20161239 Ver 1_401 Application_20161216 (3)

Mallard
Water Quality Improvement Site
Broad River Basin
Final Mitigation Plan
Duke Energy Mitigation Order
Cleveland County, North Carolina
HUC 03050105
Pre
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
November 2016

i*14 11 ►L .YIIu I►/ /\ �•1
The Mallard Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a watershed dominated
by agricultural and forested land use in Cleveland County, North Carolina. The project streams and
wetlands proposed for restoration have been significantly impacted by cattle grazing, channel
relocation, and channelization. The project will involve the restoration, enhancement, and protection of
streams and wetlands in the Broad River watershed.
The site is located within the Broad River Basin and USGS 14 -digit HUC 03050105100030. The 2009
Broad River Basin River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) identified several restoration needs for
the entire Broad River Basin. HUC 03050105100030 was not identified as a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW), however because of the project's ability to meet stressor related goals it will still be beneficial
to the Broad River Basin.
The proposed Site includes streams that discharge into Buffalo Creek. Due to its location and proposed
improvements, the Site will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Broad
River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others, such as pollutant
removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching effects.
The project presents 1,785 linear feet of Stream Restoration generating 1,785 Stream Mitigation Units
(SMU) as well as 27.47 acres of wetland rehabilitation generating 13.74 Wetland Mitigation Units
(WMU). Benefits include the storage of excess water during flood events, preventing erosion of stream
banks, reducing in -stream sedimentation, and nutrient reduction.
The Site encompasses 31.6 acres of actively managed floodplain with a single easement area. The
easement is bordered by Buffalo Creek to the northwest and is partially used for cattle farming. Current
stream and wetland conditions along the proposed reaches demonstrate habitat degradation as a result
of impacts from livestock and a lack of riparian buffers.
The objective for this Site is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland complexes
with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration
of natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in -stream habitat. The
floodplain areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channels where feasible to provide natural
exchange and storage during flooding events. The design is based on reference conditions, USACE
guidance (USACE 2005), and criteria that were developed during this project to achieve success.
Additional site objectives, such as restoring the riparian buffer with native vegetation, ensuring
hydraulic stability, and eradicating invasive species, are listed in Section 1.
Restoration of Type C4/5 and E4/5 reaches will consist of constructing low to moderate sinuosity (1.1-
1.4) streams. Each stream type will be constructed with a moderate width -depth ratio (12.5-16) that
accesses the floodplain at greater-than-bankfull flows. For stream reaches with average channel slopes
from 0.5% to 0.6% the bed profile form is in a riffle -pool morphology. The profile is therefore a
combination of riffle, run, pool, and glide features. Given the small sediment size, it is anticipated that
the bed will be highly mobile and these features will adjust frequently.
Wetland enhancement on Buffalo Creek will primarily involve removing livestock, planting native tree
and shrub species commonly found in reference ecosystems, invasive species control, beaver control,
and surface roughening to increase infiltration and storage.
Mallard Restoration Plan ii November 2016

After completion of all construction and planting activities, the site will be monitored on a regular basis
and a physical inspection of the site will be conducted at a minimum of twice per year throughout the
five-year post -construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met. These site
inspections will identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. The measure
of stream restoration success will be documented by bankfull flows and no change in stream channel
classification. The measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 260 five-
year old planted trees per acre with an average height of five feet at the end of year five of the
monitoring period.
Mallard Restoration Plan iii November 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................
6
1.1 Site Location...........................................................................................................................
6
1.2 Project Components................................................................................................................
6
2 WATERSHED APPROACH......................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends....................................................................... 7
2.2 Soil Survey............................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Site Photographs..................................................................................................................
10
3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT.........................................................................................
11
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information...........................................................
11
4 BASELINE INFORMATION......................................................................................................
12
4.1 Watershed Summary Information........................................................................................
13
4.1.1 Drainage Area...............................................................................................................13
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification........................................................................................13
4.2 Reach Summary Information...............................................................................................
13
4.2.1 UT1...............................................................................................................................13
4.2.2 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................14
4.3 Wetland Summary Information............................................................................................
14
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands and Floodplain................................................................................14
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints..........................................................
14
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities...............................................................14
4.4.2 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass.........................................................................................14
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation.............................................................15
5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL.......................................................................................
16
6 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS.............................................................................................
17
7 MITIGATION WORK PLAN.....................................................................................................
17
7.1 Description of Target Stream, Wetland and Vegetation Communities ................................
17
7.1.1 Reference Discharge and Bankfull Verification...........................................................18
7.1.2 Reference Channel Stability Assessment.....................................................................18
7.1.3 Reference Vegetation Communities.............................................................................18
7.2 Design Parameters................................................................................................................
19
7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach.......................................................................................19
7.2.2 Wetland Enhancement..................................................................................................
20
7.2.3 Plant Community Restoration......................................................................................
20
7.2.4 On -Site Invasive Species Management........................................................................
20
7.2.5 Soil Restoration............................................................................................................
21
8 MAINTENANCE PLAN.............................................................................................................
22
9 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................
23
9.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria.....................................................................................
23
9.1.1 Bankfull Events............................................................................................................
23
9.1.2 Cross Sections..............................................................................................................23
9.1.3 Digital Image Stations..................................................................................................
23
9.2 Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................
23
10 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................
24
10.1 As -Built Survey....................................................................................................................
24
10.2 Visual Monitoring................................................................................................................
25
10.3 Cross Sections......................................................................................................................
25
10.4 Vegetative Success Criteria..................................................................................................25
10.5 Scheduling/Reporting...........................................................................................................25
11 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................
26
Mallard Mitigation Plan iv November 2016

12 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN......
13 OTHER INFORMATION .........................
13.1 References .........................................
List of Tables
Table 1. Mallard Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation .................................................
Table 2. Mallard Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation ..............................................
Table 3. Parcel Mapped Soil Series.............................................................................................
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information...................................................................
Table 5. Project Attribute Table..................................................................................................
Table 6. Threatened and Endangered Species List......................................................................
Table 7. Functional Benefits and Improvements.........................................................................
Table8. Mitigation Credits..........................................................................................................
Table9. Planting Plan.................................................................................................................
Table 10. Maintenance Plan........................................................................................................
Table 11. Monitoring Requirements............................................................................................
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Supporting Figures
• Figure 1- Vicinity Map
• Figure 2- USGS Topographic Map
• Figure 3- Historical Conditions Map
• Figure 4- Soils Map
• Figure 5- Landowner Map
• Figure 6- National Wetlands Inventory Map
• Figure 7- Existing Conditions Map
• Figure 8- FEMA Map
• Figure 9- Conceptual Plan Map
• Figure 10- Planting Plan Map
Appendix B- Conservation Easement and Plat
• Jurisdictional Determination
• Agency Correspondence
Appendix C- Data Analysis
Appendix D- Baseline Information
• Jurisdictional Determination
• Agency Correspondence
Appendix E- Design Plan Sheets (11x17)
26
27
27
Mallard Mitigation Plan v November 2016

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Mallard Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a watershed dominated
by agricultural and forested land use in Cleveland County, North Carolina. The project streams and
wetlands proposed for restoration have been significantly impacted by channelization and agricultural
practices. Due to its location and proposed improvements, the site will provide numerous ecological
and water quality benefits within the Broad River Basin.
1.1 Site Location
The Site is located off of Mallard Drive, approximately 2 miles east of Earl in Cleveland County, NC.
To access the Site from I-85, travel southwest on 29 S for 3.6 miles, turn right onto Carolina Avenue,
merge onto Cleveland Avenue, travel northwest 2.2 miles and turn left onto Mallard Drive (Figure 1).
The Site is located within the Broad River Basin, USGS 14 -digit HUC 03050105100030 (Figure 2).
The Site is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont sub -region of the Piedmont ecoregion (Griffith et
al. 2002).
1.2 Project Components
The Site is comprised of a single easement area with one unnamed tributary and a drainage ditch that
eventually drain downstream to Buffalo Creek. The Broad River is approximately seven miles
downstream of the project. The stream and wetland components are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1. Mallard Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation
Proposed
Mitigation
Existing ProposedMitigation
Reach
Type
Length Length
Ratio
SMUs
(LF) (LF)
UTI- Upper
Restoration
1,371 1,375
1 : 1
1,375
UTI- Lower
Restoration
NA 410
1 : 1
410
Total
1,371 1,785
1,785
Table 2. Mallard Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
Mitigation
WMUs
Ratio
Enhancement -High
27.47
2:1
13.74
TOTAL
27.47
13.74
Mallard Mitigation Plan 6 November 2016

2 WATERSHED APPROACH
The 2009 Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) identified several restoration needs for the
entire Broad River Basin. Twenty-seven percent of the watershed is used for agricultural purposes and
nine percent is currently developed. HUC 03050105100030 was not identified as a Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW), however because of the project's ability to meet stressor related goals it will still be
beneficial to the Broad River watershed.
The Site is located within HUC 03050105 and includes streams that discharge into Buffalo Creek. The
Site achieves the goals set forth for the Broad River Basin in the 2009 Broad RBRP, to implement
wetland and stream restoration projects that reduce sources of sediment and nutrients by restoring
riparian buffer vegetation, stabilizing banks, excluding livestock, and restoring natural geomorphology,
especially in headwater streams.
The project goals address stressors identified in the RBRP and include the following:
• Nutrient removal
• Sediment reduction
• Invasive species treatment
• Filtration of runoff
• Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Restoration of appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile in stream channels,
• Restoration of forested riparian stream buffers,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks due to lack of vegetation and livestock hoof shear,
• Addition of large woody debris, such as log vanes, log weirs, root wads, and
• Treatment and control of exotic invasive species.
2.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Aerial imagery indicates that the subject site has mostly been used for agriculture and has been
surrounded by land that has been used for agricultural purposes or remained forested (Figure 3).
Several watershed characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and soil
parameters have been modified. Soil structure and surface texture have been altered from intensive
agricultural operations.
2.2 Soil Survey
The soils within the Piedmont region of Cleveland County formed on uplands in material that weathered
mainly from granite and gneiss. Much of the county is well drained; however, several areas are
moderately drained to somewhat poorly drained. The Site is on the Hulett -Madison -Grover soil
association (Figure 4).
This association is found on uplands with subsoil that is clayey or loamy with a high content of mica.
This soil association makes up approximately twelve percent of Cleveland County and is generally
characterized by interfluves and side slopes.
Project site soils are mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) as Chewacla,
Dorian, Hulett, Madison, Toccoa, and Wehadkee (Table 3). Chewacla, Dorian, Toccoa, and Wehadkee
soils are on the low lying depressions and floodplains at the site. Chewacla soils are loam, somewhat
poorly drained, and range from zero to two percent slopes. Dorian is a sandy loam, moderately well
Mallard Mitigation Plan 7 November 2016

drained, occurring on flats on stream terraces; slopes range from two to eight percent. Toccoa soils are
loam, moderately well drained and generally occurring in flood plains; slopes range from zero to two
percent. Wehadkee soils are loam, poorly drained, occurring on depressions on flood plains; slopes
range from zero to two percent.
The surrounding upland soils are mapped as Hulett and Madison. Hulett is a gravelly sandy loam,
generally well drained, occurring on interfluves and hillslopes on ridges; slopes range from two to 15
percent. Madison is a gravelly sandy loam, generally well drained, occurring on interfluves; slopes
range from two to 8 percent.
Table 3. Parcel Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent
Drainage
Hydrologic
Landscape
Symbol
Hydric
Class
Soil Group
Setting
ChA
Chewacla loam, 0-2%
5%
Somewhat
B/D
Floodplains
slopes
Poor
DoB
Dorian sandy loam, 2-
5/0 °
Moderately
C
Flats on stream
8% slopes
Well
terraces
GrD
Grover gravelly sandy
0%
Well
B
Hillslopes on ridges
loam, 15-30%
HhB
Hulett gravelly sandy
0%
Well
B
Interfluves
loam, 2-8% slopes
HtC
Hulett gravelly sandy
0%
Well
B
Hillslopes on ridges
loam, 8-15% slopes
MaB2
Madison gravelly sandy
0%
Well
B
Interfluves
clay loam, 2-8% slopes
ToA
Toccoa loam, 0-2%
0/0 °
Moderately
B
Flood Plains
slopes
Well
WeA
Wehadkee loam, 0-2%
90%
Poor
B/D
Depressions on
slopes
flood plains
Chewacla loam. This is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on floodplains of the
Piedmont and Coastal Plain river valleys. They formed in alluvium, and generally occur on slopes
between zero and two percent. Runoff is negligible to very low, and permeability is moderate. Major
uses are cropland, pasture, and some forest. Chewacla loam is the predominant soil throughout the
existing streams occurring along the bed, streambanks and floodplains.
Dorian sandy loam. This is a very deep, moderately well -drained soil that occurs on stream terraces
of the Piedmont. They formed from clayey fluvial sediments, and generally occur on slopes between
zero to two percent. Runoff is low, and permeability is slow. This soil type is mostly found in pasture.
Dorian sandy loam occurs along the eastern and western edge of the target parcel.
Grover gravelly sandy loam. This is a very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on the ridges and side
slopes on Piedmont uplands. They formed from weathered high-grade metamorphic rocks high in mica
such as biotite gneiss and schist, and generally occur on slopes between 15 and 30 percent. Runoff is
medium to rapid, and permeability is moderate. This soil type is found on the western part of the parcel.
Hulett gravelly sandy loam. This is a very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on the uplands of the
Piedmont Plateau. They formed in residuum weathered from acid micaceous metamorphic rocks, and
generally occur on slopes between two to 15 percent. Runoff is medium, and permeability is moderate.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 8 November 2016

Major uses are cultivated crops and forests of pine and mixed hardwoods. Hulett gravely sandy loam
occur along the lower reaches of the proposed stream.
Madison gravelly sandy clay loam. This is a very deep to moderately deep, well -drained soil that
occurs on the gently sloping to steep uplands in the Piedmont. They formed in residuum weathered
from felsic or intermediate, high grade metamorphic or igneous rocks high in mica content, and
generally occur on slopes between two and eight percent. Runoff is medium to rapid, and permeability
is moderate. Major uses are cultivation or pasture, and some forest. Madison gravelly sandy clay loam
occur along the western edge of the parcel.
Toccoa loam. This is a moderately deep, well -drained to moderately well -drained soil that occurs on
the Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain valleys. They formed in loamy and sandy alluvium from igneous
and metamorphic rocks, and generally occur on slopes between zero and two percent. Runoff is very
low, and permeability is moderately rapid. Major uses are cropland, hayland, and pasture. Toccoa loam
occur along the northern edge of the target parcel.
Wehadkee loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained to very poorly drained soil that occurs on flood
plains along streams that drain from the mountains and Piedmont. They formed in loamy sediments
washed from soils that formed from other metamorphic and igneous rocks, and generally occur on
slopes between zero and two percent. Runoff is very slow, and permeability is moderate. Major uses
are water tolerant hardwood forests, pasture, corn, and hay. Wehadkee loam occur along the floodplain
of the proposed stream.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 9 November 2016

2.3 Site Photographs
"hop of UTI - existing conditions, looking
downstream
Top ofUTI- existing conditions, looking
upstream
Bottom of UT1- Existing conditions, looking
upstream
Existing crossing on UT 1 downstream end
Existing wetland/pasture
Existing wetland/pasture
Mallard Mitigation Plan 10 November 2016

3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Site includes portions of
the following parcel (Figure 5). A copy of the land protection instrument(s) is included in Appendix
B.
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Landowner
Parcel No.
/PIN
County
Site Protection
Instrument
Parcel
Acreage
Protected
Acreage
Environmental Banc
63350/
Conservation
Cleveland
42.407
31.57
& Exchange, LLC
2553544694
Easement
When available, the recorded document(s) will be provided. If the recorded document(s) are not
available, the template documents will be provided.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 11 November 2016

4 BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 5. Project Attribute Table
Project Information
Project Name
Mallard
County
Cleveland
Project Area (acres)
31.6
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Latitude: 35° 11'35.542 "N Longitude: 81° 29'31.018"W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
31.5
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin
Broad
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03050105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-
digit
03050105100030
DWR Sub -basin
03-08-05
Project Drainage Area (acres)
560
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
< 1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Hay/Pasture; Woody Wetlands
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UTI
Ditch
Length of reach (linear feet)
1375
410
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined,
unconfined)
Confined
unconfined
Drainage area (acres)
560
N/A
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
N/A
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
N/A
Stream Classification (existing and proposed)
E/C4/5 and E4/5
N/A
FEMA classification
AE
AE
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
No
No
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
No
No
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix B
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or LAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
No
No
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Mallard Mitigation Plan 12 November 2016

4.1 Watershed Summary Information
4.1.1 Drainage Area
The drainage area at the downstream limits of the project is 560 acres (0.87 mi.'). Land use within the
watershed consists of 62% forest, 12% low-density residential, and 26% agricultural land. Impervious
area covers less than I% of the total watershed. Baseline information is summarized in Table 5.
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification
Buffalo Creek has been assigned a Class C classification (NCDEQ 2016). Waters classified as Class C
waters are protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic
life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where
such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner (NCDWQ 2011).
4.2 Reach Summary Information
In order to assess existing geomorphic conditions, cross section measurements were taken at two (2)
locations within the site. These measurements were used to evaluate existing width -depth ratios, bank -
height ratios, entrenchment ratios and stream classification (Appendix Q. Data utilized from reference
reach surveys and the NC Rural Piedmont regional curve were used to compare the site conditions with
regional hydraulic geometry relationships for bankfull cross sectional area and discharge.
Due to the approach of this project being a Priority 1 channel relocation, stability of the existing channel
was not further evaluated for existing erosional and depositional features, other than to note the large
amounts of sand present and moving through the system.
4.2.1 UT1
The majority of UTI classifies as a Type E stream characterized by low to moderate width -depth ratios,
however there are areas that are classified as G and C as well, depending on the depth of incision, access
to floodplain, and width/depth ratios. Entrenchment ratios typically range from 1.5 to >3. The bank -
height ratios on UT 1 are typically within the range of 1.1— 2.0. This suggests that future adjustments of
the channel will occur in the form of widening of the bed width and pattern adjustments resulting in
additional bank erosion.
UTI enters the site from the south flowing through a flat, broad valley. Maintaining its south to north
direction and relatively flat profile for the majority of the impacted reach, UTI runs over a sand bed
before joining with a drainage ditch, flowing from the large adjacent wetland, and finally flowing into
Buffalo Creek. Adjacent to the streams present location, the valley bottom is a wide pasture to the east.
UT flows approximately 1,900 linear feet adjacent to a sand bed access road and the vegetated pasture
to the east until its confluence with the drainage ditch and several hundred feet later, flows into Buffalo
Creek.
Inspection of the site topography suggests that the channel was realigned from its historic position along
the center of the valley (now in pasture) to the western side of the valley for agricultural purposes. The
contour mapping indicates that the center of the valley bottom is slightly lower to the east of the existing
channel and that depression area is now functioning as a wetland. At the upstream end of UTI, a sand
bed channel with constantly changing dimension and profile features, indicates highly mobile bed load.
Throughput consists primarily of sand generated from the head of the watershed and on-site. At the
downstream end of UTI, the average particle size remains sand, however additional input of silts and
clays are present from suspended load due to backwater from Buffalo Creek. Additionally, numerous
Mallard Mitigation Plan 13 November 2016

depositional features are present throughout the impacted reach, and are comprised of sand and small
gravel.
Subsequent to the initial channel relocation and straightening, the channel has continuously eroded its
banks in an effort to re-establish proper dimension and pattern. Bank erosion has been further
aggravated by adjacent agricultural practices and a minimal riparian buffer.
4.2.2 Vegetation
Current land use in the vicinity of the project is primarily pasture, grazed wetlands, and disturbed forest.
Agricultural practices and cattle grazing have contributed to the highly eroded channel throughout the
easement. Beaver activity has led to tree mortality in the currently wooded area within the easement.
4.3 Wetland Summary Information
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands and Floodplain
The valley bottom on both sides of UTI, which constitutes the historic alluvial floodplain, is
approximately 100 acres, of which approximately 27.69 acres remain as jurisdictional wetlands. The
floodplain has a down -valley slope of approximately 0.7% in the south to north direction. Although the
floodplain has been severely impacted by past land use practices there is substantial evidence that a
majority of this area was historically wetlands.
In addition to the channel relocation, drainage ditching was installed to affect site drainage conditions.
One main ditch is cut through the wetlands east of UT 1 and runs north to east towards confluence with
UT 1 and then Buffalo Creek.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map maps the area
north of the drainage ditch as a Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (PFO IA) and the area to the south
of the drainage ditch as a Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PEM1A) (Figure 6).
A wetland delineation was performed in May 2016. Wetland boundaries were delineated using current
methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation
Manual (DOA 1987) and Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 2010). Soils were characterized and classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in
the United States, Version 7.0 (USDA-NRCS 2010). Wetland boundaries were marked with
sequentially numbered wetland survey tape (pink/black striped). Flag locations were surveyed under
the direction of a Professional Licensed Surveyor (PLS) with GPS and conventional survey (Figure 7).
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) was requested on September 7, 2016. When received,
the PJD will be included in Appendix D.
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities
No utilities are located within the Site. Additionally, no exclusions are included in the easement.
4.4.2 FEMAIHydrologic Trespass
UT 1 is located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE) of Buffalo Creek, and the downstream
end is located within the FEMA floodway (Figure 8). Hydraulic modeling will be required to determine
that restoration activities will have no effect on 100 -year flood elevations downstream. No hydrologic
Mallard Mitigation Plan 14 November 2016

trespass will be permitted to adjacent properties upstream or downstream of the project without
approval of the affected landowners. FEMA coordination will be conducted independent of the
Mitigation Plan as needed.
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation
4.4.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
A desktop analysis and field investigation were conducted to evaluate federally protected species
potentially occurring on the Site. The USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPAC)
online tool was consulted to determine if any threatened or endangered species managed or regulated
by the USFWS may be affected by project -related activities at the Site. In addition to the USFWS IPAC
tool, the October 2014 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP 2011) database of natural
heritage element occurrences was also reviewed in GIS to identify rare species or unique habitats on-
site, especially those listed in the USFWS database. According to the USFWS IPAC database review
tool (USFWS 2015), two federally listed species may occur in proximity to the Site (Table 6).
Table 6. Threatened and Endangered Species List
Common Name
Scientific Name Federal Status Record Status
Flowering Plants:
Dwarf-Flowerd heartleaf
Hexastylis naniflora T Current
Mammals
Northern long-eared bat
Myotis septentrionalis T Current
Species and species habitat listed in the USFWS database were inspected for during the field
investigation to determine whether or not they occur at the Site. Potential impacts to species and species
habitat off site, downstream, and within the vicinity of the project were also considered. In summation,
the biological conclusion for all threatened and endangered species listed in the USFWS database that
could be potentially affected by project activities is "No Effect". Because the database search and field
investigations determined that the biological conclusion for each species is "No Effect", no written
concurrence from the USFWS is required.
In addition to screening for federally protected species, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires
consultation with state fish and wildlife agencies when "waters of any stream or other body of water
are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted ... or otherwise controlled
or modified". RES submitted a request to the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC)
for review and comments on the Site on November 3, 2016 in regards to any potential impacts to fish
and wildlife resources. Documentation is included in Appendix D.
4.4.3.1 Cultural Resources
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service database
revealed that there are no National Registered listings within a one -mile radius of the proposed project
area. No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the Site.
RES submitted a letter to the NC SHPO office on November 3, 2016 requesting a search of records to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that may
be affected by the Site. Documentation is included in Appendix D.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 15 November 2016

5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Harman et. al. 2012) separates stream functions into five
categories, ordered into a hierarchy, which communicate the interrelations among functions and
illustrate the dependence of higher level functions (biology, physiochemical and geomorphology) on
lower level functions (hydrology and hydraulics). Anticipated functional benefits and improvements
within the project area, as based on the Function -Based Framework are outlined in Table 7.
Table 7. Functional Benefits and Improvements
Mallard Mitigation Plan 16 November 2016
Functional
Objective
Description
Level
(1-5)
Benefit will be achieved through cattle exclusion and direct removal of fecal
Nutrient removal
inputs, filtering of runoff through buffer areas, the conversion of active farm
3,4
fields to forested buffers, and improved denitrification and nutrient uptake
through buffer zones.
Benefit will be achieved through the stabilization of eroding stream banks
Sediment removal
through cattle exclusion (passive) and bioremediation, bed loss will be
3
arrested with grade control structures, and reduction of sediment loss from re-
forested pasture.
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas that will
Runoff filtration
receive and filter runoff, thereby reducing nutrients and sediment
3
concentrations reaching aquatic resources.
Benefit will be achieved through the enhancement of floodplain connectivity
Water storage
which will store more water during precipitation events than under current
1,2
drainage conditions.
Restoration of
Benefit will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer and wetland buffers to
habitats
hardwood ecosystems.
3
Improved substrate
Substrate will become coarser as a result of the stabilization of stream banks
and instream cover
and an overall decrease in the amount fine materials deposited in the stream.
3
Addition of large
Benefit will be achieved through the addition of wood structures as part of the
woody debris
restoration design. Such structures may include log vanes, root wads, log
3,4
weirs, and log toes.
Reduced water
temperature due to
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of canopy tree species to the
4
shading
stream buffer areas.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 16 November 2016

6 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
In accordance with the provisions of this mitigation plan, all credits will be used to compensate for
impacts associated with the terms of the Plea Agreements and Judgements as part of the United States
v. Duke Carolinas et al. Mitigation Order. The District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Western Division entered an order directing RES to implement mitigation measures on behalf of Duke
Energy in accordance with the Mitigation Order. On October 27, 2015, RES submitted a final
implementation plan which was reviewed and approved by all parties.
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon site design (Figure 9). Upon
completion of site construction, the project components and credits will be revised to be consistent with
the as -built condition.
Table 8. Mitigation Credits
7 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Description of Target Stream, Wetland and Vegetation Communities
Reference reaches were sought to provide a target for design of the proposed streams. Searches were
conducted first upstream and downstream of the Site and then into surrounding watersheds to find
suitable references that contained comparable slope, bed material, and valley type. No reference
condition channels were located in reasonable proximity, so reference data from another watershed in
the NC Piedmont was utilized for design purposes, along with dimension data from the existing stream.
The type E reference will be used for proposed type C streams since reference quality type C streams
are difficult to locate in the Piedmont province and are often associated with more disturbed conditions.
Additionally, the type E reference represents the evolutionary endpoint for type C streams once
sediment loads have diminished in response to channel stabilization and upstream watershed
stabilization.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 17 November 2016
The Mallard Site Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Totals
1,785
13.74
N/A
STREAM
Mitigation
Reach Type
Stationing Existing
(Proposed) Length
(LF)
ProposedMitigation
Length
(LF)
Base
Ratio SMUs
UT1-Upper Restoration
UTI- Lower Restoration
3+10 to 16+85 1,371
16+85 to 20+95 NA
1,375
410
1:1 1,375
1:1 410
Total 1,371
1,785
1,785
WETLAND
Mitigation Type
Existing Mitigation
Acreage
WMUs
Enhancement
27.47 2:1
13.74
Total
27.47
13.74
7 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Description of Target Stream, Wetland and Vegetation Communities
Reference reaches were sought to provide a target for design of the proposed streams. Searches were
conducted first upstream and downstream of the Site and then into surrounding watersheds to find
suitable references that contained comparable slope, bed material, and valley type. No reference
condition channels were located in reasonable proximity, so reference data from another watershed in
the NC Piedmont was utilized for design purposes, along with dimension data from the existing stream.
The type E reference will be used for proposed type C streams since reference quality type C streams
are difficult to locate in the Piedmont province and are often associated with more disturbed conditions.
Additionally, the type E reference represents the evolutionary endpoint for type C streams once
sediment loads have diminished in response to channel stabilization and upstream watershed
stabilization.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 17 November 2016

The reference reaches were selected to represent the probable configurations for the proposed stream.
Detailed geomorphic survey was conducted on Sal's Branch in the Piedmont and Flat Creek in the
Coastal Plain to acquire needed dimension, pattern, and profile data from use in the design of UT 1.
Sal's Branch Reference
The Sal's Branch reference reach is located in the Piedmont hydro -physiographic region of North
Carolina. The watershed has many characteristics in common with UTI watershed including average
annual rainfall, valley type, and (desired) substrate composition. The reference watershed is located in
Umstead State Park area and is entirely forested. The drainage area for the Sal's Branch reference is
0.2 mit.
Sal's Branch reference reach is representative of an E4 channel in a moderately sloped valley with a
relatively broad floodplain. Bed material, channel slope and valley form of this stream are somewhat
consistent with the Site and provide reasonable analogues for the potential channel forms that can be
expected at the Site. The Sal's Branch reference reach has a D50 of 8 mm, D84 of 10 mm, channel
slope of 1%, width/depth ratio of 7 to 9 and sinuosity of 1.1 to 1.3.
Flat Creek Coastal Plain Tributary Reference
The Flat Creek reference reach is located in the Upper Coastal Plain hydro -physiographic region of
North Carolina. The watershed has characteristics in common with the project reach, UTI, including
average annual rainfall, valley type, and existing substrate composition. The reference watershed is
located near Fort Bragg in Hoke County and is predominately forested. The drainage area for the Flat
Creek reference is 7.6 mi2.
The Flat Creek reference reach is representative of an E5 channel in a moderately sloped valley with a
relatively broad floodplain. Bed material, channel slope and valley form of this stream are somewhat
consistent with the Site and provide reasonable analogues for the potential channel forms that can be
expected at the Site. The Flat Creek reference reach has a D50 of 1.3 mm, D84 of 4 mm, channel slope
of 0.7%, width/depth ratio of 10 and sinuosity of 1.1 to 1.3.
7.1.1 Reference Discharge and Bankfull Verification
Bankfull was readily identified on the reference reaches as it exhibited consistent indicators throughout
the reaches. Verification of bankfull was accomplished by plotting the bankfull cross sectional area
against the regional curve data. The data indicates that the bankfull identified in the surveyed reach is
within the confidence intervals of the regional curve and consistent with the range of data collected in
the rural Piedmont regional curve study.
7.1.2 Reference Channel Stability Assessment
A detailed channel stability assessment was not performed for these reaches since the bank and bed
stability was apparent from observation. Subsequent review of the surveyed dimensions confirmed that
width -depth ratios and bank -height ratios were within the appropriate range for stable, self -maintaining
streams. Additional observations included significant upstream and downstream reconnaissance to
identify any past, present, or future signs or sources of degradation.
7.1.3 Reference Vegetation Communities
The target vegetation communities for the Site will be Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest in the
riparian wetlands and riparian areas. According to Schafale and Weakley the Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest canopy is comprised primarily of mesic bottomland species such as tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), hackberry or sugarberry (Celtic
Mallard Mitigation Plan 18 November 2016

occidentalis/laevigata), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis).
The understory can be diverse, and includes species such as ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
American holly (Ilex opaca), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Vines are prominent, and include poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), various greenbriers (Smilax spp.), grapes (Mitis spp.), and Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus virginianus). Herbs are also diverse, and can include multiple types of sedges
(Carex spp.), river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), violets (Viola spp.), jumpseed (Persicaria
virginiana), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), and Virginia rye grass (Elymus virginicus).
7.2 Design Parameters
7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach
UTI is divided into two sub -reaches; based on potential connectivity to the existing wetland area. The
Upper and Lower reaches are relatively flat and are both proposed for a Priority I restoration. The Upper
reach (UTI) is designed as a type E4 stream with moderate sinuosity and an average channel slope of
0.6%. The Lower reach is proposed for Priority I restoration as a type C4 stream with low sinuosity and
an average slope of 0.5%. It is anticipated that this reach will evolve to an E4 stream type as vegetation
and deposition allow the channel to narrow. A portion of the downstream end of the Lower reach will
require Priority 11 restoration in order to transition back to the existing drainage feature. The existing
degraded stream conditions sufficiently warrant complete reconstruction of the reach; however, equally
as important is raising the stream profile to reconnect it to the floodplain, which will enhance the
wetland areas. Reconstruction of the channel will provide for configuration of proper cross sectional
geometry that will reduce stress on the banks and eliminate bank scour. Riffles will be constructed from
native gravel material along with in -stream structures, and will provide immediate habitat features and
a dramatic functional lift.
7.2.1.1 Design Methods
Stream Restoration
Restoration of Type C4/5 and E4/5 reaches will consist of constructing a low to moderate sinuosity
(1.1-1.4) streams. Each stream type will be constructed with a moderate width -depth ratio (12.5-16)
that accesses the floodplain at greater-than-bankfull flows. For stream reaches with average channel
slopes from 0.5% to 0.6% the bed profile form is in a riffle -pool morphology. The profile is therefore
a combination of riffle, run, pool, and glide features. Given the small sediment size, it is anticipated
that the bed will be highly mobile and these features will adjust frequently.
Exploration for buried bed material will be conducted in proximity of the channel work to harvest
available bed material for reuse in the constructed channel. Where the quantity of existing bed material
is insufficient it will be supplemented with off-site material of appropriate size.
In some locations topographic constraints prevent Priority I restoration and it will be necessary to
construct a bankfull bench. Along these reaches, topsoil will be removed prior to excavation and
stockpiled. After completion of grading operations, topsoil will be redistributed across the floodplain
bench to facilitate vegetation success.
Log and/or rock structures will be used to provide vertical stability to the channel, assist in maintaining
riffle, run and pool features, and to provide habitat features. Small brush -toe structures may be installed
on the outside of meander bends to provide an anchor for bank stability, increase bank roughness, and
provide aquatic habitat.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 19 November 2016

Earthwork activities will include excavation of the proposed channels, partial or complete backfilling
of existing channels and removal of existing spoil berms. Grading work is designed to restore or mimic
natural contours.
7.2.2 Wetland Enhancement
The Site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. As such, the wetland enhancement is located
along the floodplains of the streams, and closely tied to the stream restoration. Proposed wetland
enhancement will be treated with a credit ratio of 2:1. The primary wetland treatment will be re -planting
the disturbed pastures as forested wetlands and excluding livestock from the pasture and currently
grazed forested wetlands. In addition, in the currently forested areas where beaver activity has led to
tree mortality, supplemental planting will occur at a lower planting density. Other enhancement
activities will include invasive species control and surface roughening to increase infiltration and
storage. Combined with the proposed stream restoration, these actions will result in a sufficiently high
water table and flood frequency to support hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology, resulting in
enhanced riparian wetlands.
7.2.3 Plant Community Restoration
The selection of plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach, species present in
the forest surrounding the restoration site, and what is typically native to the area. Several sources of
information were used to determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project.
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest will be the target community type and will be used for all areas
within the project. The plant species list has been developed and can be found in Table 9 and on Figure
10. Species with high dispersal rates are not included because of local occurrence, adjacent seed
sources, and the high potential for natural regeneration. The high dispersal species include red maple,
tulip poplar, and sweetgum. The restoration of plant communities along the Site will provide
stabilization and diversity. For rapid stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders),
silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis) were chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their
rapid growth patterns and high success rates.
7.2.4 On -Site Invasive Species Management
Control for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream restoration.
Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology
and the location of the species being treated. All treatment will be conducted so as to maximize its
effectiveness and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods
will include mechanical control (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical control
(foliar spray, cut stump, and hack and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds will be
removed from the site and properly disposed. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified
ground pesticide applicator with a North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(NCDA&CS) license and adhere to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide labels and
NC and Federal laws. Management records will be kept on the plant species treated, type of treatment
employed, type of herbicide used, application technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities
used. These records will be included in all reporting documents.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 20 November 2016

Table 9. Planting Plan
Planting Zone 1- Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
Acres: 22.93
Species
Common Name
Spacing (ft)
Unit Type
% of Total
Species
Composition
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
9x6
Bare root
12
Betula nigra
River Birch
9x6
Bare root
12
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
9x6
Bare root
12
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
9x6
Bare root
12
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
9x6
Bare root
12
N ssa s lvatica
Blackgurn
9x6
Bare root
10
Asimina triloba
Paw Paw
9x6
Bare root
10
Celtis laevi ata
Sugar Berry
9x6
Bare root
10
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Button Bush
9x6
Bare root
5
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
9x6
Bare root
5
Planting Zone 2 - Supplemental Planting
Acres: 8.63
Species
Common Name
Spacing (ft)
Unit Type
% of Total
Species
Composition
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Button Bush
20x20
Bare root
25
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
20x20
Bare root
15
Betula nigra
River Birch
20x20
Bare root
15
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
20x20
Bare root
15
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
20x20
Bare root
15
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
20x20
Bare root
15
7.2.5 Soil Restoration
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before
the topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be
stockpiled and placed over the site during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable
soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization
for the site.
All disturbed areas will be stabilized with temporary and permanent seed and covered with straw or
mulch. Stream banks will be stabilized using a combination of erosion matting, bare -root plantings, and
bio -engineering techniques in accordance with the plans in Appendix E. The entire conservation
easement area will be planted with bare root seedlings in accordance with the planting plan.
The restored stream channels will be protected by a conservation easement that includes a riparian
buffer of at least 50 feet and the enhanced wetland areas will be included in the conservation easement.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 21 November 2016

The easement boundary for the stream and wetlands will be delineated by 10 -foot metal poles labeled
with conservation easement signs.
8 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will be conducted a minimum
of once per year throughout the post construction monitoring period until performance standards are
met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction
and may include the following:
Table 10. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of
in -stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along
the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the
channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -
cutting. Stream maintenance activities will be documented and reported in
annual monitoring reports. Stream maintenance will continue through the
monitoring period.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
plant community. 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. Vegetation maintenance activities will be documented and
reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be
marked with signs identifying the property as a mitigation site, and will
include the name of the long-term steward and a contact number.
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. Easement monitoring and staking/signage
maintenance will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Livestock Fencing
Livestock fencing is to be placed outside the easement limits. Maintenance
of fencing is the responsibility of the landowner.
Beaver
Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver
management is needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability
or vegetative success, RES will trap beavers and remove impoundments as
needed. All beaver management activities will be documented and included
in annual monitoring reports. Beaver monitoring and management will
continue through the monitoring period.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 22 November 2016

9 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Site will follow approved performance criteria presented in the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Specific success criteria
components are presented in this section.
9.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
9.1.1 Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two
bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
9.1.2 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -
cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall
be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
9.1.3 Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
9.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site will
follow USACE Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and
cover a minimum of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually in the
fall of each year. The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least
320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, and the final vegetative success criteria
will be 260 trees per acre at the end of Year 5. The site will include eighteen (18) monitoring plots to
monitor the 22.9 planted acres. Success criteria for the supplemental planting area will be 50%
survival rate of planted stems. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and included in
the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of total planted
stems.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 23 November 2016

10 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the USACE Monitoring Report Templates. The
monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project
status and trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding project close-out. The
success criteria for the Site will follow current accepted and approved success criteria presented in the
USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines, and subsequent third -party guidance. Specific success criteria
components are presented in Table 11. Monitoring reports will be prepared annually and submitted to
a third -party reviewer.
Table 11. Monitoring Requirements
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
As per April 2003
USACE Wilmington
Additional surveys will be performed if
Pattern
District Stream
Baseline
monitoring indicates instability or
Mitigation
significant channel migration
Guidelines
As per April 2003
Baseline,
USACE Wilmington
years
Dimension
District Stream
1,2,3,4,
Surveyed cross sections and bank pins
Mitigation
and 5
Guidelines
As per April 2003
USACE Wilmington
Additional surveys will be performed if
Profile
District Stream
Baseline
monitoring indicates instability
Mitigation
Guidelines
As per April 2003
Crest gauges and/or pressure
Surface
USACE Wilmington
transducers will be installed on site; the
Water
District Stream
Annual
devices will be inspected on a quarterly
Hydrology
Mitigation
basis to document the occurrence of
Guidelines
bankfull events
Vegetation
Annual
Vegetation will be monitored per IRT
guidelines
Exotic and
Nuisance
Annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance
Vegetation
vegetation will be mapped
Project
Semi-
Locations of fence damage, vegetation
Boundary
annual
damage, boundary encroachments, etc.
will be mapped
Stream
Visual
Annual
Semi-annual visual assessments
10.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of Thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of
bank to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports. Stream channel stationing will be marked with stakes placed near the top of bank
every 200 feet.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 24 November 2016

10.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species,
and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete
streamwalk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to
record each monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual
monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital
images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
10.3 Cross Sections
Permanent cross-sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in
pools and half in riffles. All cross-section measurements will include bank height ratio and
entrenchment ratio. Cross-sections will be monitored annually. There should be little change in as -built
cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent
movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or erosion), or are minor changes
that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the
banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment
ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches. Channel stability should be demonstrated through
a minimum of two bankfull events documented in the five-year monitoring period.
10.4 Vegetative Success Criteria
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be 18 plots within the planted area (22.9 acres). Existing wooded
areas are not included in the planted area. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the plots:
species, height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. Monitoring will occur each year during
the monitoring period.
In addition to the vegetation plots, two fixed 300 -foot line transects will be established in the
supplemental planting area to monitor a total of 30 trees, roughly three percent of the total planted
stems. Similar to the vegetation monitoring plots, the following data will be recorded for all trees in the
transect: species, height, and planting date.
10.5 Scheduling/Reporting
As -built drawings documenting stream and wetland restoration activities will be developed within 60
days of the planting completion on the mitigation site. The report will include all information required
by IRT mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, photographs and sampling plot locations,
gauge locations, and a description of initial species composition by community type. The report will
also include a list of the species planted and the associated densities. Baseline vegetation monitoring
will include species, height, date of planting, and grid location of each stem.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 25 November 2016

11 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon third -party approval for site closeout, the site will be transferred to the US Land Conservancy.
This party shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in
the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required
to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible
party.
12 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, RES will implement the post -construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in
this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the Site's ability to
achieve site performance standards are jeopardized, RES will notify the third -parry reviewer of the need
to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized RES
will:
1. Notify the third -party reviewer.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the third -party reviewer.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 26 November 2016

13 OTHER INFORMATION
13.1 References
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). `Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009."
(September 2014).
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. Floodplain Mapping Information System.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team (2010), North Carolina Wetland Assessment
Method User Manual, version 4.1.
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation
composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR,
Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar,
and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), Web Soil
Survey; hn:Hwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 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.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina." North
Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleiah/.
Mallard Mitigation Plan 27 November 2016

Appendix A- Supporting Figures
• Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
• Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map
• Figure 3. Historical Conditions Map
• Figure 4. Soils Map
• Figure 5. Landowner Map
• Figure 6. National Wetlands Inventory Map
• Figure 7. Existing Conditions Map
• Figure 8. FEMA Map
• Figure 9. Conceptual Design Plan
• Figure 10. Planting Plan

W INN on BlivId
ar r &i q r ShLqby
Ors
"ell
q,
if
7=
P 41by kid E I,
ppings, King
Pi ;yin
Mallard Mitigation Site HUC 03050105100030
Latitude: 35011'35.421"N
Longitude: 81029'27.415" OIL *.
EXI
M er
lie
e4
ax 4t
Kmg 6 Mo un w io
MOU 17Y f-rark 'rid
BI k klurg 11 Kirio. Mounuin
L 96 FAA rk
V Rle' 11�S
Avit tr
Date: 11/4/2016
FIGURE 1
Drawn by: BPB
Project Vicinity Map
1 rt%s
Mallard Water Quality Improvement Site 0 2
Not to Scale Cleveland County, NC
Miles

+gip Y r T pp
A
4t 4%
Al
4 2r
• •
AL
Figure 3
Historical Conditions Map
Proposed Easement Mallard Water Quality Improvement Site
�! IG� • int .� � :- . A '4'�'� '�
1
• Y s�
L
hL
i } •' '�
s
�t-�e NUJ t � '�=' � ..� •' _ �. �, N�`J9�C3�c-�'D � �. � .
N0 750 1,500 3,000
F

dil r
Iv
y t Iy�
(, I ►- � �N. �'r:rr/rte �. } .11. u,. ��. _+•
_ e
i
- Q ,
Sri `► � $ rrY � I � • � �'' / r n� +"" r } ,... ,�h�• 4 �+��z�."M
� �j •' - a� ,' Fp �`'.f��' -Tr„ rT�.}'r %� � .7 ���� - r,��`r,`r� t t�
y''}}'� r r / ♦�� f y i 'i � 'j:,[ fir% ' ,r�r+r
r}
- +x f r� ►
r'i t
r, y, 11�
W
r'

Legend
® Proposed Easement
Target Parcel
Proposed Stream Alignment
Existing Stream Alignment
Planting Zones
® Zone 1- (22.93 Ac.)
® Zone 2- (8.63 Ac.)
Planting Zane l-Pied—M—Nin Bonnmland Forest
Acres:
22.93
Species
Common Name
Spaeing(0)
Uoit Type
�ofTotal Spedes
Composition
F}axinus a ns N-ica
Greeo Ash
9x6
Bare root
12
Betula ra ni
River Bich
9.6
Bare root
12
Plam ccid-oli,
S -
9.6
Ba.—
12
s hellos
Willow oak
9.6
Bare root
12
Water Oak
9.6
Bare root
12
N—ss/vaHco
Black
9x6
Bare root
10
Aslmina triloba
Paw Paw
9.6
Bare root
10
Celds laevi ata
Su Be
9x6
Bare root
l0
Ce halanrhu.s occidenfa8s
Burton Bosh
76
Bara root
5
DL
Perri—
9x6
Bare root
5
Planting Zone 2- Su lemenml Plondn
Acres: 8.63
Species
Common Name
Spaetng(fl)
Unit Type
%of Total Spedes
Composition
Ce ha[anrhus omidenfalir
Bohon Bosh
20.20
Bare root
25
Fraxinus ens /vanica
Grean Ash
20x20
Bare root
l5.
Bemla ni ra
River Bich
20x20
Bare root
IS
Plaronuv occidenratis
5 a
2020
Bare root
15
s hellos
Willow oak
2020
Bare root
l5
Water Oak
20x20
Bare root
15
z Date: 11/4/2016
FIGURE 10
S
Drawn by: BB
Planting Plan
0 125 250 Mallard Water Quality Improvement Site res
Feet Cleveland County, NC

Appendix B - Site Protection Instruments*
• Model Conservation Easement
• Preliminary Plats
*This appendix will be updated as the easement deeds and plats become available.

MODEL CONSERVATION EASEMENT
January 18, 2001
Rev'd October 16, 2002
Rev'd August, 2003
Model Conservation Easement for use in preserving mitigation property. Language in
italics is instructional, and should be deleted when site-specific Conservation Easement
is prepared.
PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made this
day of , 200_ by and between
("Grantor") and (Grantee).
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine
or neuter as required by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and
being in County, North Carolina, more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Property");
WHEREAS, Grantee is [either a public body of this state, an agency of the United
States, or a nonprofit corporation or trust whose purpose is the conservation of property],
and is qualified to be the Grantee of a conservation easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 121-35;
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following natural
communities: [describe by wetland and/or stream type, as well as any associated buffers
or upland communities]. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain
wetland and/or riparian resources and other natural values of the Property, and prevent
the use or development of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would
conflict with the maintenance of the Property in its natural condition.
[ For use when the mitigation is offered for impacts of a single individual or
general permit use] WHEREAS, the preservation of the Property is a condition of
Department of the Army permit Action ID issued by the Wilmington
District Corps of Engineers, required to mitigate for unavoidable stream and/or wetland
impacts authorized by that permit. Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District

(Corps, to include any successor agencies), and that these rights are in addition to, and do
not limit, the rights of enforcement under said permit.
[Alternate paragraph for use when the conservation easement supports a
mitigation bank] WHEREAS, the preservation of the Property is required by a Mitigation
Banking Instrument for the [Name of Bank], Department of the Army Action ID [Action
ID number for the mitigation bank]. The Mitigation Bank is intended to be used to
compensate for unavoidable stream and/or wetland impacts authorized by permits issued
by the Department of the Army. Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(Corps, to include any successor agencies), and that these rights are in addition to, and do
not limit, the rights of the parties to the Mitigation Banking Instrument.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby
unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors
and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and
character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Property described on Exhibit A,
together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation values thereof, as follows:
ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This conservation Easement is an
easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor,
Grantor's personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and
licensees.
ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Property inconsistent with the purpose of this
Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Property shall be preserved in its natural
condition and restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the
conservation values of the Property.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses
are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder:
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Property or any introduction of non-native
plants and/or animal species is prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display,

antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or
permanent structure or facility on or above the Property.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or
commercial activities, including any right of passage for such purposes are prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Property are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming, cutting
or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation on the Property.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the property; nor enlargement or modification to existing roads, trails or walkways.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Property, except the
posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation values of the Property,
signs giving directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Property
and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the property.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or other
materials on the Property is prohibited.
I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any manner
on the Property, except to restore natural topography or drainage patterns.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration
of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition, diverting or causing
or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into, within or out of the
easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters,
springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered or
extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited. [The Corps
will generally allow the use of vehicles on existing roads provided those roads are

identified by reference to a recorded map showing their location, configuration, and
size.]
M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Property which is or
may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Property
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is
prohibited.
ARTICLE III
GRANTOR'S RESEVERED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the property for all purposes not
inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to
quiet enjoyment of the Property, the rights of ingress and egress, the right to hunt, fish,
and hike on the Property, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Property,
in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms
of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.
[For use when mitigation work (approved or required restoration, creation, or
enhancement)is to be done on the property]Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions,
Grantor reserves for Grantor, its successors and assigns, the right to construct wetland
and stream mitigation on the Property, in accordance with the [describe mitigation plan
by title, date and permit action id if a single mitigation site; if a mitigation bank, include
the language "detailed mitigation plan approved in accordance with the Mitigation
Banking Instrument for the Mitigation Bank.]
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE'S RIGHTS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and the
Corps, shall have the right to enter the Property at all reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting said property to determine if the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, is complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes
of this Conservation Easement. The Grantee shall also have the right to enter and go
upon the Property for purposes of making scientific or educational observations and
studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do not include public
access rights.
ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee is allowed to prevent
any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purposes of this
Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may
be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation

Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify
the Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of
such notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach remains
uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by
appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice,
to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if the breach
of the term of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or otherwise
materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement. The
Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances damage to the Grantee
would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate. The rights and remedies of
the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights
and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement. The
costs of a breach, correction or restoration, including the Grantee's expenses, court costs,
and attorneys' fees, shall be paid by Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be
responsible for the breach. The Corps shall have the same right to enforce the terms and
conditions of this easement as the Grantee.
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision
hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition, or
provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of a
subsequent breach or default.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle
Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the Property
resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire,
flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except Grantor's lessees or invitees; or
from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions to
prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or harm to the
Property resulting from such causes.
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Warran . Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which
may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property which
have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor further
warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and
arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title
to the Property against the claims of all persons.

B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any interest in
all or a portion of the Property. The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such
transfer at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee
agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee
and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof and shall not be amended,
modified or terminated without the prior written consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this
Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however that the Grantee
hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation
Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a qualified holder under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee
further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be such that
the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. This instrument sets forth the entire
agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all
prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation
Easement. If any provision is found to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes,
assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the Property
free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor. Grantee shall
not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership,
operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Nothing herein 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.
F. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the
continued use of the Property for the conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement
may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.
G. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Property is taken in the exercise
of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this
Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time
of such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.
H. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest
immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of this Property is sold,
exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an extinguishment or the exercise of
eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair market value of this Conservation

Easement. The parties stipulate that the fair market value of this Conservation Easement
shall be determined by multiplying the fair market value of the Property unencumbered
by this Conservation Easement (minus any increase in value after the date of this grant
attributable to improvements) by the ratio of the value of this easement at the time of this
grant to the value of the Property (without deduction for the value of this Conservation
Easement) at the time of this grant. The values at the time of this grant shall be the values
used, or which would have been used, to calculate a deduction for federal income tax
purposes, pursuant to Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (whether eligible or
ineligible for such a deduction). Grantee shall use its share of the proceeds in a manner
consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
I. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication
required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter specified
by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]
To the Corps:
[Name, address and fax number]
J. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a
reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to
make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's interest
shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate
proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.
K. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in a
writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any
applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation purposes of this grant.
L. [For use if there is a document describing the current condition of the
property. The language provided is applicable if there is a mitigation plan that
accurately describes the current condition and uses of the property. If there is not such a
plan, another document we agree is accurate and can be identified and is in our files can
be referenced.]Present Condition of the Property. The wetlands, scenic, resource,
environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Property, and its current use and
state of improvement, are described in Section , Appendix B of the Mitigation Plan,

dated , prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and
Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee
have copies of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes
in the use of the Property will be consistent with the terms of this Conservation
Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the use of other evidence to
establish the present condition of the Property if there is a controversy over its use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for
the aforesaid purposes.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]

Appendix C- Data Analysis
• Mallard Site Morphological Parameters
• Existing cross-sections
• Sediment Transport Calculations

Mallard Site Design
XS 1 Existing
XS 2 Existing
Off-site reference
Off -Site Reference
Proposed Channel
Proposed Channel
Condition
Condition
Sal's Branch
Flat Creek
- Upper
- Lower
(Piedmont)
(Coastal Plain)
DA (sq mi)
0.7
0.8
0.2
7.6
0.7
0.8
Stream Type
G5
E5
E4
E5
E4/5
C .;- E4/5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (sq ft)
32
18.2
10.4
51.4
30
30.8
W b kf
20
14
8.7
22
20
22
Dmax
2.3
1.8
2.4
3
2.2
2
W/D
13
11
7
10
13
16
Wfpa
28
50
100
100
100
100
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
1.4
2.7
10
5
5
5
Dbkf
1.6
1.3
1.2
2.3
1.5
1.4
Vbkf
3.5
3.5
3
2.5
3.5
3.5
Qbkf
112
63.7
31.2
128.5
105.0
107.8
Bank Height Ratio (BHR)
2
1.1
1
1
1
1
Sinuosity
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
Valley Slope
0.007
0.012
0.010
0.007
0.007
Channel Slope
0.006
0.01
0.0074
0.005
0.006
Rc/Wbkf
2-5
3-5
3-6
3-7
-
-
60-120
66-154
Lm/Wbkf
12-30
10-28
10-25
10-25
-
-
200-500
220-550
Wblt/Wbkf
4-13
4-13
5-12
5-12
-
-
100-240
110-264
Apool/Abkf
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
-
-
36
40.0
Srif/Savg
2-5
1.5-4
1.5-4
1.5-4
-
-
.007-.02
.009-.024
P -P spacing/Wbkf
3-10
2-8
3-10
3-10
-
-
-
60-200
66-220

Station BS HI FS ELEV NOTES
i
96
94.25
92.5
90.75
89
0
X
G ELEV
0 0
p p 0 0
4 8
12
101
16

Station
ELEV
0
NOTES
0
94.26
3
94.23
0
4.3
93.75
0
8.6
92.77
9.5
92.63
eow
10.5
92.6
11.2
92.45
12.6
92.6
15.6
92.69
eow
17
94.1
19
95.15
20.5
95.72
spoil pile
22.5
95.11
25.2
94.79
29.3
94.53
M.
93
92 -
0
o ELEV
E
0
0
0
94
0
0
0
0
93
92 -
0
o ELEV
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
4 8 12 16

Sediment Transport Calculations
Parameters
Definition
D50
median dia. particle of the riffle bed
D50A
median dia. particle of the bar (or subpavement) sample
Di
largest particle from the bar (or subpavement) sample
T ci
critical shear stress (dimensionless)
dr
required minimum bankfull depth
sr
required minimum bankfull water surface slope
de
existing bankfull depth
se
existing bankfull water surface slope
y
specific weight of water (62.4 Ibs/ft3)
R
hydraulic radius of riffle cross section (ft)
w
bankfull width (desian)
In mm Converted
D50 1.5 0.005 ft
D50A 1.8 0.006 ft
Di 6 0.020 ft
de 1.4 ft
se 0.005 ft/ft
Y 62.4 Ibs/ft3
R (=2*d+w) 22.8
W 20 ft
Project: meadow creek
Date: 6/22/12
Equations
Ratio of D50 to D50^= 0.833333332
Ratio of Di to D50= 3.333333332
If ratio is between 3.0 and 7.0:
Tci = 0.09781 EQN 1
_ If ratio is NOT between 3.0 and 7.0 calculate Di/D50; if Di/D50 is between 1.3 and 3.0:
Tci = 1 0.0750 EQN 2
1
Calculate critical depth with EQN 1:
dr= 1 0.64 EQN 3
Calculate critical depth with EQN 2:
d r= 0.49
Calculate critical slope with EQN 1:
sr= 1 0.00231 EQN 4
Calculate critical slope with EQN 2:
sr= 1 0.0017
Bankfull shear stress:
T=
3.23

Appendix D- Baseline Information*
• Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) Package
• Correspondence
o NC Wildlife Resources Commission Correspondence
o NC State Historic Preservation Office correspondence
o Third Party Reviewer Correspondence (Axiom Environmental)
■ Feasibility Comments (September 8, 2016)
■ Restoration Plan Comments (November 10, 2016)
* This appendix will be updated when the PJD is received.

J
`"�
l
�_ s1 '
t
'0
1f \
i1����-•.v /51� Q N..;t
• \ "; - • 1 - " ' . `�'`_ HH'` , _ Yea ', �� -
Ar -
11
• ter
} Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i'cubed
Legend
Mallard Drive Site
Assessment
Jurisdictional Determination � Miles
___� Property Boundary
Topographic Features Map 0 0.25 0.5 1 N EQUINOX
Qr LINO

Soil Series
ChA - Chewacla loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, frequently
flooded
DoB - Dorian sandy loam, 2
to 8 percent slopes, rarely
flooded
GrD - Grover gravelly sandy
loam, 15 to 30 percent
slopes, rocky
HhB - Hulett gravelly sandy
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HtC - Hulett gravelly sandy
loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, stony
PaC2 - Pacolet sandy clay
loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
PsB2 - Pacolet-Saw
complex, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
PtD - Pacolet-Saw complex,
15 to 25 percent slopes,
stony
ToA - Toccoa loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, occasionally
flooded
UdC - Udorthents, loamy, 0
to 15 percent slopes
W - Water
WeA - Wehadkee loam, 0 to
- 2 percent slopes, frequently
flooded
Mallard Drive Site
Jurisdictional Determination
Soil Series Map
ChA
Legend
WeA
DoB
.Ry
Assessment Area
Property Boundary
HtC
HtC
HhB
HtC HtC
N
Feet EQUINOX
0 125 250 500

SAMPLE AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. PLAN NO. PARCEL ID:
STREET ADDRESS:
Please print:
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
of
(Contractor J Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Telephone: [phone]
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Date: Date:

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations
and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
Property Owner (please print) Date
Property Owner Siilfnature
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One:
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does include a delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does NOT include a delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property/project area for the presence or
absence of WoUS5 and provide an approved JD for the property identified herein. This
request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of all WoUS on a property/project
area and provide an approved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
Irl I am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) on a property/project area and provide an approved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat).
4 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E
5 Waters of the United States
Version: December 2013 Page 4

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/borough: Cleveland City: Grover/Earl
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.194087 ° 1, Long. -81.492684 °
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Buffalo Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Broad River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050105100030
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 5/25/16, 5/26/16, 6/1/16
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There M "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 325 linear feet: 5 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section 11I.F.

SECTION HI: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.l. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HI.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Ra
arsas have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year:
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
® High Tide Line indicated by: 0 Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section HI.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
is Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Channel is second order, and demsonatrates characteristics of a perennial channel including continuous
bed and bank and substrate sorting; however, in several areas beaver dams are present across the channel, which obscures the
ability to sample substrate or macrobenthos. Additionally, stream scores 31 on NCDWR Stream Form. Ditching of the
channel and the adjacent stream (S02) have led to the deviation of the stream line from the way it is shown on the USGS
topographic quadrangle.

Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 325 linear feet 5 width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
IN Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
i Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
® which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:7.5-Minute series, Grover Quadrangle.
❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
® 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: 1010' (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):NCOneMap 2015 Orthoimagery.
or ® Other (Name & Date):USDA/NAIP 2012,2010, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2005; USGS 1999, 1994, 1991, 1989, 1983,
1973, 1971, 1961; USDA 1949 (all as part of an aerial photo decade package from a third -party data acquisition company).
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:

® Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/borough: Cleveland City: Earl _
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.194087 ° , Long. -81.492684 ° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: E: 455148.00; N: 3894678.06 (UTM Zone 17S)
Name of nearest waterbody: Buffalo Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Broad River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050105100030
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 5/25/16, 5/26/16, 6/1/16
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There M "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 1,956 linear feet: 15 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 27.69 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section 11I.F.

SECTION HI: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.l. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HI.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Ra
arsas have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year:
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
® High Tide Line indicated by: 0 Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's now
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section HI.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream is first order, flowing through large wetland. Stream displays characteristics of a perennial
stream, including continuous bed and bank and substrate sorting. Shown as a 'dashed blue line' (intermittent) on USGS
topographic quad map but the stream flow path has been significantly altered downstream from its confluence with SOI and its
actual flow path is different than indicated on USGS quad maps. Additionally, stream scored 37 on NCDWR Stream Form.
Of note are several large beaver dams across the ditched channel as it flows out to Buffalo Creek; these dams obscure features
suchs as particle size/sorting and macrobenthos sampling along the downstream portion of the stream.

Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 1,956 linear feet 15 width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Stream flows through a large wetland complex and into a ditched channel leading to
Buffalo Creek. The wetland surrounds the stream on both sides and terminates when the stream cuts down into
the ditched channel.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: S02, a perennial stream or RPW, flows through the wetland area and drains to Buffalo Creek. The
origin of S02 is at the outfall of a blocked culvert that formerly drained the wetland; upstream waters (within the wetland)
are now perched and ponded above the culvert, and it is not possible to see the upstream end of the pipe.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 27.69 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.

❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:7.5-Minute series, Grover Quadrangle.
❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
® 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: 1010' (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):NCOneMap 2015 Orthoimagery.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

or ® Other (Name & Date):USDA/NAIP 2012,2010, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2005; USGS 1999, 1994, 1991, 1989, 1983,
1973, 1971, 1961; USDA 1949 (all as part of an aerial photo decade package from a third -party data acquisition company).
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

fires
November 3, 2016
Sincerely yours,
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Mr. Vann Stancil
Suite 130
Habitat Conservation Biologist
Owings Mills, MID
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
21117
215 Jerusalem Church Road
412 N. 4th St.
Kenly, NC 27542
Suite 300
Restoration Ecologist
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
Subject: Project Scoping for Mallard Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project in Cleveland
County.
100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401
Dear Mr.Stancil,
5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might
Houston, TX
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential stream restoration project on
77006
the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground
disturbance are enclosed). The Mallard Site has been identified by Resource Environmental
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Solutions, LLC (RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts. The
Lafayette, LA
proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 1,375 linear feet of
70508
stream and 27 acres of wetland enhancement. The site is currently used for cattle grazing and the
1371/2 East Main St.
stream channels have been straightened and channelized.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment
25901
to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at bbreslow(&,res.us with any
33 Terminal Way
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219
Sincerely yours,
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605
1521 W. Main
Brad Breslow
2n1 Floor
Restoration Ecologist
Richmond, VA
23220
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

fires
November 3, 2016
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Renee Gledhill -Earley
suite 130
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
Owings Mills, MD
of the site. Mike Borders Farm is the only architectural structure observed or noted during
21117
4617 Mail Service Center
33 Terminal Way
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
Baton Rouge, LA
any historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You
70802
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
Suite 110
contact me at bbreslow(ares.us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
100 Calhoun St.
The Mallard Site has been identified b REnvironmental SolutionsLLC RES to
Resource ons , ( ) 1Jrovide
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. The proposed project
29401
involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 1,375 linear feet of stream and 27 acres
2n1 Floor
of wetland enhancement.
suite Montrose Blvd.
Sincerely yours,
Suite 650
Houston, TX
RES requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
77006
archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream and wetland mitigation
project on the Mallard Site (a USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation easement is
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
attached).
Lafayette, LA
70508
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
1371/2 East Main St.
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/; accessed September 1, 2016) was performed as part of the site due
Suite 210
diligence evaluation. According to this website, there are no historical structures within one mile
Oak Hill, WV
of the site. Mike Borders Farm is the only architectural structure observed or noted during
25901
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of the site has
33 Terminal Way
historically been disturbed due to cattle grazing.
suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
15219
any historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You
302 Jefferson St.
may return the comment to my attention at the address below, or via email. Please feel free to
Suite 110
contact me at bbreslow(ares.us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
Raleigh, NC
27605
disturbance associated with this project.
1521 W. Main
2n1 Floor
Richmond, VA
Sincerely yours,
23220
e-77 A
Brad Breslow
Restoration Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919-215-1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
September 8, 2016
Daniel Ingram
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Ingram,
The following are comments concerning the feasibility document and field visit walkthrough of the
Mallard Water Quality Improvement Site, located in Cleveland County, North Carolina. The site
walkthrough occurred on August 31, 2016 and included representatives from Resource
Environmental Solutions (RES) and Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE). The Feasibility Report for
the site is dated August 2016.
Mallard Site
Overall, AXE agrees with the mitigation concept as outlined in the August 2016 feasibility report.
Reach designations and proposed mitigation treatment for UT 1 appear suitable for site conditions;
however, UT 2 appears to be a wetland and a stream determination will be required by the US Army
Corps of Engineers or NC Division of Water Quality before stream mitigation credit may be derived
through this section of the site.
Feasibility Report comments include:
1) Existing Conditions — a watershed of 59 acres (0.01 square miles) for UT 2 may be
insufficient to support a jurisdictional stream. Confirmation of jurisdiction through this reach
may be necessary, as stated above.
2) Section 4.1.1 Stream and Buffer Restoration, second paragraph, last sentence - a credit ratio
of 3:1 is proposed for the grazed, forested wetland areas." However, the woody vegetation
through a large portion of this area has not survived ponded conditions due to beaver activity.
AXE suggests supplemental planting in this area, implementing beaver control, and using a
2:1 credit ratio for this section.
3) Section 4. 1.1 Stream and Buffer Restoration, fourth paragraph, last sentence — "reconnecting
low lying areas of hydric soil with the floodplain" is not a necessary or feasible wetland
mitigation objective in a beaver -impacted area. Please remove this activity from the text.
Page 1 of 2

4) UT 1 is currently situated on the property boundary. It is proposed to be moved off the
property boundary and through the middle of the conservation easement. Documentation
from the adjacent landowner will be required to avoid hydrologic trespass by moving the
stream from the property boundary.
Site visit comments include:
1) The jurisdictional boundaries for wetlands will be confirmed by the US Army Corps of
Engineers to determine the extent of Wetland Enhancement at the Site. In addition, a
jurisdictional determination of stream presence will occur on UT 2 if stream mitigation credit
is to be derived from this reach.
2) Wetland Enhancement will be derived at a 2:1 ratio for the site. This includes previously
wooded sections that have been flooded, causing trees to die. Wetland Enhancement will
include planting suitable species throughout credit -generating areas. Oaks, hickories, and
other species of high wildlife value constitute suitable species. Vegetation monitoring will
occur in all planted areas, including previously wooded areas.
Sincerely,
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
W. Grant Lewis
President
Page 2 of 2

November 10, 2016
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919-215-1693
Daniel Ingram
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Ingram;
The following are comments concerning the Mallard Water Quality Improvement Site Draft
Mitigation Plan, dated November 2016. The Site is located in Cleveland County, North Carolina.
The project involves 1,785 linear feet of stream restoration and approximately 27 acres of wetland
enhancement.
Projects involving discharge of fill (temporary or permanent) into a jurisdictional stream and/or
wetland will require notification of the action to the US Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division
of Water Resources through the submittal of a Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) for a
Nationwide Permit (NWP). This project will likely be conducted under a NWP #27, for "Aquatic
Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities". As the project will be vetted
through the regulatory agencies via the NWP process, third party review by Axiom Environmental,
Inc. (AXE) for the United States v. Duke Carolinas et al. Mitigation Order will be limited to
document review with minimal oversight.
Draft Mitigation Plan comments include:
1) The document references UT 1 and UT 2 throughout. However, site visits indicate only one
tributary occurs within the site boundaries. UT 2 appears to be a ditch through a wetland.
2) Executive Summary, eighth paragraph, first sentence — "reconnecting low lying areas of
hydric soil with the floodplain" is not a necessary or feasible wetland mitigation objective in
a beaver -impacted area. Please remove this activity from the text. Wetland enhancement
will involve removal of livestock, planting, invasive species control, and beaver control.
That should be sufficient to warrant wetland enhancement.
3) Watershed Approach, project goals - "Restoration of hydrology in disturbed and existing
riparian wetlands". Please see comment 2 above.
4) Table 7, improved groundwater recharge — Please see comment 2 above.
5) Table 8, stationing for UT 2 ("Lower Reach" on construction plans) should match the
attached construction plans for clarity.
Page 1 of 2

6) Section 7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach, seventh sentence — "raising the stream profile to
reconnect it to the floodplain which is integral to success and function of the proposed
wetland enhancement". Please see comment 2 above.
7) 7.2.2 Wetland Enhancement, sixth sentence — Please see comment 2 above.
8) Table 11, Parameter (dimension), frequency — "Baseline, Years 1, 2, 3, and 5". Year 4
should be added to the 5 year monitoring schedule.
9) Appendix C — Data Analysis — Please show the surveyed cross section locations on the
existing conditions figure. This may explain why the XS 2 is almost half the bankfull cross
sectional area as XS 1, even though the drainage area is larger.
10) Design Plan Sheets — please show the conservation easement on the plan sheets. This makes
confirmation of proposed SMU's possible.
11) Design Plan Sheets 6 and 11 are blank.
AXE believes the Mallard Draft Mitigation Plan (dated November 2016) conforms to State of North
Carolina and Federal mitigation guidelines outlined in the following documents.
• Part 332 (Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources) - 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.
; 33 U.S.C. 1344; and Pub. L. 108-136
• USACE 2012. Wilmington District Mitigation Bank Prospectus Checklist
• IRT 2009. Regulatory Guidance for the Calculation of Stream and Buffer Mitigation Credit
for Buffer Widths Different from Standard Minimum Widths
• IRT 2011. Stream Mitigation Considerations for the Coastal Plain of North Carolina
• IRT 2013. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Compensatory
Mitigation in North Carolina
It the understanding of AXE that the project will be developed using a NWP #27 and regulatory
authorities will be notified of proposed activities.
Sincerely,
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
k-) ljl�a Jut�
W. Grant Lewis
President
Page 2 of 2