20021217 Ver 1_Response to IRT_20040129

Natural Rcso tirccs
R"'Sto naloll&( ollsc1V,,Mc
January 29, 2004 WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
Mr. David Franklin JAN 2,9 2004
Wilmington District Office WATER QUALITY
US Army Corps of Engineers SECTION
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 27402
Re: Bear Creek-Sleepy Creek Mitigation Bank, Lenoir County North Carolina,
Response to Mitigation Banking Review Team Comments in August 11, 2003
letter. Action ID No. 200210951
Dear Mr. Franklin:
The attached information provides Restoration Systems' response to comments
from the Mitigation Banking Review Team (MBRT), as requested in your letter of
August 11, 2003. With your concurrence, we propose to revise the mitigation plan for
the subject site (dated July 2002) to include this supplemental information, prepared for
us by Mr. Wes Newell of Backwater Environmental, our consultant.
The Nationwide Permit (NWP) #27 issued for this project contains a condition requiring
approval of the Mitigation Plan prior to impacting wetlands. We request that a letter be
issued by USACE that approves revisions to the Mitigation Plan and/or activates the
NWP#27, once revisions are approved by the MBRT. This will allow us to commence
with construction of the site by July 1, 2004, and then establish vegetation on it during
the winter of 2004-2005. Subsequently, we can continue to discuss auxiliary mitigation
issues (credit, success criteria, etc.) after the site is constructed and as wetlands are
developing. In essence, we propose to construct the wetland site and then finalize
mitigation banking issues based, in part, upon actual conditions observed on the site.
The Bear Creek-Sleepy Creek Mitigation Site is located immediately adjacent to the
restoration portion of the Bear Creek-Mill Branch Mitigation Bank, completed in 2001.
Wetland restoration design has been established based upon a carbon-copy method for
restoration using the 2-year old, Mill Branch wetland site and the same reference
wetlands along the Neuse River. Relative to the Mill Branch project, we anticipate very
similar vegetation, soil, and hydrologic conditions on the Sleepy Creek site after
restoration. Because the Sleepy Creek project relies heavily upon the success of the
adjoining Bear Creek-Mill Branch Mitigation Bank, a copy of Bear Creek-Mill Branch
Mitigation Plan is attached for reference purposes.
('i!rt Mill • 1101 118vnc? `;L. ``IIiIc 107 • R?i!(,Wh. NC '760.4 • v\ \N w 1*(,,?ton,;itioiisvsicros.amn • Phonic: 919-755-9490 • Fax: 919-755_Oj0

Mr. Franklin
January 29, 2004
Page 2
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [phone]
or Wes Newell at [phone].
Sincerely,
0aiU (?. s?
David H. Schiller
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Lekson, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Mike Bell, US Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Becky Fox, US Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Mr. John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
Mr. Wes Newell, Backwater Construction (w/o Attachments)
RESPONSE TO MBRT COMMENTS IN THE 11 AUGUST 2003 CORRESPONDENCE
Bear Creek-Sleepy Creek Mitigation Bank
Lenoir County, North Carolina
Action ID: 200210951
1.0 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1.1 Page 16, 2.5 Jurisdictional Wetlands. As discussed during the on-site investigation, the
enhancement area may not meet the criteria of a jurisdictional wetland. Please provide
data sheets to support the wetland determination for the wetland enhancement and
preservation areas.
Wetland data forms are included in Appendix A for the proposed wetland enhancement areas. There are
no proposed wetland preservation areas on this site; so no data forms have been attached.
A map showing the location of data points is attached as Figure 1. In addition, the map depicts
supplemental data utilized to perform the wetland determination. DRAINMOD contours depict the
projected extent of wetland loss (<12.5% of growing season), the projected extent of wetland degradation
(<31% of the growing season), and the projected distance from ditch to potential reference wetland
(relatively unaffected by ditch). The map also depicts groundwater boring locations and data relative to
the projected jurisdictional wetland limits. This data was presented in the previously constructed, Mill
Branch Mitigation Plan and reiterated in the Sleepy Creek Mitigation Plan. At Mill Branch, the forested
wetland restoration and enhancement areas were established by the same methods; these areas can be
visually and quantitatively evaluated to predict conditions that will exist at Sleepy Creek after the project
has been constructed. As a supplement to this data, field review is recommended within the designated
forested restoration and enhancement areas.of the 2-year old Mill Branch site.
1.2 Page 24, 4.2.3 Slough/Drainageway Construction. Describe and provide plan and cross-
section drawings of the typical intermittent slough/drainageway.
The text from page 24 of the mitigation plan is included herein.
"Intermittent sloughs will be constructed to provide relatively long term surface water storage
(Figure 8). In addition, the sloughs will function to divert water into interior portions of the
floodplain and away from the railroad easement and low-lying depressions immediately adjacent
to Bear Creek. The excavated material will be used for ditch backfilling (Section 5.1.1). The
sloughs will range from 10 feet to 20 feet in width and 0.5 to 2 feet in depth. The depth of the
slough will be designed to elevations that direct water into interior floodplain flats, as depicted in
Figure 8."
The sloughs are being constructed as a carbon-copy of the sloughs located in reference wetlands along the
Neuse River. A typical plan view and cross-sections are located in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4. The
cross-sections depict three features: 1) existing land surface within the reference wetland; 2) existing land
surface within on-site (crowned and ditched) croplands; and 3) proposed land surface including
constructed sloughs/drainageways. The sloughs are intended to redirect the backwater sloughs towards
reference (potentially historic) conditions through cropland areas of the site.
NAME GS WS DW ???
H1 85.7 81,9 3.9 \.asJ ® I `es ??
H2 66.7 63.0 3.7
H3 66.0 62.7 3.3 c \ r' 1 - ??
H4 65.2 63.7 1.5
H5 67.3 65.1 2.3
HIS 70.4 68.9 3.5
F1 66.5 61.6 4.7
F2 66.0 63.6 2.4 / U v ° v ti
F3 66.3 111 2.2 ?J ? ? ? ??
F4 66.1 65.8 0.4`?
F5 67.6 66.8 1.8
J
F6 66.6 111 4.6
F7 71.2 69.2 2.0 I
•
R1 67.0 62.0- 5.0+
R2 66.0 63.2 2.8 F4
R3 69.0 65.5 3.5
W1 68.0 62.0- 8.0+
R2 F3
W2 67.0 64.3 2.7 i°?
W3 69.0 81.7 1.3 65 65--???
111117-
S1 71.5 70.6 0.9
S2 70.5 67,6 2.9
S3 69.0 67.0 2.0 H1 135 \ ?wUUU
S4 69.5 66.3 3.2 Incline #2 o 1 `? \
S5 66.4 63,6 2.8
61 70.5 69.3 1.2 ric Extent &10ear Creek Channel
132 68. 66.6 2. o
sa 64 S5 ca `B6
63 66 66.0 0 84.1 1.9 9
B4 65.8 63.7 2.1 R4
1 6? 1
85 65.4 62.2 3.2 Incline f1
136 64.9 63.2 1.7
I-15S B3
S2 12
r TWA
•
B1
15 ?/
RAIN D roj?cte xtent VVetl tl Loss
- 1<12 of r wirt se son
Backwater Environmental
2312 New Bern Ave.
Raleigh N.C. 27610
[phone]
backwater.biz
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street
Suite 203
Raleigh N.C. 27604
[phone]
restoration systems. com
i
IN
l G

Contour Feet Above Title.
Ant= MSL
Groundwater
/o to less than
69 70 12 .5° DRAINMOD Pro acted Extent of Wetlan?dation ,r
seasn ° v H drolo
a an 22% of growing Y gy
67
L? ??-
66
65
64 Projected Extent of Wetland Hydrology (52.8 acres)
63
62
- 61 Groundwater data collected from 2125/02 to 2/28/02
Scale: SHEET NO.
1 in=400 ft Date:
November 2003
Project No.:
02-2331
1BRT response\Drainage.dgn 1/12/2004 3:44:52 PM
1-41- 1 /Y U 1 I & a I
J \
S \`er 4 ? ? V ? V
8
5
67.5 66.5-67 67
= rc
66 67.5 6
f 66 5 ? a
67
OUTLET #5
66.5
1 _6T
°5
81.5 LET #2
_lo 6.0
i,
67.5 G o 65

Backwater Environmental
2312 New Bern Ave.
Raleigh N.C. 27610
[phone]
backwater.biz
OUTLET 47I I Restoration Systems
67.2 1101 Haynes Street
construction Access
- Washington Street ?o
1? 70
68.7 88.4 OUTLET#1
66.0
f? V by
68.0 ` ra
C2 6 ??li 68.0 r
r? ?9.0 6 ?G1t,
U1 c1' ?I l
9.0 X68 A
f \
1 1
2
,? ,' 11 ?1/?_`_,.:? ` Deep Soil Ripping (32 acres) 1
11
Ditch! Canal Backfilling (11,900 linear feet) v '
Slough ! Drainageway Construction i -
Backwater Slough Wetland Excavation Areas
67 Invert (Bed) Elevation
Embankment Construction (1 foot height)
Drainage Control Outlets
Suite 203
Raleigh N.C. 27604
[phone]
restorationsystems.com
-
NOTES/REVISIONS

Project:
Bear Creek -
Sleepy Creek
Mitigation Bank
Lenoir County
North Carolina

Title:
Cross-Section Location
Plan View

Scale:
1 in=400 ft SHEET NO.
Date:
November 2003 ^
1
Project No.:
02-2331
v /
ss-section plan view.dgn 111212004 3:47:58 PM
1.0 ft. inundation
0.5 ft. Inundation
•1.0 ft. (near permanent saturation)
-2.0 ft. (approximate area supporting
seasonal wetland hydrology)
UPLAND

EMBANKMENT
Typical plan view measured from reference wetland
Copied from the ,
Bear Creek-Mill Branch
Detailed Mitigation Plan
September 1999

Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street
Suite 203
Raleigh N.C. 27604
[phone]
restorationsystems.com
NOTES/REVISIONS

Project:
Bear Creek -
Sleepy Creek
Mitigation Bank
Lenoir County
North Carolina

Title:
Plan View
Typical Intermittent
Slough I Drainageway

Scale:
1 in=-30 ft SHEET NO.
Date:
August 1999
Project No.:
ESC 99-016

I DEPTH Of INUNDATION 1 SATURATION
EMBANKMENT
!reference plan view.dgn 1/12/2004 3:50:13 PM
Existing condition elevations are based primarily digital terrain models generated for 1 foot contour interval topographic mapping.
Reference backwater elevations were generated by laser level and modified to approximate flood lain location and topographic conditions within the restoration area.
Post restoration surface elevations are approximations and will likely be modifled during construction due to wetness (transportability) and actual, existing land elevations encountered in the field.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
71.5
Existing Spoil Material I Interfield Crowns
Reference Backwater Slough Approximation
70.5- L/
70.0-
?_-----
69.5
69.0 ?•?•' \\ /
66.5
T
Existing Land Surface Post-Restoration Cross-section (approximated)
70.5
------- ---`- 70.0
69.5
69.0
Projected Post-Restoration Water Surface 66.5
(seasonal high)
66.0
67.5
ction from February 25-28, 2002 . - "
67,0
Existing water surface (Profa_ - -
- - - - """--Existing Ditch
66.5 "
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
C1
67.5
67.0
66.5
240
C 1'
71.5 71,5
Existing Spoil Material l Interfeld Crowns
71.0 71.0
70.5 70.5
Projected Post-Restoration Water Surface
seasonal high
70.0 70.0
69.5 69.5
69.0 69.0
68.5 Existing Land Surface 66.5
a?
68.0 68,0
67.5 Reference Drainageway Approximation / '-Existing Ditch
action from February 25.28, 2002) 67 5
Existing Water surface (Pro_J_,
Post-Restoration Cross-section (approximated)
67.0 67.0
66.5 66.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
C2 C2'
Backwater Environmental
P.O. Box 1654
Pittsboro, N.C. 27312
[phone]
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 203
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
[phone]
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
BEAR CREEK
SLEEPY CREEK
MITIGATION BANK
LENOIR COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Title:
TYPICAL
SLOUGHIDRAINAGEWAY
CROSS-SECTIONS
C1-C1'
C2-C2'
Scale: SHEET NO.
as shown
Date:
November 2002 4
Project No.:
02.2331
220 240
71.5
71.0
\typical cross-section2.dgn 111212004 3:51:56 PM
1.3 Page 26, 4.4.1 Planting Plan. Species selected for planting should not be dependent upon
what is available at the time of order. Proper planning should allow for the availability of
appropriate species.
The text from Table 2 of the mitigation plan is included herein.
"Some non-commercial elements may not be locally available at the time of planting. The stem
count for unavailable species should be distributed among other target elements based on the
percent (%) distribution. One year of advance notice to forest nurseries will promote availability
of some non-commercial elements. However, reproductive failure in the nursery may occur."
Species selected for planting are not dependent upon what is available at the time of planting. Species
availability is dependent upon germination, growth, and survival of one-year old seedlings requested the
prior year at the nursery. Based on other projects, the most common problem has occurred with
successful germination of American elm (Ulmus americana) and swamp tupelo (Nyssa Mora) over the
last several years. However, we do not think that it is a good idea to delete these species from the
planting list because of past (and potential for future) nursery failures. We should keep trying to generate
a crop of viable elm and tupelo seedlings each year by including them in planting plans. Therefore, we
contend that the above statement in the mitigation plan needs to remain. However, we will not rely on
what is available at the time of planting.
1.4 Page 30, 5.0 Monitoring Plan. The monitoring program will be undertaken for 5 years or
until final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
The mitigation plan is herein modified to state that the site will be monitored from a minimum of five
years or until final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
1.5 Page 30, 5.1 Hydrology. The intervals between hydrologic sampling need to be established
with daily being preferred.
Hydrological sampling will be performed by continuous recording groundwater gauge sets to record at
6:00am and 6:00 pm on each day of the year.
1.6 Page 30, Hydrology Success Criteria. As bank sponsor, it is your responsibility to
determine the appropriate hydrologic regime for the Sleepy Creek site. The hydrology
success criteria for any site are based on an analysis of the site-specific water budget, the
type of wetland to be restored, reference area studies, scientific literature, and ultimately,
what the site is able to support. The swamp forest referenced in your document should be
inundated for longer, consecutive days, than 12.5% of the growing season.
Please be advised that if you are simply attempting to meet the minimum hydrology as
indicated within Table 5 of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, the
MBRT will not look favorably upon this approach.
In summary, you should revisit the most critical component of your mitigation plan and
ensure that what you are proposing is specific, measurable, and attainable.
Wetland hydroperiods have been predicted from three primary data sources as described below: 1)
DRAINMOD; 2) groundwater data in the reference wetland; and 3) groundwater data from the 2-year old
Mill Branch site.
DRAINMOD: The reference groundwater model forecasts that the wetland hydroperiod in swamp forest
areas of the Site will average 22% of the growing season in early successional phases. As steady state
forest conditions develop, the average wetland hydroperiod is forecast to encompass 32% of the growing
season. Over the 31-year modeling period, the annual hydroperiod fluctuates from less than 12.5% to
over 36% dependent upon rainfall patterns and successional phase. In addition, the on-site landscape
includes diverse wetland geomorphology, especially near uplands and the stream channel, which are not
characterized by the model.
Due to wide fluctuations in modeled annual hydroperiod (<12-36+%), the groundwater model cannot
provide a specific hydrology success criteria on an annual basis. A specific success criteria such as a 22%
target hydroperiod will fail in 50% of the years sampled. A success criteria of 12.5% (the regulatory
criteria) will also fail in 10% of the years sampled in reference wetlands (4 out of 38 years).
In summary, the Sponsor is not simply attempting to meet the minimum hydrology as indicated within
Table 5 of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Riverine wetlands are dynamic
systems with wetland hydroperiods ranging from 5% to 100% of the growing season dependent upon: 1)
rainfall pattern; 2) landscape position; 2) riparian in-flow dynamics; 3) backwater through-flow dynamics;
4) outfall dynamics; 5) beaver; and 6) vegetation (rooting and roughness) functions (as described below).
Reference Wetland Sites: Reference wetland data indicates that backwater sloughs support wetland
hydroperiods ranging from less than 12.5% to 100% of the growing season. Reference backwaters
sloughs exhibit diverse microtopography and wetland hydroperiods due to a number of factors. The
backwater slough plan view in Appendix A depicts surface water elevations ranging from 2 feet above to
2 feet below the ground surface. The wetland hydroperiod over this slough will vary dependent upon
where the groundwater gauge is placed. The wide range of hydroperiods in this reference wetland site is
due to several factors.
I) The slough is a depositional environment. Riparian in-flow transports sediments from
the uplands that establishes diverse and shifting microtopography (sand bars, etc.). Tree
stems and vegetation roughness influence this depositional environment as well.
2) Silt Deposition from river floods also influences microtopography. However, coarse
sand deposition on the primary floodplain more importantly serves to effectively enclose
and isolate the backwater slough into through-flow that often parallels the river channel
(backwater sloughs reside at a lower elevation than the abutting primary floodplain or
secondary terrace). In addition, fluvial processes change the location and size of outflow
channels from the slough towards the river over time.
3) Beaver represent a keystone species within these ecosystems and beaver construction
activities continuously modify hydroperiods in backwater sloughs.
Mill Branch Mitigation Bank: Wetland hydroperiods in the backwater slough have ranged from 8% to
100% of the growing season over the last two years dependent primarily upon deposition rates, landscape
position, beaver, and rainfall patterns. Based on data and models, selection of a specific, measurable, and
attainable hydrology success criteria falls somewhere between 8% and 100% of the growing season,
primarily dependent upon gauge placement.
Based on the data described above, the Sponsor considered several options for establishing a hydrology
success criteria based on reference backwater slough hydroperiods (swamp forest areas). The Sponsor
also considered the probability of failure to achieve success criteria in any given year for each option.
Based on the data, the Sponsor already has a 10% chance of not achieving the 12.5% criteria in each year.
For planning purposes, the Sponsor already assumes a 50150 chance of having to monitor the backwater
sloughs for more than 5 years under the existing proposed success criteria (i.e. one year in ten won't meet
12.5% threshold on one or more gauges).
Option 1: Strategically place the reference and on-site groundwater gauges in similar landscape
(inundation) positions after the site has been constructed. Subsequently, stringently control beaver and/or
move the gauges as depositional or riparian flow patterns influence the reference or on-site gauge
readings. The Sponsor determined that this option introduces potential implications of bias into the
sampling process. The stringent control of beaver and the unknown, unintended consequences on the
ecosystem is also questionable. As a result, the sponsor elected to pre-determine (plot) the location of
monitoring gauges in the center of monitoring quadrants during project design.
Option 2: Increase the number of groundwater gauges in the reference and on-site areas. Set wetland
hydrology success criteria at 75% of the reference hydroperiod. Based on reference and monitoring on
completed projects, the number of gauges would increase to four per monitoring quadrant. The total
number of gauges for this project would increase from 19 to approximately 56. The designer indicated
that the data from 56 wells would likely confirm that wetland hydroperiods range from less than 12.5% of
the growing season to 100% of the growing season due to the variables described above (which is already
indicated by existing data). The Sponsor could simply match a recorded hydroperiod from a gauge on-
site to a similar gauge in the reference wetland to achieve success criteria. Due to implication of bias,
additional cost, and repeat of results born through existing data/information, the Sponsor considered
Option 3.
Option 3: Apply a specific, measurable, unbiased, and attainable standard of 12.5% of the growing season
that has been applied to previously constructed riverine mitigation sites supporting backwater sloughs.
The Sponsor accepts a 50/50 chance of having to monitor beyond the five year period because of failure
to achieve the established 12.5% criteria on one or more gauges in any given year (10% chance each year
based on existing data).
Based on existing information, the Sponsor continues to prefer Option 3 and maintains that other options
will: 1) essentially result in selection of an arbitrary hydroperiod; 2) apply more stringent standards
relative to other backwater slough (swamp forest) mitigation projects in the region; 3) force subjective
gauge placement criteria with implications for bias; and 4) consequently, eliminate potential for future use
of statistically reproducible conclusions based on random placement of gauges. The Sponsor contends
that the results of research, data, and available literature indicate that wetland hydroperiods range from
<12.5% to 100% of the growing season, dependent upon gauge placement and a series of riverine wetland
attributes that change over time.
The sponsor also proposes to increase the number of groundwater gauges in the swamp forest reference
wetland to six. During each annual wetland monitoring report, the range of restored, swamp forest
hydroperiods will be compared to the reference swamp forest hydroperiods. This comparison will be
used to further document the relative range of hydroperiods present in reference swamp forest ecosystems
relative to the restored wetland areas.
1.7.1 Your document states that the bottomland hardwood component is riverine. After
reviewing the site, we believe the bottomland hardwood component is non-riverine.
We understand that the MBRT is concerned about the frequency of overbank flooding that may occur
within the bottomland hardwood component of this project. The frequency of overbank flooding has been
reduced due to past dredging of Bear Creek and the installation of levees adjacent to the river. Periodic
overbank flooding exhibits significant influence on wetland functional attributes in riverine wetlands.
The Sponsor contends that the classification of the bottomland hardwood component of this project as
"riverine wetlands" (influenced by overbank flooding) or "nonriverine" (influenced by groundwater slope
migration) is dependent upon four primary factors:
1) the net gain in "riverine" (overbank flood) wetland function from existing to post-
restoration condition.
2) The influence of existing and post-restoration overbank flooding on wetland functional
attributes.
3) A comparison between riverine functional attributes exhibited by proposed wetland
impacts and the compensatory mitigation.
Net Gain in "Riverine" (Overbank Flood) Wetland Function from Existing to Post-restoration
Condition.
The Sponsor will prepare a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functional assessment of the bottomland hardwood
wetland restoration areas to quantify the riverine functional attributes that remain at this site under
existing conditions. Subsequently, the HGM will be applied to projected, post-restoration conditions.
The model will quantify the functional lift or gain in functional capacity of riverine wetland attributes
resulting from this project. This model will also be applicable to bottomland hardwood areas within the
previously completed Bear Creek-Mill Branch Mitigation Bank. The HGM model is scheduled for
completion in March 2003.
Influence of Existing and Post-restoration Overbank Flooding on Wetland Functional Attributes.
Existing Condition
Flood frequency models were developed for the Bear Creek-Mill Branch project (Section 4.2 of the
Mitigation Plan). The model indicates that dredging and dike construction have effectively eliminated the
influence of overbank flooding on the Site. The dike top elevation is not overtopped until the 100-year
storm. Therefore, under existing conditions, the Frequency of overbank flooding receives a score of 0.0
(Vfr,q = 0.0) in the HGM model.
Post Restoration Condition
If the dike were lowered to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain, flooding from the river would be
restored to less than 1 foot depth for the 5-year return interval within portions of the primary
floodplain (bottomland hardwoods). Lowering of the levee may provide a 95-year increase in return
interval relative to existing conditions. River floods with a 5- to 10-year return interval are projected to
introduce surface waters to upper reaches of the primary floodplain physiographic area.
We concur with the MBRT that levee removal should be performed on this project. The Sponsor will
remove an approximately 300-foot section of levee below the rail-road bridge along the northern project
boundary to facilitate flooding into riverine wetlands on a projected, 5- to 10-year return interval.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has predicted flood tolerance for plant species in bottomland
hardwood ecosystems on riverine wetlands throughout the southeastern US (Theriot 1993). In this study,
the frequency of overbank flooding into the reference, riverine wetlands was gauged for the 17 study
sites. The study also used the "power line" designation for riverine wetlands (Brinson 1990). In this
approach, the power and frequency of inundation is utilized to characterize the way in which flood events
organize the plant communities in bottomland hardwood forests. He characterized the flood events as
high, medium, and low power events with flood power and frequency of inundation being inversely
proportional. High power flood events have a low frequency and determine patterns of the large
floodplains features (e.g., oxbow lakes, relict levees, and low ridges and swales) that persist for
hundreds to thousands of years (10- to 100+-year return interval). Medium power flood events, which
occur at an intermediate frequency, affect ecosystem structures that exist from decades to hundreds of
years (5- to 10-year return interval). Kangas (1990) indicated that the medium power event exhibited the
greatest influence on riverine ecosystems and bottomland tree species associations (based on discriminate
function analyses). At Sleepy Creek, the high power and medium power flood events are present,
suggesting that riverine ecosystems and bottomland tree species associations will be restored. Soils
contain numerous fluvial deposits including sediment bars, sand lenses, and wash-outs. The primary
floodplain has been under 6+ feet of river water twice in the last 6 years.
The low power, high-frequency flood events (1 to 5-year return interval) affect short-term patterns such as
seed germination, growth, and survival (Grubbs 1997). The low power, high frequency flood is lacking at
the Sleepy Creek Site due to past dredging of Bear Creek. Grubb's characterization emphasized the
dramatic impact that high frequency flood events and inundation duration has on the regeneration of
certain species in bottomland forests. High frequency floods influence seed transport and germination.
The duration of inundation also influences character species growth and survival.
Based on this research, the Sleepy Creek Site may lack a portion of the capacity to provide for riverine
seed transport and germination due to dredging of Bear Creek. However, a portion of this capacity likely
remains because: 1) Huenneke and Sharitz (1986) concluded that the availability and nature of micro-sites
also affects the distribution and composition of cypress-tupelo swamp seedling and sapling strata. Micro-
site development is primarily a function of medium- to high-power flood events. These less frequent,
higher energy events also provide for some capacity to provide for riverine seed transport and
germination at Sleepy Creek.
Agreed, dredging of Bear Creek has degraded riverine wetland functions; but the Sponsor maintains that
these riverine functions will be restored and will receive a significant functional gain due to this project.
The capacity to maintain bottomland hardwood species growth and survival at the Site (beyond the
seedling stage) has not likely been impacted because riparian groundwater flow represents the primary
factor influencing the duration of inundation in riverine wetlands, as described below.
Because different species respond to different timing and duration of inundation, a strong correlation
exists between the distribution of a riverine species and its associated hydrologic and soil-moisture
conditions (Hosner and Boyce 1962; Dickson, Hosner, and Hosley 1965; Bedinger 1971, 1978; Larson et
al. 1981; Best, Segal, and Wolfe 1990; and Faulkner et al. 1991). The National Wetlands Technical
Council (NWTC) proposed the zonal classification of floodplain forests (Clark and Benforado 1981). The
classification system defined six hydrologic zones based on frequency and duration of inundation and soil
saturation. The flood duration as a percent of the growing season in each year included the following
ranges:
Zone 1: 100% (intermittently exposed swamps)
Zone 2: >25% (semipermanently flooded swamps)
Zone 3: 12.5% to 25% (seasonally flooded bottomland hardwood wetlands)
Zone 4: 5% to 12.5% (temporarily flooded bottomland hardwood wetlands)
Theriot (1993) gauged 17 reference sites in the southeastern U.S. and determined that the frequency of
overbank flooding into each of these riverine communities ranged from once a year to once every 10
years. Therefore, the frequency of overbank flooding does not represent the primary hydrologic input
affecting the duration of inundation on the riverine wetland zoned outlined above.
NCDOT 1999 concludes that the duration of inundation attributed to overbank flooding on river
floodplains contributes from 0% to 3.5% of the wetland hydroperiod on an annual basis (NCDOT 1999).
As a result, Periodic river and stream floods, fluvial sediment deposition, and hydraulic energy dissipation
represent important attributes of floodplains and bottomland hardwood forest in the region. However,
these river channels represent base flow, groundwater withdrawal features throughout most of the year.
Therefore, groundwater and precipitation inputs represent the primary hydrologic factor in the
development and maintenance of riverine wetlands. The primary source for wetland hydrology in
reference, riverine wetlands on primary floodplains is precipitation and groundwater, not riverine
flooding. Concurrently, riparian groundwater represents the primary factor influencing wetland
hydroperiods and species growth and survival in riverine wetlands (not overbank flood waters).
A Comparison Between Riverine Functional Attributes Exhibited by Proposed Wetland Impacts
and the Compensatory Mitigation.
The wetland impacts proposed for compensatory mitigation at Sleepy Creek are largely unknown at the
current time. The HGM model will provide an efficient method to compare the riverine wetland
functional lift and potential losses during the permitting process.
1.8 A new Mitigation Banking Instrument will need to be developed for this site.
2.0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2.1 Areas of wetland restoration may be excessively inundated based upon the adjacent,
completed restoration project. Therefore, areas of emergent wetlands may occur instead of
the targeted swamp or bottomland forest wetland. Ideally, swamp forest species should be
planted and allowed one or two growing seasons prior to being subjected to excessive
inundation.
We agree with the observations on the adjacent, completed project. The projected inundation areas on
that site were planted in bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and water
tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) at a density of 435 stems/acre, one growing season in advance of the inundation.
However, beaver consumed most if not all of the seedlings over the last 2 years. Our objective was to
establish a forest canopy over the inundated area by a minimum of 30-foot (15-foot crown) spacing
between cypress/tupelo trees. Beaver management was instituted; however, river otter populations were
also placed at risk by the effort. We continue to struggle with the role and function of beaver in these
ecosystems during early wetland development (and our impact by trying to control beaver). With beaver
active in the backwater sloughs, areas of emergent wetlands are likely for many years prior to forest
canopy development. Dependent upon the MBI process and schedule, we also planned to plant cypress
and tupelo at Sleepy Creek one growing season in advance of inundation.
Reference backwater sloughs in the region also contain emergent wetlands due to beaver activity.
Therefore, the target communities for this project include swamp forest, bottomland forest, and/or
emergent communities as stated in the success criteria.
2.2 Jurisdictional wetland status within the proposed forested wetland enhancement area was
questionable. The area appeared to lack sufficient hydrology. Assuming the area is
jurisdictional wetland, the rationale for obtaining enhancement credit is questionable. As
proposed, strips of the existing younger forest growth would be cleared to allow for planting of
a greater diversity of tree species, especially hard mast species. While there are some benefits
to increasing tree species diversity, the benefits may not warrant enhancement credit status.
The Service questions whether introducing additional tree species is enough, alone, to warrant
enhancement credit.
Wetland enhancement credit is proposed due to significant hydrology enhancements and associated
vegetation changes that are projected to occur within the forested area. The DRAINMOD section of
Response # 1.1 depicts the zone of wetland hydrology loss and degradation extending through the forested
area under existing conditions. The increase in wetland hydroperiods projected for this area after
restoration can be directly observed within the adjacent completed project at the same landscape position.
The wetland hydrology status in the forested area is certainly questionable under existing conditions
(possibly between 5% and 12.5%). However, post restoration conditions are projected to include areas of
inundation and hydroperiods ranging to 100% of the growing season (certainly a hydrology
enhancement).
Increasing hydroperiods are expected to induce mortality of tree species that did not historically occur
within wetland enhancement areas. The clearing and planting of strips through the existing pines and
sweet gum is intended primarily for re-introduction of cypress-tupelo swamp forest elements as these
invasive species die-off.
As a result, The proposed wetland enhancement area will sustain an increase in wetland hydroperiods
towards historic (pre-disturbance) conditions with concomitant restoration of the native wetland
community.
2.3 The Service does not understand the rationale for labeling some of the wetland restoration
as riverine. From the information provided, it appears that overbank flooding may be an
infrequent event. Obviously the restored wetland will be riparian, but riverine status is
questionable.
Please see comment # 1.7
3.0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
3.1 Restored hydrology at this site has the potential to adversely affect any newly planted
vegetation due to excessive flooding. A particular area of concern is the bottomland
hardwood restoration located adjacent to the swamp forest restoration at the North West
quadrant of the project. This area is shown as having the lowest elevation and should be
monitored closely in the first year to determine if supplemental plantings or a change in
vegetation type is needed.
We agree that this area designated as bottomland hardwood forest may become excessively inundated and
convert to swamp forest and/or emergent wetlands. The area is low for two reasons. The railroad
crossing of Bear Creek has caused greater turbulence during large floods immediately below the railroad
bridge. This increased turbulence, observed in 1999, has induced increased scour and reduced deposition
in this land area. Deposition of river sediments is concurrently greater in the downstream direction as
river flood waters approach the Washington Street bridge. The area is essentially a blow-hole that
deepens (relative to adjacent depositional areas) with each successive river flood.
The backwater slough is currently designed to transport riparian surface water flow down valley and away
from this low-lying area. Assuming that the only input into this area is riparian groundwater (subsurface
only, groundwater gradient analyses suggest that inundation will not occur except during large rainfall
events (>1.7 inch/24-hour event). Therefore, the area is currently mapped as bottomland hardwood.
However, if floods redirect the riparian surface water flows into this area, the system will likely be swamp
forest or emergent wetlands in the future.
4.0 Environmental Protection Agency
4.1 Why is the restoration of Bear Creek not being proposed. It has been channelized. Could it
be restored to a more natural configuration.
Restoration of Bear Creek was evaluated during project design. A flood frequency analysis was
performed to evaluate the potential for stream restoration relative to Federal Emergency Management Act
(FEMA) data. The analysis projected that a decrease in cross-sectional area and/or reduction in slope
would increase the 100-year floodway upstream, representing a hydrologic trespass. Based on the
preliminary analysis, more than 2 miles of river channel, associated tributaries, and floodplains would be
affected in the upstream direction (within the 51-square mile watershed).
The Bank sponsor has been an advocate for acquiring these river floodplains and potentially affected
tributaries, but the effort would require significant involvement by State and Federal agencies over time.
The river corridor is part of a Regional Drainage District and is regulated by FEMA. Even so, wetland
restoration on this site will provide significant environmental benefits because the floodplain continues to
provide functional benefits to overbank floods from the river. The river channel is aggrading as well.
4.2 The embankment controls and drainage control outlets are not natural, but the
embankments are small and the outlets temporary. Will the structures be removed after a
year or so. If not, when will the structures be removed.
The structures are temporary. The structures are intended to re-direct hydrodynamics towards reference
conditions until the cropland site is reforested (estimated at 10 to 20 years). Subsequently, vegetation
roughness will represent the primary factor controlling hydrodynamics (i.e. runoff rates). The structures
will eventually be eliminated by large river floods that modify the landscape over time (no active removal
is proposed).
4.4 Under Section 5.0, the mitigation plan should commit to monitoring groundwater daily.
Hydrological sampling will be performed by continuous recording groundwater gauge sets to record at
6:00am and 6:00pm on each day of the year.
4.5 Table 3, Section 8. EPA ratios and replacement credit columns should be deleted. The MBI
should state that in general, 2 credits are debited for every acre of impact.
5.0 North Carolina Division of Water Ouality
5.1 In the executive summary and monitoring plan, the plan states that monitoring will be
performed for 5 years or until success criteria are achieved. The statement should read,
"Monitoring will entail analysis of wetland hydrology, soil, and vegetation for at least 5
years or until success criteria are fulfilled".
The mitigation plan is herein modified to state that the site will be monitored from a minimum of five
years or until final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
5.2 The primary source of hydrology will be as result of precipitation and overland flow, not
riverine flooding. The DWQ recommends that additional analyses be performed to
determine the practicality of restoring the natural functioning stream and wetland system
that was historically located at this site.
As described in response # 1.7, The primary source for wetland hydrology in reference (relatively
undisturbed) riverine wetlands is the result of riparian surface water and ground water flow (not river
flooding). The river channel serves as a groundwater withdrawal feature (i.e. very large ditch) throughout
most of the year. The Sponsor contends that this site and the previously completed mitigation bank will
support "natural functioning" wetlands because riparian surface water and groundwater flow patterns are
designed to mimic the reference wetlands.
The feasibility of restoring a "natural functioning" stream along Bear Creek is addressed in Discussion
#4.1. In summary, Type 1 restoration on the major river (51-square mile watershed) will increase the 100-
year floodway several miles upstream of the project.
5.3 If design constraints preclude the restoration of Bear Creek (using Rosgen Priority 1
Restoration), then other stream restoration techniques might be available for the site that
will generate stream mitigation credits in addition to the wetland credits.
Based on reference wetlands, meandering ("stable") streams did not historically occur in these landscape
positions. Small' tributaries flowing into the river floodplain experience bed slopes of less than
.0001(and sometimes adverse grades). The tributaries flow into inundated backwater sloughs and
intermittent braided channels that flow towards the river. These braided channels are not confined within
a locally defined floodplain or valley and laterally migrate through unconsolidated, fluvial (fine)
sediments associated with the larger river floodplain. The location of sloughs and braids changes over
time. Therefore, meandering (stable) stream restoration has not been proposed because, as a carbon copy
method for restoration, E and C channels have not been found within the reference floodplains of larger
rivers in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
5.4 If no alterations are made to Bear Creek, the drainage effect created by the entrenched
stream will likely prevent the reestablishment of wetlands immediately adjacent to Bear
Creek. The drainage effect will persist for some unknown distance perpendicular from the
stream. .At-present, the plan assumes that all areas in the project site will revert to wetlands
including those immediately adjacent to Bear Creek. Using DrainMod (or other
appropriate models), please perform an analysis that predicts the anticipated drainage
effect of the entrenched stream and submit the information with future documentation.
'Small tributary is defined as supporting a watershed of less than 4 square miles
DRAINMOD was included in the original mitigation plan forwarded to the MBRT (Page 16-18 and Table
1). In addition, the mitigation plan does not assume that all areas in the project site will revert to wetlands
including those immediately adjacent to Bear Creek. The previously submitted DRAINMOD study
projects that 17 acres of land adjacent to Bear Creek will continue to be effectively drained. The relevant
text has been boiler plated as follows:
As depicted in Table 1, wetland losses predicted by DRAINMOD generally range from 200 to
400 feet from a ditch, dependent upon ditch depth. This zone of influence includes wetland
degradation below reference wetland hydroperiods (21 % to 34% of the growing season)
extending to 1000+ feet from the ditch. Without auxiliary inputs of surface or
groundwater, wetlands will continue to be drained for a zone extending
approximately 390 feet adjacent to the dredged, Bear Creek channel. Restoration
plans will be designed to divert surface water into a perennial source of
groundwater for this accelerated drainage area (Section 4.2). A backwater slough
will be established on the secondary floodplain that provides: 1) an elevated
groundwater gradient across the primary floodplain (in proximity to Bear Creek);
and 2) an estimated 0.5-year return interval for surface water flooding into the
primary floodplain. These auxiliary sources of groundwater recharge are predicted
to reduce the relatively steep groundwater gradient induced along Bear Creek,
providing for establishment of wetland hydroperiods in areas up to 50 feet from the
canal, dependent upon relative elevation and potential for ponding behind the levee.
Figure 9 shows that 17 acres of land will continue to be drained adjacent to Bear Creek
based on DRAINMOD (land area designated as upland buffer in Table 3: Mitigation
Credit).
5.5 In the event that stream restoration activities are not undertaken on Bear Creek, future
documentation and planning should consider the placement of cuts in the man-made levees
along Bear Creek to promote overbank flooding.
Based on the Bear Creek-Mill Branch project, lowering of the levee may provide a 95-year increase in
return interval relative to existing conditions. We concur that levee removal should be performed on this
project. The Sponsor will remove approximately 300 feet of levee below the rail-road bridge along the
northern project boundary.
5.6 The vegetation monitoring plan only requires the placement of two sample plots on the site.
The DWQ requests additional plots be placed to ensure 5% of the site is being monitored
for vegetative success.
The monitoring plan states that each plot will consist of two, 300-foot transects. The plan states that 16
plots will be established; one plot in each of the 16 monitoring quadrants depicted in Figure 10 (16 plots
or 32 transects total).
Each plot will provide two 300-foot transect samples extending through an average, 6-acre area. The 6-
acre quadrant (if square) would measure 511 feet by 511 feet. Therefore, the 600 feet of sample transect
will generally extend from one side of the quadrant to the other (diagonally). The Sponsor contends that
this sample method provides adequate data for vegetation success as already outlined in the mitigation
plan.
5.7 The proposed buffer restoration along Bear Creek is supported by the DWQ. However, the
plan should indicate that the buffers will be planted for a distance of 50 feet perpendicular
from Bear Creek. Moreover, and pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0242, the buffers should be
planted at a stem density of 680 stems per acre and shall be 320 stems per acre after five
years. Sampling plots should be established in the restored buffer areas.
As stated in the mitigation plan, the proposed riparian buffer will be planted at a stem density of 680
stems/acre. The wetland vegetation success criteria requires 320 stems/acre after three years, 290 stems
per acre after 4 years, and 260 stems per acre after 5 years.
The mitigation plan is herein modified to state that the vegetation success criteria for the riparian buffer
restoration area 50 feet perpendicular from Bear Creek requires 320 stems/acre after five years. Four
additional vegetation sampling plots will be established within the 50-foot buffer zone to monitor stem
survival. The vegetation plots will adhere to specifications established in the mitigation plan (two, 300-
foot transects at each plot)
5.8 Examination of the reference sites and an assessment of the site-specific data indicates that
the historic wetland hydroperiod of this site (at least portions of it) were greater than
12.5%. In addition, the plan proposes the creation of, and the generation of credit for
swamp hardwood wetlands. If these credits will be used to offset impacts for swamp
hardwood systems elsewhere, then the hydroperiod of the restored wetlands should be
commiserate with the impact sites. Therefore, the DWQ recommends the hydrologic
success criteria for the section of the site be restored as a swamp hardwood system, be
changed to have a hydroperiod greater than 12.5%. In addition, the use of the reference
sites, as pa rt of the success criteria, should be included.
See discussion # 1.6 above
5.9 Please provide a copy of the proposed conservation easement for the project site.
A copy of the executed conservation easement for Restoration Systems' adjacent Bear Creek - Mill
Branch Mitigation Bank is provided in Appendix B. This will be the basis of the Bear Creek - Sleepy
Creek easement.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project I Site: 5k
Applicant / Owner: fltrole? -- Sy r?^-t
Investigator: Date: / t e
County:
State: A/C.
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes< No Community ID: Sl=
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes Nom- Transect ID:
Plot ID: X-1
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Ae,, /'v 6rvrw• C- -M -C 9. x'Oc,.s ,'*Le ?aS ? Qck/"'

_
2. r-Q G /? C e 10. /?e l . ?- l/i i•t iw + /4i
aG?[f- 11. Lenictiw _?ao ??ico. ? ?

4. t'rKC 4,Ca(t? .•4-'c-

5. a a nu.M. -- W 0C ?
12. -flex Co. _? -0cc
-
13.
6. v 6 vt -SD- &C, 14.
7. MV6 0-906 C" 74
Z2Me Is.

1
8.vS _I 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). so
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Speci ar re not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
r`e+lain 'e
6vJe4- c.Iye o/G
J
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
KSaturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

?/?i'd?ofy u??? /2r?c/?iS o? Sw??tt Tee -' ?/• °J?'yro•?•'' rYaso.. ZbDL

0
16-
SOILS
Map Unit Name 1CACA Drainage Class• l&
(Ssries and Phase):_
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes. No
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
Profile MUL4otion: Mottle Colors Motile TexWre, Concretion:.
If?oeneAll IlAohtl e6.?nd?nwe/[!A! rg6t__ QM trw °f
Depth #Addx 11 Mao
1113022L- Horton a r b R 3 z ?-6 ?- 700 lC fir' `
o /oYz -? '
?' ?- Swop<<
2r2e?- D o 22 ?
Hydric Soil (Indicators:
V Hiatosol
Hiatic Epipedon
SuMdlc Odor
-KAquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Guyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis
Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
olkUsted on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes - No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydrlc Solis Present? Yes No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes-' No
Remarks: I,oestioa (describe) ' ed as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
rrsol ?p'wcCs ? ? i/?I° ? ? 5',?w.=7 >w'tar-.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: S?WV -r ?C

Applicant / Owner: o- f s
Investigator: M
O1
Date: /Z /Z
County:
State: Af
?-

Do normal circumstances exist-on the site? Yes 04- No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Community ID: s?
Transect ID:
Plot ID: CL-
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. .4c c,, eu rvrn C- lC,'(' 9.
2. &CX' s M F?Ck/ 10.
3. 10L acv. M C -' 11.
4. a a/.. _ A eQ? 12.
$ V-- h e#
5. ?o _ D'f 4 13.
_
6. f ?.?lcr.,? ?aaevtFt4 _? 14.
7. r u 6 vs s.OT _ 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). O
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Sp t are re not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
/C Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
.sC Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: rtG?y S? r' ?
ti.o•0??
I'Aa s o"
I -
P
7
t wG?cf Sur c. c t ?? Z? I1r ,Stws.... (.ate Lear
R,! "4
SOILS
Map Unit Name 64149?0 Dra#nage Class. v P P
(Series and Phase)Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped 'type? Yes f? No
Concretions.
pe oescriotlon: Mottle Colors Mottle' Texture.
Q....?....+ .rr
Depth cth (Mundt Colors W (M.nKdl MOM eWBABOGRG2111W .? -
(11121:111M a.ors -- - _ --
2- b Z Z p iC ? Z- /G. 6 N "^ 7a ?o !' arc t,.
pfi O l sT_
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
SuMdlc Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
- Gisyed or t ow-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis
Listed on Local Hydric Solis List
__,DUsted on National Hydric Soils List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: - O?s?r-Q'.* 'f r'e X 'a i Coot tl
re^44 11
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydropitytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
-?- Within a Wetland? Yes ? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soft Present? Yes __!S_ No
Remarks: Location (d if ied as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army corps of Faxgineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
/2,4,,4j? We4,; cd 4-q-44-4
' t
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: ve?? Date: ?2 2 L o 3
Applicant / Owner: s?••-rho-- r dent;
V
T
4 County: Le.?.ir
State: N G
1
L
Investigator: -
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: SF
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No K
N
m- Transect ID:
Plot ID: A 1-
o
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes
(explain on reverse if needed)
VgnPTOTION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. fi ce 0 C G
ROOS -ALL 0 L 0 5 C. G
2 9. AA mu oL ' i.%? G
10.5 n /o?? ' c M F?4 c
.
3.?Y ??1/K?rCsl t`w G 11.
--'?LteL 12.

a Jr c. ,Il C -
5.
6. u epred Cc, ? C-
13.
14.

8. Tax" F4 c. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). V
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Speciev-oTmare not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
l ???
•
d
?
' ?
. a
.»,
rt?
: Aso
appo x . Z•• ic.1< oAF o f Gum:l:,:?f-?- z
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other - Inundated
- _Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available - Water Marks
- Drift Lines .
Field Observations: - Sediment Deposits
- Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: _(in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) - Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: o D (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
?C FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
VA b s.?,kw4d s../ ?20 i.ic14r ev?w 75-a-7-AL eW-Ar
fan , F46/'44^41 Alo M&Y 200 2
?, a ?? ?? ?+ 2ao 3
SOILS
FMapU,omR prl?e Ph aR+a): ° Qrainage Class: (Subgroup): /, 4 -SqeConfirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Protlle Dsscriotlon•
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
lirfduasi Horiacn (Munsell MOW rYunsail Moisfi u SAMN Urs. etc.
p-2 O 1 oYR zf:- o R 3 z reMrjo . S•7???
2 -t D o a Z,
p to 2 a 544 trues < g#
Hydric Soil indicators:
1` Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon - High.Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Suifidic Odor Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
X Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Solis List
_ Reducing Conditions _Lrsbed on National Hydric Solis List
pL Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: /??
'?. /So r4 / LOSE of 0^? A.1 :C S 11 P4Y9 Sfa.FGiCr-
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No )e Within a Wetland? Yes No r?
Hydric Solis Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Location (describe) ' assified as a wetland based upon the criteria set fortis in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
1!4 C Project /Site:
-, WV _eali_
Applicant/ Owner: ,e i F b
Investigator: 4-IA1 l - Date: Z- zz .1
County: LPne; If
State: Af C

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes PC No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes NoiC
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No_,Q?_ Community ID: s?
Transect ID:
Plot ID: -2--
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.?jAJS c 9.
1
2. ?l?11(?uc ?e ?yr.d ?s/ra _?_ 'CAC 10.
3. ... 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). ADO
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Specie;( r4are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample prof was taken...
/./t,,,,/y dons?;?..??:_ 6 r?«l
r
?
? ... r
c v-- 1% ae --^ec S4.4zoo .
I.Ae-?1 dti....? o
HYDROLOGY
_C Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
X Other _ inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
-
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: _(in.) Secondary Indicators:

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

Depth to Saturated Soil: pan (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
X Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Mvu??+y S'v?Cat{
7,)e ?A( o4 Sa-4,m4•1 tat 16 t A"s
fwr.r/aac 41 r.-aL Z.tl0 'L
7'V'
.. .? .c
2-
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class:.?L .
(Series and Phase): cJ4`iKS?o.,
Corm Mapped Type? Yes 2 No
Taxonomy (Subgroup);
proNie [hescrirnion: Motile Colors mottle Texture, Concretions,
Depth Matrix Colore .y _
anchad Mo?inD1F ?,?nswll Molstl
--a / C lz 2 ice' l `•?Y?'
Hydric Soil indicators:
X Histoso)
X- Histic EpipedOn
_ SuMdic Odor
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
-+l-Gieyed or LOW-ChrOma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
organic Streaking M Sandy Soils
Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
,. Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
?? 6rr fvr?uct w9dr•'
5?7v1 y 6fs, t'wder,es%t fai rpaod rr of
WETLAND ? ? o., d ?"?*.^..l or•9?.? ? c.
DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No .L?
Hydric Solis Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Location (describe) iaAlLint lmIthed as a
Army Cotes of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
la4.-J ??kt?
is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes NO-Y--
based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
t
APPENDIX B
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Nov 18 03 04:44p Restoration Systems
6K1281PG072.7
9197559492
aARGA?ET S? Yt?.7Ur,
REGISTER ,-
LEN In r616 r
02AUG 30
This instnttnent prepared by and return to:
Dewey Mooring, Jr., Attorney at Law, PO Box 158, La Grange, NC 28551
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF LENOIR
35(03 0088
Tar Parcel ID# part of l01 ??
BEAR CREEK/MILL BRANCH
,MITIGATION BAND
PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT:
ELOISE H. CROOM & JAMES BRUCE CROOM
NVETLAND PRESERVATION TRACT
THIS C NSERVAT'ION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made this day
of 2002, by and between Restoration Systems, LLC, a North Carolina
limited bility company ("Grantor"), and North Carolina Coastal Land Trust ("Grantee"), a
North Carolina non-profit corporation, and approved by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers,
Wilmington District ("Third Party"),
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said patties, their
successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuteras required
by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and being in
Lenoir County, North Carolina, consistin?ty of 18.4 acres, more or less, as more particularly described
in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein ("the Property");
WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable nonprofit corporation whose purposes include the
preservation and conservation of natural areas, including wetlands, and is qualified to be the Grantee
of a conservation easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35,
p.2

Nov 18 03 04:44p Restoration Systems 9197559492 p.3
U 128 1 p0128
WHEREAS, Grantor desires to convey to the Grantee a conservation easement placing
certain limitations and affirmative obligations on the Property for the protection ofwetlands, scenic,
resource, environmental, and other values, and in order that the Property shall remain substantially
in its natural condition forever;
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain wetland and/or
riparian resources and other natural values of the Property, and prevent the use or development of
the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance of the
Property in. its natural condition.
WHEREAS, the preservation of the Property is required by a Mitigation Bank , Instrument
("MBI") for the Bear Creek/Mill Branch Mitigation Bank, Department of the Army Action ID
#199910581, which Mitigation Bank is intended to be used to compensate for unavoidable wetland
impacts authorized by permits issued by the Department of the Army and 401 Water Qualitv
Certifications issued by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and representations
contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys
unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the
nature and character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Property described in Exhibit A,
together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation values thereof, as follows:
AR I ICLE• .I
DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation Easement is an easement
in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor, Grantor's successors and
assigns, lessees, agents and licensees.
ARTICLE TI
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Property inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation
Easement is prohibited. The Property shall be preserved in its natural condition and restricted from
any development that Would impair or interfere with the conservation values of the Property.
Without limiting the generality ofthe foregoing, but subject to the rights reserved by Grantor
under Article Ill herein, the following activities and uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or
reserved as indicated hereunder:
A. General. Any activity on or use of the Property inconsistent with the purposes of
this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Property shall be preserved in its natural condition
Nov IS 03 04:44p Restoration Systems 9197559492 p.4
BK; 281 PGO129
and restricted from any use that would significantly impair or interfere with the conservation values
of the Property.
B. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Property or any introduction of non-native plants and/or
animal species is prohibited.
C. Construction. There shall be no constructing, erecting or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display, antenna, utility
pole, tower, conduit, tine, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or permanent structure or
facility on or above the Property.
D. New Roads There shall be no construction of new roads, trails, or walkways
except as pennitted in Article 111.
E. Utilities. There shall be no construction or placement of utilities or related
facilities
F. Pest Control. There shall be no application of pesticides or biological controls,
including for exotic vegetation, v,ithuut prior written approval from the Grantee.
G. industrial. Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial and,'or commercial
'al
activities, including any right of passage used in conjunction with commercial or indtstn activity,
are prohibited on the Property. Residential use of the Property is prohibited.
H. Agricultural Grazing and Horticultural Use. Aguicultural, grazing, and
horticultural use of the Property is prohibited.
I. Veszetation. There shall be no clearing, removal, burning, destruction, harming,
cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation on the Property, except as expressly
authorized by Article III herein.
J. SianaRe. No signs shali be permitted on or over the Property, except the posting of
no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation values of the Property, signs giving directions
or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Properh, and%or signs identifying the Grantor
as owner of the property and Grantee as the holder of the Conservation Easement on the Property.
K. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or hazardous waste, or
any placement of underground or aboveeround storage tanks or other materials on the Property is
prohibited.
L. Mineral Use, Excavation Dredging. There shall be no grading, tilling,
Nov 18 03 04:44p Restoration Systems 9197559492 p.5
8K1281pGi-130
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals or
other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any manner on the Property, except
to restore natural topography or drainage patterns.
M. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, purnping, impounding or related activities, or altering or
tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns, or impairing the flow or of waters wetlands within the
Property. In addition, diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of Surface or underground
water into, within or out of the Property by any means, removal of wetlands; and polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands is prohibited. Notwithstanding the above, both
Grantor and Grantee have the right, at their respective expense, to undertake such activities
consistent with the restoration of the property and are designed to maintain the natural drainage
patterns, hydrology, natural plant habitat or wetland values.
N. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered or
extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a transferable
development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or otherwise.
0. Vehicles The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt-bikes: all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited except on existing or
approved roadways.
P. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Property which is or may
become inconsistent with the purposes of this j ant, the preservation of the Property substantially in
its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is prohibited.
ARTICLE III
GRANTOR'S RESERVED RIGHTS
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its successors and
assigns, the following, Reserved Rights, which may be exercised upon providing prior written notice
to Grantee and to Third Party, except where expressly provided otherwise:
A. Forest Management. Clearing and management of timber by Grantor is allowed to
the extent necessary to post and fence the Property, or to protect the natural environment in areas
where the forest is damaged, or has the potential to be damaged, by natural forces such as hurricane,
flood, storm, tire, insects or infectious orooanisms. Such timber and debris clearing must be carried
out in a manner that will not adversely affect the natural condition of the Property, and shall be
subject to approval by the Grantee and Third Party.
R. Recreation. Grantor reserves the right to enQa,e in any and all outdoor
nu activities, Such as hunting and Fishing, irrcludithe leasing or licensing of same to
Nov 18 03 04:45p Restoration Systems 9197559492 p.6
BK 1281 PGO-13 I
private individuals, groups or the general public and the construction and maintenance of temporary
or permanent deer stands, provided that all such activities must be consistent with the continuing
natural condition of the Property and that all hunting leases must be approved by Grantee. No other
written notice to Grantee or Third Party is required.
C. Fences. Road Construction and Maintenance. Grantor reserves the right to fence
and post the Property, to maintain existing roads, trails or walkways and to construct and maintain
new roads, trails, walkways; provided, however, that no new roads may be constructed without the
prior written approval of Third Party.
D. Wild Turkey Habitat. Grantor reserves the right to work with qualified wildlife
resource organizations to implement a management plan to enhance and restore native wild turkey
population and habitat on the Property, which plan must be approved by the Grantee and Third Party
prior to being implemented.
E. Other Reserved Rights. Grantor reserves the right to engage in all acts or uses not
prohibited by the Restrictions, and which are not inconsistent with the conservation purposes of this
grant, the preservation of the Property substantially in its natural condition, and the protection of its
environmental systems, including, but not limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the Property,
the rights of ingress and egress, and the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Property,
in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms of, and
shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement, and the right to use the Property as part of
a wetland mitigation bank as approved in the MBI from which wetland mitigation credits are
produced and conveyed to other parties.
ARTICLE IV
GIZA.NTEE'S RIGH'CS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and Third-Party, shall have
the right to enter the Property at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting said property
to determine if the Grantor, its successors, or assigns, is complying with the terms, conditions,
restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation Easement. The Grantee shall also have the right
to enter and go upon the Property for purposes of making scientific or educational observations
and studies, and taking samples in such manner as will not disturb the quiet enjoyment of the
Property by Grantor. The easement rights granted herein do not include public access rights.
ARTICLE V
THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS
Grantor and Grantee agree that third-party rights of enforcement shall be held by Third Party
and that these rights are in addition to, and do not limit, the rights of the parties to the Mitigation
Banking Instrument.
Nov 18 03 04:45p Restoration Systems 9197559492 p.7
BK12- 81?G0332
ARTICLE VI
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee is allowed to prevent any activity
on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to require the
restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may be been damaged by such activity or
use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor that comes to the
attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor
shall have 30 days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If
the breach remains uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by
appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining
order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if the breach of the term of this Conservation Easement
is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this
Conservation Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances
damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate. The rights and
remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights
and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement. The costs of a
breach, correction or restoration, including the Grantee's expenses, court costs, and attorneys' fees,
shall be paid by Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach.
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision hereof shall
discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition, or provision hereof or affect
the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of a Subsequent breach or default.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle Grantee
to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the Property resulting from causes
beyond the Grantor's control, including, without limitation, Fire; Hood, storm, war, civil disturbance,
strike, acts of God or third parties, except Grantor's lessees or invitees; or from any prudent action
taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant
injury to life, damage to property or harm to the Property resulting from such causes.
ARTICLE V1I
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Title. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that Grantor is the sole owner and is
seized of the Property in fee simple and has good right to make, declare and impose the aforesaid
Conservation Easement; the Property is free and clear of any and all encumbrances, except the
foltowinR described easements leases, restrictions, and rights of way of record: (1) Taxes for the
year 2002, and subsequent years, not yet due and payable, (2) Title to that portion of the Property
lying below the mean liigh water mark of Meuse P.iver; (3) Riparian rights incident to ti:e Property;
(=4) Any matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey of the Property, and that Grantor
Nov 18 03 04:46p Restoration Systems 9197559492 p.8
M1281PG0733
will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all persons.
B. Subsequent Transfers. Grantor a, ees to incorporate the terms of this Conservation
Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any interest in all or a portion of the
Property. Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such transfer at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date of the transfer. Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement
shall survive any merger or the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereofand
shall not be amended, modified or terminated without the prior written consent and approval of
Third-Party.
C. Obligations of OwnershitJ. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments,
tees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the Property tree of any liens or other
encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or
liability of any kind related to the ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the
Property, except as expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the
exercise; of the Reserved Rights.
D. ExtirrTuishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the continued use
of the Property for the conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be extinguished,
in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.
E. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Property is taken in the exercise of eminent
domain so as to substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation Easement,
Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of such taking to recover the full
value of the taking, and all incidental and direct damages due to the taking.
F. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest immediately
vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of this Property is sold, exchanged, or
involuntarily converted following an extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee
shall be entitled to the fair market value of this Conservation Easement. The parties stipulate that the
fair market value of this Conservation Easement shall be determined by multiplying the fair market
value of the Property unencumbered by this Conservation Easement (minus any increase in value
after the date of this grant attributable to improvements) by the ratio of the value of this easement at
the time of this grant to the value of the Property (without deduction for the value of this
Conservation Easement) at the time of this grant. The values at the time of this grant shall be the
values used. or which evould have been used, to calculate a deduction for federal income tax
purposes, pursuant to Section M (h) of the Internal Revenue Code (whether eligible or ineligible for
such a deduction). Grantee shall use its share of the proceeds in a manner consistent with the
nu!rnnceS of this Conservation Easement.
G. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication required under
to the Conservation Easet=cent shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid,
Nov 18 03 04:46p Restoration Systems 9197559492 p.9
BK1281IG0734
following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter specified by notice pursuant to this
paragraph):
To Grantor:
Mr. George A. Howard
Restoration Systems, LLC
110.1 Haynes Street, Suite 203
Raleigh, NC 27604
Facsimile No.: [phone]
To Grantee:
Ms_ Camilla Herlevich
North Carolina Coastal Land Trust
3806-R Park Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Facsimile No.: [phone]
To Third Party:
Mr. David Lek-son
U.S. Army Corps of.Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Regulatory Field Office
107 Union Drive, Suite 202
Washington, NC 27859
Facsimile No_ [phone]
In any case where the terms of this Conservation Easement require the approval of any party or third
party, such consent shall be rezuested by written notice as described above. Such consent shall be
deemed to have been given 1Lithin forty-five (45) days after the recipient receives or refuses notice,
unless the party requesting consent has actually received or refused notice of disapproval.
1-1. Assn7m-nent. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation
Fasement are in gross and assignable, provided, however, that Grantee hereby covenants and arrccs,
that in the event it transters or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified g antee tinder N.C. Gen. Stat. ti 121-3'1 et seq. and § 170(h)ofthe Internal
Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terns of the transfer or
assignment wiI! be se:ch that ;lie transf;n:e or assigner; xvill be required to continue in pervetuily the
conservation purloses described in this document. Assignments shall be accomplished by
amendment of this Conservation Easement pursuant to Section VII K. below.
1. Entire; A,_!reement and Severabilitv. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the
Nov 18 03 04:46p Restoration Systems 9197559492
GK 128 ! PGO735
parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations,
understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be
void or unenforceable by a court of competent junsdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force
and effect.
J. Failure of Grantee. If at anv time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this Conservation
Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee under § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue
Code, and if within a reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee
fails to make an assignment pursuant to Section VII H., then the Grantee's interest shall become
vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate proceeding in a court of
competent jurisdiction.
K. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in awnting signed
by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not affect the qualification of this
Conservation Easement or the status oft he Grantee under any applicable laws, including § 170(h) of
the Internal Revenue Code, and is consistent with the conservation purposes of this grant.
L- Warranty. Grantor warrants that it owns the Property in fee simple, and that Grantor
either ovens all interests in the Property which may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation
Easement or that there are no outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in
the Property which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor
further warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and arising
out of this Conservation Easement.
M. Present Condition of the Property. The wetlands, scenic, resource, environmental, and
other natural characteristics of the Property, and its current use and state of improvement; are
described in Section 2. 1, Appendix B of the Mitigation Banking Instrument, dated May 2002,
prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and Grantee to be complete and accurate as
of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee have copies of this report. It will be used by the
parties to assure that any future changes in the use of the Property will be consistent with the terms
of this Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the use of other
evidence to establish the present condition of the Property if there is a controversy over its use.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Conservation Easement
on the date written above to be effective upon the date of recordation in the Lenoir County Registry.
Execution by Grantor
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, UC (SEAL)
a North Carolina limited liability company
p.10
Bv: (SEAL.)
Name: i /4-
?lit alter
Nov 18 03 04:47p Restoration Systems 9197559492 p.11
8K 1281 PC 0736
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I> Gzr-Notary Public ofthe County and State aforesaid,
certify that bY' p Manager of RESTOK-MON SYSTEMS, LLC, a
North Carolina limi d liability company, Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument on behalf of the limited liability company.
bVITNESS.:?, hand and official stamp or seal, this C! day of
?, - 2002.
A-D
. ,? _.
µ
%
R,
• c a
- Notary Public
My ckiQmion ex
s J; Q4E CO UDaosy'°
Execution by Grantee
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL LAND TRUST,
a North Caroliq#7non-py0corporation
Bv: l;i`
Attest:
, President
(Corporate Seal)
By: U
Camilla M. Herlevich. Assistant Secretary
.i 'A
%j? C;
Nov 18 03 04:47p Restoration Systems 9197559492
BK1281PG0?31
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF )jam ? ode y
!, & uc? ?21 ?Jvv z ss, , a Notary Public in and for said County and State do hereby
certify that Camilla M. Herlevich personally appeared before me this day and duly acknowledged
that she is the Assistant Secretary of NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL LAND TRUST, a North
Carolina corporation, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the Company, the foregoing
instrument was signed in its name by .I. Griffin Weld, its President, seated with its corporate seal and
attested by her as its Assistant Secretary.
c?
,W)T''NF-.5S my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of =? s 200?.
BONE
Notay Public
PUB0 2
%
ANOV
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COU-NNTY OF LENOIR
foregoing certificate{s} o
?nn --e -1 ,I
U
This 3 day of 2002.
C-0. 4
Notarid Public, are certified
p.12
Ke??ister c?Dee
gtc\c:'•,ml does\?p\re5tsys-nclndtrust esmt
Nov 18 03 04:48p Restoration Systems 9197559492 p.13
?1?{128iPGG X38
EXHIBIT "A"
Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot No. IC on the map hereinafter referred to, said
beginning point also being the northwest corner of Lot No. 4A on said map hereinafter referred to
and runs thence from said point ofbeginning in a general northeastwardly direction 554 feet to a stake
on the edge of Neuse River, said point being the northwest corner of Lot No. 2A on the map
hereinafter referred to; runs thence S. 34 deg. 15 min. W. 1,880 feet to a point; nuns thence N. 43
deg. 35 min. W. 386 feet to a spike driven in the center line of N. C. Road No. 1152; runs thence
along and with the center line of said N. C. Road No. 1152 N. 1 I deg. 50 min. E. 250.8 feet to
another spike in the center line of said road; runs thence N. 34 deg. 15 min. E_ 1,386 feet to the point
and place of beginning. And being Lot No. 4A on the J. R. Hardy, Sr. Division Map made by Kenneth
R. Noble, R. S., on May 29, 1968, and appearing of record in the Lenoir County Registry in Map
Book 13, Page 9, to which reference is hereby made for a more complete and accurate description.
The above described property is the same property conveyed to the Grantor herein by deed
recorded in Deed Book 1228, Page 638 in the Lenoir County Registry.
bcjlc:Iinydo&zp\mtsys eh&jbcroom 18.iu