20160372 Ver 2_Final Revised Mit Plan_7-27-18_20180727

MITIGATION PLAN
Stony Fork Restoration Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
DMS Project Number 97085
DMS Contract 6830
USACE AID SAW -2016-00875
DWR Project Number 2016-0372
FULL -DELIVERY PROJECT
Neuse River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03020201
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
July 27, 2018
Prepared by:
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
KCI Project Staff: Tim Morris, Alex French, Adam Spiller, Joe Sullivan, and Kristin Knight -Meng
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through
(c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
• NCAC Rule 15A NCAC 028.0295, effective November 1, 2015, for riparian buffer mitigation.
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
PROJECT INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1
2.0
WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION..........................................................................3
3.0
BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................6
3.1
Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions........................................................................6
3.1.1
Landscape Characteristics.....................................................................................................
6
3.1.2
Land Use/Land Cover and Chronology of Impacts................................................................
8
3.1.3
Watershed Disturbance and Response...............................................................................12
3.1.4
Site Photographs.................................................................................................................17
4.0
FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL..............................................................................................
20
5.0
MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.......................................................................21
6.0
DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN.................................................................22
6.1
Stony Fork(SF)..........................................................................................................................22
6.2
Tributary 1(T1).........................................................................................................................22
6.3
Tributary 2(T2).........................................................................................................................22
6.4
Tributary 3(T3).........................................................................................................................23
6.5
Riparian Buffer Mitigation........................................................................................................23
6.6
Crossings...................................................................................................................................23
6.7
Design Discharge Determination..............................................................................................24
6.8
Sediment...................................................................................................................................25
6.9
Morphological Essential Parameters Tables.............................................................................27
6.10
Planting.....................................................................................................................................30
6.11
Project Assets...........................................................................................................................31
7.0
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS....................................................................................................
35
8.0
MONITORING PLAN..................................................................................................................35
9.0
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN...............................................................................................39
10.0
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN...........................................................................................39
11.0
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................41
12.0
APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................43
12.1
Plan Sheets
12.2
Data Analysis/Supplemental Information and Maps
12.3
Buffer Mitigation Plan
12.4
Site Protection Instrument
12.5
Credit Release Schedule
12.6
Financial Assurance
12.7
DWR Stream Identification Forms
12.8
Approved Jurisdictional Determination
12.9
Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
12.10
Agency Correspondence
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Project Site Watershed Maps........................................................................................................4
Figure 3. Project Site / LWP Watershed Map...............................................................................................5
Figure4. Soil Survey Map..............................................................................................................................7
Figure 5. Land Use/Land Cover Map.............................................................................................................9
Figure6A. Historic Aerials...........................................................................................................................10
Figure6B. Historic Aerials...........................................................................................................................11
Figure 7. Current Conditions Plan View Map..............................................................................................16
Figure 8. Local Regional Curve for Stony Fork............................................................................................24
Figure9. Project Asset Map........................................................................................................................34
Figure 10. Proposed Monitoring Plan.........................................................................................................38
28
TABLES
Table1. Credit Summary...............................................................................................................................1
Table 2. Existing Stream Bank Height and Entrenchment Ratios...............................................................12
Table 3. Project Attribute Table..................................................................................................................14
Table 4. Project Goals, Objectives, and Functional Outcomes...................................................................21
Table 5. Local Regional Curve Data.............................................................................................................24
Table 6. Local XS Flow Compared to USGS Regression for North Carolina.................................................25
Table 7. Sediment Summary for Project Reaches.......................................................................................26
Table 8. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF1................................................................................27
Table 9. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF2................................................................................27
Table 10. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF3..............................................................................
28
Table 11. Morphological Essential Parameters for T1................................................................................
28
Table 12. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2-1.............................................................................
29
Table 13. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2-2.............................................................................
29
Table 14. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2-3.............................................................................30
Table 15. Morphological Essential Parameters for T3................................................................................30
Table16. Project Asset Table......................................................................................................................32
Table 17. Length and Summations by Mitigation Category........................................................................33
Table 18. Overall Assets Summary..............................................................................................................33
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Stony Fork Restoration Site (SFRS) is a full -delivery stream and riparian buffer mitigation project being
developed for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in the Neuse River Basin (03020201
8 -digit cataloging unit) in Johnston County, North Carolina. The site's natural hydrologic regime has been
substantially modified through the relocation and straightening of the existing stream channels and
clearing of riparian buffer. This site offers the chance to restore impacted agricultural lands to a stable
stream ecosystem with a functional riparian buffer and floodplain access.
The SFRS is situated in southwestern Johnston County. SFRS is located approximately 5.5 miles north of
Benson, NC in Johnston County. Specifically, the site is 0.2 mile west on Elevation Road from its
intersection with Federal Road (SR -1331). The center of the site is at approximately 35°26'55.0"N and
78°31'18.5"W in the Benson USGS Quadrangle. The site location is shown in Figure 1.
The SFRS will restore a stable stream ecosystem along Stony Fork and four of its tributaries (T1, T1A, T2,
and T3) with a combination of stream restoration and enhancement with primarily a Priority 1 approach
to reconnect the streams with an active floodplain. Riparian buffer restoration, enhancement, and
preservation under the Neuse Buffer Rule (NCAC Rule 15A NCAC 028.029) will also take place at the site.
Invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and kudzu (Pueraria lobata) will be both physically cleared and
chemically treated from the project site as part of the stream and buffer mitigation. Once site grading is
complete, the riparian buffer will be planted with native tree species. The site will be monitored for seven
years or until the success criteria are met.
Table 1. Credit Summary
Stony Fork Restoration Site, Johnston County
DMS Contract 6830; DMS Project Number 97085
Mitigation Credits
Non-
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
riparian
Buffer
Nutrient
Nutrient
R RE
Wetland
Offset
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Linear
6,405 If
405 If
450,285 sf
499,462 sf
Feet/Acres
Credits
6,405
181
425,434
54,904
TOTAL CREDITS
6,586
480,338
R=Restoration RE=Restoration Equivalent
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

NASH
WAKE
WILSON
Black
JOHNSTON
HARNETT AYNE
SAMPSON
BENSON
1�t'd
FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Project Site Location Major Roads + Airports (none within a 5 -mi radius) N 0 0.5 1
K C ICounty Boundary Minor Roads Major Rivers and Streams Miles
Q
ASsoCUTEES of NC Cities and Towns
2

2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The SFRS is located within the Upper Neuse River Basin (03020201), where population growth and rapid
development have produced a significant need for restoration projects. DMS updated the priorities for
the Neuse 01 cataloging unit (CU) in 2015 due to extensive mitigation needs and changes in watershed
conditions since the 2010 report. The project 14 -digit CU is included as a targeted local watershed (TLW),
which faces challenges such as a high percentage of agricultural land/animal operations, disturbed
riparian buffer, and increasing impervious surface from development. The amount of problems identified
were scored higher than the amount of assets available in the most recent 14 -digit CU ranking (NCDENR,
EEP 2015).
The Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities are maintaining and enhancing water quality, restoring
hydrology, and improving fish and wildlife habitat (NCEEP, 2010). The project will support the following
basin priorities:
- Managing stormwater runoff
- Improving/restoring riparian buffers
- Reducing sediment loading
- Improving stream stability
The project watershed for the SFRS is comprised of 0.79 square mile (497 acres). The project aims to
uphold the goals consistent with several CU -wide watershed improvement objectives by restoring stream
hydraulics, improving/restoring riparian buffers, improving stream stability and reducing sediment
loading (NCDENR, EEP 2010). Stony Fork (27-52-6-2) has been rated by Division of Water Resources (DWR)
as Class C, Nutrient Sensitive Waters, and is not on the 2016 303(d) list. However, Hannah Creek (27-52-
6a), 4.2 miles downstream of the site, is listed as impaired for dissolved oxygen. There are no other DMS
mitigation projects currently located in the 03020201150010 watershed cataloging unit. The project
watershed is shown in a map in Figure 2, and another map illustrating the project's watershed location in
relation to the 03020201150010 watershed identified in the TLW is shown in Figure 3.
There are no conservation or protected areas located adjacent to the project site, but it will connect with
the forested buffer immediately adjacent to the project and improve and restore the existing forested
buffer on the site itself. The site is approximately 4.5 miles upstream of the Hannah Creek Swamp Natural
Heritage Area.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

i V
,%X.XI
* =
a
..
C}opyr" ghY ©w2013 National Geographic Society, iJ ubed
FIGURE 2. PROJECT WATERSHED, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Proposed Streams N 0 1,000 2,000
Proposed Easement Feet
KCI
[=Project Watershed 497 ac Source: USGS DRG,
nssocinTes of I Benson Quad (1973).
4

L
HU
°} 03020201130030
Cw
�`�ck , Sw F. kKrll i d l%'Mo
GUST' Sw�m�
HU
03020201130020
Jrrnip.
r
a
cr
a
4 '
HU
0302020*150b20
V.
firmer Elk Rd
Creek
n k
Ir
�4
t
d
C�F .
y4h. 23: R Garrsst
i5 HU
0302027150030
�HU r � Q3
03000602b010 #�
F
u :r
t Sources: E ri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAOI NRS,oNRCAN` GeoBasqIGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, E Japan, METI, Esri China ('Hong Kong), swisstopo,
_ Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap co+nt'ributorslsand the GIS User Community
gyp,.
FIGURE 3. PROJECT SITE/LWP WATERSHED, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Proposed Easement Project N
QWatershed (497 ac) 14 -digit 0 1 2
KCI 0 HUC Boundaries HUC + Miles
AssoCArEs of Nc 77 03020201150010 (TLW)
5

3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions
3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics
The site lies within the Rolling Coastal Plain (Level IV 65m) ecoregion of the Southeastern Plains. The
Rolling Coastal Plain is mostly irregular plains with broad interstream areas and a mosaic of cropland,
pasture, woodland, and forest. While the natural vegetation was historically longleaf pine, oak -hickory
and mixed pine forests are more abundant now. The geology of this area is typified by Cretaceous or
Tertiary -age sands, silts and clays (Griffith et al 2002).
Many of the stream reaches have been ditched to a clay bottom and are overlaid with a sediment
transport regime of sand and small gravel. While gravel is the predominant bed material, sand is entering
the system from bank erosion both upstream and on-site. The floodplain for Stony Fork is unconfined in
most areas, although it is currently disconnected from the existing stream.
According to the Soil Survey of Johnston County, all of the project streams and floodplain areas are
underlain by Bibb sandy loam (Bb). The official Map Unit Name is Bibb sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded. These soils are poorly drained floodplain soils that are usually linear, associated with
streams, and frequently found along the toe of slopes. The soil survey for the project area is shown in
Figure 4.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
M

Bb - Bibb sandy loam, 0-2%
FaB - Faceville sandy loam, 2-6%
GeB - Gilead sandy loam, 2-8%
Ged - Gilead sandy loam, 8-15%
UcC - Uchee loamy coarse sand, 6-12%
r
Ffkl
_®
rf.
lli�ftl.
a ..1.0
FIGURE 4. NRCS SOIL SURVEY, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
N 0 500 1,000
NRCS Soil Survey Feet
KCIProposed Easement Source: NRCS Web Soil Survey;
ASSOCIATES of NC I Google Earth, 3/2018.
7

3.1.2 Land Use/Land Cover and Chronology of Impacts
The project watershed for the SFRS is comprised of 0.78 square mile (497 acres). Current land use in the
project watershed (Figure 5) was derived from the 2013 orthoimagery and consists of agriculture/open
space (53% / 262 ac), forest (31% / 150 ac), rural development (9% / 42 ac), residential (5% / 24 ac), and
roads/impervious (3%/ 13 ac), and water. The current adjacent land use has a negative impact on water
quality of the project streams. This is evidenced by direct run off from agricultural open space along parts
of the stream where there is no riparian buffer. The top of T2 will receive stormwater from a residential
development currently being constructed. Impervious surfaces within the project watershed include
Federal Road, which is immediately adjacent to the project, and 1-40, which is just 1,400 linear feet
upstream of the project. KCI's measurement of the total impervious area for the watershed is
approximately 5%, which is based on the land use delineated from the 2013 orthoimagery and based on
published average impervious values for land use categories (Center for Watershed Protection 2003).
Development pressure in the watershed is high as evidenced by the new development mentioned above
that is being constructed to the northeast and southeast of the project streams. The existing ponds above
T2 will remain and be incorporated into the stormwater system of the new development. A new aluminum
arched culvert will be installed across Stony Fork to access the southeastern part of the development and
will be incorporated into our project design in the existing easement exception.
The SFRS has undergone significant modifications that have altered the site hydrology and vegetation.
Historic aerials were examined for any information about how the site has changed over recent history.
Historic aerials were obtained from the NRCS, USGS EarthExplorer, and Google Earth for 1938, 1949, 1960,
1972, 1980, 1998, 2005, and 2013. Selected historic aerials are presented in Figures 6A and 6B.
The site was systematically impacted over the twentieth century with channelization and clearing. In the
earliest aerial photo from 1938, the upstream part of the project appears forested, but the channel is
straight, indicating that it had been ditched prior to this photo. Also, the nearby Federal Road is on a
different alignment, which suggests that when it was realigned to its current position, there may have
been further manipulation of Stony Fork. The ponds upstream of T2 had not been built yet in this photo.
Additionally, the portion of Stony Fork that currently flows through an existing dense stand of kudzu is
flowing south of that area. In the 1949 aerial, there has been more clearing along the periphery of the
project area and the straightened streams are easily identifiable throughout the site. Stony Fork at the
downstream end of the project has been ditched between two fields.
In 1960, there was more clearing just downstream of Federal Road. This cleared field borders the ditched
portion of Stony Fork to the north. Also, the ponds upstream of T2 have been built by this point. In the
1972 aerial, some fields south of the project have reforested, and other areas north of the project that
have been cleared. The 1980 aerial looks similar to the previous aerial, with some minor changes to the
clearing limits. By 1998, there has been extensive clearing throughout the middle of the project along the
southeastern side of Stony Fork. Also, the previously cleared fields on the north side of Stony Fork at the
downstream end of the project have revegetated. The 2006 aerial looks similar to conditions today. The
area of Stony Fork around T1 has been cleared and is revegetating, likely with the kudzu present today,
and the previously large cleared area that appeared in the 1998 photo has been planted with loblolly pine.
The most recent aerial (2013) shows the rows of pine trees in the plantation and area of kudzu around T1.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
W

L
1938 P = rr ��
1949
• �r
1 �B4 • & X
C. B 66
A '711,
1
z,
1960
1972
1
1
FIGURE 6A. HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Proposed Easement (24.4 ac) N 0 1,000 2,000
+ Feet
KCIImage
Sources: Johnston County NRCS; USGS Earth Explorer.
ASSOCIATES OF NC
10

1980 1993
1 1
NCCGIA
;; 2005 2013
i
Mimedi
NCCGIA NC 6GIA
FIGURE 6B. HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Proposed Easement (24.4 ac) N 0 1,000 2,000
KCIImage Sources: USGS Earth Explorer, Johnston County Orthoimagery; NC OneMap. + Feet
ASSOCIATES OF NC
11

3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response
The project has experienced significant landscape and vegetative modifications to allow for agriculture
and timber management along the project streams of Stony Fork (SF), Tributary 1 (T1), Tributary 1A (T1A),
Tributary 2 (T2), and Tributary 3 (T3). The measured bank height ratios along the project streams are all
greater than 1.5 and the reaches have been altered through channelization as seen in Table 2. Additional
existing conditions data are included in Section 12.2.
Table 2. Existing Stream Bank Height and Entrenchment Ratios
Stream
Existing Bank Height Ratio
Existing Entrenchment Ratio
SF
1.6-2.9
1.2-1.5
T1
4.5
1.3
T2
1.5-4.1
1.3-5.4
The primary hydrologic feature at the site is SF, which has been impacted by channelization and riparian
vegetation removal or alteration. This stream enters the projects from a 48" -diameter concrete pipe from
under Federal Road. SF flows in a general west to east direction until flowing off of the project site. The
first 450 linear feet (If) are incised with steep vertical banks, a narrow channel, and intermittent headcuts.
The channel likely was relocated, because there is no existing floodplain connection. The canopy is mostly
composed of a dense midstory of invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
After about 450 If, SF begins to flow northeast; the condition changes, and the channel becomes less
incised and wider. A distinct floodplain is not actively connected to the existing channel, but is present in
this landscape position. However, the channel is still narrower than a natural system and the banks are
vertical. Chinese Privet and kudzu dominate the riparian buffer. Downstream of this point, SF channel has
been mechanically ditched in the past.
After the confluence with T2, SF continues to flow northeast until it comes along a field edge. Similar to
most other parts of SF on this project, the stream is not in the correct position in the valley and is
disconnected from the former floodplain. In some instances, the channel has one dramatically higher
bank, while the other bank is significantly lower. This is evidence of the channel having been moved to its
current location to the side of the valley. The stream continues to flow in this condition off of the project
site to the southeast.
T1 flows north to south before flowing into SF. The stream originates from one distinct seep/spring in the
hillslope to the north of SF and receives additional hydrology from degraded seeps (including T1A) at the
base of the slope to the east of T1 that are currently impacted by vegetation removal and land clearing.
This tributary has been moved out of the natural position in the low point of the valley to the base of the
slope to drain the seepage from the hill slope. The riparian buffer is currently a monoculture of kudzu.
T2 begins at a headcut and is bordered by a narrow buffer of brush and trees before it meets the wood
line. Upstream land clearing, agriculture, and farm ponds have altered the hydrologic regime of the stream
and caused the tributary to become unstable. After the wood line, there are several small headcuts, and
after a larger headcut 345 feet into the wood line, the stream becomes more incised as it flows southeast
to its confluence with SF. This lower portion of T2 is disconnected from its historic floodplain.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
12

T3 is a seep -driven stream that flows north to south until it meets SF approximately 160 linear feet
downstream of the beginning of the project. The first 125 linear feet of T3 are channelized, but with
mature trees scattered along the stream, stabilizing portions of the banks. After this point, the flow enters
a breached pond bed with accumulated sediment for an estimated 50 feet of flow length. Although the
pond has been breached, the majority of the former dam is still in place. T3 exits the former pond to join
SF at a location against the valley grade.
The riparian areas at the SFRS has been colonized by a dense layer of invasive Chinese privet, especially
along SF. In addition, kudzu dominates the middle portion of SF and T1. There is existing native forested
buffer near the bottom of SF and at the outer margins of the easement, which consists of tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak (Quercus alba), American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Additional details regarding the
extent of the invasive species in the riparian areas at SFRS are included in the Buffer Mitigation Plan in
Section 12.3.
Ajurisdictional determination was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers on July 12, 2016 and was
approved July 13, 2016. The approved jurisdictional determination is included in Section 12.7. NC Division
of Water Resources also provided a stream determination on July 8, 2016, which is provided in Section
12.3 in the appendices. An updated site assessment of the stream buffer along T2-2 was completed by
DWR on March 29, 2018 and is included in the appendices as well.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
13

Table 3. Project Attribute Table
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
County
Johnston County
Project Area (acres)
24.4 ac
Project Coordinates (lat. and
35°26'55.0"N, 78°31'18.5"W
long.)
Planted Acreage (Acres of
Woody Stems Planted)
12.1
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03020201150010
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
497 acres
Project Drainage Area
5%
Percentage of Impervious Area
Managed Herbaceous Cover 53% (262 ac), Mixed Hardwoods/Conifers 31% (150 ac), Low
CGIA Land Use Classification
Density Developed 9% (42 ac),
Medium Density Residential 5% (24 ac),
Transportation/Impervious 3%
(13 ac)
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Stony Fork
T1
and T1A
T2
T3
Length of reach (linear feet)
3,141
412
1,433
154
Valley Confinement
Unconfined
Confined
Confined, then
Unconfined
unconfined
Drainage area (acres)
497 acres
12 acres
150 acres
29 acres
Perennial, Intermittent,
Intermittent/
Ephemeral
Intermittent
Intermittent
Perennial
Intermittent
NCDWQ Water Quality
Classification
C; NSW
C; NSW
C; NSW
C; NSW
Rosgen Classification
(Existing/Proposed)
G4c
G4
G4
G4
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
Channelized, Stage III
Channelized, Stage
Channelized, Stage
III
Modified with pond,
III
Stage III
FEMA classification
None
None
None
None
Existing Wetland Summary
Information
Parameters
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.33 (WA and WE)
0.06 (WB)
0.14 (WC and WF)
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Bottomland Hardwood
Non
-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Forest
Mapped Soil Series
Gilead sandy loam
Bibb sandy loam
Bibb sandy loam
Drainage class
Moderately Well Drained
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non -Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Surface Water
Stream Floodplain
Stream Floodplain
Restoration or Enhancement
N/A
N/A
N/A
Method
"Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix.
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
14
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

Table 3, continued
Regulatory Considerations
Supporting
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Documentation
Waters of the United States —
Applying for
Yes
JD has been obtained.
Section 404
NWP 27
Waters of the United States —
Applying for
Yes
Section 401
NWP 27
Endangered Species Act**
Yes
Yes
USFWS
Historic Preservation Act**
No
Yes
NCSHPO
Coastal Zone Management Act **
(CZMA)/ Coastal Area
No
N/A
N/A
Management Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
Yes
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat**
No
N/A
N/A
**Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix.
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
15
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

t r
,y
' T2 WF
e
XS8
:. ,,TR
y� L.
k s
XS9 1
s
XS5 X$6
r
WA .: XS4
T1A
,, x
a WB. XV # '
121
34 ,�_ tr. XS3
wc
Start Stony Fork - -
;fZLM:

3.1.4 Site Photographs
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
17

.r��-- F' -v X.' -'i`4. 1?''�-i `" .'... i 9i
3.

_ �' _ `.;'If'. yQ-y" :11'x''• - _ _ _(' = {�• r:
� • --� .�- ���;� r,r�_ �.� ��_^ �# - F '=,�`" `erg „r�.� =1 �y�

4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
Based on the current stream and watershed conditions at the SFRS, there is a high potential for functional
improvements at this site. Channelization, incision, riparian vegetation removal, and invasive species
monocultures have resulted in a local system with lack of floodplain connectivity, high shear stress,
minimal bedform variation, and high amounts of sediment inputs from bank erosion and a degraded
riparian buffer.
The primary uplift for the SFRS will be achieved at the hydraulic and geomorphological functional levels.
Reestablishing floodplain connectivity with a Priority 1 Restoration will allow stream flows to access the
floodprone area more frequently, providing uplift of hydraulic functions within this system that will
distribute flood flows through a wide area instead of within a confined channel. Geomorphological
functional uplift will be achieved through channels sized to the bankfull flow, a planform and profile design
emphasizing bedform variation, and the reestablishment of a native riparian corridor with invasive species
removed. As a result, bank migration and lateral stability will be restored to a sustainable level and the
banks and bed will accommodate design flows in a stable manner. Sediment inputs will decrease due to
reduced bank erosion and sediment transport can return to a stable level that will accommodate
watershed inputs. Riparian plantings will further support geomorphological functionality by increasing
bank stability.
Consideration of future impacts to the area that could limit functional uplift opportunities is important
when assessing project potential. The upstream watershed is agricultural, but the vicinity is experiencing
development pressure. A new residential development is being constructed to the northeast and
southeast of the project. The project streams are sized such that the floodprone areas will accommodate
changes in hydrology as needed. The table below summarizes the project goals and objectives that will
lead to functional improvements and the monitoring tools that will be used to track these changes to the
site.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
20

5.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Table 4. Project Goals, Objectives, and Functional Outcomes
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
21
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085
Function -Based Parameter
Monitoring
Goals
Objective
Functional Level
Effects
Measurement Tool
Flood Frequency
Relocate streams to
a meandering
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio and
landscape position
Entrenchment Ratio
Restore an incised
Cross -Sectional
stream to a stable
Install a cross
Bank Migration/Lateral
Survey
stream system with
section sized to the
Geomorphology
Stability
an active floodplain
bankfull discharge
Visual Inspection of
Bank Stability
Create bedform
Percent Riffle and
diversity with pools,
Pool
riffles, and habitat
Geomorphology
Bed Form Diversity
structures
Visual Inspection of
Feature Maintenance
Treat invasive plant
Density
Restore a forested
populations and
riparian buffer to
plant the site with
Geomorphology
Vegetation
provide bank
native trees and
stability and shading
shrubs.
Species
p
Composition/Diversity
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
21
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

6.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
The project streams were designed using a modified reference reach approach using a local regional curve
developed from stable reference cross-sections (see Section 12.2 for reference data). In addition to the
data from the on-site references, common reference values from Harmon et al. 2011 were also used to
aid the development of the design criteria. The proposed channel design values have been adjusted as
necessary to fit the existing site conditions based on these sources. Stable pattern data were taken from
the UT Fisher River reference in Surry County as needed.
6.1 Stony Fork (SF)
Stony Fork will be broken into three separate reaches: Stony Fork Reach 1(SF1) from the western edge of
the project until the confluence with T1, Reach 2 (SF2) from SF1 until the confluence with T2, and Reach
3 (SF3) from SF2 until the end of the project. The first reach, SF1, begins at the culvert under Federal Road
and is 1,155 linear feet. Since the elevation of this reach is controlled by this culvert, this reach will be a
transition part of the project where the design will follow more of a Priority 2 approach. The design will
raise the channel elevation to match the channel grade with the invert of the culvert. In the lower third
of this reach, the channel will be meandered to the south of its current location and into the former
floodplain location. Invasive privet, which is extensive throughout Reach 1, will be removed from the
buffer.
From the T1 confluence, SF2 will continue with Priority 1 restoration down the valley in the historic
floodplain location. This is the longest reach on Stony Fork at 2,707 linear feet. The first half of this reach
has a narrower valley width and as a result, the proposed stream will follow along the general path of the
existing channel, while increasing the sinuosity and raising the bed elevation. The second half of this reach
will be relocated to the north of the existing channel where the valley is broader. Every effort will be made
to work around trees in this area that can provide shade to the restored stream.
After the confluence with T2, SF3 will continue to be restored by moving the stream back to the relic
floodplain in the center of the valley. The proposed stream (624 linear feet) will remain to the north of
the existing channel before tying back into the existing thalweg at the end of the project. The stream will
be remeandered around significant trees that will provide shade to the restored channel. The project
crediting will end at Station 56+04 approximately 26 If below the last crossing due to limitations of the
buffer width, but the stream will be improved until the end of the project easement and property line for
another 70 If.
6.2 Tributary 1 (T1)
T1 will be restored using a Priority 1 approach for approximately 510 linear feet. The design will move the
channel west to its historic floodplain away from the toe of the hill slope. The stream will originate from
the primary spring/seep that emerges from the base of the hill and provides the hydrology for the stream.
T1 will then join Stony Fork to the west of the current location of the confluence. In addition, 159 linear
feet of T1A, which is fed by seep flow, will be redeveloped through restoration.
6.3 Tributary 2 (T2)
T2 has been divided into three reaches: T2-1 (334 linear feet of Ell), T2-2 (337 linear feet of restoration),
and T2-3 (885 linear feet of restoration). Enhancement II for T2-1 will involve installing a step pool to
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
22

stabilize a headcut, planting the riparian buffer with native vegetation, and removing and controlling
invasive vegetation within the easement. T2-2 begins where several headcuts cause the stream to rapidly
incise. The restoration will maintain the landscape position of the stream, but add appropriate sinuosity
and restore the streambed morphology by raising the elevation of the streambed to regain floodplain
connection. T2-3 will continue this approach, but with a larger cross-section to accommodate additional
drainage area.
6.4 Tributary 3 (T3)
T3 has been divided into two reaches: T3-1 (71 linear feet of Enhancement 1) and T3-2 (58 linear feet of
restoration). The top reach will be enhanced along its existing planform up until the pond bed. After this
point, T3-2 will be restored by constructing a stable channel and eliminating spoil piles in this area.
6.5 Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Riparian buffer mitigation will take place across the site in the form of restoration (450,285 sf / 425,434
credits), enhancement (74,802 sf / 37,401 credits), and preservation (424,660 sf / 17,503 credits) and
adhering to the Neuse Buffer Rule (NCAC Rule 15A NCAC 02B.029). The preservation area has been limited
to 25% of the total area for crediting purposes as mandated by the rule, but uncredited preservation areas
will still be protected as part of the conservation easement. See Section 12.3 for the Buffer Mitigation
Plan, including calculations and maps.
6.6 Crossings
There are three easement exceptions for crossings on Stony Fork. The first culvert will be installed as part
of the current development being constructed to the southeast of the site. The second crossing will be a
rock ford crossing; this landowner will use this crossing infrequently and there are no livestock in this area.
The third crossing is an existing culvert pipe that will stay in place.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
23

6.7 Design Discharge Determination
KCI developed the design discharge values for the proposed streams by using four stable reference cross-
sections located in the vicinity of the project: two on-site (Ref XS1 and 4) and two downstream (Ref XS 2
and 3) from the project on Stony Fork (see Section 12.2 for locations and cross-sectional data). In
comparison to other impaired portions of the site, these four reference cross-sections have stable bankfull
features that allowed for the cross-sectional area and discharge to be linked to the drainage area. Based
on these values, we developed a local regional curve using these cross-sections. The rural Piedmont
regional curves were used to as a comparison for the on-site relationships (Harman et al 1999) (although
the site is in the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont curve was deemed more suitable based on the watershed's
characteristics). The local curve showed a linear power relationship lower than the Piedmont curve as
shown in Figure 8 and Table 5 below (Reference Cross -Sections 2 and 3 have similar drainage areas, and
appear as one data point on the curve).
10,000
•
1,000 •r'
• • Y = 89.039xo.7223
v R2 = 0.9069
on
� 100 .,�•'' •
N
o .r•
f••••0 7535
Y = 58.915x
10 R2 = 0.9997
1
0.1
1
10
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
Figure 8. Local Regional Curve for Stony Fork
Table 5. Local Regional Curve Data
100
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
24
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085
XS Area
Q (cfs)from
Drainage Area
Reference XS
Estimate (sf)
Q (cfs)
Cross -Section Location
Piedmont
(Sq. Miles)
Area (sf)
from Piedmont
from Ref XS
Regional Curve
Regional Curve
R
Onsite T1
(Ref XS 4)
0.23
5.0
7.9
19.5
30.9
Stony Fork Upstream
(Ref XS 1)
0.41
9.3
11.7
30.0
46.9
Onsite Stony Fork
(Ref XS 2)
0.84
17.0
19.0
51.2
78.5
Stony Fork Downstream
(Ref XS 3)
0.84
24.8
19.0
52.2
78.5
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
24
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

To further evaluate the field measurements taken within the project, we compared the flow results for
the four cross-sections to two different hydrologic methods. First, we compared our results to the 2 -year
recurrence interval flow calculations using the USGS Rural Peak -Flow Regression Equations for North
Carolina in the USGS National Streamflow Statistics Program (USGS 2016). Bankfull values in the North
Carolina Piedmont average a 1.4 -year recurrence interval (Harman et al. 1999), and as such should be
lower than the 2 -year recurrence interval USGS values. Our field results are lower than the USGS values
as expected. The effective discharge equation for a 1.2 recurrence interval for the Southeastern Plains
Ecoregion (Simon et al. 2004) was also used as a comparison tool; in general, the Q1.2 values are close in
range to the reference cross-section flow values. This comparison shows that our field calculations are
within the range of other established discharge estimates. In addition to the field -acquired reference data,
we also used common reference values from Harman et al. 2011 as mentioned previously.
Table 6. Local XS Flow Compared to USGS Regression for North Carolina
1. Calculated using field bankfull dimensions and Manning's formula.
2. Calculated using USGS NSS, North Carolina Region 4 Equations assuming impervious percentage of 5%.
3. Simon et al. 2004 equation for Southeastern Plains (Ecoregion 65) for 1.2 Recurrence Interval.
6.8 Sediment
The on-site streams have sediment with a mixture of small gravel and sand. The project streams have a
silt/clay bed underneath the active sediment where excessive shear stresses from the confined channels
have removed existing bed material and created an unstable condition.
In order to analyze the existing sediment conditions within the project streams, two pavement samples
and nine pebble counts were performed for trend analysis. These data are provided in Section 12.2. Based
on the existing conditions data, the project sediment sizes range from sand up to small gravels. Bank
erosion is currently contributing excess sand to the system. Following project completion, the amount of
sand being contributed from on-site erosion is expected to decrease. However, a sand component is still
anticipated for the sediment regime given that upstream agriculture and development will continue in
the upper watershed and move through Stony Fork.
Based on the collected sediment and cross-section data, shear stress values were calculated using both
average channel boundary shear stress and a modified critical shear stress (USDA, Forest Service 2008).
The modified shear stress was calculated using the D84 values from field samples and compared to the
average channel boundary shear stress based on the existing and proposed channel dimensions and
slopes. The results are shown in the table below.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
25
Drainage
Field
USGS
USGS Regression
USGS Regression
Effective
Cross -Section
Area (Sq.
Q
Regression 2-
Low Prediction
High Prediction
Discharge' (cfs)
Location
Miles)
(cfs)'
year Q (cfs)Z
(cfs)
(cfs)
Onsite T1 (Ref XS 4)
0.23
19.5
32.5
14.8
71.4
18.0
Stony Fork
Upstream (Ref XS 1)
0.41
30
45.7
20.9
99.0
26.8
Onsite Stony Fork
(Ref XS 2)
0.84
51.2
69.9
32.1
152
43.8
Stony Fork
Downstream
0.84
52.2
69.9
32.1
152
43.8
(Ref XS 3)
1. Calculated using field bankfull dimensions and Manning's formula.
2. Calculated using USGS NSS, North Carolina Region 4 Equations assuming impervious percentage of 5%.
3. Simon et al. 2004 equation for Southeastern Plains (Ecoregion 65) for 1.2 Recurrence Interval.
6.8 Sediment
The on-site streams have sediment with a mixture of small gravel and sand. The project streams have a
silt/clay bed underneath the active sediment where excessive shear stresses from the confined channels
have removed existing bed material and created an unstable condition.
In order to analyze the existing sediment conditions within the project streams, two pavement samples
and nine pebble counts were performed for trend analysis. These data are provided in Section 12.2. Based
on the existing conditions data, the project sediment sizes range from sand up to small gravels. Bank
erosion is currently contributing excess sand to the system. Following project completion, the amount of
sand being contributed from on-site erosion is expected to decrease. However, a sand component is still
anticipated for the sediment regime given that upstream agriculture and development will continue in
the upper watershed and move through Stony Fork.
Based on the collected sediment and cross-section data, shear stress values were calculated using both
average channel boundary shear stress and a modified critical shear stress (USDA, Forest Service 2008).
The modified shear stress was calculated using the D84 values from field samples and compared to the
average channel boundary shear stress based on the existing and proposed channel dimensions and
slopes. The results are shown in the table below.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
25

Table 7. Sediment Summary for Project Reaches
XS
Reach
Avg Shear
Stress (Ib/sf)
D50
(mm)
D84
(mm)
Sample
Type
Modif.
Critical Shear
Stress (Ib/sf)
Predicted Grain
Size Movement
(mm)
Existing
XS1 SF1
0.45
2.2
7.5
PC
0.042
Existing
XS2 SF2
0.42
0.57
8
PC
0.015
Existing
XS3 SF2
0.49
0.062
4.7
PC
0.007
Existing
XS4 SF2
0.40
0.093
0.14
PC
0.001
Existing
XS5 SF2
0.47
4.1
12
PC
0.080
Existing
XS6 SF3
0.39
8.3
12
PC
0.137
Existing
XS7 T1
0.54
0.062
0.062
PC
0.001
Existing
XS8 T2-2
0.60
0.062
0.062
PC
0.001
Existing
XS9 T2-3
1.00
0.21
2
PC
0.005
Proposed
SF1
0.39
2.2
7.5
PC
0.042
29
Proposed
SF2
0.40
0.57
8
PC
0.015
30
Proposed
SF3
0.45
8.3
12
PC
0.137
34
Proposed
T1
0.45
0.062
0.062
PC
0.001
34
Proposed
T2-1
0.27
0.062
0.062
PC
0.001
20
Proposed
T2-2
0.41
0.062
0.062
PC
0.001
31
Proposed
T2-3
0.43
0.21
2
PC
0.005
32
Based on the calculated average channel boundary shear stress for the proposed channels, the stream
will have adequate stream power to transport the existing D84 material as shown by the critical shear
stress values. Due to the small size of existing site sediment, the average channel boundary shear stress
is higher than that needed to move the existing D84 (critical shear stress). While we do anticipate that
native small gravels and sand will move into the restored reaches, the results indicate the need for riffle
reinforcement to protect the newly constructed riffles from excessive scour. Proposed riffle grade control
structures have been designed with a mix of Class A, B, and 1 stone with 10% ABC stone; Class A (the
smallest among Classes A, B, and 1) has a modified critical shear stress that is large enough to withstand
all of the predicted average channel boundary stresses. The last column in the table above provides a
predicted grain size that will move at the calculated modified critical shear stress for the proposed
channel. The largest grain size predicted to be mobilized is 34 mm (1.3 inches). Given the mix of the
constructed riffle, 106 mm equates to the midrange of the Class A Stone (approximately 4 in.). It can be
expected that approximately 85% of the constructed riffle stone will be greater than this diameter.
Additionally, our experience has revealed minimal movement of constructed riffle material when it is well
mixed and placed in the stream bed in similar design conditions.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
26

6.9 Morphological Essential Parameters Tables
Table 8. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF1
Parameter
Valley Width (ft)
Existing Condition
90-210
Reference Condition
Proposed
90-210
N/A
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
175
Variable
175
Channel/Reach Classification
G4c
C4
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
7.2
N/A
9.7
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.9
N/A
0.7
Design Discharge Area (ft')
6.4
N/A
7.0
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
3.5
N/A
3.2
Design Discharge (cfs)
22
N/A
23
Water Surface Slope
0.009
N/A
0.009
Sinuosity
1.3
1.2-1.4
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
8.1
10-15
13.5
Bank Height Ratio
2.9
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
2.5+
10.3
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
0.15/1.2/2.2/7.5/11/-0.4/7.1
Gravel
Gravel
Table 9. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF2
Parameter
Valley Width (ft)
Existing Condition
45-130
Reference Condition
Proposed
45-130
N/A
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
264
Variable
264
Channel/Reach Classification
G4c-G5c
C4
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
5-10
N/A
11.3
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
1.0-1.4
N/A
0.8
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
6.9-8.9
N/A
9.4
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
3.3-3.8
N/A
3.2
Design Discharge (cfs)
24-30
N/A
30
Water Surface Slope
0.008
N/A
0.008
Sinuosity
1.1
1.2-1.4
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
3.7-11.2
10-15
13.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.6-2.1
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4-1.5
2.5+
8.8
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
0.33/0.61/1.2/6.2/9.8/0.3/5.5
Gravel
Gravel
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
27
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

Table 10. Morphological Essential Parameters for SF3
Parameter
Valley Width (ft)
Existing Condition
180-230
Reference Condition
Proposed
180-230
N/A
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
497
Variable
497
Channel/Reach Classification
G4c
C4
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
10.5
N/A
12.6
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
1.2
N/A
0.9
Design Discharge Area (ft')
12.5
N/A
11.8
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
3.4
N/A
3.6
Design Discharge (cfs)
42
N/A
43
Water Surface Slope
0.006
N/A
0.008
Sinuosity
1.1
1.2-1.4
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
8.9
10-15
13.5
Bank Height Ratio
2.0
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1,4
2.5+
7.9
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
1.1/6.0/8.3/12/15/-0.7/3.3
Gravel
Gravel
Table 11. Morphological Essential Parameters for T1
Parameter
Valley Width (ft)
Existing Condition
40-70
Reference Condition
Proposed
40-70
N/A
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
12
Variable
12
Channel/Reach Classification
G5
C4
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
3.4
N/A
5.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.3
N/A
0.4
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
0.9
N/A
1.9
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
3.2
N/A
3
Design Discharge (cfs)
3
N/A
6
Water Surface Slope
0.035
N/A
0.020
Sinuosity
1.0
1.2-1.4
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
12.7
10-15
13.5
Bank Height Ratio
4.5
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
2.5+
10.0
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
Silt -Clay
Gravel
Gravel
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
m
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

Table 12. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2-1
Parameter
Valley Width (ft)
Existing Condition
30-100
Reference Condition
Proposed
30-100
N/A
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
93
Variable
93
Channel/Reach Classification
G5c
C4
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
4.4
N/A
5.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.8
N/A
0.4
Design Discharge Area (ft')
3.6
N/A
1.9
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
3.9
N/A
2.9
Design Discharge (cfs)
14
N/A
5
Water Surface Slope
0.014
N/A
0.012
Sinuosity
1.1
1.2-1.4
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
5.4
10-15
13.5
Bank Height Ratio
4.1
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
2.5+
10.0
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
Silt -Clay
Gravel
Gravel
Table 13. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2-2
Parameter
Valley Width (ft)
Existing Condition
90-140
Reference Condition
Proposed
90-140
N/A
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
135
Variable
135
Channel/Reach Classification
G5c
C4
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
4.4
N/A
7.6
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.8
N/A
0.6
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
3.6
N/A
4.3
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
3.9
N/A
3.1
Design Discharge (cfs)
14
N/A
14
Water Surface Slope
0.009-0.020
N/A
0.012
Sinuosity
1.1
1.2-1.4
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
5.4
10-15
13.4
Bank Height Ratio
4.1
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
2.5+
6.6
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
Silt -Clay
Gravel
Gravel
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
29
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

Table 14. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2-3
Parameter
Valley Width (ft)
Existing Condition
90-150
Reference Condition
Proposed
90-150
N/A
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
149
Variable
149
Channel/Reach Classification
G5c
C4
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
5.7
N/A
9.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
1.7
N/A
0.6
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
9.4
N/A
5.8
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
2.1
N/A
3.4
Design Discharge (cfs)
20
N/A
20
Water Surface Slope
0.009-0.020
N/A
0.011
Sinuosity
1.1
1.2-1.4
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
3.4
10-15
13.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.5
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.8
2.5+
5.6
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
0.031/0.13/0.21/2.0/6.1/0.1/8
Gravel
Gravel
Table 15. Morphological Essential Parameters for T3
Parameter
Valley Width (ft)
Existing Condition*
50-90
Reference Condition
Proposed
50-90
N/A
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
29
Variable
29
Channel/Reach Classification
G4
C4
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
4.2-4.8
N/A
5.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.4-0.6
N/A
0.4
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
1.9-2.6
N/A
1.9
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
1.8-2.3
N/A
1.2
Design Discharge (cfs)
3-6
N/A
2
Water Surface Slope
0.007
N/A
0.016
Sinuosity
N/A
1.2-1.4
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
6.9-12.6
10-15
13.5
Bank Height Ratio
3.2-3.4
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
2.5+
10
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
N/A
Gravel
Gravel
*Existing condition values for upper portion only -the remainder is impacted by pond bed.
6.10 Planting
All unforested portions of the project easement will be planted to establish a forested riparian buffer. At
a minimum, 12.1 acres will be reforested, but additional plantings may take place beyond this area to
ensure an adequate density across the site. The planting plan is shown in the attached project plan sheets
(Section 12.1). Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of 968 stems per acre (9 feet x 5 feet spacing)
to achieve a mature survivability of 210 stems per acre after seven years. Woody vegetation planting will
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
30
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

be conducted during dormancy. Species to be planted may consist of the following and any substitutions
from the planting plan will be taken from this list:
Common Name
River Birch
American Persimmon
Green Ash
Tulip Poplar
American Sycamore
White Oak
Southern Red Oak
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Pin Oak
Willow Oak
Scientific Name
Betula nigra
Diospyros virginiona
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Liriodendron tulipifera
Platanus occidentalis
Quercus alba
Quercus falcata
Quercus michauxii
Quercus palustris
Quercus phellos
On the restored stream banks, live stakes will be used to provide natural stabilization. Species identified
for live staking include:
Common Name
Scientific Name
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
Black Willow
Salix nigra
Silky Willow
Salix sericea
In addition, partially forested sections of the easement that have been treated for privet will be
supplementally planted with either one gallon container trees at a 20 by 20 foot spacing or bare root trees
contained in tree shelters with 10 -foot center spacing. These species may consist of river birch, sycamore,
or any of the five oak species listed above. A custom herbaceous seed mix composed of native species will
also be developed and used to further stabilize the easement area as needed.
6.11 Project Assets
The tables below outline the anticipated project assets that will be produced from the Stony Fork project,
and Figure 9 shows the proposed mitigation assets for the site. The total stream mitigation credits (SMCs)
are slightly different than those outlined in the initial proposal. SMCs were removed at the bottom of the
site due to land title issues associated with the Critcher Farms subdivision and narrow buffer widths at
the property edge. The upper portion of T2 was eliminated from the project, since it was not a
jurisdictional stream, but an additional tributary, Tributary 3, was added to the project once it was
determined it was jurisdictional. The buffer mitigation credits (BMCs) were reduced from the contracted
amount due to the limitation on preservation credits once the final restoration, enhancement, and
preservation BMCs were tabulated.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
31

Table 16. Project Asset Table
Project
Mitigation
Existing
Restoration
Creditable
Approach
Component
Footage/
Stationing
Footage
Footage or
Restoration
Priority
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Notes/Comments
-or-
Acreage
or Acreage
Acreage
Level
Level
or
Credits
Reach ID
Percentage
SF1
1,235
9+93
1155
1155
R
PI/PII
1:1
1155
21+48
21+48
Crossings at STA 32+52-33+17
SF2
2,453
49+50
2802
2707
R
PI
1:1
2707
(65') and 44+49-44+80 (31')
49+50
Crossing at STA 55+48-
SF3
618
56+04
654
624
R
PI
1:1
624
55+78(30')
T1
365
100+00-
510
510
R
PI/PII
1:1
510
105+10
T1A
47
150+00-
159
159
R
PI/PII
1:1
159
151+59
T2-1
327
200+00-
334
334
Ell
N/A
2.5:1
134
203+34
T2-2
326
203+34-
337
337
R
PI/PII
1:1
337
206+71
T2-3
780
206+71-
855
855
R
PI/PII
1:1
855
215+26
T3-1
72
300+00-
71
71
EI
PI/PII
1.5:1
47
300+71
T3-2
82
300+71-
58
58
R
PI/PII
1:1
58
301+29
Buffer
Restoration
413,194
N/A
413,194
413,194
R
N/A
100%
413,194
TOB to 100'
Buffer
Restoration
37,091
N/A
37,091
37,091
R
N/A
33%
12,240
101-200'
Buffer
Enhancement
74,802
N/A
74,802
74,802
E
N/A
50%
37,401
TOB to 100'
Buffer
Preservation limited to no
Preservation
424,660
N/A
424,660
175,029
P
N/A
10%
17,503
more than 25% of total buffer
TOB to 100'
mitigation area (175,029 sf)
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
32
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

Table 17. Length and Summations by Mitigation Category
Table 18. Overall Assets Summary
Stony Fork Restoration Site (Project ID - 97085)
Non -riparian
Asset Category
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Wetland
Buffer (square feet)
NR Wetland
(linear feet)
(acres)
480,338
(acres)
Non-
Riverine
Riverine
Restoration
6,405
450,285
Enhancement
74,802
Enhancement 1
71
Enhancement II
334
Creation
424,660
Preservation
(175,029 allowable for credit)
High Quality Preservation
Table 18. Overall Assets Summary
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
33
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085
Stony Fork Restoration Site (Project ID - 97085)
Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category
Overall Credits
Stream
6,586
RP Wetland
NR Wetland
Buffer
480,338
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
33
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

34

7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Monitoring of the site shall occur for a minimum of seven years following construction. The following
performance standards for stream mitigation are based on the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT 2016) and will be used to judge site success. Buffer mitigation
must meet the standards outlined in Neuse River Basin Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295.
Vegetation Performance
The site must achieve a woody stem density of 260 stems/acre after five years and 210 stems/acre after
seven years to be considered successful. Trees in each plot must average 7 feet in height at Year 5 and 10
feet at Year 7. A single species may not account for more than 50% of the required number of stems within
any plot. Volunteers must be present for a minimum of two growing seasons before being included
performance standards in Year 5 and Year 7. For any volunteer tree stem to count toward vegetative
success, it must be a species from the approved planting list included in Section 6.10. If monitoring
indicates that any of these standards are not being met, corrective actions will take place.
Stream Hydrologic Performance
During the monitoring period, a minimum of four bankfull events must be recorded within the monitoring
period. These bankfull events must occur in separate monitoring years. Bankfull events will be verified
using a minimum of one automatic stream monitoring gauge on Stony Fork to record daily stream depth
readings. Any Qg, flows at the project during the monitoring period will also be documented. All project
streams must also show a minimum of 30 continuous flow day within a calendar year (assuming normal
precipitation) for three out of four of the first four monitoring years.
Stream Geomorphology Performance
The site's geomorphology will be monitored per the NCIRT's 2016 guidance. The bank height ratio (BHR)
must not exceed 1.2 and the entrenchment ratio (ER) should be at least 2.2 for C channels. BHR and ER at
any measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from the baseline condition during
any given monitoring interval (e.g., no more than 10% between years 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 5, or 5 and
7). Adjustment and lateral movement following construction and as the channel settles over the
monitoring period are to be expected. Geomorphological measurements of cross-sections will be used to
determine if any adjustments that occur are out of the range typically expected for this type of stream.
Riparian Buffer Performance
The vegetation within the areas proposed for riparian buffer credit must contain 260 stems per acre at
the end of five years of monitoring. There should be a minimum of four native hardwood tree species
(inclusive of volunteers), with no species greater than 50% of the stems. See the Buffer Mitigation Plan in
Section 12.3 for further details.
8.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of the Stony Fork Site shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream hydrology, stability,
and vegetation survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting established
performance standards described above. The Proposed Monitoring Plan in Figure 10 shows the proposed
locations of monitoring features described below.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
35

Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring will take place no earlier than the end of August and no later than mid-December.
The success of the riparian buffer plantings will be evaluated using twelve 0.02 -acre square or rectangular
plots within the enhancement and restoration buffer mitigation areas. Seven plots will be permanently
installed, while the remainder will be randomly placed at the time of each monitoring visit.
In the permanent plots, the plant's height, species, location, and origin (planted versus volunteer) will be
noted. In the random plots, species and height will be recorded. In all plots, exotic and invasive stems will
also be included in the stem counts. Additionally, a photograph will be taken of each plot. Beginning at
the end of the first growing season, KCI will monitor the planted vegetation in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, and 7. Riparian buffer mitigation requires monitoring in Years 1-5, while the stream mitigation requires
monitoring in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Stream Hydrologic Monitoring
Bankfull events on-site will be verified using an automatic stream monitoring gauge on SF3 as seen on
Figure 10 to record daily stream depth readings. The Qgs flow after the confluence with T2 is 45 cfs (based
on 67% of a 2 -year USGS regression flow of 67.4 cfs). The measured flows will be compared to the Qg,
value as well as the bankfull discharge. In addition, flow will recorded on T1, T2-2, and T3.
Stream Geomorphology Monitoring
For stream monitoring, the purpose of monitoring is to evaluate the stability of the restored stream.
Following the procedures established in the USDA Forest Service Manual, Stream Channel Reference Sites
(Harrelson et al. 1994) and the methodologies utilized in the Rosgen stream assessment and classification
system (1994 and 1996), data collected will consist of detailed dimension measurements, longitudinal
profiles, and bed materials sampling.
nimoncinn
Sixteen permanent cross-sections will be established at the Stony Fork Site, one set of a riffle and pool
each on SF1, SF3, T1, T2-2, T2-3, and T3-2 and two sets on SF2, the longest of the project reaches. The
extents of each cross-section will be recorded by either conventional survey or GPS. The cross-sectional
surveys shall provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks and will include points on the
adjacent floodplain or valley, at the top of bank, bankfull, at all breaks in slope, the edge of water, and
thalweg. Width/depth, bank height and entrenchment ratios, as well as bankfull cross-sectional area,
width, max depth and mean depth will be calculated for each riffle cross-section based on the survey data.
Width/depth ratios, bankfull cross-sectional area, width, max depth and mean depth will be calculated
for each pool cross-section. Cross-section measurements will take place in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Profile
A detailed longitudinal profile will be conducted along the lengths of SF1, SF2, SF3, T1, T2-2, T2-3, and T3-
2 during the as -built survey. Measurements will include slopes (average, pool, and riffle) as well as
calculations of pool -to -pool spacing. No additional profile measurements will be taken during the
monitoring period unless deemed necessary due to concerns about bed elevation adjustments.
Visual Assessment
An annual site walk will be conducted at the end of each monitoring period to document any problem
areas. Specific problem areas that could include low stem density or poor plant vigor, areas dominated by
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
36

undesirable volunteer species, prolonged inundation, native and exotic invasive species, beaver activity,
herbivory, encroachments, indicators of livestock access, or other areas of concern. The findings of the
visual assessment as well as any recommended corrective actions for problem areas will be summarized
in the monitoring reports by way of a Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) figure.
Photograph reference points (PRPs) will be established to assist in characterizing the site and to allow
qualitative evaluation of the site conditions. The location of each photo point will be marked in the
monitoring plan and the bearing/orientation of the photograph will be documented to allow for repeated
use.
Reporting
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the most current DMS monitoring template from June
2017. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding
of project status and trends, population of DMS databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in
decision making regarding project close-out. The report will document the monitored components and
include all collected data, analyses, and photographs. The first year of monitoring will occur no earlier
than the end of the first growing season and no sooner than 5 months following planting. The site will be
monitored for performance standards for seven years as needed after completion of construction. Full
monitoring reports will be completed in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Limited monitoring reports will be
submitted in Years 4 (vegetation, CCPV, photos, stream gauge data, and site narrative) and 6 (CCPV,
photos, stream gauge data, and site narrative).
Table 20. Monitoring Requirements
Stony Fork Restoration Site
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
Pattern and
SF1, SF2, SF3, T1, T2-2, T2-3,
Once, during as-
Additional measurements in later years
Yes
Profile
and T3-2
built survey
may be taken as necessary.
Stream
16 cross-sections
Monitoring Years
Yes
Dimension
(8 riffles, 8 pools)
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Stream
5 pressure transducer
Yes
Annual
1 each on SF3, T1, T1A, T2-2, and T3-2
Hydrology
gauges or cameras
7 permanent and 5 random
Monitoring Years
Yes
Vegetation
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
Minimum size of 0.02 acre
vegetation monitoring plots
and 7
Visual
Yes
Annual
Assessment
Exotic and
Locations of exotic and nuisance
Yes
nuisance
Annual
vegetation will be mapped
vegetation
Project
Locations of vegetation damage, boundary
Yes
boundary
Semi-annual
encroachments, etc. will be mapped
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
37
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

w
s
"k
i
L '
Y
1
I
R
VP 7
VP
VP 4
Lv
VP
� h i
FIGURE 10. PROPOSED MONITORING PLAN, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
�� ❑ Proposed Permanent Veg Plots (7) Stream Restoration Buffer Restoration 0 250 500
WmmmmmE=====J Feet
KCI Proposed Stream Gauges (5) Stream Enhancement I Buffer Enhancement N
Source: Google Earth,
ASSOCIATES Proposed Cross -Sections (16) Stream Enhancement II Buffer Preservation 3i2018
N

9.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary
performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the members of the
IRT as well as NCDWR's 401 and Buffer Permitting Branch staff and work with both groups to develop
contingency plans and remedial actions.
10.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
SFRS will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program, which shall serve as conservation easement
holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure
that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the
responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQ Stewardship
Program is developing an endowment system within the non -reverting, interest-bearing Conservation
Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by
North Carolina General Statue GS 113A -232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used
for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable. The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary
markings as needed. Any livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility
the owner of the underlying fee to maintain.
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
39
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
40
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

11.0 REFERENCES
Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems: Watershed
Protection Research Monograph. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Pages 1-158
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report
Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Griffith, G., J. Omernik, and J. Comstock. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina, Regional Descriptions. US
E.P.A. Last accessed 8/2017 at:
https:Harchive.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/web/html/ncsc_eco.html
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J. R. Everhart, and
R.E. Smith, 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. Edited by D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy.
American Water Resources Association. June 30 — July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W. and R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Design Review Checklist. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD and US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division. Washington, D.C. EPA 843-B-12-005
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services. March 2015. 2015 Neuse 03020201 Priorities. Last accessed at
http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=340a3f58-336b-42bf-bab2-
fb663cbfd78d&groupld=60329
NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Feb. 2014. Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting
Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance. Last accessed at:
http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=7af33f02-Ob5d-4e8c-b4e5-
8517b3b41815&groupld=60329
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources. Draft 2016 303(d) list. Raleigh, NC. Last accessed 11/2017 at:
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water/20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2016/NC_2016_Category_5_20
160606. pdf
North Carolina Interagency Review Team. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. Last accessed at: http://saw-reg.usace.army.miI/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-
Mitigation-Update.pdf
Neuse River Basin Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295. Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and
Maintenance of Riparian Buffers. Last accessed at
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-
%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0295.pdf
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085
41

Shields, F.D., Jr. R.R. Copeland, P.C. Klingeman, M.W. Doyle, and A. Simon. 2003. Design for Stream
Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 129 (8): 575-584.
Shields, Ing. A., W. P. Ott, and J. C. Van Uchelen. 1936. Application of Similarity Principles and Turbulence
Research to Bed -load Movement. Pasadena, CA: Soil Conservation Service, California Institute of
Technology
Simon, A., W. Dickerson, and A. Heins. 2004. Suspended -sediment transport rates at the 1.5 -year
recurrence interval for ecoregions of the United States: transport conditions at the bankfull and
effective discharge? Geomorphology 58: 243-262.
Simon, A. and M. Rinaldi. 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: The roles of excess
transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response. Geomorphology 79:
361-383.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
USDA, Forest Service, National Technology and Development Program. 2008. Stream Simulation: An
Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road -Stream Crossings.
Appendix E: Methods for Streambed Mobility/Stability Analysis. Last accessed 9/2016 at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/StreamSimulation/
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2017. Web Soil Survey. Last accessed at:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
USGS. 2017. National Streamflow Statistics Program, Version 6.1. Database Version NSS_v6_2017-09-
27.mdb. Last accessed 11/2017 at: http://water.usgs.gov/software/NSS/.
Final Mitigation Plan
July 27, 2018
42
Stony Fork Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97085

12.0 APPENDICES
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

12.1 Plan Sheets
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

a
O
O
Pq
U
ti
ZL
-PROJECT
ENTRANCE
6
RD.
VICINITY MAP
N
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT COMPONENTS —6,586 STREAM CREDITS AND 480,338 BUFFER CREDITS
DMS PROJECT NUMBER
Proposed
Existing
,�a
Mitigation
Restoration
Mitigation
Reach ID
LAT: 35'26'49.67" + /) /
Footage or
Approach
11-13
Footage or
~�■�
i ��i
Stationing
Square Feet
Prepored for:
Ratio
Area
Credits
SF1
9+93 to 21+48
1,235
Restoration
1 to 1
1,155
1,155
� � 1,....,,, ,�►
21+48 to 32+52
33+16 to 44+49
44+80 to 49+50
1,143
1,027
283
Restoration
1
1 to 1
1,104
1,133
1 470
1,104
1,133
470
SF2*
PROJECT DESIGNER
49+50 to 55+48
592
598
598
SF3*
Restoration
1 to 1
55+78 to 56+04
26
26
26
Tributary 1
100+00 to 105+10
365
Restoration
1 to 1
510
510
Tributary 1A
150+00 to 151+59
47
Restoration
1 to 1
159
159
Tributary 2-1
200+00 to 203+34
326
Enhancement II
2.5 to 1
334
134
Tributary 2-2
203+34 to 206+71
318
Restoration
1 to 1
337
337
Tributary 2-3
206+71 to 215+26
820
Restoration
1 to 1
855
855
Tributary 3
300+00 to 300+71
72
Enhancement 1
1.5 to 1
71
47
Tributary 3
1 300+71 to 301+29
82
Restoration
1 to 1
58
58
TOTAL STREAM CREDITS
6,586
Buffer
Buffer
Restoration
N/A
413,194
Restoration
1.00
413,194
413,194
TOB to 100'
TOB to 100'
Buffer
Buffer
Restoration
N/A
37,091
Restoration
0.33
37,091
12,240
101-200'
101-200'
Buffer
Buffer
Enhancement
N/A
74,802
Enhancement
0.50
74,802
37,401
TOB to 100'
TOB to 100'
Buffer
Buffer
Preservation
N/A
175,029
Preservation
0.10
175,029
17,503
TOB to 100'
TOB to 100'
TOTAL BUFFER CREDITS
480,338
* Crossings have been removed from creditable linear footage for all project streams.
DIRECTIONS TO SITE
From Raleigh, follow I-40 East. Take
exit 319 and turn left onto US -210 E.
After a mile, take a right onto Raleigh
Road and follow for 2.2 miles. Take
a right onto Federal Road and follow
for 2.3 miles. Sharp left onto Elevation
Road and follow for about 0.2 mile.
Take a right into the driveway for 4045
Elevation Road and follow down to
the project stream.
NCDEQ DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
STONY FORD
STREAM RESTORATION SITE
INDEX OF SHEETS11111=111111mmle.—
1 TITLE SHEET
2 GENERAL NOTES &PROJECT LEGEND
34
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BEGIN
TRIBUTARY 2-2
BEGIN
TRIBUTARY 2-1
BEGIN
TRIBUTARY 1 ! /// —�►*�\ \\\\
BEGIN
TRIBUTARY 1A
BEGIN X11 i \\'i—
TRIBUTARY 2-3 I s>\
� fi<
STATE
DMS PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
,�a
97085
DETAILS
5
LAT: 35'26'49.67" + /) /
-A—
'
11-13
LON:78°31'42.53" ! /~�"�
~�■�
i ��i
15
BOUNDARY MARKING PLAN
Prepored for:
BEGIN
A
REVISED PER IRT COMMENTS
JULY 2018
GARY M. MRYNCZA, PE
DMS PROJECT MANAGER
� � 1,....,,, ,�►
� � ,.�� �< � ,;, i�
BEGIN
SF2
ALEX FRENCH
DMS REVIEW COORDINATOR
PROJECT DESIGNER
REVISIONS
STATE
DMS PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
,�a
97085
DETAILS
END
SF3
/ '
i ilil�''ll\ may♦
Prepared in i/le Office of;
u
AS' ocC
BEGIN SR
DETAILS
5
LAT: 35'26'49.67" + /) /
-A—
'
11-13
LON:78°31'42.53" ! /~�"�
~�■�
i ��i
15
BOUNDARY MARKING PLAN
Prepored for:
BEGIN
PTepo7ed by:
LINDSAY CROCKER
TRIB3
GARY M. MRYNCZA, PE
DMS PROJECT MANAGER
� � 1,....,,, ,�►
� � ,.�� �< � ,;, i�
BEGIN
SF2
ALEX FRENCH
DMS REVIEW COORDINATOR
PROJECT DESIGNER
Prepared in i/le Office of;
u
AS' ocC
DETAILS
5
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS
6-10
SITE PLAN
11-13
PROFILES
14
PLANTING PLAN
15
BOUNDARY MARKING PLAN
BEGIN
SF3SEALNA
PROJECT ENGINEER
yytttlttt+l++lf
•�,`''P�H` CiAR •`••,moi
r
• i �
F • 327.73
P.E.
ENGINEERS•PLANNERS•ECOLOGISTS
4505 FALLS OF NEDSE ROAD
SUITE 400
RALEIGH, NC 27609
Prepored for:
PTepo7ed by:
LINDSAY CROCKER
GARY M. MRYNCZA, PE
DMS PROJECT MANAGER
PROJECT ENGINEER
LIN XU
ALEX FRENCH
DMS REVIEW COORDINATOR
PROJECT DESIGNER
BEGIN
SF3SEALNA
PROJECT ENGINEER
yytttlttt+l++lf
•�,`''P�H` CiAR •`••,moi
r
• i �
F • 327.73
P.E.

GENERAL NOTES:
CONTROL POINTS
='�°' o�
DESC.
NORTHING
EASTING
ELEV.
SEAL
BEARINGS AND DISTANCES:
KCI#1
617963.8850
2140422.9350
224.81
: Q �, 32733
ALL BEARINGS ARE NAD 1983 GRID BEARINGS.
KCI#2
618560.7860
2140254.4140
234.77
;�.9,• �::.
Z
o
ALL DISTANCES AND COORDINATES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL (GROUND) VALUES.
KCI#3
619091.5730
2140208.0230
245.10
Hpt��Fr.•
.,.
KCI#4
619813.6020
2140179.9710
257.71
EL •'��
ti
Ld
UTILITY/SUBSURFACE PLANS:
KCI#5
620201.2280
2140534.7970
244.50
NO SUBSURFACE PLANS ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS PROJECT.
KCI#6
620516.7890
2140955.1860
238.28
EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED.
KCI#7
620786.7920
2141419.5800
226.11
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING A UTILITY
KCI#8
621037.2060
2141915.6500
233.96
LOCATOR AND ESTABLISHING THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY AND
KCI#9
621335.2930
2142433.5220
231.03
ALL EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE PROJECT REACH.
KCI#12 621279.8580 2143554.3330 223.40
KCI#13
620817.3810
2143803.4980
207.94
KCI#14
620329.6450
2143968.8740
200.58
KCI#15
619802.2110
2143992.3170
195.55
a
KCI#16 619526.0640 2144313.0070 180.76
KCI#17
619258.1820
2144289.1880
174.74
® U
KCI#18
619155.1760
2143993.3840
174.65
KCI#19
619197.6280
2143671.8300
179.68
KCI#20
619247.1850
2143372.1020
179.70
b
KCI#21
619293.4980
2143114.3640
178.48
KCI#22
619076.3090
2142913.8240
179.51
KCI#23
618883.2380
2142769.5000
181.99
KCI#24
618687.8540
2142547.0370
184.71
KCI#25
618458.1640
2142354.8290
189.60El
CONTACT DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE FOR
FULL LIST OF CONTROL
POINTS
-
z
o
a�
Y
o z
z<
PROJECT LEGEND:
=z
o
Proposed Thalweg -
Existing Tree Line
-------------------------------------_
w/Approximate Bankfull Limits--------------
Minor Contour Line ------------------------------------
Proposed Riffle Enhancement ----------------
v)
U
Major Contour Line
---720--
o
=
Proposed Riffle Grade Control
Y
y�
Q
O
o
z
U
Proposed Step Pool
z(0
z
Ow
z
w
o
Proposed Live LiftQ
o
Existing Channel to be Filled
w
N
o
--------------_
Proposed Channel Block
APRIL 2018
N.T.S.
GENERAL
NOTES
&
PROJECT
LEGEND
SHEET 2 OF
15

USE 700 GRAM COIR MATTING
ON ANY GRADED BENCHES
OR TERRACE SLOPES—
10%CABC STONE -
10% CLASS A STONE
20% CLASS B STONE
60% CLASS 1 STONE
NOTE:
PER DESIGNER'S DIRECTION,
INTERSPERSE WITH WOODY
DEBRIS THAT EXTENDS INTO
POOL TO ENHANCE HABITAT.
LAY FILTER FABRIC OVER UPSTREAM
TOP EDGE OF SILL ROCK(S); BEHIND
FILTERFABRIC, BACKFILL WITH #57
STONE, CLASS A OR B STONE AND/OR
NATURAL STREAM MATERIALS.
PROPOSED
PROFILE
FILTER
FABRIC
USE BURLAP BACKED HEAVY COIR
MATTING ON ALL LIFTS. BACKFILL
WITH SUITABLE GROWING MATERIAL.
4 INSTALL LIVE WHIPS BETWEEN SOIL LIFTS
m WITH APPROX. 1 FOOT OF PLANT MATERIAL
EXPOSED. MINIMUM LENGTH OF CUTTINGS
O SHALL BE 4'. DSTANCE BETWEEN CUTTINGS
SHALL BE 4". FILL VOIDS WITH SUITABLE SOIL.
—
4 EXPOSED
STONE BASE
BASEFLOW
z
----
5' MINIMUM
SECTION A -A
NOTE:
USE 1.5'x1"x2" WOODEN STAKES ON V CENTERS.
STAKES SHALL HAVE A'ROOFING' NAIL AT TOP
TO KEEP FABRIC FROM SLIPPING OFF.
LIVE LIFT
SCALE:NTS
SEE PROFILE SHEETS FOR -
STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS
GRADE
18" NOM. THICKNESS - —FILTER FABRIC
WELL GRADED MIX OF (KEY IN UNDER
(60%) CLASS "1", (20%) CLASS "B STREAM BED)
(10%) CLASS "A", AND (10%)#57'
10%) #57
NOTES:
FOR DOUBLE STEP POOLS, CONTINUE ROCK MIXTURE
FROM FIRST SILL ALL THE WAY TO THE SECOND SILL.
DO NOT STOP AT THE 6FT MINIMUM AS SHOWN IN THE
SINGLE STEP POOL PLAN VIEW.
BOULDERS SHOULD BE NATIVE STONES OR SHOT
ROCK, ANGULAR AND OBLONG, WITH AN AXIS
APPROXIMATELY 3'L x 2'W x 15D
BOULDER SILLS TO EXTEND 5' MINIMUM INTO STREAM
BANKS FOR STEP POOL STRUCTURES.
STONE INSTALLATION: START BY INSTALLING STONE
MIXTURE. THEN ADD SURGE STONE TO FILL IN VOIDS.
FINISH BY WASHING IN NATURAL STREAM MATERIAL
TO OBTAIN FINAL GRADE.
IF APPROVED BY DESIGNER, BOULDER SILLS CAN BE 1
REPLACED WITH LIVE HARDWOOD LOGS FOUND ON
SITE. LOGS MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 10" DIAMETER
AND STACKED IN A TRIANGLE FORMATION.
NAIL (WITH PLASTIC WASHER) FILTER FABRIC TO
THE TOP LOG AND CONTINUE DOWN AND UNDER
STRUCTURE AS SHOWN ON STEP POOL DETAIL.
SCALE:NTS
STONE BOULDER SILL
(TWO LAYERS) __'
18" NOM. THICKNESS WELL
GRADED MIX OF (609%) CLASS "1",
(20%)(110%) NO. 57STONE
SS "A"
AND
STONE TOE:
START ROCK 2FT
BELOW WATERS EDGE
AND EXTEND TO 0.5FT
ABOVE WATERS EDGE
PLAN VIEW
50%, 30%, 20%MIXTURE OF
CLASS "STONE, CLASS A
z0
z
STONE AND NATIVE SOIL
am
OF
m r
O m
O
SEE CROSS-SECTION SHEET
FOR EXACT DIMENSIONS
6" MINIMUM
(SEE NOTE BELOW)
SECTION
NOTE:
6FT. MIN.
SINGLE
O/moSTEP
o POOLS)
C-1 Oar
Q
START BY INSTALLING CLASS B STONE
AND CLASS A STONE MIXTURE. FINISH
BY WASHING IN NATURAL STREAM
MATERIAL TO OBTAIN FINAL GRADE.
RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT
SCALE:NTS
l lfll if 11`711 j�
SEAL
36yy!3,3•�
/� • • �
+�• % Z
♦ to
ilt
LLJ
IL L Of
11111111171111' -
Y Y
O
am m
01
F- .0 SEE CROSS-SECTION SHEET
FOR EXACT DIMENSIONS
WRAP AND STAKE COIR
MATTING UNDER
1' MIN. CONSTRUCTED BANK
SEE NOTE
BELOW mmm
2' MIN.
10%CABC STONE
10% CLASS A STONE
SECTION 20% CLASS BSTONE
60% CLASS 1 STONE
NOTE:
PER DESIGNER'S DIRECTION,
INTERSPERSE WITH WOODY
DEBRIS TO ENHANCE HABITAT.
Zw
0 LL SEE PROFILE SHEETS FOR
m $ STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS
FOR BEGIN AND END OF w
RIFFLE
TAPER STONE INTO
FLOW----P—r• BASEFLOW — — — EXISTING STREAM BED
------ — ----------
G�\OE O �} , .. • O , O,e O e O_O- o POOL
=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I=1 I II 11=J1=ll=J1=1 I I -III -III -III -I I I � 1-� I
' II' I-ll=1 11=ll=ll=ll-ll-ll-1�1 I II I _IIIIIIIII-III=
I I1 11=1 I I-1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11-1 I I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I I
PROFILE
NOTE:
STONE INSTALLATION: START BY INSTALLING STONE
MIXTURE. THEN ADD SURGE STONE TO FILL IN VOIDS.
FINISH BY WASHING IN NATURAL STREAM MATERIAL
TO OBTAIN FINAL GRADE.
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
SCALE:NTS
LLI z
J
cn u
0_
Z U
O
H
Q
OO z
} w H
Z wZ
O LLI z
F Of O
U
Q 0
LLI F_
Ir cl)z
cf) Q
N.
DETAILS
15HEET 3 OF 15 1

NOTES:
-MATTING SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR
TO THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER TO
A STREAM SECTION.
-ALL DISTURBED AREAS INSIDE FLOOD-
PLAIN EXTENTS SHALL BE SEEDED DAILY
-GROUND SHALL BE PREPARED AND SEED
& FERTILIZER APPLIED ACCORDING TO
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
-MATTING SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG
BOTH SIDES OF NEW STREAM LENGTH.
-MATTING SHALL EXTEND FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO THE TOP OF BANK.
-MATTING SHALL BE APPLIED AND STAKED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECT
SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
COIR MATTING
UNDERLAIN BY STRAW,
SEED, AND FERTILIZER
COIR MATTING
SCALE: NTS
Wbkf
1" x 2" NOTCHED
GRADE STAKE
ANCHORING
INSTALL TO ONLY HALF TYPICAL RIFFLE
BANKFULL ON INNER
BENDS OF POOLS
Wbkf
77
— BANKFULL
— GROUND SURFACE
NOTE:
COIR MATTING SHALL BE
WATER SURFACE
INSTALLED ALONG ENTIRE
TYPICAL POOL
BANK HEIGHT FOR STEP
COIR MATTING
POOL STRUCTURES
EXAMPLE COIR MATTING PLACEMENT
SCALE: NTS
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
MIN.
COMPACTED
FINISH GRADE 5' BACKFILL
COMPACTED ° ° FLOW
BACKFILL' CHANNEL
MIN. 1.0' THICK is ?� INVERT
d' SEDIMENTCONTOL STONE�-
CLASS I STONE
CHANNELBLOCK
SCALE: NTS
FILTER
FABRIC
2 � B'
O° O°
8", STONE FOR EROSION
CONTROL, CLASS B.
(WASH IN NATURAL SOIL
MATERIAL TO FILL IN VOIDS)
STABILIZED ROCK OUTLET
SCALE: NTS
Lu
Z
Y �
Q
0O�
LL LL°
z cn
p Lu
U
Q
LLI
H
N.T
DETAILS
m

REACH : T1 -STATION 100+00 TO 105+10
0 REACH: T1A -STATION 150+00 TO 151+59
REACH: T2-2 STATION 203+34 TO 206+71
REACH: T2-3 STATION 206+71 TO 215+26
�k,�11ti1f7,,,�
.�'' CAgQ r''•
REACH: T2-1 -STATION 200+00 TO 203+34
-
-
��1
'•
REACH : T3 - STATION 300+00 TO 301+29
"C4" STREAM TYPE
"C4" STREAM TYPE
�'�O�`•��
.
"C4" STREAM TYPE
EXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
EXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
L`t •
EXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
5'
6
2' 1.8' 1.8' 2'
9
2.4' 2.1' 2.1' 2.4'
' , 32733
.01 -
1.5'1.5
Wbkf
_ WbAf
i�'9 •••
Z
Vmkfl,-'
o - ==�o
o - --moo
,� '.�'OINE, •
>
f'''�+Ilial'''
0
TYPICAL RIFFLE
TYPICAL RIFFLE
TYPICAL RIFFLE
O =THALWEG LOCATION
O =THALWEG LOCATION
0 =THALWEG LOCATION
0
EXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
FLOODPLAIN
EXISTING
10.6'
12.5'
w
EXISTING
FLOO PLAIN7
6.8' 3.8'
_ 8' 4.5' _
-4' _.Lr Or 4' $r
a
w
w
4.5' 2.5'
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
--
7
_
2.3'
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
® u
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
z
ff
EXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
EXISTING
EXISTING
FLOOiPLAIN`
FLOODPLAIN
10.6'
12.5'
7
4.5' 8'
EE
2.5' 4.5'
3.8' 6.8'
1
- - - -_
z�
2'
2.3'
r4
N
00
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
z
Q�
U
V1
�
Q
REACH : SF1
REACH: SF2
REACH : SF3
STATION 9+93 TO 21+48
STATION 21+48 TO 49+50
STATION 49+50 TO 56+74
Q
"C4" STREAM TYPE
"C4" STREAM TYPE
"C4" STREAM TYPE
Mill
z
EXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
EXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
EXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
w
vQ
` 9.7'
` 11.3'
12.6'
2.9' 1.9' 1.9' 2.9'
3.1' 2.6' 2.6' 3.1'
3.5' 2.8' 2.8' 3.5' _
w
_ -- -�Wbkf-- �'
-L--1 WbJ---
VVbkf_�_-_
i
TYPICAL RIFFLE
TYPICAL RIFFLE
TYPICAL RIFFLE
w
z
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
O = THALWEG LOCATION
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
J
O
0-1
Z
v
EXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
EXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
EXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
0
Y -
2
13.5'
15.7'
17.5'
Q
8.6' 4.8'
10.1' 5.6
11.9' 5.6'
0 Q�
U_0
O
Z
��
��
��
��'
+I
z (
Z
N
�l
0 LU
z
O
U
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
z
TYPICAL POOL -RIGHT MEANDER
rn
O
EXISTING
EXISTINGEXISTING
FLOODPLAIN
FLOODPLAIN
FLOODPLAIN
17 5'
13.5'
15 7'
5.6' 11.9'
4.8' 8.6'
..
56' 101'
y
onTc: APRIL 2018
_-_-_-_-_---_-_
scnLc: SEE SHEET
(V
N
TYPICAL
29.1
3.3'
CROSS
25
SECTIONS
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
SHEET5
OF 15

SEAL
p 32733
I
I
I
I\
II
I I I
I I 1
I; I
/
/
I I I
I / I
I I
I I
I/
II
I
/
I
I
I •.
• ,i',' ♦
/W
W�TuA --- ♦ \
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80' BEGIN i /; s / / _ -w \
TRIBUTARY 1 ' ' ,/ -- - �L♦
GRAPHIC SCALE ♦ / 'i /' - O.
BEGIN SF1
EXTEND RIFFLE GRADE
LL I
CONTROL STONE MIXTURE
INTO POOL AREA TO
\ _
CREATE PLUNGE POOL
O` X
�_/- ���
��'��
it
�IIIIIII / ��
�i /----'''
1° A A \
BEGIN
i '1111 /
►„���� TRIB3
\ I IIf I
i i 390+0C
JilI IP l/
�- -_ �.._.._.._ \ /
00 X
/ \
EXTENTSI
w
if/'—
►I
O
I
IIID
\
I I III�II'Ill
-/
/Ilj,lll�l
// OO`I•`•�,
// /� \\
-•�`_ // ��, \\ /^ \__
O` X
�_/- ���
��'��
it
�IIIIIII / ��
�i /----'''
1° A A \
ice'// Q
0%
CS 9 /
/ n FLOODPLAIN
OGRADING
v
w
JilI IP l/
�- -_ �.._.._.._ \ /
00 X
/ \
EXTENTSI
w
if/'—
►I
O
\V
vv vVr----CV
Illll�Ijll/l`----
/ w• vv �, - I
oq
A i-'
- v OAv
W
Lu
fo/
1
x
I
►�u
I
`-\
Q0
\ ♦
\ \\\ \ ♦ BEGIN
I
_
-- -- `\
\
\ --
\\\ ` ` `\
TRIB 1A
F
_ \
-- — \
—
/ -------
—
\
1
\
q1 A ♦ V A \ V A
►r,)
\ \
\ O \ ♦ \ \ \ I
- - -
— — CONSERVATION EASEMENT
0
—___—
—
\ O 1
1
-----
7---- \\
••��
NOTE:
I
/ \ 1(2+�0
-- ------
-
/
♦\\ 1
\ \
PROPOSED'CHANNEL BLOCK'.
PROPOSED'RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT'.
PROPOSED'RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL'. BEGIN SF2
♦ \
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS
TO MINIMIZE DAMAGING EXISTING NATIVE TREES
WHERE POSSIBLE.
♦ '
\\ \\ �•
\
I
EXISTING TREESTO
/ ► \:
/'
--
\ ►
\ ►
GRADE SOIL PILE TO FILL
REMAIN.
TYPICAL ALL'
—
EXISTING PONDEDAREA\\%
� L
/ter
\ ' )
\ "
\\ ►
/ / ,
(�I
i
I \ \
-• � •SERV \\,,
`��--;
►� ----
i%-;� i-;,-=�,�'��'
- _ - - .'�' /'
O
\ 1\
_
-/
/Ilj,lll�l
// OO`I•`•�,
// /� \\
-•�`_ // ��, \\ /^ \__
O` X
�_/- ���
��'��
it
�IIIIIII / ��
�i /----'''
1° A A \
ice'// Q
0%
CS 9 /
/ n FLOODPLAIN
OGRADING
v
w
JilI IP l/
�- -_ �.._.._.._ \ /
00 X
/ \
EXTENTSI
w
if/'—
►I
O
\V
vv vVr----CV
Illll�Ijll/l`----
/ w• vv �, - I
oq
A i-'
- v OAv
W
Lu
FLOODPLAIN
GRADING EXTENTS
_
-- -- `\
\
\ --
\\\ ` ` `\
\ j I
F
_ \
-- — \
—
/ -------
—
\
\
\ \
\ - _i/ - - - - - - -
— — —--------
- - -
— — CONSERVATION EASEMENT
` /
—___—
—
�—
-- --- ���������—ti�������������______���----------------------
-----
7---- \\
••��
BARNNG
BARN
-- ------
PROPOSED'CHANNEL BLOCK'.
PROPOSED'RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT'.
PROPOSED'RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL'. BEGIN SF2
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
SEE DETAIL SHEET. (END TRIBUTARY 1)
PROPOSED'LIVE LIFT'. ' PROPOSED'STEP POOL'.
SEE DETAIL SHEET. SEE DETAIL SHEET.
LU z
J
j O
0-1
Z v
O
Q
OO O
LL z
Z LLJco z
� Of O
N
z
W F-
^� z
vJ O
SITE PLAN
REACH:
SF1, SF2 &
T1, T1A, T3
SHEET 6 OF 15

�t,.ii�i.r�ryrr
',�,,•�'tH c�qa rr..,.I.
■
' sm •:
32733 q
�mti • �� : p
Li
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80, ,���r f' kAEL �►�,' ■
r
z
w
GRAPHIC SCALE o
w
ww
PROPOSED'STEP POOL'. yy�j
__��♦ SEE DETAIL SHEET.
GRADE INCOMING DITCH TO
�♦ DRAIN INTO NEW STREAM ---' f ' 0 L)
m PROPOSED'RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL'. ALIGNMENT AND STABILIZED / �� /00
�� SEE DETAIL SHEET. Z G,°
CONFLUENCE WITH ROCK / ' iy // /
Lu ,` - _ \ ^ ♦ OUTLET. SEE DETAIL SHEET. , / / ♦y ' w ® W
x = , ♦♦ / / �♦ 2 Q
_// ,' // / �yy/ / W
w F / / `I =_,\ , ` EXISTING SHED // // /,� / ---\- / w
_ \ ♦ TO BE RELOCATED _ -
w w
\ �♦ OUT OF EASEMENT W
E�
_ / _ ♦♦ PROPOSEWRIFFLE ENHANCEMENT'. ♦ I / ! \ Q
N --- ♦♦ SEE DETAIL SHEET.
' _ _ _ ` ♦♦ PROPOSEWLIVE LIFT'. sy / �• z
♦♦ SEE DETAIL SHEET.
-- -
.0 .0 / y 0 x y OMNI
Nz
o FLOODPLAIN ♦♦ 0/ C£ i d`� ♦, V o wo
co J^ ♦♦ GRADING EXTENTS
0.
�♦�� / \ \ \o \` ♦ PROPOSED 'CHANNEL K. /Iy
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
a az
�� A A '� l�`� V / ��� ���♦^♦. /ice / / /�j' / l / / / �-� l <'
\ S'L♦ PROPOSED ALUMINUM
,�♦%/I \` - `
N. BOX CULVERT BY OTHERS
\ \ ♦♦ \ \ 0,y♦♦ (18'_7" SPAN x 5.4" RISE)
I �� ��♦ ,/ \ 0 �c ♦ ,/���� _-____i ,/S'�r, / / / Ory
` ♦`_-- �$ko , ��'vT♦♦ AA FLOODNG EIGRADIXTENTS ♦ i ' Q��♦
Lu
Ao
LL
� }
0 Lu
♦����� ) o --o�< / /� .♦
/ I
i� I^\ / 0�---' ,� ,/ i'i'i'/:I ` �♦
i / /�' / / Y
♦♦ / , / � 55' WIDE EASEMENT o
EXCEPTIONOP
p
G
♦ a \ / /�' �� �I i / �ey '- APRIL 2018
0 GRAPHIC
NOTE: F
CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS �i�' SITE PLAN
TO MINIMIZE DAMAGING EXISTING NATIVE TREES ♦♦
WHERE POSSIBLE. i REACH:
♦♦ ice,/ SF2
♦♦v,� SHEET 7 OF 15

r`
Lu
Lu
Lu
x
rn
Lu
Lu
w
z
J
x
�I��Ilrlrrl+��
.••' H CA R
.SEAL..
p 32733 •''
ti
''+I+Illlfll�l►
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 10 FOR TRIBUTARY 2
/
10
lz ♦ \
►y - -- a' Xloo�
► o \ 1
\
►Z � I
► Yv� I
STABILIZED INCOMING
DRAINAGE WITH ROCK
OUTLET. SEE DETAIL SHEET. '
I \ 1
► I �
PROPOSED'CHANNEL BLOCK'.
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
+ /
/ 400 / ' '/ - - - --
30' WIDE EASEMENT
EXCEPTIONO //
— FLOODPLAIN
A GRADING EXTENTS
' h
N
/ -' �� ( ♦� BEGIN
400o dot/
v
.i
./7 - - - - - - - - -
A FLOODPLAIN
\ _ A GRADING EXTENTS
PROPOSED'LIVE LIFT'. 1 1
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
I
PROPOSED'RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT.
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
PROPOSED'STEP POOL'.
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS
TO MINIMIZE DAMAGING EXISTING NATIVE TREES
WHERE POSSIBLE.
m
w
w
w
x
U
w
w
U
w
z
2
U
Q
N
z
N
w
t
U)
z
O
O Q
LL 0
O
Z U)
O Qf
Q
w
IDA7E: APRIL 2018
SITE PLAN
REACH:
SF2 & SF3
/
o
PROPOSED'RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL'.
F
-
i•! J\ SEE DETAIL SHEET.
PROPOSED'LIVE LIFT'. 1 1
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
I
PROPOSED'RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT.
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
PROPOSED'STEP POOL'.
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS
TO MINIMIZE DAMAGING EXISTING NATIVE TREES
WHERE POSSIBLE.
m
w
w
w
x
U
w
w
U
w
z
2
U
Q
N
z
N
w
t
U)
z
O
O Q
LL 0
O
Z U)
O Qf
Q
w
IDA7E: APRIL 2018
SITE PLAN
REACH:
SF2 & SF3

EXISTING DIRT
DRIVE
30' WIDE EASEMENT
EXCEPTION
♦'� ♦\\ \ \! EXISTING it
FLOODPLAIN♦ / / ♦ \ \
/ / ♦ \ WETLAND ♦ III
GRADING EXTENTS / / ♦ �\ � \ � \ \ II 1
\ ♦ 1 I I 1
yy� // \ ��` \ ♦I/y
P5�
yi
i F. ------\" �\
STABILIZED INCOMING
DRAINAGE WITH ROCK
OUTLET. SEE DETAIL SHEET.
GRADE BACK AND
STABILIZE BANKS OF
INCOMING DRAINAGE
END
16- \ \ SF3
♦ 7/)r �� \
♦ ✓ci!
GRADE INNER BANK \ \Q \\
AT A 3:1 SLOeE v \\
I
I
I
1
I
I
- - - - EXISTING
\ WETLAND
l—
�%/ 1111111\
/ / I
i
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
•ti�,I1111tI'l��
CAR
SEAL
p '. 33733 •
7 '
•
.`
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS
TO MINIMIZE DAMAGING EXISTING NATIVE TREES
WHERE POSSIBLE.
Lu z
J
Fj5 O
Z U
o
Q K
O O Z
Z fn Z
w O
(n U
Q O
W
N
� Z
U) O
SITE PLAN
REACH:
SF3
15
00
Lu
_
' •
pC�Syy,, EXISTING CULVERT
•�
G y _ TO REMAIN
Lu
W—�—moi
♦'
I ��
/
L1
.�
y
J
Imo•
I I,
PROPOSED'LIVE LIFT'.
~
I
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
I
PROPOSED'RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT'.
/ /
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
STABILIZED INCOMING
DRAINAGE WITH ROCK
OUTLET. SEE DETAIL SHEET.
GRADE BACK AND
STABILIZE BANKS OF
INCOMING DRAINAGE
END
16- \ \ SF3
♦ 7/)r �� \
♦ ✓ci!
GRADE INNER BANK \ \Q \\
AT A 3:1 SLOeE v \\
I
I
I
1
I
I
- - - - EXISTING
\ WETLAND
l—
�%/ 1111111\
/ / I
i
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
•ti�,I1111tI'l��
CAR
SEAL
p '. 33733 •
7 '
•
.`
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS
TO MINIMIZE DAMAGING EXISTING NATIVE TREES
WHERE POSSIBLE.
Lu z
J
Fj5 O
Z U
o
Q K
O O Z
Z fn Z
w O
(n U
Q O
W
N
� Z
U) O
SITE PLAN
REACH:
SF3
15

'liilillllllff!!f!!.
.• 1�1 CAq
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS
GRAPHIC
SITE PLAN
• �
; ; �.
Y
WHERE POSSIBLE.
REACH:
/
TRIB 2-1, 2-2, 2-3
ISHEET 10 OF 15
BEGIN
TRIB 2-1
:q
�
- SEAL
�
I
Gy ` 32733
83o
FLOODPLAIN
END
TRIB 2LL
w
zo
Q .
'+, �. •lNE 'P-1 ti
�chAE�
GRADING EXTENTS
'/ '�� /' // /
/
I \00,
S�
U)
N
!• ••
••
.%... ��f /
�.
z
LL
—40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
-
GRAPHIC SCALE'
N _
i / /
p
'----
i�j�/l// // I\
�'j �� `O_-/'
/^
0)
it
Lu
Lu
0
01
Lu
W
0
04
STABILIZED INCOMING
/ \
DRAINAGE WITH ROCK -
_--'' ,'' ♦� / / / / /
���..
\ \
OUTLET. SEE DETAIL SHEET.
�
/
- ♦ / , �/ __
--- �� .�
STABILIZED INCOMING
/ __
♦ / / ,'
����
DRAINAGE WITH ROCK
o0
// //
_____
'- ♦ / /'(/ ,' ____-
OUTLET. SEE DETAIL SHEET.
' ---_
i
PROPOSED'LIVE LIFT'.
DETAIL
`\ ♦`
` `�
�¢
��
SEE SHEET.
w
z8
/'OQ� I _\
//
PROPOSED'RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT'.
/ LQZ i' ♦I
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
/'
/ ♦�
'
co
'pp /__ O \ I / / / /♦
♦
c\\
PROPOSED'CHANNELBLOCK.
z
Qa
/
/ ♦♦Q.� \ x0
�X \\ '—
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
w
00
Y.
♦BJP vv �01>\ `�
,_—'� / _, — ,— /' /
STABILIZED INCOMING
/ ♦♦ip�
-
\ \ \
��__
/' /'
- _- / ♦! /
DRAINAGE WITH ROCK
/ Z ♦♦0�
\ \ \ _ _ _ _ _ '
- - - \ / ♦ / /
OUTLET. SEE DETAIL SHEET.
W
Q
♦\ G
\ \ \\
--------- \ /�♦ /
z
--♦
------------_
\
\ 0cr
—
BEGIN__-------
TRIB 2-3
OILL
-►
o ` ---- __--------__
-� . . ---Y
_
0
--i p
O
z
//
— -- ��
--'— — �.��
PROPOSED'STEP POOL'.
}
// // / --- ����
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
O W
z
/ / 9 /
'/i' /' ♦♦
BEGIN
PROPOSED'RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL'.
Q'
O
/ / ,
�,
/ ' // ♦♦ TRIB 2-2
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
Q
z
O
�' �' '
I
/
- -
i ♦♦
/ %
Lu
of
�
Z
♦♦
' /
♦♦♦ EXISTING
WETLAND
4p WETLAND
I
,�
DATE: APRIL 2018
' I ��///�♦
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS
GRAPHIC
SITE PLAN
TO DAMAGING EXISTING NATIVE TREES
\ /
WHERE POSSIBLE.
REACH:
/
TRIB 2-1, 2-2, 2-3
ISHEET 10 OF 15
BEGIN
TRIB 2-1

216
212
208
204
200
196
192
204
200
196
192
188
184
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00
1809+00
REACH STONY FORK (SF2)
RESTORATION PROPOSED
PPnFII F
PROPOSED
Fi nnnPi —
EXISTING,
r—,
��filffrflrrrr
.•'� H CAR '''•
SEAL
_ p . 32733
IN Ln
4f�CNAEL
"+„ f1I1f1fi'
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
r m�
I
i i o
s
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I
__I__�__r__I__
I I I I
__+__I__�__+__
I I I I
__I__+__�__I__
♦
O
I
++
r
F
I
e I
e I
+
¢ _r
N
tN
a
r @
_ N
_
—
--
~�
a-
a>-_
o
I'
-------
----
--
-r+-
-- -------
------_--
----A
--_--_I--_--_
--_--_
------
-
r ---
-'Z
-,I
,
-
r
-_
J
r¢
L___
r---
II
IzI
A
L--_--_I--_--_J--_--_L--_-
pl
_
__
/�__
--Y --r-
'rO d>O
rp
IO
+
+lam
bB� i
i
rn ��
+
Mrn
moi'
M
m
O
��__IT
I
br 011
,, I
4i ,T++,,
I I b
n b
__ _ __
__
___ __
_ I_Ij
_
__ }>;,_y
_
III
__I
_ ___
_
~�_
_ - _
.b> >�. I\
___� WT—_
/
> w
'
_
W
iL
F Q
m N'>
¢ r
F
F Q
HI¢
F
z r
�
Z rP
fl
`r
m
3�
+ .-I
�
_I__
pp
�iN
a
__ ____ __
____ __ ____
_
__ __�__+_
T Ii
__ _
_ � +
` _ __
__ ___
`\
__
__I
I
__I__,__.
_'__
_a__+____a
_ti_a__
I
W
W
a al j
m Vj
N
pl
— .�
?p
—¢ 'Q
¢—
pl Nz
N2
im
ri r
mmrn
Ili I
w>
aJ dW
>ww-�>`
td ¢fngg O)¢N
-O)
a__o___
F --_i_ ---m
f _
�- -
--'------
-
�----------�-
�II--
--II 5'L
6rV
rf
vmi
Ori
��--r--�--r3
m
rr.y-I--}--�--
Oi
--� V -Ir----
m °'°'__
- ----------
-- �----------�
__---
---------------
-----------
--------------------
>J>
W
>JI
i-�oli
z
O'
o
+
T ___
_
___
_
__
Iii
a
____ ___
W
-m
a W
I
__
______-------
H
N
N
Z
+I r+mal
_
_____�>
r
w
a
22
rn�l
a
la
Y
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I
i__ I__
__II__
W
I I__I____
W
— W I
a
� w l
Fli
I I I O ¢
_
al
F ¢ I I
m
a wl
polo
o
H
lo I
,__�____�__m
I�
}
I m
p z
m
I I I Or
+' �
__I__�__L _I _
II z
_ �
NI
Or I I
r __�__a____�__a__�
zl
I �
poi
m
�
ac .w
Im I I mr
rn
- -
rn
__
�
__ _
I
I I I I
y r
I I I I
r 7 r
I I I I
• r
I I I I
r y r
y r--
I
------�--r-
I I I I
--?-- --II-- --
I I I I
- --I-- --II--
I
------I-- ----
------I--
--li - --I----
>I
-- --li - --? JU
> LT
- --I ----
N
a'IJ
I
------I--j
W H
>�
I p
> ---- --i Hi Q
I
-r�
pl
Q-- -- ----
-- --'+��
r
r l I vY
ry---`-+
m
^'
- --- --
-
n
+
ro I
-' --
r
--�� w-�--
ro w
mi
__
__-__i__r__,__
__i __- _�__r_____�__i_______
---- _______----
i_____I_____
____i_____I__
__r ---- r___ -----
__r_____I___i__
__I_____r____
>
_
I� ___r____
g
w a w
yr> _
_____ rnl
W w
url
a
l r-
¢
pl
m
W
ELI
CLI
wl
Im
Ij
m Ij
¢I
Oa
O
IN Z
a
=
=
-
-
--------------------
-
196
192
188
184
180
176
20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00
172 L--
30+00
31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00
W z
J
0
X
Z U
O
Q
O
O z
Z (1) Z
O uJ n
W 0
(n U
Q O
W
� z
0
PROFILES
ISREET 11 OF 15 1

PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED REACH STONY FORK (SF3) ry
PROFILE GRADE FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION
188 ',`ys�µ i i i►���
%H CAq
\� •• �/
\,• • ,
■
R
r
• s
•
f
184
r
'.
sm
i
Q� 3'733
18076
o
cs
■. lucy
in ■ ,y Vl
176
opz
w
172 DL
K
w
a
b
168
w�
1641+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 49+00 50+00
PROPOSED PROPOSED EXISTING EXISTING CULVERT
184 PROFILE FLOODPLAIN GRADE TO REMAIN rti
z
�®
200 b
U
F� !y
F
196
F o0
z a D
U
192 TT o
w z
z os
a
a
�o
188
az
W -
0
E.
w
W
QG
184w.
w
160
50+00 51+00 52+00 53+00 54+00 55+00 56+00 57+00 58+00 59+00 60+00 61+00 W z
J
REACH TRIBUTARY 1 REACH TRIBUTARY 1A �
EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED
212 RESTORATION GRADE FLOODPLAIN PROFILE 212 RESTORATION z Q
Y x
~(
Q
--Q-- O
M LL
2080 208 d o n
N ----------y- -r-F-� O_ Z-t-tyw-o z co
H
Q r O + N z
a-
-H N
S J- _-F-Q_._ ^ ---LLI
LL O
cn
U
204 204 >
,� z
z
Q O
W
_________� _J ________ ____ ___N ________ Z
- `--'- - --'- ---- ----- ---- x
200 200 N U) O
z�oa
Z
c r
�`a'--- b-mQor -
St �o
196 196 z� z
�• a >>a
{u a - --- - --- --- - - DATE: APRIL 2018
In w
> °� w w w -LE: 1"=40'
-- - - D -w>_ W - -- --
192 192 PROFILES
SHEET 12 OF 15
188 188
100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 150+00 151+00 152+00
A7
'o
+
-m
O'
J F
N
Z O
o
r
N_ _r
+
'O
Z .O
0
�'
a
_9
NN 1rj
O
2 Q N
O Z
p�
NII M
i
J
- o Z'
Z
[V
Z
N Z
w
F
Q
.Z.
- --
v
> W �-J
d � W
W
>
O
Z
�
o�
d
M Z
W
w
� : o F
--------
---- - -
F
-
O______.`+°w______n_
_
�
; � ; z $' z
R
'O 'P
v p_
c
p
+
-- --
�.
-----
- _'
-w.
w -a
m
_ m
>_.__ .w
_:aa
r Q
� ,
-------------
¢ a F o Zo
?
aa
>
.--a
w. >
;
w.
a J a
w�--r--,--
-
Q F
?a
P
w �
6d
--
�
--_
F
M
" o:-° � rn
tD'
� "'• r a
�
-_ ; -,_
-
_.�z,
O�
a "'
'
� a >
-
o� 4 �*'
N•
*<vo-oma
__
__`__
�;
--'��-------
-------------
--wl-n
w-
Z
o--'--•cv
N
_m-r--
rn a
a,Ja
Ir�
�4
> w
> w
d F
d
I
->.,a
--,
-,
->W?w
wa
0.�
r'd
O
0. 8-
MZ.o-Z
M N ^
>
>
w
` z& z�;
w
�
_Q
); w, j w
c
>'w
F
Q
z ,�
z
0
�
�
O�
¢¢
__+wm,w
*fin
X
o'
________
W '�.
_____
;
__________
__ _ ______
_____; _____,_
N
Z'
wQ
U'
n
P
m
A
�
��M��
Z;�n
�
W
W
0
rn
Zwm�w�OzJ��0_ZOwo..O_____________��,a'Jw�g>
-
w
>
w W
. 7'
F
�
w' 'w
a'
w
a
>>
L6_�2
'
w
O
r
J F
+
-m
O'
J F
N
Z O
o
r
N_ _r
+
'O
Z .O
0
�'
a
_9
NN 1rj
O
2 Q N
O Z
p�
NII M
i
J
- o Z'
[V
F
- --
�
\
--- -
> W �-J
d � W
W
>
O A.
o ZO
Z
�
o�
d
W
� : o F
--------
---- - -
F
-
_
�
; � ; z $' z
R
o'.00 O -a'
�.
� pn �^ �
-'--
-'---'-------
-- --
-
-----
----
-w.
w -a
m
_ m
>_.__ .w
_:aa
r Q
� ,
-------------
¢ a F o Zo
>
.--a
w. >
;
w.
a J a
w�--r--,--
-
m w >
?a
w �
6d
w~_wia
F
M
" o:-° � rn
tD'
� "'• r a
-_ ; -,_
-
_.�z,
a "'
'
� a >
-
o� 4 �*'
N•
*<vo-oma
__
__`__
�;
--'��-------
-------------
--wl-n
w-
Z
o--'--•cv
N
_m-r--
a,Ja
Ir�
�4
I
->.,a
--,
-,
->W?w
wa
0.�
r'd
O
0. 8-
MZ.o-Z
>
>
w
w
�
E, w. y w
); w, j w
c
F
F
Q
z ,�
z
N
�rn �
7
'
X
--
w
§D,
N
Z'
z
U'
n
��M��
Z;�n
�
Oo
0
Zwm�w�OzJ��0_ZOwo..O_____________��,a'Jw�g>
w' 'w
a'
L6_�2
'
O
r
J F
+
-m
O'
J F
N
Z O
o
r
N_ _r
+
'O
Z .O
0
�'
a
_9
NN 1rj
O
2 Q N
O Z
p�
NII M
i
J
- o Z'
F
- --
�
\
--- -
> W �-J
d � W
W
>
O A.
o ZO
Z
�
W
� : o F
--------
---- - -
F
-
_
�
; � ; z $' z
o'.00 O -a'
�.
� pn �^ �
-'--
-'---'-------
-- --
-
-----
----
-w.
w -a
m
_ m
>_.__ .w
_:aa
r Q
� ,
-------------
¢ a F o Zo
>
.--a
w. >
;
w.
a J a
w�--r--,--
-
m w >
?a
w �
6d
w~_wia
F
M
" o:-° � rn
tD'
� "'• r a
-_ ; -,_
-
_.�z,
a "'
'
� a >
-
o� 4 �*'
N•
*<vo-oma
__
__`__
�;
--'��-------
-------------
--wl-n
w-
Z
o--'--•cv
N
_m-r--
a,Ja
Ir�
�4
a
->.,a
--,
-,
->W?w
wa
0.�
r'd
O
0. 8-
MZ.o-Z
>
>
w
w
�
E, w. y w
); w, j w

200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00 208+00 209+00 210+00 211+00 zWL:REACH TRIBUTARY 2-3 REACH TRIB 3 REACH TRIB 3 O
RESTORATION ENAHAMCEMENTI
188 216 ZQ
OO
+b N: }-
184 212 obZ `}ONZ�-
Z (n 4 . -
A
L- oz m
O; -- W O
>m>
180 � N 208•>w>ww>W>w>w'
w w O
W as L
-
0NOwaU�woz�w
Z ----------------
-I
---- -I
--- w
204
176 -------------___ �#•.iNri a�' iNii•. -r oN"-� -N,� 4V-iri -______ _____________
Ur) O
----------------- ---------------------
=
,-
Lg
ED/d --•- •
O NO "z �
172
+o 1
0,
168 196 PROFIL
ES
164 192 SHEET 13 O15
211+00 212+00 213+00 214+00 215+00 216+00 300+00 301+00 302+00
+- �z_ota>� - Oa.•''.,'
HF>W-1m mrym�Z4a
-nM�xN�_a>'-:.;'•'..:..j avIi-m�¢J�uryi+- .''', --- ---_iNm �N0"r i` 0. O>Z�dwN
rm_g.•• --�ONra>- D>ww Z� - .dw - .
------�'�$amNa�a>+..- ..,.•':,':...novFommrum�zO>�w- iryTr`S>�o`��Na�ay.+
'
.tpMF_�Z��W�un5.V,..•
II I}.O-¢ONW'¢Ww/ �rII�OM.F�:.'••.k
--Oms¢MN--�;.::•''
_vb.o>ww,m�nNF�cmMmiat_,ma>
$
_- Oa�ONJn_O3ID.ww�-•..
_.
i i -_--- .-_��I,';•I.-.4_--I���Z�N_--J_�.'.'
o0NFNa_<qmw _
�Q2O¢�tewIF�-a_�;, _----L_--tZIF¢> I;;;;.:_- _--_---;'�,.:_---moQHNd>cooNrm-+_- �zFG>Jzw_-N _oor`vAfr`..:..•:_ai
NQrm>)�- __Nzw...•;o¢>�w__-_-•_-_--;;._II _-- _---I
I _-_-- +oN�m� �_- _--�SZ1`a�A��'�'�'��_'czrO! _---- �^�o<r>_;,--.v•'� _---N .vcoN�+_nm�W �N_zOQWe_r_;;.�•. _--- _----- II _-----
_-----I
II
��`°���odW_-s� � _��Zr��o�'O�c_--`i�oNdm_.--';.•:
•A_-.'m.k�n_-�.+��'� -
'rn�N►_--- !1'H_'-i<SF`a>b•;.1+o`_-�a0!1
11C.•1_-A1•I_--+`/_---I1A
SEAL
3273+3
;NAfit
REACH TRIBUTARY 2-1 REACH TRIBUTARY 2-2 REACH TRIBUTARY 2-3
�►!_�TNm�1_�•.:.mN
.!_.-
rm�¢w���•`�'���'
-
•r
-
--
_
rwNWZzaaNzw
V
eaa)
ENHANCEMENTII PROPOSED EXISTNG PROPOSED RESTORATION UPROFILE GRAFLOODPLAIN200 ®
o N mN o®W
O
196 D -------- ------
w.a- .zj���>OO pO
192Lp
- -Fo.O. z+
O
Wa:
rn' g� > N-¢ d• • jFQ
188 - O o ZNNQO. +O w•> O
W---- ----- F
0Ww0J�a
No oU
D -- zU> ww:aw> w a w>�wo11-- ,-- --
184 dc �n---
zo M
_ _ _ 44'- , a
m6m>.W�
' 4
Z'iu��0avd,
o' .z'a>wV,:> ¢ ¢H¢H m
180 w' zz
W, >y O co-mO ¢ o: �n �j0zaZvzJ
w>ww0 W
a 'EL >-�ww,>ozNz+
- ---,-- z�
oo.17;>wwe 'a>wJ>
172 >
Z
-
n
i ,2
�Zj
-, -, -
-•
v�aF>�moS> mN----IId1u�Wizr
-Y,
mFo�T>_rnJ-
- ------R�Fncm---
------•---E
---
:•.oy---
��'����•�i
'C
-_--
-----
----
----
----
,
----¢
----
--------------
-"
�F-rn
-c��zrW
-...•
- -
N-WoR2a:•':.•
':.,��'������i
naF
--zr>>Q--'
--F----
rO�z4Ia>-
-QVN
'NH'•:'...:';m
-->- t-
_,i���,
��•:�������i
--o�T�aovN�ma
��aFw����i
--orzOFa>w�w
',v'���
oaOFa>wJw
o�am�'�`��.
moarm>N+S2w•-'O��
.•'.'
;�
----
--��•'�������''���..
-----
iW--'ZJ
•.-•'myN---10¢1
------������'����iNQ_>
-I
b•;
,..'
N�
ZauJw�---OZ
cF--
cp~aWwNQ
mrJJwzrw-
����
r
aN~�mpNard+-�-��
z
z_---
/-
1------
m'�N
Na'a-aOr3N1'���'n��i
i---
+- �z_ota>� - Oa.•''.,'
HF>W-1m mrym�Z4a
-nM�xN�_a>'-:.;'•'..:..j avIi-m�¢J�uryi+- .''', --- ---_iNm �N0"r i` 0. O>Z�dwN
rm_g.•• --�ONra>- D>ww Z� - .dw - .
------�'�$amNa�a>+..- ..,.•':,':...novFommrum�zO>�w- iryTr`S>�o`��Na�ay.+
'
.tpMF_�Z��W�un5.V,..•
II I}.O-¢ONW'¢Ww/ �rII�OM.F�:.'••.k
--Oms¢MN--�;.::•''
_vb.o>ww,m�nNF�cmMmiat_,ma>
$
_- Oa�ONJn_O3ID.ww�-•..
_.
i i -_--- .-_��I,';•I.-.4_--I���Z�N_--J_�.'.'
o0NFNa_<qmw _
�Q2O¢�tewIF�-a_�;, _----L_--tZIF¢> I;;;;.:_- _--_---;'�,.:_---moQHNd>cooNrm-+_- �zFG>Jzw_-N _oor`vAfr`..:..•:_ai
NQrm>)�- __Nzw...•;o¢>�w__-_-•_-_--;;._II _-- _---I
I _-_-- +oN�m� �_- _--�SZ1`a�A��'�'�'��_'czrO! _---- �^�o<r>_;,--.v•'� _---N .vcoN�+_nm�W �N_zOQWe_r_;;.�•. _--- _----- II _-----
_-----I
II
��`°���odW_-s� � _��Zr��o�'O�c_--`i�oNdm_.--';.•:
•A_-.'m.k�n_-�.+��'� -
'rn�N►_--- !1'H_'-i<SF`a>b•;.1+o`_-�a0!1
11C.•1_-A1•I_--+`/_---I1A
SEAL
3273+3
;NAfit
REACH TRIBUTARY 2-1 REACH TRIBUTARY 2-2 REACH TRIBUTARY 2-3
�►!_�TNm�1_�•.:.mN
.!_.-
rm�¢w���•`�'���'
-
•r
-
--
_
rwNWZzaaNzw
V
eaa)
ENHANCEMENTII PROPOSED EXISTNG PROPOSED RESTORATION UPROFILE GRAFLOODPLAIN200 ®
o N mN o®W
O
196 D -------- ------
w.a- .zj���>OO pO
192Lp
- -Fo.O. z+
O
Wa:
rn' g� > N-¢ d• • jFQ
188 - O o ZNNQO. +O w•> O
W---- ----- F
0Ww0J�a
No oU
D -- zU> ww:aw> w a w>�wo11-- ,-- --
184 dc �n---
zo M
_ _ _ 44'- , a
m6m>.W�
' 4
Z'iu��0avd,
o' .z'a>wV,:> ¢ ¢H¢H m
180 w' zz
W, >y O co-mO ¢ o: �n �j0zaZvzJ
w>ww0 W
a 'EL >-�ww,>ozNz+
- ---,-- z�
oo.17;>wwe 'a>wJ>
172 >
Z
-
n
i ,2
�Zj
-, -, -
-•
v�aF>�moS> mN----IId1u�Wizr
-Y,
mFo�T>_rnJ-
- ------R�Fncm---
------•---E
---
:•.oy---
��'����•�i
'C
-_--
-----
----
----
----
,
----¢
----
--------------
-"
�F-rn
-c��zrW
-...•
- -
N-WoR2a:•':.•
':.,��'������i
naF
--zr>>Q--'
--F----
rO�z4Ia>-
-QVN
'NH'•:'...:';m
-->- t-
_,i���,
��•:�������i
--o�T�aovN�ma
��aFw����i
--orzOFa>w�w
',v'���
oaOFa>wJw
o�am�'�`��.
moarm>N+S2w•-'O��
.•'.'
;�
----
--��•'�������''���..
-----
iW--'ZJ
•.-•'myN---10¢1
------������'����iNQ_>
-I
b•;
,..'
N�
ZauJw�---OZ
cF--
cp~aWwNQ
mrJJwzrw-
����
r
aN~�mpNard+-�-��
z
z_---
/-
1------
m'�N
Na'a-aOr3N1'���'n��i
i---
-
n
i ,2
�Zj
-, -, -
-•
v�aF>�moS> mN----IId1u�Wizr
-Y,
mFo�T>_rnJ-
- ------R�Fncm---
------•---E
---
:•.oy---
��'����•�i
'C
-_--
-----
----
----
----
,
----¢
----
--------------
-"
�F-rn
-c��zrW
-...•
- -
N-WoR2a:•':.•
':.,��'������i
naF
--zr>>Q--'
--F----
rO�z4Ia>-
-QVN
'NH'•:'...:';m
-->- t-
_,i���,
��•:�������i
--o�T�aovN�ma
��aFw����i
--orzOFa>w�w
',v'���
oaOFa>wJw
o�am�'�`��.
moarm>N+S2w•-'O��
.•'.'
;�
----
--��•'�������''���..
-----
iW--'ZJ
•.-•'myN---10¢1
------������'����iNQ_>
-I
b•;
,..'
N�
ZauJw�---OZ
cF--
cp~aWwNQ
mrJJwzrw-
����
r
aN~�mpNard+-�-��
z
z_---
/-
1------
m'�N
Na'a-aOr3N1'���'n��i
i---
paFr
MZpa..OZOZ,IIOzoOz�z�Z
OMb0M0M0M00MO
Waa
'
DATE,APRIL
2018 200 J
M

RIPARIAN FOREST PLANTING:
04
PLANTING ZONE 1 = 13.4 ACRES
O
0
LIVE CUTTING
12" - 18" BARE ROOT MATERIAL
(0.5" TO 2" DIAMETER)
ti
968 STEMS/ACRE (9' X S SPACING), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
w
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS
% OF TOTAL
# OF PLANTS
AMERICAN SYCAMORE PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS
FACW
20
2,600
SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK QUERCUS MICHAUXII
FACW
20
2,600
GREEN ASH FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA
FACW
20
2,600
RIVER BIRCH BETULA NIGRA
FACW
20
2,600
WILLOW OAK QUERCUS PHELLOS
FAC
10
1,300
TULIP POPLAR LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA
FACU
10
1,300
13,000
PLANTING ZONE 2 = 9.5 ACRES
12" - 18" BARE ROOT MATERIAL
968 STEMS/ACRE (9' X 5' SPACING), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS
% OF TOTAL
# OF PLANTS
TULIP POPLAR LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA
FACU
20
1,900
SOUTHERN RED OAK QUERCUS FALCATA
FACU
25
2,300
WILLOW OAK QUERCUS PHELLOS
FAC
15
1,400
WHITE OAK QUERCUS ALBA
FACU
20
1,900
AMERICAN PERSIMMON DIOSPYROS VIRGINIANA
FAC
10
900
PIN OAK QUERCUS PALUSTRIS
FACW
10
900
9,300
PLANTING ZONE 3 = 6.2 ACRES (APPROX)
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ZONE AS NEEDED FOR AREAS CLEARED
OF CHINESE PRIVET
0
ONE -GALLON CONTAINER TREES AT 20'X 20' SPACING, OR
BARE ROOT TREES IN TREE SHELTERS AT 10' ON CENTER SPACING
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS
% OF TOTAL
# OF PLANTS
RIVER BIRCH BETULA NIGRA
FACW
15
105
AMERICAN SYCAMORE PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS
FACW
15
105
WHITE OAK QUERCUS ALBA
FACU
15
105
SOUTHERN RED OAK QUERCUS FALCATA
FACU
15
105
SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK QUERCUS MICHAUXII
FACW
15
105
PIN OAK QUERCUS PALUSTRIS
FACW
10
70
WILLOW OAK QUERCUS PHELLOS
FAC
15
105
700
PI ANTING NOTF-
ZONE 3
STREAM ZONE:
STREAM ZONE
LIVE STAKES: 1.570 2' LENGTHS, 1/2' TO 2" DIAMETER,
PLANT AT 3' SPACING, RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
BLACK WILLOW SALIX NIGRA
SILKY WILLOW SALIX SERICEA
SILKY DOGWOOD CORNUS AMOMUM
NOTE: NO SINGLE LIVE STAKING SPECIES
SHALL COMPOSE MORE THAN 40%
OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LIVE
—130'-65' 0' 130' 260'
GRAPHIC SCALE
ZONE 3 0
.••'ZH CAgp'•..
SEAL .:
p i 32733
LIVE STAKES
SCALE: NTS
SQUARE CUT
BUDS
(FACING UPWARD)
04
O
0
LIVE CUTTING
O
(0.5" TO 2" DIAMETER)
ti
w
ANGLE CUT 30°45°�
:S OF CHANNEL.
NS ON OUTER BENDS.
i OF CHANNEL.
NS ON OUTER BENDS.
0
z
w
w
U)
z
Y O
OofU- of
z U)
O w
Q
w
H
U)
Q
Z
J
O
Q
0
x
af
F
O
z
z
z
Z)
0
0
z
O
F
z
X:
O
PLANTING
PLAN

aaaa+al ll!!l,r rrl
H CAgQ '00
EASEMENT BOUNDARY MARKING
= •'�
SIFAL
THE EASEMENT BOUNDARY WILL BE MARKED
D :� 32733
WITH METAL POSTS AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SIGNS AT THE CORNERS AND AT A MINIMUM OF 100'
7 : RIS
INTERVALS ALONG THE BOUNDARY.
.' ��'��rlTl��a'.
o
o W
o
5/8" REBAR 30" IN LENGTH WITH 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAPS
ON ALL EASEMENT CORNERS. CAPS SHALL MEET DMS
• SPECIFICATIONS (BERNSTEN RBD5325 IMPRINTED WITH
O
NC STATE LOGO #B9087 OR EQUIVALENT). AFTER
INSTALLATION, CAPS SHALL BE STAMPED WITH THE
CORRESPONDING NUMBER.
6-FOOT TALL DURABLE WITNESS POST ALONG BOUNDARY
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT. POSTS SHALL BE MADE
• OF MATERIAL THAT WILL LAST A MINIMUM OF 20 YEARS.
THE PROV DER SHALL ATTACH A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SIGN TO EACH WITNESS POST AND PLACE ADDITIONAL SIGNS
uO
AT NO MORE THAN 100-FOOT INTERVALS ON BOUNDARY LINES.
® b
F�
CJ �
z
a�
w`z
Fri
0
z
"a
0
w
Z
I
tz
J
co
O
Z
O
v
F-
F-
O W
o
z
LL O
�
_
H
Zcn
z
O w
D
Df
o
-130'-65' 0' 130' 260'
2
z
Q
w
o
GRAPHIC SCALE
O
APRIL 2018
GRAPHIC
BOUNDARY
MARKING
PLAN
SHEET 15 OF
15

12.2 Data Analysis/Supplemental Information and Maps
Existing Conditions Cross -Sections
Pebble Count Tables
Stream Morphological Tables
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
April 24, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
April 24, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS 1 Stony Fork Reach 1
Drainage Area:
175 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
201.53
4.5
201.87
8.6
202.02
10.2
201.75
11.0
201.46
11.8
199.65
12.8
198.68
13.5
198.52
14.3
198.43
15.4
198.36
16.1
198.48
17.2
198.64
18.4
198.86
21.0
201.84
22.0
201.88
30.3
201.52
37.3
201.17
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 199.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.4
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
200.8
Flood Prone Width:
8.7
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
d
0.9
W / D Ratio:
201
8.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0
2.9
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XSl Stony Fork Reach 1
203
202
d
201
-------------------- -------------- ------------------------------------
0
200
199
198
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
5/26/2016 Bankfull Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS2 Stony Fork Reach 2
Drainage Area:
190 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
198.70
4.1
198.56
7.5
198.16
11.9
197.19
16.0
196.15
18.0
195.67
20.0
195.41
20.6
195.23
20.8
193.51
22.3
193.52
23.0
193.14
24.2
193.10
25.1
193.07
25.9
193.10
26.4
193.32
27.2
193.74
27.9
194.56
28.7
196.75
30.1
197.07
33.1
197.08
37.0
196.79
40.5
196.64
43.7
196.43
SUMMARY DATA
199
Bankfull Elevation:
194.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.0
Bankfull Width:
7.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
195.6
Flood Prone Width:
10.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
7.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.7
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS2 Stony Fork Reach 2
199
198
197
196
_____________________________ __________ ___________________________
0
195
fil
-------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
194
193
192
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
5/26/2016 - - _ B-kfull - - _ Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
El
XS3 Stony Fork Reach 2
Drainage Area:
217 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
189.45
4.1
189.55
10.1
189.21
13.4
188.67
15.8
188.11
17.6
187.76
18.9
185.81
21.6
183.44
22.0
183.27
22.4
183.05
22.7
182.96
23.2
183.06
24.4
184.28
25.3
187.44
28.4
189.36
29.2
190.98
33.1
191.74
36.4
192.09
39.0
192.43
SUMMARY DATA
194
Bankfull Elevation:
185.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.9
Bankfull Width:
5.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
187.4
Flood Prone Width:
7.4
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
3.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.5
Bank Height Ratio:
2.1
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS3 Stony Fork Reach 2
194
192
190
d
188
0
--------------------------------- -------------- ----------------------------
j 186
------------------------------------- --------- -----------------------------
184
182
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
5/26/2016 Bankfull Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS4 Stony Fork Reach 2
Drainage Area:
254 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
182.10
4.7
182.08
9.0
182.19
11.5
181.81
13.8
181.21
15.1
180.27
16.3
180.18
16.6
179.46
18.9
179.37
20.2
179.27
21.5
179.17
22.8
179.18
23.3
179.03
23.9
179.30
25.8
181.24
28.6
183.34
30.9
183.80
37.3
184.06
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
180.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.9
Bankfull Width:
10.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
181.7
Flood Prone Width:
14.5
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
11.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.6
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS4 Stony Fork Reach 2
185
184
- -
183
d
182
------------------------------------- --------------------
0
181
W
180
179
178
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
5/26/2016 Bankfull Floodprone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS5 Stony Fork Reach 2
Drainage Area:
264 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
178.30
8.5
178.72
14.0
178.98
16.6
178.59
18.1
178.34
19.9
176.94
21.4
175.41
23.3
175.42
24.6
175.22
25.6
175.11
26.3
175.22
27.1
175.39
29.0
179.21
29.9
179.32
35.4
179.27
40.1
179.29
44.4
179.26
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
176.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:8.2
Bankfull Width:
7.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
178.0
Flood Prone Width:
1
9.9
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
W / D Ratio:
6.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.3
Bank Height Ratio:
2.2
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS5 Stony Fork Reach 2
180
179
178
m
177
0
0
a
176
W
175
174
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
5/26/2016 - - Bankfull - - Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS6 Stony Fork Reach 3
Drainage Area:
414 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
176.80
4.4
177.00
8.8
177.22
10.1
177.30
11.4
176.81
12.4
174.40
14.7
174.22
16.9
174.37
19.2
174.32
20.8
174.29
22.0
174.47
23.5
178.16
25.8
179.77
27.8
180.19
31.2
180.26
34.9
179.48
39.0
178.93
42.3
178.75
45.0
178.96
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
175.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
12.5
Bankfull Width:
10.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
176.9
Flood Prone Width:
14.4
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
W / D Ratio:
8.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.4
Bank Height Ratio:
2.0
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS6 Stony Fork Reach 3
181
180
179
178
0 177
--------- ------------------------------------
176
175
174
173
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
5/26/2016 - - Bankfull - - Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS7 Tributary 1
Drainage Area:
12 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
199.77
4.1
199.60
7.9
199.49
12.0
198.93
14.4
198.87
17.2
198.33
18.4
197.93
19.5
197.21
20.0
196.60
20.8
196.75
21.4
196.77
22.2
196.62
23.1
196.99
24.6
198.10
26.0
198.51
30.3
198.60
34.5
198.26
38.6
198.11
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
][I
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
c
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS7 Tributary 1
200
200
199
c
199
0 198
198
44
------------------------------------- -- -----------------------
197
197
196
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
5/26/2016 Ba kfull Floodp- Area

River Basin:
Bankfull Elevation:
Neuse
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Project Name
4.4
Stony Fork Restoration Site
A,
jq
XS ID
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
XS8 Tributary 2`
0.8
W / D Ratio:
5.4
Drainage Area:
1.3
Bank Height Ratio:
93 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
t
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.0
99.77
5.3
100.02
11.3
100.00
14.0
99.65
�^
14.9
96.50
16.3
95.01
16.7
94.96Depth
17.5
94.88
-'
18.1
94.82
18.5
95.05
19.6
95.68
22.0
100.03
23.8
100.25
28.7
100.11
35.3 100.35
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS8 Tributary 2
101
100
99
98
0
W
- -
- - - - - - z
96
- - - - - -
95
94-
0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
96.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
4.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
97.2
Flood Prone Width:
5.7
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Mean at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
5.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.3
Bank Height Ratio:
4.1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
5/26/2016 Bankfull Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS9 Tributary 2
Drainage Area:
149.5 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
1T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
177.63
6.4
177.59
11.0
177.91
13.1
178.03
13.8
177.79
14.7
174.81
15.6
174.67
16.5
174.85
17.5
174.86
18.5
175.02
19.2
175.29
20.4
178.23
22.0
178.68
26.8
178.58
30.7
178.57
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
176.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.4
Bankfull Width:
5.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
178.8
Flood Prone Width:
>30
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
W / D Ratio:
3.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.5
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS9 Tributary 2
180
179 ---------------------------------------------------------------
179
178
178
177
.2
177
W
176
176
175
175
174
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
5/26/2016 - - - Bankfull - - - - Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS 10 Tributary 3
Drainage Area:
29 acres
Date:
May -16
Field Crew:
j Survey staff
Station
Elevation
0.0
210.87
17.6
209.81
26.9
210.02
29.0
206.99
31.5
206.30
33.7
206.84
35.0
208.53
67.5
210.49
SUMMARY DATA
212
Bankfull Elevation:
207.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.9
Bankfull Width:
4.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
207.7
Flood Prone Width:
5.9
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
12.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.3
Bank Height Ratio:
3.2
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS10 Tributary 3
212
211
210
0 209
W
208
207
206
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
5/26/2016 Bankfull Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS11 Tributary 3
Drainage Area:
29 acres
Date:
May -16
Field Crew:
m Survey staff
Station
Elevation
0.0
210.97
15.3
208.68
15.9
206.27
17.7
206.02
19.6
206.26
21.6
208.91
29.4
208.78
36.3
212.99
44.2
215.71
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
206.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.6
Bankfull Width:
4.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
207.6
Flood Prone Width:
5.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
6.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.2
Bank Height Ratio:
3.4
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XSll Tributary 3
216
215
214
213
212
0
211
210
W
209
----------------------
------- ------------------------------------
208
207
206
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
5/26/2016 Bankfull Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS Ref 1
Drainage Area:
263.9 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
182.75
4.7
182.77
8.5
182.35
11.8
181.71
13.5
181.06
15.8
180.64
16.4
179.53
19.3
179.49
21.4
179.29
22.7
179.54
23.3
179.70
24.4
180.26
26.6
180.80
29.2
181.10
30.9
181.48
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
180.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.3
Bankfull Width:
10.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
182.0
Flood Prone Width:
>20
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
11.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS Ref 1
183
183
182
c
182
0 181
181
W
180
180
179
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
5/26/2016 - Bankfull - - Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS Ref 2
Drainage Area:
536.8 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
101.01
7.2
100.37
10.0
100.99
11.1
100.87
12.4
99.16
13.6
98.10
14.7
98.18
16.2
98.21
17.2
98.21
18.0
98.34
18.8
98.50
19.4
99.29
20.5
99.61
24.0
100.30
26.3
101.02
30.1
100.80
38.2
101.73
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
15.0
Bankfull Width:
11.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
102.3
Flood Prone Width:
>38
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
9.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS Ref 2
103
103 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
102
102
101
101
CD
100
W
100
99
99
98
98
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
5/26/2016 Bankfull Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS Ref 3
Drainage Area:
536.8 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
100.94
8.4
101.48
9.8
101.44
11.3
100.39
13.5
99.56
15.1
99.45
16.1
99.09
17.2
98.14
18.1
98.09
19.3
97.99
20.0
98.11
21.6
98.14
22.3
98.24
22.8
98.52
25.3
101.86
26.2
102.19
29.3
102.93
33.5
103.22
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
15.0
Bankfull Width:
11.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
102.1
Flood Prone Width:
>25
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
9.1
Entrenchment Ratio: A
2.1
Bank Height Ratio: M
1.5
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS Ref 3
104
103
___________________--------- __________--------- _------ -------------- ____
102
101
CD
0
100
W
99
98
97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
5/26/2016 - Bankfull - - Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Neuse
Project Name
Stony Fork Restoration Site
XS ID
XS Ref 4
Drainage Area:
149.5 acres
Date:
5/26/2016
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. French
Station
Elevation
0.0
100.63
0.8
100.49
2.3
98.98
6.3
98.49
10.3
98.83
13.3
98.52
15.6
97.90
17.8
97.57
18.1
96.96
18.7
96.87
19.7
96.98
21.0
96.94
21.6
96.84
23.0
98.62
24.5
99.58
31.1
99.72
34.5
100.65
38.8
100.78
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.9
Bankfull Width:
7.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
99.4
Flood Prone Width:
22.3
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
10.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.2
Neuse River Basin, Stony Fork Restoration Site, XS Ref 4
101
101
100
100
-------------------------------------- -------------------------
99
0
� 99
98
98
97
97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
5/26/2016 Ba kfull Floodp- Area

Particle
Millimeter
D35
Count
D50
o
D65
5.3
D84
7.5
D95
0
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
3
Artificial
0%
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
10
Fine
.125-.25
A
2
0
0
Medium
.25-.50
N
4
Coarse
.50- 1
D
5
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
5
0
Very Fine
2 - 4
20
E
U
Fine
4-5.7
G
6
c
Fine
5.7-8
R
13
~
C:
o
LL
Medium
8- 11.3
A
20
0
Medium
11.3-16
V
7
Coarse
16-22.6
E
4
0
N
Coarse
22.6-32
L
1
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
0
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16
0.15
D35
1.2
D50
2.2
D65
5.3
D84
7.5
D95
11
Size Distribution
Mean (mm) 1.1
Dispersion 7.1
Skewness -0.4
Type
Silt/Clay
3%
Sand
26%
Gravel
71%
Cobble
0%
Boulder
0%
Bedrock
0%
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
D35
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
Medium
.25-.50
N
Coarse
.50- 1
D
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
Very Fine
2 - 4
Fine
4-5.7
G
Fine
5.7-8
R
Medium
8- 11.3
A
Medium
11.3-16
V
Coarse
16-22.6
E
Coarse
22.6-32
L
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
Count
3
4
11
19
11
8
6 E
U
3 c
18 ~
c
ii
0
12
3
1
99
0
N
0
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16
0.11
D35
0.23
D50
0.57
D65
3.4
D84
8.0
D95
11
Size Distribution
Mean (mm) 0.9
Dispersion 8.6
Skewness 0.2
Type
Silt/Clay
3%
Sand
54%
Gravel
43%
Cobble
0%
Boulder
0%
Bedrock
0%
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
Count
o
Silt/Clay
0
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
62
Sand
13%
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
3
Fine
.125-.25
A
5
Gravel
26%
Mean (mm)
0.5
Cobble
0
0
Medium
.25-.50
N
3
Coarse
.50- 1
D
1
Boulder
0%
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
1
Bedrock
0%
Skewness
1
0
Very Fine
2 - 4
5
E
0%
U
0%
Fine
4-5.7
G
3
c
Artificial
0%
Fine
5.7-8
R
4
~
c
o
LL
Medium
8- 11.3
A
1
0
Medium
11.3-16
V
8
Coarse
16-22.6
E
0
N
Coarse
22.6-32
L
3
Very Coarse
32-45
S
2
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
0
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
101
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS3
Assessment - 5/26/2016
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Type
Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
61%
D16
0.062
Sand
13%
Size Distribution
D35
0.062
Gravel
26%
Mean (mm)
0.5
Cobble
0%
D50
0.062
Dispersion
8.7
Boulder
0%
D65
0.068
Bedrock
0%
Skewness
1
D84
4.7
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
D95
11
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
D35
Count
D50
o
D65
0.11
D84
0.14
D95
0
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
10
Artificial
0%
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
70
0
0
Medium
.25-.50
N
20
Coarse
.50- 1
D
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
0
Very Fine
2 - 4
E
U
Fine
4-5.7
G
c
Fine
5.7-8
R
~
c
o
LL
Medium
8- 11.3
A
o
Medium
11.3-16
V
Coarse
16-22.6
E
0
N
Coarse
22.6-32
L
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
0
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16
0.066
D35
0.080
D50
0.093
D65
0.11
D84
0.14
D95
0.21
Size Distribution
Mean (mm) 0.1
Dispersion 1.5
Skewness 0.1
Type
Silt/Clay
10%
Sand
90%
Gravel
0%
Cobble
0%
Boulder
0%
Bedrock
0%
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
D35
Count
D50
o
D65
7.0
D84
12
D95
0
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
5
Artificial
0%
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
0
0
Medium
.25-.50
N
1
Coarse
.50- 1
D
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
7
0
Very Fine
2 - 4
23
E
U
Fine
4-5.7
G
17
Fine
5.7-8
R
10
L
~
c
o
LL
Medium
8- 11.3
A
11
0
Medium
11.3-16
V
13
Coarse
16-22.6
E
14
0
N
Coarse
22.6-32
L
5
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
1
Small
64-90
C
0
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
107
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16
1.1
D35
2.1
D50
4.1
D65
7.0
D84
12
D95
17
Size Distribution
Mean (mm) 3.7
Dispersion 3.3
Skewness -0.1
Type
Silt/Clay
5%
Sand
7%
Gravel
88%
Cobble
0%
Boulder
0%
Bedrock
0%
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
D35
Count
D50
o
D65
9.6
D84
12
D95
0
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
6
Artificial
0%
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
1
Fine
.125-.25
A
0
0
Medium
.25-.50
N
9
Coarse
.50- 1
D
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
1
0
Very Fine
2 - 4
10
E
U
Fine
4-5.7
G
3
c
Fine
5.7-8
R
8
~
C:
o
LL
Medium
8- 11.3
A
15
0
Medium
11.3-16
V
40
Coarse
16-22.6
E
17
0
N
Coarse
22.6-32
L
4
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
0
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
114
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16
1.1
D35
6.0
D50
8.3
D65
9.6
D84
12
D95
15
Size Distribution
Mean (mm) 3.6
Dispersion 3.3
Skewness -0.7
Type
Silt/Clay
5%
Sand
10%
Gravel
85%
Cobble
0%
Boulder
0%
Bedrock
0%
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
Count
o
0
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
D35
0.062
Gravel
0
0
Medium
.25-.50
N
0.1
Cobble
Coarse
.50- 1
D
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
Dispersion
1
Boulder
0%
D65
0
Very Fine
2 - 4
Bedrock
E
Skewness
NaN
U
Fine
4-5.7
G
c
Hardpan
0%
Fine
5.7-8
R
~
c
o
Artificial
LL
Medium
8- 11.3
A
o
Medium
11.3-16
V
Coarse
16-22.6
E
0
N
Coarse
22.6-32
L
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
0
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS7
Assessment - 5/26/2016
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Type
Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
100%
D16
0.062
Sand
0%
Size Distribution
D35
0.062
Gravel
0%
Mean (mm)
0.1
Cobble
0%
D50
0.062
Dispersion
1
Boulder
0%
D65
0.062
Bedrock
0%
Skewness
NaN
D84
0.062
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
D95
0.062
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
Count
o
0
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
D35
0.062
Gravel
0
0
Medium
.25-.50
N
0.1
Cobble
Coarse
.50- 1
D
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
Dispersion
1
Boulder
0%
D65
0
Very Fine
2 - 4
Bedrock
E
Skewness
NaN
U
Fine
4-5.7
G
c
Hardpan
0%
Fine
5.7-8
R
~
c
o
Artificial
LL
Medium
8- 11.3
A
o
Medium
11.3-16
V
Coarse
16-22.6
E
0
N
Coarse
22.6-32
L
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
0
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
XS8
Assessment - 5/26/2016
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Type
Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
100%
D16
0.062
Sand
0%
Size Distribution
D35
0.062
Gravel
0%
Mean (mm)
0.1
Cobble
0%
D50
0.062
Dispersion
1
Boulder
0%
D65
0.062
Bedrock
0%
Skewness
NaN
D84
0.062
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
D95
0.062
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
D35
Count
D50
o
D65
0.45
D84
2.0
D95
0
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
9
Artificial
0%
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
15
Fine
.125-.25
A
14
0
0
Medium
.25-.50
N
25
Coarse
.50- 1
D
13
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
9
CD
Very Fine
2 - 4
11
E
U
Fine
4-5.7
G
4
Fine
5.7-8
R
7
~
c
o
LL
Medium
8- 11.3
A
6
0
Medium
11.3-16
V
1
Coarse
16-22.6
E
0
N
Coarse
22.6-32
L
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
0
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
114
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16
0.031
D35
0.13
D50
0.21
D65
0.45
D84
2.0
D95
6.1
Size Distribution
Mean (mm) 0.2
Dispersion 8
Skewness 0.1
Type
Silt/Clay
8%
Sand
67%
Gravel
25%
Cobble
0%
Boulder
0%
Bedrock
0%
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
D35
Count
D50
o
D65
0.11
D84
0.14
D95
0
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
10
Artificial
0%
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
70
0
0
Medium
.25-.50
N
20
Coarse
.50- 1
D
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
0
Very Fine
2 - 4
E
U
Fine
4-5.7
G
c
Fine
5.7-8
R
~
c
o
LL
Medium
8- 11.3
A
o
Medium
11.3-16
V
Coarse
16-22.6
E
0
N
Coarse
22.6-32
L
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
0
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16
0.066
D35
0.080
D50
0.093
D65
0.11
D84
0.14
D95
0.21
Size Distribution
Mean (mm) 0.1
Dispersion 1.5
Skewness 0.1
Type
Silt/Clay
10%
Sand
90%
Gravel
0%
Cobble
0%
Boulder
0%
Bedrock
0%
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
D35
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
Medium
.25-.50
N
Coarse
.50- 1
D
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
Very Fine
2 - 4
Fine
4-5.7
G
Fine
5.7-8
R
Medium
8- 11.3
A
Medium
11.3-16
V
Coarse
16-22.6
E
Coarse
22.6-32
L
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
Count o
0
11
10
22
13
11
23 E
U
5 c
3 ~
c
ii
2 0
1
1
1
103
0
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16
0.091
D35
0.20
D50
0.39
D65
1.0
D84
1.8
D95
5.6
Size Distribution
Mean (mm) 0.4
Dispersion 4.4
Skewness 0
Type
Silt/Clay
0%
Sand
65%
Gravel
35%
Cobble
0%
Boulder
0%
Bedrock
0%
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
D35
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
Medium
.25-.50
N
Coarse
.50- 1
D
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
Very Fine
2 - 4
Fine
4-5.7
G
Fine
5.7-8
R
Medium
8- 11.3
A
Medium
11.3-16
V
Coarse
16-22.6
E
Coarse
22.6-32
L
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
Count o
0
7
13
37
11
13
12 E
U
3 c
3 ~
c
ii
1 0
100
0
N
0
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16
0.10
D35
0.17
D50
0.22
D65
0.41
D84
1.2
D95
3.2
Size Distribution
Mean (mm) 0.3
Dispersion 3.4
Skewness 0.4
Type
Silt/Clay
0%
Sand
81%
Gravel
19%
Cobble
0%
Boulder
0%
Bedrock
0%
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
Artificial
0%

Particle
Millimeter
D35
Count
D50
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
7
19
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
4
Wood/Det.
Fine
.125-.25
A
6
Medium
.25-.50
N
7
Coarse
.50- 1
D
4
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
4
Very Fine
2 - 4
3
E
U
Fine
4-5.7
G
8
c
Fine
5.7-8
R
8
~
c
Medium
8- 11.3
A
6
ii
0
Medium
11.3-16
V
14
Coarse
16-22.6
E
13
Coarse
22.6-32
L
9
Very Coarse
32-45
S
10
Very Coarse
45-64
2
Small
64-90
C
1
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 -2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
106
Particle Size Distribution
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16
0.12
D35
2.4
D50
6.4
D65
11
D84
19
D95
30
Size Distribution
Mean (mm) 1.6
Dispersion 12.5
Skewness -0.6
Type
Silt/Clay
7%
Sand
24%
Gravel
68%
Cobble
1 %
Boulder
0%
Bedrock
0%
Hardpan
0%
Wood/Det.
0%
Artificial
0%

REFERENCE CROSS-SECTION LOCATIONS
Project Easement Reference Cross -Sections N 0 500 1,000
KCI Existing Project Streams � Feet
Other Streams Image Source: Google Earth, 3/2018.
ASSOCIATES OF NC

Moroholooical Criteria
no data shown for pools, radius of curvature or meanders in existing stream do to channelization / lack of bed diversity
channel sized larger for constructability
": channel affected by former pond
Existing Channel
Reference
Stable
Restored Reaches
SF1
(xsi)
SF2
(xs2-5)
SF3
(xs6)
T1
(xs7)
T2
(xs8-9)
T3
(x510-11)
Long Branch
Design
Ratios
SF1
SF2
SF3
T1
T2-1
T2-2
T2-2
T3
Stream Type (Rosgen)
G4c
G4c - 35c
G4c
G5
G5c
G4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
04
C4
C4
C4
C4
Drainage Area (mf)
0.27
0.41
0.84
0.02
0.23
0.05
1.49
0.27
0.41
0.84
0.02
0.04
0.15
0.23
0.02
Bankfull Width (Wb.) (ft)
7.2
5.0-10.0
10.5
3.4
4.5--5.7
4.2-4.8
14.8--18.8
-
9.7
11.3
12.6
5.0
5.0
7.6
9.0
5.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (Doe) (ft)
0.9
1.0- 1.4
1.2
0.3
0.8-1.7
0.4-0.6
1.3-1.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (fie) (if)
6.4
6.9-8.9
12.5
0.9
3.6..9.4
1.9-2.6
25
-
7.0
9.4
11.8
1.9
1.9
4.3
5.8
1.9
Width/ Depth Ratio (Weu/Dbu)
8.1
3.7-11.2
8.9
12.7
3.4--5.4
6.9-12.6
9.0-14.0
10--15
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.4
1 13.9
13.5
Maximum Depth (dmbu) (ft)
1.2
1.3-2.2
1.3
0.4
1.2-2.1
0.6-0.7
1.9-2.4
-
1.1
1.2
1.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.6
Width of Flood Prone Area (Wr,) (ft)
8.7
7.4-14.5
14.4
4.5
5.7--30.7
5.0-5.9
>50
100
100
100
50
50
50
50
50
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
1.2
1.4-1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3-5.4
1.2
>2.5
>2.5
10.3
1 8.8
7.9
10
10
6.6
5.6
10
Sinuosity (stream length(valley length)(K)
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.2-1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Pool Mean Depth (ft)
"'
1.6-1.8
-
1.3
1.5
1.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.2
0.7
Riffle Mean Depth (ft) (Dbkf)
0.9
1.0-1.4
1.2
0.3
0.8-1.7
""*
1.3-1.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
Pool Width (ft)
"'
16.2-18.8
-
13.5
15.7
17.5
7.0
7.0
10.6
12.5
7.0
Riffle Width (ft)
7.2
5.0-10.0
10.5
3.4
4.5--5.7
""*
14.8--18.8
9.7
11.3
12.6
5.0
5.0
7.6
9.0
5.0
_Pool
XS Area (sf)
25.5-33.4
-
17.6
23.3
29.2
5.0
5.0
10.1
14.8
5.0
Riffle XS Area (sf)
6.4
6.9-8.9
12.5
0.9
3.6--9.4
""*
25.0
7.0
9.4
11.8
1.9
1.9
4.3
5.8
1.9
E
O
Pool Width / Riffle Width
"`
1.2-1.3
1.2-1.7
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Pool Max Depth / Doe
"
*
*
*
""*
2.2
1.5-3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.7
3.3
3.0
Bank Height Ratio
2.9
1.6-2.1
2.0
4.5
1.5--4.1
3.2-3.4
1.0--1.2
1.0--1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Mean Bankfull Velocity (V) (fps)
3.5
3.3-3.8
3.4
3.2
2.1 -- 3.9
1.8-2.3
3.7--4.2
3.5--5
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.4
1.2
Bankfull Discharge (Q) (cfs)
22.2
23.7-30.2
42.1
3
13.9--19.7
3-6
93-105
-
22.7
30.4
42.8
5.6"*
5.3
13.5
19.9 1
2.2
Radius of Cuivature(Rc)(ft)
"'
16--87
-
20-29
22--33
28-35
11-17
12--15
16--23
18-23
11--14
Belt Width (Wblt)(ft)
`
"
*
""*
60
30-55
1 37--65
46-77
1 23-37
25--40
28--45
32-54
16--26
Meander Length (L.) (ft)
`
"`
66-191
-
93-132
105-148
148--176
58-72
70
85--90
92-100
43-47
Radius of Curvature/Bankfull Width
"
*
""*
0.9--5.9
2--3
2.1-3.0
2.0--2.9
2.2-2.8
2.2-3.4
2.4--3.0
2.1--3.0
2.0-2.6
2.2--2.8
Meander Width Ratio (Wblt/Wbkf)
"`
4.1
3.5--8
3.1-5.7
3.3--5.8
3.7-6.1
4.6-7.4
5.0--8.0
3.7--5.9
3.6-6.0
3.2--5.2
Meander Length/Bankfull Width
"`
3.5-12.9
7--14
9.6-13.6
9.3--13.1
11.7-14.0
11.6-14.4
14
11.2--11.8
10.2-11.1
8.6--9.4
Valley slope
0.011
0.009
0.007
0.028
0.013
0.012
0.006
0.005-0.015
0.011
0.009
0.007
0.024
0.016
0.014
0.013
0.0019
Average water surface slope
0.009
0.008
0.006
0.035
0.014
0.007
0.005
-
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.020
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.0016
Riffle slope
0.009
0.003 -- 0.008
0.006
0.035
0.009 - 0.020
*"*
0.013 - 0.035
0.009-0.015
0.009-0.015
0.01
0.014-0.04
0.016
0.014
0.012-0.0115
0.0025
Pool slope
"'
0-0.0003 1
-
0
0
0
0 1
0-0.006
0
0
0
Q
Pool to pool spacing
*
*
*
""*
50-105
-
55-70
59--84
a4-101
31-44
32--40
44--50
46-63
21--27
o.
Pool length
"`
14--33
-
21-46
24--52
35-62
11-29
6--16
14--24
12-34
7--15
Riffle Slope/ Avg. Water Surface Slope
1.00
0.31-1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00--1.43
"""
2.6--7.0
1.2--1.5
1.0-1.6
1.1--1.9
1.2
0.7-2.0
1.3
1.2
1.1-1.4
1.6
Pool Slope / Avg. Water Surface Slope
"'
0 -- 0.08
0 -0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pool to Pool Spacing/Bankfull Width
"'
2.7--7.1
3.5--7
5.6-7.3
5.2--7.4
6.7-8.0
6.2-8.8
6.4--8.0
5.7--6.6
5.1-7.0
4.2--5.4
no data shown for pools, radius of curvature or meanders in existing stream do to channelization / lack of bed diversity
channel sized larger for constructability
": channel affected by former pond

12.3 Buffer Mitigation Plan
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
Stony Fork Restoration Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
DWR Project Number: 2016-0372
DMS Project Number 97085
DMS Contract 6830
Neuse River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03020201
Prepared by:
�E
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC;
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 1

Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 2

Table of Contents
A. BUFFER MITIGATION SUMMARY.........................................................................................................4
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................4
B.1 Chinese Privet................................................................................................................................4
B.2 Kudzu.............................................................................................................................................5
B.3 Japanese Honeysuckle................................................................................................................... 5
C. BUFFER PHOTOGRAPHS....................................................................................................................... 6
D. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN......................................................................................................................7
D.1 Pre -construction Phase.................................................................................................................7
D.2 Construction Phase........................................................................................................................7
D.3 Post -Construction Phase/Adaptive Management.......................................................................8
E. PLANTING PLAN....................................................................................................................................8
F. MONITORING PLAN..............................................................................................................................9
G. PROJECT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................9
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Table 3. Buffer Project Areas and Assets
II. Adjacent Development Map
III. Invasive Species Coverage Map
IV. NCDWQ STREAM DETERMINATION LETTER
V. NCDWR MITIGATION VIABILITY LETTER
VI. NCDWR MITIGATION VIABILITY LETTER REVISED
VII. BUFFER MAP SHEETS
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 3

A. BUFFER MITIGATION SUMMARY
The Stony Fork Restoration Site (SFRS) is a stream and riparian buffer mitigation site located in Johnston
County, NC. The site will produce riparian buffer credits for the Neuse Basin under Rule 15A NCAC 02B
.0295, effective November 1, 2015. This plan provides an overview of the existing buffer conditions,
proposed mitigation actions, and monitoring performance standards along the three project subject
streams, Stony Fork (SF), which has three reaches, and Tributaries 1 (T1) and 2 (T2). There are two
additional project streams (T1A and T3) that are not subject to the buffer rule. Below are the anticipated
buffer credits that will be produced from this project, and project maps are included in the attachments.
Additional information on the stream mitigation components is included in the mitigation plan prepared
for NCDMS.
Table 1. Buffer Credit Summary
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The land uses at the project site are a combination of farmland, pine plantation, and reforested
hardwoods. In recent years, residential development has increased to the north of the project site, and
an additional development is proposed to the southeast (see Attachment II). In the revegetated portions
of the site, invasive species have become prevalent throughout the riparian areas of SFRS. Dominant
species include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), kudzu (Pueraria montana), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica). Treatment of these populations began in November and December 2017 with
mechanical removal and will continue with additional physical and chemical treatments as the project
proceeds (see Section D below). A map has been prepared showing the original extent of aerial coverage
of these primary invasive species. It is included as Attachment III. Hardwoods, where present, consist of
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak (Quercus alba),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvonica). Below is further
detail about these invasive plant populations.
B.1 Chinese Privet
Chinese privet is found throughout the forested components of the project varying in lateral
extent and density throughout the project area. The areas of highest density were found along
Stony Fork from the upstream limit of the project to the confluence of T1 (Attachment 1, Area A).
The entire riparian area within the easement and extending outside the easement is dominated
by privet in this area. A second high density area was located within the riparian area along T2
from the upstream extent of the project tributary to the confluence of Stony Fork (Attachment 1,
Area B). Again, most of the mid -story canopy is dominated by privet with a few mature desirable
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 4
Existing
Creditable
Project Component
Square
Footage or
Restoration
Mitigation
Mitigation
Notes/Comments
Level
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Footage
Acreage
Buffer Restoration
TOB to 100'
413,194
413,194
R
1:1
413,194
Buffer Restoration
101-200'
37,091
37,091
R
3.03:1
12,240
Buffer Enhancement
TOB to 100'
74,802
74,802
E
2:1
37,401
Preservation limited to no more
Buffer Preservation
424,660
175,029
P
10:1
17,503
than 25% of total buffer
TOB to 100'
mitigation area.
TOTAL
949,747
700,116
480,338
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The land uses at the project site are a combination of farmland, pine plantation, and reforested
hardwoods. In recent years, residential development has increased to the north of the project site, and
an additional development is proposed to the southeast (see Attachment II). In the revegetated portions
of the site, invasive species have become prevalent throughout the riparian areas of SFRS. Dominant
species include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), kudzu (Pueraria montana), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica). Treatment of these populations began in November and December 2017 with
mechanical removal and will continue with additional physical and chemical treatments as the project
proceeds (see Section D below). A map has been prepared showing the original extent of aerial coverage
of these primary invasive species. It is included as Attachment III. Hardwoods, where present, consist of
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak (Quercus alba),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvonica). Below is further
detail about these invasive plant populations.
B.1 Chinese Privet
Chinese privet is found throughout the forested components of the project varying in lateral
extent and density throughout the project area. The areas of highest density were found along
Stony Fork from the upstream limit of the project to the confluence of T1 (Attachment 1, Area A).
The entire riparian area within the easement and extending outside the easement is dominated
by privet in this area. A second high density area was located within the riparian area along T2
from the upstream extent of the project tributary to the confluence of Stony Fork (Attachment 1,
Area B). Again, most of the mid -story canopy is dominated by privet with a few mature desirable
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 4

tree species mixed in to comprise a patchy overstory. In these two areas, the privet dominates
the mid -story canopy and had crowded out more desirable understory species. The size of the
privet ranges in diameter from seedling size to 8" DBH. Privet is also located sporadically within
the riparian zone throughout the rest of the project. In many of these areas it does not dominate
the understory, but instead is interspersed with more desirable native trees and shrubs as noted
above.
B.2 Kudzu
Kudzu dominates the area of the project surrounding T1 as well as a large section of Stony Fork in
the general vicinity of T1. This approximately 3 -acre area is essentially a monoculture of kudzu
during the growing season, with vines extending up and into the tree canopy that located along
the edge of the easement boundary. The approximate location of the kudzu infestation is shown
in Attachment 2. Other small patches of kudzu exist within the easement, especially along the
farm road approximately 1,500 feet below the confluence of T1 and Stony Fork.
B.3 Japanese Honeysuckle
Japanese honeysuckle is located sporadically throughout the easement area, but has a stronger
presence along Tributary 2, especially in areas directly adjacent (10-15') from the T2 stream
channel.
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 5

C. BUFFER PHOTOGRAPHS
•..e�h ::
Photo 1. Top of Stony Fork showing privet coverage and other
Photo 2. Kudzu along Stony Fork Reach 2.
invasives prior to removal.
Photo 3. Kudzu near the confluence of Stony Fork and T1. Photo 4. Privet covering T2 channel (approximately halfway
down) prior to removal.
Photo 5: Near top of T2 showing mechanical removal of Photo 6: Lower part of T2 showing another view of privet
privet that occurred in December 2017. removal.
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 6
.+\ i18 i
�,
i� �+�' .�
yy a1
� + 14'5 "[ •�
•..e�h ::
Photo 1. Top of Stony Fork showing privet coverage and other
Photo 2. Kudzu along Stony Fork Reach 2.
invasives prior to removal.
Photo 3. Kudzu near the confluence of Stony Fork and T1. Photo 4. Privet covering T2 channel (approximately halfway
down) prior to removal.
Photo 5: Near top of T2 showing mechanical removal of Photo 6: Lower part of T2 showing another view of privet
privet that occurred in December 2017. removal.
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 6

D. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The following approach will be used to restore, enhance, and preserve the buffer areas across the site as
outlined in the project maps in the attachments. The dominance of the three target species above will
require a diligent and persistent treatment approach to control and prevent the future encroachment of
these species into the riparian areas. The treatment program will consist of three phases of treatment.
These include the pre -construction, construction, and post -construction phases of treatment.
D.1 Pre -construction Phase
The preconstruction phase started with the physical removal of privet biomass through
mechanical grinding in fall and winter 2017. Physical removal was required because of the degree
of infestation. Chemically treating these areas was not be feasible initially due to the size and
density of the existing privet plants. Physical removal was completed using a FECON mulching
head mounted to a track loader (skid steer). Privet trees were ground into mulch and left in place
to decompose. Pictures showing the condition of T2 after grinding are shown above in Section C.
This first step in the invasive control program allowed for more direct access to the riparian area
for future chemical treatment. It also served to remove the larger privet trees that were acting as
a seed source for the colonization and spread of the privet stand.
In the spring of 2018, topical chemical treatment of privet using a tank mix of active ingredients
triclopyr and glyphosate was completed throughout the riparian areas of the easement using
backpack sprayers. Stumps were also treated using a 40% active ingredient glyphosate solution.
At the same time as privet was being treated, other invasives such as Japanese honeysuckle,
multiflora rose and autumn olive were also treated topically with glyphosate.
The kudzu area was also treated in the Fall 2017 using the active ingredient Clopyralid. The initial
treatment was effective at reducing the aerial standing crop of kudzu by an estimated 50% based
on a re-evaluation in Spring 2018 (post emergence). A second treatment was conducted in the
Spring 2018 on the main kudzu area as well as several smaller patches in other areas of the
easement.
The pre -construction phase activities allowed KCI to establish a baseline condition to lay the
groundwork for the construction phase and -post construction phase programs.
D.2 Construction Phase
Mechanical removal (including grubbing) will occur throughout the stream construction phase
since equipment will be mobilized for an extended duration during construction. This period will
also include the mechanical removal of kudzu after chemical treatments have had adequate time
to translocate to the root system. Debris from mechanical removal of privet and kudzu will be
burned on site. Larger debris remaining from the pre -construction phase will also be burned
during the construction phase. KCI equipment operators are experienced in identifying privet,
kudzu and multiflora rose and understand the need for mechanical removal of these invasives as
they implement the designed stream improvements. The staff is also experienced in minimizing
damage to desirable canopy trees and will avoid critical root zones when possible to minimize
damage to trees that will remain.
A NC licensed aquatic pesticide applicator from KCI (Kevin O'Briant) will be on-site at all times
during construction. In addition to serving as the on-site construction manager, Mr. O'Briant will
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 7

apply, supervise, and oversee the application of herbicides to the target species mentioned above
during the construction process. With the construction duration expected to last 4-5 months
during the growing season, KCI envisions this time period to be critical in the process of
eradicating the dense stands of privet and kudzu (as well as other invasives) that occur on the site.
Weekly treatment of the entire easement area, as well as infested areas outside the easement
where property owners have agreed to allow treatment, are expected to occur during the
construction phase of the project.
D.3 Post -Construction Phase/Adaptive Management
KCI has an active maintenance contract with Riverworks, Inc. for the long-term care of invasive
species on site. This work will be supervised by George Morris, a botanist and experienced invasive
species specialist, with Riverworks. It is anticipated that multiple treatments each year (likely
spring and fall), will be required to control the growth and re -propagation of the invasive
populations within the Stony Fork project. The program is envisioned to cover the full five years
of monitoring required for the stream restoration project; however, the treatment program will
adapt yearly to accommodate the ongoing effectiveness of the treatment work. Chemical
treatment is expected to be the standard process for post construction services, but physical
removal may be required to ensure the survivability of desirable planted trees and native
volunteers.
E. PLANTING PLAN
All unforested portions of the project easement will be planted to establish a forested riparian buffer. At
a minimum, 12.1 acres will be reforested, but additional plantings may take place beyond this area to
ensure an adequate density across the site. The planting plan is shown in greater detail in the project
construction sheets. Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of 968 stems per acre (9 feet x 5 feet
spacing). Woody vegetation planting will be conducted during dormancy. Species to be planted may
consist of the following and any substitutions from the planting plan will be taken from this list:
Common Name
River Birch
American Persimmon
Green Ash
Tulip Poplar
American Sycamore
White Oak
Southern Red Oak
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Pin Oak
Willow Oak
Scientific Name
Betula nigra
Diospyros virginiana
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Liriodendron tulipifera
Platanus occidentalis
Quercus alba
Quercus falcata
Quercus michauxii
Quercus palustris
Quercus phellos
In addition, partial overstory forested enhancement sections of the easement that have been treated for
privet will be supplementally planted with either one gallon container trees at a 20 by 20 foot spacing or
bare root trees contained in tree shelters 10 -foot center spacing. These species may consist of river birch,
sycamore, or any of the five oak species listed above.
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 8

F. MONITORING PLAN
Vegetation monitoring will take place between the end of August and mid-December. The success of the
riparian plantings will be evaluated using twelve 0.02 -acre square or rectangular plots within the
enhancement and restoration buffer mitigation areas. Six plots will be permanently installed, while the
remainder will be randomly placed at the time of each monitoring visit. The plots will be distributed as
follows:
Table 2. Vegetative Monitoring Plots for Buffer Mitigation
Veg Plot
Reach
Buffer Mitigation
Distance
from TOB
Bank
Type
1
SF1
Restoration
51-200'
Left
Permanent
2
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Permanent
3
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
4
T1
Restoration
51-200'
Right
Permanent
5
T2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
6
T2
Enhancement
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
7
SF1
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Random
8
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
left
Random
9
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Random
10
SF3
Enhancement
TOB -50'
Right
Random
11
T1
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Random
12
T2
Enhancement
51-200'
Right
Random
In the permanent plots, the plant's height, species, location, and origin (planted versus volunteer) will be
noted. In the random plots, species and height will be recorded. Height will be used as a determination of
plant vigor. In all plots, exotic and invasive stems will also be included in the stem counts. Additionally, a
photograph will be taken of each plot. Beginning at the end of the first growing season and no sooner
than 5 months following planting, KCI will monitor the planted vegetation for riparian area success in
monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or until DWR approval is obtained.
G. PROJECT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The vegetation within the areas proposed for riparian buffer credit must contain 260 stems per acre at
the end of five years of monitoring. There should be a minimum of four native hardwood tree species
(inclusive of volunteers), with no species greater than 50% of the stems. Trees in each plot must average
7 feet in height at Year 5. For any volunteer tree stem to count toward vegetative success, it must be a
species from the approved planting list included in the Mitigation Plan.
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 9

Table 3. Buffer Proiect Areas and Assets
Location
Jurisdictional Streams
Restoration Type
Reach
ID/Compo Buffer Width (ft) Creditable Area
Hent (sf)*
Initial
Credit
Ratio
(x: 1)
% Full Final Credit Riparian Buffer
Credit Ratio (x:1) Credits (BMU)
Rural
Subject
Restoration
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
1
75% 1.33
SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 291,656
100% 1.00 291,656
SF 101-200' 20,075
33%1 3.03 6,625
Enhancement
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
2
75% 2.67 -
SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 16,364
100% 2.00 8,182
101-200'
33% 6.06 -
Rural
Subject
Restoration
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
1
75% 1.33
T1 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 74,430
100% 1.00 74,430
T1 101-200' 17,015
33% 3.03 5,615
Enhancement
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
2
75% 2.67 -
Min. 30' from TOB to 100'
100% 2.00
101-200'
33% 6.06
Rural
Nonsubject
Restoration
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
1
75% 1.33 -
T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 47,108
100% 1.00 47,108
101-200'
1 33% 3.03 -
Enhancement
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
2
1
75% 2.67
T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 58,439
100% 2.00 29,219
101-200'
33% 6.06-
SU BTOTALS I 525,0871 1 462,8351
ELIGIBLE PRESERVATION AREA 1 175,029
Location
Jurisdictional Streams
Restoration Type
Reach
ID/Compo Buffer Width (ft) Creditable Area
Hent (sf)*
Initial
Credit
Ratio
x:l
% Full Final Credit Riparian Buffer
Credit Ratio (x:1) Credits (BMU)
Rural
Subject
Preservation
SF Min. 20' from TOB to 29' 1,378
10
75% 13.33 103
SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 297,223
100% 10.00 29,722
SF 101-200' 9,358
33%1 30.30 309
Nonsubject
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
S
75% 6.67 -
Min. 30' from TOB to 100'
100% 5.00
101-200'
33% 15.15
Rural
Subject
Preservation
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
10
75% 13.33
T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 115,847
100% 10.00 11,585
T2 101-200' 854
1 33% 30.30 28
Nonsubject
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
S
75% 6.67
Min. 30' from TOB to 100'
100%1 5.00 -
101-200'
33%1 15.15
SUBTOTALS 424,660
1 41,747
SUBTOTAL AREA MIN. 30' FROM TOB TO 100' PRESERVATION ELIGIBLE FOR 10:1 CREDITI 413,069
LIMIT OF PRESERVATION BASED ON ELIGIBLE PRESERVATION AREA1 175,0291
101 100%1 101 17,503
TOTAL BUFFER MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE 949,747 1 504,582
TOTAL BUFFER MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH ELIGIBLE PRESERVATION1 700,1161 1 1 1 480,338

-71
A
�
5
e
r•
!
_ ik....
� 1
I 0
-r
r
ATTACHMENT III. EXTENT OF INVASIVE SPECIES, STONY FORK
RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
N
Project Easement (24.4 ac) Kudzu Area
KCIExisting
Project Streams Privet -Area A
0
500 1,000
Feet
nssocif
Other Streams Privet -Area B
Source: Google 2018.

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 28, 2016
Tim Morris
KCI Associates of NC
Landmark Center II
4601 Six Forks Road - Suite 220
Raleigh NC 27609
(via electronic mail)
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
DWR Project #: 2016-0372
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Stony Fork
Located at 1955 Federal Rd., Benson, NC
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Morris,
On April 7, 2016, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), assisted you and
others from KCI Technologies, Inc. at the proposed Stony Fork Mitigation Site (Site) in Benson, NC.
The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin within the 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201. The
Site is being proposed as part of a full -delivery stream restoration project for the Division of
Mitigation Services (RFP #16-006477). The Interagency Review Team (IRT) was also present
onsite. At your request, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of features onsite to determine
suitability for buffer and nutrient offset mitigation. Features are more accurately shown in the
.attached maps signed by Ms. Merritt on April 19, 2016. If approved, mitigating this site could
provide stream mitigation credits, riparian buffer credits and/or nutrient offset credits.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features from Top of Bank (TOB) out to 200' for buffer and nutrient
offset mitigation pursuant to Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015) and Rule
15A NCAC 02B .0240 is provided in the table below:
Feature
Classification
*Subject
Landuses
Buffer
**Nutrient
Mitigation Type
to Buffer
Offset Viable
Credit
Rule
at 2,273
Viable
lbs acre
T1
Modified
No
West side of TOB =
Yes
No
Restoration per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
natural
dense monoculture of
(o)(3)
stream
kudzu; East side of
TOB = managed lawn
Stony Fork
Stream
Yes
Canopy comprised
Yes
No
Restoration per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(R1—Tl
mostly of dense mid-
(o)(3) only if invasive vegetation is all
confluence)
story sized privet 6"
removed and managed and impacted
DBH, dense kudzu & a
buffer is replanted with native
sparse fringe of large
hardwoods.
native hardwoods
Stony Fork
Stream
Yes
West side of TOB=
Yes
No
Farm Path only = Restoration
(below T1
farm path and loblolly
(farm
East side of TOB = Preservation per
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Stony Fork Mitigation Site
April 28, 2016
Page 2 of 2
confluence —
pine forest; East side
path &
15A NCAC 026 .0295 (o)(5)
T2
of TOB = Native
East
confluence)
Hardwood forest
side)
Stony Fork
Stream (not
Yes
Native hardwood
Yes
No
Preservation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(below T2
including
forest
(o)(5)
confluence
riparian
throughout
wetlands)
T2.1
Undetermined
on maps
Hay crop & native
n/a
Yes
Need stream determination by DWR
conveyance
hardwood forest mix
to be buffer credit viable; Riparian
Restoration down to crossing &
Restoration outside of the native
hardwood forest down to wood line;
T2.2 to
Stream
Yes
Native hardwood
Yes
No
Preservation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
Stony Fork
forest w/ dense mid-
(o)(5)
story privet along
channel banks
*Subjectivity calls were determined using the 1:24,000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most
recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS
**For nutrient offset viability to be determined, the landowner must provide proof in writing that the land is being used for
agriculture or has been used for agriculture previously (prior to rule baseline). Dates, supported by photos or other
written records, must be included to confirm that the uses of the open fields onsite are for hay crop cultivation/row crop.
Maps showing the project site and the features are provided and signed by Ms. Merritt on April 19,
2016. This letter should be provided in all future mitigation plans for this Site. In addition, all
vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian restoration
and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to be eligible for buffer and
nutrient offset credits. In addition, Neuse Buffer mitigation credits generated at this site are not able
to be transferred into nutrient offset credits.
For any areas depicted as not being viable for nutrient offset credit, one could propose a different
measure other than riparian restoration, along with supporting calculations and sufficient detail to
support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to determine viability for nutrient offset
according to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
% 'Uva
aren Higgins, Supe or
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
KAH/km
Attachments: Site Aerial Map, USGS Topographic Map, NRCS Soil Survey
cc:File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DMS — Jeff Schaffer (via electronic mail)

���al��
�- a o l l� - o37a

14, 6
331
IN
lit
ZOO
Vii'
Proposed Easement
11 `� _ •. �i`_'-.-_�, l'1 j �f � it . '�-- " ;- ,✓ f/ .
Project Watershed (537 acres)
® 14 -digit HUC Boundaries �- • --
FIGURE 2. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP N
0 750 1,500 STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE
Source: USGS DRG,
Feet JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC BensonQuad (1973).
1411 q // (-�
037a

•� MO E N m d Z
T m
•�;rte�` `�" °. ai °0 O' —a
rON ad+
O,.N E m ON Cl CNo mOma �
16.
U) W _ Q
�� ��?� a N� m V 0 Ns
u� y m LL O
-0m oa) L) o.r �� Z >,s0
MMOOCZ00
- (d 00 a) T m0 N Q cu co
mLi- 0(7JZOfZ�
Imo.
W
W '*•� ,� - - ADA z
le 04
?P7
LO
ol
,
C
r t
o
Ln
Ree O E
O
LO
1
ul
r
c
a)
E
a)
cn
m
w
0
A)
O

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
July S, 2016
Joe Sullivan
4601 Six Forks Road
Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
Subject: Buffer Determination Letter
NBRRO #16-144
Johnston County
Determination Type:
Buffer
Intermittent/Perennial
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
Start@
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259)
❑ Intermittent/Perennial Determination (where local buffer
USGSSurvey
ordinances apply)
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 2B .0267)
(governmental and/or interjurisdictional
projects)
Project Name:
Address/Location:
Stream(s):
Stony Fork Restoration Site
Southeast of the Federal Road and Elevation Road intersection in Benson NC
Un -named tributaries to
Determination Date: 6/23/2016
Fork and Stonv Fork
Staff: Erin Deck
Stream
E/I/P*
Not Subject
Subject
Start@
Stop@
Soil
USGSSurvey
To 0
Stony Fork
I
X
Throughout Project Boundary
X
X
T2
UP
X
35.4528
Confluence with
X
X
-78.5224
Stony Fork
T5
I
X
Confluence with
X
X
Off
Stony Fork
property
T6
I
X
35.4517
X
X
and
-78.5216
T7
X
Linear Wetland
X
X
NT
X
Not present on ground
X
X
*E/IIP = Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
Division of Water Resources, Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Operations Section littp://port(il.ncdenr.org."Web/wq!aps
1628 Mail Ser -.,ice Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone: [phone]
Location: 3800 Bamett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax: [phone]

Explanation: The stream(s) listed above has been located on the most recent published NRCS Soil Survey of
Johnston County, North Carolina and/or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale.
Each stream that is checked "Not Subject" has been determined to not be at least intermittent or is not present.
Streams that are checked "Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be
at least an intermittent stream. There may be other streams located on the property that do not show up on the maps
referenced above but may be considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers.
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR may request a determination by the Director. An
appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter. A request for a determination by the
Director shall be referred to the Director in writing. If sending via US Postal Service: c/o Karen Higgins,
DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. If sending via
delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.): Karen Higgins; DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit; 512 N. Salisbury
Street; Raleigh, NC 27604.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, unless an appeal is requested within sixty
(60) days.
This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be
directed to the US Army Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-554-4884.
If y ave questions reg this d ation, please feel free to contact Erin Deck at [phone].
S cerel ,
anny S th
Supervisor, Water Quality Regional Operations Center
cc: RRO DWR File Copy

�l
1
V)
rF
T
O
70
fD
N
P+
O
O
3
V
i
12•
rD
f7
r.+

N
01
N
r-+
O
T
O
CD
N
F+
O
O
O
rD
C)
r+

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 16, 2018
Tim Morris
KCI Associates of NC
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
(via electronic mail: tim.morrisgkci.com )
ROY COOPER
co,>ernor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secretor,;
LINDA CULPEPPER
Interim Director
DWR Project #: 2016-0372
Re: Re-evaluation Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset
Stony Fork Site (T2.2 only)
Located at 1955 Federal Rd., Benson, NC
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Morris,
On April 7, 2016, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), assisted you and
others from KCI Technologies, Inc. at the proposed Stony Fork Mitigation Site (Site) in Benson, NC.
The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin within the 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201. The
Site is being proposed as part of a full -delivery stream restoration project for the Division of
Mitigation Services (RFP #16-006477). The Interagency Review Team (IRT) was also present
onsite. On April 28, 2016, DWR issued a Site Viability Letter for the subject site.
At your request, on March 29, 2018, Ms. Merritt performed an additional site assessment of the
feature labeled as T2.2 in the table below to determine if riparian conditions had changed since the
site visit on April 7, 2016. As referenced in the letter dated April 28, 2016, the riparian land -use was
described as being "Native hardwood forest with dense mid -story privet along channel banks " and
the mitigation type for this feature was determined to be Preservation per 15A NCAC 02B . 0295
(0)(5). During the site visit on March 29, 2018, Ms. Merritt observed the substantial removal of mid -
story and understory privet to the extent that the riparian buffer was completely void of understory
and mid -story woody species. Ms. Merritt determined that onsite conditions observed on March 29,
2018 indicated a need to re-evaluate the mitigation type along this entire reach. Ms. Merritt placed
four (4) flags along the riparian areas of T2.2 indicating the mitigation type determined. Placement
of the four flags can be seen in the attached aerial labeled "Buffer Mitigation -Field Points" provided
by KCI. Additionally, the mitigation types described in the table below are better represented in the
attached aerial labeed "Buffer Mitigation — Sheet 3". If approved, mitigating this site could provide
stream mitigation credits, riparian buffer credits and/or nutrient offset credits.
This letter only replaces the site viability assessment of the mitigation type for the stream labeled as
T2.2 in the letter dated April 28, 2016. All other parts of the letter dated April 28, 2016 remain
unchanged.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features and their associated mitigation determination for the riparian
areas are provided in the table below. The evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB) out to
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Stony Fork Mitigation Site
April 16, 2018
Page 2 of 2
200' from each existing feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective
November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Feature
Classification
'Subject
to Buffer
Riparian Land uses of
Buffer
Credit
ZNutrient
Offset Viable
Mitigation Tvpe Determination w/in riparian
ID
in the field
Feature onsite
areas
Rule
at 2.273
0-200'
Viable
(see Sheet 3 for location of mitigation)
lbs acre
T2.2 to
Stream
Yes
Combination of Full,
Yes3
No
Open Canopy Areas w/ no understory -
Stony
Partial & Open Canopy
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Fork
of Native hardwood
forest with invasive
Partial Canopy Areas w/ partial understory -
privet removed
Enhancement Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Full Canopy Area w/ full understory -
Preservation Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
Buffer mitigation areas where privet was
removed need to be managed aggressively
during the entire five (5) years of monitoring to
keep privet manageable. DWR recommends
planting larger stock woody stems in these
areas.
'�)ubjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated April 5, 2018 and April 6, 2018
using the 1:24,000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil
survey map prepared by the NRCS.
2 NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with
Riparian Buffer Establishment
'The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total
area of buffer mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation only site
to comply with this rule.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWR for written
approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters for
buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient
load -reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for approval prior to any
mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0240.

Stony Fork Mitigation Site
April 16, 2018
Page 2 of 2
This viability assessment will expire on April 16, 2020 or upon the submittal of an As -Built
Report to the DWR, whichever comes first. Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you
have any questions regarding this correspondence.
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
KAH/km
Attachments: Buffer Mitigation -Field Points, Buffer Mitigation — Sheet 3
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DMS — Jeff Schaffer (via electronic mail)

t-�

Sheet I
h
A
TI
heet 2
"1%6
-low-
10
vAjr-7

� MATCHLINE WITH
SHEET 1
t �
l
x
MATCHLINE WITH
SHEET 3
Buffer Mitigation - Sheet 2
�� 0 50 100 Image Source:
KCIFeet Google Earth, 3/2018
ASSOCIATES OF NC
Project Easement
Buffer Width Zones
Buffer Mitigation
Buffer Restoration
Buffer Enhancement
® Buffer Preservation

12.4 Site Protection Instrument
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

OWNER CERTIFICATION (CE #186) SPO FILE NO. 51 -CD
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND
DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE SUBDIVISION JURISDICTION
OF THE COUNTY OF JOHNSTON AND THAT I HEREBY ADOPT THIS
SUBDIVISION PLAN WITH MY FREE CONSENT, ESTABLISH MINIMUM SETBACK
LINES, AND DEDICATE ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, PARKS AND OTHER SITES AND
EASEMENTS TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE USE AS NOTED.
GARY .BE ON IT
A.). t C --e 4 .4
WID AI DA ON W. BENSDATE
OWNER CERTIFICATION (CE #2) SPO FILE NO. 51 -CH
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND
DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE SUBDIVISION JURISDICTION
OF THE COUNTY OF JOHNSTON AND THAT I HEREBY ADOPT THIS
SUBDIVISION PLAN WITH MY FREE CONSENT, ESTABLISH MINIMUM SETBACK
LINES, AND DEDICATE ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, PARKS AND OTHER SITES AND
EAS MENTS TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE USE AS NOTED.
7
BE
F ISHA TH BLACKMON DATE
OWNER CERTIFICATION (CE #3) SPO FILE NO. 51 -CG
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND
DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE SUBDIVISION JURISDICTION
OF THE COUNTY OF JOHNSTON AND THAT I HEREBY ADOPT THIS
SUBDIVISION PLAN WITH MY FREE CONSENT, ESTABLISH MINIMUM SETBACK
LINES, AND DEDICATE ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, PARKS AND OTHER SITES AND
EASEMENTS TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE USE AS NOTED.
�:O.Twr 1p I V tw I=
JERRY W. PARRI H DATE
l
K-2 'y10
A.
IS . PARRISH DAT
I, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS MAP WAS DRAWN
UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION,
THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY INDICATED, AS
DRAWN FROM INFORMATION AS SHOWN HEREON; THAT THE RATICgQ�t
PRECISION AS CALCULATED IS GREATER THAN 1:10,000; THAT TM1b MAA R 0
DOES REPRESENT AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY (OF T1 LIEN .......
AREA) AND HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 6':S.<47_
AMENDED. WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTF�45 3 �
AND SEAL THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
SEAL
''- L-3860 0-4 z
NO AROLINA REGISTRATION NUMBER L-3860%1-
} r
JAMES M. GELLENTHIN = `� %
s' '••.. S U R
G E
OWNER CERTIFICATION (CE #4) SPO FILE NO. 51 -CF
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND
DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE SUBDIVISION JURISDICTION
OF THE COUNTY OF JOHNSTON AND THAT I HEREBY ADOPT THIS
SUBDIVISION PLAN WITH MY FREE CONSENT, ESTABLISH MINIMUM SETBACK
LINES, AND DEDICATE ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, PARKS AND OTHER SITES AND
EASEMENTS TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE USE AS NOTED.
a.,• moi. !,� •(� • l
DAN L MEDLIN JR. DATE
7
CATHRYN Z. MTLIN DTE
gyp• ♦�• **7
WILLIAM R. MEDLIN DATE
2b z /9& • to --&-117
ONNIE MEDLIN DATE
(�2 zA_vc4'azAr
DEVAN BARBOUR, II _ DATE
DEVAN BARBOUR, IV._�/ DA'
OWNER CERTIFICATION (CE #5) SPO FILE NO. 51 -CE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND
DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE SUBDIVISION JURISDICTION
OF THE COUNTY OF JOHNSTON AND THAT I HEREBY ADOPT THIS
SUBDIVISION PLAN WITH MY FREE CONSENT, ESTABLISH MINIMUM SETBACK
LINES, AND DEDICATE ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, PARKS AND OTHER SITES AND
F::
TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE USE AS NOTED.
'7 , , rAos � • / �' %rte •
SHERRILI!A&M LLC V DATE
,fill I I I 0, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
1, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, NO. L-3860 , NS ON �O
CERTIFY TO THE FOLLOWING AS REQUIRED IN G.S. 47-30 (FX11): VIEW OFFICER
THAT THE SURVEY IS OF ANOTHER CATEGORY, SUCH AS THE
RECOMBINATION OF EXISTING PARCELS, A COURT ORDERED SURVEY, OR
OTHER EXCEPTION TO THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION. .
NO AROLIN,k REGISTRATION NUMBER L-3860
JAMES M. GELLENTHIN
O O N , CE TIFY THAT THE MAP
OR PLAT WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED
MEETS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR
ECORDING.
- OPS) r7
REVI W OFFICER DATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
JOHNSTON COUNTY
FILED FOR REGISTRATION ATJ •_//: 3*
r
- 20-a IN THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OFFICE
RECORDED IN BOOK PAGE ! u�
BY
! V 7r
N/F
REBECCA C CLIFTON -
PIN 164100-39-8527
ED BOOK 3381, PAGE 37
CONSER VA TION
EASEMENT
SEE SHEET 2
THIS PLAT IS EXEMPT FROM THE DEFINITION OF A
SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE ZONING JURISDICTION OF THE
JOHNSTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
'1,711"�112 zz� � � 4: Z�
DAYE 1 JOHNStON COUNTY -PLANNER
NOTES:
1. THIS PLAT DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PARENT TRACTS. THE PARENT
TRACT BOUNDARIES ADJACENT TO THIS EASEMENT ARE NOT CHANGED BY THIS PLAT.
BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS DERIVED FROM DEEDS AND MAPS OF
RECORD IN JOHNSTON COUNTY AND MONUMENTATION FOUND IN THE FIELD.
2. DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES IN U.S. SURVEY FEET
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3. AREA COMPUTED BY COORDINATE METHOD.
4. THE BASIS OF THE MERIDIANS AND COORDINATES FOR THIS PLAT IS THE NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83), BASED ON
DIFFERENTIAL GPS OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED IN OCTOBER 2016. ALL DISTANCES ARE
GROUND UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
5. DEED REFERENCES: AS SHOWN HEREON.
6. SUBJECT PROPERTIES KNOWN AS TAX NUMBER: AS SHOWN HEREON.
7. SUBJECT PROPERTIES PARTIALLY LIE WITHIN THE AREA DESIGNATED AS ZONE "X",
BASED ON FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 37201641001 EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 2,
2005.
8. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATING PERFORMED DURING THE COURSE OF THIS
SURVEY.
9. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ITS EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,
RECEIVE A PERPETUAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE EASEMENT AREA OVER THE PROPERTY AT
REASONABLE TIMES TO UNDERTAKE ANY ACTIVITIES TO RESTORE, CONSTRUCT, MANAGE,
MAINTAIN, ENHANCE, AND MONITOR THE STREAM, WETLAND AND ANY OTHER RIPARIAN
RESOURCES IN THE EASEMENT AREA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESTORATION ACTIVITIES OR A
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION III -A OF THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AGREEMENT.
REVISED: 9/7/17
TIE LINE TABLE_
LINE
I I
N/F
..LARRY W PARRISH
L1
'
PIN 164100-19-1598
DEED BOOK 1147, PAGE 287
L2
'
I
N
SH£RRiLL SRM, CLC
30.01
N/r
GARY THOMAS BENSON
PIN 164100-08-6845
PIN 164100-28-7593
DEED BOOK 4702, PAGE 505
64.76
DEED BOOP( 3701 PAGE 909
E5 1
Off,
S52`17'28"W
E6
88.06
S52'17'28"W
E7
197.03
N12'57'14"W
E8
434.06
N78'48'17"E
E9
257.12
N54'43'26"E
E10
267.02
S01'1 5'58"E
E11
4�
S84'07'59"W
E12
WKLIAM R MEDLIN Q'
BONNIE J MEDLIN
PIN 164100-17-2357
S06'51'27"E
N/F
52.77
DEED 4834 PAGE 637
E14
MAXINE K MEDLIN, HEIRS
N01'1 '58"W
FA 7ISHA BEIM BLACKMON
PIN
129.25
PIN 164100-07-3890
DEED BOGY 1024 PACE 147 ,
,
164100-07-4699
DEED 800Y 3358, PAGE 941
S38134'31 NE
,fill I I I 0, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
1, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, NO. L-3860 , NS ON �O
CERTIFY TO THE FOLLOWING AS REQUIRED IN G.S. 47-30 (FX11): VIEW OFFICER
THAT THE SURVEY IS OF ANOTHER CATEGORY, SUCH AS THE
RECOMBINATION OF EXISTING PARCELS, A COURT ORDERED SURVEY, OR
OTHER EXCEPTION TO THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION. .
NO AROLIN,k REGISTRATION NUMBER L-3860
JAMES M. GELLENTHIN
O O N , CE TIFY THAT THE MAP
OR PLAT WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED
MEETS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR
ECORDING.
- OPS) r7
REVI W OFFICER DATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
JOHNSTON COUNTY
FILED FOR REGISTRATION ATJ •_//: 3*
r
- 20-a IN THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OFFICE
RECORDED IN BOOK PAGE ! u�
BY
! V 7r
N/F
REBECCA C CLIFTON -
PIN 164100-39-8527
ED BOOK 3381, PAGE 37
CONSER VA TION
EASEMENT
SEE SHEET 2
THIS PLAT IS EXEMPT FROM THE DEFINITION OF A
SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE ZONING JURISDICTION OF THE
JOHNSTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
'1,711"�112 zz� � � 4: Z�
DAYE 1 JOHNStON COUNTY -PLANNER
NOTES:
1. THIS PLAT DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PARENT TRACTS. THE PARENT
TRACT BOUNDARIES ADJACENT TO THIS EASEMENT ARE NOT CHANGED BY THIS PLAT.
BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS DERIVED FROM DEEDS AND MAPS OF
RECORD IN JOHNSTON COUNTY AND MONUMENTATION FOUND IN THE FIELD.
2. DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES IN U.S. SURVEY FEET
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3. AREA COMPUTED BY COORDINATE METHOD.
4. THE BASIS OF THE MERIDIANS AND COORDINATES FOR THIS PLAT IS THE NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83), BASED ON
DIFFERENTIAL GPS OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED IN OCTOBER 2016. ALL DISTANCES ARE
GROUND UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
5. DEED REFERENCES: AS SHOWN HEREON.
6. SUBJECT PROPERTIES KNOWN AS TAX NUMBER: AS SHOWN HEREON.
7. SUBJECT PROPERTIES PARTIALLY LIE WITHIN THE AREA DESIGNATED AS ZONE "X",
BASED ON FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 37201641001 EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 2,
2005.
8. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATING PERFORMED DURING THE COURSE OF THIS
SURVEY.
9. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ITS EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,
RECEIVE A PERPETUAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE EASEMENT AREA OVER THE PROPERTY AT
REASONABLE TIMES TO UNDERTAKE ANY ACTIVITIES TO RESTORE, CONSTRUCT, MANAGE,
MAINTAIN, ENHANCE, AND MONITOR THE STREAM, WETLAND AND ANY OTHER RIPARIAN
RESOURCES IN THE EASEMENT AREA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESTORATION ACTIVITIES OR A
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION III -A OF THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AGREEMENT.
REVISED: 9/7/17
PT #
TIE LINE TABLE_
LINE
LENGTH
BEARING_
L1
467.40
N68'30'11 "E
L2
58.52
S43'08'24"W
L3
30.01
N7245'58"E
PT #
EASEMENT LINE TABLE
LINE
LENGTH
BEARING
E1
375.77
"W
E2
65.59
06 1'27"W
E3
35.52
S84'07'59"W
E4
64.76
N00'3 '0 "W
E5 1
165.63
S52`17'28"W
E6
88.06
S52'17'28"W
E7
197.03
N12'57'14"W
E8
434.06
N78'48'17"E
E9
257.12
N54'43'26"E
E10
267.02
S01'1 5'58"E
E11
82.49
S84'07'59"W
E12
17.62
S06'51'27"E
E13
52.77
S78'23'16"W
E14
751.47
N01'1 '58"W
E15
129.25
N90'00'000E
E16
362.76
S38134'31 NE
E17
108.15
S10'36'06"E
E18
264.70
S83'20'39"E
E19
86.54
S01'05'46"W
E20
666.35
S68'30'11 "W
E21
198.94
N68'30'11 "E
E22
114.57
S21'18'17"E
E23
38.86
N72'28'27"W
E24
190.96 1
N83'20'39"W
E25
218.84
S00'41'45"W
E26
218.16
N59'50'04"W
E27
155.96
NO3'31'19"E
E28
99.28
S8546'28"E
E29
91.49
S64'39'20"E
E30
245.32
S89.02'47"E
E31
265.78
S49'20'40"W
E32
282.13
S51'38'12"W
E33
351.68
S28'14'09"W
E34
59.84
S55'11'21 "W
E35
117.75
N87'04'13"W
E36
82.35
N6649'37"W
E37
230.44
N43'08'24"E
E38
338.41
N32'22'18"E
E39
320.77
N50.31'26"E
E40
112.15
S66'49'37"E
E41
58.55
S87'04'1 "E
E42
284.31
S35'33'51"W
E43
445.87
N72'28'27"W
E44
41.06
S83'20'39"E
E45
374.12 1
S70'29'22"E
E46
110.43
N43'08'24"E
E47
168.44
S64'39'20"E
E48
204.84
S2558'57"E
E49
285.89
S60'47'36"E
E50
380.21
S41.29'53"E
E51
190.03
N79'14'36"E
E52
203.38
N48'08'53"E
E53
43.25
N72'45'58"E
E54
24.38
S18'18'00"E
E55
125.76
S53'08'51 "E
E56
70.38 1
S12'05' 5"E
E57
261.95
S52'23'53"W
E58
342.50
S67'09'06"W
E59
154.05
S33'50'40"W
E60
258.94
N89'10'23"W
E61
309.35
N38'29'57"E
E62
328.72
N31'50'39"W
E63
242.58
N63.22'20"W
E64
295.56
N38'15'39"W
E65
108.84
N72'45'58"E
E66
172.06
S18'07'18"E
E67
41.18
S49'09'47"E
E68
65.98
S79'09'08"W
E69
82.27
N12'05'25"W
E70
127.58
N53'08' 1 "W
E71
14.40
N18*18'00"W
PT #
NORTHING
FASTING
1
618047.77
2141051.73
2
617918.86
2140698.76
3
617983.98
2140690.93
4
617980.35
2140655.60
5
618045.11
2140654.99
6
617943.80
2140523.95
7
617889.94
2140454.29
8
618081.96
2140410.12
9
618166.23
2140835.92
10
618314.72
2141045.83
11
617971.92
2140573.54
12
617954.42
2140575.64
13
618799.06
2141035.12
14
618799.06
2141164.37
15
618515.46
2141390.56
16
618409.15
2141410.46
17
618378.47
2141673.38
18
618291.95
2141671.72
19
618219.05
2141486.62
20
618185.21
2141713.34
21
618196.91
2141676.29
22
620140.32
2142411.62
23
619921.50
2142408.96
24
620031.13
2142220.35
25
620186.80
2142229.93
26
620179.48
2142328.94
27
619029.95
2142768.69
28
619025.87
2143013.98
29
618852.71
2142812.35
30
618677.61
2142591.14
31
618367.78
2142424.75
32
618333.62
2142375.63
33
618339.64
2142258.03
34
618372.04
2142182.32
35
618540.19
2142339.90
36
618826.01
2142521.09
37
618367.94
2142085.59
38
618329.34
2142142.31
39
618285.21
2142245.41
40
618282.22
2142303.88
41
618050.94
2142138.52
42
618373.72
2141714.16
43
61824&77
2142066.80
44
620068.22
2142563.85
45
619884.08
2142653.59
46
619744.57
2142903.14
47
619459.80
2143155.07
48
619495.27
2143341.76
49
619630.96
2143493.25
50
619643.78
2143534.56
51
619620.64
2143542.21
52
619545.21
2143642.84
53
619476.39
2143657.58
54
619316.56
2143450.05
55
619183.57
2143134.42
56
619055.62
2143048.63
57
619059.36
2142789.71
58
619301.46
2142982.28
59
619580.70
2142808.84
60
619689.43
2142591.99
61
619652.67
2143563.22
62
619684.92
2143667.17
63
619521.39
2143720.69
64
619494.46
2143751.85
65
619482.04
2143687.05
66
619562.48
2143669.82
67
619638.99
2143567.74

DETAIL
NCGS A40N LANG
BEND (AH4769)
N-627,067.59
E. 2,134,119.26
CSF: 0.99987437
70
70s 49�,
$ € -. a €, sg€a ���€` ` i§ � I € ���(�IiY,��„��€$ c� i ��C fsEt • �`x §n�rek €€� ��€' i f t x �Ix i€ s�g�r�,4 �r4 ,.c
4
er 5I°
� O
P.O.C.
A I CE 5
CE 6
((//���� x�',�r>
{rs=� �V
E
E;.r.E.''2 L
IRF CE 2
31791 SF PET FIB
#7 0,09AC DOENO Y
DISTURB /
N/F
FATISNA BETH BLACKMON
PIN 164100-07-4699
DEED BOOK 3358, PAGE 941
FIP
/ FIP FIB
#25 E28 #26
/ _...-w
flb��
1 #24
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I 1
11
I
1
N/F
GARY THOMAS BENSON
PIN 164100-08-6845
' DEED BOOK 3701 PAGE 909
X11
�7 1 1
ILI
O1 1
pl
t
PET
CEMETERY
DO NOT--+
DISTURB 1
N/F ----1
MAXINE K. MEDLIN, HEIRS I
PIN 164100-07-5890
DEED BOOK 1025, PAGE 147
j" N
0 O
u
rn �
• Uj
1p
m m
#13
N/F
JERRY W. PARRISH
PIN 164100-19-1598
DEED BOOK 1147, PAGE 287
#14
67
6
CE1f
[
° �P
��'�
1.18,4205F
F.
19,
R 0
2.72 ACgP€' /
E24�
CE4'
OP.0.8.
3 .. .
1
0,696SF
10,696S,-
IRF
0.25AC
A Q � r.
6"A
„ €
pi
P. O. B. N/ F
- CE 1 WILLIAM R MEDLIN &
CE 3 BONNIE J MEDLIN
CEZ P. '4 PIN 164100-17-2J57
SEE
DEED 4834 PAGE 637
DETAA
3,791 SF
1
0.09AC
N/F
1
FATISNA BETH SLACKMON
FIP
PIN 164100-07-4699
1
DEED BOOK 3358, PAGE 941
#17
36,783 SF
0.84 AC
N/F
SHERRILL FARM, LCC
PIN 164100-28-7593
DEED BOOK 4702, PAGE 505
/
R 0
*SITE*
IP
N1�pY
S
� 95
40
LEGEND
"�'
•
EXISTING PK NAIL
0
EXISTING IRON
0
5/8"*30" REBAR SET W/3.25" ALUMINUM
3
a
CAP WITH STATE SEAL
O
CALCULATED POINT
o
Ill
EXISTING MONUMENT
NEW CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR
El
"DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES"
P.O.B.
POINT OF BEGINNING
N/F
P.O.C.
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
REBECCA C CLIFTON
PIN 164100-39-8527
EED BOOK 3381, PAGE 37
CE 5A
CE 6A
2
N/F
GARY T BENSON
PIN 164100-29-9457
DEED BOOK 1430, PAGE 674
#45
CE 68
CE 68
12,749 SF
0.29AC
#49
63 <6
LO 10 64
gi
00
o a0 EA z #4 3i gi , #65 68
aIn
CE 6A Ifs y�
371,931 SF #54
8.54AC'`'
Pe
P.0.8.1I eye
CE 5B\ 57 ,. ; ...
589.02'47"E #56
370.53' (TIE) #27 S89.02'47"E
1078.87'(TIE)
CE5B
148,176 SF
3.40AC
#30
#35 .s
^gate of North Carolina, Johnston Co.
k� g strati+,n:3t
GC 20--L2 -_in the
#34 M,
E#I` II a #31
P 0. B.
Iipl-�JJr pD 1�
F4S CE 5C#3a Wyk Rnr>�F�Jr�KVC�'ane Yl�
#39
yt 1{I #40
N 4 e�'i�3 � � ��' i7lrt�t�L�y se O •�L—Y�..
g..,.;`,.. 41
CE 5C
108,065 SF — -� ---- --
248AC
t`` ,111111111111''
CARO 4
FIB FIP �D�� Q.•/ 9 �;
* SEA
➢ .� L— 6
11j1111111111111`
GRAPHIC SCALE
250 0 125 250 500
1 INCH = 250 FEET
a
FINAL PLAT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
FOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
PROJECT NAME: STONY FORK RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT #: 97085
SPO FILE NO. 51 -CD, 51 -CE, 51 -CF, 51 -CG, 51 -CH
ELEVATION TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: SCALE: SHEET:
AUGUST 16. 2017 1 1" = 250' 1 2 OF 2
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
KCI4505 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD, FLOOR 4
ASSOCIATES OF RALEIGH, NC 27607
NORTH CAROLINA PHONE [phone] * FAX [phone]
C-0764

12.5 Credit Release Schedule
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the final design plans unless
otherwise documented and provided to the Interagency Review Team following construction. Under no
circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA authorization has been
received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the
project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The
DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have
been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some
performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the
case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site
fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the
criteria described as follows:
Stream Credit Release Schedule — 7 year Timeframe
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation — see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
40%
standards are being met
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
50% (60%*)
standards are being met
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
60% (70%*)
standards are being met
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
5%
65% (75%*)
standards are being met
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
75% (85%*)
standards are being met
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
5%
80% (90%*)
standards are being met
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
10%
90% (100%*)
being met, and project has received close-out approval from IRT
*See Subsequent Credit Releases description below
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCDMS
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCDMS Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation sit\e has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built
report has been produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA permit
issuance is not required
Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream project with a 7 -year
monitoring period, a reserve of 10% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after four bank -full
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance
standards are met. In the event that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period,
release of these reserve credits shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones
associated with credit release, the NCDMS will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with
documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation
will be included with the annual monitoring report.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

12.6 Financial Assurance
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Service's In-Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (formerly NCDENR) has
provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects
to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all
mitigation projects implemented by the program.
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

12.7 DWR Stream Identification Forms
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:e
Latitude:Projectl5ite:
Evaluator: ''
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Deter ' ircle one)
4
Other
Stream is et least l ttent
f? z 3 30`
ff t 19 or perennial if
Epheme nt IntermittePerennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A.
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = i I.
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1®. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
° '
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches'
0
1
""
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
S. Headcuts
0
'f'
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
Z
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
-[Yes = 3 `
Sketch:
" artificial ditches are not rated; see di cu ons in manual °.� .'"
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
02
2
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
U
11
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
° '
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
b 2,
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
L-o-Eri
1
oef=,_ 2 1.5
17. Sal -based evidence of highrater table?
No = 0
1
Yes = 3
G. Bloloov (Subtotal = P }
1$. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Maerobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
U "
1
2
3
22. Fish
'
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
�0'
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
`""°
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /0-)'I _ ZD /5'
Project/Site:ovw` I -�' 6
y -ti
Latitude: '3--,4'
Evaluator: - s
County: Joi,nS-To
Longitude: r
Ao
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 114
Stream Determinat circle one
Other
if Z 19 or perennial if 2 30` f � 5
Ephemeral ntermittent Perennial
e. Quad Name:
9•
0Q
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal =
1 a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
©
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
/�
�J
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1.5
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
©
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5)
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
o�.... a..'1.,. I.M., Scw ulacuaawn* ui mtanuai
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6's )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1.5
gYes=--3
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
11.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
r+ n•_�__.• n&
No 0
%-,. D1010gy tauuLutal = J %a
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3
2 11
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae 0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
<1. Other = 0 -
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: _ Z _ y 0 I>J.
Project/Site: _F0 2- - Tr,1
Latitude: $4
Evaluator: T-5 / ,Gj F
County: N L ph
'f
Longitude:
Total Points:
�y
Stream is at least intermittent 2-1 t-. S
Stream Determ' n circle one)
Ephemeral
Other
if >_ 19 or perennial if > 30'
ntermitten Perennial
e. Quad Name:
9•
19 S
H. Geomor nolo (Subtotal = )
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
I h
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
�
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
iFACW
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0,5
1
1
11. Second or greater order channel
a rt'fi ' d't
No
0'
Yes = 3
a I ca i c es are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = -1 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1
0 5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0
Yes = 3
1
lr. DIUIU Jumotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
TD0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1;
26. Wetland plants in streambed
iFACW
= 0.75;
OBL = tf 5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ( 0 - Z 1 - 2 o I
Project/Site: -I'�c r, y! 3 - .�- t z
Latitude: ��, ID
Evaluator: .rs F
County: h 5 10
a
Longitude: - �� 5010
0
1
2
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 3�
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
t
if 2 19 or perennial if 2 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
e.g. Quad Name:
.1 3
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = )
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0 1 co -_0 1 1.5
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
24. Amphibians 06)
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
(3)
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
Sketch:
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
.. J•tA..:..1 J.L.L.. �-� ..a �aJ-__
No =0
Yes = 3
-U11-1 U1 11rD MU 1101 raLeu; J6C Ulbuuzi,lum, 111 manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 10-
12.
o•
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1 2
14. Leaf litter
1.5 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 1 co -_0 1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
1. I1[_._
No = 0 Yes
�. owwgy tOuoto[ai = 10 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 0) 1
2
1 1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1 1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks A1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
11.5
24. Amphibians 06)
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae 0)
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ` - �, p 15
Project/Site:. ry,1 5
Latitude: 36,
Evaluator: '(� 1 AF
County:�o� oh
Longitude: -7z-5a-.j
a=j
0
4D
2
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Z. Jt'
Stream Determination circle one)
Other
if 2 19 or perennial if z 30' 2
Ephemeral rmitten erennial
e. . Quad Name:
9
r.
H. ueomor nolo (subtotal = 1 y )
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
4D
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
(�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
0.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
f0}
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
a� u��a.�ul uiu.l lco .1. "W - u, o6a UTAUUAAluIIA II I I lldl ludl
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = L .5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1 2
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1 _13) 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
-
0.5 11.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No <0� Yes = 3
v. oiuiuuv (Ouotvtai = to
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0)
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

�3
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form VPrcinn d 11
Date: (�
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator: S
11`I�Vgp
County:
tY� JQ� _
Longitude: �
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Deter n (circle one)
Other
if>- 19 or erennial if>- 30" •�
Ephemer ntermitt Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A Geomor h 1 S
11
0 %JkjY ( ubtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
14. Leaf litter
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1b.5
11.5
3
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
L
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
1.5
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1,
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
p. 35 of manual.
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0
2
3
10. Natural valley
0
_
0.
1
1.5
111. Second or greater order channel
No =
1
1.5
artificial ditches are not rated- sea disciiscin ., i
Yes = 3
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
1
23�Yes--3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
23
2
14. Leaf litter
1
0 50
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
11.5
21. Aquatic Mollusks
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1b.5
11.5
3
17. Soil -based evidence of high ,ter table?A$Nc
= 0
1
(' Rinlnnv (cjih+n+.i = k I
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3-)
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0�
1
2
2
3
22. Fish
00.5
1
3
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0)
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5�ther = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See
p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: / I� / I
ProjectlSite: JgUI i
Latitude:
Evaluator: S u t I �1G��1
County:\`l���l.l
Longitude: , 7
Total Points:
Stream Determirfation-(ircle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
Ephemeral' Intermittentt Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = b . )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
17
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0,
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0.)
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = �
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
'
J
Sketch:

12.8 Approved Jurisdictional Determination
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2016-00875 County: Johnston U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -BENSON
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Joe Sullivan
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Address: Landmark Center ll, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-5210
Telephone Number: 919 278-2533
Size (acres) 32.3
Nearest Waterway Black Creek
USGS HUC 03020201
Nearest Town Benson
River Basin Upper Neuse
Coordinates Latitude: 35.45297
Longitude: -78.523527
Location description: Proposed stream channel / wetland bank easement located on 3836 Elevation Road, adjacent to
tributaries of Black Creek, north of Benson, in Johnston County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area
. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the
JD. Please see remarks section in regard to the Jurisdictional determination.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of
this notification.
There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area delineated. Due to the
size of your property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner. For a more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any
delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
Page 1 of 2

_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact John Thomas at 919-554-4884 x25 or
John.T.Thomas.JR(ausace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Sites includes tributaries of Black Creek whicli flows to the Neuse River and on to the
Atlantic Ocean.
D. Remarks: For the purpose of a mitigation bank planning, the Corps concurs with the
Preliminary jurisdictional determinations depicted on provided maps included in agents
review request received on July 12, 2016.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 9/13/2016.
**It is not necessary to submit an RF orm to the Di 'sion Office if y u do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: July 13, 2016 IF

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://regulatory.usacesurvey.co .

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
4EQ1VEST FOR AP'EAL.
Applicant: Joe Sullivan File Number: SAW -2016-00875 Date: July 13, 2016
KCI Technolo ies Inc.
Attached is: See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
ZI
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I -The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Re ulgigo PromamandPertnits.aspx or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terns and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN 'INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR. INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: John Thomas
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room l OM 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, John Thomas,
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

44)
vJ
U
li C Z
Z.
ca
p O = -
'++ o
.L L
p r..�
i
LL
~r. M -or-
4) L O
tm v+
LL v+
m
E
N
E co
cQE
a) m
' W CQ
U
�
LL
�a
O
1
LO
O
Ue
a
�CI)
� N
o
Us a
'
@
c
Ln
a, Q
r: N
E
0
Ln
m
E
N
E co
cQE
a) m
' W CQ
U
�
�a
. ®a
1
11 Jill
O
Ue

12.9 Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of
Mitigation Services Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
ProjectPart 1: General • •
roject Name: tony Fork Stream Restoration Site
Count Name: Johnston County, NC
DMS Number: 97085
Project Sponsor: KCI Technologies, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Tim Morris
Project Contact Address: 4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220, Raleigh, NC 27609
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
DMS Project Mana er: Lindsay Crocker
Project Description
Stony Fork is a stream and stream buffer restoration project for the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Services, Division of Mitigation Services that aims to
restore and enhance over 7000 linear feet of channelized and entrenched stream
channels in the Neuse River Basin. This project will occur on eight parcels of privately
owned land near the Town of Benson in Johnston County North Carolina.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By: Lindsay Crocker
7-6-2016
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Wimminn 1 d R/1 R/nl-;

Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question..
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
® N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
® No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
® No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
❑ N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
® No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
® Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground -Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question ..
American Indian Reliqious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory' by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? ® No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
® Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect' the specie and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
® N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
(By virtue of no -response)
❑ No
® N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy' determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
® No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
® N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or local
® Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
® Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
® No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Manaqement Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Agency Responses

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
May 12, 2016
Timothy Morris
KCI Technologies
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Stony Fork Stream Restoration, KCI 161600959, Johnston County, ER 16-0710
Dear Mr. Morris:
Thank you for your letter of April 21, 2016, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 19, 2016
Timothy Morris
KCI Associates of NC
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, Nr' ?7609
Re: Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site — Johnston County, NC
Dear Mr. Morris:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally -protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally -protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern' that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded. or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the, continued existence ofa .y
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
' The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above -referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down -gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
2

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Emily Wells of this office
at [phone] ext. 25.
Sincerely,
Pete Be jamin
Field Supervisor

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
4
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wilson

USDA
Natural Resources May 31, 2016
Conservation Service
North Carolina
State Office
Dear Mr Morris:
Thank you for your letter dated April 22, 2016, Subject: Request for Comments —
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Project, KCI Job Number — 161600959, Johnston
Co., NC. The following guidance is provided for your information.
Projects are subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements
if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to non-
agricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a
federal agency. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section
1540(c)(1) of the FPPA or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or
unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture to be farmland of statewide local importance.
For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland,
and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be
forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land.
Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development
or water storage. Farmland already in urban development or water storage
includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40 -acre area. Farmland
already in urban development also includes lands identified as urbanized area
(UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a tint overprint
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, or as
urban -built-up on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Important Farmland Maps.
The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland.
Farmland area will be affected or converted. Enclosed is the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating form AD 1006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation,
according to the Code of Federal Regulation 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection
Policy Act.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources mission.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Timothy J. Morris
4407 Bland Road
Senior Environmental Scientist
Suite 117
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27609
Voice 919-873-2171
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
Fax [phone]
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr Morris:
Thank you for your letter dated April 22, 2016, Subject: Request for Comments —
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Project, KCI Job Number — 161600959, Johnston
Co., NC. The following guidance is provided for your information.
Projects are subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements
if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to non-
agricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a
federal agency. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section
1540(c)(1) of the FPPA or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or
unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture to be farmland of statewide local importance.
For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland,
and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be
forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land.
Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development
or water storage. Farmland already in urban development or water storage
includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40 -acre area. Farmland
already in urban development also includes lands identified as urbanized area
(UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a tint overprint
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, or as
urban -built-up on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Important Farmland Maps.
The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland.
Farmland area will be affected or converted. Enclosed is the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating form AD 1006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation,
according to the Code of Federal Regulation 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection
Policy Act.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources mission.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

Mr. Morris
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist at
919-873-2171 or by email: milton.cortes(anc.usda.gov.
Again, thank you for inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
D19i'HI signed by MILTON.O l
M I LTO N CO RTES 0.9334219200300LTON 1Og2001000 80173ntof
Dale: 2016,05.3115A9.42 -04'00'
Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist
cc:
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 4122/16
Name Of Project Stony Fork Stream Restoration Project
Federal Agency Involved NC DOT/FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream Mitigation
County And State Johnston County NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By NRCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply — do not complete additional parts of this form). ® ❑
Acres Irrigated
none
Average Farm Size
156
Major Crop(s) dk • -
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 390,735 acres % 76
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 379,107 acres %74
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Johnston Co. LESA
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
none
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
May 31, 2016 by email
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site A
Ntemative bite Kating _
Site -B- Site C�_J Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
32.3
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0.0
C. Total Acres In Site
32.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
1.4
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
2.6
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
77.0
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
4
0 0 0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
15
15
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
10
10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
20
0
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
15
15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
15
10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
10
0
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
10
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
5
5
10. On -Farm Investments
20
0
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
10
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
10
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
75
0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
4
0 0 0
Total Site Assessment (From Part V/ above or a local
site assessment)
160
75
0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
79
0 0 0
Site Selected: Stony Fork Stream Restoration
Date Of Selection
6/13/16
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?Yes 0 No El
Reason For Selection
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
May 4, 2016
Mr. Timothy Morris
KCI Technologies
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Subject: Request for Environmental Information for the Stony Fork Stream Restoration Project, KCI
Project Number 161600959, Johnston County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Morris,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (as amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
KCI Technologies of North Carolina proposes to complete a wetland restoration project for the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. The subject site, referred to as the Stony Fork Stream
Restoration Site, is located approximately 2,000 feet south and east of the intersection of Elevation and
Federal Roads. The proposed restoration work will restore hydrology and vegetation by realigning the
existing stream and stabilizing the site with native vegetation. Stony Creek flows into Hannah Creek in
the Neuse River basin.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. The NCWRC recommends the use of biodegradable and
wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products
should have loose -weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing and similar products that have been reinforced with plastic or
metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt
and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning
habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills. Any invasive plant species that are found onsite should
be removed.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
May 4, 2016
Scoping — Stony Fork Stream Restoration Project
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or gabriela.garrison(cr�,ncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Pat McCrory Bryan Gossage Susan Kluttz
Governor Executive Director Secretary
Clean Water Management Trust Fund
April 20, 2016
Thomas Seelinger
KCI Technologies, Inc.
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
[e-mail]
RE: Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
Dear Thomas Seelinger:
NCNHDE-1517
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources from our database that have been compiled for the project referenced
above.
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there
are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed
areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there may be no documentation of
natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area
may not have been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for site-specific surveys
where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact
the NCNHP so that we may update our records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have
been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records
suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable
habitat exists and is included for reference.
Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the project area, if any,
are also included in this report. The location of the natural areas and conservation/managed areas can be
viewed online on the Natural Heritage Data Explorer found at: https://ncnhde.natureserve.or_ /.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning,
project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory
decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written
notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications.
Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature
Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species are documented near the
project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact John Finnegan at [e-mail] or 919.707.8630.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Page 1 of 3

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
April 20, 2016
NCNHDE-1517
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Status
Dragonfly or 33753 Somatochlora georgiana Coppery Emerald 2004 -PRE Historical 5 -Very --- Significantly G3G4 S2?
Damselfly Low Rare
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on April 20, 2016; source: NCNHP, Q4 October 2015. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

NCNHDE-1517: Stony Fork Stream Restoration Site
68 m
a y
°30
i
- w
� oak
i'
a
]2m
Shade Tree -Rd
V
April 20, 2016
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Page 3 of 3
1:24,743
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi
0 0.325 0.65 1.3 km
Sources: Esn, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USG S, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey,

Affidavit of Public Notice

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF JOHNSTON
Advertiser Name- KCI ASSOCIATES OF NC
Address: 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD, STE 220
LANDMARK CENTER II
RALEIGH, NC 27609
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Wake
County North Carolina, duly commissioned and
authorized to administer oaths, affirmations, etc.,
personally appeared R. C. Brooks, who being duly
sworn or affirmed, according to law, doth depose
and say that he or she is Accounts Receivable
Specialist of The News & Observer Publishing
Company a corporation organized and doing
business under the Laws of the State of North
Carolina, and publishing a newspaper known as
The Herald, in the City of Raleigh, Wake County
and State aforesaid, the said newspaper in which
such notice, paper, document, or legal
advertisement was published was, at the time of
each and every such publication, a newspaper
meeting all of the requirements and qualifications
of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North
Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the
meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes
of North Carolina, and that as such he or she
makes this affidavit; and is familiar with the books,
files and business of said corporation and by
reference to the files of said publication the
attached advertisement for KCI ASSOCIATES OF
NC was inserted in the aforesaid newspaper on
dates as follows:
04/24/2016
R. C. Brooks, Ac nts Receivable Specialist
Wake County, North Carolina
Ad Number
0002404684
Stony Fork Stream Restorvtion Prosect
KCl Technologies, Inc. proposes to pur-
chase conservation easement rights on
approximately 33 acres of existing farm
and woodland In Johnston County, NC.
The site is located on several properties
south of the intersection of Elevation
Road and Federal Road north of the
Town of Benson and west of Four Oaks.
The purpose of acquiring the easement
rights is to provide mitlgation for im-
pacts to streams that have, or will, re-
sult from existing or future development
In this area.
Anyone desiring that an informational
public meeting be held for this proposed
action may make a request by regis-
tered letter to KCI Technologies, Inc. at
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 220, Raleigh
NC 27609. Requests must be Post.
marked by May 23, 2016. If additional In-
formation is required, please contact
Tim Morris at 919.278-2511.
The proiV Is being completed for the
North Carolina Department of Environ.
mental Quality, Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS). DMS reserves the right
to determine if a public meeting will be
held.
SH- April 24, 2016
D I I kq/////
NOtafy Public
Wake County
irfnn1w
Sworn to and subscribed before me
This 25th day of April, 2016
My Commission Expires: FEB 17 2020
�_AA A , 1� �&� � ___-)
N ry Signature

12.10 Agency Correspondence
Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

Final Mitigation Plan Stony Fork Restoration Site
July 27, 2018 DMS Project Number 97085

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
ISO 9001:201 S CERTIFIED
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd., Suite 400 • Raleigh, NC 27609 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Date: July 27, 2018
To: Andrea Hughes, USACE
Lindsay Crocker, NC DMS
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Subject: Stony Fork Restoration Site
Mitigation Plan Review — Response to IRT Comments
Neuse River Basin - 03020201
Johnston County, North Carolina
Contract No. #6830
DMS Project #97085
Below are our responses to comments received on the mitigation plan for the Stony Fork Restoration Site,
which includes changes that were agreed upon at the site visit between KCI and Ms. Hughes on June 25,
2018 (the email correspondence following that site visit is included in the mitigation plan appendices). All
of the following changes have been completed in the revised mitigation plan. Please contact me if you
have any questions or would like clarification concerning these responses.
Mac Haupt, NCDWR, May 18, 2018:
1. DWR recalls during the site visit that the area planned for reaches T1 and reaches T1 A and B
had a lot of wetlands or wet areas. DWR is concerned that sections of these reaches will
become more wetland -like than streams, particularly for T1A and B. T1A and B may be spring
heads, however; given the amount of flow coming out of the springs, channel formation may
not form until further down in the watershed (DMS comment #5).
Response: Based on the site visit with USACE and KCI on June 25, 2018 as a follow-up to these
comments, KCI has decided to remove T1B from the mitigation plan as it was not flowing during
the site visit and is not currently on the JD map. T1A was an active seep flowing at the time of
the 6/25/18 site visit. Ms. Hughes expressed concern that because of the limited flow, this
tributary could become more wetland -like than stream -like in the post -restoration condition.
While this is a possible outcome, we believe that the on-site topography and soil indicators
suggest it will be a stream. Obviously, this decision is risk-based on our part, and the IRT's
position on this issue is noted. We will closely monitor the site to evaluate if credit reductions
are warranted.
THE MOST INCREDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM WWW.KCI. COM

2. DMS had several comments regarding sediment size of stream and size of rock being placed
in the stream, particularly in the constructed riffles, both as "enhanced" and "riffle grade
control". DWR is also very concerning with the size and amount of stone proposed to go in
the stream with the particle size which is essentially sand. DWR believes there is a risk to the
stream channel from a sediment transport standpoint. DWR requests the designer revisit the
amount and size of rock being proposed for the riffle structures.
a. DWR looked up the various rock sizes and please confirm that these size classes
are correct, or close to the standard:
i. Class A- midrange size 4 inches,
ii. Class B- midrange size 8 inches,
iii. Class 1- midrange size 10 inches
b. If these are the midrange sizes of the stone going into the structures, DWR has issue
with the use of these sizes of stone going into this stream.
c. Would not Class 57 stone be the more relevant stone size for this stream?
Response: The stone sizing is as we intended. These materials have been selected based on
our past construction and monitoring experience. During the period right after construction,
Class 57 Stone will mobilize even during small storms. Using these classes of stone provides a
factor of safety in the design that we feel is necessary to ensure the maintenance and
development of the channel profile and habitat features (riffles and pools) in the system. We
do anticipate that the system will seed the bed features with a native mixture of sand and
small gravels, while the larger materials become part of the subpavement over time.
3. It appears from recent Google aerials that the new subdivision road may have an outlet
structure from one of the sediment basins located in the easement. DWR would like assurances
that the new subdivision on both sides of the stream will honor the easement for the project.
Response: The sediment ponds for the adjacent development do currently infringe slightly on
the easement, but they are temporary features that will be removed as that phase of the project
is completed. The developer's obligation is to fill in the sediment ponds and bring them back to
a natural grade. The timing of construction of the stream restoration project and the
abandonment of the sediment control features is dependent on several variables but the timing
right now indicates that the ponds will be removed near the time we anticipate initiating project
construction. We are in contact with the developer regarding this and other issues that need to
be coordinated for the stream restoration project. Ultimately, the developer (Clifton Enterprises)
signed the easement and is obligated to abide by the easement terms just like any other
landowner.
4. DWR would like to know the minimum amount of benching that will be constructed, especially
on the stream channel with the larger drainage area. The cross section typicals shown on design
Sheet 5 do not specific a minimum width. DWR prefers 2X bankfull width for a minimum for
benching of the floodplain.
Response: We have added the floodplain grading extents on the project sheets, which reflect the
grading limits consistent with the two times bankfull width requested in the DWR comment. The
majority of the restored reaches on this project are Priority 1. There are sections of Priority 1/2
transitional areas and Priority 2 that were needed due to site constraints.
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
vaNV%V.K( 1.(OM

DWR is concerned with the amount of kudzu on site and reminds the designer of the need for
multiple treatments throughout the construction and monitoring of the site.
Response: The kudzu as well as the privet documented in the post -contract site memo were
treated in Fall 2017 and again in Spring 2018. The treatment program will remain aggressive until
the invasive species are under control. Privet was also mechanically removed throughout the site
in Fall 2017. We have provided additional details on invasive species management in a newly
added 'Buffer Mitigation Plan" in Section 12.3 of the appendices.
Andrea Hughes, USACE, June 14, 2018:
1. According to maps submitted for the public notice and field notes from the site visit on April 7, 2016,
T1 is a stream -wetland complex and the IRT recommended that no work should occur above the
cattail area. The map included with the JD depicts T1 and a very short feature labeled T8 but does
not indicate any other jurisdictional features in this area. The DWR site viability letter indicates T1 is
a modified stream not subject to buffer rules and does not mention T8, T1a or T1b. Since the current
proposal includes restoration for T1a, and T1b, we will need to field review these features before we
can approve the draft mitigation plan.
Response: Based on our field visit on 6/25/18, T1A was verified as a stream and T1B was removed
from the project. No work will be done above the cattail wetland as indicated in the original post -
contract site review memo. T1 starts just below the cattail swamp.
2. The draft mitigation plan does not provide existing morphological parameters for T3 and this feature
was not proposed for restoration at the technical stage so we would like to review this feature during
the site visit.
Response: Based on the 6/25/18 field visit, we are providing additional morphological data for the
upper part of T3 (see Table 15 in the report and the existing cross-sections 10 and 11 in the updated
Morphological Table in Section 12.2 in the appendices). We also provided an additional narrative
description in Section 3.3.1.
The boundaries of the project have been revised due to land title issues associated with the Critcher
Farms subdivision and the project now ends a short distance below a 30 foot wide easement.
According to page 9 of the design plans, the small section of stream channel below the 30 foot
easement does not have the minimum 50 -foot buffers (it appears that a large portion of one side
abuts the conservation easement boundary). The project should be revised to end before the 30 -
foot easement (approximately 55+50).
Response: Based on email correspondence following the 6/25/18 site meeting (included in Section
12.10 in the appendices), we have agreed to end the project stream credits at Station 56+04. This is
the point at which the stream still has the minimum 15 foot riparian buffers on either side. We will
still continue the restoration work of the remainder of Stony Fork Reach 3 until the property boundary
for no credit. The credits have been adjusted throughout the revised mitigation plan.
Stream gauges should be placed in the upper third of the channel for T3, T1, T1a, and T1b.
Response: For T1 and T3, we moved up the proposed locations into the upper third of the streams.
We added a location on T1A. The T2 gauge was already proposed for installation in the upper third
of the channel. We will have stream gauges (and/or cameras) in these locations to document flow.
T1B has been eliminated from the project. These changes are shown in Figure 10.
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\N W%V. R, 1. Lo %d

Section 7.0: The draft mitigation plan does not include performance standards for stream
geomorphology. Per the 2016 guidance, stream performance standards should include:
BHR must not exceed 1.2 and ER should be at least 2.2 for C and E channels. BHR and ER at any
measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from the baseline condition during
any given monitoring interval (e.g., no more than 10% between years 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 5, or 5
and 7).
Response: These parameters were added.
6. Regarding vegetation performance, for any tree stem to count towards success it must be a species
from the approved planting list included in the Mitigation Plan.
Response: The vegetative performance section was changed to address the comment above.
In addition to addressing the IRT's comments, KCI has also incorporated changes in the revised mitigation
plan based on DWR's review of the proposed buffer mitigation credits. A new "Buffer Mitigation Plan"
has been added to Section 12.3, which provides greater detail on the invasive plant populations and
proposed treatment. The response to comments to DWR, outlining all of the changes made, is included
in Section 12.10 Agency Correspondence. None of the changes made based on the buffer comments
affect the stream credits. Below is a summary of the changes in the mitigation plan:
- Section 5.0: The objective under the second goal was amended to start with "Treat invasive plant
populations and....".
- Section 6.10: An additional planting zone (Zone 3) has been added to the construction plans for
supplemental plantings in areas cleared of privet understory.
- Section 7.0: The vegetative performance standard was changed from four native trees or shrub
species to just four native tree species.
- Section 8.0: Vegetative monitoring will occur no earlier than the end of August and no later than
mid-December. Also, a permanent vegetation plot was added to the buffer enhancement area along
T2-2, making the division of plots 7 permanent and 5 random. Under Reporting, the first year of
monitoring will occur no earlierthan the end of the first growing season and no soonerthan 5 months
following planting.
- General: Aerial backgrounds for the mitigation plan were changed to a 2018 aerial showing the
proposed development to the north of the site.
Sincerely,
Tim Morris
Project Manager
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM \N W%V. r., 1. (_()nt

From: Tim Morris
Sent:
Wednesday, July 18, 2018 10:03 AM
To:
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Crocker, Lindsay; Hughes, Andrea W CIV
USARMY CESAW (US); Haupt, Mac
Cc:
Adam Spiller; Kristin Knight -Meng; Gary Mryncza
Subject:
RE: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
Thanks, we will finalize our response to comments and resubmit our mitigation plan for final approval in the coming
days.
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 9:59 AM
To: Tim Morris <[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay < Lindsay. [e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV
USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Cc: Adam Spiller <[e-mail]>; Kristin Knight -Meng <[e-mail]>; Gary Mryncza
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
Tim, given that you are in a situation where you must complete the repair below the crossing and include the stream in
the easement, I think we can agree to credits on the reach that has a full buffer.
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Tim Morris [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 9:43 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay
<[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>;
Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Cc: Adam Spiller <[e-mail]>; Kristin Knight -Meng <[e-mail]>; Gary Mryncza
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
The easement has been paid for and recorded already. I would not feel right about leaving the end of the project within
the easement unfinished for the landowner knowing his expectations.
Unless you have some objection, we will complete the project as designed, and not get credit for the bottom. There are
certainly plenty of instances where the ends of projects have been looked at differently, but you have made your
decision and we will have to live with it. It is just a shame that knowing we have substantial extra credits in wider
buffers (that we can't ask for credit for), that this circumstance can't be looked at in a different light.
One last question and I'll give up on this. Given the landowner expectations, can we at least recover the 26 credits
below the culvert that have full buffer?
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)[mailto:[e-mail]

Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 8:59 AM
To: Tim Morris <[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay < Lindsay. [e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV
USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Cc: Adam Spiller <[e-mail]>; Kristin Knight -Meng <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
The stream takes a 90 degree turn and runs along the property line for the last 75 feet, where the left top of bank is
essentially the property boundary. In all other cases where the there is a reach of stream that has a one-sided
easement, we have not allowed credit, and that is basically what is happening in this case. At most, it looks like about 15
feet of stream below the crossing exception would have a protected buffer of any meaningful width on both sides.
Also, if the 90 degree turn in the channel downstream of the crossing has erosion problems in the future, there is no
easement there for the stream to migrate into or to allow repair. We also don't want to see fragmentation of projects,
and what is proposed here is to disconnect the last 100 or so feet of stream, which will also have no buffer on one side
for 75'. For these reasons, it seems to make sense to end the project at the easement crossing.
I know this is an unusual case, but I do not see how this particular configuration meets our basic requirements.
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Tim Morris [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:07 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay
<[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>;
Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Cc: Adam Spiller <[e-mail]>; Kristin Knight -Meng <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
It is at the property boundary??
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:24 PM
To: Tim Morris <[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV
USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Cc: Adam Spiller <[e-mail]>; Kristin Knight -Meng <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
Tim, my concern remains the width of the buffer downstream of 56+10 or so. I understand this is at the bottom of the
site, but it is not at the property boundary, and it appears to be only a couple feet wide if that. The provision for the 5%
was meant for areas where stream intersect a property boundary at an angle, not to allow the inclusion of reaches with
no effective buffer at all. In this case, I would recommend just stopping the project at the crossing.
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Tim Morris [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 9:50 AM

To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay
<[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>;
Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Cc: Adam Spiller <[e-mail]>; Kristin Knight -Meng <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
Todd - The culvert is in good condition and is sized properly. It will not be removed. We did what we could to align the
stream better with the angle of the culvert, but the position of the easement exception (an existing farm road) and the
constraints imposed by the property line didn't allow much flexibility in what we could do to the end of the project. The
table on the enclosed plan was meant to provide you all the information you need to make a credit decision on this
reach.
As you probably are aware, the project was originally designed to extend another 700+ feet downstream, but property
title issues associated with the downstream property forced us to stop the project short. Not your problem, but I
wanted to make sure you knew the history.
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 8:42 AM
To: Crocker, Lindsay < Lindsay. [e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Tim Morris <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Cc: Adam Spiller <[e-mail]>; Kristin Knight -Meng <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
Tim/Lindsay,
I looked at the plan view and do have a couple questions - is the culvert at the crossing proposed to be replaced? I
assume that is part of the reason for the erosion given the 90 degree turn in the channel immediately downstream.
Secondly, from STA 56+10 down to the end of the project, it looks like the buffer is considerably narrower than 15' -
maybe closer to just 1 or 2 feet from the top of bank to easement/property line? This seems essentially like a one-sided
buffer in this area.
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Crocker, Lindsay [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 10:44 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY
CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Tim Morris <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac
<[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Kristin Knight -Meng <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
Todd,
Yes, this is the case. The small area in question is at the end of the project, below a culverted crossing. The buffer width
is (approx.) >50' on stream right (although it tapers at the end), and the buffer width ranges from 140' to 15' (at the end)
on stream left. The reason the easement was not extended is that it is owned by a HOA and all 24 homeowners would
have to sign the easement, which is extremely difficult to accomplish. It is likely that this ownership situation will
protect this area perpetually because of the nature of the real estate situation.
9

Thanks,
Lindsay
Lindsay Crocker
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27603
Office 919.707.8944
Cell 919.594.3910
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 3:19 PM
To: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Tim Morris
<[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Kristin Knight -Meng <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Lindsay,
I have not seen the plan view for the area in question. As the guidance points out, the 5% is intended to apply to areas
near project termini where buffers are narrow due to the project intersecting with a road or property line. Is this the
case here?
Also, what is the width of the buffer for the reach in question? If there is a section that has no buffer at all, obviously
that is not what is intended - we have never agreed to credits for a one-sided buffer.
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Crocker, Lindsay [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 10:25 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY
CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Tim Morris <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac
<[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Kristin Knight -Meng <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
All,
Based on interpretation of State contract law, DMS will not allow KCI to use IRT 2016 wider buffer guidance for any of
the contracts in this particular RFP. This RFP and project was contracted well before the 2016 guidance existed. DMS

will not seek the additional credits this way, nor will KCI be able to realize those credits. These credits would have
provided a significant increase for KCI to meet their contracted amount (they are currently below).
The 75' in question is well below the threshold of 5% of the project total (1%). DMS has realized credits for streams with
less than 50' in the past (pre -2016), as long as it was not more than 5% of the project total. I think this is what you are
saying, Todd? Please confirm if the inclusion of those 75' for credits would be ok with this clarification as it is in line with
previous projects.
Thanks and apologies for all the acronyms in this email. I'm slightly embarrassed that I communicate this way.
Lindsay
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 9:28:34 AM
To: [e-mail]; Tim Morris
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay; [e-mail]; Kristin Knight -Meng
Subject: [External] RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Ti m,
Under normal circumstances buffers of less than 15 feet cannot generate credits, and this is built into the buffer
calculation tool; however, per our 2016 guidance (Sec XI(A)5), exceptions to the 15 foot standard can be made in certain
circumstances. The limit on this is 5% cumulatively over the entire project. I'm not sure from the description below if
the area in question exceeds this amount. Note that if you request additional stream credits on the project by using the
buffer tool, the 5% allowance does not apply. In your case, it sounds like you are able to get additional credits per your
contract, correct? And I assume that also means that DMS would not be asking for those credits either? If that is the
case, then the 5% limit would apply.
Does this help?
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 4:17 PM
To: Tim Morris <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Kristin Knight -Meng <Kristin.Knight-
[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary

Hi Tim,
Thank you for providing field notes from our meeting. I am not aware of SAW allowing credit for a stream reach that has
a buffer of less than 15 feet on one side. I realize the project has lost credits due to easement issues beyond your
control but we have to be careful setting a precedence, particularly when it is contrary to current guidance. I am
copying Todd on this e-mail so he can weigh in on your proposal.
Andrea W. Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone]
-----Original Message -----
From: Tim Morris [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 3:03 PM
To: Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Adam Spiller <[e-mail]>; Kristin Knight -Meng
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Stony Fork Response to Comments and Field Meeting Summary
Andrea - thank you for meeting with us on short notice on Monday (6-25) to view the stream features that were
questioned during the IRT in-house review. Specifically we looked at T1A and TIB as well as T-3. This email summarizes
our discussions in the field.
T1 -A - This was an active seep area that was flowing at the time of the site visit. ACOE expressed concern that because
of the limited flow, this tributary could become more wetland -like than stream -like in its post restoration condition. KCI
will address this concern in the response to comments.
T1 -B - This tributary was another seep area that was not flowing at the time of the site visit. Since it was not flowing and
did not appear on the JD map, KCI agreed to remove this feature from the plan. T1B was likely picked up during the
assessment phase as a seep and survived the design process erroneously. Removal of this feature will reduce the overall
credit yield by 26 credits.
T-3 - This feature was flowing at the time of the site visit. ACOE expressed concern that the area in and around the old
pond bed, although manipulated, was stable. KCI indicated that the floodplain bench of the main channel would require
all the spoil from the pond to be removed. That accompanied with the fact that the T-3 drainage pattern was un -natural
(directed upstream to Stony Fork) and the channel was improperly sized resulted in the restoration call for T-3 through
the pond. After looking at the channel upstream of the pond, ACOE agreed with the E1 call, but asked that additional
justification be provided in the Mitigation Plan, including cross sections and sizing justification. KCI will provide this data
to substantiate the R and E1 calls for T3. Below is a close up of the planform for T-3 (page 6 of the design plans). The
dotted line below shows the extent of the floodplain grading.

Stream buffer issues at the bottom of the project - KCI also discussed (but did not visit) the end of the project where
there is a short (75') section of stream with less than the minimum buffer on the left bank. The written IRT comment
asks why we couldn't stop the project at the culvert instead of having a short section of narrow easement below the
culvert.
I looked back at the design and confirmed that there is no design reason why we could not stop at the culvert. There are
some badly eroded sections below the culvert that are within the easement that we feel should be addressed, especially
the tight right-hand meander that we plan to stabilize with a soil lift. That is the reason we pursued credits in this
section. KCI purchased excess buffer width on most of this project with the intent of providing two main benefits to
the project. In addition to providing more buffering capacity, the wider buffers would also allow a broader treatment
envelop for the extensive privet stands that dominated the understory, especially in the area of the stream valleys. We
anticipated that the excess credit that we could generate using the expanded buffer guidance would offset the
additional acreage encumbered in the easement, however we did not anticipate that Contract issues would not allow us
to recover credits from the purchase of the wider buffers. We have run several versions of the buffer guidance during
the assessment and design phase of this project. These methods show excess credit yields of 145 to 463 credits due to
the expanded buffer. The most recent method provided by the IRT (using the DMS' GIS tool) yields the least number of
credits (145). Since we can't recover these credits contractually we would request that we be able to utilize these
credits to cover the narrow buffer area at the bottom of the project. In the past the IRT has been lenient on the
terminal ends of easements where they come to a property line at an angle (as an example). I guess what we are asking
for is leniency for this downstream section with the knowledge that the excess buffer in other areas of the project could
more than offset any deficiencies at the end of the project. Any feedback on this issue would be appreciated prior to
providing our formal response to comment letter to the rest of the IRT.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
r�

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
ISO 9001:201 S CERTIFIED
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd., Suite 400 • Raleigh, NC 27609 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Date: July 18th, 2018
To: Katie Merritt, DWR
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Subject: Stony Fork Restoration Site
Mitigation Plan Review for Buffer Mitigation — Response to DWR Comments
Neuse River Basin - 03020201
Johnston County, North Carolina
Contract No. #6830
DMS Project #97085
DWR Project Number: 2016-0372
We have addressed each of your comments below. We are attaching a "Buffer Mitigation Plan" that will
be included in Section 12.3 in the revised mitigation plan that should address many of your comments.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like clarification concerning these responses.
General comments:
Credit Assets for buffer are inconsistent throughout the document. Inconsistencies noted on
the following: pg. 23, 32, section 12.3 (table)
The inconsistency on page 23 was our error — it showed an earlier version of our calculations.
This has been corrected to match the numbers on page 32 and the table in Section 12.3. All of
these numbers are in agreement now.
2. Provide site photos in the Appendix showing existing conditions of riparian areas proposed for
restoration, & enhancement along T2.2.
We have provided additional photos in the 'Buffer Mitigation Plan" showing the conditions
along T2 before and after physical removal that targeted the larger invasive stems — see
attached.
3. Usually there is an appendix summarizing the buffer mitigation along reaches, which includes
specifics to the monitoring plan, performance standards, credit assets,
restoration/enhancement plan, etc that are different than the stream mitigation plan. Please
provide an appendix titled "Buffer Mitigation Plan".
THE MOST INCREDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM WWW.KC1. COM

We have prepared the "Buffer Mitigation Plan" to be included in Section 12.3 in the appendices;
this section previously was titled "Buffer Mitigation" and included only the spreadsheet and maps,
but it has been expanded upon to include the information requested in the DWR review. A draft is
being included with these responses for your review.
4. Lack of detail is provided for riparian restoration & enhancement areas:
- SF reaches: Riparian Restoration along South Fork is not described in much detail, other
than in section 6.1 where it vaguely references the removal of privet in the buffer (note that
"buffer" is defined as Zone 1 and Zone 2 and only includes the first 50' from Top of Banks).
For added clarity, please use the term "riparian areas".
We have added additional descriptions of these areas in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan". Rather
than organize descriptions of the existing site conditions by reach, we have grouped them by
invasive species type since those drive much of the buffer impacts at the site.
According to the viability letter much is needed in the form of invasive species removal &
management along SF up to its confluence with T1 to receive Restoration credit. Please
explain what KCI will be doing in areas proposed for Restoration along SF & T1.
Please see Section D. Implementation Plan in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan". Mitigation work
will consist of mechanical and chemical treatment of invasive species plus plantings of native
hardwoods.
T2.2 was re-evaluated this year based on the substantial privet removal in the buffer. The
Site viability letter indicates that Enhancement & Restoration areas "need to be managed
aggressively during the entire five (5) years." No mention of this is provided in the mitigation
plan. Additionally, planting larger stock of woody stems was also recommended due to the
conditions of the buffer during that site visit in April. Therefore, please provide more detail
so I can confirm it complies with the site viability letter for being eligible for buffer
mitigation. I recommend this level of detail be provided in the appendix requested in Item
#3 above & noted on the Planting Plan sheets
For T2.2, please see Section D. Implementation Plan in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan". Mitigation
work will consist of mechanical and chemical treatment of invasive species plus plantings of
native hardwoods.
We have also added in Section E in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan" that we will plant addition
partial forested sections of the easement that have been treated for privet with either one
gallon container trees at a 20 by 20 foot spacing or bare root trees contained in tree shelters
at 10 foot center spacing. This area, approximately 6.2 acres, will also be denoted on the
Planting Plan sheets.
- Many references describing changes to adjacent land uses since the IRT/DWR visit are
provided, but no visual representation is included in the plan. Please include an aerial
showing the current site conditions in and around the proposed easement boundary. Please
reference the new aerial as a Figure and incorporate that figure in text where KCI references
future roads, construction, development, crossings, etc.
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\\ K( 1.com4

We have put together a map showing the new development (Sherrill Farms Phase 1 to the
north of the center of the project, currently in progress, and Phase 2 to the southeast of the
project, still in the planning stages; it is Attachment H for the "Buffer Mitigation Plan". We
have also inserted a recent aerial image from March 2018 that shows the most recent
development to the north of the site. We will use this aerial as a background in the mitigation
plan figures as well.
Section 12.3: Map Sheets
- Map Sheet #2 -Shows the west side of the farm path between T1/SF confluence and T2/SF
confluence proposed for Preservation credit. However, the viability letter indicates the pine
plantation is not suitable for any credit. Please revise credits accordingly to comply with the
viability letter.
We have changed this area to no credit (see revised map sheets attached).
- Sheets do not accurately depict current land uses in close proximity to the project
easement. Please use the aerial requested in #5 above as the base layer for this section.
We are now using the 2018 aerial discussed above for these maps.
6. Section 6.10: lacks essential details. Many areas on this site require special attention with
regards to the stems planted, stock and density. Please add detail to the planting plan using
specific areas where special attention is warranted (see viability letter). (example: Enhancement
areas are described in the viability letter as having no understory; therefore, DWR recommends
KCI be selective when choosing what plants to use to establish a healthy understory in areas
receiving Enhancement credit.
Section 6.10 will be updated to reflect the information presented in Section E. Planting Plan in the
"Buffer Mitigation Plan". Partially forested sections of the easement that have been treated for
privet will be supplementally planted with either one gallon container trees at a 20 by 20 foot
spacing or bare root trees contained in tree shelters 10 foot center spacing. These species may
consist of river birch, sycamore, or any of the five oak species listed in the primary planting zone.
7. Section 5.0:
Please add a goal that targets a high level of intervention and management of invasive
species within the riparian areas. This should be a goal for this site considering that a
1:1 and 2:1 ratio has been agreed to by the DWR for the removal and management of
the invasives present for buffer mitigation.
We prefer to have broad goals and believe the current second goal encompasses invasive species
management. We did add to the objectives for the second goal: "Treat invasive plant populations
and plant the site with native trees" to emphasize the importance of the task of removing these
plants. The measurement tool of species composition/diversity takes into account the number and
type of species present, and will track any invasive species present during monitoring events.
8. Table 16: a ratio of 3:1 is shown in the column for areas >100' from top of bank, and therefore
the amount of credits are higher than if using 33% as required in the buffer mitigation rule.
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\N W%V. R, 1. Lo %d

Adjust credits based on using 33% instead of 3:1. Example: 37,091 * .33=12,240 whereas
37,091/3 = 12,364. Note: the mitigation banks are required to use the 33%.
We have corrected the value used to 33.0% for the two pertinent calculations. We show 3.03:1
as the ratio in Table 16 to maintain the formatting of that table for DMS, but we used 33.0% for
all of the calculations.
9. Section 7.0:
a. Riparian Buffer Performance should be included in the added appendix with that new
appendix referenced here in this section
Please see Section G in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan", which will be referenced in the
revised mitigation plan.
b. In this part, there are two different performance standards being stated, however KCI
needs to choose which one they want to be held accountable for. Here are the two
performance standards to choose from:
1. ...a minimum of 4 native hardwood tree species with no species greater than
50% of planted stems; or
2. four native hardwood tree and native shrub species, with no species greater
than 50% of planted stems
We have changed it to indicate we would like to use four native trees.
c. If you want to include volunteer species, that's fine. Clarify that only "desirable
volunteers may be included to meet performance standards and upon DWR approval".
Per your request as well as based on comments from USACE during their review, we have
changed this to read: "For any volunteer tree stem to count toward vegetative success, it
must be a species from the approved planting list included in the Mitigation Plan."
10. Section 8.0:
We have included an overview of proposed monitoring in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan", Section F,
and will update the revised mitigation plan to be consistent with this section.
i. DWR requests that monitoring be done no earlier than the end of August and no later
than mid-December. Mitigation banks are held to this standard.
We have changed this.
ii. Add a statement clarifying that vegetation monitoring will begin no earlier than at least
5 months post -planting efforts. Currently, it says after the first full growing season.
We have amended this to say "Beginning at the end of the first growing season and no
sooner than 5 months following planting....".
iii. Add a statement that the monitoring will be for a period of five monitoring years or until
DWR approval. (emphasis added)
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\N W% .r.( 1.com4

We have added this in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan".
Clarify that the parameters being monitored are mainly for planted stems.
iv. Why are exotic and invasive "stems" going to be included in the stem counts?
This allows us to quantify the number of invasive species present versus the desirable
species.
v. Section 5.1- 0295 (2)(E) indicates that the monitoring plan shall also include the "health
and average stem densities" (emphasis added). Add clarity to this section to meet the
rule expectation that vigor is an important parameter to note in the annual reports.
We added a sentence stating that "Height will be used as a determination of plant vigor"
in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan". Height is already included as one of the plot
measurements. Per Section 8 in the DMS mitigation plan for Vegetative Performance,
trees in each plot must average 7 feet in height at Year 5, and we added that to the "Buffer
Mitigation Plan" as well in Section G.
vi. Figure 10 shows the approximate location of monitoring plots. --DWR recommends
ensuring that each reach has a plot located on both sides of the stream where
restoration or enhancement is being generated for buffer mitigation.
-Please do not place plots within or partially within a buffer preservation area.
None of the current plots are mapped within preservation areas, although they may
appear close to the boundaries at the scale of Figure 10.
-Please add another permanent plot within the buffer enhancement area along T2 along
the right bank.
We have included another permanent plot along T2s right bank as requested — please see
the revised Figure 10 in the attachments and plot table below.
-Where non -permanent random plots are installed each monitoring year, DWR would
like to know what parameters KCI will use to determine where the plots will be placed
to accurately represent the planted and partially planted areas. For example: areas
within just 0-50' and/or 51-200', Enhancement areas, Restoration areas, etc. This level
of detail is necessary to determine if the buffer mitigation areas are being monitored in
the appropriate locations.
For the permanent plots, we had 5 plots in the restoration areas and 1 plot in the
enhancement area. We have further described and modified the distribution of the plots
as follows. The random plots will be selected during each annual monitoring event using
these criteria.
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\N W% .K( 1.com4

Veg Plot
Reach
Buffer Mitigation
Distance
from TOB
Bank
Type
1
SF1
Restoration
51-200'
Left
Permanent
2
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Permanent
3
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
4
T1
Restoration
51-200'
Right
Permanent
5
T2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
6
T2
Enhancement
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
7
T2
Enhancement
51-200'
Right
Permanent
8
SF1
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Random
9
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
left
Random
10
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Random
11
SF3
Enhancement
TOB -50'
Right
Random
12
T1
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Random
11. Section 9.0: Add DWR to this paragraph for purposes of notification and contingency planning
We have amended this sentence in the revised mitigation plan to read that "....the sponsor shall
notify the members of the IRT as well as NCDWR's 401 and Buffer Permitting Branch staff and
work with both groups to develop contingency plans and remedial actions".
12. Section 12.1: Plan Sheets
Sheet 6: Tributary 113 & 1A are new tribs proposed off T1. Buffer Credit will need to be
deducted from the footpint where these streams will be located. Figures provided in this
plan do not currently show that deduction. Buffer credit is only viable adjacent T1.
We have removed the bankfull extent of T1A from the buffer credits. Based on USACE
comments during the IRT review, we are removing T1B from the project altogether. In
addition, we have deducted the footprint of T3 from the buffer credit calculations; this is
an additional tributary that was added for stream credit that flows into Stony Fork Reach
1 (SF1).
Sheet 14: bare roots are the only size of stems shown to be planted other than live
stakes. Is KCI not intending on planting larger stock within the buffer Enhancement
areas along T2.2? (see viability letter note)
As noted above, we have changed this sheet to show that the enhancement sections of
the easement will be supplementally planted with either one gallon container trees at a
20 by 20 foot spacing or bare root trees contained in tree shelters 10 foot center spacing.
These species may consist of river birch, sycamore, or any of the five oak species listed in
the primary planting zone.
13. Section 12.3:
a. I like this table!
b. please give the table a title for referencing.
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\\ K( 1.com4

We have named this Table 1. Buffer Project Areas and Assets for the "Buffer Mitigation
Plan".
c. This table shows different summations of credit potential than other parts of this plan.
Please address all inconsistencies in credit assets for buffer mitigation prior to final
submittal
These have all been corrected. See revised values in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan."
d. There is a subtotal of 45,445 ft2 of buffer preservation credits after applying the ratios
and % reductions; which is below the EPA of 175,721ft2. However, the EPA of 175,721
is then applied to a ratio of 10:1 on the next row implying that the project will only yield
17,572 ft2. Please explain why the 10:1 was applied on the EPA and which row of
subtotals KCI is using towards their credit assets.
We calculated the preservation credits as follows —please correct us if we are using an
incorrect method (note numbers are slightly different now due to edits in this most
recent version).
o Eligible area (square footage) for preservation is
(R+E)/0.75-(R+E)
(525,087/0.75) — (525,087) = 175,029 square feet
o On-site area of preservation mitigation is 424,660 square feet
o Of this, we used 175,029 square feet of preservation that are eligible for full
preservation credit (minimum 30' to 100' buffer area) at 10°o, therefore the final
preservation credit we are claiming is 17,503 credits.
14. Note that this site cannot be used to generate nutrient offset credits according to the viability
letter.
The viability letters are included in the appendix for reference. Assets generated on this site are
retained by the State of North Carolina per a legally recorded easement. KCI will report the riparian
buffer assets per the contract and RFP specifications as required by DMS.
Sincerely,
Tim Morris
Project Manager
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM WWW. KCI. COM

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
ISO 9001:201 S CERTIFIED
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd., Suite 400 • Raleigh, NC 27609 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Date: April 24, 2018
To: Lindsay Crocker, Project Manager
DMS Review Team Members: Periann Russell and Greg Melia
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Subject: Stony Fork Restoration Site
Draft Mitigation Plan Review
Neuse River Basin - 03020201
Johnston County, North Carolina
Contract No. #6830
DMS Project #97085
Dear Ms. Crocker,
Please see below our responses to your comments received January 12, 2018 on the draft of the Stony
Fork Mitigation Plan. We have addressed your comments in the final report and have outlined our changes
below. In addition, there are further changes we needed to make that are described after the DMS
comments. We are including 3 hard copies of the final report along with a CD with a PDF of the plan and
this letter.
1. This Mitigation Plan is 82 SMU and 76,088 BMU under contract amounts. Ensure that these
amounts are correct as the future payments will be reduced accordingly (see notes below on
new IRT policies).
We have revised the final mitigation units to 6,682 SMUs and 482,608 BMUs. The stream credits
are reduced from the proposal stage due to land title issues associated with the Critcher Farms
subdivision at the bottom of the site and removal of a portion of T2 that was not jurisdictional.
We also removed the additional stream credits calculated from extra buffer widths after Jeff
Jurek indicated they would not be approved for this site. The BMUs were reduced due to the
limitation on preservation credits that we didn't originally take into account.
2. Page 3, last sentence of first paragraph- this sentence is not clear. Please revise to make more
sense.
We were trying to relay that problem areas throughout this CU outweigh assets in the most
recent document. We have reworded it to say: "The CU's problem areas scored higher than the
assets (98 compared to 36), indicating there is more disturbed land than intact resources
(NCDENR, EEP 2015)."
THE MOST INCREDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM WWW.KCI. COM

3. Page 8. Will the ponds above T2 be removed as part of the residential development? If so, do
you know what stormwater BMPs will be installed with the development?
No, the ponds will remain and be used as part of the residential development stormwater system.
During the residential construction, additional sediment traps will be used to capture sediment.
A note has been added about the ponds at the bottom of Section 3.1.2.
4. Page 13, last paragraph, please add that DWR also provided a stream determination and the
date.
We added this note about the stream determination from July 8, 2016.
5. Page 14, Table 3. The T1 and T2 drainage areas are very small, especially for a coastal plain stream
(even though it is western coastal plan). Both streams may currently be intermittent due to their
depth, so are you sure you can maintain at least intermittent flow following restoration? The DWR
stream scores are very low and if the `strong" bed and bank indicators are the result of mechanical
straightening and cleaning, that strong indicator is misleading.
The project streams were initially evaluated during a drier period, when all but a portion of the project
streams were classified as intermittent. We believe these streams will have sufficient hydrology for
intermittent status.
6. Section 6- general comment: something is going on with your numbering in this section, it
moves from 6.1-6.7 and then goes backwards. Check and update in text and table of contents.
This has been corrected.
7. Section 6.7, provide a discussion or clarification of why you chose the on-site and nearby
reference locations- are these cross sections reference quality for the stream design? The
selection of these four cross sections needs to be better justified.
Yes, these reference cross-sections exhibited stable bankfull indicators in the field that were used
to determine bankfull area and discharge values. The design cross-sections were developed using
these values, but the exact shapes of the sections were dictated by other typical Piedmont and
Coastal Plain reference values like those found in Harman et al 2011. A more detailed explanation
has been added to this section.
8. Section 6.7 Figure 8- provide a legend to label the red and blue regression lines. It appears that
these are only 3 cross sections on the red (reference sites). Is the fourth included?
Yes, References Cross -Sections 2 and 3 have similar drainage areas, so they appear as one data point.
We added a sentence explaining this in the first paragraph of this section.
9. Table 8, SF1 sinuosity is showing 1.3 in pre -condition, but I recall that area is very straightened.
Double check this is correct.
This value is correct. While the majority of the reach is channelized, there is a section in the middle
that has unstable bends with high sinuosity that affects the overall average for the reach.
10. Page 25, Section 6.5 Sediment. Please state clearly the intent for the sediment regime for the
constructed channel. Since this project lies in the coastal plain, sand and/or sand bed channels
are expected. Currently, these channels are receiving fine sediment, likely predominately sand,
because of bank erosion, where the banks are dominantly sand (is this correct?). If the channel
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\\ K( 1.com4

substrate is composed of silt and clay (as stated in the first paragraph), and excess shear is
preventing deposition of the courser fraction of sediment (sand and small gravel), will your
design and design discharge provide for sediment input, transport and deposition?
Yes, we believe the channel will develop a stable sediment regime once the on-site bank erosion is
stabilized. The size of sediment input is not expected to change, but the quantity is expected to be
less following restoration. The stable cross-section will also be able to accommodate more sediment
deposition on the floodplain. Some seeding is expected in the project riffles, but to ensure that riffle
degradation does not occur in the period immediately following restoration, we will be adding the
larger material to protect the riffle beds.
11. Page 25. Reference to pebble counts and tables in section 12 — Were pebble counts used for
determination of sediment > 2mm? How did you measure a sediment size of 0.091, 0.2, 0.39?
Yes, pebble counts were the main source of sediment sampling. Sand is measured using a sand
gauge card, which allows the user to calibrate their determination of sand size with provided size
samples on the card (very coarse 1- 2 mm, coarse 0.5-1 mm, medium 0.25-0.5 mm, fine 0.125-0.25
mm, and very fine sand 0.0625-0.125 mm, and silt less than 0.0625).
12. Page 26, table 7. All the predicted grain size movement values (in the proposed sections) are
much greater the D84 values. Is this intentional and if so, please explain how this condition will
not result in total bed scour during effective discharges (based on the proposed D50 and D84
values).
Given the small sediment sizes in this system, there is a discrepancy between the D84 and the predicted
grain size movement in the restored channel. This is a frequent occurrence with projects of similar
sediment regimes. To accommodate for this condition, the riffles will be stabilized with material large
enough to withstand channel stresses. This means that sediment transport will occur as the natural
sediment washes in to seed these riffles and is then transported through the system. As this occurs, both
the riffle bed features and the transport of fine sediment through the system will be maintained as the
project matures.
13. Page 26. The explanation of need for 'riffle reinforcement' suggests that all sediment sizes less
than the grade control material will be moved at all effective discharges as well as .5 to 1 year
frequency discharges. Does this mean the constructed channel bed will be composed of silt and
clay, retaining little to sand or gravel? This section is not clear and the discussion is not consistent
with the data you have provided.
We do expect a large portion of the sand and gravel material inputs from upstream to be mobilized
during stream events. However, over time this material should accumulate within the gaps of the
larger riffle grade control material.
14. P. 26, text indicates that all riffles are rock. Will you incorporate wood here?
We have added in wood into our detail for the riffles. The use of wood will be balanced against the
expected flow duration in each location, since embedded wood is prone to rotting if it experiences
frequent wet/dry cycles.
15. P. 31, DMS recommends limiting black willow, or more heavily relying on other lives stakes as it
tends to become dominant in a system and could clog channel.
We are proposing a mixture of species including two willows and one dogwood. In addition, we
strategically place live stakes such that they will not overwhelm the channel (eg minimal to no live
stakes on inner meander bends).
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
vaNV%V.r.( 1.(OM

16. P. 35, 8.0, text states monitoring UT West Branch ... do you mean this to say Stony Fork?
Yes, this has been corrected.
17. P. 36 top paragraph- must have year 4 monitoring for vegetation to receive riparian buffer credit
(required Monitoring in years 1-5). Also need to update last sentence on page 37 and Table 20
(Vegetation Monitoring frequency) to reflect this update. Might want to add a separate section for
Riparian Buffer monitoring to clarify?
We have added that Year 4 monitoring will take place for riparian buffer mitigation.
18. Page 37, Table 20 — Believe it is intended to be 0.02 acres for vegetation; also add visual
assessment parameter to include the occurrence of bank erosion, beaver, etc.
This has been corrected to state 0.02 acre plot. Also, we added in Year 4 for vegetation monitoring
as well as the visual assessment.
19. Please provide a brief narrative in the document that describes what changes occurred from the
Technical Proposal IRT site visit and the Mitigation Plan stages. Specifically, describe the additional
jurisdictional stream features added (T3). There appears to be a loss of stream in the upper section
of tributary T2 from the mitigation plan (in addition to the eastern section of the project area). Can
you provide a brief description of why those areas were dropped to insert in the mitigation plan?
Please also provide description of if buffers were widened from the Technical proposal stage and
justify use of this methodology, if applicable. Of relevance, KCI was encouraged to increase the
buffer in some areas if possible during the IRT post -contract review; consider including in
justification.
We have added the following to Section 6.11, Project Assets. "The total stream mitigation credits
(SMCs) are slightly different than those outlined in the initial proposal. SMCs were removed at the
bottom of the site due to land title issues associated with the Critcher Farms subdivision. The upper
portion of T2 was eliminated from the project, since it was not a jurisdictional stream, but an additional
tributary, Tributary 3, was added to the project once it was determined it was jurisdictional. The buffer
mitigation credits (BMCs) were reduced from the contracted amount due to the limitation on
preservation credits once the final restoration, enhancement, and preservation BMCs were tabulated."
Plan Sheets:
Sheet 7 of 15: what is the future right of way depicted here?
This refers to the subdivision road that will be constructed through here to support a proposed
development. The first phase will be on the northern side of Stony Fork, which will be built soon.
The second phase will be on the southern side of Stony Fork and will be constructed at a later
date to be determined.
• Plan Sheet Legend. Please clarify why 'riffle enhancement' is being used in a newly constructed
stream.
We have found that riffle enhancements are necessary in many newly constructed streams with
fine-grained material to prevent bed degradation shortly after construction. Many new riffles are
not seeded quickly enough with incoming sediment to protect them from the stresses experienced
from large flow events. Over time, natural sediment (sand and fine gravels) will fill in the void
space in the enhancement rock.
Please justify the need for step -pool features adjacent to enhance riffle features.
The step pools are used to both provide a stable grade transition in steeper sections and to
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\N \V%V. R, 1.( ()%I

create pool habitat.
• Please justify the need for size and frequency of rock/boulder structures.
These structures are needed to provide additional stability within the channel, generally in sections
where the site conditions dictate a steeperslope or where further bed or bank protection is needed.
We will incorporate as much wood as we can, although as mentioned above, we will be selective
where we place it, since wood can be prone to rotting if it experiences frequent wet/dry cycles
(such as in an intermittent channel).
Additional Changes by KCI
Since the draft mitigation plan submittal, several items in the mitigation plan were changed based on
developments in the project.
- We removed the extra credit calculations based on stream buffer widths beyond 50' following
feedback from Jeff Jurek and revised the total credit to 6,682 SMCs.
- NCDOT unexpectedly installed a new culvert under Federal Road at the beginning of the project.
As a result, we recently resurveyed this area and adjusted the profile slightly in the first reach
(SF1) to 0.9% slope from 1.0% slope. The new culvert also starts further back than the prior one,
so the stationing was adjusted to 9+93 instead of 10+00 for the beginning of the project.
- We also adjusted the riparian buffer mitigation amounts. KCI performed additional GPS
mapping on-site following privet removal to determine the boundaries of buffer restoration
versus enhancement on T2-2. 1 met Katie Merritt from NCDWR for a field visit at the site to
confirm these boundaries on 3/29/2018, and they issued a letter on 4/16/2018 confirming the
revised buffer calls.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like clarification concerning these responses.
Sincerely,
Tim Morris
Project Manager
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM WWW. KCI. COM