20060952 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20060612

WA
O T ?9pG
r
O l `a/? 'C
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
September 14, 2006
Kristin Knight
KCI Technologies
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Subject Property: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration
New Hope Creek [030605,16-41-1-(0.5), C, NSW]
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Ms. Knight:
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project # 20060952
Orange County
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to conduct
mitigation activities within 0.00115 acres of wetlands at the subject property, as described within your
application dated June 2006 and received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on June 12,
2006. After reviewing your application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water
Quality Certification Number(s) 3495 (GC3495). The Certification(s) allows you to use Nationwide
Permit(s) 27 when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, you should obtain
or otherwise comply with any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control, and Non-discharge regulations.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http://www.newaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Kristin Knight
Page 2 of 2
September 14, 2006
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly or Ian McMillan in the Central Office in
Raleigh at 919-733-1786 or Eric Kulz in the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office at 791-4200.
AWK/jrd
Enclosures: GC 3495
Certificate of Completion
cc: Steve Stokes, KCI Technologies, Inc.
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Eric Kulz, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Sincerely,
Al W. Klimek, P.E.
Filename: 20060952BrownsFarm(Orange)401
\ NA rFgo Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Q) 7 r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
July 3, 2006
DWQ Project # 06-0952
Orange County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Kristin Knight
KCI Technologies
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Rd
Raleigh, NC 27609
Subject Property: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration
New Hope Creek [030605, 16-41-1-(0.5), C, NSW]
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Ms. Knight:
On June 12, 2006, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated June 12, 2006,
to impact 0.00115 acres of wetland restore a wetland at the subject property. The DWQ has determined
that your application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed below. The
DWQ will require additional information in order to process your application to impact protected
wetlands and/or streams on the subject property. Therefore, unless we receive the additional information
requested below, we will have to move toward denial of your application as required by 15A NCAC 2H
.0506 and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information.
Please provide the following information so that we may continue to review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
Your application included details of your proposal to plug a channel in order to facilitate wetland
restoration onsite. We assume that this is being performed for compensatory mitigation. If so,
please provide five (5) copies of the actual mitigation plan so that we can determine what portion
qualifies for wetland restoration, or if there is a combination of restoration, creation, enhancement
and preservation for future credit purposes. Is this mitigation work associated with a specific
project involving wetland impacts? Please note that your mitigation plan must include details of
hydrological, vegetative and soils data (empirical where applicable) involved in planning, as well as
a 5-year monitoring plan.
Please contact the DWQ within three weeks of the date of this letter to verify that you have received this
letter and that you remain interested in continuing to pursue permitting of your project and will be
providing the DWQ the requested information at a later date. Please contact me in writing and Eric Kulz
of the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office. If we do not hear from you within three weeks, we will assume
that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as withdrawn.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htt p://h2 o.enr.state,ne.us/ncwetIands
No One
hCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/ 10% Post Consumer Paper

KCI Technologies
Page 2 of 2
July 3, 2006
authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call Ms. Cyndi Karoly or Mr. Ian McMillan at 919-733-
1786 if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Si cer ly, r I
r
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
1 4 1 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
CBK/ijm
cc: Eric Kulz, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Amanda Mueller, Parkview Building
Filename: 060952BrownFarmWetlandRestoration(Orange)On_Hold
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAR(
? _2000000 FEET WTE Mfc CrC
2" GrC
t ` Y, APC Wn,U C1,
rr ti { 7' \ MfE Ch
rC Q 13?.4D • % ?' MfD .
GrB f ? ? 0 0
e t APC .%F IrC c
GrB y
Gr6,,
w
1 GrC,' p _ , Grc J
r !? cr6 4r ' PfE
IrC
Ch
•? J
" ?yG CrB CrC C MiC' YJ WxE
ww?
ti era - f tE
Gr6
y WSC•
: c o N Wst i"PfE L
Gu
k/ i \ /Ch ?C ¢ t fr
MfB
z! Gf I Crb, W C - / rt
W;sc
a{ 1 WcE ? // \ }
. . AIA era
Wh
y wse
wit
r e '
V? Ch
WsC ' -.„„
! \ CrB f CrB t .. WsC
f MfD Mf6 ( 'AID rr rf r
Ch w_sC
MfFi \ GrC Y?l
WsB
'Cis
! c? P ? MfU WSC - 4r I to
cr,
d a r - \ Ch
{ `, CrH f / Ur
Cp
Pfe
6V
Ch t 4-1
CrB t
?WsB / 501 / Ur J
1
j
W sf\` 5 I
' GrC WsE ft E'? ?I GrB /
b Ch WsB WvG2 GrS
p .t WsE !. ?, WsE ?
CHAPEL HILL QUADRANGLE ' USGS, U
NORTH CAROLINA
.S. DU SAGEOLOGICOALT
7.5-MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) science fora nn r an 7 CM KAL-MOC 179 .gp 79"00' 1 '81'"'E '82
(""• ?,1 1

J
K
)
/7
o
i+?
v
?
??
??
-
'? • r is , ,, ,
(
• ; '
?-
?
_
? r
?
? >;
718 v 1
t n\ ?;
," ? ?,

'
v
v1 v a I• 1 ?; dos I
1

M We
p

l rI ? I rr _ _ _ _
j
ii /
I r?'`%??'.??\
f 1µ / ?gJ% \
/u
. ( l
'i
? \ /. ?$? D'?' `?????Y';o
.
?I? c p "'^?'1 ?..?i ?.•
A \ V '??+?? ? /?! \
1
734. //I r
? -'?'?? O '
) ? ?• ? ?? /;? ? ?. A ?'"1?;`

/l tit
a
' V -..-
J,'?/
•
am ,
? _

..
f

17 bubsta
'4?

2

t
J

CHAPEL HILL
NORTH
7.5-MINUTE SERIE
78 607 600 METERS 79
I axis ? • .(?? `
II '?11• ?? ?n
O? ? / ?? ? 1 ?? / ' ? • V ?? L i---ten ? .+
QUADRANGLE USGS U.S. DEPA
CAROLINA ??
S (TOPOGRAPHIC)sc- a for a changing world U.S.
'80 7900' '81°'•E
?% -?? ? ?'1, ?? ??? "'•? ? ??
?n
I, .
-•
N 11

e-
??
\P1
OF T:
CAL.'

?ml_ ll Al 0
0

1
F Michael F. Easley, Governor
?0
?0 ?i William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
CO r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p .r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
July 3, 2006
DWQ Project # 06-0952
Orange County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Kristin Knight
KCI Technologies
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Rd
Raleigh, NC 27609
Subject Property: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration
New Hope Creek [030605,16-41-1-(0.5), C, NSW]
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Ms. Knight:
On June 12, 2006, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated June 12, 2006,
to impact 0.00115 acres of wetland restore a wetland at the subject property. The DWQ has determined
that your application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed below. The
DWQ will require additional information in order to process your application to impact protected
wetlands and/or streams on the subject property. Therefore, unless we receive the additional information
requested below, we will have to move toward denial of your application as required by 15A NCAC 2H
.0506 and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information.
Please provide the following information so that we may continue to review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
1. Your application included details of your proposal to plug a channel in order to facilitate wetland
restoration onsite. We assume that this is being performed for compensatory mitigation. If so,
please provide five (5) copies of the actual mitigation plan so that we can determine what portion
qualifies for wetland restoration, or if there is a combination of restoration, creation, enhancement
and preservation for future credit purposes. Is this mitigation work associated with a specific
project involving wetland impacts? Please note that your mitigation plan must include details of
hydrological, vegetative and soils data (empirical where applicable) involved in planning, as well as
a 5-year monitoring plan.
Please contact the DWQ within three weeks of the date of this letter to verify that you have received this
letter and that you remain interested in continuing to pursue permitting of your project and will be
providing the DWQ the requested information at a later date. Please contact me in writing and Eric Kulz
of the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office. If we do not hear from you within three weeks, we will assume
that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as withdrawn.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not
?'a
Noc" Carol;
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit rQ?1lCQ
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httn7//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

KCI Technologies
Page 2 of 2
July 3, 2006
authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call Ms. Cyndi Karoly or Mr. Ian McMillan at 919-733-
1786 if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Sinc ,
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
CBK/ij 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
m
cc: Eric Kulz, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Amanda Mueller, Parkview Building
Filename: 060952BrownFarmWetlandRestora tion(Orange)On_Hold
DIV\
52 Brown Farm Wetland Restoration
Subject: DWQ 06-0952 Brown Farm Wetland Restoration
From: Laurie Dennison <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:06:29 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Please see attached the Division of water Quality's request for more information related
to your recent application. Please note that this message is being forwarded to you
electronically so that you may expedite preparation of your response. Please do not send
your response as a reply to this e-mail or via fax. The hard copy is being sent via US
Mail. All response correspondence is to be mailed via hard copy to the 401 Oversight and
Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC, 27604 unless otherwise noted.
060952BrownFarmWetlandRestoration(Orange)On_Hold.doc Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 7/5/2006 2:06 PM
Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site
Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina
SCO Contract No. D05011-2
KCI Project No. 12054252
Wetland Restoration Plan
Prepared for:
NCDENR-EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
r?
l4ki1)system
Prepared by:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
=====..
EMMNW4?
wwmwi?
??
??
NEMNMEWO?
KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Project Manager
jpfeifferA,kci.com
919-783-9214
June 2006
I lilu,,

Executive Summary
The Brown Farm Wetland Restoration proposes to improve water quality and expand wetland habitat by
restoring agricultural land to a functioning riverine wetland ecosystem. Currently, the site is used for
harvesting hay and occasional grazing and is located directly within the floodplain of New Hope Creek in
the Cape Fear Basin. This important water body contains unique aquatic habitat both upstream and
downstream of the project site. The project will restore 24.58 acres of wetland and enhance 3.32 acres of
existing wetlands along the New Hope Creek Corridor.
The Brown Farm is adjacent to New Hope Creek in Durham, North Carolina along the Orange-Durham
County Line. The site drains into New Hope Creek to the east, which then flows approximately 11 miles
before entering Jordan Lake. The project has a contributing drainage area of 33.33 square miles (21,331
acres) at the downstream limits of the site. New Hope Creek is listed as an impaired water body under the
- draft 2004 303(d) list for North Carolina starting approximately 2.4 miles downstream of the project site
at the confluence with Sandy Creek. This segment of stream has impaired biological integrity from urban
runoff and storm sewers.
Historic aerial photographs dating from 1955 show the site under cultivation or in pasture in recent years.
Currently, the project watershed is approximately 83% forested based on the North Carolina GAP land
use classification, but the surrounding area continues to experience rapid growth. Downstream and
outside of the project watershed, there is residential and commercial development expanding along the
North Carolina State Highway 15-501 corridor to the east.
The Orange and Durham County Soil Surveys classify the soils at the site as primarily Chewacla with
some Wehadkee. The county soil survey classifications, however, were not fully consistent with the
conditions observed on-site by a KCI soil scientist. A detailed soils investigation was conducted across
the site and the resulting distribution of soils at the Brown Farm is estimated to be 75% Wehadkee and
25% Chewacla. The Wehadkee and Chewacla soils are defined as hydric soils due to saturation for a
significant period during the growing season.
The project site is located on an expansive, active floodplain of New Hope Creek. Moving west from the
stream, the site slopes downward at approximately 1% from the levee position of the creek to a lower
floodplain position in the center of the site. This central portion is flat extending to the north, south and
west to the valley walls on the site. Existing wetlands were delineated in August 2005 using the methods
described by the US Army Corps of Engineers. There are 3.32 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the
property.
There are no streams that flow directly through the project site. Upper New Hope Creek forms the
eastern boundary of the project and the entire site eventually drains to this strearn. There is a series of
major and minor drainage ditches that run along and throughout the site. The landowner states that some
of the larger ditches have been in place since the 19`" century. Smaller minor ditches are distributed
throughout the site at approximately 50 feet apart. This extensive ditch network reduces the amount of
total hydrologic input that can remain on-site.
A reference wetland was found approximately 0.8 miles from the Brown Site and was used to guide the
restoration design. It is also within the floodplain of New Hope Creek and is downstream from the
project site. The property is owned by the County of Durham and is included in a larger area of land
protected as the New Hope Creek Bottomlands. The composition of plant species at the reference
wetland is best described as a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
Using the reference wetland and existing site conditions, a restoration design was developed for the
Brown Farm. Current pastureland with drained hydric soils will be restored to wetland. Existing
wetlands will be enhanced by improving the hydrology and vegetation. Surrounding upland areas on the
site will be included to recreate a functioning ecosystem.
Hydrologic modifications will focus on restoring historic wetland hydrology by removing ditches and
berms that restrict flow from remaining on-site. Three level spreaders will also be constructed to
reconnect the hydrology across the entire site. These features will spread across the site in several places
and are designed to mimic the natural, elongated flowpath in a wetland. In order to block the remaining
flow from leaving via minor ditches that run primarily northwest to southeast, wetland microtopography
will be oriented perpendicular (i.e. southwest to northeast). This grading method will effectively create
small depressions and rises across the landscape while stopping the flowpath from these ditches. Using
this procedure will also allow some of the existing grasses to remain in place to stabilize the system.
The restoration of natural vegetation will focus on establishing native wetland hardwood species in the
entire wetland. The majority of the area will receive species consistent with a Piedmont Bottomland
Hardwood Forest community. Enhancement areas will be planted with targeted hardwood species to
increase species diversity. One section of the enhancement area is a Floodplain Pool community and will
be planted as such. Populations of invasive species have also been identified and will be eliminated as
much as possible.
A monitoring program will be implemented to observe the progress toward achieving mitigation goals
and objectives within the restored wetland areas. The site will be deemed successful once wetland
hydrology is established and vegetation success criteria are met. Management activities will be
conducted as necessary to control invasive species or handle other issues as they arise.
The restoration of the Brown Farm to a functioning wetland will allow the site to retain a greater amount
of floodwaters from New Hope Creek. The wetland will also provide water quality benefits by acting as a
buffer to New Hope Creek from upstream agricultural and residential uses. These restoration activities
will reduce both point and non-point source pollutants to the system and improve aquatic and terrestrial
habitat along the New Hope Creek Corridor.
11
BROWN FARM RESTORATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION-
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION ...................
1.1 Directions to Project Site .................................................................
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations..
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ............................................
2.1 Drainage Area ..................................................................................
2.2 Surface Water Classification / Water Quality .................................
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils ....................................................
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ................................
2.5 Endangered / Threatened Species ....................................................
2.6 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................
2.7 Potential Constraints ........................................................................
3.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS ............................................................
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ....................................................................
3.2 Hydrological Characterization .........................................................
3.3 Sol] Characterization .......................................................................
3.4 Plant Community Characterization .................................................
4.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS ................................................................
4.1 Hydrological Characterization .........................................................
d 7 Qnil ( hnrnrtnrivntinn
4.3 Plant Community Characterization .................................................
5.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN ...........................................
5.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives .......................................
5.2 HEC-RAS Analysis .........................................................................
5.3 Hydrological Modifications .............................................................
5.4 Natural Plant Community Restoration ............................................
6.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA .............................................................
6.1 Hydrology ........................................................................................
6.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................
6.3 Schedule / Reporting .......................................................................
7.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................
4
4
6
6
7
7
7
... 13
... 14
... 15
... 15
... 15
... 20
... 20
... 20
... 23
... 24
... 26
... 28
... 28
... 28
... 29
... 30
iii
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...........................................................................
Figure 2. Project Watershed ...................................................................
Figure 3. NRCS Soil Survey Map ..........................................................
Figure 4. FEMA Floodplain ...................................................................
Figure 5. Existing Wetlands ...................................................................
Figure 6. Existing Hydrology .................................................................
Figure 7. Reference Wetland Vicinity Map ...........................................
Figure 8. Reference Wetland Watershed ...............................................
Figure 9. Reference Wetland with Gauge Location ...............................
Figure 10. Reference Wetland NRCS Soil Survey ...................
Figure 11. Reference Wetland Land Use and Land Cover .......
Figure 12. Mitigation Type and Extent .....................................
Figure 13. Proposed Restoration Activities ..............................
Figure 14. Planting Plan ............................................................
TABLES
..................................................... 2
..................................................... 3
..................................................... 5
..................................................... 8
..................................................... 9
...................................................10
...................................................16
...................................................17
................................................... 18
................................................... 19
.............................................................. 21
.............................................................. 22
.............................................................. 25
.............................................................. 27
Table 1. Existing Land Use in Project Watershed ........................................................................................4
Table 2. Species in Durham and Orange Counties Listed Under the Federal Endangered Species Act....... 6
Table 3. Constraints Within the Project Watershed ......................................................................................6
Table 4. Soil Properties for the Restoration Site .........................................................................................14
Table 5. Mitigation Type and Extent .......................................................................................................... 20
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Historical Aerial Photographs
Appendix 2. Correspondence
Appendix 3. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 4. USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 5. USACE Approved Wetland Boundary
Appendix 6. Water Budget
Appendix 7. Soil Profile Description
Appendix 8. Reference Wetland Photographs
Appendix 9. Reference Wetland USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 10. No-rise Certification
iv
- INTRODUCTION
This restoration plan outlines the existing conditions at the Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site and the
process that will be used to restore riverine wetlands along New Hope Creek in Durham and Orange
• counties. Using results from field studies and a literature review, this document provides an overview of
the planned restoration project. The hydrology, soils, and vegetative communities at a nearby reference
wetland are included and will serve as a model to shape the final restoration design. Once completed, the
project will add another piece to the protected areas along the New Hope Creek Corridor.
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
• 1.1 Directions to Project Site
The Brown Farm Site is located adjacent to New Hope Creek and is approximately two miles west of
Durham, North Carolina along the Orange-Durham County Line as seen in Figure 1. The site is
approximately one mile east of the intersection of Erwin Road and Mt. Moriah Road and is located on
• United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Southwest Durham and Chapel Hill Quadrangles. The project
site is approximately located at 35.9670 N Latitude and 78.9977 W Longitude (WGS 1984).
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The property is in the 03030002 (Upper Cape Fear 02) Watershed Cataloging Unit (8-digit HUC) and the
03030002060110 (Upper New Hope Creek) Local Watershed Unit (14-digit HUC). The site drains into
New Hope Creek to the east, which then flows approximately 11 miles before entering Jordan Lake. In
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program's (EEP) Cape Fear River Basin Watershed
Restoration Plan, the Upper New Hope Creek Watershed (03030002060110) has been identified as a high
priority Targeted Hydrologic Unit/Watershed.
• 2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area
The project has a contributing drainage area of 33.33 square miles (21,331 acres) at the downstream limits
of the site and contains the headwaters of New Hope Creek. Figure 2 shows the location of site within the
project watershed.
2.2 Surface Water Classification / Water Quality
The project site is located within the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Subbasin 03-06-
05. This reach of New Hope Creek (16-41-1-(0.5)) is classified for Class C uses, which are protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and
other uses suitable for Class C. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving
human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or
incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges.
Additionally, the stream is designated as a Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW), a supplemental classification
intended for waters that require additional nutrient management, because of the susceptibility to excessive
growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation (NCDENR, DWQ 2005).
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
The project watershed is located within the Piedmont physiographic province and is part of the Triassic
Basins Level 1V Ecoregion. The Triassic Basin has many easily widening stream valleys and less local
relief than in surrounding regions. Sedimentary rocks of the Chatham Group underlie the site. The
geology is described as arkosic sandstone, which is tan, medium to very coarse-grained, and micaceous
(NCDENR Geologic Survey 2005).
Project Site,
Orange & Durham Counties, NC
Erwin Rd
Mt. Moriah Rd
Town of
Chapel Hill
ORANGE D RHA
COUNTY a` O
00, .
Project Site
n
City of Durham
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC:
dw-agglod
' 01 WWLV�A
t
Miles ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
AND CONSTRUCTION. INC.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
-ice
Project Location Major Roads
Other Roads
^/ Major Streams and Rivers
T
SLakes and Reservoirs V F
C
Municipalities 1:63,360
`
I inch equals I miles
Counties
CHNOLOGIES
t 0.5 0
City of Durham
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC:
dw-agglod
' 01 WWLV�A
t
Miles ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
AND CONSTRUCTION. INC.

py .7R t '• 1 1
J
t M� 1 � � �
MEWd
� r ' '�♦ �� \ r' _ _mss � �~ ♦ ..+ \ u
a

The Orange and Durham County Soil Surveys classify the soils at the site as Chewacla. The Chewacla
soils consist of very deep, moderately permeable, somewhat poorly drained soils on floodplains along
bottomlands, creeks and rivers. They develop from recent alluvium washed from soils formed in residuum
from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite, and other metamorphic and igneous rocks. They occur on nearly
level floodplains along streams that drain from the mountains and the Piedmont. Wehadkee soils are also
shown as existing on the site and this soil type consist of very deep and very poorly drained soils on
nearly level floodplains along streams that drain from the mountains and the Piedmont. The Wehadkee
soils typically occur with Chewacla soils. They are more poorly drained than the Chewacla soils and they
are darker in color and more intensely mottled. A map of the soils within the project watershed is seen in
Figure 3. The county soil survey classifications, however, were not fully consistent with the soil
conditions observed on-site by a KCI soil scientist (see Section 3.3.2).
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The project watershed is located almost exclusively (97.3%) in Orange County. Approximately 83% of
the watershed is forested based on the North Carolina GAP land use classification, which used 1992 and
1993 aerial photography (McKerrow 2003). Table 1 describes the various land uses in the project
watershed.
Table 1. Existing Land Use in Project Watershed
Land Use Acreage Percentage
Forest 17,718.6 83.1%
Agricultural 2,000.4 9.4%
Rangeland 727.9 3.4%
Urban or built-upland 493.9 2.3%
Wetland 264.2 1.2%
Water 122.5 0.6%
Barren land 2.9 0.0%
Total 21,330.6 100%11
The project watershed and surrounding area continue to experience rapid growth. Downstream and
outside of the project watershed there is residential and commercial development expanding along the
North Carolina State Highway 15-501 corridor to the east. However, a large area of the project watershed
is within Duke Forest, a 7,200-acre research forest owned by Duke University. There has also been an
effort among local governments and citizens to protect land along New Hope Creek and create a protected
corridor all the way to Jordan Lake.
Historic aerial photographs dating from 1955 show the site under cultivation or in pasture in the last fifty
years (Appendix 1). Drainage ditches throughout the site are evident in each of the photographs. The
landowner reports that several ditches along the property were constructed in the 19`" century. A large
floodplain pool feature in the southeast corner of the project site is visible in all of the historic images.
2.5 Endangered / Threatened Species
As part of the initial environmental documentation for this project, a Categorical Exclusion (CE) was
completed. The CE included a review of any potential impacts on endangered or rare species from the
proposed project. A summary of the information has been included below and more detailed information
can be found in the CE.
A review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) listing of federally endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act revealed four species in Orange County and three
4
Altavista Fine Sandy Loam, 0 To 3 Percent Slopes Aa
Chewacla and Wehadkee Soils (Durham Co.) Ch
Chewacla Loam (Orange Co.) Ch
® Congaree Silt Loam Cp
- Creedmoor Sandy Loam, 2 To 6 Percent Slopes CrB
- Enon Loam, 6 To 12 Percent Slopes EnC
Mayodan Sandy Loam, 10 To 15 Percent Slopes MJD
_ Mayodan Sandy Loam, 2 To 6 Percent Slopes MJB
_ White Store Clay Loam, 6 To 15 Percent Slopes, Eroded WsC
- White Store Loam, 2 To 6 Percent Slopes WsB
® M, Data Nol?m
MfD
1 40
40
1
1
1
1
/
04
??
A

WtC2 ? ? •
i ,r ? ? Ch
Figure 3. Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map

1 1 Project Site Boundary
New Hope Creek N
Orange-Durham County Line W?E
1:4,800
KCI s
I inch equals 400 feet
TECHNOLOGIES Source: Soil Survey qi Durham Corm % SCS 1976 4oo 200 0
and Soil Suivev of orange Counr , SCS 1977
400
Cp
KCI
ASSOCtATES OF NC

species in Durham County. Table 2 details the finding of this search; two of the species were recorded in
both counties. There is no critical habitat designated in either county.
Table 2. Snecies in Durham and Oranee Counties Listed Under the Federal Endangered Species Act
Major
Taxonomic Group Scientific
Name Common
Name Federal
Status
Vertebrate Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Threatened
Vertebrate Picoides borealist Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Endangered
Mollusk Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf Wedge Mussel Endangered
Vascular Plant Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Vascular Plant Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower Endangered
A formal request was submitted to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) for review of
the restoration project's potential impacts on endangered or threatened species. The NCNHP found no
records of protected or rare species within a mile of the project site (see Appendix 2).
2.6 Cultural Resources
A visit to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) revealed no historic properties or
archaeological resources within the project limits. KCI submitted a formal request for review of the site
to SHPO. The office responded that they were not aware of any cultural resources that would be affected
by the restoration project (see Appendix 2).
2.7 Potential Constraints
As part of the CE documentation process, a limited Phase I site assessment was conducted to verify
whether the site was listed in any state or federal environmental databases such as hazardous waste sites
or underground storage tanks. The site was not identified in any databases and a summary of the limited
Phase I report is included in the CE report. In addition, the project site was examined for any potential
hindrances to a successful restoration project. The evaluation focused on hazardous materials, utilities,
restrictive easements, and the potential for hydrologic trespass. Table 3 summarizes the identified
constraints related to the implementation of site restoration activities.
Table 3. Constraints Within the Proiect Watershed
Potential Constraint Present on Project Site? Proposed Resolution
Adjacent Property Land Use Agriculture, Forest, and Wetland N/A
Deed Restrictions/Easements No N/A
Limited Access No N/A
Utilities No N/A
Structures No N/A
Natural Feature Barriers No N/A
FEMA Regulated Area Project area within Zone AE No-Rise Certification
6

. 2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The property is owned by several members of the Brown Family. The parcel lies within both Orange
(Pin# 0800-06-2560) and Durham (Pin# 0800-01-06-9809) counties.
. 2.7.2 Site Access
The site is reached from Mt. Moriah Road as shown in Figure 1. Legal access is guaranteed with an
ingress/egress easement from Mt. Moriah Road to the northwestern corner of the conservation easement
. boundary.
2.7.3 Utilities
. A search was completed to investigate any utilities present within the project site and none were found.
2.7.4 FEMA / Hydrologic Trepass
The property is located within the 100-year floodplain of Upper New Hope Creek as determined by the
. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As shown in Figure 4, the entire project site
boundary is located in Zone AE. There will be no hydrologic trespass on any bordering properties.
3.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS
i The project site exists on the floodplain of New Hope Creek. The land has long been used for agriculture
and has been drained with an extensive ditch network. The existing site conditions are shown in the
project photographs (Appendix 3).
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Existing wetlands were delineated in August 2005 using the methods described by the US Army Corps of
S Engineers (USACE 1987). The delineation forms used for the project site are available in Appendix 4.
. The wetland boundaries are shown in Figure 5 and were approved by the USACE as the existing
jurisdictional wetlands (Appendix 5).
. 3.2 Hydrological Characterization
The site hydrology has been greatly affected by a series of ditches that all drain to New Hope Creek. The
. existing hydrologic conditions are shown in Figure 6.
Project Streams and Ditches
There are no streams that flow directly through the project site. Upper New Hope Creek forms the
. eastern boundary of the project and the entire site eventually drains to this stream. There is a series of
major and minor drainage ditches that run along and throughout the site. Ditches #1 and #2 are two large
ditches that are each approximately one foot deep and they carry water from a small subwatershed that
drains directly to the site. Ditch #3 drains water through the center of the site and diverges into Ditches
#4 and #5 before all of this drainage exits via Ditch #6. Running along the southern boundary of the
project boundary, Ditch #6 provides the major outlet for the site. Ditch #7 currently allows excess water
to drain from the eastern portion of the site. Ditch #9 runs along the northern site boundary and drains a
. small subwatershed to New Hope Creek. When water levels in New Hope Creek rise high enough to
cause backwater into Ditch #9, this flow travels into Ditch #8, which during large flood events appears to
flow in either direction as water levels fluctuate, although it is bordered by a 2-foot berm on the southern
. bank. When Ditch #9 experiences enough flow to exceed its banks, the excess is carried through the site
by Ditch #3. However, another 2 to 3-foot berm has been constructed from the spoil remains of Ditch #9
that prevents this ditch from flooding except during extreme events. Ditches #10 and #11 arc small
sloughs from Ditch #9 and frequently remain ponded. During larger flooding events, backwater from
7
iIM
milt_
Figure 5. Project Site Wetland Delineation Map
Jurisdictional Wetland* (3.32 acres) Project Boundary
10000=16�� Q3 Drained Hydric Soils (20.83 acres) KCI
-N&_ (?Z Drained Hydric Soils within 18 in. ASSOCIATES OF NC
with 0-6 in. overburden/ditch spoils W E
KC
on top (6.63 acres) 5
1:3,000
• As approved by the USACE 1 inch equals 250 feet WWA
sso 125 o zso Im
TECHNOLOGIES
Image Source: USCS Urban Area High Feet ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
Resolution Orthotmagery, March 2002 AND CONSTRUCTION, INC.

I?
New Hope Creek travels down Ditch #12. Ditch #13 carries drainage down from the eastern side of the
property. Smaller minor ditches are distributed throughout the site at approximately 50 feet apart, which
contribute to a significant loss of water from the site as well.
Project Wetlands
The site is located on an expansive and active floodplain of New Hope Creek. Moving west from the
stream, the site slopes downward at approximately 1% from the levee position of the creek to a lower
floodplain position in the center of the site. This central portion is flat extending to the north, south and
west to the valley walls on the site.
Existing Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood wetlands are found in some of the forested areas of the project
site. In the northern part of the site, drainage from the north forms a wetland in a depressional area that
ponds consistently. The drainage from this wetland leads to another small wetland approximately 200
feet south in a small stand of hardwood trees. Another wetland exists toward the southern end of the site
and Ditch #5 currently runs through this section.
A Floodplain Pool community is found in the southeastern portion of the project site. This wetland
experiences flooding for a large part of the year. Several minor ditches from the eastern half of the
property flow into this wetland and excess drainage is able to exit via Ditch #7.
All of the existing wetlands on the site receive occasional inputs from New Hope Creek flood events.
However, ditches carry water away from all of the wetlands and reduce the amount of total hydrologic
input that remains on-site.
Confirmation of Riverine Condition (5-year,Jloodplain)
FEMA originally used a HEC-2 model to determine flood elevations for New Hope Creek. KCI obtained
this existing flood model and imported it into HEC-RAS. Once the model was calibrated to match the
- results calculated with HEC-2, it was used to analyze the flood frequency at the Brown Site.
In its previous analysis, FEMA provided flood elevations for 10, 50, 100, and 200-year flood events. In
order to develop elevations for more frequent flooding events, a Log Pearson III flood frequency analysis
was used to estimate discharges for 1, 2 and 5-year events. Because there is no stream gauge available at
the project site, we used peak annual streamflow data from 1983 to 2004 from the nearest United States
Geologic Survey (USGS) stream gauge on New Hope Creek, Station 02097314 (approximately six miles
southeast of the Brown Farm). A log-log linear equation was then created with an R2 of 0.99 to relate the
discharge at the gauge to the discharge values known for New Hope Creek. This relationship was used to
estimate discharges for more frequent flood events at the project site. Based on results from this method,
the elevation for a 5-year flood event was 256.3 feet at the upstream portion of the site and 255.38 feet at
the downstream end of the site. Using these figures, the entire site would be inundated excluding only the
spoil piles that reach 258 feet along Ditches #8 and #9.
An analysis was also completed to look at how often a flood event would reach the site. Using the same
procedure as above, flood waters are predicted to move onto the site during a 1.1-year flooding event. At
this point, the model indicates that water will enter the site from below at an elevation of approximately
253 feet. During a 1.2-year event, the site is predicted to flood from both the northern and southern
edges. With an event of this magnitude, the floodwaters are projected to enter the site from the north at
an elevation estimated at 254.5 feet. Based on this analysis, flooding events are a significant hydrologic
input to the project site.
I•
•
•
•
3.2.1 Groundwater Gauges
High groundwater has been reported historically for the site and occurs seasonally at or near the surface in
the surrounding natural areas. The project site has a high water table, because of its level location along a
large floodplain. The groundwater within the project site is being evaluated by monitoring the water level
with three on-site HOBO recording pressure gauges. Three gauges were installed at the site in early 2006
and the locations are shown in Figure 6. The gauges were programmed to measure water levels twice
daily at 12-hour intervals.
3.2.2 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site
Existing Conditions
Existing site hydrology was modeled by developing an annual water budget that calculates water inputs
and outputs in order to calculate the change in storage on a monthly time step (Appendix 6).
In order to set up the water budget, historic precipitation data were obtained from the North Carolina State
Climatic Office. The nearest weather station to the Brown Site is Station 312515 in Durham, North
Carolina. This station is located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the project site. Monthly
precipitation totals from the entire period of record (1899-2005) were reviewed and three years were
selected to represent a range of precipitation conditions: dry year (1941), average year (1956), and wet
year (1975).
Potential inputs to the water budget include precipitation, groundwater, and surface inputs. For
precipitation, the data from the three selected years were used in the budget. Groundwater input likely
exists, but was considered negligible in comparison to the magnitude of surface and precipitation inputs.
Surface water input was calculated using the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) runoff curve
number equation (1986). The results for this equation were computed using the US Army Corps of
Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS).
Outputs from the site include potential evapotranspiration (PET), groundwater, and surface water outlets.
PET was calculated by the Thornthwaite method using mean monthly temperatures determined from the
chosen years of record: 1941, 1956, and 1975. Groundwater represents losses from the site due to
downward seepage through the soil profile and was assumed to be 2x10-6 ft/min (1.04 inches per month),
which is typical of low permeability soils associated with wetlands. A substantial amount of water is also
lost through the existing ditches on-site. A DRAINMOD model was set up to simulate the effect of the
existing drainage network on wetland hydrology. The program evaluated 40 years of available
precipitation data and produced the annual loss due to the ditches. The annual loss was then averaged on
a monthly basis for dry, average, and wet years.
Once the inputs and outputs were determined, a net monthly total was calculated in inches and used to
estimate a yearly water budget. The model assumes unsaturated conditions at the beginning of the year.
A maximum wetland water volume of 5.4 inches was calculated based on the specific yield of 0.15 for 36
inches of Wehadkee soil in order to analyze conditions in the upper three feet of the soil profile. The
resulting hydrographs for the average, dry, and wet years show a seasonal pattern. The model shows that
the majority of hydrologic inputs to the site come during the rainy spring months. The site begins to lose
saturation in the upper twelve inches in the summer months. The late fall sees an increase in hydrologic
inputs again. The dry year shows very little hydrology overall. The water budget does predict that
wetland hydrology would exist in the average and wet years. However, this trend does correspond to
conditions observed on-site and indicates that the model is not entirely representative of the true site
conditions. Groundwater gauges on the site since early 2006 show large fluctuations in the data with the
site at times experiencing hydrology below or at jurisdictional levels. The US Army Corps of Engineers
12
0
performed a wetland determination at the site on February 1, 2006 and verified that apart from in the 3.32
acres of existing wetlands the site does not have adequate jurisdictional hydrology (see Appendix 5).
• Proposed Conditions
A second water budget was developed to analyze the effect of restoration actions on the site hydrology.
The loss of water from the existing ditches was removed from the budget, because these ditches will be
Ali filled. To estimate the impact from recreating wetland microtopography, an additional two inches of
• hydrologic capacity was added to the calculations. Based on these changes, the budget shows a
noticeable increase in the spring. In particular, the wet year has wetland hydrology throughout almost the
entire year. The dry year does not show much change from the existing to proposed budget, which
a indicates that during a drought year the wetland may not experience much saturation.
a One factor not taken into account in the annual water budget calculations is the effect of flooding. The
a flood analysis described in Section 3.2 predicts that the site will experience frequent flooding events.
Based on the existing conditions, these floodwaters would not be retained on-site and would instead drain
out through the series of ditches. Under proposed conditions, the input from these flooding events would
be able to remain on-site, because of the small depressions and rises associated with recreated wetland
• microtopography.
3.3 Soil Characterization
A soils investigation was conducted by a certified soil scientist from KCI to determine the extent and
distribution of the hydric soils on the site and to classify the predominate soils to the soil series level. The
investigation consisted of delineating the hydric soil boundaries with pink flagging in accordance with the
US Army Corps of Engineers (1987). Areas that were identified as possible hydric soil mapping units
• were surveyed at a higher intensity until the edge of the mapping unit was identified. The boundary of the
hydric and non-hydric soil mapping units were then followed by continual sampling and observations as
the boundary line was identified and delineated. In those areas where the boundary was found to be a
- broad gradient rather than a distinct break, microtopography, landscape position, soil textural changes,
redoximorphic features, and depleted matrices were additionally considered to identify the extent of the
hydric soils.
To develop a detailed soils map, several soil borings were advanced on the site in the general hydric soil
areas identified by landscape position, vegetation and slope. Once the hydric soil borings were identified,
the soil scientist marked the point and established a visual line to the next auger boring where again
hydric soil conditions were confirmed by additional borings. The soil scientist moved along the edges of
the mapping unit and marked each point along the line. To confirm the hydric soil mapping unit, soil
borings were advanced to a depth of 50 inches. The soil profile descriptions identified the individual
horizons in the topsoil and upper subsoil as well as the depth, color, texture, structure, boundary, and
evidence of restrictive horizons and redoximorphic features. The extent of the mapped hydric soils is
shown in Figure 5.
The project site has been in agricultural production for approximately 100 years, but no Prior Converted
(PC) wetland determination has been made on the site by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS).
- 3.3.1 Taxonomic Classification
The project soils were classified as Wchadkee (fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic
Endoaqucpts) with inclusions of Chewacla (fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts).
I!?
13
3.3.2 Profile Description
The Orange and Durham County Soil Surveys classify all the soils underlying the site as Chewacla.
However, this classification was inconsistent with the observed soil conditions at the site. A detailed soils
investigation by a KCI soil scientist identified Wehadkee soils as occupying the central portion of the site
where restoration will take place. This detailed soils investigation was conducted by angering numerous
soil borings across the site in areas identified by landscape position, vegetation, and slope followed by the
preparation of a soil map that identified the extent of each soil mapping unit. The resulting distribution of
soils on-site is estimated to be 75% Wehadkee and 25% Chewacla. The Wehadkee and Chewacla soils
are defined as hydric soils due to saturation for a significant period during the growing season and they
are listed on the federal, state and county hydric soils lists (USDA, SCS 1976 and USDA, SCS 1977).
The soils in the north-central portion of the project site do not have hydric features until a depth of
approximately 18-24 inches. This is likely caused from overwash sediment from flooding events that
have accumulated on top of the Wehadkee soil below. A detailed description of all of the soil profiles by
a KCI soil scientist is provided in Appendix 7.
The Chewacla soils consist of very deep, moderately permeable, somewhat poorly drained soils on
floodplains along bottoms, creeks, and rivers. The soil is produced from recent alluvium washed from
soils formed in residuum from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite, and other metamorphic and igneous rocks.
They occur on nearly level floodplains along streams that drain from the mountains and the Piedmont.
The Wehadkee soils are very deep and very poorly drained and are found on nearly level floodplains
along streams that drain from the mountains and the Piedmont. The Wehadkee soils commonly occur
with Chewacla soils. They are more poorly drained, darker in color, and more intensely mottled than the
Chewacla soils (USDA, SCS 1976 and USDA, SCS 1977).
3.3.3 Soil Properties
The physical properties for Wehadkee and Chewacla are identified in Table 4.
Table 4. Soil Properties for the Restoration Site.
Hydraulic Percent Bulk
Soil Name Description Inches Conductivity Organic Density
in/hr Matter /cc
Very deep, moderately permeable, 0-4 0.57- 1.98 1.04-4.0 1.30- 1.60

Chewacla* somewhat poorly drained soils of
floodplains along bottoms
creeks
and 4-26 0.57- 1.98 0.5-2.0 1.30- 1.50
,
,
rivers. 26 - 36 0.57- 1.98 0.5-2.0 1.30- 1.60
Very deep, poorly drained and very 0-7 1.98-5.95 2.0-5.0 1.35- 1.60

Wehadkee poorly drained soils on flood plains
along streams.
7-36
0.57- 1.98
0.0-2.0
1.30- 1.50
*Chewacla description based on the Soil Survey of Durham County (USDA, SCS 1976). The percent organic matter for Chewacla differs
slightly at 6-36 inches in the descriptions in the Soil Survey of Orange County (USDA, SCS 1977).
3.4 Plant Community Characterization
At the site there are three existing vegetation types: agriculture, Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest,
and Floodplain Pool.
Agriculture - 32.0 acres
The agricultural area consists of land cut for hay and occasionally used for pasture. The site has been
under continuous production for the past 100 years. A series of ditches exist throughout the agricultural
field. Two large ditches direct water around and/or through the site while many smaller ditches channel
flow to the larger drainage network. There are several trees growing in places among the agricultural
fields. There is a line of trees running from north to south and within this grouping of trees there are
14
several mature willow oak (Quercus phellos) and sugarbery (Celtis laevigata) along with a row of
eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana).
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest - 1.2 acres
On the northern edge of the project site, there is an established Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest
community. There are also two other small wetlands of this community type in the center of the site as
well as along the southern edge. These wetlands experience seasonal inundation and have had standing
water during recent site visits. There is a diverse mixture of hardwood species, which include red maple
(Aces rubrum), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), sweetgum (Liquidambar stvracua), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), and American elm (Ulmus
americana).
Floodplain Pool- 2.1 acres
This community exists along the southern border of the project site and sits in a depression that is lower
than the rest of the project site. The wetland is saturated much of the year and contains mature vegetation
such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
American elm (Ulmus americana).
Nonnative Plant Species
The site has also been invaded by several non-native plant species. Populations of Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinese), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)
inhabit portions of the site.
4.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS
The reference wetland is located approximately 0.8 miles from the Brown Site. It is also within the
floodplain of New Hope Creek and is downstream from the project site. The property is owned by the
County of Durham and is included in a larger area of land protected as the New Hope Creek Bottomlands.
The site location is shown in Figure 7 and photographs of the reference site are seen in Appendix 8.
KCI performed a wetland determination at the reference site. The USACE data sheets used for this
procedure are in Appendix 9.
4.1 Hydrological Characterization
The site is located in the New Hope Creek Watershed as and the reference wetland watershed is seen in
Figure 8. Similar to the project site, the reference wetland receives hydrologic inputs from a high
groundwater table and seasonal flooding from New Hope Creek. Within the reference wetland, there are
many physical markers of wetland hydrology. There are buttressed trunks, sediment marks on trees, and
drainage patterns.
4.1.1 Gauge Data Summary
The groundwater within the reference wetland will be evaluated by monitoring the water level with an on-
site HOBO recording pressure gauge. Data from this gauge will be compared to gauges at the restoration
areas. The gauge will be programmed to measure water levels twice daily at 12-hour intervals. The data
will be downloaded periodically and evaluated to determine the depth and duration of the groundwater
level on the reference site. The reference wetland gage was installed in early 2006 and its location is
shown in Figure 9.
4.2 Soil Characterization
The soil type as described in the Soil Survey of Durham County is shown in Figure 10 (USDA, SCS
1976). According to the soil survey, the soil type is Chewacla and Wehadkee series. This is consistent
15
Figure 8. Reference Wetland Watershed Map
Project Site Location KC
Reference Wetland Location IF NC
Reference Watershed
KC I /"N/ Major Streams and Rivers 1:95,040
14 -Digit HUC Boundaries I inch equals 1.5 miles
TECHNOLOGIES Source: t/SGS Topographic Quadrangles 1 0.5 0 1 NvRONwmAL TECHNOLOGIES
Chapel Hill and SW Durham Milcs AND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
-
4�-
t
1'
W,
.
t}l
New Hoc
Figure 8. Reference Wetland Watershed Map
Project Site Location KC
Reference Wetland Location IF NC
Reference Watershed
KC I /"N/ Major Streams and Rivers 1:95,040
14 -Digit HUC Boundaries I inch equals 1.5 miles
TECHNOLOGIES Source: t/SGS Topographic Quadrangles 1 0.5 0 1 NvRONwmAL TECHNOLOGIES
Chapel Hill and SW Durham Milcs AND CONSTRUCTION, INC.

Chewacla And Wehadkee Soils Ch
- Congaree Silt Loam Cp
- Creedmoor Sandy Loam, 2 To 6 Percent Slopes CrB
- Creedmoor Sandy Loam, 6 To 10 Percent Slopes CrC
- Mayodan Sandy Loam, 10 To 15 Percent Slopes MJD
CrB

- White Store Sandy Loam, 10 To 25 Percent Slopes WsE
- White Store Sandy Loam, 2 To 6 Percent Slopes WsB
- White Store Sandy Loam, 6 To 10 Percent Slopes WsC
_ Urban Land Ur
No 11aoa A'.,l bir
CrB
CrB
Ch
Wse

rg? Figure 10. Reference Wetland NRCS Soil Survey Map
Reference Wetland Gauge Location K?C?I
/*2k/ New Hope Creek N ASSOCIATES OF NC
W r --_-_
1:3,600
KC I 5
I inch equals 300 feet
TECHNOLOGIES Sa,rce: Sod Sweep q/ Durhom Count)% 300 1 300 1 NVIRONMENIAI IFt l?P (>I C1P.Lf.
USDA SCS 1977 r- feet AND CONSTRUCTION. INC.
with the evaluation by the KCI soil scientist, who found the soils in the reference wetland to be
Wehadkee. This soil is the same as described in Section 3.3.2.
4.3 Plant Community Characterization
The composition of plant species at the reference wetland is best described as a Piedmont Bottomland
Hardwood Forest. The extent of the community type and the surrounding land uses are shown in Figure
H.
4.3.1 Community Description
The trees within the reference wetland include a variety of hardwood species such as red maple (Acer
rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), river birch (Betula
nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus Americana), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra),
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica).
5.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
5.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
This project proposes to improve water quality and expand wetland habitat by restoring agricultural land
to a functioning riverine wetland ecosystem. Currently, the site is used for harvesting hay and occasional
grazing, but it is located directly within the floodplain of New Hope Creek. This important water body
contains unique aquatic habitat both upstream and downstream of the project site. New Hope Creek is
listed as an impaired water body under the draft 2004 303(d) list for North Carolina starting
approximately 2.4 miles downstream of the project site at the confluence with Sandy Creek. This
segment of stream has impaired biological integrity from urban runoff and storm sewers (NCDENR,
DWQ 2005a).
Restoring this wetland will allow the site to retain a greater amount of floodwaters from New Hope
Creek. Recent development in the New Hope Creek Watershed has increased the storm surge associated
with precipitation events. Flood attenuation will increase by removing ditches that drain the site. The
restored wetland will also provide water quality benefits by acting as a buffer to New Hope Creek from
upstream agricultural and residential uses. These restoration activities will reduce both point and non-
point source pollutants to the system and improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
An overview of the mitigation type and extent at the project site is given in Figure 12. Current
pastureland with drained hydric soils will be restored to wetland. Existing wetlands will be enhanced by
improving the hydrology and vegetation. Surrounding upland areas on the site will be preserved to
recreate a functioning ecosystem. The acreage in Table 5 below provides an overview of the restoration
and enhancement wetland areas.
Table 5. Mitigation Tvne and Extent
Restoration Enhancement Preservation TOTAL
Riverine Wetland Acreage 24.58 3.32 0 27.90
Upland Inclusion Acreage 0 0 18.22 18.22
TOTAL 24.58 3.32 18.22 46.12
20
•
•
i
- - - - - - - - - _
g / / i ,rid', / + r�/% ��� !✓ ;+�
<.� ��f` >�/ ''/ �li'�y.' ,/rte r` x f!j�' ° `• �/',, ♦♦
I I �
I r I
r
� r
•
- r 4
r • t�'
� r
+
KCI
ASSOCIATES
OF NC
ENVIRONMENTAL
AND CONSTRUCTION,
TECNNOLOOIES
INC.

W
Functions that will be restored as a result of the mitigation include:
¦ Aquatic/Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
¦ Water Quality
¦ Groundwater Recharge
¦ Nutrient Cycling
¦ Bottomland Hardwood Communities
. 5. 1.1 Designed Wetland Type
. The restored wetlands will be designed as a riverine wetland system. The area to be restored is within the
active 5-year floodplain of the New Hope Creek and will receive inputs from numerous flood events.
. Restoration will focus on filling existing ditches, removing fill and overburden, and creating wetland
. microtopography to retain floodwaters and restore wetland hydrology. Wetland-specific hardwood
species will be planted to establish hydrophytic vegetation.
5.1.2 Target Wetland Communities
The main target community for the restoration area is a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest as
described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). This wetland type has a canopy dominated by tree species
such as tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), cherrybark oak
(Quercus pagoda (falcata var. pagodaefolia)), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), American elm (Ulmus
Americana), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), green ash (Fraxinus penns_ylvanica), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), shagback hickory (Carya ovata), and bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis). Typical understory
trees include American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple (Ater rubrum), flowering dogwood
(Cornus.florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), and common pawpaw (Asimina triloba). Common shrubs
are often species such as painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica) and American strawberry-bush (Evonymus
americana). Invasive species such as Virginia dayflower (Commelina virginica), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), and Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak)
have the potential to invade this community type.
. The typical Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood community is flooded at least occasionally. Bottomland
Forests are believed to form a stable climax forest with uneven-aged canopy with primarily gap phase
regeneration (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
• In the existing wetlands, there is also a large Floodplain Pool community that will be enhanced. Schafale
and Weakley describe this habitat as being found in depressions in abandoned river channels on
floodplains in the mountains and the Piedmont. They typically hold standing water much or all of the
year. In the center of these pools, there may not be any higher plants and aquatic plant species may
dominate instead. The edges feature aquatic and wetland vegetation with species such as royal fern
(Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis), handsome sedge (Carex,folliculata), fringed sedge (C. crinita), white
edge sedge (C. debilis), broadwing sedge (C. alata), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical), water-pepper
(Polygonum cespitosum), marsh seedbox (Ludwigia palustris), and Sphagnum spp. Shrubs such as hazel
alder (Ahaus serrulata) may occur on the edge (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
. 5.2 HEC-RAS Analysis
The Brown Site is located entirely within the 100-year floodplain of New Hope Creek (Zone AE). FEMA
originally used a HEC-2 model to analyze the flooding dynamics along New Hope Creek. KCI obtained
. this HEC-2 model, brought the data into HEC-RAS, and calibrated the converted model to match the
results produced by the original HEC-2 output.
5.2.1 No-rise, LOMR, or CLOMR
With this HEC-RAS model, we modified the two cross-sections that go through the project site to reflect
the changes in elevation from filling the ditches. Based on this analysis, KCI does not predict a rise in
23
¦
base flood elevations. The modified HEC-RAS model showed a rise less than or equal to 0.01 feet. A
No-Rise Certification letter explains these results in Appendix 10.
5.2.2 Hydrologic Trepass
There will be no hydrologic trespass to any landowners upstream or downstream of the Brown Site. The
planned actions will not encroach on any neighboring land and any increased flooding is anticipated to
stay within the project limits based on the flood analysis described in previous sections above.
5.3 Hydrological Modifications
Hydrologic modifications will focus on restoring surface water retention to this wetland system.
Currently, existing ditches and berms force water out of the system and prevent surface water from
remaining on-site and recharging the groundwater. Hydrologic restoration and enhancement will focus on
filling in these ditches that were constructed to drain the historic wetlands for agriculture. The restoration
will also involve removing or breaching berms that currently force water into the ditches. Together these
actions will allow surface and floodwaters to have greater access to the wetlands. Three level spreaders
will also be constructed across the project site to allow hydrologic access across the entire area as would
occur in a natural wetland. The modifications that will take place are displayed in Figure 13.
5.3.1 Narrative of Modifications
Hydrologic modifications will focus on restoring historic wetland hydrology by removing ditches and
berms that restrict flow from reaching and remaining on-site. Three level spreaders will be constructed to
reconnect the hydrology across the entire site. Wetland restoration and enhancement are planned for the
project site and described below.
Riverine Wetland Restoration - 24.58 Acres
Wetland restoration will take place on 24.58 acres of Wehadkee soils currently used for hay production
and grazing. The hydrologic restoration will focus on removing ditches and berms. Ditches #1, #2, #3,
#4, #7, #8, #12, and #13 will be filled. Berms that run along the southern edges of Ditches #8 and #9 will
be removed where feasible; mature trees exist in places along the berm and will be left in place. In order
to block the remaining flow from minor ditches that run primarily north to south, microtopography will be
oriented perpendicular (i.e. southwest to northeast). This grading method will effectively create small
depressions and rises across the landscape while stopping the flowpath from these ditches. Using this
procedure will also allow some of the existing grasses to remain in place and stabilize the system in the
case that a extreme flooding event from New Hope Creek were to occur shortly after construction.
Fences are already in place to restrict cattle access to the restored wetland. In some locations, up to six
inches of fill/overburden will be removed from the top surface of the soil. This layer to be removed is a
combination of overwash sediments that have accumulated from flooding events and spoil remains from
the extensive series of ditches that were constructed on the site.
Three level spreaders will be installed throughout the project site as displayed in Figure 13. These
features will spread across the site in several places and are designed to mimic the elongated flowpath in a
natural wetland. One will begin at a point just upstream of where Ditch #9 drains into New Hope Creek
and wrap around to the central portion of the site. Another level spreader will take the flow that is
coming from Ditch #1 and pull this across the site to the east. A final level spreader will be installed from
the north-central portion of the site and allow water to seep toward southeast.
Riverine Wetland Enhancement - 3.32 Acres
Currently the existing wetlands on-site have adequate wetland hydrology and most have an intact
hardwood canopy. However, these wetlands have been modified by ditches throughout the site that drain
a significant amount of water. The hydrology to these wetlands will be enhanced by filling Ditches #3,
24
Figure 13. Project Site Plan
Project Site Boundary Other Ditches
i*%.o Proposed Level Spreader Y New Hope Creek
N
® Enhancement (Existing Wetland) A
WQ A E
®Remove up to 6 in. overwash/spoil 115/
K C 1 Ditches to be Filled 1:3,000
Q Ditch Plugs I inch equals 250 feet
TECHNOLOGIES /mage source: usGsubanAr•eaHigh 250 125 0 250
Resolution Orrhoimagery, March 2002 Feet
KCI
ASSOCIAI FS Oi N(
.FFFI aMEMAL TECHNOLOGIES
AND CONSTRUCTION, INC.

#4, #7, and #8. The only remaining outlet that will allow water to leave the site will be through a
stabilized ditch plug outlet where Ditches #4 and #5 enter Ditch #6.
5.3.2 Scaled Schematic of Modifications
A diagram of the proposed restoration and enhancement actions is shown in Figure 13. It describes the
activities that will restore the site.
5.4 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Restoring natural vegetation will focus on establishing native wetland hardwood species in the entire
wetland. The majority of the area will receive species consistent with a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood
Forest community. Enhancement areas will be planted with targeted hardwood species to increase
species diversity. Populations of invasive species have also been identified and will be eliminated as
much as possible.
Restoration Plant Community
The restoration wetland will be planted as a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest Community using
the species described below, Approximately 436 trees per acre (10' x 10' spacing) will be planted to
achieve a mature survivability of three hundred twenty (320) trees per acre. The site will be planted with
1-gallon container stock instead of bare root trees to improve the overall rate of survivability. Plant
placement and groupings will be randomized during the restoration in order to create a more natural
appearance. Woody vegetation planting will take place during dormancy. Tree species to be planted may
consist of the following:
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipfera FAC
Water tupelo Nyssa aquatica OBL
Laurel oak Quercus laurifolia FACW
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata OBL
Swamp Chestnut oak Quercus michauxii FACW-
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda FACW
Willow oak Quercus phellos FACW-
The restoration area will be divided into two planting zones in order to target species to site conditions.
These zones are shown in Figure 14. Zone A will be planted with tree species with obligate or
facultative-wet designation and could include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), water tupelo (Nyssa
aquatica), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), and willow oak (Q.
phellos). Zone B will be planted with facultative species such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), and laurel oak (Q. laurifolia).
Wetland Enhancement
Enhancement plantings will consist of hardwood species with a obligate or facultative-wet designation,
because these existing wetlands already experience a frequent level of saturation. The species will likely
consist of the following:
Water tupelo Nyssa aquatica OBL
Laurel oak Quercus laurifolia FACW
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata OBL
26
NL�
Figure 14. Planting Plan
Planting Zone A Project Site Boundary
Planting Zone B 0* **/ New Hope Creek
N
® Enhancement Planting w�E
Level Spreader s
KC1:3,000
I inch equals 250 feet
TECHNOLOGIES hn-geSource: USGS Urban Area High 250 125 0 250
Resolution Orthoinu— March 2002 fee
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC

In the Bottomland Hardwood Community, the wetland will be enhanced with these species listed above at
a density of approximately 100 to 200 trees per acres. The Floodplain Pool Community will be planted at
the same density, but the trees will be placed only in the outer fringes of the site where ponding is less
frequent.
Invasive Species Management
The Brown Site has been affected by several nonnative plant species. One of the most significant
invaders is Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense); large thickets of the plant occupy the edges of the
proposed restoration site. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) have also spread into parts of the site. These species will be marked and treated with a
glyphosate herbicide. Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum) is also a pervasive nonnative plant in this
area. As much native grass cover will be retained during the construction process as possible to minimize
the amount of bare soil available to invasive plants.
6.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
A monitoring program will be implemented to observe the progress toward achieving mitigation goals
and objectives within the restored wetland areas. The site will be deemed successful once wetland
hydrology is established and vegetation success criteria are met.
6.1 Hydrology
Groundwater elevations will be monitored to evaluate the attainment of jurisdictional wetland hydrology
The reference wetland will also be monitored using the same procedures for comparative analysis.
Monitoring Procedure
Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data collected within
the project area and reference wetland. Automatic recording gauges will be established within restoration
areas at a density of one automatic well per four acres. Daily data will be collected from the automatic
gauges over the 5-year monitoring period following wetland construction.
Restoration Success Criteria
Wetland hydrology will be considered established if well data from the site indicate that the water table is
within 12 inches of the soil surface for 5% of the growing season during normal weather conditions. The
growing season was taken from NRCS climatic data for Durham County, which has the closest
meteorological station to the project site (Station NC312515). According to the NRCS, the growing
season is considered to be the period with a 50% probability that the daily minimum temperature is higher
than 28° F. The growing season for Durham County extends from March 24 to November 1 for a total of
222 days (USDA, NRCS 2003). Based on this growing season, success will be achieved at the project
site if the water table is within 12 inches of the soil surface for 1 1 days or more during the growing
season.
6.2 Vegetation
The success criteria for the planted species in the restoration areas will be based on survival and growth.
Beginning at the end of the first growing season, KCI will monitor vegetation for five years following the
planting.
Monitoring Procedure
Permanent monitoring plots (10 by 10 meters) will be established in the wetland restoration areas at a
density that will ensure 2% coverage of the total restoration acreage. Plots will be systematically located
28
to ensure even placement. Data will be collected at each plot for: total number of stems, species, percent
survival, height, estimated percent cover of all species, and evidence of insects, disease or browsing.
Restoration Success Criteria
Survival of planted species must be 320 stems/acre at the end of five years of monitoring. Non-target
species must not constitute more than 20% of the woody vegetation based on permanent monitoring plots.
6.3 Schedule / Reporting
Monitoring data will be collected annually for a period of five years or until success criteria are achieved.
Annual reports will be submitted to NCEEP and will document the monitored components of the
restoration plan (hydrology and vegetation) and include all collected data, analyses, and photographs.
Restoration of wetlands involves interpretation of collected information to devise a strategy that will
ultimately lead to a functional ecosystem. Minor variations in the results can be anticipated due to
unknown site conditions, inputs from outside the restoration site, regional climatic variations, or acts of
God, etc. Correspondingly, nurturing the site with regular management activities is considered necessary
to ensure that the goals and objectives of the project are met. These activities will be conducted
throughout the year and may include invasive species control or other management activities. If the
monitoring identifies failures in the project site, a remedial action plan will be developed to investigate
the causes of the failure and propose actions to rectify the problem.
29
7.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
McKerrow, A. 2003. North Carolina GAP Land Cover. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Gap
Analysis Project Office.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2005a. DRAFT March 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.htm
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2005b. Surface water classification. Last accessed 7/12/2005 at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.htmI
NCDENR, Geologic Survey. North Carolina Geology. Last accessed 11 /2/2005 at
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/geomap.htin
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Field indicators of
hydric soils in the United States, Version 5.9. Last accessed November 8, 2005 at
http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. Wetlands
Determination Table (WETS) for Station Durham, NC 2515. Last accessed February 2006 at
ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37063.txt
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1976. Soil survey of
Durham County, North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil survey of
Orange County, North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Urban hydrology for small
watersheds. Technical Release 55.
30
Appendix 1. Historical Aerial Photographs
2002
Brown Farm Historic Aerials 1982 to 2002
N KCI
? E
Project Site Boundary " ASSOCIATES OF NC
S
KC I 1:6,000
1 inch equals 500 feet
500 250 0 500
TECHNOLOGIES Fcct ,N 'Co STRUGI ON, INC'.°`'ES
Appendix 2. Correspondence
KC 1 1?.?,i.rr???, • tir k,.,,,.+? • sr.r.????? • (?,?????? ? ???,? M??:?,,r??w
Jur 6. 2000
Ms. Renee (ilcdhill-FarleN
Environmental Rc% ieN% ('oordinator - SHII( )
'3617 Mail Ser% ice Center
Raleigh. N(' 27699-4617
Attn: Juliana Ilockstra
Subject! Cultural Resources Review
brown Farrar Woland Restoration Project
Project Number 1204252
Dear hls. Ilockstra:
Please accept this information pertaining to the proposed Brown Wetland Restoration Project, which is
located approximately one mile east of the intersection of Frwin Road and Mt. Moriah Church Road
along the Orangc-Durham county line, as a submittal for cultural resources review hN the State Historic
I'reser\at ion OMice,
A portion of this property (reter to attached la}out) is currents under investigation as a wetland
restoration project ti,r the North Carolina FcosNstem I nhancement Program. Current vegetation types
include Agricultural Crop I-iclds. Riverbank Shruhlands, and Oak Bottomland Forest and Swamp Forest
according to the 2003 NC GAP land cover dataset. The proposed restoration work typicalIN involves
restoring h\drolog? and \egctation to a degraded or previously consented wetland site. Ditches that
presiousl\ drained the site \\ill he renuwed and a natural flood c\cle will he restored. No impacts to an\r
structures on the subject propcrtN are anticipatc(l.
Follm?ing the revie\? of the included documentation. please prosidc a determination regarding, anN
potential impacts to cultural resources associated Frith this project.
Please feel free to contact ntc at [phone]. cm. 141, should \ou have an\ questions or require and
further inti1rmatiou to process this request Thank you in ad\ ance fin sour assistance and attent
Sincerer .
Michael I3. Schlettel
Project Manager
Et I I I ( H\OI ?)(;1I ti vk ?., ?? k, , o ,,,
i
d}' d ?? 6 III
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
I'enr It Samdlx,L, Adnvn,ur-at-
Rlshacl I'. I ,tslri l;??ccmor
].Muth t I[c.ut,, S( rrt.tn
r'm, I)t bete ?ccrcen?
my 29, 2005
Michael B. Schlegel
KC1 Technologies
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Ufftcc of Archives and I listen'
Division of I Itstoncal Rcsouret:s
David Brook, Director
i
?II
Itc: Broxvii Farm Wetland Restoration, F,rwin and Mt. Moriah Church Reads, #12054252, Durham and ?
()range Counties, FR 05-1557
Dear %Ir. Schlegel:
't'hank you for your letter of duly 6, 2005, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project. 't'herefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments arc: made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Fistoric Preservation Act and the
Advison, Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 C'FR
Part 800.
't'hank Vou for your cooperation and consideration. I# you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact hence Gledhill-l"arley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely'
(J14cter Sandbeck
L)
U' ation
ADMINISTRATION 417 N Iti?nun ht« rct, Raltp;h M
RESTORATION X15 N PI int Strtet R Attp;h N(
1lhsunt St cct I(?Icilh, Nth
SURVEY &. PLANNING ;15N
?II

II

Mailing Addrces Tek hono/Fax
46l 1 0fai1 ticrvu- C cwo, RaktKh N( 27699 461' (719 711-4,63(711.8651
4617 At ad race C cntcr, Raleigh NC 2.699 4617 [phone]!715 001
461'7 Mad titnicc C tntcr, Balogh N(; 2?699-4617 [phone]/7,15 .4Wl

mmmmmmm-&?
ummmmwa ¦
K C; I f?c I?rIH • St {t?Il? kti • ScII?IItiI`, • ( ?ti11ttl IICI`. n1
II( II%t)It It?IIti
Juk IS, 2005
Mr. ( iar\ .lordan
I IS Dish and \Vildlite Sen ice
Raleigh Field 01'ficc
P.O_ Box 33726
Raleigh. N( 27636
Subject: Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Migraton Bird Treaty Act
Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site
Project Number 1205-1252
Dcar Mr. Jordan
Please accept this information pertaining to the proposed Rromi Farm Wetland Restoration Site, which is
located approximately one mile east of the intersection of Erwin Road and Mt. Moriah Church Road
along the Orange-Durham county line, as a submittal for review of the Endangered Species Act, Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, and Migratory Bird Freaty Act b\ the l IS Fish and Wildlife Service.
A portion of this propertN (refer to attached layout) is currentIN under investigation as a wetland
restoration project for the North Carolina Ecosystem I;nhancement Program. The current land use in the
project area is agricultural crop fields, piedmont botton land hardwood forest, and piedmont levee forest.
The restoration would improve water quality and wildlife habitat and provide greater protection for
aquatic ecosystems from surrounding agricultural lands. 'I his type of' work typically involves restoring
wetland hydrology and reforestation. fhc restoration will till the field ditches and allow the adjacent
depressional areas to become saturated. As part of the environmental documentation process (Categorical
Exclusion). coordination with the IfSFWS is requested for compliance with the F,ndangered Species Act,
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Migratory Bird I rcaty Act.
t=ollowin,-, the review of the included documentation, please provide a determination of the potential
effects to endangered species, w ildlife, or migratory birds associated with this project.
Please feel tree to contact rile at [phone], ext 141, should you have any questions or require any
further information to process this request. I'hank you in advance Ior your assistance and attention.
Sincerely.
Michael B Schlegel
Project Manager
F:(-1 11.OI\OI_(It;ILti l ?,ni
mmmmmmmrv
mmmv*?
?N?
mmmwmwmb?
K ?4 I l'V(,I-,IIR, • ill Kv1 010, • S( If NIP,I • ? (???Iltl?c ?lvvv(?Iltti
July 6, 2005
Linda Pearsall, Program Ilead
North Carolina Natural Ileritagc Program
1601 Mail Service C"enter
Raleigh, NC 27,329
Subject: Natural I leritage Revicw
Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Project
Project Number 12054252
Dear Ms. Pearsall:
Please accept this inti01-ntation pertaining to the proposed Brown Wetland Restoration Project, which is
located approximately one mile east of the intersection of Lrwin Road and Mt. Moriah Church Road
along the Orange-Durharn county line, as a submittal tier natural area and rare species review by the North
Carolina Natural I leritage Program.
A portion of this property (refer to attached layout) is currently under investigation as a wetland
restoration project fix the North Carolina Fcosystcm Enhancement Program Current vegetation types
include. Agricultural Crop Fields, Riverbank Shrublands, and Oak Bottomland Forest and Swamp Forest
according to the 2003 NC GAI' land cover dataset. The proposed restoration work typically involves
restoring hydrology and v°egetation to a degraded or previously converted wetland site. Ditches that
previousl\ drained the site will be removed and a natural flood cycle will be restored. No impacts to any
structures on the subject property are anticipated,
Following the revie?? of the included documentation, please provide it determination regarding any
potential impacts to rare species or natural areas associated with this project_
Please feel tree to contact me at [phone], ext. 14I, should you have any questions or require any
further Information to process this request. Thank you in advance for your assistance and attention.
Sincerely.
Michael B. Schlegel
Project Manager

U , IV
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
July 11, 2005
Mr. Michael 11. Schlegel
KCI Technologics
Landmark ('enter 11. Suite= 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, N(' 27609
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Subject: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Project; Erwin and Mt. Moriah Church roads, Orange
and Durham counties
Project No. 12054252
Dear Mr. Schlegel:
The Natural I leritage Program has no record ot'rare species within a mile ofthe project area;
howcv'cr, within 112-111i1e downstream of the project area is the MOL111t Moriah Bottom lands
natural area. "I his is ari unprotected site considered of•Regional significance. A copy of 'a report
on tilt site is enclosed.
You nary wish to check the Natural 1 {eritagc Program database website at -_WWW.ncn}11)_01-L"' tier
a listing of rare plants and animals and signiticarit natural connnunitics in the county'and on the
topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have:
questions or need further in1`orrnation,
Sincerely',

liarrv 1:. l,c(irand, Jr., %oolo?_'ist
Natural I Icritagc Prourant
1`1closurc
I IV 1./htI
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 One
Phone: [phone] • FAX: [phone] Internet wnvw.enr.state. nc us NorthCarohna
An Equal Opportunity • Affirmative Actien Employer - 50 °o Pecycied • 10 % Pcs' Consumer Paper Alaturally
?v
KCI F- t(W?l I R, • SI K% I l OR,, • St 11 \ I 11, t ti
July 15, 2005
Ms. Shannon Deaton
Habitat Conservation Program Manager
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Division oflnland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Subject: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site
Project Number 12054252
Dear Ms. Deaton:

Please accept this information pertaining to the proposed Brown Faun Wetland Restoration Site, which is
located approximately one mile east of the intersection of Erwin Road and Mt. Moriah Church Road
along the Orange-Durham county line, as a submittal for the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act review
by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
A portion of this property (refer to attached layout) is currently under investigation as a wetland
restoration project fior the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program File current land use in the
project area is agricultural crop fields, piedmont bottomland hardwood forest, and piedmont levee forest.
The restoration would improve water quality and wildlife habitat alt(] provide greater protection for
aquatic ecosystems from surrounding agricultural lands. This type of work typically involves restoring
wetland hydrology and reforestation. The restoration will fill the field ditches and allow the adjacent
depressional areas to became saturated. As part of the environmental documentation process (Categorical
Exclusion), coordination with the NCWRC and the FISFWS is requested for compliance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act.
Following the review of the included documentation, please provide a determination of' the potential
effects to wildlife associated with this project.
Please feel free to contact me at [phone], ext. 141, should you have any questions or require any
further information to process this request. 'thank you in advance for your assistance and attention.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Schlegel
Project Manager
K( 1 I L(TINO LO(iILS

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton. I?xecutive Director
8 August 2005
Mr. Michael Schlegel, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Subject: fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site, Orange-
Durham Counties, North Carolina. Project Number 12054252
Dear Mr. Schlegel:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
document. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions ofthe Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Slat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). and North Carolina General Statutes
(G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The North Carolina Fcosystem lrihancement Program is currently investigating a wetland
restoration site along New Hope Greek in the Cape Fear River basin. There are records for the state
significantly rare golden handed skipper (Aulochlon callus) and chameleon lamprnussel (L(II?IJ)silic sp.) in
New Hope Creek. Current land use is agriculture and forest. The project would involve filling field
ditches to restore wetland hydrology and reforestation.
'f he proposed restoration project should improve water quality and aquatic habitat. We do not
anticipate: significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources from the proposed prollect.
'I hank you for the opportunity to review this project. Ifyou require further assistance, please
contact our office at [phone].
Sincer{ely..
Shari L. Brvant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
cc: Sarah McRae, NHP
Ryan Heise. WRC
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Appendix 3. Project Site Photographs
I__- - . _L-jam 1,,1d
EXISTING CONDITIONS
rom

Looking south at Ditch #3 draining water
Existing wetland in the southern portion of
Cry: ??RS.
the southern portion of the site.
portion of the site.
•? ill f? t ??'? f
s s-. ? ^A-+? r W ? ?FtEn. -?.?-may- ?R.;"Q rt R, 4
RIA
Awe,
Existing wetland in the northcentral portion of the site.
Appendix 4. USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technolo=,ies, Inc. County: Orange
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: lA Non-Wet
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Festuca arundinacea 3 FAC- 9.
2. Tripsacum dactyloides 3 FAC+ 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: >30 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic D. sty rudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Ap 10YR 5/3 1, Imgr
3-7 B W 1 10YR 6/3 10YR 3/6 c2d 1, 1 msbk
7-11 BW2 2.5YR 6/4 2.5Y 6/3 c2d 10YR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
11-13 BW3 10YR 5/4 2.5Y 6/2 c2d 10YR 3/3 c2d 1, 3/3 concretions
13-24 BW4 IOYR 5/4 10YR 6/3 c2d 10YR 5/6 fld sil, 1 fsbk
24-30 C IOYR 6/2 10YR 514 10YR 5/6 sic], concretions, massive
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCl Technologies, Inc. County: Orange_
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 1B - Wetland
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica I FACW 9.
2. Salix nigra I OBL 10.
3. Campsis radicans 4 FAC 11.
4. Saururus cernuus 3 OBL 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
Swollen Buttresses.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other x Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available x Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 6-18 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Variant Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Confirm
Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Al 10YR 6/2 1, Irngr
3-8 Bg_ 10YR 6/2 10YR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
8-18 B1 1OYR 4/4 10YR 6/4 c2d 7.5YR 4/4 flp sil, Imsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ponded for long to very long duration.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCl Technologies Inc. County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 2A - Non-Wet
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Festuca arundinacea 3 FAQ- 9.
2. Juncus eyusus 3 FACW+ 10.
3. Tripsacum dactyloides 3 FAC+ 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 66%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 26 (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loan Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Ap 10YR 5/4 sil, lmgr
3-7 Bwl 10YR 5/4 7.5YR 4/4 fld sil, lmsbk
IOYR 3/6 fld
7-11 Bw2 10YR 513 10YR 3/3 c2d sil, 3/3 concretions, lnisbk
7.5YR 4/4 c2d
11-21 Bw3 10YR 3/4 2.5Y 6/2 c2d 7.5YR 4/4 flp sil, Imsbk
21-30 Bw4 10YR 3/4 2.5Y 6/2 m2d sil, many concretions,
1 msbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Site is ditches.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes_ No X
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technologies, Inc. County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 2B -Wetland
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica I FACW 9.
2. Cephalanthus occidentalis 3 OBL 10.
3. Saururus cernuus 3 OBL 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
Trees Buttressed
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other x Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available x Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
x Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 24 (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Area is frequently flooded, but dry currently.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): _Fluvaguentic Endoaquepts Confirm
Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 Al 10YR 6/2 1OYR 6/6 flf 7.5YR 4/6 fld 1, massive
6-13 Bgt 10YR 6/2 10YR 6/4 c2d 7.5YR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
13-17 Bjz2 10YR 6/2 7.5YR 4/6 c2d sicl, lmsbk
17-30 Bi 10YR 6/2 10YR 4/8 c2d sil, lmsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ponds.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
Appendix 5. USACE Approved Wetland Boundary

'
THIS CERTIFIES THAT THIS COPY OF THIS PLAT ACCURATELY
DEPICTS THE BOUNDARY OF THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404
. OF THE CLEAN WiATcR ACT AS DETERMINED BY THE
UNDERSIGNED ON THIS DATE. UNLESS THERE IS A CHANCE W
THE LAW OR OR OUR PUBLISHED REGULATIONS, THIS
DETERMINATION OF SECTION 404 JURISDICTION MAY BE RELIED
UPON FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS FROM THIS
DATE. THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE UTILIZING THE 1987
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL'
• NAME:
•
TITLE:
• 14 1 %j

ZOO r
-?
"
+ ,
DATE: l

All), ZLbSZ 13(3 -

A?
ALL WETLAND AND NON WETLAND AREAS SHOWN HEREON ARE
. WITHIN BROWN PROPERTY; DEED BOOK 1312, PACE 52.
AREA OUTSIDE OF THE BROWN PROPERTY NOT EVALUATED FOR
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
. THE BASIS OF THE COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON IS THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN
DATUM 1983.
. ALL WETLAND FLAGS AND DATA POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE
FIELD BY CONVENTIONAL SURVEY METHODS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER
. AND OCTOBER 2005.
,1.)(1411 ?7_ .L1f?,i,1? ?l_!) (,TT-1- 7-F1;
11 MW
r jj T! ?
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
W4-4 806656.48 20
W4-7 805617.93 20
W4-8 B06527.96 20
W4-1 OA 806604.54 2000920,10
W4-108 806602.06 20
W4-I1 806520.06 2f
W4-12 806635.48 20
W4-13 806633.51 20
W4-14 806630.30 20
W4-15 806637.49 20
W4-IBA 806625.87 2(
W4-17A 806607.68 20
W4-16A 806529.36 20
W4-15A 806491.28 20
W4-14A 806452.75 20
W4-13A 806465.71 20
W4-12A 805514.07 2001240.55
W4-11A 806509.01 2001262.72
W4-10A 806604.54 2000920.10
W4-9A 805325.56 2001190.76
W4-BA 806349.12 2001117,50
W4-7.A 506342.25 2001054.00
W4-6A 806344.62 2001010.81
W4-5A 506316.34 2000927.35
W4-4A 806318,10 200088598
W4-3A 806386.21 2000870.51
W4-2A 806476.29 2000860.40
W4-TA 806533.61 2000873.30
W4-1 805564.06 2000878.59
W4-2 806597.84 2000861.54
I, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS
DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM A SURVEY MAD
SUPERVISION, THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYFDi
INDICATED THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS CALEjit
GREATER THAN 1110,000; THAT THIS MAP DOES N 1
AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY 5URVEY AND HAS NOT BaN'
IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30 AS AMENDE0.XTM
ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER AN SE)
24TH DAy.+.?F JANUARY, 2006. i n1? J
TH CAROLINA REGISTRATION NUMB
JAMES M. GELLENTHIN

7 f..27
N DEED BOOK 32Z PAGE 483

'FOUND RON PIN _ 653eA8 E NON-JURISNC IDNAL
_X18.99'
N=807440.63
1
E
=
999729.21
'
pi
m
ELEV=253.91 lil b
. WI WI-6 j.
d
,
AA yR_ ?.
s\ w1_3 W1_7
'.
\
-2:...
WI-19
1-B
W1-1B WI-9
W2-2
1A
YA_1
WI-10
?? 19 WI-11
W2-1
W2-3 - W2-13 0!
W2-4 x1
W2-12 `
WI-I6 WI-12
W2-7 FOUND IRON PIN
W2-11 (EASTERLY MOST '
W2-8 PROPERTY CORNER OF? 1-135
W2- PARCEL 7.26,10)
' W1 3
N2-1 WI-14 \
N=8(16921.92
J
E=2000065.29 \
'
ELEV=25562
•?

Z ggfA
N/F BRDIIN B£NJA411N D .01
D££0 BOOK 246, PAGE 1100
d
?o911 iR9?}f1f J7 P
L/ o
e ?aoe ?V r
,,y!
CJS?QL'??? `6?
? p1 n
a
a
3864 ?? z =
X10
ra?eacaa` ??```?
/7JYILrtrr11U11j1',

\
\ Zo
\L
S \\RwC F
S
\oA`
a
E
\
1
to
1
Z25-706
N17* SROJW DA VD ET At
DEED BOOK IJ12. PACE 52
Al-5
-6
w3-9
W3-15 Al-7
W3-17 W3-7
w3-6
W3_19
NON-JOR1591CR01kl-? \ \
i` x.57/59 ? •
W3-3
726..12C w3_ 2
N/F ROSE MELINDA LEIGH RETCH
DEED BOON 2009 PAGE 388 M
/ W3-8A
W3-7A
1
N
t/ e
1-J w E
S

H
•,\ `?eR,?
r
??y

'
1 eF

w4-12
W4-B 4-

1 -
W4-7 W4-11
1 w4 1OA W4-109
1
ii?2H
1
1
4 /
W4-15
W4-180.
W4-2 W4-17A /
2A$ W4 I B
W4-1A W4-16A W4-12A %
W4-11A.'
W4-15A
i4-2A
_W4-14A W4-13A
W4-3A
W4-16A
W4-4A -- W 4-6A -7A W4-8 W4-9A ;
4-5A
./..
3-4A /•
•
N3-5A ?
1
•?.1!g53
• rr?-za
q3-4
A
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
1 ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
20 W3-10A
C I 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 220
ASSOCIATES OF RALEIGH, NC 27609
I;'054,`';ill NORTH CAROLINA PHONE [phone] ' FAX [phone]
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
w1-1 50723B.80 2000000.40
WI-2 807235.45 2000023.35
WI-3 807243.96 2000044.11
W1-4 807251,70 200004125
W1-5 807297.22 20OD101.79
W1-6 807291.54 2000121.57
W1-7 807251.73 2000093.95
WR-8 807222.87 2000090.85
WI-9 807173.05 2000091.28
WI-10 807111.90 2000111,47
WI-11 807093.30 2000131,22
W1-12 807050.65 2000184.35
W1-13 806958.93 20DO185,60
W1-13.5 806961.17 2000175.92
WI-14 806939.75 2000144.75
WI-16 807029.79 2000103.24
WI-17 607120.84 2000042.05
w1-18 507177.84 1999969,87
WI-19 807206.79 1999995.77
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
W2-1 806760.60 2000313.83
W2-2 806793.44 2000289.66
W2-3 806754,45 20OD262.57
W2-4 806743.10 20OD259.07
W2-5 806755.98 20OD294.01
W2-6 806745,16 2000300.33
W2-7 806730.39 20002B0.2Z
W2-B 806706.79 2000285.50
W2-9 806711.93 2000298.69
W2-10 806696.90 2000329.55
WZ-11 B06721.35 2000324.92
W2-12 606740.93 20OD316.70
W2-13 806757.77 2000323.98
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
AI-1 506536.79 2000540.31
Al-2 805605.00 2000553.11
A1-3 806658.65 2000605.91
A1-4 806654.30 2000617.85
A1-5 806594.64 2000572.96
A1-6 806519,44 2000559.27
A1-7 806470.23 2000541.39
W3-7 806445.38 2000563.49
W3-6 806393.96 2000579.93
W3-5 806306.64 2000623.85
W3-4 806284.29 2000619.78
W3-3 806273.70 20OD806,29
W3-2 806259.85 2000615.17
W3-1 805263.40 2000624.80
W3-IA 806275.03 2000644.05
W3-2A 806297.30 2000672.98
W3_3A 506263.69 2000732.54
W3-4A 80625353 2000777.50
W3-5A 806222.25 2000782.35
W3-6A 805149.77 2000716.43
W3-7A 806153.47 2000707.85
W3-BA 806196.91 2000715.23
W3-9A 606237.22 2000717.67
W3-10A 806252.20 2000565,28
W3-20 805251.53 2000612.92
W3-19 806326.45 2000551.66
W3-17 806458,61 2000493.48
W3-16 806472.30 2000501.31
W3-9 806480.39 2000507.66
W3-8 805494.45 2000522.49
LFGEND:
WETLAND
NON-WETLAND
DATA POINT
GRAPHIC SCALE
200 0 100 200
1 INCH = 200 FEET
WETLAND BOUNDARY PLAT
FOR
BROWN
MT. MORIAH ROAD
ORANGE & DURHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINI
4HTu 3CALE! SNEGT:
.oAN 121 1AgFI? J" rro' ?i or i
12-
nt
c
m
N
E
-
?I
c
'a
m
Appendix 6. Water Budget
Brown Farm - Existing Conditions
D Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change In Excess Wetland
1941 P SI * Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 1.54 0.03 0.00 0.14 0.03 1.04 0.08 0.28 0.00 0.28
February 1.26 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.02 1.04 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.31
March 3.00 0.45 0.00 0.51 0.45 1.04 0.08 1.37 0.00 1.68
April 2.01 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 1.04 0.08 -1.71 0.00 0.00
May 1.76 0.72 0.00 4.06 0.72 1.04 0.08 -3.42 0.00 0.00
June 1.85 0.00 0.00 5.54 0.00 1.04 0.08 -4.81 0.00 0.00
July 5.24 0.37 0.00 6.47 0.37 1.04 0.08 -2.35 0.00 0.00
August 0.91 0.00 0.00 5.71 0.00 1.04 0.08 -5.92 0.00 0.00
September 1.72 0.00 0.00 4.54 0.00 1.04 0.08 -3.94 0.00 0.00
October 0.85 0.08 0.00 3.06 0.08 1.04 0.08 -3.33 0.00 0.00
November 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.04 0.08 -1.60 0.00 0.00
December 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 1.04 0.08 1.69 0.00 1.69
Annual Totals ?i , I I r,r it II r s41i+ i 4;I 0 Ipl n'Rt
Avg. Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1956 P SI * GI PET So Go Loss to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.04 0.63 -0.56 0.00 0.00
February 5.62 0.99 0.00 0.63 0.99 1.04 0.63 3.32 0.00 3.32
March 3.78 1.16 0.00 0.99 116 1.04 0.63 1.13 0.00 4.45
April 3.60 0.79 0.00 2.03 0.79 1.04 0.63 -0.10 0.00 4.35
May 2.68 1.16 0.00 3.98 1.16 1.04 0.63 -2.97 0.00 1.38
June 2.90 1.32 0.00 5.65 1.32 1.04 0.63 -4.42 0.00 0.00
July 6.08 0.74 0.00 6.16 0.74 1.04 0.63 -1.75 0.00 0.00
August 3.23 0.02 0.00 5.45 0.02 1.04 0.63 -3.89 0.00 0.00
September 4.94 1.67 0.00 3.62 1.67 1.04 0.63 -0.35 0.00 0.00
October 5.34 0.32 0.00 2.32 0.32 1.04 0.63 1.36 0.00 1.36
November 1,441 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 1.04 0.63 -1.03 0.00 0.32
December 3.22 0.03 0.00 0.88 0.03 1.04 0.63 1.71 0.00 2.04
Annual Totals 4413 8.17 0.00 32.70 8.17 0.00 7.53
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change In Excess Wetland
1975 P SI * GI PET So Go Loss to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 7.26 1.25 0.00 0.34 1.25 1.04 1.55 4.33 0.00 4.33
February 3.85 0.61 0.00 0.52 0.61 1.04 1.55 0.74 0.00 5.07
March 7.65 1.29 0.00 0.73 1.29 1.04 1.55 4.33 4.01 5.40
April 1.55 0.03 0.00 1.81 0.03 1.04 1.55 -2.84 0.00 2.56
May 5.64 0.52 0.00 3.99 0.52 1.04 1.55 -0.93 0.00 1.62
June 2.39 0.43 0.00 5.41 0.43 1.04 1.55 -5.61 0.00 0.00
July 8.65 4.15 0.00 5.65 4.15 1.04 1.55 0.41 0.00 0.41
August 1.13 0.01 0.00 5.88 0.01 1.04 1.55 -7.34 0.00 0.00
September 11.7 6.75 0.00 3.95 6.75 1.04 1.55 5.16 0.00 5.16
October 1.23 0.01 0.00 2.38 0.01 1.04 1.55 -3.74 0.00 1.42
November 3.06 1.67 0.00 1.13 1.67 1.04 1.55 -0.65 0.00 0.77
December 3.6 0.78 0.00 0.26 0.78 1.04 1.55 1.79 0.00 2.56
Annual Totals 57.71 17.50 0.00 32.05 17.50 0.00 18.57
Water Budget
Existing Conditions
9
8
7
d
r
U
C
d
E 5
0
m
eo
w
3
2
1
0
LIS
act act ??r Qc` a? ??e ???? ae?
P oe?
SeQ? oe? o??
?0 oa,

O?
Growing Season
March 24th - Nov. 1st

Maximum Capacity
\ (Ground Surface) \

12" Below
&
¦ \ EGr and Surfa

N

1.8 in. -Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
5.4 in - Maximum
Capacity/Soil Surface
- + - Dry Year (1941)
f • -Average Year (1956)
- -A - Wet Year (1975)

Rrnwn Farm - Prnnnced Cnnditionn
D Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess wetland
1941 P SI' GI PET So Go Loss to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 1.54 0.03 0.00 0.14 0.03 1.04 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36
February 1.26 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.02 1.04 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.47
March 3.00 0.45 0.00 0.51 0.45 1.04 0.00 1.45 0.00 1.92
April 2.01 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 1.04 0.00 -1.63 0.00 0.29
May 1.76 0.72 0.00 4.06 0.72 1.04 0.00 -3.34 0.00 0.00
June 1.85 0.00 0.00 5.54 0.00 1.04 0.00 -4.73 0.00 0.00
July 5.24 0.37 0.00 6.47 0.37 1.04 0.00 -2.27 0.00 0.00
August 0.91 0.00 0.00 5.71 0.00 1.04 0.00 -5.84 0.00 0.00
September 1.72 0.00 0.00 4.54 0.00 1.04 0.00 -3.86 0.00 0.00
October 0.85 0.08 0.00 3.06 0.08 1.04 0.00 -3.25 0.00 0.00
November 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.04 0.00 -1.52 0.00 0.00
December 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 1.04 0.00 1.77 0.00 1.77
Annual Total 1<74 1 51 0 on :n ua I ai o un o un
Avg. Year Water Inputs Water Out Uts Change In Excess Wetland
1956 P SI ` GI PET So Go Loss to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06
February 5.62 0.99 0.00 0.63 0.99 1.04 0.00 3.95 0.00 4.01
March 3.78 1.16 0.00 0.99 1.16 1.04 0.00 1.75 0.00 5.77
April 3.60 0.79 0.00 2.03 0.79 1.04 0.00 0.53 0.00 6.30
May 2.68 1.16 0.00 3.98 1.16 1.04 0.00 -2.34 0.00 3.96
June 2.90 1.32 0.00 5.65 1.32 1.04 0.00 -3.79 0.00 0.17
July 6.08 0.74 0.00 6.16 0.74 1.04 0.00 -1.12 0.00 0.00
August 3.23 0.02 0.00 5.45 0.02 1.04 0.00 -3.26 0.00 0.00
September 4.94 1.67 0.00 3.62 1.67 1.04 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.28
October 5.34 0.32 0.00 2.32 0.32 1.04 0.00 1.98 0.00 2.26
November 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 1.04 0.00 -0.41 0.00 1.86
December 3.22 0.03 0.00 0.88 0.03 1.04 0.00 2.34 0.00 4.20
Annual Total 44.13 8.17 0.00 32.70 8.17 0.00 0.00
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1975 P SI " GI PET So Go Loss to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 7.26 1.25 0.00 0.34 1.25 1.04 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88
February 3.85 0.61 0.00 0.52 0.61 1.04 0.00 2.29 0.37 7.80
March 7.65 1.29 0.00 0.73 1.29 1.04 0.00 5.88 5.88 7.80
April 1.55 0.03 0.00 1.81 0.03 1.04 0.00 -1.30 0.00 6.50
May 5.64 0.52 0.00 3.99 0.52 1.04 0.00 0.61 0.00 7.12
June 2.39 0.43 0.00 5.41 0.43 1.04 0.00 -4.06 0.00 3.05
July 8.65 4.15 0.00 5.65 4.15 1.04 0.00 1.96 0.00 5.01
August 1.13 0.01 0.00 5.88 0.01 1.04 0.00 -5.79 0.00 0.00
September 113 6.75 0.00 3.95 6.75 1.04 0.00 6.71 0.00 631
October 1.23 0.01 0.00 2.38 0.01 1.04 0.00 -2.19 0.00 4.52
November 3.06 1.67 0.00 1.13 1.67 1.04 0.00 0.89 0.00 5.41
December 3.6 0.78 0.00 0.26 0.78 1.04 0.00 3.34 0.95 7.80
Annual Total 57.71 17.50 0.00 32.05 17.50 0.00 0.00
Note: A retention of 0.2 feet (2.4 inches) of surface water is assumed based on the creation of microtopography during wetland restoration.
9
8
7
ci? 6
m
s
v
c
N
E 5
0
co 4
c
?o
m
3 3
2
1
0
Water Budget
Proposed Conditions
Growing Season

r March 24th - Nov. 1st

Maximum Capacity
/
(2.4 in. Above Ground Surface)

?l 1 /

¦' . 1 1 \ /
1 1 \ A

' 1 / 1 I

l '
t
'
12" Below
l 1
??
Ground Surface 1 1
1 1 -

Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
7.8 in - Maximum
Capacity at 2.4 inches'
above soil surface
Ground Surface
1.8 in. - Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
- Dry Year (1941)
- f - -Average Year (1956)
- -A - Wet Year (1975)

Appendix 7. Soil Profile Description
Detailed Soils Investigation and Mapping for the Brown Site
For the past 100 years, the soils on the Brown site have been altered by a ditch/spoil drainage system to
prepare the land for cultivation. The primary ditch/spoil system to the north borders the site and
depending on the size of the storm, diverts floodwaters either back to New Hope Creek or onto the site.
During larger storm events, floodwaters pass through the ditch/spoil system via diversions conveniently
placed at regularly spaced intervals and then flow overland across the site through the secondary lateral
surface water ditches, which in turn are connected to the primary outlet ditch/spoil system to the south.
The secondary lateral ditches are spaced approximately every 50 ft and the spoil was spread between the
ditches to shed water to the drainage system. The landscape alterations have created a complex hydric soil
mosaic on the landscape between the ditches and appear to create conditions necessary for overwash to be
deposited at various locations on-site during storm events. It is apparent that these historic events have
reshaped the floodplain and the hydric soil-forming processes on the site, but have not altered the forested
areas to the north or the south that arc still in-line with the natural flood water flow direction.
The Orange/Durham County Soil Survey has classified the soils underlying the site as Chewacla loarn.
Based on field results, KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. (KCI) has remapped and reclassified the
soils as primarily Wehadkee (Fine-loamy, mixed, active nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts). In
areas of frequent overwash, the soil is classified as a Wehadkee variant, because of the sediment
deposition and/or fill from man-made alterations. Some pedons have recent layers of overwash up to 20
inches thick that are loamy and variable in color as indicated by the range of characteristics for the Ap
and A horizons of the Wehadkee series. The Wehadkee variant classification is transitory between the
Wehadkee soils and the wetter phase of the Chewacla series. The Wehadkee series is listed as a hydric
soil due to saturation for a significant period during the growing season and is in accordance with the
federal, state, and county hydric soils list.
This reclassification is based on our findings obtained from a detailed soils investigation. This detailed
soils investigation was conducted by augering numerous soil borings across the site and classifying the
soils in accordance with Soil Taxonomy. To verify the soil mapping units, five soil pits 18 inches deep
followed by auger borings were advanced on-site and detailed soil descriptions were prepared for the
vertical soil profile (see the following figure, Soil Descriptions with Soil Pit Numbers). These five soil
profile descriptions share similar characteristics that have influenced the reclassification. The soil profile
descriptions were prepared to highlight the visible soil alterations due to overwash, man-made ditching
system and the consequent spoil associated with the drainage that is identified in the surface horizons on
the site. This ditching network is also observed in the 2002 aerial photograph. The soils have primarily
been buried by 10 to 17 inches of loamy textured materials that are variable in color, but occur within the
• range of characteristics of the Ap and A horizons. Furthermore, a more detailed analysis of the
stratification of the overwash was conducted to show the redoximorphic features that developed due to
the horizontal stratification. The Bw horizon is variable in color and the C horizon is a massive
compacted horizon that occurs above the buried solum. The 10 to 17 inches of soil material is a result of
overbank flooding and excavated spoil materials spread on the site. The profile descriptions of the 10-17
inch horizons indicate the development of the following due to a fluctuating water table: soil color (Bw),
iron concretions greater than 3mm within the upper 3 inches, and redoximorphic features. The site is,
- however, sufficiently drained to prevent low chroma colors from forming.
The asterisk that appears on the following soil descriptions indicates stable horizons that appear to have
been developed naturally over time by natural soil-forming processes. The horizons above the asterisk
appear to be overburden, which have multiple stratified horizons with little or no structure and differing
colors and textures. Based on the information presented for the stable horizons designated with an
asterisk, these soils show relic saturation and relic hydric soils below the overwash/spoil. Additionally,
r
during the winter and spring the soils have stored sufficient moisture to show a chroma 2 matrix across
the site at 10 to 12 inches below the surface. However, during the summer and fall when the drainage
system and evapotranspiration are at their peak these chroma 2 matrix colors become a chroma 2.5 or 3.
Steven F. Stokes, LSS
Licensed Soil Scientist
Wo
U
AL
Profile Descriptions with Soil Pit Numbers
-i.
0 SP 1 Project Site Boundary
0SP 2 Delineated Wetland (3.32 acres)
0 SP 3 Drained Hydric Soils (27.46 acres)
N
W-<� e
KC1
ASSOCIATES F NC
0 SP 4
s
C I
0 SP 5
1:3,000
1 inch equals 250 feet
TECHNOLOGIESImage
Source: USGS Urban Area High 250
Resolution Orihoimagery, March 2002
125 0
2Su ENVriONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
Pecs AND CONSTRUCTION, INC.

MENOMMM-`
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF
NORM CARMN& PA
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Client: NCEEP Date: September 15, 2005
Project: Brown Farn3 Mitigation Site Project #: 12054252
County: Orangc/Durham State: NC
Location: Mt. Moriah Church Road Site/Lot: SP # I
Soil Series: Wchadkee Variant
Soil Classification: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
AWT: 42" SHWT: 0-11" Slope: 0-2% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Permeability: Moderate to Moderately slow
Vegetation: Native grasses and sedges
Borings terminated at 62 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH (IN) MATRIX moTI'LES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE 130UNDARY NOTES
A 0-3 10YR 5/4 sil massive fr as Common 3mm concretions
Bwl 3-4.5 10YR 5/4 5YR 4,14 cl I lmsbk fr cs
7.5YR 5/6 C2P
Bw2 4.5-6 I OYRS/4 I I fsbk fl- cs
CI 6-111 I0YR4/4 2.5Y6/3 c2f sl massive fr cs Man Fe masses IOYR 3/3
*Abl 11-15 10YR3/2 2.5Y 5/2 c2d 1 massive to If r fr cs
Ab2 15-21 10YR 3/2 2.5Y 5/2 c2d I I n3sbk fi cs
Bbl 21-29 10YR 4/2 10YR6/1 c2d I Icsbk tY cs stick
Bbl 2948 IOYR 4/2 10YR 6/1 sl I msbk f. cs
Cb 48-62 10YR 4/2 6/10Y c2 cl massive fir cs I OYR 3/3 Fe masses, clay lenses

COMMENTS:
0-11" geologically recent layers of overwash and/or old spoil that is loamy in texture and variable in color
* indicates consistent buried horizon without ovcrwash
Meets wetland indicators for hydric soil: Condition f(2) & h in horizon Ap and Ahl
Waypoint 46: N35° 58'01.3"/WO78° 59'44.7"
DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE: 9/15/2005
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
WWIH CAROIJNA, PA
Client: NCEEP Date: September 15, 2005
Project: Brown Farm Mitigation Site Project #: 12054252
County: Orange/Durham State: NC
Location: Mt.Moriah Church Road Site/Lot: SP # 2
Soil Series: Wehadkee Variant
Soil Classification: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaqucpts
AWT: >60" SHWT: 17" Slope: 0-2% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Permeability: Moderate to Moderately slow
Vegetation: Native grasses and sedges
Borings terminated at 60 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH (IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES
A 0-2 1 OYR 513 sl fr as
Bwl 2-4 10YR5/3 7.5YR4/4fld sl EIfsbk f. cs
Bw2 4-6 I OYRS/3 7.5YR 3/3 c2d 1 fr cs Common 3mni concretions
7.5YR 4/4 c2d Man Fe masses I OYR 3/3
Cl 6-13 2.5Y 6/3 I OYR 4/4 m2d I-cl massive fr cs Man Fe masses IOYR 3/3
C2 13-17 2.5Y 6/3 I OYR 4/3 m2d 1-cl massive fr cs massive breaking to linsbk
5YR 4/6 fl
*Ab I 17-23 I OYR 4/3 2.5Y 6/2 c I d 1 I msbk fr cs I OYR 2/2Fe masses
Bwb 23-29 10YR 3/2 2.5Y 6/2 1 Imsbk fi- cs
IQYR 5/3
Bbl 29-41 IOYR 5/1 7.5YR 3/4 fl cl Imsbk fr cs 10YR 2/2 Fe masses
Charcoal pieces
Bbl 4146 10YR 5/2 7.5YR 5/6 ml sl Ifsbk fi- cs
IOYR 6/6 fl
Cb 46-60 10YR 511 7.5YR 5/6 ntl sc massive fi Man 5mm concretions
IOYR 6/6 fl Man Fc masses

COMMENTS:
0-17" geologically recent layers of overwash and/or old spoil that is loamy in texture and variable in color
* indicates consistent buried horizon with overwash
Meets wetland indicators ror hydric soil: Condition f(2) & h in horizons Bw2 and Bwb
Waypoint 45: N35° 58'00.6"/WO78° 59'51.3"
DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE: 9/15/2005
W-Mmoran-
KC I
AOSSOHCIA? PA
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Client: NCEEP Date: September 15, 2005
Project: Brown Farm Mitigation Site Project #: 12054252
County: Orange/Durham State: NC
Location: Mt. Moriah Church Road Site/Lot: SP # 3
Soil Series: Wchadkcc Variant
Soil Classification: Finc-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaqucpts
AWT: >60" SHWT: 14" Slope: 0-2% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Permeability: Moderate to Moderately slow
Vegetation: Native grasses and sedges
Borings terminated at 60 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH (IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES
A 0-3 10YR 5/3 fsl I m r fr as Common 3mm concretions
Bw 3-6 10YR 5/3 5YR 4/4 fl I Imsbk fr es Man 3nun concretions
IOYR 3/2 f2f
C 6-14 I OYR 5/3 1 massive fr cs Man Fe masses IOYR 3/3
7.5YR 4/4
OYR 3/3 massive to 1 f r
*Abl 14-23 I OYR 5/2 IOYR 4/2 m2d 1 Imsbk fr es Man Fe masses IOYR 3/2
Bbl 23-32 10YR 5/2 7.5YR 4/4 1 Imsbk fr cs
Bb2 3242 10YR 5/2 7.5YR 4/6 c2d cl Imsbk fr cs Charcoal pieces
Bb3 42-54 10YR 6/1 7.5YR 5/6 m2d cl Imsbk fr cs
Cb 54-60 10YR 5/1 7.5YR 5/6 m2d sc massive fi

COMMENTS:
0-14" geologically recent layers of overwash and/or old spoil that is loamy in texture and variable in color
* indicates consistent buried horizon without overwash
perching of water 3-6 "
Meets wetland indicators for hydric soil: Condition f(2) & It in horizons Ap, Bw and AbI
Waypoint 48: N35° 58'02.5"/WO78° 59'54.3"
DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE: 9/15/2005
mmmmmmmrv?
???
mmmmrv?
KC 1
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROUNA, PA
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Client: NCEEP
Project: Brown Farm Mitigation Site
County: Orange/Durham
Location: Mt. Moriah Church Road
Soil Series: Wehadkee Variant
Date: April 18, 2006
Project #: 12054252
State: NC
Site/Lot: SP # 4
Soil Classification: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaqucntic Endoaqucpts
AWT: >62" SHWT: 14-18" Slope: 0-2% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Permeability: Moderate to Moderately slow
Vegetation: Nalivc grasses and sedges
Borings terminated at 62 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH (IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE. CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES
A 0-3 IOYR 5/4 1 as
Bwl 3-6 IOYR 5/3 IOYR 4/6 c2d I T fr cs Charcoal ieces
5YR 4/6 fl
Bw2 6-14 10YR 5/3 IOYR 2/2 Ad I massivc fir cs
IOYR4/1 c2d
*Abl 14-18 I OYR 5/2 I OYR 4/4 c2d I massive to I f r ft' cs Common 15nun concretions
IOYR 3/2 1] f Man Fe masses IOYR 2/1
BbI 18-36 IOYR6/1 IOYR5/9c2d scl Itsbk fr cs Common 5-IOmmconcrctions
Many Fe masses IOYR 2/1
Cb 36-62 I OYR 5/2 I OYR 4/4 c2d scl massive fr Man 5-1 Omm concretions
10YR 3/2 c2d Man Fe masses IOYR 3/2

COMMENTS:
0-14" geologically recent layers of ovcrwash and/or old spoil that is loamy in texture and variable in color
* indicates consistent buried horizon without ovcrwash
Perching of water 6-14"
Meets wetland indicators for hydric soil: Condition 1'(2) & h in horizons Ah1, Bb I and Cb
Waypoint 49: N35° 57'56.3"/WO78° 59'58.3"
DESCRIBI?D BY: SFS DATE: 4/18/2006
KCI
ASSOCIATES of SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NOMM CARMNA, PA
Client: NCEIP Date: April 18, 2006
Project: Brown Farm Mitigation Site Project #: 12054252
County: Orange/Durham State: NC
Location: Mt. Moriah Church Road Site/Lot: SP # 5/Wetland # 3 near point A 1-7
Soil Series: Wehadkee Variant
Soil Classification: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
AWT: 10" SHWT: 0-12" Slope: 0-2% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Permeability: Moderate to Moderately slow
Vegetation: Native grasses and sedges
Borings terminated at 62 Inches
HORIZON DEPTII (IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURI'. CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES
A 0-2 10YR4/2 sit-vfsl if r fr as
Al 2-5 10YR 4/2 5YR 4/4 fl sil-vfsl If r fr cs Oxidized Root Channels
C 5-10 10YR 4/6 10YR 5/3 c2d I Ifsbk-massive Er es
IOYR2A clf
*Abl 10-24 10YR 5/1 IOYR 414 c2d I lmsbk fr cs Man Fe Masses
I OYR 5/3 c2d massive to I f r
10YR2/1 flf
Bbl 24-36 1OYR5/2 10YR5/1c2f cl lfsbk fr es Man Fe masses
10YR 2/lc2d
IOYR 4/6c2d
C I 36-48 10YR 5/2 IOYR 511 c2f cl-c massive G w Man Fe masses
10YR 2/1 c2d
10YR 4.i6c2d
Q2 48-62 10YR 5/1 l OYR 4/6e2d cl-c massive fi Man Fe masses

COMMENTS:
Horizons Ap and A2 indicate surface water pending per chroma 2 matrix
5-10" geologically recent layers of overwash and/or old spoil that is loamy in texture and variable in color
* indicates consistent buried horizon without overwash
perching of water 5-10"
Meets wetland indicators for hydric soil: Condition f(2) & h in horizons AbI
Waypoint 44: N35° 57'57.2"/WO78° 59'53.6"
DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE: 4/18/2006
Appendix 8. Reference Wetland Photographs
The
i
?1llV Llllil VI - V1 LllV llil1.1 VllliV VY Ii-U.IU. 1 _
The location of
the reference
wetland gauge.
Another view of the reference
wetland; drainage patterns are evident.
Appendix 9. Reference Wetland USACE Routine Wetland Determination
Data Forms
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Reference Wetland Date: 3-30-2006
Applicant / Owner: KC1 Technologies County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: Reference
(explain on reverse if needed) Wetland
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum 1 FAC 9. Ilex decidua 2 FACW-
2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1 FACW 10. Acer rubrum 1 FAC
3. Acer rubrum 1 FAC 11. Acer ruburm 1 FAC
4. Acer ruburm 1 FAC 12. Uhnus americana 1 FACW
5. Ulmus americana 2 FACW 13. Ilex decidua 2 FACW-
6. Ulmus rubra 1 FAC 14.
7. Liquidambar styraciflua 1 FAC+ 15.
8. Liquidambar styraciflua 1 FAC+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
(in.)
(in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Surface (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Surface X Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Surface Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes X No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-1 Al 10YR 2/2 1
1-4 A2 1 OYR 5/2 1
4-9 Bg 10YR 5/2 10YR 5/4 c2d cl lfsbk
9-13 Bjz2 _ 10YR 5/2 10YR 4/4 c2d cl Ifsbk 3 min conc
13-18 BO 10YR 5/2 1OYR 5/4 c2d & IOYR 4/4 c2d cl Imsbk 1-2 mm conc many
18-50 Cal IOYR 6/1 10YR 5/6 c2d cl mass
50-60 Cg 10YR 6/1 10YR 5/6 c2d cl mass, lenses of fs
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime X _Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
Appendix 10. No-rise Certification
??ra
??ra
??ra
KCI ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
4601 Six Forks Road Suite 220 Raleigh, NC 27609 [phone] [phone] Fax
Hydraulic Analysis Narrative
The project reach is located within a FEMA detailed study area, between Orange County and Durham County,
on the preliminary FIRM map number 3720080000 J. and 37200980000 J. The project limits include cross
sections labeled 1928 through 1929 and in the HEC-RAS model; the project includes Section number 192819 to
Section number 193912. The HEC-2 model was received from the floodplain manager for the City of Durham.
A Duplicate Model was generated in HEC-RAS to perform this study. The Duplicate Model is the original
HEC-2 model provided to KCI by the City of Durham. The HEC-2 model was imported into HEC-RAS and the
published 100-year Base Elevations (BSE's) were duplicated by the model. Detailed field survey data was
taken within the project area and will be reflected in the Conditional Model.
The boundary conditions and discharge data in the models are based on the original model. Due to this data
being available, a hydrological analysis was not performed. The HEC-RAS 3.1 computer program was used to
perform the hydraulic analysis.
A Conditional Model was generated in HEC-RAS by revising the existing cross sections at stations 192819 and
station 193912. This Conditional Model serves as the baseline condition for the no-rise analysis for the
proposed wetland restoration.
The Proposed Model reflects the design of the wetland restoration. Three P-0" ditches will be filled-in and
this change is reflected in the two cross sections through the project at station 192819 and station 193912.
The results of the analysis indicate that the wetland restoration project will have no significant impact on the
cross sections of the New Hope Creek Floodplain and as a result will not impact the base flood elevations
(BSE's).
This memo is to certify that the proposed Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Project will not impact the 100-
year flood elevations, floodway elevations of floodway widths on the New Hope Creek, as shown on the
preliminary FIRM map Panel No. 3720080000) at published sections in the Flood Insurance Study for Durham
County dated May 05, 2005.
?-,26 -2006 ,,
(Dated (Signature)

KCI Associates of N.C.
Audrey B. Burnette, P.E.
(Name)
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleieh. NC 27609-5210
(Address)
www.kei.com
Employee-Owned Since 1988
?,' • A

TE
I
xi

Cross-Section
192819

?' fl? y
;ma
'i
t +

+r
t 7p
?
.
• t'
y
_
i
• A _ .?\
t51

ff a.
•
S €i ?
5 yw
y :.?
`: w
FEMA Cross-sections at the Brown Farm
?? wlll
Project Site Boundary
N KCI
Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone AE) ASSOCIATES OF NC
• • (Subjec(to inundation by ??--J
dic l% annual chance flood) s -,.. w
1:6,000
Floodway Areas in Zone AE
1 inch equals 500 feet
500 250 0 500a? IRO Source: NC Floodplain Mapping Program, Peet AND C oNSETRUCiioN, IN iocn_s
DMRM Panels 9890 and 0800 w
•
Cross-Section
193912
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
¦
r
¦
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
v a ,n f tD o c c
Cl c. O C: U C: :+ O Ci CJ C.? V
q
U?
N V W O, b N - n ,n O u:
rn w p n n n n a yv, avy
Lo Lo U? CCCOC??OO N N ; a; W ch Ci
N N N N co co N N N N N N
g
t n •T t? n M Co V O S, LO
m W tl n c7 (D OD N N N N
d ?v V) (D n w m rn ) (3 M
$, ? o o e c? n n? (D iD in
n n W o r- o N rn r- n
o O O W (D c0 m C. n N N N
V V ti N N N r- N N N
Op O ('^) ?- O V N 0 m V. V
(O tD V O, Of n
?^ p p O pp pp O A o O f1 ,N
pp O O O
O U o U O
VI I t O C7 o b
O
O ID
?I o 0 o c c o 0 0 0 0 0 0
uj
1 - n n OD W (D ,O N N V V V
O, Orn O, O O O W W m W (O <U
0 0 0 0 0 0
(o w to w (O (o (D W W W W W
v N N N N N N N N N N N N
W'.
1
'fNl;
U
2. rn rn rn o 0 o eo m Doom "D `9
92i - 0 0 0 C (J O
W ?. W W W ,D W W W co tD W (o W
N N N N N N N N N N N N'
?. y
3.
CD O tC) N N N N N
W N h b O
O O O O O O O, O, O, n r- n
? I l0 In lA n l0 Ln V H -q V V V
N N N N N N N N N N N N
V
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C C, 0 0 0 0 0 0
?n N ui Lo vi n ,ri c?D w t`r'o 0
F!Ti a v °
rn m m `, °
m rn rn (7) C7, rn m rn
i
I?i j I? i ? ICI ? & I&
`I !I
ItLi?(S lCL ?I
?<<
CL
t, Pz h rz. N? NI NI IA10f Ql C1
ii
fit
J ¢?ac ¢ ¢` ¢' ?a?cloca
_?
¢ w ¢ airy I¢, ? a im ,rim
¢, ¢ ¢ rr ¢ ¢ ¢; ¢ a ar l a¢
m
LL N
W
rC
6

111?110
Q ?
W W '
a U l
W O g r6
LL
W
I
i
g
N ? ? ? ? Cg
INl uopenel3

F
b
? u
e)
.c
Y
'U
'b
I
u) .
I
I
I
1 v
F
,SL
,D
V
i ?
7 F
1 O
i N
j .?
_V
V
] b
p
C
G
O
a
O
0.
181 LIDIIVA013
n

00
? o
w
z ?
4. op6 gyp,<.F.K
N _
6
d? pow / ?
0 \t ? ` ? \ J / ) 1
?j N 1 ?? 1 11NI10? 3DNVHOiif 77 -? _
0 0 ? ?
U ? I llI'fI '
Q
l ??p0
s
t.?AW

i
y o
.
?

0
x
Q
x
x?? x
co? ?
?r N M V? '?1 ?O
ti
y
y
0
h
h
y
a
4
a
U
O
a
-,
>? o ? W a. ? h J
p 8?? ? ?y
?u5
SS^CC?? p? p"' W = N
.y w? ? a O to

a
O
r? O
V ?
O
O
I
___>_o_, x eO«om z-iio5oa :# j a variNoo

NV1d NOLLYWIS3U HIM aw-unens
o y 0
?I
N OW , 9 92
U
2 > > H
30 5

8=

ON'NO131VU"Od SAdO1 XIS 1090
II U3100 AUVnQNVI OZZ 31105
S1S19O1O03-SU3NNV 1d•S833NION3
CdIDO'IOIIHO31
=EaE
VNIIONVO HIUON 'AlNf10O WVHano / 3ONV80
iowM1d NOli"01898 ONVl13M
>13MIO 3dOH M3N - Wb`dd WMIG
NC GRID
.?.71 NAD '83
ii;
N
leg
q G
iiiiilllll555ii ? p -?i
W
wg
H
N D_
O
N
O
O u
r In
V
x
O
o ?
0

i
i
i
i
-? c
r7q
K 'I
s
t1i o?
O
G1
o 4
2
n rx?
H ED, CIVN 2 g
OIHD ON g ,
9i
N N N
a
0
WITH

= BROWN FARM -NEW HOPE CREEK (?
0 $ WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT T WHNOI
OOKE S
0 .
EN
E LAN
$
Z ORANGE / DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA S
UITE 2 220 20
LANDMARK ARK CENTER 11
CENTER II
SUIT
4601 SIX FORKS RD.. RALEIGH, NC

c'u.

ocscwrron

nrviclnuc

arc

.rvnwco

C2N% VAnoNEAS
?Hr
/
• l
l 1l

r
O
O
GI
O
G?o'1
D O
bS
n
o
O
N
O
O
z
0
e8, aVN
G UD ON
BROWN FARM - NEW HOPE CREEK
WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
ORANGE/DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
KCI
ENGINEERS-PLANNERS-ECOLOGISTS
SUITE 220 LANDMARK CENTER II
4601 SIX FORKS RD.. RALEIGH. NC
r?

v? m o
m
v

>
1,
QQ g
2 9
W
Sc
5t

m N N
m
G)
9
PLAN

.yw
OdO? ?I /
N
i?
1
ull
O

D O

A _?
N ee, avN
o OIND ON
O
m
N
p
O
i ?o app
1
UI
I ?
v i ?l
A` -
X
X
I,
N 1
m m
1
II
1
1
2 z z
I
r
1
m
mo N
???qqq p 303
? y
_ A SUBMITTED WITH RESTORATION PLAN APR zaoo
m Z
BROWN FARM - NEW HOPE CREEK KC I
=
N
z Im g WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT T wKNOLoom s
S O Z
V! -{ ENGINEERS-PLANNERS -ECOLOGISTS
Z
$ NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE / DURHAM COUNTY o' ` ?
0
,
LANDMARK CENTER
SUITE 220
sm
oc
z r) 08 FORKS
4601 SIX REVISIONS ?
i
mm
? mo I
r I x
r> I I -o
mm j $ a l $ >
m m
A,DA'A,DdADA,BD';eoo;o; e;e;o a ^ mrs I I
o m r •o o•o .°. a s Ora -I I I
n to = I I I
_ !/1
y 1= D ar z 1.-0.. I m g $
O
? $ ? gg+ ? p D I ? •?° ? I ?i
03 iN
fn T o co w m D I \\ W
H a r T ? I ? I
$C7 r I I I I
_ T = -34 ?= I + ?z x
m °s z a, I " to
(--•. >
H
' x m g Im °
? ? ?• 11 ? I? a Ir
yy y Zay
rn co f? fq N y N T
?• I i O D
m
r m ?' Im M
> m m o• N O D
g
I? o
I? I
I I
I r
m I Zr5
AM-1 'o 51 5,
? D 9' N IT-
~2 Cl)
0 I o
0 ? m ca_
> ? ? I I I
.?< tp T H
'?. •? .?-• T H m I m a I
> ?$ m
-i ?r p ?? 1'-0" H I
gS z N
.. a o I I I 1._0.. H
1$ > TI-g.. I m i?
.. o tow r
m w m To m p I W
-n Q
U) $ 9 I I I
O I?
Z 4X + I?
-yi
MCA T? I 90
rn rM9 V ?o < I v z
co r- . ^ n? °
0 To IF I., H r ? I
x
m m I H m >1
H (VARIES) p? I o
r y• I? m
g
N
III I
I
a. w N r m <
I
m lo,
Q <? m O SLOPE
D Z I STAKE
.€ \ $$ vi m
F-4 ZT5 61 wm 0.
171 Mlfflo z I
0 m- pc
D °
co O C ? r > O `16\ „ Q A F s ?? F? ?i .U
m-I I?m?? 9? \z? FFnn? Ao 70
C7 r n [?? p W o (?? 52!R 70 I u?
mA1?1 ppll 1[ ?°? m S OO I 1}II ?1
O C IR < O rtl D A is o P POSTT m
Z - > I
z 7- ?o rF
m I
m z
8 y
tpTl A @ I
m g?gmS ?? 8 A T T T/?, }S?
°Zp pas O A p ?Y `1{ I fiy1X
< 111 ° 5 z ? iS UUTT I D r.
rn S!
A SUBIAT ED MATH RESTORATION PLAN APR 2006
F z BROWN FARM - NEW HOPE CREEK ` K C 1
alJ
m N WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
> ENGINEERS-PL ANNERS•ECOLOGISTS
$ r ORANGE / DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SUITE 220 LANDMARK CENTER It ti 4601 SIX FORKS RO., RALEIGH, NC REVISIONS

-4 ??0111T> WM;4 Ww?tn?N
?Mv?OZZr-§?ngm??o
?To W? ZTma2=rpDDmzT
z mmo c:
?m o ?
mmvm?o?,D DzmD
c?A zm_v=10p P =mzpG) ?
OO?czz=vc?im?= m°r
zz
O O Dg
m?D=nm?mcmi>oD? °fZ
G) r.;u ? co?°-rDm O-?i?cl a0?
n ply c ? O? mm
govOr
?mZZZmo o=op 'Dmmmr??rrtl
?T?.mmm m Dmo= D?T.?z?D
>?Ocn? m -q m M-q mom
Tmz0?z0 v rn ?mmzv0i?
aocn 1? ?com?
>x
DD cc-O -0 D m? =Z WDtnZ? Cn7C0 m? z 0 r T D
p?
m Zmm0M =m?? Z?mm»m
z °opcR ?pc g m?mcaiza
can?rm-m m RNDO?m
cn=lm c ? m z
v 00;Mo T Z'p ?0;-04 vN?
O
5n mpz?z K Pi-m cnr?0='nz
0T?co m mvam
'Tl o m mZ a m9
D Z
awNDCnov--z
o z?m?mmz?
rnDZM
?
N O r Cn
oocopxTmwm
rg8222A
X cnn +`mm m
-tm?'n ? v
mzD??pD
Dmvr m
o2m ?N?rrlIoZwz
>on n??7C
?W? C"?Oc
A N C m z p
nnp ?cm?
?zz z-?im c0
m-cnlz 0525
Zn?o-1m
-? -? z
mOm o<
0 z- oz Z m:q
5; Z DDoDcn
r- Z
0CD
Z? mrn
z ?' can
m Z
v
00-4
M
00=
c' Do
zr
m
COQ
z=
?
Z
m?
90
O
z En
o0
z
z ?
Zr
C fZ
m
SS
m,
0 Z
zO
0 ?
me
n
OO
z
co
O
m -- i D yym-I 9 z ? D'V mG?O?I T 2
;U 0" mTCADO?aSi>cm pm'mm-nm
zmm mmO? m zb? mzcZi?o
O- v
D22 onm ?_IT.ZDD1?zm=lvn?
0 -Z, -<1za m,.iv7r"X00
v00 mmTC)? vS?np_ ;0
?mT °nzcznmo,czaw
mz??? mz?Emo ?o woo=?nm
'imo
zoo a,
mozmomma?cai?oo
00 m z?gcG)?Dzoouzi
Z?? ,ZCn?ZO n -D-
zn om D?zZoG7mpO<qmm
m
2= ?u Op m-Imx00-2 o ?o
o x
CnODm
mcnm?zi-z•10mW:0o
?22zcnO?zcn=2?
?DC?G?v ncnDmmo
= m??pv?00W???
:E 350 ;ucnmzo
m mmx'Zmo-1ZCZ2
-1 0 co0m m momqoTr-x
m pzwwOziom ?ap
o ;u ?a 0mm
D
m y it ? n
z m
TWZN p
C)
mw D ?+!? ?W o(nDDDZ?Cn? o?? 1T Z 4 G? A
mG? ?zD -m" vmo n zD -• ? om 9D 0D -wU 41 SDOm ?rnv?vOD?' ?D=1 0m-1? Moo ?gzzD
<Ozm 2?AZ7cn?m C12mv m9Om m?D nip^?-1-ICnr 'm Dx r
m -1? Ir m --?? m-1r 0=cn °c>Sm ??'c?cncnv>
c??v zSrOO??-I ?0z ?OVn W x -+mO?mp?O mz=C?q0?
Amm m r O m m mz cnD rn -I m D
m?vin O m??Aty m0•, IA-DDZ z-im v-?D-???rTn vD Nm-z0
X m?vrr i
?Ip Orncn=p-alr?-AI ?noD °°cnmv??z-1 ?m01mKOVCn?
T T?Imw TDn ?z? m zcn< Imo m2 azm?Cpz?rg
q9 m ^w o r1 S 4>< -10 cn- n-?
m DD o9 -?nm D-1mZ ? ? mcnmTI?rtsA m
0ccn zmvrnmoo ro mm?n WD-I mzc2mDnm mnm0m'q ?cDZ=mmm
(n m0 -1Am r Eno cnb? -1 cn zmoxD cn4-T,' -?O m=c?G?mvrv
T -oco?o- ?n? 0,05 Nmn =1-xm-1r Sp > Mmn c
v?
A+ v 0??? -bM D0 z mG=z mmtnm <n mD z0? 0>8%cn wjOCn
S M
Koz vnmpcnNmM n2 w?Tz can cncnzm??omm C0642 zzzOD O50OL O
vc mcn'i Dr C mA cmm0-Can-j :U vr-(nD
=??mcnDZ cnc m -i, 4 ? =m m?mOZO.aamp m?zrDr-cvn? rrr?zzm6goo Tim m DOOM=C?m m-1 ?00z ?v < cnzK?50(n <cn ,x ?mmaSoci
oc= oDzV_<SDmAc2 n o mP 5=-?cD tn U) tn v D ' Za cnz0 cn -?>Dmmm 5n m -IZ n - Di
fnrSm m? z
vrn O g? ? ?Xcn- OZ-onoa-1c?0z?n Dp = ? v -1?m
vz Q?pOoomD zm Ormcn mm ?m -Ir =cnv
zn c??mn 0a ?zco z ?cnpc?cny??W n_ z?,m ?m?0
oD oc mnSD?vm D 0 -? nr Om?mn 0D? -i -?0 ° z
our -Ir D? r O o rnm rc?r -1zm mmn_ vcnm O zrDm rrt 0 v
z?-ICn m -? ?=--1
mD ???mnp°?v tn0 coT r-m 'ZZm?WCno'.'o OpD? ? < ?m 2d 2mmm
biz ?oL'm < 4 OTm 0?-10cr T=<z0mm S=vro
00 ??mDrm c? my rnOm ?O-D-izmmD1 cEmzz;;I?ort nv mDO?
DD 5 :0 Z <p Ofno O? or-vT(?rr Opn0D -Im UmC
vZ O-14D-•?D -IZO O O-rm 5Z2-0TO cn - r>M
7m-,6
nv <p ?y-1 pcn gc-1 D < m? - m40 M6
>? o-pzcncn-1 m -1?2 zm ? Dz m? U)
-I0 -4?r-cnmm ;?nT1m :r cam v-{D mOZAZ?? wa0? monomW> m? = D
3o SD?CO? D? C1C?? 2T v0 G D7C= w 0 mr z0 D
m W mz- oz cnx mz m-•1 D? 0F- Z:c om OZ m
m cn o -1 Q) D m cn Z- V -1 z S p o -n to D
z Dyozcnm o ?A tiZ?ii2 v D M T
mm 00 T Dr rom0=m D z 0 O
?r m ?m
z c"m `--" m
v
Z
BROWN FARM -NEW HOPE CREEK
C
K
z z
z
WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
TWKNOt"
co
ORANGE / DURHAM COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
ENGINEERS LANNERS
•E
rw
acsw.rro•
o+rt
+wnovm
, CEENTER NTER 11
SIpTE 2 220 20
II
LANDMARK
4601SIX FORKS RD., RALEIGH, NC
.
s

KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
Transmittal Letter
ENGINEERS ? SURVEYORS ? SCIENTISTS ? CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
LANDMARK CENTER 11. SUITE 220 ? 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD ? RALEIGH. NC 27609 • 919-783-9214 ? (FAX) 919-783-9266
o c @9od91
Q
Date: June 12, 2006 JUN 1 2 2006
WETLANDS
(vice co" D DS AND STOORMWATTEERI BRANCH
Company: North Carolina Division of Water Project: Brown Farm Wetland
Quality Restoration
Contact: John Dorney Subject: 401 Permit Application
? In accordance with your request ? For your use/files
? For your review ? Please call when ready
® For processing ? Please return to this office
? Plans reviewed and accepted ? Approval requested
? Plans reviewed and accepted as noted ? Conference requested
? For revision by you at your convenience
Comments: I can be reached at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
application.
Kristin Knight
D
JUN 6 Environmental Scientist
DENR . , . y
WEXAND3 AN,'.: .
cc: File
KCI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. www.kci.COM
Employee-Owned Since 1988

KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
Transmittal Letter
ENGINEERS ? SURVEYORS ? SCIENTISTS ? CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
LANDMARK CENTER 11, SUPTE 220 ? 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD ? RALEIGH, NC 27609 1 919-783-9214 1 (FAX) 919-783-9266
Date: June 12, 2006
Company: US Army Corps of Engineers, Project: Brown Farm Wetland
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Restoration
? In accordance with your request ? For your use/files
? For your review ? Please call when ready
® For processing ? Please return to this office
? Plans reviewed and accepted ? Approval requested
? Plans reviewed and accepted as noted ? Conference requested

? A
For revision by you
at your convenience
Comments: I can be reached at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
application.
RECEIVED
JUN 1 2006 Kristin Knight
Environmental Scientist
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
cc: File
KCI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. www.kci.com
Employee-Owned Since 1988
Contact: Todd Tugwell Subject: 404 Permit Application
KCI ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
AND CONSTRUCTION INC
LANDMARK CENTER I, SUITE 220
4601 SIX FORKS ROAD
RALEIGH, NC 27609
7ARDERROFE C 7-)I VIS IG `"`)
?llpC
® W CHO - A
Wachovfa Bank, N.A.
wachcMa.cm
FOR `Zo ZSZ ! (go.
COS 500 3 20 W: 20000070'586
1187
65-320/550
BRANCH 98713
o DATE
Ba<xV,a
L87
W
d.
W
u
W
DATE No¦ 4 0112 8
--------
FROM-_
(Le
0FOR RENT `
O FOR r .r ,.
ACCT. OCAS
_ FRO TO
PAID CHECK
MONEY . •
Y 2 t
DUE BOORDER III
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for, mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: KCI Technologies, Inc.
Mailing Address: Landmark Center II Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Rd
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 0800-06-2560 (Orange Co.)/ 0800-01-06-9809 (Durham Co.)
4. Location
County: Orange and Durham Nearest Town: Durham
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Take I-40 to State Hwy
15-501. Head northeast on 15-501 and turn left on Mt. Moriah Rd. The Brown Farm is
located approximately one mile out on Mt. Moriah Road on the right. The entrance is at a
metal Rate where there is a small ridge that looks out over the project site below.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.9670 ON 78.9977 °W
6. Property size (acres): 46.13 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: New Hope Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The Brown Farm has been under cultivation or used for
grazing for over 100 years. An extensive ditch network has allowed for agriculture despite
the site's location on the New Hope Creek Floodplain. The area surrounding the project site
Page 6 of 12
is experiencing rapid growth Downstream of the project site there is residential and
commercial development expanding along the State Highway 15-501 corridor. Upstream,
however, part of the project watershed is within Duke Forest, a 7,200-acre research forest
owned by Duke University.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: This
wetland restoration project will reclaim the site as a riverine wetland. A bulldozer and/or
front-end loader on tracks will be used to plug the selected channel and install a rock
stabilized outlet. All work will be done on high ground when possible, but mats will be used
as needed to protect jurisdictional wetlands.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The project will restore a 46.13-acre agricultural
area to a Bottomland Hardwood wetland ecosystem. Existing ditches on-site do not represent
natural site conditions and prevent or limit the formation of wetland hydrology.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
A jurisdictional determination was requested from the USACE and approved by Todd J. Tu well
of the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office on February 1, 2006 (Action ID 200521343). A copy of
this boundM plat is attached.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
Page 7 of 12
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The project will install a rock
stabilized outlet, which will block the flow of water out of the wetland. Plugging this ditch
will improve hydrology within this existing wetland and elsewhere on the site for restoration
areas.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
1 1 rock stabilized outlet Forested Yes 418 0.00115

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 3.32 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
1

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on ma) ocean, etc.) (acres)
Page 8 of 12
Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.00115
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.00115
Total Stream Irn act (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USAGE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The nroiect uronoses to restored wetlands to asricultural lands that have been drained. Imvacts
to existing streams have been minimized in the restoration design.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 9 of 12
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
httl2://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.htnil.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at hU://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wW/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multivliers.
Impact Required
Zone* ,-,, - f o,? Multiplier
I 1 1 13 (2 for Catawba)
1 2 1.5
Total 1
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
Page 11 of 12
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
`-- /2- 0 C.
Applicant/.
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
f.

?'

A '.4

f.. , f I
'"
: 'i ?? :
?
lit
11?? `1
•
?
` y
t
_
„•
.
?
-
1 f?

I ? . J•
I 4 d?lj ?1i - w V?'\ \

r

Ir• t)1 H ?
e, ? .''If.?' -? ? ? ?
r r +,^ • ? ly?+ ..ter ?? i ?M • P *. -•_

f Z
"? 1>*.i'?t' ? .f J rl' r"?? 1 ? / ??rd? =?J',. ? M \.. i1 • ._., 4?? ?'r i....Al" aw'lffbl {?tiJ]?? r,
,4 VIM a ,.
1~ i t? M1'ni/ flyf \1 - T }•,
Ili'?[ryrL #• f d v ?`\,, IIr i \' r It
t •' • ,,/ ^4 ??? _ 1U 1 /? wR 'y? i1 a ` /?? t!C ; •` j-r) I )?? .' ,?Jf/?
`l _ 1? ' 1! -.1P• I 5 t• lj ?I ' ll Yi Olen
r
? ? ` ?i' + ,'\ X11 ..? . /? r '?. ?i11 .w; ? ?e_ '
¦ Brown Farm Topographic Map
KCI
wAE ASSOCIATES OF NC
Q Project Site Boundary
-? I 1:24,000
I inch equals 2,000 feet
TECHNOLOGIES 2,000 1,000 0 2000 ?H
Source: USGS Topographic Quadrangles tNV?torrhtENTAt TECHNOLOGIES
Chapel Hi!l and SW Durham ,Feet AND CONWRUC ION, INC. PM Fm-=-

! 't. ';P
.ORANGE COUNTY
Q?r 1 995 001
f14io
lA0vjN
$ITS
E
r
IA /
z
N
&1'11?1.?','I'l
A
Ch
rrR ,.
56S ro T. 5460 2I
a
(loins inset "1 I? 1998 001
3000 AND 5000-FOOT GRID TICKS
--
i ?,?. 1 ?,.0 1 I?,ausw i •?+?
Y ? S2
S2
W z z
W
z
7
U
f I I
I I
f I i
1
U
O
W
L
Y
a
ON'H0131V8'•aN mod xlslo9o
11 N31N33 NOMINVI OZZ 311nS
SISIOOl0:)3•SH3NNVld•S833NION3
Sd1D0•IOHN.7d.I

z, J
w L? I
1 w rl
al
I w
j
w ?
"?a of to l
wI W M
,°m¢
U cc I O LL U w O LL

?I J
m
.0-j
, n
w ? r•1 I „0•,L
x9-j I o W I w
rn
g 53
i NN
•j H
O VJ OO •_
J
a
?S
N
O

t
VNIIOUVO HiUON 'Jl1Nnoo WVHana / 3ONVa0
1O3f02id NOIIVIJ0183N ONVIAM
>133NO 3dOH M3N - W21dd WONe
U
M
LL
WU
mJ m
F
?g
J
g?
?W
W ?N
W
Tarn
I I _
cR`` ?? /tiger '
44 4? o
NC ARID
NAD '83
lz . . . . . . . . . . .....
1

\ •Jr\ / j1
I \\ 1 .? \ i
/ ??
}
ce

II M \??
x833 I-"II // ??/\
?w? 1 fll 'I I 1?
?I J \
II /? \
II ??
a
a

o$?g 1 01
?i
r
J
I?
I ?//?\V/\ OQF
\ \ QQ`
I \JI` ?
I /
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V
4
f
/
1
I
1
I
I
1
1 ?
1\ 1L?
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
/ n
\ r
\1
1
/

UbP'dSDUU4
N
N
o?
Vf
u
s
I
Lo
0
O
I

/ I

y /
\ \\ 3SV j NOl1YAt9 N0
/l
I
\?II.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technologies, Inc. County: Orange
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: lA Non-Wet
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soecles Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Festuca arundinacea 3 FAC- 9.
I
2. Trinsacum dactvloides 3 FAC+ 10.
3. ll.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: >30 (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquuentic Dystrudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Ap 10YR 5/3 1, lmgr
3-7 BW1 10YR 6/3 10YR 3/6 c2d 1 lmsbk
7-11 BW2 2.5YR 6/4 2.5Y 6/3 c2d IOYR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
11-13 BW3 10YR 5/4 2.5Y 6/2 c2d 10YR 3/3 c2d 1. 3/3 concretions
13-24 BW4 10YR 5/4 10YR 6/3 c2d 10YR 5/6 f1d sil, 1 fsbk
24-30 C 1OYR 6/2 10YR 5/4 10YR 5/6 sicl concretions, massive
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_
_ Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes_ No X
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technologies, Inc.
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes Date: 8-15-05
County: Orange _
State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X
(explain on reverse if needed) Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: 1B - Wetland
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1 FACW 9.
2. Salix nigra 1 OBL 10.
3. Camnsis radicans 4 FAC 11.
4. Saururus cernuus 3 OBL 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
Swollen Buttresses.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other X Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available X Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
-. Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 6-18 (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
x Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Variant Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaguentic Endoaquepts Confirm
Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Descriation:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munseil Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Al 1OYR 6/2 1, lmgr
3-8 Bg10YR 6/2 1OYR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
8-18 B1 1OYR 4/4 10YR 6/4 c2d 7.5YR 4/4 f11 sil, lmsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Suifidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ponded for long to very long duration.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No -
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technolopzies, Inc. County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 2A - Non-Wet
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Festuca arundinacea 3 FAQ- 9.
2. Juncus ef1usus 3 FACW+ 10.
3. Tripsacum dacUloides 3 FAC+ 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 66%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 26 (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic D sdepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Ap IOYR 5/4 sil, Irngr
3-7 Bwl 10YR 5/4 7.5YR 4/4 fld sil, lmsbk
10YR 3/6 fld
7-11 Bw2 IOYR 5/3 10YR 3/3 c2d sil, 3/3 concretions, lmsbk
7.5YR 4/4 c2d
11-21 Bw3 IOYR 3/4 2.5Y 6/2 c2d 7.5YR 4/4 flp sil, lmsbk
21-30 Bw4 IOYR 3/4 2.5Y 6/2 m2d sil, many concretions,
lmsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Solis
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Site is ditches.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technoloizies, Inc. County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 2B -Wetland
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinuspennsylvanica 1 FACW 9.
2. Cevhalanthus occidentalis 3 OBL 10.
3. Saururus cernuus 3 OBL 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
Trees Buttressed
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available X Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) X Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 24 (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Area is frequently flooded, but dry currently.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Confirm
Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 Al 10YR 6/2 1OYR 6/6 flf 7.5YR 4/6 fld 1, massive
6-13 Bgl 10YR 6/2 10YR 6/4 c2d 7.5YR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
13-17 Bg2 10YR 6/2 7.5YR 4/6 c2d sicl, lmsbk
17-30 Bg2 IOYR 6/2 10YR 4/8 c2d sil, lmsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ponds.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
'THIS CERTIFIES THAT THIS COPY OF TNIS PLAT ACCURATELY
DEPICTS THE BOUNDARY OF THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AS DETERMINED BY THE
UNDERSIGNED ON THIS DATE UNLESS THERE 15 A CHANCE IN
THE LAW OR DR OUR PUBLISHED REGULATIONS, THIS
DETERMINATION OF SECTION 404 JURISDICTION MAY BE RELIED
UPON FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS FROM THIS
DATE. THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE UTILRNG THE 1987
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL'
NAME
TITLE:
v %j
(a
DATE: O
AID: ZUbSZ ISL-m -
N43TE5;
ALL WETLAND AND NON WETLAND AREAS SHOWN HEREON ARE
WITHIN BROWN PROPERTY; DEED BOOR 1312, PAGE 52.
AREA OUTSIDE OF THE BROWN PROPERTY NOT EVALUATED FOR
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
THE BASIS OF THE COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON IS THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN
DATUM 1983.
ALL WETLAND RAGS AND DATA POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE
FIELD BY CONVENTIONAL SURVEY METHODS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER
AND OCTOBER 2005
1J(3al!?'1=j; y'1(?I? I;ze(T rrl,) 1m.
. Doz 11 71 l! r

1, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS
DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM A SURVEY MAD
SUPERVISION, THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVE
INDICATED THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS CAL
GREATER THAN 1;10,000; THAT THIS MAP DOES
AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY AND HAS NOT Bi tr
IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30 AS AMENDED.XTN1
ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER AN SEA,
24TH pAY?BF JANUARY, 2006, ? r ??
,.nn it
CAROLINA REGISTRATION NUM
JAMES M. GELLENTHIN
FOUND IRON PIN
N=807440.63
E=1999729.21
ELEV=253.91'
W2-4JR
W2-
-13
12
z
v9sllSitillJjjf4. ?ZP"
g SEA ''77 a
as
41.76' •'R.
N21'42'45•E `g13
N297V114-E

54.40'
N52'i 4'56•E
31.16'
?
f449'52'09'E
102.67' 1

I
W E
4h, 1F
•1 ?
W4-1
4- l
N4-11
OB
63 f
W4-12A %
W4-11A.'
13A I1+1
10A
N4-9A ;
001-1 '^ .7
WI-1B W1-g ,o
e-+a°_ S T*V°`
be Z 16-27
1v1, G yyy N/F CRABTREE ,KILNS THOMPSON
'! Ivl y1 DEED BOOK 317 PAGE 488 .'E/-
7jf111111111j1
?,-•'N_p6.,91Cf10`fIAL X1899; ? \
/ IJ
/
WI-1
WI-1
FOUND IRON PIN
W2-11 (EASTERLY MOST '
PROPERTY CORNER OF
PARCEL 7.26,10) %
Y2_1 N=806921.92
E=2000068.24
ELEV=255.62'
/
7.16..10
N/F BROIIIV BENJAAflN D
DEEO BOOK 245, PAGE 1fOO
59 /.
FLAG NORTHING 1
W4-4 806656.48 2(
W4-7 806617.93 2(
W4-8 806627.96 2(
W4-1 DA 806604.54 21
W4-1OB 806602.05 2(
W4-11 806620.06 2(
W4-12 806635.48 21
W4-13 805633.51 21
W4-14 806630.30 21
W4-15 806637.49 21
W4-IBA 806625.87 Z
W4-17A 806607.68 Z
W4-16A 806529.35 21
W4-15A 8D6491.28 21
W4-14A 806452.75 21
W4-13A 806465.71 2
W4-12A 806514.07 21
W4-11A 606509.01 2
W4-10A 806684.54 2
W4-9A 806325.66 2
W4-BA 806349.12 2
W4-7A 80634225 2
W4-6A 506344.62 2
W4-5A B00315.34 2
W4-4A 806318.10 2
W4-3A 806388.21 2
W4-2A 806476.29 2
W4-1A 806533.61 2
W4-1 805564.06 2
W4-2 805597.84 2

\
\
\
_`
\ n
\
r?tA
WI-10
WI-11
WI-12
'.
-13,
?o
?L
\Y?a
i
i
r
7.26..120
N/)7 ROSE MEUNDA LVGH FLETCH
DEED BOOK 2009 PAGE 368
'a
1
1
Z26.. 108
N/F BRDIM DA MD ET AL
DEED BOOK 1312 PACE 52

12054236
-5A ?••
i' i'I58•53
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLINA
N
J a
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
4601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 220
RALEIGH, NC 27609
PHONE [phone],1• FAX [phone]
FLAG NORTHING EASTiNG
WI-i 80723880 2000000.40
WI-2 807235.45 2000023.35
WI-3 807243.95 2000044.11
Wt-4 807261,70 200004226
WI-5 807297.22 2000101.79
WI-6 BD7291.54 2000121.57
W1-7 807251.73 2000093.95
W1-B 80722287 2000090.85
WI-9 807173.05 2000091.28
WI-10 807111.90 2000111,47
WI-11 807093.30 2000131,22
WI-12 807050.65 2000184.35
wl-13 80695893 2000185.60
WI-13.5 806961.17 2000175.92
WI-14 806939.75 20OD144.75
WI-16 807029.79 2000103.24
WI-17 607120.84 2000042.06
WI-18 807177,84 1999989.87
WI-19 807206.79 199999577
FLAG NORTHING EASTiNG
W2-1 806760,60 2000313.53
W2-2 805793.44 2000289.86
W2-3 906754,45 2ODD26257
W2-4 806743.10 2000269.07
W2-5 806755.98 2000294.01
W2-6 805745.16 2000300.33
W2-7 806730.39 2000280.22
W2-B 805706.79 2000285.60
W2-9 806711.93 2000298.89
W2-10 806696.90 2000329.58
WZ-11 806721.35 2000324.92
W2-12 806740.93 2000316.70
W2-13 806757.77 2000323.98
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
Al-i 806536.79 2000540.31
AI-2 80660800 2000553.11
Al-3 50565865 2000605.91
Al-4 806654.30 20D0617.85
Al-5 806594.64 200057296
Al-6 606519,44 2000559.27
Al-7 BD647023 2000541.39
W3-7 806445.38 2000563.49
W3-6 806393.96 2000579.93
W3-5 806306.64 2000623.85
W3-4 806264,29 2000619.78
W3-3 606273.70 2000606,29
W3-2 806259.85 2000615.17
W3-1 806263.40 2000624.80
W3-1A 805275.03 2000644.05
W3-2A 805297,30 200067298
W3-3A 806263.69 2000732.54
W3-4A 60625353 2000777.50
W3-5A 80622Z25 2000782.35
W3-6A 806149.77 2000716.43
W3-7A 806153.47 2000707.85
W3-BA 806195.91 2000715.23
W3-9A 506237.22 2000717.67
W3-10A 80625220 2000665.28
W3-20 805251.53 200061292
W3-19 806326.45 2000561.66
W3-17 80645861 2000493.48
W3-16 80647230 2000501.31
W3-9 806480.39 2000507.66
W3-8 805494.45 200052249
LEGIEND
WETLAND
a NON-WETLAND
DATA POINT
a
[11
GRAPHIC SCALE
200 0 100 200
c
a
I°
i INCH = 200 FEET a
WETLAND BOUNDARY PLAT
FOR
BROWN
MT. MORIAH ROAD
ORANGE & DURHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAR
1" = 200' 1 1
Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site
Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina
SCO Contract No. D05011-2
KCI Project No. 12054252
Wetland Restoration Plan
Prepared for:
NCDENR-EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
L,c o'S ten
1 RI-NAM
Prepared by:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
=MONO"=
KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Project Manager
jpfeifferAkci.com
919-783-9214
June 2006
Executive Summary
The Brown Farm Wetland Restoration proposes to improve water quality and expand wetland habitat by
restoring agricultural land to a functioning riverine wetland ecosystem. Currently, the site is used for
harvesting hay and occasional grazing and is located directly within the floodplain of New Hope Creek in
the Cape Fear Basin. This important water body contains unique aquatic habitat both upstream and
downstream of the project site. The project will restore 24.58 acres of wetland and enhance 3.32 acres of
existing wetlands along the New Hope Creek Corridor.
The Brown Farm is adjacent to New Hope Creek in Durham, North Carolina along the Orange-Durham
County Line. The site drains into New Hope Creek to the east, which then flows approximately 11 miles
- before entering Jordan Lake. The project has a contributing drainage area of 33.33 square miles (21,331
acres) at the downstream limits of the site. New Hope Creek is listed as an impaired water body under the
draft 2004 303(d) list for North Carolina starting approximately 2.4 miles downstream of the project site
at the confluence with Sandy Creek. This segment of stream has impaired biological integrity from urban
runoff and storm sewers.
Historic aerial photographs dating from 1955 show the site under cultivation or in pasture in recent years.
Currently, the project watershed is approximately 83% forested based on the North Carolina GAP land
use classification, but the surrounding area continues to experience rapid growth. Downstream and
outside of the project watershed, there is residential and commercial development expanding along the
North Carolina State Highway 15-501 corridor to the east.
The Orange and Durham County Soil Surveys classify the soils at the site as primarily Chewacla with
some Wchadkee. Tile county soil survey classifications, however, were not fully consistent with the
conditions observed on-site by a KCI soil scientist. A detailed soils investigation was conducted across
the site and the resulting distribution of soils at the Brown Farm is estimated to be 75% Wehadkee and
25% Chewacla. The Wchadkee and Chewacla soils are defined as hydric soils due to saturation for a
significant period during the growing season.
The project site is located on an expansive, active floodplain of New Hope Creek. Moving west from the
stream, the site slopes downward at approximately 1% from the levee position of the creek to a lower
floodplain position in the center of the site. This central portion is flat extending to the north, south and
west to the valley walls on the site. Existing wetlands were delineated in August 2005 using the methods
described by the US Army Corps of Engineers. There arc 3.32 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the
property.
There are no streams that flow directly through the project site. Upper New Hope Creek forms the
eastern boundary of the project and the entire site eventually drains to this stream. There is a series of
major and minor drainage ditches that run along and throughout the site. The landowner states that some
of the larger ditches have been in place since the 19`' century. Smaller minor ditches are distributed
throughout the site at approximately 50 feet apart. This extensive ditch network reduces the amount of
total hydrologic input that can remain on-site.
A reference wetland was found approximately 0.8 miles from the Brown Site and was used to guide the
restoration design. It is also within the floodplain of New Hope Creek and is downstream from the
project site. The property is owned by the County of Durham and is included in a larger area of land
protected as the New Hope Creek Bottomlands. The composition of plant species at the reference
wetland is best described as a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
Using the reference wetland and existing site conditions, a restoration design was developed for the
Brown Farm. Current pastureland with drained hydric soils will be restored to wetland. Existing
wetlands will be enhanced by improving the hydrology and vegetation. Surrounding upland areas on the
site will be included to recreate a functioning ecosystem.
Hydrologic modifications will focus on restoring historic wetland hydrology by removing ditches and
berms that restrict flow from remaining on-site. Three level spreaders will also be constructed to
reconnect the hydrology across the entire site. These features will spread across the site in several places
and are designed to mimic the natural, elongated flowpath in a wetland. In order to block the remaining
flow from leaving via minor ditches that run primarily northwest to southeast, wetland microtopography
will be oriented perpendicular (i.e. southwest to northeast). This grading method will effectively create
small depressions and rises across the landscape while stopping the flowpath from these ditches. Using
this procedure will also allow some of the existing grasses to remain in place to stabilize the system.
The restoration of natural vegetation will focus on establishing native wetland hardwood species in the
entire wetland. The majority of the area will receive species consistent with a Piedmont Bottomland
Hardwood Forest community. Enhancement areas will be planted with targeted hardwood species to
increase species diversity. One section of the enhancement area is a Floodplain Pool community and will
be planted as such. Populations of invasive species have also been identified and will be eliminated as
much as possible.
A monitoring program will be implemented to observe the progress toward achieving mitigation goals
and objectives within the restored wetland areas. The site will be deemed successful once wetland
hydrology is established and vegetation success criteria are met. Management activities will be
conducted as necessary to control invasive species or handle other issues as they arise.
The restoration of the Brown Farm to a functioning wetland will allow the site to retain a greater amount
of floodwaters from New Hope Creek. The wetland will also provide water quality benefits by acting as a
buffer to New Hope Creek from upstream agricultural and residential uses. These restoration activities
will reduce both point and non-point source pollutants to the system and improve aquatic and terrestrial
habitat along the New Hope Creek Corridor.
11
BROWN FARM RESTORATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION .....................
1.1 Directions to Project Site ...................................................................
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations....
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ..............................................
2.1 Drainage Area ....................................................................................
2.2 Surface Water Classification / Water Quality ...................................
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils ......................................................
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ..................................
2.5 Endangered / Threatened Species ......................................................
2.6 Cultural Resources .............................................................................
2.7 Potential Constraints ..........................................................................
3.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS ..............................................................
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ......................................................................
3.2 Hydrological Characterization ...........................................................
3.3 Soil Characterization .........................................................................
3.4 Plant Community Characterization ...................................................
4.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS ..................................................................
4.1 Hydrological Characterization ...........................................................
4.2 Soil Characterization .........................................................................
4.3 Plant Community Characterization ...................................................
5.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN .............................................
5.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives .........................................
5.2 HEC-RAS Analysis ...........................................................................
5.3 Hydrological Modifications ...............................................................
5.4 Natural Plant Community Restoration ..............................................
6.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ...............................................................
6.1 Hydrology ..........................................................................................
6.2 Vegetation ..........................................................................................
6.3 Schedule / Reporting .........................................................................
7.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................
.......... 1
.......... 1
.......... 1
.......... 1
..........1
.......... 1
.......... 1
.......... 1
.......... 4
..........4
.......... 6
.......... 6
.......... 7
.......... 7
.......... 7
........13
........14
........ 15
........15
........15
........ 20
........ 20
........ 20
........ 23
........ 24
........ 26
........ 28
........ 28
........ 28
........ 29
........ 30
iii
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Project Watershed ........................................................................................................................ ..3
Figure 3. NRCS Soil Survey Map ............................................................................................................... .. 5
Figure 4. FEMA Floodplain ........................................................................................................................ .. 8
Figure 5. Existing Wetlands ........................................................................................................................ ..9
Figure 6. Existing Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 7. Reference Wetland Vicinity Map ................................................................................................ 16
Figure 8. Reference Wetland Watershed .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 9. Reference Wetland with Gauge Location .................................................................................... 18
Figure 10. Reference Wetland NRCS Soil Survey ..................................................................................... 19
Figure 11. Reference Wetland Land Use and Land Cover ......................................................................... 21
Figure 12. Mitigation Type and Extent ....................................................................................................... 22
Figure 13. Proposed Restoration Activities ................................................................................................ 25
Figure 14. Planting Plan .............................................................................................................................. 27
TABLES
Table 1. Existing Land Use in Project Watershed ........................................................................................ 4
Table 2. Species in Durham and Orange Counties Listed Under the Federal Endangered Species Act....... 6
Table 3. Constraints Within the Project Watershed ...................................................................................... 6
Table 4. Soil Properties for the Restoration Site ......................................................................................... 14
Table 5. Mitigation Type and Extent .......................................................................................................... 20
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Historical Aerial Photographs
Appendix 2. Correspondence
Appendix 3. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 4. USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 5. USACE Approved Wetland Boundary
Appendix 6. Water Budget
Appendix 7. Soil Profile Description
Appendix 8. Reference Wetland Photographs
Appendix 9. Reference Wetland USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 10. No-rise Certification
1V
I?
. INTRODUCTION
This restoration plan outlines the existing conditions at the Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site and the
process that will be used to restore riverine wetlands along New Hope Creek in Durham and Orange
- counties. Using results from field studies and a literature review, this document provides an overview of
the planned restoration project. The hydrology, soils, and vegetative communities at a nearby reference
wetland are included and will serve as a model to shape the final restoration design. Once completed, the
project will add another piece to the protected areas along the New Hope Creek Corridor.
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The Brown Farm Site is located adjacent to New Hope Creek and is approximately two miles west of
Durham, North Carolina along the Orange-Durliam County Line as seen in Figure 1. The site is
approximately one mile east of the intersection of Erwin Road and Mt. Moriah Road and is located on
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Southwest Durham and Chapel Hill Quadrangles. The project
site is approximately located at 35.9670 N Latitude and 78.9977 W Longitude (WGS 1984).
. 1.2 USGS Hydrologic Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The property is in the 03030002 (Upper Cape Fear 02) Watershed Cataloging Unit (8-digit HUC) and the
03030002060110 (Upper New Hope Creek) Local Watershed Unit (14-digit HUC). The site drains into
© New Hope Creek to the east, which then flows approximately 1 1 miles before entering Jordan Lake. In
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program's (EEP) Cape Fear River Basin Watershed
Restoration Plan, the Upper New Hope Creek Watershed (030300020601 10) has been identified as a high
priority Targeted Hydrologic Unit/Watershed.
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area
The project has a contributing drainage area of 33.33 square miles (21,331 acres) at the downstream limits
of the site and contains the headwaters of New Hope Creek. Figure 2 shows the location of site within the
project watershed.
2.2 Surface Water Classification / Water Quality
The project site is located within the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Subbasin 03-06-
05. This reach of New Hope Creek (16-41-1-(0.5)) is classified for Class C uses, which are protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and
other uses suitable for Class C. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving
human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or
incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges.
Additionally, the stream is designated as a Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW), a supplemental classification
intended for waters that require additional nutrient management, because of the susceptibility to excessive
growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation (NCDENR, DWQ 2005).
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
The project watershed is located within the Piedmont physiographic province and is part of the Triassic
Basins Level IV Ecoregion. The Triassic Basin has many easily widening stream valleys and less local
relief than in surrounding regions. Sedimentary rocks of the Chatham Group underlie the site. The
geology is described as arkosic sandstone, which is tan, medium to very coarse-grained, and micaceous
(NCDENR Geologic Survey 2005).
70
\ ?( A,
I l
Project Site,
Orange & Durham Counties, NC
ORANGE D RHA e j
COUNTY N
-II \ r
1, -- -_?
i
' Erwin Rd ? /
I.? Project Site
I
I Mt. Moriah Rd r
•
F City of Durham •
J Town of
Chapel Hill
7 51
•
k f s ? ? ? •
Figure 1. Vicinity Map '
Project Location Major Roads
----
1*"'V Major Streams and Rivers Other Roads KCI
A ASSOCIATES OF NC:
Lakes and Reservoirs s "
LIJ Municipalities 1:63,360
1 inch equals 1 miles
Counties
I 0.5 0 I
TECHNOLOGIES Miles EwwoNNI w&TECNNOLOWES
AND CONSTRUCTION. INC.
- .a
i 7
&
?r j{ y
1.
{
4
.
'
10
r
Now
II
.Y )
r
1. L.w.
. • r_
l ,f. y 1
A r?r
i
r
II
' 11 'yr
Y
t rrI * r? t'' a r? ?[ jy
y ?
A.
u , 1
r,
L2! u 4-- ?aM 1
. 7
f
i {{
111 1 t r' p,7r? 'T ? ? "s? l ; T '4 1 i
1 ? } I.
w.r.
Figure 2. Project Site Watershed Map
Project Site Location
• ??? Project Watershed K C I
. ASSOCIATrS OF NC
Major Streams and Rivers
KC 114-digit HUC Boundaries 1:95,040
- 1 inch equals 1.5 miles _10w fi '.
TECHNOLOGIES
Source: USGSTopographic Quadrangles I 0.5 0 I ?I{vI1x,NNFNIA} Irl nN )I<KSIC;
Chapel Ifillan I SW Durham Milcs AND CONSTRUCTION. INC.

The Orange and Durham County Soil Surveys classify the soils at the site as Chewacla. The Chewacla
soils consist of very deep, moderately permeable, somewhat poorly drained soils on floodplains along
bottomlands, creeks and rivers. They develop from recent alluvium washed from soils formed in residuum
from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite, and other metamorphic and igneous rocks. They occur on nearly
level floodplains along streams that drain from the mountains and the Piedmont. Wehadkee soils are also
shown as existing on the site and this soil type consist of very deep and very poorly drained soils on
nearly level floodplains along streams that drain from the mountains and the Piedmont. The Wehadkee
soils typically occur with Chewacla soils. They arc more poorly drained than the Chewacla soils and they
are darker in color and more intensely mottled. A map of the soils within the project watershed is seen in
Figure 3. The county soil survey classifications, however, were not fully consistent with the soil
conditions observed on-site by a KCI soil scientist (sec Section 3.3.2).
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The project watershed is located almost exclusively (97.3%) in Orange County. Approximately 83% of
the watershed is forested based on the North Carolina GAP land use classification, which used 1992 and
1993 aerial photography (McKerrow 2003). Table 1 describes the various land uses in the project
watershed.
Table 1. Existing Land Use in Project Watershed
Land Use Acreage Percentage
Forest 17,718.6 83.1%
Agricultural 2,000.4 9.4%
Rangeland 727.9 3.4%
Urban or built-up land 493.9 2.3%
Wetland 264.2 1.2%
Water 122.5 0.6%
Barren land 2.9 0.0%
Total 21,330.6 100%
The project watershed and surrounding area continue to experience rapid growth. Downstream and
outside of the project watershed there is residential and commercial development expanding along the
North Carolina State Highway 15-501 corridor to the cast. However, a large area of the project watershed
is within Duke Forest, a 7,200-acre research forest owned by Duke University. There has also been an
effort among local governments and citizens to protect land along New Hope Creek and create a protected
corridor all the way to Jordan Lake.
Historic aerial photographs dating from 1955 show the site under cultivation or in pasture in the last fifty
years (Appendix 1). Drainage ditches throughout the site arc evident in each of the photographs. The
landowner reports that several ditches along the property were constructed in the 19°i century. A large
floodplain pool feature in the southeast corner of the project site is visible in all of the historic images.
2.5 Endangered / Threatened Species
As part of the initial environmental documentation for this project, a Categorical Exclusion (CE) was
completed. The CE included a review of any potential impacts on endangered or rare species from the
proposed project. A summary of the information has been included below and more detailed information
can be found in the CE.
A review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) listing of federally endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act revealed four species in Orange County and three
4
1 O Altavista Fine Sandy Loam, 0 To 3 Percent Slopes Aa
Chewacla and Wehadkee Soils (Durham Co.) Ch
Chewacla Loam (Orange Co.) (7,
® Congaree Silt Loam CP
- Creedmoor Sandy Loam, 2 To 6 Percent Slopes OU
- Enon Loam, 6 To 12 Percent Slopes Enc
Mayodan Sandy Loam, 10 To 15 Percent Slopes MJD
® Mayodan Sandy Loam, 2 To 6 Percent Slopes M1B
White Store Clay Loam, 6 To 15 Percent Slopes, Eroded WW
_ White Store Loam, 2 To 6 Percent Slopes 171.1D
® No Wt. M,Dal
MfD
0 10
?
?
Ch
r --------------
I
I?
I
1
/
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
r•
`? ,? rrrr
r
? r r r
? r r r
_? , rrr
.0
r WtC2 i r • •
?r r r Ch
i

Cp
Figure 3. Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
:_ I Project Site Boundary
144,1 New Hope Creek N
Orange-Durham County Line w?E
1:4,800
K C I s
1 inch equals 400 feet
TECHNOLOGIES Source: Soil Su,vev (?/ Durham Count' 1" SCS 1976 400 200 0
and Soil Survey of Orange County, SCS 1977 _
C I
RTES OF NC
species in Durham County. Table 2 details the finding of this search; two of the species were recorded in
both counties. There is no critical habitat designated in either county.
Table 2. Species in Durham and Orance Counties Listed Under the Federal Endangered Species Act
Major
Taxonomic Group Scientific
Name Common
Name Federal
Status
Vertebrate Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Threatened
Vertebrate Picoides horealist Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Endangered
Mollusk Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf Wedge Mussel Endangered
Vascular Plant Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Vascular Plant Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower Endangered
A formal request was submitted to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) for review of
the restoration project's potential impacts on endangered or threatened species. The NCNHP found no
records of protected or rare species within a mile of the project site (see Appendix 2).
2.6 Cultural Resources
A visit to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) revealed no historic properties or
archaeological resources within the project limits. KCI submitted a formal request for review of the site
to SHPO. The office responded that they were not aware of any cultural resources that would be affected
by the restoration project (see Appendix 2).
2.7 Potential Constraints
As part of the CE documentation process, a limited Phase I site assessment was conducted to verify
whether the site was listed in any state or federal environmental databases such as hazardous waste sites
or underground storage tanks. The site was not identified in any databases and a summary of the limited
Phase I report is included in the CE report. In addition, the project site was examined for any potential
hindrances to a successful restoration project. The evaluation focused on hazardous materials, utilities,
restrictive easements, and the potential for hydrologic trespass. Table 3 summarizes the identified
constraints related to the implementation of site restoration activities.
Table 3. Constraints Within the Proiect Watershed
Potential Constraint Present on Project Site? Proposed Resolution
Adjacent Property Land Use Agriculture, Forest, and Wetland N/A
Deed Restrictions/Easements No N/A
Limited Access No N/A
Utilities No N/A
Structures No N/A
Natural Feature Barriers No N/A
FEMA Regulated Area Project area within Zone AE No-Rise Certification
6
. J
• 2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The property is owned by several members of the Brown Family. The parcel lies within both Orange
(Pin# 0800-06-2560) and Durham (Pin# 0800-01-06-9809) counties.
2.7.2 Site Access
The site is reached from Mt. Moriah Road as shown in Figure 1. Legal access is guaranteed with an
- ingress/egress easement from Mt. Moriah Road to the northwestern corner of the conservation easement
- boundary.
2.7.3 Utilities
A search was completed to investigate any utilities present within the project site and none were found.
2.7.4 FEMA / Hydrologic Trepass
. The property is located within the 100-year floodplain of Upper New Hope Creek as determined by the
. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As shown in Figure 4, the entire project site
boundary is located in Zone AE. There will be no hydrologic trespass on any bordering properties.
• 3.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS
• The project site exists on the floodplain of New Hope Creek. The land has long been used for agriculture
and has been drained with an extensive ditch network. The existing site conditions are shown in the
project photographs (Appendix 3).
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Existing wetlands were delineated in August 2005 using the methods described by the US Army Corps of
• Engineers (USACE 1987). The delineation forms used for the project site are available in Appendix 4.
. The wetland boundaries are shown in Figure 5 and were approved by the USACE as the existing
jurisdictional wetlands (Appendix 5).
. 3.2 Hydrological Characterization
The site hydrology has been greatly affected by a series of ditches that all drain to New Hope Creek. The
existing hydrologic conditions are shown in Figure 6.
a Project Streams and Ditches
There are no streams that flow directly through the project site. Upper New Hope Creek forms the
eastern boundary of the project and the entire site eventually drains to this stream. There is a series of
major and minor drainage ditches that run along and throughout the site. Ditches #1 and #2 are two large
ditches that are each approximately one foot deep and they carry water from a small subwatershed that
drains directly to the site. Ditch #3 drains water through the center of the site and diverges into Ditches
#4 and #5 before all of this drainage exits via Ditch #6. Running along the southern boundary of the
project boundary, Ditch #6 provides the major outlet for the site. Ditch #7 currently allows excess water
. to drain from the eastern portion of the site. Ditch #9 runs along the northern site boundary and drains a
small subwatershed to New Hope Creek. When water levels in New Hope Creek rise high enough to
cause backwater into Ditch #9, this flow travels into Ditch #8, which during large flood events appears to
flow in either direction as water levels fluctuate, although it is bordered by a 2-foot benn on the southern
bank. When Ditch #9 experiences enough flow to exceed its banks, the excess is carried through the site
by Ditch #3. However, another 2 to 3-foot berm has been constructed from the spoil remains of Ditch #9
that prevents this ditch from flooding except during extreme events. Ditches #10 and #11 are small
• sloughs from Ditch #9 and frequently remain ponded. During larger flooding events, backwater from

7
??

. New Hope Creek travels down Ditch # 12. Ditch # 13 carries drainage down from the eastern side of the
property. Smaller minor ditches are distributed throughout the site at approximately 50 feet apart, which
contribute to a significant loss of water from the site as well.
Project Wetlands
The site is located on an expansive and active floodplain of New Hope Creek. Moving west from the
stream, the site slopes downward at approximately 1% from the levee position of the creek to a lower
. floodplain position in the center of the site. This central portion is flat extending to the north, south and
west to the valley walls on the site.
. Existing Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood wetlands are found in some of the forested areas of the project
site. In the northern part of the site, drainage from the north forms a wetland in a depressional area that
ponds consistently. The drainage from this wetland leads to another small wetland approximately 200
. feet south in a small stand of hardwood trees. Another wctland exists toward the southern end of the site
and Ditch #5 currently nuns through this section.
A Floodplain Pool community is found in the southeastern portion of the project site. This wetland
. experiences flooding for a large part of' the year. Several minor ditches from the eastern half of the
property flow into this wetland and excess drainage is able to exit via Ditch #7.
. All of the existing wetlands on the site receive occasional inputs from New Hope Creek flood events.
. However, ditches carry water away from all of the wetlands and reduce the amount of total hydrologic
input that remains on-site.
Confirmation of'Riverine Condition (5-yewr.Jloodplain)
FEMA originally used a HEC-2 model to determine flood elevations for New Hope Creek. KCI obtained
this existing flood model and imported it into HEC-RAS. Once the model was calibrated to match the
. results calculated with HEC-2, it was used to analyze the flood frequency at the Brown Site.
In its previous analysis, FEMA provided flood elevations for 10, 50, 100, and 200-year flood events. In
order to develop elevations for more frequent flooding events, a Log Pearson III flood frequency analysis
. was used to estimate discharges for 1, 2 and 5-year events. Because there is no stream gauge available at
the project site, we used peak annual streamflow data from 1983 to 2004 from the nearest United States
Geologic Survey (USGS) stream gauge on New Hope Creek, Station 02097314 (approximately six miles
. southeast of the Brown Farm). A log-log linear equation was then created with an R'` of 0.99 to relate the
. discharge at the gauge to the discharge values known for New Hope Creek. This relationship was used to
estimate discharges for more frequent flood events at the project site. Based on results from this method,
the elevation for a 5-year flood event was 256.3 feet at the upstream portion of the site and 255.38 feet at
. the downstream end of the site. Using these figures, the entire site would be inundated excluding only the
spoil piles that reach 258 feet along Ditches #8 and #9.
. An analysis was also completed to look at how often a flood event would reach the site. Using the same
procedure as above, flood waters are predicted to move onto the site during a 1.1-year flooding event. At
this point, the model indicates that water will enter the site from below at an elevation of approximately
253 feet. During a 1.2-year event, the site is predicted to flood from both the northern and southern
. edges. With an event of this magnitude, the floodwaters are projected to enter the site from the north at
an elevation estimated at 254.5 feet. Based on this analysis, flooding events are a significant hydrologic
input to the project site.
? 11
3.2.1 Groundwater Gauges
High groundwater has been reported historically for the site and occurs seasonally at or near the surface in
the surrounding natural areas. The project site has a high water table, because of its level location along a
large floodplain. The groundwater within the project site is being evaluated by monitoring the water level
with three on-site HOBO recording pressure gauges. Three gauges were installed at the site in early 2006
and the locations are shown in Figure 6. The gauges were programmed to measure water levels twice
daily at 12-hour intervals.
3.2.2 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site
Existing Conditions
Existing site hydrology was modeled by developing an annual water budget that calculates water inputs
and outputs in order to calculate the change in storage on a monthly time step (Appendix 6).
In order to set up the water budget, historic precipitation data were obtained from the North Carolina State
Climatic Office. The nearest weather station to the Brown Site is Station 312515 in Durham, North
Carolina. This station is located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the project site. Monthly
precipitation totals from the entire period of record (1899-2005) were reviewed and three years were
selected to represent a range of precipitation conditions: dry year (1941), average year (1956), and wet
year (1975).
Potential inputs to the water budget include precipitation, groundwater, and surface inputs. For
precipitation, the data from the three selected years were used in the budget. Groundwater input likely
exists, but was considered negligible in comparison to the magnitude of surface and precipitation inputs.
Surface water input was calculated using the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) runoff curve
number equation (1986). The results for this equation were computed using the US Army Corps of
Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS).
Outputs from the site include potential evapotranspiration (PET), groundwater, and surface water outlets.
PET was calculated by the Thornthwaite method using mean monthly temperatures determined from the
chosen years of record: 1941, 1956, and 1975. Groundwater represents losses from the site due to
downward seepage through the soil profile and was assumed to be 2x10-6 ft/min (1.04 inches per month),
which is typical of low permeability soils associated with wetlands. A substantial amount of water is also
lost through the existing ditches on-site. A DRAINMOD model was set up to simulate the effect of the
existing drainage network on wetland hydrology. The program evaluated 40 years of available
precipitation data and produced the annual loss due to the ditches. The annual loss was then averaged on
a monthly basis for dry, average, and wet years.
Once the inputs and outputs were determined, a net monthly total was calculated in inches and used to
estimate a yearly water budget. The model assumes unsaturated conditions at the beginning of the year.
A maximum wetland water volume of 5.4 inches was calculated based on the specific yield of 0.15 for 36
inches of Wchadkee soil in order to analyze conditions in the upper three feet of the soil profile. The
resulting hydrographs for the average, dry, and wet years show a seasonal pattern. The model shows that
the majority of hydrologic inputs to the site come during the rainy spring months. The site begins to lose
saturation in the upper twelve inches in the summer months. The late fall sees an increase in hydrologic
inputs again. The dry year shows very little hydrology overall. The water budget does predict that
wetland hydrology would exist in the average and wet years. However, this trend does correspond to
conditions observed on-site and indicates that the model is not entirely representative of the true site
conditions. Groundwater gauges on the site since early 2006 show large fluctuations in the data with the
site at times experiencing hydrology below or at jurisdictional levels. The US Army Corps of Engineers
12
r
r
r
r performed a wetland determination at the site on February 1, 2006 and verified that apart from in the 3.32
acres of existing wetlands the site does not have adequate jurisdictional hydrology (sec Appendix 5).
r
r Proposed Conditions
r A second water budget was developed to analyze the effect of restoration actions on the site hydrology.
The loss of water from the existing ditches was removed from the budget, because these ditches will be
r filled. To estimate the impact from recreating wetland microtopography, an additional two inches of
r hydrologic capacity was added to the calculations. Based on these changes, the budget shows a
noticeable increase in the spring. In particular, the wet year has wetland hydrology throughout almost the
r entire year. The dry year does not show much change trom the existing to proposed budget, which
r indicates that during a drought year the wetland may not experience much saturation.
r One factor not taken into account in the annual water budget calculations is the effect of flooding. Tile
r flood analysis described in Section 3.2 predicts that the site will experience frcqueut flooding events.
r Based on the existing conditions, these floodwaters would not be retained on-site and would instead drain
out through the series of ditches. Under proposed conditions, the input from these flooding events would
r be able to remain on-site, because of' the small depressions and rises associated with recreated wetland
r microtopography.
r 3.3 Soil Characterization
r A soils investigation was conducted by a certified soil scientist from KCf to determine the extent and
r distribution of the hydric soils on the site and to classify the predominate soils to the soil series level. The
investigation consisted of delineating the hydric soil boundaries with pink flagging in accordance with the
r US Army Corps of Engineers (1987). Areas that were identified as possible hydric soil slapping units
r were surveyed at a higher intensity until the edge of the mapping unit was identified. The boundary of the
hydric and non-hydric soil mapping units were then followed by continual sampling and observations as
r the boundary line was identified and delineated. In those areas where the boundary was found to be a
r broad gradient rather than a distinct break, microtopography, landscape position, soil textural changes,
r redoximorphic features, and depleted matrices were additionally considered to identify the extent of the
hydric soils.
r
To develop a detailed soils map, several soil borings were advanced on the site in the general hydric soil
areas identified by landscape position, vegetation and slope. Once the hydric soil borings were identified,
r the soil scientist marked the point and established a visual line to the next auger boring where again
hydric soil conditions were confirmed by additional borings. The soil scientist moved along the edges of
the mapping unit and marked each point along the line. To confirm the hydric soil mapping unit, soil
borings were advanced to a depth of 50 inches. The soil profile descriptions identified the individual
horizons in the topsoil and upper subsoil as well as the depth, color, texture, structure, boundary, and
. evidence of restrictive horizons and redoximorphic features. The extent of the mapped hydric soils is
shown in Figure 5.
r
The project site has been in agricultural production for approximately 100 years, but no Prior Converted
(PC) wetland determination has been made oil the site by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
r Service (NRCS).
r
. 3.3.1 Taxonomic Classification
The project soils were classified as Wchadkce (tine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaqucntic
Fildoaquepts) with inclusions of' Chewacla (fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaqucntic
Dystrudepts).
r
r
r
r
13
3.3.2 Profile Description
The Orange and Durham County Soil Surveys classify all the soils underlying the site as Chewacla.
However, this classification was inconsistent with the observed soil conditions at the site. A detailed soils
investigation by a KCI soil scientist identified Wchadkec soils as occupying the central portion of the site
where restoration will take place. This detailed soils investigation was conducted by augering numerous
soil borings across the site in areas identified by landscape position, vegetation, and slope followed by the
preparation of a soil map that identified the extent of each soil mapping unit. The resulting distribution of
soils on-site is estimated to be 75°/, Wchadkec and 25% Chewacla. The Wchadkec and Chewacla soils
are defined as hydric soils due to saturation for a significant period during the growing season and they
are listed on the federal, state and county hydric soils lists (USDA, SCS 1976 and USDA, SCS 1977).
The soils in the north-central portion of the project site do not have hydric features until a depth of
approximately 18-24 inches. This is likely caused from overwash sediment fi-om flooding events that
have accumulated on top of the Wchadkec soil below. A detailed description of all of the soil profiles by
a KCI soil scientist is provided in Appendix 7.
The Chewacla soils consist of very deep, moderately permeable, somewhat poorly drained soils on
floodplains along bottoms, creeks, and rivers. The soil is produced from recent alluvium washed from
soils formed in residuum from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite, and other metamorphic and igneous rocks.
They occur on nearly level floodplains along streams that drain from the mountains and the Piedmont.
The Wchadkec soils are very deep and very poorly drained and arc found on nearly level floodplains
along streams that drain from the mountains and the Piedmont. The Wehadkcc soils commonly occur
with Chewacla soils. They are more poorly drained, darker in color, and more intensely mottled than the
Chewacla soils (USDA, SCS 1976 and USDA, SCS 1977).
3.3.3 Soil Properties
The physical properties for Wehadkcc and Chewacla are identified in Table 4.
Table 4. Soil Properties for the Restoration Site
Hydraulic Percent Bulk
Soil Name Description Inches Conductivity Organic Density
in/hr Matter /cc
Very deep, moderately permeable, 0-4 0.57- 1.98 1.04 4.0 1.30- 1.60
somewhat poorly drained soils of
Chewacla*
and
floodplains along bottoms
creeks 4 26 0.57 1.98 0.5 - 2.0 1.30 1.50
,
,
rivers. 26 - 36 0.57- 1.98 0.5 2.0 1.30- 1.60
Very deep, poorly drained and very 0-7 1.98-5.95 2.0 5.0 1.35- 1.60

Wehadkee poorly drained soils on flood plains

aloe streams. 7 36 0.57 1.98 0.0 - 2.0 1.30 - 1.50
*Chewacla description based on the Soil Survey of Durham County (USDA, SCS 1976). The percent organic mancr for Chewacla differs
slightly at 6-36 inches in the descriptions in the Soil Survey of Orange County (USDA, SCS 1977).
3.4 Plant Community Characterization
At the site there are three existing vegetation types
and Floodplain Pool.
agriculture, Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest,
Agriculture - 32.0 acres
The agricultural area consists of land cut for hay and occasionally used for pasture. The site has been
under continuous production for the past 100 years. A series of ditches exist throughout the agricultural
field. Two large ditches direct water around and/or through the site while many smaller ditches channel
now to the larger drainage network. There are several trees growing in places among the agricultural
fields. There is a line of trees running from north to south and within this grouping of trees there arc
14
Reference Site,
Durham County, NC
ORANGE D RHA? -
COUNTY O
,4 C
•r
< _
rJ ? 7
Project Site ?/ /
Reference -
+ Wetland I Garrett Rd -
s
PIP
_. - ?- 5-501 z®? C -•__1" ??._. T, ?y )
J
?- r Town of yOA '? City of Durham ?-
l ° •1
Chapel Hill _ __- ?. 1? \ • ??•
51
/ 7 f
4 _-
i
l (`?
1-y' -
54
Figure 7. Reference Wetland Vicinity Map
Reference Wetland Location Major Roads
-- Other Roads K C I
- ? Project Location
N? ASSOCIATES OF NC:
^V Major Streams and Rivers
KC I S Lakes and Reservoirs 1:63,360
1 inch equals I miles
Municipalities
TECHNOLOGIES 0 I 0.5
COnntie$ Miles ANNC?LOGIE3
AND D CONSTRUCTION, INC.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
several mature willow oak (Quercus phellos) and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) along with a row of
eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana).
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest - 1.2 acres
On the northern edge of the project site, there is an established Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest
community. There are also two other small wetlands of this community type in the center of the site as
well as along the southern edge. These wetlands experience seasonal inundation and have had standing
water during recent site visits. There is a diverse mixture of hardwood species, which include red maple
(Ater rubrum), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), and American elm (Ulmus
americana).
Floodplain Pool- 2.1 acres
This community exists along the southern border of the project site and sits in a depression that is lower
than the rest of the project site. The wetland is saturated much of the year and contains mature vegetation
such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsyh,anica), river birch (Betula nigra), red maple (Aces rubrum), and
American elm (Uhnus americana).
Nonnative Plant Species
The site has also been invaded by several non-native plant species. Populations of Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinese), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)
inhabit portions of the site.
4.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS
The reference wetland is located approximately 0.8 miles from the Brown Site. It is also within the
floodplain of New Hope Creek and is downstream from the project site. The property is owned by the
County of Durham and is included in a larger area of land protected as the New Hope Creek Bottomlands.
The site location is shown in Figure 7 and photographs of the reference site are seen in Appendix 8.
KCI performed a wetland determination at the reference site. The USACE data sheets used for this
procedure are in Appendix 9.
4.1 Hydrological Characterization
The site is located in the New Hope Creek Watershed as and the reference wetland watershed is seen in
Figure 8. Similar to the project site, the reference wetland receives hydrologic inputs from a high
groundwater table and seasonal flooding from New Hope Creek. Within the reference wetland, there are
many physical markers of wetland hydrology. There are buttressed trunks, sediment marks on trees, and
drainage patterns.
4.1.1 Gauge Data Summary
The groundwater within the reference wetland will be evaluated by monitoring the water level with an on-
site HOBO recording pressure gauge. Data from this gauge will be compared to gauges at the restoration
areas. The gauge will be programmed to measure water levels twice daily at 12-hour intervals. The data
will be downloaded periodically and evaluated to determine the depth and duration of the groundwater
level on the reference site. The reference wetland gage was installed in early 2006 and its location is
shown in Figure 9.
4.2 Soil Characterization
The soil type as described in the Soil Survey of Durham County is shown in Figure 10 (USDA, SCS
1976). According to the soil survey, the soil type is Chewacla and Wehadkee series. This is consistent
15

Chewacla And Wehadkee Soils Ch
- Congaree Silt Loam Cp
® Creedmoor Sandy Loam, 2 To 6 Percent Slopes CrB
- Creedmoor Sandy Loam, 6 To 10 Percent Slopes O•C
- Mayodan Sandy Loam, 10 To 15 Percent Slopes AO
- While Store Sandy Loam, 10 To 25 Percent Slopes WsE
While Store Sandy Loam, 2 To 6 Percent Slopes WsB
- White Store Sandy Loam, 6 To 10 Percent Slopes WsC
IJrban Land Ur
No Data NoDar
CrB
i
1

Ch
Ws6

WsB
Figure 10. Reference Wetland NRCS Soil Survey Map
Reference Wetland Gauge Location
/4k/ New Hope Creek AN
W? pE
1.3,600
K C I s
1 inch equals 300 feet
TECHNOLOGIES Source: Soif Sto v?>r o% Durham Coenh. 300 1,0 n 300
USDA SCS 1977 Pcet
AND
I
NC
with the evaluation by the KCI soil scientist, who found the soils in the reference wetland to be
Wehadkee. This soil is the same as described in Section 3.3.2.
4.3 Plant Community Characterization
The composition of plant species at the reference wetland is best described as a Piedmont Bottomland
Hardwood Forest. The extent of the community type and the surrounding land uses are shown in Figure
11.
4.3.1 Community Description
The trees within the reference wetland include a variety of hardwood species such as red maple (Acer
rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsvlvanica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), river birch (Betula
nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus Americana), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra),
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica).
5.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
5.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
This project proposes to improve water quality and expand wetland habitat by restoring agricultural land
to a functioning riverine wetland ecosystem. Currently, the site is used for harvesting hay and occasional
grazing, but it is located directly within the floodplain of New Hope Creek. This important water body
contains unique aquatic habitat both upstream and downstream of the project site. New Hope Creek is
listed as an impaired water body under the draft 2004 303(d) list for North Carolina starting
approximately 2.4 miles downstream of the project site at the confluence with Sandy Creek. This
segment of stream has impaired biological integrity from urban runoff and storm sewers (NCDENR,
DWQ 2005a).
Restoring this wetland will allow the site to retain a greater amount of floodwaters from New Hope
Creek. Recent development in the New Hope Creek Watershed has increased the storm surge associated
with precipitation events. Flood attenuation will increase by removing ditches that drain the site. The
restored wetland will also provide water quality benefits by acting as a buffer to New Hope Creek from
upstream agricultural and residential uses. These restoration activities will reduce both point and non-
point source pollutants to the system and improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
An overview of the mitigation type and extent at the project site is given in Figure 12. Current
pastureland with drained hydric soils will be restored to wetland. Existing wetlands will be enhanced by
improving the hydrology and vegetation. Surrounding upland areas on the site will be preserved to
recreate a functioning ecosystem. The acreage in Table 5 below provides an overview of the restoration
and enhancement wetland areas.
Table 5. Mitigation Tvne and Extent
Restoration Enhancement Preservation TOTAL
Riverine Wetland Acreage 24.58 3.32 0 27.90
Upland Inclusion Acreage 0 0 18.22 18.22
TOTAL 24.58 3.32 18.22 46.12
20
j - Figure 11. Reference Wetland Land Use and Land Cover
Agriculture * Reference Wetland Gauge Location
- Commercial
New Hope Creek
- Bottomland Hardwood Forest "
w?e
Residential
- Transportation 1:3,600
KC I S
1 inch equals 300 feet
TECHNOLOGIES hnage Sonrce: USGS Urban Area High 300 150 0 300
Resohrlion Or thoirnagery, Mach 2002 Feet

1
•
•
ti: •
ti.
,
F
r
f
- i
•
f
IVA
V i •
_.,: _ ? ??? ??' ?k ?-. ,; ' . / ?y ??"? ? rte' q? a c °? •
1 a 4 r Far
10.
,<'^'•.,r.d-fi? ? ???'• k? t« -fit ?,?? { 'F?? i
{
-qpl 0, '9'q
,? 1 _? ?. •
?
? r: 1
??? ? ? ? ?. j A?'IT •
7 T ?
a,
Figure 12. Mitigation Type and Extent ?`? •
® Wetland Enhancement (3.32 acres) I?? •
Wetland Restoration (24.58 acres) K C I •
W -<)-e ASSOCIATES OF NC •
Project Site Boundary 5
1:3,000
New Hope Creek
KC I •
1 inch equals 250 feet • li
TECHNOLOGIES Lnage Source: USGS Urban Area High 250 125 0 250 t NVIIZONMENVU IECHNOLOGU •
Resolution Orthoimagoy, March 2002 Fcct AND C.ONSIRUQION, INC.
•
•

Functions that will be restored as a result ol'the mitigation include:
¦ Aquatic/Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
¦ Water Quality
. ¦ Groundwater Recharge
¦ Nutrient Cycling
¦ Bottomland I lardwood Communities
5.1.1 Designed Wetland Type
The restored wetlands will be designed as it riverine wetland system. The area to be restored is within the
active 5-year floodplain of the New Ilope Creek and will receive inputs from numerous flood events.
Restoration will focus on filling existing ditches, removing till and overburden, and creating wetland
microtopography to retain floodwaters and restore wetland hydrology. Wetland-specific hardwood
species will be planted to establish hydrophytic vegetation.
. 5.1.2 Target Wetland Communities
The main target community for the restoration area is a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest as
described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). This wetland type has a canopy dominated by tree species
such as tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipkra), swectgum (Liyuidambar stvraci/lua), cherrybark oak
(Quercus p(Woda (jalcala var. pagodae#)Iia)), swamp chestnut oak (Q. rnichauxii), American clm (Ulmus
Americana), sugarberry (CcItis laevigatca), green ash (Fraximrs pennsylvanica), loblolly pine (Pines
laeda), shagback hickory (Carla ovata), and bitternut hickory (Carya cor(Ii/ormis). Typical understory
trees include American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple (Acer rubr•um), flowering dogwood
(Cormr.s flori(Icr), American holly (I/ex opaca), and common pawpaw (Asimina triloba). Common shrubs
are often species such as painted buckeye (Aesculu.Y svlvatica) and American strawberry -bush (Evonymus
americanar). Invasive species such as Virginia dayflower (Commclina virginica), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Japanese grass (Microslegium vimineum), and Asian spidcrwort (Mur(lannia keisak)
have the potential to invade this community type.
The typical Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood community is flooded at least occasionally. Bottomland
Forests are believed to form a stable climax forest with uneven-aged canopy with primarily gap phase
regeneration (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
In the existing wetlands, there is also a large Floodplain Pool community that will be enhanced. Schafale
and Weakley describe this habitat as being found in depressions in abandoned river channels on
floodplains in the mountains and the Piedmont. They typically hold standing water much or all of the
year. In the center of these pools, there may not be any higher plants and aquatic plant species may
dominate instead. The edges feature aquatic and wetland vegetation with species such as royal fern
(Ostnunda regalis var. speclabilis), handsome sedge (Carex.lbIlicu/ala), fringed sedge (C. crinita), white
edge sedge (C. debilis), broadwing sedge (C. alata), false nettle (Boehmeriar cylindrical), water-pepper
(Polvgonrrnr cespitosum), marsh scedbox (Ludwigia pa/ustris), and Sphagnum spp. Shrubs such as hazel
alder (Alms serrrdala) may occur on the edge (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
5.2 NEC-RAS Analysis
The Brown Site is located entirely within the 100-year floodplain of New Hope Creek (Zone AE). FEMA
originally used a HEC-2 model to analyze the flooding dynamics along New Hope Creek. KCI obtained
. this HFC-2 model, brought the data into HEC-RAS, and calibrated the converted model to match the
results produced by the original HF,C-2 output.
. 5.2.1 No-rise, LOMR, or CI,OMR
With this HEC-RAS model, we modified the two cross-sections that go through the project site to reflect
the changes in elevation from filling the ditches. Based on this analysis, KCI does not predict a rise in

23
base flood elevations. The modified IiEC-RAS model showed a rise less than or equal to 0.01 feet. A
No-Rise Certification letter explains these results in Appendix 10.
5.2.2 Hydrologic Trepass
There will be no hydrologic trespass to any landowners upstream or downstream of the Brown Site. The
planned actions will not encroach on any neighboring land and any increased flooding is anticipated to
stay within the project limits based on the flood analysis described in previous sections above.
5.3 Hydrological Modifications
Hydrologic modifications will focus on restoring surface water retention to this wetland system.
Currently, existing ditches and berms force water out of the system and prevent surface water from
remaining on-site and recharging the groundwater. Hydrologic restoration and enhancement will focus on
filling in these ditches that were constructed to drain the historic wetlands for agriculture. The restoration
will also involve removing or breaching berms that currently force water into the ditches. Together these
actions will allow surface and floodwaters to have greater access to the wetlands. Three level spreaders
will also be constructed across the project site to allow hydrologic access across the entire area as would
occur in a natural wetland. The modifications that will take place are displayed in Figure 13.
5.3.1 Narrative of Modifications
Hydrologic modifications will focus on restoring historic wetland hydrology by removing ditches and
berms that restrict flow from reaching and remaining on-site. Three level spreaders will be constructed to
reconnect the hydrology across the entire site. Wetland restoration and enhancement are planned for the
project site and described below.
RNerine Wetland Restoration - 24.58 Acres
Wetland restoration will take place on 24.58 acres of Wehadkee soils currently used for hay production
and grazing. The hydrologic restoration will focus on removing ditches and berms. Ditches IN, #2, 93,
#4, #7, #8, #12, and #13 will be tilled. Berms that run along the southern edges of Ditches #8 and #9 will
be removed where feasible; mature trees exist in places along the berm and will be left in place. In order
to block the remaining flow from minor ditches that run primarily north to south, microtopography will be
oriented perpendicular (i.e. southwest to northeast). This grading method will effectively create small
depressions and rises across the landscape while stopping the flowpath From these ditches. Using this
procedure will also allow some of the existing grasses to remain in place and stabilize the system in the
case that a extreme flooding event from New Hope Creek were to occur shortly after construction.
Fences are already in place to restrict cattle access to the restored wetland. In some locations, up to six
inches of fill/overburden will be removed from the top surface of the soil. This layer to be removed is a
combination of overwash sediments that have accumulated from flooding events and spoil remains fi-om
the extensive series of ditches that were constructed on the site.
Three level spreaders will be installed throughout the project site as displayed in Figure 13. These
features will spread across the site in several places and are designed to mimic the elongated flowpath in a
natural wetland. One will begin at a point just upstream of where Ditch #9 drains into New I lope Creek
and wrap around to the central portion of the site. Another level spreader will take the flow that is
coming from Ditch #1 and pull this across the site to the cast. A final level spreader will be installed from
the north-central portion of the site and allow water to seep toward southeast.
RNerine Welland Enhancement - 3.32 Acres
Currently the existing wetlands on-site have adequate wetland hydrology and most have an intact
hardwood canopy. However, these wetlands have been modified by ditches throughout the site that drain
a significant amount of water. The hydrology to these wetlands will be enhanced by filling Ditches #3,
24
i
—— — —
��
e �
4.
jy9
� J
F - .

#4, #7, and #8. The only remaining outlet that will allow water to leave the site will be through a
stabilized ditch plug outlet where Ditches #4 and #5 enter Ditch #6.
5.3.2 Scaled Schematic of Modifications
A diagram of the proposed restoration and enhancement actions is shown in Figure 13. It describes the
activities that will restore the site.
5.4 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Restoring natural vegetation will focus on establishing native wetland hardwood species in the entire
wetland. The majority of the area will receive species consistent with a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood
Forest community. Enhancement areas will be planted with targeted hardwood species to increase
species diversity. Populations of invasive species have also been identified and will be eliminated as
much as possible.
Restoration Plant Community
The restoration wetland will be planted as a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest Community using
the species described below. Approximately 436 trees per acre (10' x 10' spacing) will be planted to
achieve a mature survivability of three hundred twenty (320) trees per acre. The site will be planted with
1-gallon container stock instead of bare root trees to improve the overall rate of survivability. Plant
placement and groupings will be randomized during the restoration in order to create a more natural
appearance. Woody vegetation planting will take place during dormancy. Tree species to be planted may
consist of the following:
Green ash . Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipfera FAC
Water tupelo Nyssa aquatica OBL
Laurel oak Quercus laurifolia FACW
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata OBL
Swamp Chestnut oak Quercus michauxii FACW-
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda FACW
Willow oak Quercus phellos FACW-
The restoration area will be divided into two planting zones in order to target species to site conditions.
These zones are shown in Figure 14. Zone A will be planted with tree species with obligate or
facultative-wet designation and could include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), water tupelo (Nyssa
aquatica), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), and willow oak (Q.
phellos). Zone B will be planted with facultative species such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), and laurel oak (Q. laurifolia).
Welland Enhancement
Enhancement plantings will consist of hardwood species with a obligate or facultative-wet designation,
because these existing wetlands already experience a frequent level of saturation. The species will likely
consist of the following:
Water tupelo Nyssa aquatica OBL
Laurel oak Quercus laurifolia FACW
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata OBL
26
In the Bottomland Hardwood Community, the wetland will be enhanced with these species listed above at
a density of approximately 100 to 200 trees per acres. The Floodplain Pool Community will be planted at
the same density, but the trees will be placed only in the outer fringes of the site where ponding is less
frequent.
Invasive Species Management
The Brown Site has been affected by several nonnative plant species. One of the most significant
invaders is Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense); large thickets of the plant occupy the edges of the
proposed restoration site. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) have also spread into parts of the site. These species will be marked and treated with a
glyphosate herbicide. Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum) is also a pervasive nonnative plant in this
area. As much native grass cover will be retained during the construction process as possible to minimize
the amount of bare soil available to invasive plants.
6.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
A monitoring program will be implemented to observe the progress toward achieving mitigation goals
and objectives within the restored wetland areas. The site will be deemed successful once wetland
hydrology is established and vegetation success criteria are met.
6.1 Hydrology
Groundwater elevations will be monitored to evaluate the attainment of jurisdictional wetland hydrology
The reference wetland will also be monitored using the same procedures for comparative analysis.
Monitoring Procedure
Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data collected within
the project area and reference wetland. Automatic recording gauges will be established within restoration
areas at a density of one automatic well per four acres. Daily data will be collected from the automatic
gauges over the 5-year monitoring period following wetland construction.
Restoration Success Criteria
Wetland hydrology will be considered established if well data from the site indicate that the water table is
within 12 inches of the soil surface for 5% of the growing season during normal weather conditions. The
growing season was taken from NRCS climatic data for Durham County, which has the closest
meteorological station to the project site (Station NC312515). According to the NRCS, the growing
season is considered to be the period with a 50% probability that the daily minimum temperature is higher
than 28° F. The growing season for Durham County extends from March 24 to November 1 for a total of
222 days (USDA, NRCS 2003). Based on this growing season, success will be achieved at the project
site if the water table is within 12 inches of the soil surface for 11 days or more during the growing
season.
6.2 Vegetation
The success criteria for the planted species in the restoration areas will be based on survival and growth.
Beginning at the end of the first growing season, KCI will monitor vegetation for five years following the
planting.
Monitoring Procedure
Permanent monitoring plots (10 by 10 meters) will be established in the wetland restoration areas at a
density that will ensure 2% coverage of the total restoration acreage. Plots will be systematically located
28
to ensure even placement. Data will be collected at each plot for: total number of stems, species, percent
survival, height, estimated percent cover of all species, and evidence of insects, disease or browsing.
Restoration Success Criteria
Survival of planted species must be 320 stems/acre at the end of five years of monitoring. Non-target
species must not constitute more than 20% of the woody vegetation based on permanent monitoring plots.
6.3 Schedule / Reporting
Monitoring data will be collected annually for a period of five years or until success criteria are achieved.
Annual reports will be submitted to NCEEP and will document the monitored components of the
restoration plan (hydrology and vegetation) and include all collected data, analyses, and photographs.
Restoration of wetlands involves interpretation of collected information to devise a strategy that will
ultimately lead to a functional ecosystem. Minor variations in the results can be anticipated due to
unknown site conditions, inputs from outside the restoration site, regional climatic variations, or acts of
God, etc. Correspondingly, nurturing the site with regular management activities is considered necessary
to ensure that the goals and objectives of the project are met. These activities will be conducted
throughout the year and may include invasive species control or other management activities. If the
monitoring identifies failures in the project site, a remedial action plan will be developed to investigate
the causes of the failure and propose actions to rectify the problem.
29
7.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
McKerrow, A. 2003. North Carolina GAP Land Cover. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Gap
Analysis Project Office.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2005a. DRAFT March 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinw1de/draftCPFApri12005.htm
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2005b. Surface water classification. Last accessed 7/12/2005 at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.htmi
NCDENR, Geologic Survey. North Carolina Geology. Last accessed 1 1 /2/2005 at
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/geomap.htm
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Field indicators of
hydric soils in the United States, Version 5.9. Last accessed November 8, 2005 at
http://solls.usda.gov/tise/hydric.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. Wetlands
Determination Table (WETS) for Station Durham, NC 2515. Last accessed February 2006 at
ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37063.txt
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1976. Soil survey of
Durham County, North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil survey of
Orange County, North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Sol] Conservation Service. 1986. Urban hydrology for small
watersheds. Technical Release 55.
30
Appendix 1. Historical Aerial Photographs
Appendix 2. Correspondence
?v
K CI I `•t,l\II It` ?l k\IIt k? • < II IItiIti • ( t IRI l I 11,1It?
July 6, 200S
Ms. Renee (ilc(thill-EarleN
Environmental Reyic%N Coordinator - SHP( )
1617 Mail Scr\ ice Center
Raleigh. N(' '7699-41617
Athl: Juliana I lockstra
Subject: ('ultural Resources Reyievv
Bromi Farm Wetland Restoration Project
Project Numher 12054212
Dear Ms I Iockstra
Please accept this info n nation pertaining to the proposed Brown Wetland Restoration Pro ect. which is
located appro.yirttatek one mile east of the intersection of Erwin Road and Mt. Moriah Church Road
along the ( )range-Durham counts line. as a submittal tin cultural resources review by the State Historic
Preservation ( )Rice
A portion of this property (refer to attached layout) is currently under investigation as a wetland
restoration project tirr the North Carolina F.cosystem Enhancement Program. Current vegetation types
include A`gricultural Crop Fields. Riverbank Shrublands, and Oak Bottomland Forest and Swamp Forest
according to the 100 1 NC c iAll land cover dataset. The proposed restoration work typically involves
restoring hydrology and segetation to a degraded or p?.eviousl\ conyetlcd wetland site. Ditches that
previously drained the site ill he removed and a natural flood cycle will he restored. No impacts to ally
structures on the subject property are anticipated.
Following the rcvie\? of the included documentation. please prop idc a determination regarding any
potential impacts to cultural resources associated \%ith this project
Please feel tree to contact me at [phone]. ext. 141, should you have ;my questions or require any
further information to process this request I hank \ort in ad\mice I'm your assistance and attention.
Sincerer.
Michael 13. Schlegel
Project Mallager
K( I I I ( II\i, )I c)tifI " ,,.,,, k, 0Ill
Qw?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
I'm, It Sandi., k, Adtnu-tutor
?itrh;tel 1?. Iieslc?, (;uccm?tr t)fficc t?f Archit?c? atttl f lishrrc
1 uLvth t . I{?_an., titinlan Division of Itistwiril RcsoUrcrs
10fret (row. Da putt' Serr, tan' David linx)k, Diructm
Iuh, 29, 2005
Michael B. Schlegel
KCI Technologies
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Re: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration, Frwin and Mt. Moriah Church Roads, #12054252, Durham and
(_)range Counties, I?R 05-1557
Dear Mr. Schlegel:
1'hanlt you for N=our letter of_) uh' 6, 2005, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which would
he affected by the project. 't'herefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
T'hc above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on 1-historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration, II you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill--I,.arley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
teeter Sandbeck
_--- .._._ - _.. --
t ocanon Mailing Address Telephone/Pax
ADMINIST RATION Yl N Ilhnmi Start Kalil h 4617 Mail Sem, c (unto, Rahagh N(' 27699 461 (711)'134741 11 8651
REST'ORAT'ION' S1 S N lil.ntnt Atari, N:d, ugh tic 4617 Mail S,--cc (,enicr, lialcigh N( 27619 4617 1719j7),1 6547; 715 001
SURVEY & PLANNING 5I s N 8h. mt titn.cr, 164,;h. Nt? 4(,1-; Atail $,,,,,c Halciph N(: 276T)-4617 71'1?71? 6545715 4SM
C I
IKV,(,I I
July 15. 2005
r iz,, St rzv i Moir ,, • S, ri o t i,, i • ( w,,, t rzt_t t io , NI vv;?,,t rz
Mr. (;arv Jordan
IIS Fish 'and Wildlite Seryicc
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, N( 27636
Subject: kndangered Species Act. Fish and Wildlite Coordination Act, Migratory Bird I reaty Act
Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site
Project Number 12054252
Dcar Mr. Jordan
Please accept this intornurtion pertaining to the proposed Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site, which is
located approximately one mile east of the intersection of' Erwin Road and Mt. Moriah Church Road
along the ( )range-Durham count line, as a submittal for review of the Endangered Species Act, Fish and
Wildlite Coordination Act. and Migratory Bird l reaty Act by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
A portion of this property (refer to attached layout) is currently under investigation as a wetland
restoration project for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Fhc current land use in the
project area is agricultural crop fields, picdnwnt hottomland hardwood forest, and piedmont levee forest.
The restoration would improve water quality and wildlife habitat and provide greater protection for
aquatic ecosystems from surrounding agricultural lands. This type of work typically involves restoring
wetland hydrology and reforestation. The restoration will till the field ditches and allow the adjacent
depressional areas to become saturated. As part of'the environmental documentation process (Categorical
FxclllSlon). coordination with the IISFWS is requested for compliance with the Endangered Species Act,
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Following the review of the included documentation, please provide a determination of the potential
effects to endangered species, w ildlife, or migratory birds associated with this project.
('lease teel free to contact me at [phone], ext 141, should you have any questions or require any
further information to process this rcqucst. Thank you in advance for your assistance and attention.
Sincerely.
Michael B. Schlegel
Project Manager

mummmmw`¦
???
mmmr`?
mmmmb?
C, I E'\GI11 f Itti • tit K\ I lt?l:ti • ?1 II 11 I`I ? • (t»,•. t Itl'c I I??ti ?I \?: \lVl I??,
Ifs H???IUi,ll; I ? ,. 11 _ i,.,..; I I?. ;, r,..i .s ,. ?i • f
.lulu 6, 2001
Linda Pearsall, Program Head
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27529
Subject: Natural Heritage Review
Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Project
Project Number 12054252
Dear Ms. Pearsall:
Please accept this information pertaining to the proposed Brown Wctland Restoration Project, which is
located approximately one mile east of the intersection of F.rwin Road and Mt. Moriah Church Road
along the Orange-Durham county line, as if submittal for natural area and rare species review by the North
Carolina Natural I leritm, Program.
L-C
A portion of this property (refer to attached layout) is currently under investigation as if wetland
restoration project iOr the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Current vegetation types
include Agricultural Crop fields, Riverbank Shrublands, and Oak Bottomland Forest and Swamp Forest
according to the 2003 N(' GAP land cover dataset. Flee proposed restoration work typically involves
restoring hydrology and %egetation to a degraded or previously converted wetland site. Ditches that
previously drained the site will he removed and a natural flood cycle will be restored. No impacts to any
structures on the subject property are anticipated.
Following the review of the included documentation, please provide it determination regarding any
potential impacts to rare species or natural areas associated with this project.
Please feel If-cc to contact nu at [phone], cxt. 141, should you have any questions or require any
further inlOrmation to process this request. Thank you in advance ti?r your assistance and attention.
Sincerely.
Michael 13. Schlegel
Project Manager
I:( I I I:( IIN01 0(11I.S ?\ <%\\ k, i t oni
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Jul), 11, 2005
Mr. Michael B. Schlegel
KC'I Technologies
landmark ('enter 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, N(' 27609
Subject: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Project; Frwin and Mt. Moriah Church roads, Orange
and Durham counties
Project No. 12054252
Dear Mr. Schlegel:
The Natural I Icritage Program has no record of-rare species within it mile ol'tlic project area:
howewr. within downstream of the proicct area is the Mount Moriah Bottom lands
natural area. This is an unprotected site considered of Regional significance. A copy of a report
on the site is enclosed.
You n?ay wish to check the Natural I leritage Program database website at .ncn11??<tr fi r
it listing of rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the
topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to contact n1c at 91Q-71 S-8697 if you have
questions or need further information.
Sincerer
I lorry F. I ,c( (rand, Jr.. l.oologist
Natural heritage Program
Fliclosure
I IF'I J11c1
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 One
Phone: [phone] - FAX: [phone] - Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us NorthCarolina
An Equal Opportunity I Afrrmaove Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 1 10 % Pest, consumer Paper A't[but all y
WNWENEW`¦
mmmmmw4h?
KCI F`\(.I?IIR, • SIR,IN0R1, • c11-,II,I • IRI?I10" M\?\(iP,
11( f1Nt)1_C,(,Ir,ti I I :.4 l , , 11 1 1, • _ '1 1, J It • fit„ • '.t f
July 15, 2005
Ms. Shannon Deaton
Habitat Conservation Program Manager
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1 72 1
Subject: Dish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site
Project Number 12054252
Dear Ms. Deaton:
Please accept this information pertaining to the proposed Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site, which is
located approximately one mile east of the intersection of Erwin Road and Mt. Moriah Church Road
along the Orange-Durham county line, as a submittal For the Dish and Wildlife Coordination Act review
by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
A portion of this property (refer to attached layout) is currently under investigation as a wetland
restoration project for the North Carolina Fcosystem Lnhancement Program. The current land use in the
project area is agricultural crop fields, piedmont bottontland hardwood forest. and piedmont levee forest.
The restoration would improve water quality and wildlife habitat and provide greater protection for
aquatic ecosystems from surrounding agricultural lands. This type of work typically involves restoring
wetland hydrology and reforestation. The restoration will fill the field ditches and allow the adjacent
depressions) areas to become saturated. As part of the environmental documentation process (Categorical
Exclusion), coordination with the NCWRC and the I ISFWS is requested for compliance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act.
Following the review of the included documentation, please provide a determination of the potential
effects to wildlife associated with this project.
Please feel free to contact me at [phone], ext. 141, should you have any questions or require any
further information to process this request. Thank you in advance for your assistance and attention.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Schlegel
Project Manager

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard R. Iiatnilton, Executive Director
8 August 2005
Mr. Michael Schlegel, project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina
Landmark Center ll. Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Suhject: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Brown Farm Welland Restoration Site, Orange--
Durham Counties, North Carolina. Project Number 12054252
Dear Mr. Schlegel:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
document. Our comments are provided in accordance with previsions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Slat. 401, a5 amended; 16 11.S C. 661-667d), and North Carolina General Statutes
((;.S. 113-131 et seq.).
I he. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program is currently investigating a wetland
restoration site along New Hope Creek in the Cape Fear River basin. There are records for the state
significantly rare golden banded skipper (Autochlon callus) and chameleon lamptnussel (Lampsilis sp.) in
New Hope Creek. Current land use is agriculture and forest. The project would involve filling field
ditches to restore wetland hydrology and reforestation.
'I he proposed restoration project should improve water quality and aquatic habitat. We do not
anticipate significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources from the proposed projOl.
['hank you for the opportunity to review this project. Il`you require further assistance, please
contact our office at [phone].
Sincerely.
Shari I.. Bryaw
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
ec: Sarah McRae, NFiP
Ryan Ifeise. WRt `
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-172 1
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Appendix 3. Project Site Photographs
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Minor ditch draining the site at the southwest corner.
Upslope of the site looking toward the east; the beginning of the New Hope Creek
Floodplain is seen in the distant treeline.
Looking north at an existing wetland. Ditch #3 leaves the wetland and flows south from
here.

Looking south at Ditch #3 draining water through the southern portion of the site.
Existing wetland in the southern portion of the site.
i,4 in
y?y.. A may,
.74
P-A
-Y 44
:I'i' ?:Y.?uT? _ Y. •- .i. '? .•. idlb'11 w_A. i?. ?',-. _ n . ?d,S ? 7 ??

Looking southwest across the site.
Central portion of the site.

1
k L'??Jr? `?-
9
?;f
PA

P"L
qqa,
y J.
Existing wetland in the northcentral portion of the site.
Appendix 4. USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technoloizies, Inc. County: Orange
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: IA Non-Wet
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. P sluca arundinacea 3 FAC- 9.
2. Trihsacum dactyloides 3 FAC+ 10.
3. 11. -
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: >30 _(in.) Secondary Indicators:
_ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluva quentic Dystrudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 AV 10YR 5/3 1, ln»r
3-7 BW 1 10YR 6/3 l OYR 3/6 c2d 1, 1 msbk
7-11 BW2 2.5YR 6/4 2.5Y 6/3 c2d IOYR 4/6 c2d I, Imsbk
11-13 BW3 10YR 5/4 2.5Y 6/2 c2d 10YR 3/3 c2d 1, 3/3 concretions
13-24 BW4 10YR 5/4 IOYR 6/3 c2d 10YR 5/6 fld sil, 1 fsbk
24-30 C IOYR 6/2 IOYR 5/4 10YR 5/6 sicl, concretions, massive
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aqulc Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brow» Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI 'Technologies, Inc. County: Orange
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 1 B - Wetland
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Frcrxinus pennsVlvanica I FACW 9.
2. Salix nigra I OBL 10.
3. Campsis radicans 4 FAC 11.
4. Sanrurus cerninis 3 OBL 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%)
Remarks:
Swollen BLIttresses.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other x Inundated
__ Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available x _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 6-18 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ x_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Variant Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaq uentic Endoaquepts Confirm
Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Al 10YR 6/2 1, 1mgr
3-8 Bg 10YR 6/2 I OYR 4/6 c2d 1, 1 msbk
8-18 B I I OYR 4/4 10YR 6/4 c2d 7.5YR 4/4 f I p sil, I msbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ponded for long to very long duration.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technoloi-6es, Inc. County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes_. No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID:.2A Non-Wet
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fcshwa arundinacea 3 FAC- 9.
2. Juncus ef1i[su4 3 FACW+ 10._
3. Tri )saculn dactyloides 3 FAC+ 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 66%)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 26 (in.) x__ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaq uentic Uystrudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 AV 10YR 5/4 sil, 1 ingr
3-7 Bw l 10YR 5/4 7.5YR 4/4 fl d sil, I insbk
IOYR 3/6 fl d
7-11 Bw2 10YR 5/3 10YR 3/3 c2d sil, 3/3 concretions, 1msbk
7.5YR 4/4 c2d
11-21 Bw3 10YR 3/4 2.5Y 6/2 c2d 7.5YR 4/4 flp sil, I msbk
21-30 Bw4 IOYR 3/4 2.5Y 6/2 m2d sil, many concretions,
1 msbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Site is ditches.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No X
a
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technologies, Inc. County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 213 -Wetland
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinuspennsylvanica I FACW 9.
2. Cephalanthus occidentalis 3 013L 10._
3. Saurnrus cel•ntrt1s 3 OBL 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100'y
Remarks:
'T'rees Buttressed
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _ x _ Inundated
_ x Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available x Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
x Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 24 (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Area is frequently flooded, but dry currently.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Lndoaquepts Confirm
Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 Al IQYR 6/2 10YR 6/6 flf 7.5YR 4/6 f I d I, massive
6-13 Bg1 IOYR 6/2 IOYR 6/4 c2d 7.5YR4/6 c2d 1, 1msbk
13-17 Bg2 10YR 6/2 7.5YR 4/6 c2d sic], ]msbk
17-30 By 1 OYR 6/2 1 OYR 4/8 c2d sil, 1 msbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors . Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ponds.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
Appendix 5. USACE Approved Wetland Boundary
'THIS CERTIFIES THAT THIS COPY OF THIS PLAT ACCURATELY
DEPICTS THE BOUNDARY OF THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AS DETERMINED BY THE
UNDERSIGNED ON THIS DATE. UNLESS THERE 15 A CHANGE IN
THE LAW OR OR OUR PUBLISHED REGULATIONS, THIS
DETERMINATION OF SECTION 404 JURISDICTION MAY BE RELIED
UPON FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS FROM THIS
DATE. THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE URUZENG THE 1987
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL.'
NAME:
TITLE: +
DATE: EC?e, 2,006,
AID: WV 5z I3?j '-?
NOTES;
ALL WETLAND AND NON WETLAND AREAS SHOWN HEREON ARE
WITHIN BROWN PROPERTY; DEED BOOK 1312, PACE 52.
AREA OUTSIDE OF THE BROWN PROPERTY NDT EVALUATED FOR
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS,
THE BASIS OF THE COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON IS THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN
DATUM 1963.
ALL WETLAND FLAGS AND DATA POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE
FIELD BY CONVENTIONAL SURVEY METHODS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER
AND OCTOBER 2005
9002 'i 11 a1i' l

FLAG NORTHING EASTING
W4-4 866656.40 20
W4-7 BD5617.93 21
W4-8 806627.96 20009119.31
W4-IOA 806604,54 2000920.10
W4-1OB 806502.05 2000928.10
W4-11 806620.06 21
W4-12 806635.48 21
W4-13 806633.51 213130961.11
W4-14 806630.30 2000963.23
W4-15 806637.49 200 019.23
W4-1BA 806625.87 2001071.75
W4-17A 806607.68 2001108.19
W4-16A 806529.36 2001137.90
W4-15A 806491.28 2001140.32
W4-14A 806452.75 2001156.28
W4-13A 806465.71 200fl87.97
W4-12A 805514,07 2001240.55
W4-11A 806509.01 2001262.72
W4-10A 806604.54 2000920.10
W4-9A 805325.66 2001190.76
W4-BA 805349.12 2001117.50
W4-7A 805342.25 20D1054.GO
W4-6A 506344.62 2001010.81
W4-5A 806316.34 2000927.35
W4-4A 806318.10 2000B55.9B
W4-3A 806388.21 2000870.51
W4-2A 806476,29 2000860.40
W4-SA 806533.61 2000873.30
W4-1 806564.06 20DO878.59
W4-2 B06597,84 2000B61.54
I, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS
DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM A SURVEY MAD
SUPERVISION, THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYEDI
INDICATED THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS CAL
GREATER THAN 1;10,000; THAT THIS MAP DOES NIZF i
AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY AND HAS NOT MN+
IN ACCORDANCE NTH G.S. 47-30 AS AMENDED..211TNI.
ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER AN SEA
24TH DAY SF JANUARY, 2006, 1 ?/± A
ROLINA REGISTRATION NUMBE
JAMES M. GELLENTHIN
FOUND IRON PIN
N=807440.63
E=1999729.21
ELEV=253.91'
W
I la??il;ii?fr.
RQ(/?
SIQ 4'6
z
t&fi
seo ?f 11 `l 1151``
7.16..17
N DM BOOK 317,U PACE 488
??. ?? SR5J6?4A'E ? NON-dDRISUICT?rA1 ?. ?, ?19.99?.
'G\ yR WI-6 ?1i
.?. _
WI-t
,•\ WI-19 WI-B
'? vn-1e ? uT-9
AI A
WI-1 B W114,
-10
\ WI-11
13
W1-12
w1-16
FOUND IRON PIN \
11 (EASTERLY MOST '
PROPERTY CORNER OF \ 1-135
PARCEL 7.26.,10) w1 3
W1-14 -1
N=806921.92 \
E=2000060.29 1 ?
ELEV=255.62' i
726..10 i
N/F BROIIN BENJAMIN D
DEED BOOK 146, PAGE 1100 /I
9TH/' ?qF
/• c
ay61j r ?Tr
\ ?k
i '
W,
\ W3-16A
W3-17
\`JGRI
\SD?? F

1
14
IL

1

1
216..108
N/F BROIW DA NO ET AL
DEED BOOK 1J12. PACE 51

1
Al-3WA1-4
Al
1-5
8 Al-6
Al-7
? W3-7
w3-6
W3-19
/ W3-7
/
I/•
P-5
W3-2A
W3
V3-4
1
20 W3-10A
NON-JURISDICTIONAL
i, 57r5,6'i W
W3-3
l „/"J• Z26-11C W3-2
N/F ROSE MELINDA LEIGH F1£TC11 W,
DEED BOOK 2009, PAGE 388
W4-7E
W4=1(

W4-1
N
et
W E
S
A?
?R?tiF?y
W ? iTT
IN4-1; 1
oa 1
(?28
W4-IBA
W4-2 W4-17A /
2A W4-1 `2B
w4-1A W4-16A W4-12A %
W4-11A:
W4-15A
W4-2A
W4-14A _W4-13A
W4-3A
W4-10A
W4-4A "4-6A -7A W4-8 W4-9A ;
W3 3A 4-SA
W3-4A
W3-5A
..• /' a 531
12054238
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
K C 1 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 220
ASSOCIATES OF RALEIGH, NO 27609
NORTH CAROLINA PHONE [phone] < FAX [phone]
FLAG NORTHING EAS71NG
wT-1 80723B.80 2000000.40
W1-2 807236.45 2000023.35
Wt-3 807243.96 2000044.11
WI-4 807251,7D 2000042.26
W1-5 507297.22 20OD101.79
W1-6 BD7291.54 2000121.57
WI-7 807251.73 2000093.95
WI-8 807222.87 2000090.85
WI-9 807173.05 20G0091.28
wi-10 807111.90 2000111,47
WI-11 807093,30 2000131,22
WI-12 807050.55 2000184,35
W1-13 810695893 2000185,60
WT-13.5 806961.17 2000175.92
WT-14 806939,75 20013144.75
WI-16 807029.79 2000103.24
W1-17 B07120.84 2000042.106
w1-18 607177.84 19999B9,B7
W1-19 807206.79 1999995.77
FLAG NORTHING EAS71NG
W2-1 806760,60 2000313.53
W2-2 805793,44 2000289.86
W2-3 806754,45 200026157
W2-4 806743,10 2000269.07
W2-5 506755.98 2000294.01
W2-6 606745.16 200030D.33
W2-7 806730,39 2000280.22
W2-B 805705.79 2000285.60
W2-9 806711.93 200029&59
W2-10 806695.90 2000329.58
W2-11 505721.35 2000324.92
W2-12 606740.93 20OD316.70
W2-13 805757.77 2000323,98
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
Al-1 506536.79 2000540.31
Al-2 806608.00 2000553.11
Al-3 806656.65 2000605.91
Al-4 806654.30 2000617.85
A1-5 806594.54 2000572.96
Al-6 806519.44 2000559.27
A1-7 80647023 2000541.39
W3-7 805445.38 2000563.49
W3-6 606393.95 2000579.93
W3-5 806306.64 2000623.85
W3-4 806284,29 2000619.78
W3-3 806273.70 2000606.29
W3-2 806259.85 2000515.17
W3-1 806263.40 2000524.BO
W3-1A 805275.03 2000644.05
W3-2A 806297,30 2000672,98
W3-3A 806263.69 2000732.54
W3-4A 806253.53 2000777,50
W3-5A 006222.25 2000782.35
W3-6A 806149.77 2000716.43
W3-7A 806153 47 2000707.85
W3-BA 506196.91 2000715.23
W3-9A 806237.22 2000717.67
W3-10A 806252.20 2000668.28
W3-20 805251.53 2000612.92
W3-19 806326.45 2000551.66
W3-17 806458.61 2000493.48
W3-15 806472.30 2000501.31
W3-9 806480.39 2000507.66
W3-8 846494.45 2000522.49
LEGENI)
WETLAND
NON-WETLAND
QL1 DATA POINT
GRAPHIC SCALE
200 0 100 200
1 INCH = 200 FEET
ti
V
N
v
v
WETLAND BOUNDARY PLAT Iv
FOR
BROWN
MT. MORIAH ROAD
ORANGE & DURHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLIN t
m
1" = 200'
Appendix 6. Water Budget
Rrnwn Farm _ FYistinn Cnnditinns
D Year Water In uts Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1941 P Si* GI PET So Go Lass to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 1.54 0.03 0.00 0.14 0.03 1.04 0.08 0.28 0.00 0.28
February 1.26 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.02 1.04 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.31
March 3.00 0.45 0.00 0.51 0.45 1.04 0.08 1.37 0.00 1.68
April 2.01 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 1.04 0.08 -1.71 0.00 0.00
May 1.76 0.72 0.00 4.06 0.72 1.04 0.08 -3.42 0.00 0.00
June 1.85 0.00 0.00 5.54 0.00 1.04 0.08 -4.81 0.00 0.00
July 5.24 0.37 0.00 6.47 0.37 1.04 0.08 -2.35 0.00 0.00
August 0.91 0.00 0.00 5.71 0.00 1.04 0.08 -5.92 0.00 0.00
September 1.72 0.00 0.00 4.54 0.00 1.04 0.08 -3.94 0.00 0.00
October 0.85 0.08 0.00 3.06 0.08 1.04 0.08 -3.33 0.00 0.00
November 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.04 0.08 -1.60 0.00 0.00
December 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 1.04 0.08 1.69 0.00 1.69
Annual Totals i? i9 I F,i n uo ,4 a-F - tai a ?u a f[,
Avg. Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change In Excess Wetland
1956 P SI " Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.04 0.63 -0.56 0.00 0.00
February 5.62 0.99 0.00 0.63 0.99 1.04 0.63 3.32 0.00 3.32
March 3.78 1.16 0.00 0.99 1.16 1.04 0.63 1.13 0.00 4.45
April 3.60 0.79 0.00 2.03 0.79 1.04 0.63 -0.10 0.00 4.35
May 2.68 1.16 0.00 3.98 1.16 1.04 0.63 -2.97 0.00 1.38
June 2.90 1.32 0.00 5.65 1.32 1.04 0.63 -4.42 0.00 0.00
July 6.08 0.74 0.00 6.16 0.74 1.04 0.63 -1.75 0.00 0.00
August 3.23 0.02 0.00 5.45 0.02 1.04 0.63 -3.89 0.00 0.00
September 4.94 1.67 0.00 3.62 1.67 1.04 0.63 -0.35 0.00 0.00
October 5.34 032 0.00 2.32 0.32 1.04 0.63 1.36 0.00 1.36
November 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 1.04 0.63 -1.03 0.00 0.32
cember
F 3.22 0.03 0.00 0.88 0.03 1.04 0.63 1.71 0.00 2.04
A
nu al Totals 44.13 8.17 0.00 32.70 8.17 0.00 7.53
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change In Excess Wetland
1975 P SI " GI PET So Go Loss to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 7.26 1.25 0.00 0.34 1.25 1.04 1.55 4.33 0.00 4.33
February 3.85 0.61 0.00 0.52 0.61 1.04 1.55 0.74 0.00 5.07
March 7.65 1.29 0.00 0.73 1.29 1.04 1.55 4.33 4.01 5.40
April 1.55 0.03 0.00 1.81 0.03 1.04 1.55 -2.84 0.00 2.56
May 5.64 0.52 0.00 3.99 0.52 1.04 1.55 -0.93 0.00 1.62
June 2.39 0.43 0.00 5.41 0.43 1.04 1.55 -5.61 0.00 0.00
July 8.65 4.15 0.00 5.65 4.15 1.04 1.55 0.41 0.00 0.41
August 1.13 0.01 0.00 5.88 0.01 1.04 1.55 -7.34 0.00 0.00
September 11.7 6.75 0.00 3.95 6.75 1.04 1.55 5.16 0.00 5.16
October 1.23 0.01 0.00 2.38 0.01 1.04 1.55 -3.74 0.00 1.42
November 3.06 1.67 0.00 1.13 1.67 1.04 1.55 -0.65 0.00 037
December 3.6 0.78 0.00 0.26 0.78 1.04 1.55 1.79 0.00 2.56
Annual Totals 57.71 17.50 0.00 32.05 17.50 0.00 18.57
Water Budget
Existing Conditions
9
8
7
y 6
m
s
c
m
E 5
0
d
3
c
3
2
1
0
Growing Season
March 24th - Nov. 1st

\ Maximum Capacity
\ (Ground Surface)

1

1 12" Below
&
¦ !G\ and Surfa

?
%
l
\ I

?aa
Fe?`Ja? ?a`Gr PQ?\
ec?` OeGeF
)J , PJ? SaQ?e? O°?o ?0
1.8 in. - Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
5.4 in - Maximum
Capacity/Soil Surface'
i
- ?? - Dry Year (1941)
i
f -Average Year (1956)
- -A - Wet Year (1975)
I
i

Rrnwn Farm _ Prnnncprl rnnelitinnc
D Year Water In uts Water Out uts Change in Excess Wetland
1941 P Si* Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 1.54 0.03 0.00 0.14 0.03 1.04 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36
February 1.26 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.02 1.04 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.47
March 3.00 0.45 0.00 0.51 0.45 1.04 0.00 1.45 0.00 1.92
April 2.01 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 1.04 0.00 -1.63 0.00 0.29
May 1.76 0.72 0.00 4.06 0.72 1.04 0.00 -3.34 0.00 0.00
June 1.85 0.00 0.00 5.54 0.00 1.04 0.00 -4.73 0.00 0.00
July 5.24 0.37 0.00 6.47 0.37 1.04 0.00 -2.27 0.00 0.00
August 0.91 0.00 0.00 5.71 0.00 1.04 0.00 -5.84 0.00 0.00
September 1.72 0.00 0.00 4.54 0.00 1.04 0.00 -3.86 0.00 0.00
October 0.85 0.08 0.00 3.06 0.08 1.04 0.00 -3.25 0.00 0.00
November 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.04 0.00 -1.52 0.00 0.00
December 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 1.04 0.00 1.77 0.00 1.77
Annual Total i4 1 6, D On i4 .o'1 1 61 0 {)III 1) Do
Avg. Year Water In Uts Water Outputs Change In Excess Wetland
1956 P SI " Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06
February 5.62 0.99 0.00 0.63 0.99 1.04 0.00 3.95 0.00 4.01
March 3.78 1.16 0.00 0.99 1.16 1.04 0.00 1.75 0.00 5.77
April 3.60 0.79 0.00 2.03 0.79 1.04 0.00 0.53 0.00 6.30
May 2.68 1.16 0.00 3.98 1.16 1.04 0.00 -2.34 0.00 3.96
June 2.90 1.32 0.00 5.65 1.32 1.04 0.00 -3.79 0.00 0.17
July 6.08 0.74 0.00 6.16 0.74 1.04 0.00 -1.12 0.00 0.00
August 123 0.02 0.00 5.45 0.02 1.04 0.00 -3.26 0.00 0.00
September 4.94 1.67 0.00 3.62 1.67 1.04 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.28
October 5.34 0.32 0.00 2.32 0.32 1.04 0.00 1.98 0.00 2.26
November 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 1.04 0.00 -0.41 0.00 1.86
December 3.22 0.03 0.00 0.88 0.03 1.04 0.00 2.34 0.00 4.20
Annual Total 44.13 8.17 0.00 32.70 8.17 0.00 0.00
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Out UtS Change In Excess Wetland
1975 P SI • GI PET So Go Loss to Ditches Storage Water Volume
January 7.26 1.25 0.00 0.34 1.25 1.04 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88
February 3.85 0.61 0.00 0.52 0.61 1.04 0.00 219 0.37 7.80
March 7.65 1.29 0.00 0.73 1.29 1.04 0.00 5.88 5.88 7.80
April 1.55 0.03 0.00 1.81 0.03 1.04 0.00 -1.30 0.00 6.50
May 5.64 0.52 0.00 3.99 0.52 1.04 0.00 0.61 0.00 7.12
June 2.39 0.43 0.00 5.41 0.43 1.04 0.00 -4.06 0.00 3.05
July 8.65 4.15 0.00 5.65 4.15 1.04 0.00 1.96 0.00 5.01
August 1.13 0.01 0.00 5.88 0.01 1.04 0.00 -5.79 0.00 0.00
September 11.7 6.75 0.00 3.95 6.75 1.04 0.00 6.71 0.00 6.71
October 1.23 0.01 0.00 2.38 0.01 1.04 0.00 -2.19 0.00 4.52
November 3.06 1.67 0.00 1.13 1.67 1.04 0.00 0.89 0.00 5.41
December 3.6 0.781 0.00 0.26 0.78 1.04 0.00 3.34 0.95 7.80
Annual Total 57.71 17.50 0.00 32.05 17.50 0.00 0.00
Note: A retention of 0.2 feet (2.4 inches) of surface water is assumed based on the creation of microtopography during wetland restoration.
9
8
7
y 6
m
s
c
E 5
0
0
m
4
c
m

2
1
0
Water Budget
Proposed Conditions
Growing Season
March 24th - Nov. 1st
i

Maximum Capacity
/
(2.4 in. Above Ground Surface)

1

1
. l 1 \ A
I \

• 1 I ;

12" Below 1 1 I

Ground Surface 1 ?
1 1 !
1
-
Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
7.8 in - Maximum
Capacity at 2.4 inches
above soil surface
Ground Surface
1.8 in. - Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
- Dry Year (1941)
f - -Average Year (1956)
- -A - Wet Year (1975)

Appendix 7. Soil Profile Description

• Detailed Soils Investigation and Mapping for the Brown Site
For the past 100 years, the soils on the Brown site have been altered by a ditch/spoil drainage system to
• prepare the land for cultivation. The primary ditch/spoil system to the north borders the site and
depending on the size of the storm, diverts floodwaters either back to New Hope Creek or onto the site.
During larger storm events, floodwaters pass through the ditch/spoil system via diversions conveniently
a placed at regularly spaced intervals and then flow overland across the site through the secondary lateral
surface water ditches, which in turn arc connected to the primary outlet ditch/spoil system to the south.
The ,ccondary lateral ditches arc spaced approximately every 50 ft and the spoil was spread between the
ditches to shed water to the drainage system. The landscape alterations have created a complex hydric soil
mosaic on the landscape between the ditches and appear to create conditions necessary for overwash to be
deposited at various locations on-site during storm events. It is apparent that these historic events have
• reshaped the floodplain and the hydric soil-forming processes on the site, but have not altered the forested
areas to the north or the south that arc still in-line with the natural flood water flow direction.
The Orange/Durham County Soil Survey has classified the soils underlying the site as Chewacla loam.
Based on field results, KCi Associates of North Carolina, P.A. (KCI) has remapped and reclassified the
• soils as primarily Wehadkec (Fine-loamy, mixed, active nonacid, thermic Fluvaqucntic Endoaquepts). Ill
areas of frequent overwash, the soil is classified as a Wehadkec variant, because of the sediment
. deposition and/or till from man-made alterations. Some pedons have recent layers of overwash up to 20
inches thick that are loamy and variable in color as indicated by the range of characteristics for the Ap
and A horizons of the Wehadkec series. The Wehadkec variant classification is transitory between the
Wehadkec soils and the wetter phase of the Chewacla series. The Wehadkec series is listed as a hydric
• soil due to saturation for a significant period during the growing season and is in accordance with the
federal, state, and county hydric soils list.
This reclassification is based on our findings obtained from a detailed soils investigation. This detailed
soils investigation was conducted by augcring numerous soil borings across the site and classifying the
soils in accordance with Soil Taxonomy. To verify the soil mapping units, five soil pits 18 inches deep
w followed by auger borings were advanced on-site and detailed soil descriptions were prepared for the
vertical soil profile (sec the following figure, Soil Descriptions with Soil Pit Numbers). These five soil
profile descriptions share similar characteristics that have influenced the reclassification. The soil profile
descriptions were prepared to highlight the visible soil alterations due to overwash, man-made ditching
system and the consequent spoil associated with the drainage that is identified in the surface horizons on
. the site. This ditching network is also observed in the 2002 aerial photograph. The soils have primarily
been buried by 10 to 17 inches of loamy textured materials that arc variable in color, but occur within the
range of characteristics of the Ap and A horizons. Furthermore, a more detailed analysis of the
stratification of the overwash was conducted to show the redoximorphic features that developed due to
the horizontal stratification. The Bw horizon is variable in color and the C horizon is a massive
compacted horizon that occurs above the buried solum. The 10 to 17 inches of soil material is a result of
overbank flooding and excavated spoil materials spread on the site. The profile descriptions of the 10-17
inch horizons indicate the development of the following due to a fluctuating water table: soil color (Bw),
iron concretions greater than 3mm within the upper 3 inches, and redoximorphic features. The site is,
however, sufficiently drained to prevent low chroma colors from forming.
The asterisk that appears on the following soil descriptions indicates stable horizons that appear to have
been developed naturally over time by natural soil-forming processes. The horizons above the asterisk
appear to be overburden, which have multiple stratified horizons with little or no structure and differing
colors and textures. Based on the information presented for the stable horizons designated with an
asterisk, these soils show relic saturation and relic hydric soils below the overwash/spoil. Additionally,
during the winter and spring the soils have stored sufficient moisture to show a chroma 2 matrix across
the site at 10 to 12 inches below the surface. However, during the summer and fall when the drainage
system and evapotranspiration are at their peak these chroma 2 matrix colors become a chroma 2.5 or 3.
Steven F. Stokes, LSS
Licensed Soil Scientist

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF
N01171-1 CAROUNA, PA
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Client: NCEEP Date: September 15, 2005
Project: Brown Farm Mitigation Site Project #: 12054252
County: Orange/Durham State: NC
Location: Mt. Moriah Church Road Site/Lot: SP # I
Soil Series: Wchadkec Variant
Soil Classification: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaqucntic f?ndoaqucpts
AWT: 42" SHWT: 0-II" Slope: 0-2% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Permeability: Moderate to Moderately slow
Vegetation: Native grasses and sedges
Borings terminated at 62 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH (IN) MATRIX MOTTLES 'I LXT URE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES
A 0-3 10YR 5/4 sil massive ft' as Common 3mm concretions
Bwl 3-4.5 10YR 5/4 5YR 4/4 cl 1 Imsbk fi. cs
7.5YR 5/6 C2P
Bw2 4.5-6 I0YR5/4 1 Ifsbk 1'r Cs
Cl 6-11 IOYR4/4 2.5Y6/3 c2f sl massive f. cs Man Fe masses 10YR 3/3
*Abl 11-15 IOYR3/2 2.5Y 5/2 c2d I massive to If r fr cs
Ab2 15-21 10YR 3/2 2.5Y 5/2 c2d I Imsbk fr cs
Bbl 21-29 IOYR4/2 10YR6/1 c2d I Icsbk fr cs stick
Bbl 29-48 IOYR4/2 IOYR6/1 sl Imsbk fr cs
Cb 48-62 IOYR 4/2 6/10Y c2 cl massive ft. cs H YR 3/3 Fe masses, clay lenses

COMMENTS:
0-11" geologically recent layers of ovcrwash and/or old spoil that is loamy in texture and variable in color
* indicates consistent buried horizon without ovcrwash
Meets wetland indicators for hydric soil: Condition f(2) & h in horizon Ap and Ab I
Waypoint 46: N35° 58'01.3"/WO78° 59'44.7"
DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE: 9/15/2005
KC`nSSOCIATES of SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NOM CARD Mk PA
Client: WEEP Date: September 15, 2005
Project: Brown Farm Mitigation Site Project #: 12054252
County: Orangc/Durham State: NC
Location: Mt. Moriah Church Road Site/l,ot: SP # 2
Soil Series: Wchadkec Variant
Soil Classification: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaqucntic Endoaquepts
AWT: >60" SHWT: 17" Slope: 0-2% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Permeability: Moderate to Moderately slow
Vegetation: Native grasses and sedges
Borings terminated at 60 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH (IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES
A 0-2 IOYR 5/3 sl if fr as
Bwl 2-4 10YR5/3 7.5YR4/4fld sl Mfsbk f. cs
Bw2 4-6 1 OYR5/3 7.5YR 3/3 c2d I f. cs Conunon 3nun concretions
7.5YR 4/4 c2d Man Fe masses IOYR 3/3
C 1 6-13 2.5Y 6/3 I OYR 4/4 m2d 1-cl massive fi- cs Man Fe masses I OYR 3/3
C2 13-17 2.5Y 6/3 l OYR 4/3 n12d 1-cl massive fi- cs massive breaking to Imsbk
5YR 4/6 11
*Ab 1 17-23 I0YR 4/3 2.5Y 6'2 c I d 1 I msbk fi es I OYR 2/2Fe masses
Bwb 23-29 I OYR 3/2 2.5Y 6/2 1 1 msbk fi cs
10YR 5/3
Bbl 29-41 10YR 5/1 7.5YR 3/4 fl Cl Imsbk ti- es IOYR 2/2 Fe masses
Charcoal pieces
Bbl 41-46 IOYR 5/2 7.5YR 5/6 ml sl Ifsbk fi cs
IOYR 6/6 fl
Cb 46-60 10YR 511 7.5YR 5/6 inl sc massive fi Man 5mm concretions
IOYR 6/6 fl Manv Fc masses

COMMENTS:
0-17" geologically recent layers of ovcrwash and/or old spoil that is loamy in texture and variable in color
* indicates consistent buried horizon with ovcrwash
Mects wetland indicators for hydric soil: Condition 1(2) & h in horizons Bw2 and Bwb
Waypoint 45: N35° 58'00.6"/WO78° 59'51.3"
DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATE: 9/15/2005
own-mor"Ihm-
KC I
ASSOCIATES OF
NO1rrH CAROLINA, PA
Client: NCEEP
Project: Brown Farm Mitigation Site
County: Orange/Durham
Location: Mt. Moriah Church Road
Soil Series: Wchadkee Variant
SOIL. PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Date: September 15, 2005
Project #: 12054252
State: NC
Site/l,ot: SP # 3
Soil Classification: Finc-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaqucpts
AWT: >60" SHWT: 14" Slope: 0-2% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Permeability: Moderate to Moderately slow
Vegetation: Native grasses and sedges
Borings terminated at 60 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH (1N) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES
A 0-3 10YR 5/3 fsl I mgr fr as Common 3mm concretions
Bw 3-6 I0YR 5/3 5YR 4/4 fl I Imsbk fi. es Man 3mm concretions
IOYR 3/2 f2f
C 6-14 1 OYR 5/3 1 massive fr cs Man Fe masses IOYR 3/3
7.5YR 4/4
I0YR 3/3 massive to I f r
*Abl 14-23 10YR 5/2 10YR 4./2 m2d I Intsbk fr cs Man Fe masses IOYR 3/2
Bbl 23-32 IOYR 5/2 7.5YR 4/4 1 Intsbk fr cs
Bbl 3242 I OYR 5/2 7.5YR 4/6 c2d cl Imsbk fr cs Charcoal pieces
Bb3 42-54 10YR 6/1 7.5YR 5/6 m2d cl Imsbk fr cs
Cb 54-60 IOYR 511 7.5YR 5/6 m2d sc massive ti

COMMENTS:
0-14" geologically recent layers of overwash and/or old spoil that is loamy in texture and variable in color
* indicates consistent buried horizon without overwash
perching of water 3-6 "
Meets wetland indicators for hydric soil: Condition f(2) & h in horizons Ap, Bw and AbI
Waypoint 48: N35° 59'02.5"/WO78° 59'54.3"
DESCRIBED BY: SFS DATI?: 9/15/2005
KCI
ASSOCIATES of SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NOM C,ARgMNA, Pe
Client: NCHEP Date: April 18, 2006
Project: Brown Farm Mitigation Site Project #: 12054252
County: Orange/Durham State: NC
Location: Mi. Moriah Church Road Site/Lot: SP # 4
Soil Series: Wchadkcc Variant
Soil Classification: I? ine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvagucntic I ndoaqucpts
AWT: 62" SHWT: 14-18" Slope: 0-2`% Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Permeability: Moderate to Moderately slow
Vegetation: Native grasses and sedges
Borings terminated at 62 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH (IN) MATRIX MOI I LES I FX I URH S I RUC I URI: CONSISTEM 1: BOUNDARY NO1LS
A 0-3 IOYR 5/4 I If r fi. as
Bwl 3-6 IOYR5/3 IOYR4/6c2td I Imsbk f. cs Charcoal pieces
5YR 4/6 fl
Bw2 6-14 IOYR 5/3 IOYR 2/2 fld I massive fr cs
IOYR 4/1 c2d
*Abl 14-18 IOYR 5/2 1OYR 4/4 c2d I massive to I fgr fr cs Common 15nun concretions
IOYR3/211f Man Fe masscs I OY R 2/1
Bbl 18-36 IOYR6/1 10YR5/8c2d scl If'sbk fi. cs Common5-10mmconcrctions
Men he masses I0YR 2/1
C'b 36-62 IOYR 5/2 IOYR 4/4 c2d scl massive 1'r Man 5-IOmm concretions
IOYR 3/2 c2d Man Fe masses 10YR 3/2

C'OMWNTS:
0-14" geologically recent layers of ovcrwash and/or old spoil that is loamy in texture and variable in color
* indicates consistent buried horizon without ovcrwash
Perching of wale' 6-14"
Meets wetland indicators Ibr hydric soil Condition f12) & h in horizons Ab1, HbI and C'b
Waypoint 49: N35° 57'56.3"/WO78° 59'58.3"
DESC'RIBBD BY: SFS DATE: 4/18/2006
K C y
ASSOCIATES OF SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
NORTH CAROLINA, PA
Client: NCEI;P Date: April 18, 2006
Project: Brown Farm Mitigation Site Project #: 12054252
County: Orange/Durhan State: NC
Location: Mt. Moriah Church Road Site/Lot: SP N 5/Wetland fl 3 near point A 1-7
Soil Series: Wehadkee Variant
Soil Classification: Pine-loamy, mixed active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
AWT: 10" SHWT: 0-12" Slope: 0-2'7, Aspect:
Elevation: Drainage. Poorly Permeability: Moderate to Moderately slow
Vegetation: Native grasses and sedges
Borings terminated at 62 inches
HORIZON DITIH(IN) MATRIX MOTI'Lt;S 1'1?XTtil l! S'IRUUI'URF CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES
A p 0-2 IOYR 4/2 sil-vfsl I f r I} as
A I 2-5 I OYR 4/2 5 Y R 4/4 I'I p sil-vfsl I f 'g I} es Oxidized [toot Channels
C 5-10 IOYR 4/6 10YR 5/3 c2d I I I'sbk-massive fr cs
IOYR 2/1 cif
`Abl 10-24 I0YR5/1 1OYR4/4c2d I Imsbk fi. Cs Many Fe Masses
I OYR 5/3 c2d massive !L)1 f rr
IOYR 2/1 fl f
13b1 24-36 IOYR 5/2 IOYR 5/1 c2f Cl Ifsbk f. Cs Man Fe masses
IOYR 2/Ic2d
IOYR 4/6c2d
Cg 1 36-48 IOYR 5/2 10YR 5/1 c2f cl-c massive li gw many Fe masses
IOYR 2.i1 c2d
10YR 4/6c2d
C g2 48-62 10YR 5/1 IOYR 4/6c2d cl-c massive li Man Fe musses

C'OMMI?NTS:
Horizons Ali and A2 indicate surface water ponding per chroma 2 matrix
5-10" geologically recent layers ol'overwash and/or old spoil that is loamy in texture and variable in color
* indicates consistent buried horizon without overwash
Perching of water 5-10"
Meets wetland indicators for hydric soil Condition 1(2) & It in horizons Ab I
Waypoint 44: N35° 57'57.2"/WO78° 59'53.0"
DFSC'RIBFDBY: SFS DAHI: 4/18/2006
Appendix 8. Reference Wetland Photographs
Reference wetland pictures showing trees with buttressed trunks throughout the site. The
reference wetland gauge is in the left side of the photo.
Hnoiner view or the reverence weuanu.
The location of
the reference
wetland gauge.
Another view of the reference
wetland; drainage patterns are evident.
Appendix 9. Reference Wetland USACE Routine Wetland Determination
Data Forms
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project I Site: Brown Site Reference Wetland Date: 3-30-2006
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technologies County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No _ Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: Reference
(explain on reverse if needed) Wetland
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum 1 FAC 9. Ilex decidua 2 FACW-
2. FraxilluS pennsylvanica 1 FACW 10. Acer rubrum I FAC
3. Acer rubrum I FAC 11. Acer rubrum 1 FAC
4. Acer rubrrm I FAC 12. Ulnuis americana 1 FACW
5. Ulmus americana 2 FACW 13. Ilex decidua 2 FACW-
6. U1111uS rubra 1 FAC 14.
7. Liquidambar styraciflua 1 FACT 15.
8. Liquidambar styraciflua I FAC I 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 1000/o
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: Surface (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Surface
(in.)
(in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: Srrlace
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
x Water-Stained Leaves
___ Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes X No
Profile Descrlution:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-1 Al IOYR 2/2 1
1-4 A2 IOYR 5/2 1
4-9 Bg_ I OYR 5/2 l OYR 5/4 c2d cl Ifsbk
9-13 By 10YR 5/2 1OYR 4/4 c2d cl If,bk 3 mm cone
13-18 Bg3 10YR 5/2 1 OYR 5/4 c2d & l OYR 4/4 c2d cl Im,bk 1-2 mm cone many
18-50 CgI IOYR 6/1 IOYR 5/6 c2d cl mass
50-60 Cg2 IQYR 6/1 IOYR 5/6 c2d cl mass, lenses of 1s
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x __ Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x --..Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors --Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
Appendix 10. No-rise Certification
W
. ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
KCI
- 11 4601 Six Forks Road Suite 220 Raleigh, NC 27609 [phone] [phone] Fax
• Hydraulic Analysis Narrative
The project reach is located within a FEMA detailed study area, between Orange County and Durham County,
. on the preliminary FIRM map number 3720080000 J. and 37200980000 J. The project limits include cross
. sections labeled 1928 through 1929 and in the HEC-RAS model; the project includes Section number 192819 to
Section number 193912. The HEC-2 model was received from the floodplain manager for the City of Durham.
. A Duplicate Model was generated in HEGRAS to perform this study. The Duplicate Model is the original
. HEC-2 model provided to KCI by the City of Durham. The HEC-2 model was imported into HEGRAS and the
published 100-year Base Elevations (BSE's) were duplicated by the model. Detailed field survey data was
. taken within the project area and will be reflected in the Conditional Model.
The boundary conditions and discharge data in the models are based on the original model. Due to this data
being available, a hydrological analysis was not performed. The HEGRAS 3.1 computer program was used to
• perform the hydraulic analysis.
A Conditional Model was generated in HEC-RAS by revising the existing cross sections at stations 192819 and
station 193912. This Conditional Model serves as the baseline condition for the no-rise analysis for the
. proposed wetland restoration.
The Proposed Model reflects the design of the wetland restoration. Three 1'-0" ditches will be filled-in and
. this change is reflected in the two cross sections through the project at station 192819 and station 193912.
The results of the analysis indicate that the wetland restoration project will have no significant impact on the
. cross sections of the New Hope Creek Floodplain and as a result will not impact the base flood elevations
. (BSE's).
This memo is to certify that the proposed Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Proiect will not impact the 100-
year flood elevations, floodway elevations of floodway widths on the New Hope Creek, as shown on the
preliminary FIRM map Panel No. 3720080000) at published sections in the Flood Insurance Study for Durham
County dated May 05, 2005.
q-,26 -2006
(Date
au:ttt (Signature)
114?.1j'
?IN
`''r' ?. ??t < ?• Audrey B. Burnette, P.E.
Yi3
(Name)
La r
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-5210
(Address)

. KCI Associates of N.C. www.kei.com

Employee-Owned Since 1988

'Ile
3-
Whaw
11? s?
* T•pa -e \ v3
{ » ;
ZONE:AE
'+tw

_'V
0
Cross-Section
193912 ,

?
Or PP t ? ? y; ! i
All

FEMA Cross-sections at the Brown Farm

Project Site Boundary
K C I
N
Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone AE)
? w?E ASSOCIATES OF NC
,• - (Subject to inundation by
the I% annual chance flood)
s
"

KC
Floodway Areas in Zone AE 1q
i inch equals
uals 500 feet

TECHNOLOGIES soo
.Soarer: NC'Floodplain Mapping Progrant, 250 0 soo
Feet
ENVIRONMENTAL OLOOI?
AND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
DFIRMPanels 9890 and 0800

I V V In .n c(J C1 O CJ '
N N N - ' •-
IMP
njR
i
LL
N tl cp CI •f N .- h. LO (n in
? 00 (D to n n In V H V
cn (n d (-1 0 m A c?
n In u m (n N Q 00 Cp
C d V ?7 (D co m N v1 rt)
N N N
..J (`: N N N N N N N IN
I
n v to n (n D v In (n M
{{{pppi (D V r'- Cl w Cl? N N N N
N cca, t- , (D ppp ? 1 ?
C7 O Of O'? Q'i
?' N ce?pp
i O O O V C ?J COn f? OD (D (D tD
n n (D CO f? `- O N n f-. n
O O O (D Q, (G 00 r- N CV N
? V V V N N N ? . • N N N
>iw
I
j c0 f- L y V (VD 0 Or n (Vn N
V N N N
aqg $ as
0 0 0 c7 c o o n o a O o
.I
w
r- n m (D (D N N v v
y Qr Or OI O O O W 0 o o (D 0
o 0 O (D
iD m (O N (D (D w N O O (D
C N N N N N m N N N N N N N N
w'I
I
1
NI
C
N N In Ifl C) O Cr' M (n
I Q> D> M O O O OG W OD (D 10 (D
! ?- N N cDV N N N o N N 10 ID
N
3!
C, o '> u) u) in OD OD 00 .-
W i N N N N N N V V V
O (J O O O O OI 6 QI n n t..
I? n n n
N In n n v v v v v v
N N N rl N N N ml N N N
0 0 0 000 000
0 0 O O P 0 0 0
_ In LO In Lf) LC) In r) In Ir) Lo Lr) In
(D (D (Cl (D (D (D to w (D (D (D cD
I. v v v v v v v v v IT v v
` C, (71 M m Q) O) C) m m M P) M
?I
I ? Qg ? I I Cpl
?G I I
jn nl n' NI Ni N, Of?ol O'1 I I ''01
1 f3
'71 *7 '7 y l ? i I i !~
{.7
aid ¢ ¢ d: is ¢ ¢? ¢'¢ ¢
¢ cij¢ ¢
?w!w w ? jw
w w wi w w; w
H
mryA
L 01
11
LL
11
7
11
Q

010,11
? ?.
i y
3
Ijffi I
I
?4 Q W
y?
X
C
U
IV
{11
l1
L
LL
J
Q
11
it N

N N N N ? N?
(N) UONBne13
(8) UgIVAS13

b
? w
v
5
_V
.b
N
b 'V
g ? f
NN ?
V)
N V
K
O
V
ro
U
O u
1 A
W .?
u
r
a 3
v
? U
G
u 3
u
? b
In O
O
u
o °u
L o
u a
j? ? a
h
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?. 1 7
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
V n a i H

a
a
°'E S?
ORANGE
£? D URHAM COUNTIES

?'?'s w Ourhem s
(?
V ?
l

LOCATION
• BROWN SITE
` MT. MORIAH ROAD
DURHAM, NC 27707
VICINITY Al"
NOT TO SCALE TYPE OF WORK: WETLAND RESTORATION SITE

"t r

N
F
P
? ^
I? w
?? t,
? ? ?
ti
t I 1 ??
?

o ! , \ ? 11 t rf?^
W E
o o
m °lu°
G
Ile
k
a

=F
Y OF SHEETS g
r
`OI°r
!i t `
`
?\
- "
• z ` t ?` ! r
I TTIZE SHEET 0
2 SITE PLAN ;r
3 MITIGATION PLAN
4 PLANTING PLAN m •, -
3 SEDLNENTATION & EROSION PLAN
I
V 6 DETAILS /
7 GENERAL NOTES
Prue ed In ft Off Am d: PROJECT ENGEVF-M- PROFESSIONAL WETLAND SCJENMT. SOIL SCIENTIST..-
-4-KCI
GRAPHIC SCADS
ENGCEEAS•PL0.18{RS•ECOLOCISTS

-100-50
O 100 200 SOTE 22D LANDMARK CENTER 1
4601SD(FOfd(S PD_PALE6R. NC
JAMES W. BLA T- PE

O ?
N$
PPgJBGT JsT?
JOSEPH J. PFEIFFER, PWS
Qj P1?SdkWL WE7Z&- 1 SCa81=
STEVEN F. STOKES. LSS
L SOIL SCZENTLST P8 P.WS ISS
S1GNAlURE StfnYA1'UR8 SIGNAI'Ue@

\ L 155- BROW W16
\ I^ \ \ I N=8OT295.09/
ELEV-251s2
1 /
Gyp ` ti ?? _
1

'Il
li
I
I gg
1 >? 1
%1\?ll lam

NAIL181
N=807485 01
ELEV-255S8

L\ 1
1? h ,7tx?? i 1"

------- EXISTING EASEMENT LINE
- - - - - EXISTING 5 CONTOUR LINES
- - - - - EXISTING T CONTOUR LINES
- EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH
/ I1 TREE LINE
JURISDICTIONAL VYETIAND
/-
BROV&W
/ N?07543.102
E=2001089.02 \
I ? / r , , \\ / /. ? EIEV=256.85 /
I/ I
/

1 v
I ?
/ BRA I
N-200093i.8
ELEV-254.80
/ EEN251.80 `
t
4,1
DITCH PLUG
EXISTING DITCH TO RE FILLED
PROPOSED LEVEL SPREADER
ROCK STABILI2ED OUTLET
A, SURVEY CONTROL POINT
PROPOSEDIACROTOPOORAPHY < fl I
0
F
NOTE
i?ON.W TO DISTURN6CEZ ANY fAND. OF
.CMMZLtSDUar NCONE rA
CALL 1-0OO 4949 FOR THE LOCATIONS
OF EXISTING UTILITIES.
r
NOTE
DEPRESSIONS AND RISES AN AND FUSESAPROX
D?RESPROX SIX
INCHES PLUS OR MINUS THE DUSDNG
ELEVATIONS.
IAN N
F--"? 01 f _
Q N RZ
s O W?
O O Z
?i W Z
Z 0¢
a
o?
N rv
C x
W W?
2 g0
?Q
w
H
Y
V
ww O
s ?
a
?Z o
20 z
W?
z
Zp =3
U
cl) w a
i
tL Q j
z p

w
0 F- g

a
?o
0
-100-50 0 100 200 I SITE
PLAN
GRAPHIC SCALE

pR
1
\ nq
?F
. f

I
I
/ I

WETLAND RESTORATION-24.58 ACRES
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT -9.32 ACRES
' (NRISDICIONALWETLAND)
Z-
9
?w
O
a
!f
w
w
§o?
?oou
?1? w ra
2¢
? N
W W?
V ?v
W
Lu
W O Cal U
s
pZ
=p z o
z
Zp
U
? W Q
? T
u- 0
Z O
LLI
F-
m3 z
0
I I
E
/ -100-50 0 100 200 MITIGATION
GRAPHIC SCALE
100,
PLANING ZONEA
® PLANTING ZONEB
ENHANCEMENT PLANTING ZONE
ZONE A:
GREEN ASH NUS Wn
WpTEli1UPEL0 AOUAnCAj
F
OVERCIIP OAK
SWAMP CHESTNUT OA
v atGWOAK
K ERWS MICHA Q
ERCUS US LYRAT
PHE I
FQU
ZONE B:
GREEN ASH (FAAIOtRiS PENNSttVAL8Cu1)
TULIP POPLAR LBUOOEtmRON TULIPFERN
LAUREL OAK OI?CUS LAURffOLLA)
CFERRYBARK OAK WERCUS PAGOON

o ?
3 N_?
<x
d Jo
ti N
w wa
u Ho
z
w
z-
0
-100-50 0 100 200
GRAPHIC SCALE
w
Z
W w O
U? 0
wa =
02
=o z
w?
z0
F- U
co
?
Q?W
LL? D
7
?g
o I-
mw z
O
PLANTING
PLAN
arosr+msx-??-' mss" \r.-.` \? ? `? l
\ 1
UNDISTURBED
AREA
NO GRADING OR HEAVY-
EOIIIPMENTALLOWED IN
JURISDICTION WETLAND
AREAS 9YPI.
I ?
I /
hl
1 `y
1 d' '
? rr
J / 0
I ° N,
ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET
TEMPORARY ROCK
SILTCHECKTYPE-A
------- E)OSRNG EASEMENT LINE
----- EXISTING S CONTOUR LINES
- - - - - EXISTING V CONTOUR LINES
t--i PROPOSED CONTOUR LINES
-XX- FENCE LINE
?YYY? TREE LINE
JURISDICTIONALWET AND
RryGHF?yo
ti
tiF
\ I \ `FLIP
`?I F

1HIPORARYROCK
SILT CMECKTYPE-A
TEMPORARY WATER DIVERSION BERM
-13-
-LOD- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
-SF- SILT FENCE
(M TEMPORARY ROCK SILT CHECK TYPE A
ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET
CL=
® UNDISTURBED AREA
AREA TABLE
SCL FT. ACRES
PROPERTY 2,383,018 54.7
DIS?TURBBAANCE 1,880,528 45.8
NOTE:
PRIOR TO DISTURBANCE OF ANY LAND,
CONTRACTOR SHALL SOLICIT NC ONE
CALL 14XX 88 -4949 FOR THE LOCATIONS
OF E)USTING UTILITIES.
NOTE:
REMOVE OVERWASH l ISPOILS
ALONG PROPOSED CONTOURS
O
4mi?
O
-100-50 0 100 200
GRAPHIC SCALE
i
0
w
9 ?
X
x
m
N
??TYJ N _
g o 5?
'y o m
N ¢
K
YYF • VQ a
QN
Jpy
K N
Z Jra
WU Z
W W o
U?
uj a.
oZ
20 o
z
W g Z
z0
1 F U
W
C _
a
0 F-
m3 ;?
0
SEDIMENTATII
& EROSION
PLAN
!B EXISTING DITCH
---- I - -
L A A
J
DITCH PLUG L'B
PLAN VIEW
DITCH PLUG c
EXISTING OWE ELEVATION
VAR. I EXISTING VAR.
DITCH WIDTH
SECTION B-B
EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
M'1 91 EXISTING DITCH BOTTOM
0
SECTION A-A
DITCH PLUG DETAIL
NOTES:
SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF DITCH PLUGS.
SEE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISONS FOR MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS,
FLOW
SEDIMENT
CONTROL
STONE
STRUCTUR
STONE
PLAN
2' MIN
.T H 12'
SECTION B-B
`T . 12" MIN., 18" MAX.
?- 213 CHANNEL
WIDTH
2' MIN
SECTION A-A
1101;
USE CUSS B EROSION CONTROL STONE FOR STRUCTURAL STONE.
USE NO. 5 OR NO 57 STONE FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE.
TEMPORARY ROCK SILT CHECK TYPE 'A'
L

DITCH PLUG
!B EXISTING DITCH
- A
--w-B
STABILIZED PLAN VIEW
CUTLET
CLASS I
PLUG RIPRAP
m o
ISTING GRAD
EX E ELEVATION
--------- -----------
9.1
VAR. I EXISTING VAR.
DITCH WIDTH
SECTION B-B FABRIC
FABRIC
5' CLASS I
/ RIPRAP
IXI3TINB GRADE ELEVATION
4:1 411 EXISTING DITCH BOTTOM
om
GEOTEXTILE
SECTION A-A FABRIC
ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET DETAIL
NOTES:
SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET.
SEE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISONS FOR MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS.
I.1'To3',
EXISTING ORA
TEMPORARY WATER DIVERSION BERM DETAIL
W
a
0
J
N
EXISTING
GRADE
----------- --------
LEVEL SPREADER DETAIL
MIN. WIDTH a
ER FABRIC § 0 t7o
a
ELEVATION COMPACTED
FILL

0
k
0

w
WOOD POST ¢
/
3-0' MN. WIDTH
` FILTER FABRIC
f

FILL SLOPE m
y
tr
h GROUND LINE t :?
?- ANCHOR FILTER
P FABRIC IAN B' DEEP
SECTION
1. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED OUTSIDE TOE OF EARTHFILL EMBANKMENTS. MAY
ALSO BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS 6 MANHOLES AS DIRECTED.
2 FILTER FABRIC SHAM BE A MINIMUM OF 38' IN WIDTH AND SHALL BE FASTENED
SECURELY TO THEWRE
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERIODICALLY REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT, AS REQUIRED.
t. SEDNENT MUST BE REMOVED WHERE ACCUMULATIONS REACH HALF THE ABOVE GROUND
HEIGHT OF SILT FENCING.
5. ANY S!T FENCING WHICH HAS BEEN UNDERMINED OR TOPPED MUST BE REPLACED
IMMEDIATELY.
NOTE:
THE FILTER FABRIC SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
A) EOS IS NOT LARGER THAN U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NO.70
8) GRAB STRENGTH 80.120 LB
C) CONFORM TO ASTM D-188208 ASTM a177
SILT FENCE DETAIL
SCALE: NTS
SCE
CLASSW STONE
B IN. MIN. DEPTH
(OVER FILTER FABRIC)
NOTES:
1. TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TOACCOMODATE LARGE TRUCKS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
2 ENTRANCE(S) SHOULD BE LOCATED TO PROVIDE FOR UTILIZATION BY ALL
CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES.
3. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION V INCH WLL PREVENT TRACKING OR DIRECT
FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC TOPDRESSINGWTH STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
4. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY.
5. GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE LOCATED AT ALL POINTS OF INGRESS
AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED. FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE DEVICE AND
TIMELY MAINTENANCE MUST BE PROVIDED.
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ScE
SCALE: NTS
Q u?i
s o
0 'o w
z?
S
N N
? x
W w
z j
V Ne
W
Y F-
V
W
W o
Uw
wa x
pZ
_0 o
z
qF
W [L Z
z0 7
F U
?W
U_ p
z? p
0 FF-
In ? K
O
DETAIL
SHEET
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE SEQUENCE
OF CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, AS DIRECTED BY THE SITE SUPERVISOR. IN
GENERAL, SITE CONSTRUCTION INVOLVES ESTABLISHING
APPROPRIATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONS TO RESTORE
WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD TAKE
NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS MAY
RESULT IN SATURATED GROUND CONDITIONS DEPENDING ON
WEATHER PATTERNS PRECEDING AND DURING CONSTRUCTION.
THESE GROUND CONDITIONS MAY MAKE VEHICULAR ACCESS AND
EARTHWORK DIFFICULT. CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED IN THE
ABOVE MENTIONED MANNER UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED OR
APPROVED BY THE SITE SUPERVISOR.
IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS CONTRACT THAT -
1. ALL PROJECT OPERATIONS WILL COMPLY WITH THE PROVIDED
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN.
THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, ALONG WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS
CONTAINED IN THE PLANS, CONSTITUTE THE SEQUENCE OF
CONSTRUCTION:
INITIAL SITE PREPARATION
1. INSTALL 3'- 4' WOODEN STAKES AT VARIOUS INTERVALS AS
DEEMED NECESSARY BY KCI, TO ISOLATE PROJECT SITE AND
IDENTIFY PROJECT BOUNDARY, CONSTRUCTION/GRADING LIMITS,
STABILIZED ENTRANCES, EXCLUDED EXISTING WETLAND AREAS, AND
ACCESS ROADS.
2. CONSTRUCT STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.
3. INSTALL SILT FENCE FOR STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
AND TEMPORARY STAGING AREA AS INDICATED IN THE PLANS.
PHASE I-AGRICULTURAL AREAS
1. CONDUCT GRADING FOR TEMPORARY WATER DIVERSION BERM
CONSTRUCTION AS NEEDED IN THOSE AREAS IN WHICH SURFACE
PREPARATION AND/OR GRADE TIE-INS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED.
2. INSTALL TEMPORARY WATER DIVERSION BERM STARTING FROM
THE EDGES AND WORK TOWARD THE ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET.
STABILIZE THE TEMPORARY WATER DIVERSION BERM WITH SEED AND
MULCH.
3. WITHIN A 24- HOUR PERIOD THE TEMPORARY WATER DIVERSION
BERM AND ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE
COMPLETED, SEEDED, MULCHED AND STABILIZED.
4. FILL FARM DITCHES AS INDICATED WITHIN THIS AREA FROM THE
EXISTING SPOIL PILES.
5. INSTALL DITCH PLUGS AND TEMPORARY ROCK SILT CHECK TYPE W
AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL AREAS.
6. GRADE SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROPOSED ELEVATIONS.
GRADE SITE IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO DIRECT SITE RUNOFF TO
THE TEMPORARY WATER DIVERSION BERMS AND ASSOCIATED
TEMPORARY ROCK SILT CHECK TYPE W.
7. CREATE MICROTOPOGRAPHY AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS.
PHASE II - WOODED AREAS
1. INSTALL SILT FENCE AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS.
2. INSTALL DITCH PLUGS AND ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET AS
INDICATED ON THE PLANS WITHIN THE PHASE 11 AREAS.
3. FILL FARM DITCHES AS INDICATED WITHIN THE PHASE II AREA
FROM THE EXISTING SPOIL PILES.
4. GRADE SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROPOSED ELEVATIONS.
GRADE SITE IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO DIRECT SITE RUNOFF TO
THE ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET.
NOTES:
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE EVERY REASONABLE
PRECAUTION THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT
TO PREVENT EROSION AND SILTATION. EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS, NORTH
CAROLINA SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL GUIDELINES AND AS
DIRECTED BY THE SITE SUPERVISOR.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILED WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STOCKPILE THE
MATERIALS IN NEARBY LOCATIONS WHERE SUFFICIENT AREA DOES
NOT EXIST. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING
APPROPRIATE STABILIZATION MEASURES AROUND THE STOCKPILE
AREA(S) TO PREVENT EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. ANY
ADDITIONAL MEASURES NECESSARY TO CONTROL EROSION/
SEDIMENTATION IN THESE AREAS WILL BE INCORPORATED AS
DIRECTED BY THE SITE SUPERVISOR.
3. EACH SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE WILL BE REMOVED AFTER ALL
WORK WITHIN THAT PHASE HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE AREAS
HAVE BEEN STABILIZED.
4. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES IDENTIFIED ON THE PLANS
PROVIDE ACCESS POINTS INTO THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE.
ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINTS SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT
APPROVAL OF THE SITE SUPERVISOR.
SEEDING:
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE A TEMPORARY SEED MIX OF
ANNUAL RYE (30 LBSJAC) IN SEEDING ALL DISTURBED AREAS.
2. FERTILIZER AND LIMESTONE SHALL BE APPLIED AT THE RATE OF
500 LBSJACRE AND 0.0 LBSJACRE, RESPECTIVELY (BASED ON SOIL
TEST REPORT). FERTILIZER SHALL BE 10-10-10 ANALYSIS. UPON
APPROVAL OF THE SITE SUPERVISOR, A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS OF
FERTILIZER MAY BE USED PROVIDED THE 1-1-1 RATIO IS MAINTAINED
AND THE RATE OF APPLICATION ADJUSTED TO PROVIDE THE SAME
AMOUNT OF PLANT FOOD AS A 10-10-10 ANALYSIS.
3. SEED IS TO BE SOWN BY MECHANICAL MEANS AND IS TO BE
EVENLY DISTRIBUTED AND SHOULD NOT BE BROADCAST WHEN WIND
VELOCITY EXCEEDS 5 MPH.
ow
o o'
:o
w "-
:s
U Na
Z ?
YI
WU M
W W 0
U O0
LU a x
oZ
=O z
W z
z0 0
?W
fY
Wp
g
O F- C9
mw z
0
GENERAL
NOTES

Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 0 0 6 0 9 5 2
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: KC:
Mailing Address: Lan
JUN l 2 2006
4601 Six Forks Rd
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 0800-06-2560 (Orange Co.)/ 0800-01-06-9809 (Durham Co.)
4. Location
County: Orange and Durham Nearest Town: Durham
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Take I-40 to State Hwy
15-501. Head northeast on 15-501 and turn left on Mt. Moriah Rd. The Brown Farm is
located approximately one mile out on Mt. Moriah Road on the right. The entrance is at a
metal gate where there is a small ridge that looks out over the project site below.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.9670 ON 78.9977 °W
6. Property size (acres): 46.13 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: New Hope Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/adrnin/mgps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The Brown Farm has been under cultivation or used for
grazing for over 100 years. An extensive ditch network has allowed for agriculture despite
the site's location on the New Hope Creek Floodplain. The area surrounding the project site
Page 6 of 12
is experiencing rapid growth. Downstream of the project site, there is residential and
commercial development expanding along the State Highway 15-501 corridor. Upstream,
however, part of the project watershed is within Duke Forest, a 7,200-acre research forest
owned by Duke University.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: This
wetland restoration project will reclaim the site as a riverine wetland. A bulldozer and/or
front-end loader on tracks will be used to plug the selected channel and install a rock
stabilized outlet. All work will be done on high ground when possible, but mats will be used
as needed to protect jurisdictional wetlands.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The project will restore a 46.13-acre agricultural
area to a Bottomland Hardwood wetland ecosystem. Existing ditches on-site do not represent
natural site conditions and prevent or limit the formation of wetland hydrology.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
A jurisdictional determination was requested from the USACE and approved by Todd J. Tugwell
of the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office on February 1, 2006 (Action ID 200521343). A copy of
this boundary plat is attached.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
Page 7 of 12
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The project will install a rock
stabilized outlet, which will block the flow of water out of the wetland. Plugging this ditch
will improve hydrology within this existing wetland and elsewhere on the site for restoration
areas.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
1 1 rock stabilized outlet Forested Yes 418 0.00115

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 3.32 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must he included. To calculate acreage. multinlv length X width. then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial Intermittent?
? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
1

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill. excavation. dredging. flooding. drainage. bulkheads. etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on ma) ocean, etc.) (acres)
Page 8 of 12
Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.00115
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.00115
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The proiect proposes to restored wetlands to agricultural lands that have been drained. Impacts
to existing streams have been minimized in the restoration design.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 9 of 12
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
htti)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnnizide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wry/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
IX.
X.
Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No E]
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify V Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
I Zone* I Impact Multiplier I Required
(sauare feet) Mitieation
2
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3 (2 for Catawba)
1.5
the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
Page 1 1 of 12
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
6- 12-0c=
Applicant/A?ent's S(phature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
ORANGE I
COUNTY 1
n
a

r6
4' .5 .
Lakes and Reservoirs
A
Municipalities 1.63,360
I inch equals 1 miles
KC I s
Counties I 0.5 0 I
TECHNOLOGIES Miles ENVOC
I . AND C!
-ir Gr8
- e
' ?ry As"

DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CARO " fkl

1 .
? ;Y
ORANGE
aoWN
Site
_ _ --? - ---- j...,......j U604 5.6s 1914, S64.0-f
I
t ♦
(. yt
♦
P
'r+ '.
`t
w
"4
�\
1
l'
f
1'
h
� •

mm
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
4213 ACRES
\
iSL---- _ ---- -----
/ I \ 1
\ -255- 1 BRa WG
\ I^ N=8072YS.B}Y/
\ ? / 1 ElEW-253.532
I /

EXISTING EASEMENT LINE
- - - - - EXISTING 5• CONTOUR LINES
- - - - - EXISTING 1' CONTRW LINES
(-y-y-y-') EXISTING TREE LINE
L
s \ \ ` pROoF
.r ary/4,??y
9J`C•,
N=aosm
`.. E
200pg,'i.1S788 \ \1 I 1? \
W A,
J
1
?I1
i ? 1J
I
I'
11
/ 1 lI
1/ \ ELEV=253.73 \ A
`? A A\ ? II l
\
1 W ? 1\
h
I 1 ?' 1 \
IIIII I\ ? 1 \\
I ?
I
I
/ BRpMIR
/ N=W7513.11?
E=N010NA2 \
ELEV781.65 /
NAIL181
N=07485.0
E=2000786.05
EIEV=25588 1
,J yJi ?? ' 1t _ 1
C\ 'y%
- BROYMI5
3 1
\
1 \ \
\V A / - i v / `V BROWN/25
N37
?.8
9810
\\ .
\\ / r \
.•.•.'.•.'.•.'.......'.•.•.
/ . .. _
Nb051Y08I \ 1?? •. .\•.•.•.•.•.'.i.? J

....................:.....:a....,.;.
\'..\ ............L. ...

OUTLLETNTABRIZEO
FO
a
w"
0
-100-50 0 100 200
GRAPHIC SCALE
DITCH PLUG -
STABILIZED ;
OUTLET
PLUG
VAR.
RM ROCK STASIIIZED OUTLET
A SURVEY CONTROL POINT
Ju JSDICTIONALNETLAND
?B EXISTING DITCH
A
L, B
PLAN VIEW
CLASS I
RIPRAP
m 0
EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
EXISTING VAR.
DITCH WIDTH
`- GEOTEXTILE
SECTION B-B FABRIC
CLASS I
RIPRAP
- - 1 I / EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
Ao - 4.1 EXISTING DITCH BOTTOM
Q m
GEOTEXTILE
SECTION A-A FABRIC
ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET DETAIL
NOTES:
SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET.
SEE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISONS FOR MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS.
?oo=
w s°¢
a 2Y
o
N rv
U Nv
W
Y I.- Z
w U Lu o
UX
LU a r
0z Ix
=O i
w? z
z0 0
0
Q
LL p 0:
g
0 F- a
co Ix z
9
0
SITE
PLAN
v
co
0
c
m
a
a
U
C
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCl Technoloyies. Inc. County: Orange
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: lA Non-Wet
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Festuca arundinacea 3 FAC- 9.
2. Tripsacum dactyloides 3 FAC+ 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: >30 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic D shpts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Ap 10YR 5/3 1, lmar
3-7 BW 1 IOYR 6/3 10YR 3/6 c2d 1, 1msbk
7-11 BW2 2.5YR 6/4 2.5Y 6/3 c2d 10YR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
11-13 BW3 10YR 5/4 2.5Y 6/2 c2d 10YR 3/3 c2d 1, 3/3 concretions
13-24 BW4 10YR 5/4 10YR 6/3 c2d 10YR 5/6 fld sil, 1 fsbk
24-30 C 1 OYR 6/2 10YR 5/4 10YR 5/6 sicl, concretions, massive
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Solis
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technologies, Inc. County: Orange
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 1B - Wetland
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica I FACW 9.
2. Salix nigra 1 OBL 10.
3. Campsis radicans 4 FAC 11.
4. Saururus cernuus 3 OBL 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
Swollen Buttresses.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other x Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available x Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 6-18 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Variant Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Confirm
Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Al 10YR 6/2 1, lmgr
3-8 Bg_ 10YR 6/2 10YR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
8-18 BI IOYR 4/4 10YR 6/4 c2d 7.5YR 4/4 flp sil, lmsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ponded for long to very long duration.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technoloy?ies, Inc. County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 2A - Non-Wet
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Festuca arundinacea 3 FAC- 9.
2. Juncus e(fusus 3 FACW+ 10.
3. Tripsacuru dactyloides 3 FAC+ 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 66%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 26 (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaguentic D, strudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Ap 10YR 5/4 sil, lmgr
3-7 Bwl 10YR 5/4 7.5YR 4/4 fld sil, lmsbk
IOYR 3/6 fld
7-11 Bw2 10YR 5/3 10YR 3/3 c2d sil, 3/3 concretions, lmsbk
7.5YR 4/4 c2d
11-21 Bw3 10YR 3/4 2.5Y 6/2 c2d 7.5YR 4/4 flp sil, lmsbk
21-30 Bw4 10YR 3/4 2.5Y 6/2 m2d sil, many concretions,
1 msbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Site is ditches.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technolop-ies, Inc. County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 2B -Wetland
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica I FACW 9.
2. Cephalanthus occidentalis 3 OBL 10.
3. Saururus cernuus 3 OBL 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
Trees Buttressed
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other x Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available x Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
X Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 24 (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Area is frequently flooded, but dry currently.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Confirm
Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 Al 10YR 6/2 10YR 6/6 fIf 7.5YR 4/6 fld 1, massive
6-13 Bgl 10YR 6/2 10YR 6/4 c2d 7.5YR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
13-17 Bg2 IOYR 6/2 7.5YR 4/6 c2d sicl, lmsbk
17-30 Bg2 10YR 6/2 10YR 4/8 c2d sil, lmsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ponds.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:

"THIS CERTIFIES THAT THIS COPY OF THIS PLAT ACCURATELY
DEPICTS THE BOUNDARY OF THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AS DETERMINED BY THE
UNDERSIGNED ON THIS DATE. UNLESS THERE 15 A CHANCE IN
THE LAW OR OR OUR PUBLISHED REGULATIONS, THIS
DETERMINATION OF SECTION 404 JURISDICTION MAY BE RELIED
UPON FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS FROM THIS
DATE. THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE UTILIZING THE 19B7
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL"
NAME:
TITLE: +
ZDO
DATE:
AID: Z-co Sz
NOTES;
ALL WETLAND AND NON WETLAND AREAS SHOWN HEREON ARE
WITHIN BROWN PROPERTY: DEED BOOK 1312. PAGE 52.
AREA OUTSIDE OF THE BROWN PROPERTY NDT EVALUATED FOR
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
THE BASIS OF THE COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON IS THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN
DATUM 1983.
ALL WETLAND FLAGS AND DATA POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE
FIELD BY CONVENTIONAL SURVEY METHODS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER
AND OCTOBER 2005.
I:iIJ4I1 r { ;. , I(LII II!ITIH;1i I IE'il.

61
n ?:
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
W4-4 806656.48 20
W4-7 805617.93 20
W4-8 806627.95 20
W4-1 OA 806604.54 2000920.10
W4-108 806602.05 20
W4-11 806620.06 21
W4-12 606635.48 2000956.41
W4-13 805633.51 2000961.11
W4-14 806630.30 2000963,23
W4-15 805637.49 20
W4-IBA 806625.87 2001071.75
W4-17A 606607.68 2001108.19
W4-16A 606529.35 2001137.90
W4-15A 806491.28 21
W4-14A 806452.75 2001156.28
W4-13A 806465.71 20
W4-12A 806514.07 21
W4-11A 806509.01 2001262.72
W4-10A 806604.54 2000920.10
W4-9A 805325.56 2001199.76
W4-BA 806349.12 2001117,50
W4-7A 505342.25 20D1054,GO
W4-6A 806344.62 2001010.81
W4-5A 806316.34 2000927.35
W4-4A 806316.10 2000685.98
W4-3A 806388.21 2000670.51
W4-2A 806476,29 20DO860.40
W4-1A 506533.51 2000873.30
W4-1 806564.06 20130578.59
W4-2 806597.84 2000861.54
I, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS
DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM A SURVEY MADI
SUPERVISION, THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYED'S
INDICATED THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS CALv'
GREATER THAN 1;10,0001 THAT THIS MAP DOES I4?I
AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY AND HAS NOT BMN%
IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30 AS AMENDED..ITNI
ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER AN ;SEI
24TH DAY.$F JANUARY, 2005. /?' T]
CAROLINA REGISTRATION NUMB
JAMES M. GELLENTHIN
FOUND IRON PIN
N=60744D.53
E=1999729.21
ELEV=253.91'
R0(14, Prot
SS10,??`?a t':
'7 a
5E
n
aa?aoeaE`? `??
JF111If1?Iti1YtY1`,?
7.15.27
N/F CRAB7REE VLIUS TROUPSDN
DEED SOCK 377, PAGE 488
ll?x
o„ WI-6
?A+ W, ?W1
Wl_3
WWII 1 ?
wi-is WI-9
?1A
+ WI 1 WI-10
W1-11
13 a`
W1-12
+ w1-16
FOUND IRON PIN
11 (EASTERLY MOST '
PROPERTY CORNER OF \ -1315
Wl-
PARCEL 7.26.,10) + W1-14
N=606921.92
E=2900068.24" \
ELEV=255.62' j
• 0-1.

V 16
\ 2
L
\
\ \
NON-JIIRISDiCII01UL?
455?w .
?' .•/•• s
sew , /
,./••'•• 726.126
N/F ROSE UfUNDA LE7GN FLETLN
DEED BOOK 1009 PAGE 388
?o
`c
a
W-
zz6..roe
NIP SROIW DA ND ET AL
DEED BOOK 1312 PACE 51

N
a
W E
a7 + S
lk? 46
++ 2f

W4-12 W4-1
4-
W4-8
W4- 7 194-11 -
w4 10A W4-S08 1
(?7d
'
14-15
-AW4-IBA
_2
' 114-17A
A w4 1 B
-tA W4-16A W4-12A
W4
W4-15A .
2A "
W4-14A ;W4-13A_
-3A
W4-10A
N4-4A 4-6A -7A W4-8 W4-9A
4-5A
4A
-5A •/
?'i758'S3 ••
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
K C I 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 220
SSOCIATES OF RALEIGH, NC 27609
)RTH CAROLINA PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
WI-i 807236.80 2000000.40
WI-2 807236,45 2000023.35
WI-3 897243.96 2000D44.11
Wl-4 807261,7D 2000042.26
W1-5 807297.22 20OD101.79
WI-6 BD7291.54 2000121.57
W11-7 B07251.73 2000093.95
WI-B 607222.87 2000090.85
WI-9 807173.05 2000091.28
WI-10 607111.90 2900111.47
WI-11 807093.30 2000131,22
WI-12 807050.65 2000184.35
wi-13 806958.93 2000185660
W1-13.5 806961.17 2000175,92
WI -14 606939.75 200014435
W1-16 807029.79 ZOODIO124
WI-17 807120.84 2000042.06
WI-18 807177.84 1999989.87
WI-19 807206.79 1999995.77
FLAG NORTHING E:ASTENG
W2-1 806760,60 2000313.83
W2-2 506793.44 2000289.66
W2-3 806754,45 20OD26157
W2-4 806743.10 2000269.07
W2-5 606755.98 2000294.01
W2-5 OM745.16 2000300.33
W2-7 806730.39 2000280.22
W2-6 806706.79 2000285.60
W2-9 806711.93 2000298.59
W2-10 506696.90 2000329.50
W2-11 806721.35 20OD324.92
W2-12 806740.93 2000316.70
W2-13 806757.77 2000323.95
FLAG NORTHING E:ASTING
Al-1 896536.79 2000540.31
Al-2 806605.00 2000553.11
Al-3 805658.65 2000605.91
Al-4 806654.30 2000617.85
Al-5 806594.64 2000572.96
Al-6 806519.44 2000559.27
Al-7 806470.23 2000541.39
W3-7 806445.38 2000563.49
W3-6 806393.96 2000579.93
W3-5 806306,64 2000623.85
W3-4 806284,29 2000619.78
W3-3 806273.70 2000608,29
W3-2 806259,85 2000615.17
W3-1 806263.40 2000524.80
W3-IA 805275,03 2000644.05
W3-2A 806247.30 2000672.98
W3-3A 806263.69 2000732.54
W3-4A 80625353 2000777.50
W3-5A 806222.25 2000762.35
W3-GA 806149.77 2000716.43
W3-7A 806153.47 2000707.85
W3-8A 806196.91 2000715.23
W3-9A 606237.22 2000717.67
W3-10A 808252.20 2000668.28
W3-20 805251.53 2000612.92
W3-19 806326.45 2000551.56
W3-17 806458.51 2000493.48
W3-16 806472.30 2000501.31
W3-9 806480.39 2000507.66
W3-8 505494.45 2000522.49
WETLAND
a NON-WETLAND
DATA POINT
a
N
GRAPHIC SCALE I<
200 0 100 200
CLim u
u
1 INCH = 200 FEET
WETLAND BOUNDARY PLAT
FOR
BROWN ?I
MT. MORIAH ROAD
ORANGE k DURHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA t
1 ' =
7.16..10
N/F BROIIN BEN?AJpN D
DEED BOOK 146, PAGE 1100

Office Use Only: Form Version March 05 qnnnnn5p
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), the D lue 016
1?
9
II. Applicant Information D
JUN 1 2 2006
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: KCI Technologies, Inc. kay,
Mailing Address: Landmark Center II, Suite 220 H
4601 Six Forks Rd
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 0800-06-2560 (orange CoX 0800-01-06-9809 (Durham Co.)
4. Location
County: Orange and Durham Nearest Town: Durham
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Take I-40 to State Hwy
15-501. Head northeast on 15-501 and turn left on Mt. Moriah Rd. The Brown Farm is
located approximately one mile out on Mt. Moriah Road on the right. The entrance is at a
metal gate where there is a small ridge that looks out over the project site below.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.9670 ON 78.9977 °W
6. Property size (acres): 46.13 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: New Hope Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The Brown Farm has been under cultivation or used for
grazing for over 100 years. An extensive ditch network has allowed for agriculture despite
the site's location on the New Hope Creek Floodplain. The area surrounding the project site
Page 6 of 12
is experiencing rapid growth. Downstream of the project site, there is residential and
commercial development expanding along the State Highway 15-501 corridor. Upstream,
however, part of the project watershed is within Duke Forest, a 7,200-acre research forest
owned by Duke University.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: This
wetland restoration project will reclaim the site as a riverine wetland. A bulldozer and/or
front-end loader on tracks will be used to plug the selected channel and install a rock
stabilized outlet. All work will be done on high ground when possible, but mats will be used
as needed to protect jurisdictional wetlands.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The project will restore a 46.13-acre agricultural
area to a Bottomland Hardwood wetland ecosystem. Existing ditches on-site do not represent
natural site conditions and prevent or limit the formation of wetland hydrology.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
A jurisdictional determination was requested from the USACE and approved by Todd J. Tugwell
of the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office on February 1, 2006 (Action ID 200521343). A copy of
this boundary plat is attached.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation snap, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
Page 7 of 12
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The project will install a rock
stabilized outlet, which will block the flow of water out of the wetland. Plugging this ditch
will improve hydrology within this existing wetland and elsewhere on the site for restoration
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
1 1 rock stabilized outlet Forested Yes 418 0.00115

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 3.32 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Intermittent. Perennial Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
I

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number applicable)
(if Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on ma) ocean, etc.) (acres)
Page 8 of 12
Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.00115
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.00115
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The moiect nronoses to restored wetlands to agricultural lands that have been drained. Impacts
to existing streams have been minimized in the restoration design.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 9 of 12
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.htniJ.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify V Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
I I Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation
1 I 13 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total I I I I
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
Page 11 of 12
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

Applicant/Agent's Suture Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
i 70
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH
pre
MfB
"'T'

US" scs ? q ?c., s t 2
x»
ORANGE
,r-.. - - --I -
AowM
$fTd
- --a- ........j, U61>4 sCS 19l}4 skeet' 21
------- EXISTING EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING 5 CONTOUR LINES
- EXISTING T CONTOUR LINES
(-'Y I DUSTING TREE lN1E
1 ?-
ROCK \
STABILIZED
OUTLET
L?
DITCH PLUG
® ROCKSTMI OUTLET
A SURVEY CONTROL POINT
O ULNISDICTIONALYYETLAM
I B EXISTING DITCH
- A
L-.B
STABILIZED PLAN VIEW
OUTLET
CLASS I
PLUG RIPRAP
m o
EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
40
- X71
VAR. EXISTING \ VAR.
DITCH WIDTH

SECTION B-B GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC

iC?IJ 0 o z
S1

3 CLASS I
RIPRAP

wa`
I I EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
A:Y 4:1 EXISTING DITCH BOTTOM w WN
-
- - - - - -
- -- - - --------- w.
u

'
GEOTEXTILE w
SECTION A-A FABRIC

ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET DETAIL Lu F' Z
U
w
o
NOTES:
SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF ROCK STABILIZED OUTLET. '
V O
SEE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISONS FOR MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. W U
wa x
OZ a
°
= 0
z
wI Z
z0
o

0
N
W
x
LL p
?g
OI- 0
p m

O 0
/ -100-50 0 100 200 SITE
/ PLAN
GRAPHIC SCALE
1
Irr
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
4713ACRES
/ BROLIAIQ
E \
EIEV-254.95 ?
NAll91
X06
ELEV=255.58
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
\\ -255
1 N=807295.98/
\ll ? 1 E?100D054.02 `Y -,?/l\\? \\ ?` \\ ryy, /!
EIEV-25? ?/ \ ` \ r
BROVYN05
N+O073Z7.75
/ M1 E>?31.T3
ELEV-254.80
.J... t fRrytiF
- / 1 1 \
BROVWW
\y \
73
I 1
\
1
I? ? \ I
/ 1 I' vvV ? y A v
A V / /v/ A
\( \ / / - / \ N-805520.9510
r \ \ / / i I E--MM219.5131
W; \\ I / .. I ELEV453.14
1
\11y \ \\ N-005
` - } ".?. ::::... ':.'.'.... :'.
M.N
/ 11111 1 l \\ E-1000275.05 f / ........ .
y \ y ....?. ?.........J..

\ 1 ........ .. /
/ (1
?C/
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technologies, Inc. County: Orange
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: IA Non-Wet
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Festuca arundinacea 3 FAC- 9.
2. Triysacum dactyoides 3 FAC+ 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: >30 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic D shpts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Ap 10YR 5/3 1, )mgr
3-7 BW 1 10YR 6/3 10YR 3/6 c2d 1, 1 msbk
7-11 BW2 2.5YR 6/4 2.5Y 6/3 c2d 10YR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
11-13 BW3 10YR 5/4 2.5Y 6/2 c2d 10YR 3/3 c2d 1, 3/3 concretions
13-24 BW4 10YR 5/4 10YR 6/3 c2d 10YR 5/6 fld sil, 1 fsbk
24-30 C 10YR 6/2 10YR 5/4 10YR 5/6 sicl, concretions, massive
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KC1 Technologies, Inc. County: Orange
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 113 - Wetland
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica I FACW 9.
2. Salix ninra 1 OBL 10.
3. Campsis radicans 4 FAC 11.
4. Saurums cernuus 3 OBL 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
Swollen Buttresses.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other X Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available X Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 6-18 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Variant Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Confirm
Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Al 10YR 6/2 1, lmgr
3-8 Bg_ 1OYR 6/2 1OYR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
8-18 B1 10YR 4/4 10YR 6/4 c2d 7.5YR 4/4 flp sil, lmsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ponded for long to very long duration.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technologies, Inc. County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 2A - Non-Wet
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Festuca arundinacea 3 FAC- 9.
2. Juncus effusus 3 FACW+ 10.
3. Tripsacum dactvloides 3 FAC+ 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 66%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 26 (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munseil Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Ap 10YR 5/4 sil, )mgr
3-7 Bwl 10YR 5/4 7.5YR 4/4 fld sil, Imsbk
10YR 3/6 f1d
7-11 Bw2 10YR 5/3 10YR 3/3 c2d sil, 3/3 concretions, lmsbk
7.5YR 4/4 c2d
11-21 Bw3 10YR 3/4 2.5Y 6/2 c2d 7.5YR 4/4 flp sil, lmsbk
21-30 Bw4 10YR 3/4 2.5Y 6/2 m2d sil, many concretions,
1 msbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Site is ditches.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Brown Site Date: 8-15-05
Applicant / Owner: KCI Technologies, Inc. County: Durham
Investigator: Steven F. Stokes State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: 213 -Wetland
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinuspennsylvanica I FACW 9.
2. Cephalanthus occidentalis 3 OBL 10.
3. Saururus cernuus 3 OBL 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
Trees Buttressed
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other x Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available x Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
X Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 24 (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Area is frequently flooded, but dry currently.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Confirm
Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 Al 10YR 6/2 1OYR 6/6 flf 7.5YR 4/6 fld 1, massive
6-13 Bg1 10YR 6/2 10YR 6/4 c2d 7.5YR 4/6 c2d 1, lmsbk
13-17 B g2 10YR 6/2 7.5YR 4/6 c2d sicl, lmsbk
17-30 Biz2 IOYR 6/2 10YR 4/8 c2d sil, lmsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Ponds.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
'THIS CERTIFIES THAT THIS COPY OF THIS PLAT ACCURATELY
DEPICTS THE BOUNDARY OF THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AS DETERMINED BY THE
UNDERSIGNED ON THIS DATE UNLESS THERE IS A CHANGE IN
THE LAW OR OR OUR PUBLISHED REGULATIONS. THIS
DETERMINATION OF SECTION 404 JURISDICTION MAY BE RELIED
UPON FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS FROM THIS
DATE. TH1S DETERMINATION WAS MADE UTILIZING THE 19B7
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL
NAME:
TITLE:
DATE: Zoo G G
AM: 7-()bSZ il?? -
NOTES;
ALL WETLAND AND NON WETLAND AREAS SHOWN HEREON ARE
WITHIN BROWN PROPERTY; DEED BOOK 1312, PAGE 52.
AREA OUTSIDE OF THE BROWN PROPERTY NOT EVALUATED FOR
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS,
THE BASIS OF THE COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON IS THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN
DATUM 1983.
ALL WETLAND FLAGS AND DATA POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE
FIELD BY CONVENTIONAL SURVEY METHODS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER
AND OCTOBER 2005.
IJIJ?{If l=ic, 1'1011 1111)i'711? FIi -1 1.

FLAG NORTHING EASTING
W4-4 866556.48 20DOB54.53
W4-7 805617.93 20DD905.36
W4-8 806627.96 20DO919.31
W4-1 DA 806604,54 2000920.10
W4-1OB 806602.05 2000928.10
W4-11 806620.06 2000948.47
W4-12 805535.48 2000956.41
W4-13 806633.51 20DO961.11
W4-14 806630.30 2060963.23
W4-15 806637.49 2001019.23
W4-IBA 806625.87 2001071.75
W4-17A 806607.68 2001108.19
W4-16A 506529.35 2001137.90
W4-15A 805491.2B 2061140.32
W4-14A BD6452.75 2001158.28
W4-13A 806465.71 2001187.97
W4-12A 806514.07 2001240,55
W4-11A 506509.01 2001262.72
W4-1 OA 806604.54 2000920.10
W4-9A 806325.66 2001190.76
W4-BA 806349.12 2001117,50
W4-7A 806342.25 20D1054.00
W4-6A 806344.62 2001010.81
W4-5A 806316.34 200092735
W4-4A 806318.10 2000895.95
W4-3A 806388.21 2000870.51
W4-2A 806476.29 2000860.40
W4-lA BD6533.61 2000873.30
W4-1 606564.06 20DOB78.59
W4-2 806597,84 20DD851.54
"?gYlfii161i
I, JAMES M. GELLENININ, HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS M WAS ??11 1ji?
DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM A SURVEY MAD ?ROt/ Pf

SUPERVISION, THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SUFIVE >

IV
INDICATED THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS CAL
GREATER THAN 100,000; THAT THIS MAP DOES
AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY AND HAS NOT
IN ACCORDANCE NTH G.S. 47-30 AS AMENDED. XTNE n
ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER AN SE *• •
?
?
24TH DAy aF JANUARY, 2005. * 3
a
0
C
?

7 .27
/NORTH CAROLINA REGISTRATION NUMBE h?? 10101aN/FCRABIREE
IVIUSTHOMPSON
JAMES M. GELLENTHIN '1111j1111 DEER BOCK J27. PAGE 488
969'36'4B'E NDN-JUR{01CrMAL
FOUND IRON PIN
N=807440.63
E=1999729.21
ELEV=253.91'

W2-7,?
W2-
U` WI-

.m•
W1-
W1-3
WI 1
•
-2
`

_19
W,
W1-18

W1 i
P\ SB
?
T
Y2-13 .
-12 ' WI-1
FOUND IRON PIN
`
W2-11 (EASTERLY MOST
'.
PROPERTY CORNER OF 1
PARCEL 7.26„10) '•
I-1 N=806921.92
E=2000068.29

j .
?6d0i
d
DWI-6
i
-7 /
-e
4 )Qx-11

-12
\ L
ma_um¢nrnnia, \ ?/,5715,5'I^N
/
7.26..120
N/F ROSE MEIINDA LEIGH FI£TCH
DEED BOOK 2009 PACE 388
41.79
1421'42'46%
54.40'
N5714'56'E
31.19'
N4752'09'E
} N
/ n
W E
S
a '
• yf
S?
f
W4-12 W4-1
4-
W4-11
W4-100
2B
'o
,c st,
7.16..708
N/F BROWN DA HD ET At
1
DEED BOOK 7372 PACE 52
1
?!8 53
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF
12054238 NORTH CAROLINA
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
4601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 220
RALEIGH, NC 27609
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
WI-1 807238.80 2000000.40
WI-2 807236.45 2000023.35
Wt -3 807243.96 2000044.11
W1-4 807261,70 2000042.26
WI-5 507297.22 200D101.79
WI-6 807291.54 2000121.57
WI-7 807251.73 2000093.95
WI-8 807222.87 2000090.85
WI-9 807173.05 2000091.28
WI-10 807111.90 2000111,47
WI-11 807093.30 2000131,22
W1-12 807050.65 20DO184.35
W1-13 806958.93 2000185,60
W1-13,5 806961.17 2000175.92
WI-14 806939.75 20OD144.75
WI-16 807029.79 2000103.24
WI-17 807120.84 2000042.06
W1-18 807177,84 1999989.87
WI-19 807205.79 1999995.77
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
W2-1 806760.60 2000313.83
W2-2 506793.4 2000289.86
W2-3 B06754,45 2000262.57
W2-4 806743.10 2000269.07
W2-5 806755.98 20OD294.01
W2-6 806745.16 2000300.33
W2-7 806730.39 2000280.22
W2-5 805705.79 2000285.60
W2-9 806711.93 2000298.69
W2-10 806696.90 2000329.58
W2-11 806721.35 2000324.92
W2-12 806740.93 2000316.7D
W2-13 805757.77 2000323.98
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
Al-1 606536,79 2000540.31
Al-2 806608.00 2000553.11
Al-3 806658.55 2000605.91
AI-4 805554.30 2000617.85
Ai-5 806594.64 2000572.96
Al-6 806519.44 2000559.27
Al-7 806470.23 2000541.39
W3-7 805445.38 2000563.49
W3-6 806393.96 2000579.93
W3-5 006306.64 20130623.85
W3-4 806284,29 2000619.78
W3-3 506273.70 2000606,29
W3-2 805259.85 2000515.17
W'3-1 806263.40 2000624.80
W3-IA 805275,03 2000644.05
W3-2A 805297,30 2000672.98
W3-3A 506263.69 2000732.54
W3-4A 80625353 2000777.50
W3-5A 806222.25 200078235
W3-6A 805149.77 2000716.43
W3-7A 805153.47 2000707.85
W3-BA 806195.91 2000715.23
W3-9A 806237.22 2000717.67
W3-10A 80625220 200066B,28
W3-20 806251.53 2000612.92
W3-19 806326.45 2000551.66
W3-17 80645861 20OD493.48
W3-15 806472.30 2000501.31
W3-9 506480.39 2000507,66
W3-B 805494.45 2000522.49
WETLAND
a NON-WETLAND
DATA POINT
GRAPHIC SCALE
200 0 100 200
1 INCH = 200 FEET
WETLAND BOUNDARY PLAT
FOR
BROWN
MT. MORIAH ROAD
ORANGE do DURHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAR
1" =
a
fU
c
rn
a
N
c
E
N
E
c
a
726..10
N/F BRO9N BENJAMM D
DEED BOOK 246, PAGE 1100
KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
Transmittal Letter
ENGINEERS ? SURVEYORS ? SCIENTISTS ? CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
LANDMARK CENTER II. SUTTF, 220 ? 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD ? RALEIGH. NC 27609 ? 919-783-9214 (FAX) 919-783-9266
Date: June 12, 2006 5 2
Company: North Carolina Division of Water Project: Brown Farm Wetland
Quality Restoration
Contact: John Dorney Subject: 401 Permit Application
? In accordance with your request
? For your review
® For processing
? Plans reviewed and accepted
? Plans reviewed and accepted as noted
? For revision by you
? For your use/files
? Please call when ready
? Please return to this office
? Approval requested
? Conference requested
at your convenience
Comments: I can be reached at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
application.
JON 1 2 2006
41 A Q1
Kristin Knight
Environmental Scientist
cc: File
KCI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. www.kci.com
Employee-Owned Since 4988

j ?- t---)

- ?m
r
Tff

DWQ# Q -,0 1 Date Who Reviewed:
Plan Detail Incomplete
? Please provide a location map for the project.
? Please show all stream impacts including all fill slopes, dissipaters, and bank stabilization on the site plan.
? Please show all wetland impacts including fill slopes on the site plan.
? Please indicate all buffer impacts on the site plan.
? Please indicate proposed lot layout as overlays on the site plan. CJ U ??
? Please indicate the location of the protected buffers as overlays on the site plan.
? Please locate all isolated or non-isolated wetlands, streams and other waters of the State as overlays on the site plan.
? Please provide cross section details showing the provisions for aquatic life passage.
? Please locate any planned sewer lines on the site plan.
? Please provide the location of any proposed stormwater management practices as required by GC
? Please provide detail for the stormwater management practices as required by GC
? Please specify the percent of project imperviousness area based on the estimated built-out conditions.
? Please indicate all storinwatcr outfalls on the site phut.
? Please indicate the diffuse flow provision measures on the site plan.
? Please indicate whether or not the proposed impacts already been conducted.
Avoidance. and/or Minimization Not Provided
? The labeled as on the plans does not appear to be necessary. Please eliminate the or provide additional
information as to why it is necessary for this project.
? This Office believes that the labeled on the plans as
. Please revise the plans to avoid the impacts.
can be moved or reconfigured to avoid the impacts to the
?. This Office believes that the labeled on the plans as
. Please revise the plans to minimize the impacts.
can be moved or reconfigured to minimize the impacts to the
? The stormwater discharges at the location on the plans labeled will not provide diffuse flow through the buffer because
. Please revise the plans and provide calculations to show that diffuse flow will be achieved through the entire buffer. If it
is not possible to achieve diffuse flow through the entire buffer then it may be necessary to provide stormwater management
practices that remove nutrients before the stormwater can be discharged through the buffer.
Other
? The application fee was insufficient because over 150 feet of stream and/or over 1 acre of wetland impacts were requested. Please
provide $ . This additional fee must be received before your application can be reviewed.
? Please complete Section(s) on the appUc.ation.
? Please provide a signed copy of the application.
? Please provide copies of the application, copies of the site plans and other supporting information.
? Please submit electronic CAD files showing , via email to [e-mail] and CD.,
Mitigation
? of compensatory mitigation is required for this project. Please provide a compensatory mitigation plan. The
plan must conform to the requirements in 15 A NCAC 2H.0500 and must be appropriate to the type of impacts proposed.
? Please indicate which 404 Permit the USACE would use to authorize this project.