20170142 Ver 1_MP 2018_20180613

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNINGIra &
RESTORATION
June 8, 2018
Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Yadkin River Basin Cataloging Unit 03040101
DMS Project ID #100024
Dear Mr. Tsomides,
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR) has reviewed the comments of the Draft Mitigation
Plan and Preliminary Plans for the Meadow Brook Project provided by the NC Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) on 4/13/2018. The comments have been addressed as described
below to create the Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans for the Meadow Brook Project.
A revised PDF of the Draft Mitigation Plan and Construction Plans was provided to DMS for final
completeness review on 5/16/2018. On 6/1/2018 DMS provided 3 additional notes for the
Mitigation Plan, that have been addressed in the final copy provided for IRT review. This letter is
a part of the deliverable produced for IRT review. Comments from DMS are provided on the
following pages in italics with our responses immediately following the comment, according to the
following format:
Mitigation Plan Section
• DMS Comment
o EPR Response
Please contact me at the above phone number or address with any questions.
Sincerely,
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Cc: Paul Wiesner, Western Regional Supervisor, NCDMS, Asheville, NC

COVER PAGE / GENERAL / FORMATTING
• Please proofread before submitting final version of the mitigation plan. There are a few
instances of extra words or absence of words.
o The report has been proofread and revised to amend any grammatical and
spelling errors.
• Recommend delaying finalization of Mitigation Plan until easement document has been
signed and recorded and the USACE preliminary jurisdictional determination is received.
o The easement document has been signed, recorded, and provided to DMS;
Copies are provided in Appendix 2. The signed PJD Form has been included in
Appendix 3.
• With the exception of upper reach 1, LiDAR imagery does not indicate that
Meadowbrook (reaches 1, 2 and 3) has been relocated outside of the center of valley.
Please clarify the statement that wetlands on site are due to the stream being
channelized and relocated.
o The statement indicating that wetlands on the Site are due to the channelization
of the stream was inaccurate and has been removed from Section 3.1. While the
existing condition survey indicates that Meadow Brook Reaches 1 and 2 were
relocated outside the lowest area of the valley, the wetlands on-site are likely
supported by the local microtopography and low slope of the valley.
• Please provide some context to help readers understand the need for 490 linear feet of
Priority 11 restoration on reach 2 and 3 when the bank height ratios for both reaches are
listed as 1.2 in the existing conditions table (11 c) and the existing mean depth is 1.4 ft.;
no bench limits are indicated on these P11 reaches but the presence of jurisdictional
wetlands adjacent to these P11 reaches raises the question of potential wetland impacts
in these transition zones.
o The text in Section 7.2 was revised to provide more context for the priority 11
approach in this area. The primary driver of this approach is to avoid
backwatering the tributary that enters reach 3 from the adjacent parcel. More
detail was added to the section on the depth of cut, which is less than 0.5 foot in
the bulk of the existing wetland. This cut increases toward the downstream end
of the reach, crossing the existing wetland again from 32+00 to 32+40, but the
wetland in this area is marginal and the additional cut should serve to enhance
the wetland area.
o Section 7.3 was revised to provide more context and explanation of the
restoration approach implemented in reach 3.
• Final digital needs to be a single PDF, compressed.
o The PDF provided on the CD will be a single PDF compressed.
• Hard copies - Please include tabs for sections, appendices, etc. for the distribution hard
copies; Plan should be bound with plastic rather than a 3 -ring binder
o The hard copies with the final submittal will be provided in the recommended
format.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
• Page 6, Table 3. Suggest adding a footnote to explain that jurisdictional wetlands were
identified where non -hydric soils are mapped.
o A note was added to Table 3 indicating that Jurisdictional wetlands were
identified on soils mapped as non -hydric.
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

4.0 Functional Uplift
• Page 9. Suspended sediment is not an input. Sediment is an input; suspension usually
occurs once the sediment is in the transport process.
o `Suspended' was deleted from the sentence.
5.0 Regulatory
• Page 10. Is the PJD and NCWAM assessment proposed after the monitoring period a
request by the IRT? You state that these assessments will document functional uplift,
do you need to document uplift of the wetlands when they are not assets for mitigation?
Do you believe NCWAM will is sensitive enough to detect uplift after 7 years? If you are
not certain the assessment will show uplift, please remove this sentence.
o The IRT wants to see that there is no net loss of wetland function as a result of
the project — this was a direct comment made during the site visit. NCWAM
assessment at close-out will be used to document that, while wetlands will be
impacted during construction, those remaining will be of better quality after
stream restoration activities. An NCWAM assessment completed using
conditions conservatively predicted after restoration yields a higher NCWAM
score than existing conditions and the extent of wetland conditions should be
larger after restoration; therefore, we expect uplift to occur.
7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
• Page 13 (and 26). The channel should be broken into distinct project reaches when the
mitigation approach changes; reach 3 has both restoration and enhancement 1
approach.
o Reach 3 has been split into Reaches 3 and 4.
• Reaches 1 and 2 are both restoration with a similar design approach; please explain why
these were divided into two separate reaches.
o Though Reaches 1 and 2 have similar restoration approaches, Reach 2 was
created because of a change in drainage area where UT to Meadowbrook enters
Meadowbrook.
Enhancement in Table 16 should be clarified as El. The Priority approach listed should
be the dominant approach for that reach, the text indicates 210 of 353 If of reach 2 is PH;
this should be listed as PII if that is the case; reach 3 restoration is listed as 2731f but
the text indicates 2801f will be Pll; again this should be indicated to be PII.
o The table in Section 12 was changed to show the dominant Priority level
approach for each reach.
Page 19. Several statements are made regarding existing channel conditions as
degrading, and you state you expect little to no sediment inputs following the restoration.
Your plan is to reduce shear stress such that you have no overall aggradation and
degradation over time. However, in section 7.6, you believe deposition to be one of the
factors that will aid in the C channel narrowing to an E channel, so, what and where is
the source of this sediment that will deposit? Please clarify.
o There is a sediment supply to both reaches since the watersheds upstream are
agricultural and banks upstream are eroding. However, the sediment supply is
not excessive as there is no evidence of aggradation present in the project area.
The sediment transport analysis performed indicate that a narrower channel
would transport the sediment supply more effectively and therefore, it is expected
that the proposed channels will narrow within the monitoring period but they are
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

not expected to aggrade. Clarification was provided in Sections 7.1 and 7.4
regarding expected sediment supply.
There is a lot of sinuosity added to project reaches that could be justified in more detail.
Reach 1 is listed as increasing footage from 13041f to 19171f (k=1.47). UT is listed as
increasing from 3961f to 676 If (k=1.70). These numbers are not reflected in the
morphology tables 11a. and 11d. (k=1.4 for R1, k=1.37 for UT). Please clarify how k was
calculated in the tables.
o Design sinuosity is not calculated as the difference between existing and
proposed — it is the ratio of design channel length divided by design valley length.
Therefore, the sinuosity values in the tables are correct. A note has been added
to the morph tables in the mitigation plan and excel file to highlight the change in
valley length
It is stated that rather than using a single reference reach, EPR's experience with
multiple past projects serves as the design criteria; however no additional details are
offered. Please provide more information on reference reaches used for the project, and
how they were specifically used to guide the project design, including sinuosity.
o We have added an additional paragraph to the report to provide greater detail.
Please remove red maple from the planting plan and construction plans, and replace
with a native hardwood (not sweet gum).
o Red maple has been removed from the planting plan, and its 5% coverage
allotted to river birch.
8.0 Performance Standards
• Please remove the dates/versions of the guidance documents.
o In light of another comment (below) requesting the date and version of the buffer
method, the dates and versions of the guidance used was left in the first
paragraph of this section. Subsequent dates/versions within the section were
removed.
• Table 13. Please remove the completion of a JD and NCWAM assessment from your
performance criteria. This project has no wetland mitigation and so does not need
performance standards. Suggest removing fencing, alternative watering, and wetland
treatment cell from this section of the document.
o While this project does not include wetland mitigation, a delineation and NCWAM
assessment is proposed at close-out to confirm that, while wetlands will be
directly impacted by project construction, there will be no net loss of wetland
function as a result of these impacts. This was a direct request by the IRT. The
site's proposed condition will promote functional uplift of remaining wetlands and
favorable conditions for offsetting wetland losses with wetland re-establishment
elsewhere on-site.
• Table 13. Clarify if longitudinal survey is intended for EI reach as well as restoration
reaches.
o In Table 13 (previously Table 14) Stream Monitoring Summary, the first item was
clarified to indicate that the longitudinal survey will include the enhancement
reach.
9.0 Monitoring Plan
• Page 24, section 9.4. Was this a request from the IRT? Please clarify in the text.
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

o See comment and response above regarding same topic. In order to avoid
confusion, the second paragraph in this section was removed and the reader is
pointed to Section 5 Regulatory Considerations.
The plan states that annual reports will be submitted only for Years 1, 3, 5, and 7 and
that a `brief narrative of site developments' with photos and CCPVs will be provided for
years 2, 4, and 6. The October 2016 Guidance states the monitoring reports "must be
completed for all seven years and provided to the Corps of Engineers for review no later
than April 1 of the year following monitoring" Please justify why annual monitoring
requirements in the Meadow Branch plan do not reflect the October 2016 annual
reporting requirements, or modify the narrative. A report is needed for every monitoring
year; years 4 and 6 will simply have fewer data (i.e., no vegetation or cross sections).
o Monitoring reports are proposed for all seven years. This section has been re-
worded to make that clear.
12.0 Determination of Credits
The date / version of the buffer method should be specified, with any variations noted
therein.
o Text was added to Section 12.0 that indicates the date/version of the riparian
buffer method (Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator (Updated
1/19/2018) and the procedure followed.
Asset tables — The plan includes two asset tables (Table 10, Project Asset table, and
Table 16, Determination of Credits). There should only be one asset table and it should
follow the format given in Required DMS_ Mit_ Plan_ Tables -06-2017 .xlsx.
o Tables 10 and 16 have been combined to provide an asset table in the required
format in Section 12 — Determination of Credits. In order to fit the table within the
report, the stream assets (Table 15a) were split from the wetland assets (Table
15b). Table 15c provides the summary of lengths, acreages and overall credit
summary for the project.
Asset tables — Additionally, since the buffer method is being proposed for the project,
any credit changes (+ or) by reach due to the buffer method should be captured in a
separate column, rather than being captured in the creditable footage column, so it is
clear which (and to what extent) each reach is being affected by the buffer calculations.
o The buffer method provides a single line item for credit adjustment of the whole
project rather than by reach. The request is incompatible with the buffer method
provided by the IRT.
FIGURES
• Soils map (fig. 6) — Colors do not show soils layers very clearly; this map should be more
standardized to show NRCS soils series with names and symbology within the project
and the immediate surroundings to give the reader an idea of dominant soils in the
project and valley and how/which soils follow the landscape.
o The Soils Map (Figure 6) has been revised.
APPENDICES
Please include the IRT site contract meeting minutes in the appendix, and reference it in
the narrative.
o Appendix 16 — IRT Meeting Minutes has been added to the MP and Section 14
has been added to refer to the Appendix in the narrative.
Appendix 3 - Preliminary JD — Update if more recent communications are available.
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

o The signed JD Form has been included in Appendix 3.
• Appendix 7 — Indicate in the section cover page that to reduce unnecessary bulk in the
EDR report, only the Executive Summary and report sections through page 9 are
included; the full EDR was part of the task 1 approved deliverables and can be provided
upon request. Edit section accordingly.
o Per email from Harry Tsomides on April 13, this comment is disregarded. Entire
Task 1 report will be included in Appendix 7.
• Appendix 7 — NLEB consultation — Please include the 9/27/17 email from FHWA to
USFWS regarding the NLEB process being proposed.
o This e-mail has been included.
• Appendix 7 — NRCS consultation — Only need the 9/7/17 email from EPR to NRCS, and
the attached AD 1006 form. No need for prior forms, guidance boilerplates etc.
o The extraneous pages were removed.
• Appendix 7 — FEMA - Please include the 3/7/18 email from EPR to NC Emergency
Management regarding the floodplain compliance process.
o This e-mail was included in Appendix 8 — DMS Floodplain Checklist rather than
Appendix 7.
PLAN SHEETS
Recommend adding a detail for some structure to address the wetland -stream surface
flow connection, to prevent wetland floodplain Tilling and erosion. It is likely that
constructing the stream through the middle of a wetland complex will result in floodplain
waters accumulating in the wetland and finding a low spot to drain into the creek; these
low spots are often troublesome in terms of erosion and/or head cutting back up into the
wetland if not addressed during construction, and returning back into wetland areas for
such repairs is difficult.
o We typically add such structures between the 70% and final plan stages.
However, potential locations of concentrated flow entering the channel have
been added to the plan set and called out as floodplain interceptors where a
woody riffle structure will be used to provide stabilized grade control.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM DMS ON 6/1/2018 VIA EMAIL ON THE
REVISED DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN.
We will need a response letter on EPR letterhead addressing each of the comments (as
you have in your table) in a letter format, rather than a table. The sections noted in the
DMS letter should be left in the response letter to make it easy for the reader to back -
check and reference the respective sections in the report. This letter is bound inside the
front cover of each of the reports and the PDF.
o The response to comments for the revised draft was submitted in table format,
rather than letter. This letter was compiled in response to this comment and
included in the report hard copies and electronic copies as requested.
Annual monitoring reports should be submitted to DMS preferably in advance of, but no
later than, the submittal date specified in your RFP (December 1st of each monitoring
year).
o EPR had mistakenly revised the Monitoring Report due date according to the
10/2016 USACE guidance to indicate reports would be due in April. The
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

Monitoring Section of the report in the final version reads "Annual monitoring
reports will be submitted to the NCDMS no later than November 30 of each
monitoring year."
While it is fine that you have split out the stream and wetland assets into two separate
tables, the section should still include the following sub -tables as shown in the guidance
(attached): Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category & Overall Assets
Summary. You should include the wetland area summary in the Length and Area
Summations Table while leaving them out of the Overall Assets Summary table.
o Table 15c was added to include the information in the Length and Area
Summations Table and the Overall Assets Summary Table.
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

Environmental
Quality
Cidney Jones, PE, CFM
Environmental Planning and Restoration, Inc.
559 Jones Franklin Rd, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
Subject: Draft Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans
Meadow Brook Project
Yadkin River Basin Cataloging Unit 03040101
DMS Project ID #100024
Dear Cidney,
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
April 13, 2018
The NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) has reviewed the Draft Mitigation Plan and Preliminary Plans
for the Meadow Brook Project. Following are DMS's comments on this design deliverable:
COVER PAGE / GENERAL / FORMATTING
• Please proofread before submitting final version of the mitigation plan. There are a few
instances of extra words or absence of words.
• Recommend delaying finalization of Mitigation Plan until easement document has been signed
and recorded and the USACE preliminary jurisdictional determination is received.
• With the exception of upper reach 1, LiDAR imagery does not indicate that Meadowbrook
(reaches 1, 2 and 3) has been relocated outside of the center of valley. Please clarify the
statement that wetlands on site are due to the stream being channelized and relocated.
• Please provide some context to help readers understand the need for 490 linear feet of Priority
II restoration on reach 2 and 3 when the bank height ratios for both reaches are listed as 1.2 in
the existing conditions table (11c) and the existing mean depth is 1.4 ft.; no bench limits are
indicated on these PII reaches but the presence of jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to these PII
reaches raises the question of potential wetland impacts in these transition zones.
• Final digital needs to be a single PDF, compressed.
• Hard copies - Please include tabs for sections, appendices, etc. for the distribution hard copies;
Plan should be bound with plastic rather than a 3 -ring binder
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
Page 6, Table 3. Suggest adding a footnote to explain that jurisdictional wetlands were identified where
non -hydric soils are mapped.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707 8600

4.0 Functional Uplift
Page 9. Suspended sediment is not an input. Sediment is an input; suspension usually occurs once the
sediment is in the transport process.
5.0 Regulatory
Page 10. Is the PJD and NCWAM assessment proposed after the monitoring period a request by the IRT?
You state that these assessments will document functional uplift; do you need to document uplift of the
wetlands when they are not assets for mitigation? Do you believe NCWAM will is sensitive enough to
detect uplift after 7 years? If you are not certain the assessment will show uplift, please remove this
sentence.
7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
Page13 (and 26). The channel should be broken into distinct project reaches when the mitigation
approach changes; reach 3 has both restoration and enhancement 1 approach. Reaches 1 and 2 are
both restoration with a similar design approach; please explain why these were divided into two
separate reaches. Enhancement in Table 16 should be clarified as EI. The Priority approach listed should
be the dominant approach for that reach, the text indicates 210 of 353 If of reach 2 is PII; this should be
listed as PII if that is the case; reach 3 restoration is listed as 273 If but the text indicates 280 If will be
PII; again this should be indicated to be PII.
Page 19. Several statements are made regarding existing channel conditions as degrading, and you state
you expect little to no sediment inputs following the restoration. Your plan is to reduce shear stress such
that you have no overall aggradation and degradation over time. However, in section 7.6, you believe
deposition to be one of the factors that will aid in the C channel narrowing to an E channel; so, what and
where is the source of this sediment that will deposit? Please clarify.
There is a lot of sinuosity added to project reaches that could be justified in more detail. Reach 1 is listed
as increasing footage from 1304 If to 1917 If (k=1.47). UT is listed as increasing from 396 If to 676 If
(k=1.70).
(a) These numbers are not reflected in the morphology tables 11a. and 11d. (k=1.4 for R1, k=1.37
for UT). Please clarify how k was calculated in the tables.
(b) It is stated that rather than using a single reference reach, EPR's experience with multiple past
projects serves as the design criteria; however no additional details are offered. Please provide more
information on reference reaches used for the project, and how they were specifically used to guide the
project design, including sinuosity.
Please remove red maple from the planting plan and construction plans, and replace with a native
hardwood (not sweet gum).
8.0 Performance Standards
Please remove the dates/versions of the guidance documents.
Table 13. Please remove the completion of a JD and NCWAM assessment from your performance
criteria. This project has no wetland mitigation and so does not need performance standards. Suggest
removing fencing, alternative watering, and wetland treatment cell from this section of the document.
Clarify if longitudinal survey is intended for EI reach as well as restoration reaches.
State of North Carolina I Environmental quality
217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707 8600

9.0 Monitoring Plan
Page 24, section 9.4. Was this a request from the IRT? Please clarify in the text.
The plan states that annual reports will be submitted only for Years 1, 3, 5,and 7 and that a 'brief
narrative of site developments' with photos and CCPVs will be provided for years 2, 4, and 6. The
October 2016 Guidance states the monitoring reports "must be completed for all seven years and
provided to the Corps of Engineers for review no later than April 1 of the year following monitoring"
Please justify why annual monitoring requirements in the Meadow Branch plan do not reflect the
October 2016 annual reporting requirements, or modify the narrative. A report is needed for every
monitoring year; years 4 and 6 will simply have fewer data (i.e., no vegetation or cross sections).
12.0 Determination of Credits
The date / version of the buffer method should be specified, with any variations noted therein.
Asset tables — The plan includes two asset tables (Table 10, Project Asset table, and Table 16,
Determination of Credits).
(a) There should only be one asset table and it should follow the format given in
Required_DMS_Mit _ Plan _Tables -06-2017 .xlsx.
(b) Additionally, since the buffer method is being proposed for the project, any credit changes (+ or
-) by reach due to the buffer method should be captured in a separate column, rather than being
captured in the creditable footage column, so it is clear which (and to what extent) each reach is being
affected by the buffer calculations.
FIGURES
Soils map (fig. 6) — Colors do not show soils layers very clearly; this map should be more standardized to
show NRCS soils series with names and symbology within the project and the immediate surroundings to
give the reader an idea of dominant soils in the project and valley and how/which soils follow the
landscape.
APPENDICES
Please include the IRT site contract meeting minutes in the appendix, and reference it in the narrative.
Appendix 3
Preliminary JD — Update if more recent communications are available.
Appendix 7
(a) Indicate in the section cover page that to reduce unnecessary bulk in the EDR report, only the
Executive Summary and report sections through page 9 are included; the full EDR was part of the task 1
approved deliverables and can be provided upon request. Edit section accordingly.
(b) NLEB consultation — Please include the 9/27/17 email from FHWA to USFWS regarding the NLEB
process being proposed.
(c) NRCS consultation — Only need the 9/7/17 email from EPR to NRCS, and the attached AD1006 form.
No need for prior forms, guidance boilerplates etc.
(d) FEMA - Please include the 3/7/18 email from EPR to NC Emergency Management regarding the
floodplain compliance process.
State of North Carolina I Environmental quality
217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707 8600

PLAN SHEETS
Recommend adding a detail for some structure to address the wetland -stream surface flow connection,
to prevent wetland floodplain rilling and erosion. It is likely that constructing the stream through the
middle of a wetland complex will result in floodplain waters accumulating in the wetland and finding a
low spot to drain into the creek; these low spots are often troublesome in terms of erosion and/or head
cutting back up into the wetland if not addressed during construction, and returning back into wetland
areas for such repairs is difficult.
Thank you for your time in addressing these comments. Please send a revised PDF to me for final
completeness review. EPR can then generate and send four final bound hard copies to IRT contacts, in
addition to a single flash drive or CD with a PDF of the report and all digital support files in the correct file
structure. Please include a copy of your response letter, bound inside the front cover of each hard copy
report (and included in the final PDF).
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] or email me at
[e-mail] .
LSincerely,
Harry Tsom ides
Project Manager, NCDEQ-DMS
Cc:
Paul Wiesner, DMS
Kevin Tweedy, EPR
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707 8600

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
MITIGATION PLAN
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Yadkin County, North Carolina
NC DEQ Contract No. 7184
DMS ID No. 100024
USACE Action ID No. SAW -2018-00041
RFP No. 16-006993
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
Prepared for:
�r
Mitigation Services
ENVIRpNMENTA�QUAI.IT'+
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
June 2018
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Ir RESTORATION
MITIGATION PLAN
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Yadkin County, North Carolina
NC DEQ Contract No. 7184
DMS ID No. 100024
USACE Action ID No. SAW -2018-00041
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Mitigation Services
ENV; RON MEN TAL DUAL IT
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration, PLLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
Contributing Staff:
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Cidney Jones, PE, CFM
Amy James, PWS
Tom Barrett, RF
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{lr�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project (Project; Site) is located in the South Deep Creek
watershed of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, in NCDENR subbasin 03-07-02 and NCDMStargeted
local watershed 03040101130020. The Project is located in Yadkin County off Marler Road,
approximately 1 -mile north of US 421 and 0.5 miles west of 1-77 and will involve the restoration
of streams heavily impacted by cattle and channelized to promote agricultural use. The
restoration of the proposed streams and riparian buffers, as well as their permanent
conservation, will ensure their protection from future growth and development in the Yadkin
River basin.
The Project is comprised of two streams, known as Meadow Brook and an Unnamed Tributary
(UT) to Meadow Brook. The project area consists of pastureland drained by the installation of
ditches and the channelization of the streams. Despite the ditching, much of the project area
consists of wetlands, although these are of degraded quality. By restoring the headwater
streams, as well as their associated riparian riverine wetlands, the Project will likely improve the
water quality of receiving waters and improve habitat for biota.
The proposed mitigation activities on Meadow Brook and the UT to Meadow Brook will provide
an estimated 3,409 stream mitigation units (SMUs) within an 11.2 -acre conservation easement.
The headwater streams and wetlands proposed for restoration have been impacted by farming
practices, past stream channelization, and direct cattle access.
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
These documents govern North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) operations
and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
May 2018

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... i
1.0
PROJECT INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Property Ownership and Boundary................................................................................. 2
1.2
Utilities............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3
Site Access........................................................................................................................ 3
2.0
WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION................................................................... 4
3.0
BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................
5
3.1
Landscape Characteristics................................................................................................ 5
3.2
Existing Vegetation........................................................................................................... 5
3.3
Project Resources............................................................................................................. 6
4.0
FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT............................................................................................................ 8
5.0
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................
11
5.1
401/404..........................................................................................................................
11
5.2
Categorical Exclusion for Biological and Historical Resources .......................................
11
5.2.1
Biological Resources...............................................................................................
12
5.2.2
Historical Resources................................................................................................
12
5.3
FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ................................................
12
6.0
MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................
14
7.0
DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN..........................................................
15
7.1
Meadow Brook Reach 1.................................................................................................
15
7.2
Meadow Brook Reach 2.................................................................................................
17
7.3
Meadow Brook Reach 3 and Reach 4............................................................................
18
7.4
UT to Meadow Brook.....................................................................................................
19
7.5
Wetland Treatment Cell.................................................................................................
20
7.6
Vegetation and Planting Plan.........................................................................................
20
7.7
Miscellaneous.................................................................................................................21
7.8
Project Risks and Uncertainties......................................................................................
22
8.0
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS..............................................................................................
24
8.1
Restored Stream Channels.............................................................................................
24
8.2
Riparian Vegetation........................................................................................................
24
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
May 2018 ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Vicinity Map
`, ECOSYSTEM
Ir
Existing Condition Map
Figure 3.
{lr�C PLANNING &
Figure 4.
Historic Aerial Map (1993)
■ .
RESTORATION
8.3
Compatibility with Project Goals
.................................................................................... 24
9.0
MONITORING PLAN...........................................................................................................
26
9.1
Stream Monitoring.........................................................................................................
26
9.2
Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
.................................................................................... 27
9.3
Visual Assessment Monitoring.......................................................................................
27
10.0
ADAPTIVE MANANGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................
29
11.0
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
.................................................................................... 30
12.0
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS............................................................................................
31
13.0
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES....................................................................................................
34
14.0
IRT On -Site Meeting...........................................................................................................
35
15.0
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................36
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Vicinity Map
Figure 2.
Existing Condition Map
Figure 3.
Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 4.
Historic Aerial Map (1993)
Figure 5.
LIDAR Map
Figure 6.
Soils Map
Figure 7.
FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 8.
Asset Map
Figure 9.
Monitoring Plan Map
Figure 10.
Riparian Buffer Zones Map
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
General Project Information
Table 2.
Jurisdictional Stream Resources within the Project Boundary.
Table 3.
Jurisdictional Wetland Resources within the Project Boundary.
Table 4.
Function -Based Parameter Summary for Project Reaches.
Table 5.
Functional Category Summary for Project Reaches.
Table 6.
Summary of NCWAM Wetland Functional Ratings for Existing Conditions.
Table 7.
Summary of Regulatory Considerations.
Table 8.
Wetland Impacts.
Table 9.
Goals and Objectives for the Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project.
Tables 10a to 10d.
Morphology Tables for Project Streams.
Table 11.
Riparian Wetland Vegetation and Planting Plan.
Table 12.
Project Objectives and Associated Performance Criteria.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
May 2018

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Table 13. Stream Monitoring Summary.
Table 14. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Summary.
Table 15. Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project Asset Table.
11.10]y_]]140111114:1 '
Appendix 1.
Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 2.
Site Photographs
Appendix 3.
Wetland JD Forms
Appendix 4.
Assessment Data
Appendix 5.
NCDWR Stream Identification Forms
Appendix 6.
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
Appendix 7.
Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Report
Appendix 8.
DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Appendix 9.
Plan Sheets
Appendix 10.
Morphological Tables
Appendix 11.
Invasive Species
Appendix 12.
Maintenance Plan
Appendix 13.
Credit Release Schedule
Appendix 14.
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Appendix 15.
Financial Assurance
Appendix 16.
Meeting Minutes from IRT On -Site Meeting
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
May 2018 iv

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
L.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC (EPR) is contracted with the NC Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) to provide SMUs in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040101). The
project is located in Yadkin County off Marler Road, approximately 1 -mile north of US 421 and 0.5
miles west of 1-77 (Figure 1). The project is within the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -
basin 03-07-02 and the DMS targeted local watershed 03040101130020. The Project is in the
Northern Inner Piedmont EPA Level IV ecoregion.
The Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project (Project; Site) involves the restoration of two
perennial UT's to South Deep Creek. The mainstem UT is called "Meadow Brook," and the smaller
tributary is referred to as "UT to Meadow Brook" or "UT." Meadow Brook is broken into four
reaches, while the UT has only one. The naming convention for the stream reaches and their
locations within the project are illustrated in Figure 2. Both streams have sustained significant cattle
damage and have been channelized to maximize cattle grazing activities. Restoration practices will
involve raising the streambeds of the project streams and restoring them back to their historic
locations along the fall of the valley, thereby restoring historic flow dynamics and a healthy
headwater stream -wetland complex. Buffers in excess of 50 feet will be established along most
reaches, and all work will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement.
Site mitigation activities, which will provide an estimated 3,409 SMUs within a 11.2 -acre
conservation easement include the following:
• Restoration of 3,279 linear feet of stream channels that have been straightened and
channelized for agricultural purposes;
• Enhancement of 256 linear feet of stream channel that have been degraded by erosion and
direct cattle access;
• Restoration of riparian buffers 50 feet in width or wider along most stream reaches; and
• Implementation of BMPs to remove cattle from the streams and riparian buffers.
In order to restore a healthy stream -wetland complex, the stream restoration will re -meander the
previously channelized streams through the existing wetlands along the fall of the valley and restore
woody vegetation along all stream reaches. In so doing, the Project will provide significant
improvements to wetland connectivity and function within the riparian buffer. However, no credits
are sought for the wetlands within the Site.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 1

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Table 1. General Proiect Information.
Project Information
Project Name
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project
County
Yadkin
Easement Area (acres)
11.2
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
360 08' 29" N, 800 49' 08" W
Planted Acreage (acres of wood stems planted)
11.2
1.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The Site will consist of portions of properties held by Colon, Grady, and Andy Shore. A perpetual
conservation easement has been prepared that incorporates the results of this Mitigation Plan
(Appendix 1). The conservation easement is depicted on a recordable plat, signed by the owner, that
will be recorded in the Yadkin County Register of Deeds. The conservation easement boundary will
be fenced with high tensile electric fencing and marked with monuments.
Three farm crossings are required to allow livestock and farm equipment to access fields and
pastures on either side of the Site streams:
1) The top of the UT to Meadow Brook — this location will be constructed as a culverted stream
crossing, sized appropriately for the watershed and fenced to provide permanent exclusion
of livestock.
2) Downstream of the confluence of the UT and Meadow Brook (between Reach 2 and Reach 3)
—this location will be constructed as a ford stream crossing, constructed to NRCS standards.
The crossing is located just upstream of where the valley narrows in order to maintain as
much continuity of the upstream stream -wetland complex as possible. The break in the
proposed easement is 40 feet wide, but the crossing itself is only 20 feet in width. This type
of crossing will provide for long-term stability, maintain fish passage, and will likely reduce
potential maintenance costs, as compared to a culverted crossing for this size stream. The
landowner has also requested that ford crossings be used for the larger creek system. This
segment of Meadow Brook is also FEMA mapped, so a ford crossing will have less impact on
the hydraulics of the system than a culverted crossing.
3) Downstream end of Meadow Brook Reach 4 — this location will be constructed as a ford
stream crossing, constructed to NRCS standards, for the same reasons provided above.
Utilities
There are no underground or overhead utilities within the conservation easement boundary. The
Project begins where Meadow Brook exits the culvert under Marler Road; however, the project will
not affect the culvert, which will remain in place in its current configuration once the project is
complete. While an overhead utility line runs parallel to Marler Road, the conservation easement
begins just outside of the existing 15 -foot utility easement.
A hydraulic analysis was performed to ensure that the proposed conditions would not alter flooding
upstream of the Marler Road culvert. While the tailwater slope will be lower in the proposed
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 2

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Ir RESTORATION
condition than it is in the existing condition, the culvert is headwater controlled for large flood
events and the change in tailwater condition is not likely to impact flooding upstream.
Site Access
All portions of the conservation easement are accessible via state -maintained Marler Road, which
will provide perpetual access.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 3

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The South Deep Creek watershed (03040101130020), shown in Figure 3 is a moderately developed
water supply watershed (WS -III) and a targeted local watershed (NCEEP, 2009). As such, the Project
will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the South Deep Creek and Yadkin
River watersheds. Major goals for the Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin identified in the River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) include:
1) Restoration of water quality and aquatic habitat in impaired stream segments;
2) Protection of high -resource value waters, including waters within water supply watersheds
(WSW);
3) Continuation of existing watershed restoration and protection initiatives; and
4) Implementation of agricultural BMPs within high-priority rural sub -watersheds, especially
with respect to limiting inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform from active farming
operations.
In addition to these larger watershed goals, water quality concerns from agricultural lands, animal
operations, and disturbed buffers are specific concerns listed for South Deep Creek. The Yadkin Pee -
Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ, 2008), considers South Deep Creek impaired by
turbidity from agricultural pasturelands.
The Project will restore a healthy headwater stream -wetland complex in what is currently an active
cattle pasture in a WS -III watershed that is 57% agricultural land use. The Project will restore riparian
buffers at least 50 feet in width along most stream reaches and provide significant improvements
to wetland connectivity and function within the riparian buffer. Agricultural BMPs will be
implemented to remove the cattle from the streams, buffers, and wetlands to ensure these
resources provide long-term stability and water quality improvements. The Project will continue
existing water quality initiatives in the watershed and address each of the above-mentioned
watershed goals by:
• Restoring aquatic habitats and stabilizing stream banks that are currently degraded by cattle
access and bank erosion;
• Restoring riparian buffers and enhancing wetland function;
• Excluding cattle from the stream; and
• Installing a wetland treatment cell.
These goals are reflected in the project goals and objectives outlined in Section 5.0 of this report.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 4

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Ir RESTORATION
3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project is in a rural but developing area of western Yadkin County. Land use within the project
watershed is comprised of 57% pasture lands, 26% deciduous forest lands, 6% developed open
space, 4% evergreen forest, 3% mixed forest, and 3% herbaceous. The Project is impacted by farming
practices, past stream channelization, and direct cattle access. According to landowner
conversations, the streams on the property were straightened prior to the 1960's. The oldest
historical aerial found for the site is from 1993 (Figure 4) and shows that the Site was already altered
and has undergone minimal changes since then. Riparian buffers have been cleared along all stream
reaches, and cattle can access the entire streamside area. Hoof shear and/or shear stresses have
severely impacted the stream banks along the Project reaches, causing significant, on-going
sedimentation to downstream waters.
While the Site is near to two main thoroughfares (1-77 and US Route 421), there are no foreseeable
signs of impending land use changes or development pressure that would impact the Project's
watershed. The conservation easement will eliminate potential for future development and/or
agricultural use in the floodplain areas of the restored streams.
3.1 Landscape Characteristics
The Project is in the Northern Inner Piedmont EPA Level IV ecoregion. The area gets 45 inches of
annual average precipitation, which is evenly spread throughout the year. The valley of Meadow
Brook and its UT are bounded by gently sloping, low hills. The Site is situated in a wide section of
valley with narrow valleys immediately upstream (Figure 5). The lower portion of the Site transitions
back to a narrow valley.
Figure 6 shows that the soils in the project area are primarily Dan River sandy loam in the floodplain,
with Clifford sandy clay loam upslope. Clifford soil series consist of very deep, well drained soils
formed from residuum weathered from felsic crystalline rock such as mica schist, gneiss, granite
gneiss, mica gneiss, granodiorite, and granite. Clifford sandy clay loams are moderately eroded with
slopes ranging from two to ten percent. Dan River sandy loam consists of very deep, well -drained
soils found in Piedmont valleys, with slopes ranging from zero to three percent. Based on observed
soil profiles and existing wetland areas, it is apparent that wetlands were once prevalent along the
project stream reaches even though the soils are mapped by NRCS as non -hydric. NRCS soils are
mapped at a coarse level and do not account for site-specific microtopography that supports the
existing wetlands.
3.2 Existing Vegetation
Vegetation throughout the Site is limited to mid -story and understory species, since no canopy
coverage exists along the entire reach. Common plant species that are found in these two areas are
described below. Photographs of the site can be found in Appendix 2.
The primary mid -story species found along Meadow Brook and its associated wetlands include
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), mulitiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), red maple (Acerrubrum), black
willow (Salix nigra), Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum). Understory
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 5

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
species include fescue (Schedonorus spp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), goldenrod (Solidago spp.),
blackberry (Rubus spp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), New York ironweed (Vernonia
noveboracensis), and tearthumb (Persicaria sogittata).
Vegetation along the UT to Meadow Brook consists primarily of understory species with a few small
trees, including fescue, dog fennel, blackberry, Chinese privet, and black willow.
Project Resources
EPR conducted investigations for jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on October 6, 2017. Wetlands were
assessed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On-site Determination Method.
This method is defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement. Potential jurisdictional wetlands were assessed
using the USACE Wetland Determination Data Form and the NC Wetland Assessment Method
(NCWAM). A copy of the wetland JD forms can be found in Appendix 3 and the NCWAM forms are
in Appendix 4. Streams were assessed using the NCDWR Stream Identification Form and the USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. A copy of the NCDWR stream identification forms can be
found in Appendix 5 and the USACE stream assessment forms are in Appendix 6. Two jurisdictional
streams (Table 2) and four wetlands (Table 3) were delineated during the on-site investigations.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) package was submitted to the USACE on January 4,
2018. A site visit was conducted on January 24, 2018 to review the water resources delineated by
EPR. The meeting was attended by William Elliott (USACE), Sue Homewood (NCDWR), Cidney Jones,
(EPR) and Thomas Barrett (EPR). The PJD package and the notification of jurisdictional determination
dated April 17th, 2018 are provided in Appendix 3.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 6

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Table 2. Jurisdictional Stream Resources Within the Project Boundary.
Reach Summary
Reach
Meadow Brook
UT to Meadow Brook
Existing Length (LF)
2,404
396
Drainage area (acres)
1,088
371
Drainage area (sq. miles)
1.70
0.58
Valley slope (ft/ft)
0.005
0.008
EPR - NCDWR Stream Score
37.5
32.5
Perennial or Intermittent
P
P
NCDWR Classification
N/A
N/A
EPR - USACE Stream Quality Score
32-34
34
Rosgen Classification of Existing Conditions
E4
E4
Simon Evolutionary Stage
IV
IV
FEMA Zone Classification
AE
AE
Table 3. Jurisdictional Wetland Resources Within the Project Boundary.
* Wetland is categorized as a headwater forest by NCWAM but has been altered by clearing and grazing activities.
+Jurisdictional wetlands were identified on soils mapped as non -hydric.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 7
Wetland
Summary
Wetland
A
B
C
D
Size of Wetland (AC)
2.9
2.2
0.8
0.1
Wetland Type (non -
riparian, riparian
Riparian riverine
Riparian riverine
Riparian riverine
Riparian riverine
riverine, or riparian
non-riverine)
Dan River sandyDan
Predominant
Dan River sandy
Dan River sandy
loam/Clifford
River sandy
Mapped Soil Series
loam
loam
loam
sandy clay loam
Drainage Class
Well -drained
Well -drained
Well -drained
Well -drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non -Hydric+
Non -Hydric'
Non -Hydric+
Non -Hydric+
Groundwater,
Groundwater,
Groundwater,
Groundwater,
precipitation,
precipitation,
precipitation,
precipitation,
Source of Hydrology
runoff and
runoff and
runoff and
runoff and
overbank
overbank
overbank
overbank
flooding
flooding
flooding
flooding
Hydrologic
StreamStream
Stream
Stream
channelization
channelization
channelization
channelization
Impairment
and cattle access
and cattle access
and cattle access
and cattle access
Native Vegetation
Headwater
Headwater
Headwater
Headwater
Community
Forest*
Forest*
Forest*
Forest*
Exotic Invasive
Vegetation
10
10
5
15
* Wetland is categorized as a headwater forest by NCWAM but has been altered by clearing and grazing activities.
+Jurisdictional wetlands were identified on soils mapped as non -hydric.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 7

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Ir RESTORATION
4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT
This section of the report is provided to document the existing and proposed functional conditions of
the Project. While functional parameters are assessed and presented, the functional assessment
used is not proposed for mitigation crediting or determining project success. Performance standards
are provided in Section 8.
In their current condition, the hydrologic resources on the Site are severely degraded. The most
severe impairments present on the site are direct cattle access to streams and wetlands, past
channelization, and the loss of riparian buffers. Functional uplift will come from restoring natural
riparian vegetation, excluding livestock from all project streams, and restoring the project streams
to a stable condition, connected to their adjacent floodplain wetlands. The exclusion of livestock will
remove a direct source of nutrients, coliform, and sediment from the system. In -stream structures
will ensure channel stability and improve aquatic habitat for native species. The use of primarily
wood structures will further enhance aquatic habitat. Restored riparian buffers will provide
additional stability, woody debris and detritus for aquatic organisms, shade, and diverse aquatic and
terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion and landscape setting.
Based on field evaluations of the project stream reaches and proposed mitigation practices,
functional ratings were developed for the existing and proposed conditions of the project reaches
using the North Carolina Stream Quantification Tool Version 3.0 (SQT; Harman and Jones, 2017).
The SQT follows the methodology and definitions described in Harman, et al. (2012). The functional
uplift in each of the five functional categories of the stream functions pyramid were assessed using
the function -based parameters and measurement methods listed in Table 4. Table 5 shows the SQT
scores and proposed lift that could be achieved during the monitoring period. The SQT scores
function -based parameters and functional categories on a scale of 0.00 to 1.00 where 0.00 to 0.30
represents conditions that are not functioning like a reference condition (shown in red), scores of
0.70 to 1.00 are functioning like a reference condition (shown in green), and scores falling in the
middle of these ranges are functioning -at -risk (shown in yellow). The Quantification Tool worksheets
from the SQT v3.0 are provided in Appendix 4.
The proposed restoration will lead to some small improvements in reach hydrology by changing
adjacent land uses from pasture to riparian wetlands and filling ditches that drain to Meadow Brook
Reach 1. Hydraulic functioning is assessed in the SQT using floodplain connectivity, which is largely
functioning in the existing reaches. Meadow Brook Reach 1 is more incised than the other reaches
and the hydraulic category is functioning -at -risk for this reach. The proposed restoration will
establish bank height ratios near 1 and capture available lift in the SQT. Additionally, the proposed
restoration will improve the channel hydraulics further to support a headwater wetland -stream
complex, though these functional benefits are not captured in the SQT.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 8

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Ir RESTORATION
Table 4. Function -Based Parameters and Measurement Methods Applied to Proiect Reaches.
Functional Category
Function -Based
Measurement Methods
Category
Parameters
UT Score
Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Curve Number
Hydraulics
0.65 0.85
Concentrated Flow Points
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio
Hydraulics
Entrenchment Ratio
Large Woody Debris
Large Woody Debris Index
Biology
Dominant BEHI/NBS
Assumed
Lateral Stability
Percent Eroding Bank
Canopy Cover
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Buffer Width
Stem Density
Pool Spacing Ratio
Bed Form Diversity
Pool Depth Ratio
Percent Riffle
Plan Form
Sinuosity
Bacteria
N/A
Organic Matter
Percent Shredders
Physicochemical
Nitrogen
N/A
Phosphorus
N/A
Biology
Macroinvertebrates
Biotic Index
Table 5. Functional Category Summary for Project Reaches.
Functional
Existing
Proposed
Category
MB 111 MB R2 MB R3 & 4*
UT Score
Hydrology
0.31 0.60
0.50 0.50 — 0.73
Hydraulics
0.65 0.85
Geomorphology
0.12 0.36
Physicochemical
Modest Lift
Assumed
Biology
Assumed
* Due to the short lengths and similar existing and proposed conditions, Meadow Brook Reaches 3 and 4 were treated
as a single reach.
Existing geomorphology scores are low for all parameters assessed and much of the functional uplift
is achieved in this functional category. Restoring the channels to their historic valley, raising the
beds, and connecting them to the adjacent wetlands at lower flows will enhance riparian buffer and
wetland functions. The proposed restoration will restore the plan form and bed form diversity
parameters to a condition functioning like reference channels. Functional uplift will also be achieved
by incorporating woody structures throughout the reach and planting a forested buffer that can
serve as a source of large woody debris in the future. Additionally, lateral stability will be improved
in the short term by removing the cattle and reducing shear stresses in the channel. As the proposed
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 9

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
riparian buffer is established, lateral stability should improve further and increase the resiliency of
the restored channels.
The known impacts have provided an input of sediments, nutrients, and fecal coliform along with a
loss of wetland function that is likely to have degraded macroinvertebrate and fish communities.
These impacts, along with the quantified impairments to supporting functional categories, indicate
that the physicochemical and biology functional categories are functioning -at -risk or not functioning
at the Site. The stream restoration approach will reduce the input of sediment, nutrients, and fecal
coliform to the stream channels by fencing out the cows, stabilizing the banks, and establishing a
riparian buffer. Additionally, the restoration approach will lead to higher water table conditions that
promote better denitrification of groundwater flowing to the stream channels. Forested wetland
areas adjacent to the stream will promote increased plant uptake and retention of surface runoff
before it reaches the stream channels, minimizing overland flow velocities while also encouraging
nutrient removal processes. Due to the prevalence of agricultural land uses in the upstream
watershed, the restoration is not expected to restore physicochemical and biology functioning to
reference conditions in the stream channels; however, some level of functional uplift is expected.
No wetland credits are proposed for the Site, but the proposed design implements a stream -wetland
complex as the most resilient and beneficial approach to restore the stream channels and ecological
functions on the Site. To establish a baseline for wetland functions, NCWAM was used to assess the
four wetlands at the Site. Due to the difficulty in determining the original wetland type prior to cattle
and anthropogenic disturbances, all wetlands were assessed using both the Headwater Forest and
Riverine Swamp Forest NCWAM wetland types. The functional ratings for each wetland are
presented in Table 6. The NCWAM results pages are provided in Appendix 4. The proposed planting
plan (provided in section 7.5 and Appendix 9) will protect large portions of the wetlands from cows
and establish a wooded riparian buffer with canopy species, enhancing water quality and habitat
functions throughout the conservation easement.
Table 6. Summary of NCWAM Wetland Functional Ratings for Existing Conditions.
1 — Functional Ratings for the Headwater Forest assessments are presented in the table with the Riverine Swamp Forest ratings
shown in parentheses if different.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 10
Wetlands
and Functional
Ratings
1
WA
WB
WC
WD
Hydrology
Low (Medium)
Low
Low
High (Medium)
Water Quality
Low
Low
Low
Low
Habitat
Low
Low
Low
Low
Overall
Low
Low
Low
Low
1 — Functional Ratings for the Headwater Forest assessments are presented in the table with the Riverine Swamp Forest ratings
shown in parentheses if different.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 10

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Regulatory considerations for the Site are shown in Table 7 and described in the following sections.
Table 7. Summary of Regulatory Considerations.
Regulatory Parameter
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Docs.
Waters of the United States - Section 401/404
Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 7
National Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 7
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
No
Appendix 8
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
5.1 401/404
There will be minor impacts to the wetlands onsite due to realignment of channel features, but
restoration activities are anticipated to result in uplift to overall wetland function. Table 8 shows
anticipated impacts to wetlands due to stream channel realignment, though there will be no net
loss of wetland function on the site. A PJD package was submitted to NCDWR and USACE on January
4th, 2018 and a Notification of Jurisdictional Determination was approved on April 17th, 2018.
Additionally, existing wetland condition was assessed using NCWAM and were found to be low
functioning (see Table 6 in section 4.0 of this report). The wetland delineation forms are provided
in Appendix 3. Another PJD and NCWAM assessment will be performed at project close-out to
ensure that there is no net loss of wetland functions as a result of the stream restoration project,
and to document functional uplift of the stream -wetland complex.
Table 8. Wetland Impacts.
Stream channel impacts will be due to restoration activities and relocation of the restored channels
to their historic alignments. Construction activities will be conducted under a Nationwide Permit
#27, Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Enhancement, and Establishment Activities with the submittal and
approval of a pre -construction notification.
5.2 Categorical Exclusion for Biological and Historical Resources
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) document for the Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project was
approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on September 29, 2017 and is provided in
Appendix 7. The CE document investigates the presence of threatened and endangered species and
any historical resources that may occur within the Site.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 11
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland C
Wetland D
Acreage
0.30
0.23
0.08
0.01
Square Feet
13,080
10,125
3,645
414
Stream channel impacts will be due to restoration activities and relocation of the restored channels
to their historic alignments. Construction activities will be conducted under a Nationwide Permit
#27, Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Enhancement, and Establishment Activities with the submittal and
approval of a pre -construction notification.
5.2 Categorical Exclusion for Biological and Historical Resources
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) document for the Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project was
approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on September 29, 2017 and is provided in
Appendix 7. The CE document investigates the presence of threatened and endangered species and
any historical resources that may occur within the Site.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 11

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Ir RESTORATION
5.2.1 Bioloizical Resources
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.0 1531 et seq.), defines protection
for species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An "Endangered
Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range" and a "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become
an Endangered Species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range" (16 U.S.0 1532).
EPR requested review and comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on June 21,
2017, regarding the project's potential impacts to threatened or endangered species. The USFWS
did not provide any comment within the 45 -day time frame. Additionally, a Northern Long -Eared
Bat (NLEB) 4(d) Streamlined Consultation Form was approved by the FHWA on September 29, 2017
and sent to USFWS. The USFWS did not respond within the 30 -day time frame and it is presumed
that the requirements of Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act with respect to the NLEB
are fulfilled for the project. The USFWS letter and NLEB Streamlined Consultation Form are included
in the Categorical Exclusion document found in Appendix 7.
5.2.2 Historical Resources
The CE document investigates the occurrence of any historical resources protected under The
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. The NHPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), defines
the policy of historic preservation to protect, restore, and reuse districts, sites, structures, and
objects significant in American history, architecture, and culture. Section 106 of the NHPA mandates
that federal agencies account for the effect of an undertaking on any property that is included in, or
is eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.
EPR sent an email to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on June 21, 2016,
requesting review and comment for the potential of cultural resources potentially affected by the
project. Following a review of the project, SHPO responded with a letter on July 19, 2017, and stated
that "they were aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project". All
correspondence with SHPO is included in the CE document found in Appendix 7.
5.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
Upon review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance
Program's Digital Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (DFIRM) panel 3710486600J, effective May 18,
2009, Meadow Brook is mapped using limited detail methods, putting much of the easement within
the 1 Percent Chance Annual Flooding Zone (Zone AE; Figure 7). Therefore, under the current
regulations, work associated with this project is regulated and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will
be necessary to revise the floodplain mapping of Meadow Brook.
Based on the proposed design, a Conditional LOMR package is being prepared and will be submitted
to FEMA prior to construction. The subsequent LOMR package will be submitted after construction
is complete. The completed NCDMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist can be found in Appendix 8.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 12

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
The FEMA model for Meadow Brook does not extend to Marler Road but a hydraulic analysis was
performed to determine whether the proposed project would impact flooding upstream of this
culvert. The Marler Road culvert is headwater controlled during the 100 -year flood event and the
difference in tailwater conditions does not impact the water surface elevation upstream of the
culvert.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 13

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
While the ultimate goal of the Project is to restore a self-sustaining headwater stream -wetland
complex, more specific project goals and objectives were developed for the South Deep Creek
Watershed based on the Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP (NCEEP, 2009) and Yadkin Pee -Dee River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ, 2008) and are provided in Table 9.
Table 9. Goals and Obiectives for the Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Proiect.
Goals
Objectives
•
Stabilize eroding stream banks.
Reduce Sediment Inputs
•
Install fencing to exclude livestock from project streams.
and Stream Turbidity
0
Reconnect streams to the floodplain at lower flows.
•
Restore woody riparian buffer vegetation.
•
Decrease drainage of riparian wetlands.
•
Install a wetland treatment cell.
Reduce Nutrient Inputs
m
Reconnect streams to the floodplain at lower flows.
•
Restore woody riparian buffer vegetation.
■
Stabilize eroding stream banks.
Install fencing to exclude livestock from project streams.
Reduce Fecal Coliform
Restore woody riparian buffer vegetation.
Inputs
Reconnect streams to the floodplain at lower flows.
Install a wetland treatment cell.
Restore woody riparian buffer vegetation.
Restore / Enhance
Protect min. 50 -foot riparian buffers with a permanent conservation
Degraded Riparian
easement.
Buffers
d
Decrease drainage of riparian wetlands.
Reconnect streams to the floodplain at lower flows.
Install fencing to exclude livestock from conservation easement.
Restore woody riparian buffer vegetation.
Protect High Resource
Protect min. 50 -foot riparian buffers with a permanent conservation
Value Waters (including
easement.
Water Supply
N
Reconnect streams to the floodplain at lower flows.
classifications)
Restore bed form diversity to improve habitat for native species.
Install a wetland treatment cell.
Restore woody riparian buffer vegetation.
Implement Agricultural
Protect min. 50 -foot riparian buffers with a permanent conservation
BMPs in Agricultural
easement.
Watersheds
Install fencing to exclude livestock from project streams.
•
Install alternative watering systems for livestock.
•
Install a wetland treatment cell.
The performance standards associated with these goals and objectives are covered in Section 8.0 of
this report.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 14

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
The Project involves the restoration of two perennial UT's to South Deep Creek, Meadow Brook and
UT to Meadow Brook. Meadow Brook is broken into four reaches, while the UT has only one.
Meadow Brook Reach 1 and Reach 2 share a similar design approach, as described in the following
sections, but the drainage area increases significantly and therefore changes the design dimensions
of these two reaches. The valley is narrower for the downstream reaches of Meadow Brook, leading
to a difference in design criteria. Finally, due to the presence of bed rock, enhancement practices
are utilized in Reach 4. The construction drawings provided in Appendix 9 describe the proposed
construction methods including timing, sequence, and elevations of all pertinent features. Data
characterizing the existing, proposed, and design morphological characteristics for each reach can
be found in Appendix 4. The design approach for each reach is provided in the sections below. The
naming convention and locations of the hydrologic assets on the Site are illustrated in Figure 8.
The rural Piedmont regional curve (Harman, 1999) was used to verify bankfull discharge and area
on project streams. However, the dataset used to create the regional curve only contains two sites
with drainage areas less than 2 square miles. Additionally, data collected in neighboring Surry county
(provided in Appendix 4), indicates that the rural Piedmont regional curve may overestimate
bankfull dimensions for sites with drainage areas less than 10 square miles.
Rather than relying on a single reference reach for design criteria, the design criteria applied to the
Project are based on surveys of multiple reference reaches conducted in the past, published
reference reach data, and on design criteria and monitoring data from past successful restoration
projects performed throughout the Piedmont region of North Carolina. Specifically, reference data
compiled and presented by Lowther (2008) for similar stream types, drainage areas, and slopes
within the Piedmont of North Carolina were reviewed to evaluate appropriate ranges of sinuosity
and pattern data. Lowther evaluated 19 reference reach streams across the Piedmont of North
Carolina — our assessment focused on only the streams in the western portion of the presented data
set that were closest to the project site. Since the ranges provided by this analysis were quite wide,
EPR evaluated this reference information against past completed stream restoration projects that
have performed well and have been tested by significant storm events. EPR staff has several
successful projects similar to the Meadow Brook site that were restored over 15 years ago and have
remained stable with incorporated wetland components. These include the Hanging Rock Creek
Site in Avery County, the Mitchell River — Darnell Site in Surry County, and the Mitchell River — Kraft
Site in Surry County. Each of these past projects have similar drainage areas to the design Meadow
Brook stream reaches, similar slopes and bed conditions, and have been in place for over 15 years.
The design criteria used for the Meadow Brook site relied heavily on lessons learned from these past
projects. Regional curve data and design criteria are provided in the morphological tables provided
in Appendix 10.
Meadow Brook Reach 1
Reach 1 begins at the culvert under Marler Road and ends at the confluence with the UT to Meadow
Brook. The reach starts as an incised channel but becomes less so as it flows downstream towards
Reach 2. Reach 1 will be restored to the fall of the valley which will require roughly 250 feet of
Priority Level II restoration to tie into the historic valley downstream, while not impounding water
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 15

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
on the Marler Road culvert upstream. The depth of cut for this Priority II section is 2 feet or less. For
the remainder of its length, Reach 1 will be restored using Priority Level I approaches, where the
stream is re -meandered along its historic floodplain. The ditches within the project area will be
plugged and partially to completely filled, depending on the availability of fill material and the
location. Fill material will be developed from channel grading and bench excavation.
The restored stream channel will utilize wood structures, constructed riffles, and transplanted
vegetation. Due to the size of the channel, its slope, and bed material there is no need for large
boulder structures in this reach. In -stream structures will include log vanes and rollers to improve
bed form diversity and provide refugia for aquatic organisms. A combination of toe -wood, rootwads,
and transplants will also be used to stabilize outer bends and provide organic matter and refugia to
the stream.
A Rosgen "C" type channel was selected as the design stream type for this reach. The expectation is
that the design channels may narrow to form "E" or a lower width -to -depth ratio "C" channel within
the first few years after restoration, due to herbaceous vegetation establishment along the banks,
and the associated deposition of sediment. Table 10a provides a summary of existing and proposed
stream morphological information and design criteria for Meadow Brook Reach 1. Detailed
morphological tables are provided for all stream reaches in Appendix 10.
To ensure ample floodplain connectivity and promote a headwater stream -wetland complex, the
channel hydraulics erred conservatively to design a channel that will see frequent overbank flooding
and enhance the existing wetlands on site. While the slope is decreased for the proposed design,
the increase in bankfull area was modest in order to ensure the channel would not be too large and
result in degradation. These alterations resulted in the difference in bankfull discharge seen in Table
10a.
A sediment transport analysis was performed to ensure that the stream restoration design creates
a stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. While the upstream watershed is
agricultural and eroding banks are present, the existing reach exhibits signs of degradation rather
than aggradation. Sediment supply to the Site is expected to be transportable, since there is little
evidence of aggradation within the Site. The shear stress and maximum particle size entrained were
calculated and compared with the sub -pavement and pavement samples collected from the existing
reach as shown in Table 10a. The proposed design will reduce the shear stresses observed in the
existing condition that were leading to degradation while entraining particle size near the riffle d84
during a bankfull flow event. This analysis provides evidence that the stresses predicted for the
design channels will be within the range of stable values calculated for similar stream systems. The
full sediment transport analysis is provided in Appendix 4 along with the sub -pavement and
pavement sample results.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 16

` `, ■ ■ ECOSYSTEM
{lf� PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Table 10a. Moroholoev Table for Meadow Brook Reach 1.
Parameter
Regional
Curve
Existing
Design Criteria
(Typical)
Design Criteria
(Typical)
Proposed
Contributing Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
1.51
0.93
Valley Width (feet)
Valley Width (feet)
200
50
Channel/Reach Classification
Channel/Reach Classification
-
Incised E4
C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Width (feet)
7-25
7-20
Bankfull Mean Depth (feet)
14-17
13.8-15.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (feet)
0.9-2.3
0.8-2.2
13-53
0.8-1.7
1.1-1.6
Bankfull Area (ftz)
9-40
15 -17
1.2
-
19.0
Bank Height Ratio
-
1.0-1.5
2.2-4.0
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
-
6-33
0.32
> 2.2
12-33
Bankfull Shear Stress (Ib/ft2)
-
1.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
-
0.3
Average Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.8-25.6
4.8
-
< 4
2.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
30-230
73
1.1
-
48
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
0.0050
-
0.0034
Sinuosity*
-
1.0
1.2-1.6
1.4
D16/ 35/ 50 /84/95/ di -pavement/
di subpavement (mm)
_
10.2 / 17.4 / 24.7 / 77.1 / 160.1 / 256 / 160
* Note that the valley length has increased in the proposed alignment and impacts the proposed sinuosity.
Table 10b. Morphologv Table for Meadow Brook Reach 2.
Parameter
Regional
Curve
Existing
Design Criteria
(Typical)
proposed
Contributing Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
1.51
Valley Width (feet)
200
Channel/Reach Classification
-
E4
C4
C4
Bankfull Width (feet)
8.5-30
14.5
15.2-18.6
16.1-18.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (feet)
1.1-3.0
1.7
1.0-1.9
1.2-1.8
Bankfull Area (ft2)
13-53
24.0
-
23.0
Bank Height Ratio
-
1.2
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
-
6.2
2.2-4.0
10.4-12.5
Bankfull Shear Stress (Ib/ft')
-
0.73
-
0.32
Average Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3-6.6
4.4
< 4
2.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
43 -350
100
-
64
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
0.0069
-
0.0038
Sinuosity
-
1.1
1.2-1.6
1.2
D16/ 35/ 50 /84/95/ di_pavement/
di subpavement (mm)
_
10.2 / 17.4 / 24.7 / 77.1 / 160.1 / 256 / 160
7.2 Meadow Brook Reach 2
Reach 2 starts at the confluence with the UT to Meadow Brook and ends at the break in the
conservation easement for the ford crossing described in Section 1.1. While the restoration
approach used for Reach 2 is similarto Reach 1, the additional drainage area from the UTto Meadow
Brook leads to an increase in design dimensions. Reach 2 will continue the Priority Level I restoration
approach from Reach 1, re -meandering the stream along its historic floodplain, through the existing
wetlands in the low portion of the valley that runs south of the existing channel. Reach 2 will require
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 17

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
roughly 210 feet of Priority Level II restoration to meet the natural constraints imposed at the
beginning of Reach 3, where bedrock is present in the floodplain and a tributary enters Meadow
Brook from the adjacent parcel. The depth of cut for this Priority II section is less than 0.5 foot up
to station 31+13.00 in order to minimize impacts to the existing wetlands and less than 1 foot up to
the ford crossing. Table 10b provides a summary of existing and proposed stream morphological
information and design criteria for Meadow Brook Reach 2. Detailed morphological tables are
provided for all stream reaches in Appendix 10.
Meadow Brook Reach 3 and Reach 4
Reach 3 runs from the downstream end of the conservation easement break to design station
36+02, where existing bedrock seams and a pinched valley width alter the mitigation approach.
Reach 4 runs from the end of Reach 3 to the end of the Project. The existing channel for Reach 3
and Reach 4 consists primarily of pool bed forms with short bedrock outcroppings serving as steps
in the profile. Due to the lack of bed form diversity and presence of lateral instability, the reach is
significantly degraded and would benefit from restoration activities. However, the work proposed
on Reach 4 is constrained to enhancement approaches due to the pinched valley width and existing
bedrock seams; however, Reach 3 allows for a restoration approach.
Reach 3 is designed as a Bc stream type that restores pattern where possible within a narrow valley
to decrease the energy in the reach, increase lateral stability, and improve bed form diversity. Reach
3 consists of a combination of laying back the existing stream banks and a Priority Level II restoration
approach. The Priority II section is 154 feet long and the depth of cut is less than 1 foot. Along Reach
4, the stream banks will be laid back and a bench will be constructed where possible to maximize
available floodplain within the natural valley width.
Due to the short length and similar conditions in both reaches, one geomorphology table is provided
for both Reach 3 and Reach 4 (Table 10c). Reach 3 will incorporate rock structures to provide bed
form diversity and grade control. Log structures, toe -wood, and transplants will be incorporated
throughout the reach to improve habitat, bed form diversity, and bank stability. The profile of Reach
4 will not be changed significantly; however, the stream dimension will be modified to promote
stability and accommodate the bankfull flow, with larger flows spreading onto a bankfull bench and
lower parts of the natural floodplain.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 18

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Table 10c. Moroholoev Table for Meadow Brook Reach 3 and Reach 4.
Parameter
RegionalExisting
Curve
Design Criteria
(Typical)
Proposed
Contributing Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
1.73
Valley Width (feet)
70
Channel/Reach Classification
-
E4
134c
134c
Bankfull Width (feet)
8.8-32
21
18-22
17.7-18.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (feet)
1.1-3.0
1.4
1.0-1.8
1.4-1.5
Bankfull Area (ftz)
15-60
24.4-29.9
-
26.0
Bank Height Ratio
-
1.2
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
-
4.4
1.4-2.2
2.7-3.8
Bankfull Shear Stress (Ib/ftz)
-
0.79
-
0.58
Average Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3-6.5
3.9
< 4
3.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
50-400
132
-
99
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
0.0037
-
0.0066
Sinuosity
-
1.0
1.1-1.2
1.1
D16/ 35/ 50 /84/95/ di_pavement/
di subpavement (mm)
-
Bedrock
7.4 UT to Meadow Brook
A culverted crossing for the UT will be installed between the property boundary and the beginning
of the conservation easement, to allow access to adjacent fields once the restoration work is
completed. Following the culverted crossing, the UT to Meadow Brook will be restored using a
combination of Priority Level I and Level II practices. Since the stream enters the property as an
incised channel, a Priority 11 section of restoration, approximately 180 feet in length, will be required
to achieve a Priority I restoration for the lower portion of the reach that enters the Meadow Brook
floodplain. The depth of cut for the Priority 11 segment is 1.5 feet or less. For the remainder of its
length, the UT will be restored using Priority Level I approaches, where the stream is re -meandered
along its historic floodplain.
The restored stream channel will utilize wood structures, constructed riffles, and transplanted
vegetation. Due to the size of the channel, its slope, and bed material there is no need for large
boulder structures in this reach. In -stream structures will include log vanes and rollers to improve
bed form diversity and provide refugia for aquatic organisms. A combination of toe -wood, rootwads,
and transplants will also be used to stabilize outer bends and provide organic matter and refugia to
the stream.
The restored stream channel is designed as a C stream type that may develop into a stable E stream
as riparian vegetation is established and the channel narrows. Table 10d provides a summary of
existing and proposed stream morphological information and design criteria for the UT to Meadow
Brook. Detailed morphological tables are provided for all stream reaches in Appendix 10.
A sediment transport analysis was performed to ensure that the stream restoration design creates
a stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. While the upstream watershed is
agricultural and eroding banks are present, the existing reach exhibits signs of degradation rather
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 19

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
than aggradation. Sediment supply to the Site is expected to be transportable, since there is little
evidence of aggradation within the Site. As shown in Table 10d, the proposed design will reduce the
shear stresses observed in the existing condition that were leading to degradation while entraining
particle size near the riffle d84 during a bankfull flow event. This analysis provides evidence that the
stresses predicted for the design channels will be within the range of stable values calculated for
similar streams. The full sediment transport analysis is provided in Appendix 4 along with the sub -
pavement and pavement sample results.
Table 10d. Morphology Table for UT to Meadow Brook.
Parameter
Regional
Curve
Existing
Design Criteria
(Typical)
proposed
Contributing Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.56
Valley Width (feet)
188
Channel/Reach Classification
-
E4
C4
C4
Bankfull Width (feet)
6-21
8
11.8-14.5
11.8-13.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (feet)
0.8-2.1
1.5
0.8-1.5
0.9-1.4
Bankfull Area (ft2)
7-30
11.4
-
14.0
Bank Height Ratio
-
1.2
1.0-1.1
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
-
28
2.2-4.0
15
Bankfull Shear Stress (Ib/ft2)
-
1.82
-
0.31
Average Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.9-6.7
6.8
< 4
2.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
20-200
77
-
37
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
0.0083
-
0.0047
Sinuosity*
-
1.0
1.2-1.6
1.4
D16/ 35/ 50 /84/95/ di_pavement/
di subpavement (mm)
_
15.4 / 24.7
/ 33.2 / 80.0 / 164.4 / 362 / 110
* Note that the valley length has increased in the proposed alignment and impacts the proposed sinuosity.
Wetland Treatment Cell
As part of the proposed Project, an additional area of degraded wetlands has been incorporated
into the conservation easement and will provide additional filtration and treatment of agricultural
runoff (Figure 8). In its current condition, there is a ditch feature that runs from a spring at the toe
of the hillslope directly into the existing Meadow Brook. This ditch will be filled during restoration,
forcing runoff that enters the wetland system from adjacent pasture land to diffuse and spread
throughout the wetland area, providing reductions in sediment, nutrients, and coliform entering the
restored stream system. The wetland treatment cell area is 0.56 acres, with a drainage area of
approximately 12 acres that includes a feed barn and loafing area.
7.6 Vegetation and Planting Plan
Species selection for re -vegetation of stream buffer areas will generally follow those suggested by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) for Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and Schafale (2012) for
Piedmont Alluvial Forest, as well as wetness tolerances cited in WRP Technical Note VN -RS -4.1 (WRP
1997). The species list, site preparation, planting density, planting methods, and materials are
detailed in the construction drawings and specifications included in Appendix 9.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 20

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
The permanent seed mixture and tree species shown in Table 11 will be planted throughout the
majority of the conservation easement to enhance and establish riparian wetlands (9.2 acres out of
11.2 acres). Where the easement includes the toe of the hillslopes (0.9 acres) upland seeding and
tree species will be planted (species listed in Appendix 9). Tree species will be planted as bare -root
seedlings at a density of 680 stems per acre. Species will be planted during the dormant season
(November 15 — March 15) following the handling and installation procedures outlined on the plan
sheets to achieve the vegetative success criteria outlined in Section 8.2.
An invasive species plan is included in Appendix 11.
Table 11. Riparian Wetland Vegetation and Planting Plan.
Scientific Name
Common Name
7PIanted
Percent
Wetland Indicator
Status
Permanent Seeding
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
23%
FAC
Elymus riparius
Riverbank Wildrye
20%
FACW
Panicum dichotomiflorum
Smooth Panicgrass
14%
FACW
Carex vulpinoidea
Fox sedge
12%
OBL
Panicum rigidulum
Redtop Panicgrass
8%
FACW
Dichanthelium clandestinum
Deer -tongue
8%
FAC
Bidens frondosa (or aristosa)
Beggars Tick
7%
FACW
Juncus effusus
Soft Rush
4%
FACW
Persicaria pensylvanica
Pennsylvania smartweed
2%
FACW
Sparganium americanum
American Bur Reed
2%
OBL
Vegetation
Betula nigra
River Birch
20%
FACW
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
5%
FACW
Diospryos virginiana
Persimmon
10%
FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
10%
FACW
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
20%
FACW
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
10%
FAC
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
15%
FAC
Ulmus americana
American Elm
10%
FACW
7.7 Miscellaneous
A Rosgen "C" type channel was selected as the design stream type for Meadow Brook Reach 1,
Meadow Brook Reach 2, and the UT to Meadow Brook. The expectation is that the design channels
will narrow to form "E" or lower width -to -depth ratio "C" channels following restoration, due to
vegetation establishment along the banks, and the associated deposition of sediment. This process
is expected to occur over the 5 to 10 years following restoration, before canopy shading becomes
wide -spread across the site. As noted in the previous sections, excessive sediment supply is not
expected to be an issue at the Site; however, there is a sediment supply from upstream eroding
banks that will allow for channel narrowing without aggradation.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 21

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
The native species selected for establishment at the Site represent a range of growth rates and
varying tolerances to shade and moisture. These range of characteristics were selected to ensure
that the appropriate vegetation cover develops over life of the project.
7.8 Project Risks and Uncertainties
Listed below are identified project risks and uncertainties that have been evaluated in the
development of design plans for the site, along with methods that have been/will be used to address
these concerns.
• Land use development: There is potential for increased land development around the site in the
future that could lead to additional runoff and changes to watershed hydrology.
o Methods to Address: The project area has seen little development in recent years
and it is unlikely that development will threaten the site in the foreseeable future.
Restoration of the site to reconnect streams to their floodplains will reduce the
likelihood of future degradation from watershed changes, as increased flows will
spread over a wider floodplain. There is also little elevational fall across the Site so
the risk of channel instability is low once vegetation is established. Grade control (in
the form of constructed instream structures and natural bedrock outcrops) present
across the restored site decrease the chances of future channel incision.
• Easement Encroachment: There is potential for landowner encroachment into the permanent
conservation easement.
o Methods to Address: EPR has had considerable discussions with the landowner
regarding the project requirements and limitations of easement access and is
confident that the landowner fully understands and will maintain the easement
protections. The easement boundaries will be fenced and clearly marked per NCDMS
requirements. Any encroachments that do occur will be remedied by EPR or the long-
term steward to remedy any damage and provide any other corrections required by
NCDMS and/or the IRT.
• Drought and Floods: There is potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring
period of the project.
o Methods to Address: EPR will apply adaptive management techniques as necessary to
meet the site performance criteria. Such adaptive management may include
replanting, channel damage repair, irrigation, or other methods. If adaptive
management activities are significant, additional monitoring may be required by the
I RT.
• Beavers: Beaver activity was observed at the Site in 2016. While there was no evidence of recent
beaver activity during recent assessments, there is potential for beavers to return to the site
during the monitoring period of the project.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 22

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Ir RESTORATION
o Methods to Address: EPR will take steps to trap and remove beaver if they return to
the Site during the monitoring period.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 23

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Performance criteria outlined in the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Template (ver. 06/2017), and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District Public Notice: Notification of Issuance of Guidance for
Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District (October 24,
2016), will be followed and are briefly outlined below. Monitoring information can be found in
Section 9.0.
8.1 Restored Stream Channels
The required performance criteria for restored stream channels, per USACE Guidance are
summarized briefly below:
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive
days.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 for a majority of measured cross sections
on a given reach.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be 1.4 or above for a majority of measured riffle cross-
sections on a given reach.
• BHR and ER should not change by more than 10% in any given year for a majority of
a given reach.
• Must document occurrence of at least 4 bankfull events in separate years during the
monitoring period.
Riparian Vegetation
The required performance criteria for planted riparian vegetation, per USACE Guidance are
summarized below:
• Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present
at year 3; a minimum of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 4; and a minimum
of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved
planting list for the site.
• Any single species can only account for 50% of the required stems per monitoring
plot
Compatibility with Project Goals
The required performance criteria described above, plus project -specific criteria, allow evaluation
of whether the project goals have been met after the site has been completed. In Table 12, the
Project objectives are listed, along with the performance criteria that will allow documentation of
whether these objectives have been achieved. Fulfillment of these objectives will allow the Project
to achieve the goals outlined in Section 6.0.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 24

` `, ■ ■ ECOSYSTEM
{lf� PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Table 12. Project Objectives and Associated Performance Criteria
Objective
Performance Criteria
• Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable sections over the
monitoring period.
Stabilize eroding stream banks
. Visual inspection of fence installed to exclude cattle from the
stream and riparian buffer, demonstrating no encroachment.
• Vegetation success criteria of 260 native stems/acre in Year 5
Restore woody riparian vegetation
and 210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 for a majority of
Reconnect streams to the floodplain
measured cross sections on a given reach.
at lower flows
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be 1.4 or above for a majority
of measured riffle cross-sections on a given reach.
• Geomorphic cross sections that document a variety of
Restore bed form diversity to
channel depths and forms.
improve habitat for native species
• Visual documentation of in -stream structure stability during
annual monitoring.
• A preliminary jurisdictional wetland determination (PJD) and
Decrease drainage of riparian
NCWAM assessment completed after the monitoring period
wetlands*
should show no net loss of wetland function on site as
compared to a PJD and NCWAM completed prior to
construction.
Protect minimum 50 ft. riparian
• Recordation of a conservation easement meeting NCDMS
buffers with a permanent
guidelines.
conservation easement
• Visual inspection of filled ditch and flow patterns through
wetland
• Vegetation success criteria of 260 native stems/acre in Year 5
Install a wetland treatment cell
and 210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
• Documentation of hydrophytic vegetation in the vegetation
plot located in wetland treatment cell.
Install fencing to exclude livestock
. Visual inspection of fence installed to exclude cattle from the
from project streams
stream and riparian buffer, demonstrating no encroachment.
Install alternative watering systems
• Visual inspection of fence installed to exclude cattle from the
for livestock
stream and riparian buffer, demonstrating no encroachment.
* While no wetland mitigation credits are proposed as part of this project, these performance standards are included to
show no net loss of wetland function after project construction.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 25

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
MONITORING PLAN
The monitoring plan for the Site will follow the guidance outlined in the NCDMS Mitigation Plan
Template (ver. 06/2017), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District Public Notice:
Notification of Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted
for Wilmington District (October 24, 2016). Monitoring data collected on the site will include
reference photos, plant survival analyses, channel stability analyses, as well as any other data
specifically required by permit conditions.
Monitoring will be conducted for a period of seven years, unless the USACE, in consultation with the
IRT, agrees that monitoring may be terminated early. Early closure will only be provided through
written approval from the USACE in consultation with the IRT. Annual monitoring reports will be
submitted to the NCDMS no later than November 30 of each monitoring year.
The As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template (ver. 06/2017) will be used to document the
baseline conditions and to prepare the as -built record drawings for the Site. As -built surveys will be
conducted within 60 days after project implementation is completed (following planting and
monitoring installations) to document the recently constructed features and conditions of the Site.
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template (ver.
06/2017). 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, and assist in
decision making regarding project close-out.
While monitoring reports will be completed annually, not all monitoring reports will include the
same information. All monitoring reports will include at least a brief narrative of site developments,
a representative photo log, and a Current Condition Plan View (CCPV). Further monitoring
measurements are detailed in the following sections.
9.1 Stream Monitoring
Stream monitoring will include monitoring of the hydrologic and geomorphic functions of Meadow
Brook and the UT to Meadow Brook. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and
extent are summarized in Table 13. Monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also
allow monitoring of parameters to document site performance related to the project goals listed in
Section 6.0. The proposed locations of monitored cross sections are shown in Figure 9.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 26

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Ir RESTORATION
Table 13. Stream Monitoring Summary
9.2 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring will evaluate the establishment of planted and volunteer vegetation across
the site. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are summarized in Table
14. Monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also allow monitoring of parameters to
document site performance related to the project goals listed in Section 6.0.
Table 14. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Summary.
Parameter Method Schedule/
Frequency
Vegetation
establishment
and vigor
Permanent
vegetation plots,
0.02 acre in size
(minimum)
Annual random
vegetation plots,
0.02 acre in size
(minimum)
As -built, Years 1,
2, 3, 5,and 7
Between July 15t
and leaf drop
Number/ Extent I Data Collected
6 plots, spread
Species, height,
Schedule/
location, planted vs.
Parameter
Method
6 plots,
Number/ Extent
randomly
Species, and height.
Frequency
vear
As -built only (unless
All restored and
Stream Profile
Full longitudinal survey
enhanced stream
otherwise required)
channels
10 cross sections on
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and
Meadow Brook
Stream Dimension
Cross sections
7
3 cross sections on UT
to Meadow Brook
All restored stream
Visual Assessment
Yearly
channels
Channel Stability
Only if instability is
Additional Cross sections
Yearly
documented during
monitoring
Pressure transducers
Continuous
1 on Meadow Brook
Stream Hydrology
Precipitation recorder
recording through
and 1 on UT to
Photos of flood indicators
monitoring period
Meadow Brook
9.2 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring will evaluate the establishment of planted and volunteer vegetation across
the site. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are summarized in Table
14. Monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also allow monitoring of parameters to
document site performance related to the project goals listed in Section 6.0.
Table 14. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Summary.
Parameter Method Schedule/
Frequency
Vegetation
establishment
and vigor
Permanent
vegetation plots,
0.02 acre in size
(minimum)
Annual random
vegetation plots,
0.02 acre in size
(minimum)
As -built, Years 1,
2, 3, 5,and 7
Between July 15t
and leaf drop
Number/ Extent I Data Collected
6 plots, spread
Species, height,
across site
location, planted vs.
volunteer, and age.
6 plots,
randomly
Species, and height.
selected each
vear
During quantitative vegetation sampling, sample plots (100 square meters, or 0.02 acre) will be
installed within the site as per guidelines established by the Level 1 and 2 protocols in CVS -DMS
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Visual observations of the percent
cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented by photograph. The proposed
locations of permanent vegetation plots are shown in Figure 9.
9.3 Visual Assessment Monitoring
A visual assessment of the entire project will be conducted on an annual basis. The culmination of
this data will be presented in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) with supporting
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 27

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
documentation presented in the tables outlined by DMS's guidance titled Annual Monitoring and
Closeout Reporting Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance dated February 2014.
Specifically, problem areas of vegetation, in -stream structures, and channel migration will be noted
and documented with photos. After DMS's review of the documentation, additional monitoring
protocols may be required to ensure project success can be achieved.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 28

` `, ■ ■ ECOSYSTEM
{lf� PLANNING &
RESTORATION
10.0 ADAPTIVE MANANGEMENT 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 and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
A maintenance plan is provided in Appendix 12, summarizing the types of issues that may arise
during monitoring and how those issues would be addressed.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 29

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
11.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party 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 to identify boundary markings, as needed.
Any livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility of the owner
of the underlying fee to maintain.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 30

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
12.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in Table 16 are projections based upon site design. Upon completion
of site construction, the project components and credit data will be adjusted, if necessary, to be
consistent with the as -built condition, and any changes will be described in the As -built Monitoring
Report. The project proposes to provide stream credits derived from stream enhancement, stream
restoration activities, and non-standard buffer widths as shown in Figures 8 and 10.
Descriptions of the stream restoration ratios are presented below in Tables 15a. Wetland assets are
presented in Tables 15b; however, no wetland mitigation credits are proposed at this time. Table
15c presents the length and area summations by mitigation category and Table 15d shows the
overall summary of assets. The proposed credit release schedule is provided in Appendix 13.
Appendix 14 provides the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator spreadsheet and
shapefiles.
Where possible, stream riparian buffers in excess of the minimum 50 -feet have been restored along
both banks for 11.2 protected acres (Figure 10). The methodology outlined in the Wilmington
District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator (Updated 1/19/2018) was used to calculate additional buffer
credits, however, the arc around the stream termini at the downstream extent of the project was
removed from the ideal buffer area. Where the streams intersect project boundaries, there are
short segments where it is not possible to meet the minimum buffer width. These occur along short
stretches of bank (approximately 30 linear feet) at the end of Meadow Brook Reaches 2 and 4, as
well as two longer stretches of bank at the beginning of Meadow Brook Reaches 1 and 3. The first
of the longer stretches occurs at the beginning of Meadow Brook Reach 1, where the stream runs
along a utility easement for approximately 80 linear feet in order to return the stream to the natural
fall of the valley. The second occurs at the beginning of Meadow Brook Reach 3 where the property
line limits the conservation easement for approximately 125 linear feet. While the adjacent property
is currently wooded, it was not possible to purchase this land for the conservation easement.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 31

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Ir RESTORATION
Table 15a. Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project Streams Asset Table.
A R = Restoration, E= Enhancement
* EPR is under contract with the Division of Mitigation Services to provide 3,400 Stream Mitigation Units. Any additional stream mitigation credits beyond the
contracted amount will not be realized by EPR.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 32
Mitigation
Approach
Project
Existing
Stationing
Plan
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Mitigation
Notes/ Comments
Component
Footage
Level"
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Footage
Level
Meadow
1,304
10+00 —29+36
1,917
R
P1
1
1,917.0
Brook R1
Full Channel Restoration, Planted
Meadow
327
29+36-33+29
353
R
P2
1
353.0
Brook R2
Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, and
Permanent Conservation Easement.
Meadow
289
33+29 —36+02
273
R
P2
1
273.0
Brook R3
UT
396
10+00 —17+03
676
R
P1
1
676.0
Habitat Structures, Planted Buffer,
Meadow
283
36+02 —38+62
218
EI
-
1.5
145.3
Exclusion of Livestock, and
Brook R4
Permanent Conservation Easement.
Net Change
Wilmington District Stream Buffer
in Credit
-
-
-
-
-
-
45.0
Credit Calculator (Updated
from Buffers
1/19/2018)
Total Assets Summary:
3,409.3
SMUs*
A R = Restoration, E= Enhancement
* EPR is under contract with the Division of Mitigation Services to provide 3,400 Stream Mitigation Units. Any additional stream mitigation credits beyond the
contracted amount will not be realized by EPR.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 32

Table 15b.
Asset
Meadow Br
Wetland
Position
and
Hydro
Type
sok Wetla
Existing
Acreage
Ind Rehabilit
Mitigation
Plan
Acreage*
ition Project i
Restoration
Leve I *
Lsset Table.
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Credits
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Ir RESTORATION
Notes/ Comments
Wetland
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Restoration Level
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
RR
2.93
2.63
Rehab
N/A
0
Planted, excluded
A
Enhancement 1
I 218
Enhancement II
Rehabilitation
I
I 5.46
livestock, plugged
Wetland
High Quality Pres
RR
2.23
2.00
Rehab
N/A
0
ditches, and
B
includes section of
Wetland
RR
0.82
0.74
Rehab
N/A
0
priority 2 reach.
C
Wetland
Planted and
RR
0.10
0.09
Rehab
N/A
0
D
excluded livestock.
*Due to the addition of woody riparian vegetation, removal of cattle, and proposed stream bank -height ratios, the
functionality of remaining wetlands will increase. The old stream channel may also provide opportunities for wetland
re-establishment.
Table 15c. Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Categorv.
Table 15d. Overall Assets Summary.
Asset Category Overall Credits
Stream 3,409.3
RP Wetland 0.00
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 33
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Restoration Level
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
Riverine I Non-Riverine
Restoration
I 3219
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
I 218
Enhancement II
Rehabilitation
I
I 5.46
Preservation
High Quality Pres
Table 15d. Overall Assets Summary.
Asset Category Overall Credits
Stream 3,409.3
RP Wetland 0.00
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 33

` `, ■ ■ ECOSYSTEM
{lf� PLANNING &
RESTORATION
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
A statement regarding the financial assurances for the project can be found in Appendix 15.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 34

` `, ■ ■ ECOSYSTEM
{lf� PLANNING &
RESTORATION
14.0 IRT ON-SITE MEETING
Representatives of the USACE, NC DEQ, NC WRC, NC DWS, and EPR attended an on-site meeting for
the Meadow Brook Full Delivery Project on August 16, 2017. The meeting minutes were distributed
on September 1, 2017 and can be found in Appendix 16.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 35

Ir
`, ■ . ECOSYSTEM
{IJ�C PLANNING &
RESTORATION
15.0 REFERENCES
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A function -
based framework for developing stream assessments, restoration goals, performance
standards and standard operating procedures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C.
Harman, W.A. and C.J. Jones. 2017. North Carolina Stream Quantification Tool: Spreadsheet User
Manual, NC SQT v3.0. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, NC.
Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D.S. Olsen and J.P.
Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Lowther, Brian. 2008. Stream Channel Geomorphology Relationships for North Carolina Piedmont
Reference Reaches — a thesis prepared in the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept.
of North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2008. Yadkin Pee -Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0, ed. J. F.
Berkowitz, J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Meadow Brook Stream Mitigation Project (DMS #100024)
June 2018 Page 36

LEGEND
�,
R
a
'o
ro"err c1u6
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
$cranoer
'Deft�
bQtl
�`+ �`
Yadkin
Ppb
�m
tVti.
c
�
�
y Club
¢Mourn`=
P�� Hamr�C Mamma
¢
�
PROJECT LOCATION
36° 08'29" N
Afn'R�
bo, i a
80° 49' 08" W
W
y,
Rda
�
v
QG
s
mngcl S�,mp,�,cl
�sancn
a�
Yadklnville E hb-I.;
�
� li byy $ranEh
`4
4x
e p
asold
Us
y` 9rowrr lid
°r�Y 8r��h Y W
d� L�rlty�ReY
wS'Ril
7� m
qa
Rr
Aja��
Hoots Rd
a�.
y p
ry
a
p
a �
^s
�$
later Rcf �pgraves� Mauldin �ntq
fl+q,
Q-J
ti,e��v
Hamplonv}I!e
rni'
4r
� Hr nde rsph Ra
�
a
``
4'•d
�
Q-
�=
r
Salrn Paug Church Rd
Walkers.8r3nei%
Cp�k:s�'-�
,zc FyR0 Harte
sy n
-
cfis
=
PREPARED FOR:
MEADOW BROOK STREAM
RESTORATION
O O.s 1 2
NCDEQ
MILES
VICINITY MAP
DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 1
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
} FcosYsTrrn
PLANNING &
li RESTORATfON

6A t
O1.
WETLAND B `
,J !
LEGEND
--'-- EXISTING DITCH
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
EXISTING WETLANDS
STREAM
MEADOW BROOK R 1
- MEADOW BROOK R2
MEADOW BROOK R3
- MEADOW BROOK R4
UT TO MEADOW BROOK
0 100 200
FEET
FIGURE 2
Wqw
WETLAND C
i
PREPARED FOR:
MEADOW BROOK STREAM RESTORATION NCDEQ
EXISTING CONDITION MAP DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES
PREPARED BY:
YADKIN COUNTY, NC FC0SYSTrM
. PLANNING &
RESTORATION

LEGEND
7DCONSERVATION EASEMENT
14 -DIGIT HUC
TARGETED LOCAL WATERSHED
rii lw Ro
PROJECT LOCATION
ll
a
vlila p to e n � �
a
Berl d
PREPARED FOR:
0 1.5 3 MEADOW BROOK STREAM RESTORATION NCDEQ
MILES HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 3 YADKIN COUNTY, NC } F.COSYSTI-M
PLANNING &
li RCSTORATTON

LEGEND
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
EXISTING STREAMS
ELEVATION (FT)
HIGH: 1133
- Low: 1013
A
MEADOW BROOK
v
PREPARED FOR:
0 150 300 MEADOW BROOK STREAM RESTORATION NCDEQ
FEET LIDAR MAP DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 5 YADKIN COUNTY, NC ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
R rSTCRATION

LEGEND
CONSERVATION EASEMENT WETLAND ASSETS (NO CREDIT)
WETLAND TREATMENT CELL WETLAND A (RR)
STREAM ASSETS WETLAND B (RR)
EI (1.5'1) WETLAND C (RR)
— R (1 ' 1) WETLAND D (RR)
WI
wy 'or
L �-
N
r.
Meadow Brook
•r '
w 4
PREPARED FOR:
0 100 200 MEADOW BROOK STREAM RESTORATION NCDEQ
FEET ASSET MAP DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 8 YADKIN COUNTY, NC F. COSVST[M
PLANNING &
• • RESTORATION

Appendix 1
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT

Sl
VI(. NII Y MAP (NO 5 ALE)
REVIEW 0FROffl- 1C' i1C"
CMIFIVATE OP QVIMERSHIP ANO DEDICATION
I (VMI HEREBY MTTIFY THAT 1 (AHA) ARE: THE C?VOIER 8) OF THE PROPER lY AS SHIDM AND
:SCRIBED HW4EON. I (WE) HERESY ACCEPT AND ADOPT VIE RECORDED FLATAND =4MRVAYION
EASEMENT WITH h1Y (DUI) FFMS CONSI=NT AND OEDICAlt, GRANT, AND CONVEY ALL EkSEIXEMS,
MGHT•OF-WAYS, AND ACCESS ROACH, TO PUEILI AND= PRIVATE USE AS NO'T'ED KE+R FIN.
a RAIDY U. E DATE ORA E. SHOl3E UA712
r�- adaa q� j7
GL ANDREW OH DATE �1NOSHOR111 GATE
a..r
N A SHORP (Urm) nAm LOl,i1SE R- SHORE DATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROL.I1A
00LIM 'OF YAaXfN
1. , REVIEW OFT -CEI OF YADKIN CQUNTY,
CERTIFY THAN THIS MAP FW PLAT TO WHICH THIS CEERMCAT10A1 19
AFFIX213L GSEf'S ALL STA"r'UMR11 RE01.11REMENM FOR RECOti Me FOR
MOCH THE REVIEW OFf7CETR HAS RE8PONWR.IFY AS PRDVIDEl } BY LAW.
REVIEWOFFIOER DATE
1. EUjQ&jIj 6, 1'U0 CERTIFY TWAT NAP WAS W AWN UNCER MY
W RvIsION FAM AN ACTUAL aRS Wwr:Y MAQE vmogR MY sUPMM N
(044 09$0MFxI'ION REED IN SCOK_ A , PA015 _ HOM }; THAT T'HE
SOEJM ARIES NDT $t RVMYr;D ARE ( ARL.Y If1Q1GATzo AS AWN FILM
1NFORMAtiTION SHOWN ON THE FACE OF THIS G,EA,P; THAT THEY TRAVERSE RATIQ OF
RR.EOISIOPI IS 1 1 ; THAT THE QU)M PMTODNING SYSTEM (GM SURVEY
PERFORMED T'OARLISH THE GRID TIE FOR TW TRAVE"E U9W THE
FOLLOYI l"O fff:pFeM AT1QI+F:
(1) CLASS OF SURVEY:
(2) POSMNALA=ELAdCYATS5%COMrD +ICLLrzVa.
H IRMUNTAL-0.078 JJSM 1lEnCd4L= 0,108 USFT
(3) TYPE OF {BPS FIELD PfRO EDUPE: �MkKNEMA70M
(4) DATESOF SURVEY: AUG.SEPT 2017
M 13ATUNWP tH: NA..___t
{B) PIMLISHEWXED-COK ROL L16E: SITS OP$ COHMOL PP @IT 42
W RTHINW?JA7. L16FT, FASi'iPJC!1.+9$2=.$3 kJ$FT,
RE+Na1.C47.97 UF4`7
(1) CE:OIDMWEL: OEOID12b
(9) COM91I oii PA 6.0m 2
(2) LIWM' Ula FEET
THAT THIS PAT WAS PREPARED IN ACGOFiQ+4FCE WITH Ga 47-M AS ANONDE D.
WITNESS MY OFI GANAL WvRATURB, REOSTRATM NUMB AND S1;+a1. THIS . .
DAYDI=N,2p18'`ti� CrrrA}}}
ilo.
+1sr
� y
Wisam C, TURNER, PIS, RAW - L BE
AL
�A�L.0 -
paL k
til a `x�
1, IFLIMSETH i PRO*TSSIO?{ L LANs} GURVEYO R 4 1..4444+
CERT(FY TO ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLWVVWG AS IM TEN
JL & THAT THIS PLAT IS OF A SURVEY OF ANOTHER CATEGOIRY, SUCH
AS THE REGOMBIKATION OF EXISTING PAFLCt_L5, At GOURT ORDERED
SURVEY, OR O'I' GIR ME:WI'ION TqTHS DEFINITION CF S1.I5Mr1SI0Q+I.
'r, A - IJ14 Jle )
E {4..TURNEIR,P,L.S.iO
m TfE Iaf Tom:
AADS IDEA 0
Na; aw N.4A03 (2011)
AF: 87J4= 64
C. x447 .79 CAWr
NA S' "rOOn Sflr
G10Nma PawT
ov a151,61" z
1-026, WGROUND
cxcomawEp ow
FAPT08--"9 4532
N
f
BENJAMIN SHORE
�F
rABLE
��
LINE
r
1NS7-APW
Lf
N58P56WE
5¢.84
L2
L3
30'37 44
S76'30 35
Y63.61'
187! -l8'
L4'r8
23 rE
214.a9
0
3V7�' ,T7
i !9
LB
N11*267
21,x..5
L7
Mx ? fl Ar
964
48
S87- 4
86
L9
510759
3=7C'
LIC
Ste'
194.80
L1I
S45' r9
,S
02
W47 443'n14-9M
1
0J
N84'09 46
29.12'
L14
L#6
X1616"47,32
N82'30 7]avLi6
4x.ft
W.
Lm
572'+
22.48F
2A921
L1
N64W
L i&
AW46 .TF
IMF
r'
09
JaF47".3,9 Q5
,.1¢
I-
N4739
,x,5.99
1
N4739
x.35
L22
'483 2
188.4.3'
L23
SW55=Vj
14U21P
N
f
BENJAMIN SHORE
�F
. WETAS
��
L wz
gROM
DEI.517EWL'
L47
3
182.96
N
RV334?
52.54iVt75'4
L49
L50
� 0 W
87
27
Nom 0r mW
14a.,Ws
L52
12' 4
267.90
U9
SJ2'i4 7
7x.37
L
575.24
1+2
255
U851919
418.58'
F9
SW31 r.3 7V
19,020
r
r r
61.81
04
SW2#'QV25.06
1
3.36
W40'34
29.12'
436
S7f
4x.ft
W.
Lm
S3='14V
1wLx*5'S6 32
22.48F
2A921
L,]9
5770',35
JI it.
L40
586'? 1
44.56
441
'56WIWW
2a. ,33
L42
3+372'?2 i 3-w
.27.8
L4L3
S61 3Ir
10.1�T
L44
S6729x
7'1'
m
i 57610"55
67.74'
L46
NEV2DZ9V
10.x7
"'"M
'" and
NX ID
PgpP5
1v
A: A
43"
587•¢7'24' _ 367-62' (to
hook It
[}31frr �
��
L wz
avow
tlV4'7ANOr
L47
S81-JI56V
SA
L49
N75'24 OD
417.34
L49
L50
587501 1 r I
S2 . 47WO2 T.
17-&-1 6
,384.
T4
S.3'S'S97-47-66
W
L52
3'!74'59 002 V5B
,3.3..3'
Lf 3
IV27"04
188.8,3
L54
PA WJ4 #
9z4.31
255
U851919
418.58'
F9
J
fi
587•¢7'24' _ 367-62' (to
hook It
0034 WAT1DN EAS
COORDIkATE TABLE S Frt
��
tN4ff
SfAd4fNG
�s� f
875M9.86
-.1,4§1 8 13.93
E)wnNG SMEM
T2
l409 i'3fe 22
T 54 9
TJ
S32'1-9 20
130,
T4
S.3'S'S97-47-66
W
T i
S00'40'1rP"�
,3.3..3'
TG
N20 -00W%
11 K2 -6
f7
N79'f 1'47,w
X0.64
7B
N75* I
ror,61
F9
91 '10-w
48.66'
Flo
W02-41'41
68.07'
587•¢7'24' _ 367-62' (to
hook It
Ers�,�
BENJ"IN YHFAD SHOREa',e. tp 1�G 6G0
�+ *e P FAN: 4967 25 2623 Wnsihag
G.B. "Pp- 437
e,a . 2 15 r cps srrf T ~
Kira: 4� a € E �orwa� a
NO saw ncaM (20 x r)
1 N: 67%537.90 V34 7
3 I E1€ 10' EAS -Q idT AM 17 0 330 9J J r•T
4" AM4+7 w M4= CAP
1 P.R 10, PG. 600 JxS ?hipL)
liffl
(0.13, e6, wags) i x-15' 364S ,
NIARLEI R�3. # EMEIV 1
RI 103
gap. pueuC mow)
(DA, lib , P0. 164) 4
CEA
Nklt 41A-
ftegImmi"
,EASEMENT
AREA $
0 172 ACRES
CIENER& F 6b f1"S
1. ALL DISTANCES SHM ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Z. TNI: BA515 OF BEARINGS 15 HGGS :FrATE PLANE GRID ODDROINATE:S NABS: (2011) VATUNL
3+ THE AREA SHOM HEREON WAS COMPUTED USING THE ODORDWATE COMPUTATION VETHOD,
4+ THE PURPDS€ OF THIS FLAT IS TO SERVE A5 A REFERENCE FOR THE CREATION 0Y' A OON5ERVAPON
THIS PLAT 6 NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. THE LAND PARMS AND THEIR SCUM ARIES
AFF ED BY THIS ODNSERVATION EMMMENT ARE NOT OHANGIED SY THIS PLAT.
5. EkSENRC CORMS MONUMENTED W TH 5/8" REBAR MO CAPPED WN 3-1Y4 0 ALUMINUM CAPS,
B- LIMES RIOT SURVEYED ARE SKOWN AS A DASHM L3NETYPE AND WERE TAKEN FROM INFORMATION .
REFEREHOED ON THE FACE OF THIS PLAT.
7. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WM-K)UT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND THEREFORE MAY N07
SHOW ALL ENCUMBRANCES UPUN TKE S€1BJEClr PROPERTY. A LICENSED A'1TOMO-AT-LAW SHOULD
BE CONSULTED RE ARDING ONREC7 OMXR5HIP, WIDTH, AND LOCATION OF EASE MEI TS AND OTHM
TITLE QUEMNS REWJALM 9Y A 'TITLE "MNATI{ , THIS SL1Ra+MR FIIkS LUX NO lWMn AATMN
OR "HPE 1DENT' SEARCH FM ENCUMKPANCES, RESTRXT1ViE COVENANTS, Efk$E4ADn OF R ORIS.
OWHE#RSWP. TIY1.E LMDENCF. OR 07HER FACTS THAT AN ACCURATE AND CURRENT TITLE EAMINATION
Mhy DISCLOSE,
13+ SUOJEG7 TO ALL IEASEAdMM M01-17 OF WAYS, AND OR EN UMBIRkIrdCES THAT MAY AFrECT TETE
PROFD")�$).
9. THE A PORTION OF THE SUBUECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN A DESIGNATED FEMA FLOOD HAZARD
ZONE PZR FIRMA MAP #37104MO W UT YM DATE WAY 16, 2009.
10. ENYIROp1le1EdTAL AND SUMIRFACE COS+DMONS WERE 1rIG'C E7 WED AS PART Or fi#iBS. SURVEY.
11+ THE EXWE]NCE OR NC"-tASMICE OF IMETLAWS ON THE SUBJ T PROPERTY HAS NOT SEEN
UETEERA9fM DY THIS SURVEY.
12. U71UTIES ARE SKOWN WHERE f 4E GROUND APF- lRTENAt S WERE VISIBLE AND ADJACENT TO
CONSERVATION EOSEW IT.
13. THE STATE OF NOI;w#I'I pAwLiNA. ITS empLDYEEa Amu Amas, 513CCE390RS AND ASS6I9t+ES, ARE
ORM ED AND OOWEYED A PERPETUAL. RIGHT 05 AOCESS TO THE E+4 EIVENT AREA OM 1HIE
PMPERTY AT REASGIRMI E TIMES TO UNDEfRTAKF AW ACrWES TO RES'TOK, CONSMUCT, MANAGE,
MAWTAIN, EP KN4M AND MOWOR THE STREAM. WULAND AND ANY WHER RIPARM IRESOURCM IN
THE DkMENT AREA IN ACCORDUCE WITH THE REMRATIOW AMMES OR A LM -TERM
1AAP1+4MENT PLAN AS DESIX80 IN SWTIOAI 111-A OF THE D I) RMORCED OOAITFhPORANE1E1kIS1_Y
WITH THIS PLAT. PREFERRED Ar -CMS ROIL ARE SSI HERMN IN APPROXIMATE LWATICNS.
RECORDED IN FLAT BOOK PAGE �-
T
---- fEmEmevr
4 ARE4
Ce 00.129AR5
e�y4 CE c Paan o' 1E#
cOtaw J�. �rroA�E � �
and w
pLbgU R. SHORE
675. PGL 1!31
DB- 40 PO. 490 & 191
PIH:B$7 94 498
l
1
LEGEND.
0034 WAT1DN EAS
COORDIkATE TABLE S Frt
��
North
Eaw
1
875M9.86
-.1,4§1 8 13.93
E)wnNG SMEM
875 378,19
1 462 9531.01
#0
87 469.86
1.4-62.&U.13
4
8715 #26.29
5115.15
1462,5115-15
5
37 94
1 462 718.28
6Sia
417.40
1 4 901.81
7
87;3 626.78
t 462 9� 4.OS
I9
78 721.2U
# 983.19
9
876,7t4,75
1,483,1142-63
10
875 6.1 �
1 41;13' 1$7.53
11
875 390,
1 4b,�392.28
1
875.328.2.8
1.4.6+3,446.65
131
975,19a.13
1463.+44$.48
411
421
43
21
1 306,71
15
87 i3a3+27
1 137.94
16
1130.49
1,462,969-07
17
PS 0013.01
1 4.62 478.83
16
875,1119.79
1 482 450.57
19
875190.57
1.462 +49
49
!&kooll
1 6'78.56
1
e75,23140
1,462e9W.79
22
876,20-71
1,462046-7.66
52
875.269.05
11.492.280-24
4
875.195,14
4.482 1811.57
25
875 111.03
1 482 W&97
26
675.09268
rt.461,97T,7*
Ers�,�
BENJ"IN YHFAD SHOREa',e. tp 1�G 6G0
�+ *e P FAN: 4967 25 2623 Wnsihag
G.B. "Pp- 437
e,a . 2 15 r cps srrf T ~
Kira: 4� a € E �orwa� a
NO saw ncaM (20 x r)
1 N: 67%537.90 V34 7
3 I E1€ 10' EAS -Q idT AM 17 0 330 9J J r•T
4" AM4+7 w M4= CAP
1 P.R 10, PG. 600 JxS ?hipL)
liffl
(0.13, e6, wags) i x-15' 364S ,
NIARLEI R�3. # EMEIV 1
RI 103
gap. pueuC mow)
(DA, lib , P0. 164) 4
CEA
Nklt 41A-
ftegImmi"
,EASEMENT
AREA $
0 172 ACRES
CIENER& F 6b f1"S
1. ALL DISTANCES SHM ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Z. TNI: BA515 OF BEARINGS 15 HGGS :FrATE PLANE GRID ODDROINATE:S NABS: (2011) VATUNL
3+ THE AREA SHOM HEREON WAS COMPUTED USING THE ODORDWATE COMPUTATION VETHOD,
4+ THE PURPDS€ OF THIS FLAT IS TO SERVE A5 A REFERENCE FOR THE CREATION 0Y' A OON5ERVAPON
THIS PLAT 6 NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. THE LAND PARMS AND THEIR SCUM ARIES
AFF ED BY THIS ODNSERVATION EMMMENT ARE NOT OHANGIED SY THIS PLAT.
5. EkSENRC CORMS MONUMENTED W TH 5/8" REBAR MO CAPPED WN 3-1Y4 0 ALUMINUM CAPS,
B- LIMES RIOT SURVEYED ARE SKOWN AS A DASHM L3NETYPE AND WERE TAKEN FROM INFORMATION .
REFEREHOED ON THE FACE OF THIS PLAT.
7. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WM-K)UT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND THEREFORE MAY N07
SHOW ALL ENCUMBRANCES UPUN TKE S€1BJEClr PROPERTY. A LICENSED A'1TOMO-AT-LAW SHOULD
BE CONSULTED RE ARDING ONREC7 OMXR5HIP, WIDTH, AND LOCATION OF EASE MEI TS AND OTHM
TITLE QUEMNS REWJALM 9Y A 'TITLE "MNATI{ , THIS SL1Ra+MR FIIkS LUX NO lWMn AATMN
OR "HPE 1DENT' SEARCH FM ENCUMKPANCES, RESTRXT1ViE COVENANTS, Efk$E4ADn OF R ORIS.
OWHE#RSWP. TIY1.E LMDENCF. OR 07HER FACTS THAT AN ACCURATE AND CURRENT TITLE EAMINATION
Mhy DISCLOSE,
13+ SUOJEG7 TO ALL IEASEAdMM M01-17 OF WAYS, AND OR EN UMBIRkIrdCES THAT MAY AFrECT TETE
PROFD")�$).
9. THE A PORTION OF THE SUBUECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN A DESIGNATED FEMA FLOOD HAZARD
ZONE PZR FIRMA MAP #37104MO W UT YM DATE WAY 16, 2009.
10. ENYIROp1le1EdTAL AND SUMIRFACE COS+DMONS WERE 1rIG'C E7 WED AS PART Or fi#iBS. SURVEY.
11+ THE EXWE]NCE OR NC"-tASMICE OF IMETLAWS ON THE SUBJ T PROPERTY HAS NOT SEEN
UETEERA9fM DY THIS SURVEY.
12. U71UTIES ARE SKOWN WHERE f 4E GROUND APF- lRTENAt S WERE VISIBLE AND ADJACENT TO
CONSERVATION EOSEW IT.
13. THE STATE OF NOI;w#I'I pAwLiNA. ITS empLDYEEa Amu Amas, 513CCE390RS AND ASS6I9t+ES, ARE
ORM ED AND OOWEYED A PERPETUAL. RIGHT 05 AOCESS TO THE E+4 EIVENT AREA OM 1HIE
PMPERTY AT REASGIRMI E TIMES TO UNDEfRTAKF AW ACrWES TO RES'TOK, CONSMUCT, MANAGE,
MAWTAIN, EP KN4M AND MOWOR THE STREAM. WULAND AND ANY WHER RIPARM IRESOURCM IN
THE DkMENT AREA IN ACCORDUCE WITH THE REMRATIOW AMMES OR A LM -TERM
1AAP1+4MENT PLAN AS DESIX80 IN SWTIOAI 111-A OF THE D I) RMORCED OOAITFhPORANE1E1kIS1_Y
WITH THIS PLAT. PREFERRED Ar -CMS ROIL ARE SSI HERMN IN APPROXIMATE LWATICNS.
RECORDED IN FLAT BOOK PAGE �-
T
---- fEmEmevr
4 ARE4
Ce 00.129AR5
e�y4 CE c Paan o' 1E#
cOtaw J�. �rroA�E � �
and w
pLbgU R. SHORE
675. PGL 1!31
DB- 40 PO. 490 & 191
PIH:B$7 94 498
l
1
LEGEND.
PROPERTY
��
COWSI:RV31T EA�EAfENT
PROP m UK
----v
UNe
_. ..�.
E)wnNG SMEM
--atm---
OVOWEAD umn LINES
#0
CONSERVABON
1.462 91846
EASEMENT CORNER
875.300.05
PROPERTY CORNER
D
5.768
0
CALCULAT€D POINT
ESP
EXKrING I kON PIPE
ER13
E XMING REE
Mft
Edi. RAILROAD SPIKE
OR
E{I5'f'1NO IRON 900
M/F
NOW OR FORMERLY
RIw
RIGHT OF WAY
1
44s AREA D
68 A C
14 Lr.1f
16 r$ 00
' i•1 6 i'EIP 3
f N4
VU 0�tjf A
EF 3
WILLIAH LEE KING God W04�6
KATIE 4Y- Kr.
°'7`RAcs' a & 2
p1m 4567 34 4902
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA SUMMARY
REF. 1
4)
- 2 FRO -M 5/a:"REW
rs
rq 14E'tDCH MY PfaNIK
UMILE MF FAD
P,1 OO PG 590
Ewra: ar�� 459.
x15
43401
PROPERTY
EASEMENT
EASWENT
A.REA )
Eastnil
REF. 1
PARCEL 0 11554-1
R.I.N. 485 5 4,M4
A
3.798
28
U5 .5&
REF..
PARCEL1542401�J.N. 48 25 4139
29
172
1.462 91846
0.129
875.300.05
REF, 3
PARCEL 115542
P.I.N. 485 5 6016
D
5.768
1.+4+82 7W.78
1 462 729.54
331
1.345
1 704,W
CONSERVATION EASEMENT TOTAL
11.21
REF. 1
4)
- 2 FRO -M 5/a:"REW
rs
rq 14E'tDCH MY PfaNIK
UMILE MF FAD
P,1 OO PG 590
Ewra: ar�� 459.
x15
43401
��
CONGERVATM EMI94ENT
COORDINATE TAS4 0 FTS
Norihing
Eastnil
2!
8160+20
1 481 &70.95
28
U5 .5&
1$483,006.m
29
875 316.58
1.462 91846
30
875.300.05
1 4-62 807.12
31
32
873 263.23
878 2130.3+4
1.+4+82 7W.78
1 462 729.54
331
873 276.16
1 704,W
3L
875 272.95
1G 452 76-1
3fi
875.260.13
1.46L6311.37
38
875,241.75
1.462=3.43
36
878 4-5.67
1,462,571.88
39
875 242.71
14$2 527.42
40
1875m201
2145.74
411
421
43
475.198.291
975.18&79.
87515Fr+49
.-1,.462,12&29
1,482 3.57
1481987.23
44
874 161.44
1 4161 978.29
45
073,272
1 457+18
46
875.26C94
1 463 665.15
47
874 9+1.1.66
1,40,81 l.82
4114
874 847.60
1 483188.93
49
1 974,921+85
1 6'78.56
51}
05.089.9a .98
1 463 590.61
51
UA 168.23
1 4$.T 532+56
52
875 388.51
1 1,463.458-41
��
R7Y LAwE'
3f4"F51�
f; nt Ulf
�I>SB�iM1M1iM1
r SEME
AREA E
_
9.346 ACRS
47
150" 0' 150" 300'
SCALE: 1 inch = 1.50 feet
�l
17
MARYppM,ILI)REE]b C, Wl HELL
P FN 40d°7', 1$77
ow/PBduxas:
D.a $�, Ing. 9,'�
D.13. 50, P9' 424
Da 90, Pg. 104
oz, 90, Pg. 781
D.R 112. fig. 99
D.E L 162, Pg. 164
o.R 238, 11515+ 3M
0.8. 424, Pg. 567
G.H. 434, Pg. 360
G.D. 442, Pg. 834
D+B+ 484" Egli, 19
O.B. 575, Pg. 131
D,6. 981. N, 491
0.6. 955, Pg. 243
D.S. X58, Pg, 437
D.B- 1174, Pg. 498
P.B. 1, Pg, 141A
P -O- 7. P -g. zil
P.e. 1{7, Pg. 549
P.9, 10, Pg. 598
P.B. 10, Pg. 800
.rzsKRE
1 I { 1 I . B +CONSERVATIONEASEMENT
lg'% VQ , 7
3f4"F51�
FOIA
OF MITI N RVI ES
Vlll�'A CERB'�
THE STATE F NORTH F LINA, DIVISION ATI
-
�
1
P-0702 (919H27-074
- v�vrur.��rrlld�r�r�n.orr�
(SPO DILE# 9- and 9 -'AA; DMS P JE T 100024)
v4' M. SHORE
� A. SHORE
and
STEVE ANDREW SHORE
LldtaESE IR. SHORE
DAL 951. PG- 491
D.B. 442. PG. 834
P.It 10 m 549 .
AN: 4Ob7 25 413E
TRPCT 1 1E Z
PINI 4887 28 80115
PARML 154240
FARGEI- IICC42
OWNER ADDREM
OWHER Al 8:
3920 BabVkA Church Rd.
1332 Marler Rd.
Daawll* KC 27011
Nm11pt0�, NC 27024
150" 0' 150" 300'
SCALE: 1 inch = 1.50 feet
�l
17
MARYppM,ILI)REE]b C, Wl HELL
P FN 40d°7', 1$77
ow/PBduxas:
D.a $�, Ing. 9,'�
D.13. 50, P9' 424
Da 90, Pg. 104
oz, 90, Pg. 781
D.R 112. fig. 99
D.E L 162, Pg. 164
o.R 238, 11515+ 3M
0.8. 424, Pg. 567
G.H. 434, Pg. 360
G.D. 442, Pg. 834
D+B+ 484" Egli, 19
O.B. 575, Pg. 131
D,6. 981. N, 491
0.6. 955, Pg. 243
D.S. X58, Pg, 437
D.B- 1174, Pg. 498
P.B. 1, Pg, 141A
P -O- 7. P -g. zil
P.e. 1{7, Pg. 549
P.9, 10, Pg. 598
P.B. 10, Pg. 800
.rzsKRE
1 I { 1 I . B +CONSERVATIONEASEMENT
lg'% VQ , 7
FILE:
o r BROOK
FOIA
OF MITI N RVI ES
THE STATE F NORTH F LINA, DIVISION ATI
-
�
P-0702 (919H27-074
- v�vrur.��rrlld�r�r�n.orr�
(SPO DILE# 9- and 9 -'AA; DMS P JE T 100024)
{,
AL 1 "mi 50
PROJECT T Af E; MEADOW BROOK MITIGATION SITE
l A EL 's: 11 �1, '�' 4 c 115542
SHEET
#�F 1l YSL�P'3'. 817 RA Q1= EI~ T3`I~CT ELS #ROTI.: 17019
S -v -R 9Eym BY: DsTl REvi rl vEL) BY: E]S' im.I COLAT54TE. 3MR10181
N. SUCK SHOALS T 1WNSH I P YADKIN COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
I f

Appendix 2
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

- 4 ' k... „ter - µ .�_ r.r K• -'�
y'. �ua�'-;.•.� -: _ rye. �s
r �
� f � ..`:,.... fie, .• '_�:�e?n t, , t� �- �� 1
T •...4:.' `'.1 h�'� q�.�. '• SIF L•�f�"'��
,:i _ n � '<'� �' � �^ is - ::i: _ � i•�
-1�3 ' "Ta�v'= . ,.y. � r:�,�,. .fes � ;�;�; .:�•
RAMP
ds 1 .
kIv
' - ..-.�} _ �' -. - ''�� ..fir.;;. , y�t+? I t'�• '.:� i'"-0�� �:� . r :'.
.4h� Aja -;,•.ti• '' ;.
44
I " � 'til-� r V'i.'!I. � ��• L WIt
44
•x � ��'A �'�� .y�r ` ars �'!•-'
4 -
�a �.�' '�'k�''� .. •1 _ ._ -:?'i��...R`�i:w�l�i.. `�� _ Nom.. .,4. � .-_ ���

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Site
Yadkin County, NC
Field Visits — January 2016 & 2018,
October 2017
- '""- __ _ _ Sri y., .. c -.•p'. "
Confluence of existing ditch (closest to Marler Rd.)
and R1.
View of wetland A on south side of R1, looking
back towards Marler Rd.
Confluence of existing ditch just west of UT to
Meadow Brook with R1. Notice trampling in
foreground.
Confluence of UT1 and Meadow Brook. Primary
cattle access and loafing area. Channel has no
riparian buffer and sandy, eroding, vertical banks
are visible.
Appendix 2

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Site
Yadkin County, NC
Field Visits — January 2016 & 2018,
October 2017
View of UT1 looking upstream.
View of UT1 at property line, location of
proposed culvert.
Start of R2 looking upstream towards Meadow
Brook's confluence with UT1.
Upstream portion of Meadow Brook Reach 3
with vertical bank and heavy sand deposits.
Appendix 2

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Site
Yadkin County, NC
Field Visits — January 2016 & 2018,
October 2017
Vertical bank on the downstream portion of R3.
Channel incision and mass wasting are visible.
Downstream boundary of the project.
View of Meadow Brook beyond the
downstream limit of the project.
Appendix 2
Vertical bank in the middle of R3. Channel
incision and toe scour are visible.

Appendix 3
WETLAND JD FORMS

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Kevin Tweedy PE, Ecosystem Planning and
Restoration, 559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150, Raleigh NC 27606
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Meadow Brook Stream Restoration
There are four jurisdictional wetlands within the study area. Wetland locations are shown on the attached Figure 3
and described in the attached wetland determination forms. There are two jurisdictional streams within the study.
SA is an unnamed tributary to South Deep Creek. SA was arbitrarily named "Meadow Brook" and is referred to as
both SA and Meadow Brook. SB is a tributary to SA/Meadow Brook.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Yadkin City: Hamptonville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat.: 36.141378 Long.: - 80.819068
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17S
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to South Deep Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEWAREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
Latitude (decimal
Number
degrees)
WA
36.141103
WB
36.141512
WC
36.141941
WD
36.141288
SA
and linear feet, if
(Meadow
36.141263
Brook)
applicable
SB (UT)
36.142149
Estimated amount of
Type of aquatic
Geographic authority to
Longitude
aquatic resources in
resources (i.e.,
which the aquatic resource
"maybe"
(decimal degrees)
review area (acreage
wetland vs. non-
subject (i.e.,
and linear feet, if
Wetland waters)
Section 404 or Section
applicable
10/404)
-80.819239
2.9 AC
Wetland
Section 404
-80.821210
2.2 AC
Wetland
Section 404
-80.818792
0.8 AC
Wetland
Section 404
-80.816616
0.1 AC
Wetland
Section 404
-80.820136
2,404 LF
Non -wetland
Section 404
-80.818277
396 LF
Non -wetland
Section 404

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request
and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after
having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when
they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction
notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit,
and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is
hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic
resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and
conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could
possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions;
(3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWT or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept
a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary;
(5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without
requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a
permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in
reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that
all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as
jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial
compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court;
and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and
conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to
make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources
in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in
the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where
indicated for all checked items:
❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Elkin South NC 1:12.000
® Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: USDA Web Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date): 2010 NCDOT Digital Ortho
or ❑Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been
verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
SigngWe and to of person
requesting PJD(REQUIRED,
unless obtaining the signature
is impracticable) t
I Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing
an action.

Appendix 4
ASSESSMENT DATA

Elevation (ft)
m
m
Ill
MEADOW BROOK REACH 1 PROFILE - PART 1
50 100 mo om 250 mm mm wm ^m mm mm am am
Distance along stream (ft)
e CH
0 WS
,LB
0 RB
«P4
LL
LL
LL
--------------
------------
35-
50 100 mo om 250 mm mm wm ^m mm mm am am
Distance along stream (ft)
e CH
0 WS
,LB
0 RB
«P4

Elevation (ft)
MEADOW BROOK REACH 1 PROFILE PART 2
104
104
103
1030
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 560 550 600 650 760 750
Distance along stream (ft)
* CH
* WS
* BKF
* LB
* RB
* LEW
* P4
Ji
LLJ
J'i
LL
LLi
LL
U:1
ml
ml
t
<Vj 0 0 0
Ot - --------- -----
<C>
Oo
OF
------
t.. --o.----
---------
-----------------
t_-Vot-♦000,
----------
------- -+
00
lows
1030
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 560 550 600 650 760 750
Distance along stream (ft)
* CH
* WS
* BKF
* LB
* RB
* LEW
* P4

C
O
cc
O
W
MEADOW BROOK R1 RIFFLE 1
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 19.6 Dbkf = .77 Abkf = 15.1
150 250
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Reach 1
Cross Section Name: MB R1 RIFFLE 1
Survey Date: 09/27/2017
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
0
0
1043.82
12.26
0
1042.74
14.93
0
1042.19
16.54
0
1041.62
21.57
0
1041.58
23.68
0
1041.51
26.14
0
1041.59
31.24
0
1041.7
31.5
0
1041.97
33.42
0
1042.25
46.61
0
1042.26
57.32
0
1042.29
72.58
0
1042.18
81.64
0
1042.06
89.43
0
1042.03
101.63
0
1041.97
116.16
0
1042.22
125.01
0
1042.41
149.58
0
1043.58
150.71
0
1043.63
168.15
0
1043.6
168.26
0
1043.6
179.59
0
1043.71
181.68
0
1043.85
181.73
0
1043.85
181.76
0
1043.85
182.41
0
1042.85
184.19
0
1041.61 BKF
187.01
0
1040.99
188.72
0
1039.99
191.5
0
1039.61 TW
191.5
0
1039.62
191.51
0
1039.61
193.4
0
1040
193.41
0
1040
193.42
0
1040
193.43
0
1040
198.37
0
1041.52 BKF
202.56
0
1041.63
207.46
0
1041.74
207.63
0
1041.76
207.68
0
1041.77
213.43
0
1042.73
215.67
0
1043.1
219.32
0
1043.68
219.32
0
1043.67
219.33
0
1043.68

226.8
0
1045.07
227.01
0
1045.11
227.35
0
1045.14
231.75
0
1045.52
234.92
0
1046.4
241.56
0
1047.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right side
slope 0 0 0
Shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
1043.53
1043.53
1043.53
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
1041.57
1041.57
1041.57
Floodprone width (ft)
181.65
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
19.56
170.45
7.95
Entrenchment Ratio
9.29
_-___
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
0.77
0.79
0.74
Maximum Depth (ft)
1.96
1.96
1.79
width/Depth Ratio
25.4
215.38
10.74
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
15.09
9.18
5.91
wetted Perimeter (ft)
20.2
13.79
9.99
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.75
0.67
0.59
Begin BKF Station
21.87
21.87
192.32
End BKF Station
200.27
192.32
200.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right side
slope 0 0 0
Shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

?r
C
O
y—
CU
W
Meadow Brook R1 Riffle 2
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 9.81 Dbkf = 1.54 Abkf = 15.1
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Reach 1
Cross Section Name: MB R1 RIFFLE 2
Survey Date: 02/19/2018
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
1042.341
24.35
0
1042.344
37.09
0
1041.626 LB
40.11
0
1038.87
43.25
0
1038.64 TW
46.49
0
1038.755 LEw
48.01
0
1040.609 BKF
51.99
0
1041.468
61.05
0
1044.109
65.73
0
1045.034
72.72
0
1046.307
77.56
0
1047.081
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
1042.58
1042.58
1042.58
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
1040.61
1040.61
1040.61
Floodprone width (ft)
55.8
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
9.81
4.91
4.9
Entrenchment Ratio
5.69
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
1.54
1.47
1.61
Maximum Depth (ft)
1.97
1.96
1.97
width/Depth Ratio
6.37
3.34
3.04
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
15.09
7.21
7.88
wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.37
7.55
7.74
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.33
0.95
1.02
Begin BKF Station
38.2
38.2
43.11
End BKF station
48.01
43.11
48.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

?r
O
y—
CU
w
MEADOW BROOK R1 RIFFLE 3
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 7.16 Dbkf = 2.17 Abkf = 15
0 50 100 150 200 250
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Reach 1
Cross Section Name: MB R1 RIFFLE 3
survey Date: 09/27/2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0
40.82
44.81
47.39
48.43
50.62
58.49
63.37
63.68
64.71
65.39
66.65
68.18
69.09
69.63
70.51
70.56
80.42
90.11
91.82
94.05
117.93
125.34
147.74
161.59
186.73
201.3
213.76
226.5
229.84
236.22
239.3
244.51
246.9
-s ELEV NOTE
1040.4
1039.68
1 1039.66
1039.66
1039.37
1 1039.19
1038.73
1 1038.4 BKF
1037.68
1035.81
1035.81.
1035.72
1035.65
1035.65
1036.75
1 1038.17
1038.75
l 1039.07
1 1039.33
1 1039.37
l 1039.32
1038.9
1038.92
1039.04
1039.12
l 1039.29
1039.56
1 1039.82
1 1040.18
1040.43
E 1041.11
1 1041.53
1 1041.98
1042.17
---_-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
Bankful 1 Elevation (ft)
Floodprone width (ft)
Bankfull width (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Mean Depth (ft)
Channel
1041.15
1038.4
236.51
7.16
33.03
2.17
Left
1041.15
1038.4
3.58
2.15
Right
1041.15
1038.4
3.58
2.2

Maximum Depth (ft)
2.75
2.69
2.75
width/Depth Ratio
3.3
1.66
1.63
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
15.57
7.7
7.87
wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.43
7.86
7.96
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.49
0.98
0.99
Begin BKF station
63.37
63.37
66.95
End BKF station
70.53
66.95
70.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
slope 0 0 0
Shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

?r
C
O
y—
CU
W
Meadow Brook Reach 1 Riffle 4
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 13.3 Dbkf = 1.28 Abkf = 16.9
I I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Reach 1
Cross Section Name: MB R1 RIFFLE 4
Survey Date: 10/23/2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
1038.16
36.16
0
1038.26
37.17
0
1038.22
43.71
0
1037.73
51.59
0
1037.46
51.71
0
1037.46
51.72
0
1037.45
51.81
0
1037.45
63.48
0
1036.81
68.92
0
1036.98
70.97
0
1037.03
71.41
0
1036.99
77.88
0
1036.1
77.92
0
1036.09
77.93
0
1036.09
77.95
0
1036.08
77.99
0
1036.07
80.36
0
1034.53
80.7
0
1034.46
82.4
0
1034.2
83.26
0
1034.33
84.28
0
1034.38
86.63
0
1036.72 BKF
87.19
0
1037.28
88.13
0
1037.41
101.2
0
1037.79
126.03
0
1037.56
133.24
0
1037.41
159.68
0
1036.87
173.85
0
1036.81
173.89
0
1036.82
189.97
0
1036.82
198.83
0
1036.82
223.25
0
1036.95
227.6
0
1037.12
232.07
0
1037.02
257.14
0
1037.19
265.45
0
1037.16
277.66
0
1037.23
297.21
0
1037.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right

Floodprone Elevation (ft)
1039.24
1039.24
1039.24
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
1036.72
1036.72
1036.72
Floodprone width (ft)
297.21
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
13.26
6.63
6.63
Entrenchment Ratio
22.42
-----
mean Depth (ft)
1.28
0.62
1.94
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.52
1.96
2.52
width/Depth Ratio
10.36
10.75
3.42
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
16.93
4.09
12.84
wetted Perimeter (ft)
14.77
9.02
9.66
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.15
0.45
1.33
Begin BKF station
73.37
73.37
80
End BKF station
86.63
80
86.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

z
C:
O
N
W
MEADOW BROOK REACH 2 PROFILE
750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050
Distance along stream (ft)
• CH
O WS
♦ BKF
♦ P1
o P2
+ P3
X P4

?r
C
O
y—
CU
w
MB R2 RIFFLE 1
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 14.5 Dbkf = 1.66 Abkf = 24
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Reach 1(Z
Cross Section Name: MB R2 RIFFLE 1
Survey Date:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
1037.984
8.94
0
1037.252
20.03
0
1035.444 BKF
23.09
0
1033.82
24
0
1033.292 LEw
28.32
0
1032.967 TW
30.57
0
1033.164
35.19
0
1035.843 RB
39.94
0
1036.522
44.38
0
1036.073
47.87
0
1036.47
48.7
0
1037.178
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
1037.91
1037.91
1037.91
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
1035.44
1035.44
1035.44
Floodprone width (ft)
47.83
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
14.46
7.23
7.23
Entrenchment Ratio
3.31
-----
mean Depth (ft)
1.66
1.61
1.71
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.47
2.39
2.47
width/Depth Ratio
8.71
4.5
4.23
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
23.98
11.61
12.36
wetted Perimeter (ft)
15.64
10.18
10.24
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.53
1.14
1.21
Begin BKF station
20.04
20.04
27.27
End BKF Station
34.5
27.27
34.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

z
ui
MEADOW BROOK REACH 3 PROFILE
104
103
103,
1025
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 wu
Distance along stream (ft)
0 CH
0 ws
T BKF
* LB
0 RB
+ LEW
X P4
LU
it I
ml
07V
9-0---
1025
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 wu
Distance along stream (ft)
0 CH
0 ws
T BKF
* LB
0 RB
+ LEW
X P4

C
O
cc
O
W
MB R3 RIFFLE 1
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 21.4 Dbkf = 1.4 Abkf = 30.1
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Reach 2L
Cross Section Name: MB R3 RIFFLE 1
survey Date:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
1035.623
9.6
0
1035.594
15.85
0
1034.908 LB
20.55
0
1031.597
23.25
0
1031.663 TW
25.02
0
1032.391
25.79
0
1032.765
28.47
0
1031.916
31.64
0
1034.54 BKF
37.77
0
1034.527
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left side Right Side
slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
1037.48
1037.48
1037.48
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
1034.54
1034.54
1034.54
Floodprone width (ft)
37.77
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
21.4
10.7
10.7
Entrenchment Ratio
1.77
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
2.1
0.71
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.94
2.94
2.62
width/Depth Ratio
15.29
5.09
15.07
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
30.06
22.49
7.56
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
23.65
14.1
13.91
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.27
1.59
0.54
Begin BKF Station
16.37
16.37
27.07
End BKF Station
37.77
27.07
37.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left side Right Side
slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

Elevation (ft)
1045 --F-
10,
10,
UT TO MEADOW BROOK EXISTING PROFILE
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Distance along stream (ft)
• CH
0 WS
♦ BKF
♦ LB
0 RB
+ LEW
X P4
P
0—
o
00
-
-------------
000 **0 4+
*0
--------------------
5--
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Distance along stream (ft)
• CH
0 WS
♦ BKF
♦ LB
0 RB
+ LEW
X P4

?r
O
y—
CU
w
UT RIFFLE 1
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 7.47 Dbkf = 1.53 Abkf = 11.4
0 50 100 150 200 250
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: UT
Reach Name: Reach 1
Cross Section Name: UT RIFFLE 1
Survey Date:
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
F5
ELEV
--------------------------------------
0
0
1044.37
22.42
0
1042.342
31.16
0
1041.144
46.22
0
1039.488
52.55
0
1038.566
57.59
0
1037.801
59.3
0
1035.219
60.21
0
1035.068
64.07
0
1035.793
65.41
0
1037.27
65.76
0
1037.617
66.96
0
1037.998
75.34
0
1038.854
108.61
0
1038.709
145.91
0
1038.348
187.29
0
1038.033
214.5
0
1038.203
232.1
0
1038.433
233.98
0
1037.616
235.07
0
1037.504
236.45
0
1037.77
238.85
0
1039.04
243.8
0
1039.837
Cross Sectional Geometry
NOTE
LB
W
BKF
RB
Entrainment Calculations
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
1039.47
1039.47
1039.47
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
1037.27
1037.27
1037.27
Floodprone width (ft)
195.2
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
7.47
3.8
3.67
Entrenchment Ratio
26.14
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
1.53
1.71
1.35
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.2
2.2
1.91
width/Depth Ratio
4.88
2.23
2.72
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
11.42
6.48
4.94
wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.3
6.85
6.28
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.23
0.95
0.79
Begin BKF Station
57.94
57.94
61.74
End BKF Station
65.41
61.74
65.41
Entrainment Calculations

While the survey collected in September 2017 included cross sections, these were not necessarily at
riffle features. The existing channel is an incised E channel with limited bankfull indictors so the initial
bankfull analysis from the proposal was checked against the survey data collected. These notes relate
the previously collected cross sections (provided on the following pages) to the surveyed profile and
cross sections (provided on the preceding pages).
• Cross Section 1— Riffle corresponds to the survey XS Meadow Brook R1 Riffle 2 at station 399 of
Meadow Brook Reach 1 Profile Part 1.
• Meadow Brook Cross Section 2 — Riffle corresponds to the survey the survey XS Meadow Brook
R2 Riffle 1 at station 806 of Meadow Brook Reach 2 Profile. These cross sections are from
roughly the same location but the field data cross section is more detailed than the surveyed
cross section and therefore was used as the representative riffle for Meadow Brook Reach 2.
• Cross Section 3 — Riffle falls at station 412 of Meadow Brook Reach 3 Profile which appears to
be in a pool, a new cross section was cut from the survey at station 144 of Meadow Brook Reach
3 Profile to represent riffle dimensions.
• Cross Section 1— Riffle — Trib corresponds to the survey XS UT Riffle 1 at station 245 of the UT
Profile. These cross sections are from roughly the same location but the field data cross section
is more detailed than the surveyed cross section.

C
O
v
Lit
Cross Section 1 - Riffle
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators
♦ Water Surface Paints
[Y>JkC 9.82 Dbk[ = 1.55 ah v4 _ is
0 tQ 20 36 49 36
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Meadow Brook
Toss Section Name: Cross Section 1 - Riffle
Survey Date: 01/06/2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 100 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 1 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5.75
95.25
Right
12
6.02
94.98
95.77
18
6.56
94.44
93.42
20.5
6.26
94.74
LB
22.5
6.8
94.2
5.55
23
7.34
93.66
24
7.58
93.42
BKF
24.4
8.38
92.62
FIELD CALL BKF'
25.5
8.7
92.3
3.91
26
9.81
91.19
GRND
26.7
9.92
91.08
8.5
28.2
9.93
91.07
0.93
29.5
9.83
91.17
28.26
30.3
9.6
91.4
REW
31.5
8.9
92.1
32
8.42
92.58
"FIELD CALL BKF"
34
7.49
93.51
35.7
6.6
94.4
RB
39
6.08
94.92
41
5.28
95.72
47
3.8
97.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
95.77
95.77
95.77
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
93.42
93.42
93.42
Floodprone width (ft)
41.2
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
9.81
4.26
5.55
Entrenchment Ratio
4.2
-----
mean Depth (ft)
1.55
1.72
1.42
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.35
2.35
2.35
width/Depth Ratio
6.33
2.48
3.91
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
15.17
7.31
7.86
wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.68
7.87
8.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.3
0.93
0.93
Begin BKF Station
24
24
28.26
-nd BKF Station
33.81
28.26
33.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve

Z
LU
Meadow Brook - Cross Section 2 - Riffle
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators
T Water Surface Points
Horizontal distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Meadow Brook
Cross Section Name: Cross Section 2 - Riffle
Survey Date: 01/06/2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 100 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 1 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3.54
97.46
LEP
12
4.6
96.4
97.81
14
4.92
96.08
94.94
19
5.09
95.91
-
21
5.28
95.72
6.14
25
5.28
95.72
-----
27.2
5.4
95.6
LB
28
6.06
94.94
BKF
28.5
6.76
94.24
3.39
28.8
7.24
93.76
"FIELD CALL BKF"
29.3
7.63
93.37
9.9
29.4
8.46
92.54
LEW
30
8.93
92.07
33.16
31
8.7
92.3
32
8.84
92.16
33
8.8
92.2
34
8.63
92.37
35
8,5
92.5
36
8.52
92.48
36.7
8.37
92.63
REW
37.9
6.7
94.3
"FIELD BKF CALL"
38.5
6.46
94.54
40
5.75
95.25
42
5.56
95.44
RB
50
6.32
94.68
53.8
5.74
95.26
55
4.94
96.06
66.6
4.93
96.07
REP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
97.81
97.81
97.81
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
94.94
94.94
94.94
Floodprone width (ft)
66.6
-
Bankfull width (ft)
11.3
5.16
6.14
Entrenchment Ratio
5.89
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
2.01
2.25
1.81
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.87
2.87
2.71
width/Depth Ratio
5.62
2.3
3.39
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
22.68
11.59
11.09
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
14.04
9.57
9.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.61
1.21
1.12
Begin BKF Station
28
28
33.16

W
Cross Section 3 - Riffle
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators • Water Surface PoMs
Wb%f - 14.7 Dbkf 1.71 Abkf = J6 4
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Meadow Brook
-rocs Section Name: Cross Section 3 - Riffle
Survey Date: 01/06/2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 100 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 1 ft
IN -Mum
FS
AMILVi
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
4.06
96.94
Right
10
4.66
96.34
95.61
17
5.48
95.52
93.07
23.2
6.74
94.26
-----
30.5
7.54
93.46
LB
31
7.77
93.23
-----
31.7
7.93
93.07
BKF
32
8.65
92.35
"FIELD CALL BKF"
32.9
8.65
92.35
5.19
33.1
8.93
92.07
11.65
33.4
10.2
90.8
STRMBED
34.5
10.34
90.66
1.07
35.7
10.4
90.6
38.21
36.8
10.2
90.8
45.99
38
10.22
90.78
39.7
10.47
90.53
Tw
40.6
10.39
90.61
41.4
9.84
91.16
REw
42.5
9.57
91.43
43.1
9.32
91.68
43.5
8.67
92.33
"FIELD CALL BKF"
44
8.39
92.61
45.8
7.96
93.04
48
7.61
93.39
RB
53
7.36
93.64
62
6.16
94.84
81
5.34
95.66
REP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
95.61
95.61
95.61
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
93.07
93.07
93.07
Floodprone width (ft)
63.61
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
14.29
6.51
7.78
Entrenchment Ratio
4.45
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
1.71
1.96
1.5
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.54
2.47
2.54
width/Depth Ratio
8.36
3.32
5.19
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
24.4
12.75
11.65
wetted Perimeter (ft)
16.71
10.49
10.86
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.46
1.22
1.07
Begin BKF Station
31.7
31.7
38.21
End BKF station
45.99
38.21
45.99

LU
Cross Section 1 - Riffle - Trib
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators
♦ Water Surface Points
wbkt - 6.66 nbkf = 1.72 nhkf _ "
I I
a 1
0 20 " 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Tributary to Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Tributary to Meadow Brook
-rocs Section Name: Cross Section 1 - Riffle
Survey Date: 01/08/2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 100 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 1 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
4.36
96.64
Right
6
5.26
95.74
96.88
8
5.55
95.45
94.66
9.5
5.53
95.47
LB
10.3
6.02
94.98
3.16
11
7.57
93.43
"FIELD CALL BKF"
11.8
8.06
92.94
1.69
12
8.31
92.69
LEW
12.5
8.56
92.44
TW
13.1
8.55
92.45
5.33
1.3.6
8.54
92.46
6.42
14
8.38
92.62
0.83
14.5
8.41
92.59
13.94
14.8
8.32
92.68
17.1
15.2
8.28
92.72
15.7
8.05
92.95
16.9
7.55
93.45
"FIELD CALL BKF"
17.1
6.34
94.66
BKF
18
5.95
95.05
RB
19.9
5.82
95.18
21.6
5.1
95.9
32
4.9
96.1
---------_-------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
-------------------------- -------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
96.88
96.88
96.88
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
94.66
94.66
94.66
Floodprone width (ft)
32
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
6.66
3.5
3.16
Entrenchment Ratio
4.81
-----
mean Depth (ft)
1.72
1.74
1.69
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.22
2.22
2.07
width/Depth Ratio
3.87
2.01
1.87
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
11.42
6.09
5.33
wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.99
6.7
6.42
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.27
0.91
0.83
3egin BKF Station
10.44
10.44
13.94
End BKF Station
17.1
13.94
17.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Site Information and
Performance Standard Stratification
Project Name:
Meadow Brook
Reach ID:
MB Reach 1
Restoration Potential:
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type:
E
Proposed Stream Type:
C
Region:
Piedmont
Drainage Area (sgmi):
0.93
Proposed Bed Material:
Gravel
Existing Stream Length (ft):
1304
Proposed Stream Length (ft):
1936
Stream Slope (%):
0.34
Flow Type:
Perennial
River Basin:
Yadkin-PeeDee
Stream Temperature:
0.00
Data Collection Season:
Bed Material
Valley Type:
Unconfined Alluvial
Notes
1. Users input values that are highlighted bas
2. Users select values from a pull-down menu
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.22
Proposed Condition Score (PCS)
0.45
Change in Functional Condition (PCS - ECS)
0.23
Percent Condition Change
105%
Existing Stream Length (ft)
1304
Proposed Stream Length (ft)
1936
Additional Stream Length (ft)
632
Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)
287
Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)
871
Proposed FFS - Existing FFS
584
Functional Change (%)
204%
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP FFS - Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Change (%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing Stream FFS+ Existing BMP FFS 287
Proposed Stream FFS +Proposed BMP FFS 871
Total Proposed FFS-Total Existing FFS 584
Functional Change (%) 203%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
ECS PCS
Functional Category
Hydrology
Function -Based Parameters Existing Parameter
Proposed Parameter
Hydrology
1.00
Catchment Hydrology
Physicochemical
Reach Runoff 0.31
0.51
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
0.65
1.00
Geomorphology
Large Woody Debris
0.00
0.2
Lateral Stability
0.10
1.00
Riparian Vegetation
0.00
0.54
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity 0.60
0.
Plan Form 0.00
1.00
Physicochemical
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Biology
Macros
Fish
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP FFS - Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Change (%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing Stream FFS+ Existing BMP FFS 287
Proposed Stream FFS +Proposed BMP FFS 871
Total Proposed FFS-Total Existing FFS 584
Functional Change (%) 203%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
Functional Category
ECS PCS
Functional Change
Hydrology
0.31 0.51
0.20
Hydraulics0.65
Geomorphology
1.00
0.35
0.61
Physicochemical
Biology

Site Information and
Performance Standard Stratification
Project Name:
Meadow Brook
Reach ID:
MB Reach 2
Restoration Potential:
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type:
E
Proposed Stream Type:
C
Region:
Piedmont
Drainage Area (sqmi):
1.5
Proposed Bed Material:
Gravel
Existing Stream Length (ft):
350
Proposed Stream Length (ft):
393
Stream Slope (%):
0.38
Flow Type:
Perennial
River Basin:
Yadkin-PeeDee
Stream Temperature:
0.49
Data Collection Season:
Winter/Spring
Valley Type:
Unconfined Alluvial
Notes
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull-down menu
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.31
Proposed Condition Score (PCS)
0.47
Change in Functional Condition (PCS - ECS)
0.16
Percent Condition Change
52%
Existing Stream Length (ft)
350
Proposed Stream Length (ft)
393
Additional Stream Length (ft)
43
Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)
109
Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)
185
Proposed FFS - Existing FFS
76
Functional Change (%)
70%
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP FFS - Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Change (%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 109
Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 185
Total Proposed FFS -Total Existing FFS 76
Functional Change (%) 70%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
ECS
Functional Category
Functional Change
Function -Based Parameters
Existing Parameter
Proposed Parameter
Hydrology
Hydraulics
Catchment Hydrology
1.00
0.15
Reach Runoff 0.60
0.63
Hydraulics
0.59
Floodplain Connectivity
0.85
. 0
Geomorphology
Biology
Large Woody Debris
0.00
0.11
Lateral Stability 0.22
1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.00
0.49
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity 0.32
0.89
Plan Form 0.00
1.00
Physicochemical
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Biology
Macros
Fish
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP FFS - Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Change (%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 109
Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 185
Total Proposed FFS -Total Existing FFS 76
Functional Change (%) 70%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
Functional Category
ECS
PCS
Functional Change
Hydrology
0.60
0.63
0.03
Hydraulics
0.85
1.00
0.15
Geomorphology
0.11
0.70
0.59
Physicochemical
Biology

Site Information and
Performance Standard Stratification
Project Name:
Meadow Brook
Reach ID:
MB Reach 3 & 4
Restoration Potential:
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type:
E
Proposed Stream Type:
Bc
Region:
Piedmont
Drainage Area (sqmi):
1.7
Proposed Bed Material:
Gravel
Existing Stream Length (ft):
523
Proposed Stream Length (ft):
533
Stream Slope (%):
0.66
Flow Type:
Perennial
River Basin:
Yadkin-PeeDee
Stream Temperature:
0.61
Data Collection Season:
Winter/Spring
Valley Type:
Colluvial
Notes
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull-down menu
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.39
Proposed Condition Score (PCS)
0.49
Change in Functional Condition (PCS - ECS)
0.10
Percent Condition Change
26%
Existing Stream Length (ft)
523
Proposed Stream Length (ft)
533
Additional Stream Length (ft)
10
Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)
204
Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)
261
Proposed FFS - Existing FFS
57
Functional Change (%)
28%
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP FFS - Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Change (%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 204
Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 261
Total Proposed FFS -Total Existing FFS 57
Functional Change (%) 28%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
ECS
Functional Category
Functional Change
Function -Based Parameters
Existing Parameter
Proposed Parameter
Hydrology
Hydraulics
Catchment Hydrology
1.00
0.15
Reach Runoff
0.73
Hydraulics
0.34
Floodplain Connectivity
1.00
Geomorphology
Biology
Large Woody Debris
0.00
0.11
Lateral Stability 0.29
1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.20
0.61
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity 0.33
0.77
Plan Form 1.00
1.00
Physicochemical
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Biology
Macros
Fish
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP FFS - Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Change (%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 204
Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 261
Total Proposed FFS -Total Existing FFS 57
Functional Change (%) 28%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
Functional Category
ECS
PCS
Functional Change
Hydrology
0.73
0.73
0.00
Hydraulics
0.85
1.00
0.15
Geomorphology
0.36
0.70
UEL—
0.34
Physicochemical
Biology

Site Information and
Performance Standard Stratification
Project Name:
Meadow Brook
Reach ID:
UT to MB
Restoration Potential:
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type:
E
Proposed Stream Type:
C
Region:
Piedmont
Drainage Area (sgmi):
0.57
Proposed Bed Material:
Gravel
Existing Stream Length (ft):
396
Proposed Stream Length (ft):
703
Stream Slope (%):
0.48
Flow Type:
Perennial
River Basin:
Yadkin-PeeDee
Stream Temperature:
0.52
Data Collection Season:
Winter/Spring
Valley Type:
Unconfined Alluvial
Notes
1. Users input values that are highlighted bas
2. Users select values from a pull-down menu
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.30
Proposed Condition Score (PCS)
0.47
Change in Functional Condition (PCS - ECS)
0.17
Percent Condition Change
57%
Existing Stream Length (ft)
396
Proposed Stream Length (ft)
703
Additional Stream Length (ft)
307
Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)
119
Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)
330
Proposed FFS - Existing FFS
212
Functional Change (%)
178%
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP FFS - Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Change (%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing Stream FFS+ Existing BMP FFS 119
Proposed Stream FFS +Proposed BMP FFS 330
Total Proposed FFS-Total Existing FFS 211
Functional Change (%) 177%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
ECS
Functional Category
Functional Change
Function -Based Parameters
Existing Parameter
Proposed Parameter
Hydrology
Hydraulics
Geomorphology
Catchment Hydrology
0.15
0.63
Physicochemical
Reach Runoff 0.50
0.57
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
0.85
1.00
Geomorphology
Large Woody Debris
0.00
0.36
Lateral Stability 0.05
1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.00
0.52
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity 0.67
0.98
Plan Form
Temperature
0.00
.00
Physicochemical
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Biology
Macros
Fish
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP FFS - Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Change (%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing Stream FFS+ Existing BMP FFS 119
Proposed Stream FFS +Proposed BMP FFS 330
Total Proposed FFS-Total Existing FFS 211
Functional Change (%) 177%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
Functional Category
ECS
PCS
Functional Change
Hydrology
0.50
0.57
0.07
Hydraulics
Geomorphology
0.85 1.00
0.15
0.63
Physicochemical
Biology

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA Date of Assessment
10/6/17
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
T. Barrett
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Particulate Change
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Condition/Opportunity
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Habitat
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NA
Sub -function Rating Summary
Condition
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Retention Condition
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WB Date of Assessment
10/6/17
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
T. Barrett
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Condition/Opportunity
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Habitat
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NA
Sub -function Rating Summary
Condition
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Retention Condition
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WC Date of Assessment
10/6/17
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
T. Barrett
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Condition/Opportunity
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Habitat
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NA
Sub -function Rating Summary
Condition
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Retention Condition
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WD Date of Assessment
10/6/17
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
T. Barrett
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Condition/Opportunity
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Habitat
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NA
Sub -function Rating Summary
Condition
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Retention Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA Date of Assessment 10/6/17
Wetland Type Riverine Swamp Forest Assessor Name/Organization T. Barrett
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WB Date of Assessment 10/6/17
Wetland Type Riverine Swamp Forest Assessor Name/Organization T. Barrett
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WC Date of Assessment 10/6/17
Wetland Type Riverine Swamp Forest Assessor Name/Organization T. Barrett
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WD Date of Assessment 10/6/17
Wetland Type Riverine Swamp Forest Assessor Name/Organization T. Barrett
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

BANKFULL AREA REGIONAL CURVE DATA
MEADOW BROOK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
Drainage Area
(Sq.Mi.)
X -Sectional Area
(SF)
Reference
0.2
10.4
Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North
Carolina Streams. AWRA Wildland
Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited
by: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. . AWRA
Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
1.05
15.8
3.44
45.6
4.7
46.7
6.5
62.5
7.18
98.8
9.6
89.6
15.5
194
29.9
162
31.8
195
42.8
469
78.8
377
128
578
4
37.7
Harman, W.H. 2012. Revised Curve for
Piedmont Rural Streams using Surry County
Projects.
5
47.3
17
127.2
17.5
117.4
0.93
15.2
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Existing Conditions
1.51
22.7
1.7
29.3
0.56
11.4
0.93
19
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Proposed Conditions
1.51
23
1.7
26
0.56
14

1000Oil
BANKFULL AREA
Regional Curve for Bankfull Characteristics in Rural Piedmont, NC
000000
■
000
y = 21.43xo.6s
y = 15.886xo.�as2
00I100
NOe
■
Project Data Points
1999 Curve Data Points
Power (Rural Piedmont NC (Harman et al., 1999))
Power (Revised Curve - 2012)
...
pole
i
—4000
Q
I it
4—
�
m0001
04 000
.000
10
1
0.1 1 10
Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.)
•
•
•
Meadow Brook Project -Existing Conditions
Meadow Brook Project -Proposed Conditions
Surry
100 1000
■
Project Data Points
1999 Curve Data Points
Power (Rural Piedmont NC (Harman et al., 1999))
Power (Revised Curve - 2012)

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Meadow Brook
Meadow Brook
Riffle
01/06/2016
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
1
0.97
0.97
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
0.97
0.125 - 0.25
1
0.97
1.94
0.25 - 0.50
0
0.00
1.94
0.50 - 1.0
4
3.88
5.83
1.0 - 2.0
0
0.00
5.83
2.0 - 4.0
0
0.00
5.83
4.0 - 5.7
2
1.94
7.77
5.7 - 8.0
0
0.00
7.77
8.0 - 11.3
13
12.62
20.39
11.3 - 16.0
12
11.65
32.04
16.0 - 22.6
14
13.59
45.63
22.6 - 32.0
20
19.42
65.05
32 - 45
4
3.88
68.93
45 - 64
10
9.71
78.64
64 - 90
11
10.68
89.32
90 - 128
4
3.88
93.20
128 - 180
3
2.91
96.12
180 - 256
4
3.88
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
10.15
D35 (mm)
17.44
D50 (mm)
24.72
D84 (mm)
77.05
D95 (mm)
160.05
D100 (mm)
256
Silt/Clay (%)
0.97
Sand (%)
4.86
Gravel (%)
72.81
Cobble (%)
21.36
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total Particles = 103.

Riffle
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Tributary to Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Tributary to Meadow Brook
Sample Name: Riffle
Survey Date: 01/06/2016
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
1
0.91
0.91
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
0.91
0.125 - 0.25
0
0.00
0.91
0.25 - 0.50
1
0.91
1.82
0.50 - 1.0
3
2.73
4.55
1.0 - 2.0
3
2.73
7.27
2.0 - 4.0
0
0.00
7.27
4.0 - 5.7
1
0.91
8.18
5.7 - 8.0
0
0.00
8.18
8.0 - 11.3
6
5.45
13.64
11.3 - 16.0
3
2.73
16.36
16.0 - 22.6
16
14.55
30.91
22.6 - 32.0
20
18.18
49.09
32 - 45
11
10.00
59.09
45 - 64
20
18.18
77.27
64 - 90
12
10.91
88.18
90 - 128
4
3.64
91.82
128 - 180
5
4.55
96.36
180 - 256
1
0.91
97.27
256 - 362
3
2.73
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
15.38
D35 (mm)
24.71
D50 (mm)
33.18
D84 (mm)
80.04
D95 (mm)
164.42
D100 (mm)
362
Silt/Clay (%)
0.91
Sand (%)
6.36
Gravel (%)
70
Cobble (%)
20
Boulder (%)
2.73
Bedrock (%)
0
Total Particles = 110.

Riffle
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Meadow Brook
Meadow Brook
Subpavement
01/19/2016
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
63
2.33
31.5
3.47
16
2.81
8
2.48
4
1.45
2
0.92
PAN
3.96
D16 (mm)
2.23
D35 (mm)
16.46
D50 (mm)
41.35
D84 (mm)
121.79
D95 (mm)
148.06
D100 (mm)
160
Silt/Clay (%)
0
Sand (%)
15.58
Gravel (%)
44.49
Cobble (%)
39.93
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 25.4100.
Largest Surface Particles:
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1: 160 5.05
Particle 2: 120 2.94

Subpavement
1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Tributary to Meadow Brook
Reach Name: Tributary to Meadow Brook
Sample Name: UT to Meadow Brook Subpavement
Survey Date: 01/19/2016
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31.5
2.02
16
4.28
8
2.2
4
1.24
2
1.25
PAN
4.18
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
6.56
D50 (mm)
16.07
D84 (mm)
61.77
D95 (mm)
94.93
D100 (mm)
110
Silt/Clay (%)
0
Sand (%)
23.51
Gravel (%)
65.21
Cobble (%)
11.28
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 17.7800.

UT to Meadow Brook Subpavement
1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)

SEDIMENT ENTRAINMENT CALCULATIONS
MEADOW BROOK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
Particle SizeRiffle
Slope
Bankfull
Hydraulic
Design
Shear
Power
Velocity
Unit Power
d84
Subpavement
Stream Reach
Entrained
(ft/ft)
Area (SF)
Radius (ft)
Discharge (CFS)
(Ib/SF)
(Ib/s)
(ft/s)
(Ib/ft-s)
(mm)
Max (mm)
(mm)
Meadow Brook
0.0120
15.2
1.28
73
1.0
55
4.8
4.6
243
Reach 1
77
160
Meadow Brook
c
0.0070
22.7
1.67
100
0.7
43
4.4
3.2
186
Reach 2
W
Meadow Brook
0.0080
30.1
1.24
116
0.6
58
3.9
2.4
158
bed rock
Reach 3
UT
0.0200
11.4
1.46
77
1.8
97
6.8
12.4
459
80
53
Meadow Brook
0.0034
19.0
1.25
48
0.3
10
2.5
0.7
68
Reach 1
77
160
Meadow Brook
EA
a
Reach 2
0.0038
23.0
1.32
64
0.3
15
2.8
0.9
81
°
Meadow Brook
a
0.0066
26.0
1.40
99
0.6
41
3.8
2.2
148
bed rock
Reach 3
UT
0.0047
14.0
1.07
37
0.3
11
2.7
0.8
81
80
T 53

Appendix 5
NCDWR STREAM IDENTIFICATION FORMS

ar�
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:Project/Site:
l0 G 6
'`'�� '�'�
Latitude:
.
Evaluator:/? ��
County:
Longitude: -;56, 136
v '
1
2
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circ)
Other Il ,,,r.s
Stream is at least intermittent - f`
if z 19 or perennial if a 30' -% �. f
Ephemeral Intermitten erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ' �' )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
5 1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0 0.5
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool se uence
0
1
(f2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
Notes: i"sv,r Gt �,' ,aM;+�ti w�
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = I) `
Yes = 3
Sketch:
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= / Z> _ _)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2=
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
5 1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5
9
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1
3
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
. Q5 _
es = 3
C. Biolociv (Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
.-.0 -
1
2
3
22, Fish
0
. Q5 _
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
.5
1
1.5
24, Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25, Algae
2V
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Ofher
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: i"sv,r Gt �,' ,aM;+�ti w�
.-•.• �
Sketch:

Sa
NC DWQ Stream Identification Farm Version 4.11
Date: / !
C/ 4f
Project/Site, ' yf� °- /Z"' '
v 1 �1Li' t.•z !4.�� � t ✓r {J �.
Latitude:-�
4
Evaluator.41
County:
Longitude: gd g,,8
< <
2
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (clriclle_=Q,
Other
-"C%
Ephemeral Intermittent:eerennial
e.g" Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if z 30"
0
1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = "5- y
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
<f
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
-"C%
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
Y7
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
�1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8. Headcuts
2T
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
�-J- -
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
N6"= . `
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroioav (Subtotal
12, Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter`
} 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?
No = 0
;Yds = 3
1
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = ml- )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3/
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
<�'-
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
9],...-
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
;_0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
C0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
" .0_ "'
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
XF..'
1
1.5
25. Algae
777.7.
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 2f! er = ,
`perennial streams may also, be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: 0" y, ,�� � F !
� t .
�i
Sketch:

Appendix 6
USACE STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS

USAGE AID# DWQ # Site #1ndicate on attached map)
03 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: r
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name:1-v+ 11'1'6e11of-
f '
3. Date of evaluation: �[i(�' _ __� ..��yy4 Time of evaluation: CJI ahl
5. Name of stream: ()T-.{- S,,,;h' Poco Creon -r:5 l -l`•7.Z basin: _�-,XAA�r1
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: 1.411t-
9. Length of reach evaluated: . 10. County: i aj k ll
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): ot/i1.1�
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): $ g� Longitude (ex. -77.556611): s Hri 4f 4 t+
Method location determined (circle): GPS To Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GI Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
MOA <,v- U .
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Ic-C� r-7' 'i
15. Recent weather conditions: %-,Uh i1 cA {'
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway classificatioiis known:- _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed A—(I-lid
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the
ee�evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 27- % Residential % Commercial�% Industrial % Agricultural
?✓Z % Forested % Cleared 1 Logged -I- % Other ( 9 h r o WM 41 }
22. Bankfull width: O • {p { 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ?J,
24. Channel slope down center of stream: 4FIat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends `Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): cJ -T Comments:
Evaluator's Signature '� Date � 1 3 11
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
iE
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
0
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
r]
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment 1 floodplain access
0_ 5
0— 4
0— 2
p"
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max points
1
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
L�
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channetization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
d
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2—
a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks — max points)
�
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
Z
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
]impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
r
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
1
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
Z
(little or no habitat — 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
i
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site AC5*k- kmdicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _,ij4p
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: t�ri he_nnG
3. Date of evaluation: ILS 1(r I f f -�- 4. Time of evaluation: [ ` So arm
5. Name of stream: W 4- Z 6. River basin:Tr 1 47c'e- A'�
7. Approximate drainage area: �' 8. Stream order: �-
9. Length of reach evaluated:_ p�2 10. County: �2ra u n
11. Site coordinates (if rknown): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): IU �Cr
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle):
GP Topo She Ortho (En
�arksand
Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evalunote nearby roads an tach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if
�h nc� r
15. Recent weather conditions: r
16. Site conditions at time of visit: niot- Gtr'
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed ALL(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESADIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial a % Industrial J % Agricultural
aLzr% Forested (% Cleared / Logged _J_% Other( f2hrAfOlKd
22. Bankfull width: i • 3 t 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3. 1
24. Channel slope down center of stream:Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle {2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): LS 2—
Evaluator's Signature Date ! r
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
l
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
o—s
0-5
2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 — 4
0-5
D
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer= max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
Q
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
gg
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
J
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access44
0_ 5
0— 4
0— 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
S
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adi acent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
2
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
�
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
2
r�
14
Root depth and density on banks
fl 3
0-4
0-5
F,
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
d
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-poollripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
r
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
�
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NAS`
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
f
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
a
Q
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
Z
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
Z
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID#
DWQ #.
Site 4-126 (indicate on attached map)
C) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Acw
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:_ &p
3. Date of evaluation:l
5. Name of stream:- unp 5, V", cy",h- - 15s
7. Approximate drainage area: SLG , {"1- I -L-
9.
9. Length of reach evaluated: A
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
2. Evaluator's name: ;4 I Ay andt-
4. Time of evaluation: 7-OrA
6. River basin:Vad kA,n
8. Stream order:( 1 �-�
10. County: gd k4 -h
12. Subdivision name (if any): A)
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): _yL0 , 112- SS 2� Longitude (ex. -77.556611): " SO • Fsr $ 3 333 -
Method location determined (circle): GPS �opoShee, rtho (Aerial) Photo/GI Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (notoads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): rtA04Vr0l'f crt I e,?, hD�'1Cerrcf rtf�
15. Recent weather conditions: _5CM n, ,,(1,, -
16. Site conditions at time of visit: GLAh 1'1� �,jr•�
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed N (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 01f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 69 NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey. gi>o
21. Estimated watershed land use: k% Residential --L% Commercial 0 % Industrial �o/o Agricultural
`LZ% Forested -a% Cleared/ Logged -L% Other ( 5kt'1/ll orn d )
22. Bankfull width: CP - -�- 1 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): '2-. � f
24. Channel slope down center of stream: XFlat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of workshect (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Ibi-Comments:
Evaluator's Signature - ` ?���- -- Date ) (' / J ) /I }
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
�-
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0- 5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 - 4
0-5
Z
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
?�
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
y
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0_ 5
D- 4
0- 2
j
a
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
�(
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
T
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander - maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0- 4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment - max points)
I 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
i
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
Q
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
►-�
r-4
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2E*
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
r/n
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
0
(substantial impact =0, no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
l
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
Z
�
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
j
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
i
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
f
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0- 4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
Z
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Appendix 7
APPROVED FHWA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION REPORT

Iro.ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
September 28, 2017
Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Meadow Brook Stream Restoration
Yadkin County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project # 100024
Dear Mr. Tsomides,
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
Attached is the Categorical Exclusion Form for NCDMS Projects (Version 1.4) and associated
supporting documentation. The following is a brief discussion of applicable regulations and
associated coordination with the subject agencies, as appropriate.
Comprehensive Environmental Resources, Compensation and Liability Act
The June 2, 2017 EDR report did not identify any known or potential hazardous waste sites
within or adjacent to the project area.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
The North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation
Office (NCSHPO) did not identify historic resources that would be affected by the project. The
July 19, 2017 correspondence from NCSHPO is attached.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
Page 1 Paragraph 5 of the attached executed Option to Purchase Conservation Easement
informed the property owners that the acquiring entity does not have condemnation authority
and that fair market value is being offered for the easement.
Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty
Act
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was contacted June 21, 2017 requesting a response
within 45 days (correspondence attached). No response was received.

A Northern Long -Eared Bat (NLEB) 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form and figures are
attached for the FHWA to send to the USFWS. In the previous letter to the USFWS, dated June
21, 2017, the biological conclusion regarding the NLEB was that the project would have "No
Effect" on the NLEB habitat because the project area has no trees suitable for roosting and is
unlikely foraging habitat. However, further review of the site identified a few large trees just
outside of the proposed easement area that may be affected by the project, and the foraging
habitat for the NLEB covers a wide range of land uses; therefore, the biological conclusion was
revised "May Affect."
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) did not identify any federally or
state protected species within or adjacent to the project area. NCWRC recommends
establishing a native riparian buffer and minimizing sedimentation from construction practices.
These recommendations will be incorporated in the project design. The July 11, 2017
correspondence from NCWRC is attached.
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The completed NRCS Form AD -1006 is attached.
Please contact me at the above phone number or address with any questions.
Sincerely,
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Cc:
Paul Wiesner, Western Regional Supervisor, NCDMS, Asheville, NC
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for NC 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.
GeneralPart 1. Project• •
Project Name: Meadow Brook Stream Restoration
Count Name: Yadkin County
NCDMS Number: 100024
Project Sponsor: Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
Project Contact Name: Kevin Tweedy, PE
Project Contact Address: 559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 1601 -Raleigh NC 2761)6
Project Contact E-mail: ktweedygeprusa.net
NCDMS Project lVlana er: HnrLy Tsomides
Project Description
The project will involve the restoration of two unnamed tributaries to South Deep Creek,
both of which have significant cattle damage and have been channelized. Restoration
practices will involve raising the streambeds of the project streams and restoring them
back to their historic locations.
Reviewed By: For Official Use Only
©ate NCDMV 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
6 Version 1.4, 8116105

E 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 Liabilit 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, 8/16/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question ..
American Indian Reli ious 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
❑ No
® N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

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 locally
® 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 Management 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, 8/16/05

EDR REPORT

Meadow Brook
Marler Road
Hamptonville, NC 27020
Inquiry Number: 4954878.2s
June 02, 2017
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
(rEDR www.edrnet.com
FORM-LBD-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary
ES1
OverviewMap-----------------------------------------------------------
2
DetailMap--------------------------------------------------------------
3
Map Findings Summary
4
MapFindings------------------------------------------------------------
8
Orphan Summary---------------------------------------------------------
9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - GRA
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum
A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary
A-2
Physical Setting Source Map ------------------------------------------------
A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings ----------------------------------------
A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched
PSGR-1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2017 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC4954878.2s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
MARLER ROAD
HAMPTONVILLE, NC 27020
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
36.1414220 - 36° 8' 29.11"
80.8195390 - 80° 49' 10.34"
Zone 17
516235.8
3999448.5
1056 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 5947711 ELKIN SOUTH, NC
Version Date: 2013
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
Portions of Photo from: 20140524, 20140617
Source: USDA
TC4954878.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Target Property Address:
MARLER ROAD
HAMPTONVILLE, NC 27020
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
DATABASE ACRONYMS
RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ELEVATION DIRECTION
4954878.2s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL National Priority List
Proposed NPL---------------- Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY---------. Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS -ARCHIVE Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS------------------ Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG------------------ RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS--------. Engineering Controls Sites List
TC4954878.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS------------------------ Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST ------------------------- Regional UST Database
LAST Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST ----------------- State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST__________________________ AST Database
INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control/ engineering control registries
INST CONTROL No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP ------------------ Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
VCP Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS__________ A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
HIST LF Solid Waste Facility Listing
TC4954878.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SWRCY---------------------- Recycling Center Listing
INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI-------------------------- Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL---------------------- National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS-----------------------
Spills Incident Listing
IMD
Incident Management Database
SPILLS 90
SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80-------------------.
SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR
RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS
Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD-------------------------
Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR
Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST-----------.
EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION
2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS-------------------------
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD
Records Of Decision
RMP-------------------------
Risk Management Plans
RAATS
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP
Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS------------------------
PCB Activity Database System
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS
Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE
Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA--------------
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER
PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO
Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS-------------------
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS
Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV-------------
Indian Reservations
FUSRAP
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS ------------
Lead Smelter Sites
TC4954878.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US AIRS---------------------
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES
Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES
Abandoned Mines
FINDS ------------------------
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
DOCKET HWC
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
UXO
Unexploded Ordnance Sites
ECHO ------------------------
Enforcement & Compliance History Information
FUELS PROGRAM
EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
COAL ASH
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS--------------
Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance
Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES
NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC---------------------------
Underground Injection Wells Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner ------------- EDR Exclusive Historic Dry Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC4954878.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC4954878.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

OVERVIEW MAP - 4954878.2S
SITE NAME: Meadow Brook
Target Property
CLIENT: Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
0 114
1 /2 1 renes
A
Sites at elevations higher than
INQUIRY #: 4954878.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.141422 / 80.819539
or equal to the target property
Indian Reservations BIA
Hazardous Substance
Sites at elevations lower than;c
Power transmission lines
Disposal Sites
the target property
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
Ej
100-year flood zone
El
National Priority List Sites
Ej
500 year flood zone
Dept. Defense Sites
0
National Wetland Inventory
0
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Meadow Brook
CLIENT: Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
ADDRESS: Marler Road
CONTACT: Robert Lepsic
Hamptonville NC 27020
INQUIRY #: 4954878.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.141422 / 80.819539
DATE: June 02, 2017 11:10 am
Copyright cn 2017 EDR, Inc. n 2015 TornTom Rel. 2015,

DETAIL MAP - 4954878.2S
0 1/16 1/8 1/4 Miles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
100 -year flood zone Disposal Sites
500 -year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
0 State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Meadow Brook
Target Property
A
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
Hamptonville NC 27020
Sites at elevations lower than
INQUIRY #: 4954878.2s
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
t
Sensitive Receptors
Copyright cn 2017 EDR, Inc. n 2015 TornTom Rel. 2015.
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/16 1/8 1/4 Miles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
100 -year flood zone Disposal Sites
500 -year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
0 State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Meadow Brook
CLIENT: Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
ADDRESS: Marler Road
CONTACT: Robert Lepsic
Hamptonville NC 27020
INQUIRY #: 4954878.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.141422 / 80.819539
DATE: June 02, 2017 11:12 am
Copyright cn 2017 EDR, Inc. n 2015 TornTom Rel. 2015.

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database (Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2 - 1
> 1
Plotted
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Proposed NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
NPL LIENS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SEMS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS -ARCHIVE 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-SQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-CESQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries
LUCIS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US INST CONTROL 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal ERNS list
ERNS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
OLI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
TC4954878.2s Page 4

Database
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
(Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
LAST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LUST TRUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
US HIST CDL
TP
US CDL
TP
Local Land Records
0
FEMA UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
AST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
INDIAN UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
State and tribal institutional
control/ engineering control registries
INST CONTROL 0.500
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP 0.500
VCP 0.500
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS 0.500
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
0
US BROWNFIELDS
0.500
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
NR
HIST LF
0.500
S W RCY
0.500
INDIAN ODI
0.500
DEBRIS REGION 9
0.500
ODI
0.500
IHS OPEN DUMPS
0.500
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
Contaminated Sites
0
US HIST CDL
TP
US CDL
TP
Local Land Records
0
LIENS 2
TP
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS
TP
SPILLS
TP
I M D
0.500
SPILLS 90
TP
SPILLS 80
TP
Other Ascertainable Records
NR
RCRA NonGen / NLR
0.250
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
TC4954878.2s Page 5

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
=IQ;a:I lei: 1061:11:I611101 WTI a0*919] IR
EDR Exclusive Records
Search
EDR MGP 1.000
0
Distance Target
0
0
NR
0
EDR Hist Auto 0.125
Total
Database
(Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8 - 1/4
1/4 - 1/2
1/2 - 1
> 1
Plotted
FUDS
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
DOD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US FIN ASSUR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EPA WATCH LIST
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
2020 COR ACTION
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
TSCA
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
TRIS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SSTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ROD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
RMP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RAATS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PRP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PADS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ICIS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FTTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
MLTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH DOE
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH EPA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
PCB TRANSFORMER
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RADINFO
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
HIST FTTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
DOT OPS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
CONSENT
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
INDIAN RESERV
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
FUSRAP
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
UMTRA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LEAD SMELTERS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US AIRS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US MINES
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
ABANDONED MINES
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
FINDS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
DOCKET HWC
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
UXO
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
ECHO
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FUELS PROGRAM
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DRYCLEANERS
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Financial Assurance
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
NPDES
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
UIC
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
=IQ;a:I lei: 1061:11:I611101 WTI a0*919] IR
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
EDR Hist Auto 0.125
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EDR Hist Cleaner 0.125
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
TC4954878.2s Page 6

Database
RGA LF
RGA LUST
- Totals --
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
(Miles) Property
TP
TP
0
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC4954878.2s Page 7
Total
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1
Plotted
NR
NR
NR NR NR
0
NR
NR
NR NR NR
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
TC4954878.2s Page 7

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
NO SITES FOUND
TC4954878.2s Page 8

N
_T
U

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency
on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required.
Number of Days to Update: Provides confirmation that EDR is reporting records that have been updated within 90 days
from the date the government agency made the information available to the public.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL: National Priority List
National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority
cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon
coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) and regional EPA offices.
Date of Government Version: 04/05/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/21/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 21
NPL Site Boundaries
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/21/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/17/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Sources:
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC)
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 1
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 3
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 4
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 5
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 10
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
A site that has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List through the issuance of a proposed rule
in the Federal Register. EPA then accepts public comments on the site, responds to the comments, and places on
the NPL those sites that continue to meet the requirements for listing.
Date of Government Version: 04/05/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/21/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 21
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/21/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/17/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by CERCLA of 1980, the USEPA has the authority
to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner
received notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens.
Date of Government Version: 10/15/1991
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/02/1994
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/1994
Number of Days to Update: 56
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/15/2011
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/28/2011
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC4954878.2s Page GR -1

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL: National Priority List Deletions
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.
Date of Government Version: 04/05/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/21/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 21
Federal CERCLIS list
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/21/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/17/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FEDERAL FACILITY: Federal Facility Site Information listing
A listing of National Priority List (NPL) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites found in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Database where EPA Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse Office is involved in cleanup activities.
Date of Government Version: 11/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/05/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 92
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/17/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
SEMS: Superfund Enterprise Management System
SEMS (Superfund Enterprise Management System) tracks hazardous waste sites, potentially hazardous waste sites,
and remedial activities performed in support of EPA's Superfund Program across the United States. The list was
formerly know as CERCLIS, renamed to SEMS by the EPA in 2015. The list contains data on potentially hazardous
waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons,
pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
This dataset also contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and the
sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Date of Government Version: 02/07/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/19/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 16
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/21/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/31/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SEMS -ARCHIVE: Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
TC4954878.2s Page GR -2

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SEMS -ARCHIVE (Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive) tracks sites that have no further interest under
the Federal Superfund Program based on available information. The list was formerly known as the CERCLIS-NFRAP,
renamed to SEMS ARCHIVE by the EPA in 2015. EPA may perform a minimal level of assessment work at a site while
it is archived if site conditions change and/or new information becomes available. Archived sites have been removed
and archived from the inventory of SEMS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPA's knowledge,
assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list the
site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or
other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. The decision does not necessarily mean
that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that. based upon available information, the
location is not judged to be potential NPL site.
Date of Government Version: 02/07/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/19/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 16
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/25/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/31/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA-TSDF: RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Transporters are individuals or entities that
move hazardous waste from the generator offsite to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the
waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Federal RCRA generators list
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA-LQG: RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Large quantity generators (LQGs) generate
over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC4954878.2s Page GR -3

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
RCRA-SQG: RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate
between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA-CESQG: RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators
(CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Federal institutional controls /engineering controls registries
LUCIS: Land Use Control Information System
LUCIS contains records of land use control information pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and Closure
properties.
Date of Government Version: 12/28/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/04/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 93
Source: Department of the Navy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/15/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/28/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Sites List
A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building
foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental
media or effect human health.
Date of Government Version: 11/15/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/29/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017
Number of Days to Update: 66
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/31/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US INST CONTROL: Sites with Institutional Controls
A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures,
such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post remediation
care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally
required as part of the institutional controls.
Date of Government Version: 11/15/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/29/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017
Number of Days to Update: 66
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/31/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC4954878.2s Page GR -4

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Federal ERNS list
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Date of Government Version: 09/26/2016 Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/29/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 03/29/2017
Number of Days to Update: 43 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
HSDS: Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
Locations of uncontrolled and unregulated hazardous waste sites. The file includes sites on the National Priority
List as well as those on the state priority list.
Date of Government Version: 08/09/2011 Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/08/2011 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/05/2011 Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2017
Number of Days to Update: 27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Biennially
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS: Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites
may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds
(state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. Available information varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/15/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 03/15/2017
Number of Days to Update: 81 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/26/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF: List of Solid Waste Facilities
Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities
or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal
sites.
Date of Government Version: 11/17/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2017
Number of Days to Update: 70 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
OLI: Old Landfill Inventory
Old landfill inventory location information. (Does not include no further action sites and other agency lead
sites).
Date of Government Version: 08/08/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/17/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2017
Number of Days to Update: 50 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC4954878.2s Page GR -5

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST: Regional UST Database
This database contains information obtained from the Regional Offices. It provides a more detailed explanation
of current and historic activity for individual sites, as well as what was previously found in the Incident Management
Database. Sites in this database with Incident Numbers are considered LUSTS.
Date of Government Version: 11/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/09/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 05/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 117 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
LAST: Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
A listing of leaking aboveground storage tank site locations.
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/09/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 05/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 117 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R5: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Leaking underground storage tanks located on Indian Land in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Date of Government Version: 11/14/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA, Region 5
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTS on Indian land in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 10
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Nevada
Date of Government Version: 10/06/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
Date of Government Version: 10/17/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska
TC4954878.2s Page GR -6

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/01/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in New Mexico and Oklahoma.
Date of Government Version: 10/01/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: 10/14/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/27/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 98
Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land.
Date of Government Version: 11/14/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
LUST TRUST: State Trust Fund Database
This database contains information about claims against the State Trust Funds for reimbursements for expenses
incurred while remediating Leaking USTs.
Date of Government Version: 01/06/2017 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/12/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 04/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 53 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/31/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST: Underground Storage Tank Listing
A listing of all FEMA owned underground storage tanks.
Date of Government Version: 01/01/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/16/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2010
Number of Days to Update: 55
Source: FEMA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
UST: Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available
information varies by state program.
TC4954878.2s Page GR -7

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/09/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 05/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 117 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
AST: AST Database
Facilities with aboveground storage tanks that have a capacity greater than 21,000 gallons.
Date of Government Version: 09/26/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/30/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 03/20/2017
Number of Days to Update: 66 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/03/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 10
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 10/06/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 10/17/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and 9 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 09/01/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 5 (Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin and Tribal Nations).
TC4954878.2s Page GR -8

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 01/14/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 5
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 6 (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas and 65 Tribes).
Date of Government Version: 10/01/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
and Tribal Nations)
Date of Government Version: 10/14/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/27/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 98
Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and ten Tribal
Nations).
Date of Government Version: 11/14/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA, Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
State and tribal institutional control/ engineering control registries
INST CONTROL: No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
A land use restricted site is a property where there are limits or requirements on future use of the property
due to varying levels of cleanup possible, practical, or necessary at the site.
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/15/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 03/15/2017
Number of Days to Update: 81 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/26/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Responsible Party Voluntary Action site locations.
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/15/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 03/15/2017
Number of Days to Update: 83 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/26/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
TC4954878.2s Page GR -9

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
INDIAN VCP R1: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 1.
Date of Government Version: 07/27/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/29/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 142
Source: EPA, Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN VCP R7: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Lisitng
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 7.
Date of Government Version: 03/20/2008
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2008
Number of Days to Update: 27
State and tribal Brownfields sites
Source: EPA, Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009
Data Release Frequency: Varies
BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Projects Inventory
A brownfield site is an abandoned, idled, or underused property where the threat of environmental contamination
has hindered its redevelopment. All of the sites in the inventory are working toward a brownfield agreement for
cleanup and liabitliy control.
Date of Government Version: 01/03/2017 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/06/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 04/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 59 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/17/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence
or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these
properties takes development pressures off of undeveloped, open land, and both improves and protects the environment.
Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) stores information reported by EPA Brownfields
grant recipients on brownfields properties assessed or cleaned up with grant funding as well as information on
Targeted Brownfields Assessments performed by EPA Regions. A listing of ACRES Brownfield sites is obtained from
Cleanups in My Community. Cleanups in My Community provides information on Brownfields properties for which information
is reported back to EPA, as well as areas served by Brownfields grant programs.
Date of Government Version: 03/02/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/02/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/02/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/03/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY: Recycling Center Listing
A listing of recycling center locations.
Date of Government Version: 11/30/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/05/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 05/01/2017
Number of Days to Update: 93 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/14/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC4954878.2s Page GR -10

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
HIST LF: Solid Waste Facility Listing
A listing of solid waste facilities.
Date of Government Version: 11/06/2006 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/13/2007 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/02/2007 Last EDR Contact: 01/19/2009
Number of Days to Update: 17 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
INDIAN ODI: Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
Location of open dumps on Indian land.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/1998
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/03/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/24/2008
Number of Days to Update: 52
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/01/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/14/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
DEBRIS REGION 9: Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
A listing of illegal dump sites location on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located in eastern Riverside
County and northern Imperial County, California.
Date of Government Version: 01/12/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/21/2009
Number of Days to Update: 137
Source: EPA, Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/24/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
ODI: Open Dump Inventory
An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258
Subtitle D Criteria.
Date of Government Version: 06/30/1985
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/09/2004
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/17/2004
Number of Days to Update: 39
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2004
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
IHS OPEN DUMPS: Open Dumps on Indian Land
A listing of all open dumps located on Indian Land in the United States.
Date of Government Version: 04/01/2014 Source: Department of Health & Human Serivices, Indian Health Service
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/06/2014 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015 Last EDR Contact: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 176 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/14/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL: National Clandestine Laboratory Register
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations that have been removed from the DEAs National Clandestine Laboratory
Register.
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/05/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/12/2017
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC4954878.2s Page GR -11

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
US CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this
web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported
they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites.
In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry
and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example,
contacting local law enforcement and local health departments.
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/05/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 67
Local Land Records
Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/31/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
LIENS 2: CERCLA Lien Information
A Federal CERCLA ('Superfund') lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent
Superfund monies. These monies are spent to investigate and address releases and threatened releases of contamination.
CERCLIS provides information as to the identity of these sites and properties.
Date of Government Version: 02/18/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/18/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/24/2014
Number of Days to Update: 37
Records of Emergency Release Reports
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/21/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT.
Date of Government Version: 12/28/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017
Number of Days to Update: 37
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/29/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
SPILLS: Spills Incident Listing
A listing spills, hazardous material releases, sanitary sewer overflows, wastewater treatment plant bypasses and
upsets, citizen complaints, and any other environmental emergency calls reported to the agency.
Date of Government Version: 12/14/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/16/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 03/13/2017
Number of Days to Update: 82 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/26/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
IMD: Incident Management Database
Groundwater and/or soil contamination incidents
Date of Government Version: 07/21/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/01/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/23/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/01/2011
Number of Days to Update: 22 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/17/2011
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
SPILLS 90: SPILLS90 data from FirstSearch
Spills 90 includes those spill and release records available exclusively from FirstSearch databases. Typically,
they may include chemical, oil and/or hazardous substance spills recorded after 1990. Duplicate records that are
already included in EDR incident and release records are not included in Spills 90.
TC4954878.2s Page GR -12

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/27/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2013
Number of Days to Update: 62
Source: FirstSearch
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 01/03/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
SPILLS 80: SPILLS80 data from FirstSearch
Spills 80 includes those spill and release records available from FirstSearch databases prior to 1990. Typically,
they may include chemical, oil and/or hazardous substance spills recorded before 1990. Duplicate records that
are already included in EDR incident and release records are not included in Spills 80.
Date of Government Version: 06/14/2001
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2013
Number of Days to Update: 62
Other Ascertainable Records
Source: FirstSearch
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 01/03/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
RCRA NonGen / NLR: RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non -Generators do not presently generate hazardous
waste.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites
The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers
is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions.
Date of Government Version: 01/31/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/08/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 97
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/24/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/05/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
DOD: Department of Defense Sites
This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that
have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/10/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 62
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
FEDLAND: Federal and Indian Lands
Federally and Indian administrated lands of the United States. Lands included are administrated by: Army Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, National Wild and Scenic River, National Wildlife Refuge, Public Domain Land,
Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Wildlife Management Area, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of Justice, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 339
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Data Release Frequency: N/A
TC4954878.2s Page GR -13

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SCRD DRYCLEANERS: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. EPA Office
of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. It is comprised of representatives of states with established
drycleaner remediation programs. Currently the member states are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
Date of Government Version: 01/01/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/03/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 63
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/19/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/28/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US FIN ASSUR: Financial Assurance Information
All owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are required to provide
proof that they will have sufficient funds to pay for the clean up, closure, and post -closure care of their facilities.
Date of Government Version: 02/13/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 86
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/28/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
EPA WATCH LIST: EPA WATCH LIST
EPA maintains a "Watch List' to facilitate dialogue between EPA, state and local environmental agencies on enforcement
matters relating to facilities with alleged violations identified as either significant or high priority. Being
on the Watch List does not mean that the facility has actually violated the law only that an investigation by
EPA or a state or local environmental agency has led those organizations to allege that an unproven violation
has in fact occurred. Being on the Watch List does not represent a higher level of concern regarding the alleged
violations that were detected, but instead indicates cases requiring additional dialogue between EPA, state and
local agencies - primarily because of the length of time the alleged violation has gone unaddressed or unresolved.
Date of Government Version: 08/30/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/17/2014
Number of Days to Update: 88
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/08/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
2020 COR ACTION: 2020 Corrective Action Program List
The EPA has set ambitious goals for the RCRA Corrective Action program by creating the 2020 Corrective Action
Universe. This RCRA cleanup baseline includes facilities expected to need corrective action. The 2020 universe
contains a wide variety of sites. Some properties are heavily contaminated while others were contaminated but
have since been cleaned up. Still others have not been fully investigated yet, and may require little or no remediation.
Inclusion in the 2020 Universe does not necessarily imply failure on the part of a facility to meet its RCRA obligations.
Date of Government Version: 04/22/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 6
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/05/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant
site.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/15/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015
Number of Days to Update: 14
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/24/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/03/2017
Data Release Frequency: Every 4 Years
TC4954878.2s Page GR -14

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and
land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/24/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016
Number of Days to Update: 133
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/26/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems
Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all
registered pesticide -producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March
1 st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices
being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/10/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/25/2011
Number of Days to Update: 77
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/26/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
ROD: Records Of Decision
Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical
and health information to aid in the cleanup.
Date of Government Version: 11/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/12/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/24/2014
Number of Days to Update: 74
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/06/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/19/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
RMP: Risk Management Plans
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance
for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The Risk Management Program
Rule (RMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of these amendments. The rule, which built upon existing
industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances
to develop a Risk Management Program, which includes a(n): Hazard assessment that details the potential effects
of an accidental release, an accident history of the last five years, and an evaluation of worst-case and alternative
accidental releases; Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee
training measures; and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures
and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e.g the fire department) should an accident occur.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/09/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 57
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/21/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA
pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration
actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of
the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources
made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database.
Date of Government Version: 04/17/1995
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/03/1995
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/07/1995
Number of Days to Update: 35
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/02/2008
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/01/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC4954878.2s Page GR -15

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
PRP: Potentially Responsible Parties
A listing of verified Potentially Responsible Parties
Date of Government Version: 10/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/17/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014
Number of Days to Update: 3
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/09/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
PADS: PCB Activity Database System
PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers
of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities.
Date of Government Version: 01/20/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/02/2016
Number of Days to Update: 127
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/10/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System
The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) supports the information needs of the national enforcement
and compliance program as well as the unique needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program.
Date of Government Version: 11/18/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/23/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 79
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/10/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the
Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009 Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Last EDR Contact: 05/19/2017
Number of Days to Update: 25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
A listing of FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) inspections and enforcements.
Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009
Number of Days to Update: 25
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/19/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which
possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency,
EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 08/30/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/08/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/21/2016
Number of Days to Update: 43
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/08/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC4954878.2s Page GR -16

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
COAL ASH DOE: Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
A listing of power plants that store ash in surface ponds.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/22/2009
Number of Days to Update: 76
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/06/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/19/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
COAL ASH EPA: Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
A listing of coal combustion residues surface impoundments with high hazard potential ratings.
Date of Government Version: 07/01/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/10/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 03/06/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/19/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
PCB TRANSFORMER: PCB Transformer Registration Database
The database of PCB transformer registrations that includes all PCB registration submittals.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/19/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2012
Number of Days to Update: 83
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
RADINFO: Radiation Information Database
The Radiation Information Database (RADINFO) contains information about facilities that are regulated by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for radiation and radioactivity.
Date of Government Version: 01/04/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/06/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 35
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/06/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/17/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
HIST FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
A complete administrative case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA regions. The
information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation of FIFRA
(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some EPA regions
are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters
with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included
in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated.
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2007
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
HIST FTTS INSP: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Inspection & Enforcement Case Listing
A complete inspection and enforcement case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA
regions. The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation
of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some
EPA regions are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing
EPA Headquarters with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that
may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated.
TC4954878.2s Page GR -17

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2008
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
DOT OPS: Incident and Accident Data
Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data.
Date of Government Version: 07/31/2012 Source: Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2012 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2012 Last EDR Contact: 05/02/2017
Number of Days to Update: 42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/14/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released
periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters.
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2016 Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/18/2016 Telephone: Varies
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017 Last EDR Contact: 03/27/2017
Number of Days to Update: 77 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
BRS: Biennial Reporting System
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG)
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/24/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/30/2015
Number of Days to Update: 218
Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/26/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Biennially
INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations
This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater
than 640 acres.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/14/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 546
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
FUSRAP: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
DOE established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1974 to remediate sites where
radioactive contamination remained from Manhattan Project and early U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations.
Date of Government Version: 12/23/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/27/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/17/2017
Number of Days to Update: 52
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/05/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs. When the mills
shut down, large piles of the sand -like material (mill tailings) remain after uranium has been extracted from
the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low; however, in some cases tailings
were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized.
TC4954878.2s Page GR -18

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/14/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/07/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 146
LEAD SMELTER 1: Lead Smelter Sites
A listing of former lead smelter site locations.
Date of Government Version: 12/05/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/05/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/22/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/21/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/17/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
LEAD SMELTER 2: Lead Smelter Sites
A list of several hundred sites in the U.S. where secondary lead smelting was done from 1931 and 1964. These sites
may pose a threat to public health through ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil or dust
Date of Government Version: 04/05/2001
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/02/2010
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: American Journal of Public Health
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 12/02/2009
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
US AIRS (AFS): Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem (AFS)
The database is a sub -system of Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). AFS contains compliance data
on air pollution point sources regulated by the U.S. EPA and/or state and local air regulatory agencies. This
information comes from source reports by various stationary sources of air pollution, such as electric power plants,
steel mills, factories, and universities, and provides information about the air pollutants they produce. Action,
air program, air program pollutant, and general level plant data. It is used to track emissions and compliance
data from industrial plants.
Date of Government Version: 10/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/26/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017
Number of Days to Update: 100
US AIRS MINOR: Air Facility System Data
A listing of minor source facilities.
Date of Government Version: 10/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/26/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017
Number of Days to Update: 100
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/07/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/07/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
US MINES: Mines Master Index File
Contains all mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971. The data also includes
violation information.
Date of Government Version: 02/08/2017 Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/28/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017 Last EDR Contact: 05/31/2017
Number of Days to Update: 38 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
US MINES 2: Ferrous and Nonferrous Metal Mines Database Listing
This map layer includes ferrous (ferrous metal mines are facilities that extract ferrous metals, such as iron
ore or molybdenum) and nonferrous (Nonferrous metal mines are facilities that extract nonferrous metals, such
as gold, silver, copper, zinc, and lead) metal mines in the United States.
TC4954878.2s Page GR -19

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 12/05/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/29/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2008
Number of Days to Update: 49
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/31/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US MINES 3: Active Mines & Mineral Plants Database Listing
Active Mines and Mineral Processing Plant operations for commodities monitored by the Minerals Information Team
of the USGS.
Date of Government Version: 04/14/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/08/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/13/2011
Number of Days to Update: 97
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/03/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/12/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
ABANDONED MINES: Abandoned Mines
An inventory of land and water impacted by past mining (primarily coal mining) is maintained by OSMRE to provide
information needed to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The inventory
contains information on the location, type, and extent of AML impacts, as well as, information on the cost associated
with the reclamation of those problems. The inventory is based upon field surveys by State, Tribal, and OSMRE
program officials. It is dynamic to the extent that it is modified as new problems are identified and existing
problems are reclaimed.
Date of Government Version: 03/14/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 21
Source: Department of Interior
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/13/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/26/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric
Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C -DOCKET (Criminal
Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities
Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System).
Date of Government Version: 04/04/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 35
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/19/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
ECHO: Enforcement & Compliance History Information
ECHO provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for about 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide.
Date of Government Version: 03/19/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 52
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/21/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/03/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
DOCKET HWC: Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
A complete list of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 06/02/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/03/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/02/2016
Number of Days to Update: 91
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC4954878.2s Page GR -20

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
UXO: Unexploded Ordnance Sites
A listing of unexploded ordnance site locations
Date of Government Version: 10/25/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/29/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016
Number of Days to Update: 67
Source: Department of Defense
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/22/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/31/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
FUELS PROGRAM: EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
This listing includes facilities that are registered under the Part 80 (Code of Federal Regulations) EPA Fuels
Programs. All companies now are required to submit new and updated registrations.
Date of Government Version: 02/22/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/22/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 79
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
COAL ASH: Coal Ash Disposal Sites
A listing of coal combustion products distribution permits issued by the Division for the treatment, storage,
transportation, use and disposal of coal combustion products.
Date of Government Version: 12/14/2015 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/23/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/18/2016 Last EDR Contact: 05/15/2017
Number of Days to Update: 85 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/14/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaning Sites
Potential and known drycleaning sites, active and abandoned, that the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program has
knowledge of and entered into this database.
Date of Government Version: 06/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/22/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/01/2016 Last EDR Contact: 03/24/2017
Number of Days to Update: 71 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/03/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Financial Assurance 1: Financial Assurance Information Listing
A listing of financial assurance information for underground storage tank facilities. Financial assurance is intended
to ensure that resources are available to pay for the cost of closure, post -closure care, and corrective measures
if the owner or operator of a regulated facility is unable or unwilling to pay.
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/09/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 05/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 117 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Financial Assurance 2: Financial Assurance Information Listing
Information for solid waste facilities. Financial assurance is intended to ensure that resources are available
to pay for the cost of closure, post -closure care, and corrective measures if the owner or operator of a regulated
facility is unable or unwilling to pay.
Date of Government Version: 10/02/2012 Source: Department of Environmental & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/03/2012 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/26/2012 Last EDR Contact: 03/27/2017
Number of Days to Update: 23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/10/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC4954878.2s Page GR -21

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Financial Assurance 3: Financial Assurance Information
Hazardous waste financial assurance information.
Date of Government Version: 09/14/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/16/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/05/2016 Last EDR Contact: 03/13/2017
Number of Days to Update: 19 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/26/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
NPDES: NPDES Facility Location Listing
General information regarding NPDES(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits.
Date of Government Version: 02/17/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/19/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/03/2016 Last EDR Contact: 05/29/2017
Number of Days to Update: 74 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/14/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
UIC: Underground Injection Wells Listing
A listing of uncerground injection wells locations.
Date of Government Version: 12/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/09/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 03/06/2017
Number of Days to Update: 89 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/19/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP: EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
The EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plant Database includes records of coal gas plants (manufactured gas plants)
compiled by EDR's researchers. Manufactured gas sites were used in the United States from the 1800's to 1950's
to produce a gas that could be distributed and used as fuel. These plants used whale oil, rosin, coal, or a mixture
of coal, oil, and water that also produced a significant amount of waste. Many of the byproducts of the gas production,
such as coal tar (oily waste containing volatile and non-volatile chemicals), sludges, oils and other compounds
are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. The byproduct from this process was frequently
disposed of directly at the plant site and can remain or spread slowly, serving as a continuous source of soil
and groundwater contamination.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: EDR, Inc.
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
EDR Hist Auto: EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited
to those categories of sources that might, in EDR's opinion, include gas station/filling station/service station
establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station,
filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station, service station, etc. This database falls within
a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR's HRHR effort presents
unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental concerns,
but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A
Source: EDR, Inc.
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: N/A
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC4954878.2s Page GR -22

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EDR Hist Cleaner: EDR Exclusive Historic Dry Cleaners
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited to those categories of sources
that might, in EDR's opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were
not limited to dry cleaners, cleaners, laundry, laundromat, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry etc. This database falls
within a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR's HRHR effort
presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental
concerns, but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: EDR, Inc.
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS: Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
The EDR Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste database provides a list of SHWS incidents derived
from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists. Compiled
from Records formerly available from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/24/2013 Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 176 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
RGA LF: Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
The EDR Recovered Government Archive Landfill database provides a list of landfills derived from historical databases
and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists. Compiled from Records formerly available
from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/13/2014 Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 196 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
RGA LUST: Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
The EDR Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank database provides a list of LUST incidents
derived from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists.
Compiled from Records formerly available from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North
Carolina.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/20/2013 Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 172 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
OTHER DATABASE(S)
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be
complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the
area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily
mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.
TC4954878.2s Page GR -23

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through
transporters to a tsd facility.
Date of Government Version: 07/30/2013 Source: Department of Energy & Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/19/2013 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/03/2013 Last EDR Contact: 05/15/2017
Number of Days to Update: 45 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/28/2017
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
NJ MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2015 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/29/2016 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/03/2017 Last EDR Contact: 04/11/2017
Number of Days to Update: 96 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data
Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD
facility.
Date of Government Version: 01/30/2017 Source: Department of Environmental Conservation
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/01/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/13/2017 Last EDR Contact: 05/03/2017
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/14/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2015 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/22/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/22/2016 Last EDR Contact: 04/18/2017
Number of Days to Update: 123 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/31/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
RI MANIFEST: Manifest information
Hazardous waste manifest information
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Management
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/19/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/15/2015 Last EDR Contact: 05/22/2017
Number of Days to Update: 26 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/14/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/03/2016
Number of Days to Update: 50
Source: Department of Natural Resources
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 03/13/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/26/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Oil/Gas Pipelines
Source: PennWell Corporation
Petroleum Bundle (Crude Oil, Refined Products, Petrochemicals, Gas Liquids (LPG/NGL), and Specialty
Gases (Miscellaneous)) N = Natural Gas Bundle (Natural Gas, Gas Liquids (LPG/NGL), and Specialty Gases
(Miscellaneous)). This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information
is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant
its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell.
Electric Power Transmission Line Data
Source: PennWell Corporation
This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided on a best
effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any
particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell.
TC4954878.2s Page GR -24

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity
to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all
sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers,
and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located.
AHA Hospitals:
Source: American Hospital Association, Inc.
Telephone: [phone]
The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals.
Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Telephone: [phone]
A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services,
a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Nursing Homes
Source: National Institutes of Health
Telephone: [phone]
Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States.
Public Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: [phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on elementary
and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical
database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are
comparable across all states.
Private Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: [phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on private school locations in the United States.
Daycare Centers: Child Care Facility List
Source: Department of Health & Human Services
Telephone: [phone]
Flood Zone Data: This data was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It depicts 100 -year and
500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA. It includes the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) which incorporates Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data and Q3 data from FEMA in areas not covered by NFHL.
Source: FEMA
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 2003, 2015
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetland Inventory
Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
Telephone: [phone]
Current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
TC4954878.2s Page GR -25

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2015 TomTom North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.
TC4954878.2s Page GR -26

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
MEADOW BROOK
MARLER ROAD
HAMPTONVILLE, NC 27020
TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Target Property Map:
Version Date:
36.141422 - 36° 8'29.12"
80.819539 - 80° 49' 10.34"
Zone 17
516235.8
3999448.5
1056 ft. above sea level
5947711 ELKIN SOUTH, NC
2013
EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in
forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.
Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principal investigative components:
1. Groundwater flow direction, and
2. Groundwater flow velocity.
Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics
of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the
geologic strata.
TC4954878.2s Page A-1

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other
sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data
collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,
should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY
General Topographic Gradient: General ESE
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES
North
TP
South
oO o 0
W O O N O W
W- - - - - - - - - -
West I East
TP
0 1/2 1 Miles
Target Property Elevation: 1056 ft.
Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated
on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified.
TC4954878.2s Page A-2
W.
O
- . -
. - .
- . -
. -
. - . - .
O N
- . - .
O
-
O
pOj
- .
V
- . -
�
. - .
- .
- . -
. - .
- . -
. - . - .
North
TP
South
oO o 0
W O O N O W
W- - - - - - - - - -
West I East
TP
0 1/2 1 Miles
Target Property Elevation: 1056 ft.
Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated
on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified.
TC4954878.2s Page A-2

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist
the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways
and bodies of water).
FEMA FLOOD ZONE
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property
3710486600J
Additional Panels in search area:
3710486800J
3710484600K
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
NWI Quad at Target Property
ELKIN SOUTH
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
FEMA Source Type
FEMA FIRM Flood data
FEMA Source Type
FEMA FIRM Flood data
FEMA FIRM Flood data
NWI Electronic
Data Coverage
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map
Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator
of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the
environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
AQUIFLOW®
Search Radius: 1.000 Mile.
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory
authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined
hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.
LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION
MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW
Not Reported
TC4954878.2s Page A-3

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary
to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil
characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes
move more quickly through sandy -gravelly types of soils than silty -clayey types of soils.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed
at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT
HX0]116ZH[ow_[r]=1I9];1.1111a W -A IWki
Era: Paleozoic Category: Plutonic and Intrusive Rocks
System: Ordovian
Series: Lower Paleozoic granitic rocks
Code: Pzg1 (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology
of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman
Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil
Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information
for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns
in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps.
The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data.
Soil Component Name: CECIL
Soil Surface Texture: sandy clay loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained. Soils have intermediate water holding capacity. Depth to
water table is more than 6 feet.
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: HIGH
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 60 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 60 inches
TC4954878.2s Page A-4

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
Permeability
Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr)
(pH)
1
0 inches
7 inches
sandy clay loam
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 2.00
Max: 6.50
Materials (more
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 0.60
Min: 4.50
than 35 pct.
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Silty Sand.
200), Silty
Soils.
2
7 inches
11 inches
sandy clay loam
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 2.00
Max: 5.50
Materials (more
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 0.60
Min: 4.50
than 35 pct.
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Silty Sand.
200), Silty
Soils.
3
11 inches
50 inches
clay
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 2.00
Max: 5.50
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 0.60
Min: 4.50
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit 50% or
200), Clayey
more), Elastic
Soils.
silt.
4
50 inches
75 inches
variable
Not reported
Not reported
Max: 0.00
Max: 0.00
Min: 0.00
Min: 0.00
OTHER SOIL TYPES IN AREA
Based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data, the following additional subordinant soil types may
appear within the general area of target property.
Soil Surface Textures: sandy loam
loam
clay loam
silt loam
very channery - silt loam
gravelly - sandy loam
Surficial Soil Types: sandy loam
loam
clay loam
silt loam
very channery - silt loam
gravelly - sandy loam
Shallow Soil Types: sandy clay
silt loam
silty clay loam
clay
very channery - silt loam
loam
Deeper Soil Types: silty clay loam
weathered bedrock
fine sandy loam
unweathered bedrock
sandy clay loam
TC4954878.2s Page A-5

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental
professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an
opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.
WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)
Federal USGS 1.000
Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile
State Database 1.000
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
1 USGS40000894107 1/2 - 1 Mile SSW
FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No PWS System Found
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No Wells Found
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE ELEMENT OCCURRENCES
ID Class
NC50009230 Plants
TC4954878.2s Page A-6

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 4954878.2s
° DO o
0 0 �o
a 0 0 0 °
0
a°� o ° °c) a
0
a CD o
a
O
o a o o
° o 0 o
o p o o o 0o O D O
o b° O
0
o o O a 0 O o OOc
0 0
a°
<Da o
ll Oo O
o 0 0o 0 0
a Q O
O o
p 0 0 ° a O O
0
C')0 0 0 oa0 0
o a ° o
ao a °
O a o 0 0 0 00
a
D
�
oo o 0.I o
o - o 0
00 0
o 0 O
0 0 �� o 00 O Oo
00 0 � �
O oo aoo 0�0 o
0 o a 0 0
o
.
o
- o a
a o0
0
o� o 0 0 � o0 oao a0
o �
C)
0 0 0
0 Q ti
o 0 1p80 0
Q0.
County Boundary
// Major Roads
// Contour Lines
OEarthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater
Q Water Wells
© Public Water Supply Wells
Cluster of Multiple Icons
0 1/4 1/2 1 Miles
Groundwater Flow Direction Wildlife Areas
c Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location Natural Areas
CGv) Groundwater Flow Varies at Location o Rare & Endangered Species
SITE NAME: Meadow Brook CLIENT: Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
ADDRESS: Marler Road CONTACT: Robert Lepsic
Hamptonville NC 27020 INQUIRY#: 4954878.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.141422 / 80.819539 DATE: June 02, 2017 11:13 am
Copyright 0 2017 EDR, Inc. ® 2015 TomTom Rel. 2015.

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation
GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Database EDR ID Number
1
SSW FED USGS
1/2 -1 Mile
Higher
Org.Identifier:
USGS-NC
Formal name:
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
Monloc Identifier:
USGS-360751080494001
Monloc name:
YD -G650-3
Monloc type:
Well
Monloc desc:
Not Reported
Huc code:
Not Reported
Drainagearea value:
Not Reported
Drainagearea Units:
Not Reported
Contrib drainagearea:
Not Reported
Contrib drainagearea units:
Not Reported
Latitude:
36.1309679
Longitude:
-80.82757
Sourcemap scale:
Not Reported
Horiz Acc measure:
1
Horiz Acc measure units:
seconds
Horiz Collection method:
Interpolated from map
Horiz coord refsys:
NAD83
Vert measure val:
Not Reported
Vert measure units:
Not Reported
Vertacc measure val:
Not Reported
Vert accmeasure units:
Not Reported
Vertcollection method:
Not Reported
Vert coord refsys:
Not Reported
Countrycode:
US
Aquifername:
Piedmont and Blue Ridge crystalline -rock aquifers
Formation type:
Felsic Metaigneous Rock
Aquifer type:
Not Reported
Construction date:
Not Reported
Welldepth:
203
Welldepth units:
ft
Wellholedepth:
Not Reported
Wellholedepth units:
Not Reported
Ground -water levels, Number of Measurements: 0
USGS40000894107
TC4954878.2s Page A-8

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Database EDR ID Number
NC_NHEO NC50009230
GIS ID: 42438
Classification by Type: Plants
Occurrence Status: Historic, no evidence of destruction
TC4954878.2s Page A-9

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON
AREA RADON INFORMATION
State Database: NC Radon
Radon Test Results
Num Results Avg pCi/L Min pCi/L Max pCi/L
7 2.29 0.6 7.1
Federal EPA Radon Zone for YADKIN County: 2
Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L.
Zone 2 indoor average level — 2 pCi/L and — 4 pCi/L.
Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L.
Federal Area Radon Information for Zip Code: 27020
Number of sites tested: 1
Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L
% 4-20 pCi/L
% >90 nCi/I
Living Area - 1 st Floor 0.700 pCi/L 100% 0% 0%
Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Basement Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
TC4954878.2s Page A-10

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
EDR acquired the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model in 2002 and updated it in 2006. The 7.5 minute DEM corresponds
to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000 -scale topographic quadrangle maps. The DEM provides elevation data
with consistent elevation units and projection.
Current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Flood Zone Data: This data was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It depicts 100 -year and
500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA. It includes the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) which incorporates Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data and Q3 data from FEMA in areas not covered by NFHL.
Source: FEMA
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 2003, 2015
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetland Inventory
Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
Telephone: [phone]
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
AQUIFLOWR Information System
Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has
extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table
information.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit
Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital
representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national
Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil
survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation
of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO)
soil survey maps.
SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Telephone: [phone]
SSURGO is the most detailed level of mapping done by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, mapping
scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. Field mapping methods using national standards are used to
construct the soil maps in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the
original soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships and county
natural resource planning and management.
TC4954878.2s Page PSGR-1

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
FEDERAL WATER WELLS
PWS: Public Water Systems
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at
least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources.
PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after
August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS)
This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface
water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater.
STATE RECORDS
North Carolina Public Water Supply Wells
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: [phone]
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
NC Natural Areas: Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A polygon converage identifying sites (terrestrial or aquatic that have particular biodiversity significance.
A site's significance may be due to the presenceof rare species, rare or hight quality natural communities, or
other important ecological features.
NC Game Lands: Wildlife Resources Commission Game Lands
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
All publicly owned game lands managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and as listed in Hunting
and Fishing Maps.
NC Natural Heritage Sites: Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Sites
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A point coverage identifying locations of rare and endangered species, occurrences of exemplary or unique natural
ecosystems (terrestrial or aquatic), and special animal habitats (e.g., colonial waterbird nesting sites).
RADON
State Database: NC Radon
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Radon Statistical and Non Statiscal Data
Area Radon Information
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey.
The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at
private sources such as universities and research institutions.
TC4954878.2s Page PSGR-2

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
EPA Radon Zones
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor
radon levels.
OTHER
Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use landing facilities
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800-457-6656
Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater
Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR's Topographic map are digitized quaternary faultlines, prepared
in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2015 TomTom North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.
TC4954878.2s Page PSGR-3

Meadow Brook
Marler Road
Hamptonville, NC 27020
Inquiry Number: 4954878.3
June 02, 2017
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
(rEDR Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com

Certified Sanborn® Mao Resort
Site Name:
Meadow Brook
Marler Road
Hamptonville, NC 27020
EDR Inquiry # 4954878.3
Client Name:
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
559 Jones Franklin Rd Ste 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
Contact: Robert Lepsic
06/02/17
CEDR
The Sanborn Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by Ecosystem Planning and
Restoration were identified for the years listed below. The Sanborn Library is the largest, most complete collection of fire insurance maps.
The collection includes maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris & Browne, Hopkins, Barlow, and others. Only Environmental Data Resources
Inc. (EDR) is authorized to grant rights for commercial reproduction of maps by the Sanborn Library LLC, the copyright holder for the
collection. Results can be authenticated by visiting www.edrnet.com/sanborn.
The Sanborn Library is continually enhanced with newly identified map archives. This report accesses all maps in the collection as of the
day this report was generated.
Certified Sanborn Results:
Certification # 54CF-46FC-8818
Po # NA
Project Meadow Brook
UNMAPPED PROPERTY
This report certifies that the complete holdings of the Sanborn Library,
LLC collection have been searched based on client supplied target
property information, and fire insurance maps covering the target property
were not found.
Limited Permission To Make Copies
Sanborn® Library search results
Certification #: 54CF-46FC-8618
The Sanborn Library includes more than 1.2 million
fire insurance maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris &
Browne, Hopkins, Barlow and others which track
historical property usage in approximately 12,000
American cities and towns. Collections searched:
Library of Congress
University Publications of America
EDR Private Collection
The Sanborn Library LLC Since 1866 -
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (the client) is permitted to make up to FIVE photocopies of this Sanborn Map transmittal and each fire insurance map
accompanying this report solely for the limited use of its customer. No one other than the client is authorized to make copies. Upon request made directly to an EDR
Account Executive, the client may be permitted to make a limited number of additional photocopies. This permission is conditioned upon compliance by the client, its
customer and their agents with EDR's copyright policy; a copy of which is available upon request.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot
be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE
OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,
WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any
analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to
provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.
Copyright 2017 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of
Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein
are the property of their respective owners.
4954878 - 3 page 2

NCSHPO RESPONSE

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper office of Archives and History
Secretary Su sl H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
July 19, 2017
Mr. Kevin Tweedy
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
[e-mail]
Re: Meadow Brook Stream Restoration, Yadkin County, ER 17-1231
Dear Mr. Tweedy:
Thank you for your letter of June 21, 2017, 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, please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579
or rence.gledhill-carie ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite
the above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
amona M. Bartos

OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT

OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT (the `Option") is made
and entered into this P10. day of January, 2017 (the "Effective Date"), by and among Colon A. Shore (the
"Grantor"), and ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION, LLC, a limited liability company
with offices at 559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150, Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 ("EPR").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain real property located in Yadkin County, North
Carolina, containing 27.6 acres, more or less, having Parcel No. 486700258016 and being more particularly
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, together with the
improvements thereon and all appurtenances thereto belonging and appertaining, and all creeks, streams,
rights-of-way, roads, streets and ways bounding said real property (collectively the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to convey to EPR, an exclusive right and option to acquire a
conservation easement, as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit B (the "Easement"), over the
Property in accordance with the terms of this Option; and
WHEREAS, EPR is interested in acquiring the Easement in order to develop and construct a full
delivery wetland and/or stream mitigation project over the lands covered by the Easement (the "Work") in
conjunction with requests for proposals issued by the Division of Mitigation Services within the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ"), and EPR has agreed to undertake such Work with
respect to the Easement in accordance with the scope of work set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, EPR hereby notifies Grantor that: (i) EPR believes the fair market value of the
Easement is the purchase price, pursuant to Paragraph 5(a) together with the value of the environmental
improvements to be made to the Easement by EPR in performing the Work on the Easement; and (ii) EPR
does not possess the power of eminent domain;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) (the "Option
Deposit") and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Grant of Option. Grantor hereby grants unto EPR, its successors and assigns, including a
third -party designated by EPR qualified to be the grantee of a conservation easement under N.C.G.S. § 121-
35, the exclusive right and option to purchase the Easement in accordance with and subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in this Option.
2. Term. The terra, of this Option shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire
eighteen (18) months after the Effective Date (the "Term"), unless extended by the parties, in writing.
Page 1 of 6

EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
INSERT EXHIBIT THAT
GRAPHICALLY SHOWS THE
PARENT PARCEL THAT
CONTAINS THE EASEMENT,
ALONG WITH THE PARCEL
PIN NUMBER.

a i
C)
—
m
C
E
Z
, � cd 0
r
C u,
m f Z Q
O
O ca
E Z O
W>-
rn�
� O 0
N
(<LLt! d
D
O `
111 •
Z
•
Q
3>
m
W O.
W Q
C T
(p C
N r
3 .
( v
m �
Q)
C)
W U
LL
Ld
Z
i
z.�0
z
k_
�
CL
m
�
O
Wc•
to
o C9f,
y
W o
Z
Y
IL
❑
O
v
m
o LL
LO
a
m
LOz
C4
x
LLI
�•
�!
J
o

EXMIT B
DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT
INSERT EXHIBIT THAT
GRAPHICALLY SHOWS THE
PROPOSED EASEMENT
BOUNDARIES.

f
r.
Y
n
-
-
a
v
C
N
O
(d
cZ
CD
E
r_ °i
c
0 O
0
to f°
UN
w
CL
as �
_ N
� -0
W 'a
� c
i- was a
F-
m �Z¢
u�_�
Li Z
Li � Q
fY Q 4 in
�wa-[i
Ld •
Li •
IL
r_
O
N
O�
z
15
r.Q
Q
M CL
.0
C a
EO C
N �
x
U
QLOE
1�
�
IC 0
I J C.
Z
co
0- 2
-
T
o>
-z
o
E
(L
U
u
H
Ld
0
Y
a�
0 CLD
Oo
j co
Oo
UJ
Qr h
qT
N
f
Q�
a)
0 LL
c�
C
LO
qT
U)
(B
LU
if
F-
n
Lr)
X
CN
-
LU")C
U
I
N
J
C)

Property:
County:
Type of Work Proposed:
EXHIBIT C
SCOPE OF WORK
Colon A. Shore
Yadkin
Stream Restoration
EPR will provide the following services as part of the proposed work:
Task 1 - EPR will conduct an environmental screening to identify/survey potential protected
species, archaeological sites, historical architecture structures, contamination, etc. of the site.
Task 2 - EPR will develop a surveyed plat of the proposed conservation easement, and will
execute and record the easement with the Grantor.
Task 3 — EPR will develop a site-specific restoration and/or mitigation plan for the project,
including design plans that describe the work to be performed. Required permits from local,
state, and federal agencies will be obtained.
Task 4 — EPR will secure a contractor to construct the restoration/mitigation project as designed.
Task 5 -- EPR will secure a contractor to plant the site to native vegetation species, and will
install any necessary monitoring devices, plots, or other required monitoring equipment.
Tasks 6 — EPR will develop a baseline monitoring report that describes and documents the
condition of the site after construction.
Tasks 7 through 13 — EPR will conduct annual monitoring activities to document the condition
of the site and to ensure the site is performing as designed and planned. Maintenance activities
will be performed on an as -needed basis to ensure compliance.

EXHIBIT D
Memorandum Recording

FILED
YADKIN COUNTY NC
ARIC WILHELM
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FILED Jan 27, 2017
AT 11:21:41 am
BOOK 01202
START PAGE 0243
END PAGE
INSTRUMENT #
Prepared by and Return: EXCISE TAX
V*oz fAlt
SS'`l SES &W- 9 t V /A6 -,.Sra 1 r4 iso
,e4WAq , hL -0-74,04
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
("Memorandum") is made and entered into this ,77*1 day of Z5n&W*JL -,, 2017, by and
between 51fylac (the "Grantor") and ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING AND RESTORATION, LLC, a limited liability corporation with offices at 559 Jones
Franklin Road, Raleigh, NC 27606 ("EPR").
WHEREAS, Grantor and EPR have entered into a certain Option to Purchase Conservation
Easement (the "Option") dated, j 7* -VOt400017, pursuant to which Grantor granted to EPR, its successors
and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation casement (the "Easement') over certain real property
located in Yadkin County, North Carolina, which property is more particularly described on the attached
Exhibit B (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, The parties enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms
and conditions of the Option and to provide constructive notice of the Option;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows.
a lin o?% '.51AN
1. The term of the Option commenced an _.fr}�I+rlrY and shall expire on
got? Z01 f >
2. All of the provisions set forth in the Option are incorporated in this Memorandum by
reference.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
heirs, successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
0246
00331
(None)

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
GRANTOR:
Print Name: % L ,I
L f I /
STATE OF M&* QVibkkM
COUNTY OF YAlt-
I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that 1 lcn shore -
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily executed the foregoing
instrument. I have received satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the form of.
&w kc
This t� day ofT
1201 ] .
E M0s ►.
1�
U My°m
Official Signature of Notary Public
2u11
A
U B "a 'ok'
co
Printed or Typed Name of Notary
My Commission Expires:J'31
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]

ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND
RESTORATION, LLC, a limited
liability company
By:
Print Name: -e
Title: Via eres,Q.�
STATE OF
COUNTY OFy�-L
I,1(ti 5��. F(�' , the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid, certify that "' 1 personally appeared before
me this day, acknowledging to me that he is I ico-�
of Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC, a limited liability company and that he
acknowledged to me that he voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purposes therein
expressed and in the representative capacity so stated. I have received satisfactory evidence of the
principal's identity in the form of �_{kef- _I jWLgAn&6_ _
s the ZS day of ' , 2017.
P MoR
eo-V ARy�Jso
r zy
U E My gym. �xP • : s
03^91-2021 =U =
i-�C),
I Expires:3 '3 ' Z,l
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
Official Signature Notary Public
Printed or Typed Name of Notary

U
c
c Z
c1�
G ui w�0
L c LO - Q 0
N O >- z 0
LLj--
0 c O d O
m W a- O ❑
L W Z
E
� a
3 (D
v a
m
c e
N
N Q
m Q
.� fU
C A
f0 �
7 3
� U `
C r
-E 3-
Eu
" lU V W z
a. Q
E IL L U
Ld O Y
a' Q
Q N
� o
w
tD
_ Q
S
c ..
a)
c
v o tJ
E �
N
N
W
com
c �
O p]
N Ln 2
i X
y W
oU Ln
`m N
U a-
G?
ou
zm
d� o
J

OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT (the "Option") is made
and entered into this ,;141'- day of January, 2017 (the "Effective Date"), by and among Grady M. Shore
and Steve Andrew Shore (the "Grantors"), and ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION,
LLC, a limited liability company with offices at 559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27606 ("EPR").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantors are the owner of that certain real properties located in Yadkin County, North
Carolina, containing 0.839 and 9.142 acres, more or less, having Parcel No. 4867254139 and 4867254364
respectively and being more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference, together with the improvements thereon and all appurtenances thereto belonging and
appertaining, and all creeks, streams, rights-of-way, roads, streets and ways bounding said real property
(collectively the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Grantors have agreed to convey to EPR, an exclusive right and option to acquire a
conservation easement, as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit B (the "Easement"), over the
Property in accordance with the terms of this Option; and
WHEREAS, EPR is interested in acquiring the Easement in order to develop and construct a full
delivery wetland and/or stream mitigation project over the lands covered by the Easement (the "Work") in
conjunction with requests for proposals issued by the Division of Mitigation Services within the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ"), and EPR has agreed to undertake such Work with
respect to the Easement in accordance with the scope of work set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, EPR hereby notifies Grantor that: (i) EPR believes the fair market value of the
Easement is the purchase price, pursuant to Paragraph 5(a) together with the value of the environmental
improvements to be made to the Easement by EPR in performing the Work on the Easement; and (ii) EPR
does not possess the power of eminent domain;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) (the "Option
Deposit") and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Grant of Option. Grantors hereby grants unto EPR, its successors and assigns, including a
third -party designated by EPR qualified to be the grantee of a conservation easement under N.C.G.S. § 121-
35, the exclusive right and option to purchase the Easement in accordance with and subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in this Option.
2. Term. The term of this Option shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire
eighteen (18) months after the Effective Date (the "Term"), unless extended by the parties, in writing.
Page 1 of 6

EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
INSERT EXHIBIT THAT
GRAPHICALLY SHOWS THE
PARENT PARCEL THAT
CONTAINS THE EASEMENT,
ALONG WITH THE PARCEL
PIN NUMBER.

N N
O
- �
z
',
r
m U)
N
o�';
❑W QZ�
W
v N
IL W 0. CC
❑
W •
Z
0
3 �
w
'S a
c �
as
o
U
H Q
m CL
C !+
C
0) L_
� d
U E
Z
O
d Q.
(
2
0�
I-
Z
CL
Xa�
o
QW
U
`n
.
a.
Z
Ld 0
Y
0.
O
UT
V !
O

EXHH3IT B
DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT
INSERT EXHIBIT THAT
GRAPHICALLY SHOWS THE
PROPOSED EASEMENT
BOUNDARIES.

v
U
Q)
ill
m
wz
2 0 0
} w
�
m X<
O
'o—
W ozp
w
w
� ng nG
O D
c
w
z
M r-
L
E
iL
CL
n .
v
'>
v
c
a>
CD
°c
m CL
r c a
M 3
C
>--
m
U pEp
�IJ_
z
U
a5
d
GLO
Q
i-
" "
z
��/
LM
L I..
O
E
n.. LLA
U
a
w O
Y
O5
co
^W
W1
L`
T
Ln

Property:
County:
Type of Work Proposed:
EXHIBIT C
SCOPE OF WORK
Grady M. Shore & Steve A. Shore
Yadkin
Stream Restoration
EPR will provide the following services as part of the proposed work:
Task 1 - EPR will conduct an environmental screening to identify/survey potential protected
species, archaeological sites, historical architecture structures, contamination, etc. of the site.
Task 2 - EPR will develop a surveyed plat of the proposed conservation easement, and will
execute and record the easement with the Grantor.
Task 3 — EPR will develop a site-specific restoration and/or mitigation plan for the project,
including design plans that describe the work to be performed. Required permits from local,
state, and federal agencies will be obtained.
Task 4 EPR will secure a contractor to construct the restoration/mitigation project as designed.
Task 5 — EPR will secure a contractor to plant the site to native vegetation species, and will
install any necessary monitoring devices, plots, or other required monitoring equipment.
Tasks 6 — EPR will develop a baseline monitoring report that describes and documents the
condition of the site after construction.
Tasks 7 through 13 — EPR will conduct annual monitoring activities to document the condition
of the site and to ensure the site is performing as designed and planned. Maintenance activities
will be performed on an as -needed basis to ensure compliance.

I*:4111I1300C
Memorandum Recording

Prepared by and Return:
A)AR6 0,15
ssy saes Aduvmw
»60A,
A6 -5UITW-
FILED
YADKIN COUNTY NC
ARIC WILHELM
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FILED Jan 27, 2017
AT 11:22:45 am
BOOK 01202
START PAGE
0247
END PAGE
0251
INSTRUMENT #
00332
EXCISE TAX
(None)
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
("Memorandum") is made and entered into this �� day of 4-AWi+"14, 2017, by and between
&1*6q M IL946 „ SK,09E f SSE 4n)6&pJ S#) A$ (the "Grantors")
and ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION, LLC, a limited liability corporation with
offices at 559 Jones Franklin Road, Raleigh, NC 27606 ("EPR").
WHEREAS, Grantor and EPR have entered into a certain Option to Purchase Conservation
Easement (the "Option") dated -A� X70", 2017, pursuant to which Grantor granted to EPR, its successors
and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation easement (the "Easement") over certain real property
located in Yadkin County, North Carolina, which property is more particularly described on the attached
Exhibit B (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, The parties enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms
and conditions of the Option and to provide constructive notice of the Option;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows.
1. The term of the Option commenced on 4 17J4 and shall expire on .'514 ►'4 a 1"')kk
2. All of the provisions set forth in the Option are incorporated in this Memorandum by
reference.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
heirs, successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
GRANTOR:
i
By:�,,
Print Name t` 1'l i c e kb
Title: L A,�) lf)e.,,)Al✓
STATE OF _NO(-% CQco1►n�
COUNTY OF V,4hc,..
I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that (n)Cw (
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily executed the foregoing
instru ent. 1 have received satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the form of:
My
This the2`1 day of , 2017.
�,.t7 MORI �_ 'rs.
�;•y ,,.,.�.. i4
v ��'s.
.,,Ire
co
nmissf�h res:
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
Official Signature of Notary Public
z vvyc�scr)
Printed or Typed Name of Notary

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
GRAN OR:
By: u..1
Print Name:Lgb ems- �N -LAr~e__
Title: /�,FJn�� Q�,y�✓-fir
STATE OF KMk CW_0r% la
COUNTY OF VAe_
I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that GPC AEdow SFac_
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily executed the foregoing
instrument. I have received satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the form of:
defer L:CgrGf_
This the Z71 day of� , 2017.
�p R R15��y%
A L
v Official Signature of Notary Public
Printed or Typed Name of Notary
My Commis
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]

ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND
RESTORATION, LLC, a limited
liability company
By:
Print Name:.,��
Title:
STATE OF1C`H, Carb�;()C_
COUNTY OF VVA k„f—
I, &C i it, Z Huck up , the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid, certify that L. 17Apersonally appeared before
me this day, acknowledging to me that he is u.ms tit
of Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC, a limited liability company and that he
acknowledged to me that he voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purposes therein
expressed and in the representative capacity so stated. I have received satisfactory evidence of the
principal's identity in the form of d,( S -t
T 00 y of, 201.
zv- Official Signature Notary Public
y,"»»Pk3 OJ s Printed or Typed Name of Notary
My Com r l4e Ares:
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]

T
U
C
Q?
CD.. (0
° C Z
E r w 0O
= C m Z Q
O Z 0 N
O 'fp D O a 0 W i
V N W 4 a 0
L Z
M C Y '
w o �
w
�-0r- >-
CL
M U W [ Z
y 0 Z
Z CL
of m 0
U
°r �-
w
Q Y
ti 0-
c?w.n 0- O
LU 0
o(n
Z
v
a)
w c) L m
m
mo
z
�
w
N 0
o m
C U (L
c,
J

USFWS CORRESPONDENCE

�..ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
June 21, 2017
Marella Buncick, Endangered Species Biologist
USFWS Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville NC 28801
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
RE: Categorical Exclusion for Meadow Brook Stream Restoration, NCDEQ DMS Full -
Delivery Yadkin River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03040101, Yadkin County, NC
Dear Ms. Buncick,
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR) respectfully requests review and comment from the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on any possible concerns they may have
regarding the implementation the subject project. In order to comply with the Nationwide Permit
general conditions and development of a Categorical Exclusion (CE), EPR requests the US Fish
and Wildlife Service's comments on the proposed project. Project details are presented below.
The project is located on Marler Road, approximately 3/4 miles east of Interstate 77 and seven
miles south of the City of Elkin in Yadkin County, North Carolina. Figure 1 depicts the project
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Elkin South, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
topographic map at latitude 360 08' 29" N and longitude 800 49' 08" Wand is comprised of three
parcels: Parcel ID# 4867254362, Parcel ID# 4867254139 and parcel ID# 485700258016.
The Meadow Brook site was identified to provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream and/or
wetland impacts. Segments of this stream have been identified as incised, eroding, and no
longer connected to its floodplain. In total, approximately 3,400 linear feet of stream will be
restored by reconnecting them to their historic floodplain at their approximate historic locations.
The new channel will be constructed within the existing pasture land with excavation depths
ranging between 1-4 feet. All work will take place within the 10 -acre conservation easement
shown on Figure 2.
Construction activities will take place within a jurisdictional waterbody requiring Section 401 and
404 permits from NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the US Army Corps of
Engineers. Grading activities will require a Sediment and Erosion Control permit from NC Division
of Land Quality. The site is also located within a mapped FEMA floodplain and will require
coordination with Yadkin County Floodplain Administrators.
As of April 2, 2015, USFWS lists one federally protected species (Northern long-eared bat) and
three federal species of concern for Yadkin County NC. A brief description of the Northern long-
eared bat's (NLEB) habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered
based on field assessments of the project area. Habitat requirements of the NLEB are based on
the current best available information and/or USFWS.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal Status
Habitat Present
Biological
Conclusion
Allegheny
Neotoma magister
FSC
No
N/A
woodrat
Northern long-
Myotis
T
No
No Effect
eared bat
se tentrionalis
Robust redhorse
Moxostoma
FSC
No
N/A
robustum
Brook floater
Alasmidonta
FSC
No
N/A
varicose
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
FSC = Federal Species of Concern. FSC is an informal term. It is not defined in the federal Endangered
Species Act. In North Carolina, the Asheville and Raleigh Field Offices of the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) define Federal Species of Concern as those species that appear to be in decline or otherwise in
need of conservation and are under consideration for listing or for which there is insufficient information to
support listing at this time. Subsumed under the term "FSC" are all species petitioned by outside parties
and other selected focal species identified in Service strategic plans, State Wildlife Action Plans, or Natural
Heritage Program Lists.
N/A — Not applicable to FSC
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: June 1 —August 15
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the
mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western North
Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this species is not
known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are extremely
rare in eastern North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern
North Carolina. During the summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in
cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees (typically >_3 inches dbh). Males and
non -reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat
has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves of
buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on
forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings, over water, and along
tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type for foraging.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Suitable habitat for the NLEB does not occur within the project area. The project area is
comprised of open pastureland with minimal shrubby vegetation adjacent to the stream.
A search of the NC Natural Heritage data base didn't identify any occurrences of
threatened or endanger species within 1 mile of the project area.
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT-

If EPR has not received response from you within 45 days, we will assume that the USFWS does
not have any comment or information relevant to the implementation of this project at the current
time. We thank you in advance for your timely response, input, and cooperation. Please contact
me at the above phone number or address with any question.
Sincerely,
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Vice President
Natureserve. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: May 31,
2017.)
[USFWS]
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/NLEBFactSheet0lApril20l5.pdf.
(Accessed: May 31, 2017.)
[USFWS]. 2014. Northern Long -Eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance. USFWS
Regions 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.
https://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan20l4.pdf. (Accessed:
May 31, 2017.)
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT-

S
c
$
03
a
m
a+
p
U)
Ld
c
i
o ru
U
'
O x
!-' w
V
LL /fir Ld
w z (J�
m F Z Q
C) 9
ZLLI
c)
L
w
''
LLI z
Od
�LtJ
..
- e
P� a'ia
"'1r,
0
0.. ■ -r"�
IL
C
QS
9
-
yl
Rif Apr+
x
if
�d c"%'L Rr}
N
q
Y
4yd
�C
W
Ka
r
s
i
r
Vc d1�f�ch
O�
v
,
z
O
Z
U
z
Q
Q
Ld
O >
J
z
��
��'rauonrit'�
-
� �
U (v o
{
MP Gleak
O O �
au�l�
4
o o
d M 000
posy,
cc VIA up
E
�
4'0
� R
` e
woo u
r
^r {'
Bur9ebs Rd
AwlF
Ilk,
i�
8ur.k svo
r
LQi
�j
R'
a
4
(n
W
u)
co
'
m
WCL
cu
c
Lo
Z)
v
4J
a^ri
1, F
a
O
LL
Nz
Uo
r
G
�n
�
winoso'
J I I
o
F
11
b
o

Overview of site.
Hillside adjacent to stream used as pasture land.
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Pa g e 1 1 2

Representative section of stream with brushy vegetation.
Representative section of stream with no woody vegetation.
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Pa g e 2 12

NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT
STREAMLINED CONSULTATION FORM

Cidney Jones
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good afternoon Marella,
Brew, Donnie (FHWA) <[e-mail]>
Friday, September 29, 2017 12:54 PM
[e-mail]
Wiesner, Paul; Tsomides, Harry; Kevin Tweedy
Meadow Brook site NLEB 4(d) rule consultation
Meadow Brook site NLEB 4(d) Consultation form.pdf
The purpose of this message is to notify your office that FHWA will use the streamlined consultation
framework for the Meadow Brook Mitigation Site in Yadkin County, NC.
Attached is a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form, including site maps.
Thank you and have a great weekend,
Donnie
Notifying the Service Under the Framework
Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies (or designated non-federal representatives) should use the Northern Long -Eared Bat
4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form to notify the Service of their project and meet the
requirements of the framework.
Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form (Word document)
Information requested in the Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form serves
to
(1) notify the field office that an action agency will use the streamlined framework;
(2) describe the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and
(3) enable the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation for the
4(d) rule is required. This form requests the minimum amount of information required for
the Service to be able to track this information.
Providing information in the Streamlined Consultation Form does not address section 7(a)(2)
compliance for any other listed species.
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
I

Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017
***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***

Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra -Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the
NLEB for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if
the USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause
prohibited incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address
section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance:
YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone'?
❑
❑X
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency2 to determine if your project is near
❑X
❑
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum?
❑
❑X
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
❑
❑x
hibernaculum?
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
❑
any time of ear?
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
❑
❑X
other trees within a 150 -foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question #1 or yes to question #2 and no to
questions 3, 4, 5 and 6. The remainder of the form will be used by the USFWS to track our assumptions in the
BO.
Agency and Applicant3 (Name, Email, Phone No.):
Agency:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Donnie Brew, donnie.brewgdot.gov, [phone]
Agency Representative:
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
Kevin Tweedy, PE, ktweedy_geprusa.net, [phone]
1 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdfAVNSZone.pdf
z See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nhisites.html
s If applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are party to the consultation.

Project Name: Meadow Brook Stream Restoration
Project Location (include coordinates if known):
The project is located on Marler Road, approximately 3/4 miles east of Interstate 77 and seven miles
south of the City of Elkin in Yadkin County, North Carolina. Figure 2 depicts the project on the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) Elkin South, North Carolina 7.5 -minute topographic map at latitude
36° 08' 29" N and longitude 80° 49' 08" W and is comprised of three parcels: Parcel ID# 4867254362,
Parcel ID# 4867254139 and parcel ID# 485700258016.
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
The Meadow Brook site was identified to provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream and/or
wetland impacts. Segments of this stream have been identified as incised, eroding, and no longer
connected to its floodplain. In total, approximately 3,400 linear feet of stream will be restored by
reconnecting them to their historic floodplain at their approximate historic locations. The new channel
will be constructed within the existing pasture land with excavation depths ranging between 1-4 feet.
All work will take place within the 10 -acre conservation easement shown on Figure 2.
General Project Information YES NO
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum?
❑
0
Does the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree?
❑
0
Does the project include forest conversion4? (if yes, report acreage below)
0
❑
Estimated total acres of forest conversion
<0.1 Acre
If known, estimated acres' of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 316
Does the project include timber harvest? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
0
Estimated total acres of timber harvest
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
0
Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31
Does the project install new wind turbines? (if yes, report capacity in MW below)
❑
0
Estimated wind capacity (MW)
4 Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal
from development, energy production and transmission, mining, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BO).
5 If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than 0.1 acre.
6 If the activity includes tree clearing in June and July, also include those acreage in April to October.

Agency Determination:
By signing this form, the action agency determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any
resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.
If the USFWS does not respond within 30 days from submittal of this form, the action agency may
presume that its determination is informed by the best available information and that its project
responsibilities under 7(a)(2) with respect to the NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January S,
2016, Programmatic BO. The action agency will update this determination annually for multi-year
activities.
The action agency understands that the USFWS presumes that all activities are implemented as
described herein. The action agency will promptly report any departures from the described activities to
the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The action agency will provide the appropriate USFWS Field
Office with the results of any surveys conducted for the NLEB. Involved parties will promptly notify the
appropriate USFWS Field Office upon finding a dead, injured, or sick NLEB.
Signature: �9A �' Date Submitted: �) ---� -,/

S
c
$
03
a
m
a+
p
U)
Ld
c
i
o ru
U
'
O x
!-' w
V
LL /fir Ld
w z (J�
m F Z Q
C) 9
ZLLI
c)
L
w
''
LLI z
Od
�LtJ
..
- e
P� a'ia
"'1r,
0
0.. ■ -r"�
IL
C
QS
9
-
yl
Rif Apr+
x
if
�d c"%'L Rr}
N
q
Y
4yd
�C
W
Ka
r
s
i
r
Vc d1�f�ch
O�
v
,
z
O
Z
U
z
Q
Q
Ld
O >
J
z
��
��'rauonrit'�
-
� �
U (v o
{
MP Gleak
O O �
au�l�
4
o o
d M 000
posy,
cc VIA up
E
�
4'0
� R
` e
woo u
r
^r {'
Bur9ebs Rd
AwlF
Ilk,
i�
8ur.k svo
r
LQi
�j
R'
a
4
(n
W
u)
co
'
m
WCL
cu
c
Lo
Z)
v
4J
a^ri
1, F
a
O
LL
Nz
Uo
r
G
�n
�
winoso'
J I I
o
F
11
b
o

Overview of site.
Hillside adjacent to stream used as pasture land.
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Pa g e 1 1 2

Representative section of stream with brushy vegetation.
Representative section of stream with no woody vegetation.
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Pa g e 2 12

NCWRC RESPONSE

—
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
I 1 July 2017
Mr. Kevin Tweedy, PE
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
Subject: Categorical Exclusion
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Tweedy,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your request for
review and comment on potential concerns for the Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project. We have
no records of federally or state protected species within or adjacent to the restoration project. Based upon
the information provided to NCWRC, it is unlikely that the site will adversely affect any federal or state -
listed species.
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. Provided measures are taken to minimize erosion and
sedimentation from construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the project to result in
significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Thant: you for the opportunity to review this proposed project. If 1 can be of additional assistance, please
call [phone] or email olivia.munzer cr,ncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

NRCS CORRESPONDENCE

Cidney Jones
From: Cidney Jones
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 8:47 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: Robert Lepsic; '[e-mail]`
Subject: Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project, FPPA
Attachments: AD1006_MeadowBrookStreamRestoration_EPR.PDF;
MeadowBrookSite_Farmland_Classification.pdf; MB_NRCS_Packet.pdf
Dear Mr. Cortes,
Please find attached the AD1006 form for the Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project with Parts VI and VII
completed. The original request from Ecosystem Planning and Restoration and the Farmland Classification sheet are
attached as well. Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Cidney
ECOSYSTE. M
PLANNING &
�."- @ RLS`i ORA"T"ION
Cidney Jones, PE, CFM
Water Resource Engineer
919-388-0787 (office)
925-337-1470 (cell)
ciones(@eorusa.net
www.eprusa.net

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request August 4, 2017
Name of Project Meadow Brook Stream Restoration
Federal Agency Involved Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Proposed Land Use Stream Mitigation
County and State Yadkin County, North Carolina
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received ByPerson
NRCS August 11, 2017
Completing Form:
Milton Cortes NRCS NC
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO
Z 1:1
Acres Irrigated
None
Average Farm Size
106 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In ov . Jurisdiction
Acres: 174,015 acres 80.51 %
Amount of Farmlands Detine in FPPA
Acres: 153,764 acres 71 %
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
Yadkin Co., NC LESA
Name of State or Local Site Assessment System
None
Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
August 14, 2017 by eMail
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C I Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
9.6
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
_
C. Total Acres In Site
9.6
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
8
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
1.6
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0062
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
38%
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted Scale of 0 to 100 Points
85
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria Maximum
Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106 Points
Site A Site B Site C Site D
1. Area In Non -urban Use (15)
15
2. Perimeter In Non -urban Use (10)
10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20)
0
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (20)
0
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15)
15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services (15)
0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10)
0
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland (10)
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (5)
5
10. On -Farm Investments (20)
20
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10)
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use (10)
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
65 0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
85 0 0 0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment) 160
65 0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260
150 0 0 0
Site Selected: Yes
Date Of Selection 9/6/2017
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES❑ NO
Reason For Selection:
The site scored less than 160 and "need not be given further consideration for protection". (7 CFR
658.4).
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: EGOS stem Planning and Restoration Date: 9/6/2017
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (03-02)

Appendix 8
DMS FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

Cidney Jones
From: Cidney Jones
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 3:32 PM
To: '[e-mail]'; 'Dawn Vallieres'
Cc: 'Tsomides, Harry'; LeeAnne Lutz
Subject: Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project - DMS Project No. 100024
Attachments: Signed NCDMS Floodplain Checklist.pdf; MB_Figure_7_FEMA.PDF; MB_Figure_1_VIN.PDF
Hello Mr. Brubaker and Ms. Vallieres,
My name is Cidney Jones and I work with Ecosystem Planning and Restoration. We are currently working for NC DMS on
a full delivery stream restoration project in Yadkin County. This project will impact the SFHA Zone AE Limited Detail
study on South Deep Creek Tributary 5A. We have been preparing a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) as we
work on the design and it will be submitted shortly after we submit our Mitigation Plan to NC DMS for review. Please
find attached a completed and signed NC DMS Floodplain Checklist and two figures, one vicinity map and one map
showing the project area and SFHA.
Ms. Vallieres, I will be in contact in the next week or so with a draft CLOMR for you to review before we submit it to
FEMA.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like a hard copy of this letter mailed to you.
Best, Cidney
IrmECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Cidney Jones, PE, CFM
Water Resource Engineer
919-388-0787 (office)
925-337-1470 (cell)
ciones(@eorusa.net
www.eprusa.net

NCDMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program and NC Floodplain
Mapping program to be filled out for all NCDMS projects. The form is intended to
summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of the projects. The form
should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with three copies submitted to
NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit (attn. State NFIP
Coordinator) and NCDMS.
Project Location
Name of project:
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Name if stream or feature:
South Deep Creek Tributary 5A
County:
Yadkin
Name of river basin:
Yadkin
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
muni cipality/county:
Yadkin County (CID 370400)
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
3710486600J Effective 5/18/2009
Consultant name:
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
Phone number:
919.388.0787
Address:
559 Jones Franklin Road
Suite 150
Raleigh NC 27606
Meadow Brook_NCDMS_Floodplain_Checklist_Appendix 3 Page 1 of

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500".
The Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project consists of instituting stream restoration
practices following natural channel design techniques along the main stem and one
tributary.
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
Reach
Length
Priority
Meadow Brook (South
1921
One and Two (Restoration)
Deep Creek Tributary 5A)
256
Two (Enhancement)
Unnamed Tributary to
396
One and Two (Restoration)
Meadow Brook
(Unregulated/Backwater of
Meadow Brook)
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
0 Yes 0 No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
Redelineation
I— Detailed Study
Limited Detail Study
— Approximate Study
Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
J AE Zone
p Floodway
El Non -Encroachment
O None
A Zone
Meadow Brook NCDMS_Fioodplain_Checklist Appendix 3 llaj c 2 <oi'4

Local Setbacks Required
© No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: NIA
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?
C Yes 0 No
Land Acquisition (Check)
State owned (fee simple)
Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed
to the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Nelly,
919 807-4101
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
S Yes 0 No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP attn: State NFIP Engineer, 919 715-8000
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Dawn Vallieres
Email: dvallieres&vadkincountync.gov
Phone Number: (336) 679 — 4243
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
F No Action
7 No Rise
F Letter of Map Revision
F Conditional Letter of Map Revision
,nT 11 . %
� Other Requirements
List other requirements: Yadkin County Floodplain Development Permit
Meadow Brook_NCDMS_Floodplain_Checklist_Appendix 3 Page 3 of 4

Comments:
CLOMR package is being currently being prepared to submit.
Name: _____Kidney Jones
Signature:
Title: Water Resources Engineer Date: 317118
Meadow Brook_NODMS_Floodplain_Checkiist_Appendix 3 Page 4 of

Appendix 9
DESIGN PLAN SHEETS

O
D
Q
Ld
2
U
Ld
0
INDEX OF SHEETS
1... TITLE SHEET
I A . • . STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
GENERAL NOTES
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
2 . • . TYPICAL SECTIONS
2A -2G... DETAILS
3.3B... TABLES
4. 1 1 ... PLAN AND PROFILE
1 2-13 ... VEGETATION PLAN
14. 15 ... GRADING PLAN
GRAPHIC SCALES
20 10 0 20 40
PLANS
20 10 0 20 40
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
10 2.5 0 5 20
PROFILE (VERTICAL) 10
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
YADKIN COUNTY
LOCATION: MARLER RD., YADKIN COUNTY, NC
TYPE nF NA/nRK' !:;TPFAM PF-l:;TC)PATjnN
PROJECT LENGTH
EXISTING STREAM LENGTH = 2,573 FEET
PROPOSED DESIGN STREAM LENGTH = 3,565 FEET
REVISIONS
PREPARED FOR:
1c.
Mll4viton Servkes
exrixoxx.xreonuir
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
HARRY TSOMIDES
PROJECT MANAGER
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
ECOSYSTEM 559 JONES FRANKLIN RD
PLANNING & SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
" RESTORATION LICENSE # P-1 182
SPRING 2018
CIDNEY JONES, PE
LETTING DATE:
PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT ENGINEER
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
ROCK J -HOOK JH — SF — SAFETY FENCE
ROCK VANE(Rv — TP — TAPE FENCE
OFFSET ROCK CROSS VANE ov — — SILT FENCE
ROCK CROSS VANE xv ce CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
— - 20 — - EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
TEMPORARY SILT CHECK
ROOT WAD
oo
GRADE CONTROL LOG J -HOOK LJH
®
LOG VANE Lv
®
LOG STEP Ls
000
ROCK STEP Rs
— — PROPERTY LINE
LOG CROSS VANE xv
CONSTRUCTED CASCADE cc
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE cR
�o
BOULDER CLUSTER
LOG ROLLER LR
W, „mow,
im
GRADE CONTROL WOODY RIFFLE W)
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
— - 20 — - EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
— — — LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
— — — BANKFULL BENCH (GRADE)
— — PROPERTY LINE
ACCESS ROAD
10+00
STREAM THALWEG
STREAM TOP OF BANKS
FOOT BRIDGE
�- TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING
PFc
® TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE TO BE
DETERMINED AT 100% DESIGN
TREE REMOVAL
TREE PROTECTION
TOEWOOD WITH GEOLIF I O GEOLIFT
SOD MATS sM CHANNEL FILL / DITCH PLUG
® GRADE BANK 2:1 OR FLATTER
r ne—
DEBRIS JAM DJ -T# 1= ; EXISTING WETLANDS
SINGLE WING DEFLECTOR 9
DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR Q
**NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
GENERAL NOTES
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL INSTREAM STRUCTURES USING
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE
BOULDERS, AND STRUCTURES.
2. WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN.
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.
3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN SUMMER 2018.
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
1c.
Mrrlgarion Servkes
or.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rt-MRESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT # SHEET NO.
082 1A
SYMBOLOGY /
NOTES
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

a
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
WPOOL
\ APOOL /
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
co
O
TYPICAL SECTIONS
"C" TYPE CHANNELS
ABKF i
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
PROJECT #SHEET NO.
082 2
DETAILS
TYPICAL POOL RIGHT CROSS SECTION
B STREAM TYPE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION DIMENSIONS
"A" AND "B" TYPE CHANNELS
VARIES
WBKF VARIES
-- ABKF -----
Meadow Brook 33+29 to 38+62
a
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
WPOOL
\ APOOL /
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
co
O
TYPICAL SECTIONS
"C" TYPE CHANNELS
ABKF i
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
PROJECT #SHEET NO.
082 2
DETAILS
TYPICAL POOL RIGHT CROSS SECTION
B STREAM TYPE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION DIMENSIONS
Stream Station
RIFFLES
ABKF WBKF Wl W2 Dl D2 Sl S2
POOLS
I APool WPool W3 W4 D3 D4 S3 S4
Meadow Brook 33+29 to 38+62
26 17.7 5.4 3.5 0.3 1.7 20:1 2:1
44 21.1 5.3 5.3 0.4 2.6 151 2:1
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/181c.
jp
PREPARED FOR: 1
MrrVaVm Serrkes
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
CAECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROGRESS DRAWING I
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
C STREAM TYPE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION DIMENSIONS
RIFFLES
POOLS
Stream Station
ABKF
WBKF
W1
W2 Dl D2 S1 S2
APool WPool W3 W4
W5
W6
D3
D4
S3
S4
S6
10+00 to 29+36
19
14.5
4.2
3.0 0.3 1.5 15:1 2:1
1
36 21.7 7.6 3.8
4.3
6.0
1.5
1.5
5:1
3:1
2:1
Meadow Brook
29+36 to 33+29
23
16.6
5.2
3.1 0.4 1.6 15:1 2:1
47 24.9 8.0 4.0
6.6
6.4
1.6
1.6
5:1
3:1
2:1
Unnamed Tributary 10+00 to 17+03
14
12.4
3.5
2.7 0.2 1.4 15:1 2:1
24 18.6 7.8 3.5
2.1
3.0
1.3
1.3
6:1
3:1
1:1
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/181c.
jp
PREPARED FOR: 1
MrrVaVm Serrkes
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
CAECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROGRESS DRAWING I
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

OFFSET ROCK CROSS VANE SPECIFICATIONS
MATERIALS: SPECIFICATIONS:
SPECIFICATIONS:
TYPE: GRANITE OR COMPARABLE
TYPE: GRANITE OR COMPARABLE
SIZE: 3 FT X 2 FT X 2 FT
BOULDER
TYPE: HARDWOOD
NUMBER OF HEADER ROWS: 1
SIZE: 12 INCH 0 MIN.
NUMBER OF FOOTER ROWS: 1
FILTER FABRIC
TYPE: TYPE 2 NON -WOVEN
NUMBER OF FOOTER LOGS: 1
WIDTH UPSTREAM: 6 FT MINIMUM
STONE BACKFILL
CLASS AAND ON-SITE ALLUVIUM (50/50 MIX)
NOTES FOR OFFSET ROCK CROSS VANE'
1 . STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE
STRUCTURESTABLESHEET.
2. DIG ATRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL
ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF VANE ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAMBANK.
3. PLACE FOOTER ROCKS AND THEN HEADER ROCKS TO ACHIEVE DESIGN
DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS.
4. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER
AND FOOTER ROCKS.
S. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF HTE HEADER ROCKS AND
EXTENDING DOWN TO THE DEPTH OF THE FOOTER ROCKS, THEN OUTWARD
THE DISTANCE SPECIFIED IN THE STRUCTURES TABLE SHEET.
6. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL AS SHOWN, TO THE DIMENSIONS INDICATED IN THE
STRUCTURES TABLE SHEET.
7. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM
SIDE FO THE STRUCTURE WITH ONSITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION
OF THE TOP OF HEADER ROCK.
LOG VANE SPECIFICATIONS
MATERIALS:
SPECIFICATIONS:
TYPE: GRANITE OR COMPARABLE
BOULDER
SIZE: 3 FTX 2 FTX 2 FT
TYPE: HARDWOOD
LOGS
SIZE: 12 INCH 0 MIN.
NUMBER OF HEADER LOGS: 1
NUMBER OF FOOTER LOGS: 1
TYPE: TYPE 2 NON -WOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
WIDTH UPSTREAM: 6 FT MINIMUM
STONE BACKFILL
CLASS A AND ON-SITE ALLUVIUM (50/50 MIX)
NOTES FOR LOG VANE STRUCTURES:
1. STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS ARE SHOWN ON
THE STRUCTURE TABLES SHEET.
2. LOGS SHOULD BE STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND NOT ROTTEN.
3. BOULDERS MUST BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO ANCHOR LOGS.
4. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.
S. BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING.
6. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
OUTSIDE ARM
LOG
BELOW STRE
OFFSET ROCK CROSS VANE
INSIDE ARM
NO GAPS BETWEEN ROCKS
- — \— SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
PLAN VIEW
0 - ELEVATION POINT (SEE STRUCTURE TABLES)
PLAN VIEW
HEADER ROCK
BANKFULL
2
FLOW � 3 ARM SLOPE
STONE BACKFILL � ;_
FOOTER ROCK
FILTER FABRIC
PROFILE VIEW A -A'
VANE OUTSIDE ARM
STONE
LOG VANE LD
_ �S BURIED IN
STREAMBANK
AT LEAST 5'
0 - ELEVATION POINT (SEE STRUCTURE TABLES)
PREPARED FOR:
Mrrlgarion servkes
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
SECTION B - B'
VANE ARM CROSS SECTION
FLOW
ROCK
R ROCK
PRM 5i
�o
2
HEADERLOG FOOTER LOG
PROFILE VIEW A -A'
STONE BACKFILL
FLOW
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG FILTER
FABRIC
SECTION B - B'
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
4AECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT # SHEET NO.
082Ilk2A
DETAILS 11
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SPECIFICATIONS
MATERIALS:
SPECIFICATIONS:
TYPE: HARVESTED ON-SITE OR COMPARABLE
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL
SIZE: CLASS BAND 57 STONE (50/50 MIX)
THICKNESS: 16 INCHES MIN.
COIR FIBER MATTING
SEE DETAIL
NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE STRUCTURES:
1. GRADE STREAMBED AND BANKS TO PROPOSED DIMENSIONS PER
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION AND PROFILE.
2. EXCAVATE TRENCH BELOW PROPOSED STREAMBED ELEVATION
EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN RIFFLE THICKNESS.
3. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING ALONG STREAMBANKS ENSURING
MATTING IS SUFFICIENTLY TRENCHED ALONG TOE OF BANK.
4.FILL TRENCH WITH RIFFLE BED MATERIAL TO FINAL DESIGN STREAM GRADE.
NOTE:
COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON-SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS.
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
-
i DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
TOP OF
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE CR
BOTTOM
WIDTH
n
PLAN VIEW
HEAD OF RIFFLE
FLOW
1 RIFFLE RIFFLE THICKNESS
OF BANK 0
2
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL ° POOL
PROFILE A - A'
BOTTOM
WIDTH COIR FIBER
COIR FIBER MATTING
MATTING (SEE DETAIL)
BED MATERIAL (SEE DETAIL)
TOP OF BANK
eo — TOE OF BANK
COIR FIBER MATTING SHOULD BE
RIFFLE THICKNESS TRENCHED THROUGH RIFFLE BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL
SECTION B - B'
0 - ELEVATION POINT (SEE STRUCTURE TABLES)
PLAN VIEW
Mrrlgarion servkes
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
DITCH PLUG
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
COMPACTED BACKFILL_ 1 .5' MINIMUM
FINISH GRADE
-AN SHEETS 1
OF BANK
DITCH INVERT .
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
COMPACTED
SECTION A - AT
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rt-MRESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
77
PROJECT #SHEET NO.
082 2B
DETAILS
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

A
000o Qo0
BANKFULL
TOE OF BANK
o
ORGREATER /
TOE OF BANK
rOgoO�
BANKFULL C�CoBURY
�p
/� INTO BED/BANK
5 FEET OR GREATER
(TYPICAL)
DIAMETER
MATERIALS:
SPECIFICATIONS:
ORGREATER /
SEE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE DETAIL
TYPE: HARDWOOD
LOGS
SIZE: LENGTH = 2 X WBKF, 12" DIA.
/
1
SCOUR
TYPE: TYPE 2 NON -WOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
POOL
C
1. STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS ARE SHOWN ON
THE STRUCTURE TABLES SHEET. NUMBER OF LOGS MAY VARY.
2. LOGS SHOULD BE STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND NOT ROTTEN.
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.
4. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
\ \
ll
LOG ROLLER SPECIFICATIONS
MATERIALS:
SPECIFICATIONS:
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL
SEE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE DETAIL
TYPE: HARDWOOD
LOGS
SIZE: LENGTH = 2 X WBKF, 12" DIA.
NUMBER OF HEADER LOGS: 1
TYPE: TYPE 2 NON -WOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
WIDTH UPSTREAM: 6 FT MINIMUM
NOTES FOR LOG ROLLER STRUCTURES:
1. STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS ARE SHOWN ON
THE STRUCTURE TABLES SHEET. NUMBER OF LOGS MAY VARY.
2. LOGS SHOULD BE STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND NOT ROTTEN.
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.
4. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
,SCOUR r1 \
POOL
D
0
) o
Oo0
40°-50° I
D /
/ / I SCOUR
POOL
/OIIL
LOG ROLLER G
PROTECT BANK USING SOD MAT
(SEE DETAIL)
BACKFILL WITH
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
MATERIAL
(SEE DETAIL)
40°-50°
BURY INTO BED/BANK
5 FEET OR GREATER
(`
(TYPICAL)
ti-► A'
FLOW
I
PLAN VIEW
- ELEVATION POINT (SEE STRUCTURE TABLES)
PREPARED FOR: 1
1c.
Mfl arta n Srrvlces
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
A
1-
F -Ow
BACKFILL WITH
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
MATERIAL FILTER FABRIC
(SEE DETAIL) (TYPICAL)
SECTION A -A'
BANKFULL
1/2 TO 2/3
BANKFULL FLOW
MIN. RIFFLE MAX DEPTH
2%`_ SEE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION DIMENSIONS
�-- 2 STREAMBED
FOOTER LOG
SECTION B - B'
MIN. RIFFLE MAX DEPTH FLOW
SEE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION DIMENSIONS 3
STREAMBED
� FOOTER LOG
SECTION C - C'
1/2 TO 2/3
BANKFULL
PROJECT #SHEET NO.
082 2C
DETAILS
THALWEG
A'
1/2 TO 2/3
BANKFULL
FLOW MIN. RIFFLE MAX DEPTH
2aa-4% SEE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION DIMENSIONS
�� 4
STREAMBED
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
FOOTER LOG
SECTION D - D'
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
CAECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROGRESS DRAWING I
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

/ '\
PLAN VIEW- 1
TRENCH EXCAVATION
COIR FIBER MATTING
COMPACTED BACKFILL —
:CAVATE CUT TRENCH (SEE NOTE 3)
TOE WOOD WITH GEOLIFT TW
1
W I
!Z m
OF
4 W 41
J �
tiJ
A�
PLAN VIEW - 2
ROOTWAD INSTALLATION
DEPTH
SEESTRUCTURE
TABLES
DENSE BRUSH LAYER: —
CONSISTING OF LIMBS,
BRANCHES, SMALL LOGS
ON-SITE ALLUVIUM
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
BASEFLOW
UNCONSOLIDATED BACKFILL:
SOIL AND COBBLE
A ROOTWAD
WIDTH- "-
SEE STRUCTURE TABLES FINISHED BED
ELEVATION
SECTION VIEW
- ELEVATION POINT (SEE STRUCTURE TABLES)
PREPARED FOR:
1c.
Mfl arta n Srrvlces
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
NSTALL ROOTWADS
'ERPENDICULAR TO FLOW
SEE NOTE 4)
PLAN VIEW - 3
BRUSH LAYER INSTALLATION
POINT BAR OF CHANNEL
(SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS)
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
PROJECT #SHEET NO.
082 2D
DETAILS
INSTALL BRUSH MATERIAL (SEE NOTE 5).
AFTER BRUSH LAYER HAS BEEN COMPLETED
INSTALL SOIL LAYER (NOTE 6) AND COVER
WITH COIR FIBER MATTING (NOTE 7).
PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS IN LAYER ON TOP
OF COIR FIBER MATTING (SEE NOTE 8).
TOE WOOD SPECIFICATIONS
LIVE CUTTINGS PLACED UNDERNEATH
SPECIFICATIONS:
COIR FIBER MATTING
TYPE: BRUSH MATERIAL
GEOLIFTS- 5 FT WIDE AND 2 FTTHICK.
SIZE: MIN. 5 FT LONG. 1 INCH DIAMETER
ENCASE IN COIR FIBER MATTING
TYPE: HARDWOOD
(SEE SPECIFICATIONS)
UNDISTURBED
EARTH
LIVE CUTTINGS
SEE DETAIL
NOTES FOR TOE WOOD STRUCTURES:
1. STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE
STRUCTURE TABLES SHEET.
COIR FIBER \
MATTING �//�\
TO THE DEPTH AND WIDTH SPECIFIED IN THE DETAILS AND STRUCTURE
4,
DEPTH
SEESTRUCTURE
TABLES
DENSE BRUSH LAYER: —
CONSISTING OF LIMBS,
BRANCHES, SMALL LOGS
ON-SITE ALLUVIUM
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
BASEFLOW
UNCONSOLIDATED BACKFILL:
SOIL AND COBBLE
A ROOTWAD
WIDTH- "-
SEE STRUCTURE TABLES FINISHED BED
ELEVATION
SECTION VIEW
- ELEVATION POINT (SEE STRUCTURE TABLES)
PREPARED FOR:
1c.
Mfl arta n Srrvlces
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
NSTALL ROOTWADS
'ERPENDICULAR TO FLOW
SEE NOTE 4)
PLAN VIEW - 3
BRUSH LAYER INSTALLATION
POINT BAR OF CHANNEL
(SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS)
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
PROJECT #SHEET NO.
082 2D
DETAILS
INSTALL BRUSH MATERIAL (SEE NOTE 5).
AFTER BRUSH LAYER HAS BEEN COMPLETED
INSTALL SOIL LAYER (NOTE 6) AND COVER
WITH COIR FIBER MATTING (NOTE 7).
PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS IN LAYER ON TOP
OF COIR FIBER MATTING (SEE NOTE 8).
TOE WOOD SPECIFICATIONS
MATERIALS:
SPECIFICATIONS:
BRUSH MATERIAL
TYPE: BRUSH MATERIAL
SIZE: MIN. 5 FT LONG. 1 INCH DIAMETER
ROOTWAD MATERIAL
TYPE: HARDWOOD
SIZE: MIN. 6 FT LONG MIN. 12 INCH DIAMETER
COIR FIBER MATTING
SEE DETAIL
NOTES FOR TOE WOOD STRUCTURES:
1. STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE
STRUCTURE TABLES SHEET.
2. DIG A TRENCH ALONG BANK WHERE TOE WOOD IS TO BE INSTALLED,
TO THE DEPTH AND WIDTH SPECIFIED IN THE DETAILS AND STRUCTURE
TABLES. IF TOE WOOD IS BEING PLACED IN A LOCATION WHERE THERE IS
NOT EXISTING GROUND, PLACE FILL MATERIAL AND COMPACT TO FORM
THE TRENCH FOR THE TOE WOOD MATERIALS.
3. EXCAVATE TRENCH BELOW TOEWOOD GRADE (PLAN VIEW 1). TO ELEVATION
POINTS 2 AND 4.
4. INSTALL ROOTWADS PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW AS SHOWN IN PLAN VIEW 2.
5. INSTALL BRUSH MATERIAL INCLUDING BRANCHES, LOGS,
AND BRUSH, AND AT LEAST 1 "IN DIAMETER. LARGE MATERIALS
AND SMALL MATERIALS SHALL BE MIXED, PLACED IN LAYERS NO MORE
THAN I FOOT DEEP, COVERED IN A THIN LAYER OF ONSITE ALLUVIUM, AND
COMPACTED BEFORE PLACING THE NEXT LAYER OF TOE WOOD MATERIAL.
CONTINUE PLACING MATERIALS TO FORM A DENSE LAYER OF WOODY
MATERIALS AND ONSITE ALLUVIUM TO THE DEPTH AND ELEVATIONS SPECIFIED
(PLAN VIEW 3).
6. PLACE AN UNCONSOLIDATED LAYER OF SOIL AND COBBLE ON TOP OF BRUSH
LAYER.
7. COVER SOIL AND COBBLE LAYER IN COIR FIBER MATTING.
8. INSTALL LIVE CUTTINGS, INCLUDING BRANCHES AND BRUSH, AT LEAST 5 FEET
IN LENGTH, AND AT LEAST 1 INCH IN DIAMETER.
9. CONSTRUCT GEOLIFTS OR PLACE TRANSPLANTS AS SPECIFIED OR DIRECTED
BY THE ENGINEER) TO REBUILD THE STREAMBANK ABOVE THE TOE WOOD LAYER.
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
CAECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

NOTES:
HARVESTING
1. USE FULL-SIZE LOADER, OR SIMILAR APPROVED EQUIPMENT, FOR EXCAVATING,
TRANSPORTING, AND PLACING ON-SITE SOD MATS.
2. DISTURB SOD MATS AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE AND MAINTAIN SOIL MOISTURE.
3. MINIMUM MAT DEPTH IS 10 INCH.
PLACEMENT
1. PLACE SOD MATS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF STREAMBANK
ORTOEWOOD.
2. SOD MATS CAN BE SUBSITUTED WITH COIR FIBER MATTING AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
SMALLANCHORSON
2'CENTERS
COIR FIBER
MATTING
ANCHORS ON
2' - 3' CENTERS
MATTING
IN TRENCH
SOD MAT HARVESTING
SMALL ANCHOR TRENCH
ON 1' CENTERS
ANCHOR OVERLAP
ON 1' CENTERS
-► I— 6" OVERLAY(MIN)
PLAN VIEW
F 18"-2A"
mP)
BACKFILL
SOD MAT SM
SOD MATS
BASEFLOW
1 O IN WIDTH
MIN REFER TO
STRUCTURE
TABLE
COIR FIBER MATTING
LARGE
ANCHORS ON
3'CENTERS ALONG CENTER
LARGE
ANCHORS ON
2' CENTERS ALONG TOE
EXISTING
GROUND
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
—
i DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KILT 3/2/18
F
Mrrlgarion servkes
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
SOD MAT PLACEMENT
MAT POINT BARS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
WHERE INDICATED ON PLANS
OFSTREAMBANK
MATTING PLACEMENT
SEE PLAN VIEW SHEET FOR MATTING LOCATIONS
TYPICAL MATTING PLAN VIEW
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
OFSTREAMBANK
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rt-MRESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT # SHEET NO.
082 2E
DETAILS
LARGEANCHORS
2" X 2" (NOMINAL)
WOODEN STAKE
1"
2
2"
�Iy4"
I
SMALLANCHORS
WOODEN STAKE
1 "(NOMINAL)
STAPLE
12"
ANCHOR OPTIONS
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
— 6" MIN
SMALLANCHORSON
1'CENTERS
IN TRENCH
-
MATTING SHALL BE
�����
PLACED IN TRENCH,
NOTES:
BACKFILLED, AND COMPACTED
1. IN AREAS TO BE MATTED, ALL SEEDING, SOILSTREAM
AMENDMENTS, AND SOIL PREPARATION MUST BE
BED
6" BURIED BELOW STREAMBED
COMPLETED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF COIR
FIBER MATTING.
BACKFILL WITH
2. WOODEN STAKES ARE PREFERRED. USE OF STAPLES
STREAMBED MATERIAL
AS SMALL ANCHORS MUST BE PRE -APPROVED BY
THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
—
i DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KILT 3/2/18
F
Mrrlgarion servkes
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
SOD MAT PLACEMENT
MAT POINT BARS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
WHERE INDICATED ON PLANS
OFSTREAMBANK
MATTING PLACEMENT
SEE PLAN VIEW SHEET FOR MATTING LOCATIONS
TYPICAL MATTING PLAN VIEW
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
OFSTREAMBANK
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rt-MRESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT # SHEET NO.
082 2E
DETAILS
LARGEANCHORS
2" X 2" (NOMINAL)
WOODEN STAKE
1"
2
2"
�Iy4"
I
SMALLANCHORS
WOODEN STAKE
1 "(NOMINAL)
STAPLE
12"
ANCHOR OPTIONS
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

CULVERT SPECIFICATIONS
MATERIALS:
SPECIFICATIONS:
GRAVEL
TYPE: #57 STONE AND CRUSHER RUN (50/50 MIX)
FILL
TYPE: ON-SITEALLUVIUM
PLANTING NOTES:
TYPE: TYPE 2 NON -WOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
WIDTH UPSTREAM: 6 FT MINIMUM
NOTES FOR CULVERT STRUCTURES:
1. TYPE 4 BEDDING, POSITIVE EMBANKMENT CONDITION.
2. CLASS I OR STRONGER 481N X 35 FT MINIMUM TO BE INSTALLED.
3. STABILIZE FILL AROUND CULVERTS WITH CLASS B STONE.
STABILIZE REMAINING ROAD SIDE SLOPES WITH EROSION
MATTING ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS.
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
—
i DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR
I I
CSI I
REQUIRED COVER DEPTH
1 .5 FT MIN.
UPSTREAM INLET ELEV.
II
I I
GRAVEL
�21NCH
PLANTING NOTES:
-II—I
I I I
-
�IIIITIIIII II I—I
�p OO O OO O �o
foo 000 0� �o
9 OC
0
o o
EXISTING GROUND
PLANTING BAG
1. INSERT PLANTING BAR AS
SHOWN AND PULL HANDLE
2, REMOVE PLANTING BAR AND
3. INSERT PLANTING BAR 2 INCHES
DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALL
BE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG OR
TOWARD PLANTER.
PLACESEEDING AT CORRECT
TOWARD PLANTER FROM SEEDING.
SIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT
DEPTH.
THE ROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING.
FILTER FABRIC
(TYPICAL)
GRAVEL
19 FT
Bpi
KBC PLANTING BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE
FILL
WITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION,
AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG,
2 x 481N RCP
4INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH THICK
_
i
AT CENTER.
III_I1=1II
REROOT
DOWNSTREAM
PRUNING
4. PULL HANDLE OF BAR TOWARD
5. PUSH HANDLE FORWARD
6. LEAVE COMPATION HOLE
ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT PRUNED, illl�ui
PLANTER, FIRMING SOIL AT
FIRMING SOIL AT TOP.
OPEN. WATER THOROUGHLY.
IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NO ROOTS
BOTTOM.
EXTEND MORE THAN 10 INCHES BELOW
THE ROOT COLLAR.
UPSTREAM
CULVERT
INVERT
EXTEND G
EXISTING
CLASS B
STONE
2�
Mfl arta l Srrvlces
or.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
CULVERT DETAIL
REQUIRED COVER DEPTH
1 .5 FT MIN.
UPSTREAM INLET ELEV.
1037.60
GRAVEL
1037.43
UPSTREAM INLET STA.
SLOPE 10:1 TO
DOWNSTREAM INLET STA.
10+36
�p OO O OO O �o
foo 000 0� �o
9 OC
0
o o
EXISTING GROUND
�00O
0
FILTER FABRIC
FILL Z FILL
Z_ —
( TYPICAL )
481N RCP 481N RCP
z ?
o O
CROSS SECTION
Z_
FILTER FABRIC
(TYPICAL)
GRAVEL
19 FT
Bpi
FILL
2 x 481N RCP
35 FT
DOWNSTREAM
PROFILE VIEW ALONG STREAM
INVERTRT
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
VARIABLE CULVERT 1
REQUIRED COVER DEPTH
1 .5 FT MIN.
UPSTREAM INLET ELEV.
1037.60
DOWNSTREAM INLET ELEV.
1037.43
UPSTREAM INLET STA.
10+01
DOWNSTREAM INLET STA.
10+36
FARM PATH ELEV.
1043.09
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rt-MRESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT # SHEET NO.
082 2F
DETAILS
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

CLASS B RIPRAP OVERLAIN
WITH CLASS A RIPRAP
CROSS SECTION
NOTES:
1 . CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE
BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS.
COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW.
5. DIVERT ALL SURFACE RUNOFF FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE
ONTO UNDISTURBED AREAS ADJOINING THE STREAM.
6. ALIGN ROAD APPROACHES WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE
CROSSING FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 30 FEET.
7. GRADE SLOPES TO A 5:1 SLOPE OR FLATTER. TRANSPLANT
SOD FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBANK ONTO SIDE SLOPES IF POSSIBLE.
S. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION
ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
9. A STABILIZED PAD OF STONE BACKFILL, LINED WITH GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVER ACCESS SLOPES.
10. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE 20FEET.
1 1. INSPECT STREAM CROSSING AFTER RUNOFF - PRODUCING RAINS TO
CHECK FOR BLOCKAGE IN CHANNEL, EROSION OF BANKS, CHANNEL SCOUR,
STONE DISPLACMENT, OR PIPING. MAKE ALL REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY TO
PREVENT FUTHER DAMAGE TO INSTALLATION.
E
SECON
A 'J
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING PFC
INSET
SURFACE FLOW DIVERSION
5.0 FT
MIN. 3"
OF • 0.5 FT
CLASS A
STONE
INSET
GRADE CONTROL WOODY RIFF
A
BACKFILL WITH
ON-SITE ALLUVIUM
/
SANDY SOIL BACKFILL
SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS
ISOMETRIC VIEW OF GRADING
SURFACE FLOW DIVERSION
HEADER LOG
SECTION A -A'
PRIMARY LOGS
HEADER LOG
PRIMARY LOGS r TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES
O SPACE EVERY 5'-7' /
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
BANKFULL� CHANNEL DIMENSIONS BANKFULL ELEVATION
SET INVERT BASED ON /
HEADER LOG \ DESIGN STREAM PROFILE
A ENDINVERT a / /
PLAN VIEW — — _ HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
NOTES:
1. PRIMARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12" OR MORE DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK 5' ON EACH SIDE.
2. SECONDARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 1 " IN DIAMETER AND NO LARGER THAN 10", AND EXTEND INTO THE BANK 2 FEET ON EACH SIDE.
WOOD MATERIAL SHALL BE VARYING DIAMETER TO ALLOW MATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED. BURIED INTO BURIED INTO
3. ROOTWADS AND COIR FIBER MATTING CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER. BANK BANK
4. AFTER TRENCH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED A LAYER OF SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHOULD BE PLACED WITH SECTION B - B'
MINIMAL GAPS. A LAYER OF ON-SITE ALLUVIUM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO FILL VOIDS BETWEEN SECONDARY LOGS
BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAYERS ARE PLACED.
REVISIONS
NO. DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
Mrrlgarion servkes
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
elECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT #SHEET NO.
082 2G
DETAILS
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

STRUCTURE TABLES - MEADOW BROOK
Log Vanes
Station at
Point 2
Length (ft)
Arm
Angle (deg)
Slope (%)
Log Lengthl
(ft)
Elevation (ft)
Pt 1 Pt 2
11+19.00
17.0
16.5
5.0%
25.0
1041.35
1040.50
12+92.00
12+03.00
17.0
16.5
5.0%
25.0
1041.07
1040.22
30
12+81.00
16.0
17.5
5.0%
25.0
1040.80
1040.00
16+72.00
13+66.00
17.0
16.5
5.0%
25.0
1040.52
1039.67
8
14+48.00
16.0
17.5
5.0%
25.0
1040.25
1039.45
66
15+30.00
16.0
17.5
5.0%
25.0
1039.97
1039.17
22+56.00
16+26.00
17.0
16.5
5.0%
25.0
1039.65
1038.80
54
16+55.00
17.0
16.5
5.0%
25.0
1039.55
1038.70
25+43.00
17+38.00
15.0
18.7
5.5%
25.0
1039.27
1038.45
8
18+28.00
18.0
15.5
4.5%
25.0
1038.97
1038.16
63
19+15.00
16.0
17.5
5.0%
25.0
1038.68
1037.88
28+06.00
20+09.00
15.0
18.7
5.5%
25.0
1038.37
1037.54
46
21+01.00
17.0
16.5
5.0%
25.0
1038.06
1037.21
31+80.00
21+33.00
16.0
17.5
5.5%
25.0
1037.95
1037.07
8
22+48.00
16.0
17.5
5.0%
25.0
1037.57
1036.77
22 1
23+39.00
16.0
17.5
5.0%
25.0
1037.26
1036.46
37+49.00
24+40.00
16.0
17.5
5.0%
25.0
1036.92
1036.12
25+59.00
16.0
17.5
5.5%
25.0
1036.52
1035.64
26+59.00
16.0
17.5
5.0%
25.0
1036.19
1035.39
26+87.00
16.0
17.5
5.0%
25.0
1036.09
1035.29
27+94.00
16.0
17.5
5.5%
25.0
1035.74
1034.86
30+28.00
16.0
20.2
0.1
25.0
1034.78
1033.90
31+36.00
16.0
20.2
0.1
25.0
1034.37
1033.49
32+45.00
17.0
19.0
0.1
1 25.0
1033.95
1 1033.01
34+22.00
18.0
19.1
0.1
1 30.0
1032.97
1 1032.07
35+43.00
18.0
19.1
0.1
1 30.0
1032.17
1 1031.27
37+12.00
18.0
19.1
0.1
1 30.0
1031.05
1 1030.15
Sod Mats
STA Length
(ft)
Bank
Length (ft)
Width (ft)
Begin
Station (ft)
End
Station (ft)
32
47
8
12+14.00
12+46.00
30
46
8
12+92.00
13+22.00
27
41
8
14+60.00
14+87.00
19
30
8
15+42.00
15+61.00
38
49
8
16+34.00
16+72.00
23
33
8
17+48.00
17+71.00
25
37
8
19+17.00
19+42.00
124
148
8
21+13.00
22+37.00
66
66
8
21+71.00
22+37.00
22
32
8
22+56.00
22+78.00
74
90
8
23+51.00
24+25.00
54
54
8
23+71.00
24+25.00
91
107
8
24+52.00
25+43.00
72
72
8
24+71.00
25+43.00
32
44
8
25+71.00
26+03.00
63
63
8
27+12.00
27+75.00
63
63
8
27+12.00
27+75.00
94
111
8
28+06.00
29+00.00
79
73
8
28+31.00
29+10.00
32
46
8
30+42.00
30+74.00
28
43
8
31+52.00
31+80.00
23
14
8
32+59.00
32+82.00
20
24
8
34+36.00
34+56.00
23
29
8
35+57.00
35+80.00
22 1
33
8
36+04.00
36+26.00
44 1
45
8
37+49.00
37+93.00
Structures may change to Toe Wood at the direction ofthe
REVISIONS
NO. DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
Mrr*rion Srrvkes
lq.:.. , -ff
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
Offset Rock Cross Vanes
Sill
Length (ft)
Length (ft)
Outside Arm
Angle (deg) I
Slope (%)
Imert
Length (ft)
I
I Length (ft)
Inside Arm
Angle (deg) I
Slope (%)
Station (ft) I
At Pt 3
Pt 1 1
Elevation (ft)
Pt 2 Pt 3
1 Pt 4
4.0
18.0
18.8
4.8%
5.0
12.4
18.8
1.0%
29+36.00
1035.53
1035.13 1034.27
1034.39
4.0
19.4
19.0
4.5%
5.0
12.8
19.0
1.0%
33+41.00
1033.91
1033.51 1032.64
1032.76
4.0
17.0
21.9
4.7%
5.0
11.0
21.9
1.0%
34+86.00
1032.96
1032.56 1031.76
1031.87
Log Rollers
Constructed Riffles
Point 1
Station I Elevation
Point 1
Point 2
Length
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Slope
Sta. (ft) T
Elev(ft.)
Sta. (ft)
Elev(ft.)
Sta. (ft) I
Elev(ft.)
Sta. (ft)
Elev(ft.)
Sta. (ft)
FElev(ft.)
12+81.00
21+71.00
1040.02
1037.13
21+80.00
1037.10
22+12.00
13+48.00
1036.99
N/A
N/A
22+37.00
1036.91
0.33%
23+71.00
18.0
1036.46
23+85.00
1036.41
24+13.00
16+26.00
1036.32
N/A
N/A
24+25.00
1036.28
0.33%
24+71.00
1038.02
1036.13
N/A
N/A
24+86.00
8
1036.08
25+18.00
1035.97
25+43.00
1035.89
0.33%
27+12.00
24
1035.32
N/A
N/A
27+24.00
1.08%
1035.28
27+52.00
1035.18
27+75.00
1035.11
0.34%
28+31.00
8.0
1034.92
28+40.00
1034.87
28+66.00
1036.63
1034.74
28+90.00
1034.61
29+00.00
1034.56
0.52
Constructed Riffles
Point 1
Station I Elevation
Point 2
Station Elevation
Bottom
Width
Length
Slope
10+83.00
1040.75
11+19.00
STA Length
(ft)
1040.54
Width (ft)
8.0
36.0
0.56%
12+65.00
Pt 2
1040.17
12+81.00
49
1040.02
8
8.0
16.0
0.92%
13+48.00
1039.20
1039.89
13+66.00
32
1039.74
8
8.0
18.0
0.88%
16+00.00
1038.85
1039.05
16+26.00
31
1038.88
8
8.0
26.0
0.66%
17+22.00
1038.02
1038.64
17+38.00
25
1038.51
8
8.0
16.0
0.82%
19+06.00
1036.49
1038.02
19+15.00
24
1037.92
8
8.0
9.0
1.08%
20+89.00
1035.88
1037.41
21+01.00
27
1037.29
8
8.0
12.0
1.01%
23+22.00
1032.39
1036.63
23+39.00
52.5 1
1036.46
8
8.0
17.0
0.97%
26+42.00
1030.37
1035.55
26+59.00
1035.41
8.0
17.0
0.83%
29+00.00
1034.56
29+36.00
1034.27
10.4
36.0
0.81 %
32+81.00
1033.09
33+29.00
1032.91
10.4
48.0
0.38
33+29.00
1032.91
33+41.00
1032.64
13.0
12.0
2.29%
Permanent Ford Crossing runs through this constructed riffle from 32+99 to 33+19
Toe Wood with Geolift
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rim RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT #SHEET NO.
082 3
TABLES
J
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
Toe Wood
Dimensions
Elevation (ft)
STA Length
(ft)
Bank
Length (ft)
Width (ft)
Depth (ft)
Begin
Station (ft)
End
Station (ft)
Pt 1
Pt 2
Pt 3
Pt 4
49
69
8
2.5
10+30.00
10+79.00
1041.70
1039.20
1041.53
1039.03
32
45
8
2.5
11+34.00
11+66.00
1041.35
1038.85
1041.24
1038.74
31
46
8
2.5
13+80.00
14+11.00
1040.52
1038.02
1040.42
1037.92
25
34
8
2.5
18+39.00
18+64.00
1038.99
1036.49
1038.90
1036.40
24
33
8
2.5
20+21.00
20+45.00
1038.38
1035.88
1038.30
1035.80
27
38
8
2.75
29+50.00
29+77.00
1035.14
1032.39
1035.04
1032.29
52.5 1
83
8
2.5
34+55.50
35+08.00
1032.87
1030.37
1032.52
1030.02
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rim RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT #SHEET NO.
082 3
TABLES
J
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
-
i DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
STRUCTURE TABLES - UT
Log Vanes
Station at
Point 2
Length (ft)
Arm
Angle (deg)
Slope (%)
Log Length
(ft)
Elevation (ft)
Pt 1 Pt 2
11+57.00
12.0
20
6.0%
20
1037.94
1037.22
12+37.00
12.0
20
6.0%
20
1037.56
1036.84
12+99.00
12.5
19
6.0%
20
1037.27
1036.52
13+24.00
12.5
19
6.0%
20
1037.15
1036.40
13+94.00
14.0
17
5.0%
20
1036.82
1036.12
14+66.00
13.0
19
5.5%
20
1036.48
1035.76
15+59.00
13.0
19
5.5%
20
1036.04
1035.32
16+27.00
13.0
19
5.5%
20
1035.71
1035.00
Constructed Riffles
Point 1 Point 2Bottom
Width
Length
Slope
Station Elevation Station Elevation
16+50.00 1035.01 17+03.55 1034.27
1 6.9
1 53.6
1 1.4
Log Rollers
Point 1 1 Point 2 1 Point 3 1 Point 4 Point 5
Slope
Sta. (ft)
Elev(ft.) Sta. (ft)
Elev(ft.) Sta. (ft) Elev(ft.) Sta. (ft)
Elev(ft.) Sta. (ft)
Elev(ft.)
STA Length
(ft)
14+88.00
1035.78 15+02.00
1035.71 15+25.00 1035.61 NA
NA 15+37.00
1035.55
0.5%
Toe Wood with Geolift
Sod Mats
STA Length
(ft)
Bank
Length (ft)
Toe Wood
Dimensions
End
Station (ft)
23
Elevation (ft)
STA Length
(ft)
Bank
Length (ft)
Width (ft)
Depth (ft)
Begin
Station (ft)
End pt 1
Station (ft)
Pt 2 Pt 3 Pt 4
30
45
7.0
2.5
10+69.00
10+99.00 1038.42
1035.92 1038.28 1035.78
22
29
7.0
2.5
15+68.00
15+90.00 1036.05
1033.55 1035.95 1 1033.45
Sod Mats
STA Length
(ft)
Bank
Length (ft)
Width (ft)
Begin
Station (ft)
End
Station (ft)
23
33
7.0
11+66.00
11+89.00
20
30
7.0
12+41.00
12+61.00
35
50
7.0
13+01.00
13+36.00
23
32
7.0
14+04.00
14+27.00
61
73
7.0
14+76.00
15+37.00
80
87
7.0
14+88.00
15+68.00
39 1
44
7.0
16+36.00
16+75.00
Structures may change to Toe Wood at the direction of the
Engineer.
MrrVarion Serrkes
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rt-MRESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT # SHEET NO.
082 3A
TABLES
J
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

VEGETATION SELECTION
Temporary Seeding
Temporary herbaceous seed mixtures for the restoration site shall be planted in all disturbed areas. Temporary seed shall be applied
according to the construction specifications and the information specified below.
Scientific Name Common Name Rate Dates
Seca/e cereale Cereal Rye Grain 130 lbs/acre September to March (Cool Season)
Urochloa ramosa Browntop Millet 30 lbs/acre April to August (Warm Season)
Total Planting Area for Temporary Seeding 11.6 acre(s)
Zone 2 - Riparian Wetlands (Permanent Seeding)
This permanent seed mixture shall be planted in all disturbed areas as specified on the plans as Zone 2. This permanent seed
mixture shall be applied with temporary seed, as defined in the construction specifications. Permanent seed shall be applied at a
rate of 25 lbs/acre.
Total 100%
Total Planting Area for Permanent Seeding: 13. acre(s)
Zone 3 - Uplands (Permanent Seeding)
This permanent seed mixture shall be planted in all disturbed areas as specified on the plans as Zone 3. This permanent seed
mixture shall be applied with temporary seed, as defined in the construction specifications. Permanent seed shall be applied at a
rate of 25 1bs/acre.
Wetland
Scientific Name
Common Name
% by Species
Indicator Status
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
23%
FAC
Elymus riparius
Riverbank Wildrye
20%
FACW
Panicum dichotomiflorum
Smooth Panicgrass
14%
FACW
Carex vulpinoidea
Fox sedge
12%
OBL
Panicum rigidulum
Redtop Panicgrass
8%
FACW
Dichanthelium clandestinum
Deer -tongue
8%
FAC
Bidens frondosa (oraristosa)
Beggars Tick
7%
FACW
Juncus effusus
Soft Rush
4%
FACW
Persicaria pensylvanica
Pennsylvania smartweed
2%
FACW
Sparganum americanum
American Bur Reed
2%
OBL
Total 100%
Total Planting Area for Permanent Seeding: 13. acre(s)
Zone 3 - Uplands (Permanent Seeding)
This permanent seed mixture shall be planted in all disturbed areas as specified on the plans as Zone 3. This permanent seed
mixture shall be applied with temporary seed, as defined in the construction specifications. Permanent seed shall be applied at a
rate of 25 1bs/acre.
Total Planting Area for Permanent Seeding: 0.g acre(s)
Zone 4 - Areas Outside of Easement (Permanent Seeding)
This permanent seed mixture shall be planted in all disturbed areas as specified on the plans as Zone 4. This permanent seed
mixture shall be applied with temporary seed, as defined in the construction specifications. Permanent seed shall be applied at the
rate shown below.
Scientific Name Common Name Rate Dates
Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass 1 Ib/1,000 sq.ft.
August -September (Cool Season)
Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue 5 Ib/1,000 sq.ft.
Total 6 lbs/1,000 sq.ft
Total Planting Area for Permanent Seeding: 0.4 acre(s)
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
Mrrlgarion Servkes
or.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
Zone 1 - Live Staking (Stream Banks)
Live stakes will be installed along all stabilized bank areas, as indicated on the planting plan sheets, details, and according to the
construction specifications. Live stake all disturbed banks with a single row at a 1,742 live stakes per acre (5'x 5' spacing). Not
all of the species listed may be planted. Commercial availability may dictate which species are actually planted.
Wetland
Scientific Name
Common Name
%by Species
Indicator Status
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wildrye
15%
FACW
Tripsacum dactyloides
Eastern Gamma Grass
13%
FACW
Agrostis scabra
Rough bentgrass
12%
FAC
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
12%
FAC
Carex vulpinoidea
Fox Sedge
10%
OBL
Tridens flavus
Purple Top
10%
FACU
Schizachydum scoparium
Little Blue Stem
8%
FACU
Coreopsis lanceolata
Lance -Leaved Tick Seed
5%
FACU
Elymus hystrix
Bottlebrush Grass
5%
UPL
Sorghastrum nutans
Yellow Indian Grass
5%
FACU
Festuca ovina var. duriuscala
Hard Fescue
4%
UPL
Rudbeckia hirta
Black -Eyed Susan
1%
FACU
Quercus rubra
Total
100%
FACU
Total Planting Area for Permanent Seeding: 0.g acre(s)
Zone 4 - Areas Outside of Easement (Permanent Seeding)
This permanent seed mixture shall be planted in all disturbed areas as specified on the plans as Zone 4. This permanent seed
mixture shall be applied with temporary seed, as defined in the construction specifications. Permanent seed shall be applied at the
rate shown below.
Scientific Name Common Name Rate Dates
Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass 1 Ib/1,000 sq.ft.
August -September (Cool Season)
Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue 5 Ib/1,000 sq.ft.
Total 6 lbs/1,000 sq.ft
Total Planting Area for Permanent Seeding: 0.4 acre(s)
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
Mrrlgarion Servkes
or.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
Zone 1 - Live Staking (Stream Banks)
Live stakes will be installed along all stabilized bank areas, as indicated on the planting plan sheets, details, and according to the
construction specifications. Live stake all disturbed banks with a single row at a 1,742 live stakes per acre (5'x 5' spacing). Not
all of the species listed may be planted. Commercial availability may dictate which species are actually planted.
Total Planting Area for Livestakes 0.8 acre(s)
Zone 2 - Riparian Wetlands Vegetation
Riparian vegetation species (bare -roots) shall be planted in the areas designated on the plans using the species mixture and
percentages listed below. Riparian species shall be planted at an overall density of 680 stems per acre (8' x 8' spacing). All
species will be planted according to the plans, details, and construction specifications. Not all of the species listed may be
planted - a minimum of 6 species will be planted. Commercial availability may dictate which species are actually planted.
Approx. Number of
Wetland Indicator
Scientific Name
Common Name
%by Species
Stems
Status
Comus amomum
Silky dogwood
40%
582
FACW
Salix sericea
Silky willow
30%
437
OBL
Salix nigra
Black willow
20%
291
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
10%
146
FAC
10%
Total
100%
1456
15%
Total Planting Area for Livestakes 0.8 acre(s)
Zone 2 - Riparian Wetlands Vegetation
Riparian vegetation species (bare -roots) shall be planted in the areas designated on the plans using the species mixture and
percentages listed below. Riparian species shall be planted at an overall density of 680 stems per acre (8' x 8' spacing). All
species will be planted according to the plans, details, and construction specifications. Not all of the species listed may be
planted - a minimum of 6 species will be planted. Commercial availability may dictate which species are actually planted.
Total 100%
Total Planting Area for Riparian Vegetation g.2 acre(s)
Zone 3 - Upland Vegetation
Upland vegetation species (bare -roots) shall be planted in the areas designated on the plans using the species mixture and
percentages listed below. Species shall be planted at an overall density of 680 stems per acre (8' x 8' spacing). All species
will be planted according to the plans, details, and construction specifications. Not all of the species listed may be planted - a
minimum of 6 species will be planted. Commercial availability may dictate which species are actually planted.
Wetland
Scientific Name
Common Name
%by Species
Indicator Status
Betula nigra
River Birch
20%
FACW
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
5%
FACW
Diospryos vlrginiana
Persimmon
10%
FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
10%
FACW
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
20%
FACW
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
10%
FAC
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
15%
FAC
Ulmus americana
American Elm
10%
FACW
Total 100%
Total Planting Area for Riparian Vegetation g.2 acre(s)
Zone 3 - Upland Vegetation
Upland vegetation species (bare -roots) shall be planted in the areas designated on the plans using the species mixture and
percentages listed below. Species shall be planted at an overall density of 680 stems per acre (8' x 8' spacing). All species
will be planted according to the plans, details, and construction specifications. Not all of the species listed may be planted - a
minimum of 6 species will be planted. Commercial availability may dictate which species are actually planted.
NI = No indicator status Total 100%
Total Planting Area for Upland Vegetation 0.9 acre(s)
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rt-MRESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
(77JECT4=D
082
VEGETATION
SELECTION
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
Wetland
Scientific Name
Common Name
°/ by Species
Indicator Status
Carya glabra
Pignut Hickory
10%
FACU
Carya tomentosa
Mockemut Hickory
10%
NI
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
5%
FACU
Comus florida
Flowering Dogwood
5%
FACU
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
10%
FAC
Ilex opaca
American Holly
5%
FACU
Junipems virginiana
Eastern Red Cedar
5%
FACU
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
10%
FACU
Oxydendrum arboreum
Sourwood
5%
UPL
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
5%
FACU
Quercus alba
White Oak
10%
FACU
Quercus falcate
Southern Red Oak
10%
FACU
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
10%
FACU
NI = No indicator status Total 100%
Total Planting Area for Upland Vegetation 0.9 acre(s)
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rt-MRESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
(77JECT4=D
082
VEGETATION
SELECTION
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

...........................................................................Wa.................................................. Wawa .....Wa WaWa a.............................................................................■..............................
:����Y�:����� mommon:::::::Y wYNEW 1111110 1111110 MENEM Y wYwY a:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: \YY�\YY:
—...........................................................................wY wawY wawY wY■■■■■■■■■■■..a wawY wawY ■■■..wY wawY a................................................................................................Y wawY
...........................................................................Waw.. ,.aalWa wY............w Wawa Wawa .....Wa WaWa................................................................................................a Wawa
...........................................................................!•- 7►'A .I.F. flf_llrl.l►\I\�............R MEMO TRi►rJti.l7.'�T.LT�SJl-.7...............................................................................................a wYwY wYwY
............::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ii1■�o■■ ■+i■ i ■oi a:::::::::::ii:■i •■L■�i-■aiii-L •■Li■mi■■Wi■ri ■� lgawi■&-i■ i

EPP

IIII
PENN...... Y�IYYI
........,G s�MO
::-ma-A&
.....�Y PEEP...
YY.rN01.......
MENEM
. rim..
=1114 LJ
MEPEEP...
ESJl1E
�wS�iiiiiii
.0 0.
.■.:.E.:.E.:.E.:...:
............................
.E.E.�.—T1
—�....
YRti
—.........—......Y.—YYYE
Hill
Hill
Hill Hill Hill
Hill
..irIM_m.
.—YYYY
Hill
..:.E.i.E.l.E.i■.i
.............
.E.E.E.
~
.ENN'
IEE
........
�...........
........
.IIII
i.... ����
L.................................Y.Fi
Y i....................................Y
IEE................................�.N6
IEE................................�LfI.T�................................
�E..E.ENEE.E.E...................
Y�
Y�
IH Hill
Hill
Hill Hill Hill
Hill ���Pm
IO-4 ���
000000000����������������������
IEE..............................HmI..M................................YY.
In nouon
nouon nouon
n.Yuc
�nno.
nouon nouon no.Y�
IEE..........
.................
EEEEEEEEEEEEEYWEE
EMMm
..Ym
Y moil
EPP

.......ila. �...........................
oo. ons.. oo.
oo.
oo.
oo.
oo.
o0
.......................................
oo. oo. oo.
oo.
oo.
oo.
oo.
o0
oo. oo. oo.
oo.
oo.
oo.
oo.
o0
..............
........o u....u.....
............
ou.
u..........m.
oo
MENOMONEE
oo
.........
o0
EPP

............................Y IA1'-IY............................................../_1.A....................
..............YY
- ............................Y n1Y.Y..............................................L91!!.................................YY
............................Y Y�Y...........................................MEN Y.................................�
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�i�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.�iw
..............
..........................................................■.........
..............................Ym....................................
................................
................Y....Y.. �. YW..... WY....................
...........................................................................YY....Y.YY ii i....................
oo.00. oo.00. oo.00. oo.00. oo.00. oo....o .....00. o.o- . .....................
o�iY-...o..-..
............... 1111111 MENEM 011111111110t -lam W.......
rR �......
X000000 wn
..LLY......
No" ���
11111
..........................l.b�- YY......
1
..........................^ �......
...............00..0...1+.1.1 YY......
bm"i
SUMMER
i ii0 !
em.....�
�7��ifiIY�esY1i........i........i........i........i.........
...........�......�
........--i�.
i...................�YYmo.
rM[11.J1.'11
.Y.l�7.i711
iii.ii.......Y.......
iiiiiiiii.....i�iiiiYi..Y..F.Il
....iW...............
i.............................................i.............................................i......................................■......i.............................................i...........................................i..............................................................................
�Y<fYYnnY:.U1-1nI1.J�Ll.11.■1l1
MINE
...........■.
UfION
.W.i
....ii-i..�.�......�.......�.......�.......�..ii--i......�.......�......�......�......�.
ii
....YY-i..�.......�.....�YY.....�........�Y.....�.....�Y
■.....r.iSEEM
VERNON! inY..nIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE
YMons
millimill
EPP

EPP

11111■11!\i�11111111■1111�M X111111111111111111111■111111
1111111[�Jl'�J111111111111[•7[U7�111111111111111111111►�11�J�1
■■■■■■■1ra 071■1■1■■■■11■61G: �111111111111111111111C:IIC91
111111111e 111111111111o1G V ■�111111111111111111111N.J [4.11
nn1 nr.a ra11nn1 norm n �o nn1 nn1 nn1 moor/1
11111111=1!£fonln nolo V in 111111111111111 n1r.1LC11
1111111\.7 l'1�11111111111nYIIU 7�11111111111111111111E11±1J■1
.
1111■■■■_:f.■■■■■■1Or ■■1111■1111■1111■■■■Lf. \l.
1111■ ■■.=.1 ■......■■■■■■■ ■■■■1�� V .�■■ 1111■ 111.E NEEM■ ■■■i al•1■
11111111=i P_7111111111IINEL Wn111111111111111111r1i7
11111 n[ii 1T111111111111n1� 1i �11111111111111111111��1�1
nommomnommonmom mmilmo1 1Y W��00 000 000..........tlrl Wt
1111111111111111 ■■■.� rr �11111111111111111111L7L'J1
11111111111111111111■ 1111■ n1n F■■141...1 •.. Ir ■1111111���1
...... ofl000■oo..... i■ooroo■oo■o.r ..ac=r_m
■■■■■■■■■■ owl lore ............. woo................ �rm■
nn1....■nnolnnnm11n1ur■rrrr.rla.iia� ��[-za=za-
....1111111111111111111r,11111111111111111111111111 i11o�m1
1111111111•••••......■■.■■1■11111111111111111111111110MMM1
■■■■■■■01111•.--+.---......� -•.1■�1ill■■■■■mom
•
1111111111111111111■■■■..11111111■0. _ .1111■.vim--.A00■
1111111111111111111111111111a 1171111111■ um :-mA111111110111
1111111111111111111111111111C•117.711111111111111111111110111
11111111111111111111 iiiii-=ii�%........I.iii. ..............
11101011■11110110111.1.110111101111110110111.1.11011110111M111NMI 10w0001L scr m
111101mmMu1111111111111111111��00r-�
Mr.1110m
01
L■�
�01111111111111111111111111100�M��ME
��11 ........................�����
�000■
�111111111111111111111111��5�1111111111111111111111■1111■��
oo■■oo
oo■■■M
0■ oo■■oo
o■ww
w0r.� ww
ww ww
�111111111111111111111111�"•7r`01111111111111111111111111111\G
��_
1�J0��_�_
111111111111111:MI
VO-14
moll:
1111111111111111111:
iiiiir
f,: 7w
ww ww
W111111111111111111111111WlrL'Lo1111111111111111111111111111�\r
W111111111111111111111111W�•7ru`011111111111111111111111111111�11
a�����
������
W111111111111111111111111W
a000■
00000
000■
R F=IN 111111111111111111111111111i
■aur■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■��r.
�w
INLUS HIM ME
ME
ww ww
r0000■oo■oo■oo■o�►r■�0..
�111111111111111111111111�.J11o11111111111111111
o..
o..
oo■
11111
1No 1Mo1111
X1o■r.1.rwwwwww
W111111111111111111111111W
M1111011111111111111111111111111111J1���_
111101111111
mom
a�111111111111111111111111�■r11101111111111111111111111111111fr.■■mow
MENEM MENEM
MEMO
moo::MI
--MI:
immoommi:111::111::111::111:��
�w
ww ww
ww ww
�111111111111111111111111�■■Ir01111111111111111111111111111■•7L
�111111111111111111111111�
010101111111111111111111111111111
�0M
��
0�= ==
=�����
EPP

EPP
::::::.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:::.:.::.::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
nommommom
moommom
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................■■■■■■■■■■■■■■...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................■.............................■
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■■oY>Y.Y>Yoo. oo■oo. oo■oo.
oo■oo. oo■oo.
oo■oo.
oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■oo.
oo■oo.
oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■oo. oo■oo.
oo■00..■1.■>Y
.0111.51.7..11.1111.■FM=.■1L
■■■.■:.....:.....:.....:■■■.■:■■■.■:.....:.....:.....:■■■.■:■■■.■:.....:.....:.....:■■■.■:■■■.■:.■...:.■...:.■...:■■■.■:
■■■.■:.■...:.■...:.■..:■■■■:■■■■:.■..:.■..:.■..:■■■■:■■■:....:....:....:■.■■:■.■■:............■.■■■.■■............■.■■■.■■............■.■■ ■.■■............■.■■■.MM.......[.I■M11.■'.19.�n4uIl.M1I.G 1.■11>mur\1S.�YT.r71i1.i=iYYU iMI r.IYJ.MuM.■.N■M■■.N.■.MMMM■.N.■.M■M■_■.M.M..■MMMMMMMM..M..■..N■■
Y:V\'MYMi■►a.7-M..G�..■■....mom
M■MM■M■.
M■■■..N..■..MMMMMM■..N..■..M■■M■■■..N..■..MMMMMM■..N..■.M■
■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■M.Y.0
M■■.N.■.MMMM■.N.■.M■
■■N.■.N.■MMM■.N.■.M■M■■.N.■.MMMM■.N.■.M■M■■.N.■.MMMM■.N.■.M■M■■.N.■.MMMM■.N.■.M■
M■■.N.■.MMMM■.N.■.M■M■■.N.■.MMMM■.N.■.M■M■■.N.■.MMMM■.N.■.M■M■■.N.■.MMMM■.N.■.M■M■■.N.■.M■M■■.N.■.M■ M■■.N.■.M■M■■.N.■.M■
M■■.N.■.M■M■■.N.■.M■ ■■■Y—
..................................Li\JY
■■■■■■■■..■II■■■■■■..■■■YMY■■■■■■.N
...0000■.1...1.....■.■. MENE...■■■■YY 0000■M■....................................................................................................................................................■M■■■.■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■
.u■uWWM.u■ ■■.
.■■...■■...■....... Mono �i.l\rKliL1\IM7W.■■...■■...■■.■...■■....■■■■......M■M■......■■■■......M■M■......■■■■......M■M■......■■■■......M■M■......■■■■......M■M■......■■■■......M■M■......■■■■......M■M■......■■■■......M■M■......■■■■......M■M■......■■■■......M■M■......■■■■......■■■■......■■■■......■■■■......■■■.Y.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.
MEMO
Y
_lra.........::::d
... ... ... ... ... . . ... ... ... ... ... .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::■.�...�
........................::11:::.W.■.— ����..1..1�����■-.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.■��
■...■...Y M...MM...■■..■■■■■11■■............................1..1sommom ��� Y.M...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■
....1..1�J Y..11.......YI
■■II■■■■■■■■■■. 1..I.I.Y IIIC .Y.Y..I..I.YIIII1__..I............................................................................................................................................................MENEM
MI =�11HH H! :U1::::::HIINi■■m■1�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::■■■■■■mmmmmm■111•Y■■■■■■■■■■■■II■■1111■011m.s■■■■1■1���..1..1����..1■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
•■nr■o■.oac��. nwJ�Wooil�wJ►a��>Y>Y1111n alIuuu■0000.■0000.■0000.■0000.■0000.■0000.■0000.■0000.■0000.■0000.■0000■oou0000u0000.■u......
o■o■Y■nn■o.......
■...■...M..1••■Y..MM...■■.ri pion rlr-.MY ����5 r�lC■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■■■■■11.1 m Y■■■■■■■■■■ • ■■11■■..■�I 1111.1■■r11177 r1 T7 EE= �� Y■w.■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■■■■■■■■■■M..!!•Jr!:M■■YIl11r:Mill
���YI/Jbru..■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1..a16■a.117011.\rl• Lfu1rW ����—1r7■.1.■■■■■■■■■■■■■..................................................11......■.I.1..aial '7.1[911�I�7� �Y.ti■■■■■■.Y...II■M..IT.I..D■■Il!11r��..■7���..I..I.■■...■■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...M..•"_•Y..MM...■■...II■M..>ii■C�i■■L511��..L`J!•..I..I��Yfi1..0Y■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...M..rI
Y..MM...■■. ..II■M..\ar■TI.■MC�IIM...Y ..■" MI�..I..I��YM At....■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...■■o 11■10
MMMW.10 WOVE 00-11. .0000 END-.d 1111101111111149"M MENOMONEE 11001 MENEM
MENEM MINE
■■■■M■.r.. Y■■■M■■■■ M■. Y MOOL:;3L''JO ■I• •11 • • 0000 �•�1••.�..1..LY r7m1M■■■■ ■■■■M M■■■■
■■■■M■■■■■■■■■■■.1.iY■■MM...■■..r�VaM...■■...MM■■■■■■■1mm
—_7101._...r. Y.1■■..1..■■.u.........YY..a7......���....1..f.•.7000�LZZ_]]�7[_[1 Y■1..1......11dL.!..�Y...11.......■...M■.Iw—MY..MM...■■...M■1]77CMMEMPI 177[7[[ P1..IMM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...M■■■■M■0—
Y■■■■■■■■■■..M■I ■M..■■..IIM M.■■■■NO=mm11.rrr■■..l■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MM■■■■■■■■M111110
____••••••I ■M..■■..IIM M...■■..Y� Y..MM...■���..IMM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■Y�
■■■■■■■\111■■■■■■■■■■■... � - --_�•.111■■■■..■■���■■■■■■■■����■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.Y1Y
■L.7 .■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■�� ■■■■■ _�■=■�.ig.■.�_■m......... ���__■■■■■■EMEMEN■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■m
.............■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■��
■■■■■■..0 ■.■■■M........... M.�: W ■■...■ ■■...■■. ■ u..MM...■1Y.. ■-AMM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■M■N■■M■M■M■N■■N
0
..........................................................................■■■■■■■■■■■■ENE
■MMM■■MMM■■MMM■M........................■ _ ■.MM.■.■■...M■....mommon r■■■■■M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Y■■..■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■.M■NM■N■M■■■■■M■■■■■■■■■M■■■■M■■■■■■.■■M■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
........................................ • ■1111■.■11111..... r V..11........11.....Y.........11........11........11........11........11........11........11■N.
..................................................................................
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
....11........11........11........11.... • � ..11........11.... - \ 7.11........11.....Y.........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........1■........11........11........1>Y
■...■M...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■ M■NMMM■N■MM■M■M■M■ w l�■M■M■M■N■MM■N■M■Y■■■■■■111■■111■■111■M■■■■■111■M■■■■■111■M■■■■■111■■1111
M■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■MM■N■M■■11■M■■■■■111■M■■■■■111■M■■■■■111■M■■■■■111■M■■■■■111■M■■■■■111■M■■■■■111■M■■■■■111■■Y
■...■M...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■ • ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■IYIM...■■...MM..M■NYM■.M■N■■M■N■■M■N■■MMM...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...M■N■■M■M■M■N■■N■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■■...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...M�
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■....... M■MM■M■M■N ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ • J\GYM...■■...■M...■1Yu..■■N..■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M...■■...■M■N■MM■N■MM■N■M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M■■■■■■■■■M■■■■■■■■■Y•
.■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■■ • ■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■■ . r:�■■■■..■■■■■■■■.. Y1■■■.■0000..0000..0000..0000..0000..0000..0000..0000..0000..0000..0000..0000..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■�
.■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■■ • ■■■■■■............■��■■■■..■■■■■■■■.. �T�. 1.T.fY>Y■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■......
■...■M...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■ ..MM...■■...MM...■ -- LSM...■■...MM...■ Y�=L`1•W.■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM
0
..............
■...■M...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■ ..MM...■■...MM...■ 7■.iM...■■...MM...■..LwJf1.7'l1lfJ1...1.■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■
■...■M...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ \ iM...■■M■N■M■N■■ WMiir_\■\,,1I.�b7.u.■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM.M■N■■M■MMM■M■N...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM.M■■■...MM...■
■■■■■■■■......11........11........11.... ..11........11.... ■r�1........11......WO■■711.■1.Y■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■11■■■..■..11........1■........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11....
....11........11........11........11.... ..11........11.... I..Y�1........11.........1.........1........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11........11....
■...■M...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■ ..MM...■■...MM...■■.....■—Je �M...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■.■■■■■■■■■...■■...■■...■■...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■■...MM...■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M...■■...MM...■■...MM...■ ■ ..MM...■■...MM...■■.....f�7111, R�M.u■ u_WM■W■W■M■■■■■■■■■ Million Million Million
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Million Million
■■■■■Million
Million
■■■■■
■■■■■Million
■■■■■Million
■■■■■Million
■■■■■Million
■■■■■Million
Million
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■Million
Million
EPP

EPP

00
0
D
0
Ir
U)
0U
w
°o
N,
n°-
ro�
Pczn�ttl SHEET NO.
13
'[ON
f
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
ip
1c.
Mrrlgarion servkes
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rt-MRESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
80
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT # SHEET NO.
082 14
GRADING
PLAN
�qA / � � '�, �7Oa FILL IN EXISTING DITCH, TYP.
a
DITCH PLUG, TYP.
zk\` -
& �k A �k n�rpO :k I :k �k r$�0 7047Ld
Ld
/ �k �k �k �k is is A �k �k �k �k �k I �c /
�
--t—r \ 1 9— (n � rI � k �k �'� — \ w
12+00 E -�►- - \ �° 104 c U
i �� — bOl w s' is Y * ± I F-
0 0 1042
+ — 9
— i ;�k 2k �k �k �k
' o
_ -
FILL IN EXISTI ANNEL, TYP. ±\t �q0� - -r �✓, o�� / /�tl°�
�I2 � � 2k103 2k �k �k �k
47
1 Oqq
`� �` ,� WETLAND TREATMENT CELL
FILL IN EXISTING DITCH
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
1c.
Mfl arta n Servkes
ox.cxreconu,r
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
RESTORE GRADE AND
STABILIZE SLOPE
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rt-MRESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
40 20 O 40 80
SCALE (FT)
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT # SHEET NO.
\ 082 15
\ DITCH PLUG, TYP. GRADING
o _` \\ PLAN
FILL IN EXISTING CHANNEL, TYP.
J /
x� 1040, \\ � \ �'�� BOWL OUT EXISTING CHANNEL \ /
TO CREATE VERNAL POOL \ /
X \ 70 )
10
*)70
70\� 1040 I \ 34+ ®� �� �� \\ 104110,0�
7
51036 1039-
��
lb 0406 � �EOl 7, \ \\ —
REALIGN DITCH � 1 36 _
TO DRAIN TO 0
VERNAL POOL o
BOWL OUT EXISTING
CHANNELTOCREATE
VERNAL POOL
d
� 2
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION ENGR. APPROV DATE
1 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN CJ KLT 3/2/18
1c.
Mrrlgarion Servkes
ox.cxreconur
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1 652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
MEADOW BROOK
YADKIN COUNTY, NC
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rt-MRESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
40 20 O 40 80
SCALE (FT)
PROGRESS DRAWING
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

Appendix 10
MORPHOLOGICAL TABLES

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 =Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data, 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3
Table 11 a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project (DMS No. 100024) - Meadow Brook Reach 1
(1936 feet'
Parameter
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SID
n
Min
Mean Med Max SID n
Min
Med
Max Min Mean Med Max SID n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7
25 11.5
7.2
12.5
11.6 19.6
5.4
4
13.8
15.4 16.9
13.8
14.5
15.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
56.0
192.8
209.0 297.0
102.6
4
30.8
291.0 552
180.0
215.0
250.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
2.3 1 1.5
0.8
1 1.5
1.4 2.2
1 0.6
4
0.8
1 1.3 1.7 1
1.1
1.3 1
1.6
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.0
2.3
2.2 2.8
0.4
4
1.1
1.8 2.4
1.3
1.8
2.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
9
40 15.1
15.1
15.7
15.4 16.9
0.9
4
11.0
19.9 28.7
15.2
19.0
25.1
Width/Depth Ratio
3.3
11.4
8.4 25.4
9.8
4
10.0
12.5 15
10.0
11.0
13.0
Entrenchment Ratiol
5.7
17.5
15.7 33.0
12.5
4
2.2
3.1 40.0
12.2
22.6
33.0
'Bank Height Rati
1.0
1.2
1.2 1.5
0.2
5
1.0
1.1 1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11.0
48.7
20.0 216.0
74.2
7
Total riffle length 60-70% of reach length
31.0
52.0
72.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.0076
0.004 0.022
0.0067
7
0.002
10.00451 1 0.007 1 1
0.0034
0.0045
0.006
Pool Length (ft)
9.0
43.9
39.0 98.0
36.8
8
Total pool length 30-40% of reach length
20.0
26.3
38.0
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.1
2.5
2.5 2.8
0.2
8
1.6
3.8 5.0
2.1
3.2
4.7
Pool Spacing (ft)i
30.0
1 88.0 1
73.0 1 177.0
55.0
8
61.4
84.4 140
40.5
86.0
120.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
11.0
27.1
24.0 44.0
12.1
10
53.7
88.3 122.8
54.8
75.5
106.8
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12.0
62.2
31.0 150.0
49.7
11
30.7
42.2 53.7
30.4
36.3
41.4
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.1
5.7
2.8 13.6
4.5
11
2.0
2.8 3.5
2.1
2.5
2.8
Meander Wavelength (ft)
65.0
176.4 1
120.0 1 450.0
143.9
7
107.5
145.8 184.2
103
138.1
189
Meander Width Ratiol
I I
1 1.0
1 2.5 1
2.2 1 4.0
1 1.1 1
10
1 3.5
1 5.8 1 1 8.0 1 1
1 3.7
1 5.1
7.2
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress competency Ib/f2
1
0.3
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
243
68
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ
4.6
10
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.8
25.6 5.6
4.8
2.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
30
230 84.5
73
48
Valley length (ft)
1249
1358*
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1304
1936
Sinuosity (ft)
1.0
1.2 to 1.6
1.4
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.00498
0.0034
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.00498
0.0034
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
5.5
6.7
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
61%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
37%
Biological or Othe
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 =Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data, 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 =Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3
Table 11 b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project (DMS No. 100024) - Meadow Brook Reach 2 (393 feet'
Parameter
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD5
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD n
Min
Med
Max Min Mean Med Max SD n
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.5 30
14.2
14.5
14.5
14.5 14.5
1
15.2
16.9 18.6
16.1
16.6
18.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
48.0
48.0
48.0 48.0
1
37.2
323.0 608
180.0
197.5
215.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1 3
1 1.7
1.7 1
1.7
1.7 1.7 1
1
1
1.5 1 1.9 1
1.2
1.4 1
1.8
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
2.5
2.5 2.5
1
1.2
1.9 2.6
1.5
1.9
1
2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
13 53
21.6
24.0
24.0
24.0 24.0
1
15.2
25.3 35.3
19.3
23.0
33.1
Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
8.7
8.7 8.7
1
10.0
12.5 15
10.0
12.0
13.0
Entrenchment Ratiol
3.3
3.3
3.3 3.3
1
2.2
3.1 40.0
11.1
12.2
13.2
'Bank Height Rati
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
1
1.0
1.1 1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
20.0
55.0
55.0 90.0
2
Total riffle length 60-70% of reach length
37.0
49.0
53.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
0.031
0.031 0.06
2
0.002
10.00451 10.007 1 1
0.0038
0.0045
0.006
Pool Length (ft)
72.0
134.0
134.0 196.0
2
Total pool length 30-40% of reach length
32.0
34.0
39.0
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.1
3.4
3.4 3.7
2
2
4.3 6.7
2.8
3.2
4.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
135.0
213.0
213.0 290.0
2
67.6
93.0 118.3
95.0
108.0
111.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25.0
25.0
25.0 25.0
1
59.2
97.2 135.2
49.3
84.8
92.3
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25.0
25.0
25.0 25.0
1
33.8
46.5 59.2
37.1
38.1
42.1
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2.3
2.3
2.3 2.3
1
2.0
2.8 3.5
2.3
2.3
2.6
Meander Wavelength (ft)
295.0
295.0
295.0 295.0
1
118.3
160.6 202.8
144.0
154.0
187.0
Meander Width Ratiol
I
1
1 2.3 1
2.3 1
2.3 1 2.3 1
1 1
1 3.5
1 5.8 1 1 8.0 1 1
1 3.0
5.2
5.7
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
0.7
0.3
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
186
81
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
43
15
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3 6.6
5.6
4.4
2.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
43 350
120.0
100
64
Valley length (ft)
322
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
350
393
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.2 to 1.6
1.2
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.00685
0.0038
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.00685
0.0038
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
0.4
1.5
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
33%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Othe
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 =Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11 c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project (DMS No. 100024) - Meadow Brook Reach 3 (273 feet) and Meadow Brook Reach 4 (218 feet))
Parameter
I Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SID
n
Min Mean Med Max SID n
Min
Med
Max Min Mean Med Max SID n
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8 32 14.9
21
21
21 21
1
17.7 19.7 21.6
17.7
17.7
18.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
38
38
38 38
1
27.5 736.0 708
35.0
52.5
70.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1 3 1 1.8
1.4 1
1.4
1.4 1.4 1
1
1.0 1 1.. 1 1.8
1.4
1.5 1
1.5
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.9
2.9 2.9
1
1.1 1.7 2.3
1.5
1.9
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
15 62 23.6
30
30
30 30
1
17.7 28.3 38.9
24.8
26.0
27.6
Width/Depth Ratio
15
15
15 15
1
12.0 15.0 18
12.0
12.0
13.0
Entrenchment Ratiol
2
2
2 2
1
1.4 1.8 40
1.9
2.9
3.9
'Bank Height Rati
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
1
1.0 1.1 1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
12
12 18
2
Total riffle length 60-70% of reach length
16.0
23.5
30.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.080
0.068
0.068 0.056
2
0.002 1 0.007 1 1 0.015 1 1
0.0066
0.008
0.01
Pool Length (ft)
50
142
152 225 88
3
Total pool length 30-40% of reach length
21.0
27.5
64.0
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.7
3.1
3.1 3.4 0.4Lid
2.0 4.2 6.3
3.0
2.7
5.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
60
152
152 243
29.5 63.9 98.3
22.0
61.0
104.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
28
35
35 41
2
27.1
35.6
50.1
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
50
50 74
2
38.0
43.0
49.0
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2.3
4.5
4.5 6.7
2
2.1
2.4
2.7
Meander Wavelength (ft)
295
295
295 295
1
92.0
130.0 1
172.0
Meander Width Ratiol
I 1
1 2.5 1
3.1 1
3.1 1 3.7 1 1
2
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1.5
1 2.0 1
2.8
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress competency Ib/f2
0.6
0.6
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
158
148
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
58
41
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
134c
Bc4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3 6.5 5.6
3.9
3.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
50 400 131.0
116
99
Valley length (ft)
508
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
523
533
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
1.1 to 1.2
1.05
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.00369
0.0066
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.00369
0.0066
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
0.4
0.6
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
18%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Othe
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 =Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data, 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 =Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data, 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3
Table 11 d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project (DMS No. 100024) - UT to Meadow Brook (703 feet'
Parameter
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SID
n
Min
Mean Med Max SID n
Min
Med
Max Min Mean Med Max SID n
Bankfull Width (ft)
6
21
9.3
8
8
8 8
1
11.8
13.2 14.5
11.8
12.4
13.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
195
195
195 195
1
28.9
250.0 472
188
188
188
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
2.1
1 1.2
1.5
1 1.5
1.5 1.5 1
1
0.8
1 1.2 1.5 1
1 0.9
1.1 1
1.4
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
2.2
2.2 2.2
1
0.9
1.5 2
1.1
1.6
1.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
7
30
10.3
11
11
11 11
1
9.4
15.6 21.8
11
14
19
Width/Depth Ratio
5
5
5 5
1
10
12.5 15
10
11
13
Entrenchment Ratio
26
26
26 26
1
2.2
3.1 40
15
15.0
15.0
'Bank Height Ratiol
1.2
1.2
1.2 1.2
1
1
1.1 1.1
1
1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
85
118 129 67
3
Total riffle length 60-70% of reach length
27
37
53.6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0066 0.0215
0.008 0.050 0.025
3
0.002
10.00451 1 0.007 1 1
0.005
0.006
0.008
Pool Length (ft)
29
39
31 56 15
3
Total pool length 30-40% of reach length
17
23
52
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.1
3.3
3.1 3.6 0.3
3
1.6
3.4 5.3
2.2
2.6
3.85
Pool Spacing (ft)
65
160
160 254
2
52.6
72.3 92.05
10
56
92
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
16
16
16 16 0
3
46.0
75.6 105.2
44.7
61.7
68.7
Radius of Curvature (ft)
81
81
81 81
1
26.3
36.2 46.0
28.3
29.8
34.3
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
7.4
7.4
7.4 7.4
1
2.0
2.8 3.5
2.2
2.4
2.7
Meander Wavelength (ft)
92.1
124.9 157.8
97.0
119.0
128.0
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
1 1.5 1
1.5 1 1.5 1 0.0 1
3
1 3.5
1 5.8 1 1 8.0 1 1
1 3.5
1 4.9
5.4
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress competency Ib/f2
1.8
0.3
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
459
81
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
97
11
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.6.7
5.7
6.8
2.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
201200
59.0
77
37
Valley length (ft)
381
514*
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
396
703
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1.2 to 1.6
1.37
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.00828
0.0047
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.00828
0.0047
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
1.7
2.2
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
80%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Othe
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 =Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data, 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Appendix 11
INVASIVE SPECIES

Invasive Species Plan
Invasive species vegetation identified at the Site prior to construction was sparse and confined
to the stream channel corridor. Common invasive species vegetation found at the Site include
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), mulitiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Bradford pear (Pyrus
calleryana), and fescue (Schedonorus spp.). During construction, the existing invasive vegetation
species will be controlled using mechanical methods.
Duringthe monitoring period, the Site will be reviewed annuallyto locate and to quantify any residual
invasive species vegetation. If invasive species are identified at the Site during the monitoring period,
their location and extent will be shown on the current condition plan view (CCPV). A corresponding
discussion will be included in the annual monitoring report outlining the proposed management plan.
Invasive species vegetation will be managed and reviewed on all annual basis to minimize its long-
term impact to planted native species. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will
be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Invasive species will be managed and controlled using a combination of chemical and/or mechanical
methods to ensure that these species comprise less than 5% of the total easement acreage.
Management and control will continue throughout the project until this percentage is achieved.

Appendix 12
MAINTENANCE PLAN

Maintenance Plan
The Site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be
conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until
performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and
features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often
in the first two years following site construction and may include the following:
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose
coir matting and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target
Stream
vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures
and head -cutting.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may
Vegetation
include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive
plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any
vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Beaver
Beaver and associated dams are to be removed as they colonize until the project
is closed.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be
Site Boundary
identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree- blazing, or other means as
allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers
disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as
needed basis.
Farm road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Farm Road Crossing
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or
corridor agreements.

Appendix 13
CREDIT RELEASE SHCEDULE

Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey
of the mitigation site. 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 standards. The release of project credits will be subject
to the criteria described as follows:
Stream Credit Release Schedule — 7 -year Timeframe
Monitoring
Interim
Total
Year
Credit Release Activity
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation — see requirements below
30%
30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
1
standards are being met
0
1 0
0
4 0
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
2
standards are being met
10%
50% (60%*)
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
3
standards are being met
10%
60% (70%*)
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
4
standards are being met
5%
65% (75%*)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
5
standards are being met
10%
75% (85%*)
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
6
standards are being met
5%
80% (90%*)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
7
standards are being met and project has received closeout
10%
90%(100%)
approval
*Subsequent Credit Releases

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 site 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
projects a reserve of 15% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bank -full
events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance
standards are met. The reserve will be 10% for 7 -year monitoring timeframes. In the event that
less than two bank -full 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 the release to occur. This documentation will
be included with the annual monitoring report.

Appendix 14
WILMINGTON DISTRICT STREAM BUFFER CREDIT CALCULATOR

Site Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor:
County:
Minimum Required Buffer Width':
Mitigation Type
Restoration (1:1)
Enhancement 1 (1.5:1)
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Preservation (5:1)
Other (7.5:1)
Other (10:1)
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals
Buffer Zones
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)°
Ideal Buffer (square feet)6
Actual Buffer (square feet)6
Zone Multiplier
Buffer Credit Equivalent
Percent of Ideal Buffer
Credit Adjustment
Total Baseline Credit
3364.33
I Meadow Brook Stream Restoration I
Yadkin
50
Mitigation Ratio
Creditable Stream
100024
NCDMS
3437.00
Baseline Stream Credit
3219.00
145.33
3364.33
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
less than 15 feet
>15 to 20 feet
>20 to 25 feet
>25 to 30 feet
>30 to 35 feet
>35 to 40 feet
>40 to 45 feet
>45 to 50 feet
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 feet
>125 to 150 feet
103110
34370
34370
34370
34370
34370
34370
34370
171850
171850
171850
171850
102516
34512
33978
33031
31739
30865
29820
29231
141377
138130
136957
136251
100301.0712
32927.28722
32346.58514
31183.9646E
29650.86564
28523.47988
27156.45374
26288.08352
81002.53273
32250.60391
10606.39381
3006.72684
50%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
7%
5%
4%
4%
1682.17
336.43
336.43
336.43
168.22
168.22
168.22
168.22
235.50
168.22
134.57
134.57
98%
95%
95%
94%
93%
92%
91%
90%
57%
23%
8%
2%
36.34
-15.45
-16.15
-18.81
-11.07
-12.76
-15.03
-16.94
134.93
39.28
10.42
2.97
Credit Loss in Required Credit Gain for Net Change in
Total Credit
Buffer Additional Buffer Credit from Buffers
-142.55 187.60 45.05 3409.38
'Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
2Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet -to -credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
3Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
4This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
5Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non -creditable stream
reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
6Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non -creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.

Appendix 15
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Services' In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 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.

Appendix 16
MEETING MINUTES FROM IRT ON-SITE MEETING

�..ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
September 1, 2017
TO: Mr. Harry Tsomides — Project Manager
NCDMS
FROM: Kevin Tweedy, PE — Project Manager
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes from IRT On -Site Meeting - August 16, 2017
Meadow Brook Full Delivery Project
Attendees: Todd Tugwell, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Kim Browning, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Mac Haupt, NC Department of Environmental Quality
Olivia Munzer, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Paul Wiesner, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Harry Tsomides, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Kirsten Ullman, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Kevin Tweedy, Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC (Provider)
Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
The meeting started at approximately 1:15 PM at the Meadow Brook Project site in Yadkin County, NC.
The group walked nearly the entire project site during the site visit, inspecting sections of stream and
wetlands, and the proposed BMP wetland area.
IRT members suggested if the project addressed uplift to both hydrology and vegetation in existing
wetland areas, then wetland rehabilitation credit (generally 1.5:1) would be more appropriate than
enhancement credit (2:1). The group discussed improvements in hydrology through more frequent
overbank flooding and the removal of drainage features within these areas. Todd noted that the stream
channel construction and any associated drainage effects negatively impacting the existing wetlands
would need to be considered in the wetland crediting. The IRT was very supportive of attempting to
achieve wetland mitigation credits on the site (currently only contracted for stream mitigation credits).
The group agreed with the overall approach to the stream mitigation onsite, and no significant concerns
were raised. Todd mentioned that since beavers have been seen in the project area before (no dams
observed during the site walk), beaver control should be addressed in the mitigation plan.
-PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SERVICES TO SUPPORTA SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -