in the
ditched pocosm The berm, while allowing for the Refuge to manage hydrological flows, will

maintain the current road access and avoid impacts to the adjacent privately owned lands The
hydrological restoration pilot project will have "no effects" upon any of the Refuge's historic
properties or the adjacent Phelps Lake Archaeological District Garrow and Watson conducted
an archaeological survey of the Refuge in 1978 [NC BIB 4227] They noted that much of this
portion of the state had been by past commercial peat mining and drainage project The Phelps
Lake Archaeological District is located dust north of the Refuge, but is outside the project's "area
of potential effect " Garrow and Watson (1978 vii) stated that "no additional investigation be
undertaken for the majority of the remaining Refuge property As with the 2008 project, I do not
recommend further archaeological investigations of this part of Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge To facilitate your review and comment, maps showing the location of proposed pilot
restoration work are enclosed
The FWS appreciate your office's timely review and comment Should you require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (843) 784 -6310 or at
richard—[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Richard S Kanaski
Regional Historic Preservation Officer &
Regional Archaeologist
Southeast Region
cc Railey, Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Reference Cited
Garrow, Patrick H., and G. Michael Watson
1978 A Cultural Resource Investigation of the Pungo National Wildlife Refuge, Hyde
and Washington Counties, North Carolina Project No ES -962 Soil Systems, Inc , Marietta,
Georgia

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
-.w,�
Office of the Regional Archaeologist
Savannah Coastal Refuges
694 Beech Hill Lane
Hardeeville, South Carolina 29927
r
(843) 784 - 6310`"
CELL (912) 257 -5434
FAX [phone]
email: nchard_kanaski @fws gov
November 6, 2014
Mr Richard Hill, Historic Preservation Officer
Tuscarora Nation of New York
2235 Mount Hope Road
Sanborn, New York 14123
Re South Clayton Blocks Hydrology Restoration Pilot
Project, Pocosm Lakes National Fish Hatchery, Hyde
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr Hill
The U S Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to restore the hydrology of a degraded pocosm
wetland located on the southern end of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Hyde County,
North Carolina (Fig 1) This undertaking is a modification of an earlier restoration project
submitted to the Tuscarora Nation for review in 2008 (Fig 2) Based upon the project location,
the past landscape modification associated with the ditching of the peaty pocosms, and past
archaeological investigations, the 2008 undertaking would have "no effect" upon any historic
properties
The current undertaking involves the following tasks
• Dredging of a canal parallel to the proposed berm The dredged material will be used to
create the berm
• Construction of the berm, which will be approximately 3 miles in length, 5 feet high, and
20 feet wide at its base.
• Install three water control structures and associated culverts that will control water flow
on and off the diked pocosm
• To prevent erosion and provide slope stabilization, a combination of creeping red fescue,
red clover, German foxtail, browntop millet, annual ryegrass, oats, wheat, and rye will be
planted on the slopes and summit of the newly berm (Figs 3 & 4)
The proposed work occur immediately adjacent to the footprint of the 2008 project. The
potential for archaeological sites is low to nil primarily due to the presence of deep organic peats,
the past and current hydrological regimes, and the extent of ground disturbance associated with
past peat mining and drainage operations. Most, if not all of the proposed work, will occur in the
ditched pocosm The berm, while allowing for the Refuge to manage hydrological flows, will

maintain the current road access and avoid impacts to the adjacent privately owned lands The
hydrological restoration pilot project will have "no effects" upon any of the Refuge's historic
properties or the adjacent Phelps Lake Archaeological District Garrow and Watson conducted
an archaeological survey of the Refuge in 1978 [NC BIB #227] They noted that much of this
portion of the state had been by past commercial peat mining and drainage project The Phelps
Lake Archaeological District is located dust north of the Refuge, but is outside the project's "area
of potential effect " Garrow and Watson (1978 vii) stated that "no additional investigation be
undertaken for the majority of the remaining Refuge property As with the 2008 project, I do not
recommend further archaeological investigations of this part of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge Pursuant to Section 101(d)(6)(B) of the National Historic Preservation Act and to
Section 800 2(3) of 36 CFR 800, the FWS is seeking to consult with the Tuscarora Nation
regarding potential impacts to significant archaeological sites and other historic properties of
religious and cultural significance To facilitate the Nation's review and comment, maps
showing the location of the proposed pilot restoration project are enclosed
The FWS appreciate the Tuscarora Nation's timely review and input Should you require
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (843) 784 -6310 or at
richard_kanaski @fws gov
Sincerely,
Richard S Kanaski
Regional Historic Preservation Officer &
Regional Archaeologist
Southeast Region
cc Railey, Pocosm Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Reference Cited
Garrow, Patrick H , and G Michael Watson
1978 A Cultural Resource Investigation of the Pungo National Wildlife Refuge, Hyde
and Washington Counties, North Carolina Project No ES -962 Soil Systems, Inc, Marietta,
Georgia

� �� L _��/• F�ooD ZoN_�
CmYTW
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION
me rrrww�vr w..uu o.Ims u.r ww x•�..,
[UWHIL' YIil10Mp;11i, 1.+ n
NiTPJ /iPR NC NCQa GJV; ff115
Ilarwlbriib.ra RfE1
xuuouuu
— w«..rnu..laoa x.ma.inls
M 1�lwrp CYv.. f eN • 114 rs i3
dpOl rrlLr Ow {rel a W1e paM,Sr
Ms. MIrr IIr. Om hrn uM
_ lwr dnl bn, IS MnwI
11 O1R0mwoll gmr[bviM3lae-
00001Y00 �w.r.rn pww.ermm Niiw l.lrw
iMrNpr
01Mf1 I �l Mrl OIIwmYee b Oe O W W IM
MUS. 0] \Hoop CUrc.IbeeWlr. -
Grw•l CuSUI a Slmn Hnrr
� WrNLiwRwkbMII1 N.NiM
GfNfl L— m-,wfboinll
i1101C100U rrnrr�r „�NM "r 1kd lnr. M. r—.A
0M [lMi•S Oroerx S�nel Nn[n nan
WN,Ir XpbW Orei,lk lrnl Mr.SmA
WSirr, Grbipo,F11.NClpp SrmikM mlA
{3�� ClnrfMml.p IyMIIw cn-
Kpwtunrr. on.er alSl
mmus
- -' pnONESMInr
.. N, /ru0npkc {rp.n
wNU u.irslwl
NOTES TO USERS
ri�w•n
wrr .t.. ^WS n'a nra nwax n.awrwrr r+.uw
•.•� I1•i ppNMW MMMbOaWaf1
pp frSlprKpiilrmi
®aEEbrr �on.rk.Na.erin.
SCALE
eIlOd•400DMInw LI].000
0 ]A00
sf+•1
sNSrrn
0 1>V m EOD
PANEL LOCATOR
Q� narw no o W uxl r+l�w "'
��•� uL°O NORTH CAROLINA
—764A
y�-,j � mapfwn ae xln nml
C
V
O
O
C
Z
f

noco ZoNE '"pet Tim_
ct*"TON
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION
IE[115.[NIRfORMY[ L[SMITO.f M0.10(I1Uf
p[ Nf/Iw INT GV.:'tLC. fw 5 Y'•N NO W«U.f11G
COCWM IMP., F ,. ,, &EN FAr%,fUrq AI
IMP., iRis N: G�v'fRrS
-wft wea.gfM77.+Y pm .
Iw.,oura ®eieil"f^'Oiv
rlr7....EO,a.rtw . rr«.a
a.a In.nu. o.. r.a rwa mwa
.na..lEr. n.. o•. i. + »ua
r.w ar[aY. i\ M-1
01FIR NUwq c'ff.MWW
r10L0 R.l.R7 �.r..rr/i..�fl..E [Yt lw111.p
at0 �M..I.II�Y.f I.MO.iWllr
revel a7sR..ra..Ew.e.7r. ..
d'AKCA rl.[L_.[....
ewvx Iw.g4.afW.,7
munwa ..,....... e...�w.f 1..... mayEy....
•. ,
.w..l u.ewrf�.Yy t.wrrt
e .l bt.KfLIFerY.i
..�... IS..I.I i.n...f e...iYr
- — ►aeb7.SNW
eqY [Ye MfMi
fu77u I.Ilrw. e«..Yn
NOTES TO USERS
••� urawr,W wrwr...{fvwq
.rwtly..r.
......,
®ceRa . QOw.M ftm A-
SCALE
11ff! • U40Ye1 IMAM
0 7WQ =F�
sotto
o I>D 700 e0o
PANEL LOCATOR
.r�M.a nooaW i.w noa.v
b�q NORTH CAROUNA 1 i-
d.,.7740
W
C
'O
0
LL-
Z
7770TUOD01
aeiaim
CA'f