The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20161036 Ver 1_PROSPECTUS_20161007 PROSPECTUS Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Columbus County, North Carolina Lumber River Basin HUC 03040203 4 w Prepared for: USACE,Wilmington District Wilmington Regulatory Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 September 2016 PROSPECTUS Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Columbus County, North Carolina Lumber River Basin HUC 03040203 Prepared by: KCI KCI Technologies, Inc. 4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220 Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783-9214 DRAFT September 2016 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 MITIGATION BANK INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES..............................................................1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1 1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................1 2.0 MITIGATION BANK ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION ............................................................2 2.1 ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION ...................................................................................................2 2.2 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS..........................................................................................................3 2.3 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE............................................................................................................3 3.0 PROPOSED SERVICE AREA........................................................................................................5 4.0 NEED AND FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION BANK.........................................................................6 4.1 MITIGATION NEED........................................................................................................................6 4.2 SITE SELECTION............................................................................................................................7 5.0 SITE OWNERSHIP AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT................................................................8 5.1 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................................9 6.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF BANK SPONSOR.......................................................................................9 7.0 ECOLOGICAL SUITABILITY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................10 7.1 HISTORIC SITE GEOLOGY/GEOMORPHIC SETTING.............................................................................10 7.2 CHRONOLOGY OF HISTORIC AERIALS..............................................................................................11 7.3 WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION..........................................................................................11 7.4 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS..........................................................................................................11 7.5.1 Streams........................................................................................................................11 7.5.2 Wetlands......................................................................................................................12 7.5.3 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................12 7.5 SITE CONSTRAINTS......................................................................................................................12 7.6.1 Jurisdictional Features.................................................................................................12 7.6.2 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................13 7.6.3 Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................13 8.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN......................................................................................................14 8.1 DESIGN FEATURES ......................................................................................................................14 8.2 TARGET PLANT COMMUNITIES......................................................................................................16 9.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN.............................................................................................................17 10.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS..................................................................................................18 11.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................................19 12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN............................................................................................21 13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES........................................................................................................21 14.0 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................22 i Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 TABLES Table 1. Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Functional Parameters..............................................................2 Table 2. Mitigation Summary for Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank. .....................................................3 Table 3. Stream Credit Release Schedule .....................................................................................................4 Table 4. Wetland Credit Release Schedule...................................................................................................4 Table 5. NCDOT Projected Mitigation Needs................................................................................................6 Table6. Site Ownership................................................................................................................................8 Table 7. Selected USWFS Endangered and Threated Species in Columbus County...................................13 Table 8. Bottomland Hardwood Forest Proposed Species.........................................................................16 Table 9. Hardwood Flat Proposed Species..................................................................................................17 Table 10. Project Maintenance Plan...........................................................................................................17 Table 11. Project Functional Outcomes and Monitoring............................................................................19 Table 12. Monitoring Methodology............................................................................................................20 FIGURES Figure1. Site Location.................................................................................................................................25 Figure 2. Geographic Service Area..............................................................................................................26 Figure3A. Historic Aerials 1........................................................................................................................27 Figure3B. Historic Aerials 2........................................................................................................................28 Figure4. NRCS Soils.....................................................................................................................................29 Figure5. Delineated Soils............................................................................................................................30 Figure6. Project Watershed .......................................................................................................................31 Figure7. Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................................32 Figure 8. Site Lidar and Topography...........................................................................................................33 Figure9. Proposed Conditions....................................................................................................................34 APPENDICES Appendix A. Site Protection Instruments Appendix B. Example Projects and Resumes Appendix C. Baseline Information Data Soil Data Forms Site Photographs Existing Conditions Valley Cross-Sections USACE Wetland Determination Forms Jurisdictional Determination ii Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 1.0 Mitigation Bank Introduction and Objectives 1.1 Introduction KCI is submitting the following prospectus to develop the Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank (RHSMB), located in the Lumber 03040203 in Columbus County, North Carolina. This prospectus presents an overview of the potential for the proposed RHSMB that would serve as a stream and wetland mitigation bank providing effective and ecological mitigation utilized by private and public projects, where unavoidable losses of riparian and non-riparian wetlands and streams take place from activities authorized by the U.S. Corps of Engineers(USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.The purpose of this prospectus is to provide regulatory agencies with sufficient information on the establishment and operation of the bank and to initiate regulatory review by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). RHSMB is located near the Town of Evergreen in the west-central portion of Columbus County, North Carolina.Specifically,the site is located just southwest of the intersection of Old Boardman Road and CCC Road with a centroid of approximately 34.448056 N, 78.935094 W (Figure 1). The total proposed protected acreage within the bank is 31.7 acres. The site exists along a second-order tributary that originates in Long Bay, a drained Carolina Bay, located approximately one mile to the southeast of the RHSMB. For the purpose of this prospectus, the unnamed tributary will be referred to as Long Bay Creek. The site is also located within the 500-year floodplain of the Lumber River, located approximately 1,700 linear feet from the western edge of the RHSMB. The site topography is generally flat with only five feet of elevation change across the site. RHSMB has undergone significant modifications that have altered the site hydrology and vegetation since at least 1938. This bank offers the opportunity to greatly improve the ecological conditions within the project watershed.The RHSMB will provide improved and sustainable ecological and hydrologic functions for the proposed mitigation bank service area. It will be effectively managed in perpetuity and will not impact or degrade any areas with high ecological value. Due to the degraded existing conditions,the site has a very high probability of meeting the prescribed success criteria, while also meeting the requirements of all other applicable federal and state laws. 1.2 Goals and Objectives The project goals for the RHSMB are as follows: - Restore a Coastal Plain stream valley - Create a diverse wetland system with Bottomland Hardwood Forest and Wet Hardwood Flat communities The following objectives will be implemented to achieve these goals: - Relocate a channelized stream to its historic landscape position adjacent to riparian wetlands - Redevelop a stream valley at existing floodplain elevation - Install stream bedform variation and habitat features - Plant the site with native trees and shrubs and a herbaceous seed mix that supports the development of the two community types. - Fill field ditches and redevelop wetland microtopography to slow the flow of surface and subsurface drainage. 1 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Table 1. Mitigation Goals,Objectives,and Functional Parameters Function-Based Goal Objective Functional Level Parameter Monitoring Measurement Tool Effects Relocate a channelized stream to Floodplain its historic landscape Hydraulics Flood Frequency position adjacent to Connectivity riparian wetlands Restore a Coastal Plain Redevelop a stream Lateral Stability stream valley valley at existing Geomorphology and Channel Visual Inspection floodplain elevation Form Install bedform Bed Form variation and habitat Geomorphology Visual Inspection features Diversity Plant the site with Density native trees and shrubs and a Geomorphology/ herbaceous seed mix Wetland Species Vegetation Species Create a diverse that supports the Composition Composition/Diversity wetland system with development of the Bottomland Hardwood Forest and two community types. Hardwood Flat Fill field ditches and redevelop wetland communities Groundwater microtopography to Wetland Percent Saturation slow the flow of Hydrology Saturation/ Within 12 inches surface and Surface Ponding subsurface drainage Table adapted from Harman et al.2012 2.0 MITIGATION BANK ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION 2.1 Establishment and Operation The purpose of the Bank is to provide stream and wetland mitigation for unavoidable impacts to waters of the US,which result from development related activities authorized under Section 401 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,and all applicable state statutes, provided such use has met those requirements.The Bank's objective is to provide ecologically sustainable and economically efficient off-site compensatory mitigation opportunities for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) and/or other public and private permittees requiring mitigation credits for unavoidable impacts to regulated streams and/or wetlands. The Bank will be established to compensate for wetland and other aquatic resource losses anticipated by such authorized development within the bank service area in a manner that contributes to the long-term ecological functioning of the Lumber Basin, with an immediate goal of no-net loss and a long-term goal of a net gain of stream and wetland functions and services. The bank will include the restoration of approximately 2,642 linear feet of coastal stream valley, 12.7 acres of riparian wetlands and 11.3 acres of non-riparian wetlands. It is expected that this Prospectus will be the basis of a formal Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). The MBI will be developed by KCI to establish the bank operations.The MBI will contain the Site Development Plan and will include location maps, summary of existing conditions and reference sites, hydrologic 2 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 analysis, design criteria, success criteria, long-term real estate instrument, and plans and specifications for construction, operation, monitoring and maintenance of the RHSMB. The RHSMB will be managed and operated by KCI Technologies, Inc. and its team members as outlined in Section 6.0.The bank will operate as a single-site, private commercial bank. 2.2 Determination of Credits Below are the anticipated stream and wetland credits that will be produced from the bank. Table 2. Mitigation Summary for Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Project Component Existing Restoration Mitigation Stream or Wetland -or- Footage/ Mitigation Type Footage Reach ID Acreage or Acreage Ratio Mitigation Credits Coastal Plain Stream 2,707 If 2,642 If Restoration(Warm) (ditched Restoration (valley 1:1 2,642 SMCs stream) centerline) Rip.Wetland Restoration 11.2 ac Restoration 11.2 ac 1:1 11.2 WMCs (Re-establishment) (Re-establishment) Rip.Wetland Restoration 15 ac Restoration 1.5 ac 1.5:1 1.0 WMCs (Rehabilitation) . (Rehabilitation) Non-Rip.Wetland Restoration Restoration 11.3 ac 11.3 ac 1:1 11.3 WMCs (Re-establishment) (Re-establishment) SUMMARY Stream SMCs 2,642 SMCs Riparian WMCs 12.2 WMCs Non-Riparian WMCs 11.3 WMCs 2.3 Credit Release Schedule All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as-built survey of the mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows: 3 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Table 3. Stream Credit Release Schedule Stream Credits 7-year Timeframe Monitoring Interim Total Year Credit Release Activity Release Released 0 Initial Allocation—see requirements below 15% 15% 0 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements 15% 30% described in Mitigation Plan 1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 40% standards are being met 2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 50%(60%-) standards are being met 3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 60%(70%-) standards are being met 4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 5% 65%(75%*) standards are being met 5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 75%(85%*) standards are being met 6 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 5% 80%(90%*) standards are being met 7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 90%(100%*) standards are being met,and project has received close-out approval from IRT *see Subsequent Release below Table 4. Wetland Credit Release Schedule Forested Wetlands Credits 7-year Timeframe Monitoring Interim Total Year Credit Release Activity Release Released 0 Initial Allocation—see requirements below 15% 15% 0 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements 15% 30% described in Mitigation Plan 1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 40% standards are being met 2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 50% standards are being met 3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 60% standards are being met 4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 70% standards are being met 5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are 10% 80% being met; provided that all performance standards are met,the project may be closed out contingent on IRT approval. If so,the remainder of the credits will be released at this stage. 6 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 90% standards are being met 7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 100% standards are being met,and project has received close-out approval from IRT 4 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Initial Allocation of Released Credits If deemed appropriate by the IRT,fifteen percent(15%) of the Bank's total stream credits shall be available for sale immediately upon completion of all of the following: - Execution of the MBI by KCI,the DE, and other agencies eligible for membership in the IRT who choose to execute this agreement; - Approval of the final Mitigation Plan; - Mitigation bank site has been secured; - Delivery of the financial assurances; and - Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism, as well as a title opinion covering the property acceptable to the DE. Subsequent Credit Releases All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream project with a 7-year monitoring period, a reserve of 10% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bank-full events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less than two bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at the discretion of the IRT. Accounting KCI shall maintain accurate records of debits made from the RHSMB. All ledger reports shall identify credits debited and remaining by type of credit and shall include for each reported debit the Corps ORM ID number for the permit for which the credits were utilized and the permitted impacts for each resource type. KCI will notify the USACE every time an approved credit transaction occurs within 30 days of the transaction with a summary of the transaction and a full ledger report showing the changes made. Signed copies of the Transfer of Mitigation Responsibility form shall also be submitted to the USACE permit Project Manager and the USACE Bank Manager. In addition to notification of credit transactions, KCI will also prepare an annual ledger report showing all credits used, any changes in credit availability (e.g., additional credits released, credit sales suspended), and the beginning and ending balance of credits remaining. We will submit the annual report until all of the credits have been utilized. 3.0 PROPOSED GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA RHSMB is situated within the 03040203 hydrologic unit (HU), which contains the Lumber River and its tributaries until reaching the South Carolina border. The proposed geographic service area (GSA) for the RHSMB, as seen in Figure 2, includes 03040203 as the primary GSA. In addition, the Sponsor would like consideration to include 03040201 and 03040204 within North Carolina as a secondary GSA at a reduced credit ratio.These HU's are truncated by the North/South Carolina boarder, reducing the in-state area to a level that would make establishment of other banks within these areas economically unfeasible. The justification for including this secondary service area was established based on adjacent HU's that contained more than 50% of the Level III Ecoregion as the project site (65 - Southeastern Plains). The 03040201 HU contains 66%of the same Level III Ecoregion as the project site and include headwaters of the Lower Pee Dee River such as Hitchcock Creek and Jones Creek in the vicinity of Rockingham, NC. The 5 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 03040204 HU contains 99%of the same Level III Ecoregion as the project site, and includes the upstream tributaries that form the Little Pee Dee River just past the South Carolina border. These HUs are all part of the Lower Pee Dee River Basin. 4.0 NEED AND FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION BANK 4.1 Mitigation Need Recent NCDMS full-delivery solicitations in this HUC have specifically asked for substantial stream and wetland mitigation sites, demonstrating current and future needs for mitigation in this HUC. Currently, there are no private mitigation banks directly in the Lumber 03 sub-basin, although the area is served by two adjacent private banks,the Lower Cape Fear Umbrella Bank(Sneeden&White Springs Tracts-stream and riparian wetland credits) and the Barra Farms II Mitigation Bank (non-riparian wetland credits) The past 9 years of DOT Impact projections were analyzed to determine future projected needs in the Lumber River Basin. The following needs were identified. Table 5. NCDOT Projected Mitigation Needs Stream DOT Project ID STIP Year County Mitigation Non-Riparian Riparian Credits Credits Credits B-3680 2007 Moore 0 0.32 0.18 B-3680 2011 Moore 238 1.58 B-3693 2007 Robeson 291 0.02 0.75 B-3693 2009 Robeson 0.18 B-3897 2006 Robeson 0 0.01 0.24 B-3898 2008 Robeson 0 0 0.13 B-4249 2010 Robeson 0.17 B-4250 2006 Robeson 0 0.02 0.23 B-4251 2008 Robeson 0 0.12 B-4477 2011 Columbus 0.13 B-4583 2008 Moore 0 0.1 0.24 B-4614 2009 Richmond 0.21 B-4614 2010 Richmond 0.09 B-4616 2015 Robeson B-4617 2011 Robeson 0.28 B-4619 2008 Robeson 0 0.06 0.62 B-4620 2015 Robeson 0.186 0.36 B-4711 2012 Bladen 0.034 B-4801 2011 Robeson 0.16 B-4952 2011 Robeson 0.28 0 B-4967 2009 Hoke 0.11 0.36 B-4967 2009 Scotland 0.03 0.13 B-4967 2015 Hoke 0.22 B-4967 2015 Scotland 1.1 B-5127 2013 Hoke 70 0.73 B-5132 2013 Hoke 0.143 B-5333 2015 Robeson 0.0032 0.1989 B-5334 2015 Robeson 0.0012 0.0724 B-5337 2011 Robeson 0.1574 6 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 B-5362 2015 Montgomery B-5511 2015 Robeson 0.1717 0.4915 B-5529 2015 Robeson 0.15 0.4 B-5693 2015 Robeson 0.101 0.344 B-5696 2015 Robeson 0.089 B-5702 2015 Robeson 0.017 0.281 B-5707 2015 Bladen 0.007 Division06 13 03040203 2007 10 0.1 0.1 Division08 13 03040203 2007 25 0.05 0.02 EB-5741 2015 Moore 1-4413 2011 Robeson 80 POC-5 2010 Robeson 50 0.1 R-2502B 2007 Moore 0 1.2 R-2502B 2007 Richmond 0 2.8 R-2593A 2009 Robeson 3800 13 5.1 R-2593B 2009 Robeson 2640 3.7 3 R-4900 2009 Columbus 366 2.1 7.2 R-5752 2015 Robeson U-2519AA 2015 Robeson 687 1.3 4.3 U-2519AB 2015 Cumberland 3737 2.2 U-3816 2007 Hoke 0.64 U-5814 2015 Moore U-5815 2015 Moore W-4704 2008 Robeson 0 0.5 Totals 11994 24.1701 35.2482 Impact Projections/Year 1332.67 2.69 3.92 The above table indicates that there are supportive needs identified by NCDOT in the Lumber 03 sub- basin and a lack of available credits.The impacts include approximately 12,000 feet of stream, 24 acres of NR wetlands and 35 acres of riparian wetlands. Three significant TIP projects are included in these projections. They include the Red Springs Bypass, the Fayetteville Outer Loop and the Replacement of the Lumber River Bridge over SR 1203. No significant private impacts are known to be coming in the basin over the next 5 years, although private impacts have accounted for approximately 1.4 credits per year since 2003. Improvements to US-74 completed recently have spurred some private development along the associated interchanges. We would expect these investments to continue or expand over the coming years.The Columbus Swamp Site, a full-delivery project for NCDMS located in the same 8-digit HU as the RHSMB and offering approximately 35 riparian wetland credits, has been sold out since March 7, 2016. 4.2 Site Selection The RHSMB was selected due to its potential to provide integrated stream and wetland mitigation in a heavily drained and manipulated riparian corridor that flows from Long Bay directly to the Lumber River. The site was identified during site evaluations associated with the development of a NCDMS full-delivery mitigation site known as the Rough Horn Swamp Wetland Restoration Project. The NCDMS project, currently under contract to KCI, will provide approximately 30 riparian and non-riparian wetland mitigation credits to NCDMS. The RHSMB project would expand upon the NCDMS project to restore additional stream and wetland function to the system. Within the Lumber 03, agriculture dominates much of the land use in this hydrologic unit(HU)atjust over 30 percent; however,the headwaters of many streams have remained heavily forested.Close to a quarter 7 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 of this forested area is comprised of wooded wetlands found mainly in the floodplains of the braided river systems (NCDENR, DWQ 2010).The site is located within the 03040203190010 Local Watershed Unit (14- digit HUC).This watershed was selected by a Targeted Local Watershed by NCDMS (then NCEEP) in 2003. It contains the town of Boardman and a portion of Fair Bluff. It has a significant amount of Significant Natural Heritage Area and Natural Heritage Elements of Occurrence, primarily related to the Lumber River, which borders this HU. These include Net Hole/Buck Landing Swamp approximately 2,000 feet to the west, Big Swamp/Old Whiteville Road approximately 2 miles to the northeast, Flowers Swamp approximately 2 miles to the west, and Bluff Swamp/Princess Ann Swamp, approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest. The project site stream drains directly to Net Hole/Buck Landing Swamp and in combination with the adjacent NCDMS site, this project would connect a forested corridor fragmented only by one two-lane roadway from Long Bay to Net Hole/Buck Landing Swamp. 5.0 SITE OWNERSHIP AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes portions of the parcels listed below. The conservation easement documents for RHSMB are currently in progress and should be completed before the final mitigation banking instrument is submitted. The Point of Contact for the bank sponsor is: Joe Pfeiffer KCI Technologies, Inc. 4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220 Raleigh, NC 27609 Phone (919) 614-3615/Fax (919) 783-9244/joe.pfeiffer@kci.com Starting October 14, 2016, KCI is moving to a new office location. Any correspondence after this date should be sent to: KCI Technologies, Inc. 4505 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 400 Raleigh, NC 27609 Table 6. Site Ownership Landowners PIN County Site Protection Deed Book Parcel Acreage Instrument Page Number Acreage protected George Sanderson 0215.00-94-9519.000 Columbus Conservation DB PB 100 45.00 9.17 Easement PG 11-11 Fee Simple Purchase; KCI Technologies, 0215.00-93-1613.000 Columbus Conservation In progress 43.03 22.57 Inc. Easement in progress George Allen Sanderson 3001 Old Boardman Road Evergreen, NC 28438 Phone (910) 739-6844 8 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Applicable real estate options and landowner authorizations are included in Appendix A. 5.1 Long-Term Management KCI will institute a long-term management plan to assess the on-going condition and implement any maintenance provisions to maintain performance of the site.The conservation easements will ensure that only IRT-allowable activities take place. To monitor the project's continued success, the long-term management plan will be implemented following the completed monitoring period. All components of the mitigation bank will be inspected annually or less frequently as needed to ensure that the project remains stable in perpetuity. Sources of instability or other deficiencies will be addressed. Invasive species will be managed annually or less frequently as needed to ensure the long-term survivability of the planned native vegetation community. All reporting will be documented and kept on file for future reference. This easement will be transferred to Atlantic Coast Conservancy (ACC) once monitoring success criteria have been achieved and upon approval for close-out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT).The ACC shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party. 6.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF BANK SPONSOR The team assembled for this project is led by KCI Technologies, Inc. and includes KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. and KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction, Inc. (ETC). Both member entities are corporate subsidiaries of KCI Technologies, Inc., and as such are submitting as co-ventures on this prospectus in order to provide ecological services,engineering,land acquisition,and turn-key design-build implementation of the RHSMB. KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. is a full-service engineering,planning and environmental consulting firm registered with the Office of the Secretary of State,as well as the North Carolina Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (C-0764). ETC is an environmental construction firm specializing in the implementation of environmental restoration and management projects,and is registered with the Office of the Secretary of State and is a North Carolina Licensed General Contractor (#41336). The team has the capacity to form the necessary legal and financial entities for the proposed work and hereinafter is referred to jointly as KCI. KCI Technologies, Inc. is an employee-owned company headquartered in Sparks, Maryland, with division offices located throughout the Mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States.The local staff in the Natural Resources Practice in the Raleigh, NC office will be responsible for work derived from this contract. With a staff of more than 1,100 professional engineers, planners, architects, scientists, and construction support personnel, KCI is considered to have one of largest staffs trained in wetland and stream restoration design and construction, watershed management, geomorphology, and hydrologic/hydraulic engineering on the East Coast. KCI has made a concerted effort to foster the best technical expertise available in the design, implementation and construction of stream and wetland restoration projects. KCI's team has been established to provide successful implementation of wetland and steam mitigation projects by providing turnkey services including site identification, land acquisition, planning and assessment, design, permitting, construction, construction management, performance monitoring, 9 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 remedial action and financial planning in one entity. KCI has been involved in the location, design, development and management of over 1,600 acres of wetland and 50 miles of stream mitigation throughout the eastern seaboard and has extensive experience in North Carolina. Our approach to successfully meeting our client's needs utilizes the collaborative expertise of environmental, engineering, and construction professions,as well as quality support personnel. Please see past project experience and personnel resumes in Appendix B. 7.0 ECOLOGICAL SUITABILITY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS RHSMB has undergone significant modifications that have altered the site hydrology and vegetation since at least 1938. Historic aerial photographs (see Figures 3a and 3b) indicate that the site was already partially ditched by this time.The ditches,combined with contour manipulation (crowning), have severely altered the site's historic hydrologic regime. Even with the addition of many drainage ditches, the site is still periodically flooded during storm events. Flooding occurs both from overbank events from Long Bay Creek and its surrounding drainages as well as from backwater flooding from the Lumber River and Big Swamp during extreme events. Rack lines within forested portions of the site and adjacent sites are evident and verbal communications with the landowner are additional testimony to the site's flood potential. The extent of historic modifications of the drainage features in this watershed is not fully captured on the most recent USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.Specifically,the routing of stream flow through the subject site has been moved south of the location shown on the USGS quadrangle.Soils investigations and interviews with local residents have confirmed that the historic location of the channel was consistent with that shown on the USGS quadrangle and soil survey mapping. 7.1 Historic Site Geology/Geomorphic Setting The site lies within the Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces (Level IV 63n) ecoregion of the Coastal Plain physiographic province.These areas are characterized by large,sluggish rivers, deep-water swamps, oxbow lakes, and alluvial deposits with abrupt textural changes characterize. Cypress-gum swamps are common, along with bottomland hardwoods of wetland oaks, green ash, red maple, and hickories. The geology at the site is described as Yorktown Formation and Duplin Formation, Undivided Yorktown Formation (Tpy). The Yorktown Formation is described as having fossiliferous clay with varying amounts of fine-grained sand, bluish gray, shell material commonly concentrated in lenses. The Duplin Formation is described as being shelly with medium-to coarse-grained sand, sandy marl, and limestone, bluish gray. According to the Columbus County Soil Survey, the soils within the project site are mapped as Torhunta fine sandy loam,Johnston loam,Wakulla course sand and Leon sand (see Figure 4).The mitigation efforts will be conducted within the areas mapped as Torhunta and Johnston. Torhunta series soils are very poorly drained soils located on upland bays and stream terraces.Torhunta series soils typically have a high water table(0.5'to 1.5'from the surface)from December to May but are listed as having a flood frequency of"none" in the Columbus County Soil Survey. Given these characteristics, this soil type was determined to be an indicator for non-riparian wetland areas.Johnston soils are also very poorly drained soils that are located along major drainageways and floodplains. Similar to Torhunta series soils,Johnston soils have a seasonally high water table, but unlike Torhunta soils they are frequently flooded. Given these characteristics, this soil type was determined to be an indicator for riparian wetland areas. The mapped soils were evaluated by a licensed soil scientist and small changes to the boundaries of these two soil series were discovered, including a small area of Stallings sandy loam (Figure 5). Both the mapped soils and the field-verified soils are described in detail in Appendix C. 10 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 7.2 Chronology of Historic Aerials Historic aerial photographs were examined for any information pertaining to historic land use and site hydrology. The reviewed aerials are seen in Figures 3A and 3B. Historic aerials were obtained from the Columbus County Soil and Water Conservation District from 1938, 1951, 1955, 1966, 1972, and 1979 and 1993 and 2000 from the USGS via NC OneMap. From this photographic record, it is apparent that the area surrounding the project site has been a mix of agricultural and forested land for many years. In the 1938 aerial, the site is predominantly forested, although there are agricultural areas in close vicinity. By 1955, drainage ditches are visible in the northern portion of the site, and the land has been cleared in this area. In the 1966 aerial, additional land has been cleared to the south of the site,and the site remains relatively unchanged in the 1972 photo. By 1979, the southwestern corner of the site has been cleared entirely. Evidence of smaller drainage features are also seen in the 1979 photo. The site remains in a similar condition up until the present, where the majority of the site is ditched and drained except for a forested area in the eastern portion of the site. There are, however, ditches present in the forested land that are not visible on the aerials.The date of their installation is unknown. Based on the pattern of development shown by the historic aerials and on adjacent properties, the development pressure for the site is low. 7.3 Watershed Summary Information RHSMB is situated within the 03040203 (Lumber 03) Watershed Cataloging Unit (8-digit HUC) and more specifically in the 03040203190010 14-digit HUC. The drainage area to the downstream end of the site is approximately 1,735 acres (2.71 square miles) (see Figure 6).The hydrologic features within the drainage area are comprised of a second-order tributary that drains two Carolina Bays. These bays (Long Bay and Big Bay) have been substantially modified to facilitate drainage. The drainage for both bays enters the RHSMB site from the east and is called Long Bay Creek (LBC) for this project. Another smaller first-order tributary enters the site from the northern section, called UT to Long Bay Creek (UTLBC). The project site is bounded by interspersed agricultural and forested land to the east, agricultural land and Old Boardman Road to the north, and agricultural and forested land south. Waters leaving the site flow approximately 0.5 mile to the Lumber River. The section of the Lumber River along the site is DWQ 14-(13), which is classified for surface water as C; Sw (Secondary Recreation; Swamp Waters). This reach of the Lumber River was not listed as impaired under the 2014 303(d) list. 7.4 Existing Site Conditions The project has experienced significant hydrologic and vegetative modifications to allow for agricultural development.The current or previous landowners have installed a series of drainage ditches to optimize crop production. This activity has drained substantial acreage of riparian and non-riparian wetlands. The two existing project streams have also been straightened, channelized, and often relocated. Project photos are included in Appendix C, and Figure 7 provides an overview of the site conditions. 7.5.1 Streams There are two streams that currently run through the RHSMB. Long Bay Creek is a modified (ditched) stream channel that originates in Long Bay and flows in a northwesterly direction to the RHSMB. The stream enters the site in the wooded section on the eastern end of the project. Spoil piles remain in the wooded area along the Long Bay Creek attesting to the historical impact. Remnant portions of the natural 11 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Long Bay channel are evident within the wooded area to the south and west of the existing ditched channel. This is evidenced by soil survey data, on-site soils evaluations and information gathered during landowner and local resident interviews. LIDAR imagery of the site also shows this natural drainage pattern (low point) entering the RHS site from the northeast (see Figure 8).The relic channel of Long Bay Creek is not channelized and follows a more natural stream morphology.This channel was historically part of an existing wetland/stream complex with lower banks and high width/depth ratios. Valley cross- sections were taken of this remnant stream channel and are included in Appendix C. The second existing project stream is a first-order, unnamed tributary to Long Bay Creek(UTLBC)that enters from the northern section of the watershed. This stream has also been straightened and ditched and flows through an existing farm field. The confluence of the two project streams occurs off-site of the RHSMB on the adjacent NCDMS project; the restoration of these two streams will continue on this project as well.After leaving the NCDMS project boundary, Long Branch Creek continues to flow in a westerly direction to its confluence with the Lumber River approximately 3000 feet to the west of the project site. 7.5.2 Wetlands Wetlands historically formed at RHSMB due to surface inputs, with additional inputs coming from overbank stream events. Based on field topographic survey data and LIDAR elevation data, the contours at RHSMB range from 79 to 87 feet.The topography of the site begins with the highest elevations at the northeastern edge of the site. The elevation decreases as one moves from northeast to west. Water on the site exits the western boundary of the bank into the NCDMS project site. The site has been impacted by a history of channelization and agricultural practices.These efforts to drain wetlands on the property were largely successful. However, two wetlands of marginal quality exist in the wooded areas on the eastern portion of the site. These wetlands are located within or near Long Bay Creek's historic landscape position. Wetland 1 is 2.77 acres and Wetland 2 is 1.19 acres as shown in the jurisdictional determination (See Appendix Q. 7.5.3 Vegetation The project includes a mature wooded area to the east. This forested area is partially ditched, but also contains the relic channel for Long Bay Creek. There are a variety of tree species, including black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), swamp bay(Persea palustris), American holly (Ilex opaca), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).The remaining land on the project is currently being used for row crops. 7.5 Site Constraints 7.6.1 Jurisdictional Features A jurisdictional determination was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers on October 9, 2015 and was approved January 22, 2016 (see Appendix C). Following the completion of the mitigation plan, a pre- construction notification (PCN) will be completed to apply for a Nationwide 27 Permit (NWP) to comply with Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act with the Wilmington District of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources. 12 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 7.6.2 Cultural Resources There are no registered historic places within a five-mile radius of the subject property.Should historic or archeological resource issues arise during the permit process for the RHS site, KCI will address these issues using historians and archaeologists. 7.6.3 Endangered and Threatened Species The US Fish and Wildlife Service's list of endangered and threatened species for Columbus County was reviewed and the following species are considered as having the potential to exist on the project site. Table 7. Selected USWFS Endangered and Threated Species in Columbus County Group Common Name Scientific Name Status Birds Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered Birds Wood stork Mycteria americana Threatened Flowering Plants Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered Flowering Plants Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered Below are the habitat descriptions adapted from the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office descriptions (USFWS, 2016). Habitat for Red-cockaded woodpecker: Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat includes forests with trees old enough for roosting, generally at least 60-120 years old, depending on species of pine. The most prominent adaptation of RCWs is their use of living pines for cavity excavation. For nesting and roosting habitat, red-cockaded woodpeckers need open stands of pine containing trees 60 years old and older. RCWs need live, large older pines in which to excavate their cavities. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are preferred, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands (stands that are primarily hardwoods, or that have a dense hardwood understory) are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood stands 30 years old or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. In good, moderately-stocked, pine habitat, sufficient foraging substrate can be provided on 80 to 125 acres. Hardwood midstory encroachment results in cluster abandonment; therefore, it is critical that hardwood midstory be controlled. Prescribed burning is the most efficient and ecologically beneficial method to accomplish hardwood midstory control. Given that these types of pine stands do not exist at the project site, no effect on RCWs is anticipated from this project. Habitat for Wood Stork (Mycteria americana): Wood storks use freshwater and estuarine wetlands for nesting, feeding and roosting. They feed in wide variety of tidal and freshwater ecosystems: freshwater marshes, ponds, hardwood and cypress swamps, narrow tidal creeks or shallow tidal pools, and artificial wetlands such as seasonally flooded roadside and agricultural ditches, impoundments and large reservoirs. Particularly attractive feeding sites are depressions in marshes or swamps where fish become concentrated during periods of falling water levels.They nest in patches of medium to tall trees, either in standing water or on islands surrounded by expanses of open water. The type of standing water habitat does not currently exist at the site, and as such, no effect on the wood stork is anticipated from this project. 13 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Habitat for Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi): Cooley's meadowrue occurs on circumneutral soils in grass-sedge bogs and wet pine savannahs and savannah-like areas. It may also grow along fire plow lines, in roadside ditches, woodland clearings, and powerline rights-of-way, and needs some type of disturbance such as fire or mowing to maintain its open habitat. Plants often found growing with Cooley's meadowrue include tulip poplar growing with bald cypress and/or Atlantic white cedar. This type of habitat is not currently found at the project site, and no effect is anticipated on this plant. Habitat for Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia: This species generally occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peaty, poorly drained soil)on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand. Rough-leaf loosestrife has also been found on deep peat in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of unknown origin).The grass-shrub ecotone, where rough-leaf loosestrife is found, is fire-maintained, as are the adjacent plant communities (longleaf pine - scrub oak, savanna, flatwoods, and pocosin). Suppression of naturally- occurring fire in these ecotones results in shrubs increasing in density and height and expanding to eliminate the open edges required by this plant.Several populations are known from roadsides and power line rights of way where regular maintenance mimics fire and maintains vegetation so that herbaceous species are open to sunlight. Given the lack of pocosin or bay habitat at the site, no effect is anticipated on this plant. Based on these descriptions of suitable habitat for the selected species, we believe there will be no adverse effects following the implementation of this project. A consultation with the USFWS will be completed prior to the development of the Mitigation Banking Instrument. 8.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN 8.1 Design Features The mitigation approach for RHSMB will aim to restore an integrated stream/wetland ecosystem that will support the Long Bay Creek/Lumber River corridor. Stream restoration actions will focus on relocating surface water inputs from the unnamed tributary from Big Bay and from Long Bay Creek to their historic flowpaths. The RHSMB maximizes the restoration potential by providing 12.7 acres of riparian wetland restoration (re-establishment and rehabilitation), 11.3 acres of non-riparian wetland restoration (re- establishment), and 2,642 If of stream restoration.This approach is shown in Figure 9. While the credit type and ratio for this project generally follow the framework of the restoration mitigation type, these mitigation types have been further refined to be considered either re- establishment or rehabilitation, which are both forms of restoration. Re-establishment occurs where the functions are returned to the site in a location where an aquatic resource previously existed. Rehabilitation results in an improvement in most, if not all, aquatic resource functions at a degraded, existing wetland site (40 CFR Part 230). The USACE has approved restoration credits for both "re- establishment" and "rehabilitation" through the 2008 mitigation rules and subsequently on other DMS projects. The outcome from these discussions has been different ratios for rehabilitation and re- establishment, although they are both considered forms of restoration credit. 14 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Stream Restoration (Priority I)2,6421f(valley length) Mitigation actions will focus on filling the dredged channels and creating a shallow braided headwater stream/wetland complex. The restoration reach will have valley widths of approximately 100-feet wide and will be approached in a manner consistent with the guidance document Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (USACE 2007). This design aims to restore the function of these systems, applying the guidance as described in that document for restoring riparian headwater systems. Coastal Plain stream restoration will take place on Long Bay Creek (LBC- 1,192 If proposed valley length) as well as two additional unnamed tributaries to Long Bay Creek. Reach 1(UTLBCI-493 If proposed valley length), will flow from the northeastern corner of the site for 493 linear feet; currently this flow is disrupted by the main ditched channel of LBC cutting diagonal across this area. Reach 2 (UTLBC2—957 If proposed valley length), currently a ditched stream, travels from the northern top of the site until the confluence with LBC off-site on the NCDMS project. The restored streams will not be a single-thread channel systems, but instead stream/wetland valleys with multiple flowpaths that will meander through variations in streambed topography created by roots and woody debris. In the case of LBC,the stream will be removed from its ditched channel that runs along the northern edge and be returned to its prior position in forested valley bottom. These existing valley cross-sections are shown in Appendix C and the approximate area where the flow will be returned is highlighted in blue. UTLBCI will flow out of the northeast and be placed in the former stream valley shared by LBC. For UTLBC2, the proposed stream valley will run along the extent of the top of the existing ditched stream and then turn to the northwest near its end. The stream valleys for the project streams will be morphologically highly variable and the conditions in the wooded section will be used as a guide to develop what the headwater stream/wetland restoration should look like. Observations from similar stream systems will be incorporated into the design, such as the dominant flowpath is not always centered in the valley or even the lowest part of the valley; that numerous side channels can be almost the same size as the primary flowpath; that sometimes side channels are nonexistent and the flowpath conveys a greater concentrated flow; that the size and dimensions of the primary flowpath vary depending on governing valley morphology;and that the profiles have some areas of high variability and other areas with little grade change. These qualities, and the morphological parameters of the relic channel, will contribute to the design plan for the restoration of the ditched streams on-site.The restored streams will also contribute to the restoration or improvement of the groundwater hydrology to the adjacent drained riparian wetlands. Once the restored streams enter the NCDMS project, the stream and wetland restoration will be continued for another 1,600 If before reaching an existing treeline. Riparian Wetland Restoration (Rehabilitation and Re-establishment)—12.7 acres The drained hydric soils (11.2 acres) adjacent to the relic stream/wetland valleys will be restored to riparian wetland as part of the restoration of Long Bay Creek and its tributaries. There are also existing riparian wetlands (1.5 ac) that will be rehabilitated by increasing the groundwater hydroperiod and enhancing vegetation. The mitigation area would be restored by filling approximately 1,700 linear feet of ditches, relocating sidecast spoil, and completing minor surface contouring to offset existing man-made drainage enhancements (primarily field crowning in the existing field areas).The stream will be the main hydrologic source to the riparian components of the wetland system but will be augmented by a shallow groundwater table, overland flow, and seepage from the adjacent uplands. Wetland hydrology will be restored to the drained hydric soils once the restored streams are redirected to the existing relic channels, 15 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 raising the groundwater elevations and providing overbank flow. The functional uplift will be significant in this wetland system, because there is already a mature canopy of appropriate tree species. Following the completion of site grading, the riparian wetland will be planted as Bottomland Hardwood Forest as described in the section below. Non-Riparian Wetland Restoration—11.3 acres In addition to the riparian features at the site,there will also be 11.3 acres of non-riparian restoration (re- establishment) that will take place. The drained Torhunta non-riparian hydric soils are found adjacent to the riparian soils in the fields to the southwest and northwest. Ditches have been installed in this fields to remove ponding and saturation from surface water inputs, which are the primary hydrologic source for the non-riparian wetlands. The mitigation area will be restored by filling approximately 1,900 linear feet of additional ditches, removing remnant spoil piles, and grading the site with minor variations to restore natural wetland topography. Following the completion of site grading, the non-riparian wetland will be planted as a Hardwood Flat Forest community as described in the section below. 8.2 Target Plant Communities The target NCWAM types for the site will be a Bottomland Hardwood Forest, which will encompass the riparian wetlands and Coastal Plain stream restoration, and a Hardwood Flat Forest for the non-riparian wetlands.The planting plan proposed for the site considers the species identified in this community type as well as other similar species that have been observed in the adjacent wetland areas. In the lower part of the site (riparian area) where the restored Coastal Plain stream pattern will flow, it is anticipated that significant numbers of bald cypress, swamp tupelo, cherrybark oak, and overcup oak will be planted in the riparian zone due to the anticipated periods of prolonged saturation and inundation. The second area (non-riparian zone) would be at an elevation slightly above the stream area transitioning to the adjacent uplands. The two planting areas will have many of the same species, differing only slightly based on the tolerance to the wetness regime. Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of 968 stems per acre (9 feet x 5 feet spacing)to achieve a mature survivability of two hundred ten(210)stems per acre after seven years. Plantings in the existing forested areas will be reduced as necessary to those open or disturbed areas that may support plantings.Woody vegetation planting will be conducted during dormancy.Species to be planted may consist of the following and any substitutions from the planting plan will be taken from this list: Table 8. Bottomland Hardwood Forest Proposed Species Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Status(Atlantic& Gulf Coast Plain) American Hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana FAC Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum FACW Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera FACU Sweet Bay Magnolia virginiana FACW Swamp Tupelo Nysso biflora OBL Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia FACW Overcup Oak Quercus lyrato OBL Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii FACW Water Oak Quercus nigra FAC Willow Oak Quercus phellos FACW 16 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum OBL American Elm Ulmus americana FACW Table 9. Hardwood Flat Proposed Species Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Status(Atlantic& Gulf Coast Plain) River Birch Betula nigra FACW Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum FACW Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera FACU Sweet Bay Magnolia virginiana FACW Swamp Tupelo Nyssa biflora OBL Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia FACW Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata OBL Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii FACW Water Oak Quercus nigra FAC Cherrybark Oak Quercus pagoda FACW Willow Oak Quercus phellos FACW American Elm Ulmus americana FACW An herbaceous seed mix composed of appropriate native species will also be developed and used to further stabilize and restore the wetland. 9.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN The site will be monitored on a regular basis, with a physical inspection of the site conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may include the following: Table 10. Project Maintenance Plan Component/Feature Maintenance Through Project Close-Out Routine maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir matting and Stream and Wetland supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation within the mitigation area.Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent scour. Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community.Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include Vegetation supplemental planting,pruning,mulching,and fertilizing.Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods.Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA)rules and regulations. Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site and adjacent properties.Boundaries may be identified by fence,marker, Site Boundary bollard,post,tree-blazing,or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement.Boundary markers disturbed,damaged,or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis. 17 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 10.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The RHSMB will be monitored to determine if the stream and wetland features on-site meet the standards for mitigation credit production. The credits will be validated upon confirmation that the success criteria described below are met. Monitoring of the RHSMB shall occur for a minimum of seven years. The table at the end of this section expands on the functional improvements anticipated for this site and how these improvements are linked to the monitoring of the performance standards. Headwater Stream Performance Stream hydrology monitoring will be conducted to determine if the restored headwater streams meet the proposed performance criteria for headwater stream hydrology and form. The stream will have continuous surface water flow within the valley, every year,for at least 30 consecutive days.Additionally, the stream must show signs of supporting the restored channel form as documented with photos. These indicators may include evidence of: scour, sediment deposition and sorting, multiple flow events, wrack lines and flow over vegetation, leaf litter, or water staining. Vegetation Performance The site must achieve a woody stem density of 320 stems/acre after three years, 260 stems/acre after five years and 210 stems/acre after seven years to be considered successful. Plot data with individual species lists will be provided. If monitoring indicates that the specified survival rate is not being met, appropriate corrective actions will take place,which may include invasive species control, and replanting. Wetland Hydrologic Performance Wetland hydrology monitoring will be conducted to determine if the restored wetland areas meet the proposed performance criteria for wetland hydrology. The site must present continuous saturated or inundated hydrologic conditions for at least 10% of the growing season for the riparian wetlands and at least 7.5% of the growing season for the non-riparian wetlands during normal weather conditions based on a conservative estimate. A "normal" year will be based on NRCS climatological data for Columbus County, and using the 30th to 70th percentile thresholds as the range of normal, as documented in the USACE Technical Report "Accessing and Using Meteorological Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology, April 2000." The USDA WETS table for Whiteville 7 NW estimates that the growing season begins March 12th and ends November 15th(247 days)for a 50%probability of a freeze of 28 degrees F or lower(USDA 2016). Wetland hydrologic performance will be determined through evaluation of automatic recording gauge data supplemented by documentation of wetland hydrology indicators as defined in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. Daily data will be collected\automatic wells over the monitoring period following implementation.These data will determine if the wetland meets the hydrology success criterion of the water table being within 12 inches of the ground surface continuously for the proposed extent of the growing season. Below is a summary of how anticipated functional outcomes of the project are linked to the performance standards. 18 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Table 11. Project Functional Outcomes and Monitoring Function-Based Goals Objective Functional Level Parameter Monitoring Performance Standard Effects Measurement Tool Relocate a channelized stream to its Floodplain Continuous surface flow historic landscape Hydraulics Flood Frequency for at least 30 consecutive position adjacent Connectivity days to riparian wetlands Restore a Coastal Redevelop a Evidence of scour, Plain stream valley Lateral Stability sediment deposition and existing floodplain stream valley Geomorphology and Channel Visual Inspection sorting,multiple flow elevation Form events,wrack lines,leaf litter,or water staining Install bedform Presence of logs or other variation and Geomorphology Bed Form Visual Inspection of habitat indicators habitat features Diversity Features providing bed diversity Plant the site with 260 stems/acre after 5 native trees and Density years or 210 stems/acre shrubs and a Geomorphology/ after 7 years herbaceous seed Wetland Species Vegetation mix that supports Species Composition Percentage of species Create a diverse the development Composition/ types wetland system of the two Diversity with Bottomland community types. Hardwood Forest Fill field ditches and Hardwood Flat and redevelop o communities wetland 10%of growing season for Groundwater Bottomland Hardwood microtopography Wetland Saturation/ o for Percent Saturation to slow the flow of Hydrology Within 12 inches Forest(riparian)/ surface and Surface Ponding Hardwood Flat(non- surface subsurface riparian) drainage Table adapted from Harman et al. 2012 11.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring of the RHSMB shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream and wetland hydrology, stability, and vegetation survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting established performance standards described above. Vegetation Monitoring The success of the riparian buffer and wetland plantings will be evaluated using ten-by-ten meter or equivalently-sized vegetative sampling plots within the planted area. Trees and shrubs will be grouped into height classifications and the species notated. Volunteers will be recorded in the same manner, but counted separately from planted trees. The corners of each monitoring plot will be permanently marked in the field and the coordinates of the plot corners will be recorded using conventional survey or GPS. Additionally, a photograph will be taken of each plot that will be replicated each monitoring year. Beginning at the end of the first growing season, KCI will monitor the planted vegetation in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 at a minimum. 19 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Wetland Hydrologic Monitoring Hydrologic performance will be determined through evaluation of automatic recording gauge data supplemented by documentation of wetland hydrology indicators as defined in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. Daily data will be collected from seven automatic wells over the 7-year monitoring period following implementation. Stream Hydrologic Monitoring In the stream restoration areas of RHSMB, automatic recording gauges will also be installed to document the presence of surface water. In addition to the presence of surface water, other physical flow indicators will also be documented to demonstrate that there are surface flows through the stream/wetland valley. Visual Assessment An annual site walk will be conducted at the end of each monitoring period to document any problem areas. Specific problem areas that could arise include excessive bank erosion, bed deposition or aggradation, problems with the installed structures, or sparse vegetative cover.The findings of the visual assessment as well as any recommended corrective actions for problem areas will be summarized in the monitoring reports by way of a Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV)figure. Photograph reference points (PRPs) will be established to assist in characterizing the site and to allow qualitative evaluation of the site conditions. The location of each photo point will be marked in the monitoring plan and the bearing/orientation of the photograph will be documented to allow for repeated use. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends and assist in decision making regarding project close-out. The report will document the monitored components and include all collected data,analyses, and photographs.The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted during the first full growing season following project completion. The site will be monitored for performance standards for a minimum of for seven years after completion of construction. Full monitoring reports will be completed in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Limited monitoring reports (CCPV, photos, stream and wetland gauge data, and site narrative) will be submitted in Years 4 and 6. Table 12. Monitoring Methodology Required Parameter Method Frequency Notes Gauges will be distributed in the Groundwater monitoring gauges with Groundwater wetland re- data recording devices will be installed Yes Hydrology establishment areas Annual on-site;the data will be downloaded on a monthly basis during the growing and rehabilitation area season A least one gauge will be installed throughout In addition to the gauge data,physical Yes Stream the stream valley o Annual indicators of flow will be documented Hydrology and reported in the annual monitoring document surface water flow reports. Permanent vegetation Monitoring Years Yes Vegetation monitoring plots 1,2,3,5,and 7 Locations of vegetation damage, Yes Project boundary Semi-annual boundary encroachments,etc.will be mapped 20 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Upon completion of site construction KCI will implement the post-construction monitoring protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined that the site's ability to achieve site performance standards are jeopardized, KCI will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in-house technical staff or may require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized KCI will: 1. Notify USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions. 2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary and/or required by the USACE. 3. Obtain other permits as necessary. 4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan. S. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions.This document shall depict the extent and nature of the work performed. 13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES Prior to any debiting the sponsor shall provide financial assurances, as acceptable by the Corps, in consultation with the IRT,to ensure a high level of confidence that the Bank will be successfully completed and maintained in perpetuity.The details of these financial assurances will be provided in the MBI. 21 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 14.0 REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,Technical Report Y-87-1.Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K.Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012.A Function-Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006. NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2010. Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Last accessed 6/ 2016 at: https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs- public/Water%20Quality/Planning/BPU/BPU/Lumber/Lumber%20PIan/2010%20PIan/Lumber%2 ORiver%202010%20Basin%20PIan%20March.pdf Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey for Columbus County, NC. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/. Last accessed 6/2016. USACE, Wilmington District.April 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. https://ribits.usace.army.miI/ribits_apex/f?p=107:150:8904529967215::NO::P150_DOCUMENT_ ID:10788 Last accessed 7/2016. USACE, Wilmington District, Regulatory Division, and NCDENR, Division of Water Quality.April 4, 2007. Information Regarding Stream Restoration With Emphasis on the Coastal Plain.Version 2. Available online at https://ribits.usace.army.mil/ribits_apex/f?p=107:150:8904529967215::NO::P150_DO00 M ENT_ ID:10787. Last accessed 7/2016. USDA. WETS Table for Whiteville 7NW NC9357, Columbus County, NC. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/37047/wets Last accessed 7/2016. USFWS, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office. 2016. Endangered and Threatened species of North Carolina. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/es_tes.html Last accessed 6/2016. USGS. Yorktown Formation and Duplin Formation, Undivided. http://mrd ata.u sgs.gov/geo I ogy/state/sgmc-u n it.ph p?unit=N CTpy%3 B 11 Last accessed 6/2016. 22 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Figures 23 24 \ROBESON BLADEN \ COLUMBUS ROBESON COUNTY �Q �m 5 a� G �Q �a ORRUM 74 O 130 242 1506 BOARDMAN 1058 �J 42 74 COLUMBUS COUNTY Project Site Location QCounty Boundary 74 Major Roads Minor Roads 42 Major Rivers Cities and Towns 0 0.75 1.5 FIGURE 1.VICINITY MAP N ROUGH HORN SWAMP MITIGATION BANK Miles COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC 25 Primary GSA(03040203) Secondary GSA(03040201 and 03040204) Project Location II i it i I Project 14-digit HU Major Streams and Rivers h1t�PJTGC�lt11 f1'1' '_ -- - URvharrie ,1!I Natianal Forest s 1 I�l�'II P+i ll fi Fort Bragg militar'/ ~ Reservation I Fayetteville 01h1Ri i,.1 ,Stili 03040201 030 204 - •I fI Laul 03040203 CJAF5MRF1kt.[J I ° Li-aril anon rr' -lyf' fes( DARLIIA-b -IJ O' 'fes i .0 fi s 15 _ Florence FIGURE 2. GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA N 0 5 10 ROUGH HORN SWAMP MITIGATION BANK Miles COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC 26 f 7y j r� 1938 'amw 1955 1966 ' FIGURE 3A. HISTORICAL AERIALS 1 o 500 1.000 ROUGH HORN SWAMP MITIGATION BANK N Q Bank Boundary Feet COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC Source:Columbus County NRCS 27 u pf, 1 _. '691 66 s ,. �72 - 1979 19 9 3 N OneMap„ 4''e 2 0 0 0 N OneMap FIGURE 3B. HISTORICAL AERIALS 2 N Bank Boundary o 500 1,000 ROUGH HORN RESTORATION SITE Feet COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC Source:Columbus County NRCS, USGS Or[hoimagery, p and NC OneMa 20 WkB Js Ec Ec Ud WkB To St L7 � ` Mu Js Au B To ` Fo Fo Ec Soils Key St � Fo- Foreston LnB Js- Johnston St Ln B- Leon Mu - Murville Ec ` Su - Stallings To-Torhunta Mu Fo Bank Boundary N OneMap, NC Center for Geog Columbus Sods Anal si ,N 911 Board FIGURE 4. NRCS SOIL SURVEY N 0 300 600 Source:NRCS SSURGO Data, Feet ROUGH HORN SWAMP MITIGATION BANK Columbus County COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC NC OneMap Imagery,2013 29 ys. . 41 V. `R S =.. � x.� �,7.,��5 �}4.�x}`..� � „ ft. - .. •,� ,� ,Jas art ,i; 4 17 i 1 12 16 Soil Johnston Johnston Variant i Stallings Torhunta Bank Boundary rj NC OneMap, NC Center for Ge0 Soil Boring Locations FIGURE 5. DELINEATED SOILS N 0 250 500 n Source: Statewide Feet ROUGH HORN SWAMP MITIGATION BANK N Orthoimagegery,2013. COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC 30 HU 0 04020 90 ' 040 30905 t •• � _ .iw�� +r. Q3 0 ti 4 •i ti .Ca" fe ^ f j 304020-3190010. ' i, Bear � 4 r 1 4 0 Project Watershed(2.71 sq mi) t 3 Bank Boundary 14-digit HUC Boundaries (- FIGURE 6. PROJECT WATERSHED MAP N 0 1,250 2,500 ROUGH HORN SWAMP MITIGATION BANK n Source:USGS DRG, Feet COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC ,/\+ Evergreen Quad. 31 _ yy e � yA XS I XS 2 l Bank Jurisdictional Ditches(3,910 If) Bank Boundary(31.7 ac) * A Bank Jurisdictional Streams(2,707 If) Jurisdictional Wetlands(4.12 ac) 7 Other Jurisdictional Ditches Valley Cross-Sections(See Appendix C) s t Other Nonjuris. Ditches Spoil — Other Streams FIGURE 7. EXISTING CONDITIONS N Source: On o zoo aoo ROUGH HORN SWAMP MITIGATION BANK eMap Feet Orthoimagegery,2013.013. COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC 32 qpQ 80 O �_ — 91 92 0 v 9� 9 9 V, °j l? 1 89 0 rf 9 85 40 87 87 - Jr 86'- 'b 6kt r" 95 9d f f xI l�' , j �� '�-7 r,'a it "�-�'•_ // 4; rr r�C0 Cb 010 c� 8Sf-}i147 r l� r J i a0co co j o 85190 /l 1 G a a a s r cn a�, 8 pas g6 _ `b a� h e o �N_ 84 n 84 �' J s Bank Boundary r 86 �r 1-ft Contours 1"AN- ss �A q)\ Lidar� a5 � Lidar Elevation 86 66,87 a� a5 85 - High : 104' 81 � m aco 88 co 8j87 p� � a� � - o4'� ' LOW 7$' d�' b 87 y cru � o 8j ro 190 dY, 87 FIGURE 8. SITE LIDAR AND TOPOGRAPHY N 0 200 400 n Feet ROUGH HORN SWAMP MITIGATION BANK r/,\\\V Source:NC 3DEP Lidar COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC 33 0 Start UTLBC2 957 If proposed valley length 4 d i s.. NCDMS Project " tart UTLBC1 493 If proposed valley length _ pphi �i viii iiia I Start LBC 1,192 If proposed valley length Proposed Stream Valley Centerline (2,642 If total) Coastal Plain Stream Restoration Valley (5.8 ac) Nonriparian Re-establishment (11.3 ac/ 11.3 WMCs) Riparian Re-establishment (11.2 ac/ 11.2 WMCs) • ' '` Riparian Rehabilitation (1.5 ac/ 1.0 WMCs) ate' Upland (0.1 ac) Bank Boundary (31.7 ac) Adjacent NCDMS Project Easement A 0 200 400 FIGURE 9. PROPOSED CONDITIONS N Source:NC OneMap Feet ROUGH HORN SWAMP MITIGATION BANK Orthoimagegery,2013.013. COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC 34 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Appendix A. Site Protection Instrument 35 36 NOTES: OVVN 13R CERTIIFICATIICN STIATIE OF NORTIF CAROUINA LECIEN d CODUMBU LNTM E)IISTIhG FIH NAIL 1. THS PLAIT DOES NOT RHIIRESHNT AI BCIUNDARY SURVEY CIF THE PARENTr TIRACITSL 111 E PARENT tRAC11 HCIUNDARIE S AI JAICENT TCI THIS EASBME NT ARE N OD 1, � C s REIT l EV11 ORRfC18R 0 8)ISTIN G IRON OLD CIHANCIEO H Y THIS PLAIT.BOUNDARY INFORMA MN SH(IWN HERECIN WAS E E RIVED I HBRSBt CIER-NIFY THAT I AM TF 8 C NVNBR OF TIF E PROF ERTY 91-C WN AN D OR CIOLL MSL S COUNTY!,CE FrriFY 11HA11 THB MA P0 rROM LEEDS AND MAM OF RE>CC•RD IN C'OI,I7MBUS COUNTY ANE'MONUMBNTATION DEISCRIEED HEREON,WHICH,I;,LOCATED IN THE SUBDIVISION JURISDICTION OR PLAT WHICIF,THIVI CIE R111PICA�TIOON IS AlPPIX@Q O 9/f9' REBAIR 9971 W/ 3.:15' AILUMIh UA 5GAROMAN FCIUND IN THH FIELD. OF THE C OL N TY OR CL UMBU: AND THAll I H BREBY ACIOPT 11HIS PLAN OF MEBTC AIIL SITATUlIORY RE QL IREMEN TIS ROR CAP 111117E Sl AT9 SEAL R11SUBOlVISICIN WI11H MY FREIE CON SIENTI AND BSTIABLISF MINIMUM SETBACK RECORDING. ® CIAL(IULATE13 POih T 2. DISTANCE! SHCIWN ARE HOR.IHONTAL GROUND UISTANCRIS IN U.S. SURVEIA FENT LINES AS NCllED. O EXISTIIS G MONUW ENT UNE E99 OTHERIWISH N CITED. -WK [Z-1.016 *SITE]* 3, AREA CC IMPUTED HY CK)CIRDINATH ME TH(ID. r1 13 �� r 4 L a>� C NEW CO?SERA A710N E AISENIETVT 5, RE VIEW OFIFICBR DATE R.O.B. R01h T (IF BE W NIN G 4. 171E BASIS CIF THE ME W DIIANS AND COC RDINATES FCIR THIS PHA11S THE 0?--40%p-!gojre 1,2 N ORTH UAROU INA STATH PLANE COORDINATE SY STEM,NORII'H AMERICAN!IIATUM GEORGE EN SANDER ON DATE R.O.C. RCNN T CIF C CIN N Eh CEMENT! 198' INIAD 831,BASED(IN DIFFERENTIAL GHS OUSE14VAIT ONS PE AFORMED IN JUNE 2 015. 5. DEED REFERIEN CES:AIS SHUYINI HEREON. 6. SUHJECF PRIOPHRMIES NNCIWNI AS RAY NUMBHA:AS SHOWN F EREC N. `-I A 7, SUBJECT!EIA:HM HNTI LIES WIT HIM THE ARI A HESICINATF D AIS ZONE I"I",HAISHD CIN 1' , j � 0, FEIDERA.H FLOCK)INSU RANCEI RATE MA P 3720021100K ANE 3720(12140CY4 EA FECIIVEI 5 JUNE 7,2000. w=-; 416. S. NCI UNDHRGROUND UTILTI Y L(IGATIIIV G PERFCIRMEII DURINCI TEE C OURSB CIF THIS SUMVEII. 9. THE S RATE PLANI COCIRDINA!TES FOR 11H!111 RCIJEC IT WERE PRC DUCHU WITH R TK GPS VICINITY M A P OHSERN AMOK RI S.THE NETWORK PC S.1111CINAL AK ICU RACY OF THE R TK EHI RIVED POSITIONAL INFC RMAIION 1S 0.07 ME1ER.HOR120NTALPOSrMN9 ARI REFERENCED ROA (NOT 110 SCALE) K)N 1AD 83 Ia01 I I. CC MBINET SCALH FACIICIR=0.9999706(1 OL �4AR0/1ilA _ D o6 S . N 7 9'48'18"O T OF WA Y/ - _--- N 7S 181132"E1 73.18 FCUrfECON ci 3-A5.85' MON �- N81C'18''13"D FICIL NEI ' 166.9 81 Cloh(I. POUND 14' FCILND IRC1N RIPE ]RON 13AHN- - FULINCI Qry`l�lot, Pte' 12 1027'± OUND #18 'I 50EI.I' IFION PIREI �6g \del � Qkc NS&VA N N/F FCIUNII �� i4SF1� p GEIDPFIIGF�RTRGE N SA2N2L�RSGN IRON BAIFI lEj'O �I 399,1331 St GIB 205 PG 356 t AVAC • 3 ASF N) GECRGE AL66N SANDERSON FIROPERAY Jf•,22354 Gg+ - DB ,3173 FIG 1566 1,JAMB,I N.GFULE NTHIN,CIER111FY TF AT TF IS MAF VIAS PRAWN 45,Q ACRESUhDERNYSURORYIEION FRON AN AOIIUAUEIUFtVEI MADE U�DE3RNY SU PERM SION(D88D DES(RIPTIION RUCCIR13EO IN pHE U HOOP 373 RAGE 5601,1HA1JHS UOUN DARIE9 N CIII SU RVEYE13 ARE I C LIEARLY INDICATHD AEI DRAWN FRON 114 FORMATION FCIU N 11 IN BOOK AND RPIGHASSI THU RATIO OF F RECIISION A9 CALCULATED 19 GREATER THA I TH 19 MAP DOES F H PF HSHNT AN OFMCIALI SOUNDA HAL'!BOON PRE3FIARHD IN AC(ORDANICE A ITH CLS.47- WILT ES1;I MY ORIGINAL flBGN ATURE,REGIS � TlH IE 122Np D/�G6FyMARCH,20'16. N/F # 7 hIGRACE G FIELD. ✓R. ✓A NET G�IL FIELDS E14 4'44'22"W N TH CAROLINA REGIS AT10NI NUMBER PRCPMTY #.• 2X56 #4 /'194.81' U� JAMEIS N. GELIEINTHiN PIN 02115.OG-64-,3186.000 LB 354 PG 65 18 1,JANIE9 M.GELLBNITH IN,RROFHSSIONAL 1 LAND SURVE CERTIFY TC THB POLLCWING AS RSQL'IRHD 114 G.S_47#0(F THAT_W E 9U RV EY IS OF ANOTHER GATHIY SUCH sGOR ,SUe FIIHCOMHIN ATIION OF 8)WIN G RARUEL9,A CO RT OTHHR EXCEP 110 THE DEFINITIO O IN AROUNA REC4 ATION NUMB AN ES M. GELLENTHIN 76 ly )7o . 7o . I04?86 J KU EAWRCNMIEWTAL TEGHNCLOGIESI AAD CCNSTRUCTION ;WC. PROPERTY! 1-.7725 9 PCIL N D SI27"37'421 A GRAPHIC SCALE PIN. 0215.00-9;-161.3000 lRon PIREI #1q 15.00' 15q o 75 Ia° 300 D6 11.24 FIG 934-9.316 -� #1 CI N6 1 INIC H - 15CI F9o11 / 36S?z` EASEMENT PLA-fl94� � FOR / CONSI3RVATION ( � KC/ENV1A0AMEW TAL TEICHNCLGGIES EASOMENT Flnh AACI COAISTRUIC 7VGN INC.POINT TABLE 9AIR RRCRORTYCGECRGEALLON SANDOR SION (OWNER) NO BASTING 101 253762.72 :020231.01 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,IATUM lIOW NSIHIR, CCILUMBUS COIL N TY 1'I 2546' ' .72 2C' 868C.22 AIF ,� �1 NC RIIH CARCIL INA 12 354908.68 20' 91' ' .39 2�� s�02� 43 TWEIY BRITT & o �� '��</ P.O.C. DATE: SCALE: SHEET: 13 254 5136.71 2C'I 512x5.4 7 CCILL MBUS CCI,n C FI€I€I$21.00 / tIEIX�NGIER CAW �� I �'� CONSER�ATION NOV 13 2015 1 150 1 OF 1 PRE9-lz'-2Cl PROPER 71Y X0654 6E� J OASEW[P T 14 255006.44 20' 9644.79 GI5-1�-2C11E1 01-92-21 RN DB 5G0 FIG X9,31 15 255C' 9.39 20'197'16.81KMEMNCIE]H.ELLLOCIK N� KCI ASSC CIATE S OF N.C. R9C19TER OF DEQS �p 16 254846.15 20' 9574.66 DERLTY MARCEILINCI GEGRGE ALLEN SMDER50N ENGINEERS, SLRVE)IORS AND FILAN NERS 17 254369.58 20'19422.991 1NCGSI MIOhI PROF ERTY �X2.368 c BK' 1 1 PB 1 CO / 80�RU (EA167EI I LIB X051 PG 396 K C I 4641 SIX FCIRKS RCIAD SUITE 220 181 �54 25J.61 20193'14.02 FIC: -� 19 25,1776.01 2Cl2C231a.97 Al:250,210.96 / ASSCICIATEIS CH RALEIGH, NC 27609 E[-2,014,,80L68 NCIRTH CAROL NA PHONE (919) 783-9214 * FIA) (19.19) 783-51266 4 2543116.47 0119'1731.C16 37 CSF!0.99991',194 20157877 C-a7E 4 NORTIH C ARC IJINA DC C S)JS1'FBM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM LANDOWNDR AUTHORIZATION FC RM PR OHERTYI LEGAL DESCRITION: Doled Book: 373 Hap: 960 Cauntyl: Clollumbus Harecd ID Now ben: 02119-9� -99119 Old Boardman Aaad, Evergreen NC Str eeit Adldreiss: Ilroplerty Owmax (Fllciase point: ceanigei Sanderson Hroplenty Owner Ilphiase pint: 'Ahe undlensigned,teglistered property owncir(s] of 1111e abaWe property,do het(ill 3 authorizci 'Avm MOT z le ofl KCI Teahnallagi es, Inc. (CamtractanlAgclnt/Pnojecll Managlcm)" (1lameotCoal nacitan/Aglcmil Firm)Agency)' to take all ac tiains neicessary fbi the e-mlualticm all l lie property as a poteintla l stnealm, mietland ands en ripvean buffers mitigation pnojeat, including ciondu(iling stnesim and/or wetland dletemminatians and delinealticmis, as well as issuance and aaceptancie of any requined penmitlls)an aert'ficiatlon(s;. I aglreci to alplaw negud atory ageneies,including thci US Ar my Conps of Engineers,to visit the pnopem0 cls part oflthcisel enviianmemtal rcivilews. 30011 Old Boardman Raaid 11ralperty Ownclns(s)Address: (if 1 difllerient from at ave) Eveirgnaeri NO, 28438 910-•139-6899 hlr alperty Owner Telephone Num ben: Plnapcirt3 Owner Telephone Numbcir: Wi hereby aentifN 11he1 above infbrmation tci bc1 true and aeciurgile to the t est of aur knowledge. 0j I f da� 7 --l -) 5 (Pnopert) wnem Authorized Signature) (I7 atcl) (PnopentN Ommier Autll aria ed Sigln iatui e; (I7 atci) 'Maria oflfull delivcry staff rrember(Ifu11-deliueriiei, an BBPplrojeicltmarialler(des:igq-tid-builc',. 'Marne oflcarnpany(Ifull-deliveries; aji Buasystem Entanicernenil Progilam(jdasignl-bid-tu:i]d;. Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Appendix B. Example Projects and Resumes 39 40 Bowl Basin Restoration Site Onslow County, North Carolina p1. w The Bowl Basin Wetland Restoration Site (BBWRS) is a full- • Redeveloped longerwetland flow patterns to increase surface delivery mitigation project being developed for the North flow retention time Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Mitigation Services(DMS).The BBWRS is a former Restored a native forested hardwood wetland community non-riparian wetland system in the White Oak River Basin using native trees and seed mixes (03020106 8-digit HUC)in northeastern Onslow County,North Construction was completed in the Fall of 2014. The site is Carolina that had been substantially modified to maximize currently being monitored. agricultural production. The site offered the opportunity to restore impacted agricultural lands to non-riparian wetland habitat. OWNER REFERENCE:NC DMS, Kristin Miguez, 919-796-7475 The project will provide the restoration of approximately ENGINEER REFERENCE:Gary Mryncza 615-377-2499 11.7 acres of non-riparian wetland. Project goals identified in TEAM MEMBERS: White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities(WORBRP)were Principal in Charge:Joe Pfeiffer incorporated into the goals of the BBWRS. These goals include: Project Manager: Tim Morris Design:Alex French,Adam Spiller • Slow and treat the runoff of up-slope agricultural drainage Construction: Kevin O'Briant Monitoring: Tommy Seelinger,Alex French • Restore a hardwood flats community PROJECT VALUE: $529,000 • Create additional valuable wetland habitat in the Upper DELIVERY METHOD:Full Delivery White Oak drainage basin The project goals were addressed through the implementation of the following project objectives: • Filled field ditches to restore surface flow retention and elevate local groundwater levels • Alleviated surface compaction and furrow drainage by surface K C T roughening throughout the site www.kci.com Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site Duplin County, North Carolina .� 7 i The Twin Bays Wetland Restoration Site (TBWRS) is located • Modified an existing pond to its natural seep condition to northwest of Wallace,North Carolina.TBWRS is a full-delivery feed the downslope wetland. mitigation site developed for the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,Division of Mitigation Restored a forested hardwood wetland community using Services(DMS). The site is located within the Cape Fear River native trees and seed mixes. Basin(03030007 8-digit HUC)and the Rock Fish Creek Local Construction was completed in the winter of 2014. The site Watershed(03030007090040 14-digit HUC)which has been is currently being monitored. identified as a Target Local Watershed(TLW). The project will provide the restoration of approximately 10.6 acres of non-riparian wetland and 0.4 acre of upland habitat. OWNER REFERENCE:NC DMS, Kristin Miguez, 919-796-7475 The primary restoration actions were the filling of existing ENGINEER REFERENCE:Gary Mryncza 615-377-2499 ditches and roughening of the compacted ground surface,but TEAM MEMBERS: also included the modification of an existing pond and the Principal in Charge:Joe Pfeiffer redevelopment of active seepage areas. Project goals addressed Project Manager: Tim Morris stressors identified in the watershed. Goals included: Design:Alex French,Adam Spiller Construction: Kevin O'Briant • Slow and treat the runoff of upslope agricultural drainage. Monitoring: Tommy Seelinger,Alex French • Restore a Hardwood Flats Community. PROJECT VALUE: $735,000 DELIVERY METHOD:Full Delivery • Develop valuable wetland habitat niches within a drained agricultural landscape. The project goals were addressed through the implementation of the following project objectives: • Filled field ditches to restore surface flow retention and elevate local groundwater levels. K C T • Redeveloped longer wetland flow patterns to increase surface wwwkci.com flow retention time. Jacob's Ladder and Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Rowan County, North Carolina A. 441 i 3 ¢ 7 �U' ISI ' VIII 1J ti��Y�a7w A J � 14 1 IV 1�. The Jacob's Ladder and Jacob's Landing stream restoration sites The two sites encompass a series of tributaries that OLS)are two full-delivery mitigation projects being developed make up a portion of the Irish Buffalo Creek headwaters in for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program(EEP). southwestern Rowan County near China Grove.The sites are The sites offer the opportunity to restore two first-order stream located in a water supply watershed;Irish Buffalo Creek flows systems draining to Irish Buffalo Creek in the Lower Yadkin- into Kannapolis Lake, the primary water source for the City Pee Dee River Basin (HUC 03040105). The streams had been of Kannapolis.Downstream of Kannapolis Lake,Irish Buffalo impacted by decades of unrestricted cattle access and related Creek is listed as impaired on the 2010 North Carolina 303(d) agricultural activity. Now completed,the two sites will restore, list for turbidity and copper. enhance and preserve approximately 10,000 linear feet of stream channel.The projects are located in the Irish Buffalo Creek Local Construction is completed and the site will be monitored for Watershed Unit(HUC 03040105020040),which the EEP has five years. identified as a Targeted Local Watershed(TLW). Project goals OWNER REFERENCE: address stressors identified in the watershed and include: NCEEP,Tim Baumgartner 919-707-8543 -Reduce sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek. ENGINEER REFERENCE: *Restore a diverse riparian corridor that connects to forested Gary Mryncza 615-377-2499 stream systems both upstream and downstream ofeachproject. TEAM MEMBERS: Principal in Charge:Joe Pfeiffer The following activities will be implemented to achieve these Project Manager:Tim Morris goals: Design:Adam Spiller Construction Inspector: Kevin O'Briant *Restore stable channel planform to streams that have been Quality Control,Deliverables: Kristin Knight Meng straightened and modified. PROJECT VALUE: 52.8 Million -Reshape and stabilize eroding stream banks. DELIVERY METHOD: -Protect and stabilize incoming seepage flow into the site's Full Delivery tributaries. -Plant site with native trees to help reestablish a diverse riparian —� corridor. •Install exclusion fencing to keep livestock out of the project streams. www.kci.com Stanley's Slough /II Stream and Wetland Restoration Projects Northampton County, North Carolina Stanley's Slough and Stanley's II stream and wetland restoration project involved the restoration of coastal plain wetlands,streams and riparian buffers. The project will restore approximately 4,274 LF of stream and 10 acres of riparian wetlands that have been impacted by anthropogenic processes,including grazing, crop y production,land clearing and stream channel modification. The project goals developed in the project's mitigation plan addressed stressors identified in local watershed planning documents , including the need to: i •Restore streams and riparian buffers to provide shade and k- temperature control and increase in stream woody debris for habitat. •Restore and protect sensitive aquatic resources to improve habitat and species diversity through the restoration of wetlands, streams,and riparian buffers. •Implement wetland and stream restoration projects that reduce sources of nutrient pollution and surface runoff by restoring hydrology and vegetation, stabilizing banks,and restoring natural geomorphology where appropriate. All of these goal were accomplished through careful planning, design and project implementation. KCI restored a diverse headwater stream and wetland community through the design and implementation of stream and wetland grading plans designed to restore the impacted channel and ancillary drainage network to its historic condition. All of the drainage modifications were implemented to increase the elevation of the local groundwater table through the elimination of lateral drainage ditches and modification of existing channelized streams which allowed the designers to reconnect the site hydrology to historic flow paths. Project construction and planting were completed in March 2014. The site is currently in its first year of monitoring and will be monitored for a total of seven years. REFERENCE: NCEEP,Lindsay Crocker 919-707-8944 ENGINEER REFERENCE: Gary Mryncza 615-377-2499 TEAM MEMBERS: Principal in Charge:Joe Pfeiffer Project Manager: Tim Morris Design:Alex French;Adam Spiller Construction Inspection: Kevin O'Briant VALUE: �— $2 Million K C 1 DELIVERY METHOD: Full Delivery www.kci.com The Nature Conservancy - Johnson and Waddle Sites Smyth County, Virginia With funding provided by the Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund(VARTF), KCI has contracted with The Nature Conservancy of Virginia to provide 21 acres of forested wetland mitigation on two sites in Smyth County, Virginia. These sites, known as the Johnson and Waddle Sites (JWS), will provide wetland mitigation credit along the North Fork Holston River in southwestern Virginia. Following the implementation of the proposed mitigation design, ,...--.. the JWS will provide 10.0 acres of wetland restoration,8.3 acres of wetland creation,6.6 acres of wetland enhancement,and 11.3 acres of upland buffer restoration.Together these areas will offer 21.0 units of forested wetland mitigation. The restoration of the Johnson and Waddle Sites offers an opportunity to provide functional wetland uplift to the Tennessee River Basin. The project goals include the following: • Expand forested wetland habitat for migratory birds,amphibians, and other wildlife. • Increase nutrient uptake from surrounding pasture and agricultural lands. -The project goals were addressed through implementation of the following objectives: • Filled field ditches and install ditch plugs to slow the outflow of groundwater from the JWS. • Redeveloped surface roughness to capture and retain precipitation on the site. • Planted the sites with species native to Mountain Alluvial Forest and Mountain Swamp Seep communities. • Restored an upland buffer to protect wetland resources. The proposed mitigation actions at the JWS restored the hydrology CLIENT.The Nature Conservancy of Virginia and vegetation that had been altered or entirely removed from the PROJECT VALUE:S800K project sites.At the Johnson Site, the mitigation approach focused COMPLETED:Preliminary Assessment, Conceptual on increasing hydrologic retention through targeted grading in the Design creation areas and restoring surface roughness in restoration areas. Targeted locations in the creation areas had1-2feet of sub-soil removed SERVICES: to reach soils with a slower hydraulic conductivity. In compacted Easement Acquisition areas, surface roughness was restored by tilling the soil to form Site Identification microtopography+/-0.5 foot.Mitigation actions at the Waddle Site Categorical Exclusion focused on filling the ditch that drains the entire length of the project. Site Assessment,Design A spring that is at the top of the main ditch was developed to allow Construction a natural seepage pattern through the wetland. Also, two smaller Monitoring ditches were filled to lengthen the hydroperiod throughout the site. Construction was completed in the fall of 2012.The site is currently K C I being monitored. www.kci.com Farrar Dairy Wetland and Stream Restoration FDP Lillington, Harnett County, North Carolina y J � r�ff 3Pi,i�r `f SSS 5 } 5 The Farrar Dairy Site is located southwest of Lillington, in Harnett the NPAC were returned to natural channel forms. County. KCI found the site,assessed existing conditions,developed Existingwetlands of marginal qualitywere enhanced the appropriate stream and wetland design, and completed the by removing berms, treating invasive species, and construction. The project will provide mitigation credit for stream partially filling in open water impoundments. The and wetland impacts by restoring,enhancing,and preserving 13,044 project also included connecting the restored areas linear feet of stream and 112 acres of wetland. The project aimed to to a stream and wetland preservation area along the restore the streams,riparian buffers and forested wetlands along the downstream end of the NPAC. North Prong of Anderson Creek (NPAC), the main stream through KCI completed monitoring the site in December the site,in order to reestablish an interconnected floodplain corridor. 2013. Closeout of the site with the Interagency The project streams and wetlands at the site had become degraded Review Team occurred in May 2014. All through poor grazing management and vegetation removal. The contracted credits are anticipated to be delivered to NPAC was channelized to maximize use of agricultural fields, but NCEEP as a result of the closeout meeting. this modification also disconnected NPAC from its floodplain.Ditches had been installed to drain wetlands,and incoming tributaries to the OWNER REFERENCE: NPACwere straightened to conveywater straight through the property. NCEEP,Tim Baumgartner, 919-707-8543 Impoundments and berms were built to attract migratory waterfowl, but these features disrupted the natural hydrologic regime of the site. DESIGNER REFERENCE' Gary Mryncza, 615-377-2499 The Farrar Dairy Site was an ideal opportunity to return a highly altered system to a contiguous stream and wetland complex.KCI performed TEAM MEMBERS: Principal in Charge:Joe Pfeiffer an existing conditions site analysis and developed a design to raise Project Manager: Tim Morris the bed elevation of the NPAC and restore a natural meander pattern Design:Adam Spiller to reconnect the stream to its historic floodplain. The restoration Construction Manager: Tim Morris plan also called for filling and plugging ditches in the drained hydric VALUE: soils to restore saturated hydrologic conditions,planting a functional $6 Million Coastal Plain Small Swamp Stream community to create an effective DELIVERY METHOD: riparian buffer and wetland complex,and grading former agricultural Full Delivery K C T fields to redevelop wetland microtopography.Incoming tributaries to www.kci.com Collins Creek Stream Restoration Chapel Hill, North Carolina The Collins Creek Site (CCS) was full-delivery project developed for the NCEEP. This site was successfully closed out in 2013. The site restored a heavily impacted stream system in order to improve water quality and aquatic and terrestrial habitat.The project restored and enhanced 2,310 existing linear feet of an unnamed tributary to Collins Creek(UTCC) and 6,879 existing linear feet along four of its tributaries(TI,TIA,TIB,and T2). The project streams had become degraded primarily through poor grazing management and vegetation removal. The streams had all experienced bank erosion. Bed degradation and aggradation were also evident throughout the different project reaches. All of the reaches exhibited areas of incision and vertical instability. There were few stable riffle and pool sequences to provide bed diversity. As a result, the ecological diversity and water quality values of the site had been affected adversely. The streams at the CCS were restored using a combination of C,Bc, and B Rosgen stream types. In order to restore the different stream systems on the CCS,a natural channel design approachwas employed using stable reference reaches.Six different reference reach sites were identified for use in the project design. Following the completion of the stream enhancement and restoration, T a all floodplain areas surrounding the project streams were planted with species consistent with Piedmont Alluvial Forest. The slopes leading up from the floodplain areas and the valleys directly along 1 the channels were planted as Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest. The planted areas were fenced to ensure that livestock no longer have access to project streams or riparian buffers. KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction(ETC)completed the site restoration and planting in March 2008. Monitoring was completed in December 2012 and a project closeout meeting was completed in June 2013. The project generated 8,884 stream VALUE: mitigation units for the NCEEP. $1.9 Million DELIVERY METHOD: OWNER REFERENCE: Full Delivery NCEEP,Tim Baumgartner, 919-707-8543 ENGINEER REFERENCE: Gary Mryncza, 615-377-2499 TEAM MEMBERS: Principal in Charge:Joe Pfeiffer Project Manager: Tim Morris —� Construction Inspection: Kevin O'Briant Design:Adam Spiller,Kristin Knight-Meng, Alex French www.kci.com Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration Edgecombe County, North Carolina The Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration Site is located in the Coastal Plain in Edgecombe County.The project will mitigate stream and wetland impacts within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin by restoring d a ^ 6,808 linear feet on an unnamed tributary to Swift Creek and 15 acres of wetlands. - Project goals included protecting aquatic resources from excess nutrients,sediment,and other pollutants coming from the agricultural watershed; reestablishing terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and connecting the site to the existing floodplain corridor along Swift Creek.Project objectives included restoring a stable stream channel with the appropriate pattern,profile,and dimension that can support a sand transport system; connecting the stream to a functioning floodplain; filling and plugging ditches in the drained hydric soils to restore a wetland hydroperiod, and planting tree species typical of a Coastal Plain Small Swamp Stream along the stream riparian corridor and floodplain. '. The stream restoration included four separate reaches that were restored based on a combination of Priority Levels 2 and 3. Log k , drop structures were used to control grade throughout the profile. f. The stream was restored to a B5c and C5 stream types. The wetland design was completed in August 2006, construction began in October 2006 and the wetland was planted in February 2007.The stream design and restoration plan were completed in April 2007,construction began in July 2007 and the stream was planted in January 2008. The site was monitored through 2012. The site was closed out by the Interagency Review Team(IRT)in the spring 2013. The site received the full credit requested at closeout by the NCEEP. f f. OWNER REFERENCE: _ F NCEEP,Tim Baumgartner, 919-707-8543 �r•�r�� ` -•.. • ''•. ENGINEER REFERENCE: Gary Mryncza 615-377-2499 . TEAM MEMBERS: ' ,.` Principal in Charge:Joe Pfeiffer ) •... Project Manager: Tim Morris Design:Adam Spiller;Alex French �t Quality Assurance/Quality Control: Kristin Knight Meng VALUE: $2 Million DELIVERY METHOD: Full Delivery —�- KCI www.kci.com Cane Creek Stream Restoration FDP Person County, North Carolina KCI is developing the Cane Creek Tributary Site as a full-delivery G stream mitigation project for the NCEEP. The site is located in northwestern Person County, North Carolina within the upper tY_ portion of the Roanoke Basin and drains into Hyco Lake. The site is uniquely situated in the piedmont of North Carolina with a large number of groundwater seeps feeding small headwater tributaries that drain into Cane Creek.Across the site,there are ten separate tributaries that make up over 18,000 linear feet of completed stream mitigation. KCI developed a restoration plan for the site that involved a combination of stream restoration and enhancement of B and Bc „ channel types. The project reaches were designed as restoration or s '� enhancement based on the level of departure from a stable stream system.On the steeper tributaries with severe headcuts,log structures were installed to stabilize bed elevations and to recreate pool habitat. Other streams at the CCTS required less intensive work and bank stabilization techniques were incorporated among existing mature trees and bedrock. A riparian planting plan at the CCTS site was = - developed using Piedmont Alluvial Forest species in flood prone - areas and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest species in slopes leading - away from lower lying areas. Livestock exclusion fencing was also installed along all of the streams in order to prevent any future ,.. impacts from cattle. Construction was initiated in May 2008 and completed in December 2008.The first year of post-construction monitoring was completed during the summer of 2009.Monitoring was concluded in December 2013. Project closeout will occur in June 2014. OWNER REFERENCE: NCEEP,Tim Baumgartner, 919-707-8543 ENGINEER REFERENCE: Gary Mryncza,410-316-7862 TEAM MEMBERS: Project Director:Joe Pfeiffer Project Manager: Tim Morris Superintendent: Kevin O'Briant Cost Estimator: Tim Morris VALUE: $3.2 Million DELIVERY METHOD: Full Delivery C 1 www.kci.com Norman's Pasture Wetland Restoration Sampson County, North Carolina Norman's Pasture and Norman's Pasture 11 Restoration Site is a headwater stream and wetland system in Sampson County that has been substantially modified to maximize grazing and agriculture. The site,with approximately 25 acres of wetland restoration and 750 linear feet of stream restoration potential consists of a collection of tributaries that drain down moderately- sloped valleys onto the floodplain of Stewarts Creek,a large fourth-order blackwater stream. The streams have been moved and straightened and the wetlands have been ditched in order to clear and drain the land for anthropogenic uses. Despite these modifications,there are areas with high-quality wetlands that remain on the property. The site offers the potential to restore and protect a range of unique aquatic resources in one setting —existing riparian wetlands, a steep forested tributary,lower gradient seep-fed headwaters,and artesian springs. In the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities(NCEEP 2009), the goals for the 8-digit hydrologic unit include focusing on water quality improvements and protecting Outstanding Resource ll' Waters. Project goals will support these larger aims and include: y. • Reconnect a continuous stream and wetland headwater system to Stewarts Creek • Improve and expand riparian habitat along Stewarts Creek • Buffer nutrient inputs from adjacent agricultural and grazing practices The following objectives will be implemented to achieve the goals: • Redevelop headwater stream-wetland complexes that have previously been impacted by ditching • Protect and integrate existing riparian wetlands into the project design • Plant any unvegetated riparian areas with native plant TEAM MEMBERS: Project Director:Joe Pfeiffer communities Project Manager: Tim Morris • Fence all easement areas to protect the site's resources from Lead Designer:Adam Spiller grazing Quality Assurance/Quality Control: The site is currently in the construction stage and is anticipated to Kristin Knight Meng be completed in summer of 2015. VALUE: $1.8 Million REFERENCE: DELIVERY METHOD: NCEEP,Kristin Miguez, 910-796-7475 Full Delivery ENGINEER REFERENCE: Gary Mryncza 615-377-2499 A K C 1 www kci.com JOSEPH J. PFEIFFER, JR., PWS TIMOTHY MORRIS Principal-in-Charge Project Manager Education Education MA in Physical Geography and MEM in Water Resource Management Environmental Planning BS in Natural Resource Management BS in Natural Science AA in Wildlife/Fisheries Management Registration Rosgen Level I,Il Registration Professional Wetland Scientist (#927) 19 Years Experience Rosgen Levels I, II, III, IV Mr. Morris has worked as an environmental consultant for 19 29 Years Experience years since graduating with a Master of Environmental Manage- ment degree from Duke University. He has worked on a variety Mr. Pfeiffer is the Practice Leader for Ecosystem Dynamics of natural resource based planning and construction projects for and is responsible for all mitigation acquisition and con- both private and public sector clients.His expertise is in the water struction. Since joining KCI in 1988, Mr. Pfeiffer has been resource management field, and his specific experience includes responsible for coordinating all aspects of environmental/en- wetland delineation,wetland permitting,wetland mitigation de- gineering projects for both public and private clients. Mr. sign and construction management,pond and lake management, Pfeiffer utilizes his diverse background to integrate engineer- environmental construction inspection and watershed planning. ing and environmental planning to develop a comprehensive Notable projects included the US 113 Dualization project on project approach that facilitates effective working relation- the Eastern Shore of Maryland and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge ships among his design teams. This management style aids project, a$2.5 billion transportation venture between Maryland, his abilities to coordinate design requirements with permit- Virginia and the District of Columbia.For this project,Mr.Morris ting, minimizing unnecessary comments from the regula- managed the design and construction of 17 successful environ- tory agencies and providing seamless participation between mental mitigation contracts valued at approximately$20 million. all parties involved. During his tenure at KCI, Mr. Pfeiffer Farrar Dairy Full Delivery Project, Lillington, North Caro- has been responsible for wetland/stream restoration, bioen- lina, NCEEP. Lead Scientist/Wetland Designer. Supervised gineering design, shoreline stabilization, wildlife/fisheries the design of more than 110 acres of wetland mitigation and habitat assessment and design, recreation planning, GIS da- over 12,500 linear feet of stream restoration, enhancement, tabase development and analysis,water quality analysis,wet- and preservation on a large integrated wetland-stream com- land delineation, mitigation and permitting, NPDES permit plex in the Sand Hills. Coordinated preparation of construc- processing, image processing, and biological inventories. tion drawings and facilitated the implementation of property • Farrar Dairy Full Delivery Project, Lillington, North improvements coincident to the restoration project. Carolina, NCEEP. Project Principal. Directed the loca- Windy Cove Farm Wetland Mitigation Project, Millboro tion, acquisition, design development, and permitting of Springs, Virginia, TNC. Project Manager. Responsible for more than 110 acres of wetland and over 12,500 linear the design and construction of approximately four acres of feet of stream restoration, enhancement, and preserva- created and restored wetlands for the Virginia Aquatic Re- tion. sources Trust Fund, a mitigation fund managed by the Na- • Collins Creek Full Delivery Project, Orange County, ture Conservancy of Virginia. The project restored a wetland North Carolina, NCEEP Project Principal. Directed the located within an active cattle pasture by altering the cur- location, acquisition, design development, permitting rent hydrologic regime through targeted grading intended to and construction of a 9,200 linear feet stream restoration mitigate channelization on the site. project. US Route 113 Environmental Monitoring, Eastern Shore, • Harrell Full Delivery Project, Edgecombe County, North Maryland,MSHA. Environmental Inspector. Supervised the Carolina, NCEEP Project Principal. Directed the loca- construction of five wetland mitigation sites, four nutrient tion, acquistion, design development, permitting and sites,four stream restoration sites,two floodplain restoration construction for the development of 15 acres of wetland projects, two fish passage projects and more than 50 acres restoration and 6,800 linear feet of stream restoration. of reforestation. 51 STEVEN F. STOKES, LSS GARY M. MRYNCZA, PE, PH Senior Environmental Scientist Project Engineer Education Education BS in Wildlife Biology MS in Water Resources MS in Civil Engineering Registration BS in Natural Science Licensed Soil Scientist#1087 Ll BSET in Civil Engineering Technology USDA-SCS; Soil Correlation &Water Quality Registration OSHA 40-Hour Safety Training/8-Hour Supervisor Course Hey-River Mechanics and Restoration Rosgen Levels I, Il, IIl Rosgen Levels I, Il, IIl, IV Professional Hydrologist(H-1605) 34 Years Experience Professional Engineer (NC#32733) Mr. Stokes is responsible for natural resource investigations Certified Professional in Erosion&Sediment Control including soil classification and interpretation, soil and flood- (#4314) plain mapping, hydric soil classification and mapping based 18 Years Experience on NRCS criteria,and water table analysis for wetland mitiga- tion and delineation. Mr. Stokes is also responsible for pro- Mr. Mryncza is the company-wide Discipline Head for Resource viding technical quality control reviews and oversees project Management and specializes in hydrology and streams. His ex- progression, investigations, analyses, contract documents, perience includes watershed and site-specific hydrologic analy- and field related activities for projects. sis, stream assessment, feasibility study and restoration design, • Full Delivery Projects, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Pro- water quality assessment/stream monitoring, and water resources management. Mr. Mryncza is versed in the use of hydrologic/ gram. Lead Scientist. Responsible for site location/iden- hydraulic models and has experience applying natural channel tification, acquisition, landowner contracts, assessment design principles. He has been responsible for the development and technical reports to provide stream, wetland and/or of design plans for over 50,000 linear feet of channel in North buffer mitigation in the Tar-Pamlico, Cape Fear, French Carolina for NCWRP/NCEEP and NCDOT. Broad, and Roanoke River Basins. Dog Bite Full Delivery Project, Bakersville, North Carolina, • Brown Farm Full Delivery Project, Durham/Orange NCEEP Project Engineer. Supervised the design of over Counties, North Carolina, NCEEP. Project Scientist. Re- 3,000 feet of degraded stream (trout waters) and associated sponsible for site location/identification, acquisition and riparian area. Led the design team in existing conditions as- contracts, wetlands and soils assessments, permitting, sessments and development of design criteria. Analyzed sed- and post-construction management of the 25-acre resto- iment transport and hydrology and hydraulics. Performed quality assurance/control for various design elements. ration site in the Cape Fear River Basin. Pavilion Branch Stream Restoration Project, Nashville, Ten- • Daniels Farm Full Delivery Project, Louisburg, North nessee, TSMP. Project Manager/Design Engineer. Provided Carolina, NCWRP. Project Scientist. Responsible for site assessment and design services for the restoration of over location/identification, acquisition and contracts, assess- 5,000 feet of urban stream channel. The assessment includ- ment, restoration plan development, permitting, con- ed surveying channel morphology, sediment transport and struction,reforestation and monitoring of the 30-acre res- H&H analyses,and evaluating urban constraints. Developed toration site in the Tar-Pam River Basin. the design criteria and final design drawings and specifica- • Rich Fork Full Delivery Project,Thomasville,North Caro- tions. Conducted a study of the federally-endangered Nash- lina, NCDOT. Licensed Soil Scientist. Conducted a de- ville Crayfish and incorporated habitat features into the de- tailed soils investigation to determine if the soils had been sign. • Glen Raven Full Delivery Project, Burlington, North Caro- buried by alluvial deposition or as a result of overburden lina, NCEEP. Design Engineer. Supervised design of over from spoil excavated from Rich Fork Creek during than- 3,000 feet of impaired stream and associated riparian area. nelization. The results provided data to support the con- Led the design team in existing condition assessments, ref- cept of restoration rather than creation in spite of one-foot erence reach surveys, and development of design criteria. of topsoil removal. Performed sediment transport and hydraulic analyses. De- veloped construction drawings and performed quality assur- ance/control for various design elements. 52 ZAN MYRNCZA ADAM SPILLER Site Restoration Environmental Scientist Education Education Graduate/2012/MCM- Construction MEM in Ecosystem Science and Management/Western Carolina ' Management University °" BS in Biology-Environmental Science BA/2007/Psychology/ __ St. Andrews Presbyterian College Registration Rosgen Level I, II, III, IV Registration CPESC#6515 TDOT Asphalt Roadway TDEC EPSC Level I 10 Years Experience CPESC Mr. Spiller is experienced in performing stream and wet- OSHA Construction Safety and Health Course 10-Hour land assessments and restoration design. His educational Rosgen Level I background in biology and environmental management aid TDOT Concrete Field Technician him in understanding the functional implications of stream TDOT Soils and Aggregate Technician restoration. He has applied these skills in numerous con- texts, including assessment, design, and monitoring. 9 Years Experience Dog Bite Full Delivery Project, Bakersville, North Caro- Zach Mryncza is an environmental scientist that has been in- lina, NCEEP. Natural Channel Designer. Prepared the volved in stream restoration for more than ten years. His re- design of over 3,000 feet of degraded stream (trout wa- sponsibilities include stream assessment and monitoring, con- ters) and associated riparian area. Processed necessary struction oversight and management, erosion prevention and permits and participated in the existing conditions as- sediment control inspection, and CARD support during plan sessments and client/landowner coordination. Devel- preparation. oped watershed hydrology model to evaluate design • Cane Creek Tributary Restoration Site, North Carolina De- discharges for the three drainages contributing to the partment of Environment & Natural Resources, Person site. County, NC. Environmental Scientist KCI developed a Collins Creek Full Delivery Project, Orange County, restoration plan of approximately 17,000 LF of headwater North Carolina, NCEEP. Natural Channel Designer. tributaries that involved a combination of stream restoration Prepared the design for the primary tributary and con- and enhancement of B and Bc channel types. The project tributing drainages to the UT to Collins Creek. Con- reaches were designed as restoration or enhancement based ducted existing conditions and reference reach as- on the level of departure from a stable stream system. sessments, developed design criteria, and prepared • Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration, North Carolina construction drawings. Participated in the oversight of Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Wake construction activities and will be responsible for prep- County,NC. Environmental Scientist Project involved main aration of annual monitoring reports. stream restoration for 8,238 LF of channelized and exten- 2006-2011 NCEEP Mitigation Monitoring, North Car- sively disturbed agricultural land. Work included Priority 2 olina NCEEP. Project Manager/Monitoring Specialist. restoration to modify plan form,profile and cross section in- Led monitoring efforts on numerous EEP stream/wet- cluding any required in-stream structures to provide stabil- land restoration projects. Monitoring included vegeta- ity and habitat. Channel was meandered within 150 feet of tion assessments and stream morphology assessments. approximate belt width. Grading was conducted to establish All aspects of monitoring process were conducted from a floodplain and appropriate cross sectional area. A total of the field survey to final report preparation. three stream crossings were provided to allow access across Johnson Site Stream Restoration Project, Hamptonville, easement to the agricultural land to north of the channel. A North Carolina, NCEEP. Natural Channel Designer. 75-foot riparian buffer was planted. The wetland preserva- Prepared design drawings (30% through final) for over tion included 16 acres of riverine. 2,000 feet of stream restoration. This included design- * 2008-9 NCEEP Monitoring, Statewide,NC. Environmental ing typical channel cross-sections,horizontal and verti- Scientist. Stream monitoring services for multiple sites for cal alignments, and the riparian planting plan. Tasks the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 53 also included preparing project reports for permitting. KRISTIN KNIGHT-MENG, PE ALEX FRENCH Senior Project Engineer Environmental Scientist Education Education MEM in Ecosystem Science and BS in Natural Resources Management BA in Biology-Environmental Studies Registration Rosgen Level I, Il, 111, IV Registration NC PE#040899 15 Years Experience Rosgen Level 1, 1I Mr.French is experienced in performing existing stream con- 9 Years Experience dition data collection and reference reach assessments us- ing the Rosgen Classification System. His educational back- Ms. Knight-Meng is an Environmental Engineer who spe- ground in biology and natural resource management provide cializes in stream and wetland assessment and design. Ms. an excellent understanding of the functional implications of Knight-Meng has worked on all aspects of stream and wet- stream restoration. He has applied these skills in numerous land restoration, including site assessment, design, GIS contexts including assessment, design, and monitoring. analysis, permitting,hydrologic modeling, and monitoring. Bold Run Stream Restoration Project, Wake Forest, Prior to joining KCI,Ms. Knight-Meng had previous experi- North Carolina,NCEEP. Stream Designer. Assisted with ence in watershed management and conservation planning. design of over 1,600 linear feet of impaired stream and • Cane Creek Tributary Site Stream Restoration, Person associated riparian area. Performed existing conditions County, North Carolina, NCEEP Stream Designer/En- assessment,reference reach surveys,and development of vironmental Scientist. Prepared restoration design of design criteria. Prepared construction drawings. approximately 17,000 linear feet of streams and head- Little Troublesome Stream Restoration Project, Reids- water tributaries. Completed restoration plan and ac- ville,North Carolina,NCEEP Stream Designer. Assisted quired necessary permits. in the design of over 2,100 feet of impaired stream and • Antioch Fluvial and Riparian Assessment and Concep- associated riparian and wetland area. Performed exist- tual Plan, Nashville, Tennessee, USACOE. Technical ing conditions assessment, reference reach surveys, and Manager. Completed inventory of stream and riparian development of design criteria. Prepared construction problem areas along an urban stream corridor. Devel- drawings. oped a report describing prioritized enhancement ac- Glen Raven Stream Restoration Project (FDP), Burling- tions aimed at improving water quality and riparian ton, North Carolina, NCEEP. Stream Designer. Assisted habitat. with the design of over 3,700 feet of impaired stream • Six Points Stream Monitoring, Indianapolis, Indiana, and associated riparian area. Performed existing condi- INDOT. Environmental Scientist. Performed as-built tions assessment, reference reach surveys, and develop- survey on the relocated reaches at the 1-70 Six Points ment of design criteria. Prepared construction drawings. Interchange. Completed macroinvertebrate and fish Collins Stream Restoration Project(FDP), Orange Coun- sampling for annual monitoring. ty, North Carolina, NCEEP. Stream Designer. Aided in • Collins Creek Full Delivery Project, Orange County, design of over 9,200 feet of impaired stream and asso- North Carolina, NCEEP. Environmental Scientist. Per- ciated riparian area. Performed existing conditions as- formed site assessment work. Developed project resto- sessment, reference reach surveys, and development of ration plan and acquired permits for construction. design criteria. Developed construction drawings. • Harrell Full Delivery Project,Edgecombe County,North Farrar Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Carolina, NCEEP. Environmental Scientist. Used geo- (FDP), Lillington, North Carolina, NCEEP Stream De- spatial analysis to analyze land use and hydrologic fea- signer. Assisted in the design of over 12,000 feet of im- tures of the project watershed. Incorporated watershed paired stream and associated riparian and wetland area. and gauge data to create a HEC-HMS model to analyze Performed existing conditions assessment, reference hydrologic inputs and outputs in the project watershed. reach surveys, and development of design criteria. Pre- pared construction drawings. 54 KEVIN OBRIANT JOE SULLIVAN Site Restoration Environmental Scientist Education Education BS in Environmental Science BS in Biology and BA Environmental Studies Registration MS in Natural Resources Water Pollution Control System Operator(#989400) 4 Years Experience 15 Years Experience Mr. Sullivan is an environmental scientist with four years of experience on projects involving the planning, assessment, Mr. O'Briant is an environmental scientist with 15 years of permitting, and compliance of infrastructure and develop- experience on projects involving the assessment and remedia- tion of sites impacted with petroleum, chlorinated solvents, delineations, 404/401 permitting, buffer authorizations, pesticides and metals. His experience includes Phase I and II natural resource studies, endangered species surveys, and environmental site assessments applying all state, federal, and invasive species management. His experience includes field EPA guidelines. Mr. O'Briant's field experience includes soil, assessments &delineation, species surveys, GPS data collec- groundwater, and stormwater sampling and installation of tion, GIS analysis and mapping, and report preparation. He groundwater monitoring wells. He has provided oversight for has used these skills in a variety of private developments as removal of underground storage tanks and soil excavations. well as municipal and NCDOT projects. • McCain Site Stream Restoration Project Sophia, North NCDOT I-4400: Widening of I-26, Buncombe and Hen- Carolina. Construction Supervisor. Managed the resto- derson Counties, NC. Environmental specialist for wet- ration of over 2,500 linear feet of stream channel. This land/stream delineation, threatened/endangered species project restored a cattle impacted stream, utilizing a new surveys,and Natural Resources Technical Report. Project stream planform, in-stream structures, livestock exclu- involved the assessment and delineation of approximately sion fencing, and a planted riparian buffer of native trees 24 miles road. and shrubs. NCDOT R-2561: Riegelwood Bypass, Columbus County, • Briles Site Stream Restoration Project Trinity, North Caro- NC. Environmental specialist for wetland/stream delinea- lina. Construction Supervisor. Managed the restoration tion, threatened/endangered species surveys, and Natural and enhancement of over 2,600 linear feet of stream chan- Resources Technical Report. Project involved the assess- nel. The project goals included restoring stable channel ment and delineation of approximately 300 acres of for- morphology, improving water quality, and enhancing ested lands. Complied with safety and security guidelines aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The project objectives were necessary working on International Paper property. included building an appropriate C4/134c channel with NCDOT R-2593: Red Springs Bypass, Robeson and Hoke stable dimensions, excluding livestock from the project Counties, NC. Environmental specialist for wetland/ area,installing in-stream,and planting a riparian buffer of stream delineation, threatened/endangered species sur- native trees and shrubs. veys, and Jurisdictional Determinations. Project involved • Windy Cove Farm Wetland Restoration Project, The Na- the re-verification,assessment and delineation of approxi- ture Conservancy,Millboro Springs,Virginia. Project Sci- mately 1500 acres of forested and agricultural lands. entist/Equipment Operator. Assisted with the creation, NCDOT U-2525C: Greensboro Eastern Loop, Guilford restoration, enhancement and preservation of wetlands County, NC. Environmental specialist for wetland/stream and buffer in the Upper James River watershed in Bath delineation, threatened/endangered species surveys, and County, Virginia. Shallow berms were installed to di- Jurisdictional Determinations. Project involved the re- vert surface runoff to feed other portions of the created verification, assessment and delineation of approximately wetland. In addition, shallow depressions were created 300 acres of forested and developed lands. to retain surface and shallow subsurface flow to support NCDOT R-2250: Greenville Southwest Bypass, Pitt wetland plants and promote amphibian habitat. Major County, NC. Environmental specialist for wetland/stream tasks included the installation of an infiltration structure delineation, threatened/endangered species surveys, Ju- to allow the surface runoff to exit the site at a slower rate risdictional Determinations, and Buffer Authorizations. promoting wetland habitat creation. 55 involved the re-verification, assessment and delineation of approximately 850 of forest and agricultural lands. TOMMY SEELINGER MICHAEL UNDERWOOD, EIT Environmental Scientist Environmental Scientist Education Education BS in Biology BS/Biological and Agricultural � Engineering 3 Years Experience ,. Registration TDEC EPSC Level I, OSHA 10-Hour, Mr. Seelinger is an environmental scientist NCSU Rivercourses with three years of experience on projects in KCI's resource management division. Z Years Experience • 2008-9 NCEEP Monitoring, Statewide, NC. Environmen- Mr. Underwood is an environmental scientist with two years tal Scientist. KCI has provided stream monitoring services of experience on projects in KCI's resource management divi- for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. sion. For this project, the firm performed assessment and doc- . TDOT Mitigation Site Remediation,Statewide,Tennessee. umentation for multiple streams restoration sites. EIT. These task orders involve the assessment of 30 differ- 0 Pond Creek Monitoring, Pegram,TN. Environmental Sci- ent TDOT mitigation sites covering all 4 TDOT Regions entist. KCI provided professional stream monitoring and that were found to have deficiencies during monitoring. adaptive management planning services in accordance These sites include stream and wetland restoration proj- with the TSMP Monitoring Protocol for nine project sites ects. After the assessment a repair strategy is devised and in Middle and West Tennessee as part of an on-call con- upon approval by TDOT, KCI implements the repairs. tract. The Pond Creek task order included: QVA, two These services have been provided to TDOT for three cross-sections,Wolman counts at each riffle cross-section, consecutive years and span two stream design contracts. the Pfankuch Channel Stability Evaluation, survey of May Prairie Stream Restoration Site,Manchester,TN. EIT. twelve rectangular vegetation plots, and photograph ref- Work included assessment, stream design, planting plan erence documentation. design, construction drawings, report preparation, and • Full Delivery Monitoring. Mr. Seelinger assists in the construction contracting. The final design includes over monitoring of 12 active full delivery projects for KCI. 4,500 linear feet of stream restoration through one of the Conducts stream cross section and profile surveys,pebble state's most floristically diverse natural areas. Construc- counts,vegetation surveys and groundwater monitoring. tion is underway and construction oversight is ongoing. • Design-Bid-Build assessments and monitoring. Mr. SR 99 Stream Restoration Project, Murfreesboro,TN. EIT. Seelinger conducts stream and wetland assessments and Due to widening of SR-99 it is necessary to relocate an monitoring for EEP design-bid-build projects throughout adjacent stream for the project's onsite mitigation require- NC. ments. KCI conducted a stream assessment and concep- tual design for UT Spence Creek. Currently final plans are being prepared to support resubmittal of permit docu- ments. • Stream Mitigation Monitoring Contract, Middle and West TN. Monitoring Specialist. Involved with data collection and analysis for annual monitoring at multiple stream res- toration sites throughout Tennessee for two years that in- cludes collection of morphologic and vegetation data,and photo-documentation and qualitative visual assessments. • Richland Creek Dam Removal Feasibility Study, Nash- ville, Davidson County, TN. EIT. Assisted with field sur- vey and data collection to study feasibility of removing a 5' high run-of-the-river concrete dam that is impound- ing Richland Creek. Performed sediment collection under standard sampling protocol and summarized laboratory 56 results from upstream,at dam,and downstream locations. Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Appendix C. Baseline Conditions 57 58 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Soil Data Forms 59 60 KC IAiES o SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION NORTH CAROLINA,PA Client: KCl Associates of North Carolina.P.A. Date: April 8,2015 Project: Rough Horn Swamp Wetland Restoration Site Project#- 20153280P County: Columbus State: NC Location: 2076 Old Boardman Road Evergreen,NC 28438 Site/Lot: Boring#12 Soil.Series: Torhunta Soil Classification: Coarse-loamy,siliceous,active.acid,thermic Typic Humaquepts AWT: 20" SHWT: 0-12" Slope: 0-2% Aspect: Elevation: Drainage: Very Poorly Drained;slow runoff Permeability: Moderately Rapid Vegetation: Corn Barings terminated at 60 Inches HORIZON DEPTH(IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES Ap 0-9 1OYR 2f1 fsl 1f r mfr aw Al 9-20 10YR 2/1 fsl if r mfr gw Bg 20-36 l OYR 412 sl lfsbk mfr gw BC 36-51 1 OYR 412 1s lmsbk mfr dw diffuse boundary,sandy loam(s0 lenses C9 51-60 1 OYR 512 s massive COMMENTS: Torhunta is a drained hydric soil The Torhunta series is a very poorly drained soil found on nearly level stream terraces and upland bay areas of Coastal Plain. This Torhunta soil has very slow runoff and moderately rapid permeability. DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE: 4/812015 1�oa� MENEM-am EMEMMEN KCI ASSOCIATES Of SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION NORTH CAROLINA,PA Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina.P.A. Date:April 8.2015 Project: Rough Horn Swamp Wetland Restoration Site Project#:20153280P County: Columbus State:NC Location: 2076 Old Boardman Road Evergreen,NC 28438 Site/Lot:Boring#13 Soil Series: Johnston Soil Classification: Coarse-loamy.siliceous,active,acid.thermic Cumulic Humaquepts AWT: 24" SE WT: 0-12" Slope: 0-2% Aspect: Elevation: Drainage: Very Poorly Drained:slow runoff Permeability: Moderately rapid Vegetation: Corn Borings terminated at 60 Inches HORIZON DEPTH(IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES A 0-6 10YR 211 is massive mfr as massive breakingto if r Al 6-11 IOYR 3/1 fsl massive mfr as massive breakingto I msbk A2 11-42 10YR 3/2 sl massive mfr as massive breakingto 1 f&msbk C 1 42-50 10YR 5/2 cos sl s mfr as C 2 1 50-60 10YR 512 cos s massive COMMENTS: Johnston is a drained hydric soil The Johnston series is a very poorly drained soil found on nearly level floodplains and swamps of the Coastal Plain. This Johnston soil has very slow runoff and moderately rapid permeability. DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE: 4!812015 304 �EIA F8 1.08 mmmmmmmw4h� mmmmmmr4h� mmmmmb� xmlwmmmmo� T TnSSOCIATES OF SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION NOME CAROLINA,PA Client: KCl Associates of North Carolina,P.A. Date:April 8,2015 Project: Rough Horn Swamp Wetland Restoration Site Project#:20153280P County: Columbus State:NC Location: 2076 Old Boardman Road Evergreen,NC 28438 Site/Lot:Boring#16 Soil Series: Torhunta Soil Classification: Coarse-loamy,siliceous,active,acid,thermic Typic Humaquepts AWT: 24" SHWT: 0-12" Slope: 0-2% Aspect: Elevation: Drainage: Very Poorly Drained:slow runoff Permeability: Moderately Rapid Vegetation: Com Borings terminated at 52 Inches HORIZON DEPTH(IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE Mfsbk CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES A 0-12 10YR2/1 is mfr as Compacted surface A] 12-16 1OYR 211 fld mfr cs A2 16-19 IOYR 3/1 sl mfr cs B 19-44 1OYR4/2 sl-scl mfr gw Ciz 1 44-52 IOYR 4/1 is massive mfr COMMENTS: Torhunta is a drained hydric soil The Torhunta series is a very poorly drained soil found on nearly level stream terraces and upland bay areas of Coastal Plain. This Torhunta soil has very slow runoff and moderately rapid permeability. Boring is 36'from ditch.Water table in ditch is 29"below top of bank. DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE: 4/812015 CI ASSOCIATES of SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION NORTH CAROLINA,PA Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina,P.A. Date:April 8.2015 Project: Rough Horn Swamp Wetland Restoration Site Project#: 20153280P County: Columbus State: NC Location: 2076 Old Boardman Road Evergreen,NC 28438 Site/Lot: Boring#17 Soil Series: Torhunta Variant Soil Classification: Coarse-loamy,siliceous,active,acid,thermic Typic Humaqueets AWT: 20" SHWT: 0-12" Slope: 0-2% Aspect: Elevation: Drainage: Very Poorly Drained;slow runoff Permeability: Moderately Rapid Vegetation: Soybeans Borings terminated at 56 Inches HORIZON DEPTH(IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE SMUCTI IRE CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES Ap 0-12 1OYR 2/1 Is Ifgr mfr cs B 1 12-36 10YR 4/1 sl Ifsbk mfr &W B 2 36-44 IOYR4/1 Is Ifsbk mfr Cg 44-56 IOYR 4/1 scl massive mfr COMMENTS: Torhunta is a drained hydric soil The Torhunta series is a very poorly drained soil found on nearly level stream terraces and upland bay areas of Coastal Plain. This Torhunta soil has very slow runoff and moderately rapid permeability. DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE: 4/8/2015 0 TOO mwmwmmmw4b� -.K.M—= KCI ASSOCIATES OF SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION NORTH CAROLINA,PA Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina.P.A. Date:April K 2015 Project: Rough Horn Swamp Wetland Restoration Site Project#:20153280P County: Columbus State:NC Location: 2076 Old Boardman Road Evergreen.NC 28438 Site/Lot:Boring#18 Soil Series: Torhunta Soil Classification: Coarse-loamy,siliceous,active,acid,thermic Typic Humaquepts AWT: 22" SHWT: 0-12" Slope: 0-2% Aspect: Elevation: Drainage: Very Poorly Drained;slow runoff Permeability: Moderately Rapid Vegetation: Soybeans Borings terminated at 54 Inches HORIZON DEPTH(IN) MATRIX MOTTLES MTEXTURESTRUCTU:RECONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES A 0 8 ]OYR 2f1 mfr as AI 8-11 IOYR 3/1 mfr cs B 1 ll-26 I OYR 4/2 mfr w B 2 26-36 lOYR 3/2 mfr gw BC 36-54 10YR 4/2 Is Ifsbk mfr Cg 54 Soil,probabl sand,slid from auger. COMMENTS: Torhunta is a drained hydric soil The Torhunta series is a very poorly drained soil found on nearly level stream terraces and upland bay areas of Coastal Plain. This Torhunta soil has very slow runoff and moderately rapid permeability. DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE: 4/8/2015 F S '4 TJ��T ASSOCIATES OF MOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION M1`OR'M CAROLINA,hk Client: KCI Associates orNorth Carolina,P.A. Date: September 19,2016 Project: Rnugh Born Swamp Wedand Restoration Site Project#: 20153280P Counts: Columbus State: NC Location: 2076 old Boardman Road Cverijeen,NC 28438 Site/Lot. Baring#20 Soil Series: Stallings Soil Classification: Chars(:-loamy,siliceous,semiactive,(hennic Aeric Paleaquults AWT: 54" SH4VT: 12"-18" Slope: 0-2% Aspect: Elevation: Drainage: Somewhat poorly drained Permeability: Moderately Rapid Vegetation: Forest-Loblolly Pine,Saplings of Red Maple,Swecigum and Smilax Borings terminated at 61 Inches f tURIZ(,}N !]fih'I']I(INP NIA-1 RIX MOIALLS TEXTURE STRGCTCRP. ('(]NSI STfN('ii R(1I-K'[):1 R1` \fIT1;ti A 0-8 1 OYR 211 rsl I1gr mfr cs Btl 8-I 1 1 OYR 413 l Ol'R�,4c2d sl I fsbk mfr ca, Bt) 11-29 I OYR 413 I OYR 412c2d sl I fsbk mfr =w 130 29-37 10YR 513 sl 2msbk mfr gw B14 37-48 1 OYR 412 tsl I fsbk mfr •%% BCV 48-61 IOYR 512 Is ]m r _ mit c%V BCg2 59-61 10YR511 1OYR 422c2f is Irnt mfr COMMENTS: Stallings series is a non-hydric soil. The Stallings series is a somewhat poorly drained soil found on nearly level interstrcam divides or the Coastal Plain. This Stallings soil has veryslow mnoffand moderately rapid permeability. DESCRIBED BY: SFS,JS _ L_ DATE: 911912016 �y5N F. S T �' 0F A F U) c .a U11 �F KCI ASSOCIATES Of SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION NORTH CAROLINA,PA Client: KCI Associates of North Carolina,P.A. Date: September 19,20I6 Project: Rough Horn Swamp Wetland Restoration Site Project 4: 20153280P _ County: Columbus State: NC Location: 2076 Old Boardman Road Everlicen,NC 28438 Site/Let: Boring 9 19 Soil Series: Johnson Soil Classification: Coarse-loamy,siliecous,active,acid,thermic Cumulic Humaquepts AW`1': 19" SHWT: 0-12" Slope: 0-2% Aspect: Elevation: Drainage: Very Poorly Drained;slow runoff Permeability: Moderately Rapid Vegetation: Forest-Red Maple,Black Gurn,Red Bay,Cinnamon Fern,Chain Fern Borings terminated at 60 Inches HORIZON DEPTH(IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES Oa 0-2 10YR 211 muck massive mfr as massive break in g to I f' A 2-30 10YR 211 muck massive mfr as massive breakin,to I fsbk C l 30-52 10YR311 s s mfr as massive breaking toIfsbk C+2 52-60 10YR211 fsl-Is massive mfr as COMMENTS: Johnston is in a jurisdictional wetland unit at this location. The Johnston series is a very poorly drained soil found on nearly level floodplains and swamps of the Coastal Plain. This Johnston soil has very slow runoff and moderately rapid permeability. DESCRIBED BY: SFS,JS DATE: 9/19/2016 Fr �� Q 68 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Site Photographs 69 :--'--Ott„-,;� .. ,,��, r - - ti i_ .- � �► �€;'�.• Lookingdownstream project boundary.7/5/16 7/5/16 77 Y ic Existing forested wetland. Intersection of ditch flowing south to north and Long Bay 7/5/16 Creek • wing west.7/5/16 / l 'lit t i R� Rn,', '�:� S p Looking south along second field ditch from the east in non- Looking west at current confluence of Long Bay Creek and riparian area.7/5/16 UTLBC2.7/5/16 Looking upstream(north)on existing UTLBC2 channel. Near the top of the northern end of project, looking at Old 7/5/16 Boardman Rd to the west. 7/5/16 WM Me { A nA 9'f� a Looking toward southeast at treeline at western edge. Looking east at ditch flowing along western edge of project 7/5/16 along the treeline.7/5/16 71 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Existing Valley Cross-Sections 72 73 River Basin: Lumber 03 Watershed: Long Bay Creek XS ID Valley XS 1 Drainage Area(sq mi): 2.71 square miles Date: March 2016 Field Crew: KCI Lumber 03 River Basin,Long Bay Creek,Valley XS 1 87 86 85 84 0 83 W 82 81 80 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Station(feet) ----Stream Relocation Area Valley Cross-Section 74 River Basin: Lumber 03 Watershed: Long Bay Creek XS ID Valley XS 2 Drainage Area(sq mi): 2.71 square miles Date: March 2016 Field Crew: KCI Lumber 03 River Basin,Long Bay Creek,Valley XS 2 86 85 84 - 83 0 0 ti 82 W 81 80 79 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(feet) —�-Stream Relocation Area Valley Cross-Section 75 River Basin: Lumber 03 Watershed: Long Bay Creek XS ID Valley XS 3 Drainage Area(sq mi): 2.71 square miles Date: March 2016 Field Crew: KCI Lumber 03 River Basin,Long Bay Creek,Valley XS 3 86 85 84 83 0 0 ti 82 W 81 80 79 0 100 200 300 400 500 Station(feet) --Stream Relocation Area Valley Cross-Section 76 River Basin: Lumber 03 Watershed: Long Bay Creek XS ID Valley XS 4 Drainage Area(sq mi): 2.71 square miles Date: March 2016 Field Crew: KCI Lumber 03 River Basin,Long Bay Creek,Valley XS 4 86 85 84 83 0 0 ti 82 W 81 80 79 0 100 200 300 400 500 Station(feet) --Stream Relocation Area Valley Cross-Section 77 River Basin: Lumber 03 Watershed: Long Bay Creek XS ID Valley XS 5 Drainage Area(sq mi): 2.71 square miles Date: March 2016 Field Crew: KCI Lumber 03 River Basin,Long Bay Creek,Valley XS 5 86 85 84 83 0 82 ti W 81 80 79 78 - 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Station(feet) --Stream Relocation Area Valley Cross-Section 78 79 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 USACE Wetland Determination Forms 80 81 W I - w.ef Q I W 19TLAND DETERMINATICIN DIA TAI FORM —A Ilarilia and CIL If C ciastal F lain) Region) J / I� RrojecUSite: 1 " 1�C �c(��C ry ClityAClounl)I:_��L�A 5 Sampling Date: G�JJI r i✓ ApplicanbOwner: C1 _tt State: 6 Sampling Point: tial l We Invesligatan(s):��• SJ�111� 1) `� I ('new r Section,llown3hip,Range: Landbnm(hillslope, terrace,etc.): FIDCIo(DIeiiry Local relief( ncave convex,none : F ,Ila pe I`/o) : : Subnegion(LRR or MLRA, �- I�i3 A Lai: SHL y b�� Long: - � 0+ 13W 4 6 Datum: r GG � flG Soil Map U nit Name: :Itl� nil do NWI classifica'lion: Ane climatic,l hydnologia conditions on the sile typical 1111or this lime of yelar? Y es-I— N o (111 no,explain in Remarks.) Ane Vegetalion ,Soil ,on Fydnology signifiaantly dislunbed? Ane"Normal QIICUmstanaen"present? Yes y-1 No Ane Veglelalion ,Soil ,on Fydnology naturally pnoblemalic? (11 needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY CIR FIN DINGIS— Attaah site maps h owi rig samFlling poinit local ions,Iranceats, impaillant feiatu reisl, el a. F ydrophylic Vegelaiion Rresent? N es 1� N o Is the Samiplicid Anea r F ydiic Soil Fhiesent? )es-�i— N o wllhin a Wcdland?I Yes Na Weiland h ychiology Rresent? ti es _ N o F emanks: HYDROLOGY Mlei land Hydnolagy Indicalcire: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two neagkM Rrimary Indicatons(minimum oil one is ieauiied:cheal all that apply) Surf ace Soil Cracks(136) ® Surface Waten(Al) ❑ Aquatic Rauna 1913) ��❑777III��I Spaisely Vegetated Cloncave Surface(E 8) �r F igl Water Table(A2) TII Marl Deposits(B 151 (LFIR L) Drainage Ratlerns 116 10) LJ Salunalion(A3) LJ Hydrogen Sulfide Odors(CII) _ Moss Tnim I ines(B1El) III--❑--1 Wale,Marks(9l) II Oxidized Rhizospt eves along Living Roots(C3) L Dry-Season Waters'Iable(C2) Sediment Dagosils(132) II Paeseince of Reduced lion(C�) El Clnayfish Burnows(CI8) Drift Deposits(B3) II Recent bion Reduction in Milled Soils(CI(I) L_I Satuiation Visible on Aerial Imagery(CI9) L.1 Algal Mal or Clnusi (Eld) 11 thin Mual Surlace 1IC7) R Cleomanphic Rosilion (D2) Q Inon Dagosits 11135; 0 Olher(9xpla in in Remarks) Shallow Aquitand(D3) II Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagler)I(67) FACT-N eulral'lest(D5) Q Wader-Stained Leaves (69; 9 Sphagnum moss (D8; (L RR 11,L) Fielc Ottservalionsr Surface Walen Rresent? Yes N o ❑eigih(inches): Wales Table Piaseni? Yes N o Delith(inches;: Salunalion Rresent? Yes No� Denth(inches:: - Wetlamd HydralagyRresenlil )eal— Na includes as ilia frin e ❑esanibe RecondEld❑ata(stneam gaug ei,moniloning well,aerial photos,previous inspections',it available: Remarl s: 82 LS Anmy Clonps of Bnglineem Atlan'lic and Gulf Claasial Plain Region-Version 2.0 VEGETATICIN IROL 11 Stralal -Use SdEin'Aic names of plan1lsl. Sa mpling Roint: A Absolule Dominant Indicaton Dominance Testwankshect: llne�e Stratum (Ploi size: U ) %Coven Species? Status IN timber o-1 Dominant Species1. A -_i Sc I t,-4 1 L41 Q,(2_ �- � That Are OBL, FACIW,on FFIC: � QA) 2. ri 5e, n(U" SIC ,�L YA Total N umben of Dominant 3. rAI e f f�V f�" a�� _ r Species Across All cltiala: (0) 4. LJ i 4•r riJ.a Alt Rerceni of Dominant Spea ies 5. Thal Are OBL,RACIW,on FDIC: "" (A/EI) 6. Rrevalence Inde) warkshee9: 7. 8 Total%Cowin o'1: Multiply by: Total Gwen OBL species x 11 = 50% f total aavei: 201% oil total cover: FAICIW species x 2= .Taplin/-a/9hnub Stralum (Allot size: FA ICI species x 3= I. It-L2r, ru l. IT \( �/ FAICIL species Xe _ 2. T I'P4 C•�M:�•+ l V � ti L LPL species x 5= Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. i� i ,j 6rk, �i�� .dX U1, C 4• Pneivalence Index =B4A= 5. HydnoRll yi is Vegclallian Indicalars: 6. _ 1 -Rapid llesl fon Fydrophytic b eg elation 7. 2-Dominance Test is>500% 8. _ 3-Flneivalence Index is:53.01 Wy =Total Coven _ Rnoblemalic F ydnophytic b egetaiion'(Bxplain) 50%of total cover: 20% a]iolal cover. F F eib Slnatum (Riot size: ) 'Indicators of hydi is soil and wetland hydrology muss 1. O'Id'v";,; bei pneseni,unless disiunbed on problematic. 2. 24 M,I nd A Cli/I Definitiams of Faun Vegetailian 9tnata: 3' Tnee-Wood)I plant:,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)an 4. ma ne in diamertei at biieasi heig ht(E BH),regardless o 1 5 height. 6• E1aAllirng/9hnud-Woody plants,e)icluding vines,less 7 than 3 in.❑BH and gneaten than 3.28 fl(1 m)fall. 8. Herb-ATI henbaaeous(non-woody)plants,regardless g. all size,and woody plants less than 3.28 fl tali. '10. Waady vine-All woody vines gnealen tt an 3.28 fl in '11. heigt 1. •121. =Notal Cover 50%oil total cover: 20`/0 of total coven: Woody Vine 91iialum (Plot size: ) 'I. 2. 3. 4. 5• F yd raphytic =11olal Cloven Nicigerlationi 50%of total cover: 20%o-1 total coven: Rresenil? )as N a Remarks: (If observed,Iis11 moipt ological a dapta tions below). 83 LEI Aumy Coup s oil Engine ens Allanlis and Gulf Cloaslal Rlain Region-Vers is n 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W Rnafile Oescripltian: (gerscribei to the depth needeid la dacumenl the inc icalor or canlirm thea absence of inc icatars.) Deplt Matnix Reidox Features (incl es) Clolon(moist) % Color(moi:t) % Tvae To Ilex Line Remarks n m,x5u rGnd , 30 'T e: CI=Concentna1iori,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Malnix,M9=Masked Sand Chains. 2Localian: PL=Rove Lining,M=Matrix. Hyc nic Soil Indicalars: (Aplplicahlei to all URRs,unless alherwise ncitec.) Indicallorsi lcm PraUlerriatic Hydric Sails'': 0 F istosol(Al) Rolyvalue Below Surface(5111)iJLRR S,1,L) T❑7 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR 01 F is tic Hpipedon(A2) llhin Clank Surface(99)(LRR S,11,L) _E11 2 cm Muck(A'l0)(l1 RR S) Black F is tic (A3) Loamy Mualy Mineiral(FI)(URR O) TE Reduced Vertic(F'18)(aulside MLRA'150A,8) F ydroc en Sulfide(N) 0 Loamy Gleyed Malnix(F2) u Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F'l9)(LRR R,9,11) rItnalified Layers (A5) C epleled Matnix(F3) TI Anomalous Bnigt t Loamy Soils(F20) Onganic Bodies(A6)(LRR R,11,U) Redox Dank Surface(196; (MLRA'153B) ❑ 5 cm Mucky Minenal(A17)iJLRR R,11,L) Clepleled Dart 9urtace(F7) ❑-I Red Raneni Matenial(TR2) n Mua 1 Flnesence QFIa)(LRR U) Redox Depressions(F8) LJ Ven)I Shallow Clank Surface(W1117) 1 cm Muck(A19)IILRR R,T) Marl(19110)(LRR U) 1] Olt en(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(FI'I'l) Depleted Ochria fll l; (MURA'151) 7t ial Clank Surface(A121 pion-Manganese Masses(F 12)IILRR Cl,R,TI 3Indicatons of hydrophy is vegetation and Coast Rnainie Redox(A'l6)(MLRA'150A) L mbnic Surface(F13)(LRR P,11,L) wetland hydna logy must be pnesent, Sandy N ucky Minenal(611)(U RR Cl,S) Lj Delta Ochnic(F'17)(MLRA 151) unless disturbed or puoblemalic. ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matnix(S4) Reduced%eriic JR18)IIMLRA 150A,,1509) Sandy Redox(S5; Riedmont Rloodplain Soils(F19)IINILRA V 9A) Stripped Malnix(S6) Anomalous Enighl Loamy Soils(R20) IMURAI 149A,153(1,,1530) ❑ Dart Surface(97)(LRR R,S,T,U) Reislrlcil Larger(ill obsunicid): hype: Depth(inchesl: Hydric flail Rresenlll Yens Na Remarks: I 84 U9 Army Clorps al Engineers Allanlic and Gull Cloastal Rlain Region—Version 2.0 �-7dr�C Lui I D� WBTLANE DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Alllarilicl arA Gulf Coastall Rlainl Regions np Pnojeat/9ite: o u 4 h Hof r\ '� A9 KP-lo i-pl �l �� CitwCou.ty: Lo(o r' S Sampling[late: Applicant/Owneir. Si ate: N( Sampling Poini: PvG a;(I r-ai Investigalon(s): Seclion,lawnship,Range: r J Landionm(1 illslope,lennaae,etc.): r �� Local relief(concwie,comiex,none): Slope(%): a Subregion(LRR or MLRA): - 63 L a1: U' Lj y-Tj 13 Long: - C ��1�3 y 3 Datum: N A Soil Man L nil Name: ��h�r+,n N WI classification: Ane climatic d hydnologia conditions on the site typical lion this time oft eau? ti es N o (III no,explain in Remanks.) Ane Vegetation ,Soil on Fydnology sign ill cantly disluobed? G Ane"N oomal Cincumslances"present? Yes N a Ane Vegetalion ,Soil on Fydnology natunally pnol lematic? N( (If needed,e)iplain any answens in Remanks.) SUMMARY OF F11N[]INGS— Attalah sifte1 map at awing samplling point locatianls,tranlseate, imparlant feattl refs,eta. F ticlnopl ytic Vegerlation Pies enl? N es N o Is 111 a Sampled Anea F tldnic Soil Rnesent? N 61 N o within a Watlandil Yes Na Vt letland F ydnology Rresent? N es N o Remarl 3: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hyc nolagy Ind icalans: Secondary Indiaalons(minimum of two neauined) Riimary Indicalors (minimum of one is neauined:cheal all that apply) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks 11136) ❑ Surface Waten 1A 1) ❑ Aquatic Rauna(13.13) ❑ Spa nsely Vegetated Cloncave Surface(138) Q High Wateu Table(A:I) ❑ Manl Deposils(815)ill-RR ll) ❑ ❑nainage Flatlerns QB 10) 0 Saluralion(FI3) II Hydrogen 9011de Odon(CH) ❑ N oss Tnim Lines(816) El Waten Manks 1181) II Oxidized Rhizosphenes along Living Roots (C31 ❑ Dry-:Ieason Wales liable(C2) Sediment Deposits(132) II Presence oll Reduaed Ina n(❑e) ❑ Crayfish Burrows(08) _ DnifI Deposits(83) II Relcenl Inon Reduclion in Milled Soils(C6) ❑ Sa1unation�isible on Aerial Imageryi(CI9) Q Algal Mat on Clnusl(Be) ❑ Thin Muck':fur ace (C7) Jl Geomonphic Rosition (D21 Q Iron Deposits (135; D Othen(8xnlain in Remanks) II ShallowAquitand(D3) 1Inundaliori \isible on Acria I Imageryl(87) FAC-IN eulna I hest(D5) 1: Wafer-:Rained Leaves (139) Sphagnum moss(D8; (L RR 1,L) Hielc Clbsenialicins: Surface Water Rnesent? Yes- ISO Depth(inches): Wallen liable Ruesenl? Yes N o Depth(inches): Saturalion Rues ent? Yes N a Depth(inches): Wc1land Hyc nolagy Pnesenl iI 1 es N a (` inaludes capillary filin e Desci t a Recorded❑ata(sineam gaugle,monitoring well,aerial photos,puevious inspections),if available: Remanks: 85 UEI Army Corps o-1 Bngineens Atlantic and Gull Coaslal Plain Region-•Veusion 2.0 VEGEIIAITICIN (HOL 11 Strata) -Use scieirltifia dames of Fllanls. Sampling Roint: o. iC l < Absolute ❑ominant Indicaiou Damiinance Test wanksheell: Tree Stralum (Plot size: ) a Coven Species? Slaius N timben of Dominant Species 1. p Eli heti P*i 6)_l/i { ,I W vllhat 11re OBL,PACIW,a n FAC: (A) 2. Lia"" Grlhal §+xrNrl r/-kc 1161al N umben of Dominant 3. ! v f. �i �� FIS C1 Species Across All Strata: (8) Percent a1 Dominant Species 5. Thal Are OBL, FFICIW,on FAC: (A/8) 6. 7. Areualence Index worksheel: 8. Total%Coven oil: Multiply by: =Nota I Cloven C18L s pecies x 1 = 50%of local aoveir 20% 09 total cover: (� FACIW species x 2= Saplino/Shrub Stnatum (RIlo1 size: ) FFICI species x 3= P[ f (�, Fl11C1L species x 4 = Sem 2. L PL species x 5= 3 Column Totals: (A; (0) 4. Rneivalence Index =9API= 5. HydioRll yl is V egertallian Inc lcalloinl: 6. _ 1 -Rapid Tesl fon Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. 2-C omina nce Test is>501% 8. 1 3-Rnevalen ce Index is s3.0' =Total Coven _ Flnoblornalic Hydrophytio Vegetation'(Bxplain) 50%of total coven:J O 201/c o1 tota I coven: F eub Stn1atum (Plot size: ) 'Indicatons of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must \ 'I. 'o 006�'al A(W Ott it"('Ar be pnesenl,unless disturbed on pnoblernatic. 2. n. A loon(" A0Z W5 Definitions cif Four Vegertall ion B,Inata: 3. Vt 1 i n"J"` I Tmia-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 am)on 4. Ly rin(6I uC 1 ti /4101/ mone in cliamelen at bneasl height(❑BH),regardless of 5. dl,44. M a Aolhid Al,-, VA Liu height. 6. Sapllincl/8hnub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less 7. than 3 in.❑8H and grealerlhan 3.28 ft(1 rn)Mall. 8. Herb-All herbaceous In on.woody,' plants,regardless g, o�l size,and woody plants less It an 3.28 f1I tall. '10. Waady vine-1111 woody vines gneater tt an 3.28 fl in 'I'1. heigt 1. '12. =Intal Cover 5011% oil local cover:�,, 20`/0 of total coueu: Woody Vine Stnatum (Riot 1. Ur , La d ` flAC 2. 3. e 5. T- 1-yd raplhytic =liolalCloven Vcgellali(in 501% of total cover:�_ 20%o I Mal coven: Flresicnlil N es N a Remailks: 41.1 obsemecl,Iisl morphological aclaplations below). 86 L S Anmy Cla ups of 8ngineems Atlantic and Gulf Cloastal Rlain Region-Vension 2.0 SOL Sampling Roint: P�/LiNI( Soi� Rnofile Oescripltian: (Deiscnibe to 11 a depth needed 1a c acumenl the inc icatar or care irmi the atsence of indicators.] Depth Matnix Redox Features (inches) Colon(moisl) °d Cla la n(moist) '/U Ilypee Loc 1 llextune Rerria nks Y 'Type: CI=Cloncenlnation,❑=[le lelion,RM=Reduced N alrix,MS=Mast ed Sand Grains. 2Location: RL=Bone Lining,N=Matnix. H yc nic Sail Ind icalars: (Appllicali le 1u all LRRs,unless allherwisci natec.) Inc icatons fun RraH lemialic H yd ric Sails': ❑ F istosol(Al) ❑ Polyvalue 9elow 9urlacei(98) ILRR S,11,L) T❑ 1 cm Muck(A9)(L RR Cl) HF istia 9pipedon(A2) 7l in Dank 9urlacei(£19) ILRR cl,11,L) LJ 2 cm Muck(N 10)IILRR 9) 91aa1 F istia (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F I; (II RR O) T]E I Reiduced Verlic(F'18)Qaullsidu N LRA 15OAI,9) F)ldrogen Sulfide(AA) ❑ Loa my Gleiyeid Matrix(F2) Tu-1 Piedmont Rloodplain Soils(F-19)(LRR P,S,11) Stralified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) u Anomalous 8uighl Loamy Soils(F20) Onganic Bodies(A16) ILRR R,11,L) Redox[lank Surface(R6; (MLRA 1538) 5 cm N ucky N ineraI(A7)(LRR P,T,L) Depleled Datil 9urlace(F7) TEl Red Ranent Material(Wil) L Muck Ries ence(A8)(L RR U) H Redox Depne:s is ns(R8) u Very Sha flow[lank Surface(l F12) 1 cm N uck(A19)ilLRR R,T] ❑ Marl(R10: (LRR U) ❑ Oil er(Bxpfain in Reimanl s) 11epleied Below Dano Suri ace(A,l d) ❑ Depleted Ochria(R91; (MU RA 951) llhick Dank Surface(Al2) ❑ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR Cl,R,T] 3Indicatons o1 hydrophytia vegelatia n and Cloasl Pnairie Redax(A16)(MLRA,150AQ L mbric Surface(F13)(LRR P,7,L) wetland hydnofogy must be present, Sandy Mucky Mineral 181)ilLRR O,S) Lj [lelta Ochnic(F17)(MLRA,191) unless disturbed on problematia. F Sandy Gleryed Matrix(94) Reduced Venic(F18)(N LRA 150A,1508) HSandy Reda x(S5) Riedmont Rloodplain Soils(F19)ilMLRA 1i 9A) 91rippeid Matrix(S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils(F20) IMLRA 149A,1530, 1530) ❑ Dark Surface 197)(LFI R R,9,11,U) Restnictivei Laycu(11 ohsierued): Type: Depth(inches;: Hydric:lail Rresenl I Yeas Na Remarks: 87 L S Anrny Clcrps o1 Bngineens Atlantic an d Gulf Cloaslal Rlain Region—Version 2.0 ` Jori( 5oi 13 A ETLAND DETORMINAITICIN 1I tATAI FORM —Ail III is and CIL If C clastal Plains Region C� Pnoject)£lite: t) 1++--' 011+^1 I,iG�i �f � G� r f�ll Ciiy4County: �C Sampling[late: l/115 Applicant)Owner: + + ( Slate: Sampling Roint:H dic 52"1 Invesligalon(s): �� u I I ti�r� C1 � % ,(aij 1 W1 Section,llownship,Range: Landllonm hills la e,ienrace,etc.: ( p ) 7�I/a�1 Local nelief�(1coclncave,convex`non °: q Slope Subregion(LRR or MLRA): t1- R� A Lai: �"1 Ll� I I3- Long: I &-J�1 Datum: A)411 S? r -- Soil Map L nil Name: SClks�" NWI classificalion: Ane alimaiic d hydoologlic conditions on the site typical fon this time of)leaift ties—�—, No (111 no,explain in Remarks.) Ane Vegetation ,Soil ,or F ydnologly signillcanily dislunbed?A/CI Ane"Normal Cinaumstanaes"pnesent? Yes No Ane Vegetalion ,Soil ,or F ydnolog y ri atuiially phot lemalia? / O (11 needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OFII FINDINCIS— Altlacit site)mapl aFawing sampilinlg poinll Iocallions,lransciats, implorlanit fealLiies,citc. F ydnop hylic Vegetalion Rresent? Yes No Is the Sarniplled Area F)chic Soil Rneseni? Yes 7�k: No within a M elland? Yes N o Wetland F ydnology Rnesent? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Watland Hyduolcigy Inc icaillaus: Secondary Indicators (rtiinimum oil tWo neauired' Riimary Indicalons(minimum o l a ne is required:check all that apply) ❑ Suri ace Soil Clnacks(136) ❑ Surface Wales(Al) 1❑1 Aquatic Rauna(Ell 3; ❑ Elpansely Vegetated Conaave Sur ase(138; EII High Wates Table IIA2) 1L--If N ad Deposits(615)(LRR U) ❑ 0nainage Patienns 1910; LJ Saiunation(A3; u Fydnogen clulfide Odon(CH) :1 Moss Tnim Lines(6116; Q. Walen Marks(131) II Clxidized Rhizospheres along Living Foots(C3) ❑ Dry-Season Water-gable((I2) Sediment Deposils(62) II Rresence oil Reduced Iso n 1Ch) 0 Clnayfish Buniows(C18) DO Ileposils 403) Q Reaeni Iron Reduction in Milled Soils(CI6) El Saturalion Visible on plenial Imagery)(C9) L-L Algal Mal or Clnusl(1841; ❑ Thin Muck Sur ace(C7) L Cleomoophia Rosiiion(02) Q Iron Deposits(1351 Olt es(Explain in Remarksl ❑ Sha Ila w Alquiiaid(D3) ❑ Inundation Visible on Plenial Imagery(B7; RACI-N eutral Teal(D5) Q Wallen-Stained Leaves(69) Sphagnum moss (D8)(UP FII 11,UJ Fielc Observalions: Surface Watem Rnesent? Yes No ❑eplh(inches): Waten Table Pieseni? Yes N o Depth(inches): _ Saiuralion Present? Yes N o Depth(inchesl: Aellaind Fydralcigy Rresienill Yes Ncl Yl- (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recondeid❑ata(slneam gauge,monita sing well,aerial photos,previous inspeclions],ill available: Remarks: 88 US Army Conps of Bnglineens Atlanlic and Gulf(laaslal Plain Region-)u ersion 2.0 VEGEIIATICIN JHOL II Strata)—Use saierliilic niarTlEls of plank-i. Sampling Roint: -0f,C Absolute Dominant Indicalor C arr inance Test wanksheet: Tnee 91natum (Plot size: ) °/ Cover Species? Status IN rimben of Dominant Species 1. P , That Pine OBL,FACIW,on FDIC: (A) 2. =� xr � Notal IN umber of Dominant 3. Species Across All:Itnala: (B) Flencent of Domir ant Spea ies 5• llhat Plre OBL, FACIW,on FDIC: (A/8) 6. RrevadenceIndex warksheel: 7. Total 1/o Coven o1: Multiply by: 8. Notal Cloven 08L s pecies x'I = FACIW s p ecies x 2= 50°d a 11/10 I oven:_ 20Y° 011 total coven: ' SaplingKit nub Stratum (Plot size: �5 � ) FACT species x 3= tI. 1-71-')4%'J_ I i q-11 FACIL species x 4= 2. C - lm.. odni c11(Q LRLspecies x5= 3. CA( Clolumn Totals: (PI) (B) f i��. 1�ric �� _ 6..1 • RrevalOnae Inde)i =BdA= 5• hydraphy is Vegelatian Inc icatars: 6. _ 1 • Rapid less lon hydnophylic\egetalion 7. 2-Dominance llesl is>50% 8. _ 3-Pneivalence Index is s3.0' =Total Cloven _ Pnoblematia h ydnopt ytic Vegelation'(Bxplain) 5? otl local coven:_� 20%of total cover:4 henb Slnalum (Rloi size: /C`L ) 'Indicatons o1 hydria soil and wetland I)ldnologtl must 1, 15 t e piesenl,unless disturbed or prot lematic. 2. 0. ��A�C� Oc finitians o1 Faun Vegetation 9tnata: 3. n� t'`= Tnee-•Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)on d. rn one in diameleii ai breasil 1,eight(11 8H),negandless of 5 t eight. 6• SaiplingllShrutl—Wood)l plants,excluding vines,less 7 tt an 3 in.DOF and gneaier than 3.38 fl('I m)tall. 8. Hcob—AII t enbaceous (non woody)planls,negandless g. of siae,and wooft plants less than 3.28 fl tall. 10. Waac y v inei—All woody vin es greater than 3.28 ft in 1'I. height. 12. =Total Coven 501/6 of total coven: 209% of total coven: Woodv ine 9tralum (RIoll size: 2. ru 1°.A 1 U b►d1 �� 3. e 5 Hyc imphylic =total Coven Vegetation 50%of total coven: 20%of total cover. Present it Yel.s Na Remarks: (11 observed,list morphological adaptations below). ! 89 L S Anmy Corps of 8ngineens Plllantic and Gulll Coastal Main Region—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Floint: f� q n Prallile Descnipticm: (Descnibe llo 91 e c eplth neer ed to dacurrient the indicatar an cant orn 111 a absence al ine icalors.) Depth Malrix Redox Features (inches) Colon(moist) % C101011(moist) % hype Loa Texture Remanks 'll e: C=Conaenlnation,11=0e lection,RM=F educed Matnix,MS=W asked Eland Gua ins. 'Lc talion: RL=Bone Lining,IN=Matnix. Hydnic Sail Inc icallons: (Applicable to all LRRa,unless athervnise nated.) Indicatars for Rnciblemallic H ydnic Sails': Hislosol(FI'1) Folyvalue Below Surface(S8)(ERR S,T,U) TEl 'I cm Muck(A19)(LRR O) HHisiic 9pipedon(A2) Thin Dark:lur ace(S9)(LRR S,T,U) TL-JI 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR 9) Bllack H istic(A3; I oamy Mucky Mineral(F11)(LRR O) Tu�I Reduced\enic(F18)(oullsida N URA 150A,9) Hydnagen Sulfide i1m) I oamy Clleyed lu al nix(172) u Riedmont Floodplain Soils(F,19)(ERR R,S,T) H 'Itnatifiecl Layers(A5) Deipleted Matrix(F3) pinomalotis Bright Loamy Soils(F20) Oiganic Bodies(FIA) (LRR R,1,L) Reidox Dail 9urlace(R6) (ML RA 1538) 5 cm Mucky N ineual(A7)(ERR P,T,U) Den leled Dank Surface(F7) Fled Pauent Matenial(11F2) D Mual RT resence(A8)(LRR U; H Redox Depressions(F8) 'E] Vey Shallow Darl 9urlace(1lF'l2) D I cm Muck(P19)(LRR R,TI D Mani(F 10)IILRR L) D Clther(Explain in Remarl i) ❑ Depleted Below Darl Surlace(A'11) ❑ Denleted Oahnic(F 11)(MLRA,151) ❑ lit in Dank Surface(Al2) Iron-N anganese Masses(F12)(LRR O,R,T) 'Indicaious oil hydnophytic vegetation and Coast Riainiei Redax(A'161 (MLRA 150A) Umt nic.lurface f'13)JLRR R,T,U) wetland hydrology muss be piesenl, clandy N ucky Mineral(511)(LRR O,SJ Lj DEllta Ochnic(R17)(MU RA 15'1) unless disturbed on problematic. D Elandy Gleyed Matnix(94) n Reduced Vertic(PI 8)(MU RA 1190A,1508) ala ndy Redox(S5) Piedma nt Alloodpla in;toils (F'19; (MU RA 1149A) Eltnippecl Matnix(S6) Anomalous Bnig11 Loamy Soils (F20)(MLRA'149A,153C,15313) II Dank Surface(97)ilLRR R,S,11, U) Restelclivci Layen(11 obsenied� llype: Depth(inches): Hydric Sail Rneseinil?I Vcs No Remanks: 90 L 81 Aumy(loops oil Ungineens Atlantic a nd Gt If Cloaslal Rlain Region-Vers is n 2.0 v p("M4 WETLAIN13DETERMINA TION DATA RC RM—Altlaniticl alrlc GuHI Coastall Rlain Regianl Pnojeat/Elite: 0'r'K ��Cil+" 4sGi��,) I�PS�CIiA �G� l�i `f Clity/(launly: C..CduMbd� Sampling Dale: IVI/115 Applicant/Owner: CZ Stale: ke Sampling Point: /Yl Investigaloni$): J CyI-0 An. �' '�•1k• E ,lection,llownship,Range: Landibnm(t illslope, mica etc.): Local neliell(concave,convex,�e Ella pe(`/o):A�, 5 Subregion(LRR oii MLRA): P- , ? Lat: 9L-'1'1 �a )`1 Long: /1�5.�1 3�� Daium: Soil Map l nil N ame: �7`�� i ry N WI classification: Ane climatic 4 hydnologia conditions on tl a sile typ is al lois this lime oil yea n? Yes No (111 no,explain in Remanks.) Ane Vegelalion Soil on Hydrology significantly disturbed? Ane"Normal Cincumslances"presenl? Yes No Ane Vegetation Soil on Hydrology nalunally pnoblemalic? (If neeided,e)iplain any answens in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF RINDINGS— At ach site map showing sampling plaint loaationls,tranlseatsl, implorlarlll felatu refs, etc. Fyclnopl ytic Vegetation Present? Yes N o Is the samiplec Ahiea F yclnic Soil Rnesent? Yes N o w ithin a Wc1land it Y es Na Wetland F ydnology Rresent? Y es N o Remarl s: HYDROLOCY Wetland Hyc nolcigy Ind icalcros: Secondary India atois(minimum of twa reouined) Rnimary Indicalors(minimum of one is cequined:check all that a poly) Suriace Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Surface Water(A 1) ❑ Aquatic Rauna(813) ❑ Spansely Vegetaled Clancave Surface(88) �rIIHigh Waten Table(A:I) 0 Mad Deposits (6,15)JURR L) ❑ ❑rainage Raberns(610) LJ Saturation(A3) 11---1r Hydnagen Sulfide Odon(C1) ❑ N oss trim Lines(B 16) IIB Walen Marks(e IJ I-J Oxidized F hizosphenes along Living Roots(C3) II ❑ry-Season WaferTable(C2) Sedimeni Deposits(62) II Anesence of Reduced Icon IIC4) 0 Crayfish Burnows(C8) Drifl❑eposiis(83) II Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Eloils (C6) Jl Salunalion�isible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Q Algal Mat on Clnusl(89) El llhin MuO Surface(CI7) ❑ Geomonphic Rosillion (D2) Q Iron Depasits II135) 0 Olhen(8xplain in Remacks) II Shallow Aquitaid(03; Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(87) FAIC-N eulnaI-lest (D5) ❑ Water-£Itained Leaves Q139) Sphagnum moss(08)(LRR 7,L) Hield Otsenialicros: Surface Watem Rnesent? Yes No Depth(inc t es): Walen table Present? Yes No Depth(ina t es): � Saturation Raesenl? Yes No Depth(inat es): Wcdland Hyc rolagy Pnesenl iI Y es h of includes capillary flin e Deiscrit a Recorded❑ata(sineam gauge,monitoring well,aerial pt otos,previous inspeclions;,if available: Rema rks: 91 US Army Corps of 8ngineeis A111an1ic and Gull Cloaslal Plain Region-•Version 2.0 VEGETATION jFou n Strata) —l se saieniific enamels of plants. Sampling Roint a: Absolute Dominant Indicallon CorriinamceTest warksheal: lnee 81ratum (Plot size: ) % Cover pecies. ffStalu: Number o l Dominant 8111 ecies 1. Y� Thal Are OBL,FPICIW,on FAC: (A) 2. -4 . Total N umber al Dominant 3. pugr UG r 1 PLC _ Speaies Ila noss All Strata: (0) 4 Peraenl oil Dominant Species r 5. That Am OBL, FPIOW,on FAC: (A/B) 6. 7. Pievalunce Index warksheel: 8. lotal%Cover oil: h ulliDIv by: l Q =Tolal Coven OBL species x 1 = 50%of total coven: 2a N aIloll aI coven:A_ FFICW species x 2= :Iapling 19hnub Slnatum (RIo1 size: ) FFIC species x 3= I RpICU species X4 = 2. W f r TCA UPL species x 5= 3 r` W Column Totals: (A) (B) 4. Puevalence Index =9AFI= 5. Hyc noAlhyl is%egetallian Inc ica9ans: 6. _ 1 -Rapid Test fon Hydrophy is begetation 7. 2-Domina nce Test is>50°b 8. _ 3-Rnevalen ce Index is 53.0' =lotal Coven _ Rnoblumatic Fydnophytia deg elation'(Bxplain) 50`/0 o1 total coven: 2 r; 20%of total aover. F enb 9tnatum (Plot size: ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wells nd hydrology must oG�n '.�; 6 BCW be pn(isenl,unless dislunbed on problematic. 2. , f .+ Definitions of flour Vegetation Sltna ta: 3• liee—Wood)l plants,excluding vines,3 in.(7.6 cm)on 4. move in diameten at breast height OBH),regardless of 5 height. 6• clapllincl/Slhnub—Woody pla n1s,exaluding vines,less 7 than 3 in.UBH and greater Thar 3.28 fl(1 m)Tall. 8. H eirb—All henbaa eous(non-woody)plants,regardless g. oil size,and woody plants less than 3.28 fl all. 10. Waody vinci—All woody vines gneaten tt an 3.28 fl in 'I'l. heigt 1. '12. Molal Cloveir 50%o11'dotal cover: _. 20% o1 iota]coven: (0 Woody Vine Stratum (Blotsii/z��e: ) 'I. �'i `� I�Jr� PAJ V 2. 3. 4. 5• 1-yd raphytic Total Cloven %jogelalion 501/a 1 tolal coven: 20% of lotal coven: Rresanll? N es H a Remad s: (I I obsenied,lisl morphological adaplatia ns below). 92 L 8 Arm)1 Clonps of 9ngineens Atlantic a nd Gull Cloastal Rlain Region—Vers ion 2.0 t,f(61 Ned SOL Sampling Roinl: CI, 1ic Smit Rnafile Description: (Describe to thea depth needed 10 eocumenl thea inc icallan ar ccmtlirmi thu absence of indicators.) Depth Malnix Redox Realunes (inches) /Clolon(moist) % Colon(moist) ' Type' Loc llextune Hemanks l ' Ici YR y/� IyG' '7 e: C=Clancentnalion,U=De letion,RM=Reduaed Malnix,N S=Masied Sand Clnains. 2Location: PL=Bone Lining,M=Malrb. F ydric Sail Inc icatars: (Aplpllicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise ncitec.) Inc icallans fan Prat lerria lic H yduic£tails': ❑ Fistosol(A I) Rolyvalue Below Surlacei(.18)(LRR£I,11,L) Ell cm Muck(A9)(LRR 01 Fiske Bpipedon(A:1) 11hin[lank Surface(89)(LRR S,11,L) 1:12 cm Muck(A10)(U RR S) Black Histic(A3) Loamy Mual,y Minenal(FI)(ERR O) I TReduced Vertic(F'18)Qautside MLRA'150A,B) u Fydrogen Sultlde(PI4) Loamy Gleyed Malnix f2; Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F'19)(LRR R,S,11) Slnaiiled Layers(Al) I]epleled Matrix(R3; L Anomalous Bnigt t Loamy Soils(F20; Onganic Bodies(A6J (ERR R,T,U) H Redox[lank clurfa ce(1`96; (MLRA'1538) ❑ 5 cm Mucky Minenal(A7)(URR R,TI,Ul Ilepleled 11ank Surface(F7) 1C Red Ranent Malemial(TF2) ❑ N uck RneSEInce(A8)(ERR L) Redox❑epnessions(F8) u Veryl Shallow Ilaik Surface(1I1`113) ❑ 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR P,T) Marl(R10) (LRR U) D Other(9xplain in Remanks) ❑ Denleled Below[lank Surface(A11) ❑epleled Ochric QR1'1)(MLRA 1151) ❑ Thick Da4 Surlacei(FI12) Iron-Mang anese Masses(F,12)JIURR t],R,TJ 3Indicaions of hydraphyiic vegletation and HCoast Rnainie Redox(A10) (MU RA 150A) L rnbnic Surface(F113) (LRR R,11,L) wetland hydnolagy mL st be Anesent, Sandy Mucky N ineua 1(EPI)(L RR O,S) [lelta Ochric(R'l7: (MLRA 1151) unless dislunbed on plot lematic. 0 Sand)I Gleyed Matrix(S4) F] Reduced ,eriic(R 18)(MLRA 150A,'1508) HSandy Redox(,rI5) Riedmonl Rloodplain Soils(F 19)(MLRA,14 9A) Stripped Malnix(96) Anomalous Brighl Loamy Soils(F20)(N URA 1e 9A,153%'1530) ❑ Darl Surface(EI7)(LRR P,S,7,L) Reslriclli is Uaryer Qif all servec): hype: Depth(inches): Hydnic Mail Present it Yes t ci Remarli s: 93 UEI Army Corps o1 Bngin eeus Atlantic and Gull Coas tal Main Region—Version 3.0 Rough Horn Swamp Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus Sept 2016 Jurisdictional Determination 94 95 U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT Action Id. SAW-2015-02410 County: Columbus U.S.G.S. Quad: Evergreen NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Property Owners: Horace and Janet Fields 2076 Old Boardman Road Evergreen,North Carolina 28438 George Sanderson 3001 Old Boardman Road Evergreen,North Carolina 28438 William Stephens P.O.Box 100 Orrum,North Carolina 28369 Teddy Britt 19096 Highway 242 South Evergreen,North Carolina 28438 Agent: Steven F. Stokes KCI Associates of North Carolina,P.A. 4_601 Six Forks Road,Landmark Center H Suite 220 Raleigh,North Carolina 27609 Size(acres) 66.2-acres Nearest TownEvergreen Nearest Waterway UNT to Lumber River River Basin Lumber USGS HUC 03040203 Coordinates Latitude: 34.4482 N Longitude: -78.9379 W Location description: The property_is located at 2076 Old Boardman.Road(Property Nos.21,056; 22,394; 77,799; 21273. 21,705; and 20,694)in Evergreen,Columbus County,North Carolina. The project site consists of 66.2-acres of active agricultural land and undeveloped,forested land. A large ditch runs through the central part of the project site. This ditch was a former stream that had been relocated within the property for agricultural purposes. There are also several smaller farm ditches throughout the property. The project area is bordered by Old Boardman Road to the north,forested tracts to the west and south,and agricultural lands to the east. Indicate Which of the Following Apply: A. Preliminary Determination X There appear to be waters,including wetlands, on the above described property, as depicted on the attached exhibit,that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). This preliminary jurisdictional determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory mitigation. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process(Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However,you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. B. Approved Determination 96 Page 1 of 2 There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. There are waters of the U,S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. We strongly suggest you have the waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our present workload,the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely delineation,you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps. _ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified,this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which,provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations,may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years. _ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat identified below. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. There are no waters of the U.S.,to include wetlands,,present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Wilmington,NC, at(910) 796-7215 to determine their requirements. Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act(33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regardingthis determination and/or the Corps regulatory program,please contact John N._Policarpo at 910-251-4487 or John.N.PolicarpoWusace.army.mil. C. Basis for Determinatipn: Portion"f this site may exhibit wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement. Two separate non-tidal wetlands on-site are considered abutting a Relatively Permanent Water(RPM),a�n _unnamed tributary([TNT)to the Lumber River,while a third wetland is located in a linear ditch connected to an RPW. The UNT to the Lumber River is an RPW relocated from a natural stream that previously flowed through the project site,but was relocated for agricultural purposes. This RPW is a perennial stream with bed_and bank and an ordinary high water mark. There are seven jurisdictional ditches.located throughout the project site that are considered.RPWs; these ditches exhibit bed and bank and an ordinary high water mark. This determination is based on a site visit conducted by John N. Policarpo of the Corps on October 29,2015. The enclosed figure titled "Figure 3.Jurisdictional Features Map,Rough Horn Swamp Restoration Site Columbus County,NC" undated accurately depicts the approximate extent of on-site waters of the a U.S.,including wetlands,that may be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean:Water Act. 97 D. Remarks: E. Attention USDA Program Participants This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs,you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service,prior to starting work. F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in 13. above) This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this determination,you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will fmd a Notification of Appeal Process(NAP)fact sheet and request for appeal(RFA)form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address: US Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer 60 Forsyth Street SW,Room 1OM15 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps,the Corps must determine that it is complete,that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR park 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by March 22,2016. **It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.** Corps Regulatory Official: _e Z A— Date: January 22,2016 Expiration Date: January 22,2021 The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so,please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at http://re ug lato!y.usacesurvey.com/. 98 - f L ^dw. ` 6 v` S� h0 z — w — 1 uj0 { a n zILI xo