20170537 Ver 1_Final Mitigation Plan_20180329

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Neuse River Basin
CU 03020201
Prepared by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I, LLC,
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1056
March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a watershed
dominated by agricultural land use in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately 5 miles south
of the town of Four Oaks. The project streams and wetlands have been significantly impacted by
channelization and cattle access. The project will involve the restoration and protection of streams in
the Neuse River watershed and the restoration and enhancement of adjacent riparian wetlands. The
purpose of this mitigation site is to restore and enhance a stream/wetland complex located within the
Neuse River Basin. The Site has been designed in concurrence with the Hannah Bridge Riparian Buffer
and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.
The Site lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201150020 (USGS, 2012) and within
the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Neuse River Sub -basin 03-04-02
(NCDENR, 2005). The 2010 Neuse River Basin Plan (NRBP) identified the Hannah Creek watershed
(HUC 03020201150020) as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the
need and opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The Hannah Creek watershed
includes 34 square miles of watershed area, with forty-two percent of the 102 stream miles lacking
wooded buffers. Fifty-four percent of the watershed is used for agricultural purposes and seven percent
is currently developed.
The Site is located within the downstream end of HUC 03020201 and includes streams that directly
discharge into Hannah Creek. Many of the project design goals and objectives, including restoration of
riparian buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and improve terrestrial habitat, and
construction of in -stream structures to improve habitat diversity, will address the degraded water quality
and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2010 Neuse
RBRP. The project presents 6,687 linear feet of stream restoration and enhancement generating 4,673
Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and 27.13 acres of wetland restoration, enhancement, preservation, and
protection generating I I Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU).
The site consists of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and wooded areas. The total easement area is 46.2
acres. The wooded areas along the easement corridor designated for restoration activities are classified
as mixed hardwoods. Invasive species are present throughout the wooded areas. Channels proposed for
restoration are degraded to a point where they no longer access their floodplain, lack riparian buffers,
allow livestock access, and aquatic life is not supported. Current stream conditions along the proposed
restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation as a result of impacts from livestock and channelization
performed to promote agricultural activities. Additionally, the riparian buffer is in poor condition
throughout most of the project area where it is devoid of trees or shrubs and active pasture is present
up to the edge of the existing channel.
The objective for this mitigation site is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland
complexes with appropriate cross -sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet
the appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the
restoration of natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in -stream
habitat. The floodplain areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channels where feasible to
provide natural exchange and storage during flooding events. The design will be based on reference
conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2003), and criteria that are developed during this project to
achieve success. Additional site objectives, such as restoring the riparian buffer with native vegetation,
ensuring hydraulic stability, and eradicating invasive species, are listed in Section 1.
The stream design approach for the Site is to combine the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan ii March 2018

The analog method involves the use of a "template" stream adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the
same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create
the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions
are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). Hydraulic geometry was
developed using analytical methods in an effort to identify the design discharge.
The Site will include Priority I restoration, Enhancement Level 1, Enhancement Level 11, and
Preservation. Priority I restoration reaches will incorporate the design of a single -thread meandering
channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference site described above, published
empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.
The Site will include wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Wetland restoration will
occur adjacent to Priority I stream restoration reaches. The restoration approach is to reconnect the
floodplain wetlands to the stream, fill existing ditches, rough the floodplain surface, and plant native
tree and shrub species commonly found in small stream swamp ecosystems. The wetland enhancement
treatment will primarily be excluding livestock from the pasture and currently grazed forested,
improving hydrology via pond removal and ditch plugging, and planting native tree and shrub species.
After completion of all construction and planting activities, the Site will be monitored on a regular basis
and a physical inspection of the Site will be conducted at a minimum of twice per year throughout the
seven-year post -construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met. These site
inspections will identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. The measure
of stream restoration success will be documented by bankfull flows and no change in stream channel
classification. Sand bed channels are dynamic and minor adjustments to dimension and profile are
expected. The measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 210 seven-year
old planted trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of year seven of the monitoring
period.
Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to the
North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic
inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed
restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed
restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan iii March 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
PROJECT INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 7
1.1
Site Selection..........................................................................................................................
7
1.2
Project Components................................................................................................................
7
2
WATERSHED APPROACH.........................................................................................................
8
2.1.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends...............................................................
9
2.2
Soil Survey.............................................................................................................................
9
2.3
Site Photographs...................................................................................................................
11
3
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT.........................................................................................
14
3.1
Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information...........................................................
14
4
BASELINE INFORMATION......................................................................................................
15
4.1
Watershed Summary Information........................................................................................
15
4.1.1 Drainage Area...............................................................................................................15
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification........................................................................................15
4.2
Reach Summary Information...............................................................................................
15
4.2.1 Channel Classification..................................................................................................16
4.2.2 Discharge......................................................................................................................16
4.2.3 Channel Morphology....................................................................................................16
4.2.4 Channel Stability Assessment......................................................................................18
4.2.5 Bankfull Verification....................................................................................................19
4.2.6 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................19
4.3
Wetland Summary Information............................................................................................
20
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands.........................................................................................................20
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil.....................................................................................................
22
4.4
Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints..........................................................
23
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities...............................................................
23
4.4.2 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass........................................................................................
23
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation.............................................................
23
5
FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL.......................................................................................
25
6
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS.............................................................................................
30
7
CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE...............................................................................................
30
7.1
Initial Allocation of Released Credits..................................................................................
31
7.2
Subsequent Credit Releases..................................................................................................
32
8
MITIGATION WORK PLAN.....................................................................................................
32
8.1
Reference Stream Studies.....................................................................................................
32
8.1.1 Target Reference Conditions........................................................................................
32
8.2
Design Parameters................................................................................................................
34
8.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach.......................................................................................
34
8.2.2 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement........................................................................
39
8.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration.........................................................................
40
8.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)............................................................................
41
8.2.5 Soil Restoration............................................................................................................
42
8.3
Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................
42
8.3.1 Stream Data Analysis...................................................................................................
42
8.3.2 Mitigation Summary.....................................................................................................45
9
MAINTENANCE PLAN.............................................................................................................
46
10
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................
47
10.1
Stream and Wetland Restoration Success Criteria...............................................................
47
10.1.1 Bankfull Events............................................................................................................
47
10.1.2 Cross Sections..............................................................................................................47
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan iv March 2018

10.1.3 Digital Image Stations..................................................................................................
47
10.1.4 Wetland Hydrology Criteria.........................................................................................47
10.2
Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................
47
11
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................
48
11.1
As -Built Survey....................................................................................................................49
11.2
Visual Monitoring................................................................................................................
49
11.3
Cross Sections......................................................................................................................
49
11.4
Wetland Hydrology..............................................................................................................
49
11.5
Vegetation Monitoring.........................................................................................................
50
11.6
Scheduling/Reporting...........................................................................................................50
12
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................
51
13
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.........................................................................................
52
14
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES......................................................................................................
53
15
OTHER INFORMATION............................................................................................................
54
15.1
References............................................................................................................................
54
List of Tables
Table 1. Hannah Bridge Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation ................................................ 7
Table 2. Hannah Bridge Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation ..............................................
8
Table3. Mapped Soil Series.................................................................................................................10
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information............................................................................14
Table 5. Project Watershed Summary Information..............................................................................15
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics.......................................................................16
Table 7. Channel Stability Assessment Results....................................................................................19
Table 8. NCWAM Wetland Rating Results.........................................................................................
22
Table 9. Wetland Summary Information........................................................................22
Table 10. Regulatory Considerations...................................................................................................
24
Table 11. Functional Benefits and Improvements................................................................................
25
Table 12. Mitigation Credits.................................................................................................................
30
Table 13a. Stream Credit Release Schedule.........................................................................................
31
Table 13b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule......................................................................................
31
Table14. Proposed Plant List...............................................................................................................
41
Table15. Peak Flow Comparison........................................................................................................
43
Table 16. Stable Channel Design Output.............................................................................................
44
Table 17. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses......................................................44
Table 18. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities.............................................................
45
Table19. Maintenance Plan.................................................................................................................
46
Table 20. Monitoring Requirements.....................................................................................................
48
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan v March 2018

List of Figures
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Figure 2- USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3- Historical Conditions Map
Figure 4- Soils Map
Figure 5- Landowner Map
Figure 6- Land -use Map
Figure 7- Existing Conditions Map
Figure 8- National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 9- FEMA Map
Figure 10- Conceptual Plan Map
Figure I I - Monitoring Plan
Appendices
Appendix A — Site Protection Instrument(s)
Appendix B — Baseline Information Data
Appendix C — Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix D — Soils Report
Appendix E — Design Plan Sheets (I I"x17")
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan vi March 2018

I PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a rural watershed
dominated by agricultural and low density residential land use in Johnston County, North Carolina. The
project streams and wetlands proposed for restoration and enhancement have been significantly
impacted by channelization and agricultural practices. Due to its location and proposed improvements,
the Site will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Neuse River Basin. This
mitigation plan is in accordance with the Neu -Con Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank
(SAW# 2016-01986). The Site has been designed in concurrence with the Hannah Bridge Riparian
Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.
1.1 Site Selection
The Site is located in Johnston County approximately five miles south of the town of Four Oaks, North
Carolina (Figure 1). To access the Site head south on NC Hwy 96 and turn left onto Green Pasture
road. The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03020201 (NCDWR sub -
basin 03-04-02), 14-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201150020 (USGS, 2012)
(Figure 2). The Site is located in the Rolling Coastal Plain (65m) ecoregion.
1.2 Project Components
The project area is comprised of two separate easement locations along multiple drainage features that
flow into Hannah Creek. The northern easement area captures a single tributary to Hannah Creek and
a portion of its headwaters. The southern easement area is separated from the northern area by an active
agricultural field, and is divided into three different areas due to a utility crossing and a culvert crossing.
The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, as well as Figure
10.
Table 1. Hannah Bridge Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation
Mitigation
Stationing
Existing
ProposedMitigation
Reach
Type
(Proposed)
Length
Length
Ratio
SMUs
(LF)
(LF)
HB1
Restoration
0+15
to
14+45
99
117
1:1
117
HB1
Restoration
0+15
to
14+45
1,385
1,313
1:1
1,284*
HB2
Enhancement II
14+45
to
18+37
392
392
2.5:1
157
HB3
Restoration
18+37
to
36+44
1,588
1,807
1:1
1,807
HB4
Enhancement I
36+84
to
42+63
579
579
1.5:1
386
HB4
Preservation
42+63
to
44+91
228
228
10:1
23
HF1
Preservation
2+18
to
13+58
1,386
1,386
10:1
139
HF2
Preservation
6+40
to
7+89
149
149
10:1
15
TH3 Enhancement 11 t 0+63 to 7+79 716 716 1:1 716
Total 6,522 6,688 4,643
* SMU adjusted for 30 ft. break for overhead power line
t Restoration Credit
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 7 March 2018

Table 2. Hannah Bridge Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
MitigationWMUs
Ratio
Re-establishment
3.27
1:1
3.27
Enhancement - High
12.37
2:1
6.18
Enhancement - Low
2.48
3:1
0.83
Preservation
7.27
10:1
0.73
Protection
1.74
No Credit
0.00
27.13
11.00
2 WATERSHED APPROACH
The 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) identified several restoration needs for the
entire Neuse River Basin, as well as for HUC 03020201, specifically. The Hannah Creek watershed
(HUC 03020201150020) was identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), a watershed that
exhibits both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The Hannah
Creek watershed includes 34 square miles of watershed area, with forty-two percent of the 102 stream
miles lacking wooded buffers. Fifty-four percent of the watershed is used for agricultural purposes and
seven percent is currently developed.
The Site was identified as a stream and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water quality, habitat,
and hydrology within the Neuse River Basin. This project is intended to provide Stream Mitigation
Units to be applied as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable authorized impacts to waters of the US
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and support the overall goal of "no net
loss" of aquatic resources in the United States. The Site is located within the downstream end of HUC
03020201 and includes streams that directly discharge into Hannah Creek. The overarching goal of this
project is to address major watershed stressors identified in the 2010 Neuse RBRP for this TLW by
promoting nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving streams,
wetlands, and riparian buffers and improve functional uplift to the ecosystem. The proj ect design goals
and objectives, including restoration of riparian buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and
improve terrestrial habitat, and construction of in -stream structures to improve habitat diversity, will
address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least fifty feet on both sides of the channel along the
project reach with an appropriate riparian plant community (a Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp diverse mix of species).
• Increase plant species diversity and eradicate invasive species within the project boundaries.
• Improve flood bank connectivity by reducing bank height ratios and increase entrenchment
ratios to reference reach levels.
• Reduce sediment supply from eroding stream banks in order to restore channel stability by
restoring the stream channel pattern, dimension, and profile in stream channels to reference
reach conditions.
• Reduce impact of livestock to the stream channels and runoff through the increase in the
livestock exclusion.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 8 March 2018

• Restore stable flow dynamics by improving stream velocity and shear stress to levels between
the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits
2.1.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Aerial imagery indicates that the subject Site has been used extensively for agricultural purposes, and
that the location of the streams has not changed in over 50 years (Figure 3). In the late 1980s, the
upstream most portion of Reach HB 1, and the majority of Reach HB3 was cleared for pasture. Between
1993 and 1999, multiple other areas were logged, mainly along Reach HB4 and Reach TH3. The area
remains in an agricultural community with some neighboring property forested. Several watershed
characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and potentially soil parameters have
been modified. Soil structure and surface texture have been altered from intensive agricultural
operations.
2.2 Soil Survey
The Site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The soils within the Coastal Plain
region of Johnston County formed in sediments deposited several million years ago by the oceans and
streams. The flood plains along the Neuse River consist of relatively recent deposits of sediments that
are not as highly weathered as sediments in the Coastal Plain Region. Much of Johnston County is well
drained; however, several areas are poorly drained.
The Johnston County Soil Survey shows several mapping units across the site. Map units include seven
soil series (Figure 4). The soil series found on the Site are described below and summarized in Table
3.
Goldsboro sandy loam. This is a very deep, moderately drained soil found on uplands of the Coastal
Plain. Soils formed in fluviomarine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between 0-10%. Runoff is
negligible to medium and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Goldsboro sandy loams
occur along the stream near the middle of the proposed conservation easement.
Lynchburg sandy loam. This is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on terraces and
flats of the Coastal Plain. They formed in fluviomarine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between
0-5%. Runoff is negligible and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland, pasture, and forest.
Lynchburg sandy loam occurs along the stream near the middle of the easement almost opposite of the
Goldsboro sandy loam.
Bibb sandy loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil found on flood plains of the Coastal Plain.
Slopes are generally less than 2%. Soils formed in stratified sandy alluvium and have very slow runoff
with moderate permeability. The water table is generally within eight inches of the surface for six to
eleven months of the year. Bibb sandy loams occurs along the majority of the easement around the
stream.
Gilead sandy loam. This is a very deep, moderate to well -drained soil that occurs on ridges and terraces
of the Coastal Plain. They formed in clayey marine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between 2-
8%. Runoff is medium and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Gilead sandy loam
occurs within the South most wetland and southern end of the tributary inside of the proposed
conservation easement.
Rains sandy loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil that occurs on crests of the Coastal Plain.
They formed in Loamy and sandy marine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between 2-6%.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 9 March 2018

Runoff is low and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Rains sandy loam occurs within
the North most wetland inside of the proposed conservation easement.
Uchee loamy course sand. This is a very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on flats and depressions
of the Coastal Plain. They formed in fluviomarine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between 0-
2%. Runoff is negligible and permeability is moderate. Major uses are forest and cropland. Uchee
loamy sand occurs within the south wetland inside of the proposed conservation easement.
Altavista fine sandy loam. This is a very deep, moderately to well -drained soil that occurs on stream
terraces of the Coastal Plain. They formed in old loamy alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock, and generally occur on slopes between 0-3%. Runoff is negligible and permeability
is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Altavista fine sandy loam occurs along the east boundary of the
proposed easement in wetland/stream area.
Table 3. Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent
Drainage
Hydrologic
Landscape
Symbol
Hydric
Class
Soil Group
Setting
GoA
Goldsboro sandy
2°
�0
Moderately
B
Flats, marine
loam, 0-2% slopes
well
terraces
Ly
Lynchburg sandy loam
6%
Somewhat
C
Flats, marine
poorly
terraces
Bb
Bibb sandy loam,
90%
Poorly
D
Floodplains
fre uentl flooded
Ra
Rains sandy loam
90%
Poorly
B/D
Flats, marine
terraces
Broad interstream
UcB
Uchee loamy coarse
0%
Well
C
divides on marine
sand
terraces, ridges on
marine terraces
GeB
Gilead sandy loam
0%
Moderate/Well
C
Marine terraces
AaA
Altavista fine sandy
9%
Moderate/Well
C
Stream terraces
loam
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 10 March 2018

2.3 Site Photographs
Upper end of Reach HB1. 01/10/2018
Reach HB2. 01/10/2018
Facing upstream on Reach HB3. 01/10/2018
Eroded banks and oversized channel dimensions
on Reach HB1. 01/10/2018
Reach H132. 01/10/2018
Facing downstream on Reach HB3. 01/10/2018
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 11 March 2018

Reach HB4. 01/10/2018
HB4 and Hannah Creek Confluence. 01/10/2018
General channel conditions along Reach HF2.
01/10/2018
HB4 and Hannah Creek Confluence. 01/] 0/2018
General conditions along Reach HF1. 01/10/2018
Farm pond that will be removed.
01/10/2018
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 12 March 2018

Ditch through wetland restoration area.
01/10/2018
General conditions of Wetland Area 1 (W1).
01/10/2018
General conditions of Wetland Area 13 (W 13).
01/10/2018
Reach TH3.
01/10/2018
General conditions of Wetland Area 10 (W 10).
01/10/2018
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 13 March 2018

3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Site includes portions of
the following parcels (Table 4 & Figure 5). Once finalized, a copy of the land protection instrument(s)
will be included in Appendix A.
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Deed Book and
Landowner
County
Page Number
Parcel Acreage
J & M HOG FARM
INC
157900-32-5319
Johnston
01316-0140
25.555
THOMPSON,
RONALD GREY
157900-22-7731
Johnston
03633 - 0723
15.328
THOMPSON, C P
JR
157900-34-5414
Johnston
--
19.880
JOHNSON, EARL
BENTON JR
157900-43-3410
Johnston
01218 - 0278
20.729
THOMPSON, C P
JR
157900-34-8390
Johnston
01432 - 0212
9.965
THOMPSON,
RONALD GREY
157900-44-5315
Johnston
03633 - 0723
28.032
The Wilmington District Conservation Easement model template was utilized to draft the site protection
instrument. Once finalized, a copy of the final recorded easement will be provided in Appendix A.
EBX-Neuse I, LLC, acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a Conservation Easement, and will
monitor the Site for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation Plan provides detailed information
regarding bank operation, including long term management and annual monitoring activities, for review
and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the Site
will be transferred to the NCWHF. The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site
to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s)
are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be negotiated
prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement will allow for the implementation of an
initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the Bank
Sponsor. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary, maintenance
of the Site during the initial monitoring phase. These activities will be conducted in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the approved Mitigation Plan for the Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site. The
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site will be authorized under the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella
Mitigation Bank made and entered into by EBX-Neuse I, LLC, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NC
Division of Water Resources.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 14 March 2018

4 BASELINE INFORMATION
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
4.1.1 Drainage Area
The easement totals 46.2 acres and the project streams include multiple drainage features that flow into
Hannah Creek. The total drainage area at the downstream limits of the main project area is 894 acres
(1.39 mi2). The land use in the Site watershed is approximately 54% agricultural, 39% forested, and
5% low -density residential (Table 5 & Figure 6).
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification
The current State classification for the Site restoration reaches is undefined. Tributaries of the Site run
directly into Hannah Creek. Hannah Creek is defined as Class C; NSW (NCDWQ 2012a). Class C
waters are suitable for aquatic life, secondary recreation, and agricultural usage. The NSW is a
designation for nutrient sensitive waters — intended for waters needing additional nutrient management
due to being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
Table 5. Project Watershed Summary Information
Level IV Ecoregion
65m - Rolling Coastal Plain
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03020201150020
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
894
Percent Impervious Area
2%
4.2 Reach Summary Information
The project area is comprised of two separate easement locations along multiple drainage features that
flow into Hannah Creek. The northern easement area captures a single tributary to Hannah Creek and
a portion of its headwaters. The southern easement area is separated from the northern area by an active
agricultural field, and is divided into three different areas due to a utility crossing and a culvert crossing.
The northern portion of the project contains Reach TH3, while the southern portion is comprised of
Reaches H131, HB2, HB3, HB4, HF1, and HF2.
The Hannah Bridge stream channels include unnamed tributaries that eventually flow into Hannah
Creek (Figure 7). Invasive treatment and stabilization will be performed in select segments of the
project. Stream Classification Forms were completed at representative locations throughout the project
area and stream determinations were confirmed by NCDWR staff (Appendix B). Results of the
preliminary data collection are presented in Figure 7 and Table 6. The Stream Morphology Table is
included in Appendix C.
In general, all or portions of HB1, HB3, HB4, HF2, and TH3 do not function to their full potential.
Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from livestock,
historic land uses, and water diversion. Having been channelized in the past and/or ditched to drain
nearby fields for agricultural activities, some of the streams do not access their floodplains as frequently
as they naturally would have prior to agricultural operations. In most cases, these streams are
hydraulically unstable and are devoid of bedform diversity. Habitat along the majority of the restoration
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 15 March 2018

reaches is poor in that there is little woody debris or overhanging vegetation for fish cover or protection
for other aquatic species. Site photographs and morphological parameters are located in Appendix C.
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach
Drainage
Area (ac)
ABxF'
(ft')
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth (ft)
Width:Depth
Ratio
Bank
Height
Ratio
Sinuosity
Slope
(ft/ft)
HB 1
667
12.2
12.1
1.0
12.1
1.0
1.2
0.008
HB2
752
15.2
11.5
1.3
8.7
1.0
1.2
0.003
HB3
816
14.9
14.8
1.0
15.0
1.2
1.0
0.002
HB4
894
19.4
23.8
0.8
29.3
1.2
1.1
0.001
HF1
78
3.5
7.2
0.5
15.0
1.1
1.1
0.003
HF2
13
1.5
4.5
0.3
13.4
5.0
1.1
0.008
TH3
24
1.8
3.7
0.6
9.7
2.8
1.0
0.009
'ABKF= cross -sectional area (measured at approximate bankfull stage as estimated using existing conditions
data and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
4.2.1 Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the NCDWR Stream
Identification Form version 4.11 (Appendix B) and are E- and G-stream types as classified using the
Rosgen stream classification system (Rosgen, 1994). The design reaches have been separated into seven
distinct sections that are described in Section 4.2.3. Channel characteristics are summarized in Table
6, and Appendix B. Stream determinations have been verified by NCDWR staff.
4.2.2 Discharge
Estimating flows (discharge) for the Hannah Bridge Site is difficult due to the channelization and
agricultural impacts of the existing streams. Several models, regression equations, and the Coastal Plain
regional curves were used to estimate existing bankfull discharges. Land use and slope were considered
when the discharge calculations were developed. All hydraulic and hydrologic analyses are discussed
in Section 8.3. Data and analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic models are included as Appendix C.
4.2.3 Channel Morphology
4.2.3.1 Reach HB1
Reach HB 1 is a perennial, meandering channel within an active pasture located at the upstream section
of the project. The reach is approximately 1,484 linear feet and flows to the east to its confluence with
Reach HF 1. The channel is located along the southern edge of the valley and is relatively stable
throughout. There are some areas of localized erosion and irregular banks due to cattle access. It has a
drainage area of 1.04 square miles (667 acres). Reach HB1, an E-type channel, is typically 12 to 14 feet
wide with a mean depth of 1.0 feet and a max depth of 2.2 feet. The approximate bankfull cross sectional
area is 12.2 square feet. The existing slope of Reach FIB 1 is 0.008 ft/ft, and the dominant bed material
is very fine gravel. The riparian buffer is comprised of pasture grasses with a narrow band of woody
vegetation located intermittently along the top of banks prior to entering a wooded area near the
downstream limits of the reach.
4.2.3.2 Reach HB2
Reach HB2 is a stable, perennial channel that flows in a northeasterly direction through a heavily
forested area with adjacent wetlands and ends just upstream of the treeline near the confluence with a
ditch that will be plugged. The reach has a drainage area of 1.17 square miles (752 acres) and is
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 16 March 2018

approximately 392 linear feet. Reach HB2, a E-type channel, is typically 11.5 feet wide and 1.3 feet
deep near bankfull, with a max depth of 2.0 feet at top of bank. The approximate bankfull cross sectional
area is 15.2 square feet. The existing slope of Reach HB2 is 0.003 ft/ft, and the dominant bed material
is fine gravel. The riparian buffers are hardwood and pine trees with localized areas of invasive species,
primarily privet.
4.2.3.3 Reach HB3
Reach HB3 is a channelized perennial ditch within an active pasture that begins upstream of a ditch
that will be plugged and ends at an existing culvert (2-24 inch RCPs) crossing. Erosion and irregular
banks are common throughout resulting from frequent cattle access along the channel. HB3 has a
drainage area of 1.28 square miles (816 acres), is approximately 1,588 linear feet and flows in an
easterly direction. This reach is an E-type channel and has widths ranging from 8 to 18 feet. The
approximate bankfull cross sectional area is 14.9 square feet, and mean depths range from 0.9 to 1.2
feet. The existing slope of Reach HB3 is 0.002 ft/ft, and the dominant bed material is very coarse sand.
The riparian buffer consists primarily of pasture grasses with little to no woody vegetation located along
the channel banks.
4.2.3.4 Reach HB4
Reach HB4 is a straightened perennial ditch in an active pasture that begins on the downstream end of
an existing culvert on Reach HB3. The reach is approximately 807 linear feet, has a slope of 0.001 ft/ft,
and flows in a northeasterly direction to its confluence with Hannah Creek. It has a drainage area of
1.40 square miles (894 acres) and has an approximate bankfull cross sectional area of 19.4 square feet.
Reach HB4, a E-type channel, is typically 23 feet wide and has a mean depth of 0.8 feet and max depth
of 2 feet. The existing slope of Reach HB4 is 0.001 ft/ft, and the dominant bed material is coarse sand.
The downstream portion of the channel is multi -threaded and impacted by backwater from Hannah
Creek, a stream/wetland complex. The riparian buffer is comprised of active pasture along the left bank;
however, a narrow strip of woody vegetation with widths ranging from 5 to 20 feet is located along top
of bank. The buffer along the right bank is forested and is contiguous to the riparian corridor along
Hannah Creek.
4.2.3.5 Reach HF1
Reach HF1 is a meandering, perennial channel that flows in a northerly direction through a wooded
corridor and terminates at the confluence with reach HB2. This reach has a drainage area of 0.12 square
miles (78 acres), an existing length of 1,386 linear feet, and is stable throughout the project area. HF1
is an E-type channel with an average cross -sectional area of 3.5 square feet. The channel has a coarse
sand bed and a slope of 0.0030 ft/ft. Channel widths range between 6 and 8 feet, and the average depth
is 0.5 feet.
4.2.3.6 Reach HF2
Reach HF2 is an intermittent stream that begins downstream of an oversized, channelized ditch that is
non jurisdictional. The channel begins in a wooded area just upstream of the confluence with HF1.
Reach HF2 has a drainage area of 0.02 square miles (13 acres) and has an existing length of 149 linear
feet. The reach is a G-type channel, has an average cross -sectional area of 1.5 square feet. The width
and depth at bankfull are 4.5 feet and 0.3 feet. The dominant bed material is silt/muck, and the overall
channel slope is and a slope of 0.008 ft/ft.
4.2.3.7 Reach TH3
Reach TH3 is a straightened perennial ditch located in an active pasture with a drainage area of 0.04
square miles (24 acres). The reach is approximately 716 linear feet, and flows in an easterly direction
into Hannah Creek. Reach TH3, a G/F-type channel, is typically 5.3 feet wide and 0.6 feet deep near
bankfull, and 8.2 feet wide with a max depth of 1.5 feet at top of bank. The approximate bankfull cross
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 17 March 2018

sectional area is 1.6 square feet. The existing slope of Reach TH3 is 0.009 ft/ft, and the dominant bed
material is medium sand.
4.2.4 Channel Stability Assessment
A modified version of the channel stability assessment method (CSA) provided in "Assessing Stream
Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions" by Johnson (2006) was used to assess channel
stability for the Hannah Bridge existing channels. This method may be rapidly applied on a variety of
stream types in different physiographic regions having a range of bed and bank materials.
The original CSA method was designed to evaluate thirteen stability indicators in the field. These
parameters are: watershed characteristics, flow habit, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel
confinement, bed material, bar development, presence of obstructions/debris jams, bank soil texture
and coherence, average bank angle, bank vegetation/protection, bank cutting, mass wastingibank
failure, and upstream distance to bridge. As this method was initially developed to assess stability at
bridges, a few minor adjustments were made to remove indicators that contradict stability
characteristics of natural channels in favor of providing hydraulic efficiency at bridges. First, the
"channel pattern" indicator was altered such that naturally meandering channels scored low as opposed
to straightened/engineered channels that are favorable for stability near bridges. Secondly, the last
indicator, "upstream distance to bridge," was removed from the assessment as bridges are not a focus
of channel stability for this project. The twelve indicators were then scored in the field, and a rating of
excellent, good, fair, or poor was assigned to each project reach based on the total score. (See Appendix
B for the CSA field form.)
The CSA results (scores and ratings) for the Hannah Bridge Mitigation project and reference reaches
are provided in Table 7. Project Reaches HB 1, HB3, HB4, HF2, and TH3 all received "Fair" ratings,
while reaches HB2 (used as a reference reach) and HF1 received a "Good" rating. All channels
proposed for either Restoration or Enhancement have been channelized and/or heavily impacted by
livestock or agricultural activities. These characteristics are reflected in the fair to poor CSA scores for
channel pattern and bank vegetation/protection. All reaches scored fair to poor for watershed
characteristics since the surrounding land use is dominated by agriculture activities, residential
development, and lack of riparian buffers.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 18 March 2018

Table 7. Channel Stability Assessment Results
HBl (ReHrBence) HB3 HB4 HFl HF2 TH3
1
Watershed characteristics
9
8
9
9
5
8
8
2
Flow habit
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Channel pattern
3
2
11
11
4
11
11
4
Entrenchment/channel
4
4
7
7
7
6
7
confinement
5
Bed material
4
4
5
6
5
10
6
6
Bar development
5
3
5
6
5
6
6
7
Obstructions/debris jams
4
4
3
3
4
2
2
8
Bank soil texture and
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
coherence
9
Average bank angle
8
5
8
6
4
7
8
10
Bank
7
4
11
8
3
9
11
vegetation/protection
11
Bank cutting
7
4
8
4
3
4
4
12
Mass wasting/bank
7
2
9
3
2
3
4
failure
13
Upstream distance to
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
bridge
Score
67
49
85
72
5 2
76
77
Rating*
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
*Excellent (0 < Score <= 33), Good (33 < Score <= 66), Fair (66< Score <= 99), Poor (99 < Score <= 132)
4.2.5 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull is difficult and often times impossible to accurately identify on actively maintained channels
and agricultural ditches. The usual and preferred indicators rarely exist, and other factors may be taken
into consideration in order to approximate a bankfull stage. Other factors that may be used are wrack
lines, vegetation lines, scour lines, or top of a bankfull bench; however, complete confidence should
not be placed on these indicators. Along the proposed restoration reaches, the channel is generally
entrenched and actively maintained, which means bankfull indicators were very limited or non-existent.
Therefore, bankfull stage was estimated by using Coastal Plain Regional Curves and other hydrologic
analyses, existing cross -sections, and in-house spreadsheets to estimate bankfull area and bankfull
discharge.
4.2.6 Vegetation
Current land use in the vicinity of the project is primarily agriculture and forested. Vegetation along
the top of Reach HB 1 is active cattle pasture with pockets of common rush (Juncus effusus) throughout
the hydric areas. The left banks of HB3 and HB4 are also active cow pasture with common rush and
other disturbed herbaceous vegetation. There is no tree or sapling stratum in these areas. Reach TH3 is
also active pasture, but has sparse tree cover. Reaches HB2 and HF1 are best characterized as
bottomland hardwood forests, that vary from functional to disturbed based on the level of cattle access.
Cattle do not have access to the streams from the southern parcels, therefore the riparian buffer along
the right bank of HB2 and the entirety of Reach HF 1 is in much better condition with a full tree canopy,
and a less disturbed shrub/sapling stratum. Common species include red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and swamp tupelo (Nyssa
biflora). Invasive species are widespread throughout the majority of the project area, most notably
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). The confluence of HB4 and
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 19 March 2018

Hannah Creek at the downstream end of the project is a cypress -gum swamp community with a fully
developed canopy, but lower stem density than seen in the other wooded reaches of the project. This
area is dominated by swamp tupelo and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Japanese stiltgrass
(Microstegium vimineum) is very common throughout the understory. Detailed observations of
vegetation species, soils, and hydrology were recorded in each community type.
4.3 Wetland Summary Information
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts two small wetland areas within the site
(Figure 8). A Freshwater Pond (PUBHh) is mapped within the northcentral part of the easement and
the confluence of Reach H134 and Hannah Creek is mapped as a Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
(PFO1 C).
A wetland delineation was performed in May 2016. Wetland boundaries were delineated using current
methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (DOA
1987) and Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Soils were
characterized and classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0
(USDA-NRCS 2010). Wetland boundaries were marked with sequentially numbered wetland survey
tape (pinkiblack striped) (Figure 7; Table 11).
Jurisdictional wetlands are present in the enhancement and preservation areas throughout the site. The
wetlands are divided between heavily disturbed and functional. The disturbed wetlands are disturbed
from over twenty years of continued cattle access. The non -forested wetlands have been historically
cleared for pasture, have altered drainage patterns due to channelization, and lack a native vegetation
community. The forested -disturbed wetlands are grazed forested areas, while the forested -not disturbed
wetlands have cattle excluded. A notification of jurisdictional determination was received on USACE
on August 18, 2016. Documentation is included in Appendix B.
The site encompasses four distinct wetland types per NC Wetland Assessment Methodology
(NCWAM): Headwater Forest, Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Riverine Swamp Forest, and Non -
Tidal Freshwater Marsh. A NCWAM wetland assessment was performed on all wetlands present
throughout the site. Each individual wetland is scored based on three main functions: physical,
chemical, and biological. Scores on each function are then averaged together to give one overall
wetland rating. The results are summarized in Table 8 and the wetland rating forms documenting
each functional score are found in Appendix B.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 20 March 2018

Table 8. NCWAM Wetland Rating Results
Wetland
Hydrology
Water Quality
Habitat
Overall
Wetland Rating
W1
Low
Low
Low
Low
W2
Low
Low
Low
Low
W3
High
High
Medium
High
W4
High
High
Low
High
W5
Low
Low
Low
Low
W6
Low
Medium
Low
Low
W7
Low
Medium
Low
Low
W8
High
High
Medium
High
W9
High
High
Medium
High
W10
Low
Medium
Low
Low
W 11
High
Medium
High
High
W12
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
W 13
Medium
Low
Low
Low
W14
Low
Low
Low
Low
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 21 March 2018

Table 9. Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
Size of
5.8
0.81
4.51
1.67
0.97
3.78
0.38
Wetland (Ac)
Bibb Sandy
Mapped Soil
Bibb Sandy
Gilead Sandy
Bibb Sandy
Loam;
Gilead Sandy
Bibb Sandy
Bib Sandy Loam
Series
Loam
Loam
Loam
Lynchburg
Loam
Loam
Sandy Loam
Poorly Drained;
Drainage
Moderately
Moderately
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Somewhat
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Class
Well Drained
Well Drained
Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric
Hydric; Not
Hydric
Not Hydric
Hydric
Not Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Status
Hydric
Groundwater;
Groundwater;
Groundwater;
Groundwater;
Groundwater;
Groundwater;
Groundwater;
Source of
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Hydrology
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Hydrologic
Overgarzed;
Overgrazed;
Overgrazed;
Overgrazed;
Overgrazed;
None
Cattle
Impairment
Incised Channel
Incised Channel
Incised Channel
Incised Channel
Incised Channel
ottomland
Bottomland
Pasture
Pasture
Hardwood
Pasture/Forest
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Community
Forest
Percent
<5%
<5%
25%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Invasive
Parameters
W8
W9
W10
W11
W12
W13
W14
Size of
0.07
2.08
1.36
0.62
0.11
1.74
3.27
Wetland (Ac)
Mapped Soil
Bibb Sandy
Bibb Sandy
Bibb Sandy
Bibb Sandy
Bibb Sandy
Bibb Sandy
Bibb Sandy Loam
Series
Loam
Loam
Loam
Loam
Loam
Loam
Drainage
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Class
Soil Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Status
Groundwater;
Groundwater;
Groundwater;
Groundwater;
Groundwater;
Groundwater;
Source of
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Overbank
Groundwater
Overbank
Hydrology
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Flooding
Hydrologic
Overgrazed;
Overgrazed;
Overgrazed;
None
None
None
Catlle
Impairment
Incised Channel
Incised Channel
Incised Channel
Bottomland
Bottomland
Bottomland
Vegetative
Hardwood
Hardwood
Pasture
Hardwood
Pasture
Pasture/Forest
Pasture
Community
Forest
Forest
Forest
Percent
_J
25%
25%
<5%
25.
<5%
<5%
<5%
Invasive
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil
In addition to the jurisdictional wetland areas, one hydric soil area was located within the project
easement along Reach 1-1133. The area evaluated focused upon areas with high potential for containing
hydric soil. These areas have suitable landscape position and NRCS county soil mapping indicates the
presence of hydric soil. The NRCS Web Soil Survey has the poorly drained Bibb series mapped the
length of the project area with upland soils that extend into the project. The upland soils are a somewhat
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 22 March 2018

poorly drained Lynchburg sandy loam and, a moderately well drained Goldsboro sandy loam. The Bibb
soil can have up to a 10 percent inclusion of Johnston soil, a deep mucky mineral soil.
The soils in this area lack hydrology for jurisdictional wetland primarily due to soil drainage from the
incised channel, ditching, and active livestock affecting soil compaction. Other changes to the site
include surface churning, loss of organic matter in the surface, and the loss of the normal reduction
cycle characteristic of wetlands. The construction of a farm pond has altered surface drainage and
provided spoil across the floodplain. Soil borings within the boundary exhibited hydric soil indicators
within 12 inches of the soil surface throughout the natural drainage way. Throughout most of the site
the surface has a sandy loam texture underlain by a black silt loam high in organic matter. Small
rounded gravel is found in some areas. Due to increased drainage, sandy textures, and surface
disturbance from the agricultural management, redoximorphic concentrations in the surface 6 inches
are weak or absent. The hydric soil indicators present at the Hannah Bridge site are the A11-Thick Dark
Surface, 176-Redox Dark Surface, and 177-Depleted Dark Surface. These indicators depend on
accumulated organics in the soil. A water table was observed in some boring location below 20 inches.
Areas with fill or significant disturbance are located near the excavated pond and at an old farm
crossing. Hydric Soil Indicators are present within most areas of the floodplain. Hydric soils within
the proposed enhancement and restoration areas were verified through auger borings by a licensed soil
scientist (Appendix D)
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities
There are no major constraints to construction of the Site. There is one utility crossing at the top of
Reach HB 1 and a culvert crossing above Reach H134. There is also an existing farm crossing at the top
of Reach TH3; no additional crossings or easement breaks are proposed at this time.
4.4.2 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass
Reaches HB3 and HB4 are located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (Zone AE) of Hannah Creek,
and approximately 200 feet of the downstream end of Reach HB4 is located within the FEMA floodway
(Figure 9). However, no grading or construction activities are proposed along the portions of the
project located within the FEMA floodway. Therefore, it is not anticipated that a No -Rise or CLOMR
will be required for the project. Hydrologic trespass is a not a concern for this project. While designing
the Hannah Bridge project, appropriate measures were taken to eliminate hydrologic trespass of the
adjacent agricultural fields and animal operations. The adjacent land use will not be affected by the
proposed design, and no detrimental impacts are expected beyond the easement limits.
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation
4.4.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database lists four endangered species for Johnston
County, North Carolina: red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Tar River spinymussel (Eliptio
steinstansana), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).
No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during preliminary site
evaluations. RES submitted a request to USFWS for review and comments on the proposed Hannah
Bridge Mitigation Project on April 8, 2016 in regards to any potential impacts to threatened and
endangered species. A response from the USFWS received on May 5, 2016 stated that "the proposed
project is not likely to adversely affect and federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act."
Documentation is included in Appendix B.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 23 March 2018

4.4.3.1 Cultural Resources
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service database revealed
that there are National Registered listings within a one -mile radius of the proposed project area. No
architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary
surveys of the site for restoration purposes. RES submitted a request to the NC State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) to search records to determine the presence of any areas of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance that may be affected by the Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site on
April 8, 2016. In a letter dated April 4, 2016 the SHPO stated that they had "conducted a review of the
project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project." Documentation
is included in Appendix B.
Table 10. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States -
Yes
No
Appendix B
Section 404
Waters of the United States -
Yes
No
Appendix B
Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.4.3; Appendix B
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.4.3; Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)/Coastal Area
No
N/A
N/A
Management Act CAMA
FEMA Flood lain Compliance
N/A
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 24 March 2018

5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Harman et. al. 2012) separates stream functions into five
categories, ordered into a hierarchy, which communicate the interrelations among functions and
illustrate the dependence of higher level functions (biology, physiochemical and geomorphology) on
lower level functions (hydrology and hydraulics). Functions that affect the greatest number of other
functions are illustrated at the base of the pyramid, while functions that have the least effect on other
functions are illustrated at the top of the pyramid. The Pyramid is illustrated below. Anticipated
functional benefits and improvements within the project area, as based on the Function -Based
Framework are outlined in Table 11.
fi �
Geology Qi mate
Fischenich (2006) found that the most critical functions include those that address hydrodynamic
processes, sediment transport processes, stream stability and riparian buffer restoration. By addressing
these fundamental functions and processes, a restored stream and riparian system are capable of
supporting more dependent functions that typically require time to establish, such as diverse biological
communities, chemical and nutrient processes, diverse habitats and improved water and soil quality.
The objectives of this project will address the most critical functional objectives that will allow for a
more restored stream and riparian over time.
While traditional mitigation approaches have generally relied on surrogate measures of success (i.e.
linear feet of restoration) for determining SMU credit yields, a function -based approach provides a
more objective and flexible approach to quantify the expected ecological benefits of a mitigation
design. Additionally, a functional based approach broadens the reach -scale goals of a restoration
project by contextualizing the functional uplift to the watershed scale. The proposed Hannah Bridge
Stream Mitigation project will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the
Neuse River Basin by applying an ecosystem restoration approach. The restoration approach at the
reach scale of this project will have the greatest effect on the hydraulic and geomorphology function
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 25 March 2018

of the system but will benefit the upper -level functions (physiochemical and biology) over time and in
combination with other projects within the watershed.
Anticipated functional benefits and improvements
Hydrology:
This project does not intend to improve the hydrology because all project streams already are
characterized as streams meaning they already function under all hydrologic parameters.
Hydraulic:
Several of the reaches at this site do not have a functioning floodplain connectivity or stable flow
dynamics. Reaches in which floodplain connectivity is not functioning or functioning at risk will be
improved to functioning by reducing bank height ratios and increasing the entrenchment ratios. Reaches
in which the stable flow dynamics are not functioning or functioning at risk will be improved to
functioning through the placement of instream structures being placed to address the energy and erosive
power of the water so that a stable flow is achieved post project. Some reaches will have a channel
plugged and the stream channel constructed at a higher elevation so that it elevates shallow groundwater
depths and increases frequency of floods to adjacent wetlands.
Geomorphology:
Sediment Transport will be improved in reaches that are currently function -at -risk or not functioning
by designing channels on restoration reaches to be sized so that sediment is transported until it reaches
an appropriate place to settle like a point bar. Large Woody Debris Transport and Storage will be
improved through the addition of woody debris to the system through the installation of all in -stream
structures on restoration and enhancement I reaches such as log vanes, root wads, log weirs, and log
toes. The restoration reaches are also designed to accumulate woody debris by having defined shallow
riffles where cobble catches and holds woody debris and leaf packs. Riparian vegetation is functioning
in some areas but is either functioning at risk or not functioning in some reaches. Therefore, riparian
buffers will be planted out to a minimum of 50 feet but up to 100 feet in other areas to improve the
riparian vegetation to functioning levels. Bed form diversity will be improved in areas that need
functional uplift by taking a natural riffle pool sequence from the reference reach and using it to design
the riffle pool sequence of the reaches that will require restoration.
Physiochemical:
Although this project would support the overarching goal in the Neuse River Basin Priorities
(physicochemical stream functions) to promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas it
is difficult to make the direct link to this reach scale stream restoration project to a measurable reduction
in nutrients and sediments because they can be affected by so many variables. However, several
restoration actions are known to help reduce nutrients and sediment even though they may not be
measurable at the project level. These activities include cattle exclusion and direct removal of fecal
inputs, filtering of runoff through buffer areas, the conversion of active farm fields to forested buffers,
and improved denitrification and nutrient uptake through buffer zones. As well as the benefits that will
come from functional uplift from the lower level stream functions (hydraulics and geomorphology) that
will reduce sediment and nutrients in the system such as the stabilization of eroding stream banks and
reduction of sediment loss from re -forested improved filtration of runoff. Temperature regulation will
also be improved through the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas. Oxygen
regulation will occur through two actions: first the temperature of the water directly impacts the amount
of gas held by the water. Therefore, through planting the buffer to shade the channel the temperature is
decreased and because of that dissolved oxygen is increased. Secondly the log structures placed in the
stream create mixing zones where oxygen dissolves much faster than the standard exchange rate of
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 26 March 2018

oxygen to dissolved oxygen. The Processing of organic matter will be improved once healthy riffles
are shallow enough to catch twigs and branches that then retain leaves.
Biology:
As mentioned for the physiochemical stream function, at a reach and project level it will be difficult to
measure the functional uplift of the biology functions at this site within the monitoring time period of
the project. However, since the life histories are depending on all the lower -level functions, the
functional uplift from the hydraulic and geomorphic levels would have a positive effect to the biology
level over time and in combination with other projects within the watershed.
Table 11. Functional Benefits and Improvements
Reach
Mitigation
Functional
Current Projected
Mitigation Actions and
Method to Measure
Type
Level and
Status Status
Functional Improvements
Performance/Success
Category
* Not Measured (NM); Not
Functioning (NF); Functioning -
at -risk (FAR); Functioning (F);
Highly Functionin HF
HB1
Restoration
Hydrology
F
F
Hydraulic
NF
F
Improve floodplain
1. Cross sections
connectivity by reducing bank
2. Crest gauges
height ratios and increase
3. Bank Height Ratio
entrenchment ratios
4. Entrenchment Ratio
Instream structures placed to
address the energy and erosive
power of the water so that a
stable flow is achieved
Construct a single -thread
meandering channel
Geomorphology
FAR
F
Plant 100 foot riparian buffer
1. Cross sections
with native riparian vegetation
2. Stream walks
3. Vegetation plots
Remove culvert and backfill
abandoned channel to provide
positive drainage towards the
proposed channel
Install fencing to exclude
livestock
Physicochemical*
NM
NM
Biology*
NM
NM
HB2
Enhancement
Hydrology
F
F
II
Hydraulic
F
F
Grade to reduce bank erosion
1. Visual assessments
2. Digital image stations
Geomorphology
FAR
F
Invasive removal and native
1. Cross sections
riparian vegetation planting
2. Stream walks
3. Vegetation plots
Physicochemical*
NM
NM
Biology*
NM
NM
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 27 March 2018

Reach
Mitigation
Functional
Current Projected
Mitigation Actions and
Method to Measure
Type
Level and
Status Status
Functional Improvements
Performance/Success
Category
* Not Measured (NM); Not
Functioning (NF); Functioning -
at -risk (FAR); Functioning (F);
Highly Functionin HF
HB3
Restoration
Hydrology
F
F
Hydraulic
NF
F
Log grade control structures
1. Cross sections
will be installed along the bed
2. Crest gauges
to improve in -stream habitat
3. Bank Height Ratio
and stability
4. Entrenchment Ratio
Geomorphology
NF
F
Plant 50-foot buffer with
1. Cross sections
native riparian vegetation
2. Stream walks
3. Vegetation plots
Install fencing to exclude
livestock
Physicochemical*
NM
NM
Biology*
NM
NM
HB4
Enhancement
Hydrology
F
F
I
Hydraulic
FAR
F
Install log structures at various
1. Visual assessments
points along the channel to
2. Digital image stations
raise the channel invert within
the upper section
A floodplain bench will be
constructed along the left bank
in the enhancement section
Geomorphology
FAR
F
Plant 50-foot buffer with
1. Cross sections
native riparian vegetation
2. Stream walks
3. Vegetation plots
Physicochemical*
NM
NM
Biology*
NM
NM
HB4
Preservation
Hydrology
F
F
Hydraulic
F
F
Geomorphology
FAR
F
All non -vegetated areas within
1. Visual assessments
the proposed easement will be
2. Digital image stations
planted with native vegetation
and areas with invasive species
will be removed and/or treated
Physicochemical*
NM
NM
Biology*
NM
NM
HF1
Preservation
Hydrology
F
F
Hydraulic
F
F
Geomorphology
FAR
F
All non -vegetated areas within
1. Visual assessments
the proposed easement will be
2. Digital image stations
planted with native vegetation
and areas with invasive species
will be removed and/or treated
Physicochemical*
NM
NM
Biology*
NM
NM
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 28 March 2018

Reach
Mitigation
Functional
Current Projected
Mitigation Actions and
Method to Measure
Type
Level and
Status Status
Functional Improvements
Performance/Success
Category
* Not Measured (NM); Not
Functioning (NF); Functioning -
at -risk (FAR); Functioning (F);
Highly Functionin HF
Restoration
Hydrology
F
F
Hydraulic
NF
F
Cut a floodplain bench and
1. Cross sections
install grade control and
2. Crest gauges
woody debris structures
3. Bank Height Ratio
throughout. All existing
4. Entrenchment Ratio
ditches will be filled/plugged
Geomorphology
FAR
F
All disturbed areas within the
1. Cross sections
proposed buffer will be
2. Stream walks
planted with native riparian
3. Vegetation plots
and wetland vegetation
Removal of invasives
Install fencing to exclude
livestock
Physicochemical*
NM
NM
Biology*
NM
NM
HF2
Preservation
Hydrology
F
F
Hydraulic
NF
F
Geomorphology
All non -vegetated areas within
1. Visual assessments
the proposed easement will be
2. Digital image stations
planted with native vegetation
and areas with invasive species
will be removed and/or treated
Physicochemical*
NM
NM
Biology*
NM
NM
TH3
Enhancement
Hydrology
F
F
II
Hydraulic
NF
F
Additional backfilling to create
1. Visual assessments
shallow depressions within the
2. Digital image stations
old channel and removal of
spoil from pond excavation
along the floodplains will aid
in the restoration of a natural
floodplain surface relative to
the surrounding landscape
Geomorphology
FAR
F
All disturbed areas within the
1. Cross sections
proposed buffer will be
2. Stream walks
planted with native riparian
3. Vegetation plots
and wetland vegetation
Installation of woody debris
structures
Install fencing to exclude
livestock
Physicochemical*
NM
NM
Biology*
NM
NM
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 29 March 2018

6 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon site design (Figure 10). Upon
completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent
with the as -built condition.
Table 12. Mitigation Credits
The Hannah Bridge Site Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Totals
4,894
11.60
N/A
STREAM
Mitigation
Stationing Existing
ProposedMitigation
Base
Reach Type
(Proposed) Length
Length
Ratio
SMUs
LF
LF
HB1 Restoration
0+15 to
14+45 99
117
1:1
117
HB1 Restoration
0+15 to
14+45 1,385
1,313
1:1
1,284*
HB2 Enhancement 11
14+45 to
18+37 392
392
2.5:1
157
HB3 Restoration
18+37 to
36+44 1,588
1,807
1:1
1,807
HB4 Enhancement I
36+84 to
42+63 579
579
1.5:1
386
HB4 Preservation
42+63 to
44+91 228
228
10:1
23
HF1 Preservation
2+18 to
13+58 1,386
1,386
10:1
139
HF2 Preservation
6+40 to
7+89 149
149
10:1
15
TH3 Enhancement IIt
0+63 to
7+79 716
716
1:1
716
Total
6,522
6,688
4,673
WETLAND
Mitigation Type
Existing
Mitigation Ratio
WMUs
Acreage
Re-establishment
3.27
1:1
3.27
Enhancement High
12.37
2:1
6.18
Enhancement Low
2.48
3:1
1.42
Preservation
7.27
10:1
0.72
Protection
1.74
No Credit
0.00
Total
27.13
11.00
* SMU adjusted for 30 ft. break for overhead power line
t Restoration Credit
7 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
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 30 March 2018

Department of the Army (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
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 be restarted
or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance
standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows in Table 13a.
Table 13a. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total Released
Milestone
Release
1
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
15%
15%
stated above
2
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
3
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
performance standards are being met.
4
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance standards are being met.
(60%**)
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
60%
performance standards are being met.
(70%**)
6
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
65%
performance standards are being met.
(80%**)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
°
10%
75%
erformance standards are beingmet.
85%**
8
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
°
5 /0
80%
performance standards are being met.
(90%**)
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
90%
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
(100%**)
has received close-out approval.
* *10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
7.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the IRT
with written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE
b) Approval of the final mitigation plan
c) Mitigation site must be secured
d) Delivery of financial assurances.
e) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE
f) Issuance of the 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
Table 13b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
1
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
15%
15%
stated above
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 31 March 2018

Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
2
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
3
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
performance standards are being met.
4
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance standards are being met.
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
60%
performance standards are being met.
6*
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
70%
performance standards are being met.
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
80%
performance standards are being met.
8*
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
90%
performance standards are being met.
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
9
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
100%
has received close-out approval.
*Please note that vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during
these monitoring years unless otherwise stated by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT.
7.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan and
submittal of the Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey. 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. As projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the Bank Sponsor will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included
with the annual monitoring report.
8 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
8.1 Reference Stream Studies
8.1.1 Target Reference Conditions
The restoration portions of the Site are characterized by agricultural and livestock practices. Several
ditches exist in the watershed and contribute to the project site. Physical parameters of the site were
used, as well as other reference materials, to determine the target stream type. An iterative process was
used to develop the final information for the site design.
To develop the target reference conditions, physical site parameters were reviewed. This included the
drainage area, land use, soils mapping units from the Johnston County Soil Survey for the watershed
and Site, typical woody debris and habitat available for the area, as well as general topography. The
"Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" was also used to narrow the potential
community types that would have existed at the Site (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region — Inner Coastal Plain,
• Similar drainage area,
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 32 March 2018

• Similar land use onsite and in the watershed,
• Similar watershed soil types,
• Similar site soil types,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat — several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among coastal plain streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.
8.1.1.1 Reference Site Search Methodology
All the parameters used in Section 4.1 were used to find appropriate reference stream sites. Obtaining
property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in locating suitable
reference sites for the project. For this project, there was no predetermined amount of reference sites
needed as long as the site was suitable and met the parameters. Several potential reference sites were
assessed, and their characteristics were noted. It is difficult to find reference sites in the Coastal Plain
because many have been disturbed by farming or urban development. Most streams tend to be modified
ditches and may have some of the characteristics that are sought in a reference, but too few to make it
an ideal reference for the project site. One reference stream site that proves to be ideal in both
geomorphology and habitat is Reach 1­1132 located on the project site just downstream of HB 1.
8.1.1.2 Reference Watershed Characterization
The reference stream, Reach 1­1132, flows west to east and is near the upstream portion of the project
along an unnamed tributary that drains to Hannah Creek. The portion of H132 that was surveyed and
analyzed is approximately 275 feet long. The drainage area for the 14132 reach is 1.18 square miles (752
acres). The land use in the watershed is characterized by mostly agricultural (52%), mixed pines and
hardwoods (42%), residential (4%), and open water (2%). Site photographs of the reference stream are
located in Section 2.3.
8.1.1.3 Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for the reference
reaches. Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross -sectional area were all factors
considered when performing the calculations. Using a combination of Coastal Plain Regional Curves,
in-house spreadsheet tools, and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis, the existing
discharge was found to be around 29-31 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) for 1­1132. See Section 8.3 for a
more detailed description of the hydrologic analyses performed for this project.
8.1.1.4 Reference Channel Morphology
See Section 4.2.3 for a detailed description of the channel morphology for Reach H132.
8.1.1.5 Reference Channel Stability Assessment
The reference reach was stable and showed no evidence of incision or erosion in the portion that was
surveyed and analyzed. The stream appeared to maintain its slope and had sufficient amounts of
vegetation to secure its banks. Riparian buffer widths exceeded fifty feet on each side. The CSA results
(scores and ratings) for HB2 are provided above in Table 7 (Section 4.2). The reach received a "Good"
rating as the channel demonstrates a stable meandering pattern and a well vegetated riparian buffer.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 33 March 2018

8.1.1.6 Reference Bankfull Verification
Typical indicators of bankfull include vegetation at the bankfull elevation, scour lines, wrack lines,
vegetation lines, benches/inner berm, and point bars. Throughout the entire length of the reference
reach, bankfull is located at the top of bank elevation. The accuracy of this bankfull stage is verified by
the Coastal Plain Regional Curves and hydrologic analyses using existing cross sections to calculate
area and discharge. Evidence that can further support the location of bankfull is the lack of any bench
or berm features within the channel, and wrack lines present within the floodplain.
8.1.1.7 Reference Riparian Vegetation
The reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
community. This community was determined to have had past disturbance altering the species
composition. It is anticipated that a local seed source for high dispersal species is present and will
disperse across much of the mitigation site. These species are often found in early successional
communities and quickly fill disturbance gaps. Because many of these high dispersal species often
become aggressive in these sites, they are not included in the Restoration Planting List (Section 8.2.2).
Hardwood species typical of the target community were observed in adjacent and nearby communities,
providing further guidance for planting efforts.
8.2 Design Parameters
8.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach
Stream restoration efforts along the tributaries at the Site will be accomplished through analyses of
geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applies a combination of
analytical and reference reach based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both
ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment activities may range from minor bank
grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring
full restoration, natural design concepts have been applied and verified through rigorous engineering
analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that
provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape.
The Site will include Priority I restoration, Enhancement Level 1, Enhancement Level 11, and
Preservation. Priority I restoration reaches will incorporate the design of a single -thread meandering
channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference site described above, published
empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. As
a result of the restoration of planform and dimension, frequent overbank flows and a restored riparian
buffer will provide the appropriate hydrology and sediment transport throughout this Coastal Plain
watershed. A conceptual plan view is provided in Figure 10.
Current stream conditions along the proposed restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation as a result
of impacts from livestock and channelization performed to promote agricultural activities. Additionally,
the riparian buffer is in poor condition throughout most of the project area where much of the riparian
buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and active pasture is present up to the edge of the existing channel.
The Site design approach began with a thorough study of existing conditions, including the onsite
streams, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters, including active channel, habitat and floodplain
features were developed from analyses performed on the reference site data. Analytical design
techniques were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
Engineering analyses were performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the
reference reach based design. A combination of methods (including Hydraflow Hydrographs, regional
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 34 March 2018

curves and flood frequency analysis) were used to calculate flows received by the channel for bankfull
and other significant storm events. Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically
referenced as bankfull or dominant discharge) was determined, and the subsequent design was based
on this calculated discharge. Design parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data
and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling were confirmed using the Stable Channel Design function
components within HEC-RAS and through spreadsheet tools.
Engineering analyses were performed concurrently to geomorphic and habitat studies. While the stream
design was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable habitat
features were derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both riparian habitat
features and in -stream structures such as log grade controls, brush toes, log vanes, log toes, log drops
were used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by dissipating and
redirecting the stream's energy. Bank stability will also be enhanced through the installation of live
stakes that include native species (e.g. black willow (Salix nigra) and cottonwood (Populus deltoids).
Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled to the elevation of the floodplain in areas
adjacent to the new channel with material excavated onsite and by installing channel plugs where
necessary. The floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will
provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks will be stabilized using a
combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare -root plantings, native material revetment
techniques (i.e. bioengineering), structure placement, and sod transplants where possible. The stream
and adjacent riparian areas will be protected by a permanent conservation easement, which will be
fenced as needed to exclude livestock.
The Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site has been broken into the following design reaches:
• Reach HB1 (STA 0+15 to STA 14+45) —Reach beginning at western limits of project totaling
1,430 linear feet of Priority I Restoration but is adjusted to 1,400 linear feet due to a 30-foot
break in the easement due to an overhead power line. Pasture and disturbed wetlands are located
adjacent to the reach.
• Reach HB2 (STA 14+45 to STA 18+37) —Reach begins at the end of HB 1 and flows northeast
to the confluence with Reach HB3 totaling 392 linear feet of Enhancement Level II.
Bottomland hardwood forest and riparian wetlands surround this reach.
• Reach HB3 (STA 18+37 to STA 36+44) — Reach immediately downstream of Reach HB2 and
flows east to an existing farm crossing totaling 1,807 linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
Pasture and small pockets of disturbed wetlands are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach HB4 (STA 36+84 to STA 42+63; STA 42+63 to 44+91) — Reach beginning at farm
crossing just downstream of Reach HB3 and flows north to its confluence with Hannah Creek.
The reach totals 579 linear feet of Enhancement I and 228 linear feet of Preservation. Pasture
and disturbed wetlands are located along the west side of the reach, and bottomland hardwood
forest and riparian wetlands are located on the east.
• Reach HF1(STA 2+18 to STA 13+58; STA 13+58 to 16+04) —Reach beginning in a forested
area in the southern portion of the project and flows north until its confluence with Reach HB 1
totaling 1,386 linear feet of Preservation. Riparian wetlands surround this reach.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 35 March 2018

• Reach HF2 (STA 6+40 to STA 7+89) — Reach beginning in agricultural field in the southern
portion of the project and flows north until its confluence with Reach HF 1 totaling 149 linear
feet of Preservation. Agricultural fields and disturbed wetlands are located adjacent to the
reach along the upstream segment, while the downstream section is bordered by woods.
• Reach TH3 (STA 0+63 to STA 7+79) —Reach begins just downstream of disturbed wetlands
and an existing farm crossing located at the top of the project. The reach flows to the east into
Hannah Creek totaling 716 linear feet of Enhancement Level II. Pasture and small pockets of
disturbed wetlands are located adjacent to this reach.
Reaches HB1, HB2, HB3, and HB4
A combination of Priority I Restoration, Enhancement Level 1, Enhancement Level II, and Preservation
is proposed along the primary project channel (Reaches HB1 through HB4) to address existing
impairments, particularly channelization and impacts from continued cattle access. The watershed that
drains to the upper end of the project is approximately 667 acres, and land use is primarily agricultural
and forested. Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach HB 1 which will include relocating the channel
towards the north, such that it meanders within the middle of the valley. An existing 24" reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP) culvert crossing near the upstream end will be removed, and all sections of the
abandoned channel will be backfilled to provide positive drainage towards the proposed channel. A
minimum of a 100-foot buffer will be established along the majority of Reach HB1 and will be planted
with native riparian vegetation. Livestock will be excluded from the buffer with fencing installed along
the easement boundary. A 30-foot easement break is proposed near the upstream end of the reach to
accommodate an existing overhead powerline.
Enhancement Level II is proposed for Reach HB2, beginning approximately 200 feet downstream of
the confluence with HF1. The channel is stable throughout, except for a few minor areas of erosion,
and provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian buffer is intact and consists primarily of mature
hardwoods; however, there are areas of invasive species located throughout the buffer. Minimal grading
and live stake planting will be required in the few areas that exhibit bank erosion. Invasive species will
be treated and removed during construction, and those areas will be replanted with native riparian
vegetation.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach HB3 to address historic straightening and irregular banks
resulting from cattle impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel
within the natural valley, and backfilling the existing stream. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be
established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of
significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the
bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability. Livestock will be excluded with fencing installed along
the easement boundary. There is an existing crossing located within the downstream section of the
project that will be removed.
A 40-foot easement break is proposed at the existing farm crossing located at the reach break between
HB3 and HB4. The existing culverts will be removed and replaced with 30 linear feet of 42" and 24"
high -density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes. The 42" pipe will be buried one foot to allow for fish passage
and to convey baseflow, while the invert of the adjacent 24" pipe will be set two to three inches above
the channel bed elevation.
A combination of Enhancement I and Preservation is proposed for Reach HB4 downstream of the
easement break. Enhancement I is proposed for over 500 feet beginning downstream of the easement
break, and Preservation is proposed for the channel from the Enhancement I section to the confluence
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 36 March 2018

with Hannah Creek. The design approach will include installing log structures at various points along
the channel to raise the channel invert within the upper section. Because the channel was previously
channelized and relocated to the west side of the valley, the proposed structures will allow flows to
frequently inundate the valley floor and existing wetlands located to the east. A floodplain bench will
also be constructed along the left bank within the enhancement section. A minimum of a 50-foot buffer
will be established along Reach HB4, and the west side of the buffer will be planted with native riparian
vegetation.
Reach TH3
Enhancement Level II is proposed on Reach TH3. The design approach on this reach will focus on
improving the riparian buffer and in -stream habitat and floodplain benching. Proposed activities include
cutting a floodplain bench along the south side of the channel along the upper reach, and installing
grade control and woody debris structures throughout to improve vertical stability and aquatic habitat.
Livestock will be excluded with fencing installed along the easement boundary. All disturbed areas
within the proposed buffer will be planted with native riparian and wetland vegetation.
A 40-foot easement break is proposed at the existing farm crossing located at the upstream end of the
reach. The existing culvert will be removed and replaced with 24 linear feet of 24" HDPE pipe. The
headwaters of the reach (wetland system) located just upstream of the crossing will also be placed under
a conservation easement. All existing ditches will be filled/plugged using adjacent spoil piles. All
disturbed areas within the easement will be planted with native wetland vegetation, and cattle will be
excluded from the area by installing fencing along the easement limits.
Reach HF1
Preservation is proposed for Reach HF 1. The majority of the channel is stable throughout the proposed
easement and provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian buffer is intact, but invasive species
(privet) are present throughout. All non -vegetated areas within the proposed easement will be planted
with native vegetation and any areas of invasive species will be removed and/or treated.
Reach HF2
Preservation is proposed for Reach HF2. Upstream of Reach HF2 is a ditch that was deemed non -
jurisdictional by DWR, but viable to generate nutrient credits via a separate banking instrument.
(Documentation included in Appendix B). The riparian buffer of Reach HF2 downstream of the ditch
is intact, but invasive species (privet) are present throughout. All non -vegetated areas within the
proposed easement will be planted with native vegetation and any areas of invasive species will be
removed and/or treated.
8.2.1.1 Design Discharge
Based upon the hydrologic analyses described below, design discharges were selected that fall between
model results for the 1.1-year and 1.5-year flood frequency analysis for each reach. The selected flows
for the restoration reaches are 30-32 ft3/s for Reaches HB1 and HB3. These discharges will provide
frequent inundation of the adjacent floodplain.
The design discharges were selected based on the following rationale:
• The calculated bankfull discharge for the analog/reference reach and existing reaches fall
between the results of the 1.1-year and 1.5-year flood frequency analysis,
• The results of the 1.1-year flood frequency analysis are slightly higher than the NC regional
curve (Doll et al., 2003), and
• Selecting design discharges slightly higher than the 1.1-year storm events allows frequent
inundation of the adjacent floodplain.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 37 March 2018

8.2.1.2 Design Methods
There are three primary methods that have demonstrated success in stream restoration: analog,
empirical, and analytical. All three methods have advantages and limitations, and it is often best to
utilize more than one method to address site -specific conditions or to verify the applicability of design
elements. This is particularly true in developed watersheds where existing conditions do not always
reflect current inputs and events, and sediment and hydrologic inputs may remain unstable for some
time. Combinations of analytical and analog methods were used to develop the stream designs for the
Site.
Analytical Approach
Analytical design is based on principles and processes considered universal to all streams, and can
entail many traditional engineering techniques. The analytical approach utilizes continuity, roughness
equations, hydrologic and hydraulic models, and sediment transport functions to derive equilibrium
conditions. Because the project is located within a rural watershed, restoration designs are based on
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, including rainfall -runoff models to determine design discharges
coupled with reference reach techniques.
Analog Approach
The analog method of natural channel design involves the use of a "template" or reference stream
located near the design reach, and is particularly useful when watershed and boundary conditions are
similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). In an analog approach, the
planform pattern, cross -sectional shape, longitudinal profile, and frequency and locations of woody
debris along the analog reaches are mimicked when developing the design parameters for the subject
stream.
The appropriate bankfull cross -sectional area (CSA) of each design reach was calculated using
the designer's (WK Dickson) in-house spreadsheet based on Manning's Equation. The input
parameters included the design discharge as determined by the hydrologic analysis described
above, and proposed slope based on site conditions and the sinuosity measured for the analog
reach.
2. The cross -sectional shape was adjusted within the spreadsheet to replicate the width -depth
ratios and side slopes surveyed along the analog reach, while also maintaining the CSA
necessary to convey the design discharge.
3. Pool cross -sectional areas were calculated using both typical reference reach techniques and
the analog approach. Design CSA areas were determined using the measured analog ratios of
shallow/riffle CSA to pool CSA as applied to the design CSAs. The pool cross -sectional shape
was adjusted within the in-house spreadsheet as described above in step 2.
8.2.1.3 Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for shallows and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix E. The
cross-section dimensions were developed for the three design reaches by using a WK Dickson in-house
spreadsheet described in Section 8.3 of this report. The cross -sections were altered slightly to facilitate
constructability; however, the cross -sectional area, width to depth ratio, and side slopes were preserved.
Typical pool sections include pools located on straight reaches and pools on meander bends.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 38 March 2018

8.2.1.4 Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignment are provided in Appendix E. The meander
pattern was derived directly from the analog reach and was altered in some locations to provide
variability in pattern, to avoid onsite constraints, to follow the valley pattern, and to make the channel
more constructible. The morphologic parameters summarized in the Appendix C were applied
wherever these deviations occurred.
8.2.1.5 Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix C. These profiles extend throughout the entire project
for the proposed channel alignment. The profiles were designed using the analog reach bed features
that were sized with the scaling factors. The bed slopes and bankfull energy gradients were determined
for each design reach based on the existing valley slope and the sinuosity of the design reach. Log
structures will be utilized in the design to control grade, divert flows, and provide additional habitat
diversity and stability.
8.2.1.6 In -Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve
aquatic habitat. Native materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures
where applicable. Additionally, rock structures will be utilized intermittently along Reaches HB 1 and
HB3 to provide increased stability and habitat. Typical rock structures that will protect the channel bed
and/or banks will include riffle grade controls and j-hooks.
Woody debris will be placed throughout the channel at locations and at a frequency that is similar to
those mapped in the analog reaches. The analog reach has woody debris throughout the length of the
channel, providing grade control for shallows and forcing scour pools. Woody habitat features installed
will include dead brush, woody debris bundles, root wads, brush toes, and log vanes. To provide
additional bank stability, sod mats harvested onsite will be installed along stream banks during
construction if and when feasible. Sod mats will only be harvested and used if comprised of appropriate
vegetation. The use of sod mats that include aggressive turf grasses will be avoided. Sod mats are
natural sections of vegetation taken from the banks when they were cut during construction, and are
about nine inches thick. Before installation, proposed banks are graded lower than specified to
accommodate the thickness of the mat. The mats are placed on top of the bank to act as a natural
stabilizer of native species, and they grow much faster than the combination of coir fiber matting and
seeding. Other bank stability measures include the installation of live stakes, log sills, log drop
structures, and log toes. Typical details for proposed in -stream structures and revetments are in
Appendix E.
8.2.2 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
The Site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. As such, the wetland restoration and
enhancement is closely tied to the stream restoration. The Site will provide 11.00 WMUs through a
combination of wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation treatments.
Because of the soil characteristics and variations observed throughout the site, the primary wetland
restoration activities, at a 1:1 credit ratio, will be plugging the existing channel and constructing a
stream channel at a higher elevation that elevates shallow groundwater depths and more frequently
floods adjacent wetlands. Additional backfilling to create shallow depressions within the old channel
and removal of spoil from pond excavation along the floodplains will aid in the restoration of a natural
floodplain surface relative to the surrounding landscape. Surface roughening and creation of shallow
depressions throughout the restoration area will provide an appropriate landscape for diverse habitat.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 39 March 2018

Due to compaction and long term agricultural use, a shallow ripping of the surface to a depth of 6 to 8
inches is called for to allow adequate porosity for infiltration and storage and provide microtopographic
relief.
Proposed wetland enhancement is located along the floodplains of the stream restoration and
enhancement reaches within the jurisdictional wetland areas. The construction of a farm pond has
altered surface drainage and placed spoil across the floodplain. As part of the wetland enhancement,
this pond will be removed and hydrology will be redirected towards the forested and grazed wetlands.
The existing pasture areas on the Site will be treated with Wetland Enhancement at a credit ratio of 2:1.
A credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for the grazed, forested wetland areas. The wetland mitigation treatment
will primarily be re -planting the disturbed pastures as forested wetlands and excluding livestock from
the pasture and currently grazed forested wetlands. Enhancement activities will include: reconnecting
low lying areas of hydric soil with the floodplain, farm pond removal, planting native tree and shrub
species commonly found in small stream swamp ecosystems, and surface roughening to increase
infiltration and storage. For the pond removal, the pond will be drained before breaching the dam and
removing all existing PVC pipe. Per direction of the engineer, it is expected that excess spoil from the
project will be placed within the existing pond footprint Combined with the proposed stream
restoration, these actions will result in a sufficiently high water table and flood frequency to support
hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology, resulting in enhanced riparian wetlands.
8.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration
8.2.3.1 Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration project. The selection
of plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach, species present in the forest
surrounding the restoration site, and what is typically native to the area. Several sources of information
were used to determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project. The reference stream is
located within a disturbed Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. Species dominant in the canopy included
sweetgum, red maple, tulip poplar, swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and various oak species (Quercus
sp.) in the canopy. Shrubs included sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) and American holly (Ilex opaca).
The reference site was chosen due to the stability of the channel, the physical structure of the forest
community, and to evaluate stream habitat. The species present are indicative of early successional
species that have high dispersal rates. The mitigation site also supports many species typical of this
community type due to its past disturbance history. Typically, a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
would occur along the stream banks and adjacent floodplain of the proposed restoration site.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp will be the target community type and will be used for all areas
within the project, as well as for buffer around the site. The plant species list has been developed and
can be found in Table 14. Species with high dispersal rates are not included because of local occurrence,
adjacent seed sources, and the high potential for natural regeneration. The high dispersal species include
red maple, tulip poplar, and sweetgum.
The restoration of plant communities along the Site will provide stabilization and diversity. For rapid
stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders),a mix of or all of either cottonwood
(Populus deltoides) and/or black willow were chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because
of their rapid growth patterns and high success rates. Willows grow at a faster rate than the species
planted around them, and they stabilize the stream banks. Willows will also be quicker to contribute
organic matter to the channel. When the other species are bigger, the black willows will slowly stop
growing or die out because the other species would outgrow them and create shade that the willows do
not tolerate. The live stake species will be planted along the outside of the meander bends three feet
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 40 March 2018

from the top of bank, creating a three-foot section along the top of bank. The live stakes will be spaced
three feet apart with alternate spacing vertically. See Appendix E for a detailed planting plan.
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled/ripped
before the topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be
stockpiled and placed over the site during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable
soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization
for the site.
Table 14. Proposed Plant List
Tree Species- Floodplain and Wetland
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator*
Growth Rate
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
OBL
moderate
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
OBL
rapid
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
OBL
moderate
River birch
Betula nigra
FACW
rapid
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
FACW
rapid
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
FACW
moderate
American sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
FACW
rapid
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator*
Black willow
Salix nigra
OBL
rapid
Cottonwood
Populus deltoides
FAC
rapid
*National Wetland Indicator Status from Draft Rating 2012-Atlantic Gulf Coastal Plain.
8.2.3.2 On -Site Invasive Species Treatment
Treatment for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream
restoration. Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant
phenology and the location of the species being treated. All treatment will be conducted to maximize
its effectiveness and reduce chances of negative impacts to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment
methods will include mechanical control (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical
control (foliar spray, cut stump, and hack and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds
will be removed from the site and properly disposed. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a
certified ground pesticide applicator with a North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services (NCDA&CS) license and adhere to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide
labels and NC and Federal laws. Management records will be kept on the plant species treated, type of
treatment employed, type of herbicide used, application technique, and herbicide concentration and
quantities used. These records will be included in all reporting documents.
8.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Diffuse flow structures will be applied at locations where ditches or other forms of concentrated flow
enter the conservation easement. The specific locations in which diffuse flow structures will be installed
are two locations along HB3 and are identified on the plan sheet S6 found in Appendix E. However,
it may be possible that during construction additional areas may be determined to need diffuse flow
structures as well. The diffuse flow structure will use a log sill structure that is in front of a filled in
ditch and installed coir matting that brings the elevation up to tie into the existing grade of the
floodplain. All diffuse flow structures will be installed within the conservation easement so that
landowners will not have access to the structures. Failure or maintenance of the structures is not
anticipated as these structures will be installed in low -gradient areas, and the areas proposed to diffuse
flow will be well vegetated and matted.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 41 March 2018

Stormwater management issues resulting from future development of adjacent properties will be
governed by the applicable state and local ordinances and regulations. It is recommended that any future
stormwater entering the site maintain pre -development peak flow. Any future stormwater diverted into
the project should be done in a manner as to prevent erosion, adverse conditions, or degradation of the
project in any way.
8.2.5 Soil Restoration
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before
the topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be
stockpiled and placed over the site during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable
soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization
for the site.
8.3 Data Analysis
8.3.1 Stream Data Analysis
8.3.1.1 Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine
and validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a
single model. Peak flows (Table 15) and corresponding channel cross -sectional areas were determined
for comparison to design parameters using the following methods:
• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• AutoCAD's Hydraflow Hydrographs,
• NC and VA/MD Regional Curves for the Coastal Plain, and
• USGS regional regression equations for rural conditions in the Coastal Plain.
Regional Flood Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas less than 6,400 acres (10 mi2) which passed the Dalrymple
homogeneity test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations.
Regional flood frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2-year peak discharges based
on the gauge data. Discharges were then computed for the design reach. These discharges were
compared to those predicted by the discharge regional curve and USGS regional regression 2-year
discharge equations.
AutoCAD's Hydraflow Express
Hydraflow Express was used to simulate the rainfall -runoff process and establish peak flows for the
watersheds. This model was chosen over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers model HEC-HMS because
it allows the user to adjust the peak shape factor for the Coastal Plain conditions. Rainfall data reflecting
both a 100 and 284 peak shape factor were used along with a standard Type I1 distribution, and NRCS
hydrology (time of concentrations and runoff curve numbers), to simulate the rainfall -runoff process.
Calibration studies across the State of North Carolina have been developed by the National Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) that show the standard 484 peak shape factor found in HEC-1 and HEC-
HMS are too conservative. The NRCS recommends using a value that ranges between 100 and 284 for
those areas on the eastern side of the state.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 42 March 2018

Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina Coastal Plain regional curves by Doll et al. (2003) and Sweet and Geratz (2003)
and the Virginia/Maryland (Krstolic et al., 2007) Coastal Plain regional curves for discharge were used
to predict the bankfull discharge for the site. The NC regional curves predicted flows that are similar to
those predicted by the 1.1-year flood frequency, while the VA/MD curves are comparable to flows
predicted by the 1.5-year flood frequency equation. The regional curve equations for NC discharges by
Doll et al. (2003) (1) and Sweet and Geratz (2003) (2) and VA/MD (3) discharges are:
(1) Qbk7--16.56*(DA)I32 (Doll et al., 2003)
(2) Qbkjm=8.49*(DA)0.76 (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
(3) Qakj= 28.3076*(DA)°.59134 (Krstolic et al., 2007)
Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi2).
USGS Regional Regression Equations
USGS regression equations estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood -peak discharges (Gotvald,
et al., 2009). The regression equations were developed from gauge data in different physiographic
regions of the Southeastern United States. For this analysis, there was only concern for the 2-year return
interval. The equation for the rural Coastal Plain (Hydrologic Region 4) is:
(4) Q2=60.3 *(DA)0.649
Table 15. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach
Drainage
Area
(Ac)
Hydraflow
Qi
FFQ
Qi'i
FFQ
Qi'e
NC
Regional
Curve Q (1)
NC Regional
Curve Q (2)
VA/MD
Regional
Curve Q (3)
Regional
Regression
Eqns. Q2
Design/
Calculated
Q
H132
752
63
25
56
19
10
31
67
29-31
(Analog)
HB1
667
63
23
51
17
9
29
62
30-32
H133
816
82
27
59
20
11
33
71
30-32
H134
894
82
29
62
21
11
35
75
30-32
HF1
78
---
3.7
12
4
1.8
8
15
4-5
HF2
13
1.2
0.8
4
1.0
0.4
3
5
1.5-4
TH3
24
---
1.4
6
1.6
0.7
4
7
2-6
8.3.1.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a
stable sand bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment transport is
assessed to determine a stream's ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows. Various
sediment transport equations may be easily applied when estimating entrainment for gravel bed
streams; however, these equations are not as effectively applied to sand bed channels where the entire
bed becomes mobile during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, more sophisticated modeling
techniques were used to analyze the stream design for this project. The following methods and functions
were utilized during the sediment transport analysis:
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 43 March 2018

Stable Channel Design Function — Copeland Method (HEC-RAS),
Shear Stress, and
Velocity.
Stable Channel Design
Design cross-section dimensions as determined from the analog approach were evaluated using the
stable channel design functions within HEC-RAS. These functions are based upon the methods
presented in the SAM Hydraulic Design Package for Channels developed by the USACE Waterways
Experiment Station. The Copeland Method was developed specifically for sand bed channels (median
grain size restriction of 0.0625 mm to 2 mm) and was selected for application at the Site. The method
sizes stable dimensions as a function of slope, discharge, roughness, side slope, bed material gradation,
and the inflowing sediment discharge. Results are presented as a range of widths and slopes, and their
unique solution for depth, making it easy to adjust channel dimensions to achieve stable channel
configurations. The stable design output parameters are listed in Table 16. The results are acceptable
and match closely with the design reach parameters.
Table 16. Stable Channel Design Output
Reach Q (ft/s3) Bottom Depth (ft) Energy Composite Velocity Shear Stress
Width (ft) Slope (ft/ft) n value (ft/s) (lbs/ft )
H13141133 30 7 1.5 0.0032 0.040 2.2 0.29
Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses
are a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation),
cohesiveness of bank materials, and vegetative cover. The shear stress approach compares calculated
shear stresses to those found in the literature. Shear stress is the force exerted on a boundary during the
resistance of motion as calculated using the following formula:
(1) T = yRS
i = shear stress (lb/ft)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft')
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
Table 17. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Proposed Shear Stress Allowable Shear Stress'
Reach at Bankfull Stage Critical Shear Stress
z (lbs/ft) Sand/Silt/Clay Gravel Vegetation
(lbs/ft) (lbs/ft') (lbs/ft') (lbs/ft')
HB1/HB3 0.24 >0.004 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.2 to 1.7
I(Fischenich, 2001
Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Site design reaches fall between
the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits. Therefore, the
proposed channel should remain stable.
Velocity Approach
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 44 March 2018

Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank
materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to
aid in the verification of channel stability. Table 18 compares the proposed velocities calculated using
Manning's equation with the permissible velocities presented in the Stream Restoration Design
Handbook (MRCS, 2007).
Table 18. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Reach Manning's "n" Design Velocity (ft/s) Allowable Velocity' (ft/s)
value Fine Sand Coarse Sand Fine Gravel
HB 1 /HB3 0.05 1.8 2.0 4.0 6.0
'(MRCS, 2007)
8.3.2 Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document. The combination of the analog and analytical design methods was determined to be
appropriate for this project because the watershed is rural, the causes of disturbance are known and
have been abated, and there are minimal infrastructure constraints. The original design parameters were
developed from the measured analog/reference reach data and applied to the subject stream. The
parameters were then analyzed and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical tools and
numerical simulations of fluvial processes. The designs presented in this report provide for the
restoration of natural Coastal Plain sand -bed channel features and stream bed diversity to improve
benthic habitat. The proposed design will allow flows that exceed the design bankfull stage to spread
out over the floodplain, restoring a portion of the hydrology for the existing wetlands.
A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration
channel. However, many segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood
storage. Native woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress,
provide grade control, and increase habitat diversity.
Forested riparian buffers of at least fifty feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the
project reach. An appropriate riparian plant community, a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, will be
established to include a diverse mix of species. Replanting of native species will occur where the
existing buffer is impacted during construction.
The Hannah Bridge Stream Mitigation Site is being built in conjunction with the Hannah Bridge
Buffer/Nutrient Offset Site. Reductions in nutrients and other pollutants will be achieved with the buffer
restoration work, providing substantial benefits to the watershed. The Buffer/Nutrient Offset site will
generate credits on the first 200 feet of buffer in the easement per USACE consultation.
Due to the nature of the project, complete avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is not possible.
Proposed stream impacts, including stream relocation and culverts, will be replaced on site. Wetland
impacts associated with restoration and enhancement efforts will only temporarily impact wetlands and
will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along
the stream banks, and restored hydrology. All stream and wetland impacts will be accounted for in the
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) form.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 45 March 2018

9 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will 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:
Table 19. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in -
stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel
may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -cutting. Stream
maintenance activities will be documented in annual monitoring reports.
Wetland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose
coir matting, channel plug maintenance, and supplemental installations of target
vegetation within the wetland.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may
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. Vegetation maintenance activities will be documented and reported
in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will continue through the
monitoring eriod.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between
the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs
identifying the property as a mitigation site, and will include the name of the
long-term steward and a contact number. Boundaries may be identified by
fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site
conditions and/or conservation easement. Conservation easement boundary
signs and a marker will be placed at every corner and will be placed at a
minimum of every 200 feet on long boundary lines. Boundary markers
disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as -
needed basis. Easement monitoring and staking/signage maintenance will
continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing
Road crossings within the Site may be maintained only as allowed by
conservation easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or
corridor agreements. Crossings in easement breaks are the responsibility of the
landowner to maintain.
Livestock Fencing
Livestock fencing is to be placed outside the easement limits. Maintenance of
fencing is the responsibility of the landowner. Maintenance by sponsor will
occur through monitoring.
Beaver
Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver
management is needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability or
vegetative success, RES will trap beavers and remove impoundments as needed.
All beaver management activities will be documented and included in annual
monitoring reports. Beaver monitoring and management will continue through
the monitoring period.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 46 March 2018

10 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Site will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in the
USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent agency guidance (USACE 2003 and 2016).
Specific success criteria components are presented below.
10.1 Stream and Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
10.1.1 Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The four
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four
bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
10.1.2 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross -sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -
cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross -sections shall
be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross -sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
10.1.3 Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
10.1.4 Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) has a current WETS table for Johnston County
upon which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season. The closest comparable data
station was determined to be the WETS station for Smithfield, NC. The growing season for Johnston
County is 233 days long, extending from March 18 to November 6, and is based on a daily minimum
temperature greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years.
Based upon field observation across the site, the NRCS mapping units show a good correlation to actual
site conditions in areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a
hydroperiod for the Bibb soil of 12-16 percent of the growing season. The hydrology success criterion
for the Site is to restore the water table so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil
surface for at least 12 percent of the growing season (approximately 27 days) at each groundwater
gauge location. Based on the extensive management history of the Site and soil compaction, RES
proposes a target hydroperiod of nine percent for monitoring years 1 and 2, with the understanding that
12 percent will be the target hydroperiod for the remainder of the monitoring period.
10.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site will
follow IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover
a minimum of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually between
July 15 and leaf drop. The interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 47 March 2018

at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees at the
end of Year 5 with an average of seven feet in height, and the final vegetative success criteria will be
210 trees per acre with an average height of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Height measurement success
criteria do not apply to the understory trees or shrubs. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to
species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success
criteria of total planted stems.
11 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the IRT monitoring template. A detailed monitoring plan
is provided in Figure 11. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will
facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making
regarding project close-out. The success criteria for Site will follow current accepted and approved
success criteria presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines, and subsequent agency
guidance (USACE 2003 and 2016). Specific monitoring components are presented in Table 20. In
general, stream performance standards will be no more than 10% variance from the design ratios.
However, some variance and channel adjustments are expected due to streams being dynamic systems.
Monitoring reports will be prepared annually and submitted to the IRT.
Table 20. Monitoring Requirements
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
As per October 2016
USACE Wilmington
Additional surveys will be performed
Pattern
District Stream
Baseline
if monitoring indicates instability or
Mitigation
significant channel migration
Guidelines
As per October 2016
Baseline,
USACE Wilmington
fears
Surveyed cross sections and bank
Dimension
District Stream
1,2,3,5, and
pins
Mitigation
7
Guidelines
As per October 2016
USACE Wilmington
Additional surveys will be performed
Profile
District Stream
Baseline
if monitoring indicates instability
Mitigation
Guidelines
As per October 2016
Crest gauges and/or pressure
Surface Water
USACE Wilmington
transducers will be installed on site;
Hydrology
District Stream
Quarterly
the devices will be inspected on a
Mitigation
quarterly basis to document the
Guidelines
occurrence of bankfull events
Baseline,
Vegetation
2% of planted area
fears
Vegetation will be monitored per
1,2,3,5, and
IRT guidelines
7
Groundwater monitoring gauges with
Groundwater
8 groundwater wells
data recording devices will be
Hydrology
distributed
Quarterly
installed on site; the data will be
throughout the site
downloaded on a quarterly basis
during the owing season
Exotic and
Nuisance
Semi-
Locations of exotic and nuisance
Vegetation
Annual
vegetation will be mapped
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 48 March 2018

Locations of fence damage,
Project
Semi-
vegetation damage, boundary
Boundary
Annual
encroachments, etc. will be mapped
Stream/Wetland
Semi-
Semi-annual visual assessments
Visual
Annual
11.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank
to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by USACE. Stream channel stationing will be marked with stakes
placed near the top of bank every 200 feet.
11.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species,
and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete
streamwalk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to
record each monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual
monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital
images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
11.3 Cross Sections
Permanent cross -sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in
pools and half in shallows. All cross-section measurements will include bank height ratio and
entrenchment ratio. Cross -sections will be monitored annually. There should be little change in as -built
cross -sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent
movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or erosion), or are minor changes
that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the
banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment
ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches. Channel stability should be demonstrated through
a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period.
11.4 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydric conditions in the wetland restoration areas.
This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in
representative locations across the restoration areas and reference wetland. The gauges will be
downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated during the growing season. Gauge
installation will follow current NCIRT guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland
hydrology indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site visits.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 49 March 2018

11.5 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be 22 plots within the planted area (26.4 acres). Plots will be a
mixture of fixed and random plots, but random plots will make up no more than 50% of the total plots.
Planted area indicates all area in the easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas
(e.g. Reach HB2, HF1, lower end of Reach TH3, and right bank of Reach 1­1134) are not included in the
planted area. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the plots: species, height, planting date
(or volunteer), and grid location. Monitoring will occur each year during the monitoring period.
Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and controlled so that none become dominant or alter
the desired community structure of the site. If necessary, RES will develop a species -specific control
plan.
11.6 Scheduling/Reporting
A mitigation plan and as -built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be developed
within 60 days of the planting completion on the Site. The report will include all information required
by IRT mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, photographs and sampling plot locations,
gauge locations, and a description of initial species composition by community type. The report will
also include a list of the species planted and the associated densities. Baseline vegetation monitoring
will include species, height, date of planting, and grid location of each stem. The baseline report will
follow USACE guidelines.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the
success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final
success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the IRT.
The monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by USACE.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 50 March 2018

12 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the site will be transferred to the NCWHF:
North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation
[phone]
PO Box 29187
Greensboro, NC 27429
www.ncwh£or�
The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required
in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements held by the
NCWHF are stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust
Alliance. These guidelines include annual monitoring visits to easements and related communication
with the landowner(s). During the visit, a standard report is completed and pictures taken for the record.
If the Site is found to be in violation of the easement terms NCWHF works with the landowner to see
the problem rectified. When appropriate NCWHF pursues legal action to enforce the easement terms.
NCWHF typically requires the site developer to install standard NCWHF signage as part of the
easement transfer package. This includes well marked corners of the easement boundary, as well as
plastic or metal signs identifying the easement. The current sign standard is a 6"x6" aluminum sign
with contact information. Signs are refreshed on an as needed basis. Typically, a sign will last 5-10
years before it is no longer legible due to sun fading. An overview of the NCWHF Easement
Stewardship program is included in Appendix A.
NCWHF requires and endowment for each easement it agrees to hold. All endowments are held
together in an investment fund. Endowments are sized so that the interest from the principal will pay
the expected monitoring costs for that easement. This assumes a seven-year monitoring period for the
site during which NCWHF will not incur any expenses. It also assumes a 5% annual return. Currently
NCWHF employs a contractor to handle annual monitoring visits and basic easement stewardship. This
flat fee includes a property walkthrough, report, pictures, sign installation, etc. The endowment fee has
not yet been confirmed for the easement transfer of the Hannah Bridge Site, and it will be updated once
finalized.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 51 March 2018

13 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of project construction, RES will implement the post -construction monitoring
protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described
previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the Site's
ability to achieve site performance standards are jeopardized, RES will notify the USACE of the need
to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized RES
will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Prepare Corrective Action Plan for review and approval by IRT.
5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
6. Provide the IRT a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 52 March 2018

14 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $695,000 Construction Performance
Bond to the USACE to assure completion of mitigation construction and planting. Construction and
planting costs are estimated to be at or below $695,000 based on the Engineer's construction materials
estimate and recent bid tabulation unit costs for construction materials. Following completion of
construction and planting the Construction Performance Bond will be retired and a $262,000
Monitoring Performance Bond will be provided to assure completion of seven years of monitoring and
reporting, and any remedial work required during the monitoring period. The $262,000 amount includes
contingency and estimated monitoring costs from the Engineer. The Monitoring Performance Bond
will be reduced by $ 37,000 following approval of each annual monitoring report. The Monitoring
Performance Bond will be retired in total following official notice of site close-out from the IRT.
Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other designee at the direction of the obligee.
Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank
Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the USACE
receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation. All Performance
Bonds will be submitted to the USACE in draft form for approval prior to execution. hi the event of
Sponsor default, the NCWHF has agreed to receive the funds and ensure the work is successfully
completed.
Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc.
$ 110,000
Sitework
$ 136,000
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs, logs, rocks, coir,
etc.)
$ 292,000
Crossings
$ 15,000
Vegetation
$ 110,000
Miscellaneous
$ 32,000
Total
$ 695,000
Monitoring
Annual Monitoring and Reports
$ 154,500
Equipment e. au es, markers, etc.
$ 5,500
Miscellaneous
$ 5,000
Contingency 8%
$ 97,000
Total
$ 262,000
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 53 March 2018

15 OTHER INFORMATION
15.1 References
Johnston County, North Carolina. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/rleigh/. [Accessed 25
October 2011.1
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open -Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood Frequency Analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1543-
A.
Doll, Barbara A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton and D.A. Bidelspach. 2003. Hydraulic
Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams. NC Stream Restoration
Institute, Report to N.C. Division of Water Quality for 319 Grant Project No. EW20011.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Fischenich, C. 2001. "Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials." ERDC Technical Note
No. EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss.
Fischenich, J.C. 2006. Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration, EMRRP Technical Notes
Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52), US Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. (available online at http://el.erdc.usace.anny.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pdf)
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-HRT-05-
072.
Krstolic, J.L., and Chaplin, J.J. 2007. Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non -urban, non -tidal
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5162, 48 p. (available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2007-5162)
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 54 March 2018

Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
NCDENR. 2010. "N.C. Wetland Assessment Method User Manual Version 4.1." N.C. Wetland
Functional Assessment Team.
NCDENR. 2012a. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (February 2012).
NCDENR. 2012b. "2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5." Water Quality Section.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (August 2012).
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). "Neuse River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2010." (September 2014).
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2"d edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
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, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Sweet, W. V. and Geratz, J. W. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships And Recurrence
Intervals For North Carolina's Coastal Plain. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 39: 861-871.
Tweedy, K. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems.
Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and Practice, November 2008, Asheville,
NC. Unpublished Conference Paper, 2008.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wq /g_srp/2008conference/tweedy paper.pdf
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2,
December 24, 2002.
USACE, 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V.
Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center.
USACE, Wilmington District, North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV (EPA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS).
1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 55 March 2018

USDA NRCS. 1994. Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina.
USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov (September 2014).
USDA NRCS. 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654), USDA
USDA NRCS. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas,
G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1999. EPA Manual. Quantifying Physical
Habitat in Wadeable Streams.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina."
North Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. (September 2014).
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Plan 56 March 2018

%41
f 4 my.6cm�
500
C.
Ivor
rants
3'. %
kd
Hannah Bridge
M A
itigation Site
('s A'i vhw;l vzoa b Ne
':�- -I
YYQL� .
Le-gen
0
Project Area 9 N ew tDn
04
% r i)ve
TLW 0302020 2 50020
it:
FIGURE 1
}} Vicinity Map
res
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
0 1
Johnston County, North Carolina
Miles

Ah

FIGURE 3.
Legend Historical Aerial Photography
w Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
0 Proposed Easement
0 500 1,000 21000
Feet
1 in. = 1000 ft.
fires

THOPSP;
Parcel mpc : 1
I
5.
Y'
f v
# THOMPSON, RONALD GREY
T ON, C P JR Parcel no: 157900-44-5315
�57900-34-5414
THOM SON, C P JR
Parcel no 1579-34-8390
t \I
:PJR
-34-5414
T OMPSON, RONALD GR
arcel no: 157900-22-773
f
1❑
J&
Parce
Ah

Me
0
w�E
500 1,000
I
s..r
FIGURE 6
Landuse Map
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
Legend
Land Cover Class
RL Open Water
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
- Developed, Medium Intensity
- Developed, High Intensity
MV Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
- Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub/Scrub
Herbaceuous
Hay/Pasture
- Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
- Emergent Herbaceuous Wetlands
Date: 7/28/2016
Drawn by: BPB
Checked by: DPI res
Feet
Johnston County, North Carolina

OF01,61A
r4g--
Legen
MProposed Easement
Ah

LEGEND
® Proposed Easement
Cross Sections
® Vegetation Plots
® Wetland Restoration
F/-1 Wetland Enhancement
Proposed Stream
® :rest Gauge
® Jetland Gauge

Appendix A
Site Protection Instrument (s)
Site Protection Instruments*
• Model Conservation Easement
• Preliminary Plats
*Appendix will be updated as easement deeds and plats become available.

Tracy Brooks
Chairman
Greensboro, NC
Teena Koury
Vice Chairman
Burlington, NC
John Hagan
Secretary
Greensboro, NC
David Murphy IJ
Treasurer
Greensboro, NC
Eddie Bridges
Executive Director
Greensboro, NC
Tom Berry
Greensboro, NC
Sandy Brady
Greensboro, NC
Rocky Caner
Swansboro, NC
Tomme Davis
Climax, NC
Johnny Dinkins
Greensboro, NC
Greg Erwin
Raleigh, NC
Gary Graham
Summerfield, NC
Greg Harrell
April 10, 2017
EBX Neuse I, LLC
Ely J Perry, III
P.O. Drawer 1475
Kinston, NC 28503
Re: Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
This letter on behalf of the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation is in regards to
the Hannah Bridge project in Johnston County. We have reviewed the provided project
documents for this site and believe that the completed project will provide real and
lasting benefits to wildlife habitat. Since the project aligns with the mission and interests
of the NCWHF, our organization is willing to serve in the following roles:
Reidsville, NC • Easement Holder for a perpetual conservation easement on this site. This offer is
Kelly Harrill
subject to final review and acceptance of easement terms. The required
Greensboro, NC
endowment fee is $20,000.
Scott Heffernan
Greensboro. NC
• Long Term Steward of the conservation easement on this site. This offer is subject
Maurice Hull
High Point, NC
to final review and acceptance of easement terms. The required endowment fee is
Jeff Montgomery
$20,000.
Greensboro, NC
Mark Ruffin
• Bond Holder for the Construction and MonitoringBondrequired and discussed
s
Greensboro, NC
for this project. The required endowment fee is $5,000.
Allen Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Michelle Sharpe
The NCWHF appreciates the opportunity to serve in this way, which is consistent with
Greensboro, NC
both our existing easement stewardship program and our broader mission. This proposal
Tobe Sherrill
is with the understanding that the current monitoring and reporting efforts of the
Greensboro, NC
NCWHF easement holding program meet the standards required by USACE for serving
Harrison Stewart
Reidsville, NC 27320
as Easement Holder and Long Term Steward. As always, the endowment fees required for
Will Stewart
this site will be held and invested according to best practices for stewardship funds. The
Greensboro. NC
funds will be used for ongoing monitoring of this specific site as well as any legal costs
Richard vanore, Jr.
which may arise from efforts to resolve specific violations of the easement terms.
Greensboro, NC
P.O. Box 29187 • Greensboro, NC 27429-9187
[phone] • www.ncwhf.org

Tracy Brooks
Chairman
Greensboro, NC
Teens, Koury
Vice Chairman
Burlington, NC
John Hagan
Secretary
Greensboro, NC
David Murphy 11
Treasurer
Greensboro, NC
Eddie Bridges The fees listed here are subject to a favorable review of the final conservation easement
Executive Director
document, boundaries, and details. There are a few other standard requirements as well
Greensboro, NC
The Developer will be responsible for installing standard NCWHF easement signage at
Tom Berry
Greensboro, NC
the site. The Developer must also keep NCWHF informed of progress on the project,
Sandy Brady
both in construction and monitoring phases. At closeout, Developer must provide
Greensboro, NC
handoff details to facilitate continued NCWHF monitoring of the easement.
Rocky Carter
Swansboro, NC
Tonnie Davis
Climax, NC
Sincerely,
Johnny Dinkins
Greensboro, NC
JJJR
tYPP
Greg Erwin
t
Raleigh, NC
W Harrison Stewart, Jr.
Gary Graham
Summerlield, NC
NCWHF, Conservation Easement Committee Chair
Greg Harrell
Reidsville, NC
Kelly Harrill
Greensboro, NC
Scott Heffernan
Greensboro, NC
Maurice Hull
High Point, NC
Jeff Montgomery
Greensboro, NC
Mark Ruffin
Greensboro. NC
Allen Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Michelle Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Tobe Sherrill
Greensboro, NC
Harrison Stewart
Reidsville, NC 27320
Will Stewart
Greensboro, NC
Richard Vonore, Jr.
Greensboro, NC
P.O. Box 29187 • Greensboro, NC 27429-9187
[phone] • www.ncwhf.org

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made this
day of , 201_ by and between
("Grantor") and ("Grantee").
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine,
feminine or neuter as required by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and
being in County, North Carolina, more particularly described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property");
WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not -for -profit or educational corporation,
association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue
Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the purposes or powers of which include
one or more of the purposes (a) — (d) listed below;
(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space aspects of real

property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational, educational,
or open -space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following
natural communities: add or delete as appropriate: wetlands, streams, and riparian
buffers. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain streams, wetlands
and riparian resources and other natural values of approximately _acres, more or
less, and being more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated fully herein by reference (the "Conservation Easement Area"), and
prevent the use or development of the Conservation Easement Area for any purpose
or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation
Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation Banking Instrument
(MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the _
Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW -
the
Mitigation Bank in the
Mitigation Bank, Department of the
entitled "Agreement to Establish
River Basin within the State of
North Carolina", to be made and entered into by and between
acting as
the Bank Sponsor and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in
consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The
Mitigation Site has been approved by the Corps for use as a mitigation bank to
compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts authorized by DA permits.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation
Easement Area is also a condition of the approval of the Riparian Buffer
and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and Bank Parcel Development
Package (BPDP) for the Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Bank, North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Project ID# ,
which was approved by the NCDWR, and will be made and entered into by and
between , acting as the Bank Sponsor, and the NCDWR. The
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Site is intended to be used to
compensate for riparian buffer and nutrient impacts to surface waters.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of enforcement
shall be held by the NCDWR and the Corps (to include any successor agencies) ("Third -
Parties"), and may be exercised through the appropriate enforcement agencies of the
United States and the State of North Carolina, and that these rights are in addition to,
and do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the NC DWR Project ID# _
and the Department of the Army instrument number SAW -
("Mitigation Banking Instrument"), or any permit or certification issued by the Third -
Parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the

receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby
unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors
and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and
character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area
described on Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:
ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation Easement is
an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor,
Grantor's personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and
licensees.
ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent with
the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Conservation
Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and restricted from any
development that would impair or interfere with the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and
uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder:
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any
introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising
display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other
temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the Conservation
Easement Area.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or
commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes are
prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming,
cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the Conservation Easement
Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan and Bank Parcel Development Plan.
Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for purposes of enhancing planted or

volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the Mitigation Plan and BPDP is allowable once
a year for no more than five consecutive years from the date on page I of this
Conservation Easement, except where mowing will negatively impact vegetation or
disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed by and shall not
violate any part of Item L of Article II.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or modification to existing
roads, trails or walkways.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation Easement
Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation
values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving directions or proscribing rules
and regulations for the use of the Conservation Easement Area and/or signs identifying
the Grantor as owner of the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage,
waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or
other materials on the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any
manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to restore natural topography or
drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and enhancing streams and wetlands
within the Conservation Easement Area, is allowed to perform grading,
filling, and excavation associated with stream and wetland restoration and
enhancement activities as described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by
Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 27.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or
alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition,
diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into,
within or out of the easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is
prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered
or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited other than for
temporary or occasional access by the Enter Sponsor Name, the Grantee, its

employees and agents, successors, assigns, NCDWR, and the Corps for purposes of
constructing, maintaining and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area..
M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Conservation
Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant,
the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area substantially in its natural
condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is prohibited.
ARTICLE III
GRANTOR'S RESEVERED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation Easement Area
for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, including, but not
limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area, the rights
of ingress and egress, the right to hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement
Area, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement
Area, in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to
the terms of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its
successors and assigns, including acting as the Bank Sponsor, the right to
construct and perform activities related to the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area in accordance with the approved Mitigation Plan, the
Bank Parcel Development Package, and the two Mitigation Banking
Instruments described in the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE'S RIGHTS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, the Corps
and NCDWR, shall have the right to enter the Property and Conservation Easement Area
at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to
determine if the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns,
is complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation
Easement. The Grantee, Enter Sponsor Name, and its authorized representatives,
successors and assigns, the Corps and NCDWR shall also have the right to enter and go
upon the Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making scientific or educational
observations and studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do
not include public access rights.
ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, the Corps, and

NCDWR are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation Easement
Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to require the
restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement Area that may be
damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation
Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall
notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30 days after
receipt of such notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach
remains uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement
by appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without
notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if
the breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances
damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate.
The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to,
and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection
with this Conservation Easement. The costs of a breach, correction or restoration,
including the Grantee's expenses, court costs, and attorneys' fees, shall be paid by
Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps
and the NCDWR shall have the same rights and privileges as the said Grantee to
enforce the terms and conditions of this Conservation easement..
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision
hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition,
or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of
a subsequent breach or default.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to
entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the
Conservation Easement Area resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except
Grantor's lessees or invitees; or from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor
under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life,
damage to property or harm to the Conservation Easement Area resulting from such
causes.
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which
may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property
which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor
further warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived
from and arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend title to the Property against the claims of all persons._

B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any
interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor agrees to
provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of the
transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement
shall survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Conservation
Easement Area or any portion thereof and shall not be amended, modified or
terminated without the prior written consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this
Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however that the
Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or assigns this
Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a qualified
holder pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 501 (c)(3)
and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and
agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or
assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes
described in this document.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The combined Mitigation Banking
Instruments: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and MBI with corresponding
BPDP, and this Conservation Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties
with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions,
negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If
any provision is found to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,
the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes,
assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the
Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor.
Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as
expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to
comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the
exercise of the Reserved Rights.
F. Long -Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the
maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic resource
functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are sustained.
G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the
continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the conservation purposes, this
Conservation Easement may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial
proceeding.

H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation Easement Area
is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the
Restrictions imposed by this Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in
appropriate actions at the time of such taking to recover the full value of the taking,
and all incidental and direct damages due to the taking.
I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest
immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the Conservation
Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an
extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair
market value of this Conservation Easement as determined at the time of the
extinguishment or condemnation.
J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication
required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter
specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Sponsor:
To the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
To NCDEQ -DWR:
NCDEQ— Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a
reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to
make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's
interest shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an
appropriate proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.
L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in
a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not
affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee
under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation purposes of this

grant.
M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The wetlands, scenic,
resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Conservation
Easement Area, and its current use and state of improvement, are described in Section
of the Mitigation Plan,_prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor
and Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and
Grantee have copies of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any
future changes in the use of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with
the terms of this Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to
preclude the use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the
Conservation Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for
the aforesaid purposes.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
(Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form)

Appendix B
Notification of Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
NC DWR Stream Determination Forms
Hannah Bridge Correspondence
- US Fish and Wildlife Service
- NC State Historic Preservation Office
- NC Wildlife Resources Commission
- NC DWR Stream/Buffer Determination Letter
- NC DWR Buffer/Nutrient Mitigation Viability Letter
- NC DWR Buffer/Nutrient Mitigation Viability Letter - Addition
NC WAM Wetland Rating Forms

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2015-01799 County: Johnston U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -FOUR OAKS
Property Owner:
Address:
Telephone Number:
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
EBX an RES company
Daniel Ingram
909 Capability Drive Suite 3100
Raleigh. NC. 27606
919 209-1062
Size (acres) 47.94
Nearest Waterway Hannah Creek
USGS HUC 03020201
Nearest Town Four Oaks
River Basin Upper Neuse
Coordinates Latitude:35.38172
Longitude:-78.415618
Location description: Proposed Hannah Bridge Mitigation Project located off of Green Pasture Road, adjacent to Hannah
Creek , south of Four Oaks, in Johnston County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area
. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the
JD. Please see remarks section in regard to this Jurisdictional Determination.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of
this notification.
There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area delineated. Due to the
size of your property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner. For a more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any
delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
Page 1 of 2

_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on _. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years fi om the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact John Thomas at 919-554-4884 x25 or
John.T.Thomas.JRO.usace armv mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Site includes tributaries of Hannale the Atlantic ocean. Creek which flows to the Neuse River ar:rl at to
D. Remarks: For the purpose of mitigation bank planning,the Corns concurs with the
review request received on August 16 2016
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Actjurisdiction for the
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants,
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the or anticipate participationlocal office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room IOM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA 1
71, it must be received at the above address by 10/18/2016.
**It is not necessary to submit an RF/i f�rin to the
correspondence.** Y
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: August 18, 2016
if you do notAiect to the determination in this

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help uS ensure We
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
hti://regglatorv�usacesu rvey _corn/.

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Daniel Ingram
File Number: SAW-2015-01799 Date: August 18, 2016
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) aQu JGGUu❑ MawA
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) g
❑
PERMIT DENIAL C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
®
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DF.TF.RnaluaTIM]
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at hoc%ivww.usace.army.nlil/Missions'Civilworks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits asps x or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terns and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address al I of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
information.
You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Y d
ou o not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION 11 - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
r UUI I wINAL uvIYOKMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
Attn: John Thomas
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room IOM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunit to articipate in all site investipatinnc
of appellant or
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, John Thomas,
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

"a
Vp
Benson
J-4-
Legend
MProposed Easement
210
A
IS,
Rd
Olt,
�zp
I'rN IF, '
Hannah Bridge
Mitigation Site
T
Newton
Grove
TLW 03020201150020
F FIGURE I
Vicinity Map 11
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
0 2
Johnston County, North Carolina
jLR4 mfl.s pres

j:
r"
1 t'
R
" GREEN PASTURE, to
1 ^9A�—.
k „r`
i
r 0 225 450
t '::::�
i Feet
W13 W12 W11
W6
W3
W2
FIGURE 7
Exsting Conditions Map
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Rom:
W8
► "An
Oate. 6/22/2016
Drawn by: BPB
Checked by: DPI
W10
VirA,
Legend
Proposed Easement
Streams
Wetland Type
V / /Ij Non -Forested
Forested- Not Disturbed
Forested -Disturbed

CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT FORM
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the
activity and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
watershed. Significant cattle activity,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
landslides, channel sand or gravel
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
mining, logging, farming, or
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
construction of buildings, roads, or
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
other infrastructure. Highly urbanized
significant portion of watershed
or rapidly urbanizing watershed
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
3. Channel pattern
Straight to meandering with low
Meandering, moderate radius of
Meandering with some braiding;
Braided; primarily bed load; engineered
radius of curvature; primarily
curvature; mix of suspended and bed
tortuous meandering; primarily bed
channel that is maintained
suspended load
loads; well -maintained engineered
load; poorly maintained engineered
channel
channel
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
straight (step -pool system, narrow
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically)
valley), stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
areas of instability and/or erosion
with few bends. Straight, unstable
around bends. Straightened, stable
reach.
channel.
4. Entrenchment/ channel
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
confinement
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
plain abandoned; levees are moderate
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
back from the river
in size and have minimal setback from
active flood plain; levees are high and
the river
along the channel edge
5. Bed materia
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
sand in the bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20 %
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50 %
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70 %
> 70
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of
1/2 the stream width at low flow. Bars
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
newly deposited coarse sand to small
are composed of extensive deposits of
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth o
cobbles and/or may be sparsely
fine particles up to coarse gravel with
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation
vegetated. Bars forming for S > 0.02
little to no vegetation. No bars for S <
12, no bars are evident
on portions of the bar. For S > 0.02
and w/y < 12
0.02 and w/y > 12
and w/y <12, no bars are evident
7. Obstructions, including
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
bedrock outcrops, armor layer,
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause
continual shift of sediment and flow.
LWD jams, grade control, bridge
noticeable erosion of the channel.
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
bed paving, revetments, dikes
Considerable sediment accumulation
to migrate and/or widen
or vanes, riprap
behind obstructions
8. Bank soil texture and
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
coherence
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
lenses of noncohesive or
lenses that include noncohesive sands
unconsolidated mixtures
and gravels
9. Average bank slope angle
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 HA V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive
(where 90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
or unconsolidated materials or over 60'
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
in clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
10. Vegetative or engineered
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with
Woody vegetation band may vary
bank protection
at least 90 % density and cover.
with 70-90 % plant density and cover.
50-70 % plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy,
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney,
than 50% plant density and cover.
deciduous trees with mature,
deciduous trees with maturing,
coniferous trees with young or old
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
healthy, and diverse vegetation
diverse vegetation located on the
vegetation lacking in diversity located
trees with very young, old and dying,
located on the bank. Woody
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
on or near the top of bank. Woody
and/or monostand vegetation located
vegetation oriented vertically. In
90 % from horizontal with minimal
vegetation oriented at 70-80 % from
off of the bank. Woody vegetation
absence of vegetation, both banks
root exposure. Partial lining or
horizontal, often with evident root
oriented at less than 70 % from
are lined or heavily armored
armoring of one or both banks
exposure. No lining of banks, but
horizontal with extensive root
some armoring may be in place on
exposure. No lining or armoring of
one bank
banks
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of
bends and at prominent
banks. Raw banks comprise large
some extending over most of the
total bank
constrictions. Raw banks comprise
portion of bank in vertical direction.
banks. Undercutting and sod -root
minor portion of bank in vertical
Root mat overhangs
overhangs
direction
12. Mass wasting or bank
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
failure
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
entire reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
13. Upstream distance to bridge
More than 35 m; bridge is well-
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly
from meander impact point and
aligned with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not
aligned with flow
alignment
centered beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: / O /
Project/Site: PE n F J
Latitude:
Evaluator: '� I
County: �'O nS
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
3ttent
Stream orpeennias at least l if
i!> 19 or perennial if 2 30' �
Ephemeral Intermittent. Perd-vital
P
e. Quad Name:
g'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = &0I• i
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
V Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
a
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1 1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
0
TJ
2
3
9. Grade control
0
b.5
_
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5>
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
`artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 8 - )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
0
3
14. Leaf litter
1
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
y.-
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
411
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yps„3
C. Biology (Subtotal = b , 5 )
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
1
?.
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
o 1
1
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =A).7 OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

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

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: S 111) l
Project/Site: r r 333
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
ifz 19 or perennial if>_30" JJ
Ephemeral Intermittent erenni
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 1'7 �)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
11' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-poolsequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Y =
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discu ions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
.5
1
.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = S_4i )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
el7p
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
t b 7
0.5
1
1.6
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 ther = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: S / I 0 J 1'
Projecttsite: N. I t _ � _'
Latitude:
Evaluator: 13 to
County: 70h h5d a
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent 2
iftl9 or rennial if 30' J ZS
Ephemeral Intermittent enni
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology ( Subtotal = k , S
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
Gy�
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
77_7
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
(12D
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
es = 3
' artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 17i )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
m
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
<Tl
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Ye = 3
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = � ; S )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
A
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
&
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
�1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =
.75� OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I I
ProjectlSite: t{ _ F (
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: �Sa c�h
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
�I ZS
Stream Determination (circle )
Ephemeral Intermittent ' I
Other
ifa19or erennialift30'
eren
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = to, S )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
V Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
/1
l�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 90)
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = A S )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
CD
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Ye = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 10.2 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
C32
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = ff.7VOBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: D I

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

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /� 0 /
Project/Site:4 0� 2
Latitude:
Evaluator: G
County:
Longitude:
Total Points: /I �7
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determi (circle one)
Other
!iL ,
if? 19 or perennial f a 30'
Ephemeral ermi t Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = '' `
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a* Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
COD
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
1 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
t)
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o'= 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = °
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
?i�)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
D
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.6
[i 'j
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
y
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
(J
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBI =1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: j /' C) A
Project/Site: / 703
n nc n
Latitude:
Evaluator: ��
County: n�,o�
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
00.Ephemeral
Stream Determiircle one)
Perennial
Other
ifzl9or erennialif>_30'
4e'rmfttegv
e.g. Quad Name:
W
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = Ill
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5 !
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = r )
12, Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
G. Biology (Subtotal = S 5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

fires
April 8, 2016
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Mr. Pete Benjamin
Suite 130
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Owings Mills, MD
21117
Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Subject: Project Scoping for Hannah Bridge Stream Mitigation Project in Johnston County.
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
100 Calhoun St.
Dear Mr. Benjamin, Suite 320
.l � Charleston, SC
29401
The Hannah Bridge Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) to
provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the Neu- solo Montrose Blvd.
p p �' g p g suite 650
Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank. EBX-Neuse I, LLC, a RES entity, is the bank sponsor for the Site. Houston, TX
The proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,000 linear feet 77006
of stream. The site is currently in agricultural use and the stream channels have been straightened 1200 Camellia Blvd.
and channelized. Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
THE US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (hitp://www.fws.gov/endangered/) lists 70508
four endangered species for Johnston County, North Carolina: Red -cockaded woodpecker 1371/2 East Main St.
(Picoides borealis), Tar River spinymussel (Eliptio steinstansana), dwarf wedgemussel Suite 210
(Alasmidonta heterodon), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). We have determined that no Oak Hill, WV
suitable habitat for the listed species' exists within the proposed project boundary. 25901
33 Terminal Way
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
Suite 431
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the construction of a stream restoration
Pittsburgh, PA
project on the subject property. Maps showing the location and approximate limits of the
15219
conservation easement are enclosed.
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment
Raleigh, NC
27605
to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at bbreslowgres.us with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
1521 W. Main
2n' Floor
Richmond, VA
23220
Sincerely yours,
Brad Breslow
Restoration Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 5, 2016
Brad Breslow
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Re: Hannah Bridge Mitigation Project — Johnston County, NC
Dear Mr. Breslow:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally -protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally -protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concerts' that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
The tern "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

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

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Emily Wells of this office
at [phone] ext. 25.
Sincerely, //11
al� dSJ
P to Benjamin
Field Supervisor

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wilson
0

fires
April 8, 2016
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Renee Gledhill -Earley
Suite 130
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
Owings Mills, MD
21117
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
100 Calhoun St.
The Hannah Bridge y � (RES)
e Site has been identified b Resource Environmental Solutions LLC RES to
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the Neu-
29401
Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank. EBX-Neuse I, LLC, a RES entity, is the bank sponsor for the Site.
The proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,000 linear feet
Suite Montrose Blvd.
of stream.
Suite 650
Houston, Tx
77006
RES requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream and wetland mitigation
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
project on the Hannah Bridge site (a USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation
Lafayette, LA
easement is attached).
70508
1371/2 East Main St.
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
Suite 210
(http://gis.ncdcr.goy hpoweb/; accessed April 8, 2016) was performed as part of the site due
Oak Hill, WV
diligence evaluation. According to this website, the Ashley A. Blackman House and Cemetary is
25901
within one mile of the Hannah Bridge site. The proposed project will not have any adverse effects
33 Terminal Way
to historical structures or viewsheds at the referenced historical site. No architectural structures
Suite 431
or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for
Pittsburgh, PA
restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of the site has historically been disturbed due to
15219
agricultural practices.
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
Raleigh, NC
27605
any historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You
may return the comment to my attention at the address below, or via email. Please feel free to
1521 W. Main
me at bbreslow(c�res.us with an questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
Y q Y Y g
2nIcontact
Ric Floor
Richmond, VA
disturbance associated with this project.
23220
Sincerely yours,
Brad Breslow
Restoration Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
April 14, 2016
Brad Breslow
RES
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Restoration, Johnston County, ER 16-0636
Dear Mr. Breslow:
Thank you for your letter of April 8, 2016, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewgncdcr. og_v. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

fires
April 8, 2016
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Mr. Vann Stancil
Suite 130
Habitat Conservation Biologist
Owings Mills, MID
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
21117
215 Jerusalem Church Road
412 N. 4th St.
Kenly, NC 27542
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
Subject: Project Scoping for Hannah Bridge Stream Mitigation Project in Johnston County.
100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
Dear Mr.Stancil,
29401
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on an possible issues that might
p q y p g
5020 Montrose Blvd.
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential stream restoration project on
Suite 650
Houston, Tx
the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground
77006
disturbance are enclosed).The Hannah Bridge Site has been identified by Resource Environmental
Solutions, LLC (RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
impacts through the Neu -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The proposed project involves the
Lafayette, LA
restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,000 linear feet of stream. The site is currently in
70508
agricultural use and the stream channels have been straightened and channelized.
1371/2 East Main St.
Suite 210
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment
Oak Hill, WV
to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at bbreslow(kres.us with any
25901
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
Sincerely yours,
15219
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605
Brad Breslow
Restoration Ecologist
1521 W. Main
2na Floor
Richmond, VA
23220
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

From:
Stancil, Vann F
To:
Brad Breslow
Subject:
RE: Hannah Bridge Mitigation Project
Date:
Monday, May 2, 2016 11:44:53 AM
Brad,
I've reviewed your information on the Hannah Bridge Site, located on tributaries to Hannah Creek in
Johnston County. There are no records for sensitive aquatic or terrestrial wildlife resources in the
vicinity of this project. We do not anticipate any issues to fish and wildlife from this project as long
as restoration activities are conducted properly. Thanks for the opportunity to review this and
please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Vann Stancil // Research Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
215 Jerusalem Church Road
Kenly, North Carolina 27542
office: 919-284-5218
fax: [phone]
van n.stancilQncwildIife.orq
ncwildlife.org

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
April 24, 2015
EBX NEUSE l LLC
Daniel Ingram EBX (RES)
909 Capability Dr. Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
Subject: Buffer Determination
NBRRO#15-144
Wake County
Determination Type:
Buffer Call
Isolated or EIP Call
® Neuse (15A NCAC 26.0233)
❑ Ephemeral/IntermiDetermination Determination
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259)
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 2B
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
.0267)
—_ JI
Project Name: Thompson Mitigation Bank
Location/Directions: Property is located at Green Pastures Rd. Johnston County,. NC
Subject Stream: Hannah Creek
Determination Date: April 16, 2015
Staff: James Graham
Feature
Not
Subject
E/1/P*
Start@
Stop@
Soil
USGS
/Flag
Subject
To Buffers
Survey
Topo
To Buffers
A UT2
X
P
X
X
Reaches
A-C, F,
H
M UT2
X
P
X
X
Reach B
N UT2
X
Ditch
Reach E
N UT2
X
Ditch
Reach D
N UT2
X
Ditch
Reach G
UT1
X
Ditch' -
Reach A
UT1
X
Ditch
Reach B.,One
NatllCQa!�t, J
North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone [phone]
Internet: www.ncwatercualitv.orc Location: 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Thompson Mitigation Bank
Wake County
April 24, 2015
Page 2 of 2
K
X
X
(Hannah
Wetland**
Creek)
(Riverine
Swamp
Forest)
LUTI
X
I
X
Reach C
J
X
Wetland**
X
X
Pond 1
X
X
Pond 2
X
X
Pond 3
X
*E/I/P - Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
**Feature J and K are wetlands Wetlands are subject to 404 permitting. Impacting a wetland by filling, dredging,
and/or draining can result in a Wetlands Standard Violation 115A NCAC 02.B 0231 (a),15A NCAC 02B. 0231(b).
Please contact US Army Corps. of Engineers for permitting information if needed
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There maybe
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Resources
(DWR).
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that
dispute a determination made by the DWR or Delegated Local Authority may request a determination by the
Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or from the date the affected
party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determination by the
Director shall be referred to the Director in writing. If sending via US Postal Service c/o Karen Higgins DWR — 401 &
Buffer Permitting Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. If sending via delivery service (PIPS, FedEx,
etc.) Karen Higgins DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 2760.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty (60)
days.
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Resources (including any other Local, State, and
Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property (stated
above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be
directed to the Division of Water Resources (Central Office) at (919)-807-6300, and the US Army Corp of Engineers
(Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-554-4884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact James Grab t (919) 91-4256.
6yespec fully,
Smith, SSSSGupervisor
Water Quality Section
Raleigh Regional Office
cc: RRO/SWP File Copy

t-Ift
UT1 Reach A, B Ditch
Not Subject to buffer$
Pond 3
Not Subject to buffers
Feature J Wetland
Not Subject to buffers
Pond 1
Not Subject to buffers
(.., H
Feature A UT2 Reach A Perennial 1,;
Subject to buffers Ow
Feature L UT1 Reach C
Intermittent
Not Subject to buffers
rs, r
.ems
Feature K Wetland Not Subject
to buffers (Riverine Swamp Forest)
GO^
Pond 2
Not Subject to buffers
s
1f .!
;, rFeacure A UT2 Reach H Perennial
ect to buffers
Feature -A UT2 Reach F Perennial
Subject to buffers
Feature N UT2 Reach E,D,G Ditch
e ; Not Subject to buffers
Feature A UT 2 Reach C Perennial
Subject to buffers
Feature M UT2 Reach B Perennial
Subject to buffers "
C. eft
JRG 4/16/2015 15 144
1 . L`Ocl

Pond 3
Not Subject to buffers
LJT i
&4 -4
Feature J Wetland
Not Subject to buffers 4
J. I'
Pond 1
Not Subject to buffers
55
UT s i
E
t _
ti ±i
0 312.5 625
ri
r
JRG 4/16/2015 15-144
0
9N
O. N
;; � Rfas>ti ►{
Pond 2
Not Subject to buffe
r
I

Feature J Wetland
Not Subject to buffers
W. j __. -mil I^
Pond 1
Not Subject to buff
yIAh
u
Feature A Perennial
Subject to buffers
Feature K Wetland Not Subject
to buffers
Pond 2
Not Subject to buffers
t .. YiCJI is"ilVtia_
mil_ •tom
w # P.M.Wweature A Perennial
Subject to buffers
JRG 4/16/2015 15-144
Feature M UT2 Reach B Perennial
Subject to buffers

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
June 11, 2015
Daniel Ingram
EBX Neuse I, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
(via electronic mail)
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset —Thompson/Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
Green Pastures Road near Hwy 96, Dunn, NC
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Ingram,
On April 8, 2015, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a request from EBX
Neuse I, LLC (EBX) an affiliate of Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) for a site visit near the above -
referenced site to determine the potential for nutrient offset and Neuse riparian buffer mitigation. On April
16, 2015, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of the subject site, which is more accurately described in
the attached aerial map. If approved, mitigating this property could provide riparian buffer credits and/or
nutrient offset credits within the Neuse River Basin, 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201, with the
exception of the Falls Lake Watershed. The viability of this site for nutrient offset and riparian buffer
mitigation is determined based on the Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument signed by EBX and the DWR
on November 10, 2008. If EBX chooses to apply 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (Rule .0295) towards its buffer
mitigation, EBX will have to submit a Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) specific for this site. The existing
Neuse Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument is not compatible for use of the temporary Rule .0295 for
buffer mitigation.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the property for buffer and nutrient offset mitigation is shown below:
Thompson Propertv
• A stream buffer determination letter was issued for the subject site by the DWR Raleigh Regional
Office on April 24, 2015.
• Streams and conveyances onsite drain offsite into Hannah Creek, a Riverine Swamp Forest.
• Land use adjacent to the streams and conveyances is described as grazed pasture from livestock.
Exclusion of cattle is required within the entire mitigation area.
• Features determined to be viable for generating nutrient offset credits were determined onsite to
be directly hydrologically connected to intermittent or perennial streams.
• Some streams determined to be viable for generating buffer credits were partially dependent on
the stream being restored through stream mitigation.
Division of Water Resources - 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper

• Buffer mitigation and nutrient offset cannot be proposed within the same square feet.
• The following table describes where nutrient offset and riparian buffer mitigation is viable for
generating mitigation credits:
Feature/
Reach
Classification
Buffer
Credit
Viability
Nutrient Offset
Viability at 2,273
Ibs/acre
Type of Mitigation
Aa
Stream (P)
Yes
Yes
Restoration
Ac
Stream (P)
Yes
No
Preservation
Af
Stream (P)
Yes
Yes
Restoration, Enhancement
1
Wetland
No
No
N/A
La
Ditch
No
Yes
Restoration, Enhancement
Lb
Ditch
No
Yes
Restoration
Lc
Stream (1)
Yes
Yes
Restoration
Mb
Stream (P)
Yes
Yes
Restoration
Ne
Ditch
No
Yes
Restoration
Ng
Ditch
No
No
Not within mitigation area
No
Ditch
No
Yes
Enhancement in some areas
P1
Pond (not in -line)
No
No
N/A
P2
Pond (not in -line)
No
No
N/A
P3
Pond (not in -line)
No
No
N/A
Hannah
Creek
Riverine Swamp
No
Yes
Restoration
A map showing the project site and the features is provided and signed by Ms. Merritt on June 11, 2015.
For any areas depicted as not being viable for nutrient offset credit above, EBX could propose a different
measure, along with supporting calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for
review by the DWR to determine viability for nutrient offset according to 15A NCAC 02B .0240. Alternative
buffer mitigation options, such as Preservation, may be proposed under 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (m).
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this correspondence.
Sincerely,
Karen 7��
Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
KAH/km
Attachments: Site Map
cc:File Copy (Katie Merritt)

a
0
3
a
y
0
a
E44

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
May 23, 2017
Brad Breslow
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
(via electronic mail)
ROY COOPER
MICHAEL S. REGAN
See, eta;
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site (HF2)
Green Pastures Rd near Hwy 96, Dunn, NC
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Breslow,
On May 15, 2017, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a request
from Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) for a site visit near the above -referenced site in
the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin, outside of the Falls Lake
Watershed. This site visit was to determine the potential for riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient
offset along a feature that was originally not part of the viability assessment performed by DWR on
June 11, 2015. On May 16, 2017, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of the subject site, which
is more accurately shown in the attached aerial initialed by Ms. Merritt on May 23, 2017.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the feature onsite and its associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. The evaluation was made from Top of Bank JOB)
out to 200' from the feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective
November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Feature
Classification
1Subiect
Riparian Land uses of
Buffer
Credit
NNutrient
Offset Viable
Mitigation Type Determination w/in riparian
to Buffer
Feature
areas
Rule
at 2,273
0-200'
Viable
Ibs acre
HF2
ditch
No
Left Bank=previous row
No
Yes
Restoration site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
(ends
crop agriculture, early
at woodline)
successional sweet gums,
pines and maples with
invasives.
Right Bank= row crop
agriculture field
'This subjectivity call was determined by DWR using the 1:24,000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS
and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS.
2 NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with
Riparian Buffer Establishment
A map showing the project site and feature was provided by RES and was initialed by Ms. Merritt on
May 23, 2017. This letter should be provided in all stream, wetland, and/or buffer mitigation plans
for this Site.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Thompson/Hannah Bridge Site (HF2)
RES
May 23, 2017
This letter does not constitute an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DVWR for written
approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient load -reducing measure
shall be submitted to DWR for approval prior to any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or
surface waters
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer mitigation credits.
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
KAH/km
Attachments: Site Aerial
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
Sincerely,
4L"
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 212

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 1 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
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) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
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
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 2 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
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) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
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
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 3 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
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) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 4 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
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) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 5 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
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) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
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
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 6 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
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) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
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
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 7 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
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) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
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
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 8 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
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) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 9 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
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) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 10 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
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) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
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
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 11 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Non-Riverine Swamp Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
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) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) NA
Physical Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Veaetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 12 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
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) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
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
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hannah Bridge - Wetland 13 Date 12-27-2017
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid/RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
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) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
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
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
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
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

Appendix C
Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analysis
Hannah Bridge Morphological Parameters
Existing Cross Section and Profile Charts
Hannah Bridge Stable Channel Hydraulic Design Output

Hannah Bridge Morphological Parameters
Existing'
Design
HB1
HB1
HB2
HB2
HB2
H133
H1133
HB3
HB3
HB4
HF1
HF1
HF2
TH2
TH3
TH3
EJ1
EA
HB1,HB3
Feature
Shallow
Pool
Shallow
Pool
Shallow
Shallow
Pool
Shallow
Pool
Shallow
Run
Run
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Run
Shallow
I Run
Shallow F Pool
Drainage Area ac
667
752
816
894
78
78
13
24
24
10
667-816
Drainage Area miZ
1.04
1.18
1.28
1.40
0.12
0.12
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.02
1.0-1.3
NC Regional Curve Dischar a cfs 2
17.1
18.6
19.7
21.1
3.6
3.6
1.0
1.6
1.6
0.8
17-20
NC Regional Curve Dischar a cfs 3
9.1
9.9
10.6
11.3
1.8
1.8
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.4
9-11
Design/Calculated Discharge cfs
20-25
29-31
23-37
T 18-24
1 4-5
1.5-4
1 4-5
2-4
2-3
30-32
Dimension
BF Width ft
12.1
14.0
12.2
11.4
10.8
18.4
21.8
11.3
7.9
23.8
8.2
6.1
4.5
5.0
5.3
2.2
2.6
5.1
12.2
12
Floodprone Width ft
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
7
10
7
5
4
7
>50
>50
BF Cross Sectional Area f,2
12.2
13.4
15.8
16.5
14.7
16.6
20.6
13.1
13.2
19.4
3.4
3.6
1.5
1.8
1.6
2.1
1.0
1.9
15.4
17.1
BF Mean Depth ft
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.7
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.4
1.3
1.4
BF Max Depth ft
2.3
2.7
2.0
2.5
1.8
1.7
2.6
2.3
2.8
1.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.6
1.3
0.6
0.6
1.6
2.2
Width/Depth Ratio
12.1
14.6
9.4
7.9
7.9
20.3
23.0
9.7
4.7
29.3
19.5
10.5
13.4
13.7
17.2
2.3
6.8
13.2
9.7
8.4
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
> .
I >2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
> .
I >2.2
>2.2
>2.2
1.4
1.9
1.2
2.3
1.8
1.3
> .
1 >2.2
Wetted Perimeter ft
14.4
16.2
13.6
13.5
12.1
20.0
23.5
13.0
11.1
24.9
8.4
6.8
4.7
5.5
5.6
3.8
3.2
5.4
13.1
13.3
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.4
1.2
1.3
Max Bank Height
2.3
2.7
2.0
2.9
2.0
2.0
2.8
3.0
3.8
2.1
1.0
0.8
2.5
1.6
1.7
2.9
1.9
2.1
1.6
2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
5.0
2.1
2.8
2.3
3.0
3.3
1.0
1.0
Substrate
Description D50
very fine gravel
fine gravel
very coarse sand
coarse sand
coarse sand
silt/muck
silt/muck
medium sand
very coarse sand
coarse sand to fine gravel
D16 mm
0.53
0.32
0.55
0.39
N/A
0.49
0.36
0.51
N/A
0.34
0.32
N/A
N/A
0.23
0.35
---
D50 mm
3.1
0.81
4.4
1.6
N/A
1.9
0.72
0.95
N/A
0.67
0.77
N/A
N/A
0.39
1.5
---
D84 mm
7.9
5.9
11
8.9
N/A
9.7
1.3
6.2
N/A
1.1
4.7
N/A
N/A
0.93
6.4
---
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
---
---
---
---
---
Min
Max
---
---
---
---
---
---
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth ft
19
45
19
57
---
---
---
---
---
12
38
---
---
---
---
---
---
34
70
Radius of Curvature ft
9
22
10
28
---
---
---
---
---
4
25
---
---
---
---
---
---
23
42
Radius of Curvature Ratio
0.7
1.8
0.9
2.6
---
---
---
---
---
0.7
4.1
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.9
3.4
Meander Wavelength ft
58
147
49
170
---
---
---
---
---
33
85
---
---
---
---
---
---
90
151
Meander Width Ratiol
1.6
1 3.7
1 1.6
1 5.3
1 ---
I --
---
I ---
---
1 1.5
1 6.2
1 ---
I ---
---
---
I
---
2.8
5.7
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Min
Max
Shallow Length (ft)
2
22
5
23
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
10
34
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
0.006
0.030
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.006
0.030
Run Length ft
5
16
10
18
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
8
24
Run Slope ft/ft
---
---
0.020
0.070
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.020
0.070
Pool Length ft
3.0
9.7
11.6
45.6
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
13
29
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
5.2
46.8
1 37.2
1 55.7
1 ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
---
I ---
I ---
1 39
1 85
Glide Slope ft/ft
---
I ---
1 0.025
1 0.07
1 ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
I ---
---
I ---
I ---
1 0.025
1 0.070
Additional Reach Parameters
Vallev Len th ft
901
842
1297
740
1198
722
647
775
607
---
Channel Length ft
1074
995
1388
808
1364
795
666
778
611
---
Sinuosity
1.19
1.18
1.07
1.09
1.14
1.10
1.03
1.00
1.01
1.2
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.008
0.29
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Channel Slope ft/ft
0.008
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.0030
0.0080
0.02
0.0090
0.008-0.02
0.003
Ros en Classification
E4/5
E4/5
E5
E5
E5
G6c
E6
F5/G5c
G5c
E4/5
' Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003;
3 NC Regional Curve equations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003

Upstream
Downstream
Reach TH3 - XS1 (Run)
101.5
101
100.5
100
c
0
99.5
>
w
99
98.5
98
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

102
101
100
c
99
0
98
m
w
97
96
95
Upstream
Reach TH3 - XS2 (Run)
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach HB4 - XS3 (Run)
101
100.5
100
tE 99.5
c
0
99
d
W 98.5
98
97.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach HB3 - XS4 (Shallow)
101
100.5
100
99.5
w
99
0
98.5
y
w
98
97.5
97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach HB3 - XS5 (Pool)
102
101
100
Y
W
99
O
> 98
w
97
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach EA - XS6 (Shallow)
97.5
97
96.5
96
c
95.5
m
W 95
94.5
94
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
��1'.a,�.ii�==!.�nay�a -::-s, .r .��r4.s✓ ti! �• F n. � ads;,,.
Downstream
Reach EA - XS7 (Run)
101
100.5
100
99.5
c
0
99
d
W 98.5
98
97.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
—*.—Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach HB3 - XS8 (Shallow)
103
102
101
100
0
99
w
R
y
98
W
97
96
95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

103
102
101
100
0 99
w
R
y 98
W
97
96
95
"l
yS
A
4
'1 1
Upstream
t;
r
r'
Reach HB3 - XS9 (Pool)
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
40 45

102
101
100
w
c
O
w
> 99
d
W
98
97
0
Upstream
e
y
Reach TH3 - XS10 (Run)
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
40 45

Upstream Downstream
Reach HB1 - XS11 (Shallow)
103
102
101
p 100
Y
W 99
98
97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
♦Reach B1 Approx. Bankfull—FloodproneArea

Upstream Downstream
Reach HB1 - XS12 (Pool)
103
102
101
100
c
0
99
m
w 98
97
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

100
99
98
w
97
c
0
m
> 96
0
W
95
94
0
Upstream
Reach HF2 - XS13 (Run)
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
35 40

Upstream
h.
_
•1
Downstream
Reach HF1 - XS14 (Run)
100.8
100.6
100.4
100.2
100
99.8
=
0
'= 99.6
99.4
w
99.2
99
98.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach HF1 - XS15 (Run)
101
100.8
100.6
100.4
100.2
V
c
100
99.8
w
99.6
99.4
99.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach HB2 - XS16 (Pool) Reference
125
124
123
122
c
0
> 121
w
120
119
118
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach HB2 - XS17 (Shallow) Reference
124
123.5
123
122.5
122
c
° 121.5
121
w
120.5
120
119.5
119
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
a® >.
k
90
r
Downstream
124
Reach HB2 - XS18 (Shallow) Reference
123.5
123
122.5
122
0
>
121.5
m
w
121
120.5
120
119.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Hannah Bridge Reach HB1/HB3
Hydraulic Design Data
Stable Channel Design Results - Copeland Method
d84(mm) = 9.0, D50(mm) = 2.0, D16(mm) = .50
Temperature (F) 55
Specific Gravity of Sediments 2.65
Unit Weight of Water (lb/cu ft) 62.385
Viscosity (sq ft/s) 1.32E-05
Discharge (cfs) 30
Upstream Channel
Sediment Concentration (ppm)
153.64
Base Width (ft)
7
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0032
Left
Right
Side Slope
1.6
1.6
Roughness Eq
Manning
Manning
Roughness Value
0.05
0.05
Stable Channel
Left
Right
Side Slope
1.6
1.6
Roughness Eq
Manning
Manning
Roughness Value
0.05
0.05
Computed Stable Channels
Bottom
Energy
Comp
Hyd
Froude
Shear
Width Depth
Slope
n-Value
Radius
Velocity
Number
Stress
Regime
1 2.4
0.005606
0.0471
1.15
2.58
0.29
0.84
Upper
2 2.2
0.004876
0.0469
1.18
2.46
0.29
0.67
Lower
3 2
0.004115
0.0458
1.2
2.36
0.29
0.52
Lower
4 1.9
0.003714
0.0444
1.19
2.3
0.3
0.43
Lower
5 1.7
0.003456
0.0431
1.16
2.26
0.3
0.37
Lower
7 1.5
0.003184
0.0401
1.09
2.2
0.32
0.29
Lower
8 1.4
0.003095
0.0395
1.06
2.18
0.33
0.26
Lower
9 1.3
0.003058
0.0387
1.02
2.16
0.34
0.24
Lower
10 1.2
0.003055
0.038
0.98
2.14
0.35
0.22
Lower
11 1.1
0.003045
0.0373
0.94
2.13
0.36
0.21
Lower
12 1
0.003058
0.0366
0.9
2.11
0.36
0.2
Lower
13 1
0.003108
0.0358
0.86
2.09
0.37
0.19
Lower
14 0.9
0.00313
0.0355
0.83
2.07
0.38
0.18
Lower
15 0.9
0.003151
0.0353
0.8
2.06
0.38
0.17
Lower
16 0.8
0.003189
0.0349
0.77
2.04
0.39
0.17
Lower
18 0.8
0.003294
0.0341
0.72
2.01
0.4
0.16
Lower
19 0.7
0.003317
0.0339
0.69
1.99
0.41
0.15
Lower
20 0.7
0.003374
0.0335
0.67
1.98
0.41
0.15
Lower
21 0.7
0.003429
0.0331
0.65
1.96
0.42
0.15
Lower
22 0.7
0.003469
0.0329
0.63
1.95
0.42
0.14
Lower
*******Solution for Minimum
Stream Power*******
10.9 1.1
0.003076
0.0369
0.93
2.12
0.35
0.21
Lower

Appendix D
Soil Scientist Report

Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site - Final
Johnston County NC
Prepared for:
Mr. Daniel Ingram
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Prepared by:
George K Lankford Soil Scientist, LSS #1223
George K Lankford, LLC
238 Shady Grove Rd
Pittsboro, NC 27312
April 2017
Soil Scientist Seal
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site in ,Johnston County, NC.
Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the complete report, including figures, maps,
appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Final Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study, Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
Study Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the study was to determine the existence and delineate the extent of hydric soils that are
potentially suitable for hydrologic restoration and mitigation. This evaluation is a soil delineation and all
boundaries shown are based on the detailed field evaluation. Potential for hydrologic restoration of soils
in this study is evaluated considering the existing land use and conditions with the sites potential for
creating a hydroperiod suitable for the landscape and soils. Restoration potential assumes the successful
restoration of the stream to access the floodplain. Practical modifications that utilize the sites natural
hydrology may include, but are not limited to surface drainage modifications, plugging drainage ditches,
removal of fill materials, and microtopographic alteration such as surface roughening or enhancing
existing depressions. Removal of fill material is typically limited due to cost and environmental impacts if
an extensive area is involved.
A detailed hydric soil delineation was completed in February and March, 2017 along an unnamed
tributary to the Hannah Creek located in Johnston County, North Carolina. This report presents an
evaluation of the subject property based upon a field evaluation the purpose of confirming the presence
and extent of hydric soil and assess the suitability for wetland restoration/mitigation at the site. This
evaluation is a soil delineation and all boundaries shown are based on the detailed field evaluation.
The observations and opinions stated in this report reflect conditions apparent on the subject property at
the time of the site evaluation. My findings, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on the
locations and boundaries of the property as evident in the field and professional experience.
Project Information and Background
The location is approximately 7 miles east of Benson and east of Green Pasture Road (SR 1154) within an
active livestock operation (Figure 1). The project area is within a wide natural topographic crenulation
along an unnamed tributary that flows east to Hannah Creek. Current land use is livestock grazing with
access to areas evaluated. The surrounding land use is farm land, undeveloped land, and single-family
homes. A hog farm operation and several small farm ponds are located within the project watershed.
Livestock grazing has resulted in the unstable stream banks and significant down cutting with erosion.
The ground surface and underlying subsoil are exposed by the channel eroding.
Within the project the unnamed tributary to Hannah Creek is a 1st or 2"a order channel draining
agricultural and forested uplands. A small second unnamed tributary is present entering the site from the
southwest. Due to incision and/or dredging both channels exhibit nearly vertical banks from erosion and
livestock that lack significant vegetation. Runoff from the floodplain has created small v-shaped gullies
cutting into the channel banks and are expanding due to livestock. A small farm pond has been excavated
along the edge of the floodplain adjacent to the project. Downstream of the area evaluated is a farm
crossing over the tributary.
Vegetation is heavily disturbed due to the livestock. An old farm road used to cross the tributary in the
past is visible near the middle of the project where higher, near vertical stream banks are present. A small
deteriorated culvert is present and the presence of concrete debris likely used to attempt to stabilize the
crossing is scattered around at this old crossing. The old farm path leading to the crossing visibly rises
above the surrounding floodplain and may have fill. A small culvert provides farm access across the
channel downstream from the old crossing with the soil on the right bank floodplain slightly elevated.
Around the excavated pond the landscape appears to have spoil that is sloped toward the channel. Shallow
ditches present aid surface drainage.
Methodology
A series of soil borings were performed across the site to delineate the boundary between hydric soil and
upland soil to described current soil characteristics, and evaluate the extent of hydric soil suitable for
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Final Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study, Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
restoration. Soils were evaluated using morphologic characteristics to determine hydric indicators and
evaluate current hydrology. Using criteria based on "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States"
(USDA, NRCS, 2016, Version 8.0). The boring observations do not contain adequate detail to classify
these soils to a series. Indicators used are valid for the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), Land Resource
Region P (133A Southern Coastal Plain) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010).
The boundary was delineated based on soil borings information, landscape position, and topographic
relief. Soil boring locations were approximately located using the Trimble Outdoor Navigator smart
phone application and exported to Google Earth. The hydric soil boundary points from field observations
were collected with a Trible GPS system by RES staff and are used to draw the soil boundaries on the
figures.
At the Hannah Bridge site, more than 45 shallow borings from 12 to 24 inches were evaluated to delineate
the hydric soil boundary. An additional seven boings were described to document a representative range
of soil characteristics at this site. Characteristics evaluated include texture, color, mottling, and saturation -
water table where present. Other important observations were noted as observed.
NRCS Soil Mapping
The landscape is within the upper part of the Southern Coastal Plain of an unnamed tributary to Hannah
Creek. The project is within the floodplain and low terraces of Hannah Creek, a large fourth order stream.
The soils are moderately weathered relatively recent deposit of sediments. The General Soil Map Units
shown in the USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Johnston County
(USDA 1994) indicate the surrounding uplands are the Gilead-Uchee-Bibb general mapping unit. These
soils occur on nearly level to moderately steep uplands, mainly on the hillslopes of major stream valleys
and have prominent relief along numerous intermittent drainages. Areas along the floodplain of Hannah
Creek are in the Wehadkee-Bibb-Chewacla unit. These soils are found on nearly level floodplains and
low terraces subject to flooding. Soils mapped along major streams and creeks are mostly poorly drained.
Soil textures expected in this landscape and position are a loamy surface with a subsoil that is stratified
sandy and loamy deposits. Soil texture and slope has the largest effect on natural drainage of these
landscapes.
The area evaluated focused upon areas with high potential for containing hydric soil. These areas have
suitable landscape position and NRCS county soil mapping indicates the presence of hydric soil
(Table 1). The NRCS Web Soil Survey has the poorly drained Bibb series mapped the length of the
project area with upland soils that extend into the project. The upland soils are a somewhat poorly drained
Lynchburg sandy loam and, a moderately well drained Goldsboro sandy loam. The Bibb soil can have up
to a 10 percent inclusion of Johnston soil, a deep mucky mineral soil. A potential inclusion on the NRCS
Web Soil Survey website is the Johnston series although not mapped in Johnston County. In the published
soil survey for Johnston County the NRCS mapping unit includes small areas of Rains, Grantham, and
Toisnot soils. Bibb soil is classified as hydric by the NRCS. The Lynchburg soil is Prime Farmland if
drained and can have inclusions of Goldsboro and Rains. The Goldsboro soil is Prime Farmland but can
have inclusions of Rains.
Bibb sandy loam soils are mapped "on floodplains and in narrow drainageways throughout the Coastal
Plain." (NRCS- Soil Survey of Johnston County 1994). Bibb soils on slopes of 0 to 2 percent are poorly
drained with slow runoff. They have moderate permeability and moderate available water capacity. The
depth to the seasonal high water table is within 8 inches between 6 and 11 months of the year with
frequent flooding. Within the project site the Bibb soil is mapped along the narrow drainage way the
length of the site. An excavated farm pond located adjacent to the project area is constructed at the edge
of the floodplain and upland.
2
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Final Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study, Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
Table 1. NRCS Soil Mapping Units at the Hannah Bridge Site
Mapping
Drainage
Hydric
Seasonal
Farmland
Taxonomic
Unit/Series
Class
(NRCS)
High Water
classification
Class
Table
Bibb
Poorly
Yes
0-8
Not
Typic
sandy loam
6 to 11 months
prime farmland
Fluvaquents
Johnston
very poorly
Yes
0-12
Not
Cumulic
prime farmland
Humaquept
Goldsboro
moderately
Hydric
inclusions
8 to 30 inches,
Prime farmland
Aquic Paleudults
sandy loam
well
(2%)
December to April
Lynchburg
somewhat
Hydric
Hy
inclusions
6 to 18 inches
Prime farmland if
Aeric Paleaquults
sandy loam
poorly
November to April
drained
Rains
poorly
Yes
surface-undrained
Prime farmland
Typic Paleaquults
sandy loam
12 to 36 if drained
if drained
A Bibb soil typically has a thin dark sandy textured surface layer underlain by a sandy or loamy textured
subsoil. The Johnston soils have an organic surface. The Goldsboro, Lynchburg and, Rains soils have a
clayey textured subsoil and are usually found on the uplands. The Rains does occur on floodplains. Rains
soil typically has a gray sandy loam surface underlain by gray sandy clay loam with mottles.
Results and Discussion
Soil borings within the boundary exhibited hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface
throughout the natural drain way (Figure). Suitable hydric soil was identified that that extend beyond the
NRCS mapped unit where the UT2 joined the floodplain. Variation observed is primarily in the surface 6
inches. The near vertical stream banks soils throughout exhibit the readily visible dark silt loam subsoil.
The floodplain landscape near the excavated pond has been altered by spoil fill. (soil profile # 47
Appendix A). The spoil is slopes from the channel upward toward the pond and enhanced surface
drainage. The excavated subsoil is a contrasting clayey in texture and reduces surface infiltration.
Overlaying material is deeper upslope near the pond and ranges to greater than 14 inches.
A typical surface consists of dark sandy loam having dark brown or dark gray colors with reddish redox
concentrations. It is underlain by a black loamy textured soil to greater than 30 inches. This black soil has
high organic content and is close to meeting a mucky mineral texture. A water table was observed in
some boring location below 20 inches. Areas with fill or significant disturbance are located near the
excavated pond and at an old farm crossing. Spoil along the second unnamed tributary is also present that
is black sandy loam similar to the underlying soil. Hydric Soil Indicators are still present within most
areas of the floodplain.
Throughout most of the site the surface has a sandy loam texture underlain by a black silt loam high in
organic matter. Small rounded gravel is found in some areas. Due to increased drainage, sandy textures,
and surface disturbance from the agricultural management, redoximorphic concentrations in the surface 6
inches are weak or absent. The hydric soil indicators present at the Hannah Bridge site are the A11-Thick
Dark Surface, F6-Redox Dark Surface, and F7-Depleted Dark Surface. These indicators depend on
accumulated organics in the soil.
Potential Hydroperiod of Restored Soils
Based upon field observation across the site, the NRCS mapping units show a good correlation to actual
site conditions in areas of the site. Soils across the site are loamy or sandy with few areas having clayey
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Final Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study, Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
textured subsoil. Even the clayey textures have a high percent of sand. The mapped soil series of Bibb is
classified as a Typic Fluvaquents and it appears the mapped unit represents the site.
Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a hydroperiod for the Bibb soil (Typic
Fluvaquents) of 12-16 percent during which the water table is within 12 inches of the surface (US Army
Corps of Engineers 2016.
Based upon this detailed study of site soils surface disturbance appears to be related to both natural and
man mace sources. The representative soil is a sandy loam over a silt loam or clayey textured subsoil
typical of alluvial systems in the upper coastal plain. Hydrologic success for these soils should be
expected to range from 12 to 16 percent saturation during the growing season. The hydroperiod suggested
follows the mitigation guidance. Hydrology may be less down to 9 percent in areas of higher relief or
where a clayey subsoil is present.
Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
Changes to this site includes increased soil drainage from the incised channel, active livestock affecting
soil compaction and surface churning, loss of organic matter in the surface, and the loss of the normal
reduction cycle characteristic of wetlands. The construction of a farm pond has altered surface drainage
and provided spoil across the floodplain.
Because of the soil characteristic and variations observed, plugging the existing incised channel with
appropriate material is recommended. Additional backfilling to created shallow depressions throughout
the old channel is allowable if the plugging material and construction are adequate to protect erosion prior
to vegetative establishment. Removal of spoil from pond excavation will restore the floodplain surface to
a natural grade relative to the surrounding landscape. Surface roughening and creation of shallow
depressions throughout the restoration area will provide an appropriate landscape for diverse habitat. Due
to compaction and long term agricultural use, a shallow ripping of the surface to a depth of 6 to 8 inches
is called for to allow adequate porosity for infiltration and storage and provide microtopographic relief.
The project area is located within a landscape suitable for wetland restoration and soil exhibiting hydric
indicators. The observed soils have taxonomy similar to mapped soil units over most of the site. An
available water source for hydrology will be available when the streams are reconnected to the floodplain.
Retention and storage that increase the hydroperiod will return the floodplain to a more natural state.
Given the observed soil characteristics indicating past wetland hydrology, and because of favorable
landscape positon, and the potential source for reconnecting hydrologic inputs, this site appears suitable
for hydrologic wetland restoration.
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site in
Johnston County, NC. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the
complete report, including figures, maps, appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.
References
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016. SAW-2013-00668-PN
http://www. saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W.
Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
4
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Final Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study, Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
USDA 1994. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil
Survey of Johnston County North Carolina. October 1994)
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016. Field Indicators
of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.).
USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Final Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study, Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
Figures
APPENDICE
Appendix A Soil Boring Log
Appendix B Photos
6
April 2017

co
GN
CN
d
CIO
U')
c1r)
CN
CO
C)
to
N
04
04
co 0
CN
fr
C)
......
CN
ti
LO
11,
Cf-)
M
W
U)
E
Ci
0

(O
a
c
f6
T
NNIv/i
�j N
y
O
N
V'
a
0
0 m U
c c
m
O m U
Z U) o
Z ! g
t
-
• y
ci t,i f6 a
W
eh � o
tl a .m m
C L C C
UJ
Q
QU ¢kn
Q
Q
to
I*: p p m
OOr- I�
II ll II O_
.
U U U U
Q Q Q Q
�—OT
�C9—h
II II I??I II
3
W
d a �O �
C
W �w saw
0
e A` Z U Q is o aw
zzE
LU
LU Eo N. uE
M ',.�r ay
to
f- w zm��
� N
� o

Appendix A
Hannah Bridge Site
Soil Boring Descriptions
April 2017
Table. Renresentative Soil Profiles in Hannah Bridge Pronmed Wetland Restoration Area
Depth I Color
Mottle
Texture
Notes
inches Matrix Mottle
Percentage
SB 44 (3-2-17)
F6-Redox Dark Surface
F7-De leted Dark Surface
0-7
10 YR 2/2
10 YR 3/1
15%
SiL
10 YR 4/3
15%
7-43
N 2.5/-
SL
high OM -near mucky
water table at -24 inches
SB
45 (3-2-17)
Al 1-Thick
Dark Surface
0-7
2.5 Y 3/1
10 YR 3/6
5%
SL
7-19
10 YR 2/1
10 YR 4/1
0
4 /o
SL
10 YR 4/6
2%
Rounded ravel-15%
g
no water table
19-27
N 2.5/-
10 YR 3/6
8%
SCL
27-36
N 2,5/-
10 YR 511
o
SC
10 YR 5/8
5%
SB 46 (3-2-17)
F6-Redox Dark Surface
0-5
10 YR 3/2
SL
5-17
10 YR 2/1
10 YR 3/4
4%
SCL
17-31
10 YR 2/1
7.5YR 5/8
20%
SC
no water table
SB 47 (3-2-17) surface is fill material from excavated pond
F6-Redox Dark Surface
0-6
10 YR 3/2
10 YR 4/2
8%
SC
appears disturbed
10 YR 4/6
8%
may be fill material
6-11
10 YR 313
SL
11-14
10 YR 3/2
5 YR 3/4
15%
SL
14-25
10 YR 2/1
10 YR 3/4
15%
SCL
no water table
I
GEORGE. K LANKFORD, LLC
I

Appendix A
Hannah Bridge Site
Soil Boring Descriptions
April 2017
Depth
inches
Color
Mottle
I Percentage
Texture
Notes
Matrix 17777MottIe
SB 48 (3-2-17)
F6-Redox Dark Surface
0-3
10 YR 2/2
SL
3-11
10 YR 3/1
10 YR 4/6
7%
SL
11-24
10 YR 2/1
10 YR 3/3
10%
SL/SCL
small round gravel P. 19
24-31
N 2.5/-
7.5YR 3/3
10%
SCL
water table at -27 inches
SB 49 (3-2-17)
Al2-Thick Dark Surface
F6-Redox Dark Surface mottles appear relict with sh boundaries 0-11 inches
0-28 1 10 YR 2/1 10 YR 3/4 15% SiL water table at -19 inches
SB 50 (3-2-17)
F6-Redox Dark Surface ad'acent borings with redox concentrations in upper surface
0-6
10 YR 3/2
SL
6-13
10 YR 3/1
10 YR 3/3
3%
SiCL
13-23
10 YR 3/1
10 YR 3/3
3%
SCL
water table at -17 inches
Texture (follows USDA textural classification)
S = sand, L = loam, Si — silt, C = clay
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
Hannah Bridge Site
Photo Log
March 2017
1. A11 Thick Dark Surface and F6 Redox Dark Surface. Relict mottles in upper 11 inches (Profile # 49).
2. A11 Thick Dark Surface. Small gravel present below 7 inches. (Profile # 45).
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
Hannah Bridge Site
Photo Log
March 2017
3. F6 Redox Dark Surface and F7 Depleted Dark Surface. High OM below 7 inches. (Profile # 44).
4. F6 Depleted Matrix. Upper 11 to 14 inches appears to be fill for excavated pond (Profile # 47).
2
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
Hannah Bridge Site
Photo Log
March 2017
5. 176-Redox Dark Surface. Small gravel below 19 inches (Profile # 48).
i t
{s NY yy
6. F6 Redox Dark Surface and F7. Livestock observing profile description technique. (Profile # 44).
3
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix E
Hannah Bridge Design Plan Sheets (11 x 17)

�r
US-3015 Kee' Gore Rtl
R
S
PROJECT SITE
Snick]-d
Cros—&
Woods Cmssroads
VICINITY MAP
NITS
4-
Know what's below.
Call before you dig
NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DIGGING, OR EXCAVATION THE
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) THAT MAY EXIST AND CROSS THROUGH
THE AREA(S) OF CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER INDICATED ON THE PLANS
OR NOT. CALL "811"A MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING OR
EXCAVATING. REPAIRS TO ANY UTILITY DAMAGED RESULTING FROM
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR.
REV RECORD:
REV RECORD:
BY DATE
DESCRIPTION
BY DATE
DESCRIPTION
HANNAH BRIDGE STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LOWER HANNAH CREEK: HUC 030202011302
OCTOBER 2017
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
302 JEFFERSON ST, SUITE 110
RALEIGH, NC 27605
Resource
Environmental
Solutions
�e
HORIZ.1 inch=300ft.
DRAWING
LIST TABLE
DRAWING NUMBER
DRAWING TITLE
1
COVER
Al
OVERALL AERIAL
E1
EXISTING CONDITIONS INDEX
E2
EXISTING CONITIONS
E3
EXISTING CONITIONS
S1
REACH HB
S2
REACH HB
S3
REACH HB
S4
REACH HB
S5
REACH HB
S6
REACH HB
S7
REACH HB
S8
REACH HB
S9
REACH HB
S10
REACH HB
S11
REACH HF1
S12
REACH HF1
S13
REACH HF1
S14
REACH TH3
S15
REACH TH3
W1
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
W2
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
F1
FENCING PLAN
P1
PLANTING PLAN
P2
PLANTING PLAN
M1
MONITORING PLAN
D1
DETAILS
D2
DETAILS
D3
DETAILS
D4
DETAILS
D5
DETAILS
D6
DETAILS
PROFESSIONAL SEAL
w 3
~ U
Uo 0
02 ymJ
Y 2
0-mp
gee V
foZ i
�E
U
a g w
O
Z O o
a a U
m
LL Z
w
Q U U
a 8 8
H
O
W
O6 Q
Z
Cc J
0_ O
Z D[
O Q
O
0
H �
O
z
W ~
I Z
c~i) O
Lu O
C3 Z
00
07 Cl)
Z
w Z O
� Z
z Q
w
O
W
O
U
w
Z
0
r,
a w N
a
z
z u
z Q
Z �
O
� a
WKD PROJ. NO.: 2015020500

�D CKSON
community Inlrael—tore consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
11 CENSE NO. —74
FULL SCALE: V=200
0 200 400
2" = FULL SCALE
�1—HALF SCALESIr
PROJ. DATE: FEB 2016
Q.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
Al
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
�
H
� N
O�
J �
a
z
0
U
Z
O
z
U
O
�
�
�
O
y
w
rri
F
O
Z
o �
o z
I
� O
�
W
¢
J ft
¢ a
U
w
p Z
o
a .�
5
o
Z �
O Q
� g
1—V
zN
w
0 H
J
Z z
�
� Z
2
w
z
w �
Q �
Q
U c
W
� j
J
Q
�
� w w
(n0
W
�N o
w U
(7Z
>
O
F� �
¢z o
��
z� g
co N
W =
O w
w
=
J
¢
z Z
d,
Z
Z
� N
W=
�
3
W W W W
z ¢zm
o
�
3 00
a
O
O ¢ate

DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
N uceeseeo.Fana
FULL SCALE: 1"=200
0 200 400
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEo
PROJ. DATE: FEB 2016
O.C.: MS
O.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
E1
PROD. NO.:
2015020500
ui
0 0
O �
J �
a
z
O
U
Q
Z
O
z
U
O
�
�
�
O
y
r
o
N
� Z
Q
0 Z
Y y
W
Q
Q a
U
F
U
v;
W
p
� Q
Oz
�
d J
Z
h
�
OQ
0
z
� U
Z
� o
C7F
Z
��
� Z
O
� �
Z
�
w w
o
cn O
W U
(3
Z
U z
0 O
r
�
�o
O
m
JW
w �
� Z
Z Q D
Z 7
Z
W W
W
Q
O
3
W �
z Qzm
�
O
a
¢ate

EUGENE A. LEE DB
519, PG 506
®
X
Elc
CONTROL POINT
24" RCP ' �
' SW INV=125.09 I
' NE INV=125.49 j.
p p' \ \ \ E 2,1]2,548.5539' , I
.p, \ O
t ELEVATION=139.88'
,_' f
\ \ \ \
l
1t
EIP
.).
\ V AVAVA ELY\ H
0, PG
EIP
E El
I
\ �\ \ �•
CONTROL POINT
I \
N=693,085.6440'
^
E=2,172,898.9773' \�
\
/ 1 \
ELEVATION=126.80'
REACHHB1
WANDA L. MASSENGILL
PB36,PG67
00
I Is \
00
TERESA LEE BLACKMON DB
1235, PG 718 PB 36, PG 67 A v v I
SHERRY M DIXON
SHELIA MASSENGILL
DB 4659, PG 193 PB 36,
PG 67
EIS
LANDMARK LEGACY, LLC. DB
3332, PG 668 PB 10, PG 133
P HOMPSON, JR.
THOM PSON DB DB437 PG 723
NAHUM MADRID
I
CRISTINA MADRID
DB 3807, PG 14 I
DENNIS RAY WILLIAMS,
JR.
SHEA WILLIAMS DB 4075, PG
294
DING I III
RAY WILLIAMS, JR. D �V I
REACH HF1 J 1 .�
DENNISENNI PG 667 PB 59, PG 106 . : . .I
V v' V I �� ' �'AV�v • '
-�/� / `p p:�a' :a�:G3 `�/�: p. \\t: ) i�:�:p .�: .'1�`�Izi3 `.t- -1/. �\•�• �\
�6.0. ST" p
'' p p. I•.p.
\ i'__S'3 �'6i-- -�= — �`6� 6'��Q �`3'9 �.-��� \ .�„fi3 .� . 9E•� p, ,\ \ �, E t
REACH HF2
A.
.I.
'I /G/ J& M HOG FARM, INC. DB
1316, PG 140 PB 35, PG 265
,\ • -�
T N NW INVNV=1398 /
' BE INV=13].59
I
I
I I
I I
I
DAVID GARCI ANDEZ LETIC A I
-AUEZQUITA VALDOVINOS DB 291
-l`,
G-aQ PB 66, PG 247
\• C.P. THOMPSON, JR.
\ t EVE IN H. THOMPSON DB
Ad"
' I A EIP 832, PG 75
�4"PVC \' O
�NWINV=132.56.----
SE INV=131.46
l �w
\ I
C.P..THOMPSON, A
VELYN H. THOMPSONi f'
832, PO 75 \ V�
EVENCIO
ZAVALETA DB
4,PG614P1
PC^-
J & M HOG FARM, INC. DB
1316, PG 140 PB 35, PG 265
l
CONTROL POINT %n/�I
N=592,683.1338'��
E=2,173,625.3896' �\ / Y p f1'� p, . £1p p x '
ELEVATION=146.15'
p \
� 6 .
�1
REACH HB2
p�
EARL BE TON JOHNSON, JR. LOIS
T. JOHN ON DB 1218, PG 278 PB
35, PG 265
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
46 -
- - - -
EXISTING TOP OF BANK -
- - -
TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK -
- - -
BB
EXISTING CHANNEL CENTERLINE
EXISTING FENCELINE X
X
X
EXISTING TREELINE
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TREE
�rr•1��MMry
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
Nc.uceeseeo. Foa7a
FULL SCALE: 1"=100
0 100 200
do-
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL
JF�Z�
rLL
,
cc
5
mi
§
PROJ.DATEFEB 2016
OC.: MS
O.0JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
E2
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
iIi
IEXLLn

JAMES KEVIN MASSENGILL
NIF EARNESTINE JAMES BRYSON MASSENGILL IDS
REACH TH3 3938, PG 696
EIP . BENDER EIS N/F EARNESTINE — _
. BENDER
r. _ . \ \ -,` . HANNAH CREEK
-C:P: THOMPSON,-JR. - L - � - � / C.P. THOMPSON, JR.� . .
E ELYN H'. THOMPS_ON_'D_ t _' _ 1` EVELYN H. THOMPSON DBE3-
- 10" M 1432, PG 212
-�JSE INV-19.59 �I C� \ \ \ \y \ 3 .). \ .� .-
C. HOMPSON, JR.
NE INV-12 93 . -\ - - - - - - \E'V Y H. THOMPSON DB
I
RONALD GREG THOMPS(
, 1226, PG 509 PB 35, PG
E EIP
JOSEP E E k k\x
C. BEASLEY D t EVE O 'P
11163, PG 644
SWINE=i.�e.2s' ���.` .\- / / \ 7-- x=X—X� ,/ -� 3633, PG 723
/
/
CONTROL POINT
\ N=594,822.2581'
E_2,173,943.1695' \
\ \
ELEVARQN=122.79'
X
OOL POI
N=594.778 49.711
\ X
,1]4,525.0 9' `2
ELEVATION=119.91'
\
/
X
\
I
___-- X
C.P. THOMPSON, JR.
\V
}
/ \
x \
�/
A / ELYN H. THOMPSON DB
OE
--- -- _--- 3633, PG 7,�
/C.P. THOMPSON, J
.
\ I x
/"EVELYN H. THOMPSO
IDS832,
PG 75
4I/
II 1
C.P. THOMPSON, JR.
EVELYN H. THOMPSON DB
832, PG 75
C.P. THOMPSON, JR.
EVELYN H. THOMPSON DB
1432, PG 212
C.P. THOMPSON, JR.
EVELYN H. THOMPSON DB
3633, PG 723
JAMES KEVIN MASSENGILL
JAMES BRYSON MASSENGILL IDS
q� 3938, PG 696
C.P. THO SON, JR.-
EVELYN H. T�MPSOijI'CB
3633, PG 723-
REACH HB4
IP $$
. . /. .�. .
.P: THOMPSO ,VR. / 6 I / - EUGENE STEWART
V LYN H. THOM SON DB ( I / LAURA A. STEWART
-3633, PG 23 \ s /_I.' /I �( � DB 656, PG 553
IP- -\_\
1 \
I
- - - - -
�_ -_TB.\
REACH HB3
24" RCP
NEINV=110.50
SW IN38
12"CPP
f0y
-Bl---
WINV=111.77
EINV=111.8=
CONTROL POINT
x i X�i�. /
E=2,174,843.1408'
- - - -
ELEVATION=114.95"
/
INV=110.76
Z" ALE DB
\ �/36"RCP �I I \- \\ / y Q'0 / .T. /SW INV=111.06
WINV=124.69,k" X } I \ _ / `=91 �12"CPP
67, G 43 E INV=124.58 - \ I \ O yy
\\� \ \ // I / \I \ TB \ / ✓ _ _ ` - ✓ 15" RCP / EINV=11111�68 .\
'WINV=113.10
EIP CONTROL POINT I _ . I.
J \ / / J \ \ \ NE INV=113.73
N=592,896.6]9]' /\
E-2173,9at5163' G \ - - - _ - EUGENE STEWART
EI \ - / i ' - _ - "'� ELEVATION=123.33' I 12• Mp \ ) LAURA A. STEWART
C1 - P �V I /I l \ NW INV=116.44 I g� DB 656, PG 553
/ /. I / 3E INV=116.08/\_\
i �� / / i t1 i vl / i --
15' RCP - - - 1. ' - \-C°$..- - OIS EIP
, / i \ 81 €3 / - - EARL BENTON S 1218, I J 7 PB
-Y SW INV=123.84 \ ' \
/ 6+ _ ` i Q$ T. JOHNSON DB 1218, PG 278 PB
NEINV=123.33 _ 5
+00 i a+o �. i -_A ,� VA /i / C / -� // / �\ B 35, PG 285
, EIP
El
REACH HB2
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
— — 50 —
—
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR -
- - - 46 -
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
- - - -
TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
- - - -
Be
EXISTING CHANNEL CENTERLINE
EXISTING FENCELINE
T'—T'—T'
EXISTING TREELINE
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTINGTREE
EARL BENTON JOHNSON, JR. LOIS
\
T. JOHNSON IDS 1218, PG 278 PB
35, PG 265
of I
EARL BENTON JOHNSON, JR. LOIS
T. JOHNSON IDS 1218, PG 278 PB
35, PG 265
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NC. UCENSE NO. FIXi]4
FULL SCALE: 1"=100
0 100 200
2" = FULLS
HALF'
w¢wN�nM
rLL
LU cc
,
PROJ.DATEFEB 2016
DC: MS
D.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
E3
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
ON0JaQ0�
t

EUGENE A. LEE DB
519, PG 506
Q
135
132
129
126
123
C
120
117
115
135
132
129
126
123
120
117
115
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50
SCALE: HOR 1"=30; VERT 1"=3'
L
G C
RADE
CO
qTROL
—
SA029
E
EV
PROPOSE
LOG SILL
EXISTING
GRADE ALONG
125-51
TOP OF BA
4K STA 2+03--\
—STI
REAM CENTERLINE
STA 2+93
STA 4
35
— ELEV 124.44
ELEV 124
20
PROPOSED
—
—
ANNEL BOTTOM
W N
>>
N
W
W
WU.
N N
V
a
N
n
N
v
m V
W
—
W
_w
—w
w
W
W
w
w
w
c
w
w
W
W
w
w
=
I"
w
lu
-
-
—
w
w
—w
w W
w
y
N
F
N
f
N
Q
Q
N
to
Q
A
A
¢
v
or
—+
V
~
N
N
m
h
y
N
~
N N
N
Q
N
Q
r~q
N
A
A
N
¢
N
V Q
N
N
F
y
F
w
F
m
12.2
2.5 3.6
}r BANKFULL STAGE
1.6
1L
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
2.2
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
2
2
rL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ARANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. NSTREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
5
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
-----------
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG I4)
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
OP
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TOE PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
IV) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO. UCENSE NO F-03�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�
~�3 ==2UOa❑
�Nm�otiz¢'N�
UNw
ir
5
co 0
0
0
0
PROJ. DATE:
OCFEB 2016
MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S1
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500❑>nrnw�
WQ�OJa¢OorJ
i
COPYRIGHT
FILE NAME:
RODUC
Hannah
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS D
October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll

135
132
129
126
123
120 -
117
-_---_------
�4 CONTROL POINT w \`
v
N=593,085.5440'
®6•� a� .. E=2, 172,898.9773' "
v
ELEVATION=126.80' . +
OOP
O
W
o
REACH HB
P1 RESTORATION
1a•T (STA 00+15 TO STA 14+45) v \
\ _ FILL EXISTING CHANNEL. \
SEE DWG D2
i
� r ♦ w a �
15-Grr ig0
w / Apt\ \ <
EXI TINGG DE LON �
DOUBLE LOG DROP
STR
M
CEN
ERLNE
I
PROPOSED
IF RANK
G )HOOK
TA 6+81
LEV 123.30
STA 8+2
ELEV. 122.6
DOUBLE LOG DROP
STA 8+15
+/17�
LOG SILL
ELEV 123.74
E
77
— — —
--------------
N
>
w
>
W
w
�
W
N
w
W
N
>
N ?
J
W
y F
N
N
o
m
N
N
o
ry
w
N
W
¢
h
M
w
w
W
w
W
J
w>
N
W
N
W
J
N
m
N
>
F
rn
N
w
F
y
N
>
NN
ww
-
-
-
W
F
N
N
W
F
N
W
W
W
w
J
W
F
N
m
V
S
ur
y
¢
¢
m
¢¢
rF
T. F
Q
~
y
N
F
N
¢
PR
CHANNEL
POSED
OTTOM
y
y
N
N
m
y
5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50
SCALE: HOR 1"=30; VERT 1"=3'
135
132
129
126
123
120
117
115
g+00
12.2
2.5 3.8
BANKFULL STAGE
1.6
1L
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
2
2�
rL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. NSTREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
$O
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
-----------
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
—LICE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE FLOWEDETAI
DWG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
OP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
-
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
'
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(�
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
W Ww.Wkc ickson.com
NO. UCENSE NO F-0-
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�
J~�Z3 ==2UOa❑
cc fr
0
PRO. DATE:
OCFEB 2016
MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S2
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500❑>Oo°frnwnV?
W¢
'¢R❑I�w~=N2�
COPYRIGHT
FILE NAME:
RODUG
Hannah
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS D
October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll

129
126
123
120
117
114
111
109
c
i6PT PT
\ a /
'���. / 12' /14"PT Ci 14"P. 12"Pi"
10
12" p
te
18T a
f\ 18'GT a
REACH HB r `
P1 RESTORATION © IT ` " " 1z•• "
(STA 00+15 TO STA 14+45) ``°7
\ a PP a
o a a
Co
w O EIS ` O� \�I�— \ a . G
,�px00 v � �v� ` IT �
U a a . \ •1z-Oo 15 M `t
'16+15
_ } a FILL EXISTING CHANNEL. 14"
\ J' SEE DWG D2 a / `,/ ` 12•
a a
a a Q
a \ . A'/j
Tµ5•17'Z „/ r ICU
REACH HF1 / G
` Pi RESTORATION
(SEE DWG S13) � \12
15••
a /��� / 18" /� S..T
" 15" MT P /a
"
15•• \ a IT _
I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
..
-PROPOSED
OP BANK
EXISTING GRAD
STREAM GE
ALONG
TERLINE
LO
STA
SIL
9+2
LOG SILL
- - - - - - - - -
STA 11+69
ELEV 121.00
-
- -
LOG SILL
STA 12+64
ELEV 120.7
ELEV 12121
+
LEV 121.
-
- - -
- - - - - - - - -
FT
w w
+ O
y y
- -w
a
m
¢
r
J _w
w
o
H a
rn
rv-
w
o
N
N
w
>
w
w
+
¢
N
N
w
w
r
m
a
N
w
_
_ o
¢
`>
w
u
+
rn
g
N N
w >>
w w
+o o m
H
y a s
W
w
o
N
w
N
o
> w
w J w
w
+ m M voi
¢ Q
r r
to
PROP
CHANNELBO
n
ry
w
N
N
j w
w
n n
+ N
N a
ul
o
w
N
>
o
J
w
J
w
w
n
rn
a
F
`++
c
m
f
-w
N
w
o
m
W
W
m
F
F
+
_
N
N
y
N
m
w
SED
N
F
y
N
OM
r
+00 Q+Fin
1n+nn
1n+an 11+nn
11+5n 19+nn
19+5n
113+1
SCALE: HOR 1"=30; VERT 1"=3'
129
126
123
120
117
114
111
109
0
2.2
2.5 3.8
}r BANKFULL STAGE
1 1 6 1::7
1L
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
2.2
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
2�
rL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ARANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PRO POSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. NSTREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
$O
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
- - - - BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
- - - - X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
-----------
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE IL
EDETAI DWG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
OP
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(�
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO. UCENSE NO. F-03�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�cc
PROJ. DATE: FEB 2016
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S3
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
W
Q
� N
O�
a �
Z
O
U
Z
O
U
Z
O
6'
�
U
O
F
O
Z
a Gi
¢
O Z
o
❑ O
W.
W
¢
J �
¢ a
W
p
OZ
�
d J
O
wN
� U
z z
Ca3H
=
w
Z
=
¢ o
W Z
W
� ti
rn O
~ N
W U
❑
R z >
Z
DO
Z N O
h
W m
W
O¢ o
Z
Q
Z
Q Q
U Z �
Z
2 UNi !�w
w Q
3
www�
Z2Zm
=
�
O¢a�
a
COPYRIGHT
FILE NAME:
RODUC
Hannah
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS D
October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll

74"P 14
+
12"QT
q
\
12.2
NOTES:
1.
D GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
+
W
12"OT +
+
+
14-T +
.
2,_�1"'_$
14,G
2.
ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
14'PT
140 T°
12..G p \
BANKFULL STAGE
..
('� 177E +
7,n \
T
3.
ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
\
PT) 12'O —
1,.}
— — —
/ PT
+ Q Q
1.6
4.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANY WAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
5"T
\
IS .
" + \ + �X/�
P + .. 14F / /
17G — ',
c ` P
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
Q +
12+- \
20"b`T
/
/ +
T 18 A_
,4'P + �T
FL
5.
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
O
15"T +—_----.—
M.f
. .. F^I'I^,
REACH HB
W P1 RESTORATION
+
r�£¢
2,�Yr} /
12"G
+
+ /+
1 -GT /
/
+
20"OT
P
2j'� +
2•r'if}
` 16"P
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
12.0
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
00 .
` (STA 0+15 TO STA
14+q5) /
%
20" „
A(
+ + r S %B
6.
REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
`
+ ,a. / + 1 •• iX
C QS'
REACH HB
� +
�••PT REMOVE ISLAND, REGRADE
.. LEFT BANK AND INSTALL
3.5 5.0 3.5
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
ENHANCEMENT II
14"P
+ o BRUSH TOE �� /�
BANKFULL STAGE
_ X
24"T
36' 12•
`
(STA 14+4$ TO STA18+37)
�� +
7.
INSTREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
�1�, ,PT
P
/17+00�
12"PT
2.1
15+60
14'7
` _ •/
�.
16"PT O
% + 2-
�-
LEGEND
129
126
123
120
117
114
111
110
1
L-
C PYRIGHT
FILE NAME:
-ea-� 12"T `� , 24. /- *I I + \ TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
_ i 2�
/ \ _74 14 \ 12G + // /�0 +\\ /\ J2•• + STRAIGHT REACH EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR 50
/ / 12"PT
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
15 + \ J % + 14 Q �+ / a C1 i/ x �\ �W 72"PT 12'B PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR O
16"T 12'PT / / + 16"P +
+ )/ +12'G +12p �\ / . + II+ C7 6.5 3.6 PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
/`y
. ) �'.0 1
' IN Pf BANKFULL STAGE EXISTING WETLAND
+ + / + .. r 14'T
\ p + + i6" / i6P EXISTING TOP OF BANK ----TB
a \• FILL EXISTING CHANNEL.
W--� .--- SEE DWG D2 2n"'_3 / ---
_ Q �Q + 14 + Cj 2 2 EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK — BB
+ \ +
i6"P 14„P� 14"T \ PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
+• 16'PT � +
EXISTING FENCELINE X
—_—� �y I12"P
y._X 14"PT . + 12"T 127' FL EXISTING TREELINE .
a"PT. I, — TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
v v
12.0 LIMITS OF PROPOSED
\ I 15 P 12' ,. CONSERVATION EASEMENT LCE
3.5
EARL BENTON JOHNSON, JR. LOIS PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG
T. JOHNSON IDS 1218, PG 278 PB
^IS Pcr (SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
35, PG 265 BANKFULL STAGE
T,v'P A PROPOSED FILL AREA
22 DIFFUSE FLOW7EDETAI DWG
(SEE DETAIL OWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
rL (SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
DOUBLE Lac DROP
SECTION (SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2) -
LOG SILL
129
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
126 LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
PROPOSED
I
OG GRADE CONTROL T P F BA K RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
STA 14 1 (SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
E IST NG RAD AL NG 123
/ -- — S RE MCENTERLINE LOG SILLBR SH . (SEE DETAIL BED SILL
STA 16+6
ELEV 119.47 FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG 04)
120
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
PROPOSED LOG SILL U
117 (PROFILE)
w W W w > m > DOUBLE LOG
(PROFILE)
W BRUSH BED SILL
W W W (PROFILE)
A" 114
N Q Q < n Q e RIFFLE GRADE (PROFILE)
NNTR
to h N y F N F N F —
h y N
111
110
1+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00
RODUC
Hannah
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT V=3'
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS D
October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NO 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(1) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
No UCENSE No. E-oa�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" =FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL
lH�3u =2UOa❑
Z jr
5
Ccc
co 0
s
M
PROJ. DATE:
.C.FEB 2016
OMS
QCDATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S4
PRO). NO.:
2015020500❑>o�n
GW
�R❑w~z=

123
120
117
114
111
108
105
1
COPYRIGHT ©, W.K. DICI
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\R�
NOTES:
12.2 1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
2.5 3.8 DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
BANKFULL STAGE 3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
1.6 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
t SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
N `1 + r t \ SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
REACH HB t \ _ \rr\\\\ \ \ THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
P1 RESTORATION \\�\ FL 5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
(STA 18+37 TO STA 36+44) r \� \ AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION ARANDONEDATANELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
/ 2.0
REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
3.5 5.0 3.5 THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
BANKFULL STAGE SECTIONS.
7 (B USH TOES LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, ND LOG TOES) MAY EPROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF EBENDS
USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR 50
EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR----46-----
12.0 PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR $O
6.5 3.6 PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
BANKFULL STAGE EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK — — — — TB
2.2 EXISTING BOTTDM OF BANK — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF — — —
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE — X
FE EXISTING TREELINE Y\
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
12.1 LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT LCE
3.5 6.5
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
BANKFULL STAGE
PROPOSED FILL AREA
22 DIFFUSE FLOWEDETAI DWG
(SEE DETAIL OWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
rL (SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
DOUBLE Lac DROP
SECTION (SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
LOG TO PROTECTION
EXI TIN GRADE LO G (SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
ST EAM CEN ER INE LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
123 LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
DE CON rROL LOG VANE
STA 18+99T P O BA K S A 20 43 TA 1+6 LO JH OK (SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
ELE 7.82_ _ E EV 116.9t S rA 2 +44 LOG J-HOOK
EL V 11 .73 120
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
\ — _ RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
\ / 117 BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
g
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4) (�
ac ^ m m n nt a LOG GRADE CONTROL f
w W; J J W w n W r w -� oW on n c N —� 114 (PROFILE)
W W ro M
W m w W J w W W W
W W W W J > w LOG SILL IUx/
+ n - W J W W (PROFILE)
m81
N w W e w -w — 111 DOUBLE LOG DROP
to W N m m q m F F m N Q Q y m m N N Q Q N r+`n m N (PROFILE)
N N N m F Q m N F
BRUSH BED SILL
m N y (PROFILE)
108 RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
L B CH NN TTO (PROFILE)
105
1+00 18+50 �19 00 19+50 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50
RODUC
Hannah
SCALE: HOR 1"=30% VERT 1"=3'
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS D
October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
W Ww.Wkdickson.com
NO. LICENSE N0. F
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�co 0
PROJ. DATE: FEB 2016
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S5
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
W
Q
� N
O�
J �
a
Z
U
Z
O
U
z
O
�
2
U
O
F
O
Z
a Gi
¢
O Z
o
❑ O
rwn
W
¢
J �
¢ a
W
p
OZ
�
d J
O
w�
� U
z z
=
w
Z
=
¢ o
W Z
W
� ti
rn O
~ N
W U
❑
R z >
D O
z `� o
F
m Z
Ill
O¢
' 4'
�
Q = _
Z
~
"
= N n
Q O
U Z
w Q
3
www�
Z2Zm
=
O¢a�
a
0

7 --
v v � fr V .� I �Xi / / V � \ \ NOTES:
12.2 1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
Tom-
Gg7E �,— 30l 2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
\CONTROL POINT BANKFULL STAGE 3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
t v \ N 592,656.6757' END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
E~g,173,911.5163' ---' / // �,I -- —\
ELEVA7 QN_123.31 — _ _ / \
t v ry 1.6 4. rH ILL NOT DAMAGE
SHALL SUCH
TREES IN SOIANY WROUND ROOEXCAVATED
OR OTES HER
MATERIAL
AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANY WAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
1L 5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
\\ TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
—\\\ PROPOSED CHANNEL.
/ REACHHB \I \m /�e� 12.0
„ \ I P1 RESTORATION \ \ 8. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS \ (STA 1$+37 TO STA 36+44J \ — _ _ — — _ — J _0 — \ 3.5 5.0 3.5 IS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
BANKFULTOES) MAY BE USED
L STAGE
\ \ \ 7. (BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECTWADS, AND GPER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
2
COPYRIGHT ©, W.K. DICKSC
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resol
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
DOUBL
OP
TA 24+37
5.
E
ISTI JG G DE
CENTERLINE
AL
NG
STA 23+2
Pl
SED
STREAM
DOUBLE LOG
DROP
�CPC
----__ S
A24+31
DEL
116.20
L
G SI
L
w w
.>
j
w
w
w
w
w
w w
w
J
w
w
-
w
—>
e
w
w
J
J
W
w
w
w
w
w
N N
F
a
N¢
M
M a
N
°+�"'
N o
—
w
w—
w
W
w
w
n
n
m IT
N
4l
y
N Q
N
F
Q
w
'N
Q m
N
~
w
a
y
¢
PROPOSED
w
N
CHANNEL BOTTOM
r+5n qa+nn
qa+5n
94+nn
24+50
25+00
qF+Sn qB+nn
gB+Sn
97+I
RODUC
Hannah
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT 1"=3'
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS D
October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
0
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
2.2
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
2
2
rL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
5
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
-----------
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE FLOWDETAIL
DWG 0 )
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
OP
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(�
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatcs
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(1) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO. LICENSE N0. F-03�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�cc fr
PROJ. DATE: FEB 2016
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S6
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
W
Q
� N
O�
J �
a
Z
O
U
F
Z
O
U
Z
O
�
2
U
O
F
O
Z
a Gi
¢
O Z
o
❑ O
W.
¢
¢ a
H
W
p
O Z
�
d J
O
O Q
ti m
w N
� U
z z
CQ3H
��
=
w
w z
w
°
rn O
~ N
W U
❑
R z >
D O
Z N O
W m ZW
O¢
w' 4'
Q = _
Z
J
~
2
= N fV
Q Q
U Z!�w
W
3
Z¢zm
=
O¢a0
a
0

gpTTOM OF POND NOT SURVEYED \
TO 9' IN PLACES)
1
NOTES:
(APPEARS TO BE 8'
ELEVATION = 117.68 (4 20-16) )
12.2
1.
IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
WATER
- 0
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
\ 301/_
301
2.5
3.8
2.
ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
BANKFULL STAGE
SL
3.
ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
— �-
- -- �gl��X�
'�� — k���
— x
1.6
4.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
91 — — —— — gl — — —
X �X
— —
\
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
X
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
REACH HB
331 P1 RESTORATION
—
FL
5.
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
—
—
(STA 18+37 TO STA 36+44)
% -�
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
—___--
_-'--'
ARANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
i — — �
—
12.0
----__
3.5 5.0 3.5
6.
REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
\ c \ ' ^
29
i \\ +00 — — —
�\
BANKFULL
STAGE
].
URES MEANDER BENDS
THE DOES)
N-STRE(BRUSH
i n6 Aries �� . � � � • I i
�__ =
�
TO S, L G VANES,PROPOSEDOWADS, N MAY
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) R V BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
F I
120
117
LOG SII
STA 27+
ELEV 114.
114
111
108
105
102
2
O
O
+
N
W
Z
C
C
F
a
EXISTING
S
rREAM
GRADE
CENTERLINE
ALONG
OUB
E L
G D
OP
L
G JH
TA 2
OK
+84
DOI
JBILELOG
DROP
L '
1
2
_
EL
rV 1
3.97
LEV
113.
2
LEV.
113.24
TOP
F B
NK
w
w
w
w
>
W
W
m
w
>
W w
W W
4 ro
F
N N
n
W
ry
Q
n
W
w
v,
N F
H to
to
W
n
F
t9
>
W
n
m
-Q
N
'>
W W
WRl
N m
m F
Q N
N
W
N
Q
N
W
W
N
Q
y
W
m
N
Q
N
M
W
m
a
N
g
W
N
>
W
> _ W _W
W
n
c m M
in in Q
F Q U~J
W
2_
N
W
m
Q
w
w
�+
w
F
N
- -
N Q Q
N y
N
N
W
N c
IT
i7
h
PROPOSED
W
n
IN
Q
y
to
y
to
y
�
to
CHANNELBOTTOM
+nn 97+sn
9R+nn
9R+sn
9o+nn
9o+sn
sn+nn
sn+rn
';1+nn
31+!
SCALE: HOR 1"=30` VERT V=3'
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
120
6.5 3.6
BANKFULL STAGE
2.2
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
120
117
114
111
108
105 10.0'
T AT T O EXS-RAL PE 5 n PT O S 1 5 RAPE
GE
0.5'
102
0
rL
SWALE
TYPICAL SECTION
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
$O
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
-----------
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE FLOWDETAIL
DWGDSTRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
OP
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
-
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG IDS)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(�
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
IV) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO. UCENSE N0. E-03�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�
PROJ.DATE: �FEB20116
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
SI
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
jr
5
cc fr
0
LU
=
W
Q
� N
O�
J �
a
Z
O
U
F
Z
O
U
Z
O
�
2
U
O
F
O
Z
a Gi
¢
O Z
o
� O
rWn
W
¢
J �
¢ a
U
'
COPYRIGHT
FILE NAME:
RODUC
Hannah
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS D
October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll

120
117
114
111
108
105
102
3
C.P. THOMPSON, JR.
EVELYN H. THOMPSON IDS
12• CPP 3633, PG 723
4U=11.77
EI 11.8 jJ'1
— 301— 301
_X—X_X X—X— -REMOVE EXISTING PIPES -'
_ _ 1 AND DISPOSE OF OFSITE y. PA7H
— �
_ REACH HB
P1 RESTORATION '—
(STA 18+37 TO STA 36+44
/ I ,CONTROL POINT
N=594,067.1240'
E=2,174,843.1408'
ELEVATION=114.95'�y
as
33+00
0
r5rl%`
�X
O
\\ O /
/ CPP WI+ �..
NV=111.76—
/ E INV=111.68
W--
� LCE
\ � 7 .
LCE LCE E LCE
- - \ \ LCE �LCE a L LCE
6"T -_
�9.A
4 12'bT
\\ )
'
L�GT� E
EUGENE STEWAF
LAURA A. STEWAI
I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I
EXISTING
STREAM
RADE ALONG
ENTERLINE
LOG SILIJ
PROPOSED
STA
31+87
F BANK
STA 34+16
ELEV 111.78
1
\
W
J
W
W
�_
r ro
> J W
W —W
W
y y
W
W
ul
W
h
W
N
n
W
v
W
W
'
J
W
>
W
W
J
W
W
w
CH
NN
ROP
LBO
SE
O
m
y
+Fn iq+nn
aq+,n
aa+nn
��+gin
as+nn
as+sn
ns+nn
ns+sn
iR+t
SCALE: HOR 1"=30; VERT 1"=3'
120
117
114
111
108
105
102
0
12.2
2.5 3.8
}r BANKFULL STAGE
1.6
1L
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
2�7
rL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ARANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. NSTREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
$O
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
----------
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE IL
EDETAI DWG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
OP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG 04)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, INC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.comr
No UCENSE NC. 1—
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�
PROJ. DATE: FEB 2016
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S8
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
W
Q
� N
o�
a �
Z
O
U
F
y
Z
O
U
Z
O
�
2
U
O
F
O
Z
a Gi
¢
O Z
o
❑ O
rwn
W
¢
J �
¢ a
F—
U
W
p
OZ
�
a J
o
O Q
ti m
w �
� U
z z
Ca3H
0�
� O
Z
=
¢ o
W Z
W
� ti
cc
rn O
~ N
W U
❑
R z >
D O
Z N O
m Z
O¢
�
Z
�
NI rn
Q Q
U Z �
Z
w Q
3
w w W �
Z2Zm
=
�
O¢a0
a
COPYRIGHT
FILE NAME:
RODUC
Hannah
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS D
October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll

117
STA 36+
114
111
108
105
102
99
3
NOTES:
12.2 1. IN DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION. GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
/ D
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
BANKFULL STAGE 3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
/ < < F 1.6 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT TREES BE BE SAV,PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
< < \\\ THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
t / < < < < < < < < FL 5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
120 6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
_ GRADE LEFT BANK FROM STA 36+64 TO 3.5 5.0 3.5 THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
STA 42+63 PER TYPICAL BANK GRADING SECTIONS.
/ \ / / DETAIL (DWG D3) < < e BANKFULL STAGE
r/ r ENHANCEMENT I '\ fie T \ \ \ / \ ]. N-STR(BRUSH TO S, L G URES VANES,PROPOSEDOWADS, N THE DOES) MOF MEANDER BENDS
I IRTA 3R+A6 TO STA 4?+831 (I 'P' .. INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOOUT WADS,
OVAL FROM DESIGNER.
1 I p
EUGENE STEWART
LAUn A. STEWART
I I I I I I I I
PROPOSED 30 LF OF
24 INCH CORRUGATED HD PE PIPE @ 0.83%
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
. 1 E
LEV
111.1
�'`
.
STA 36+78.69 ELEV 110
B9
PROPOSED
LOG SILL
STA 37+34
ELEV 110.70
BRUSH BED SILL
STA 39+
ELEV 110.
0
BRUSH
BED SILL
STA 40+4
I / �
_ _ _ _
-
EXISTING GRADE
STREAM CENTER
ALONG
-INE
Q
r
rn
PROPOSED 30 LF OF
42 INCH CORRUGATED HOPEjPIPE J0.87-%
I I I
I I I
rn
I+nn 3R+Sn
q7+nn
'37+Sn
'3R+M
'3R+Sn
'3A+nn
'3A+Sn
do+nn
do+Sn
d1+I
SCALE: HOR V=30': VERT 1 "=3'
117
114
111
108
105
102
99
0
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
2.2
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
2
L — 7
rL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
5
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
-----------
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE IL
EDETAI DWG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
OP
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TOE PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(�
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO. LICENSE N0. F-03�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL� If PRO'. DATE: FEB 2016
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S9
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
W
Q
� N
O�
J �
a
Z
O
U
F
Z
O
U
Z
O
�
2
U
O
F
C'
Z
a Gi
¢
O Z
o
� O
to
W
¢
J �
¢ a
H
U
'�
W
p
OZ
�
d J
O
OQ
�^
w �
� U
z z
U H
� �
� O
Z
=
¢ o
W Z
W
� ti
tpO
�y o
W U
R z >
0 O
Z N O
F
m Z
w
CI o
�
Z
n
O
W Z �
Z_
_
2 UNIWIL
3
z�Zm
2
�
O¢a�
a
COPYRIGHT
FILE NAME:
RODUC
Hannah
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS D
October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll

LICE (�
REACH HB
/V($ \ — _ _ _ _ _ ENHANCEMENT I (CE /
(STA 36+84 TO STA 42+63) \
Lcr
\LCL,
2O' a"T/
Nm ` v v * /\ \ \ � "T�
\ 12"P /
\\ C? ® 2"T v v * v12'T IP 18
* * FV, S.
JAMES KEVIN MASSENGILL
JAMES BRYSON MASSENGILL DB
- 3938, PG 696
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ARANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. NSTREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
* GRADE LEFT BANK FROM
2 2 * * 1s•
STA 36+84 TO 120 * *
/��/ `\�
o 1
STA 42+63 PER TYPICAL BANK GRADING (-�,�g�-� )2 \�\ * * / \
` DETAIL(DWG D3) c�-2 \\ * / "/ *\
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
QF'r;2'T
eea'�119 12"T //
* /
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
--- ---_
— 46 —
*
—
P
15 O
v �'
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
12,T — *
v 12'T 18"T
*
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
*
i
* P * 12
�/> v �1 *
t
v
* �* 2,T* v EIR C�'.2 * /*
* \ v` *
EXISTING WETLAND
18WV
v P
C?
* * *
0' T
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
O 20
/
2'
�\ 12vT o REACH HIS 1 v
* *\
\ G' cT PRESERVATION
*
* I
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
t
TA 42+63 TO STA 44+91) *
z4"
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
'
15" 12"T
112 "T
24"T 8'7
\\\
18'Ti1— t v *2ED \
1
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
\ 16C�`rN
T-nn�
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
2T
5 \
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
-----------
\
EUGENE STEWART
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
\ 12"
LAURA A. STEWART
\
DB 656, PG 553
\
\ 12"7 �
V
PROPOSEDUG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE IL EDETAI DWG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET OP
1201
120
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
117
117
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
114
114
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
II
EXISTING GRADE ALO
G
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED
SILL
STREAM CENTERLINE
STA 42+20
BRUSH BED SILL
ELEV 109.90
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
111
111
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
—'
\
(PROFILE)
108
108
W
(�
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
o
1 OS
1 OS
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
102
102
(PROFILE)
100
100
41+00
41+50
42+00 42+50
43+00
43+50
44+00
44+50
45+00
SCALE: HOR V=30'; VERT 1"=3'
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
N0. uoEN.F N0. 1-03�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�cc PROJ. DATE: FEB 2016
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S10
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
ILL!
lii
Q
� N
�
O
a �
Z
O
U
IY
Z
O
U
z
O
�
2
U
O
F
O
Z
N
¢
O Z
p
❑ (7
F
(n F
W
¢
J �
¢ a
H
W
p
Z
❑
d J
O
w�
�U
Ica
z z
� �
=
w �
Z
=
¢ o
W Z
W
� ti
rn O
~ N
W U
❑
R z >
0 O
Z N O
� F
m Z
O¢ o
U LL n
�
COPYRIGHT
FILE NAME:
RODUC
Hannah
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS D
October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll

NOTES:
1.
IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2.
ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
/
3.
ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
REACH HFI
4.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
PRESERVATION
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
(STA 2+18 TO STA 13,58)
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5.
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ARANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6.
REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
2+00
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
_
O
SECTIONS.
B88 � _ 81 _
i 0
].
INTREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
S
_
_
_
N
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
InINTERCHANGEABLY
THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
14'
13E
13E
13,
12f
12E
12:
12(
5+00
` R 9 99LBg I Q R R
7+90 /
R
R P ♦ R R r 91BB_ �.
R R R R C
IO
Q R R
141
138
135
132
129
126
123
120
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
$O
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
-----------
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE IL
EDETAI DWG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
OP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(�
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
op
DOUBLE LOG DROP
ry
(PROFILE)
ffitlN
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
` NO. UCENSE NO F-03�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE
w
Q
� N
O�
a �
Z
O
U
Cn
z
O
U
z
O
6
U
O
F
O
Z
N
¢
O Z
p
❑ -
F
n F
W
¢
w Up
cc a
w
o
UZ
d J
O
O¢
z^
w
U
z z
(a3 H
0 "r
O
W LL2
Z
_
¢ cs
Q
w
U
o
u F
Z
cc
Z)
2
x co o
UO
�y
w U
❑
R z >
0
O
N O
¢
m
w
oZ
U LL n
4
Z
_
Z
~
H
�'
_
n
N
Q
W ZUNIWIL
_
3
Zp ZLU
2
m
O¢a0
a
PROJ. DATE IFEB 2016
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: PUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S11
COPYRIGHT
FILE NAME:
RODUC
Hannah
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS DC
- October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500

13E
13E
132
12E
12E
12,1
12C
117
COPYRIGHT
FILE NAME:
t t \ F t
t I F t
t r F F
r h
t
F
t F t F I t
F ) t t
r�
v t
t
r t r \ t t
F \
r
\
r F \ t
t t t r t\ F
\ r
t \
r \ t \
\ F F
\\\ \ t r t F r\\ \\
I \ t F
mil \ Y �i
t I t`l1L' t TB F ,rTT�S
i t 8*00 nx v t
70% F
11+00 r
�F� F F t REACHHFI�.
LU t t/ PRESERVATION
Z F (STA 2+18 TO STA 13+58)
F
q \ F
\ � F
--x-x-x-x_
\LCE x: i:
LCE
x—x—x—x�
RODUC
Hannah
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT 1"=3'
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS DC
- October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll
38
35
32
29
26
23
20
17
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ARANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. NSTREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
$O
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
-----------
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE IL
EDETAI DWG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
OP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(�
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
op
DOUBLE LOG DROP
ry
(PROFILE)
ffitlN
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO. UCENSE N0. F-03�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�
PROJ. DATE: �FEB20116
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S12
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
Cs
co 0
a
Ill
Q
� N
�
O
a �
Z
O
U
Z
O
U
z
O
�
2
U
O
F
O
Z
N
¢
O Z
p
❑ (7
F
(n F
W
¢
J �
¢ a
U
'5
W
p
UZ
5
d J
O
w�
� U
z z
Ca3H

132
129
126
123
120
117
114
112
11
COPYRIGHT ©, W.K. DI
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\
RODUC
Hannah
2\\ \ \ t REACH HIS
1A \ t t t t t P1 RESTORATIONSEE DWGS3)
\ t ✓
1
- X—X�X 11+ }
\_ 00
REACH HF1
P1 RESTORATION c f t I t
'\ (STA 13+58 TO STA 16+04) t '
�t
14+00
15+00t_ o0
a,.n' H+15
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT 1"=3'
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS DC
- October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll
32
29
26
23
20
17
14
12
6.0
5 1.5
BANKFULL STAGE
0.7
4
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
1.0
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
It _P7
1�
rL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ARANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PRO POSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. NSTREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
$O
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
-----------
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE IL
EDETAI DWG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
OP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(�
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
op
DOUBLE LOG DROP
ry
(PROFILE)
ffitlN
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transporaton + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatcs
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
IV) 919.782.0495
(1) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
No UCENSE NO F-03�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�Cs
PROJ. DATE: FEB 2016
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S13
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
W
n
H
� N
O�
a �
z
0
U
F
Z
O
U
z
O
�
2
U
O
F
O
Z
N
¢
O Z
p
F
W
¢
J �
¢ a
W
p
O Z
�
a J
o
w�
� U
z z
Ca3H
��
�
O
W W
Z
W Z
�
uJti
� 7
2
x N o
tpO
�y o
W U
R z >
0 O
Z N O
F
W m Z
w
O¢ o
Z
n
O
W ZUNIWIL
_
3
LU
z=Zm
2
�
O¢a�
a

\ � I
/
/ PROPOSED 30 LF OF
18" CORRUGATED HOPE PIPE
@0.17% 10'MP
�N4�t INV=119.65
�SE INV=119.69
T
B1J��24T a {
1
126
123
120
117
114
111
108
106
C.P. THOMPSON, JR.
EVELYN H. THOMPSON DB
1432, PG 212
i
— _ _ _ _ _ i
LCIEr
q
REACH TH3 LCE LCE LCE_� - S7S�FSxOo
ENHANCEMENTII _ J
(STA 0+63 TO STA7+79) / -
/
-ATE GA E x_ .— 30
I X x _ _
) x X_
x I
I
i II
REMOVE EXISTING PIPE
AND DISPOSE OF OFFSITE
X X
I W I \\\
"r1 \
\ CONTROL POINT
/ \ X N=594'822.2581'
\ I E=2,173,943.1695'
\ — — ELEVATION,22.79'
1 �
—TB
—�— — = 6B
3+00
\ TB —_ — --
�/ 4+00
-at-
\
PATH
—X X—X X—X—
GRADE RIGHT BANK FROM
STA 0+66 TO
STA 5+36 PER TYPICAL BANK GRADING
/
DETAIL (DWG D3)
3Dl
-
3D1 371
30'1--------3�J
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'
126
123
120
117
114
111
108
106
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2, ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ARANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PRO POSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. NSTREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
$O
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE E
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
E DETAIL DWG D
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
OP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, INC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
W Ww.Wktlickson.com
No—EN-0 1—
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�
PROD. DATE: �FEI12016
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S14
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
Cs
5
lii
Q
� N
o�
a �
Z
O
U
Z
O
U
z
O
�
2
U
O
F
O
Z
N
¢
O Z
p
F
W
¢
J �
¢ a
U
'
COPYRIGHT ©, W.K. DICKSON
FILE NAME: O:\Projecte\Resourc
RODUC
Hannah
S OR DELETIONS TO THIS DC
- October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll

FILE NAME:
REACH TH3 \ \ \
— — — / ENHANCEMENTII \ \
(STA 0+63 TO STA7+79)
LCE
— — — — — — u€��/ /
y.—X—i /i.
6+00 , , — / / ✓ s-
12:
12(
117
114
11'
10E
10E
10,
ZZ
EPRODUC
4-Hannah
\81 \ JAMES KEVIN MA
�\ \ JAMES BRYSON MA:
3938, PG E
re, T
1 \ a \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \
1 A \ v
1s^T v
15•T \ u'
157 15"T
12'T \
12"
\ 12 W 12' 127
'7+79 \ \ a r
� iB
l Q
GRADE RIGHT BANK FROM STA 0+66 TO z T
\ STA 5+36 PER TYPICAL BANK GRADING
\ \ DETAIL (DWG D3) — 3s^T I
2"T
\ \ Q a O
\ 20^T
\ \ \ \ \ 15-7 C.P. THOM
xn------ EVELYN H. TF
y \ \ \ \ ( \ 3633, F
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT 1"=3'
- October 5, 2017 - Ben Carroll
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
102
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ARANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PRO POSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. NSTREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
I rr�rnln
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
5
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — —
— BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — —
— X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Uz—
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE IL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
EDETAI DWG
BRUSHTOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
OP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
LOG TO PROTECTION
SEE DETAIL DWG D2
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG 04)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, INC 27607
v 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO. UCENSE NO F-03�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�
PROD. DATE: FEB 2016
O.C.: MS
Q.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
S15
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
ir
5
Cs
cc
P
lii
Q
� N
O�
a �
Z
O
U
Z
O
U
z
O
�
2
U
O
F
O
Z
N
¢
O Z
p
❑ (7
F
W. F
W
¢
J �
¢ a
U
'

EIP EIP
FILL EXISTING DITCH
\
UP TO TOP OF BANK - -
4^ WC ELEVATIONS.
NW INV=13256 \
SEINV=131.45
I I \
I I
I9I I
---- _
J
It
r
REMOVE PVC PIPE AND-
DISPOSE OF OFFSITE
NOTF DRAIN POND PRIOR
TO r:I1TTINr NOTCH IN
El :
EIS
I Is
Al
l
11 ti
4
E�.Y rl
\ c;
Leff
1 INSERT A
II I I I
,
I � �
—_—
EIS
y y y y y y y y SMOOTH/REGRADEALL AREAS
IMPACTED BY CATTLE LOCATED
r OUTSIDE OF THE TREELINE.
REMOVE SMALL BERM LOCATED
ALONG EXISTING TREELINE.
,.III ,.
1
1 �
S 4
INICCDT A
\ 1 d
\ 1 1 r
1 I
�I
DAM AND REMOVING EXISTING PVC PIPE. EXCESS
SCALE 1:30 CUT (SPOIL) MAY BE PLACED WITHIN THE
I( O EXISTING POND FOOTPRINT PER DIRECTION OF
I Im ENGINEER.
I z
I I
I 'ti
mm
I I
I I I
0
I rn
\ EIP EPK
INSERT —
— ' • �rL
G�
P�
GENERAL WETLAND NOTES:
1. PLUG/FILL ALL DITCHES AND REMOVE BERMS/SPOIL
PILES LOCATED WITHIN WETLAND ENHANCEMENT- HIGH
AREAS.
2. ALL WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS LOCATED WITHIN
ACTIVE PASTURES ARE TO BE PLANTED WITH WETLAND
VEGETATION. SEE PLANTING PLAN SHEETS P1 AND P2.
LEGEND
WETLAND RESTORATION
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT -HIGH
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT -LOW
WETLAND PRESERVATION
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban De Iopmam + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NC. Uceese No.
FULL SCALE: V=30
0 30 60
2" = FULLS
HALF'
cwO�zrnLL'NM
y
F,
IIr
rU
UZ
QW y
Z
PROJ.DATEFEB 2016
G.C: MS
G.C. JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
W1
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500o>o�mw
oQHoJaQ0
'
SCALE 1:30

ALL WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS LOCATED
WITHIN ACTIVE PASTURES ARE TO BE PLANTED WITH
WETLAND VEGETATION. SEE PLANTING PLAN SHEETS
P1 AND P2.
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT - LOW
WETLAND PRESERVATION
END
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
N uceeseeo.Fm�a
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALECo
PROJ.DATE: �FEB20
16
G.C.: MS
D.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
W2
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
ccc
CC Z:i
c
Ir
0
ui
0 0
O �
J �
a
z
O
U
Q
Z
O
z
U
F
U
v;
W
OQ
o
z�
�
�§
oQ
z
. �
W
z z
C7H

/ � x
N,
x—x
x
t\
INSTALL 869 LF
_ (TOTAL) OF WOVEN
WIRE FENCE. SEE —
DETAIL D D5
® r. ..
el ` .f\\ INSTALL 704 LF
t �
- -- - �i p@ (TOTAL) OF WOVEN
WIRE FENCE. SEE
DETAIL DWG D5
F
INSTALL 1,421E
x
(TOTAL) OF WOVEN
_ ` f WIRE FENCE. SEE
DETAIL DWG D5
I
i l
Fx
LEGEND
EXISTING FENCE—x—x—x—x—x—x—
PROPOSED FENCE x x
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 916.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
Nc. Uceese NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=150
0 150 300
2" = FULL SCALE
= ALF SCALILL PROJ.DATE: FEB 2016
G.C.: MS
D.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
F1
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
0 $
O �
J �
a
Z
O
U
z
0
z
U
O
�
�
�
O
y
F
Z
�
y
It
O Ur
o z
O
N
�
i
Q
Q a
U
v;
W
OQ
p
� J
a
h
z�
?�
O¢
z
z
��
z
z
�W
� O
d
�
Z
O
� o
Q
W Z
Z
U
�
W w
H�
W
¢rn 0
v> O
W
LL
z —>
(.'3Z
00
Q
Z$ g
x
m
O w o
2 Z
Z Q 0
J
�
m
= N
Z�
Z
W W
w
Q
3
W �
z Qzm
2
�
O
a
¢ate

PLANTING TABLE
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Yrginia Wildrye
Ety—Wginicus
25%
Switchgmss
Panicum wrgatum
25%
Little Blue Stem
Schizachynum scopenum
10%
Soft Rush
Junc s eN.—
10%
Blackeyed susan
Rudb-k. Md.
10%
Deertongue
Dk.nfhelwnn da d-Unum
10%
Wild senna
Senn. hebecarp.
10%
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Seienti.. Name
Percent
Composition
Blackwillow
S.1w nigra
50%
COttunmod
Populus deQoides
50%
J
LOFle
A
Al
'
®r.
J0
lIS
t�S!N:
T
I
l
EIS
PLANTING LEGEND
RIPARIAN PLANTING
(TOTAL AREA: 26.4 AC)
<e
PLANTING NOTES
ALL PLANTING AREAS
1. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION IS
ESTABLISHED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH
WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.
2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS.
UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL
DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL
PLAN.
3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BV DISC OR SPRING -TOOTH CHISEL PLOW TO
MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSS PLANTING AREAS WITH THE
IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.
4. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2. LIVE STAKES SHALL
BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2.
5. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN 6' DBH SHALL BE
PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
5. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO 6 PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE GROUPED TOGETHER.
6. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 680 STEMS PER ACRE
7. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH BANKS OF
STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
8. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH
SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1.
9. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
10. PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT BREAKS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
W W W.wkdickson.com
NC LICENSE NO. FOa]4
FULL SCALE: 1"=100
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL
�ZwW�LL
�NMQ
roadQaWn

PLANTING NOTES
ALL PLANTING AREAS
1. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION IS
ESTABLISHED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH
WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.
2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS.
UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL
DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL
PLAN.
3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC OR SPRING -TOOTH CHISEL PLOW TO
MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSS PLANTING AREAS WITH THE
IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.
4. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2. LIVE STAKES SHALL
BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2.
5. TREATMENTIREMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN 6' DBH SHALL BE
PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
5. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE GROUPED TOGETHER.
6. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 680 STEMS PER ACRE
7. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH BANKS OF
STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
8. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH
SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1.
9. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
10. PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT BREAKS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
PLANTING LEGEND
RIPARIAN PLANTING
(TOTAL AREA: 26.4 AC)
--------------
IIBOTTOM OF POND NOT SURVEYED 1
(APPEARS TO BE 8' TO V IN P'$,A)/
WATER ELEVATION = 117.88'1 LACU
I
/
41
I
ANNAH CREEK
`7w J
\
\
\
PLANTING TABLE
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Virginia Wildrye
Elymus virginicus
25%
Swdchgmss
Panicum vbgatum
25%
Lima Blue Stem
Schizachyrium scopanum
10%
Soft Rush
Juncos strusus
10%
Blackeyed susan
Rudbeckla hina
10%
Deertongue
Drchanthelrum clandesbnum
10%
Wild senna
Senna habecarpa
10%
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Sele mile Name
Percent
composition
Black willow
Salrx nigra
50%
Cottonwood
Populus delroides
50%
Wetland and Riparian Planting
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
River bimh
Bet.1a nigra
15%
Willow oak
Quemus phellos
15%
Swamp chestnut oak
Quemus michauxir
15%
American sycamom
Plaianus occidemalis
15%
Blackgum
Nyssa More
15%
Overtop oak
Quemus lyrata
10
Bald cypress
Taxodrum drafichum
15
CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NC. LICENSE No.lm7a
FULL SCALE: 1"=100
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL
�M
uIz
s
0
0 1-- . &2
>ZZZ
¢ y
z
H
Z'
Fr
PROJ. DATE:
CFEB 2016
: MS
Q.C. JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
P2
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500o>o�
yQ
vm��U¢U¢�NOi

a`°aw
� R�rPory/ � arq
9
r—�
)Fr.FNn
DIN PLOT VP
0.02 AC)
ITORING
SECTON
ORDER
DD CKSON
community Infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
Nc. LICENSE No. F—
FULL SCALE: V=200
0 200 400
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALLii
PROJ. DATE: FEB 2016
O.C.: MS
O.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
M1
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
� N
a
Z
O
U
Q
z
O
U
O
�
Q
O
U
w
~
N
Z
Q
C7 Z
'
❑ O
Y y
W �
I
� Q
Q a
U
u;
W
o
OQ
z�
<�
o¢
Z�
H U
Z
z
z
->w
�o
o
w�
z
z
¢o
w
o
N�
��
z
¢N o
v>O
p
�� o
w U
�
¢ z >
DO
z� �
�~
m
oLL �
� Z
Z
Q O
Z�
Z
W W
W
3
W �
Z Qzm
x
�
O
a
¢ate

WHEN AND WHERE TO USE IT
SILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS: 1.25 LB./LINEAR FT. STEEL POSTS
FLOW
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE IS 100-FEET.
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE LINE) IS 2H:1V. EXTRA STRENGTH s,
B MIDDLE LAVER
_ }
TOP LAYER
THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CFS. FILTER FABRIC Mqk
BOTTOMLAVER
�J!Y
EARTH SURFACE
DO NOT PLACE SILT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP. ST
JI
` A,yOgRO
A A
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
\ q
1. USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 95% BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR POLYESTER,
WHICH IS CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS
fJB
TRENCH 0.25'DEEP ONLY WHEN
PLACED 0. EARTH SURFACE
IN ASTM D 6461. SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND HEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TIE
PLAN VIEW ENDS OF BAGS IN ADJACENT
STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT BACKFILL TRENCH WITH FOR STEEL POSTS
ROWS BUTTED SLIGHTLY
A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF 0° TO 120' F. COMPACTED EARTH
SEE NOTE TOGETHER
2. ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LB/LINEAR FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM
�:
SEE NOTE
LENGTH OF 5 FEET. MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE F
FASTENING THE FABRIC. ��
POINT GROUND
SECTION B-B
NOF
R`� `
/LOWEST
LEVEL
CONSTRUCTION: �
T�
1. CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS. BURY FABRIC
2. ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE THE USE EITHER FLAT -BOTTOM
- - - - - -- - -- -
GROUND SURFACE. (HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE OR V-BOTTOM TRENCH
FAILURE OF THE STRUCTURE.) SHOWN BELOW
SECTION A -A
3. CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER SILT FENCE INSTALLATION
NOSES:_
TO AVOID JOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT
A SUPPORT POST WITH 4 FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST.
NOTE: END OF DIKE AT GROUND LEVEL TO BE
DIKEAT GROUND
1. EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN DRY AND/OR
4. EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC WITH 6 FEET POST SPACING DOES NOT REQUIRE WIRE MESH
HANTHE FLOW
HIGHER THAN LOWEST POINT
ISOLATED SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.
SUPPORT FENCE. SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC
CHECK. IE BAGSARE TORE
SUFFICIENT
ZIP TIES SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM 50 POUND TENSILE STRENGTH.
PLACED PREVENT SCOURING.
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS
5. EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE PROPOSED FILTER FABRIC FILTER FABRIC
FROM STREAM FLOW.
LINE OF POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER.
6. PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH. COMPACTED < COMPACTED ;1SANDBAG
BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAVERS OF
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN
7. BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH SOIL PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGH EARTH p EARTH p
COMPACTION OF THE BACKFILL IS CRITICAL TO SILT FENCE PERFORMANCE.
SANDBAGS. THE BOTTOM LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF3ROWS OF BAGS, THE
MIDDLE LAVER SHALL CONSIST OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS AND THE TOP LAVER SHALL
BE STABILIZED IN ONE WORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET
MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.
8. DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES. RUNOFF RUNOFF
-
CONSIST OF ROW OF BAGS. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OF A FILLED
SANDBAG SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT X 0.5 FT X 1.5 FT.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING
PUMP SIZE SUFFICIENT TO PUMP BASE FLOW.
MAINTENANCE: m
III _ III
J
5. DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON -ERODIBLE MATERIALS
INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED - L y
REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY l -
SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKE
SUCH AS SANDBAGS.
SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, y �I I
NTS
REPLACE IT PROMPTLY. FILTER
1. INSTALL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLASS
FABRIC 4' FILTER FABRIC
A RIP RAP THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED
REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT
PROJECT WORKING AREA.
RAIN AND TO REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE V-SHAPED TRENCH DETAIL
DURING CLEANOUT. FLAT BOTTOM TRENCH DETAIL
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND
THE TEMPORARY PIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW
REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE
FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK AREA TO THE STABILIZED
AND STABILIZE IT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.
OUTFALL.
3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
POPS COARS
G
OPERATODIVERSION.NS FOR STREAM
VTS
SANG STONE SIZE 2E3"
E
4 INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING
PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED
AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF
SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THIS WATER
WILL ALSO BE PUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABILIZED WITH CLASS
A RIP RAP.
2"X1' OR 2'X2" '
MINIMUM 9EROSION
WOODEN STAKE CONTROL STRAW WATTLE NOTE:
`c
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT
AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
WHEN DEWATERING AREA, ALL DIRTY WATER MUST BE PUMPED
EXISTING EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIR LOGS/WATTLES MAY BE USED IN
GRADE OR COIR WATTLE/LOG
THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND
PLACE OF SILT FENCE.
TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING WITH THE
SLOPE
SQMi
DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
`
N '
6 ONCE IS COM EMOVE ALL
SAND
\T\/\\\/\//��\�%����\\�j\\�\
IMPESTABP IZEEDISRURBED AREASIPW1THp
\\/������ EROSION CONTROL WATTLE
e
SEEDI ANDR ULCHDIKES
S��SZE
NTS
INSTALL WATTLE IN 3"
7. ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING
IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
TO 5" TRENCH
PURPOSE:
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AT ALL POINTS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE
LEAVING A CONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD.
INSTALLATION NOTES: KEY -IN MATTING PER
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
20' FIG. 1 OR FIG. 2
1. CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE
FLOW
SITE PREPARATION f111",1
MATERIAL AND PROPERLY GRADE IT.
2. PLACE THE GRAVEL TO THE SPECIFIC GRADE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL, AND
GRADE AND COMPACT AREA.
SMOOTH IT.
INTAKE HOSE
3. PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET.
CLASS
REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS,VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS SO THAT MATTING WILL HAVE
DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL. O
'�'
4. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS
SUB JECT TO SEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE.
STONE
PUMP AROUND
PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL GRADE. KEY -IN AND/OR
PUMP
STAKE MATTING
MAINTENANCE:
TEST BOILS FOR ANY AND SUBMIT SOIL RESULTS THE JUST ABOVE
WORK
YNUTRIENT TREATMENTDEFICIENCIES
IZERSTEST
IF
ENGINEER. APPLY ANV TREATMENT SUCH AS LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE SOIL IF NEEDED. CHANNEL TOE
MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE
DE -WATERING AREA
SEEDING
CONSTRUCTION SITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE. AFTER EACH
RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY.
PUMP
IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC
SEE SHEETS PI AND P2 FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.
ROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS.
IMPERVIOUS
APPLY SEED TO SOIL BEFORE PLACING MATTING.
DIKE
INSTALLATION -STREAM BANK TRENCH APPROX. TRENCH APPROX. SOIL PILE
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
SOIL PILE 8' WIDE X 8" DEEP 8" WIDE x 8" DEEP FROM TRENCH
SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FOR INFORMATION FROM TRENCH
REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE COIR MATTING. FLOW
NTS
f�
FLOW
OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS 3' (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERY 12'
DISCHARGE HOSE
ACROSS THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAM FLOW �\��`�
MAT. /
GENERAL NOTES:
CLASS
i� \ \//�
EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER. ":- \j�\-`�\ // �/ !
1. CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION B# 5 WASHED
CONTROL MANUAL. ONE
2. ROCK DAM RIPRAP SHALL BE 50/50 MIX OF CLASS I AND
STONE
NOTE: HOSE SHOULD BE
LAY MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT. // / /\\/ j ///
II. A A
KEPT OUTSIDE OF WORK
1 ROW OF STAPLES
3. PLACE ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ON PLANS. EXTEND CLASS L -
BAG
LOCATION AREA
v
ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINS. /i\/� OR STAKES, MIN. OF
B RIP RAP ROCK APRON 5 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE
1 ROW OF STAPLES
CUT 8' x TRENCH ALONG TOP OF BANK FOR MAT TERMINATION AS SHOWN IN FIGURES 1 82. '� \,// OR STAKES, MIN. OF 24" O.0
OF ROCK DAM.
EXTEND MAT T03FEET PAST TOP OF BANK 24" O.0
STEP 1
ROLLS T ENCHACKFI WITH 4" OVERLAP. SECURE STEP 1
PLACWITH
STABILIZED OUTFACE FILTER FABRIC
CLASS ASTONE
RPINESNCHOR
DEGRADABJACENT
WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINES, BACKFILLANCHOR TRENCH, AND COMPACT SOIL.
BIODEGRADABLE STAKES ANCHOR EN H,AF
1.0 THICK
CLASS B
STAPLE AT I2'INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP. 1 ROW OF STAPLES 1 ROW QF STAPLES
5'-0" MIN. B
ROCK APRON
STAKES, MIN. OF STAKES, MIN. OF
PLAN
DISCHARGE
FLOW 18
FROM AT TOP FBANK.ANK TO AMINIMUM OF 2.0'PAST 18" O.0 12" O.0
12
STREAM BANKBANK.
BE 3 FOR
SEEMATTINGFIGURE
TOP OF BANK. SEE FIGURE 3 FOR TERMINATION AT TOP OF BANK.
\i FLOW
IF MORE THAN ROLL IS REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWN TO//��
THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF I'. \ \ \�
N/
SPILLWAY 2:1
CREST W (SPILLWAY)
- 1 MIN OF # 5 MIN 2/3 STREAM WIDTH
3:1 WASHED STONE
EXISTING HOSE
GROUND
STABILIZED
OUTFALLCLASS 15'T020'
/ / /
SOIL FILLED \ \ \�\ \\'
CLASS I AND
II RIP RAP aFLOW
ASTONE
FROM SOIL PILE, /
/\
1.5' THICK
COMPACT WITH FOOT SOIL FILLED
Z'EROSI
CLASS B
FROM SOIL PILE,
MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE / ///'
\\\ COMPACT WITH FOOT
2' -2' MIN. BELOW
ROCK APRON
REQUIREMENTROL NTS
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
FOLLOWING STEP 2 y/�/
LOWEST BANK
LEVEL (MIN)
• 100%COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO A
STEPCUTOFF
CLASS I Al'D
FILTER FABRIC
HIGH STRENGTH MATRIX.
II RIP RAP
FILTER FILTER
8' OF CLASS A
• THICKNESS-0.35IN. MINIMUM.
• SHFARSTRESS-5LBS/SQFT FIGURE 1 FIGURE Z
TRENCH SECTION A -A
SECTION B-B FABRIC FABRIC
STONE
EXISTING
• FLOW VELOCITY -OBSERVED 16 FT/SEC
CHANNEL
• WEIGHTE OZJSY
SILT BAG PROFILE
OPENA• -36%
• SLOPES - UP TOA MAXIMUM OF I:1
SLOPES U
COIR MATTING
PUMP AROUND & DEWATERING DETAIL
NTS
TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
NTS
NTS
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, INC 27607
(v) 916.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
Nc. Jw No. F anaCo
PROJ. DATE: �OCTOBER
D.C. MS7
D.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
D1
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
LLl
Q
o R
o"
J �
a
Z
0
U
7
lL
Z
O
z
U
O
�
¢
�
O
y
r
U
o
Uj
� Z
O �
0 Z
I
� O
Y y
QNa _
W
�
i
Q
Q a
U
N
W
p
� Z
�
� J
h
o_
O ¢
w
z z
Z
U c
Q
W

FLOW
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BEAT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, 5-8 FEET LONG, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, AND
HARDWOOD.
PROPOSED REBAR OR DUCKBILL
STREAM BED ANCHOR
COIR FIBER
MATTING
0.75"T02"
2. CABLE ANCHORS SHOULD BE PLACED V TO Y FROM EACH END OF LOG. REBAR (5/8" MINIMUM DIAMETER
FLATTOjERT-A.LE
T MIN. LENGTH TYPICAL) MAY BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR CABLE ANCHORS PER DIRECTION OF
CHANNEL FLOW MIN 6.0'
-�
ENGINEER.
3. IF REBAR IS USED, PRE -DRILL HOLES WITH 5/8" DRILL BIT.
BOTTOM OF BANK _ MIN 3.0'
1 0.5' TO 1.5'
A /
LATLOIVEAIL
STAKES SHOULD BE LONG ENOUGH
TO REACH BELOW THE GROUNDWATER
COARSE BACKFILL COARSE AGGREGATE �
BACKFILL (1"T04") �SIDE
FEET IS SUFFFIICIENT)LLY, A LENGTH OF 2 TO
ADDI IONALL'O
AKE
HO2INCAVE A
INMETER
THE RANGEOF 0.7
ES.REMOVSD
IN THE RANGE OF O.]5 T021NQHE5.BANKFULL
E
SLIGHT
MIN 18'
ELEVATION
\\\�
114 TO 113 OF LOG
DIAMETERE EXPOSED
PRIOR TO FINAL
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE TACK FABRIC OARSE AGGREGATE
( )
- -
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE 11)
TO LOG
�1
PROPOSED BED
CHANNEL TOP � �
OF BANK s.o' SECTION A -A
COIR FIBER
45 DEGREE MATTING
TAPERED BUTT END
PROPOSED
STREAM BANK
t
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW\
/
MINIMUM OF 213 OF LOG
\�
HEADER LOG
\�\
DIAMETER BEDDED BELOW
M.
EXISTING CHANNEL INVERT
TO- MINIMUM LOG
NOTES:
DIAMETER (TYP.)
1. LOGS SHOULDBE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND
SECTION VIEW
RECENTLY HARVESTED.
LIVE STAKES SHALL BE
SPACED3 FEETAPART,
INSTALL CABLE ANCHOR AS SHOWN. DRILL (OR SAW
CUTI PILOT HOLE THROUGH LOG 15 TO Y.OF THE WAY
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. = 10', MIN LENGTH =15'
ALTERNATE SPACING.
DOWN SO THAT ANCHOR CABLE IS NOT EXPOSED.
3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3'10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL FOOTER LOG
EVERY 1.5' ALONG THE LOG
MIN 3' \
\y
4. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR. SECTION B-B
REBAR (5/8' MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN.
LENGTH) OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS
LOG TOE PROTECTION
INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS
LOG GRADE CONTROL INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
NOTE:
NTS
1. ACCEPTABLE SPECIES INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW (SAUX NIGRA), SILKY WILLOW
NTS
(SAUX SERICEA) AND SILKY DOGWOOD (CORNUS AMMOMUM).
2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED IN AN AREA EXTENDING 3 FEET OUT FROM
TOP OF BANK TO JUST BELOW BANKFULL.
BANKFULL ELEVATION
BACKFILL AREA BETWEEN BANK AND COIR FIBER
ROLL (APPLY PERMANENT SEED MIX 8 COIR MATING)
EXISTING
LIVE STAKE
1/4 TO 1/3 OF LOG
DIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSED
PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING
PLANTED COIR BANK
FIBER ROLL
NTS
PROPOSED BED
Y
NORMAL WATER PLANTED COIR FLOW
LEVEL FIBER ROLL WOOD
STAKES
\
DENSE COIR MATTING �- ��
(ROLANKA BioD-MIVALENT) OR
EQUIVALENT)
DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR
MINIMUM OF TO OF LOG DIAMETER
BEDDED BELOW CHANNEL INVERT
WOOD
STAKES
WOOD STAKE
KEY IN UPSTREAM
PLAN VIEW ENO OF ROLL APPROX
r
2inch
12" LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)
NOTES: 2-4 FT INTO BANK
SECTION VIEW 1. DESIGNER TO MARK LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF
NOTES:
SILLS IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
-1 -1 LL LL I W m
1. INSTALL STAKES ON X CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL. TOP OF STAKE
2. INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH S1DE OF ROLL.
__ __ _ m m m
SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.
TOP OF STAKE SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.
2. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH APPROX') TO j OF LOG DIAM) FOR
1. INSERT 2. REMOVE 3. INSERT
PLACEMENT OF ROLL.
3. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (APPROX tin DEEP) FOR
PLANTING BAR AS PLANTING BAR PLANTING BAR 2
3. COIR LOGS SHALL BE 10 FT LONG AND HAVE A DIAMETER OF 121N.
PLACEMENT OF ROLL.
SHOWN AND PULL AND PLACE INCHES TOWARD
HANDLE TOWARD SEEDINGAT PLANTER FROM
PLANTER. CORRECT DEPTH. SEEDING.
COIR LOG (TOE PROTECTION)
NTS
VEGETATED SILL DEFLECTOR
NTS
r/ 0014
NEWCHANNELTOBE CONSTRUCTED OSX
= I-
m �I mIl mIl
W W QII QI m11 m�lE
II II
4. PULL HANDLE OF 5. PUSH 6. LEAVE
BARTOWARD HANDLE COMPACTION
MIN. 25'
PLANTER, FIRMING FORWARD HOLE OPEN.
TO --CHANNEL PLUG
BE DIVERTIVERTED
BE DIVERTED
MAX 75
SOIL AT BOTTOM. FIRMING SOIL WATER
AT TOP. THOROUGHLY.
ABANDONED
TOP OF
BANK
PLANTING NOTES: NOTES:
PLAN VIEW
EXISTING < < \ \��\
\i / / \ /\\�\/�
- CHANNEL /�/\ j/��\�
BARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTED
PLANTING BAG FT. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER, RANDOM
DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS
\ /\/ /
0 BOTTOM %\ / ` \ \ \ \N /\/�/
Z\\\ \
SHALL BE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS SPACING, AVERAGING 8 FT. ON
BAG OR SIMILAR CONTAINER TO CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 880
\ \ j\/ �\/ \/\
PR EVENT THE ROOT SYSTEMS FROM PLANTSPER ACRE.
DRYING.
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
1.5' MINIMUM
COMPACTED BACKFILL
KBC PLANTING BAR
BANKFULL ELEVATION
(12' TO 16' LIFTS)
PLANTING BARALL HAVE A
BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS
SECTION, AND SHALL BE 121NCHE5
30.
L
LONG, 4 INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH
THICK AT CENTER.
FINISHED GRADE NEW CHANNEL BANK SHALL
O:
NTES
ROOT PRUNING
COMPACTED BACKFILL 1 BE TREATED AS SPECIFIED
1. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL TO BANKFULL ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE.
ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT
PRUNED, IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NO
12'LIFTS 1 IN PLANS
( )
_ 2. CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 12' TO 18" LIFTS,
ROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 10
10'MIN
3. IF CHANNEL CANNOT BE COMPLETELY FILLED TO TOP OF BANK, FILL
Sx
INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.
TO TOP OF BANK FOR 25' OUT OF EVERY 100' SEGMENT.
N
�Z
PROPOSED
CHANNEL INVERT
CHANNEL BACKFILL
BARE ROOT PLANTING
IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL TYPICAL SECTION
(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER) LOG TOE OR COIR LOG
NTS
NTS
CHANNELPLUG
NTS
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 916.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
Nc. LICENSE NO. FIXi]4Lu
PROJ. DATE: OCTOBER
O.C.: MS7
O.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
D2
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
W
�
H
0 O
�
O
J �
a
Z
O
U
r
to
Z
O
Z
U
O
�
�
�
O
y
r
U
o
Uj
� Z
0 Z
O
Y y
tQao _
W
Q
Q a
U
v;
W
p
Q Z
�
� J
h
o_
Z �
�
Q
� w
� U
� z
z
Z
U c
Q
W
O w �i
� 0
W U
Q z >
0 0
ZO W o
� F
mZ
U li
°cam "03
�
Z Q 0
J
H
= N m
Z�
Z
W W
W
W �
Z
O =
Q
I]Om
O
a
�
¢ate

,f..R
TIE TO EXISTING GRADE
MIN SLOPE 2.5HAV
NOTES:
1. TREES NOT INDICATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE
PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS.
2. SEEDANDMULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLING
COIR MATTING.
TOE OF BANK
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)
COARSE
AGGREGATE
BACKFILL
(1' TO 5.)
BANKFULL
TOE OF BANK -
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)
INSTALL COIR MATTING PER
DETAIL DWG D1
- EXCAVATE GRADE UPPER BANK
INSTALL LIVE STAKES (SEE PLANTING PLAN)
IOULDER
AS DIRECTED
tY ENGINEER)
ROOT WAD
PLAN VIEW -TRENCHING METHOD
IF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVER
ENTIRE BANK & CONSTRUCTION
IS BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TO
MID MARCH, PROTECT BANK
SOD MATS WITH BRUSH LAYER.
FLOOD PLAIN TOP OF BANK
BOULDER ---- _ BANKFULL STAGE
(AS DIRECTED BY
ENGINEER) - BASEFLOW
BOULDER 24" MIN. FOOTER LOG >12"DIAMETER
DIAMETER MINIMUM OF 1/2 OF DIAMETER
10-15 FEET LONG INSTALLED BELOW STREAM BED
110" DIAMETER
CROSS SECTION VIEW
ROOT WAD
BOULDER
(AS DIRECTED
BY ENGINEER)
PLAN VIEW - DRIVE POINT METHOD
DRIVE POINT METHOD:
SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE
"DRIVING" IT INTO THE BANK. ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO
THAT THE STREAM FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90—DEGREE
ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE WATER AWAY FROM THE BANK. A
TRANSPLANT OR BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE
DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED
BY THE ROOT WAD. THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 3' X
3' X 2'.
TRENCHING METHOD:
IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE
BANK NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD
SHOULD BE USED. THIS METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE
EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD. IN THIS
CASE, A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNDERNEATH THE
ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THE BANK AND
WELL BELOW THE STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE ROOT WAD
SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
TYPICAL BANK GRADING
NITS ROOTWAD
NIS
NOTES:
1. LOG VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE OR MORE LOGS HELD IN PLACE BY EITHER BALLAST BOULDERS, DUCKBILL
INSTALL COIR MATTING PER
ANCHORS, OR REBAR. LOGS SHALL BE OF A LENGTH AND DIAMETER SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER AND BE RELATIVELY
DETAIL DWG D1
STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED. THE LENGTH SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE LOG IS BURIED INTO THE SOIL OF THE
STREAM BANK (ON ONE END)AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'. FLAT -SIDED BALLAST
OyV
STREAM BANK
BOULDERS SHALL BE OF SIZE 2'X2'X1.5'OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
IN 2.0'
COMPACTED SOIL
/
2. THE VANE SHALL INTERCEPT THE STREAM BANK AT A HEIGHT EQUAL TO BETWEEN''% BANKFULL STAGE AND BANKFULL STAGE.
AN ELEVATION CONTROL POINT MAY BE ESTABLISHED AT THE LEFT OR RIGHT STREAM BANKNANE INTERCEPT POINT. THE
LIVE STAKES TOP OF BANK
/
VANE INTERCEPT LOCATION MAY BE OTHERWISE DESCRIBED BY ITS RELATIONSHIP TO BANKFULL STAGE OR BY THE LENGTH
AND SLOPE OF THE VANE ARM. BANKFULL IS NOT NECESSARILY THE TOP OF THE STREAM BANK SLOPE.tj
'\ /
LIVE CUTTINGS
BALLAST BOULDER
3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOGS AND UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL OF THE
VANE. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS
J-" `�:;;.
SMALLBRANCHES \
AND BRUSH
NOTES:
OR DUCK BILL ANCHORS
NEEDED.
1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH
/////\�
- _ "-"-"-"\\/\\ j\\ j\
1. OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE
LARGER BRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRISS-CROSS PATTERN.
4. LOG VANES SHALL BE BUILT TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS::
LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING B IN TO 181N OF THE
LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.
I
A. OVER -EXCAVATE STREAM BED TOADEPTH EQUAL TO THE TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE HEADER (AND FOOTER IF
SPECIFIED) LOGS.
1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH 1\�
_ I,
2. P ACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGER
(
B. PLACE FOOTER LOG OF THE VANE ARM IF SPECIFIED. THE SLOPETHE VANE ARM IS MEASURED ALONG THE VANE
j
\\
BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) AND
COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO
iBANKFULL
ARM WHICH IS INSTALLED AT AN ANGLE TO THE STREAM BANK ANDD PROFILE.
C. THE VANE ARM ON TOP ANDSLIGHTLY HE FOOTER LOG.
RHAPLAS
\\�
�� /
IN
NAIL
D. NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO THE HEADER LOG USINGD GALVANIZED NAIL WITH A PLASTIC CAP. THE SIZE AND GAGE OF NAIL
NAL FILTER IC TO THE PLASTIC CAP. THE
FABRIC
\
ACCK
EPTABLE LIVE
3. ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES A INCLUDE BLACK
BY THEANCH DESIGNER.
AND NAIALLSPACINGTBOULDERS
SMALL LOGS AND/OR
\/� \\�
AND (SAUXCUTTING
WILLOW (SAUXCUTTINGS
ORSPECIFIEDDDUCKBILL
E. PLACE BALLAST BOULDERS OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR ON THE VANE.
THE
LARGE BRANCHES WITH
GSG SH BE RINSED AT G POINA).
WILLOW CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO
F. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND LOGS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS BETWEEN THE LOGS ARE FILLED.
A MIN DIAMETER OF 4". SECTION A -A
ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.
LOG VANE
G. BACKFILL REMAINDER OF VANE WITH PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED MATERIAL.
4. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER
COMPACTED SOIL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
5. IF ANY EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS SPECIFIED FOR USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE STREAM BANKfVANE INTERCEPT POINT THE
5. INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE
MATTING EDGES SHALL BE NEATLY SECURED AROUND THE LOGS.
CUTTINGS LAYER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
POOL ( LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BANK
INTERCEPT CONTROL POINT
\
PLAN VIEW
STREAM BANK
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (1"TO 5")
HEADER LOG
FOOTERLOG
ST
IN POOL BED
VARIES
0' TO J WIDTH
SECTION A -A
BANKFULL
A
BALLAST BOULDER
OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS
I
COIR MATTING
LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BAN K
INTERCEPTCONTROL POINT
\
\
FLOW
VARIES
\\
0' TO 0.8'
FOOTERLOG
POOL
HEADER LOG
PROFILE VIEW
LOG VANE
NITS
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK 5r/1
A
A
CHANNEL
BOTTOM OF BANK
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
BRUSH TOE
NITS
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 916.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
Nc. ucENSE No.TanaCO
PROJ. DATE: OCTOBER
O.C.: MS7
O.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
D3
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
ccc
c
LLl
�
H
0 O
O�
J �
a
z
O
U
Q
Z
O
z
U
Uvi
W
z
O
pa
�
az
N
O ¢
w
H U
� z
z
f=7
Z
U c
Q
W
O w �i
(1) O
W U
o
Q z >
DO
zow o
� F
mZ
U Ii
°cam "03
�
Z Q �
J
H
= N m
Z�
Z
W W
W
W �
Z Z.
O =
Q
O
a
�
¢ate

BANKFULL
PLAN VIEW
NOTE:
REBAR (1/2" MINIMUM DIAMETER 3' MIN. LENGTH
TYPICAL) SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3' FROM END OF
LOG. ADDITIONAL REBAR TO BE PLACED AT 6'
OFFSETS. LAST REBAR SHOULD BE PLACED V TO 3'
FROM END OF LOG. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BE
USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR REBAR, 2 PER LOG.
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN SURFACE
DOWN VALLEY
6- (TYP.)
`N'REBAR
SECTIONAL VIEW A - A'
FLOODPLAIN SILL
NTS
EXISTING DITCH
3
O
u'
BANK
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
EASEMENT LIMITS
y1' D f
>
PROPOSED
r0
LIMITS
OF GRADING
COARSE AGGREGATE HEADER LOG
BACKFILL (2" TO 6") INVERT ELEVATION
01
B
4'T08' HEADERLOG
INVERT ELEVATION
POINT REFERENCED IN MIN 5.0'
LO
L... RIM
B' BANK MIN 5FT
POINT REFERENCED IN
STRUCTURE TABLE
STRUCTURE TABLE
-1
`
COARSE AGGREGATE
,.�
BACKFILL IT' TO 6")
ROOTER
D
LOG
HEADER
COARSE AGGREGATE
-
LOG
BACKFILL IT' TO 6")
TO
LOG BURIED IN
BANK
MIN 5FT
MIN 5FT MIN 5�
PROFILE B-B'
OF
UUW NN I REAM LOG
VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO 40')
PLAN VIEW
MAX ALLOWABLE
DROP OF O.E 1
l///1///11111I
V�MAXDEPTHz
J
OF LOG
DIAMETER(TYPI
n
COARSE AGGREGATE
FOCTER
LOG
BACKFILL (2" TO 6")
�-
MIN 3.0'
-NON-WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC IN DOT
TYPE II)
PROFILE A -A'
MIN 5FT MIN SIFT
\ ` � OVERLAP OF
//�X.� UPSTREAM LOG
IGH
LOW
PROFILE C-C'
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. - 12', MIN LENGTH = 18'
3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
ALONG THE LOG
DOUBLE LOG DROP
NTS
LOG STRUCTURE
EXISTINGEXISTING
DITCH
OF TOP BANK
LOG SILL GRADE
(SEE DETAIL)
(SEE DETAIL)
PROPOSED GRADE
------------
0.5% SLOPE --------- - TIE-IN TO
FILL DITCH SUCH THAT
----------
MAX -- EXISTING
IN
`/J/ /��>>���,
THE DOWNSTREAM
EXISTING
DITCH INVERT
���� ELEVATION
ELEVATION TIES INTO
EXISTING GRADE OF THE
CONSTRUCT FLOW
—
FILL DITCH AND
FLOODPLAIN
POOL
INSTALLCOIR
MATTING
SECTION A -A
- GRADEAREA SUCH THAT
MAX SLOPE BELOW LOG
STRUCTUREISI%
EXISTING
GROUND
NOTES:
CUT
1. NO FLOODPLAIN GRADING IS ALLOWED WITHIN 10 FT
--- -- OF THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TOP OF BANK.
2. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10'-20' LONG AND AT
LEAST 8 INCHES IN DIAMETER, AND HARDWOOD.
31 MAX
SLOPE Y���������
SLOPE
INSTALL CO MATTING -
III
PERMANUFACTURER'S SECTION B-B
INSTRUCTIONS
FILL DITCH
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
NTS
FLOW
CHANNEL BOTTOM OF
BANK
I I
COARSE BACKFILL
NON -WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC A
(NOD
OT TYPE II)
I �I
/ I I
/* V
B
5.0
MIN
I I
I
I I
CHANNEL TOP OF A POI
BANK I
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 1)
FLOW
CHANNELBOTTOM OF
BANK
I
COARSE BACKFILL
FILTER FABRIC4 A I
�6
ROOTWAD OR
BRUSHTOE
MIN
I y I
I
CHANNEL TOP OF A POO
BANK
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 2)
PROPOSED STREAM
BED
FL—►
COARSE AGGREGATE-
BACKFILL (1" TO5")
REBAR OR DUCKBILL
ANCHOR
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL W. TO S..)LMIN. 5.0'
POOL APPROX. 0.75' TO 1.5'
DEEP
B GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TACK FABRIC TOJ
(NCDOT TYPE II) LOG
SECTION A -A
I, W MIN. LENGTH) OR
DUCK BILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS
INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
SECTION B-B (OPT 1)
(REAM BANK
HEADER LOG
I1%TO 3%
6
�l
FOOTER LOG
REBAR (5/6" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS
OVERLAP OF —,INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
DOWNSTREAM LOG
SECTION B-B (OPT 2)
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18'
NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
ALONG THE LOG
LOG SILL 3. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR.
NTS
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f 919.782.9672
www.Wkdickson.com
N.. LICENSE No —74
7
�zwog�LL`m
PROJ. DATE: OCTOBER
CDATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
D4
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
Ill
F r
� o
H �
Oo
Uw
z
O Zo
tiws0
z
~
¢
wO
�
UQNz
W
O
zO
ZLU
ZQoF
ZZ
WWw
WQ
Z¢Z
2

WON
VE POST
BARBED OR
ELECTRIC WIRE LINE POST
4" TG 6•'1 WOVEN WIRE:
AST M CLASS 3 GALVANIZED.
TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN. 12 GAUGE.
WOVEN WIRE _ INTERMEDIATE AND STAY WIRES MIN.
GROUND LINE 12 1/2 GAUGE.
o �
WOVEN WIRE WITH ONE BARB DETAIL
LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 41N. DIAM. OR4 IN. SQUARE.
LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U. OR Y SHAPED, WITH ANCHOR PLATES.
MIN. WEIGHT 1.3 LBS./FT. (EXCLUDING ANCHOR PLATE). POSTS SHALL BE DRIVEN A MINIMUM OF 18" DEEP AND MUST BE AT
LEAST 5.5 FT IN LENGTH
SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLE POSTS OF SPECIES SUCH AS RED CEDAR,
BLACK LOCUST OR OSAGE-ORANGE WITH BARK REMOVED, OR NON -DURABLE WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE
PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 LBS./CUBIC FOOT CCA, OR EQUIVALENT NON-CCA TREATMENT). DO NOT USE RED
PINE.
WOVEN WIRE FENCE (NRCS DETAIL 382A)
NTS
CLASS
TIMBER MAT
PERPE
PLAN VIEW
CARRIAGE BOLT, ZTIMBER MAT INSTALLED
TYPICAL PERPENEICUtAR
CLASS B RIP RAP TIMBER MAT
�TOPOFBANK �INMEERDPARALLELri FT
TOE OF
APPROXIMATE BASE FLOW
WATER SURFACE
SECTION VIEW
COARSE AGGREGATE (#5 WASHED STONE) 6- DEEP
MIN 2.5'
12" WHICHEVER IS GREATER
COVERED IT INSTALLED LARGE ANGULLAR ROCKY
FILTER FABRIC
BOLT
MAT,
NOTES:
1. TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDY
ARES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AND TO CROSS THE
STREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS.
2. THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN FLOW IS
LOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF
THE CHANNEL BED AND BANKS AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING
THE APPROACHES OR CROSSING.
3. THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CROSS THE
STREAM OR CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCH
THAT THE TIMBER AT EXTENDS PAST THE TOP OF BANK ON
EACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO
SUPPORT THE MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT SIZE USING THE
CROSSING.
4. STREAM CROSSINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER
MAT LENGTHS ORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO THE TOPS OF
THE STREAM BANKS. TIMBER MAT STREAM APPROACHES
SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHS
ORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS.
5. STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALL
BE CONSTRUCTED USING CLASS B RIP RAP PLACED OVER
FILTER FABRIC.
6. ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAP SHALL BE
COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE SITE WHEN THE
CROSSING IS REMOVED.
TIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSING
NTS
INVERT PER PLAN
BURY CULVERT 1.0'
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
BY ENGINEER
i
SECTION VIEW
PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING
NTS
NOTES.
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.
3. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE APPROPRIATE BEDDING MATERIAL WITH
MANUFACTURER.
4. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR
EQUIVALENT.
5. WIDTH OF TYPICAL FARM CROSSINGS SHALL BE PER PLAN OR A MINIMUM OF 12'.
6. WHEN REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE PIPE MATERIAL AND COVER MEET H-20
LOADING REQUIREMENTS.
PIPE SIZE PER PLAN
INSTALL CLAY PLUG
FLOW
LOG SILL
SET TOP OF LOG 1.0 FOOT
ABOVE CULVERT INVERT
2 FEET BELOW CULVERT INVERT
MIN 3'
COARSE AGGREGATE
.::.
,•
,u-
.. _ -, - - MIN 3'
"O
O
O'`�O"
O
OO'O
O O
O
O. c) U u
O. O O 00O�
-O O O O O
O O O O`O L
O O O O O 0
n O C
EARTH FILL
COVERED BY
�O
O
LARGE ANGULAR ;OC
oC
ROCK
OC
0<
00
O(
00
0
<
0�
JO
0C
J 0v0v0., 0.,0.,0.,0
J 000O2O„
0.,
.�OvO
00000
u0
DODOO8O8ODODC
10-0101no,onol-
MINIMUM
TOP OF BANK
10•
STREAM CHANNEL
MINIMUM
LOG SILL
PLAN VIEW
SET TOP OF LOG 1.0 FOOT
ABOVE CULVERT INVERT
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(t) 919. 782 ' 9672
WW W . Wkdickson.comen
PROJ. DATE: OCTOBER
O.C.: RM7
O.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
D5
PROJ. NO.:
2015020500
cc
0
cc
0
no Lm
LLl
Q
0 0
C! o
a
Z
O
U
Q
Z
O
O
a
�
0
�
W
I-
H
U
z
W
p
Q Z
�
� J
y
a
z N
� U
� z
~
z
¢
w
�
)T
7-

LOG BURIED
IN STREAM
FROM
LOG BURIED
IN STREAM
T BANK STREAM BED
or_ MIN. 5FT ELEVATION
SECTION A -A'
SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL
(MIX OF COARSE AGGREGATE
AND H5 STONE)
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS AS FOLLOWS:
MIN DIAM = 10"
MIN LENGTH = 30'
2. ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND LIMBS SHALL BE TRIMMED FLUSH.
3. FOOTER LOGS/BOULDERS ARE LOGS/BOULDER PLACED TO PROVIDE A FOUNDATION AND SCOUR PROTECTION FOR THE HEADER
LOGSIBOULDERS.
4. HEADER LOGS/BOULDERS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGSIBOULDERS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
5. HEADER LOGS ARE THE TOP MOST LOGS USED IN EACH LOG STRUCTURE. ALL HEADER LOGS CAN BE SEEN PROTRUDING FROM THE
WATER SURFACE DURING EXTREMELY LOW FLOWS.
6. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTING LOGS WHERE SCOUR POOLS ARE ANTICIPATED TO FORM
AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL.
7. SILL LOGS SHALL BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO THE BANKFULL FLOW DIRECTION.
8. THE FOOTER LOGS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE SILL LOG TO THE END OF THE HEADER LOG TOWARD THE BANK.
9. HOOK BOULDERS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE HEADER LOG TO BEYOND BANKFULL WIDTH.
10. SET INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS.
11. HEADER LOG SHALL TIE INTO THE STREAM BANKAT A MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF } DMAX (MEASURED AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE) BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION AND A MINIMUM ELEVATION OF 3 DMAX (MEASURE AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE) BELOW
BANKFULL ELEVATION UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
12. CUTTING OF THE SILL LOG ROOTWAD BAY BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT THE ROOTWAD FROM PROTRUDING ABOVE THE BANKFULL
ELEVATION.
13. ALL GAPSNOIDS LARGER THAN 1 INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING LOGS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH LIMBS AND/OR BRUSH ON
THE UPSTREAM SIDE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.
14. ALL GAPSNOIDS LARGER THAN 1 INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING BOULDERS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH GRAVEL AND
COBBLES.
15. ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE LOGS AND/OR BOULDERS, NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN IN
PLANVIEW AND IN SECTION B-B'. PLACE SELECT BACKFILL FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOG AND BOULDER HOOK.
16. BACKFILL STRUCTURE WITH SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL AS SHOWN SHOWN IN PLANVIEW AND IN SECTION B-B'.
17. SELECT BACKFILL AND SOIL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENT OF THE MATERIAL IS KEPT
TO A MINIMUM.
18. NAIL NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE USING 3' 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL AS SHOWN IN THE
GEOTEXTILE PLACEMENT AND SELECT BACKFILL DETAIL.
FLOW
PLAN VIEW
MATERIAL
LOG J-HOOK
NTS
GEOTE)
(NC
S
I
LIVE STAKING—
PLANVIEW
LIVE STAKES
YPJ
BANKFULL
SOIL BACKFILL
SELECT
- HEADERLOG
BACKFILL MATERIAL
NON -WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(NCDOT TYPE II)
FOOTERLOG STREAMBED
SECTION B-B'
SMALL POOL, TYP LARGE COBBLE/SMALL
BOULDERS, TYP
4.0' CHANNEL 1
,0TOP OF BANK
•
TYP BOTTOM WIDTH TYp
1.0' MIN —PROPOSED TOE OF BANK
1.5' MIN <
/\\—RIFFUE MATERIAL, EQUAL MIX
OF NATE SUBSTRATE
MATERIAL AND GRAVEL( 50=
LOGS/WOODY DEBRIS
GRADE CONTROL RO[K
50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND B
CROSS SECTION A —A' RIPRAP
RIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUAL MIX OF
NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIALAND
GRAVEL (D50 =1")
MIN VARIES MIN
BEGIN RIFFLE PROPOSE
CONTROL POINT OF BANK
FLOW FLOW FFL�ENDRE CONTRC
LOGS/WOODY) GRADE CONTROL ROCK
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE DEBRIS 50/50 MIX OF CVSSAAND B
RIPRAP
NTS PROFILE
WOODY DEBRIS FILL
(LOGS, BRANCHES, AND
DITCH TOP OF
BANK
DOWN VALLEY A
BRUSH)COMPACTED
WITH SOIL
(�'
COMPACTED FILL
DITCH BOTTOM
OF BANK
A
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
EXISTING GROUND Mi.PROPOSED
N GROUND
5.'
/7\r�
WOODY DEBRIS FILL
(LOGS BRANCHES, AND
COMPACTED FILL
��
\� /
WITH SOIL TO PROPOSED
GRADE.
EXISTING
INVERT
SECTION A -A
DITCH
WOODY DEBRIS FILL (LOGS,
BRANCHES, AND BRUSH) COMPACTED
WITH SOIL TO PROPOSED GRADE.
MIN
PROPOSED
GROUND
DOWN VALLEY
12' MIN DIAM.
(TYP 10'TO 20')� HARDWOOD LOG;
MIN LENGTH = W
EXISTING DITCH
INVERT
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
COMPACTED FILL FABRIC (TYP.)
PROFILE VIEW
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BY
THE DESIGNER.
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS
TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
3. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 50150 MIX OF CLASS A AND B RIPRAP. GRADE
CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLE
MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.
4. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND WOOD. THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST
OF A 50150 MIX OF GRAVEL (D50=1") AND NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE
EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. OTHERWISE ROCK
RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, -RIVER-TYPE" ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCK
CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHANNEL. IN ADDITION, LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS
SHALL BE INCLUDED WITH THE ROCK MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
5. THE PLACEMENT OF GRADE CONTROL ROCK AND/OR RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER
TO CREATE SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT "JUMP -(TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM
POOL -GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT "DROP' (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE
AND THE DOWNSTREAM RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL
GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOME
VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.
6. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER IN -STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL OR
J-HOOK).
7. THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED
BY THE DESIGNER. THE 'KEY" SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OF
THE RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY'
MAY NOT BE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.
BRUSH BED SILL
NTS
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
Nc UCENSE No. -cc
PROJ. DATE: OCTOBER
Q.C.: MS7
O.C. DATE: JUN 2016
DRAWING NUMBER:
D6
PRO-. NO.:
2015020500
Ly LU 0ILL z
cc
H�
0 0
�
O
J �
a
Z
O
U
7
Z
O
Z
U
O
�
¢
�
O
y
r
U
o
Uj
� z
o �
Z
0
I
� O
Y y
W
Q
Q a
H
U
v;
W
p
� Z
�
� J
h
o_
O ¢
w
� U
� z
z
Z
U c
Q
W