20160233 Ver 1_Draft Mitigation Plan_2016_20161107

TAR RIVER HEADWATERS WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DRAFT FINAL
BM
MOGENSEN MITIGATION. INC
MITIGATION PLAN CONTRIBUTORS:
Richard Mogensen — Mogensen Mitigation
Daniel Kuefler — Mogensen Mitigation
Gerald Pottern — Mogensen Mitigation
Heather Smith — Ecological Engineering
Lane Sauls — Ecological Engineering
Tar -Pamlico River HUC # 03020101-0102
PERSON COUNTY, NC
DEQ Contract # 6746
DMS Project ID # 97071
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of
Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the following documents governing NCDMS operations
and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation:
1. Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and
Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).
2. NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection............................................................................................2
3.0 Existing Conditions (Baseline)..........................................................................................................4
3.1 Watershed Processes & Landscape Characteristics.....................................................................................
4
Table 1. Mapped Soils within Project Area.....................................................................................................
6
3.2 Land Use and Land Cover.............................................................................................................................
8
3.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response........................................................................................................9
4.0 Functional Uplift Potential..............................................................................................................10
5.0 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives.........................................................................................13
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan..................................................................................14
6.1 Conceptual Approach.................................................................................................................................
14
6.2 Wetland Design..........................................................................................................................................
14
6.3 Hydroperiod Justification...........................................................................................................................
15
6.4 Site Preparation and Construction.............................................................................................................
17
6.5 Vegetation and Planting Plan.....................................................................................................................
17
Table 2. Plant Species for Wetland Restoration and Riparian Stabilization.................................................
18
6.6 Mitigation Credit Generation Summary......................................................................................................
19
Table 3. Mitigation Acreages and Project Assets.........................................................................................
19
7.0 Monitoring and Performance Standards..........................................................................................19
7.1 Monitoring Plan...........................................................................................................................................
19
7.2 Performance Standards...............................................................................................................................
19
Table 4. Performance Standards and Monitoring Approach.......................................................................
20
8.0 Site Management Plans....................................................................................................................20
8.1 Adaptive Management Plan.......................................................................................................................
20
8.2 Long Term Management Plan....................................................................................................................
20
9.0 References.......................................................................................................................................21

Tables
Table 1. Mapped Soils within Project Area..................................................................................... 6
Table 2. Plant Species for Wetland Restoration and Riparian Stabilization .................................. 18
Table 3. Mitigation Acreages and Project Assets........................................................................... 19
Table 4. Performance Standards and Monitoring Approach.......................................................... 20
Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity and Watershed Map, Upper Tar -Pamlico River Basin ........................... 1
Figure 2. NHP Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) near the TRHWR site ........................ 3
Figure 3. Person County Soil Survey Map, TRHWR Site............................................................... 5
Figure 4. LIDAR topography and project watershed boundary....................................................... 7
Figure 5. USGS Topographic Quadrangles: Triple Springs and Moriah Quads .............................. 8
Figure 6. Existing Conditions and Proposed Project Assets.......................................................... 11
Figure 7. Rainfall Percentiles......................................................................................................... 16
Appendices
Appendix 1. Plan Sheets
Appendix 2. Hydrologic Data
Appendix 3. Site Protection Instrument & Survey Plat
Appendix 4. Project Milestones & Payment Schedule
Appendix 5. Maintenance Plan
Appendix 6. Approved Preliminary USACE JD Letter with Wetland Data Sheets
Appendix 7. Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
Appendix 8. Soils Report

1.0 Project Introduction
The Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site (TRHWR) is a full -delivery wetland mitigation
project located in eastern Person County, between Roxboro and Oxford, North Carolina, within the
Piedmont Physiographic Province (Figure 1). The site comprises 9.98 acres, most of which is drained
and degraded wetlands or former wetlands (see photo below), with hydric soil indicators. This
includes the 1 -acre 570 -foot connector corridor. The remaining areas include non -hydric soils,
drainage ditches, and a riparian corridor along an intermittent stream connecting the TRHWR site to
the adjacent Tar River Headwaters Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank project. Both
projects are designed and implemented by Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI), and are located on a 228 -
acre farm owned by Roy and Joyce Huff, in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin 12 -digit HUC # 03020101-
0102. The Huff Farm property is located at 333 Bunnie Huff Road, Oxford NC 27565. The access
road into the TRHWR site is at Latitude = 36.3913, Longitude = -78.8171.
Figure 1. Project vicinity and watershed map, Upper Tar -Pamlico River Basin. DMS Targeted Local Watersheds (TLW)
are highlighted in gold. Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, on Huff Farm, Person County NC.
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN Page 11
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

The TRHWR site was cleared and ditched for pasture use in the 1940s according to the owner, and is
currently used for grazing cattle. The project involves plugging drainage ditches to restore wetland
hydrology, fencing to exclude livestock, and planting native trees and shrubs to restore a Headwater
Forest wetland ecosystem similar to what occurred prior to site clearing and drainage. The remnant
mature trees left for shade, hydrophytic groundcover plants mixed among the pasture grasses, and plant
species recorded in adjacent forests (on the same soil mapping unit) provide data for the planting plan.
The proposed work will restore approximately 7.65 acres of headwater riparian wetland (6.53 acres
reestablishment plus 1.12 acres rehabilitation) and will generate an estimated 7.28 or more riparian
wetland mitigation credits (RWMC), exceeding the 5.0 RWMC requested by the NC Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in RFP # 16-006476.
Approximately 1.4 additional acres underlain with non -hydric soils will also be reforested, including a
100'foot wide and approximately 570 -ft long riparian corridor along the ditch and stream connecting
the TRHWR site to MMI's adjacent stream restoration and nutrient buffer bank project to the south.
The proposed wetland restoration and cattle exclusion will reduce soil erosion and nutrient -enriched
runoff from adjacent pasture and cropland within its watershed, and help retain agricultural chemicals
used on these lands. Erosion will be significantly reduced by buffering with native tree plantings. It is
expected to improve water quality and habitat in the receiving tributary and reduce fine sediment
loading which will enhance the overall watershed particularly in the adjacent stream and nutrient
mitigation bank.
Directions to TRHWR site: From Raleigh, follow NC -50 north to Creedmoor, NC. Continue north
and west on NC -56, Brodgen Rd, Old Rte -75, Culbreth Rd, NC -158, and Old Roxboro Rd. At the
Granville/Person County line Old Roxboro Rd becomes Denny Store Rd, and 1.5 miles past the county
line turn right (north) on Bunnie Huff Road. Go 0.4 mile to a gravel driveway on the left (just past the
Huffs' house and sign) and follow it through the farm gate and across the creek to the TRHWR site.
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
The TRHWR site is in the northern portion of the uppermost local watershed of the Tar -Pamlico River
basin, 12 -digit HUC # 03020101-0102. This DMS Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) is the headwaters
for the City of Oxford's water supply (rated as Class WS -IV; NSW) and also one of the most
ecologically significant stream ecosystems in the NC Piedmont, with high biodiversity and several rare
and endemic aquatic species (Figure 2).
The location and scope of this project enables it to address multiple Restoration Goals outlined in the
Tar -Pamlico River Basin Restoration Priorities Report (2010). One such goal specific to this project's
Catalogue Unit is to "protect, augment, and connect Natural Heritage Areas and other conservation
lands." The TRHWR site is approximately 570 feet north of MMI's existing stream restoration and
nutrient buffer bank project (connected by riparian corridor), and is close to the Denny Store Gabbro
Forest Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) designated by NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP),
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 12
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

located 1,000 feet to the north and east of the TRHWR site. The southeastern portion of this SNHA is
on the Huff Farm property and abutting the north end of the stream and buffer bank project.
Figure 2. NHP Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) near the TRHWR site and Huff Farm. Stream segments
colored brown (Upper Tar River Aquatic Habitat) are known to support rare species.
Downstream of the Huff Farm property, the Upper Tar River Aquatic Habitat SNHA supports 15 rare
species of stream -dwelling animals (mussels, fishes, crayfishes, and salamanders) known to occur
within eight miles downstream of the project on the Triple Springs and Moriah USGS Quadrangles
(NHP database, 2015). This riverine SNHA begins 1.2 miles downstream of the Huff Farm property,
and 1.5 miles below the TRHWR site. NC's most viable population of the federally endangered dwarf
wedgemussel occurs within this SNHA in the Tar River between the Person/Granville County line and
US Highway 15 bridge south of Oxford.
Restoration Priorities for the Upper Tar River Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) include projects that
"address agricultural inputs (nutrients and sediment) and those that reestablish woody buffers". This
project directly addresses both of those listed priorities through the rehabilitation and re-establishment
of native wetlands, the exclusion of cattle, and reforestation and protection of a riparian corridor
between two mitigation projects. The river and tributaries in Person County are not designated
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 13
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

impaired (303d listed) but DEQ Biological Assessment Branch staff noted excessive sediment, channel
instability, and nutrient enrichment impacts in several streams in the upper Tar River watershed
(DWQ, 2007). MMI staff observed these agricultural impact symptoms in the intermittent stream
reach immediately downslope from the proposed wetland restoration area and in the perennial stream
just below that reach, in the Tar River Headwaters Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Bank project area. By restoring and protecting a headwater wetland this project will help improve
downstream water quality and thereby support the overall watershed planning framework.
3.0 Existing Conditions (Baseline)
3.1 Watershed Processes & Landscape Characteristics
The project is located in the Carolina Slate Belt region of the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
Elevations on the project site range from approximately 582 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the
northern edge to 570 feet at the southern edge of the wetland restoration area. Valley slope from north
to south was calculated at 1.2 percent (12 feet in height / 978 feet in length), and lateral slopes on
either side, between 1 and 2 percent. The connector channel drops another 6 feet (from 570 feet to 564
feet) along its 570 -foot course from the wetland restoration area to its confluence with the larger
stream in the buffer bank project (Figures 3 and 4).
The US Department of Agriculture's 1995 Person County Soil Survey identifies Orange loam as the
primary soil mapping unit underlying the wetland area. This soil extends across an even larger area to
the east in Granville County (Figure 5). Onsite analysis by Licensed Soil Scientist Heather Smith of
Ecological Engineering, Inc. determined that the majority of the THRWR area soils, with exception of
the southeast corner, are unmapped hydric inclusions of Wehadkee or similar soil (Table 1 and
Appendix 9). These areas have dense clayey subsoil with slow infiltration, and can accumulate
"perched" saturation or ponding especially in winter when evapotranspiration is low.
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 14
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

Lg6
«
CW LgB
r S HrB GeB —, Lg8 \ HrC I .
`t `HrB
HrB�H r -C y�e r
HrB
{HrC \ I GeG�
.GeB
Lgg LgB HrB
HrB l v p
CW
co
��)
OnA a Orange Loam:
` Lg6 1 (Iredell Loam in Grenville Co)
G. (:6
F
HrB �eG z 0 B
fir
CW 0 Ou
Denny Store Gabbro Forest V
GeB / HrB HrC ti r3 NHP Natural Heritage Area r` OnA o z I
\ s+� z
It
GeB
3
IrB
'1Tai}
P`I � GeC
r r�
GeB LgB MOB �6 MrB� %
11
EnB Ih���iG HrB EnI3 GeC 1
1' J
LgB e�
x. HrB \. Huff Farm
- Me6 Wetland Aesoration ,ria f GeC GeB
Gf82 G
En8 on HrB
GyP F ��G
( Buffer Restoration GeC
v GeB �. , HrB HrC
COD jHrB OnA HrCHrB j
/
:w ,eg LgB EnB � OLgBr6 -�'. j.�n ._� f . \ -
Lgg Hr$ HrB
L B
G�8
GCg8 � C G ' Q
HrC HrB Ge8 GeC a
1-irB Denny Store ~'y i
_r GeB
LgB
0 GeB
Orbm ; HrB Ge6 Hr3 \Y
FHrG \ a LgB t l
\\\\\\ HrB r e6 l xrC
eG
LgB ! HrB HrB LgE3 C \t LgB /�
"
\ \\ ! I LgB F
�_-- � _
GeB 1 1 tL66
Q / G' orB GeB L)
3 f L GeC
B ! d
g r O
GeB 10
GeB
HrB
GeC eB , rG GeB [ } 1 - CSC J t 6 GeC GzB \ �¢�.
PERSON (J-im sheet 12) 1 3/4 1/2 1/4 0 MILE I
COUNTY SOIL SURVEY
Figure 3. Person County Soil Survey Map, Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site (Proposed), Stream Buffer
Restoration Site (approved, in progress), and Denny Store Gabbro Forest, a NHP Natural Heritage Area.
The 1.12 -acre non -hydric area in the southeast corner of the project site exhibited insufficient
redoximorphic features to meet the hydric soil criteria and is most likely the mapped Iredell soil type.
It is unclear however, whether this area may have once been hydric. Redoximorphic features may have
weakened due to oxidation over the 70 years since it was ditched and drained. Soils along the
connector corridor between the proposed wetland restoration area and the existing stream and buffer
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 15
Prepared by 1�►I�

bank project downslope are mapped as Chewacla loam. The lower 250 -foot segment of this ditched
channel (below the existing vehicle crossing) was field -designated by DEQ Division of Water
Resources (DWR) as a stream subject to Tar -Pamlico Buffer rules in June 2013. US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) agent Eric Alsmeyer confirmed on 06 July 2016 that the ditch segment within the
TRHWR area is not a jurisdictional water subject to Section 404-401 regulation.
Table 1. Mapped Soils within Project Area
Soil Type
Hydrologic
Soil Group
General Soil Description, from USDA Soil Survey
Fine, mixed, active, thermic Oxyaquic Vertic Hapludalfs. Moderately well
Iredell Loam*
CSD
drained, very slowly permeable soils, formed in material weathered from rocks
(Orange Loam)
high in ferro-magnesium minerals. On Piedmont uplands, mostly 0 to 6 percent
slopes.
Fine -loamy, mixed, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrochrept. Somewhat poorly
Chewacla Loam
C
drained soil formed in recent alluvium on nearly level floodplains along streams
that drain from the Mountains and Piedmont physiographic provinces. Slopes
range from 0 to 2 percent.
Wehadkee Loam'
Fine -loamy, mixed, nonacid, thermic Typic Fluvaquent. A hydric soil that
(inclusions)
D
develops within lower swales of the floodplain. Slopes are considered nearly
level and the soils are poorly drained.
*Area was mapped Orange according to the 1995 USDA-NRCS Person County Soil Survey. The soil was changed to
Iredell loam during a revision of mapping units and is shown as Iredell on the Web Soil Survey.
#The majority of the restoration area was classified as Wehadkee during a more detailed soil report, Appendix 9.
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN Page 16
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

:1+4 �.
i
Tau
�l 1 1
500 feet 575
Hf
E�S4N COUNTY Gi 'i 25179
i
August 2016
Figure 4. LIDAR topography and project watershed boundary (approximately 60 acres), from Person County GIS. Tar
River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, Person County NC.
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN Page 17
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

i
am OUR ��
pie Springs Quad
pre r� hind
Figure 5. USGS Topographic Quadrangles: Triple Springs and Moriah Quads. Tar River Headwaters Wetland
Restoration Site and Stream & Nutrient Buffer Offset Bank, Huff Farm, Person County NC.
3.2 Land Use and Land Cover
90.
I
II
4
C
The project site is presently a cattle pasture dominated by non-native forage grasses interspersed with
native and non-native herbs. Several large trees were left standing to provide shade for the cattle when
the site was cleared in the 1940s, and a few younger trees have sprouted and survived. Existing trees
include seven of the rare swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), plus several willow oak (Quercus
phellos), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), boxelder (Acer negundo), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Hydrophytic herbs (FACW
and OBL) are present among the pasture grasses including swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata),
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 18
Prepared by�
MOGENSEN MRIGpTION.INC

rushes (Juncus spp), spikerush (Eleocharis spp), woolgrass bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus), New York
ironweed (Vernonia novaboracensis), buttonweed (Diodia virginiana), various sedges (Carex,
Cyperus, Rhynchospora spp), and fall sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale). Other than pasture grasses
(mainly fescue) and some limited patches of Japanese honeysuckle and multiflora rose are also present.
Iinvasive weeds do not appear to be a major problem on the project site.
The Denny Store Gabbro Forest, a designated SNHA (privately owned and unprotected to our
knowledge) lies to the north and east of the TRHWR site, and also borders the adjacent stream and
buffer mitigation bank easement (Figure 5). This natural area "contains one of the best quality and
most extensive hardwood forests over high pH soils in the northern Piedmont, with excellent examples
of Basic Oak -Hickory Forest, Basic Mesic Forest on Flats, Upland Depression Swamp Forest, and
Mesic Hardpan Forest" (LeGrand, 2007, Person County Natural Areas Inventory). Rare species
recorded on this site include swamp white oak, Chinquapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergii), glade wild
quinine (Parthenium auriculatum), and Lewis's heartleaf (Hexastylis lewisii). It is likely that some of
these other rare species (in addition to Swamp White Oak) may have occurred on the project site and
could be reintroduced, or may recolonize on their own from the nearby natural area.
The TRHWR site has been in continuous agricultural use for about 70 years, and land use in the surrounding
area has changed little over the past several decades. The nearest municipalities (Roxboro, Oxford, and
Butner) are 8 to 10 miles away, and there are no plans to extend public water
and sewer service to the Denny Store vicinity in the foreseeable future. The rate of urban development
in the project vicinity is likely to remain very low for decades. Most of the project site's watershed is
on the Huff Farm property, where land use and land cover are likely to remain similar to current
conditions. Periodic harvest of timber may occur in the project watershed and adjacent forest lands,
but this activity should have little effect on the project site.
3.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response
Based on information obtained from the landowner, the shallow drainage ditches were constructed in
the 1940s to dewater the wetland sufficiently for pasture use. An east -west ditch across the northern
perimeter of the site intercepts overland flows from the north, and channels the water into a south -
flowing main ditch that discharges into a natural intermittent stream downslope of the proposed
restoration area. Two additional lateral ditches, one on each side of the main ditch, join the main ditch
about 700 feet south of the ditch at the northern edge. Because the water table is perched over dense
clay and shallow bedrock, these shallow ditches can effectively drain water off a much wider area than
if the soils were more permeable and drainage not limited by a shallow aquitard. Seventy years of
cattle grazing may have further compacted the soils on the site.
It is unclear how far upslope the intermittent receiving stream may have extended prior to clearing and
ditching. The Soil Survey of Person County shows it extending through the TRHWR site and about
500 feet northward beyond the east -west -ditch, almost to the powerline right-of-way (refer back to
Figure 5). However, this map was prepared several decades after clearing and ditching, and the natural
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 19
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

stream versus ditch transition would have been indistinguishable. The areas mapped as "OnA" soils to
the north and west of the TRHWR site have few stream channels depicted. Based on MMI's analysis
and observations in the Denny Store Gabbro Forest to the north (reference site), it is likely that surface
runoff from the TRHWR site prior to ditching flowed southward via multiple indistinct braided
channels, seeps and pools, rather than a discrete stream.
The intermittent stream downslope of the proposed restoration area (lower segment of the TRHWR
connector corridor) has mostly forested banks but is accessible to cattle and thus subject to hoof -shear.
It is unclear to what extent this stream's entrenched condition and bank erosion is due to
channelization decades ago, versus ongoing erosion due to cattle damage. The lowermost 50 -foot
reach of this stream was fenced to exclude cattle (in 2015) before it joins the perennial stream.
4.0 Functional Uplift Potential
The TRHWR site provides an excellent opportunity for wetland restoration. The majority of the site
has redoximorphic features indicating hydric soils, and groundwater monitoring from February to July
2016 (a period with higher than average rainfall) indicates that most of the site has less than 20
consecutive days of shallow saturation (water table within 12 inches of ground surface) except in the
existing wetlands (Figure 6, blue areas). The site was cleared and ditched in the 1940s, or possibly
earlier, and has been used as cattle pasture for many decades. The native hardwood vegetation is sparse
(about a dozen scattered mature oaks, maple, hickory and ash trees remain) and the site's ability to
infiltrate rainfall, filter nutrients and store base flow is impaired. The small watershed draining to the
site (mostly on the Huff property) comprises woodland, corn fields, and a powerline right-of-way; no
buildings or impervious surface exists in this catchment, and no development is planned. The crop
fields, powerline right-of-way, and adjacent pasture areas beside the TRHWR site will likely remain
non -forested.
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 110
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

Figure 6. Existing Conditions and Proposed Project Assets: existing and drained wetlands to be restored, non -
wetlands, ditches to be plugged, and groundwater gauges, Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site.
Cattle fencing, aerating, ditch plugging and reforestation should be effective at improving infiltration,
increasing nutrient uptake by plants and soil microbes, and reducing runoff of eroded soils, excessive
nutrients and fecal bacteria into the receiving ditch and thus into the Tar River tributary a few hundred
feet downstream. With increased water -holding capacity due to the ditch plugs, stream temperature is
expected to fluctuate less widely due to the improved infiltration and shading effects once the trees
grow large enough. Increased shallow ponding in depressions in the restored wetland will provide
breeding habitat for amphibians, dragonflies, and other wildlife that use vernal pool habitats.
The 1.27 -acre area in the southern part of the restoration area that currently lacks sufficient
redoximorphic features to be considered "hydric soil" in 2015 will also become wetter, and might
achieve sufficient hydrology to become part of the wetland. It is unclear whether this area may have
once been hydric, but redoximorphic features have weakened due to oxidation over the 70 years since
it was ditched, or whether it was non -hydric prior to drainage. Since no wetland credit is sought for
this this area; if it does meet wetland hydrology criteria at the end of the monitoring period, it will be a
non -credited "bonus" wetland area.
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 111
Prepared by
MOGENCEN MRIWTIOM1.INC

The connector area between the proposed wetland restoration area and the nutrient and buffer bank
(below the existing vehicle crossing) will be stabilized with tree plantings. No geomorphic
improvements are proposed.
The intermittent stream reach from the vehicle crossing downstream to the buffer bank project
easement is incised (ditched) but has adequate woody root density along the banks. Simply fencing
out the cattle and planting a buffer should provide adequate uplift for this short reach. No geomorphic
improvements are proposed for this reach.
The proximity of the TRHWR site to the Denny Store Gabbro Forest SNHA and presence of rare
species onsite (see section 3.1.2 above) enhances the project's ecological uplift potential. Existing
mature forests within this SNHA are located about 1,000 feet to the north and east of the site and
MMI's adjacent Tar River Headwaters Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank project
(planted in Dec 2015) will provide an additional 18 -acre bridge between the SNHA area and the
TRHWR area. In addition to the rare Swamp White Oaks already on site, several other state -listed rare
plant species known to occur in the adjacent SNHA may colonize the two restored project easements.
Also, since the Upper Tar River Aquatic Habitat SNHA begins just 1.2 miles downstream of the Huff
Farm property, this pair of projects has high potential to benefit the 15 species of protected stream -
dwelling animals (one federally endangered and 14 federal FSC or state -protected) known to occur in
that SNHA.
Constraints on functional uplift are relatively minimal for this project. The watershed does include
some row -crop land and a powerline right-of-way, but no other existing or planned utilities or
development. The existing farm vehicle crossing on the ditch, midway between the wetland project
area and the buffer bank project, will remain unfenced and is not included in the conservation
easement. The FEMA -regulated floodplain along the perennial stream begins about 5,000 feet
downstream of the Huff Farm property (Person County GIS); no FEMA flood -prone lands will be
affected. No hydrologic trespass issues will occur since the site receives runoff from the land to the
north and west. There is a perimeter ditch that will remain along the northern edge of the site. The flow
regime to the areas south and east will not change. In addition, there are no currently or planned
development threats nearby. Any increased ponding generated as a result of implementation will be
entirely within the conservation easement. There is adequate access across the site for construction and
planting crews and required equipment.
No adverse impacts to federally listed species or cultural resources will occur., Attached concurrence
letters from US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
are provided in the Appendix. Historical environmental site assessment data was obtained from
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to evaluate the potential for on-site or nearby soil and
water contamination. The project site is not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR, and there
are no federal or state records of "recognized environmental conditions" within a one -mile radius of
the project site.
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN Page 112
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

5.0 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
The goal of this project is to restore a Headwater Forest wetland community that was cleared, drained
and converted to pasture in the 1940s (according to the landowner). The site topography and presence
of remnant mature swamp white oak and laurel oak trees on the site suggest that the original plant
community may have been Upland Depression Swamp Forest, Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
(Hardpan Subtype), or some intermediate between those types (Schafale and Weakley 1990; Schafale
2012). These headwater wetlands typically have a shorter and more fluctuating hydro -period than
alluvial wetlands along larger streams do, and rely more on rainwater ponding and surface runoff
rather than groundwater seepage or over -bank flooding (Schafale 2012). A similar natural forest
(Denny Store Gabbro Forest) documented by NHP located to the north and east of the site will be used
as a reference wetland for hydrologic comparison and vegetation planning. The project will
complement MMI's ongoing riparian buffer and stream restoration project along the adjacent stream
on the Huff Farm property. Specific project GOALS and corresponding OBJECTIVES include:
GOALS:
• Restore the natural jurisdictional wetland hydro -period to five or more acres of forested
wetland within a nine -acre site;
• Restore forested wetland habitat and improve habitat connectivity between Denny Store
Gabbro Forest (NHP Natural Heritage Area) to the north and the Tar River tributaries;
• Buffer storm water runoff from fecal and other cattle -related pollutants.
OBJECTIVES:
• Plug existing ditches and create sheet flows throughout the site. Aerate soils to reduce
compaction, improve infiltration, and create micro -topography to retain surface flows;
• Preserve the remnant mature Swamp White Oaks (a regionally rare species) for seed source.
Plant appropriate native hardwood trees at a sufficient frequency to establish a diverse
bottomland wetland forest. Treat and/or remove invasive species which may cause problems
for site restoration, including Chinese privet and multi -flora rose;
• Install fencing to exclude cattle and establish a conservation easement to provide permanent
protection on the site.
*The proposed hydro -period and other success criteria are described in the Performance
Standards in Table 4.
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 113
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
6.1 Conceptual Approach
The project involves 7.65 acres of wetland restoration and 1.27 acres of reforestation to non -wetland
areas. Existing on-site ditches appear to be effectively draining surface water from the site during the
growing season. Although the ditches are shallow, their drainage effect is efficient because this
peculiar type of headwater wetland relies on dense clay and/or shallow bedrock to maintain "perched"
wetland hydrology. Observations by the property owner that the existing field remains wet for
prolonged periods during winter suggests that an appropriate growing season hydrology can be
reestablished by ditch plugging. The NHP "Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina" by Schafale & Weakley (1990) describes Forested Headwater Wetlands as typically situated
in poorly drained broad upland flats with seasonal or intermittent saturation, with stable climax forest
communities maintained by their hydro -period.
The overall work approach includes plugging the existing ditches (central north -south ditch and two
lateral ditches) with native clay excavated from the surrounding areas. Existing mature vegetation will
be left intact and the entire project area will be planted with native woody species, fenced, and
protected in perpetuity.
6.2 Wetland Design
This project involves both components (re-establishment and rehabilitation) of the restoration category
for wetland mitigation credit generation. The re-establishment portions of the project are no longer
functioning as jurisdictional wetlands while the rehabilitation areas are functioning at a lower capacity
due to impacts by cattle, altered vegetation and altered hydrology. Eleven groundwater gauges were
installed throughout the project site to monitor pre -restoration groundwater levels and one was
installed in a reference wetland approximately 1,500 linear feet to the northeast (photo in Appendix
2B). Data from these gauges (March to July 2016) were used to distinguish the boundaries between
the re-establishment and rehabilitation acreages as approved by the USACE (Jurisdictional
Determination letter attached).
Based on LIDAR topographic mapping (from NCDOT LIDAR Contours) the watershed draining to
the wetland restoration site is approximately 20 acres with an average slope of 1-2%. The relatively
flat topography in this area makes watershed boundaries difficult to discern, and subsurface geologic
and soil features may divert flow in ways not apparent based on ground surface topography. This
watershed is undeveloped, containing natural hardwood forest, planted pines, cropland, pasture, and a
powerline. The only man-made structures in the watershed are two powerline towers. The dense soil
in the TRHWR area is a natural feature of Wehadkee soils, but long-term pasture use may have
compacted it further. Hydrology on the site is from direct precipitation and surface runoff during large
storm events from the small watershed, mostly to the north.
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 114
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

The main drainage ditch flows southward through the TRHWR site, with roughly 80% of the easement
area located west of the ditch and 20% east of the ditch. A perpendicular ditch runs east -west across
the northern perimeter of the site, forming a T-shape with the main ditch. The perimeter ditch collects
surface flows from the upstream watershed area. Two additional lateral ditches (one to the east, one to
the west) join the main ditch about 700 feet south of the "T" at the northern edge. All of these
drainage ditches are shallow, primarily intended to channel surface runoff and shallow sub -surface
flow, rather than deeper groundwater. Bedrock and/or hard clay was observed between 15 and 40
inches deep over most of the TRHWR site, supporting a perched seasonal water table. The main ditch
becomes an intermittent stream (as determined by DWR in June 2013) about 250 feet southeast of the
site
6.3 Hydroperiod Justification
The hydrology of the existing on-site wetlands is affected mainly by precipitation, surface water run-
off from the contributing watershed, and the presence of an impervious clay layer, creating a perched
water table. The existing hydrologic regime at the site is altered due to surface water removal via a
main north -south ditch and two small lateral ditches. These ditches are not at a depth sufficient to
affect groundwater but serve to quickly remove runoff from the contributing watershed. A water
budget was calculated to determine the volume of water at the TRHWR pre and post wetland
restoration. In order to calculate the water budget, the following assumptions were made:
• The precipitation amount and distribution throughout the year will be constant pre- and post -
restoration.
• Surface water runoff from the contributing watershed is currently leaving TRHWR through the
main north -south ditch.
• Surface water runoff from the contributing watershed post restoration will remain on-site.
• Surface water runoff from TRHWR will be reduced post restoration due to the establishment of
forest -type vegetation and the plugging of the on-site ditches.
• The groundwater inflow and outflow will be constant pre and post restoration.
• Evapotranspiration of the contributing watershed is constant pre -and post -restoration.
• Evapotranspiration of TRHWR is greater post restoration due to the establishment of forested -
type vegetation instead of the current pasture land use.
• Inflow to the TRHWR site is based on direct precipitation plus runoff entering the site from the
north and northwest portion (20 acres) of the overall watershed (Figure 4). Inflow from the
east and southwest portions of the watershed may also contribute to groundwater hydrology on
the site, but the contributing drainage to those areas is not as readily directed into a ditch for
quick off-site conveyance and were not included in the inflow calculations.
The water budget (Appendix 2) indicated there would be an additional 467,000 cubic feet of water held
on-site for the TTHWR post restoration, which is equivalent to an additional 14.4 inches of water on
the site yearly or an additional 1-1.5 inches of water per month across the site, depending on
precipitation. The additional volume of water will infiltrate through the soil profile and result in
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 115
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

increased hydroperiods post -restoration activities. Ancillary benefits from this project that include
increased organic matter and reduced rainfall impact from herbaceous growth, and development of soil
structure and biology through reduction of animal compaction may further improve soil water holding
capacity and soil infiltration rates, benefitting hydrology.
The TRHWR currently has 11 gauges that monitored pre -restoration groundwater levels from April to
June 2016. Four of these gauges (A, E, H, & J) are located within the proposed rehabilitation areas,
deemed by the USACE as jurisdictional wetlands (Appendix 2). The additional precipitation volume
predicted from the water budget should increase the hydrology and hydrologic footprint of these
rehabilitation areas. In the areas proposed for reestablishment, additional precipitation volume
predicted from the water budget should raise hydroperiods to those mimicking current jurisdictional
(rehabilitation) areas.
MMI installed a reference wetland monitoring well in a natural area matching the design wetland
approximately 1,500 feet northeast of the site on 31 March 2016 (Figure 6). The water table has
remained within 12 inches of the ground surface at this well almost continuously from Apr 1 to July 5,
aside from a six-day period in mid-June when it dropped 1 to 2 inches lower. Local rain data indicate
that many months of current year exceed historical 70th percentiles for wetness as shown in figure 7,
below.
s_oa
7.00
6.00
a 5.00
s
u
e
4.00
a
2 3.00
ai
2,00
1.00
0.00
Tar River Wetlands Percentile Graph for Rainfall 2016
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Date
Mean Rainfall 2016 30th Percentile -80th Percentile
Figure 7. Mean monthly rainfall with 30 -year percentiles, Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site. *Historical
rainfall data referenced from USDA Field Office Database for Station: 'Roxboro 7 ESE' from years 1981-2010.
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN Page 116
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

Although the average hydroperiod for these four rehabilitation gauges was measured at approximately
13.2%, the rainfall during this same timeframe was 75% greater than the average and therefore
significantly higher than normal. It can be assumed that these elongated hydroperiods shown in the
pre -restoration gauge data are consistent with elevated rainfall events given that this is a precipitation
driven system. Based on the gauge data and its relationship to precipitation for this system, along with
predicted increases in water on-site from the water budget, MMI believes a target proposed
hydroperiod of 10% is realistic for the reestablishment gauges.
The proposed restoration area is relatively flat, with a gradient slope of approximately 1.2%. Most of
the underlying soils are hydric except for some slightly drier areas along the southern portion. The
soils in this area exhibit slightly higher chroma values and less distinct redoximorphic features. The
proposed ditch plugs are designed to decrease surface runoff, increase saturation frequency and
duration throughout the site, so that even the drier areas are likely to attain wetland hydrology criteria.
6.4 Site Preparation and Construction
Riparian wetland restoration at the Site will occur through wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation
of existing wetlands, on an area approximately 500 feet upstream of a jurisdictional stream. This work
will be accomplished by placing multiple clay plugs within the main surface water drainage ditches
throughout the Site. The clay plugs will be placed to maximize the retention of surface water. Ditch
remnants will be left as natural depressions to increase surface ponding capacity and act as vernal
pools in the spring. The majority of the re-establishment area will be aerated to a depth of no greater
than six inches in order to avoid disrupting the clay layer. Areas within the dripline of large trees and
the wetland rehabilitation areas will not be aerated.
Onsite soil samples were sent to GeoTesting Express lab (test results available) and the results indicate
that onsite clays may exceed the liquid limit and plasticity index specified in the construction plans in
Appendix 1. Therefore, we will amend the onsite soils to be used for plugs with a sufficient percentage
of imported fine sand or silt to conform to the plan specifications. The percentage of fine sand or silt
per ton of soil will be determined by laboratory testing prior to construction. The fine sand or silt will
be mixed with native clay to create a consistent medium for the soil plugs prior to installation. In the
event the on-site soils are unable to meet the required specifications off-site soils will be used.
6.5 Vegetation and Planting Plan
The TRHWR Site planting plan will attempt to restore a native vegetation community similar to what
presumably occurred on the site prior to its conversion to pasture use in the 1940s. The nine -acre
project site contains about a dozen large trees, several of which appear older than 70 years and
probably pre -date the conversion to pasture. As previously mentioned, these include willow oak,
swamp white oak, silver maple (Acer saccharinum), boxelder (Acer negundo), sweetgum
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 117
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

(Liquidambar styraciflua), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The target
community for the planting plan is based on the existing remnant species in the pasture, species in
adjacent forests, and published descriptions for this community type (Schafale and Weakley 1990;
LeGrand 2007). The relative uniformity of the restoration area makes it unnecessary to designate
planting zones for different species.
Table 2. Plant Species for Wetland Restoration and Riparian Stabilization
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Status
Size
Trees (At least six species depending on availability)
Iver Birch
Betula nigra
FACW
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
Black Gum
Nyssa sylvatica
FAC
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvaticum
FACW
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
Tulip Popl
Liriodendron tulipifera
FAC
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
Swamp White Oak
Quercus bicolor
FACW
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
Cherrybark Oak
Quercus pagoda
FACU
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
American Sycamore
Plantanus occidentalis
FACW
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
American Elm
Ulmus americana
FACW
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
Laurel Oak
Quercus laurifolia
FACW
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
Pin Oak
Quercus palustris
FACW
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
Overcup Oak
Quercus lyrata
FACW
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
ornbeam (Musclewood)
Carpinus caroliniana
FAC
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
Swamp Blackgum[Alyssa
biflora
FACW
3/8" cal. 18-24 "
Note: A minimum of seven species will be planted, depending on availability.
Trees to be planted will be selected from species listed in Table 2. After aerating the compacted soil
surface (except within the drip line of large trees to be protected), trees will be planted initially at 9 to
10 -foot average spacing (400 to 500 stem per acre). Gallon -size saplings will be planted using post -
hole diggers, and smaller stock will be planted using Dibble bars or similar equipment. Native herbs
are abundant on the site and will not require seeding in most areas, except where grading will occur.
Soil has been analyzed by the Person County Extension Service and found to be low in lime and
Phosphorus. We will utilize fertilizer and lime as indicated in the soil tests. No other added soil
amendments are planned. Site preparation will involve spraying for weed control except in the existing
wetlands as they contain a diverse array of desirable native perennial and herbaceous herbs, and few
exotics. Fall spraying was used on the adjacent stream buffer project to kill fescue and other non-
native pasture grasses and resulted in dense growth of opportunistic native herbaceous plants which is
preferable to fescue.
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 118
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

6.6 Mitigation Credit Generation Summary
Table 3. Mitigation Acreages and Project Assets
7.0 Monitoring and Performance Standards
7.1 Monitoring Plan
In order to determine success across the site, vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and
monitored across the Site in accordance with the "Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines
(February 2014)." The number and locations of the permanent monitoring quadrants will be
established within the areas enhanced by planting. At least 2% of the planted area will have 100 -meter
square vegetation plots that will be located and surveyed immediately after construction. Vegetation
monitoring plots will not be installed under existing tree canopies. Vegetation monitoring will occur in
the fall (between September and November), prior to the loss of leaves.
Each annual monitoring report must be submitted to DMS by December 1 st of the year during which
the monitoring was conducted. The project success criteria of 260 stems per acre must be met at the
end of the 7th year of monitoring, or monitoring will continue until the success criteria are met.
Eleven self -recording groundwater monitoring gauges have been installed to gather pre -restoration
data to assist with water budget analysis. These gauges will be removed during construction and
replaced immediately after restoration activities have been completed. The gauges will determine the
shallow groundwater hydrology during the monitoring period. The restored hydrology will need to be
at least 10% of the growing season.
7.2 Performance Standards
Project success criteria is based on vegetation success, achieving jurisdictional hydrology, and
permanent cattle exclusion. See Table 4 below.
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN Page 119
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC
Mitigation Acreages and Project Assets
Feature
Area /Length
Mitigation Type
Credits Generated
Riparian Wetland
1.12 ac
Rehabilitation 1:1.5
0.75
Riparian Wetland
6.53 ac
Re-establishment (1:1)
6.53
Upland
1.27 ac
Reforestation
0
TOTALS
8.92 ac
RWMC
7.28
7.0 Monitoring and Performance Standards
7.1 Monitoring Plan
In order to determine success across the site, vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and
monitored across the Site in accordance with the "Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines
(February 2014)." The number and locations of the permanent monitoring quadrants will be
established within the areas enhanced by planting. At least 2% of the planted area will have 100 -meter
square vegetation plots that will be located and surveyed immediately after construction. Vegetation
monitoring plots will not be installed under existing tree canopies. Vegetation monitoring will occur in
the fall (between September and November), prior to the loss of leaves.
Each annual monitoring report must be submitted to DMS by December 1 st of the year during which
the monitoring was conducted. The project success criteria of 260 stems per acre must be met at the
end of the 7th year of monitoring, or monitoring will continue until the success criteria are met.
Eleven self -recording groundwater monitoring gauges have been installed to gather pre -restoration
data to assist with water budget analysis. These gauges will be removed during construction and
replaced immediately after restoration activities have been completed. The gauges will determine the
shallow groundwater hydrology during the monitoring period. The restored hydrology will need to be
at least 10% of the growing season.
7.2 Performance Standards
Project success criteria is based on vegetation success, achieving jurisdictional hydrology, and
permanent cattle exclusion. See Table 4 below.
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN Page 119
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

Table 4. Performance Standards and Monitoring Approach
GOAL
OBJECTIVE
PERFORMANCE
MONITORING
STANDARD
APPROACH
Restore natural hydro-
Plug existing ditches and
Water must be on or
Utilize 8 shallow
period for headwater
create sheet flow
within 12 inches of the
groundwater self -reading
forest wetland.
throughout the site.
surface for 10% of the
gauges throughout the site
Aerate soils to reduce
growing season measured
at a frequency of about
compaction, improve
from March 1 to
one per acre. Visual
infiltration, and create
November 3.
inspection of ponding
micro -topography to
Hydrographs will indicate
duration.
retain surface flows.
jurisdictional hydrology.
Restore forested wetland
Preserve mature swamp
Survival of 260 stems per
Monitor vegetation plots
habitat and improve
white oak trees for seed
acre at MY 7, with no
annually and calculate
habitat connectivity with
source. Plant appropriate
bare or low-density areas
densities of surviving
existing forests.
native hardwood trees at
greater than 0.25 acre.
planted stems.
10 -ft average spacing
(435 stems/ac) Treat
invasive species.
Buffer storm water runoff
Plant trees, fence
Insure the integrity of the
Visual inspection will
from fecal and other
perimeter and establish a
cattle exclusion fencing
note fence condition
cattle -related nutrient
permanent conservation
for the life of the contract.
through site pictures.
inputs.
easement.
Observations will be
included in annual
monitoring reports.
8.0 Site Management Plans
8.1 Adaptive Management Plan
Experienced environmental professionals from MMI will supervise project construction and planting.
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the
necessary performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the
members of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
8.2 Long Term Management Plan
The site will be transferred to the DEQ Stewardship Program (or Yd party if approved). This party shall
serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct
periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are
upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an
endowment is established. The DEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within
the non -reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Account. The use of funds from
the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A -232(d)(3).
Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring,
stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The Stewardship Program will
periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings as needed. Any livestock or
associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility of the landowner to maintain.
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN Page 120
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

9.0 References
LeGrand, H.E. Jr., 2007. Natural Areas Inventory of Person County, NC. NC Natural Heritage
Program, Raleigh NC.
Michigan Department of Transportation, 2006. Drainage Manual. Available:
http://www.michigan.gov/stormwatermgt/0,1607,7-205--93193--,00.html.
Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1995. Hydric Soils of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, 2016 Online Database NCNHP.
Oishi, C., Oren, R., Novick, K., Palmroth, S., and Katul, G. 2010. Interannual Invariability of Forest
Evapotransporation and Its Consequence to Water Flow Downstream.
Schafale, M.P., Weakley, A.S.,1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M.P., Weakley, A.S. (2012). Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Fpurth Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Threatened and Endangered Species, 2010. Online Database USFWS.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1997. Engineering Field Handbook. 210-EFH, Part 650,
1/92, revised 1997.
United States Department of Agriculture, Field Office Climate Data, 2016. Roxboro Station,
Available: htt2:Hagacis.rcc-acis.org/37145/mtot.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1995. Soil Survey
of Person County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2016. Web Soil
Survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/
United States Geological Survey, 2013. 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle, Triple Springs.
Tar River Headwaters Site - MITIGATION PLAN Page 121
Prepared by
M06ENSEiJ MRIGpTION. HVC

Appendix 1.
Plan Sheets
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared by
M6G£NSEN MRIs-ATION.INC

LOCATION
-
TAR RIVER HEADWATERS WETLAND
ivnx
SITE
RESTORATION SITE
PO4)T16 429 GZ90N, INC.
28227
armee 2
_NC
PERSON COUNTY, NC
IMS # 97071
0
DEQ CONTRACT # 6746
Ln
WETLAND REHABILITATION: 1.12 AC
WETLAND RE-ESTABLISHMENT: 6.53 AC
z U
O Z
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Z w
W�o�
x� U W
DIRECTIONS. TO PROTECT SITE
N-t
�r1 �
- FROM OXFORD, NC HEAD NORTH ON HWY 96
y Z O
- TURN LEFT ONTO US-158 HEADING WEST
fes'
- TURN LEFT ONTO OLD ROXBORO RD
IN WALNUT GROVE
h^I�rrj
<
- TURN LEFT ONTO ROXBORO ROAD.
- CONTINUE ONTO US-158 WEST
/.
G
- TURN RIGHT ONTO OLD ROXBORO RD.
t.
W
- CONTINUE ONTO DENNY'S STORE RD.
-TURN RIGHT ONTO BUNNY HUFF RD.
- SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 0.1 MILE ON THE LEFT
Fes.
V
m
CD
n
o
C?
rn
O
a�
� g
w
m
A
NroNauuc
ENGINEER
PRHLIMw �AR�mPLAN3
ENGotN��I(&
NC FIRM LICENSE Na: F-1148
1151 SECaryP Ir .y
Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
[919]557-0929
LOCATION
r
VICINITY MAP

CONSTRUCTION SEOUENCE AND GENERAL NOTES
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
I ti ,g v er.w ipde. a m mnaoa-. mJ accrs.. r.W, xtill Ee idmtitied wu ]uwml
aawding w J1e C'.nlstnlcuau Ikrwlnl�u•
I1 J. •. [ rs Ai Is lkd al.tw Bwua H tl Rd. IhraWh Mr HUTS Parpery and
_the 1'1N I ar Ri,er nnJ .Ial im The I C'amml Phmsf wthe[re FIVY
1
I lNe c. drn 9nr will 117.1811 nh fencing al npph.ahle iupinp w d F tl nrcn.. a.+n aW m the I:mnilm cemml
a, ll.c pn�prweJ o,sliun.[I he Ln ed e. darn. em the [onarouritn IAxromml. rue.l kl hmr. xdl be
f.k6kY .i..d'6ythc Ekig;—.
5. Ilk C'rwtroew II—kptle, .1: mJ-pluldl .S.g aa.
N 1 xcavaml not 1111 I, tack[:[. x:11 li kw -Mo. and xdu w. tt ea tool guidelin n.. thea dwed ur
nul.1 ial ak npr and srce]quling
7 'fhe Cmlmcrn 11 beg..—,ka411wgslay pinpe ". the three Jmmngs J,wh m IaeAN k-.q"ed In
the Cavma:li. Ilya Nu` ,rr the d-11- ar the 11111S- them -11 M a —1 ,.r eiphi clay P1ale"
1717.11.1 m the twee J.".ge J kh—
p. ll. L'amrarlor *+ill imaall hnm 1. dl ng. a J m- nu4Yl palm -WmFg u, mpktxkrk,py 4—.d in
die Luwwcatm lkwYrmmte L'.
...-'d plenl Ill. n. d _Ih rrallmpe.
9. [he Ctimrw:tm will ire reg- hk f the appim.xm ofx d a W M— ­ r my die.,bcd �,..
GENERAL NOTES
I. All sl.wirmx shnsnl.xl Ih ti.•pinnr w.• ref nuced W. NAVD148 Jmum.
'th k p f 14 ey p 1 I.J .a -d png w.d r. t I., I,- hx d 11. n lhsr�•
A- I 1..C.T Gate g ami a�'. Wnp h- aPpmstmat pl I. ... L and
tloeauwa will Ec fidd doom: x Ih h d.-..pmrr.
3. Cmtnlewr 1i JL,polr of oil xwle --al ofsil' ew in aeennlnnee xlg, all krkral. stay, and ]..I
lar
J. All J ay IMd wm will he smdaJ nlutl.Yhalck m q- 11 -P 7 g, pry l Y recifieolims
S. C,.MVr w pnF' kmp-,y pla I Mddmg x - Mle Im 1 n:qa ry J. pv f 9011111- 1mnsP1am1
'rr r1w, w hs kpl..incl m. h 1 and4"-dm Ill s IFKN4fwd mthepr.li 1ys r mins.
b,
0­Pen:m l J IJ pwk ll wh.1. with Ih k +af lh. da to led uae }anpm
.6,,a
All o , 4 q- aryl w h k, .huukl he part,0 wish h t a Ing •a. whew
7. C' -m wr a1u11 W a-spm.dde fur imply ng wig, NC]]f d? requinY >v It. Imllwheg. 1wt wN 1n ed In
-.-F rain p ra J-_ ror.a f II amo mddo alx<1io rat __ed
raw IJas kly pmw and am,+hc tpfa rl gAxu oo. fag -L
8. lx mom wili.-wl11 l he I. . [ he f Id xry we shaven h r rcriv. type a1W I k.."
nely Thu phut c nay a ­pi—me in.mauy .n on m hull Imre or exiv g Ie ufl.i., 'lhe
C'mina-r a w dslarwulc t1w exiJalne awl kxmnm of nR wilitie-.n x 1l' the wnik nay.
4, theCmlanr Judi la,• raspr.I.hk ra the 1 x tion ".I ra[xwrm or ell oLilgw and -d ­ 11M wah the
epprnpwle uulny egrney nr e,nrga+ny. The L -ml aur ix rcyoned weWl hef re dippag
111, my d.-, Cmuaewr will Ue rcq.nr;Ek lie apo.. n. 1u a w., Milian, Im:lWiog Em nra lr d m,
—b.d mal w kFga d W.— ..b and --yguua. pnrn .Wm..Lk,. sI— dray...[, xy,oeau, y
a -d w-I- .a f- ­g MY ,qm. d r poi. w be mwh•'m —,J-- xr01 >,q and .19 alrpli..eWc .m[e
leu mwlietipalilya udiiy nS—y nlW.&
II. ThC nr >hd knp the prq t ulk c1— flnsr mWeac. dit, malit
12 Sv I1 gw M1ec �[ wd Ixng 47 -Isles[ t iii. M-173
-1 a1'hwl M-
..Ill' 1 y-17_0
rat nr,Yll of AASII rP h1 145 f. 1 a if m A-2. A•15. awl A 7 p �ided h Wend, J.., ml
Mie a INpIJ Ihrutprsnw[ th iIV. to maoa J nc.kah7 ty k. [6.x17.. a1W rnlaactirn, tM1c
r.11 vp"'ia dwll apply I' Plamwq mks 017:
a. 13slnw wma,ahtc Pl anal kr. pleNerllN 7 end Ic,� JI® ]5
h. Ah,..r waw tnEk: P1 17.17 he gleatrr tha177 mid leR+rMn 35
PIaJ.i„Iy nude•. J.11 he dela d is .,,ad -e xmh AASWD 1W mI.E the I ray Immo Jmll 1e
dpc d.. oe card—tee wish AASI I'ro 17W
ivm
MpwlaLYtmYFhWK
PO Bax fiEN C 0N, INC.
(704)576-11128227
z
0
Gi]
uz
O
� z W
w� oO pW
Q c w"
�z E
H �]
rte.
V �
m
O o
z
orn
O g
cm)
CD
C?Fri r
I+a N z
PRHLIMMMw �AR�mPLAN3
...k�(&iN
NC FIRM LICENSE No: F-1148
1151 S11 -
S... _
ECary.101
Cary, NC 27518
t919155' mn

IMPERVIOUS CLAY
lvmff
MATERIAL
CLAY
PLUG
Poao:bso zs ° °"' INC.
()0 )5>5-111 82
-Nd—
FLOW
O
IMPERVIOUS CLAY
All
MATERIAL
1' MIN
A
A NATURAL
—A
GROUND
�� 3;
cn
Z
3.1 y
�t Z
I
3 H
117=1T(-1Tf1T(-1Tf—
1f=1Tf— 1T( —
Q
�
I
SECTION B B
o
U e�
�z a
B
P4
w
P�
Hw
3
PLAN
m
oz
o
c
V
N O
p a
— NATURAL GROUND
2" MIN.
P-1
w
4RnuuC
z
SECTION A -A
IMPERVIOUS CLAY
ENGINEER
PRb LMwRmPANS
MATERIAL
NOTES:
CLAY PLUG TO BE CONSTRUCTED
USING IMPERVIOUS CLAY MATERIAL.
CLAY PLUG TO BE A MINIMUM OF
O]ECO�QECC�I�
20' LONG IN THE DIRECTION OF FLOW.
ENG
NC FIRM LICENSE No: F-1148
1151 SE Cary -I -.y
Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
[919]55)-0929

eee�� ::::::::::::..... eeeeeeeeEeeeeeeeeee::::::
::: v.::: e:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
2 in a post
1 WOVEN WIRE
Tnig a E msw
g, n tay 1 min t4 y g antl gyres.
PuiRESSURE TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOO:r'I
owmnin in iev/cu.n
Pw P4Mi PgYhk
dy«swnwr
wrra.r u a
w�rrmrrr x
u�u.�mop• A.sarAo.a.� cam. Am.
II' Tia company. p r�oanon E+�.pt C -A .neon �: u. reoommao
.Wat�
y A or smp.on S g
Drawing not to scale. Standardized drawing must be o opted to Me specific site.
SOURCE: U.C. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE..
DDEEILNWWARRERCOSSECR-I00NOERV�ACC.ILLS BERJICE
WOVEN WIRE FENCING i ;1
DETAILS
FENCING
NOT TO SCALE
I INSBIF. DIMF,NS10N9 ARE MEJIMUAT CLEAR DISTANCES.
REQUIRRD.TO MEEF ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS.
2 ,�SEDRaW�N�sAR —CALDR—CFI NDMAYREQ—
lvm
PO Bax EN ` GATION, INC.
barlotte NC 28227
.. abS.kMo9enXn. p�ldent
z
O
O � Z
Cn w ~O
1� Z
PRHLIMw �AR�mPLAN3
...k�(&iN
NC FIRM LICENSE No: F-1148
1151 SE Cary Parkway
i[c 101
Cary, NC 27518
F, 'I) IS7 LIB

ivnx
PO Bax EN M —10N, INC.
LEGEND NOTES:
C_
LEGEND siA-ii1'E
1. CONTRACTOR WILL AERATE P -Nd -1
Cp CLAY PLUG NON -JURISDICTIONAL AREAS.
2. CONTOUR INTERVAL SHOWN AT 0.2'.
3. CLAY PLUGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED
�y
-PROJECT BOUNDARY WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 20'.
INSTALL WOVEN WIRE
FENCE PER SPECS
ALONG CONSERVATION
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL \
WETLANDS (NO AERATION,
PLANTING ONLY) \ U
U
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND E 0
(NO AERATION, PLANTING ONLY)
w
RETAIN EXISTING H O
DRAINAGE FEATURE
�z� a ;ZI
co
cc
o \\�
o m z o
a � CII"1
\ 0. "�
�0.
o
V
f
1'4
H—AULIC
ENGINEERFEER
PABLDmS� PLANS
OOEN.k> (&iN
250 NC FIRM LICENSE No: F-1148
1151 SECaryParkway
Suite 101
SCALE CaNC 27518
F9
7-0929

Seeding Summary for Permanent Vegetation per Planting Zone
nmr aaaa
1'r rnn wn+16t1e ILr �Ii.�li+.+I
ili.lnrh yl nFrn.
am.a
is
Ahrrs
PAW
r,�r,=1nn�+
4+lilm,rmu7n
i1uTh
r��Rl.r
SITE
STABILIZATION
PLAN
aen eFnxv
arya[ml
Srnnrh mi€le!
�
nmurum �fnmihNnan
N Y 4L leaf. ka•r
S. n�lnh[r - k1:u SI
Oav can a
F{erh
Hrah
Grmw!! mHk9
ihi�haN uxr
_ ±'� [I+yuE
Y5 jhsfac
!
+tech
hvN
fur
v+ mI¢evlq'M^
13 lsael
)3{15%y
ra a ml
aPerm. 10
POxfi9029 G0N, INC.
8 4
Wawa4duauf
a1prD2h P�wnnDme
HON
++eN
son Rush
DPlard hmtpxs
16 11
1651(sxy
In+� iKr
SuhEeW
i5613a0%I
(704)57;-11128227
z
SD 3.a
0
SOIL AMENDMENTS
TEMPORARY SEEDING
VEGETATIVE SPECIESLn
SOIL PREPARATION AND AMENDMENT SUMMARY
All ocher Areas
114ieb1n Easement
enundary
Acres
..,..
APPrn%.
Mulcn
z
Mechanical
Ground
Mulchfiypr
riensleyJ
IQ WtrkenE
Nntrfent
¢zU-e
z
Treatment
Data
Caval FsErle
Thickness
Amrndmanfs
Total Ph,
C)
3� o
Na
nla
nfa nJa
nJa
DAP PB-0fi-D
SSD
nJa
n]a
nla nfa
n,+a
nJa
nG*
H
n,Ia
"la
n/a nla
nla
n/a
nl,l
x� O N
PERMANENT SEEDING
VEGETATIVE SPECIES
wbeeml
BSD
wj Q O H
Total
$
�z W
m
oz
o
WETLAND REHABILITATION
AREAS
aEXCLUDE
Om
�r
a
c?
IJy
N Z
N K
P
—AULIC
ENGINEER
PRHLIMw �AR�mPLANa
...k��It-iN
NC FIRM LICENSE No: F-1148
E Cary Parkway
1151 S11-
101
1.
Cary, NC 27518
[919)55)-0929
Seeding Summary for Permanent Vegetation per Planting Zone
nmr aaaa
1'r rnn wn+16t1e ILr �Ii.�li+.+I
ili.lnrh yl nFrn.
am.a
is
Ahrrs
T13
r,�r,=1nn�+
4+lilm,rmu7n
i1uTh
r��Rl.r
i�nil�n.
xnyuam Pranen,r
AAn v I.anhvrHL•rh
aen eFnxv
arya[ml
Srnnrh mi€le!
J41hs+4c
nmurum �fnmihNnan
N Y 4L leaf. ka•r
S. n�lnh[r - k1:u SI
Oav can a
F{erh
Hrah
Grmw!! mHk9
ihi�haN uxr
_ ±'� [I+yuE
Y5 jhsfac
!
+tech
hvN
fur
v+ mI¢evlq'M^
13 lsael
)3{15%y
ra a ml
aPerm. 10
Wawa4duauf
a1prD2h P�wnnDme
HON
++eN
son Rush
DPlard hmtpxs
16 11
1651(sxy
In+� iKr
SuhEeW
i5613a0%I
SD 3.a
Seeding Summary for Permanent Vegetation per Planting Zone
nmr aaaa
1'r rnn wn+16t1e ILr �Ii.�li+.+I
ili.lnrh yl nFrn.
am.a
is
Ahrrs
T13
r,�r,=1nn�+
4+lilm,rmu7n
i1uTh
r��Rl.r
i�nil�n.
xnyuam Pranen,r
AAn v I.anhvrHL•rh
aen eFnxv
arya[ml
Srnnrh mi€le!
J41hs+4c
nmurum �fnmihNnan
N Y 4L leaf. ka•r
S. n�lnh[r - k1:u SI
Oav can a
F{erh
Hrah
Grmw!! mHk9
ihi�haN uxr
_ ±'� [I+yuE
Y5 jhsfac
!
+tech
hvN
fur
v+ mI¢evlq'M^
13 lsael
)3{15%y
ra a ml
aPerm. 10
Wawa4duauf
a1prD2h P�wnnDme
Seeding Summary for Permanent Vegetation per Planting Zone
nmr aaaa
am.a
is
tl Date
Saetllf Mime
5gralrm
Csnmae m--
Taal Ibs
xnyuam Pranen,r
cera
aen eFnxv
arya[ml
nim
nmurum �fnmihNnan
+ceh
Oav can a
31 {aD9el
.•.
^nGlietl uo
Earn rvlpnadra
Ey+rus •yar^kUr
+tech
hvN
fur
v+ mI¢evlq'M^
13 lsael
)3{15%y
ra a ml
aPerm. 10
Wawa4duauf
a1prD2h P�wnnDme
HON
++eN
son Rush
DPlard hmtpxs
16 11
1651(sxy
In+� iKr
SuhEeW
i5613a0%I

LEGEND
ivnx
fi9U429 GPTION, INC.
PO'EN
M1 11 NE 28227
(704)S)k-111
TREE PLANTING AREA
P,e ld-1
2
PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL
WETLAND
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
u
¢z
� z
N 1°44'32" E
Q-]
94 .25'
Q CC z
W O
W
410
z
H3
co
Do
a
m
o
o
0�
�+
zA
O
g
aC:)
w
W
m
A
o
�z
978.95'
H—AULIG
ENGINEER
PABLDm�S� PLANS
ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERI G
25�0
-
NC FIRM LICENSE Na: F-1148
1151SE LICENSE
Suite 101
SCALE
Cary,NC 27518
[919]SS7 —1

Appendix 2.
Hydrologic Data
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared by
M6G£NSEN MRIs-ATION.INC

4 w ` w r• a
aA*; r e♦txfd 3Tnn1 0/��VU
#�
4 �,�r �l Tx ( ��! r+" -ark,, '.. ► � +fir ^�+,�•y� � � � {_ .
e v7n r a
1 c 6 t4 h` p
IL
a(f '1`-th
ey rr;' P7�^ i`t r �
A_
O
I
F-2
O` w
C-2
•
Legend '.
Gauge Locations .,
No Credit
Re-establishment
O Rehabilitation
-, Wetland Re-establishment 6.5 acres (6.5 WMUs)
Wetland Rehabilitation 1.1 acres (0.7 WMUs)
r
4
N
W+E
S
1
Prepared By:
Pre -Restoration Gauge Locations
Tar River Headwaters Wetland 0 100 200
Restoration Site
ECOLOGICAL Person County, NC 1" = 200'
VENGINEERING
P ks tl SL iiry fuAwry, tiuirr 7 n � . a_ary k(.; P 53 K

Water Budget Methodology and Input Data
Development of the water budget follows equations presented in the Engineering Field Handbook
(USDA, 1997). The following equations were used to determine the inflow, outflow and water available
for storage on-site.
AS/At = Q; - Q.
Where. AS/At = change in water volume per unit time
Q; = flow rate of water entering wetland
Q. = flow rate of water exiting wetland
Q;=P+R;+B;+G;+P;+T;
Where: P = direct precipitation
R; = stormwater runoff from contributing drainage area
B; = base flow from streams entering wetland
G; = groundwater entering wetland
P; = water pumped or artificially added to the wetland
T; = tidal flow into wetland
Qo = R + T + Ro + Bo + Go + Po + To
Where: E = evaporation from surface
T = transpiration
Ro = stormwater runoff from site
Bo = base flow leaving wetland
Go = groundwater leaving wetland
Po = water pumped or artificially removed from wetland
To = tidal flow out of wetland
Inflow
Precipitation
The average annual precipitation over the last 30 years was 42.36 inches, per the USDA Field Office
Climate Data as recorded in Roxboro. Over the square footage of the property and contributing
watershed, a volume of 4,443,860 ft3 of rainfall was calculated.
Stormwater Runoff
The stormwater runoff was calculated using an equation presented in the Michigan Division of
Transportation Drainage Manual.
Determine weighted curve number for watershed:
CN -weighted=( CN;*A;)/ A;
CN; NRCS curve number for sub -area i
Aj= Number of sub -areas
Determine minimum amount of precipitation that will cause runoff.
I=0.2 ((1000/CNweighted)-10
Contributing Watershed Surface Water Runoff
I= 0.2((1000/80.5)
Calculate surface runoff based on runoff triggering events: (See spreadsheet)

SRO= (P-0.2S)2/(P+0.8S) (inches)
S=[(1000/CN)-10] (inches)
It was assumed the surface water runoff from the contributing watershed left the project site through the
main north -south ditch.
Base Flow
Base flow is assumed to be zero.
Groundwater Flow
The groundwater flow was assumed to be constant pre- and post -restoration.
Artificially Added Water
There is no water artificially added to the project site.
Tidal Flow
The water level in the wetlands is not influenced by tidal flows.
Outflow
Evapotranspiration (E + T)
The loss of water due to evaporation and transpiration (ET) was calculated using the Thornthwaite
Method. Temperature data was obtained from the USDA Field Office Climate Data as recorded in
Roxboro.
ET = 1.6*(10*Ta / I)a
Where: ET = Evapotranspiration
Ta = mean monthly air temperature (°C)
I = heat index over 12 months
a = 0.49 + 0.0179*1- 0.0000771 *I2 + 0.000000675 *I3
I = sum of 12 i values
i = (Ta / 5) 1.514
Where: i = monthly heat index
Ta = mean monthly air temperature (°C)
Water loss due to evapotranspiration pre -restoration is 27 inches per year (877,912 ft'/year) due to a heat
index of 63.72. The value of "a" calculates to 1.492.
Water loss due to evapotranspiration post -restoration is 41 inches per year, assuming a forested land cover
(1,324587 ft3/year). (Oishi, C. et al, 20 10)
The evapotranspiration of the contributing watershed was assumed to remain constant pre- and post -
restoration.
Stormwater Runoff
Stormwater runoff was assumed to leave only from the 8.9 acres restoration site in the post restoration
condition. The runoff from the contributing watershed remains on-site during the post restoration
condition. (See spreadsheet)
Race Flow

Base flow is assumed to be zero.
Groundwater Flow
The groundwater flow was assumed to be constant pre- and post -restoration.
Artificially Added Water
There is no water artificially removed from the project site.
Tidal Flow
The water level in the wetlands is not influenced by tidal flows.
Summary
Inflow Pre -Restoration
P =
4,443,860 ft3
R;=0ft'
B;=0ft'
G;=0ft'
P;=0ft,
Ti
= 0 ft3
Q; = 4,443,860 ft3
Outflow Pre -Restoration
E + T = 877,912 ft3
Ro = 384,543 ft3 (contributing watershed) + 252,488ft3(easement with pasture)
Bo=0ft3
Go=0ft3
Po=0ft3
To=0ft3
Qo = 1,514,943 ft3
Volume Pre -Restoration
Q, = 4,443,860 ft3
Q. = 1,514,943 ft3
AS/At = 2,928,917 ft3 /year (Pre -Restoration)
Inflow Post -Restoration
P = 4,443,860 ft3
R; = 384,543 ft3 (contributing watershed)
B;=0ft3
G;=0ft3
P;=0ft3
Ti = 0 ft3
Q; = 4,828,403 ft3

Outflow Post -Restoration
E + T = 1,324,587 ft3
R. = 108,00 1 (easement with forest)
Bo=0ft3
Q,=0ft'
Po=0ft3
To=0ft'
Qo = 1,432,588 ft'
Volume Post -Restoration
Q; = 4,828,403 ft'
Qo = 1,432,588 ft'
OS/At = 3,395,815 ft3/year (Post -Restoration)
Difference Pre- and Post -Restoration
3,395,815 ft3/year-2,928,917 ft3/year=466,898ft3/year
This is equivalent to 1.20 feet of water across the 8.92 acres project site.
The water budget results verify the presence of increased water on-site and by assuming that base
groundwater flow pre- and post -restoration are constant, these calculations present a conservative
estimate of available water.

ft/yearl 0.6512721991 0.2785790891 0.441394434
Surface Water Runoff Event Surface Water Runoff Event Minimum Surface Water Runoff Event
Minimum 1=0.38" 1 1=0.6" 1 Minimum 1=0.48"
Vol ume=0.651272199*8.9 acres
Volume=0.278579089*8.9 acres
Water Budget Surface Water
Runoff Calculations Spreadsheet
iVolume=108,00 1ft3 /year
Month
2015 Rainfall
EventsTriggering
Surface Water Runoff
SRO Fair Pasture Site Pre -Restoration
(CN=84) (in)
SRO Good Forest Post Restoration
(CN=77) (in)
SRO Contributing Watershed
(CN=80.5) (in)
Forumulas
P-(0.2*(S^2))/(1.02+(0.8*S))
P-(0.2*(S^2))/(1.02+(0.8*S))
P-(0.2*(S^2))/(1.02+(0.8*S))
Jan
1.02
0.161259843
0.051578947
0.099183673
0.42
0.000824742
Feb
0.85
0.093206751
0.019230769
0.049422383
0.39
5.2356E-05
0.41
0.000466321
0.61
0.024835681
3.32226E-05
0.006679842
1.13
0.212264151
0.079575071
0.13852459
0.7
0.046126126
0.003225806
0.018473282
March
0.51
0.008325123
0.00037037
0.41
0.000466321
0.65
0.03359447
0.000819672
0.011245136
Apr
0.96
0.135645161
0.08
0.49
0.0060199
4.14938E-05
0.75
0.06030837
0.007142857
0.027303371
May
1.18
0.237037037
0.09396648
0.158064516
0.43
0.001282051
1.43
0.373728814
0.179869452
0.269402985
0.78
0.069565217
0.010188679
0.033333333
0.76
0.063333333
0.008101266
0.029253731
June
1.83
0.62761194
0.357659574
0.486
0.45
0.00248731
0.59
0.020900474
0.004820717
0.62
0.026915888
0.00013245
0.007716535
0.62
0.026915888
0.00013245
0.007716535
1.52
0.4275
0.215918367
0.314418605
July
1.17
0.232007435
0.091008403
0.15407767
0.42
0.000824742
0.42
0.000824742
0.58
0.019047619
0.004
Aug
0.87
0.100460251
0.022293578
0.054516129
0.46
0.003232323
0.73
0.054444444
0.005399361
0.023584906
1.47
0.39735786
0.195581395
0.289115044
0.98
0.144
0.042721893
0.086206897
Sept.
1.94
0.703352601
0.413732719
0.552227979
0.39
5.2356E-05
0.62
0.026915888
0.00013245
0.007716535
1.77
0.587264438
0.328273381
0.45097561
0.74
0.057345133
0.006242038
0.025413534
Oct.
0.68
0.040909091
0.002077922
0.015384615
0.47
0.004070352
0.6
0.022830189
0.005714286
0.54
0.012427184
0.001463415
1.72
0.554197531
0.304466019
0.422417582
Nov.
0.77
0.066419214
0.009116719
0.031263941
0.67
0.038401826
0.001596091
0.013938224
0.84
0.089661017
0.017777778
0.046956522
1.29
0.294697509
0.12902439
0.204392523
1.24
0.267971014
0.112527473
0.18278481
0.72
0.051607143
0.004615385
0.021818182
Dec.
0.68
0.040909091
0.002077922
0.015384615
0.72
0.051607143
0.004615385
0.021818182
0.57
0.017272727
0.003253012
1.27
0.28390681
0.122316076
0.195642633
1.31
0.305618375
0.135876011
0.213281734
1.83
0.62761194
0.357659574
0.486
0.741
0.057345133
0.0062420381
0.025413534
sum 1
48.731
7.8152663911
3.3429490691
5.296733214
ft/yearl 0.6512721991 0.2785790891 0.441394434
Surface Water Runoff Event Surface Water Runoff Event Minimum Surface Water Runoff Event
Minimum 1=0.38" 1 1=0.6" 1 Minimum 1=0.48"
Vol ume=0.651272199*8.9 acres
Volume=0.278579089*8.9 acres
Vol ume=0.441394434*20 acres
Vol u me=252,488ft3/yea r
iVolume=108,00 1ft3 /year
iVolume=384,543ft3 /yea r

5.0
0.0 ! —
-5, a
w
-10.0
a
u
c
15.0
L
+•
CL
CU
0
-217.0
-25.0
-30.0
-35.0
2/23/16
Gauge 'A': RDS QEBDCFEE
5.0
0-0
-5.0
10.0
s
v
C
_ -15.0
Y
Q
0
-20.0
-25.0
-30-0
-35.0
2/23/16
d
3/14/16 4/3/16 4/23/16 5/13/16 6/2/16
Date
Water Depth ----=12" below surface — Growing Season Stam
Gauge 'B': Infinities N523B414
it
i
3/14/16 4/3/16 4/23/16 5/13/16 6/2/16
Date
Water Depth --- _— 12" below surface — Growing Season Start
6/22/16
6/22/16

Seo
0.0 —
-.5.0
-10�a
N
N
t
lJ
C
-15.0'
L
6i
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
-35-0
2123/16
5.0
0.0 —
-5.0
N 10.0
y
L
u
c
-15.0
L
c
CU
❑ -20.0
-25.0
-30.0
-35.0
2/23/16
Gage 'C': RDS 13D4CA5C
1
3/14/16 4/3/16 4/23/16 5/13/16 6/2/16 6/22/'16
Date
Water Depth =- -=-12" below surface — Growing Season Start
Gauge 'D': Hobo 10898829
fl
3/14/16 4/3/16 4/23/16 5/13/16 6/2/16
Date
Water Depth -- --_ 12" below surface Growing Season Start
6/22/16

5-0
0.0 —
-5.0
10.0
N
4} ,
L
lJ
C
-15.0
L
CL
r
4i
d
20.0
-25.0
-30.0
-35.0
2/23/16
5.0
0.0
-5.0
10.0
w
v
u
L
L
R
37
0
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
-350
2/23/16
Gauge 'E': RDS 09DF1BC9
1
3/14/16 4/3/16 4/23/16 5113/16 6/2/16 6/22/16
Date
Water DepthT2` below surface GrwoingSeason Start
Gauge 'F': RDS 13D4BBCO
3/14/16 4/3/16 4/23/16 5/13/16 6/2/16 6/22/16
Date
Water Depth ----- 12" below surface — Growing Season Stant

s,a
a.a
-5,0
-10.0
Ln
aiL
V
L
Q
W
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
-35,0
2/23/16
Gauge'G': Hobo 10898832
5.0
o.a
-5.0
-Mo
in
CU
L
V
C
-15.0
L
++
CL
43
13
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
-35.0
2/23/16
3/14/16 4/3/16 4/23/16 5/13/16 6/2/16 6/22/16
Date
Water Depth ----- 12" below surface — Growing Season Start
Gauge 'H': Infinities N545D339
I
3/14/16 4/3/16 4/23/16 3/13/16 6/2/16 6/22/16
Date
Water Depth -----12" below surface -- Growing Season Start

5.D
0.0
-5,0
-10.0
N
4D
s
u
c
s
Q
❑
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
-35.0
2/23/16
Gauge'i RDS OEBD05A1
5,0
0.0
-5,0
-10.0
Ln
L
U
c
-15.0
L
d
R!
-200
-25.a
-3©.a
-35.0
2/23/16
3/14/16 4/3/16 4/23/16 5/13/16 6/2/16 6/22/16
Date
Malfunction Water depth =_-_- 12" below surface — Growing Season Start
Gauge T Hobo 10898828
----------- i ------ f -� ---------
3/14/16 4/3/16 4/23/16 5/13/16 6/2/16
Date
Water Depth -----12" — Growing Season Start
6/22/16

5.0
0.0
-5.0
10.0
Gauge V: Hobo 10898831
25.0
-30.0
-35.0
2/23/16
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
Y
An
C
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
3/14/16 4/3/16 4/23/16 5/13/16 6/2/16 6/22/16
Date
Water Depth ----- 12' below surface — Growing Season Start
Reference Wetland: RDS 14EBAAAl
-35.0 ' "
2/23/16 3/14/16 413/16 4/23/16 5/13116 6/Z/16 6/22/16
Axis Titie
Water Depth ----- 12" below surface Growing Season Start

Appendix 3.
Site Protection Instrument & Survey Plat
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared by
M6G£NSEN MRIs-ATION.INC

FILED in PERSON Cvunly NC
an S&P 26 2016 111 09:206 AN
b-RECISTAAAN0R OF I
0Ef0S
Book 9 3 P 619
,�� III 11111111111111111111111111 Ihl
STATENORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PERSd LINTY AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
R, FULL DELIVERY MITIGATION CONTRACT
SPO File Num` : SPO File 73-R
DMS Project Nutdber: 97071
Prepared by:
Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC DepartmirWof Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center 0
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
THIS DEED OF CO�VATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this 26"' day of September, 2016, ,ROY N. HUFF and wife, JOYCE M. HUFF, "Grantor",
whose mailing address is; 333 RVnic Huff Road, Oxford, NC 27565, to the STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA, ("Grantee;e, whose mailing address is; State of North Carolina,
Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1321. The designations of GranxiDand Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors, and assigns, and Gall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or
neuter as required by context,
W ITNSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions oC.. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et sen., the State
of North Carolina has established the Division o Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environmental Quality for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating
and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contriKw to the protection and improvement
of water quality, flood prevention. fisheries, aquatic haN$Xt, wildlife habitat, and recreational
opportunities; and 0
e
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement From Grantor to Grae }Pas been negotiated, arranged
and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
P.O. Box 690429, Charlotte, NC 28227, and the North Carolina artment of Environmental
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement BR Edits Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page I of 9 6
0

6 BOOK 933 PAGE 620 36691(
Y� Quality, to provide wetland mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
0 Environmental Quality Purchase and Services Contract Number 6746.
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
cement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental Quality and the United States Army
Corg<'of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU)
duly ex uted by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU recognized that the Wetlands
Resto n Program was to on
effective compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts to
wetland ,earns and other aquatic resources by restoring, enhancing and preserving the wetland
and ripari -areas of the State, and
WH9 AS, the Department of Environmental Quality, the North Carolina. Department
of Transportati d the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered
into a Memoran � of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in Greensboro, NC on
July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem
Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the
land, water and natural r3svurces of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem
functions; and `.
WHEREAS, theartment of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Army Corps of
U.S
Engineers, the . Enviro tal Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Res& Commission, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
the North Carolina Division of tat Management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
entered into an agreement to o tinue the In -lieu Fee operations of the Department. of
Environmental Quality, Division r--r,Mitigation Services, (formerly Ecosystem Enhancement
Program) with an effective date of - ly, 2010, which supersedes and replaces the previously
effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
6
WHEREAS, the acceptance of t} tt� instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department # dministrat'on by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted ata Aa&ting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the a day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation ices in the Department of Environmental
Quality, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and Council of State
to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain6l property situated, lying, and being
in Oxford Township, Person County, North Carolina, the "Property"), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land contai approximately 228.34 acres and
being a portion of the property conveyed to the Grantor bye recorded in Deed. Book 302 at
Page 041 of the Person County Registry, North Carolina; and 'C-'
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement BR Edits Templatesdopted 29 April 2015
Page 2 of 9 6
0

W 933 PAGE 621 366910
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
,areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
1fhe Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of the Tar -
leo River.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictio s hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveanto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easemerong with a general Right of Access.
The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:
Tract "CE -C I% ontaming a total of 9.98 acres as shown on plat of survey entitled;
"'Conservation Lent for North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services, Project Name; Tar
River Headwaters Wetland Site, SPO File No. 73-R, DMS Site No. 97071, Property of Roy N.
Huff," prepared by Michael T. Brandon, PLS Number LA922 and recorded in the Person
County, North Carolina Register of Deeds in Plat Book Page oLl q_ 4 (the
"Plat'); together withierpetual Right of Access over and across the Property in the area
depicted on the Plat as " st. Farm RoadliAccess Easement" for the purposes set forth in Article
111.
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetlandr riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection an provement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in itsNedtural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, thtiflowing conditions and restrictions are set forth:
a
I. DURA ?N OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above r
�}aced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall ith, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable a Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal re resentatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RE TRICTED ACTIVITIES
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restrict _aom any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this ConseQtion 'Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use o e Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purpose this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor hav en acquired by the Grantee.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, inclu&4the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream., wetland, :and ripaiqV bluffer mitigation units,
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement BR Edits Template iidopted 29 April 2015
Page 3 of 9 6
�j.

G 00 933 PAGE 622 36691[
Y0 derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
,prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
tt<st!, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation
E*m nt Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Notorized Vebicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibW except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat. 0
C. Edu "anal Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in a tional uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation ment, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
purposes inclu W organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Eduemational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Veg Cation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as relaQ to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or
vegetation that dcstabili§A or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, Qoval, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easeme tea is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residen4i r('1 nd Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited 4t Pe Conservation Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agric4k�al uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, wassttee lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall 9 no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructedof aced in the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be nostruction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easem ,.
All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the (nservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities wxi the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area, signs identifying the owner Zhe Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, signs giving directions, or signs prest Zing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conservation Easement Area.
YT
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement BR Edits Template opted 29 April 2015
Page 4 of 9 6

6 BOW 933 PAGE 623 36691(
Y� J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
0 abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
,A-, Area is prohibited.
Y� Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
lavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
roo peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. �ater Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
chane filling„ leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the dive n of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering
or tampe with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, reated drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging E waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation ment Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all tr water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property.
M. Subdivision artCConveyanee. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing dAhe Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ("feeq hat is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
the
transfer of Property shall ubject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited 4Q ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area fori6 purpose s set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. *ion-transferrable.
evelopment rights ate permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and
D. Disturbance of Natural FeaturAny change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation cement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species brantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission ie vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not in sistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance wrrapproval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC Z7699-1652.
Ill. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. 1� Grantee, its employees and agents,
shall have the right to use the Right of Access to the Conse(Dation Easement Area at reasonable
times to undertake any activities to restore„ construct, manandI\maintain, enhance, protect, and
monitor the stream, wetland and any other riparian resources in\A# Conservation Easement Area,
in accordance with restoration activities or a long-term manao;nent plan. Unless otherwise
specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the rights gr&cd herein do not include or
establish for the public any access rights.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement BR Edits Template opted 29 April 2415
Page 5 of 9 6
D

80 933 PAGE 629 36691C
08. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
,eprepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
Oanmade materials as needed to direct in -stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
4 Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to pale signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following. describe
the prof ct, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
bounds and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
0
D. FeQknatural
onservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) resources. livestock within conservations easements damages the
investmentn result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would caustial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are
required to ptivestock access to the Conservation Easement area. Repeated failure to do so
may result in the State (Grantee) repairing or installing livestock exclusion devices (fences)
within the conservation area for the purpose of restricting livestock access. In such cases, the
landowner (Grantor) must provide access to the State (Grantee) to make repairs.
E. Crossing Area(so.The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its e�loyees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole s tion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as are u_ tl of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
IV. `�*FORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplllssp_the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation East�Oent and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement AO@ that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the t c of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, nc&& the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after recer f such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. if the breach and damage remainsured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringin propriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive an other relief The Grantee shall also have the
power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest(jy the Property; or (c) to seek damages
from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding 00foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary re�'}t wining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly o'�i herwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement a cj the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedi ,At, law inadequate. The rights
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addiii,j� ,to, and not in lieu of, all
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with thi§�Pnservation Easement.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement BR Edits Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 6 of 9 6

BOOK 933 PAGE 625 36691[
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
,,right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
Yl reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
pith the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
4 Acts Beyond Graator's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shat, *e construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the C nservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grant control, including, without Limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudRt, action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or t#S}ote significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs�;ee
nforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, withou mitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the 3emts of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enf rcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay &4mission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set fol'O herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets eM, the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and su es all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conse n Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Crvation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby. 16
0
B. Grantor is responsible for any real a taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon.
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsibI r any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or terimce of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bri s, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Noherein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights,
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certifi4drnail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other. 0
1l�,N
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name anOress and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior ttYt e time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other II, instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Ea Vent herein created.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement BR Edits Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 7 of 9 6
0

BM 933 PAGE 626 36691
0 E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
X, any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
Y� This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
49ned by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
gi*fieation of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
lawond is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (I days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any
request cul void or modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification
requests sQJ be addressed to:
Division ofanon Services Program Manager
NC State Pro ()flee
1321 Mail Servi enter
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of EngineQ
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28443
G. The parties recognizeanP that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, ho er, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns thonservativn Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Granttofurther covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that th0vansferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes dmriItin this document.
VI. QUI>w�16NJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accr from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others toie in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the G a&or, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Eas roent Area, and the right of quiet
enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area, 0
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easen*Pt perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement BR Edits Template adopted 29 April 2415
Page 8 of 9 6
0

6 BSI( 933 PAGE 627 36691(
'0 AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is Free from
,A-,., encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
0
,?" IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the defy
an41jear first above written.
Sig FF Dat' e �
0
Si ur . Clk M. FF Date
(11
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
The undersigned, a Notarpblit in and For the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify
that Roy N. fluff and Joy Fluff, Grantor„ personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution e Foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, i fi(�r hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the. ?_& day of
September, 2416.
Notar ublic ,�,t y Y A[�w
r
My Commission expires:
►,+. �Y IJ_i��; � � +tib
0
Document shows proof laekruuwdcdgemen
officer authorized In take proof /aeknow' t;
acknowledgement tneludes aficer% signawr
cam n exp on date ffisial seal, if nqj)
d 4Yf "ister of bed `
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement BR Edits Templat(e� opted 29 April 2015
Page 9 of 9 6
�j.

G
0
"I
/6 9/f
VICINITY MAP
ceRnrlrAl[ eT FzdTrrlLlt•
hreW miter
� r � ] e,9 w9.,{q al I6e PraPrrly
m.
'rrU -
NOT TO SCALE
19a.,:. ue9c�.p,ee n...m.. , .w, wrot
I�rnaf.nl ry 91iYe rRaNW T eoW Fbp9 _
stF': I' •..a
Il,r;
_ —
leol Wa Y9Y'ry 9w�rYa a� aR aaleBm
cero.wneo-.
-
SITE
penr.np s Tran'..q 1aT:,:.lrm anti i
'i
-
`� Stn19 aT iicrlP Cabrrya !
-
P '
n31Y >? ae � a P,ni Ca
te, .�, _era
hYe nkC3
+
iulery mqW nlslo. Ery.
-
f -- �
- R-" dun. ogre
i PIEREBY CERTIFY THAT THS PLAT I.5 QF THE FOLLOWAG TYPE'
G.S. 47-30 [0119CX U. THIS SURVEY IS OF AN EXISTING PAR.(,EL OR
xis'
eros PARCELS OF LAND ANO DOES NOT CR€A'PE A NEW STREET OR
_
10.90 CHANGE AN EXISTING STREET.
AC
K14:fC
Pcr ta-a_ecey
AWCHAEL f. BRANDON, CERTIFY Wr THOS PLAT WAS ORAWN
7TETERENCC �
=-A
UNDER +
MY FROM AN SURVEY MADE
UNDER"j
DR 342-41rm,
rcxm�+. rr
a
r n E
MY PERMfOlVEEEP£SCROPVON RCORDED NBOOK 302,
PC 16-666 / r. lalr,mar
-m-ua_r w
o PAGE41,FTC.),, THAT THE BDd1NDARIFS NOT SURVEYED ARE
PC 13-50 '+'
CLEARLYONDICA TED AS DRAWN FROM WFCRMATR)N FOUND
- dSEE REFERENCES't; THAT THE R4710 OF ARFO$00NAS CALCULATED
IS 1 1E WO; THA T THIS PEA T WAS PREPARED ON ACCORDANCE WITH
WE
_ . _ .- - G S A7.�7 AS AMENDED, AS MY oQfumi. stGNA TURF
--
REGMTRA TON NUMBER AND SEAL FNis
LL j
wmm.wl
w ovdil
NTY7 DAY OF JUNE, AL1, 201er �nllrll r
51�'
3 i : •
-3 L
.
��
LA 1956 w 3.1 bu
ts I3a0
Lb
S T -
L =
a 2] E 17.49
�22
L S e3' 7 In i ]6
L9 S �G 71 75 W 36.74
I
NT3
Jt3 LiD 4 i8. 3 w 78.
,N 4[ 582- 1
,
q.,q•`
PROFESSKAWIL LAND SURVEYOR REG NUILMER L4922
• -
-
_
/]
Theun :Wgned err r a t the property hand wlihln
0
Ihs -ft 1`-4 plat d nbdrrv— hereby "Yes that
a_ he ordarod the
.' w+➢-ir+-ur.c
.rt ef rveywg and pWtlInp done
I P bwewomte
�ae7d
—d tl�iN e!ra aa dDna4ed upon pM are
'R]y ++e,6,y 4.d; -ted t,r h ,,,ee.
yY{y/I
Data
NONly�_ COUNTY
•
3C.
I, t Nola'? Pwpu�, da hereby
'4nNc
(PC --"f
certify that ./Mawr+
befare me thie ddy and -k-1.6ged the! qua�and
!
exeeullan M the tYMO+n� Rot. '}.Z d"d of
Wt++e ae 'ni` nand ane ee. Rmi.ot .3.�y
Ih'
••NOTES'.
} CE 'A* AND CE 'B" METES AND SOUNDS DESCRIPTION
IS SHO"
1 P Notary P e6c''
ON PLAT LOCATED AT THE PERSON COUNT'f
REGISTER OF DEEDS IN PIAT CAEENET 16-606,
;.} COORDINATE DATA IS TAKEN FROM A RAPID STATIC GPS
085£RVA,TiON PERFORMED ON 4/4J2016, AND DDAVfILOADED
7
,A }l, FILF6 vfksEX Erlwl
1.Y x
TO THE NOS OPUS SITE THE DATUM IS NAD 83/2011, THE
,- EswjaMI
Ser S .1 3n �r
PER■IILM I
r WTI
M c11
C[TM8INED GRID FACTS IS I,gOp0434b.
/� G14t7 P' OF IXj f,S
f
"HH'Hl111n
3) CORNERS ARE 4H7NUMENiEO WITH S 1/4- ALUMINUM
CAPS
1*'ssh
�IIINIMNINNtl 11NINNNI
WITH THE STATE OF NC LOGO,
remre
tl1HF_PA]LfiF9j'
rror.uvr
LEGEND
[} NEON ROO [M PIPE SET
CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
MICFIAEL T. 8F2AN[]1N R.�.h.�==�1PROXESSIONAL
EXISTING MONUMENT FOUND
MATHE04l0JV-T
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
LAND SURVEYOR L -d922 1r 1-OATs
PROPEJ YLINEICAL DINTPROJECT
LINE1437
NAME.TAR RIVER HEADWATERS WETLAND SITE
BROOI(S DNRY RD,
TI£ LINA
SPO FILE ND, 73-R, bMS 51TE NO, 9707'1vl_
.PROPERTY
ROXBOR , N C 2T5TA s %F. [ I sx--
EASEMENT IN£
PROPERTY OF ROY N, HUFF
o,n
yyrr erl,e*6
RIOHT OF WAY
ALLENSVILLE TWP., PERSON CO.. NORTH CAROLINA
ERFo ruin
IINF$FRCNI RFS€RtrKE
FIELD WORK PERFORMED APRIL JULY 2016
/6 9/f

Appendix 4.
Project Milestones & Payment Schedule
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared by
M6G£NSEN MRIs-ATION.INC

Project Milestones and Payment Schedule as specified in NCDMS RFP # 16-006476.
* Offeror is only eligible for payment after NCDMS has approved the task/deliverable. If site fails to meet
success criteria, as indicated in any monitoring report, payment of the monitoring task may be made if a
suitable contingency plan is submitted to and accepted by the NCDMS.
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared by��
MQGEN$EN MRIGATION, LNC
Project Milestones and Payment Schedule for TRHWR Project
Task #
Project Milestone Description Payment
% Contract
Value
1
Categorical Exclusion Document
5
2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
20
3
Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and Financial Assurance
15
4
Mitigation Site Earthwork completed
15
5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
10
6
Baseline Monitoring Report (including As -Built Drawings)
10
7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to NCDMS (meets success criteria*)
5
8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to NCDMS (meets success criteria*)
2
g
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to NCDMS (meets success criteria*)
2
10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to NCDMS (meets success criteria*)
2
11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to NCDMS (meets success criteria*)
2
12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to NCDMS (meets success criteria*)
2
13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 and complete Closeout process
10
TOTAL
100
Project Milestones and Payment Schedule as specified in NCDMS RFP # 16-006476.
* Offeror is only eligible for payment after NCDMS has approved the task/deliverable. If site fails to meet
success criteria, as indicated in any monitoring report, payment of the monitoring task may be made if a
suitable contingency plan is submitted to and accepted by the NCDMS.
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared by��
MQGEN$EN MRIGATION, LNC

Appendix 5:
Maintenance Plan

Maintenance Plan
The site shall be monitored on a regular basis by MMI staff and a physical inspection of the site
shall be conducted a minimum of once every other month 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 items listed below. Specific component/feature maintenance will be
conducted through project close-out as follows:
Connector Ditch
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include minor repairs to fencing, and supplemental installations of
live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where storm water and floodplain flows intercept the
channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -cutting.
Wetlands
Routine site walks will be conducted to identify and document potential areas of concern, such as, but not limited to areas
of low stem density or poor plant vigor, invasive species, encroachments, and livestock access. Maintenance will follow
procedures as described below under the vegetation and site boundary components.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted communities. Routine vegetation
maintenance and repair activities may include 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 Boundary
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, 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.
Ford and Culvert Crossings
Ford crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by Conservation Easement or existing easement, or
corridor agreements.
Beaver/Wildlife Management
If beaver dams are observed on site, MMI will remove the dams and attempt to remove the beavers from the site. If
wildlife herbivory becomes a problem for the plantings, MMI will take measures to manage wildlife on the site.
Tar River Headwaters Site — MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared by
MOGEN$EN MRIWTION.INC

Appendix 6:
Approved Preliminary USACE JD Letter &
Wetland Data Sheets

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2012-02073 County: Person U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -TRIPLE SPRINGS
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owners: Roy N. and Joyce Huff
Address: 155 Old Durham Road
Roxboro, NC27573
Telephone Number: [phone]
Size (acres) 27 Nearest Town
Nearest Waterway Shelton Creek River Basin Upper Tar
USGS HUC 03020101 Coordinates Latitude: 36.393 Longitude: 78.816
Location description: Proposed Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: 333 Bunnie Huff Road, 27 acre easement
on 228 -acre Tract No. 8094, 1,500 feet northwest of Bunny Huff Road, and 2,500 feet north of Dennys Store Road, east of
Roxboro, NC.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area.
We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which maybe appealed), by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the
JD.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area 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 project area 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
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
Page 1 of 2

Action Id. SAW -2012-02073
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Eric Alsmever at 919-554-4884, extension 23, or
Eric.C.Als meyer(a,usace. army. mil.
C. Basis For Determination: The project area contains jurisdictional waters of the US, the headwaters of the Tar River
and a tributary, with ordinary high water marks, and adjacent wetlands. The Tar River is a Traditional Navigable Water
downstream of the project.
D. Remarks: This JD was confirmed by field inspection on 7/6/2016. The drawings on the attached figures, "EXISTING
JURSIDCITIONAL WETLANDS IN THE STREAM MITIGATION BANK, TAR RIVER HEADWATERS STREAM
MITIGATION BANK", submitted by e-mail on 8/8/2016, generally depict the approximate boundaries and locations of
potential jurisdictional waters of the US within the subject project easement. There are other waters of the US on the property
outside of the easement that are not depicted on the figures.
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.
**It is not necessary to submit the attached request for appeal form to the Division Office if you do not object to the
determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: August 24, 2016 Expiration Date: N/A
Digitally signed by ALSMEYER.ERIC.C.1087624486
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
ou=USA, cn=ALSMEYER.ERIC.C.1087624486
Date: 2016.08.2411:35:02 -04'00'
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 , .usacesurvey.com/.
Copy furnished (Bank Sponsor):
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
Gerald Pottern
104 East Chestnut Avenue
Wake Forest, NC 27587
919.556.8845

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Property Owners: Roy N. Huff & Joyce Huff File Number: SAW -2012-02073 Date: August 24, 2016
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL C
❑ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
® PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.anny.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Re ug latoUProgramandPermits.gVx or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Eric Alsmeyer
CESAD-PDO
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Eric Alsmeyer, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403

a
ole I
AL
0 70 140 280
Feet
Legend
Wetland Restoration Site Easement
Wetland A (0.824ac)
Wetland B (0.296ac)
-- .V
ly
a
ole I
AL
0 70 140 280
Feet
Legend
Wetland Restoration Site Easement
Wetland A (0.824ac)
Wetland B (0.296ac)

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region A -wet
Project/Site: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration City/County: Roxboro, Person County Sampling Date: 4 May 2016
Applicant/Owner: Mogensen Mitigation Inc., Richard K. Mogensen State: NC Sampling Point: A wet
Investigator(s): Gerald Pottern, Ryan Elliott, MMI-RJGA Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): headwater flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat with depressions
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P-136 Lat: 36.3942 Long: -78.8185
Soil Map Unit Name: Iredell (IdA) (on websoilssurvey); Orange (OnA) (on printed soil map) NWI classification:
Slope (%): 0-2
Datum: NAD88
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology X naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This headwater flat wetland was cleared, ditched, and converted to pasture in 1940s. Perched hydrology on dense
subsoil is a natural condition for this wetland type. The shallow ditches effectively drain a relatively wide area, due to
hydrology being perched. Groundwater gauge data (late March to early July, 2016) indicate that the water table
fluctuates frequently above and below 12" depth.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) —Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) X Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139) X Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0-1
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 3
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Water table was 3" below surface on sampling date (May 4). Data from the two nearest monitoring
wells indicates 17 consecutive days of saturation above 12" at Well -H to the north, and 40
consecutive days of saturation at Well -E to the south during March 30 to July 5. Rainfall during this
period was higher than normal.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: A wet
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Grazed pasture grasses lack features required for species identification. Hydrophytic status is
based on other species.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 none
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: N/A (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: N/A (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: N/A (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 8 x 1 = 8
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam
)
FACW species 21 x 2 = 42
1 none
FAC species 18 x 3 = 54
FACU species 3 x 4 = 12
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2.
3.
4.
Column Totals: 50 (A) 116 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.32
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Juncus effusus
15
N
FACW
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Eleocharis obtusa
5
N
OBL
3 Ranunculus hispidus
5
N
FAC
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
q Grasses (unknown)
50
Y
N/A
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5 Vernonia noveboracensis
3
N
FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
6 Diospyros virginiana
5
N
FAC
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
7 Campsis radicans
5
N
FAC
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
g Toxicodendron radicans
3
N
FAC
g Solidago gigantea
3
N
FACW
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
10. Rosa palustris
3
N
OBL
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
11. Veronica officinalis
3
N
FACU
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
12.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
1 none
height.
2.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Grazed pasture grasses lack features required for species identification. Hydrophytic status is
based on other species.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: A wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Locz
Texture Remarks
0-2 2.5Y 5/3 100
clay loam
2-10 2.5Y 6/2 90
10YR 5/8 10 C M
clay loam
10-23 2.5Y 5/1 80
2.5Y 5/6 20 C M
clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
x Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
x Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Soil meets hydric indicator F3.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region B -wet
Project/Site: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration City/County: Roxboro, Person County Sampling Date: 4 May 2016
Applicant/Owner: Mogensen Mitigation Inc., Richard K. Mogensen State: NC Sampling Point: B wet
Investigator(s): Gerald Pottern, Ryan Elliott, MMI-RJGA Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): headwater flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat with depressions
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P-136 Lat: 36.3929 Long: -78.8189
Soil Map Unit Name: Iredell (IdA) (on websoilssurvey); Orange (OnA) (on printed soil map) NWI classification:
Slope (%): 0-2
Datum: NAD88
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology X naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This headwater flat wetland was cleared, ditched, and converted to pasture in 1940s. Perched hydrology on dense
subsoil is a natural condition for this wetland type. The shallow ditches effectively drain a relatively wide area, due to
hydrology being perched. Groundwater gauge data (late March to early July, 2016) indicate that the water table
fluctuates frequently above and below 12" depth.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) —Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
X Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
x Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 0-1
Water Table Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Water table was at ground surface on May 4. Data from the closest monitoring well, Well -A indicates
31 consecutive days of saturation
above 12" during March 30 to July 5. Rainfall during this period
was higher than normal.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: B wet
7.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. N/A
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: N/A
(A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: N/A
(B)
4.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam )
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: N/A
(A/B)
6.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Juncus effusus
15
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FACW
7
8
5
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL
3 Ranunculus hispidus
OBL species 10 x 1 = 10
N
FAC
= Total Cover
q Grasses (unknown)
45
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam
)
FACW species 20 x 2 = 40
5 Diospyros virginiana
1. N/A
N
FAC species 20 x 3 = 60
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
2.
3.
4.
FAC
Column Totals: 55 (A) 130
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.36
(B)
5.
N
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Juncus effusus
15
Y
FACW
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Eleocharis obtusa
5
N
OBL
3 Ranunculus hispidus
5
N
FAC
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
q Grasses (unknown)
45
Y
N/A
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5 Diospyros virginiana
5
N
FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
6 Campsis radicans
5
N
FAC
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
7 Toxicodendron radicans
5
N
FAC
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
g Solidago gigantea
5
N
FACW
g Rosa palustris
5
N
OBL
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
10. Veronica officinalis 5 N FACU
m) tall.
11.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
12.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam
)
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
1 N/A
height.
2.
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6. Present? Yes x No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Grazed pasture grasses lack features required for species identification. Hydrophytic status is based
on other species.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: B wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Locz
Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 4/1 100
clay loam
2-5 10YR 4/1 100
clay loam
5-10 10YR 4/1 90
10YR 5/6 10 C M
clay
11-16 2.5YR 4/2 90
2.5Y 5/6 10 C M
clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
x Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
x Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Soil meets hydric indicator F3. Hardpan at 18-20"
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region A/B non -wet
Project/Site: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration City/County: Roxboro, Person County Sampling Date: 4 May 2016
Applicant/Owner: Mogensen Mitigation Inc., Richard K. Mogensen State: NC Sampling Point: A/B non -0
Investigator(s): Gerald Pottern, Ryan Elliott, MMI-RJGA Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): headwater flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat with depressions
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P-136 Lat: 36.3931 Long: -78.8183
Soil Map Unit Name: Iredell (IdA) (on websoilssurvey); Orange (OnA) (on printed soil map) NWI classification:
Slope (%): 0-2
Datum: WGS84
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation x Soil or Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology x naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
This inter -drainage headwater flat wetland was cleared, ditched, and converted to pasture in 1940s. Perched hydrology
on dense subsoil is a natural condition for this wetland type. The shallow ditches effectively drain a relatively wide area,
due to hydrology being perched. Preliminary groundwater gauge data (late March to early May, 2016) indicate that the
water table fluctuates frequently above and below 12" depth; prolonged saturation above 12" is lacking.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) —Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 8
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 5
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Soil saturation was 5" below surface on May 4 after recent heavy rain, but data from the closest
monitoring well, Well -B indicates only 12 consecutive days of saturation above 12" during March 30
to June 30. Rainfall during this period was higher than normal, and wetland hydrology duration was
not met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: A/B non -wet
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. N/A That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: N/A (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: N/A (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: N/A (A/B)
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam )
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1. N/A
FAC species 20 x 3 = 60
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2.
3.
4.
Column Totals: 30 (A) 80 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.67
5.
10.
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Juncus effusus
10
N FACW
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Ranunculus hispidus
10
N FAC
3 Grasses (unknown)
70
Y N/A
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
q Campsis radicans
5
N FAC
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5 Toxicodendron radicans
5
N FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
6.
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
7
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
8.
9
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
10.
m) tall.
11.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
12.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft diam
)
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
1 N/A
I height.
2.
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6. Present? Yes x No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Grazed pasture grasses lack features required for species identification. Hydrophytic status is
based on other species.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: A/B non -wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks
0-1 2.5YR 3/2 100
clay loam
1-9 2.5Y 5/1 90
10YR 5/6 10 C M clay loam
9-16 2.5Y 4/2 90
2.5Y 5/8 10 C M clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
x Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
x Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Soil meets indicator F3; may be a relict hydric soil. Well data indicates that the drainage
ditches have apparently
lowered the water table depth and reduced the duration of shallow
saturation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

Appendix 7:
Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Form

Appendix A -- Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem
Enhancement Program Projects -- version 1.4 (Aug 2005)
Note: Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site (TRHWR)
Count Name: Person Co
EEP Number: 16-006476
Project Sponsor: Mogensen Mitigation Inc
Project Contact Name: Richard Mogensen
Project Contact Address: P.O. Box 690429, Charlotte NC 28227
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail], [e-mail]
EEP Project Manager: Lindsay Crocker
Project Description
The TRHWR project site is currently a cattle pasture with drainage ditches, located in a former
headwater depression wetland in eastern Person County, USGS HUC # 03020101-010010. The
project site comprises about 8 acres and is adjacent to a stream and buffer restoration project
(about 19 acres), both of which are on a 240 acre parcel owned by Roy and Joyce Huff. The
wetland project will include plugging the drainage ditches, installing level spreaders to
redistribute flow across the restoration areas, livestock exclusion fencing, weed treatment,
and replanting the pasture with native trees, shrubs and herbs.
For Official Use•
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/16/05

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question ..
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
® N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial? Forest and pasture are the only known
® No
uses.
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? see attached report
® No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
® No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
Property is a cattle pasture with no structures; was forest prior to 1940s.
❑ No
SHPO clearance letter is attached.
® N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform Act
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
® Yes
Property will remain in private ownership, protected by conservation easement.
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
® Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be? see attached letter from Mr. Huff
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

Part 3: Ground -Disturbing
Regulation/Question • •
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? ® No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Antiquities Act(AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
® No
❑ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
SHPO clearance letter is attached.
® No
❑ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
® Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Tar River
❑ Yes
several miles downstream of the project supports Dwarf Wedgemussel, but the
® No
project site has no suitable habitat.
❑ N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
® No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat? US-FWS clearance letter is attached.
® No
❑ N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
® No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
® N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
® Yes
important farmland? Iredell loam (IdA) is a statewide important farmland.
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
® Yes
The completed Farmland Impact Form is attached.
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
❑ Yes
water body? The ditches to be plugged are not regulated water bodies.
® No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Travis Wilson from NCWRC
® Yes
visited the site with MMI staff, USACE, DWR and DMS on 26 Feb 2016.
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
® No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish
Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? The proposed site work
❑ Yes
(ditch plugging, flow diversion, planting) is not likely to affect migratory birds.
❑ No
® N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

Executive Summary
2016
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Envirosite Corporation. The report was designed to
assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards and Practices for all Appropriate inquiries
(40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13) or custom
requirements developed from the evaluation of environmental risks associated with a parcel of real estate. Executive
Summary does not include a summary of report findings related to the selected Map Layers, this information is
contained in the Map Findings section as well as being displayed on appropriate maps.
SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION:
ADDRESS:
Tar River Headwaters Wetlands Restoration
333 Bunnie Huff Road
Oxford, NC 27565
COORDINATES:
Latitude (North): 36.394050 - 36° 23' 38.6"
Longitude (West):
Universal Transverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
-78.818152 - -78° 49' 5.3"
Zone 17N
695675.98
4029867.03
577.428 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Subject Property Map: 36078d7 TRIPLE SPRINGS, NC
Most Recent Revision: 2013
Page 1 of Page 53

Executive Summary by Database 2016
SUBJECT PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS:
The subject property was not listed in any of the databases searched by Envirosite Corporation.
DATABASE(S) WITH NO MAPPED SITES:
No mapped sites were found in Envirosite Corporation's Search of available ("Reasonable ascertainable")
government records either on the subject property or within the search radius around the subject property for
the following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
FEDERAL RCRA NON-CORRACTS TSD FACILITIES LIST
ARCHIVED RCRA TSDF Archived Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Treatment Storage and
Disposal Facilities
RCRA_TSDF Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Treatment Storage and Disposal
Facilities
FEDERAL CERCLIS LIST
Engineering Controls
CERCLIS
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
CERCLIS NFRAP
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act No
CONTROLS
Further Remedial Action Planned
FEDERAL FACILITY
Federal Facility sites
SEMS -8R -ACTIVE SITES
Sites on SEMS Active Site Inventory
SEMS_8R_ARCHIVED SITES
Sites on SEMS Archived Site Inventory
FEDERAL RCRA CORRACTS FACILITIES LIST
CORRACTS
Hazardous Waste Corrective Action
FEDERAL DELISTED NPL SITE LIST
DELISTED NPL
DELISTED PROPOSED NPL
SEMS -DELETED NPL
FEDERAL ERNS LIST
ERNS
Delisted National Priority List
Delisted proposed National Priority List
Sites Deleted from National Priorities List
Emergency Response Notification System
FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES
FED E C
Engineering Controls
FED I C
Institutional Controls
FED -PUBLISHED INSTITUTIONAL
Published Institutional Controls
CONTROLS
RCRA IC -EC
RCRA sites with Institutional and Engineering Controls
IC -NC
Institutional Controls
FEDERAL NPL SITE LIST
NPL National Priority List
NPL LIENS National Priority List Liens
PART NPL Part National Priority List
PROPOSED NPL Proposed National Priority List
SEMS FINAL NPL Sites included on the Final National Priorities List
SEMS -PROPOSED NPL Sites Proposed to be Added to the National Priorities List
Paqe 3 of Page 53

Executive Summary by Database
2016
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS (cont.)
FEDERAL RCRA GENERATORS LIST
RCRA_CESQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators
RCRA_LQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_ Large Quantity Generators
RCRA_NONGEN Resource Conservation and Recovery Act _Non Generators
RCRA_SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—Small Quantity Generators
STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED STORAGE TANK LISTS
FEMA UST
FEMA Underground Storage Tanks
INDIAN UST R1
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 1
INDIAN UST R10
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 10
INDIAN UST R2
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 2
INDIAN UST R4
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 4
INDIAN UST R5
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 5
INDIAN UST R6
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 6
INDIAN UST R7
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 7
INDIAN UST R8
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 8
INDIAN UST R9
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 9
AST - NC
Aboveground Storage Tanks
UST - NC
Underground Storage Tanks
RECORDS OF EMERGENCY RELEASE REPORTS
HMIRS (DOT) Hazardous Materials Information Reporting Systems
STATE AND TRIBAL LEAKING STORAGE TANK LISTS
INDIAN LUST R1
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 1
INDIAN LUST R10
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 10
INDIAN LUST R2
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 2
INDIAN LUST R4
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 4
INDIAN LUST R5
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 5
INDIAN LUST R6
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 6
INDIAN LUST R7
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 7
INDIAN LUST R8
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 8
INDIAN LUST R9
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 9
LAST - NC
Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
LUST - NC
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
LUST TRUST - NC
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Trust
STATE- AND TRIBAL - EQUIVALENT CERCLIS
HSDS - NC Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites
HWS - NC Hazadous Waste Sites
STATE AND TRIBAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTS
PRLF - NC Pre -Regulatory Landfill Sites
SWF/LF - NC Solid Waste Facilities Landfills
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS -2020 Wastes - Hazardous Waste - Corrective Action
RCRA_FULL_DETAIL Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—Full detail
Paqe 4 of Paqe 53

Executive Summary by Database
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
LOCAL LISTS OF LANDFILL / SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Sites
INDIAN ODI R8 Open Dump Inventory
ODI Open Dump Inventory
TRIBAL ODI Indian Open Dump Inventory Sites
LOCAL LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE/ CONTAMINATED SITES
FED CDL DOJ Clandestine Drug Labs
US HIST CDL Historical Clandestine Drug Labs
LOCAL BROWNFIELD LISTS
FED BROWNFIELDS
TRIBAL BROWNFIELDS
BROWNFIELDS - NC
LOCAL LAND RECORDS
LIENS 2
Federal Brownfields
Tribal Brownfields
Brownfield
CERCLA Lien Information
LOCAL LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE/ CONTAMINATED SITES
INACTIVE HWS - NC Inacitve Hazardous Waste Sites
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS
AFS
BRS
CDC HAZDAT
CDC HAZDAT GIS
COAL ASH DOE
COAL ASH EPA
COAL GAS
CONSENT(DECREES)
DIGITAL OBSTACLE
DOD
DOT OPS
ECHO
ENOI
FA HWF
FEDLAND
FRS
FTTS
FTTS INSP
FUDS
ICIS
INDIAN RESERVATION
LEAD—SMELTER
LUCIS
MINES
MILTS
OSHA
PADS
PCB TRANSFORMER
RAATS
2016
Air Facility Systems
Biennial Reporting Systems
Hazardous Substance Release and Health Effects Information
Hazardous Substance Release/Health Effects Database GIS Information
Coal Ash: Department of Energy
Coal Ash: Environmental Protection Agency
Coal Gas Plants
Superfund Consent Decree
Obstacles of interest to aviation users
Department of Defense
Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety
Air Facility Systems
Electronic Notice of Intent
Financial Assurance for Hazardous Waste Facilities
Federal Lands
Facility Index Systems
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System: Inspections
Formerly Used Defense Sites
Integrated Compliance Information System
Indian Reservations
Lead Smelter Sites
Land Use Control Information Systems
Mines
Material Licensing Tracking Systems
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
PCB Activity Database Systems
Polychlorinated Biphenyls Transformers
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking Systems
Paqe 5 of Paqe 53

Executive Summary by Database
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS (cont.)
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
RADINFO
Radiation Information Systems
RMP
Risk Management Plans
ROD
Record of Decision
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
SCRD Drycleaners
SEMS—SMELTER
Sites on SEMS Potential Smelter Activity
SSTS
Section 7 Tracking Systems
TOSCA-CHEMICAL
Toxic Substance Control Act: Chemicals
TOSCA-PLANT
Toxic Substance Control Act: Plants
TRANSMISSIONS
Transmission & Gathering facilities
TRIS
Toxic Release Inventory Systems
UMTRA
Uranium Mill Tailing Sites
COAL ASH - NC
Coal Ash sites
DAYCARE - NC
Daycare Facility
DRYCLEANERS - NC
Drycleaners
IMD - NC
Incident Management Database
MGP - NC
Manufactured Gas Plant Sites
OLI - NC
Old Landfill Inventory
UIC - NC
Underground Injection Controls
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS:
Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases.
2016
Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a
relative equal to or higher than the subject property have been differentiated below from sites with an
elevation lower than the subject property.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
Following sites were unable to be mapped.
SITE NAME:
ARRONTE TRUCKING DIESEL FUEL RELEASE
BEREA MINI -MART
BEREA MINI -MART
BLUE SKY AUTO CARRIERS RELEASE
BRIDGE TERMINAL TRANSPORT
Cityof Oxford LF
CROWDER LOGGING
DEAN & PARROTT SERVICE STATION
DEAN & PARROTT SERVICE STATION
ESTES EXPRESS SPILL
GRISSOM GROCERY
HIGHWAY EXPRESS SPILL
1-85N @ MILE MARKER 196
DATABASEIS
LAST - NC
IMD - NC
LUST - NC
LAST - NC
LAST - NC
HSDS - NC, PRLF - NC
LAST - NC
IMD - NC
LUST - NC
LAST - NC
LAST - NC
LAST - NC
LAST - NC
Paqe 6 of Page 53

Executive Summary by Database
SITE NAME:
KEARNEY TRUCKING SPILL
MCFALLS TRUCKING ACCIDENT
Oxford Dump
PLANT MARKETING DIESEL FUEL RELEASE
RUAN TRANSPORTATION
YANCEY TRUCKING
DATABASE(S):
LAST -
NC
LAST -
NC
HSDS
- NC, PRLF - NC
LAST -
NC
LAST -
NC
LAST -
NC
2016
Paqe 7 of Paqe 53

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
May 5, 2016
Richard Mogensen
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
PO Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, 333 Bunnie Huff Road, Oxford, Person County,
ER 16-0610
Dear Mr. Mogensen:
Thank you for your letter of March 31, 2016, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed,
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.revi ew rAnc der.gov, In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
643VIRamona M. Bartos
Location_ 109 East Janes Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address; 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax-[phone]/807-6599

MOGENSEN MITIGATION. It
August 28, 2015
Roy N. & Joyce M. Huff
333 Bunnie Huff Road
Oxford, NC 27565
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Huff:
In regards to the current wetland proposal on your propE
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Estate Acquisit
notify you that your participation in this project with my c
cannot be condemned for the environmental restoration
pay you a "fair market value" for your property.
Please acknowledge your receipt and agreement with
need to be notarized.
Please sign this letter and keep one copy for your reco
self-addressed stamped envelope.
Thank you for your participation and your prompt
Sincerely,
Richard K. Mogensen
President, MMI
Cc: Gerald Pottern, MMI
ROY N. FWFF
rty we must conform with the federal
on Policies Act. This law requires us to
)mpany is voluntary and your property
)roject. In addition, we have offered to
letter by signing below. This does not
and mail one back to me in the
JOYOE/M. HUFF

NM
MOGENSEN MITIGATION. INC
March 31, 2016
US Fish & Wildlife Services Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Attn: Mr. Dale Suiter, Endangered Species Coordinator
Mr. Pete Benjamin
RE: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site — Section 7 ESA Clearance Request
Dear Mr. Suiter:
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI), pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, is
requesting concurrence that the Tar River Headwaters Wetlands Restoration Project will not
impact any listed species or species of concern. The site is located on the Huff Family Farm at
333 Bunnie Huff Road, Oxford, NC 27565 in Person County and is on the same property that is
the subject of the Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank. That project was cleared by a
letter dated 4-9-13 from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission through a Public Notice from the
US Army Corps of Engineers (letter attached).
The new area is on the same parcel as the stream project (see the attached mapping). The
project will entail filling in artificially created ditches and fencing out livestock.
The only federally -listed species in Person County, NC is the Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) which must live in perennial streams (USFWS Species Report By County Report
attached).
No direct stream impacts are proposed so no impacts to any freshwater mussel species are
expected. The site will be planted with native bottomland hardwood trees and shrubs and
monitored for at least seven years. The project is being developed under contract to the NC
Division of Mitigation Services using the "Full -Delivery" bid process. MMI has been awarded the
contract and is beginning the design and approval process.
Your prompt concurrence with this request would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
r
Richard K. Mogensen
President, MMI
Cc: Gerald Pottern, MMI
Lindsay Crocker, NCDMS

United States Department of the Interior
Richard Mogensen
Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
PO Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 29, 2016
Re: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site — Person County, NC
Dear Mr. Mogensen:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federal]y-protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service.) web page at http://"Y,v.fws.gov/raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federal] y -protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern' that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulitii chat requilenieiit wid ii -i deierliiliiing whc,Iher additional consul atloil witii itie
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
I The teen "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually lie proposed foe listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or inininiize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern_

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we reconunend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above-referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if`. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plar> should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down-gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
2

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists, If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis of this office at
[phone] ext. 26.
Sincerely,
.-N) , �lh ag-fi� I
r Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor

USDA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
May 23, 2016
North Carolina
Mr. Gerald Pottem
State Office
Mogensen Mitigation Inc - Raleigh office
4407 Bland Road
MMI-RJGA Environmental Consultants.
Suite 117
1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27609
Voice 919-873-2171
Raleigh, NC 27610
Fax [phone]
Dear Mr. Pottern
Thank you for your letter dated May 18, 2016, Subject: Request for Comments —
for the Tar River Headwaters Wetland Mitigation Site located at 333 Bunnie
Huff Rd, Roxboro NC. The following guidance is provided for your
information.
Projects are subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements
if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to non-
agricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a
federal agency. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section
1540(c)(1) of the FPPA or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or
unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture to be farmland of statewide local importance.
For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland,
and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be
forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land.
Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development
or water storage. Farmland already in urban development or water storage
includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40 -acre area. Farmland
already in urban development also includes lands identified as urbanized area
(UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a tint overprint
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, or as
urban -built-up on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Important Farmland Maps.
The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland.
Farmland area will be affected or converted. Enclosed is the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating form AD 1006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation,
according to the Code of Federal Regulation 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection
Policy Act.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources mission.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

Mr. Ian Eckardt
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist at
919-873-2171 or by email: milton.cortes(c�r�,nc.usda.gov.
Again, thank you for inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by MILTON COPTES
MILTON CORTES Agikult ,cn—MITON OR1T20011000080773 nt of
Date: 2016.05.22 18:04:28 -04'00'
Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist
cc:
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 17 May 2016
Name of Project Tar River Headwaters Wetland Site
Federal Agency Involved NCDOT + NCDMS
Proposed Land Use Wetland Restoration
County and State Person Co, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By
NRCS
Person CompletingForm:
Milton Cortes RCS NC
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO
0 F-1
Acres Irrigated
None
Average Farm Size
241 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 84 % 217, 344 acres
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 72 pro 177, 608 acres
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
Person Co. LESA
Name of State or Local Site Assessment System
None
Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
May 23, 2016 by email
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
8.9
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0
C. Total Acres In Site
8.9
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
0
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
8.9
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0050
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
59
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted Scale of 0 to 100 Points
73
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria
Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106
Maximum
Points
Site A
Site B Site C
Site D
1. Area In Non -urban Use
(15)
15
2. Perimeter In Non -urban Use
(10)
10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
(20)
0
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government
(20)
0
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area
(15)
15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
(15)
0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
(10)
10
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland
(10)
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
(5)
5
10. On -Farm Investments
(20)
10
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
(10)
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
(10)
1
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
66
0 0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
73
0 0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment)
160
66
0 0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
139
0 0
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES ❑ NO ❑
Reason For Selection:
This site has hydric soil field indicators suitable for wetland restoration, and will be used as a mitigation
site for NC -DMS. It was ditched and drained in the 1940s, according to owners Roy & Joyce Huff.
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (03-02)

STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Step 1 - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place
of form AD -1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, http://fppa.nres.usda.gov/lesa .
Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)of project site(s), to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the
U.S. The USDA Office Information Locator maybe found at littp://offices.usda.gov/scripts/nd[SAPI.dll/oip public/USA map, or the offices can usually be
found in the Phone Book under U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State
Office in each State.)
Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime,
unique, statewide or local important farmland. (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days.
Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts If, IV and V of the form.
Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records.
Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing
NRCS office.
Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent
with the FPPA.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
(For Federal Agency)
Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land
use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.
Part III: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following:
1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the
conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture.
2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways,
utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion.
Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS
assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA).
1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor -type
project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero,
however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points.
2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the
FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other
weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites
where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse
impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation).
Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total
maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160.
Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:
Total points assigned SiteA 180 X 160 = 144 points for Site A
Maximum points possible = 200
For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center.
NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD -1006 form.

Appendix 8:
Soils Report

Hydric Soils Evaluation
Tar River Headwater Wetland
Person County, NC
September 3, 2015
Prepared for
MOGENSEN MITIGATION INC.
go
iENGOINOEEIRING
1151 SE Cary Parkway
Cary, NC 27518
Heather C. Smith
NC Licensed Soil Scientist #1336
Tar River Headwater Wetland, Person County, NC
EE Project # 30815-003

INTRODUCTION
At the request of Mogensen Mitigation Inc. (MMI), Ecological Engineering performed a soils
evaluation on the Tar River Headwater Wetland Site shown on the attached hydric soil delineation
figure. The site is immediately upstream of the Tar River Headwaters Bank, located off of Bunnie
Huff Rd. near Oxford, NC. The site is located in LRR P, MLRA 136, located in the uplands of the
Southern Piedmont.
The site evaluation was for the purpose of determining if hydric soils are in the proposed wetland
restoration project areas offered, in response to RFP #16-006476 from the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Mitigation Services.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Tar River Headwater Wetland is a fairly flat open pasture with a gentle slope towards a
jurisdictional stream, UT to Tar River. There are a few trees scattered throughout with one main
ditch and two lateral ditches. The site has been heavily grazed by livestock over the past 50
years: as evidenced by the compacted layers within the soil profile.
METHODS
A two-inch Dutch auger was used to hand bore 17 holes. An auger and shovel were used to dig
five (5) soil pits for detailed soil description, labeled SB 1-5(See attached descriptions, photos and
Figure 1). The 22 locations were used to determine extent of hydric soils shown on Figure 1. This
determination for the presence of hydric soil indicators is described in the manual Field Indicators
of Hydric Soils in the United States, 2010, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Hydric indicator utilized on this site:
F3: Depleted Matrix: A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or
less and that has a minimum thickness of either:
a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or
b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface
Notes: A depleted matrix requires a value of 4 or more and chroma of 2 or less. Redox
concentrations, including soft iron -manganese masses and/or pore linings, are required in soils
with matrix colors of 4/1, 4/2, or 5/2.
The soils were evaluated under moist conditions.
RESULTS
Borings were performed at 17 locations and pits were dug at 5 locations as shown on the
attached figure; see the five (5) soil pit sheets.
1. The hydric indicator F3 was met in nine of the 17 auger borings starting within the top six
(6) inches.
2. Two of the auger borings started the layer meeting the indicator at 10 inches.
Tar River Headwater Wetland, Person County, NC
EE Project # 30815-003

3. The remaining six auger borings didn't show hydric soils within the upper 16 inches.
4. All five (5) of the shovel dug soil pits started the layer meeting the F3 indicator within six
(6) inches of the surface.
5. Most of the borings have a dark brown loam A horizon averaging 2 inches deep; then a
silty clay loam/clay B horizon with brown colors and distinct/prominent redox features. The
B horizon extended throughout the holes to boring termination. The clay is sticky and
plastic.
6. These borings are different than the mapped soil of Orange. These soils are closer to a
Wehadkee soil mapping unit.
CONCLUSION
It is my professional opinion the Tar River Headwater Wetland Site exhibits evidence of hydric
indicators in the upper 16 inches, consistent with Wehadkee soils, throughout most of the area
evaluated. Wehadkee soils are considered hydric by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
Disclaimer: Design plans and strategies for this project area have yet to be determined.
Ecological Engineering, LLP has not evaluated the design approach, design hydroperiod, or other
methodologies necessary to determine the likelihood of meeting regulatory success criteria.
REFERENCES
Schoeneberger, P.J., D.A. Wysocki, E.C. Benham, and Soil Survey Staff, 2012. Field book for
describing and sampling soils, Version 3.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National
Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States V. 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble
(eds.). USDA, NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
Sincerely,
Heather C. Smith
NC Licensed Soil Scientist #1336
Tar River Headwater Wetland, Person County, NC
EE Project # 30815-003
w15

Soil Pit Photos
SB -1 F3 Indicator Met, Boring Depth 23" SB -2 F3 Indicator Met, Boring Depth 15"
SB -3 F3 Indicator Met, Boring Depth 16" SB -4 F3 Indicator Met, Boring Depth 15"
SB -5 F3 Indicator Met, Boring Depth 16"
Tar Pam Headwater Wetland, Person County, NC
EE Project # 30815-003 4

ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
! 154 SE Ury Parka -ay, Sultr 101 - Ury NC 27518
Soil Profile Description
Client
NTMI
Date
8-26-2015
Project Name
Tar Pam Headwaters Wetland
EE Project #
30815-003
County
Person
State
NC
Location
Bunnie Huff Road
Boring ID
SB -1
Soil Series
Mapped Orange, Actual Wehadkee
Bg1
2-10
Soil Classification
Fine —loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic
Endoaquepts
Actual WT
>23"
Slope
0-2
Vegetation
Pasture Drainage V. Poor. Drain
Latitude
36.394926
Boring Depth
23" Reason Indicator Met
Longitude
-78,818059
Horizon
Depth
(in)
Matrix>
Color
Mottles
Texture
z
Structure
Consistence s
4
Boundary
Notes
A
0-2
2.5Y 5/3
N/A
I
lfgr
mvfr
cs
many fine roots
Bg1
2-10
2.5Y 6/2
10YR 5/8
sicl
lmsbk
mfr
cs
many, coarse,
prominent mottles
Bg2
10-23
2.5Y 5/1
2.5Y 5/6
c
2msbk
mfr
many, coarse,
prominent mottles
Comments: Compacted layer around 10", sunny skies
LSS Seal and Signature:
�` '06 of
r�F. C.
—J
17
133 0
`+tC NO R7H �A
Date: q ^ 3—,) 015

ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
114f NE C—' PArk-yy,&Mr 101 -Cary tiC: 275 IA
Soil profile Description
Client
MMI
Date
8-26-2015
Project Name
Tar Pam Headwaters Wetland
EE Project #
30815-003
County
Person
State
NC
Location
Bunnie Huff Road
Boring ID
5B-2
Soil Series
Mapped Orange, Actual Wehadkee
Bg1
3-7
Soil Classification
Fine —loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
Actual WT
>15"
Slope
0-2%
Vegetation
Pasture Drainage V. Poor. Drain
Latitude
36.394267
Boring depth
1511Reason Indicator Met
Longitude
-78.818264
Horizon
Depth
(in)
Matrix
Color
Mottles
Texture
'Structure
Consistence
Boundary
Notes
A
0-3
2.5Y 5/2
N/A
I
lfgr
mvfr
cs
many fine roots
Bg1
3-7
2.5Y 5/2
10YR 5/8
sicl
lmsbk
mfr
cs
common, medium
prominent mottles
Bg2
7-12
10YR 4/1
2.5Y 5/4
sicl
2msbk
mfr
cs
common, medium,
prominent mottles
Bg3
12-15
10YR 4/1
2.5Y 5/6
c
2msbk
mfi
common, coarse,
prominent mottles
Comments: Hardpan around 15", sunny skies
LSS Seal and Signature:
._rrrv; `a%sr
q-3 -O0�5

ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
1151 4p ('ary• Parkwa7, Suite 10l � Cary X( 27519
Sail Profile Description
Client
MMI
Date
8-26-2015
Project Name
Tar Pam Headwaters Wetland
EE Project #
30815-003
County
Person
State
NC
Location
Bunnie Huff Road
Boring ID
S13-3
Soil Series
Mapped Orange, Actual Wehadkee
BA
3-6
Soil Classification
Fine —loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Ffuvaquentic Endo aquepts
Actual WT
X16"
Slope
0-2%
Vegetation
Pasture Drainage V. Poor. Drain
Latitude
36.392556
Boring Depth
16" Reason Indicator Met
Longitude
-78.818084
Horizon
Depth
{in}
Matrix
Color
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Boundary
Notes
A
0-3
2.5Y 5/2
N/A
I
lfgr
mvfr
cs
many fine roots
BA
3-6
10YR 4/1
10YR 5/6
sicl
ltnsbk
mvfr
cs
few fine roots and
few, fine,
prominent mottles
Bg1
6-11
10YR 4/1
10YR 5/6
sicl
2msbk
mfi
cs
common, fine,
prominent mottles
Bg3
11-16
2.5Y 4/2
2.5Y 5/6
c
2msbk
mfi
common, medium,prominent mottles
Comments: Cloudy skies
LSS Seal and Signature:
Date: 9- S —5

ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
]ISY SEUry PvkP ay,Sunt lAl -C-y NCISlfl
Soil Profile Description
Client
MMI
Date
8-26-2015
Project Name
Tar Pam Headwaters Wetland
EE Project #
30815-003
County
Person
State
NC
Location
Bunnie Huff Road
Boring ID
SB -4
Soil Series
Mapped Change, Actual Wehadkee
BA
2-5
Soil Classification
Fine —loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
Actual IMT
>15"
Slope
0-2%
Vegetation
Pasture Drainage V. Poor. Drain
Latitude
36.393722
Boring Depth
1S" Reason Indicator Met
Longitude
-78.817827
Horizon
Depth
(in)
Matrix
Color
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Boundary
Notes
A
0-2
10YR 4/1
N/A
I
lfgr
mvfr
es
many fine roots
BA
2-5
14YR 4/1
N/A
sicl
ltnsbk
mvfr
cs
few fine roots
Bg1
5-10
10YR 4/1
10YR 5/6
c
2msbk
mvfi
cs
common, fine,
prominent mottles
Bg3
11-16
2.5Y 4/2
2.5Y 5/6
c
2msbk
mvfi
common, medium,
prominent mottles
Comments: Cloudy skies
LSS Seal and Signature:
Date: 9.-3 _,� of 5

ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
1151 SE t:e 101 - Ury,C 2.--511
Soil Profile Description
Client
MMI
bate
8-26-2015
Project Name
Tar Pam Headwaters Wetland
EE Project #
30815-003
County
Person
State
NC
Location
Bunnie Huff Road
Boring ID
SB -5
Soil Series
Mapped Orange, Actual Wehadkee
Bg1
1-9
Soil Classification
Fine –loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
Actual WT
X16"
Slope
0-2
Vegetation
Pasture Drainage V. Poor. Drain
Latitude
36,394962
Boring Depth
16" Reason Indicator Met
Longitude
-78.817646
Horizon
Depth
(in)
Matrix
Calor
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Boundary
Notes
A
0-1
10YR 3/2
N/A
I
lfgr
mvfr
cs
many fine roots
Bg1
1-9
2.SY 5/1
10YR 5/6
sicl
lmsbk
mvfi
cs
common, medium,
prominent mottles
and few fine roots
Bg2
9-16
2.5Y 4/2
10YR 5/8
c
2msbk
mvfi
common, medium,
prominent mottles
Comments: Cloudy skies, just rained
LSS Seal and Signature:
Date: 9's—dolf;

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/
Report No.
FY17-SL004161
0
� ""�: ;.
Predictive
Client:
Richard Mogensen
7400 Feathers PI
Advisor:
_
Charlotte, NC 28213
#�
Soil Report
Mehlich-3 Extraction
f v
I lit.
Sampled County: Person
Sampled: 09/01/2016 Received:
09/07/2016 Completed: 09/16/2016
Farm: Bunnie Huff Farm
Links to Helpful Information
Sample ID: 1
Recommendations:
Lime
Nutrients (Ib/acre)
More
Crop
(tons/acre) N P2O5
K2O
Mg S Mn
Zn
Cu B
Information
Lime History:
1 -Hardwood, M
1.0 80-120 50
0
0
0
0 0
Note: 11
2 -Small Grain (SG)
0.0 80-100 110
20
0 0
0
0 0
Note: 3
Test Results [units - WN in g/cm3; CEC and Na in meq/100 crrr3; NO3-N in mg/da]:
Soil Class: Mineral
HM% WN
CEC BS% Ac pH
P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg%
S-1 Mn -I
Mn -A11 Mn-Al2 Zn -I
Zn -AI
Cu -I Na ESP
SS -I NO3-N
0.36 1.12
8.8 78 1.9 5.4
13 65 50 25
55 821
503 81
81
98 0.1
1
Sample ID: 2
Recommendations:
Lime
Nutrients (Ib/acre)
More
Crop
(tons/acre) N P2O5
K2O
Mg S Mn
Zn
Cu B
Information
Lime History:
1 -Hardwood, M
0.0 80-120 70
30
0
$
0 0
Note: 11
2 -Small Grain (SG)
0.0 80-100 130
100
0 0
6
0 0
Note: 3
Test Results [units - WN in g/cm3; CEC and Na in meq/100 cO; NO3-N in mg/drrr3]:
Soil Class: Mineral
HM% WN
CEC BS% Ac pH
P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg%
S-1 Mn -I
Mn -A11 Mn-Al2 Zn -I
Zn -AI
Cu -I Na ESP
SS -I NO3-N
0.60 1.12
13.4 90 1.3 6.1
5 21 56 33
26 325
204 24
24
121 0.2
1
North Carolina
Is'I��l�4l L^ I141w[ IIAI'.{I '�!?'Illsl+wkl�?!�
Reprogramming of the laboratory -information -management system that makes this report possible is being funded
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
Steve Trox

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/
Report No. FY17-SL004161
Richard Mogensen
Page 2 of 2
Understanding the Soil Report: explanation of measurements, abbreviations and units
Recommendations
Report Abbreviations
Lime
Ac
exchangeable acidity
If testing finds that soil pH is too low for the crop(s) indicated, a lime recommendation will be given in units of either
B
boron
ton/acre or Ib/1000 sq ft. For best results, mix the lime into the top 6 to 8 inches of soil several months before planting.
BS%
% CEC occupied by basic cations
For no -till or established plantings where this is not possible, apply no more than 1 to 1.5 ton/acre (50 Ib/1000 sq ft) at on
Ca%
% CEC occupied by calcium
time, even if the report recommends more. You can apply the rest in similar increments every six months until the full rate
CEC
cation exchange capacity
is applied. If MG is recommended and lime is needed, use dolomitric lime.
Cu -I
copper index
ESP
exchangeable sodium percent
Fertilizer
HM%
percent humic matter
Recommendations for field crops or other large areas are listed separately for each nutrient to be added (in units of
K-1
potassium index
Ib/acre unless otherwise specified). Recommendations for N (and sometimes for B) are based on research/field studies
K20
potash
for the crop being grown, not on soil test results. K-1 and P-1 values are based on test results and should be > 50. If they
Mg%
% CEC occupied by magnesium
are not, follow the fertilizer recommendations given. If Mg is needed and no lime is recommended, 0-0-22 (11.5% Mg) is
MIN
mineral soil class
an excellent source; 175 to 250 Ib per acre alone or in a fertilizer blend will usually satisfy crop needs, SS -1 levels appear
Mn
manganese
only on reports for greenhouse soil or problem samples.
Mn -All
Mn -availability index for crop 1
Mn-Al2
Mn -availability index for crop 2
Mn -I
manganese index
Farmers and other commercial producers should pay special attention to micronutrient levels. If $, pH$, $pH, C or Z
Mn-
mineral -organic soil class
notations appear on the soil report, refer to $Note: Secondary Nutrients and Micronutrients. In general, homeowners do not
N
nitrogen
need to be concerned about micronutrients. Various crop notes also address lime fertilizer needs; visit
Na
sodium
ncagr.gov/agronomi/pubs.htm.
NO3-N
nitrate nitrogen
ORG
organic soil class
Recommendations forsmall areas, such as home lawns/gardens, are listed in units of Ib/1000 sq ft. If you cannot find
pH
current soil pH
the exact fertilizer grade recommended on the report, visit www.ncagr.qov/agronomi/oboart4.htm*;fsfind information that
P-1
phosphorus index
may help you choose a comparable alternate. For more information, read A Homeowner's Guide to Fertilizer.
P205
phosphate
S-1
sulfur index
Test Results
SS -1
soluble salt index
W/V
weight per volume
The first seven values [soil class, HM%, W/V, CEC, BS%, Ac and pH] describe the soil and its degree of acidity. The
Zn -AI
zinc availability index
Zn -I
zinc index
remaining 16 [P -I, K -I, Ca%, Mg%, Mn -I, Mn -All, Mn-Al2, Zn -I, Zn -AI, Cu -I, S -I, SS -I, Na, ESP, SS -I, NO3-N (not routinel
available)] indicate levels of plant nutrients or other fertility measurement. Visit www.ncagr.qov/apronomi/uyrst.htm