20081203 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20080715

• PLUM CREEK WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Brunswick County, NC
Lumber River Basin
Cataloging Unit: 03040207
Project Number D06040-A
•
Prepared for:
Y
OS Steni
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Wetland Restoration Plan
• Submitted I D
July 2008 uk, L0
JUL 1 5 2008
DENR - WATER UUAUPY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
•
Prepared for:
eIA
NCDENR
r 'N-
t-dal
o'stm
r 1I U1I
fFII.-OEIV AM
Prepared by:
•
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Manager:
Michael O'Rourke
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
0
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iv
1. Project Site Identification and Location ........................................................................ .. 1
1.1. Directions to Project Site .......................................................................................... .. 1
1.2. USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations .................. .. 1
1.3. Project Vicinity ........................................................................................................ .. 2
2. Watershed Characterization .......................................................................................... .. 2
2.1. Drainage Area .......................................................................................................... .. 2
2.2. Surface Water Classification / Water Quality .......................................................... .. 2
2.3. Physiography, Geology, and Soils ........................................................................... .. 3
2.4. Historical Land Use and Development Trends ........................................................ .. 3
2.5. Endangered / Threatened Species ............................................................................ .. 3
2.6. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... .. 5
2.7. Potential Constraints ................................................................................................ .. 6
2.7.1. Property Ownership and Boundary ......................................................................... .. 6
2.7.2. Site Access ............................................................................................................... .. 6
2.7.3. Utilities .................................................................................................................... .. 6
2.7.4. FEMA / Hydrologic Trespass .................................................................................. .. 6
3. Project Site Streams ...................................................................................................... .. 6
4. Reference Streams ......................................................................................................... .. 6
5. Project Site Wetlands - Existing Conditions ................................................................ .. 7
5.1. Jurisdictional Wetlands ............................................................................................ .. 7
5.2. Hydrological Characterization ................................................................................. .. 8
5.2.1. Groundwater Modeling ............................................................................................ .. 8
• 5.2.1.1. Input Analysis for the Wetland Water Budget ................................................ .. 8
5.2.1.2. Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................................ 10
5.2.1.3. Calibrating Existing Conditions Groundwater Data ....................................... 11
5.2.2. Surface Water Modeling at Restoration Site ........................................................... 12
5.2.3. Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site .................................................................. 12
5.2.3.1. Proposed Groundwater Condition for an Average Year of Rainfall ............... 12
5.2.3.2. Proposed Condition Water Budget Results ..................................................... 13
5.2.3.3. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 15
5.3. Soil Characterization ................................................................................................ 16
5.3.1. Taxonomic Classification ........................................................................................ 16
5.3.2. Profile Description ................................................................................................... 17
5.3.3. Hydraulic Conductivity ........................................................................................... 17
5.3.4. Organic Matter Content ........................................................................................... 18
5.3.5. Bulk Density ............................................................................................................ 18
5.4. Plant Community Characterization .......................................................................... 18
6. Reference Wetlands ...................................................................................................... 18
6.1. Hydrological Characterization ................................................................................. 18
6.1.1. Gage Data Summary ................................................................................................ 19
6.2. Soil Characterization ................................................................................................ 19
6.3. Plant Community Characterization .......................................................................... 19
6.3.1. Community Descriptions - (All Strata) ................................................................... 19
6.3.2. Basal Area ................................................................................................................ 19
7. Project Site Restoration Plan ......................................................................................... 20
7.1. Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ................................................................ 20
7.1.1. Designed Wetland Type .......................................................................................... 20
• 7.1.2. Target Wetland Communities .................................................................................. 20
Wetland Restoration Plan TOC - i
The Louis Berger Group. Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
7.2. Sediment Transport Analysis ................................................................................... 21 •
7.3. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis ......................................................................... 21
7.3.1. No Rise, LOMR, or CLOMR .................................................................................. 21
7.3.2. Hydrologic Trespass ................................................................................................ 21
7.4. Stormwater Best Management Practices .................................................................. 21
7.4.1. Narrative of Site-Specific Stormwater Concerns ..................................................... 21
7.4.2. Device Description and Application ........................................................................ 22
7.5. Hydrologic Modifications ........................................................................................ 22
7.5.1. Narrative of Modifications ...................................................................................... 22
7.5.2. Scaled Schematic of Modifications ......................................................................... 22
7.6. Soil Restoration ........................................................................................................ 22
7.6.1. Narrative, Soil Preparation, and Amendment .......................................................... 22
7.7. Natural Plant Community Restoration ..................................................................... 23
7.7.1. Narrative & Plant Community Restoration ............................................................. 23
7.7.2. Onsite Invasive Species Management ..................................................................... 23
8. Performance Criteria ..................................................................................................... 24
8.1. Streams ..................................................................................................................... 24
8.2. Stormwater Management Devices ........................................................................... 24
8.3. Wetlands ................................................................................................................... 24
8.3.1. Hydrology ................................................................................................................ 24
8.3.2. Vegetation Plots ....................................................................................................... 24
8.3.3. Photo Points ............................................................................................................. 24
8.3.4. Problem Areas ......................................................................................................... 25
8.4. Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 25
8.5. Schedule / Reporting ................................................................................................ 25

9. References .....................................................................................................................
27 •
10. Tables ............................................................................................................................ 29
Table 1: Project Restoration Structure and Objectives ............................................................. 29
Table 2: Drainage Areas ........................................................................................................... 29
Table 3: Land Use of Watershed .............................................................................................. 29
Table 4: Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Brunswick County, NC ...... 30
Table 5: Project Soil Characteristics ........................................................................................ 31
Table 6: Reference Wetland Basal Area and Trees per Acre ................................................... 31
it. Figures ........................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 1: Project Site Vicinity Map .......................................................................................... 35
Figure 2: Project Site Watershed Map ...................................................................................... 36
Figure 3: Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map ......................................................................... 37
Figure 4: Project Site Existing Hydrological Features Map with Gage Stations ....................... 38
Figure 5: Project Site Wetland Delineation .............................................................................. 39
Figure 6: Reference Site Vicinity Map ..................................................................................... 40
Figure 7: Reference Site Watershed Map ................................................................................. 41
Figure 8: Reference Site NRCS Soil Survey Map .................................................................... 42
Figure 9: Reference Site Wetland Determination Map with Gage Locations .......................... 43
Figure 10: Reference Site Vegetative Communities Map ........................................................ 44
12. Design Sheets ................................................................................................................ 45
Sheet 1. Title Sheet ................................................................................................................ 46
Sheet 2. General Notes & Legend .......................................................................................... 47
Sheet 3. Existing Conditions .................................................................................................. 48
Sheet 4. Proposed Conditions ................................................................................................ 49
Sheet 5. Planting Plan ............................................................................................................ 50
Sheet 6. Planting Notes .......................................................................................................... 51 •
Wetland Restoration Plan TOC - ii
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
n
U
Sheet 7. Planting Details ........................................................................................................ 52
Sheet 8. Typical Sections ....................................................................................................... 53
Sheet 9. Typical Sections (2) ................................................................................................. 54
Sheet 10. Sediment and Erosion Control Sheet ....................................................................... 55
Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 56
APPENDICES
•
E
Appendix 1 Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2 Project Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3 Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms - NA (No streams)
Appendix 4 Reference Site Photographs
Appendix 5 Reference Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 6 Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms - NA (No streams)
Appendix 7 Hydrologic Gage Data Summary, Groundwater, and Rainfall Information
Appendix 8 HEC-RAS Analysis - NA (No streams)
Appendix 9 EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Appendix 10 Agency Correspondence
Appendix 11 Conservation Easement Enrollment Documentation and Property Boundary
Survey
Wetland Restoration Plan
TOC - iii
The Louis Berger Group. Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) is designing and constructing a minimum of 80 acres of
nonriverine wetland restoration and 6 acres of Level 1 enhancement (2.5 to 1 ratio) on the 89-acre
Plum Creek Wetland Restoration site located in Brunswick County in the Lumber River Basin,
USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040207. The project is being implemented through the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) Full-Delivery Process (FDP). This Wetland Restoration Plan has been developed
using EEP's guidance document Content, Format and Data Requirements for EEP Restoration
Plans (Version 1, 9/21/05.)
The 89 acre Plum Creek Wetland Restoration site is connected by a network of drainage ditches
to Boggy Branch, a tributary to the Lockwood Folly River within the Lumber River Basin. The
original wetland was ditched, drained, bedded, and replanted in loblolly pine. Approximately 6
acres of the site continue to meet the criteria to be considered jurisdictional wetlands.
The site is surrounded by deep drainage ditches, and two ditches cross the width of the tract. To
implement the wetland restoration project, Berger proposes to plug the two central ditches, and
leave the perimeter ditches intact. The entire site will be drum chopped to remove existing
loblolly pine growth and graded to remove planting bed patterns. Soil to construct the ditch plugs
will be excavated from the site and the borrow pits will become small, shallow ponds.
The goals of the proposed Plum Creek Wetland Restoration project include the reestablishment of
• wetland hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functions. The restoration project will increase
surface water residence time which will improve groundwater recharge. Also, a longer residence
time will lead to improved biochemical treatment resulting in improved water quality.
Restoration of a native wetland vegetative community will enhance floral and faunal habitat
diversity benefiting both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Wildlife habitat will also be improved
by the creation of small ponds within the wetland matrix. These features will provide fish-free
environments for amphibian reproduction, openings for wildlife foraging, and improve overall
habitat diversity within the site.
•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page iv
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
• 1. PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) is restoring the Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation site in
Brunswick County, North Carolina to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) with 80 nonriverine wetland mitigation units needed to compensate for projects
occurring within the Lumber River Basin (Table 1). This Restoration Plan describes existing
project site conditions, presents data collected at reference sites evaluated to guide the restoration
design, and details the restoration design process. This report continues the regulatory review
process through EEP.
1.1. Directions to Project Site
From Raleigh: Follow I-40 towards Wilmington. Near Burgaw take exit to 140. Follow 140
for six miles across the Cape Fear River and exit onto Hwy 17 South towards Shallotte. Travel
approximately 10 miles, notice the option to take 17 Business, but remain on Hwy 17 South two
more miles. Turn right onto Galloway Road and follow for two miles, turn right onto Red Run
Road about a block after Randolphville Road intersects with Galloway Road. Follow dirt road
past two residences, the road will bend to the left. Go straight west for about one and a half miles
through recently timbered acreage, you will have an option to turn right but remain straight until
you reach a T intersection. As you face the T intersection, the southwest corner of the 89 acre
site is on your right. There is a stream gage visible from the road in the first drainage ditch at the
south eastern corner of the property.
01.2. USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin
Designations
The 89 acre Plum Creek Wetland Restoration site is located in Brunswick County in the Lumber
River Basin, USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040207 (Figure 1). The basin extends about 150 miles
from the Sandhills region to the Atlantic Ocean, with a land area of 3,336 square miles. The
Lumber River Basin contains approximately 2,233 stream miles, most of which ultimately flow
into the Pee Dee River in South Carolina (NCDWQ, 2003). The Lockwood Folly and Shallotte
Rivers within the basin flow to the Atlantic Ocean. The Lumber River basin encompasses three
distinct ecological regions in North Carolina: the Sandhills, the Carolina Bay region, and the
Southeastern Coastal Plain. The mainstem Lumber River is designated as a National Wild and
Scenic River, the only blackwater river in North Carolina to receive this designation. Much of
the mainstem Lumber River is also designated as a state Natural and Scenic River, one of only
four in North Carolina.
The Plum Creek Wetland Restoration site is located in the Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59,
which covers 267 square miles, and is the only subbasin in the Lumber River basin where all
waters drain to the Atlantic Ocean (NCDWQ, 2003) (Figure 1). Boiling Spring Lakes and several
popular beaches are located within this subbasin. As a result of population growth, the towns of
Shallotte and Calabash, located six and 12 miles from the site, have experienced recent
development and an increase in impervious surfaces. The Plum Creek Wetland Restoration has
the potential to improve local water quality through the restored functions of filtration and
treatment.
•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 1
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proms
EEP Project Number D06040-A
1.3. Project Vicinity •
Located in Brunswick County, North Carolina, the project site is north of Galloway Road and
Hwy 17 South, six miles east of Shallotte (Figure 1).
2. Watershed Characterization
2.1. Drainage Area
The Plum Creek Wetland Restoration site has a total drainage area of approximately 110 acres at
the project terminus (Figure 1 and Table 2). The watershed is mostly characterized by loblolly
pine plantations and wetlands. There is a small percent of agricultural land and an increasing
number of commercial and residential developments.
2.2. Surface Water Classification / Water Quality
According to the Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan for the Lumber River Basin,
streams in Subbasin 03-07-59 are impacted from urban stormwater runoff and continue to be
threatened by pressure from development. The number of golf courses in Brunswick County has
rapidly grown over the last several years, and turf fertilizers are contributing excess nitrogen and
phosphorus into surface waters.
Water Supply Watershed •
The Plum Creek Wetland site is not located in a water supply watershed; however, the
site drains into the Lockwoods Folly River, which is classified as SA for shellfish
harvesting. Portions of the Lockwoods Folly River are also designated as High Quality
Waters (HQW), although they are downstream of the project site.
303d-Listed Stream or Watershed
Subbasin 03-07-59 has the most 303(d)-listed impaired water bodies in the Lumber River
Basin. Use support ratings in Subbasin 03-07-59 were assigned for aquatic life,
recreation, fish consumption, and shellfish harvesting categories. The following water
bodies are listed as impaired in the final 2006 North Carolina 303(d) list: Big Gut Slough,
Calabash River, Goose Creek, Hangman Branch, portions of the Intracoastal Waterway,
Jinny's Branch, Kilbart Slough, Lockwoods Creek, portions of the Lockwoods Folly
River, Mill Creek, Montgomery Slough, Mullet Creek, Sams Branch, Saucepan Creek,
Shallotte Creek, Shallotte River, Spring Creek, The Mill Pond, and The Swash
(NCDWQ, 2006). Also 25.6 Atlantic coastline miles are Impaired in the fish
consumption category for mercury based on monitoring data recovered from fish tissue.
NCWRP Targeted Watershed
The Plum Creek Wetland site is not located within a Targeted Local Watershed.
Natural Heritage Area
Significant Natural Heritage Areas are identified either because of the presence of rare or
endangered species, or because an area provides an excellent, intact example of an
ecological community that occurs naturally in North Carolina. The wetlands of
Brunswick County are diverse and include many high quality nonriverine communities. 0
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 2
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
• The Natural Heritage Program has identified over 150 individual natural areas in the
Lumber River basin. The Plum Creek Wetland site is located approximately 0.5 miles
southeast of the Green Swamp Preserve, which encompasses approximately 16,000 acres.
Approximately three miles from the site are five other Significant Natural Heritage areas:
Middle Swamp, Fall Swamp/Middle River, Cumbee Pond and Sandhills, Limesink
Complex, and Lockwoods Folly Tidal Wetlands. Additionally, located approximately 5
miles to the east of the Plum Creek Wetland site are three Significant Aquatic
Endangered Species Habitats in the Cape Fear Basin: Lewis Swamp, Bell Swamp, and
Harris Swamp (NCNHP, 2007).
2.3. Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The Plum Creek Wetland Restoration site is located within the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
region, more specifically the Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion. This nearly level ecoregion has less
relief, wider upland surfaces, and larger areas of poorly drained soils than adjacent ecoregions.
Usually characterized as fine-loamy and/or coarse-loamy, soils within the Carolina Flatwoods are
unconsolidated materials which resulted from fluvial or marine deposition. Historically rich with
pine flatwoods, pine savannas, freshwater marshes, and pocosins, much of the area is now in
loblolly pine plantations. Drainage within the plantations has been modified, thus many wetlands
have been lost to the forest industry. However, the endemic biota and biological diversity of the
area remains greater than neighboring ecoregions.
2.4. Historical Land Use and Development Trends
According to the NCDWQ Basinwide Water Quality Plan from 2003, 74% of subbasin 03-07-59
is forested or is wetland (100% of the site is forested loblolly plantation, as noted on Table 3).
Eighteen percent of the subbasin is agricultural land with urban land comprising less than 5%.
Estimated population for the year 2000 in Brunswick County was 21,177. This is expected to
nearly double to 39,742 for the period 2000-2020 (NCDWQ, 2003). The subbasin is likely to
increase its urban land cover resulting in increased impervious surface area, wastewater
discharges, and water resource demands.
2.5. Endangered / Threatened Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 15 species occurring in Brunswick County as
protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Table 4). The region near the
project site has a landscape of pocosin wetlands, longleaf pine uplands and the transition zones in
the margins between these communities that provides habitat for several rare and protected floral
and faunal species. Due to its disturbed and impacted state, the Plum Creek wetland restoration
site itself currently offers little habitat for these species. The site is situated in a ditched and
drained former high pocosin wetland that has been in silvicultural rotation until only recently.
Surface water onsite is directed through a drainage ditch system, although approximately six
acres of the pocosin wetland have retained saturated conditions within the site boundaries.
Berger submitted a request for Categorical Exclusion for the Plum Creek wetland restoration
project site to the USFWS in February 2007. Biological Conclusions of "May affect, but not
likely to adversely affect" were given for both rough-leaf loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia)
and Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi). Potential habitat was identified within the site
boundaries; however preliminary site plans do not include grading at the likely locations of these
species. The USFWS was apprised of these opinions and concurred on February 13, 2007.
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 3
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Protect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
On June 14, 2007 Berger scientists re-visited the site and conducted pedestrian surveys on
transects throughout the identified habitat area. This time frame is within the species fruiting or
flowering period and represents the optimal season for field identification. No individuals or
populations of the target species were observed during this survey.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) has reported that within a 0.5 square
mile area of the proposed project there were no recorded occurrences of rare species, significant
natural communities, or natural heritage areas. NCNHP also noted the proximity of the proposed
project site to Green Swamp Preserve; which is positioned 0.3 miles to the northwest of the site.
Green Swamp Preserve is a nationally significant natural area owned by both the Nature
Conservancy and private landowners.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) also responded that there does
not appear to be any threatened or endangered species that may be impacted from the project, and
did not object to the project as proposed.
Berger scientists conducted field inspections of the site in 2006 and 2007 to assess the existing
habitat types. The onsite habitat was compared with the known habitat descriptions for each
species known to occur within Brunswick County. The assessment methodology involved onsite
field inspections and best professional judgment of site conditions and descriptions of known
biological life histories and ecological habitat preferences. The findings listed below are based
on these inspections and available data. Of the 15 species listed by the USFWS as occurring in
Brunswick County, habitat appropriate for the following two species potentially occurs on the
site. USFWS representatives were consulted following the site inspections and that agency has
concurred with the following findings of Berger scientists (Appendix 10).
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) Endangered
Habitat Description - This is a perennial rhizomatic herb with stems usually one meter in height
that flowers in mid June to early July. Ideal conditions are under full sun in the ecotone between
wet savannas or pocosins and adjacent upland community types. This species is dependant on
regular disturbance such as fire or mowing to maintain its open habitat and may also grow along
fire plow lines, in roadside ditches, woodland clearings, and power line rights-of-way. Typical
populations of Cooley's meadowrue have robust reproductive plants among shrubs and in
adjacent open savanna and repressed vegetative individuals in nearby dense shade. This species
is most often found growing on the borders of woodland communities dominated by red maple
(Acer rubrum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa Mora), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and Atlantic
white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) in the canopy and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), ti-ti
(Cyrilla racemiflora), sweet pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia), sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia
virginiana), huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa), inkberry (Ilex glabra), gallberry (Ilex coriacea),
and other bay shrubs in the shrub zone (USFWS, 2007).
Biological conclusion May affect, but not likely to adversely affect
Along the northern edge of the project boundary, approximately six acres of saturated pocosin
remain after silvicultural clearing and ditching operations. No populations of Cooley's
meadowrue have been identified within five miles of the project site (NCNHP, 2007). The
vegetation of the wetland and surrounding landscape is indicative of appropriate habitat for
Cooley's meadowrue. However, extensive surveys were conducted by Berger scientists in June
of 2007, and no Cooley's meadowrue were found. Preliminary site plans do not include grading
at the likely locations of this species. Therefore, it is concluded the proposed project is not likely
to affect this species. I*
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 4
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
•
Rough-leaf Loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia) Endangered
Habitat Description - This species is a perennial herb in the Primrose Family (Primulaceae) that
grows to approximately 30 to 60 centimeters in height. Flowering occurs from mid-May through
June, with fruits (capsules) present from July through October. Ideal habitat for rough-leaf
loosestrife is generally in the ecotone between longleaf pine and oak savannas and wetter,
shrubby areas, where moist, sandy, or peaty soils occur and where low vegetation allows
abundant sunlight in the herb layer. This species generally depends on periodic fires to naturally
maintain the low vegetation, however where fires are not suppressed, the shrubs present in the
ecotone will attain their full height. Complete fire suppression may result in extirpation from a
site, though rough-leaf loosestrife may persist for years or decades under a fairly dense shrub
layer. Rough-leaf loosestrife may also be found in disturbed sites such as roadside depressions,
power line rights-of-way, and firebreaks (USFWS, 1994).
Biological conclusion May affect, but not likely to adversely affect
Appropriate habitat for rough-leaf loosestrife was identified by Berger scientists in February of
2007 along the northern edge of the project boundary at the edge of the remaining pocosin
wetland. No rough-leaf loosestrife were identified within the project site at that time, however,
NHP GIS data indicated six occurrences of this species in the Green Swamp Preserve within five
miles of the project site. One of these populations was located approximately 1.6 miles to the
west of the project site (NCNHP, 2007). The vegetation of the wetland and surrounding
landscape is indicative of appropriate habitat for rough-leaf loosestrife. However, extensive
surveys for this species were conducted in June of 2007 and none were found. Preliminary site
plans do not include grading at the likely locations of this species. Therefore, it is concluded the
proposed project is not likely to affect this species.
• 2.6. Cultural Resources
Berger conducted a cultural resources records review for the Plum Creek Wetland Restoration
site on September 11, 2006. The site inventory and National Register files at the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office (NC SHPO) and the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in
Raleigh were reviewed for the presence of previously recorded historical properties and
archaeological sites within the boundaries of the parcel that contains the proposed wetland
restoration site and within a 1-mile (1.6 kilometer) radius of the parcel. No archaeological sites
are located within a 1-mile (1.6 kilometer) radius of the parcel. No architectural properties listed
on the National Register of Historic Places, determined eligible, or under consideration, are
located within a 1-mile (1.6-kilometer) radius of the parcel.
Archaeological fieldwork was conducted from September 21 through September 22, 2006.
Fieldwork included a pedestrian reconnaissance of the site. This was accomplished by walking
the perimeter of the proposed wetland restoration site, which is located in a series of timber
management clear cuts. The site was photographed and its topographic and vegetative
characteristics noted. Two shovel tests were excavated near the northeastern and southwestern
corners of the site (also known as the Area of Potential Effect). A third shovel test was attempted
near the center of the tract but could not be completed due to the high water table and disturbed
character of the mounded soils. The shovel tests revealed leached and water saturated soils to a
depth from 28-30 inches (70-75 centimeters) below ground surface (bgs). The water table was
encountered at the bottom of each shovel test at approximately 20-30 inches (50-75 centimeters)
bgs. No isolated artifacts, archaeological sites, or cultural deposits were identified within the site.
•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 5
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
A letter summarizing the findings of the cultural resources records review and the archaeological •
reconnaissance were submitted to the NC SHPO on January 9, 2007. A letter response, dated
January 31, 2007, from the NC SHPO stated that the "investigations undertaken have adequately
addressed any concerns" that the office may have had. Therefore, no further investigation was
performed. Letters of coordination, including the NC SHPO concurrence, are provided in
Appendix 10.
These findings were summarized in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document submitted
February 18, 2007. The North Carolina State Clearing House approved the CE for the Plum
Creek Wetland Restoration site in March 2007, and a copy of this approval is provided in
Appendix 10. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to affect cultural resources.
2.7. Potential Constraints
2.7.1. Property Ownership and Boundary
The Plum Creek Wetland Restoration site is enrolled in a perpetual conservation easement held
by Plum Creek Timberland (Grantee) and Berger (Grantor). Documentation of this enrollment
and the property boundary survey are provided in Appendix 11. This arrangement does not place
any constraints of restoration of the site to a wetland mitigation bank.
2.7.2. Site Access
The Project site is accessed through a series of dirt roads through recently cleared loblolly pine
plantations. Therefore, site access does not pose any constraints to restoration of the site.
2.7.3. Utilities
Based on a deed and title search there are no known utility right of ways that traverse the project
site.
2.7.4. FEMA I Hydrologic Trespass
There are no FEMA studied streams on the project site, nor is there any stream work to be
completed on the project site; therefore there should be no FEMA coordination needed for this
project. Additionally, the ditch network surrounding the site will remain intact and thereby
prevent increased height of the water table beyond the bounds of the site. Furthermore, both the
onsite and offsite areas landuse will not change significantly such that it will result in an increase
or decrease in runoff.
3. Project Site Streams
There is no stream component to this project. Two silvicultural drainage ditches traverse the
project site, and those will be plugged.
4. Reference Streams
There is no stream component to this project.
L'
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 6
The Louis Berger Group Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
0 5. Project Site Wetlands - Existing Conditions
Wetland scientists from Berger conducted a wetland delineation on the site in February of 2007.
Conditions were typical of a pocosin wetland system hydrologically altered (drained) to support
silvicultural operations. Photos of the project site conditions are provided in Appendix 1.
5.1. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands within the project area were delineated in accordance with the procedures outlined in
the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1 with guidance
outlined in a clarification interpretation memorandum from the Directorate of Civil Works
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wetlands, as defined in the 1987 manual, are: "Those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal conditions do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated soil conditions." To be considered jurisdictional a wetland must have
hydric soils, evidence of wetland hydrology, and support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation.
The wetland delineation was performed to determine the jurisdictional boundaries of all wetlands
identified within the project site. The boundaries of wetland areas were marked in the field by
sequentially numbered flags and recorded with a submeter accurate Global Positioning System
(GPS) unit. Wilmington District Corps wetland delineation data sheets were completed to
document the wetland boundary. Soil profiles were examined at each of the observation plots.
Profiles were typically to a depth of 18 inches. Soil matrix color, redoximorphic features, USDA
texture and pore linings were recorded for each distinct soil horizon within the soil profile. Field
• data sheets are included in Appendix 2 of this report. The wetland delineation was performed by
individuals trained in the three-parameter methodology adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) as set forth in the above mentioned manual and by a certified professional
soil scientist.
Berger identified and delineated a six acre wetland area located at the north east of the property
(WA). On April 8, 2008, a representative of the USACE, Wilmington District met with Berger
scientists at the site and verified that the delineated wetland boundary was accurate as surveyed
(Appendix 10 - email dated June 16, 2008). This wetland abuts the Relatively Permanent Water
(RPW) that runs north to south located on the east side of the site. Also, the two ditches that run
west to east through the site and drain to the RPW located on the east side were determined to be
"jurisdictional tributaries" based on the presence of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), but
not stream channels.
Wetland WA: Approximately six acres of functional jurisdictional palustrine broad-leaved
deciduous scrub-shrub wetland (PSS1) were identified in the northern portion of the site. The
entire Plum Creek Wetland Restoration site had been timbered approximately five years prior to
the delineation effort and the vegetation of Wetland WA is typical of a wetland situated in an area
which has been cleared or otherwise disturbed. Dominant plant species were hydrophytic species
such as inkberry (Ilex glabra), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), ti-ti (Cyrilla racemiflora), sweetbay
(Magnolia virginiana), laurel leaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia), and bushy bluestem
(Andropogon glomeratus). Swamp bay (Persea palustris), red maple (Acer rubrum), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), and woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) were also present. The northern
site boundary crosses Wetland WA such that approximately six acres of the wetland were
contained within the site. Berger scientists estimate that an equal amount of the wetland lies
outside the boundary to the north of the site.
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 7
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
Wetland WA spans three mapped soil units. The majority of the soil underlying this wetland is
mapped as Torhunta Mucky Fine Sandy Loam (3.7 acres). Other soil units present are Leon Fine
Sand (2 acres), and Pantego Mucky Loam (0.4 acres). These soils are listed by the USDA as
hydric soils (USDA, 2006). Field data indicate that soils of wetland WA are hydric due to the
presence of saturated conditions and a low chroma matrix (IOYR 2/1) within the upper 12 inches
of the soil profile. Some surface ponding was observed in low lying planting bed rows.
Jurisdictional Tributaries:
Two ditches drain the site, running west to east and roughly dividing the site into thirds. These
ditches are approximately eight feet wide at the top of the excavated channel and five feet deep.
Water was not often observed in these channels during field efforts; however an OHWM was
identified at approximately six inches above bed elevation. The USACE determined these ditches
were "jurisdictional tributaries", but not stream channels.
5.2. Hydrological Characterization
5.2.1. Groundwater Modeling
Hydrologic analysis was conducted to aid in the design of the Plum Creek wetland site. Analysis
consisted of performing groundwater level monitoring and performing a water budget simulation
of the site.
5.2.1.1. Input Analysis for the Wetland Water Budget
A daily water budget for the proposed nonriverine wetland restoration area was developed
following an application of the conservation of mass law:
OS =(P+QR+Ro„)-(ET+Qp+Roff)± Sw
Change in Storage
Inflow Outflow Soil Water Effect
Where:
AS = Change in storage
QR = Groundwater recharge
Roa = Surface water outflow
QD = Groundwater discharge
P = Precipitation
Ro„ = Surface water inflow
ET = Evapotranspiration
SW = Soil water storage

•
•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 8
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
• This approach is consistent with guidance suggested by Pierce (1992) and Garbisch (1994). Even
though groundwater recharge and discharge may occur to and from the Plum Creek site, it was
assumed that the groundwater inflow and outflow did not result in a change in water storage
within the wetland. Based on this result, groundwater recharge and discharge was not considered
in the daily water budget model. This assumption was adopted because no offsite groundwater
data was available. As a result the conservation of mass equation for the water budget was
simplified to:
AS = (P - I ) ± S
Change in Storage Inflow Outflow Soil Water Effect
r?
U
•
The fact that groundwater inflow and outflow were not included in the model will have little or
no effect on the model results because as mentioned in section 5.3.3 of this report, the soil has
very low hydraulic conductivity (10.04 in/month). Since groundwater flow is a function of
hydraulic conductivity, groundwater inflow and outflow will therefore be low or negligible. A
summary of input variables for the water budget and their sources are shown in Data Table 1.
Data Table 1: Input Variables for the Existing and Proposed Freshwater Water Budget
Models
Parameter,'>' Source ;.
w:
NOAA rainfall gage data at Wilmington, NC International Airport
Precipitation (COOP ID # 319457). Daily data, 1976-2006 (30 years of data).
Same values used for existing and proposed conditions.
Reference or potential evapotranspiration (ETJ data for the period
1976 to 2006 (30 years) was obtained from the NOAA climatological
data gage at Wilmington, NC International Airport (COOP ID #
319457). And then converted to actual crop evapotranspiration (ETA)
Evapotranspiration (ET) using the relationship ETA = K?ET,,; where K, is the crop coefficient
(FAO, 1997). Data available daily. February 2007 to August 2007
obtained via an average of the previous 10 years of data for those
respective months. Seasonably variable crop coefficients from 0.50
to 1.05 were used for the existing and proposed condition
respectively based on model calibration.
Soil is composed of mostly mucky fine sandy loam and some fine
Soil Water Storage sand and some mucky loam (USDA, 2007. Actual values for soil
water holding capacity determined from model calibration.
Surface Water Inputs determined using TR-55 (equation 2.1) (USDA, 1986) for
Inputs/Outputs proposed conditions only.
Groundwater
Inputs/Outputs It was assumed that groundwater inflows equal the outflows.
Wetland Restoration Plan
Page 9
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
Surface inflows to the site were determined from the offsite drainage area. The offsite drainage •
area flowing to the site was found to be 22 acres via USGS quadrangle maps. The surface
inflows to the site Ron from this offsite drainage area were determined using equation 2-1 from
TR-55 USDA, 1986). Curve numbers were calculated and used to determine the potential
maximum retention after runoff and the initial abstraction needed to satisfy equation 2-1. Once
the depth of available run-on was determined from equation 2-1, it was assumed that the entire
volume of water from offsite was distributed uniformly over the acreage of the study location,
thereby providing the depth of run-on for the water budget.
Using the precipitation, evapotranspiration, soil water holding capacity, and the surface water
run-on to the site, the daily change in water storage was determined for a given set of site
parameters. Based on these changes in water storage, water level fluctuations/elevations at the
site were determined. The elevations were calibrated to the measured groundwater elevations as
discussed in Section 3.2.1.3.
5.2.1.2. Groundwater Monitoring
Nine groundwater monitoring gages were installed at the site. Their locations are shown in
Figure 4. The groundwater elevations were measured using EcoTone waterlevel loggers recorded
every eight hours (average of three readings for daily values) with an accuracy of +/- 3 mm.
Groundwater data was monitored from February 5, 2007 to August 12, 2007. A plot of the
groundwater elevations at the nine gages during the monitoring period is shown in Plot 1.
•

Wetland Restoration Plan Page 10
The Louis Berger Group Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
•
Plot 1: Plum Creek Groundwater Gage Elevations 2007
Plum Creek Groundwater Gage Elevations 2007
•
C:
50.0
49.0 •
48.0 * i
m
p 47.0
i
r 46.0
0
i 45.0
d
w
m 44.0
3
c
0 43.0
42.0
41.0
40.0 , Y
a ? a
u> .n ?n r r t? ?
X
7K
a a m m m
Q Q v?
W N N f0 fD ? ? N
N
Date
5.2.1.3. Calibrating Existing Conditions Groundwater Data
10
9
8
7 ¦ 'red,
? pct
6 ¦pc2
c_ pc3
5 xpc4
a
? X pc5
•pc6
4 +pc7
- pc8
3 - pc9
2
1
0
75
7
t2
N
The existing condition groundwater data was calibrated using the water budget formula discussed
in Section 3.2.1.2. Surface water run-on from the offsite drainage area was neglected because of
existing ditches that intercept surface water flows before reaching the Plum Creek site. The
parameters that were varied during the calibration were the crop coefficient and the water holding
capacity. These parameters were varied until the root mean square errors between measured
groundwater elevations and those predicted by the model were minimized. It was found that a
variable crop coefficient of 1.05 to 0.50 (variable from February to August) and a water holding
capacity of 0.055 were the parameter values that optimized the modeled elevations to the
measured elevations. The water holding capacity falls within the range of empirical values of
0.00-0.15 for the type of soil at the site (USDA, 2007). A typical plot of modeled and measured
data is shown in Plot 2. Plot 2 shows that gage 5, located in existing wetland, was the most
responsive gage to precipitation events at the site.
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 11
The Louis Berger Group. Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
Plot 2: Modeled and measured groundwater elevations at the location of monitoring gage 5
50.0
49.0
46.0
p 47.0
!z
r 46.0
i 45.0
m
w
44.0
3
v
c
43.0
0
42.0
41.0
40.0
^?,y0§1 ??yop1 y??y(ZP \,y(ZP Q? 0,yo?1 \r?ZP \,y(Z 1 fyZZ fyol1 \?y0O1 \TCIP \.y(ZP \ryop ?,KP ?,y0§1 ?`yo61 ^\61? \611 \ryop'1
Date
rainfall data -Water Surface Elevation -* Gage 5
10
a
m
A
`e
As shown in Plot 2 there is a time delay in response between the modeled and measured
groundwater elevations. This may be caused by processes not considered in the model that occur
over "fast" timescales such as net groundwater flow into the ditches and away from the site. It
may be possible that during these storm events significant amounts of net surface outflow were
occurring through the artificial ditch network at the site. It may also be possible that the soil
water holding capacity was variable over the period of study, although it was assumed to have a
constant value. These hypotheses may explain the relatively poor fit of the data in the summer
months (June to August) as compared to good fit of the data in the late winter and spring months
(February to May).
5.2.2. Surface Water Modeling at Restoration Site
The Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project lacks any significant surface water component.
Surface water run-on from the offsite drainage area is negligible because of existing ditches that
intercept surface water flows before reaching the Plum Creek site. Therefore, no surface water
modeling was completed.
5.2.3. Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site
5.2.3.1. Proposed Groundwater Condition for an Average Year of Rainfall
Unlike the existing condition where the Plum Creek site is isolated with no offsite runon, the
proposed water budget includes offsite runon to the site. The ditches that currently intercept flow
under existing conditions will be plugged during the proposed conditions thereby allowing the
offsite overland flow to add to the water budget of the site. The surface water contribution to the

•
n
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 12
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
restored site was computed using the TR-55 method as described in Section 3.2.1.1. The initial
condition water elevation for the proposed model could affect the overall number of events of
inundation and saturation for the site. Therefore, three different initial conditions were modeled:
initial water elevation set to the average ground surface elevation at the site and the simulation
starting on April 1st (Scenario 1), initial water elevation set to the average measured elevation on
February 5th and the simulation starting on February 5th (Scenario 2), and initial water elevation
set to the lowest measured elevation from any of the nine groundwater gages and the simulation
starting on February 5th (Scenario 3). These three scenarios simulate wet, average, and dry soil
conditions respectively. All three scenarios produced identical results, therefore only Scenario 1
will be chosen to display the model results in the proceeding sections.
5.2.3.2. Proposed Condition Water Budget Results
The results for the proposed condition groundwater elevations are displayed in Plots 3, 4, and 5
for a dry (1978), average (1998), and wet (1999) year respectively. Data is only shown for the
period where the growing season (4/1 to 10/31) and the groundwater measurement period (2/5 to
8/12) overlap (i.e. 4/1 to 8/12). The horizontal lines show the average ground surface elevation
(taken as an average of the surface elevations at each of the groundwater gages) and the depth 12
inches below the level of the average ground surface. The modeled results were used to
determine the number of days of inundation and saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface
that will result at the site for the dry, average, and wet precipitation years during the growing
season. Data Table 2 summarizes these results along with the percent of the growing season that
the wetland site will be inundated or saturated within 12 inches. The number of days of
saturation and inundation are compared to the wetland criteria. The wetland criteria used for this
project was hydrologic zone IV, seasonally inundated or saturated. The criterion is summarized
as: Inundation and or soil saturation for greater than 12.5% -25% of the growing season in the
upper 12 inches of the soil (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Therefore, it can be seen from Data Table 2 that the dry, average, and wet precipitation years all
satisfy this criteria even under existing ground elevations.

Wetland Restoration Plan Page 13
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
Plot 3: Proposed condition groundwater elevation for a dry year of precipitation (1980) during the
growing season
Dry Year (1980) Growing Season Conditions: Groundwater Elevations
49.00
48.50
48.00
m
m
D
Q 47.50
2
S
c 47.00
0
m
w 46.50
°'
m
m 46.00
0
0
0 45.50
Initial Conditions: Average
Ground Surface Elevation
Initiated on April 1
45.00
44.50
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00 c
c
0
5.00
4.00
IL
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
b?^ ??0 0.?^y b?lL a?y9 5\0 y\?? y\`p y\^, e e rc\vb A,, A\0 \,y \ti, \ti0 4b 0?^ry
Date
I?Precipitation -12 Inches Below Ground Surface -Average Ground Surface --*-Groundwater Elevation'
Plot 4: Proposed condition groundwater elevation for an average year of precipitation (1998) during
the growing season
Average Year (1998) Growing Season Conditions: Groundwater Elevations
49.00
48.50
m 48.00
Q
Z 47.50
r
0
47.00
0
W
a,
is 46.50
3
v
0
46.00
45.50
Initial Conditions: Average
Ground Surface Elevation
Initiated on April t
45.00
A?^ ??6 ?\^y p\`lrl, p\`lp? ??ro y\?r5 ?\`lp c,\`l1 0?n? 6\^p co\^'? rQ\`lh '`??. ??0 '1?qh 411, 4b
Date
?Preciptation X12 Inches Below Ground Surface -Average Ground Surface tGroundwater Elevation
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00 c
0
5.00
'a
4.00
a
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
L J
•
0
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 14
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A

Plot 5: Proposed condition groundwater elevation for a wet year of precipitation (1996) during the
growing season
Wet Year (1996) Growing Season Conditions: Groundwater Elevations
•

49.00
48.50
48.00
W
m
0
Q 47.50
2
r
0 47.00
m
W 46.50
m
A
v 46.00
C
0
0 45.50
45.00
44.50
b\^
\? b\?y b\?ry b\?9 h\6 h\^? h\?? h\ry? O\? e e e A\^ A\'O 1\^? 1\ryry 1\ry9\? 0\??
Date
Precipitation -12 Inches Below Ground Surface -Average Ground Surface -+-Groundwater Elevation
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00 c
0
5.00 Z
a
U
4.00
a
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Data Table 2: Percentages of the modeled groundwater elevations that show inundation and or soil
saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil during the growing season for dry, average, and wet
precipitation years

Event % of Growing Season with
Inundation or Saturation
within upper 12" of soil Greater than 12.5%-25% to meet

wetland criteria?
D Year 34% Yes
Average Year 53% Yes
Wet Year 68% Yes
Note: % includes only the days of inundation or saturation from 4/1 to 8/12
It can be seen from Data Table 2 and Plots 3, 4, and 5 that the choice of initial condition does not
affect the behavior of the proposed groundwater at the site.
5.2.3.3. Conclusion
To restore wetland hydrology to the site, the existing ditches will be filled. It can be seen from
Data Table 2 that the restored wetland will meet saturation and or inundation wetland criteria at
existing ground elevations for dry, average, and wet precipitation years. Excavation of surface
soils will not be required.
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 15
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Prot
EEP Project Number D06040-A
5.3. Soil Characterization
The soils data for Brunswick County, North Carolina (Figure 5) indicates that the project area
contains four soil series/map units: Torhunta Mucky Fine Sandy Loam (77.8 acres), Pantego
Mucky Loam (3.5 acres), and Leon Fine Sand (1.0 acres) (USDA, 2006). All areas that have soil
characteristics falling within certain defined limits are classified together as a soil series. A soil
series is a part of a soil's taxonomy that includes order, great group, subgroup, family, and series.
Soil phases are used for subdividing series into specific units that are significant for practical use
and management (i.e. surface texture, slope, degree of erosion, stoniness). A mapping unit is a
grouping of soils by their natural landscape and soil patterns. Most soil mapping units shown on
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series.
5.3.1. Taxonomic Classification
Of the four soil series identified on the USDA-SCS maps, all are classified as hydric by USDA-
Natural Resources Conservation Service. By definition, a hydric soil is one that formed under
conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop
anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, July 13, 1994). Therefore, hydric soils
are typically found within wetlands. The soil mapping units shown within the project area are
listed and described below. Soil descriptions are based on the text of the Soil Survey of
Brunswick County, North Carolina (Barnhill et al., 1986). Soil characteristics are presented in
Table 5.
E
Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam (To): This soil mapping unit is nearly level, very poorly
drained and situated in broad interstream areas or stream terraces. Typically the upper 11 inches
is a black mucky fine sandy loam. Below that is a subsurface layer grayish brown fine sandy
loam also 11 inches thick. The subsoil is a grayish brown fine sandy loam 28 inches thick.
Below the subsoil extending to a depth of 80 inches is a light gray loamy sand. The soil ranges
from acid to strongly acid throughout. Surface runoff is very slow and the soil has moderately
rapid permeability. Available water capacity is moderate and the seepage rate is high. The
seasonal high water table is 0.5 foot to 1.5 feet below the surface and water may pond during the
wet season for brief periods. This soil is commonly associated with forest vegetation adapted to
wet conditions.
Pantego mucky loam (Pn): This soil mapping unit consists of nearly level, very deep, very
poorly drained soils located on broad interstream areas. Pantego soils formed in thick loamy
marine sediments on the Southern Coastal Plain and Atlantic Coast Flatwoods. The surface layer
is typically black mucky loam 11 inches thick. The subsurface layer is dark gray loam 4 inches
thick. The subsoil is dark gray sandy clay loam 49 inches thick. The underlying material extends
to a depth of 80 inches and consists of gray sandy clay loam.
Permeability and the available water capacity are moderate. Surface runoff is very slow and the
seasonal high water table is at the surface. This soil is commonly associated with forest
vegetation adapted to wet conditions.
Leon Fine Sand (Lo): This soil mapping unit consists of nearly level, very poorly drained soils
located in broad, smooth interstream areas and in depressions in undulating areas. Typically the
surface is dark gray fine sand six inches thick and the subsurface layer is light gray fine sand
eight inches thick. The subsoil is black and dark reddish brown fine sand nine inches thick.

Wetland Restoration Plan Page 16
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A

•
•
Below the subsoil, extending to a depth of 80 inches is light gray fine sand in the upper part,
black and brown fine sand in the middle part, and black fine sand in the lower part.
The soil is extremely acid to strongly acid throughout. Surface runoff is very slow and the soil
has rapid permeability. Available water capacity is low. The seasonal high water table is at or
near the surface. This soil is commonly associated with forest vegetation adapted to wet
conditions and a hardpan that limits root growth.
Rains Fine Sandy Loam (Ra): This nearly level, poorly drained soil is on broad, smooth
interstream areas and in depressions on slightly convex divides throughout the county.
5.3.2. Profile Description
Six hand augered soil borings were advanced using a 4-inch diameter bucket auger to a depth of 4
feet on July 24, 2007. All six soil borings were located near existing groundwater wells 1, 3, 6, 7,
8, and 9. Figure 3 depicts the approximate location of the wells (and thereby the soil borings).
The soil characteristics of texture, color, and structure were used to determine the presence or
absence of groundwater and estimate the soil water properties in the unsaturated zone. Soil
texture was estimated in the field using the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) classification
system. Other characteristics such as redoximorphic features, consistence, and structure were
also noted. Color was described using Munsell color charts (USDA, 2000). Groundwater level,
when encountered, was also recorded. Soil color can be an indicator of the relative degree of soil
saturation; in certain mineral soils, the presence of iron oxidation and reduction can be detected
visually. A well-developed soil structure can improve water flow by providing macropores and
consequent gravitational flow. To decide whether the soil, then, is saturated due to regional
groundwater, a perched zone of saturation, or other reasons, is part of the soil science approach to
the soil profile interpretation.
A total of six soil borings were located within the Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam soil mapping
unit (To). Soil textures in the representative profile were consistent with the description in the
soil survey and the above section. The color, texture, and structure of the surface layers within
the observed soil profiles (hand augered borings) were, in general, consistent with this mapping
as Torhunta soils. The surface layer consisted of dark brown to very dark brown sandy loam
approximately one to 12 inches thick. The texture of the substratum layers ranged from loamy
sand to sandy loam, and was darker in color than the representative profile.
5.3.3. Hydraulic Conductivity
In order to determine the groundwater flow component to and from a wetland, an estimate of the
hydraulic conductivity (K) of the soil, or its ability to transmit water is required. The hydraulic
conductivity of the Plum Creek site was determined by the Falling-Head Test using the increasing
tailwater pressure method (Method Q. Three tests were conducted with an average hydraulic
conductivity value of 9.84 x 10-06 cm/sec or 10.04 in/month. According to USDA soil
permeability classification (Barnhill et al., 1986); this hydraulic conductivity value corresponds
to slow movement of groundwater. This slow movement of water means the Plum Creek site soil
has a high water holding capacity. The stored water is available for use by plants.
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 17
The Louis Berger Group, Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Protect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
5.3.4. Organic Matter Content
The organic matter content was tested from three of the six boring sites (near wells 1, 3, and 7).
The organic matter content was found to be 5%, 5.6%, and 7.2% within the three samples.
Additionally, these values were found to correspond to estimated nitrogen releases of 118 lbs/ac,
124 lbs/ac, and 150 lbs/ac which would be considered high, high, and very high values,
respectively.
5.3.5. Bulk Density
This section is optional and was not deemed relevant for this project.
5.4. Plant Community Characterization
The Plum Creek Wetland Restoration site occupies a historic Pond Pine Woodland community
that has been modified to support silvicultural rotations of cultivated loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
Species present included loblolly pine, red maple (Acer rubrum), gallberry (Ilex coriacea),
inkberry (Ilex glabra), ti-ti (Cyrilla racemiora), swamp redbay (Persea palustris), fetterbush
(Lyonia lucida) and winged sumac (Rhus copallinum). The tree canopy was dominated by
loblolly pine and averaged 13 feet in height. Infrequent bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) stems
were observed across the site. This species composition was dominant throughout the site.
I?
6. Reference Wetlands
Reference Wetland Site Search
Berger conducted a preliminary reference wetland site search by locating areas within the
Carolina Flatwoods subregion of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain ecoregion which exhibit
similar drainage areas, soil types, watershed characteristics, and landscape position as the project
site. The targeted reference watershed included unmanaged forested wetlands in a flat drainage
divide setting with little drainage area, preferably over Torhunta soils. One large site was
identified within the Green Swamp Nature Preserve. The targeted reference landscape was
forested wetland coastal flats dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and pocosin
communities that had not been altered for silviculture.
Selected Reference Wetland
The selected reference site is located approximately four miles northwest of the restoration site
and within the Green Swamp Nature Preserve (Figure 6). This site is situated to the east side of
US Highway 211 approximately 4.5 miles north of the intersection with US Highway 17. Berger
scientists selected this site because it met the stated criteria, falling within a unit of Torhunta soil
and an undisturbed forested community. The site did not exhibit evidence of past hydrologic or
other landform alteration.
6.1. Hydrological Characterization
The Green Swamp Nature Preserve spans four of the 14-digit HUCs in the lower Lumber River
Basin. The reference wetland community is found in the western portion of this watershed. This
portion of the watershed is predominantly comprised of forested landuses with no impervious
area apart from the roadways. This wetland was chosen over others because it contains the same .
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 18
The Louis Berger Group Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
• soil type as the project, is situated in a mature forest area, and the site was not in close enough
proximity to a roadway to be affected hydrologically. A map of the reference well is located in
Figure 9.
6.1.1. Gage Data Summary
Data obtained from the groundwater monitoring gage installed at the reference site reflects
drought conditions and readings have ranged from near zero inches to as deep as three feet below
the ground surface.
6.2. Soil Characterization
The soil within the reference wetland is mapped as Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam soil. Soil
textures are consistent with the description in the soil survey and the above section (3.3.1). The
color, texture, and structure of the surface layers within the observed soil profiles (hand augered
borings dug prior to the installation of the reference well) were, in general, consistent with this
mapping as Torhunta soils. The surface layer consisted of dark brown to very dark brown sandy
loam approximately one to 12 inches thick. The texture of the substratum layers ranged from
loamy sand to sandy loam, and was darker in color than the representative profile. The depth to
free water with the reference wetland was consistently within the first 12 inches. A map of the
reference site soils are provided in Figure 8.
6.3. Plant Community Characterization
• 6.3.1. Community Descriptions - (All Strata)
The identified reference site was located within a Pond Pine Woodland community adjacent to
Mesic Pine Flatwood communities with open canopies of longleaf pine (Figure 10). The upper
canopy of the reference wetland was approximately 40% closed and dominated by pond pine
(Pinus serotina) with red maple (Acer rubrum) and loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) also
present though in lesser quantities. The shrub stratum was dominated by gallberry. Ti-ti,
inkberry, sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), coastal sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and
honeycup (Zenobia pulverulenta) were present and numerous in the shrub layer as well.
Herbaceous coverage was patchily distributed and dominated by ferns including sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), and cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea). Laurel leaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia) and Carolina yellow jessamine
(Gelsemium sempervirens) were also present, though not in great density.
6.3.2. Basal Area
The estimated basal area value of the reference wetland was determined with a Biltmore stick in
four sample plots (Table 6). The four plots in the reference area were spaced approximately 70
feet apart on two transects running north to south centered on the reference well location.
•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 19
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Protect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
7. Project Site Restoration Plan 0
7.1. Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
Wetlands provide many benefits and are a natural solution for improving water quality. One
important function wetlands provide within the greater watershed is connecting area hydrologic
flows by moderating groundwater, surface water, and floodwater flows.
Goals: The goals of the proposed Plum Creek Wetland Restoration project include the
reestablishment of the following wetland functions: floodwater storage, groundwater recharge,
organic matter decomposition, and suitable wildlife and aquatic habitats.
Restoring this 80 acre wetland will immediately benefit the wildlife of the region by expanding
wetland habitats utilized by a variety of species including larger keystone species that require
large corridors such as black bear (Ursus americanus). Managed by the Nature Conservancy, the
Green Swamp Nature Preserve is located just 0.5 miles to the north of the site. The Plum Creek
Wetland Restoration Site will connect and expand ranges within the area. Habitat benefits will be
achieved for both terrestrial and aquatic species by increasing microhabitat diversity and
vegetation diversity. Similarly, the restored habitat may improve conditions for some threatened
and endangered species within Brunswick County such as the wood stork, rough-leafed
loosestrife, and Cooley's meadowrue.
Objectives: The original wetland was ditched, drained, and bedded to support loblolly pine
production. The site is bordered by drainage ditches, and two ditches cross the width of the tract.
Berger proposes to restore 80 of the 89 acres within the project site; to achieve the wetland
restoration goals, Berger proposes to complete the following activities: •
• Both of the interior ditches and will be plugged as will portions of the southern perimeter
ditch. (The eastern and western ditch around the perimeter will remain intact to prevent
hydrologic trespass on adjoining properties.)
• Minor regrading of the site will be performed to obtain fill material for the ditch plugs
and to facilitate the creation of vernal pools.
• Diffuse surface flow will enter the site from adjoining parcels and much of the water
budget will be influenced by precipitation.
7.1.1. Designed Wetiand Type
The Plum Creek Wetland Restoration project will ultimately result in the restoration of a Pond
Pine Woodland community. The restoration approach that will be utilized to restore this wetland
includes the following four steps: 1) plugging ditches that cross the interior of the site; 2)
preparing the land by drum chopping to remove loblolly pines; 3) regrading nonwetland portions
of the site with a bedding harrow to remove linear planting beds; and 4) re-planting to restore
native tree and shrub wetland vegetation.
7.1.2. Target Wetland Communities
Historically, this area would have supported a Pond Pine Woodland community. These
communities historically occurred on outer parts of domed peatlands on poorly drained
interstream flats or shallow swales (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The vegetation currently
present on site, the topography of the site and the Torhunta soil type further supports the proposed
community type of Pond Pine Woodland. Within the Pond Pine Woodland will be several vernal
pools. Proposed species are listed with planting plan, shown in Section 12.
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 20
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
• 7.2. Sediment Transport Analysis
There is no sediment transport portion of this project (no stream channel).
7.3. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
7.3.1. No Rise, LOMR, or CLOMR
When a proposed project will change the existing floodway and 100-year flood elevations, an
application must be submitted to FEMA containing the modeling results from the proposed
project and the proposed map revisions. If approved, FEMA will issue a conditional letter of map
revision (CLOMR) for a new hydraulic model based on new cross sections, to be developed. The
new maps and modeling results generated from the as-built information are then submitted to
FEMA. Once these are approved by FEMA, a "letter of map revision" (LOMR) is issued. If the
stream elevation, in a FEMA studied stream, will not be increased, instead of CLOMR and
LOMR, the project will require a No-rise certification.
There are no FEMA studied streams on the project site, nor is there any stream work to be
completed on the project site; therefore, there should be no FEMA coordination needed for this
project.
7.3.2. Hydrologic Trespass
Evaluation of the potential for offsite hydrologic impact (hydrologic trespass) was carried out by
• analyzing the ditch network surrounding the site which will remain intact. Results of the water
budget model indicate that surface water discharge from the site will be minimal even for an
extreme wet year avoiding hydrologic trespass conflicts.
7.4. Stormwater Best Management Practices
There are no structures or impervious areas located within the project site. The entire project site
is currently a pine plantation. Under the proposed conditions, all stormwater not captured by the
relic, plugged ditches, will migrate across the project site in the form of overland now, or as
channelized flow into the ditch network encircling the site. The addition of wetland vegetation to
the already flat landscape will extend travel time and provide treatment to stormwater before it
enters the surrounding ditches. The existing ditches onsite will be plugged, but the borrow pits
created during the ditch plugging process will remain as permanent pools and will provide
additional storage for stormwater as well as groundwater.
7.4.1. Narrative of Site-Specific Stormwater Concerns
Since project site topography is nearly flat and the majority of the project site is, and shall remain,
vegetated through the construction process, general stormwater and erosion control concerns are
minor. Immediately following grading, the site will be seeded with the specified seed mix shown
in the planting plans. Silt fence will be installed around the perimeter of all wetland areas within
the Limit of Disturbance (LOD), as shown on the plan sheets (Section 12.0), so that sheet flow
and sediment will not enter the wetland systems. Descriptions of specific devices used to control
stormwater and prevent erosion are specified in the next sub-section.
•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 21
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
7.4.2. Device Description and Application
Construction Entrance - A 16 foot X 100 foot tracking pad consisting of rip-rap will be installed
from the road on the south of the property bridging the shallowest portion of the southern ditch.
The tracking pad is designed to stabilize the construction entrance to the project site from heavy
equipment traffic and control the movement of sediment and other materials onto the project site.
Ditch Plugs - These structures will be created using on-site material. These structures will fill the
existing ditches to redirect the concentration of surface flows into the surrounding wetland area.
The borrow areas will create several permanent shallow pools.
Silt Fence - The limit of disturbance shall be bordered by silt fence. No construction activity will
occur outside of the limits of any silt fence installed onsite. Additionally, no grading will occur
specifically within the existing wetland (to be enhanced). The existing wetland area will be
bordered by silt fence and planting will occur in this area.
Seeding - Any cleared, grubbed, or any other disturbed surfaces will be seeded with specified
seed mix as construction is completed. The seed mix was selected to use both cool and warm
season native grasses in order to establish vegetative cover quickly without adverse effects of
succession.
7.5. Hydrologic Modifications
7.5.1. Narrative of Modifications
•
Since the site has been previously drained by ditching for its use as a pine plantation, the ditches •
will be plugged in order to return the pre-disturbance hydrology to the site. Additionally, some
small pools may be incorporated into the site to provide diversity of habitat and serve as semi-
permanent water storage. The size and frequency of these pools will be determined by the need
for material onsite to fill drainage ditches once construction begins.
7.5.2. Scaled Schematic of Modifications
Since the final quantities are to be determined onsite with the contractor and design engineer's
representative, only a preliminary approximation of modifications have been established at this
time. The proposed design plans are provided in Section 12.
7.6. Soil Restoration
7.6.1. Narrative, Soil Preparation, and Amendment
The onsite soil tests showed a high to very high nitrogen component within the soil. Several
other nutrients were found in lesser quantities. The construction contractor will be instructed to
save the topsoil for reuse in the areas where earthwork will occur. Soil will be scarified in any
areas that might be subject to compaction due to construction activities.
The antecedent vegetation conditions, the nutrient findings, and the fact that planting will occur in
selected areas around the healthy vegetation as opposed to every inch of the site, will lead to very
minimal soil preparation or amendment.
•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 22
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Prot
EEP Project Number D06040-A
• 7.7. Natural Plant Community Restoration
The vegetative community currently occupying the project site is a loblolly pine vegetative
community that has been significantly disturbed by silvicultural activities. The entire site is
currently planted in loblolly pine. Six acres currently meet the three parameters to be considered
a jurisdictional wetland. The remaining area exhibits two vegetative strata. Cultivated loblolly
pine approximately 13 feet in height and a shrub layer dominated by inkberry. A detailed
description of the plant community within the wetland area is provided in sub-section 5.1.
The existing conditions onsite are such that there are currently several thousand woody stems per
acre, only a few tens of which are loblolly pine. The pines are to be mechanically removed and
their biomass is to remain onsite. The remaining vegetation is almost entirely composed of
desirable native species and as much of it as possible will be kept. The planting of pond pine and
several other tree and shrub species will be used to augment the remaining shrub community.
7.7.1. Narrative & Plant Community Restoration
Tree and shrub species will be established primarily through the planting of bareroot seedlings of
hardwood trees and plugs of evergreen species native to the area, at a density of 404 trees per
acre. The establishment of species will follow the Wetlands Engineering Handbook (Hayes et al.,
2000). The successional trajectory of the wetland community planting will be similar to, and
contiguous with, the existing surrounding forest communities, attaining a minimum density of
320 woody stems per acre at monitoring year 3, and 260 woody stems per acre at maturity
(monitoring year 5).
• Over the course of the first year, planted vegetation will receive a visual examination to evaluate
the degree of overtopping of the seedlings by herbaceous plants. Problem areas identified during
the first growing season will be communicated with EEP. Quantitative vegetation sampling of
the vegetation will be performed in accordance with EEP CVS Protocol for Levels I-II (Lee et al.,
2008). Monitoring of stem height, stem width, position in plot and species diversity will take
place each year for a minimum of five years.
7.7.2. Onsite Invasive Species Management
The Plum Creek Wetland Restoration project was surveyed for invasive species during multiple
site visits in 2007, and none were identified. Should Berger scientists observe populations of
invasive species during the course of restoration efforts, species specific control measures and
techniques will be enacted that may include both mechanical and chemical treatments.
Herbicides utilized will be EPA certified for use in aquatic systems.
If necessary to manage invasive species, Berger staff experienced in invasive species control will
oversee all efforts to eradicate target species while minimizing non-target impacts. Also, only
properly licensed pesticide applicators will be employed to ensure proper handling, storage, and
application methods are followed for all herbicides.
E
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 23
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
8. Performance Criteria 0
8.1. Streams
The project site does not receive stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces or other
concentrated sources that require specific stormwater management devices.
8.2. Stormwater Management Devices
The project site does not receive stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces or other
concentrated sources that require specific stormwater management devices.
8.3. Wetlands
The hydrology and vegetation of the Plum Creek Wetland Restoration site will be monitored to
assess stability of the restored wetland. A detailed discussion of the monitoring effort and
performance criteria are described in the following sections. Berger will follow EEP's guidelines
for monitoring protocol and reporting, as detailed in the document Content, Format and Data
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports (Version 1.2 - 11/16/06), or the most recent version
available post-construction (EEP, 2006).
8.3.1. Hydrology
Groundwater level monitoring gages will be established throughout the site. Generally these
wells will be placed on intervals such that the data collected will provide an accurate indication of
groundwater levels over the entire site. The target mean groundwater level will be within the
upper 12 inches of the soil profile for, at minimum, 8% to 12.5% of the growing season.
8.3.2. Vegetation Plots
The location and quantity of vegetation sampling plots will be established with guidance from
EEP. Generally, permanent sampling plots will be installed in a randomized pattern throughout
the site following construction and planting. Vegetation data will be collected in accordance with
the methods described in the EEP CVS protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Survival criteria of planted woody stems will be 320 stems per acre in Year 3, 288 stems per acre
in Year 4, and 260 stems per acre at the completion of the project monitoring period at Year 5.
8.3.3. Photo Points
Berger will document project site conditions by installing photo stations as well as taking photos
of any identified problem areas.
Fixed Station Photos: Berger will establish photo stations immediately following construction of
and planting.
Numbered Issue Photos: Berger will take representative photographs of problem areas identified
during annual monitoring. The location where the photo was taken will be revisited each year

Wetland Restoration Plan Page 24
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
until the monitoring period is over or the stream has become stable (either naturally or through
repairs).
8.3.4. Problem Areas
Berger will document identified problem areas in the annual monitoring report by means of
photographs and plan sheets that illustrate the problem areas. The monitoring report will address
which types of actions, if any, are needed and the schedule for their completion.
8.4. Vegetation
Vegetation success criteria were discussed as a subcategory of the wetland success criteria in
section 8.3.2.
8.5. Schedule/ Reporting
Construction is scheduled to be completed by late summer 2008 followed by planting in fall of
2008, after which the initial monitoring report, Year 0, will be published. The monitoring period
will extend 5 years beyond completion of construction and a report will be produced after each
subsequent year of monitoring (Year-1 {2009} through Year-5 {2013}). Berger will develop the
monitoring reports following EEP's guidelines, as detailed in the document Content, Format and
Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports (Version 1.2 - 11/16/06) or the most recent
version available post-construction (EEP, 2006).
Each annual monitoring report will have three main sections: the project background section, the
methodology section, and the project condition / monitoring results section.
The Project Background Section: The project background section will contain information about
the project's location, setting, history, background, and objectives. Additionally, it will include a
monitoring plan view.
The Methodology Section: The methodology section will detail the methodology (recommended
by EEP) used. Additionally, this section will address any modifications made to the methodology
and or any new methods introduced.
Project Condition and Monitoring Results: This section will be divided into two subsections:
vegetative assessment, and wetland assessment.
Vegetation Assessment: This subsection will include a Vegetation Problem Area Table
and a Wetland Problem Areas Plan View.
Problem areas will be defined as either lacking vegetation or containing exotic
vegetation. All problems areas identified within the project boundary up to the final
inspection date must be listed along with appropriate location information and a brief
statement regarding probable cause. At least one representative photo will be provided
for each category and arranged sequentially in the appropriate appendix. This subsection
will include soil data, vegetative problem areas, and stem count data.
A vegetative problem area plan view exhibit and photos from the vegetation plots will
also be referenced in this subsection and found in the appropriate appendix of the report.
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 25
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
The purpose of this figure is to provide an overview of all the vegetative problem areas
with regard to the scale and layout of the entire project. This figure will provide a plan
view, with patterns representing vegetation conditions of concern and a color code for
degree of concern.
¦ Wetland Assessment: This subsection will include a Wetland Criteria Attainment Table
and a Wetland Problem Areas Plan View.
The Wetland Criteria Attainment Table is designed to provide a performance summary
for wetland projects. This large wetland project with many wells and plots will provide
tract means in lieu of individual performance. For example, if Tract X has seven wells
within its boundaries and six have met the hydrological threshold, there will be 86%
attainment.
This subsection will include a Wetland Problem Areas Plan View. This figure will be
provided as a plan view in the appropriate appendix. Wells will be identified and
grouped by color code designed to convey the degree of attainment for hydrologic
criteria.
The plan view will include, but not be limited to the following items:
1. Vegetation plots,
2. Labeled photo stations,
3. Topographic layer, and
4. Soils layer.
•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 26
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proms
EEP Project Number D06040-A
•
9. REFERENCES
Barnhill et. al., 1986. Soil Survey of Brunswick County, North Carolina, United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, DC.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. 103 pp.
EEP, 2006. EEP Template for Monitoring Report, Version 1.2, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program, November 16,
2006. Available URL: http://www.nceep.net/pages/designer info.htm
Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
FAO, 1977. Food and Agriculture Organization Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24.
Garbisch, E.W. 1994. Achieving the Correct Hydrology to Support Constructed Wetlands.
Environmental Concerns, Inc., St. Michaels, MD.
Hayes, D. F., Olin, T. J., Fischenich, J. C., and Palermo, M. R. 2000. "Wetlands Engineering
Handbook," ERDC/EL TR-WRP-RE-21, U. S. Army Engineer Research and
• Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Lee, M. T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, T. R. Wentworth, 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, All Levels of Plot Sampling, Version 4.0, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Lee, M. T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, T. R. Wentworth, 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, All Levels of Plot Sampling, v2.2.5, May 2008.
NCDWQ, 2003. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality. Basinwide Assessment Report. Lumber River Basin 2003. Available
URL: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/
NCDWQ, 2006. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality. Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters
List. 2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report. Available URL:
hi!p:/ih2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/GeneraI 303 d.htm
NCNHP, 2007. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program. Natural Heritage Element
Occurrences GIS data (nheo.shp), September 2007. Raleigh, NC.
Pierce, G.J. 1992. Planning Hydrology for Constructed Wetlands. Wetland Training Institute, Inc.
Poolesville, MD.
•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 27
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North •
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh,
NC.
USDA, 1986. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Urban
Hydrology for Small Watersheds- TR 55, Second Edition, June 1986.
USDA, 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Munsell Sol Color Charts, Year 2000 revised.
USDA, 2006. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Tabular Database for Brunswick County, NCO 19 (GIS file), North Carolina.
2006. Fort Collins, CO.
USDA, 2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Web Soil
Survey for Brunswick County, NC. 2007 Available URL:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
USFWS, 1994. U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service Division of Endangered Species. Rough-leaf
Loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia). Available URL: hgp://www.fws.gov/nc-
es/plant/rllooses.html (Accessed May 7, 2007).
USFWS, 2007. U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service Division of Endangered Species. Cooley's
meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi). Available URL:
http•//www.fws_gov/southeast/es/cou2ty%201ists.htm (Accessed May 7, 2007)
•
C:
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 28
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Prot
EEP Project Number D06040-A
• 10. TABLES
•
L'
Table 1: Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Project Number D06040-A (Plum Creek Wetland Restoration)
Restoration Existing Designed
Segment / Station Restoration Priority Linear Linear

Reach
Range
Type
Approach
Footage or
Footage or Comment
ID Acreage Acreage
8 acres
already in
Non-riverine Not Restoration Not 89 acres 80 acres wetlands,
Wetland Area applicable Applicable drainage
ditches and
uplands
Table 2: Drainage Areas
Project Number D06040-A (Plum Creek Wetland Restoration)
Reach Drainage Area
Entire site 110 acres (0.17 square miles)
Total 110 acres (0.17 square miles)
Table 3: Land Use of Watershed
Project Number D06040-A (Plum Creek Wetland Restoration)
Land Use " Acreage Percentage
Loblolly Pine Plantation 89 100%
Wetland Restoration Plan
Page 29
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
Table 4: Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Brunswick County, NC
Project Number D06040-A (Plum Creek Wetland Restoration
Species Common Federal Species Species Suitable' Effect
Name Status/NC Record Record in Habitat
Status* In Bolivia Present
Brunswick Quadrangle Onsite
Coun
Alligator American T(SA)/T Current Current No No Effect
mississi iensis alligator
Haliaeetus Bald eagle T/T Current Current No No Effect
leucoce halus
Puma concolor Eastern E/E Historical None No No Effect
cou ar puma
Chelonia Green sea T/T Current None No No effect
mydas (incl. turtle
a assizi
Lepidochelys Atlantic E/E Current None No No effect
kempii ridley sea
turtle
Dermochelys Leatherback E/E Current None No No effect
coriacea sea turtle
Caretta caretta Loggerhead T/T Current None No No effect
sea turtle
Charadrius Piping T/T Current None No No effect
melodus lover
Picoides Red- E/E Current Current No No effect
borealis cockaded
woodpecker
Acipenser Shortnose E/E Current None No No effect
brevirostrum sturgeon
Trichechus West Indian E/E Current None No No effect
manatus manatee
Mycteria Wood stork E/E Current None No No effect
americana
Thalictrum Cooley's E/E Current None Yes May
cooleyi meadowrue affect,
not likely
to effect
Lysimachia Rough E/E Current None Yes May
asperulaefolia leafed affect,
loosestrife not likely
to effect
Amaranthus Sea beach T/T Current None No No effect
umilus amaranth
* T= Threatened, E = Endangered, T(SA) = Threatened (Similarity of Appearance)
•

•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 30
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A

•
•
Table 5: Project Soil Characteristics
Project Number D06040-A (Plum Creek Wetland Restoration)

Map Unit
Soil Name
Percent
Drainage
Hydrologic Depth to
SHWT
Hydric
Restrictive
Symbol Slope Characteristics Group (ft) Soil Layer
To Torhunta mucky 0.5 to Very poorly C 0 to 0.5 Yes None
fine sand loam 1.5 drained
Pn Pant ?o
mucky 0 to 2 Very
poorly D 0 to 1.5 Yes None
? fined
Lo Leon fine sand 0 to 2 Very poorly drained D 0 to 1.0 Yes None
Rains
fin
e sandy 0 to 2 Poorly drained D 0 to 1.0 Yes None
ne
l
Note: SHWT= Seasonal High Water Table.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for
undrained areas.
Source: "Soil Survey of Brunswick County, North Carolina" USDA-SCS-2004.
Table 6: Reference Wetland Basal Area and Trees per Acre
Project Number D06040-A (Plum Creek Wetland Restoration)
Plot Number Basal Area per acre (square feet
1 60
2 70
3 60
4 50
Mean stand basal area 60
Wetland Restoration Plan
Page 31
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
Table 7A: Vegetative Communities
Project Number DO 040-A ( Plum Creek Stream Restoration)
Plant Species Common Root Caliper Spacing Quantity Acreage Total
Community Name (O.C.) Per Acre
Height
Pinusserotina Pond B.R./ min. 16 177 82 14,500
Pine tubling 1/4 in.
root
collar
1.0 to
2.0 ft.
hi
Gordonia Loblolly B.R./ min. 19 122 82 10,006
y lasianthus Bay tubling 1/4 in.
root
collar
-- 0 1.0 to
o b 2.0 ft.
N high
o Magnolia Sweetbay B.R./ min. 24 74 82 6,100
0
3
virginiana
Magnolia
tubling
1/4 in.
a root
w collar
° 1.0 to
a° 2.0 ft.
hi
Chamaecyparis Atlantic B.R./ min. 38 30 82 2,500
thyoides White tubling 1/4 in.
Cedar root
collar
1.0 to
2.0 ft.
high
Total 404 82 33,106
•
•
•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 32
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
L'
r1
LJ
•
Table 713: Vegetative Communities
Project N umber D06040-A (Plum Creek Stream Restoration)
Plant Species Common Root Caliper Spacing Quantity Acreage Total
Community Name & (O.C.) Per Acre
Height
Gordonia Loblolly B.R./ min. 1/4 19 122 2 244
lasianthus Bay tubling in. root
collar
1.0 to
2.0 ft.
high
Quercus Laurel B.R./ min. 1/4 11 350 2 700
o
C) laurifolia Oak tubling in. root
collar
N o 1.0 to
0 0 2.0 ft.
N o hi
.E -3 Quercus Swamp B.R./ min. 1/4 11 350 2 700
michauxii Chestnut tubling in. root
a 5 Oak collar
3 1.0 to
c 2.0 ft.
high
Liriodendron Yellow B.R./ min. 1/4 11 350 2 700
z tulipifera Poplar tubling in. root
collar
1.0 to
2.0 ft.
high
Total 1172 2 2,344
Table 7C: Vegetative Communities
Project Number D 06040-A Plum Creek Stream Restoration)
Plant Species Common Root Caliper & Spacing Quantity Acreage Total
Community. - Name Height (O.C.) Per Acre
(lbs)
Agrostis Red Top NA NA NA 2 4 8
alba

0
E Lolium Annual Rye NA NA NA 11 4 44
0 o
N U
multiflorum
tb -6
A o
w o
2Cq
p
" Panicum Switchgrass NA NA NA 2 4 8
> virgatum (panicum)
Total 15 4 60
Wetland Restoration Plan
Page 33
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
•
11. FIGURES
•
E
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 34
N LUMBER RIVER BASIN
"i 03040206030010 03-07-59
Project Site
Reference Site,k\
. ?-
03040207020020 x
0304020702001'0 -
Legend
Q Site Boundary
HUC 14 Boundary
•
SOURCE:
Base Mapping - USGS Topographic Map.
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
r7 N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
Plum Creek Site
EEP Project # D06040
Project Site Vicinity Map
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP
1001 Wade Avenue
Suite 400 FIGURE 1
,
Raleigh, NC 27605 Jan. 2008
7
? 0
[fl1j?
P f'f
.ro
.w

10
1
0 500 1,000 2,000
H Feet
-- - N
+Jl{ -y;LG.T
?M

a
t-?f I
Legend
0 Site Boundary
Q Drainage Area
SOURCE:
Base Mapping - 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Map.
C 7 N.C. Ecosystem
i,r; :rca, Enhancement Program
Plum Creek Site
EEP Project # D06040
Project Site Watershed Map
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP
Suite 400
1001 Wade Avenue FIGURE 2
,
Raleigh, NC 27605 ,tan. 2008
0
•
Legend
0 Project Site Boundary
Hydric A Soil
Lo Leon Fine Sand, 0 To 2 Percent Slopes
Pn Pantego Mucky Loam
To Torhunta Mucky Fine Sandy Loam
• Sources:
Base Mapping - Brunswick County, NC 2004.
Soils Data - USDA, NRCS SSURGO Database, Brunswick County, NC.
N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
Plum Creek Site
EEP Project # D06040
Project Site
NRCS Soil Survey Ma
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP FIGURE 3
1001 Wade Avenue
Suite 400
,
Raleigh, NC 27605 Jan. 20 08
Legend
0-lisdictional Tributaries
Non-RPW
® RPW
Project Site
Existing Ditch Network
Feet
500 1,000
SOURCE:
Base Mapping - USGS Topographic Map: Bolivia
r7 N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
Plum Creek Site
EEP Project # D06040
Project Site Hydrological Features
with Gauge Stations
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP
1001 W
A
d
S
i
400 Figure 4
venue.
a
e
u
te M
2??8
Raleigh NC 27605 rs
? 0

.V" ?Z :

N
" e t
44
J
A;y'K4fi.
W°t.. ?.? ?xya
4.
tA As*
'A.
?i Ar d a ? ?4 AYsr :H G a" ? ? - ? !I*!s. r `?I +F .
4
0 f 200 400 800
.` Feet
Legend
Project Site
Existing Wetland
• Sources:
Base Mapping - Brunswick County, NC 2004.
Wetland Line - GPS collected by Berger, 2007.
C'7 N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
Plum Creek Site
EEP Project # D06040
Project Site Wetland Delineation
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP
Suite 400
1001 Wade Avenue FIGURE 5
,
Raleigh, NC 27605 Jan. 2008
N N
LUMBER RIVER BASIN
03040206030010 -
- - 0' -07-59
_ Project Site - -
' r - - -
e
Reference S i
to
03040207020020
k t

N -
Reference Site
r
L=z
r.; .0304020702001`0'.
•wF t_I,
i'
r
i
0040207020030_
_ 0303000507001
03040207020040
Legend
Q Site Boundary
HUC 14 Boundary
•
SOURCE:
Base Mapping - USGS Topographic Map.
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
r'7 N.C. Ecosystem
L:to,sr?ai Enhancement Program
Plum Creek Site
EEP Project # D06040
Reference Site Vicinity Map
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP
1001 Wade Avenue
Suite 400 FIGURE 6
,
Raleigh, NC 27605 Jan. 2008
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
is Figure 7: Reference Site Watershed Map
Not applicable to this project. Figure not produced.
•
•
Wetland Restoration Plan Page 41
0
•
•
Legend
M Project Site Boundary
Fo - Foreston loamy fine sand
To - Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam
Wo - Wood ington fine sandy loam
Sources:
Base Mapping - Brunswick County, NC 1996.
Soils Data - USDA, NRCS SSURGO Database, Brunswick County, NC.
r7 N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
Plum Creek Site
EEP Project # D06040
Reference Site
NRCS Soil Survey Map
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP FIGURE 8
1001 Wade Avenue
Suite 400
,
Raleigh, NC 27605 Jan. 2008
•
I10
let,
>
rwb '.s? ? ' g$ „?,> ?y?m-p ' rr- 9 } r "Al, b >?4/'^ Ems-! '1''i t
.P-
4.,y,
t .'?! r?„-?+; >"' ? c' III'. ?} " ` ?? ?F r nRrTY??•?t ° ..? ?.'? _`?4 ..a,?^J'. s?
"'s ? <x`? ee eaF . e p 'a s + y4r', 3 '4?„.,° . ,i, .,!?>. J'? ••yr i* x.,?; ?,>?.
'. t".?6 xo?wt'?`??" €.. `1'.w .fit tagExw,,'°t`_, gr's ^?Ya°.'#?*"t?`'.. +"'?"„,? x' °`M ,?„'sC 4'
i' `p iM?? r e Tr ` ii `i ? " a rttl`
rP"
p b x r- w ' y "# f?j s ?i Ilk
-IVW
A,i ` x 1?e
4?s^w> C?a *?iY'.°?? r 4 ' y + ?? M?gt"?i°f ,?y?1 ?* ?}
pro,
+ ! y;
!Zxt
++ J6**+}C r+y `z,}a 4*? ?e "? !* a,s t?± w '?Y A +?w
ws 't. ce `af « t gyp Y e. } 11 R;?' s
Oft off ',e? #
?_ °3°"+.c"'} 4n,Gi 'y.,r x!°,', iy'. r' y`'",; i .P>° 5.''?"F,'t,?6 '`+s f
-4? VV
.•? ` ?? Y. +r. ar? g >ro? #?t ? A;,,. > .»., ,- 'AlrE" ?b ' : . c 'T.+ -? t5 K°' * ?a?'?' P'1?:"A.> ' ?#
i? "fry`. ''?"'s 1i*^r+ `a^r''?"ti^ >.f jar 1. °cy.? ''?kr .'..1;3 ''`S..?h`
`
141V
V
? i f * x 3 ?Alk, c 4p lss t S»y?r$ ?*? #' 1
+..r . " yea Ar
Ilk
-Orr
?':. ' 1 _ +t Th * t * •1 f >°`r' g ° ' .fi r - + * ??
i4?, r°?"x,aP o `*'+ .j?'' Rw ''rx!"'y, ? " xtE°'? ) '>rzyl?`„`` ..r, ' y.r "`` ?,•• 4`? ?,
111r. -
„sr ;fit $ " ,r' C+r ' yr, 4 F ,pa'1 '.>a-. ra Y A p Z. + x? e ' ?, -""
y p
iVV
r
A, Sir
,?a..? F .X s % ? •„,x`'?,x:'w'??`?r.,?e,. ',x'?irs $ *' "? # ?' iM ?'.F .,fin •aw x"`?t ? C !} a.+'t r
Kr
Legend
Reference Site
Monitoring Well
0
Sou rce:
Base Mapping - Brunswick County, NC 1998.
r7 N.C. Ecosystem
>thFt?:,t Enhancement Program
Plum Creek Site
EEP Project # D06040
Reference Site Wetland Determination
with Gauge Locations
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP
Suite 400
1001 Wade Avenue FIGURE 9
,
Raleigh, NC 27605 Jan. 2008
•
Legend
Reference Community (Pond Pine Woodland)
Sources:
Base Mapping - Brunswick County, NC 1998.
Soils Data - USDA, NRCS SSURGO Database, Brunswick County, NC.
r=? N.C. Ecosystem
t',?t><titirt „ Enhancement Program
Plum Creek Site
EEP Project # D06040
Reference Site
Vegetative Communities Map
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP
1001 Wade Avenue
Suite 400 FIGURE10
,
Raleigh, NC 27605 Jan. 2008
133HS 31111
ui,aj SsiAy;? 909LZ euilweO PON '018188
anuany apeM 6001
'oul 'dnouo a3J2i39 SIf10-l 3Hl
Jl1N= )13IINSNnue
103f ONd N011Va01SM ONY1131A
A336 vinld
N:!`
10
0-z
z
•? : z
3
a?
0? 2 2 N N
M G G
LL 0
u?i°trs9<011.1
V
W W s L) d 7. 0
Z 1=/1 yWJ? a w
Z Z 2 Z 2 J K K
HI ? Z ^? O < < < py<U, J J
H 0 W J- LL !- N 00
N
p1
N n v in W I? 1
? r r
Fg ?'
N
U
W
O
CL CL
W Z Z
uj 0 z W
- O
I- U U oo t p.
?? jz
V
V Z elf J
W d
O I U
F- mr I a
D W = Z
J W m W
0
Q < I
Z W
N I ?
W O
3 b.
U
W

z
U_

i
t
t` !
r

1 I Z?wii

l
e

N

0 0 0
Siva MHO NNO SHOISIAN ON g
S31ON 1V2d3N39
co

909LZ euiIaeO WON '081e?l
anuan
a
e WVa908d 1N3W33NVHN3 W31SJlS0O3
y
p
M
600E
'
Jl1NfI0O )IOIMSNIkl9
df1021J U302i38 SIf10l 3Hl
ouI 193f Oad NOI1Va01S3u aNV1131A
N33a3 weld

? N M
Z
O Z
O ZZ
O
N N N

W

H

W In N N
w < < <
w d d IL
Vl is o is
2 10- W F _
1- H

J N
0 W
9 a C9 z :3
pJ
.
U.
O 0
O

w W LLO W N
F

b N In

is
0 W
J 2 O w
J V 6m
x

d
C

17
W p ?y
- W CL 2
CL -C
2
2

LL
? < $ ?
J W%mo LL LL
_
O 6. < d y
?
S
VI U
WO O PE
F-
i-r
w < < O
o ff W 2 O O
O O

0
2
F= VIK
y?
F O
2-j J
O
O
O cw w
H V- cc
W
OW
as <m m W
co W
0
0
? N M H 0
H 0
F
40 0 0
31va )INO Nua SNOISIAM ON 4
SNOIlIUN00 JNIlSIX3 m d
u Stcxy? i 909LZ BUIPOO WON'01818?1 MYNOONd 1N3W30NVHN3 M31SAS033 ? S F
anuGAV apeM 1001 ® AM= )13IMSNnbe
'oui dnouo 1:130H39 siwl 3Hl 103f OHd NOIIVUOIS38 0NV1131A
X33a0 wnld
'„
s8 vyN Y
o
W ::?
u
a I? --? k
f . ,hN
• • ^k k RRRIII
• jk
lie
W Jj U % • •• °k = •• } k
t t . • k • $ . ?x ILIA
?N??N 9 r ?k ? • • ° ^O
88ii ° k °k -x M
Nx i x • O ? ° ???
k Q
LL 4
ak °k LL °k
u ox
/ rk ?, ?} a} ? nk H°
i 1 I a O ° F._
V ° wt-
•
ink
_.
?dg
is
J m
J
•
} nk 1
IL
J
?Wf
m
c.,k 2LL k mk xUF O =t -
•?k Il?o k H{=.1 f `?, mk Nk ° °k
Bk tIJyH ?i °}
^} k
°k mk ak, O °k °k ak
°k °k e
?k ?k ?k v} ° ek
°k °k kv hk ?^,k
?} ?x ? vk ? ° 4 *° ?kLLLL? ak
10 >k J
°k
<} v
° °a'k. ?k °k O vk
k
ex ? k
? ^k
m} ?x k ax ?'} 'ek
N ? ^ pk °x
k ? ek •
k
,k oa ok T? ok
00
J °k
k.. ZLL c+ d R
x =} g} n-
hU k °} } ?k'Vk PN }h
p k ILMk gx
Ilyy r k d
?} a. spa Rx ° 1
?k F "' ek
J A x fko mk 4 u?k ^ ek
i • ` F G' ?'k ,?
O }
C
X
?x O 9 0 >,Ux ?}
W.U
k ?} k m
•f 00
k
?k
X k
?k °k k
ok ?k
g k
C
k
M} mk ? ?k ?} ? ??
mx k? ?k SJk mk ?a
-LL
~ N
° k I..1= W}
,n} ?x ?~_
ZZ k
^x O °k O 3k, O? ?k°
c'
vk
°k, v k Obi o _
FLL
? ^k ?k ?UF
k A• • %} ?k 00
f
• I?
a
U

31ra aHa Nao sNOIsin38
a+
g
SNOIUON00 03SOdOUd
eu
ojeo WON 'y6ialea S
iii,as(ti Ay; i il
909LZ
n
an
a
e WVaJOad 1N3W30NVHN3 W31SAS033
y
p
a
u
M LOOL A1Nf100 )IOIINSNnue
L, 'ouI 'dnONE) U30a38 sin0l 3Hl
103f Oad NOI1Va01S3a 0NV113M
ma0 vinld

E
8 ovN
/
y

/
O W

J
J
t 9m ? J
W 4
V S O co
J
Q?
Q 1
N
J

4

C
F
Z
O

;o

J
4
7
O
S
'Y
O
C
0 i
0
0
ui,atitaa9 909LZ euilaeO WON VIGIea
anuany apeM L00
1=# L, -- oui `dnoO jo N3EM38 si l 3Hl
F8 °bN
\
NVId ONIINVld
8 m
8008d 1N3W30NVHN3 M31SAS003 8
A1Nf100 NOIMSNnue
103f Oad NIOlIV8 0IS38 0NVIAIA
vinld
? n
Y
o
• e •
i
i

Q
0
s 1
ZN
ZN z /
L.j
O ? 1
N
L.j
Z J
O K
?La
az
La La
43
u
><
W W
_ H
H
x m
F 4
¦S
W o
1.
¦
N 1
VI
R Ng
z0?
W p `
QN 2=
7m?
J t
_VA r
c4ln
WN N
NN
N
F
z N M1
? N M
Z Z Z
O O O I
N N N
0
ll?l 'r
J d
fl
0
C
t
I a
v
0 0 0
iiaa?Cs ?Y ? i 909LZ euiIaeO gIJON VI818N
anueAV epeM 600E
'ouI `dnoa) U39tI38 sin01 3Hl 12
°
°
s8 ?dN
°
°
°
°
°
°
NVId JNILNVld
8 Y
HOOHd 1N3W30NVHN3 M31SAS033
AM= )13IINSNnue io
103f Oad OIIV OIS38 0NV1131A
)133H3 mnld
Y
W
O
tl
•?a
• e •

\.I
') ? ?t

II)l 'r
W
S
V
O
S
H
M 1/1
=W=
F?
N
O
z z
N S
W 4~4
O
N
W_
J
? WW
~ z
WW
41 W W
LLP S~
H
S C
a S
W O
F
VI
N
C rt18
z 0a
W J
O<
Nzz
y1Oy1<W
7 cow
J t >
d W
M!2%
N AI
W ZWZ WZZ
V1?00
WNNN
Z? Nh
? N M
z z z
O O O
N N N
0
1p
T
?d
d
U
0 0
31VO MHO WHO SHOISIAM ON
S31ON 9NI1NVld
909LZ eugae3 WON 'y6i9Iea
u,,,js,{s yi? ® HVHSOHd 1N3H30NVHN3 V131SAS033
anuanyapeM 1001 g
A1Nf100 )1011ASNnue
out 'df10bJ U30b39 sinO-1 3Hl 103f Oad NOI1Va01S3a 0NV1131A
ma0 wnld
W 11??
s($rs m , 13 J
1-
0 2-1
04 IL
J log _ ~F 8 0 m
J
J r
V re (a ?-
IM I I k I m
e -w we'n CL
m g ?
190 p co
m m m S
? .N a < m OH 15 p
gill
Ow U.
pis ages
61, NUINIO
(YI gF
O {? 11 S`j?' ~?Qyp? J1p1 \
W <
No < p J Y ; K <t F F kn
Q `
0ydd
=f- N?? r9 ia& visa nom ? u? me min c;
00 00
C1.1
32 ? food ?euaa,?
CO z auoZ Su?;ugid k*

a

CQ
Y
O
?
N
M
F
e?
R
y

oNO

oNO

o0

00

O
V
L

C
R
7
a
U
O
O N M
V
a

d R

C ?
v
U
Z c R
CI R .?,

e a o ? =
U a 3
C°
? d

R
in
?
?R
e0 v
!C
j,

?
c RJ
o
' R
°
C Q
v
O R

U
?„ •? ,Cliunwwo,?
? a pugipoo,?k quid puod ea
a c° i auoZ au!;uuId ,
0 0

l+
?
a ? o
O 0
O 0
O
N N
R
F
on
L N N N N N
V
Q
L

N
O
O

O
M N

?
..i
A
<
7
a
U
C
'v
d

0
z

U o
c ?

cLa

u ? o

G
R c
o
`? ^C
'?
ra Q
40
C
r? ? j V

V _
1?
,fliunwwo?
e ? asa?o,? poon?paeg
E a ah? auiaaniauoN o
b4A
° £ auoZ 2ul;uuId
q
r

N
0
F
e°'n
V
L
V
y
U
O
G z z
.
z
u
d

V

z

a
T

x U

a
°o
8 F
? CO
C ?

3

? o
?
.N
a
,°a
.. a ,fliunwwo?

°' ?,
c

31YO 3NO NNO SNOISIAM ON SlIV130 JNI1NVld m
909LZ eupae3 y1JoN VIO18N HYNO08d 1N3H30NVHN3 M31SAS033 S
enueAv epeM 1001 A1Nf100 )13IMSNnus
mi 'dnan U30a38 sinO-1 3H1 ®
103f Oad MUUMUU ONV113M
N33a0 rinld
E
J
a
0
J N
Zr
J J a
O F 2
Ja O Z
= U
y
O O N a-
O
Q O K Y LLJ
J U
J O
coy a Q
Q F a H
° a ¢ a
o ? it a ? LLI
LLJ ~ W U Q
O Z
u O O 5
O Oa F
2 ^
W O
Z ¢ G
~ J N
Z U 0 °o
Q
CL 0
Z
TMr
Q N
~ Z F-
Fz
I Z
LL Q
W n
Ix
a
J
J
O D
U
O
O D
K
a Z
W W
J-io a =Wp O MW
N J W
O G zO Z J WW m x Z a W J ~ °o °x W
W r
CL J.. a.. O LL2WJ OJ Wm N
F-x7J rr r.O 2 x? ZW
411 O W ~o
J ppJ_OU WCp J7 HQ T0luPrE ALL
VNW SZW ZZZ?2Fx- NOO OZ am
W F
~ W F J W S F OO O x WO W Z Oa J O J ¢
Yx0
WF•x O J ,WW W W~U~ ?_ O O J N O
> ¢ 2x JZOZ Y?¢Y- xF- >-.8 Z
FOWWaNF- ZQO 1Y XLL
- WZW TO
F mxx'+
Q OEMPW 1m0Z xY aWr OW WOE WF ~W
S O LLS W Q U a O J o J F J Oa -r WW
? a POPM 7aSJHW= a04 Sao NF-
W O W S O O; W 0 m m a 2 LL W O J LL F- O
O W¢JOZ OF- OJO HWW ZW U U a OO
Z LLW WOW 2 OOa O`+ oZLL
_ ¢m OZQQ FN WNW NO Z OFSFF- WQJ p1 ONF- ~Om
= mLL2m a2 Fm I F- SELL ZmxZ Jfxl1Z OOO
~ WoWW¢Z7p w0??0 ?Om?+ m7F- O r
-31 3 xxx0? J WWJ N2 a a LL
2OQ2WOF-F- OOJw J 2 Wx
Fa 07Ja JJa. QOW OpWp GZ 7Z.~. NWF-
W NOOQa Wi LL fxl/ Nm2Nx m0 MR NF- WE; 0F3
M
-? N M < m
W
U
O
CL
C7
z G 0 - 0 /
J
C 0
zx u W J W O W a W W S
7F-0 U J^ W0F-CC Z X W F- a
O PO O MMUF-WW U F- T ?-
Z M a J O a o
O LL ¢ T x x F- W F- W Z N F- F- Z Z F- O ME Z
OW a F- OKWxK W2+ W mgr x ??
^ F- JF- 07 xZ¢xOF- x7ww x W Si O O S O
xx002zo 0 0+ --• Jff Ww H N LL•- a 2 7¢
Q OF-zzF-rw 7F-U aW a ow O J LL a S
a 6 m z o a Z w w m K x J F- O J O U a LL W a
m co-F- Wm U F- U F- N ((Qle oZ WO
W 71JS OOR•- {Z{ ? pZO 6?~WO?zi (1) , 7 ?O JOO H
V M 6J O
J -i z F- WO F-ao 0m o x 00¢ z W WO
m ¢0 aw.• ¢xF r MW xz 00 ow w zz ., J ¢w x>
awzw xm ar Jr F aaWmJ o JO aaw J ax ra
m m O j V M M m x a pp WC oz x x N 7 m
?--i O OM-000 Zo0 WF- 7 x CJ Z- N - a W 00
W
? OFY_U x aA4 0- f 7 wM x A (r mm CZ- 20o Q ZW ZF Z
FOmZcc F_ Q Z2 F-~ZLL~ Z2 WJ F-Om? M ZO rM KO
ZF- a80 Zam F-7N zw4wF- F- MO. z o 0 1-x ZF- aLL
cr a JF-mW aW x F-F- ax J!; r F- W W Z a- W
Q JJ Jz NH JWWF-7 O JF->. ZLL W Oa 0 J7 JK
M a'+7¢JJO U aOWaoFp-o a a N co 22 O F- 00 a a
M
W fOa apaW% W41FO JZW W0LLLMW dx oF- col- Q Q- WZ L'
x- WW OZZ WW Z 7 H~p W a ~ z¢J W F W d U O s z Y d S W Fx" W S W W
(n ISQSa U OxZO0 F- xx 2W a U
O F-F- -1 L) WwF-rF- F-O F-w F-O cox woo F- LLa Wa r a
¢ W a WW> rZ w ¢¢w ow o a¢ >o
WOOZ Nm OWJZQQW > WILOx U xJ JF- xJ_ ww xJ >00
H4 JdS20 WmOJROW M2JjOJ o7 7O JO- ZO J- W2 402
F-
m moF-F-F- It aF-0J ..m ?a aLL am ama •-•x MW KF- LL LL
_ ..• N l0 f 6 co i? m P B
~ F
Q n-i
~ 3
W
W O
(r Ld
O O O O
CL
f.7
Z_
F -
z
Q
J
U. o O O O O
0 0
0
r
H
O J
b w
O
a
0
.Op
o
O
r
Ln ol
0
0
r
O
O
cr)
r
O
O
N
r
O
0
O
O
r Q
Q
? C
Ol
V
O V1
O
y
co
y
O
L
O V
0
0
0
10
0
0
LO
0
0
0
O
Cl)
O
O
N
0
0
r
O
O
O
O
M

J
H
U
w
-I
O
w
a

SNO1133S 1V01dAl 8 g
FHOOdd 1N3n30NVHN3 w31SAS003 m
A1Nn00 )I3I4SNna9
133r odd NOILYHOIS38 ONVl13M LL ¢
A3383 world
1
1
1

r
- -

2
?

J
I
O
a
LL

w
I
O
J
I
0
fn 1
1
1
I
I
_

1 I
I

1 1
1
1

1

0 I
O
c?
z
1
I
I
1
1
1
r
1
1
9
LO
Ic-l
O °
O
r
N b
0
o
0
N
00 °
W
°
O
O
CD
r
O
O
Cl)
r
0
O
N
r
O
0
r
r
O
0
0
r
m
o m
O
o }
V
G
N
y
Vf
o 0
V
0
0
10
0
0
Ln
0
0
O
O
m
0
O
N
0
0
r
0
O O ?? O O
10 in R M
i[i,ijs s x ;( P 909LZ eupoJeO WON 'y IWN
anuanyapeM 100E
oul 'dnajo U3J]38 siml 3Hl
? tY
0 Wyy
00 0 51
0
0 0 0
O O ? `7 O
? Lo '
ui?ls{s ?y 909LZ eu110Je0 41JON `4618181:1
anuany apeM WM
L, -oui `dnouo a39H38 si l 3Hl
0
F-
5
w
w
z d
Z ?a
o
w
W y,
Q ;f
J
U
w
w
LL

F-
J
U
W
O
Of
a

O
O
O b
F-
N
J

~ F-
W
G

N O
CL
51
0
O
O
10
N
O
O
Ul
N
O
O
N
II O
(D
ID
1001
N
N
r
O
O
r
r
O
0
0
r
V
o
0 V
o,
c
O
o
0u }
co O

N
N
O
O 0
L
V
O
O
10
O
O
LO
O
o F-
v ?

J
F-
0
w
O 0
O
V 0:
C
) n

O
O
N
O
0
r
O
0 0 v? 0 0
0 0 a0 N 0 0
10 Ln vv v ch

1

?
1
1
1
1

1

1
1
1

/

Cl)
J
O
LL
LL
cn
W
LL
J
U)
W 1

0
O
E I
1

Z 1
I

X
W -
1

000 O
N vCON
v 14
o ?
O
0
10
N
h
in
t
0 c
N
N
O ?
O
v
N
O
0
M
N
0
0
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
O ?
o• Q
r I
o ?
C
}O
V
O
r
N
N
O
L
o V
10
r
O
0
10
11 0
00
Ov
M r
O
0
N
0
0
r
O
O
0
O
Cl)
SNO1133S 1V01dAl 8 0
nYHOONd 1N3w33NVHN3 W31SAS003
A1Nn00 )IOIMSNnHe M-
z;
103rOtld NOI1Va01S3u ONV1131A
)13383 wnld
z
O
w
J
W
0
z
D
O
w
I
L
1
1
I

s

J
1
1
1
J
1

r
v

J
O
a

LL
U)
W
O
J

_0

i

0
O 1

z
Ln
w

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

7

O
O
O
1O
0 - - 0 0
31WO MHO NN SNOISIAN 'ON
IOHINOO 1N nim ONd NOISOa3 IIOS co
m
$
909LZ euilaeO UPON VIGIea
WVa90ad 1N3W33NVHN3 W31SJ1S033
> g
L
, an ®
` AINnop A3IMSNme
-" df102Io M39N3 a3Jb39s lflOl 3H1
aul 133f Oad NOI1Va01S3a ONVl131A
s

A33a3 Wnld

eg ?dN / Y

/ W
O

• P?
•

s
I
? am n
?O
?e o
9
b
I ? N
w
O
1 4 ° ? e
0
t
1 rt??.
? a
e
? W
N _
Z
0

d
f
C

•
APPENDICES

0
•
APPENDIX 1
PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

0
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiec
0 t
EEP Project Number D06040-A
C:
•
Photo l: Shooting north, typical plant community on western end of 88-acre site.
Photo 2: Facing east from western end of site, dense shrub layer of Ti-ti (Cyrilla
racentiflora) and Gallberry (Ilex coriacea)
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proec
EEP Project Number D06040-A
C
r?
Photo 3: Typical plant communities on western end of site.
Photo 4: Near middle of 88-acre site facing east.

APPENDIX 2
PROJECT SITE USACE ROUTINE WETLAND
DETERMINATION DATA FORMS
0

FIELD DATA FORM
Job Number: JR5155 Nearest Wetland Flag: WA - 013
Field Investigators: R. Bode Date: 2/6/2007
Project/Site: Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Site County: Brunswick
Applicant/Owner: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. State: NC
Wetland: WA Upland: WA
Wetland Vegetation I Upland Vegetation
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Snecies Stratum Status Dominant Plant Snecies Stratum Status
1 Pinus taeda Tree FAC 1 Pinus taeda Tree FAC
2 Magnolia vir iniana Tree FACW+ 2 C rilla racemi ora Shrub FACW
3 C rilla racemi ora Shrub FACW 3 Ilex labra Shrub FACW
4 Ilex labra Shrub FACW 4 Gelsemium sem ervirens Vine FAC
5 Zenobia ulverulenta Shrub OBL 5 Smilax lauri olia Vine FACW+
6 Smilax lauri olia Vine FACW+ 6
7 Andro 0 on lomeratus Herb FACW+ 7
8 8
>50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3?
X Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met)
No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met)
!o FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3?
X Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met)
No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met)
0
Wetland Soils
Soil Series/Phase: Leon fine sandy loam
Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? no
Depth Mottling
(Tnches) Matrix Mnttlino % Texture
ipland Soils
oil Series/Phase: Leon fine sandy loam
the Soil Listed as Hydric? no .
Depth Mottling
(Tnchesl Matrix Mnttlino % Texture
0-11 10YR2/1 none sandy clay loam 0-16 10YR2/1 sandy clay loam
11-16 10YR2/1 none silty clay loam

Hydric Soil Criterion Met?
X Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met)
_ No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met)
Rationale:
ric Soil Criterion Met?
X Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met)
_ No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met)
Wetland Hydrology
Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches):
Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches):
Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches):
Field Evidence of Hydrology: drainage patterns
Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation?
X Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) _Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met)
No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) X No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met)
Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? no Comments:
Upland Hydrology
Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches):
2 Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): 15
11 Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): n/a
Field Evidence of Hydrology:
11
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: North and West of Randolphville Rd. and Galloway Road. The
Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) proposes to restore approximately 88 acres of degraded wetland to meet jurisdictional criteria. This tract
is located off Red Run Trail to the north of Galloway Road near Shallotte in Brunswick County, North Carolina (Figure 1). This project will
be undertaken as a full delivery project contracted with the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). The outcome of the
wetland restoration will be a PSS Pond Pine Woodland community. Berger delineated approximately 6 acres of jurisdictional wetland
abutting an off-site RPW and 2 Non-RPW jurisdictional tributaries within the area of the proposed activities (Figure 2).
State: NC County/parish/borough: Brunswick City: near Shallotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.072065° N, Long. 78.228314° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Boggy Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lockwood Folly River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040207
® 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): 4/8/2008
SECTION II: 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 Are "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).
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
? Relatively permanent waters2 (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
Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 3,500 linear feet: 8 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 6 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
• 2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):
1 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 III.F.
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: 0

•
SECTION III: 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.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
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 Rapanos 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 waterbody4 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.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 25acres
Drainage area: 25 acres
Average annual rainfall: 55.8 inches
Average annual snowfall: 0.7 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 4 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 apples
Tributary is: ? Natural
® Artificial (man-made). Explain: Tributaries are ditches draining a pocosin wetland.
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 6 feet
Average depth: 3 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type//o cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stable vegetated banks.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: None evident.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Ephemeral flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 1
Describe flow regime: Source of tributary flow is primarily groundwater intercepted from the drained wetland.
Observable surface flow is very infrequent.
Other information on duration and volume: None known.
Surface flow is: Discrete. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. 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 ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
F-1 Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? 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: Water was clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: None are known. The watershed for these ditches is undeveloped.
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): Vegetation is typical of the pocosin that once existed on the site.
Average width is 10 feet.
? 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 Pick List 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.
1]
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:
1. 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 III.D:Based on the
information presented in the sections above, the tributaries on the site have potential to significantly affect the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the TNW.
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):
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.
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:
? 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: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWs8 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: 3,500 linear feet 8width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
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: 200 ft. north of delineated wetland the wetland complex is abutting a channelized
unnamed tributary, the RPW, which ultimately flows to the TNW Lockwood Folly River. Overland flow was
observed draining into the RPW. Elevations on the USGS quad corroborated the direction of drainage within the
delineated wetland.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 6 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.
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):to
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.
8See Footnote # 3.
• e 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.
? 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: Beaverdam Bay USGS Bolivia, NC 1:24,000.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Barnhill et. al., 1986. Soil Survey of Brunswick County,
North Carolina, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, DC..
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Beaverdam Bay USGS Bolivia, NC 1:24,000.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
? Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law: •
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify): Survey by Berger 2/6/2007.
• B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
F, I
L
0
C,
APPENDIX 3
PROJECT SITE NCDWQ STREAM
CLASSIFICATION FORMS
NA (No Streams)
0
0

There are no streams associated with this project, wetland restoration only.
0
r:
•
APPENDIX 4
REFERENCE SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Prot
• EEP Project Number D06040-A
•
•
Photo 1: Facing northeast from well location, typical view of reference vegetation
Photo 2: Facing northwest, typical view of canopy layer
The Louis Berger Group Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
0
•
Photo 3: Facing east from groundwater gage, view of shrub layer vegetation
Photo 4: Diverse and dense shrub and herbaceous layers

APPENDIX 5
REFERENCE SITE USACE ROUTINE WETLAND
DETERMINATION DATA FORMS
0
0
FIELD DATA FORM
Job Number: JR5155 Nearest Wetland Flag: near reference gw gage
Field Investigators: R. Bode Date: 5/23/2007
Project/Site: Plum Creek Wetland Reference Site County: Brunswick
Applicant/Owner: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. State: NC
Wetland: WA Upland: WA
Wetland Vegetation I Upland Vegetation
Indicator Indicator
r)nminant Plant Sneriec Stratum Stafi1C Ruminant Plant Sneciec Stratum Status
1 Pinus serotina Tree FACW+ 1 Magnolia vir iniana Tree FACW+
2 N ssa bi ora Tree OBL 2 Pinus alustris Tree FACU+
3 Taxodium distichum Tree OBL 3 Acer rubrum Tree FAC
4 Acer rubra Tree FAC 4 Ilex labra Shrub FACW
5 C rilla racemi ora Shrub FACW 5 M rica ceri era Shrub FAC+
6 Ilex labro Shrub FACW 6 Arundinaria i antea Herb FACW
7 Osmunda cinnamomea Herb FACW+ 7
8 Arundinaria i antea Herb FACW 8
>50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3?
X Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met)
No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Mel
Wetland Soils
Soil Series/Phase: Torhunta
Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes
Depth Mottling
(Inches) Matrix Mottling %
none
Hydric Soil Criterion Met?
X Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met)
_ No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met)
Rationale:
Texture
sandv loam
0% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3?
X Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met)
No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Mel
pland Soils
)il Series/Phase: Torhunta
the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes
Depth Mottling
Inches) Matrix Mottling %
0-18 I OYR2/3 silty
ric Soil Criterion Met?
_ Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met)
X No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met)
-1-
•
Texture •
Wetland Hydrology
Ground Surface Inundated? yes Depth (Inches):
Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches):
Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches):
Field Evidence of Hydrology: drainage patterns
pland Hydrology
-ound Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches):
,il Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches):
epth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): n/a
old Evidence of Hydrology:
Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation?
X Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) _Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met)
No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) X No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met)
Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? no Comments:
0
•
APPENDIX 6
REFERENCE SITE NCDWQ STREAM
CLASSIFICATION FORMS
NA (No Streams)

9
•
There are no streams associated with this project, wetland restoration only.

9
•
APPENDIX 7
HYDROLOGIC GAUGE DATA SUMMARY,
GROUNDWATER, AND RAINFALL
INFORMATION
C7
0

0
0
q
N
0
Y
0
Y
U
W
w
a,
U
0
N
m
h
(-ui) uopolidiaa id
°o 0 00 ° o ° °o
M N N ^? ^? O O
-'33
-
r LO
I £
C[
r
---- ------------ - -LO-33(1-LI
r LO-33G-£
on
00 ?
LO-AON-6I
a.. c r LO-nON-S
r
' LO-130-ZZ
r
LO-130-8

r Lp-daS-bZ
Lp-doS-01

LO-$nd-LZ
o w r
A
W
Lp-i?nd-£I

A ' LO-Inf-O£ w

c LO-Inf-9i

u LO-Inf-Z

a LO-unf-8i c
~
7
U ' LO-unf-ti

C A
? r

ca
w

ono
c
'

LO-idd-£Z

c LO-zdd-6
n 6b r
----- -------=------------ ----------- --- •LO-JLW-9Z
r
LO-IEW-Z I
r
LO-Qa3-9Z
LO-9ari-Z i

LO-uef-6Z
r
' LO-uuf-Si
r
LO-ULf-I

0 0 0 0 0 0

N
O N N M 06
V'
(•ui).iajumpuno i!) of gjdaQ
a
0
?U
L
a
CL
sue,
C
d
^o
0
a
0
s,
i

•
•

0
Q
0
0
U
4
C J
Ci
ti
.ti
O

0

0

0
Q 0
o
p$'j M N

--- --- -------

0.' o

W °b
:.. ..
:
0 .
p

a W
0 00
e
? N
Cd
e? 3
on
0 0
w
0
oA
'? on
'on
o< ?b
-------------
- I
0 0
N O
(•ui) uotlv;idpaad
0 0 °0 0
0
0
O
£
LO-33G- H
LO-33a-L I
LO-AON-61
LO-AON-S
LO-;3O-ZZ
LO-130-8
LO-daS-bZ
LO-daS-01
LO-SnV-LZ
LO-$nV-£1
LO-Inf-O£
LO-Inf-91
LO-inf-Z
LO-unf-8i c
a?
LO-unf-t A
LO-xlaw- I Z
LO-fuW-L
LO-jdN-£Z
LO-jdV-6
LO-JEW-9Z
LO-JL'W-Z 1
LO-aad-9Z
LO-Qad-Zi
LO-uEf-6Z
LO-uEf-S1
LO-uEf-1
0
00
0
0
a
?U
p,
c
o.
0
A
V
a'
a
?s
C
0
0
i
ti
0 0 0
N ?t ?O
N M
(•ui).iajumpuno.iq o; q;dag

0
Q
Y
0
h
N
Q
ti
i
U
0
a
0
q
U
O
4
W
W
4
S
.ry
0

(•ui) uoi;u;idiaa id
m N N --O O
-33
-
1 £
LO
(1
1

-
--- ------
----------------------
-- ---
--? Lp-aaQ-L I
? . LO-33G-£
3
o
LO-AOM-6I
0 0
8 LO-nON-g

LO-I30-ZZ

?.; LO-130-8

e LO-daS-bz
Lp-daS-01

i
Lp-$nV-LZ
c
o G4
+± U LO-OnV-£i

LO-Inf-O£ c
W ?
o :tg ' LO-Inf-9I

co Inr z ?
LO-unf-g I c
go
6 Lp-unf-j
A
LO-,(EW-IZ

e?
p' C7
LO-Xl3W-L

4, Lp-idd-£z
o
LO-idd-6

LO-zeW-9Z
------------ -- -?- - -- -- -
LO-i72W-ZI

LO-9ad-9Z
LO-Qa_4-ZI

LO-uuf-6Z

LO-utf-SI

LO-usf-I

0 0 0 0 0 0

N M 00
?
(•ui).iajvmpuno.iq of gjdaQ
O
C.
'u
s.
a
a
c.
A
s.
a
0
so.
i
0
•
0
0
•
0
C?l
0
Q
N
U
N
.O
W
W
0 0
O v
M N
- - -
C - - - - - - - - - -

0

0 0

c n
0 0
ea A
?A
W
as
?z
u
? .y
?a
U ?
a o
C7
0
c
on
? o
0 0 0 0
N O N ?
`--' N
(•ui).iajvmpuno.iq of gjdaQ
0
M
0
0
O
LO-aaa- I £
LO-aaQ-L I
LO-aaQ-£
LO-AON-6I
LO-AON-S
LO-100-ZZ
LO-100-8
LO-daS-bZ
LO-daS-0 I
LO-2nV-LZ
LO-2nd-£ I
LO-lnf-0£
a?
LO-Inf-9I
LO-Inf-Z
LO-unf-8T c
LO-unf-ti
A
LO-XuW - I Z
LO-id`d-£Z
LO-adH-6
LO-JLW-9Z
LO-ItY?i-Z I
LO-Qa.3-9Z
LO-Qa3-ZI
LO-uuf-6Z
LO-UEf-91
LO-uLf-I
0
00
7
L"
0
0
tZ,
U
W
i

s
0
s°.
C
a

s.
C
0
0
i
0
(•u.) uopelidiaa id
0 o O o
o v? o n
CA C)

0
v
b
O
Q
N
U
N
.O
O
W
w
-114
U
a

O O
O n
m N (-ui) uopujidpa id
O O O O
O v? O n
N •-•--O
O
O
O
-oa
-

r? Lp
Q
I£

----- -- ---- t
----
----- Lp-aaQ-L i
,
•3
LO-AOM-61
. o
° LO-nof1-s

' LO-130-ZZ
r
LO-130-8

LO-&S-bZ
LO-daS-OI

LO-$nV-LZ

0
LO-$nd-£I
ee r ' ?,
LO-Inf-O£
W ?
LO-Inf-9I

y c v LO-Inf-Z
.? co

A., i LO-unf-81 c
Lp-unf-ti
U A
LO-XUW- I Z

L04EW-L

'?,/ Lp-zdd-£Z
LO-jdd-6
ou ?
•
o LO-IRW-9Z

--- ----- ------ - --------- ------- --- LO-luW-Z
T
LO-9a3-9Z
LO-9a3-ZI

' LO-uzf-6Z

LO-uuf-ST

LO-uuf-I

0 0 0 0 0 0
O ? N M 7
( q) .ialiampuno.ig of gjdaQ
L"
0
c
U
i
C
o,

I
s.
c?
V
c
c
i

?J
0
11
o.
O
O
O
U
CL?
•
v
ti
0
Ili
0
0
q
i
N
U
N
O
W
W
(•ui) uopulidpa.id
°o o0 00 o0
M N N --? --?
? o
O N
op A
A
? W
3
? a
U ?
E ?
0
a ?
0
0
0
0
0
LO-aaQ- I £
LO-'33G-LI
LO-aaQ-£
LO-AON-6I
LO-AON-S
LO-;3O-ZZ
LO-130-8
LO-daS-tbZ
LO-daS-01
LO-$nd-LZ
LO-2nV-£I
LO-Inf-O£
a?
LO-Inf-9I
LO-Inf-Z w
o
LO-unf-81
LO-unf-t A
LO-XEW-I Z
LO-?EW-L
LO-idV-£Z
LO-idd-6
LO-JEW-9Z
.LO-'EW-ZI
LO-Qad-9Z
LO-aad-ZI
LO-uEf-6Z
LO-uEf-91
LO-uEf-I
0
L"
0
a
L"
s
'a
c

s.
a
0
0
z,
i
ti
0 0 0 0 0
N O N V' ?O
--? N M
(•ui).iajumpuno.if) of gjdaQ

r
0
Q
O
O
i
Ur
i
.J'
0
a
0
Q
U
d
O
W
W
Z,
v
h
0
N
m
h
(•ui) uopelidpaad

M N N ? ^ O O
'
? 1- -- Lp-aaQ-I£

---
---------
--------------------- ------
--- LO-33G-L I
-
bq ?
LO-aaa-£

LO_AON-6I
0 0
LO-noN-S

' LO-I30-ZZ

LO-130-8

' LO-daS-bZ
LO-daS-0 I

LO-$nV-LZ
c U
LO-OnV-£I

' LO-Inf-O£
W
LO-Inf-9I a

a?
LO-Inf-Z
LO-unf-81
c

U Lp-unf-ti
A
E ao LO-,(EW-IZ
a o
_
e?
a V
'
Lp-?CEW-L

' LO-JdV-£Z
r
o ' LO-ldV-6
en
LO-IEW-9Z
A o
?h
LO-zEW-Z I

LO-gad-9Z
LO-Qad-Z I
LO-uEf-6Z

' LO-uEf-91

LO-uu f- I

0 0 0 0 0 0

O
N. N M
00
00
(•ui).iajv:mpuno iq o; q;daQ
0
?s
?O.
?U
I?
a'
V
0
0
0
i

L`

30
0
o a
0
o Q
a v
O ?
'ZS v
ti o
4
? W
U
ti
•
Ci
ti
o?
?o
0
N
(•ui) uoqu;idiaaad
0 0 0 0 0
o ?n o v? o
o d
o ?
? U
on A
W ?
?z
y O
U ?
0
0
0
0
0
£
LO-33G- H
LO-aaQ-L I
LO-aaQ-£
LO-^OI`I-6I
LO-AON-S
LO-PO-ZZ
LO-100-8
LO-daS-bZ
LO-daS-01
LO-2nV-LZ
LO-2nV-£ i
LO-Inf-O£
LO-Inf-91 a
LO-Inf-Z w
LO-unf-81 o
co
Lo-unf-t A
LO-XEW- I Z
LO-XEW-L
LO-idH-£Z
LO-jdd-6
LO-JUW-9Z
LO-JLW-Z I
LO-gad-9Z
LO-aad-ZI
LO-ut'f-6Z
LO-uL'f-91
LO-ULT I
0
00
I
C
0
a
d
s
t?.
A

s.
w
cet
3
C
0
0
i
h
0 0 0 0 0
N O N ? ?O
(•ui).ia;ue+puno iq o; q;daQ
z -T
•1 o
e (-ui) uoyu;idiaaad

o 0
Q
o
° o ° o °
o
p pYj m N N ---? O O
o LO-03C[-I£
r

- LO-33G-L I
--- --- - - - -
--------------- --
----------- --- -

3
W
W LO-AON-6I
o o
U v ' LO-noN-S

?Y LO-10O-ZZ

LO-13O-8
i
Lo-daS-bZ
LO-daS-0 I

t L04MV-LZ
a W
o
LO-Snd-£I

r LO-lnf-0£ Q
W ?

^? c z
'
LO-Inf-9I a?
L
=z? ? y
co Inr z
?
x a LO-unf-81 c
U Lo-unf-t
A
a LO-, vvw-IZ

a ' LO-,(L'W -L
i
' LO-jdV-£Z

o ' LO-ldV-6
c
00 '
a LO-JuW-9Z
t b
-
--- -----
------
--- LO-'L'W-Z I
--- --
-- ----------------
-
Lo-a33-9Z
LO-gad-Z I
U
ti ,

'
LO-ut
f-6Z

Lo-uzf-g I

LO-uuf-I
o?i o 0 0 0 0 0
W O N N M 0 00
0
(w) .ialumpunoaf) o; gjdaQ

i~
a
0
r
0
'c.
a
C
C.
a?
P4

as
b
0
0
0
i
•
•
•
U
N
O
0
O
O
N
S
0

N
v
Z
ti
cl,
•

O
O
0
w
U
U
o
4
W
W
(•ui) uopulidiaa id
00 ° o o 00
M N N----O C
N
N
v? W
? o
?z
? C7
U a,
8 a
a ee
a ?
c?
19-Nov-07
L'
5-Nov-07

22-Oct-07 R.
U
d
8-Oct-07 a
24-Sep-07
10-Sep-07
27-Aug-07
c
13-Aug-07

30-Jul-07
W

16-Jul-07 a?

c«.
2-Jul-07

18-Jun-07

4-Jun-07 3
21-May-07 I
7-May-07
23-Apr-07
C
9-Apr-07

26-Mar-07
W
12-Mar-07 Q
4
26-Feb-07
12-Feb-07
U

°o ° 00
0 C1 C\ 00 00
?T M M M M
('I3) u01.4en31d
U
29-Jan-07
15-Jan-07
1-Jan-07
0 0
v, o
M M
h

0
0
0
q
v
o
4
0
Q
0
h
r
0
U
W
w
CL?

0
N

o ?
o ?
?A
ON w
o
? ~ v
•" ee ?
C? it
?a
U ?
E o°'io
0 0
a ?
V
(-ui) uoijejidiaa id
0 0 0 O O C)
N N --? --? O O
LO-aaQ- I £
l
1 LO-aaQ-L I
----- -- -------------------
1 ------- --.--- -
LO-aaQ-£

LO-AON-61
w ?
0 0

o 1
LO-noN-S
y y 1
' LO-130-ZZ

LO-130-8
1
LO-daS-bZ
t
LO-daS-0 I
1
LO-2nd-LZ
1
1 LO-On`,-£i

1

1
C
1 C
son
1
w 1 -c
0
0 1
.n /
---- -------------------------------
1
1
1
o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
O vi O ? O N ? M 7
(•ui).ialumpuno ig of q;daQ
LO-Inf-O£ Q
a?
LO-Inf-9I
LO-Inf-Z
LO-unf-81 c
LO-unf-t e
LO-XL'W- I Z
Z Lp-tsY?I-L
LO-idd-£Z
LO-ids,-6
LO--IL'W-9Z
LO--IUW-Z I
LO-Qa_4-9Z
LO-aad-ZI
LO-ulaf-6Z
a
LO-Mf-S I
LO-UPf-I
0
A
C
0
.U
6)
F.i
QI
a?
A
b
i.i
a'
x
1
1
1
x.
V
0
0
0
i
C.
0
•
•
APPENDIX 8
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
NA (No Streams)
0
0

There are no streams associated with this project, wetland restoration only.
•
0
0
APPENDIX 9
EEP FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST
0
0
r~
Ecosystem
._ ... .< PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project: Plum Creek Wetland Restoration
Name if stream or feature: Un-named wetland
County: Brunswick
Name of river basin: Lumber River
Is project urban or rural? Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county: Brunswick County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site: 37019C
Consultant name: The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Phone number: 919-866-4400
Address: 1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27605
0
•
•
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Page 1 of 4
Design Information
. Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500".
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) porposes to design and construct a
minimum of 80 acres of nonriverine wetland restoration and 6 acres of Level 1
enhancement (2.5 to 1 ratio) on the 89-acre Plum Creek Wetland Restoration site
located in Brunswick County in the Lumber River Basin, USGS Hydrologic Unit
03040207. The wetland restoration will be accomplished by the installation of
soil plugs in two lateral ditches that currently drain the site and installation of
native forest tree species. No stream channels were identified on site and no
streams will be affected by this work.
Wetland Acres Priority
Area 1 80 Restoration
Area 2 6 Enhancement
Floodplain Information

Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
C Yes E No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r" Redelineation
r Detailed Study
r Limited Detail Study
r` Approximate Study
r Don't know
List flood zone designation: X
Check if applies:
W AE Zone
C Floodway
C Non Encroachment
E None
r- Zone
FEMA Floodplain_Checklist Page 2 of 4
Local Setbacks Required
No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how man feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?
G Yes E No
Land Acquisition (Check)
F State owned (fee simple)
r Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
F Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
919 807-4101
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
E Yes G No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: Edward Curtis, 919) 715-8000 x369)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Mr. Delaney Aycock
Phone Number: 910 - 253-2041
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
17 No Action
r- No Rise
r' Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
r Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
•
0
•
FEMA Floodplain_Checklist Page 3 of 4

Name: Signature:
Title: Date:
•
•
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Page 4 of 4
LJ
APPENDIX 10
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

0
0
•
d` hT^7Fa
q??u+
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 31, 2007
Eric Voigt
The Louis Berger Group
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary, NC 27511
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Plum Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, Brunswick County, ER 07-0115
Dear Mr. Voigt:
Thank you for your letter of January 9, 2007, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
IN 1
1b. 4'a4cco"
Peter Sandbeck 1;1 t?t P lr1
•
Location hiailing Address
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Canter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Plum Creek Site Cullural Resources Assessment Brunswick Count}; Arorth Carolina
Page
Two shovel tests were excavated near the northeastern and southwestern corners of the APE (Figure 3). A
third shovel test was attempted near the center of the tract but could not be completed due to the high water
table and disturbed character of the mounded soils. The shove tests revealed leached and water saturated soils
to a depth from 28-30 inches (70-75 centimeters) below ground surface (bgs). A typical shovel test profile
consisted of three strata: Stratum A, a black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam extending from 0-12 inches (0-30
centimeters) bgs; Stratum B, a gray (1 OYR 5/1) sandy loam extending from 12-20 inches (30-50 centimeters)
bgs; and Stratum C, a black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam extending from 20-30 (50-75 centimeters) bgs. The Nvater
table was encountered at the bottom of each shovel test.
Conclusions
No isolated artifacts, archaeological sites, or cultural deposits were identified within the APE. Due to the
poorly drained and disturbed character of soils, no fimther cultural resources investigation is recommended. If
you have any questions or comments regarding this assessment, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Lee
Tippett at [phone] x23.
Sincerely yours,
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.
Eric Voigt
Assistant Director/Senior Archaeologist, Cultural Resources
cc: File XE3836
Mr. Michael O'Rourke
G:1A-JM-PROJECTS\Projects\X E3836PIumCreek\PlumCreek-Letterrep-1an07.doc
•
0
•
THE Louis Berger Group, INC.
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250, Cary, North Carolina 27511
Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.louisberger.com
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management November 20, 2006
Wilmington District
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Attn: Jim Gregson, District Manager
Subject: Plum Creek Restoration Project
Dear Mr. Gregson:
On behalf of the North Carolina Ecosystems Enhancement Program (EEP), The Louis Berger
Group, Inc. (Berger) is proposing to create a wetland mitigation site in Brunswick County, NC.
The site is located near Green Swamp Game Land and US Hwy 17, north of Galloway Rd.
(Figure 1). Proposed actions include strategic plugging of silvicultural drainage ditches, the
restoration of 88 acres of forested wetland and native vegetation planting. Restoration goals for
this site include the restoration of valuable wildlife habitats. Since this activity is considered a
ground disturbing activity within a CAMA county; the EEP is requesting the DCM's comments
regarding this proposed project. Sites requiring a CAMA Permit typically meet the following
criteria:
• in or on navigable waters within the 20 CAMA counties;
• on a marsh or wetland;
• within 75 feet of the mean high water line along an estuarine shoreline;
• near the ocean beach;
• near an inlet;
• within 30 feet of the normal high water level of areas designated as inland fishing waters
by the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission;
• near a public water supply.
Based on these criteria; Berger believes that this site would not require a CAMA permit and that
the proposed activities are consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program. Your comments
and coordination concerning this project are valuable and appreciated.
Sincerely,
Michael O'Rourke
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Sr. Environmental Scientist
cc: Ed Samanns (Berger)
CJ
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
November 28, 2006
Mr. Michael O'Rourke
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary, NC 27511
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Subject: EEP Wetland Mitigation Project; Beaverdam Bay area south of Green Swamp Game Lands,
Brunswick County
Dear Me. O'Rourke:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
significant natural heritage areas at the site. Roughly 03 mile to the northwest is the Green Swamp
Preserve, a nationally significant natural area owned by The Nature Conservancy. About 0.1 mile to the
north of the tract is the southern boundary of the Green Swamp natural area, but this portion is not in
protected ownership. We have no records of rare species within at least 0.5 mile of the project area.
NC OneMap now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free. This service provides site
specific information on GIS layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas. The NC OneMap website provides Element Occurrence (EO) ID
numbers (instead of species name), and the data user is then encouraged to contact the Natural Heritage
Program for detailed information. This service allows the user to quickly and efficiently get site specific
NHP data without visiting the NHP workroom or waiting for the Information Request to be answered by
NHP staff. For more information about data formats and access, visit <www.nconemap.com/data.html>,
or email NC OneMap at <[e-mail]>.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely, j
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Serrice Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 Onee]aIO/?l/Ila
Phone: [phone] - FAX: [phone] • Intemet ?MM?v.enr.state.nc.us oathCjaroa
An Equal Oewrtundy • Affrrmatve AeYen Emnlover - 50 % Rec/ded • 10 % Post Consumer Pacer
•
L?
U
•
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Michael O'Rourke
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1513 Walnut St., Ste. 250
Cary, NC 27511
in orourke(& 1 oui sbereer. com
From: Steven H. Everhart, PhD
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Steve. everhart(?_ncwil dl i fe. ora
• Date: December 5, 2006
RE: Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Site, Brunswick County
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject project for
impacts to wildlife and fishery resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.), and Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean
Water Act (as amended).
The project is located northwest of US 17, south of the NCWRC Green Swamp Gamelands. A letter and vicinity
map was submitted for review of threatened or endangered species impacts associated with the project.
The applicant proposes to restore 80+ acres of wet pine flatwood community. The mitigation site will be protected
through a perpetual conservation easement and satisfy needs for the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
There do not appear to be any threatened or endangered species that may be impacted by the project. Significant
habitat types identified by the Natural Heritage Program in the vicinity include pine savanna, wet pine flatwoods,
and small depression ponds.
The Wildlife Resources Commission does not object to this project as proposed. Thank you for the opportunity to
review and comment. If you have any questions or require additional information regarding these comments, please
call me at [phone].
•
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
THE Louis Berger Group, INC.
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250, Cary, North Carolina 27511
Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.louisberger.com
Dale Suiter
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
November 20, 2006
Subject: EEP Wetland Restoration Project in Brunswick County.
Dear Mr. Suiter,
The Plum Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation
for unavoidable wetland impacts. The 88-acre site is a silvicultural property that has
been subject to extensive ditching and forest clearing in the past. The drainage ways on-
site have been altered and degraded. Underlain by hydric soils, the site offers the
potential to improve water quality and restore non-riverine wetland ultimately restoring
over 80 acres to a wet pine flatwood community.
We have already obtained an updated species list for Brunswick County from your web
site (http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html). The threatened or endangered species for
this county are:
American alligator
Bald eagle
Eastern puma
Green sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Piping plover
Red cockaded woodpecker
Shortnose sturgeon
West indian manatee
Wood stork
Cooley's meadowrue
Rough leafed loosestrife
Sea Beach amaranth
Alligator mississippiensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Puma concolor couguar
Chelonia mydas (incl. agassizi)
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Charadrius melodus
Picoides borealis
Acipenser brevirostrum
Trichechus manatus
Mycteria Americana
Thalictrum cooleyi
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
Amaranthus pumilus
0
•
We are requesting that you please provide any known information for each freshwater
species in the county. The USFWS will be contacted if suitable habitat for any listed
species is found or if we determine that the project may affect one or more federally
listed species or designated critical habitat.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
endangered species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a
wetland and/or stream restoration project on the subject property. A USGS map showing
the approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance is enclosed.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list is correct,
that you do not have any comments regarding associated laws, and that you do not have
any information relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely
?,Z,
"?/' o'
Michael O'Rourke
Louis Berger Group
cc: Ed Samanns
0
BY E-MAIL
RECEIVED BY RAY BODE 2/13/2007
Thanks for sending this over for my review. Other than the minor
comments that we discussed over the phone, I don't have any objections
to the wording that you have proposed for the CE. I believe that we
can concur with your determination of May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect for rough-leaf loosestrife and Cooley's meadowrue.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Dale Suiter
Endangered Species Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
phone - 919-856-4520 ext. 18
fax - 919-856-4556
email - [e-mail]
"Bode, Raymond"
<rbode@louisberge
r.com>

To
<[e-mail]>
02/13/2007 02:14 0
cc
PM
Subject
CE text for your review
Dale
As we discussed, this is an excerpt from a CE for a wetland restoration
site in Brunswick County. Appropriate habitat for rough-leaf
loosestrife and Cooley's meadowrue was found on the site, but not
during flowering season. Survey for these species has not been
conducted at this point. We plan to submit the CE for this site as
soon as possible and want to make sure that the text for these species
is worded correctly before submittal.
Attached is the text we discussed on the phone. I inserted some
background project information as well. Any comments will be welcome,
feel free to give me a call or email.
Thanks very much for your help with this.
Ray Bode
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary, NC 27511
919.467.3885 ext 15
Fax [phone]
(See attached file: text for usfws review.doc) •
. THE Louis Berger Group, INC.
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250, Cary, North Carolina 27511
Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.louisberger.com
Bill Bailey
Brunswick County NRCS
Soil Survey Office
128 E. Water St., Ste. 202
Plymouth, NC 27962
Subject: Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project, Lumber River Basin 03040207
Dear Mr. Bailey,
On behalf of the North Carolina Ecosystems Enhancement Program (EEP), The Louis Berger
Group, Inc. (Berger) is proposing to use an approximately 88 acre tract including a portion of
Don Small's property (herein referred to as site) as a stream mitigation area. The site is located
near Green Swamp Game Land and US Hwy 17, north of Galloway Rd. (Figure 1). Proposed
actions include strategic plugging of silvicultural drainage ditches, the restoration of 88 acres of
forested wetland and native vegetation planting. Restoration goals for this site include the
restoration of valuable wildlife habitats.
• In order to comply with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), the EEP requests your
coordination concerning the existence of three prime farmland soil units onsite: Pantego Mucky
Loam, Rains Fine Sandy Loam, and Torhunta Mucky Fine Sandy Loam, and Leon Fine Sand
which is a farmland soil of unique importance. Figure 2 shows soils onsite and indicates the
approximate amounts of each of the four soils series/map units.
The proposed action to the site would remove the drainage, thereby converting these soils to non-
prime. Additionally, the proposed actions mandate a perpetual conservation easement, taking the
land out of agricultural use permanently. Please review the attached AD-1006 form in addition to
Figure I and 2. If you have any questions or comments regarding this project please contact me
by phone at [phone] ext.27, or e-mail ([e-mail])
Sincerely,
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, ZINC.
Michael O'Rourke
Sr. Environmental Scientist
cc: Ed Samanns
0
RH - 'e•, P '? t
JK-
Tas
kr 7,
x.
AL «- Site Location ..,_
ff /'J rf `
0 750 1,500 3,000
Feet
Legend
0 Site Boundary
SOURCE:
Base Mapping - USGS Topographic Map,
PLUM CREEK
WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
USGS Topographic Map
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP FIGURE 4
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary, NC 27611 March 2006
•

•
•
•
Legend
Site Boundary
Hydric A Soil
Lo Leon Fine Send, 0 To 2 Percent Slopes
Pn Pantego Mucky Loam
Re Rains Floe Sandy Loam
To TorNi to Mucky File Sandy Loam
amwewBus Ww>o - Brunswick County, NC 2004.
Sots Data - USDA, NRCS SSURGO Database, Brunswick County, NC.
PLUM CREEK
WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
NRCS Soils Map
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP FIGURE 6
®1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary, NC 27511 March 2006
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name Of Project •eC Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County And State r G
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Reosivea By NR
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide_or local important farmland? . Yes. No
(if no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this.form)... Acres Irrigated . Ave?age Faun Size

,
51
Crop(s)
GoRN Fartnable Land In Govf:: Jurisdiction
A0-4' Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA ;._
Acres:. zcf.s
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
?rt- tis ..Gk LIE* Name Of Local Site Assessment. System
N £ Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) mauve Site Ratin
Site A Site B site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect)
C. Total Acres In Site 9 If 0.0 0.0 0.0
PART IV (To be oompleted by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland::.:-> ;, .:. .
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland :. O
C. Percentage Of Farmland. In Count Or Local. Govt. Unit To Be Converted - . ?: '01.
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt Jurisdiction V ft Same Or Higher Relative Value ' lot. 2
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation. Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
717.
0
0
0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maxlnxrm
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Avafiabil Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 07/60 0 0 0
PART VU (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 0 0 0
Total Site Assessment (From Part Vl above or a local
S10 assessment) 160 0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 0 0 0

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes © . No 13
Reason For Selection:
C ?
J
(See tnstrucdons on reverse side) Form AD4006 (10.83)
Tics foimwas *W&w caliy produced by National ProdLofon SeMoes Staff
0
C
THE Louis Berger Group, INC.
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250, Cary, North Carolina 27511
Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.louisbarger.com
Ron Sechler
NOAA-Fisheries
Beaufort Field Office
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
Subject: EEP Wetland Mitigation Project in Brunswick County.
Dear Mr. Sechler,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to endangered species and essential fish habitat issues
associated with a potential wetland and stream restoration project on the attached site
(USGS site maps with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground
disturbance are enclosed).
The Plum Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation
for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. The 88-acre site is a silvicultural
property that has been subject to extensive ditching and forest clearing in the past. The
drainage ways on-site have been altered and degraded. Underlain by hydric soils, the site
offers the potential to improve water quality and restore non-riverine wetland ultimately
restoring over. 80 acres to a wet pine flatwood community.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Michael O'Rourke
Louis Berger Group
cc: Ed Samanns

0
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.
1001 Wade Ave. Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.louisberger.com
April 8, 2008
MEMO
Re: ]urisdictional Determination - Wetland Boundary Verification
On April 8, 2008, Liz Hair (US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington) met with Ray Bode
(Louis Berger Group, Raleigh) to tour the Plum Creek wetland restoration site near
Shallotte in Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Berger had identified and delineated a six acre wetland area located at the north east of
the property. Ms. Hair viewed the delineated wetland and verified that the boundary
was accurate as surveyed. This wetland abuts the RPW that runs north to south
located on the east side of the site.
•
Ms. Hair and Mr. Bode viewed the two ditches that run west to east through the site
and drain to the RPW located on the east side. Ms. Hair determined these two features
were "jurisdictional tributaries" based on the presence of an Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM), but not stream channels.
Ms. Hair indicated that plugging these ditches as called for in the current restoration •
plans will not require a USACE permit.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Bode agreed to revise and submit Rapanos forms
to show the jurisdictional status of the tributaries per the decisions made at the site
during this meeting.
0
From: Hair, Sarah E SAW [mailto: Sarah. E. [e-mail])
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 3:41 PM
To: Bode, Raymond
Subject: RE: Plum Creek wetland restoration site - Brunswick County
Ray,
The SAW Action ID# for the Plum Creek project is 2008-01905.
Take Care,
Liz Hair
USACE-RG Wilmington Field Office
Regulatory Specialist
[phone] office
[phone] fax
[e-mail]
From: Bode, Raymond [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 3:13 PM
To: Hair, Sarah E SAW
Subject: RE: Plum Creek wetland restoration site - Brunswick County
Ok thanks. I'll get the PCN in with the request for the NWP27 as soon as possible. I don't have
the Action ID for the site, though. Would you mind forwarding that when you get a chance?
• Thanks
Ray Bode, PWS
From: Hair, Sarah E SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 10:53 AM
To: Bode, Raymond
Subject: RE: Plum Creek wetland restoration site - Brunswick County
Ray,
Sorry for the delay. I've been out of the office on and off for the past two months (trying to stay on
top of things).
--As far as JD status goes for the Plum Creek site according to my field notes and the email
below, I am waiting for you to submit the NWP 27.
--I was going to do the JD and the NWP together since this is not a stand-alone JD.
--if you want the JD first, I can issue a tearsheet no problem; but I do need a sealed survey
(11x17 (3) and one full size) with the JD areas clearly identifed and Corps signature block. I
looked through our email correspondence and the file to ensure that I hadn't missed it somehow.
No luck...
As soon as I have the survey I can sign it and issue the tearsheet.
Thanks for your patience!
0
From: Hair, Sarah E SAW [mailto:[e-mail]] •
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:54 AM
To: Bode, Raymond
Subject: RE: Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Site
Ray,
Thank you for the additional informational for the Plum Creek site. A USACE permit will not be
required for the ditch plug(s) since the project as proposed is wetland restoration and will fall
under NWP 27.
Thanks again and please feel free to contact me with any additional questions.
Liz Hair
USACE-RG Wilmington Field Office
Regulatory Specialist
[phone] office
[phone] fax
[e-mail]

0
•
APPENDIX 11
CONSERVATION EASEMENT ENROLLMENT
DOCUMENTATION AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY
SURVEY
•
0
c:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MMGATION CONTRACT
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
SPO File Number
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this 17th day of October, i
2007, by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., ("Grantor"), whose mailing address is 1001
Wade Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27605, to the State of North Carolina, ("Grantee"), whose
mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property
Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. The designations of
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.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq..
the State of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(formerly known as the Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat,
wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been
negotiated, arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between
(The Louis Berger Grow), Inc. 1001 Wade Avenue, Raleigh. NC 27605), and the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to provide stream,
• wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number D06040-A.
WI EREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a
Conservation Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed
by all parties in Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection
of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and
preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of
North Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as
approved by the Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of
Raleigh, North Carolina, on the 8a' day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized
by the Governor and Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved
• acceptance of this instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and
being in Lockwood Folly Township, Brunswick County, North Carolina (the
"Property"), and being more particularly described as that certain parcel of land
containing approximately 89.4 acres and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as
recorded in Deed Book (Map Cabinet) 44 at Page 31 of the Brunswick County
Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement over the herein
described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the included
areas of the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set forth, and
Grantee is willing to accept such Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement
shall be for the protection and benefit of Boggy Branch.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms,
conditions, and restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably
hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in
perpetuity, a Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to the extent
hereinafter set forth, over a described area of the Property, referred to hereafter as the
"Easement Area", for the benefit of the people of North Carolina, and being all of the
tract of land as identified as Tract IA as shown on a plat of survey entitled "Exempt
Subdivision Plat, Property of Plum Creek Timberlands, LP" dated October 3, 2007,
r?
U
2
certified by Richard L. Morrison, P.L.S., and recorded in Map Cabinet 44, Page 31, •
Brunswick County Registry. Tract 1A being more particularly described as follows:
[Exempt Subdivision Plat, Property of Plum Creek Timberlands, LP - attached]
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently
the Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent
any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set
forth:
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. It is an easement in gross, runs
with the land, and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor, their personal
representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, lessees, agents, and licensees.
H. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would
impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly •
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the
Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the
Grantee. The following specific uses are prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped
recreational uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the
Easement Area for the purposes thereof. Usage of motorized vehicles in the Easement
Area is prohibited, except as they are used exclusively for management, maintenance, or
stewardship purposes, and on existing trails, paths or roads.
B. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit
others to engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes
including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of
the site.
C. Vegetative Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non-native plants,
diseased or damaged trees, and vegetation that obstructs, destabilizes or renders unsafe
the Easement Area to persons or natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming,
or destruction of any trees and vegetation in the Easement Area. is prohibited
•
3
i D. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All are prohibited in the
Easement Area.
E. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses within the Easement Area including
any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland are prohibited.
F. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home,
antenna, utility pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement
Area.
G. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways,
or paving in the Easement Area. Existing roads or trails located in the Easement Area
may be maintained by Grantor in order to minimize runoff, sedimentation and for access
to the interior of the Property for management, maintenance, stewardship purposes, or
undeveloped recreational and educational uses of the Easement Area. Existing roads,
trails or paths may be maintained with loose gravel or permanent vegetation to stabilize
or cover the surfaces.
H. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive
signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Easement Area,
signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement,
signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the
Easement Area may be allowed.
I. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage,
waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances or machinery, or other material in the Easement
Area is prohibited.
I Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading,
filling, excavation, dredging, mining, or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.
K. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing,
allowing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water. No altering or
tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the
restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is
prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage of all other water
sources, water from within the Easement Area may temporarily be used for good cause
shown as needed for the survival of livestock and agricultural production.
L. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no
subdivision, partitioning, or dividing of the underlying fee that is subject to this Easement
is allowed. Unless agreed to by the Grantee in writing, any future conveyance of the
underlying fee for the Easement Area and the rights as conveyed herein shall be as a
4
single block of property. Any future transfer of the fee simple shall be subject to this i
Conservation Easement. Any transfer of the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of
ingress, egress, and regress over and across the Property to the Easement Area for the
purposes set forth herein.
M. Development Rights. All development rights are removed from the
Easement Area and shall not be transferred.
N. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction
of non-native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good
cause shown, provided that any such request is consistent with the purposes of this
Conservation Easement. The Grantor shall not vary from the above restrictions without
first obtaining written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, whose
mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Ingress, Egress, Regress and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees
and agents, successors and assigns, receive the perpetual right of general ingress, egress,
and regress to the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any
activities to restore, manage, maintain, enhance, and monitor the wetland and riparian
resources of the Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long-term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement,
the rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs
and herbaceous vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy
equipment to grade, fill, and prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site,
and installation of natural and manmade materials as needed to direct in-stream, above
ground, and subterraneous water flow.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, Grantee is allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is
inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to require the restoration of such
areas or features of the Easement Area that may have been damaged by such activity or
use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, their
successors or assigns that comes to the attention of the Grantee the Grantee shall, except
as provided below, notify the Grantor, their successors or assigns in writing of such
.breach. The Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the
conditions constituting such breach. If the breach remains uncured after ninety (90) days,
the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal. proceedings
5
• including damages, injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and
authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek
damages from any appropriate person or entity. 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.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors
and assigns, have the right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the
Property at reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the
Grantor, their successors or assigns are complying with the terms, conditions and
restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's ControL Nothing contained in this
Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against
Grantor, their successors or assigns, for any injury or change in the Easement Area
caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control, including,
without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action
taken in good faith by the 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.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring,
any costs incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement
against Grantor, their successors or assigns, including, without limitation, any costs of
restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions in violation of the terms of this
Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the
event of any breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by
Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. 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 invalid, the remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and
6
the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which •
it is found to be invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
B. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested to the parties at their addresses shown above or to other address(es) as either
party establishes in writing upon notification to the other.
C. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any
party to whom the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time
said transfer is made. Grantor further agrees to make any subsequent lease, deed, or other
legal instrument by which any interest in the Property is conveyed subject to the
Conservation Easement herein created.
D. 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.
E. 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 purposes of the Conservation Easement.
F. 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.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property,
including the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of
the Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein,
and are not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor,
and the Grantor's invitees and licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the
right of quiet enjoyment of the Easement Area.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto the
State of North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes.
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the
right to convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same are •
7
• free from encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against
the claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal,
the day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
NEW JERSEY
COUNTY OF C-'?SeX
I, )?ern ) Cp ra/,,Po - Aoffto a Notary Publ'c in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that rnn,cee,S Grantor, personally
appeared before me this day and acknowledged the a ecution of the foregoing
instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
•
12M day of OGt066r 22007.
Notary Public
` BERNICE V. CALPO-MELEE
NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY
My Commission Expires 08l2012010Print Name
My commission expires:
Jw7e o20, oeD/b
C .?
8
e
P
gray 4.y ? ? ? ? $ ?
U • 1 0 / zwx g
O
oW g C
R-M .1
i
md
CL LU >,
§1"•??r ? Mr ? n1' Z V ? ?? ?
yy ? h ? ? ?rW//?? W g
.? 4 5 3 M VJb
J Coe
$gY 8` /
114 Ills
y g
.1? M1
4 uv? D r? \
b
ter ?r \
1141
n $ a 14
a
f
B O • ® $i ax.-f
ou
1941
Yg g 9? o g sax Y a
tat
All
y cl ? y? ?( i .f 1 A<
/ o yhy^A? ?P RR
Air
flP = _ 1#
+?
YYYS ImmR' ? T j tj 1 d
3 ti
%? K
? $
s
1 ? ?
fi 1i
3 ?
a! IC
? $
? ?
R ?
? ?
?
x
_
A JJ
rr
A F R F .Y, ? b ? ? fj
A Z b
i k is b ? a ? k B k ? = k ?

? J

s A S x ? X R s p ? ? 8 F g

y ? 7 7 S 3 'J X 9 7 °- ? j
C7
Prepared by:
11
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1001 Wade Ave, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Tel [phone]
Fax[phone]
Project Manager:
Michael O'Rourke
Tel[phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]