20190675 Ver 1_TProposal Part B_20190426

PART B: TITLE PAGE
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND RESTORATION PLAN
SWAMP GRAPE STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(RFP #16-007705)
FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS
TO PROVIDE FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS TO PROVIDE STREAM & RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS
WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT 03040204 OF THE LUMBER RIVER BASIN
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Restoration Systems, LLC
Authorized Representative: George Howard
Ph: 919-755-9490
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Prepared by:
JANUARY 2019
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND RESTORATION PLAN
SWAMP GRAPE STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RFP #16-007705 - FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS TO PROVIDE STREAM & RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS
WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT 03040204 OF THE LUMBER RIVER BASIN
PART D. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, L.L.C. is pleased to provide you with this Proposal in response to the Request for Proposals
(RFP) #16-007705 dated September 6, 2018. This submittal includes one original and four copies of the technical
proposal, and one USB flash drive containing two redacted copies of the technical proposal and ArcGIS shapefiles of
the proposed project boundaries. The cost proposal has been submitted in a separate envelope containing two
originals and two copies. Preliminary restoration plans have been prepared by Axiom Environmental, Inc. with Site
identification, land acquisition, management, and construction established by Restoration Systems, L.L.C. This
proposal describes the technical merits of the project including the corporate team, fiscal resources,
restoration/monitoring procedures, and implementation schedules.
This proposal describes the Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) and is designed specifically to
assist in fulfilling North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) mitigation goals. The Site is located within 14 -digit Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed
03040204048010, approximately 4 miles northwest of Rowland and 2.5 miles southwest of Alfordsville along the
southwest edge of Robeson County near the North Carolina and South Carolina border (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix
A). The Site is not located within a Regional or Local Watershed Planning area. The Site is situated along warm
water, unnamed tributaries to Wilkinson Creek.
The Site is proposed to include two mitigation options: Mitigation Option 1 (4012 SMUs and 14.3 WMUs) and
Mitigation Option 2 (3061 SMUs and 10.0 WMUs).
Mitigation Option 1 is proposed to provide 2305 linear feet of stream restoration, 1921 linear feet of stream
enhancement (level 1), 1065 linear feet of stream enhancement (level II), 14.2 acres of riparian riverine wetland
restoration, and 0.2 acre of riparian riverine wetland enhancement.
Proposed Mitigation Units Option 1
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Mitigation Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
2305
1:1
2305
Enhancement
Level 1
1921
1.5:1
1281
Enhancement
Level II
1065
2.5:1
426
Preservation
-
--
10:1
--
Totals
5291 linear feet
4012 SMUs
Wetland Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Riparian Riverine WMU
Restoration
Riparian Riverine
14.2
1:1
14.2
Enhancement
Riparian Riverine
0.2
2:1
0.1
Totals
14.4 acres
14.3 WMUs
Swamp Grape Stream & Mitigation Site Part D — Executive Summary
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

Mitigation Option 2 is proposed to provide 1780 linear feet of stream restoration, 1921 linear feet of stream
enhancement (level 1), 10.0 acres of riparian riverine wetland restoration, and 0.1 acre of riparian riverine
wetland enhancement.
Proposed Mitigation Units Option 2
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Mitigation Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
1780
1:1
1780
Enhancement
Level 1
1921
1.5:1
1281
Enhancement
Level 11
--
2.5:1
--
Preservation
-
--
10:1
--
Totals
3701 linear feet
3061 SMUs
Wetland Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Riparian Riverine WMU
Restoration
Riparian Riverine
10.0
1:1
10
Enhancement
Riparian Riverine
0.1
2:1
0.05
Totals
10.1 acres
10.0 WMUs
Site alterations include removing an earthen dam, restoration of streams and wetlands, and planting native, woody
vegetation. Mitigation outlined in this report will result in net gains in hydrology, water quality, and habitat
functions.
Swamp Grape Stream & Mitigation Site Part D — Executive Summary
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

TECHNICAL APPROACH AND RESTORATION PLAN
SWAMP GRAPE STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RFP #16-007705 - FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS TO PROVIDE STREAM & RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS
WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT 03040204 OF THE LUMBER RIVER BASIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART G:
TECHNICAL APPROACH...................................................................................................................1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives...........................................................................................................1
Table 3. Stream Geometry and Classification...............................................................................................................9
1.2
Project Description..........................................................................................................................8
Table 5A. Option 1 Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary....................................................................15
1.2.1 Existing Conditions..........................................................................................................8
Table 5B. Option 2 Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary....................................................................15
1.2.2 Stream Characterization.................................................................................................9
Table 7. Stream Monitoring Summary........................................................................................................................17
1.2.3 Nutrient Model..............................................................................................................10
Table 8. Wetland Monitoring Summary.....................................................................................................................18
1.2.4 Site Design and Implementation Constraints................................................................10
1.3
Project Development....................................................................................................................12
1.3.1 Stream Restoration.......................................................................................................12
1.3.2 Stream Enhancement (Level 1)......................................................................................13
1.3.3 Stream Enhancement (Level 11).....................................................................................13
1.3.4 Wetland Restoration (Reestablishment).......................................................................13
1.3.5 Wetland Enhancement..................................................................................................13
1.3.6 Riparian Restoration.....................................................................................................14
1.3.7 Fence / Easement Marking...........................................................................................15
1.3.8 Nuisance Species Management....................................................................................15
1.4
Proposed Mitigation......................................................................................................................15
1.5
Current Ownership and Long term Protection..............................................................................15
1.6
Project Phasing..............................................................................................................................16
1.7
Success Criteria.............................................................................................................................16
1.7.1 Stream Monitoring........................................................................................................17
1.7.2 Stream Success Criteria.................................................................................................18
1.7.3 Wetland Monitoring......................................................................................................18
1.7.4 Wetland Success Criteria...............................................................................................18
1.7.5 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................18
1.7.6 Vegetation Success Criteria...........................................................................................19
1.7.7 Visual Monitoring..........................................................................................................19
1.7.8 Compatibility with Project Goals...................................................................................19
1.8
Quality Control..............................................................................................................................21
1.9
Summary.......................................................................................................................................22
1.10
References.....................................................................................................................................23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1A. Swamp Grape NC SAM Summary.................................................................................................................2
Table 1B. Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives.......................................................................4
Table2. Site Soils..........................................................................................................................................................8
Table 3. Stream Geometry and Classification...............................................................................................................9
Table 4. Threatened and Endangered Species............................................................................................................11
Table 5A. Option 1 Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary....................................................................15
Table 5B. Option 2 Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary....................................................................15
Table6. Monitoring Schedule.....................................................................................................................................17
Table 7. Stream Monitoring Summary........................................................................................................................17
Table 8. Wetland Monitoring Summary.....................................................................................................................18
Table 9. Vegetation Monitoring Summary.................................................................................................................19
Table 10. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................20
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)
Table of Contents

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions and Soils
Figure 5A. Proposed Conditions—Option 1
Figure 5B. Proposed Conditions — Option 2
Appendix B. Stream & Wetland Data
Cross Sections
NCSAM Forms
Soil Boring Log
Appendix C. NHP Report
Appendix D. Memorandum of Option Agreement
Appendix E. Landowner Authorization Form
Appendix F. Technical Proposal Score Sheet
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site Table of Contents
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

PART G: TECHNICAL APPROACH
This technical proposal describes the Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the
"Site"), approximately 4 miles northwest of Rowland and 2.5 miles southwest of Alfordsville along the southwest
edge of Robeson County near the North Carolina and South Carolina border (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A). Site land
use consists of a breached agriculture pond, disturbed forest, horse pasture, and row crops. The pond was breached
in August 2018 during hurricane Florence. All Site hydrology drains to warm water, unnamed tributaries to Wilkinson
Creek. Two mitigation options are currently being proposed for this RFP submittal (Option 1 includes a 26.7 acre
easement and Option 2 includes a 20.5 acre easement). For the purpose of this document, Option 1 will be used to
describe the Site.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03040204048010 and subbasin 03-07-55. The Site is not
located in a Local Watershed Plan (LWP), Regional Watershed Plan (RWP), or Targeted Resource Area (TRA). Project
goals are based on the Lumber River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2008), on-site data collection
of channel morphology, and functions observed during field investigations. The RBRP report documents restoration
goals for the 03040204 catalog unit include buffering waterways and implementation of stormwater and agricultural
BMPs.
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of existing
stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010). These methodologies rate functional metrics for
streams and wetlands as high, medium, or low based on field data collected on forms and transferred into a rating
calculator. Using Boolean logic, the rating calculator assigns a high, medium, or low value for each metric and overall
function. Site functional assessment data forms are available upon request and model output is included in Appendix
B.
Table 1A summarize NC SAM metrics targeted for functional uplift; metrics targeted to meet the Site's goals and
objectives are depicted in bold. Table 1B outlines functions targeted for functional uplift, goals that are tied to the
specific functions, objectives to be completed to achieve the proposed goals, and outlines stressors that Site
activities will provide functional uplift for. The Site provides for restoration and protection of aquatic resources
within a conservation easement and will result in net gains in hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions.
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 1
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

Table 1A. Swamp Grape NC SAM Summary
NC SAM Function Class Rating Summary
(1) HYDROLOGY
SAM 1
UT 1
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorophology
HIGH
(1) WATER QUALITY
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(1) HABITAT
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -Stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
OVERALL -
Based on NC SAM output, all three primary stream functional metrics (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat), as
well as 14 sub -metrics are under -performing as exhibited by a LOW metric rating. LOW performing metrics are to
be targeted forfunctional upliftthrough mitigation activities, goals and objectives, as well as, monitoring and success
criteria.
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 2
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

NC WAM is not able to be run on drained wetlands or open waters. Therefore, the following provides a list of
functions that are expected to be enhanced or restored at the Site through project activities within drained hydric
soils and/or impounded open waters.
• Hydrology
o Surface Storage & Retention
o Sub -surface Storage and Retention
• Water Quality
o Pathogen Change
o Particulate Change
o Soluble Change
o Physical Change
• Habitat
o Physical Structure
o Landscape Patch Structure
o Vegetative Composition
Based on NC WAM Metric -Function Diagrams, the functions expected to be enhanced, or restored at the Site include
the primary wetland functional metrics (Water Quality and Habitat), as well as 9 sub -metrics. These functions and
metrics are to be targeted for functional uplift through mitigation activities, goals and objectives, as well as,
monitoring and success criteria.
The proposed easement, existing conditions, and proposed mitigation activities are depicted in Figures 4 and 5
(Appendix A).
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 3
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

Table 1B. Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)
page 4
DMS Functional Uplift Evaluations
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
Functional Stressor (Uplift Potential)
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow
0
Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
• Minimize downstream flooding to the maximum extent
flows and restore jurisdictional wetlands
(4) Microtopography
possible.
0
•
Plant woody riparian buffer
Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
Wetland — Surface Storage & Retention
.
•
Peak Flows
Artificial Barriers
Wetland —Sub -surface Storage &Retention
•
Ditching/Draining
(3) Stream Stability
• Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension, and longitudinal profile
(4) Channel Stability
• Increase stream stability within the Site so that channels
•
•
Construct stable channels with appropriate substrate
Plant woody riparian buffer
are neither aggrading nor degrading.
•
Upgrade road crossings
(4) Sediment Transport
•
Remove an earthen dam
•
Stabilize stream banks
(1) WATER QUALITY
(3) Thermoregulation
•
Reduce agricultural land/inputs
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
•
Plant woody riparian buffer
•
Non-functioning Riparian Buffer/Wetland Vegetation
• Remove direct nutrient and pollutant inputs from the
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
Nutrients
Wetland Particulate Change
Site and reduce contributions to downstream waters.
Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through deep
ripping/plowing.
•
Fecal Coliform
Wetland Physical Change
Wetland Soluble Change
Wetland Physical Change
(1) HABITAT
(2) In -stream Habitat
•
•
Construct stable channels with appropriate substrate
Remove an earthen dam that is a barrier to wildlife migration
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In Stream Habitat
•
•
Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank
flows
•
Habitat Fragmentation
(2) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Stream -side Habitat
• Improve instream and stream -side habitat.
•
Plant woody riparian buffer
•
Limited Bedform Diversity
•
Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
•
Absence of Large Woody Debris
(3) Thermoregulation
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
Wetland Physical Structure
Stabilize stream banks
Install in -stream structures
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure
Wetland Vegetative Composition
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)
page 4

1.2 Project Description
1.2.1 Existing Conditions
Physiography and Land Use
The Site is located in the Atlantic Southern Loam Plains portion of the Southeastern Plains ecoregion of North
Carolina. Regional physiography is characterized by dissected, smooth and irregular plains; broad interstream
divides; Carolina bays; and mostly gentle side slopes dissected by many small, low to moderate gradient sandy -
bottomed streams (Griffith et al. 2002). Onsite elevations range from a high of 140 feet National Geodetic Vertical
Datum (NGVD) at the upper reaches to a low of approximately 115 feet NGVD at the Site outfall (USGS Rowland,
North Carolina 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle) (Figure 3, Appendix A).
The Site provides water quality functions to watersheds ranging from approximately 0.41 square mile (263 acres) on
UT2 to 1.53 square miles (977 acres) at the outfall (Figure 3, Appendix A). The watershed is dominated by agricultural
land, forest, and sparse residential development. Impervious surfaces account for less than 2 percent of the
upstream watershed land surface.
Land use at the Site is characterized by a breached agriculture pond, row crops, livestock pasture, and disturbed
forest. The agriculture pond was breached in August 2018 during hurricane Florence and is in the process of being
repaired for irrigation purposes. Row crops are currently soy beans, but other crops are rotated regularly. Livestock
including horses graze fields along the northern boundary of the agriculture pond and have unrestricted access to
the streams.
Water Quality
The Site is located within the Lumber River Basin in United States Geological Services (USGS) 14 -digit HUC
03040204048010 and North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Subbasin 03-07-55. Site hydrology
drains to unnamed tributaries to Wilkinson Creek (Stream Index Number 14-34-11), which has been assigned a Best
Usage Classification of C, Sw (NCDWR 2013). Wilkinson Creek is not listed on the NCDENR draft 2018 or final 2016
303(d) lists (NCDEQ 2018a, NCDEQ 2018b).
Soils and Land Form
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2018), the Site contains four soil series as follows (Figure 4, Appendix A).
Table 2. Site Soils
Map Unit
Map Unit Name
Hydric Status
Description
Symbol
y
(Classification)
This series consists of well -drained soils found on broad
Aycock very fine sandy
interstream divides and flats on marine terraces with 0-2
AyA
loam
Non -hydric
percent slopes. The parent material is loamy and silty marine
(Typic Paleudults)
deposits. Depth to the water table is 48-72 inches. Depth to
restrictive features is more than 80 inches.
This series consists of poorly drained soils found on
BB
Bibb soils
Hydric
floodplains with 0-2 percent slopes. The parent material is
(Typic Fluvaquents)
sandy and loamy alluvium. Depth to the water table is 0-12
inches. Depth to restrictive features is more than 80 inches.
This series consists of well -drained soils found on ridges on
FaB
Faceville fine sandy loam
Non -hydric
marine terraces with 2-6 percent slopes. The parent material
(Typic Kandiudults)
is clayey marine deposit. Depth to the water table and depth
to the restrictive features is more than 80 inches.
This series consists of well -drained soils found on broad
Wagram loamy sand
interstream divides and ridges on marine terraces with 0-10
WaB, WaC
(Arenic Kandiudults)
Non -hydric
percent slopes. The parent material is loamy marine deposits.
Depth to the water table is 60-80 inches. Depth to restrictive
features is more than 80 inches.
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 8
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

Existing wetlands and drained hydric soils were mapped by a licensed soil scientist (NC LSS # 1233); results of the
delineation are depicted on Figure 4 (Appendix A) and the Site includes approximately 0.2 acre of disturbed wetland
and 15.1 acres of impacted hydric soils. A soil boring log is included in Appendix B.
1.2.2 Stream Characterization
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to orient stream restoration based on a classification
utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification stratifies streams into comparable groups
based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics. Primary components of the classification include
degree of entrenchment, width -depth ratio, sinuosity, and channel slope.
Cross-sectional measurements were utilized to characterize existing stream channel conditions. The location of the
cross-section is depicted in Figure 4 (Appendix A). Cross-sectional data indicate that Site streams are appropriately
sized; however, the channels appear to be eroding relatively quickly due to tight radius of curvature, lack of deep
rooted vegetation, and saturated bank materials. This is further evidenced by multiple head -cuts progressing
upstream. Shoot cutoffs occur within the Site and abandoned channel sections have filled with sediment. In
addition, extensive overbank flooding (possibly due to undersized channels from aggradation within the
impoundment) are contributing sand on the floodplain. The channel is characterized by a slightly incised C-type
channel (data is presented in Figure 4, Appendix A and Table 3).
Table 3. Stream Geometry and Classification
Attribute
Unnamed Tributary 1
Existing Proposed
DA
1.53
1.53
Abkf
12.9
12.9
Aexisting
17.9
12.9
Wbkf
13.9
11.3
Dbkf
0.9
1.1
Dmax
1.6
1.3
Wbkf/Dbkf
15.0
9.9
FPA
150
150
ENT
10.8
13.3
LBH
1.9
1.3
BHR
1.19
1.0
SIN
1.2
1.3
Stream Type
C-type
E -type
Proposed Stream Geometry
Site streams have been characterized based on fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). Table 3 provides a
summary of measured stream geometry attributes under existing conditions (considered to be unstable) and a
preliminary estimate of potentially stable stream attributes. Preliminary estimates of stable stream attributes are
based primarily upon data observations along the existing reaches, measurements of a cross-section within the Site,
and regional curves for the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina.
Hydrology
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging approximately
45.6 inches per year (USDA 1978). The Site's discharge is dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment,
groundwater flow, and precipitation. Based on regional curves (Sweet and Geratz 2003), the bankfull discharge for
a 0.41- to 1.53 -square mile watershed is expected to average 4.5 to 12.1 cubic feet per second and occur
approximately every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 9
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

1.2.3 Nutrient Model
Nutrient modeling was conducted using a method developed by North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) (NCDMS 2016) to determine nutrient and fecal coliform reductions from exclusion of livestock from the
buffer.
The equation for nutrient reduction for this model includes the following:
TN reduction (lbs/yr) = 51.04 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
TP reduction (lbs/yr) = 4.23 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
Where:
TN—total nitrogen;
TP—total phosphorus; and
Area —total area of restored riparian buffers inside of livestock exclusion fences.
Equations for fecal coliform reduction for this model include the following.
Fecal coliform reduction (col) = 2.2 x 1011 (col/AU/day) x AU x 0.085
Where:
Col - quantities of Fecal Coliform bacteria
AU - animal unit (1000 lbs of livestock)
Results of the NCDMS analysis indicate approximately 5 acres of easement are grazed by livestock, which contribute
255.2 lbs/yr of nitrogen, 21.2 lbs/yr of phosphorus, and 0.1 x 1011 col of fecal coliform/day that will be reduced due
to exclusion of livestock from the easement area.
1.2.4 Site Design and Implementation Constraints
The presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential to hinder restoration activities on the Site was
evaluated. The evaluation focused primarily on the presence of hazardous materials, utilities and restrictive
easements, rare/threatened/endangered species or critical habitats, and the potential for hydrologic trespass.
Existing information regarding Site constraints was acquired and reviewed. In addition, any Site conditions that have
the potential to restrict the restoration design and implementation were documented during the field investigation.
No known Site constraints, that may hinder proposed mitigation activities, were identified during field surveys.
Potential constraints reviewed include the following.
Threatened & Endangered Species
Four federally protected species are listed as occurring in Robeson County as of June 27, 2018 (USFWS 2018); the
following table summarizes potential habitat and a preliminary biological conclusion.
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 10
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

Table 4. Threatened and Endangered Species
Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact deposits
over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site significance are made with reference to the eligibility
criteria of the National Register (36 CFR 60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO).
Field visits were conducted at the Site in December 2018 to ascertain the presence of structures or other features
that may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. No structures were identified within
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 11
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)
Potential
Biological
Species
Habitat
Habitat at
Conclusion
Site
American alligator
The alligator is found rivers, streams, canals, lakes, swamps,
(Alligator mississippiensis)
and coastal marshes. Adult animals are highly tolerant of salt
Not
Threatened due to Similarity of
water, but the young are apparently more sensitive, with
Yes
Required
Appearance
salinities greater than 5 parts per thousand considered
harmful.
The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies
open, mature stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
Red -cockaded woodpecker
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting/roosting
(Picoides borealis)
habitat. The RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting
No
No effect
Endangered
in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older, which are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age to
provide foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW is
normally no more than 0.5 miles.
Wood storks typically construct their nests in medium to tall
trees that occur in stands located either in swamps or on
islands surrounded by relatively broad expanses of open
water. In many areas, bald cypress and red mangrove trees
are preferred. During the nonbreeding season or while
Wood stork
foraging, wood storks occur in a wide variety of wetland
(Mycteria americana)
habitats, including freshwater marshes and stock ponds,
Yes
Unresolved
Threatened
shallow, seasonally flooded roadside or agricultural ditches,
narrow tidal creeks or shallow tidal pools, managed
impoundments, and depressions in cypress heads and
swamp sloughs. Because of their specialized feeding
behavior, the most attractive feeding areas are swamp or
marsh depressions where fish become concentrated during
dry periods.
Grows in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or
circumneutral, well -drained sands or sandy loam soils with
low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on
sandy or submesic loamy swales and depressions in the fall
line Sandhills region as well as in openings along the rim of
Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and
Michaux's sumac
utility rights -of way; areas where forest canopies have been
(Rhus michauxii)
opened up by blowdowns and/or storm damage; small
Yes
Unresolved
Endangered
wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse
to moderately dense pine or pine/hardwood canopies; and
in and along edges of other artificially maintained clearings
undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont, it
occurs on clayey soils derived from mafic rocks. The plant is
shade intolerant and, therefore, grows best where
disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire)
maintains its open habitat.
Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact deposits
over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site significance are made with reference to the eligibility
criteria of the National Register (36 CFR 60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO).
Field visits were conducted at the Site in December 2018 to ascertain the presence of structures or other features
that may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. No structures were identified within
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 11
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

proposed easement boundaries; however, coordination with State Historic Preservation Office will occur prior to
construction activities to determine if any significant cultural resources are present.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Elements
A query of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database indicates there are no records for rare
species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. Within a one -mile radius of the project boundary NCNHP lists two state listed species (significantly rare)
including the coppery emerald (Somatochlora georgiana) and the phantom darter (Triacanthogyno trifida). No
natural areas or managed areas are documented within a one -mile radius of the Site (Appendix Q.
FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3710828800J, Panel 8288, effective January 19, 2005, indicates
that downstream of the dam at the Site outfall the floodplain of Wilkinson Creek is mapped as AE floodplain. As the
dam historically may have inhibited floodwaters (and therefore the AE floodplain) from extending upstream into the
Site, the current breach in the dam may result in the Zone AE floodplain extending into the Site. At this time, the
Site is not mapped by FEMA as AE floodplain; however, it is not clear whether a CLOMR will be required for the Site.
Therefore, coordination with FEMA representatives will occur prior to project initiation.
Utilities
No utilities are located on the Site.
Air Transport Facilities
No air transport facility is located within 5 miles of the Site.
1.3 Project Development
1.3.1 Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts are designed to restore a stable stream that approximates hydrodynamics, stream
geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. Restoration at the Site will entail 1) notching
the dam to dewater sediments; 2) removal of the dam to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain; 3) excavating
sediment that is unsuitable for channel bank construction; 4) backfilling areas of sediment removed with soil suitable
for channel construction (if necessary); 5) excavation of the design channel, 6) stabilization of the channel with coir
matting, seed, and mulch; and 7) installation of structures.
The dam was breached in the summer of 2018 during hurricane Florence; however, landowners are reconstructing
the dam for irrigation purposes. Therefore, the dam will be notched and the pond bed will be seeded with temporary
grasses to stabilize sediments remaining in the pond. Care will be taken during notching of the dam to drain the
maximum amount of water, thereby allowing sediments to dewater.
Once the pond has dewatered and sediments have stabilized, the dam will be removed with finished grades matching
elevations of the valley and floodplain above and below the dam location. Material removed from the dam, if
suitable, may be used as channel backfill for reaches of stream to be abandoned during Priority I stream restoration
efforts. If additional backfill remains, the material will be stockpiled outside of the easement, or spread evenly across
the adjacent property and seeded for stabilization. Erosion control measures, such as silt fence, seeding, and
mulching will be implemented on all stockpiled or spread soil materials.
A determination on sediment quantity and quality within the abandoned pond will be made concerning the ability
to work within, or to stabilize the sediment for stream construction. If sediment is deemed unsuitable for channel
construction, the sediment will be removed from the vicinity of the design channel and spread along the outer
margins of the pond. Subsequently, suitable soil material will be placed in the location of the design channel such
that design channel banks will be stabilized without liquefaction. The removal of unsuitable material, installation of
suitable material, and excavation of the design channel may occur simultaneously to reduce impacts of machinery
on the pond bed.
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 12
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

Excavation of the design channel will occur in the pond bed similar to other reaches of restored stream, with
stabilization using approved erosion control materials and techniques.
In -stream Structures
The use of in -stream structures for grade control and habitat is essential for successful stream restoration. In -stream
structures may be placed in the channel to elevate local water surface profiles in the channel, potentially flattening
the water energy slope or gradient and directing stream energy into the center of the channel and away from banks.
The structures will consist of log cross -vanes or log j -hook vanes; however, at the discretion of the Engineer, rock
cross -vanes or rock j -hook vanes may be substituted if dictated by field conditions. In addition, the structures will
be placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow cells during bankfull events.
Piped Channel Crossings
Landowner constraints will necessitate the installation or upgrades of two piped channel crossings within breaks in
the easement to allow access to portions of the property isolated by stream restoration activities Figure 5 (Appendix
A). The crossings may be constructed of properly sized pipes and hydraulically stable rip -rap or suitable rock.
Crossings will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated vehicular traffic. Approach grades to the crossing
will be at an approximate 10:1 slope and constructed of hard, scour -resistant crushed rock or other permeable
material, which is free of fines.
Horseback Riding Trail
A horseback riding trail is currently situated across the proposed easement. The trail crosses UT 1 at a pipe/culvert
that was washed away during hurricane Florence. The trail is proposed to be improved by the installation of a forded
crossing of UT 1 and defining the trail as a 4 foot wide path across the easement that will not be traveled by
motorized vehicles. Gates will be installed at access points to the easement to restrict livestock from lingering within
the Site.
1.3.2 Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream enhancement (level 1) will entail restoration of stream dimension, and planting riparian buffers with native
forest vegetation to facilitate stream recovery and prevent further degradation of the stream.
1.3.3 Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream enhancement (level II) will entail installation of fencing to exclude livestock and planting riparian buffers with
native forest vegetation to facilitate stream recovery and prevent further degradation of the stream.
1.3.4 Wetland Restoration (Reestablishment)
Alternatives for wetland reestablishment are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system, which will
provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and compounds, and will create a
variety and abundance of wildlife habitat.
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by stream impoundment and/or ditching of
floodplain soils, vegetative clearing, agriculture plowing, livestock compaction, and other land disturbances
associated with land use management. Wetland reestablishment options should focus on the restoration of
vegetative communities, restoration of stream corridors and historic groundwater tables, and the reestablishment
of soil structure and microtopographic variations. In addition, the construction of (or provisions for) surface water
storage depressions (ephemeral pools) will also add an important component to groundwater restoration activities.
These activities will result in the reestablishment/restoration of 14.2 acres of jurisdictional riparian riverine
wetlands.
1.3.5 Wetland Enhancement
Wetland enhancement will focus on the removal of livestock and restoration of vegetative communities resulting in
the enhancement of 0.2 acres of jurisdictional riparian riverine wetlands.
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 13
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

1.3.6 Riparian Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest allows for development and expansion of characteristic species across the landscape.
Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as
enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
Revegetating floodplains will provide overall system stability, shade, and wildlife habitat. In addition, viable riparian
communities will improve system biogeochemical function by filtering pollutants from overland and shallow
subsurface flows and providing organic materials to adjacent stream channels.
Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on topography and hydraulic condition of soils. Vegetative species
composition will be based on RFEs, site-specific features, and community descriptions from Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Community associations to be utilized include:
1) Cypress -Gum Swamp, 2) Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Brownwater Subtype), 3) Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype), and 4) Streamside Assemblage.
Bare -root seedlings within the Cypress Gum Swamp, Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest, and Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest will be planted at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8 -foot centers, and in the
stream -side assemblage at a density of approximately 2720 stems per acre on 4 -foot centers. Planting will be
performed between November 15 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root
during the spring season. Potential species planted within the Site may include the following.
Cypress Gum Swamp
1.
Swamp black gum (Nyssa biflora)
2.
Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
3.
Tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatica)
4.
Pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens)
5.
Water ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
6.
Water hickory (Carya aquatica)
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Blackwater Subtype)
1. Water oak (Quercus nigra)
2. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
3. Schumard oak (Quercus schumardii)
4. American elm (Ulmus americana)
5. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
6. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica)
7. Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
8. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
9. Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
1. White oak (Quercus alba)
2. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
3. Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
4. Mockernut hickory (Carya alba/tomentosa)
5. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica)
6. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
7. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Stream -Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Tag alder (Alnus serrulate)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 14
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

1.3.7 Fence / Easement Marking
Exclusionary fencing will be installed to protect the easement from livestock encroachment. The entire easement
area will appropriately marked to identify the easement boundaries per United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and Interagency Review Team (IRT) requirements.
1.3.8 Nuisance Species Management
Beaver, privet, and other potential nuisance species will be monitored over the course of the 7 -year monitoring
period. Appropriate actions to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation development and/or water
management will occur on an as -needed basis.
1.4 Proposed Mitigation
The Site is proposed to include two mitigation options as calculated in accordance with the requirements stipulated
in RFP #16-007705. The Two options include the following:
Mitigation Option 1 is proposed to provide 2305 linear feet of stream restoration, 1921 linear feet of stream
enhancement (level 1), 1065 linear feet of stream enhancement (level II), 14.2 acres of riparian riverine wetland
restoration, and 0.2 acre of riparian riverine wetland enhancement.
Table 5A. Option 1 Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Mitigation Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
2305
1:1
2305
Enhancement
Level 1
1921
1.5:1
1281
Enhancement
Level 11
1065
2.5:1
426
Preservation
--
--
10:1
--
Totals
5291 linear feet
4012 SMUs
Wetland Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Riparian Riverine WMU
Restoration
Riparian Riverine
14.2
1:1
14.2
Enhancement
Riparian Riverine
0.2
2:1
0.1
Totals
14.4 acres
14.3 WMUs
Mitigation Option 2 is proposed to provide 1780 linear feet of stream restoration, 1921 linear feet of stream
enhancement (level 1), 10.0 acres of riparian riverine wetland restoration, and 0.1 acre of riparian riverine wetland
enhancement.
Table 5B. Option 2 Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Mitigation Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
1780
1:1
1780
Enhancement
Level 1
1921
1.5:1
1281
Enhancement
Level II
-
2.5:1
-
Preservation
-
-
10:1
-
Totals
3701 linear feet
3061 SMUs
Wetland Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Riparian Riverine WMU
Restoration
Riparian Riverine
10.0
1:1
10
Enhancement
Riparian Riverine
0.1
2:1
0.05
Totals
10.1 acres
10.0 WMUs
1.5 Current Ownership and Long term Protection
Restoration Systems has an Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of a Conservation Easement with the property
owner. A Memorandum of this agreement was recorded at the Robeson County Register of Deeds January 2, 2019
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 15
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

is included in Appendix D. Full copies are these agreements are available upon request. Upon approval of the
contract, Restoration Systems will execute the contract and subsequently place a conservation easement over the
subject parcel; such easement will be conveyed to the State of North Carolina. Restoration Systems will remain
responsible for project implementation and achievement of success criteria.
Current property ownership and parcel information is as follows:
Owner Name NC PIN#
Louie Arthur Bodenhamer 829936273300
Aaron Gregory Bodenhamer 829955333900
During the operational period of the Site, Restoration Systems will be responsible for management actions. A long-
term management plan will be developed for the Site and incorporated into the mitigation plan. In general, long-
term management activities will include protecting the Site from encroachment, trespass, clearing, and other
violations that interfere with conservation purposes. Other activities may be incorporated based on site-specific
considerations.
1.6 Project Phasing
A tentative phasing schedule for the proposed project is presented below based on an executed contract at Week
0.
Task
Description
Weeks from Contract Execution
Task 1
Categorical Exclusion Document
5
Task 2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
20
Task 3
Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and Financial Assurance
49
Task 4
Mitigation Site Earthwork Complete
76
Task 5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
87*
Task 6
Baseline Monitoring report (including As -built Drawings)
87*
Task 7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to NCDMS
Dec. after implementation
Task 8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to NCDMS
Dec.
- 2yrs after implementation
Task 9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to NCDMS
Dec.
- 3yrs after implementation
Task 10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to NCDMS
Dec.
- 4yrs after implementation
Task 11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to NCDMS
Dec.
- 5yrs after implementation
Task 12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to NCDMS
Dec.
- 6yrs after implementation
Task 13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 to NCDMS
Dec.
- 7yrs after implementation
Closeout Process
Spring
after submittal of Report #7
* Time frame is dependent upon seasonal conditions at completion of Site implementation
1.7 Success Criteria
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency
Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring data collected
at the Site should include reference photos, plant survival analysis, channel stability analysis, and biological data, if
specifically required by permit conditions.
Wetland hydrology is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years (years 1-7). Riparian vegetation and
stream morphology are proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years with measurements completed in
years 1-3, year 5, and year 7. If monitoring demonstrates the Site is successful by year 5 and no concerns have been
identified, Restoration Systems may propose to terminate monitoring at the Site and forego monitoring
requirements for years 6 and 7. Early closure will only be provided through written approval from the USACE in
consultation with the IRT. Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports
of the data collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected.
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 16
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

Table 6. Monitoring Schedule
1.7.1 Stream Monitoring
Annual monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections and substrate on riffles and pools. Data to be
presented in graphic and tabular format will include 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4)
maximum depth, and 5) width -to -depth ratio. Longitudinal profiles will not be measured routinely unless monitoring
demonstrates channel bank or bed instability, in which case, longitudinal profiles may be required by the USACE
along reaches of concern to track changes and demonstrate stability.
Table 7. Stream Monitoring Summary
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Stream Profile
Full longitudinal survey
As -built (unless otherwise
All restored stream
required)
channels
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5,
Two per 1000 feet of
Stream Dimension
Cross-sections
and 7
restored channels
Visual Assessments
Yearly
All restored stream
channels
Only if instability is
Channel Stability
Bank Pins
Yearly
documented during
monitoring
Only if instability is
Additional Cross-sections
Yearly
documented during
monitoring
Continuous monitoring
Continuous recording
As requested by the
Stream Hydrology
water level gauges and/or
through monitoring period
IRT
trail camera
Visual Assessments
Visual assessment of in -stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of a
structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of the channel
around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure. In addition, visual assessments of the entire
channel will be conducted in each of the seven years of monitoring as outlined in the October 24, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Areas of
concern will be depicted on a plan view figure identifying the location of concern along with a written assessment
and photograph of the area.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted once before construction (baseline conditions) and once
during monitoring years 3, 5, and 7. Macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted in accordance with the "Qual 4"
method described in Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroin vertebrates,
Version 5.0 (NCDWR 2016). In addition, sampling will occur during the "index period" referenced in Small Streams
Biocriteria Development (NCDWQ 2009). Results will be presented on a site -by -site basis and will include a list of
taxa collected, an enumeration of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index values.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria; however, the data may be used as a
tool to observe positive gains to in -stream habitat.
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 17
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

1.7.2 Stream Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives identified from
on-site NC SAM data collection. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to
be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be
considered successful upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following summarizes stream success criteria,
per the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 for a majority of measured cross sections on a given
reach.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be 2.2 or above for a majority of measured riffle cross-sections on a
given reach.
• BHR and ER should not change by more than 10% in any given year for a majority of a given reach.
• Must document occurrence of at least 4 bankfull events in separate years during the monitoring
period.
1.7.3 Wetland Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed to take measurements after hydrological modifications are
performed at the Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the entire year at intervals necessary to
satisfy jurisdictional hydrology success criteria. In addition, an on-site rain gauge will be used to document rainfall
data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions and a floodplain crest gauge (or
other suitable recording devices) will be installed to confirm overbank flooding events.
Table 8. Wetland Monitoring Summary
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected
Gauges spread
Soil temperature at the
Wetland Groundwater As -built, Years 1, 2,
throughout
beginning of each monitoring
Restoration gauges 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
restored
period, groundwater and rain
wetlands
data for each monitoring period
1.7.4 Wetland Success Criteria
The following summarizes wetland success criteria, per the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent of the
growing season, during average climatic conditions (12% of the growing season as per USACE 2016).
According to the Soil Survey of Robeson County, the growing season is from February 24— November 25 (USDA 1978).
This will be confirmed annually by soil temperatures exceeding 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12 inches depth and/or bud
burst. Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 12 percent (for a Bibb soil) of the
monitored period (February 24 — November 25), during average climatic conditions.
1.7.5 Vegetation
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to verify planting
methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting and additional Site
modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During quantitative vegetation sampling, plots (100 square meters in size) will be installed within the Site as per
guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). In each sample
plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. Visual observations
of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented by photograph.
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 18
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

Table 9. Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected
Permanent
vegetation plots
As -built, Years 1, 2,
Plots spread across
Species, height,
0.0247 acre (100
35and 7
, ,
the Site (^2% of the
location, planted vs.
square meters) in
planted area)
volunteer, and age
Vegetation
size
establishment and
Annual random
vigor
vegetation plots,
0.0247 acre (100
As -built, Years 1, 2,
3 plots randomly
Species and height
square meters) in
3, 5, and 7
selected each year
size
1.7.6 Vegetation Success Criteria
The following summarizes wetland success criteria, per the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
• Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the
site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case basis.
• Any single species can only account for 50% of the required stems within any vegetation plot.
1.7.7 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of general Site conditions will be conducted at least twice during each monitoring year.
Monitoring will be conducted by traversing the entire Site to identify and document areas of low stem density, poor
plant vigor, prolonged inundation, native and exotic invasive species, beaver activity, excessive herbivory, easement
encroachment, indicators of livestock access, and other areas of concern.
1.7.8 Compatibility with Project Goals
The following table outlines the compatibility of Site performance criteria described above to Site goals and
objectives that will be utilized to evaluate if Site goals and objectives are achieved.
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 19
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

Table 10. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives
Goals
Objectives
success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
•
BHR not to exceed 1.2
• Attenuate flood flow across the
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore
•
Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years
Site.
overbank flows and restore jurisdictional wetlands
•
Livestock excluded from the easement
• Minimize downstream flooding to
• Plant woody riparian buffer
•
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
the maximum extent possible.
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
•
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
•
Conservation Easement recorded
•
Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with
• Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension, and
appropriate substrate
longitudinal profile
•
Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
• Increase stream stability within the
• Construct stable channels with appropriate substrate
•
BHR not to exceed 1.22.2
Site so that channels are neither
• Plant woody riparian buffer
•
R of
EE of or greater
aggrading nor degrading.
• Upgrade road crossings
• Remove an earthen dam
•
change in BHR and ER in any given year
.
Livestock excluded from the easement
• Stabilize stream banks
•
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1) WATER QUALITY
• Reduce agricultural land/inputs
0 Plant woody riparian buffer
• Remove direct nutrient and
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
•
Livestock excluded from the easement
pollutant inputs from the Site and
reduce contributions to
• Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through deep
•
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
downstream waters.
ripping/plowing.
•
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Restore overbank flooding by constructing channels at historic
floodplain elevation.
(1) HABITAT
• Construct stable channels with appropriate substrate
• Remove and earthen dam that is a barrier to wildlife migration
• Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
0
Cross-section measurement indicate a stable channel with
appropriate substrate
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore
• Improve instream and stream -side
overbank flows
•
Visual documentation of stable channels and in -stream
habitat.
• Plant woody riparian buffer
structures.
•
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
0
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
•
Conservation Easement recorded
• Stabilize stream banks
• Install in -stream structures
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 20
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

1.8 Quality Control
Our core business at RS is full -delivery ecosystem restoration (usually within the context of compensatory
mitigation); as such, our projects are repeatedly scrutinized, and more importantly, our compensation is tied directly
to project quality. Thus, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) are of the utmost importance to our
compensation and reputation.
The RS QA/QC program is made up of a broad range of measures, both general and specific, to ensure that all
deliverables submitted to the contracting organization meet projected schedules, follow appropriate formats, and
comply with applicable laws, regulations, and permits.
General Measures:
- Staff Qualifications — RS employs personnel who are trained and/or experienced in varied specific aspects
of environmental restoration. Examples include regulatory affairs, permitting, design, geomorphology,
chemistry, biology, soils, Geographic Informational Systems (GIS), invasive species management.
Field Training— Staff members attend periodic workshops for training in pertinent topics to improve and/or
maintain necessary skills related to stream/wetland design and construction. Restoration Systems
periodically holds internal workshops and field study days lead by experienced staff members to ensure
that the team of Project Managers is up-to-date on current practices and technology. Staff members have
also attended stream and wetland restoration workshops, including those held by North Carolina State
University's Stream Restoration Institute (SRI), focusing on proper procedures related to stream restoration
practices.
Internal Experience - Office staff members periodically attend workshops lead by professional organizations
in order to remain current on best practices. All projects are backed by a support team. Senior level
professionals are consulted at all times to successfully guide the process from start to finish.
Specific Measures:
- Project Implementation - The core of RS's project implementation QA/QC program utilizes points of task
changeover within the restoration process. Procedural verification steps at each of these changeover points
provide opportunities for control and correction, minimizing waste while ensuring a project meets its
objectives.
- Quality Control - Ecosystem restoration projects
o Site evaluation
identify and document site constraints that will affect restoration objectives, design, and
construction
o Design evaluation
■ verify design meets objectives and is practicable given construction constraints and site-
specific conditions
o Construction plan evaluation
■ ensure construction plan is consistent with permit conditions and efficiently implements
design (i.e., limits number of phases)
o Construction environmental and permit compliance
■ routine inspection of construction activities to ensure environmental compliance and that
all work is performed according to specifications and limitations of acquired permits
o Design and construction reconciliation
■ reconcile construction drawings with implementation routinely, especially before
transitioning between construction phases
o Construction drawing and as -built reconciliation
■ verify the accuracy of as -built drawings and reconcile with construction drawings, noting
deviations and their explanations
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 21
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

o Site close out
confirm planting was performed with appropriate species composition and density
check that all excess construction materials have been removed and all
features/structures are in a completed condition
Assignment of specific tasks and responsibilities — Specific tasks that occur throughout the life of a project
are assigned to specific individuals who are trained and/or experienced to perform that task. All
arrangements are overseen by senior management.
Project implementation QA/QC program is a collaborative effort between the Project Manager (PM) and
Construction Manager (CM). Either the project manager or the construction manager (or both) will be on-site during
construction hours to ensure environmental compliance and the appropriate implementation of the project's design.
- Deliverable Preparation — a series of measures are taken in the preparation of deliverables to ensure each
product meets the expectations of the customer in a timely manner.
o Checklists and Templates— RS staff has developed internal guidelines, checklists and templates for
the preparation of all deliverables to ensure compliance with appropriate requirements and
schedules. Checklists are created to ensure that all required paperwork is included when
assembling submittal packages and for easy delegation of workflow.
Peer Review of Documents — All submitted deliverables are reviewed by several qualified
individuals. Once a document has been generated internally or received from an assigned
consultant, it is entered into a three -round process of internal review. It is first reviewed by staff
members with experience in editing, and then the document is passed on to staff members with
specific expertise in a given area to further ensure accuracy. Finally, where applicable, maps and
diagrams are reviewed by an experienced GIS Manager for accuracy. Once all comments have
been made, the document is edited and distributed for a final round of review by staff members
and the assigned Project Manager before packaging.
o Project Managers' Meetings — All managers meet weekly to update company management on the
status of each project, including the projected future timeline of tasks.
o Protect Coordination and Tracking — Restoration Systems' Project Manager and Construction
Manager utilize appropriate computer software to produce a Gantt chart for each project. These
charts graphically display the schedule for each project and are used to identify potential delays,
overload points, and other issues related to schedules. Each chart is reviewed weekly at the
Project Managers' meeting.
1.9 Summary
Proposed Mitigation:
Option 1- 4012 SMUs & 14.3 WMUs (calculated in accordance with RFP #16-007705)
Option 2 - 3061 SMUs & 10.0 WMUs (calculated in accordance with RFP #16-007705)
Site: Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Location: Robeson County
River Basin: Lumber
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03040204
NCDWQ Subbasin: 03-07-55
USGS 14 -Digit Cataloging Number: 03040204048010
Targeted Local Watershed: Yes
303d Listed: No
Best Use Classification: C, Sw
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 22
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

1.10 References
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and
V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation. Version
4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock
Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration. June 15, 2016. North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development. Available:
http://porta 1.ncdenr.org/c/docu ment_I i bra ry/get_f i le?u u id=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-82fd-
04005f48eaa 7&grou pl d=38364
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2018a. Final 2016 Category 5 Assessments -303(d)
List (online). Available:
https://files. nc.gov/ncdeq/Water/`20Qua lity/Pla n n ing/TM DL/303d/2016/2016_NC_Category_5_303d_list. pdf
(December 17, 2018).
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2018b. Draft 2018 North Carolina 303(d) List
(online). Available:
https://fi les. nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Qua I ity/Plan n i ng/TM DL/303d/2018/2018-DRAFT- N C-303-d--ListwCover. pdf
(December 17, 2018).
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2013. River Basin Classification Schedule: Catawba (online)
Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water/`20Quality/Planning/CSU/Surface%20Water/River%2OBasin%2OWater%2OQualit
y%20Classifications%20as%20of%20Dec%209%202013/Catawba_Hydro_order.pdf (December 17, 2018).
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and
Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water/`20Quality/Environmental%2OSciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroinvertebrate-SOP-
Februa ry%202016_final.pdf
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP 2008). Lumber River Basin Restoration Priorities 2008
(online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Lumber_River_Basin/Lumber_RBRP_2008
_FINAL.pdf. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh (December 18, 2018).
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM)
User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team (NC WFAT) 2010. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC
WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 23
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Sweet, W.V. and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals for North
Carolina's Coastal Plain. J. of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(4):861-871.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1978. Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2018. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [December 17, 2018].
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of
Concern, and Candidate Species, Robeson County, North Carolina (online). Available:
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/robeson.html [December 17, 2018].
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site page 24
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5A. Proposed Conditions — Option 1
Figure 5B. Proposed Conditions— Option 2
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

r
.01
_ ZIP.� -dp-
to E
'e A A Axiom Env"rimwntal. Inc.
ijjo ,� r Prepared for:
ARESTORATION
���` !� ■
1 National ..... eo...... c �� Q-� c • ,�
{ -
• —.<� Project:
�
t
Gt` 411 SWAMP GRAPE
r
q�54 �f MITIGATION SITE
�.•-' "� - ..w
i~ f ar Robeson County, NC
*# • Title:
$ Baa
SITE
LOCATION
501 r I A ■
�' 1. �'�.. � `�,. r . f - � -- ��yy — �►- rte-/—` . �� fff
0 �Sp Drawn by..
KRJY
��� �►
�] Date:
�ti DEC 2018
• w � � �
Legend`, u— In
Rod
wland �' - �(/�}� so n Scale:
+�I'1 I7 Swamp Grape Easement = 26.7 ac
1:20,000
0
iLJ/ Li i'ZI.-I NCDOT Roads - y i.` — -
_ i', Project No.:
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Rowland, NC Quad)
18-002.10
i 1
r saw Directions to the Site from Raleigh: FIGURE
_ •. }- .p"•' , � T ■ _� - Head Easton I-40 for 29 miles
Take exit 328A to merge onto 1-95 South
- fY ■ `' !' v - After 79 miles, take exit 2 toward Rowland and turn right onto NC-130 W
_ E - After 2.5 miles, turn left onto Ashpole Church Road, then right onto Persimmon Road
1134 - After 2 miles, turn left onto Kitchen Street
_ after - The Site is located on the right 0.5 miles and can be accessed from Rhein Drive.
��'Copyrightr© 2013 Nation Igr,\puhic N 'r� - Site Latitude, Longitude 34.5639, -79.3490 (WGS84)
uairRo&; Societ,cubed
d

N in gram r Ifd
Mountain
c
�f
7-1
r•
Rockingham
�Gwdava
zodci 'hsrr.
,—Ham
Farlan
`` lfar><.s Creed`
Chem kli niapal
Lynch Be er;, a 11Yallaoe
Field
Cheraw
401 B
i
McCall
J Hill 1 3 = —
sAr it 15 Benne
- � 15a 9
83
38 i
Legend
Swamp Grape Easement = 26.7 ac
USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040204 slenhein
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit Boundaries
Targeted Local Watersheds s
0 2.5 5 10 15
Miles
mhuum
r.'.
Axiom EinvKun,nenial, Inc.
Prepared for:
Lumber Bridge
RESTORATION
x
Shan Project:
71 arch Sw- 391
iced Springs SWAMP GRAPE
int F
G MITIGATION SITE
�A fl
Robeson County, NC
Title:
HYDROLOGIC
UNIT MAP
Pemhrake
4
301
Drawn by:
Location of Swamp Grape Mitigation
r2
'�
KRJ
Date:
Site within USGS Hydrologic Unit vm
and Targeted Local Watershed
DEC 2018
03040204048010
!I
Scale:
_
-
1:260,000
301
41
1 j
Project No.:
18-002.10
.- land 95
FIGURE
c
7 Fairmont
d
r
P
ill
I
�
Copyright:© 2014 DeLorme^

L'•.
n�
�t
10
MbL
1
Legend
Swamp Grape Easement (Option #1) 26.7 ac
I( .
€.`.
Stream
Restoration = 2305
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) =1921 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) 1065 ft
Fill/Plug Ditches
W. "I
Wetland
Restoration 14.2 ac I
Wetlan`
• Enhancement 0.2 ac
.5 ,.
2 -foot Lidar Contours
Foot Path
0 300 600 1,200
FeetI
._.rerror�.vr:-..r .v�--- J. s.'se.�l�a•� ec.- r �• r ■ � � �'.`��. '�,�. INIy
naylsis
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC

:t
Al
u
V.
�^ w
l i
RS
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC

APPENDIX B
STREAM & WETLAND DATA
Cross Sections
NCSAM Forms
Soil Boring Log
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

100
99.5
99
98.5
4 98
W 97.5
97
96.5
96
0
Swamp Grape Site -XS 1 Riffle --
5 10 15 20 25
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
section:
Riffe
description:
height of instrument (ft):
omit distance FS FS F
notes ot. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull too of
dimensions
12.9
x -section area
0.9
d mean
13.9
width
14.5
wet P
1.6
d max
0.9
h d radi
1.9
bank ht
15.0
w/d ratio
150.0
W flood prone area
10.8
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity (ft/sec)
0.0
discharge rate, (Z cfs
0.00
shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
0.00
shear velocity (fUsec)
0.000
unit stream power lbs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
0-0
Ithreshold grain size (mm)
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative roughness 0.0 frit. factor
(.000
Manning's n from channel material
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
- 0.5
0.4
w
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Riffle --
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
section:
Riffle
description:
of instrument (ft):
notes I Dt. I (ft) I (ft) I elevation I I bankfull ItoD of
dimensions
0.0
x -section area
0.0
d mean
0.0
width
0.0
wet P
0.0
d max
0.0
In d rad!
0.0
bank ht
0.0
w/d ratio
0.0
W Flood prone area
0.0
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity (tUsec)
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress ((Ibs/ft sq)
0.00
shear velocity (fUsec)
0.000
unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
0
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured m
D84 m
0.0
relative roughness 1 0.0 1 frit. factor
0.000
Manning's n from channel material

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Swamp Grape Date of Assessment
1/2/19
Stream Category la3 Assessor Name/Organization AXE/NGL
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 1/2/2019
Project/Site: Swamp Grape Mitigation Site
County, State: Robeson County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile (34.562101,-79.347118)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Bibb
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location is shown on
Figure 4.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Color
%
Mottlin€
Color %
Texture
0-5
10 YR 3/1
100
fine sandy loam
5-9
10 YR 4/1
95
10 YR 6/1 30
loamy sand
9-12
10 YR 5/1
50
sand
10 YR 6/2
50
12-+
10 YR 7/1
85
10 YR 5/1 10
sand
10 YR 6/6 5
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: R 44d
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

APPENDIX C
NHP REPORT
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

1I1'I 111 111 1`I 1 t1�011 1 II 1�I 1 11 tl'I 111 1110111
1 t ♦ 1.d`I 111 t♦ 1+q'I 111 ♦ 11rd 1 ♦ 1 1'I 11 1 ♦ 1 ♦ II 111 t t 1`I 1��It P,i II I'I 1 111 1� �I 1'`I ♦ 1 1��/ ♦ 1'I 11'"11 11'► 11 1�1 ♦ ♦1'I ♦t
1,4l,11.11.INLINI,!;II IIN.,�,N111.11,111,�,1111 LI IILI,I,1 IILILILIi1NL11.11111.11,!,11 IILINN.NI,�;il 1.1.11.11.11,!;111.1111,11 11111.11.1111.11,!1 LIN 11111,11 1,�,Nl,�llillil II LII.oI 1,!�11,l1 LI LI I,X11.11,I,111.I,I�NIII,IILINI,�,IIILI,!1 LIN 1.1
1111111:11;1:11111:11:1 1:1 1:1111
.1 1:11111.1 111'.1 �II��I� 11,t',�� Il lil l
":1111:11:1111
►4►;�;;QJ►IIJ►I�;I.1►J►1I►:1�1 �,�►4►:���►1►;1►:I►J►1Q►:��►��►:4►.X11►���►;���►;�I�►;�31►;�►:��1►4► �►11111L�;�►��►Q►;�;1►I►;►1►ali:Q►•Qh1:1a►�,1►:I�►•a;�;i ►1►1
►.I I ►.I I LI LI LI I LI ►,tIll
►.I LI P, I: I, P,�1►.1 IIiLI
►.I N LI ►.I I I LI PIP, 111,11 LILI LI LI LI LILI
►. ►,i, o LI LI N
LI o ►.i ►.I ►.N LI ►.i
N LI II LI I ►.1LI
;l,N ILIN
LI ►,�"I ►.i LILI LI I:�N LIN
1.11;i11.1��
11.1 ��1.111N Itl1.1,.!111
1.11.1111►1r"i, "Vi 1;11111
1.11;l1II
IIN1;1
11N1111.1 11►�► 11.1
1.1 ►OLIN
1111111.1
►.1 I.N1.1111.1►.1,11,11►.1
101,11111 11101,11►.1►.IN1.1►.11,��I.N
►.1N1.1NLILINI,I,LI ►.1 LINI,t,I 111 ►.111►.I►:1;►.N
►.I 1.1
11N.�ILILI;
►;,N
11 ���1.1I,r,y�11.11.1N,.!1
N11N11 1.1N11
►1 LILI 1.111►,t,i;�l
►11.111I.N 1,�1►I1.1
►1111.1
1.1 LII.N
►I ►.N 1.1 N 1.1 ;�� ►11 ►1
►11.1►11.11.1 ►1►1;�1►I ►1 N LIN 1.11.1 N 1.11.11; ';11,!I ►I
►1 ►11.11.1 ►1 1111 11,11 ►.1 Fill 1 1.1 1.1 LI 1.1 LI 1111 LIN
N
LI 1,.!1 LII"I LI LI I "I
LI 1:1 LI ►.I;1
1.1111.1 LILI1,!,ly�l
1.1111.1
111111",11
II10111111►;12I9 121&1:i2l

December 17, 2018
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
NCNHDE-7765: Bodenhammer
III@I►:IEO;1 SIP, 151F:1:1"1
RAY
Fam
Ra
M
1:24,322
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi
0 0.325 0.65 1.3 km
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), —sstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and
the GIS User Community

APPENDIX D
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION AGREEMENT
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

ook 2160 Page 281
2019000013
ROBESON CO, NC FEE $26.00
PRESENTED & RECORDED:
01-02-2019 12:17:02 PM
VICKI L LOCKLEAR
-� REGISTER OF DEEDS
BY: CHISA WAINWRIGHT-LOCKLEAR
DEPUTY
RETURN: JD HAMBY BK: D 2160pG; 281 _285
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC 27604
���I����IIII��IIIIII��I��IIII�I�I��III�III1�111��1����11111�'ll�l
Prepared by John D. Hamby
NORTH CAROLINA
ROBESON COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OF
CONTRACT TO PURCHASE
A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC, as Buyer, and AARON GREGORY
BODENHAMER as Seller, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
have entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of a Conservation Easement, to purchase
and sell that certain property of Seller containing 26.7 ± acres located in Rowland Townships,
Robeson County, North Carolina, as described in Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit A-1 attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
(a) The provisions set forth in a written Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real
Property dated the -1 day of December 2018, between the parties, are hereby incorporated in
this Memorandum by reference. The referenced Agreement has an examination period of eighteen
(18) months from the execution of said Agreement.
WITNESS our hands and seals tot is Memorandum of Agreement for Purchase and Sale
of Real Property, this the 2 �_ day of 018.
BUYER:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
By: 6C-.. (SEAL)
Name: Geatac }ko,n/&A d
Title: Gi
Page 1 of 5

MOMBook 2160 Page 282
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF �a
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day,
acknowledging to me that he signed the foregoing document:
(Name 6Y-Person(s) Appearing before Notary)
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this I day of beeLe V- , 2018.
4sOffflcial
taryOSignature
(Official Seal)
�A4 T �� X051 Notary's Printed or Typed Na e
My commission expires:
a �
CD
H
�ji�a•20Z� �C;�.
Page 2 of 5

-.Book 2160 Page 283
WITNESS our hands and seals to this Memorandum of Agreement for Purchase and Sale
of a Conservation Easement, this the Z l day of 2018.
SELLER:
AARON GREGORY BODENHAMER
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I certify that the following persons personally appeared before me this day, each
acknowledging to me that he or she signed the foregoing document:
►4 r o ✓� � �dQn
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this 21 day of DeC 2018.
Notary's Official Signature
r'
(Official Seal)
�AWE
Notary's Printed or Typed Na» e
A Z c y mi4 My commission expires: 11-15-2f
�.,ttttt�a
Page 3 of 5

Mm"B
ook 2160 Page 284
EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Attached to and made a part of that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of a
Conservation Easement dated December C4, 2018, by and between RESTORATION
SYSTEMS, LLC and AARON GREGORY BODENHAMER.
NORTH CAROLINA
ROBESON COUNTY
WARRANTY DEED
This deed. made and entered intro on Match -L.1 2007, by and between Lotrle Arthur Bodultamer and wife.
Vlekt Bodenhamer, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor". and Aaron Gregory Bodenhatoer. 6547 Kitchen Street,
Rowlmd, NC 28383, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee-;
Wf1NESSETH.
That for a valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor has and by these
presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee, his heirs and ashes, all that certain tract or petal of land
lying and being in Rowland 70raship, Robeson County, North Carolina, and being more particularly described as
follows:
That certain tract or pared of land lying about 4 miles west of the Town of Rowland, NC, on the
northwest side of and adjacent to paved SR 1134 (Kitchen Street), adjoining other lands of Aaron
Gregory Bodeohamer on the northeast, the land of James Mack Revels on the northwest and other
lands of the original tract of which this is a part on the southwest and being more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at a nail in the center of paved Secondary Road 1134, said nail being South 4S
degrees 32 mimrtes 53 seconds West 3186.67 feet from the intersection of the center of said road
with the anter of Secondary Road 1136, and running as a branch and Albert McGitfs line:
North 53 degrees 23 minutes 41 seconds West 71.23 feet;
North t l degrees 28 minutes 46 seconds West 277.58 feet;
North 21 degrees 05 minutes 32 seconds West 143.38 feet;
North 02 degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds West 107.13 fed;
North 01 degrees 46 minutes 53 seconds West 198.17 fat;
North 29 degrees 37 minutes 09 seconds West 116.02 fed;
North 19 degrees 57 minutes 42 seconds West 58.71 fed to
a stake, a concrete marker on a bank; thence with McGirt s line
North 87 degrees 34 minutes 24 seconds West 710.90 fat to the net
of a branch at a concrete marker on a bank; thence as said branch: South 22 degrees S8 minutes 48
seconds West 117.45 fed to a found iron rod, the west comer of the 10.37 -acre tract previously
conveyed to Aaron Gregory Bodenhamer by the deed recorded in Deed Book 945 at page 89;
thence as the various meanders of the branch, a tie line being South 25 degrees 09 minutes 48
seconds West 178.55 ft. to as set iron rod; thence as a new line South 41 degrees 26 minutes 57
seconds East 304.88 ft. to a set iron rod by a peach tree; thence another new time South 42 degrees
27 minutes 02 seconds East 932.84 ft. to a set railroad spike in paved Secondary Road 1134; thence
with the centerline of SR 1134 North 4S degrees 29 minutes 06 seconds East 112.82 ft. to a rtail
set in the center of paved Secondary Road 1134; thence as said road North 45 degrees 33 minutes
34 seconds East 242.72 feet to the beginning, containing 16.37 acres, more or less.
The Easement Area is a portion of Seller's Property including approximately 26.7 acres, as more
particularly shown on Exhibit A-1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The final legal description of the property will be determined by a survey prepared by a licensed
surveyor selected and paid by Buyer.
EXHIBIT "A-1"
Page 4 of 5

Book 2160 Page 285
Map Depicting Conservation Easement(s)
Attached to and made a part of that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of
Conservation Easements dated , 2018, by and between RESTORATION
SYSTEMS, LLC ("Buyer") and AARON GREGORY BODENHAMER ("Seller").
Pagc 5 of 5

MOMBook 2160 Page 286
RETURN: JD HAMBY
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC 27604
���I����IIII��I11111��1��1111�1�1��111�1111�111��1����11111�'ll�l
Prepared by John D. Hamby
NORTH CAROLINA
ROBESON COUNTY
2019000014
ROBESON CO, NC FEE $26.00
PRESENTED & RECORDED:
01-02-2019 12:17:03 PM
VICKI L LOCKLEAR
REGISTER OF DEEDS
BY: CHISA WAINWRIGHT-LOCKLEAR
DEPUTY
BK: D 2160
PG: 286-290
MEMORANDUM OF
CONTRACT TO PURCHASE
A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC, as Buyer, and LOUIE ARTHUR
BODENHAMER as Seller, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
have entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of a Conservation Easement, to purchase
and sell that certain property of Seller containing 26.7 f acres located in Rowland Townships,
Robeson County, North Carolina, as described in Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit A-1 attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
(a) The provisions set forth in a written Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real
Property dated the Z i day of December 2018, between the parties, are hereby incorporated in
this Memorandum by reference. The referenced Agreement has an examination period of eighteen
(18) months from the execution of said Agreement.
WITNESS our hands and seals to this Memorandum of Agreement for Purchase and Sale
of Real Property, this the Z I day of Dee 2018.
BUYER:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
By: (SEAL)
Name:
Title:C O
Pagel of 5

MMMMBook 2160 Page 287
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF flu k -L
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day,
acknowledging to me that he signed the foregoing document:
(Name o erson(s) Appearing before Notary)
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this Z( day of 20
otary's Official Signature
(Official Sea
CA N t ��
ssion y9 .
O 4,q.OTq,9�S46,
=
ll "111111110
Notary's Printed or Typed Name
My commission expires: 11 -1f, -7f
Page 2 of 5

MMM�Book 2160 Page 288
WITNESS our hands and seals to this Memorandum of Agreement for Purchase and Sale
of a Conservation Easement, this the Z �_ day of , 2018.
SELLER:
LOUIE ARTHUR BODENHAMER
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I certify that the following persons personally appeared before me this day, each
acknowledging to me that he or she signed the foregoing document:
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this Z 1 day of bcc , 2018.
�Notary's Official Signature �
(Official Seal,�%%N11►►►►►��� -
N� v CA �'•
, 'ssIon 9?��'� Notary's Printed or Typed Name
pZ �OTAA �-G Z My commission expires: 11—IS-2Z
jOUB1.��' V
Page 3 of 5

ook 2160 Page 289
EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Attached to and made a part of that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of a
Conservation Easement dated December, 2018, by and between RESTORATION
SYSTEMS, LLC and LOUIE ARTHUR BODENHAMER.
NORTH CAROLINA WARRANTY D®
ROBESON COUNTY
This deed, made and entered into on October Z7. 1999, by and between Albert Franklin
=M irk formerly known as Albert Franklin McGirr, Jr, and wife, Anne S. McGirt, hereinafter
referred o w `13m nor", and Buie ArdwrBodenhamer and wife, Vicki Bodenhamer, 6547 Kitchen
Steep, Rowland, NC 28383, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee";
W(PNPSSEM.
That for a valuable consideration, the mccip of which is hereby acknowledged, the Gmttor
has and by time presents does grant. bargain. sell and convey unto the Granum. his beitsSW signs
all that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being in Rowland Township, Robeson County,
Nath Carolina, and mon: particularly described as follows:
TRACT 1: Tfia mrain ttad or parcel of Ind lying and being about 3.75 miles
northwest of the center of the Town of Rowland, N.C. atijacmt to and on the
northwestern side of paved Secondary Rod No. 1134. be= known as the Kitchen
Street Road, adjoining the Wide now or formerly owned by horn R Britt, O. H.
Hodge, Jorma Bray and Otheniel Bracey on the North. Yancey Hodge ad Dan L
Md-amin on the Northeast, McNair Investment Company and James Mack Revels
on to Southwest and Cape Pear Wood Corporation on the West and being mere
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a pant in the anter of paved Secondary Road No. 1134, at its
imenation with the canter of the not of a Branch, the most Southern or beginning
eerier of that It 3 acre tract of which this description mes around and includes and
coming thence down the various contacts of the nm of said Branch, the traverse lines
as follows, Nath 57 degrees 45 minutes West 227.63 tock North 17 degrees 42
minutes East 231.29 foci, North 25 dogma 42 minutes West 157.10 het, North 05
degrees 35 minutes Em 231.07 feet and Nath 23 degrees 43 minutes War 211.75
feet to a stake in the anter of said nun, the Northwestern or Fifth (5th) caner of said
I 13 acre vac in the Southern or Sixth (6th) live of the original 56 ace tract, which
this description also erns around and includes; thence as mid line North 87 degrees
34 minutes West passing through sconcrete monument on the bank of said run at 4.5
fat and continuing and passing through an existing concrete monument on the Eau
bankofthe ern of Tara Branch at 704.9 fat and continuing a tend distance of710.9
fat to a sake in the tan of Tbma Branch, the Beginning comer of said 56 sae tract;
thence as the Southwestern or First (Ist) line of said trod Nath 65 degrees 34
minutes West passing through a new, Pump Pipe u 278.2 feet and continuing a mW
distance of 1592.24 fat to a new Pump Pipe in a field, the most Western at Second
(2nd) comer of said 56 acre tract in the Eastern or Third Ord) line of the 45 sre
tract, which this description aim nw around and includes; thence as said line South
13 degrees 33 minutes West 379.0 feet to a new Pump Pipe in said field, the
Southeastern or Beginning comer of said 45 are tract: thence as the Southweseem
or Ent (test) lie of said tract to, as and beyond a ditch North 78 degrees 33 minutes
West 1931.5 fat to an existing concrete monument in the Southeaaem edge of
Wilkerson Swamp, the most Western or Second (2nd) corner of said 45 acre tract, a
comer of that 602 acro tract entitled "Property of Cape Pone Wood Corp., T. 1.
McCormick T rW aashotmona mapadamce recorded in Book of Maps 15 a Page
34 o the OIRce of to Re&mo(Deoda of Rabu=County, ttmenice n a line of said
tract Nath 76 degroes49 minces Wast 635.6 fan to aeypress tree, die corner at the
rum of Wilkerson Swamp; them up the various rnormatof acid mn,the traverse lines
as follows. Norah 23 hgreea 41 minutes Bap 440 fat and North 57 degrees 26
minutes Bap 984 feet oanexhaingarnle in said Your with one *Mash and one new
oak poiokx tlermte South 87 degmes 13 minutes Ban poring thmwgh an existing
pump pipe r 892.6 fed and continuing • total dimaooe of 263733 fen to a now
Pimp Pipe, Mt: moa No thanafvuM(4th)ot merof the above meaioned 56 acro
tram; thence South 46 dogma 34 minutes Bap 1141.1 feet to an existing dxrwd,
monument with two old hickory pointers the Pith 56 cormerotsaid tract: thrxee as
another NorMeandn line, die same being the RM (Sth) line of said urn, South 43
degrees 57 mimhas Ben Wall fat to an existing commse monument. the most
EastentaSixth (6th)conwof sold 56acrauad in the Northern orPdarth (4th) line
of the above mentioned 113 ace out thence in said line South 87 dogma S3
minutes Ent 166.24 fed to an exiaisg condole mdmmem, the Northeastern or
Fourth (4(h) comer of add tract: thence as a Northeastern or Third Ord) line of raW
pact South SOdegrea S7 minutes Bap 66AO feet o an existing concrete monument
the Third (Lad) corer of said tract: tmencn as mother NatbCahm fine, Seoad
(2d), line South 41 dkgreea SI miasma Eat putting through an existing concrete
monument at 226.1 fed and condoning a total distance of 2S6.0 fact to a nail in the
comorofpavedSecondary Road No. 1134.&*Eu emoraoad(Zlod)araevofaaid
113 acro frac throe as the Southeastern or Ret (tat) lie of said tract and a the
anter of said road South 45 degrees 36 minutes West 921.84 fat to the
BBOINNING, containing 1313 area, and including all of that 11.5 ace pat
conveyed by McNair havauoam Company to A. Prank McGirr by dad dated
November 12, 1949, taor I in Deed Book iO.T m Page 343, dl of dW 4S sat:
tract. Req Tract. and all of that 56 acre man, Se000d usel. conveyed by Mn Joseph
Evac, widow. Mea Agee F. Hook. J. Browne Evans and wife. Alfredo P. Evan,
N. W.Woman and wife,lomphbeE. Kirkman. and PbsleMeKEvans. unnarat
to A. Rork McGirr by deed dated November 28,1944, recorded in Deed Book 9-T
at Page 455. Robeson Courcy Registry. Ser the the (Iles of the Clark of Caen for
Robeson County for the Estates of A. P. McOin, 77 E 306, and Egph McGirr, 95 E
219.
SECOND TRACT, Beginning at a stake in the anter of the Kitchen Street rod, a
came with the tads conveyed to A.O. McObt on April 21. 1949. and running
thence South 35 degrees 15 mimes But 2469 feu to an hom stake in the line of the
originalpad of which dolt is park tl - m aid odginal lira North 87 degras SO
minae Bap 660 tat to a concrete mommtent and old iron axle by one pin pointer,
a cater of Me original tract; I Nath 28 degrees 30 minus West 930 fed to
an icon slake in the original lice Iherhce cominuing North 28 degrees 30 minora
West 1339 fat to and with a ditch to an imn pate in a bead of said ditch. thence as
de cow of aid ditch North 46 degrees 30 mbutes West 691 het to an ire pate
in a dimb 20 fed from to coma of the Kiccben Suva mad: theme continuing said
cause 21 fed othe omaofadd mad; thence asthe - , line of said rod Sash
45 dograe 36 minuses West 660 feet to the beginning, containing 43 acres, mere or
Iran. See the deed recorded in Book 10-R at page 430 and the triol of the Clerk of
Cape for Robeson County for the Boma of A. R McOin6 TJ B 306. and Bglah
McOin.95 E 209.
SAVE AND EXCEPT. Thin 1.13 acres of Ind. more or leas, which was' " to
James Meek Ravels and wife, Ron lee Revek by the deeds mantled in Book 17-T
at Page 84 and Book 808 in Pogo 650.
The Easement Area is a portion of Seller's Property including approximately 26.7 acres, as more
particularly shown on Exhibit A-1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The final legal description of the property will be determined by a survey prepared by a licensed
surveyor selected and paid by Buyer.
EXHIBIT "A-1"
Page 4 of 5

Book 2160 Page 290
Map Depicting Conservation Easement(s)
Attached to and made a part of that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of
Conservation Easements dated , 2018, by and between RESTORATION
SYSTEMS, LLC ("Buyer") and LOUIE ARTHUR BODENHAMER ("Seller").
Page 5 of 5

APPENDIX E
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
Swamp Grape Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-007705)

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 160 77 Page:� County: _ ot9"5'6h
Parcel ID Number: 1� 2 9 ef 3G 2 300
Street Address: Ls �:z ic i %vi7 4-_
kol-�,_ kh--- 2g 3�3
Property Owner (please print: L-ot'%;Q d¢ — c
Property Owner (please print):.
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
JD Hamby of Restoration Systems, LLC
to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream and wetland
mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and delineations, as well
as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s). I agree to allow regulatory
agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property as part of these environmental
reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address:
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: 10 -427 -611%
Property Owner Telephone Number:
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
UN
Owner Authorized Signature)
(Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 1 5 5 3
Parcel ID Number:
Page: S 5 County:
�1 SS 3 3 loo
Street Address: 639 14 is � c' —`� I` ,
Property Owner (please print: &C106
Property Owner (please
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
JD Ham& of Reslaration Systems, LLC
to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream and wetland
mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and delineations, as well
as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s). I agree to allow regulatory
agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property as part of these environmental
reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address:
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: 9--I 0 ~ 11 Z Z r 9S Z8
Property Owner Telephone Number:
We hegby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Authorized Signature)
(Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)