20160980 Ver 1_401 Application_20180418

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
Prepared by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I, LLC,
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1056
April 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a watershed dominated by agricultural
land use in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately three miles north of Smithfield. The
project streams and wetlands have been significantly impacted by channelization, impoundment, and
cattle access. The project will involve the restoration and protection of streams in the Neuse River
watershed and the enhancement of adjacent riparian wetlands. The purpose of this mitigation site is to
restore, enhance and preserve a stream/wetland complex located within the Neuse River Basin.
The Site lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201100050. The 2010 Neuse River
Basin Plan (NRBP) identified the Neuse River watershed (HUC 03020201100050) as a Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream, and
riparian buffer restoration. The Site supports many of the Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities Pan
(RBRP) and Neuse Regional Watershed Pan (RWP) goals. Thirty-seven percent of the watershed is
used for agricultural purposes and seventeen percent is currently developed (NCEEP, 2010).
The Site is located within the downstream end of HUC 03020201 and includes streams that directly
discharge into Meadow Spring 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 7,658 linear feet of stream restoration, enhancement, and
preservation generating 5,737 Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and 36.51 acres of wetland restoration
and enhancement generating 16.82 riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU).
The site consists of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and wooded areas. The total easement area is
60.93 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 both laterally and vertically unstable, impacted by cattle, have disturbed
riparian buffers, and do not fully support aquatic life. Current stream conditions along the proposed
restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation because of impacts from livestock and impoundment to
promote agricultural activities.
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
success criteria. 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 treating
invasive species, are listed in Section 6.
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.
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 to identify the design discharge.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan ii April 2018

The Meadow Spring Site will include Priority UII restoration, Enhancement Levels I II and III,
Preservation and wetland re -habilitation, re-establishment, enhancement 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.
Enhancement Level III and Preservation is proposed along Reach S9, S 12, and S 13 due to the channels'
current stability and presence of mature trees located along the top of banks. Reach S 12 and S 13 are
designated as Preservation because there is not a need for the riparian buffer planting that is needed on
Enhancement III reaches.
The Site will include wetland re -habilitation, re-establishment, enhancement, and preservation.
Wetland re-establishment 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 livestock exclusion, 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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan iii April 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..................................................................................................................
12
3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT.........................................................................................
15
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information...........................................................
15
4 BASELINE INFORMATION......................................................................................................
16
4.1 Watershed Summary Information........................................................................................
16
4.1.1 Drainage Area...............................................................................................................16
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification........................................................................................16
4.2 Reach Summary Information...............................................................................................
16
4.2.1 Channel Classification..................................................................................................17
4.2.2 Discharge......................................................................................................................17
4.2.3 Bankfull Verification....................................................................................................17
4.2.4 Channel Morphology....................................................................................................17
4.2.5 Channel Stability Assessment......................................................................................19
4.2.6 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................20
4.3 Wetland Summary Information............................................................................................
21
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands.........................................................................................................21
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil.....................................................................................................21
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints..........................................................
22
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities...............................................................
22
4.4.2 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass........................................................................................22
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation.............................................................
23
5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL.......................................................................................
24
5.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements............................................................
28
5.1.1 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................28
5.1.2 Hydraulic......................................................................................................................
28
5.1.3 Geomorphology............................................................................................................28
5.1.4 Physiochemical.............................................................................................................28
5.1.5 Biology.........................................................................................................................
29
6 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................
29
7 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS.............................................................................................
30
7.1 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths..........................................................
31
8 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE...............................................................................................
32
8.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits..................................................................................
34
8.2 Subsequent Credit Releases..................................................................................................
34
9 MITIGATION WORK PLAN.....................................................................................................
34
9.1 Reference Stream Studies.....................................................................................................
34
9.1.1 Target Reference Conditions........................................................................................
34
9.2 Design Parameters................................................................................................................
36
9.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach........................................................................................
36
9.2.2 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement........................................................................
42
9.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration.........................................................................
43
9.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)............................................................................
44
9.2.5 Soil Restoration............................................................................................................
44
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan iv April 2018

List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Meadow Spring Site Project Components...........................................................7
9.3 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................
45
Table 2b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components - Wetland Mitigation ..........................................
9.3.1 Stream Data Analysis...................................................................................................
45
l l
9.3.2 Mitigation Summary.....................................................................................................48
10
MAINTENANCE PLAN.............................................................................................................
49
11
MONITORING PLAN.................................................................................................................
50
Table 8. Wetland Summary Information..............................................................................................
11.1 As -Built Survey....................................................................................................................
52
22
11.2 Visual Monitoring................................................................................................................
52
Table11. Mitigation Credits.................................................................................................................
11.3 Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology.................................................................
52
31
11.3.1 Digital Image Stations..................................................................................................
52
Table 13. Stream Mitigation Credit Adjustments for Non-standard Buffer Widths ............................
11.3.2 Cross Sections..............................................................................................................
52
33
11.3.3 Gauges..........................................................................................................................
52
Table15. Scaling Factors.....................................................................................................................
11.4 Wetland Hydrology..............................................................................................................
53
11.5 Vegetative Monitoring Plots.................................................................................................
53
Table17. Peak Flow Comparison........................................................................................................
11.1 Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Monitoring...............................................................
53
11.2 Scheduling/Reporting...........................................................................................................54
12
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................
54
12.1 Stream And Wetland Restoration Success Criteria..............................................................
55
12.1.1 Bankfull Events............................................................................................................
55
12.1.1 Surface Flow.................................................................................................................
55
12.1.2 Bank Height Ratio and Entrenchment Ratio................................................................
55
12.1.3 Wetland Hydrology Criteria.........................................................................................
55
12.2 Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................
55
13
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................
56
14
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.........................................................................................
57
15
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES......................................................................................................
58
16
OTHER INFORMATION............................................................................................................
59
16.1 References............................................................................................................................
59
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Meadow Spring Site Project Components...........................................................7
Table 2a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components - Stream Mitigation .............................................
8
Table 2b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components - Wetland Mitigation ..........................................
8
Table3. Mapped Soil Series.................................................................................................................
l l
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information............................................................................15
Table 5. Project Watershed Summary Information..............................................................................16
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics.......................................................................17
Table 7. Channel Stability Assessment Results....................................................................................
20
Table 8. Wetland Summary Information..............................................................................................
21
Table 9. Regulatory Considerations.....................................................................................................
22
Table 10. Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements............................................................
27
Table11. Mitigation Credits.................................................................................................................
30
Table 12a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components - Stream Mitigation .........................................
31
Table 12b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components - Wetland Mitigation ......................................
31
Table 13. Stream Mitigation Credit Adjustments for Non-standard Buffer Widths ............................
32
Table 14a. Stream Credit Release Schedule.........................................................................................
33
Table 14b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule......................................................................................
33
Table15. Scaling Factors.....................................................................................................................
41
Table16a. Proposed Plant List.............................................................................................................43
Table 16b. Proposed Plant List: Live Staking and Live Cuttings.........................................................
44
Table17. Peak Flow Comparison........................................................................................................
46
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan v April 2018

Table 18. Stable Channel Design Output............................................................................................. 46
Table 19. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses......................................................47
Table 20. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities............................................................. 47
Table21. Maintenance Plan................................................................................................................. 49
Table22. Monitoring Plan.................................................................................................................... 51
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 - Historical Aerials Map
Figure 4 - Soils Map
Figure 5 - Landowner Map
Figure 6 - Land -use Map
Figure 7 - Existing Conditions Map
Figure 8 - FEMA Map
Figure 9 - National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 10 - Conceptual Plan Map
Figure 11 a and l lb - Non -Standard Buffer Width Calculations
Figure 12 - Monitoring Plan
Figure 13 - Conceptual Design for NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credits
Appendices
Appendix A — Site Protection Instrument(s) and Longterm Stewardship Program Overview
Appendix B — Baseline Information Data
Appendix C — Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix D — Soil Scientist Report (Original and Addition)
Appendix E — Design Plan Sheets (11 "x 17")
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan vi April 2018

PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a primarily rural watershed with limited
residential development in Johnston County, North Carolina. The project streams proposed for restoration
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 Meadow Spring
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.
1.1 Site Selection
The Site is located in Johnston County approximately three miles north of Smithfield, North Carolina
(Figure 1). To access the Site head east on NC 70 from the Town of Wilson Mills, turn right onto Wilson
Mills Road and head south for approximately 1.5 miles. The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin within
Cataloging Unit 03020201, 14 -digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201100050. The Site is
located in the Rolling Coastal Plains ecoregion and on the Neuse River floodplain and has a gently rolling
topography. Elevations range from 120 to 150 feet above mean sea level (NAD 27) based upon USGS
topographic mapping (Figure 2). One unnamed tributary on the Meadow Spring Bank Parcel, as well as
overland flow of storm water, drain into the Neuse River
1.2 Project Components
The project area is comprised of one primary perennial stream that flows west to east to a confluence with
the Neuse River. The project area is comprised of a contiguous easement area along an unnamed tributary
to the Neuse River. The easement is separated by an existing power easement and three agricultural
crossing. The project is divided into northern and southern portions by the existing power easement. The
northern portion of the project includes Reaches S1, S2, S5, S6a and S6b. The southern portion of the
project includes Reaches S7, S9, 511, S12 and 513. The stream and wetland mitigation components are
summarized in Tables 1, 2a and 2b, as well as Figure 10. An additional 154 SMUs were generated based
on the Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment and described in more detail in Section 7.1 and an additional
109 SMUs were generated based on the Guidance in the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory for additional credit of up to 2% when water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring are
conducted (see section 7.2 and 11.6 for more details).
Table 1. Summary of Meadow Spring Site Project Components
The Meadow Spring Site Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Totals
1 5,735
16.82
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 7 April 2018

Table 2a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation
* Additional credits generated based on the added stream water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring
Table 2b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation
Stream Mitigation
Proposed
Wetland
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
Proposed
Reach
Mitigation Type
Proposed
Length (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Additional
Base SMUs SMUs*
S1
Enhancement II
250
2.5:1
100
2
S2
Enhancement I
500
1.5:1
333
7
S5
P 1 / P2 Restoration
231
1:1
231
5
S6A
P1 Restoration
1,350
1:1
1,350
27
S613
P1 Restoration
1,176
1:1
1,176
24
S613
Enhancement I
167
1.5:1
111
2
S7
Enhancement I
990
1.5:1
660
13
S7
Enhancement I
440
1.5:1
293
6
S9
Enhancement III
675
7.5:1
90
2
S11
P1 Restoration
1,045
1:1
1,045
21
S12
Preservation
380
10:1
38
1
S13
Preservation
454
10:1
45
1
Total
1 7,658 1
5,473
1 109
Non -Standard Buffer Width
Adjustment
154
Total Adjusted SMUs
5,737
* Additional credits generated based on the added stream water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring
Table 2b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
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 Site is located in HUC
03020201100050 (Neuse River) (Figure 1), a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) that exhibits both the need
and opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The watershed includes 52 square miles
of area, with 31 percent of the 106 stream miles lacking wooded buffers. Thirty-seven percent of the
watershed is used for agricultural purposes with 13 animal operations occurring in the watershed (NCEEP
2010).
The Site was identified as a stream, wetland, and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water quality,
habitat, and hydrology within the Neuse River Basin. The Site is located within the downstream end of
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 8 April 2018
Wetland Mitigation
Proposed
Wetland
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
Mitigation
Ratio
WMUs
WB
Rehabilitation
0.95
1.5:1
0.63
WD
Preservation
0.03
No Credit
No Credit
WE
Preservation
0.09
No Credit
No Credit
WF -A
Preservation
2.00
No Credit
No Credit
WF -13
Enhancement
2.02
3:1
0.67
WG
Enhancement
21.71
3:1
7.24
WH
Re-establishment
6.84
1:1
6.84
WI
Re-establishment
2.87
2:1
1.44
Total
36.51
16.82
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 Site is located in HUC
03020201100050 (Neuse River) (Figure 1), a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) that exhibits both the need
and opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The watershed includes 52 square miles
of area, with 31 percent of the 106 stream miles lacking wooded buffers. Thirty-seven percent of the
watershed is used for agricultural purposes with 13 animal operations occurring in the watershed (NCEEP
2010).
The Site was identified as a stream, wetland, and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water quality,
habitat, and hydrology within the Neuse River Basin. The Site is located within the downstream end of
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 8 April 2018

HUC 03020201 and includes streams that directly discharge into the Neuse River. 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.
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 agricultural pond has been in place for well over 40 years (Figure 3). Since the early 1990s little has
changed in the project area. 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 Rolling Coastal Plains Physiographic Province. Existing soil information from
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) shows the property is located within the Wehadkee-
Bibb-Chewacla soil association. This association is on nearly level, well drained to poorly drained soils that
are subject to flooding typically in flood plains and stream terraces. This soil association is located along
major streams and creeks throughout Johnston County. The largest mapped area of this soils association is
along the Neuse River south of Smithfield.
The Johnston County Soil Survey shows several mapping units across the site. Map units include 11 soil
series (Figure 4). The soil series found on the Site are described below and summarized in Table 3.
Site soils are mapped by the NRCS as Altavista, Augusta, Bibb, Goldsboro, Norfolk, Rains, Roanoke, and
Wagram on the low lying depressions and floodplains at the project Site (Figure 4). Augusta, Bibb,
Goldsboro Rains and Roanoke soils are generally poorly drained sandy loam to loamy soils and range from
zero to two percent slopes. Altavista and Wagram are fine sandy loam and loamy sand well -drained soils
typically located on slopes ranging from zero to six percent. Altavista, Augusta, Bibb, Goldsboro, Rains,
and Roanoke soils are listed on the NRCS hydric soil list as hydric or having hydric inclusions.
The surrounding upland soils are mapped as Marlboro -Cecil complex, Norfolk and Wagram. Norfolk and
Wagram soils are well drained and have moderate permeability. Norfolk and Wagram are found on slopes
ranging from zero to six percent. Marlboro -Cecil complex is sandy loam soil made up of Marlboro and
Cecil soils. This soil type is well -drained and typically located on slopes ranging from two to eight percent.
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 zero to three percent. Runoff is negligible and permeability is
moderate. Major uses are cropland. Altavista fine sandy loam occurs along the southeast boundary of the
proposed easement throughout most the wetland area.
Augusta sandy loam. This is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on stream terraces of
the Southern Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain. They formed in loamy alluvial sediments, and generally
occur on slopes between zero to two percent. Runoff is negligible and permeability is moderate. Major use
is cropland. Augusta sandy loam occurs along the northwest end of the of the planned wetland and near the
southern reach of the stream.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 9 April 2018

Bibb sandy loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil found on flood plains of the Coastal Plain. Slopes
are generally less than two percent. 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 northernmost reach of the easement; it can also be
found in small patches around the project Site.
Goldsboro sandy loam. This is a very deep, moderate well -drained soil that occurs on marine terraces and
uplands of the lower to upper Coastal Plain. They formed in marine and fluviomarine deposits, and
generally occur on slopes between zero to ten percent. Runoff is negligible to medium and permeability is
moderate. Major uses are cropland. Goldsboro sandy loam occurs along the middle of the easement and is
scattered along the project vicinity.
Marlboro- Cecil complex. Marlboro consists of very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on the smooth
uplands of the Coastal Plain. They formed in clayey Coastal Plain sediments, and generally occur in slopes
zero to fifteen percent. Runoff is medium and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Cecil
consists of very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on ridges and side slopes of the Piedmont uplands. They
formed in residuum weathered from felsic, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont
uplands, and generally occur on slopes between zero to 25 percent. Runoff is medium to rapid and
permeability is moderate. Major uses are cultivation, pasture, and forest. Marlboro -Cecil complex is found
outside of the easement area in the surrounding cultivated plots.
Norfolk loamy sand. This is a very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on interfluves and side slopes of the
Coastal Plain. They formed in marine or fluviomarine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between zero
to ten percent. Runoff is negligible to medium and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland.
Norfolk loamy sand is found along the floodplains of the northwestern stream reaches.
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 0-2%. Runoff is low
and permeability is moderate. Major uses are forest and cropland. Rains sandy loam occurs along the area
just north of the easement and along the stream reaches extending out from the site easement.
Roanoke loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil that occurs on terraces and drainageways of the
piedmont and the upper and middle Coastal Plain. They formed in clayey fluvial sediments, and generally
occur on slopes between zero to two percent. Runoff and permeability are slow to very slow. Major uses
are woodland. Roanoke loam occurs along the left floodplain of the southernmost reach of the conservation
easement.
Wagram loamy sand. This is a very deep, somewhat excessively drained soil that occurs on the interfluves
and side slopes of the upper and middle Coastal Plain. The formed in marine and fluviomarine deposits,
and generally occur on slopes between zero 15 percent. Runoff is negligible to medium and permeability is
moderate. Major uses are cropland. Wagram loamy sand occurs along the right stream bank and floodplain
of the northernmost reach in the easement.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 10 April 2018

Table 3. Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent
Drainage
Hydrologic
Landscape
Symbol
Hydric
Class
Soil Group
Setting
AaA
Altavista fine sandy
9°
�°
Moderately
C
Stream terraces
loam, 0-2% slopes
well
AsA
Augusta sandy loam,
7%
Somewhat
B/D
Stream terraces
0-2% slopes
poorly
Bb
Bibb sandy loam, 0-
90%
Poorly
A/D
Floodplains
2% slopes
Flats on marine
GoA
Goldsboro sandy
2°
�0
Moderately
B
terraces, broad
loam, 0-2% slopes
well
interstream divides on
marine terraces
Broad interstream
McB
Marlboro -Cecil
0%
Well
B
divides on marine
complex, 2-8% slopes
terraces, ridges on
marine terraces
Flats on marine
NoA
Norfolk loamy sand, 0-
5%
Well
A
terraces, broad
2% slopes
interstream divides on
marine terraces
Flats on marine
NoB
Norfolk loamy sand, 2-
5%
Well
A
terraces, broad
6% slopes
interstream divides on
marine terraces
Carolina bays on marine
Rains sandy loam, 0-°
terraces, broad
Ra
2%
90%
Poorly
B
interstream divides on
slopes
marine terraces, flats on
marine terraces
Roanoke loam 0-2%
Depressions on stream
Ro
slopes
100%
Poorly
C/D
terraces, backswamps
on stream terraces
Broad interstream
WaB
Wagram loamy sand,
5%
Well
A
divides on marine
0-6% slopes
terraces, ridges on
marine terraces
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 11 April 2018

2.3 Site Photographs
Reach S1. 10/06/2015
Reach S1. 10/06/2015
Reach S2. 10/06/2015
Reach S2. 10/06/2015
Reach S3. 10/06/2015
Reach S4. 10/06/2015
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 12 April 2018

Reach S5. 10/06/2015
Reach S6. 10/06/2015
Reach S6. 10/06/2015
General conditions along Reach ST 10/06/2015
General channel conditions along Reach ST
10/06/2015
Reach S8. 03/09/2015
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 13 April 2018

Reach S9. 10/06/2015
Reach S9. 10/06/2015
Reach SIO. 10/06/2015
Reach S 11. 10/06/2015
Reach S12. 05/10/2016
Reach S13. 10/06/2015
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 14 April 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
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 Meadow Spring Mitigation Site. The Meadow Spring
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
(DWR).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 15 April 2018
Deed Book and
Parcel
Protected
Landowner
Pin
County
Page Number
Acreage
Acrea e
Stephenson
1997 Family
169500-74-6294
Johnston
01732-0151
246.34
60.93
Limited
Partnership
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 Meadow Spring Mitigation Site. The Meadow Spring
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
(DWR).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 15 April 2018

4 BASELINE INFORMATION
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
4.1.1 Drainage Area
The easement totals 60.9 acres and the project includes one unnamed tributary to the Neuse River. The total
drainage area at the downstream limits of the main project area is approximately 379 acres (0.59 mi'). The
land use in the Site watershed is approximately 37 percent agricultural and 45 percent forested (Table 5
and 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 a large floodplain wetland adjacent to the Neuse River. Neuse River is defined as WS -1V and
NSW (NCDENR 2012a). WS -IV waters are sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes. 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
03020201100050
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
379
Percent Impervious Area
<1%
4.2 Reach Summary Information
The project area is comprised of a contiguous easement area along an unnamed tributary to the Neuse River.
The easement is separated by an existing power easement and three agricultural crossing. The project is
divided into northern and southern portions by the existing power easement. The northern portion of the
project includes Reaches S1, S2, S5, S6a and S6b. The southern portion of the project includes Reaches
S7, S9, 511, S12 and S13 (Figure 7).
The Meadow Spring stream channels include unnamed tributaries to the Neuse River. The Neuse River is
a FEMA Detailed Studied Stream and all project reaches located in its floodplain are subject to all
applicable floodplain development permit requirements (Figure 9). Stream Classification Forms were
completed at representative locations throughout the project area and stream determinations were confirmed
by DWR staff (Appendix B). Results of the preliminary data collection are presented in Table 6. The
Stream Morphology Table is included in Appendix C.
In general, all or portions of S1, S2, S5, S6, S7, S9, and S11 do not function to their full potential. Current
conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from agriculture, historic land
uses, and water diversion. Having been channelized in the past, some of the streams do not access their
floodplains as frequently as they naturally would have prior to agricultural operations. In most cases, the
riparian buffer is in poor condition where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and active
pasture is directly adjacent to both banks of the existing channel. Habitat along the majority of the
restoration reaches is poor with little woody debris or overhanging vegetation for fish cover or protection
for other aquatic species. Morphological parameters are located in Appendix C.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 16 April 2018

Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Drainage ABKF 1 Width Mean Width: Bank
Reach Area (ac) 00 (ft) Depth (ft) Depth Height Sinuosity Slope (ft/ft)
Ratio Ratio
S1
36
1.5
10.1
0.1
70.9
4.8
1.01
0.0130
S2
46
1.6
4.9
0.3
15.1
1.8
0.93
0.0110
S5
36
1.8
4.6
0.4
11.6
3.4
1.18
0.0130
S6A
97
6.2
9.0
0.7
13.7
2.3
1.21
0.0039
S6B
171
6.6
8.2
0.8
10.2
2.5
1.15
0.0060
S7
278
10.2
9.0
1.1
8.0
1.8
1.32
0.0032
S9
337
8.7
10.6
0.8
13.0
2.0
0.87
0.0033
S11
379
6.6
6.9
1.0
7.4
1.2
1.06
0.0041
S12
410
8.8
13.5
0.7
20.7
3.5
1.25
0.0030
S13
70
9.0
7.6
1.8
18.6
7.0
1.68
0.0030
IABKF= 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 DWR Stream Identification
Form version 4.11 and are E-, G-, and C -stream types as classified using the Rosgen stream classification
system (Rosgen, 1996). The design reaches are described in Section 8.2. Channel characteristics are
summarized in Table 6 and Appendix C. Stream determinations have been verified by DWR staff
(Appendix B).
4.2.2 Discharge
Estimating flows (discharge) for the Meadow Spring 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 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.
4.2.4 Channel Morphology
4.2.4.1 Reach S1
Reach S 1 has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (36 acres), and flows southeast from Wilson's Mill Road
through cultivated fields to Reach S2. The planform of this F -type channel is straight (K = 1.0) and
entrenched throughout. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.5 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 10.1 feet width and 0.1 feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the channel at top of bank
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 17 April 2018

is 91.7 square feet. The existing length of S 1 is 250 feet, and the dominant bed material is very coarse sand.
The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0130 ft/ft. The reach is severely oversized with no floodplain
access. The riparian buffer is comprised of row crops and grassed fields with a mix of grassed and small
woody vegetation growing within the existing top of bank.
4.2.4.2 Reach S2
Reach S2 has a drainage area of 0.07 square miles (46 acres), and flows east from Reach S 1 through active
pasture to Reach S6. The planform of this C-type channel is straight (K = 1.1) with evidence of past
entrenchment. The channel has developed a new limited floodplain and adjusted to a state of equilibrium.
The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.6 square feet with approximate dimensions of 4.9 feet
width and 0.3 feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the channel at top of bank is 58.7 square feet. The
existing length of S2 is 500 feet, and the dominant bed material is very coarse sand. The gradient of the
reach is approximately 0.0110 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic
habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
4.2.4.3 Reach S5
Reach S5 has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (36 acres), and flows south from through narrow forest
and active pasture to a confluence with Reach S6. The planform of this F -type channel has a sinuosity (K)
of 1.2 and is entrenched throughout. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.8 square feet with
approximate dimensions of 4.6 feet width and 0.4 feet deep. The existing length of S5 is 215 feet, and the
dominant bed material is very medium gravel. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0130 ft/ft. Cattle
access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs
attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
4.2.4.4 Reach S6A
Reach S6A flows east from Reach S2 through active pasture to a confluence with Reach S5 and is an F -
type channel. The drainage area for Reach S6A at the confluence with Reach S5 is 0.15 square miles (97
acres). The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.2 square feet with approximate dimensions of 9.0
feet width and 0.7 feet depth. The existing length of S6A is 1,220 feet and the dominant bed material is fine
gravel. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0039 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional
riparian buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found
throughout the reach.
4.2.4.5 Reach S6B
Reach S6B continues east to Reach S7 and has a drainage area of 0.27 square miles (171 acres). Reach
S6B is an F -type channel but transitions to an E -type channel approximately 940 feet downstream. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.6 square feet with approximate dimensions of 8.2 feet width
and 0.8 feet depth. The existing length of S6B is 1315 feet and the dominant bed material is fine gravel.
The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0060 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional riparian
buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found
throughout the reach.
4.2.4.6 Reach S7
Reach S7 has a drainage area of 0.43 square miles (278 acres), and flows south from Reach S6 through
mature forest to S9. This E -type channel has a sinuosity of 1.3 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.1. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 10.2 square feet with approximate dimensions of 9.0 feet width
and 1.1 feet deep. The existing length of S7 is 1487 feet, and the dominant bed material is very fine gravel.
The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0032 ft/ft. The reach is slightly oversized but maintains
floodplain access. The riparian buffer is comprised of mature hardwood forest; however, significant
invasive vegetation is present throughout the reach.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 18 April 2018

4.2.4.7 Reach S9
Reach S9 has a drainage area of 0.53 square miles (337 acres), and flows south from Reach S7 through
mature forest to Sl 1. This E -type channel has a sinuosity of 0.87 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.0. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 8.7 square feet with approximate dimensions of 10.6 feet width
and 0.8 feet deep. The existing length of S9 is 665 feet, and the dominant bed material is coarse sand. The
gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0033 ft/ft. The bankfull depth noted above is lower than water
surface depths observed during field visits. Water surface depths observed were abnormally high due to
backwater caused by sediment deposits resulting from Hurricane Matthew (October 2016). The riparian
buffer is comprised of mature hardwood forest and wetlands.
4.2.4.8 Reach S11
Reach S 11 has a drainage area of 0.59 square miles (379 acres), and flows south from Reach S9 through
mature forest and grassed fields to S 12. This E -type channel has a sinuosity of 1.1 and an entrenchment
ratio greater than 2.2. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.6 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 6.9 feet width and 1.0 feet deep. The existing length of S11 is 898 feet, and the dominant
bed material is coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0041 ft/ft. The riparian buffer is
comprised of mature hardwood forest and grassed fields. During field visits a headcut was observed
migrating in the middle of the reach. The headcut appeared to have been stabilized by a substantial root
mass located in the channel bed. Though stabilized, the headcut has left a significant amount of the reach
with vertical and vegetated banks that are acting as a considerable sediment source to the downstream
channel.
4.2.4.9 Reach S12
Reach S12 has a drainage area of 0.64 square miles (410 acres), and flows south from Reach S11 through
mature forest to the Neuse River. This F -type channel has a sinuosity of 1.25 and an entrenchment ratio of
0.9. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 8.8 square feet with approximate dimensions of 13.5
feet width and 0.7 feet deep. The existing length of S12 is 388 feet, and the dominant bed material is coarse
sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0030 ft/ft. The dimensions of this reach are significantly
different from the rest of the project due to impacts from Neuse River backwater. The riparian buffer is
comprised of mature hardwood forest and wetlands.
4.2.4.10 Reach S13
Reach S13 has a drainage area of 0.05 square miles (31 acres), and flows south from Wetland WG through
mature forest to the Neuse River. This F -type channel has a sinuosity of 1.66 and an entrenchment ratio of
1.2. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 2.2 square feet with approximate dimensions of 8.6
feet width and .3 feet deep. The existing length of S 13 is 454 feet, and the dominant bed material is coarse
sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0050 ft/ft. The dimensions of this reach are significantly
different from the rest of the project due to impacts from Neuse River backwater. The riparian buffer is
comprised of mature hardwood forest and wetlands.
4.2.5 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 Poplin Ridge existing channels and reference reach. 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 (frequency of watershed disturbances such as agricultural
activities, urbanization, etc), 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.
See Appendix C for a detailed description of the stability indicators. As this method was initially developed
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 19 April 2018

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.
The CSA results (scores and ratings) for the Meadow Spring project are provided in Table 7. Two of the
six project stream reaches received "Fair" ratings, while four reaches received "Poor" ratings. The reach
score trended upward as we move downstream through the project. This improvement correlated with an
increase in forested drainage area in the downstream portion of the project. S11 does not follow this trend
due to its lack of buffer and the increased sediment inputs from the upstream reaches. Overall, the upstream
project streams appear to be actively adjusting due to constant stress from surrounding livestock. The
downstream portions of the project are stable but have localized areas of erosion and deposition due to
confined upstream flows and sediment inputs. These characteristics are reflected in the poor CSA scores
throughout the project. (Table 7).
Table 7. Channel Stability Assessment Results
S2 S5 S6 S7 S9 S11 Ref. Reach
1
Watershed characteristics
11
8
11
7
8
9
8
2
Flow habit
9
8
8
7
7
8
4
3
Channel pattern
7
9
10
4
4
9
3
4
Entrenchment/channel confinement
9
9
9
7
4
6
3
5
Bed material
10
6
7
8
10
10
5
6
Bar development
9
10
10
9
2
8
5
7
Obstructions/debris jams
7
5
5
7
3
3
3
8
Bank soil texture and coherence
8
9
7
7
7
10
4
9
Average bankangle
8
10
10
7
10
10
4
10
Bank vegetation/protection
12
9
7
7
2
11
3
11
Bank cutting
7
8
9
8
5
8
4
12
Mass wasting/bank failure
8
10
8
8
7
8
2
13
Upstream distance to bridge
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Score
105
101
101
86
69
100
48
Rating
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Good
4.2.6 Vegetation
Current land use in the vicinity of the project is primarily pasture, row crop, and forest. There are low-
density residential lots, maintained vegetation, and two-lane roads also present in the area surrounding the
project.
Forested riparian areas have been intermittently cattle -grazed and lack a well-developed understory and
shrub strata. The area most closely resemble a disturbed Coastal Plain small stream swamp and are
dominated by hardwoods and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Canopy species include loblolly pine, swamp
tupelo (Nyssa biflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and various oaks
(Quercus spp.). Sub -canopy species include sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) and the main
herbaceous species are giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vivenium),
dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and in the wetter areas, common rush (Juncus effusus), awlfruit sedge
(Carex stipata), and netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 20 April 2018

4.3 Wetland Summary Information
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands
A wetland delineation was performed in November 2016. Wetland boundaries were delineated using
current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and
Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf
Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 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 (pink/black striped) (Figure 7; Table 8).
Jurisdictional wetlands are present in the enhancement and preservation areas throughout the site. The
wetlands are divided between heavily disturbed and functional. A jurisdictional determination request was
sent to the USACE on January 23, 2017 and is included in Appendix B.
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts three wetland areas within the site (Figure
9). There is a pond mapped as PUBHh (Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently Flooded
Diked/Impound) on the west end of the project. There are two large wetland areas mapped on the east end
of the project as PSS 1 C (Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Broad -Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded) and PFO 1 C
(Palustrine Forested Broad -Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded).
Table 8. Wetland Summary Information
Wetland Summary Information
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland D
Wetland E
Wetland F
Wetland G
Parameters
WA
WB
WD
WE
WF
WG
Size of
Wetland
0.12
0.76
0.22
0.11
4.83
23.09
acres
Wetland Type
PEM
PEM
PFO
PFO
PFO
PEM/PSS/PFO
Marlboro-
Mapped Soil
Norfolk sandy
Norfolk sandy
Marlboro -Cecil
Cecil
Augusta
Augusta sandy
Series
loam
loam
complex
complex
sandy loam
loam
Drainage
Well
Well
Well
Well
Somewhat
Somewhat
Class
poorlyoorl
Soil Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Status
Inclusions
Inclusions
No
No
Inclusions
Inclusions
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Source of
Freshwater
Groundwater
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Hydrology
spring
Hydrology
Hydrology
Hydrology
Hydrology
Hydrologic
N/A
Ditch
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ditches
Impairment
Native
vegetation
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Forest
Forest
Forest
community
Percent
composition
of exotic
<5%
<5%
15%
<5%
30%
<5%
invasive
vegetation
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil
In addition to the jurisdictional wetlands, areas of hydric soil were located and delineated within the project
area. The site is currently in agricultural use that is different from the historic landscape and hydrologic
regime. Past landscape/land use changes at this site includes enhanced drainage, a deeply incised channel
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 21 April 2018

through the floodplain, active livestock resulting in soil compaction and surface churning, a loss of surface
organic matter, and the change of the normal reduction cycle characteristic of wetlands to an oxidation
cycle. The construction of a farm pond within the narrow drainage way has severely altered the surrounding
landscape and drainage, creating a discontinuity of the natural drainage. Soil borings within the project
boundary exhibited hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface throughout the natural drain
way.
Outside of the NRCS map suitable hydric soil was identified that that extend into the concave nearly level
landform west of the pond dam. Around the pond is evidence of disturbance and spoil over the natural soil
surface extending beyond the limits of the pond and dam. Where excavated spoil is not spread too thick
hydric indicators within 13 inches are observed like those found throughout the drainage way. The dam
structure and inundated pond areas were not investigated but because of the landscape position and presence
of hydric soil above and below it is likely that the pond and dam are underlain by a hydric soil.
Soils examined within the project area typically have thin dark sandy or loamy surface textures with a gray
subsoil ranging from sandy loam to sandy clay. The improved drainage from the incised channel has
disturbed hydric characteristics in the surface and modification of subsurface indicators was observed.
Many mottle features in the upper 10 inches appear to be relict having sharp boundaries at the edge of the
mottle instead of a diffuse boundary usually observed in active wetland process. The reduced hydroperiod
allows increased mineral oxidation to occur within the matric and blur some of the typical indicators
expected. Hydric Soil Indicators are still present within most areas of the floodplain. The indicators present
are the 173 -Depleted Matrix, 176 -Redox Dark Surface, and 178 -Redox Depressions. 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
There are various regulatory considerations that were taken into consideration. Documentation of
correspondence regarding any regulatory consideration can be found in Appendix B.
Table 9. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
No
Appendix B
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
No
Appendix B
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.4.3; Appendix B
National Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.4.3; Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act/Coastal
Area Management Act
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N/A
N/A
N/A
Magnuson -Stevens Act - Essential Fisheries
Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities
There are no major constraints to construction of the Site. There is one utility crossing between S6 and ST
There is also a timber road that crosses Reach ST
4.4.2 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass
Reaches S7, S9, S11 and S12 are located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE) but outside of
the floodway of the Neuse River (Figure 8). Grading activities are proposed within the Neuse River
floodway for the wetland enhancement portion of the project. These grading activities will be limited in
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 22 April 2018

size and will result in no net increase of fill within the floodway. This information was conveyed to the
Floodplain Administrators of both Johnston County and the Town of Smithfield. It was agreed that the
impacts were insignificant and could not be accurately modeled. Therefore, a No -Rise or CLOMR will
likely not be required for this project. Hydrologic trespass is a not a concern for this project. While
designing the Meadow Spring project, appropriate measures were taken to eliminate hydrologic trespass of
the adjacent agricultural fields. The adjacent land use will not be affected by the proposed design, and no
detrimental impacts are expected beyond the easement limits. RES will verify final FEMA coordination in
the permitting phase of the project.
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation
4.4.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under provisions
of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) database (accessed 11 May 2016) lists four endangered species for Johnston County, North
Carolina: Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana),
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) and
prohibits take of bald and golden eagles. In order for restoration activities to occur, an estimated vegetation
clearing of 9 acres will occur, which is an expected 150 trees to be removed. However, these trees will be
replanted to restore the plant community. However, no protected species or potential habitat for protected
species was observed during preliminary site evaluations.
In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was consulted
to determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species are mapped within one mile of
the project Site. Results from NHP indicated that there are six known occurrences within a one -mile radius
of the project area. The NHP database shows an occurrence of Kidney Sedge (Carex reniformis) historically
mapped in 1949. Also within the Neuse River the database has documented occurrences of the Triangle
floater (Alasmidonta undulata), Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiate), and Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio
roanokensis) which were mapped in 2005 and 2010. The fifth occurrence is the Two -spotted Skipper which
is a species of butterfly. The occurrence was mapped on the other side of the Neuse River in 2000. The last
occurrence is the Oak Toad which was last observed in 1969. Based on initial site investigations, no impacts
to federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
The proposed project offers some potential to greatly benefit the downstream water quality within the Upper
Neuse sub -basin. RES submitted a request to USFWS for review and comments on the proposed Meadow
Spring Project on May 5, 2017 regarding any potential impacts to threatened and endangered species. A
response letter from the USFWS dated November 3, 2016 indicated that minimal adverse impacts to fish
and wildlife resources are expected and the proposed project could greatly benefit the downstream water
quality. USFWS encouraged catching and removing non-native fish that currently reside in the pond onsite
(proposed for removal), prior to breaching the dam and connecting this feature with the tributary system to
reduce impacts to native aquatic species downstream. Documentation is included in Appendix B.
4.4.3.1 Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service (accessed 29
March 2017) database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources in
the proposed project area. RES submitted a request to the NC SHPO to search records to determine the
presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that may be affected by the
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site on May 5, 2017. In a response letter dated November 28, 2016, the SHPO
stated they were, "aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project". Documentation
is included in Appendix B.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 23 April 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). Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the project
area, as based on the Function -Based Framework are outlined in Table 10.
Geology Climate
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 watershed 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 Meadow Spring 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 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 within the project area, as based on the
Function -Based Framework are outlined in Table 10.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 24 April 2018

5.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
5.1.1 Hydrology
According to the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework, hydrology is defined as the transport of water
from the watershed to the channel. All project streams already are characterized as perennial or intermittent
streams, meaning they already function under all hydrologic parameters. The project does intend to improve
wetland groundwater hydrology by increasing flood events and connectivity to the stream through
floodplain grading and vegetation stabilization.
5.1.2 Hydraulic
The hydraulic function of the Pyramid Framework is defined as the transport of water in the channel, on
the floodplain, and through sediments. Perhaps the greatest potential uplift at the Site will be achieved
through establishing healthy floodplain connectivity. Several of the reaches at this site do not have
functioning floodplain connectivity or stable flow dynamics. Reaches in which floodplain connectivity is
not functioning or functioning at risk will be improved 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 through the placement of instream structures that address the energy and erosive power
of the water so that a stable flow is achieved post -project. Some reaches will include filling the stream
channel to a higher elevation so that it elevates shallow groundwater depths and increases floodplain access
or backfilling the existing stream and meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley. This will
help in the possibility of restoring the hyporheic zone once the water table is raised back to the floodplain.
Other actions include the removal of existing dam embankments and restoring hydrology to historically
drained wetlands.
5.1.3 Geomorphology
Geomorphology, as defined within the Pyramid Framework, is the transport of wood and sediment to create
bed forms and dynamic equilibrium. Sediment transport will be improved in reaches that currently function -
at -risk or not functioning by designing channels on restoration reaches that are sinuous and sized so that
water velocities are maintained in a stable manor that allows for sediment to move efficiently through the
system. In -stream structures and bank stabilization measures will be added to improve stream
geomorphology in functioning at risk or nonfunctioning stream reaches. Large woody debris transport and
storage will be improved through the use of woody debris such as log vanes, root wads, log weirs, and log
toes for in -stream structures on reaches with functioning at risk or not functioning geomorphology. The
reaches that are restored or enhanced are also designed to accumulate woody debris by having defined
shallow riffles where cobble catches and holds woody debris and leaf packs. For riparian buffers that are
not functioning or functioning at risk, they will be planted out to a minimum of 50 feet to improve the
riparian vegetation to functioning levels. Reaches in the lower half of the project have generally more
functioning geomorphology and therefore will only include some revegetation where necessary. The
wetland geomorphology will be improved by raising stream bed elevations, plugging surface ditches, and
planting native wetland plant species. Bed form diversity will be improved in restoration areas by using a
natural riffle pool sequence from the reference reach to inform design of functioning riffle pool sequences.
This bed form diversity will also further improve aquatic habitat. All of these functional parameters are
interconnected and ultimately depend on each other in order to function properly. Therefore, by focusing
improvements to these parameters, the restored channels will achieve dynamic equilibrium and provide
maximum geomorphic functional uplift.
5.1.4 Physiochemical
The Pyramid Framework defines the physicochemical category as temperature and oxygen regulation and
the processing of organic matter and nutrients. Although this project would support the overarching goal in
the Neuse RBRP to promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas, it is difficult to measure
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 25 April 2018

nutrient and sediment reduction in this restoration because they can be affected by so many variables.
However, monitoring of these variables at this project level will be conducted to help improve the
understanding of detection of benefit. 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.
Additional benefits may also come from functional uplift of the lower level stream functions (hydraulics
and geomorphology), which will reduce sediment and nutrients in the system through bank stabilization
and reforesting. 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 dissolved oxygen is increased. Secondly, log structures placed
in the stream will create aeration zones where oxygen dissolves more readily than in a stagnant air -water
surface exchange. The processing of organic matter will improve once healthy riffles are shallow enough
to catch twigs and branches that then retain leaves. Many of these physiochemical benefits occur slowly
over time and are dependent on multiple variables within the stream ecosystem. Therefore, it is not practical
or feasible to directly measure these parameters within the monitoring time -frame of this project. With that
said, it is logical to use existing riparian buffer and visual performance standards to demonstrate the positive
correlation between geomorphic parameters and physicochemical parameters. For example, as riparian
buffer trees grow, as represented in annual monitoring reports, it is anticipated that canopy cover is actively
shading the stream channel and reducing water temperature. In order to determine whether there is any
detectable benefit to the water quality from this Project, monitoring of these variables will be conducted
with the understanding that these indicators are inherently sensitive to changes that occur anywhere within
the watershed draining to the mitigation project or detection of benefit could take longer than the required
monitoring period of the project.
5.1.5 Biology
The highest category of the Pyramid Framework is biology and is defined as the biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic and terrestrial life, specifically referring to animals. As mentioned for the
physiochemical stream function, it will be difficult to measure the functional uplift of the biological
functions at this site within the monitoring period of the project. However, since the life histories of many
species likely to benefit from stream and wetland restoration are depending on all the lower -level functions
(Hydrology, Hydraulics, Geomorphology, and Physicochemical), benefit to biology over time and in
combination with other projects within the watershed is anticipated. Some specific restoration and
enhancement activities will also benefit biology indirectly, such as the creation of riffles and pools. Riffles
provide habitat for all micro and macroscopic creatures, pools provide habitat for most larger aquatic
creatures. In order to determine whether there is any detectable benefit to the macroinvertebrates from this
Project, monitoring of the macroinvertebrates will be conducted with the understanding that these indicators
are inherently sensitive to changes that occur anywhere within the watershed draining to the mitigation
project or detection of benefit could take longer than the required monitoring period of the project.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 26 April 2018

Table 10. Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 27 April 2018
Existing Rating /
Level
Function
Goal
Functional Parameter
Projected Rating
Objective
Measurement Method
Reach
Channel -Forming Discharge
Hydrology
to transport water from
Flow Duration
I
Transport of water
the watershed to the
Precipitation/Runoff Relationship
F/F
NA
NM
from the watershed
channel in a non-erosive
(All Reaches)
to the channel
manner
Flow Duration
Flood Frequency
Hydraulic
Flood Bank Connectivity
NF/F (S5)
Improve flood bank connectivity
Cross sections
Transport of water
by reducing bank height ratios
Crest gauges
in the channel, on
to transport water in a
Flow Dynamics amics
FAR/F
and increase entrenchment ratios
Wetland
the floodplain, and
stable non-erosive
(S1, S2, S5, S6A,
gauges
through the
manner
Groundwater/Surface water
B S7 S9 S11
S6 )
Improve
rove wetland saturation
Bank Height Ratio
sediments
exchange
g
F/F (S12, S13)
/hydroperiods to within soil series
thresholds
Entrenchment Ratio
Sediment Transport
Large Woody Debris (LWD)
NF/HF
Reduce erosion rates and channel
As -built stream profile
Geomorpholo2
to create stable channels
Channel Evolution
(S2, S5, S6A, S613)
stability to reference reach
Cross sections
Transport of wood
that achieve healthy
Lateral Stability
conditions
3
and sediment to
dynamic equilibrium and
FARMF (S1, S11)
Visual monitoring
create diverse
Provide suitable habitat
Riparian Vegetation
Improve bedform diversity (pool
bedforms and
for life
Bedform Diversity
F/F (S 12 S 13)
spacing, percent riffles etc)
Stream walks
dynamic equilibrium
Bed Material Characterization
F/HF (S7, S9)
Increase buffer width to 50 feet
Vegetation plots
Sinuosity
to achieve appropriate
Improve stream temperature
Physiochemical
levels for water
Water Temperature
regulation through introduction of
Continuous water quality
Temperature and
temperature, dissolved
Nutrient load
canopy
monitoring devices
4
oxygen regulation;
oxygen, and other
NF/FAR
processing of
nutrients including but
Dissolved Oxygen
(All Reaches)
Decrease nutrient loading through
Vegetation plots
organic matter and
not limited to Nitrogen
Water Quality
filtration of planted riparian
nutrients
and Phosphorus
buffer, and removing livestock
Visual Monitoring
from the riparian areas
Microbial Communities
Biolo2
to achieve functionals h
Macrophyte Communities
Improve aquatic habitat through
Macroinvertebrate sampling
Biodiversity and life
in levels 1-4 to support
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
NF/FAR
the installation of habitat features,
Vegetation plots
histories of aquatic
the life histories of
(All Reaches)
construction of pools at varying
life histories and
aquatic and riparian
Fish Communities
depths, and planting the riparian
Visual monitoring of in -
riparian life
plants and animals
Landscape Connectivity
buffer
stream habitat features
Not Measured (NM); Not Functioning (NF); Functioning -at -risk (FAR); Functioning (F); Highly Functioning (HF)
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 27 April 2018

5.2 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
5.2.1 Hydrology
According to the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework, hydrology is defined as the transport of water
from the watershed to the channel. All project streams already are characterized as perennial or intermittent
streams, meaning they already function under all hydrologic parameters. The project does intend to improve
wetland groundwater hydrology by increasing flood events and connectivity to the stream through
floodplain grading and vegetation stabilization.
5.2.2 Hydraulic
The hydraulic function of the Pyramid Framework is defined as the transport of water in the channel, on
the floodplain, and through sediments. Perhaps the greatest potential uplift at the Site will be achieved
through establishing healthy floodplain connectivity. Several of the reaches at this site do not have
functioning floodplain connectivity or stable flow dynamics. Reaches in which floodplain connectivity is
not functioning or functioning at risk will be improved 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 through the placement of instream structures that address the energy and erosive power
of the water so that a stable flow is achieved post -project. Some reaches will include filling the stream
channel to a higher elevation so that it elevates shallow groundwater depths and increases floodplain access
or backfilling the existing stream and meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley. This will
help in the possibility of restoring the hyporheic zone once the water table is raised back to the floodplain.
Other actions include the removal of existing dam embankments and restoring hydrology to historically
drained wetlands.
5.2.3 Geomorphology
Geomorphology, as defined within the Pyramid Framework, is the transport of wood and sediment to create
bed forms and dynamic equilibrium. Sediment transport will be improved in reaches that currently function -
at -risk or not functioning by designing channels on restoration reaches that are sinuous and sized so that
water velocities are maintained in a stable manor that allows for sediment to move efficiently through the
system. In -stream structures and bank stabilization measures will be added to improve stream
geomorphology in functioning at risk or nonfunctioning stream reaches. Large woody debris transport and
storage will be improved through the use of woody debris such as log vanes, root wads, log weirs, and log
toes for in -stream structures on reaches with functioning at risk or not functioning geomorphology. The
reaches that are restored or enhanced are also designed to accumulate woody debris by having defined
shallow riffles where cobble catches and holds woody debris and leaf packs. For riparian buffers that are
not functioning or functioning at risk, they will be planted out to a minimum of 50 feet to improve the
riparian vegetation to functioning levels. Reaches in the lower half of the project have generally more
functioning geomorphology and therefore will only include some revegetation where necessary. The
wetland geomorphology will be improved by raising stream bed elevations, plugging surface ditches, and
planting native wetland plant species. Bed form diversity will be improved in restoration areas by using a
natural riffle pool sequence from the reference reach to inform design of functioning riffle pool sequences.
This bed form diversity will also further improve aquatic habitat. All of these functional parameters are
interconnected and ultimately depend on each other in order to function properly. Therefore, by focusing
improvements to these parameters, the restored channels will achieve dynamic equilibrium and provide
maximum geomorphic functional uplift.
5.2.4 Physiochemical
The Pyramid Framework defines the physicochemical category as temperature and oxygen regulation and
the processing of organic matter and nutrients. Although this project would support the overarching goal in
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 28 April 2018

the Neuse RBRP to promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas, it is difficult to measure
nutrient and sediment reduction in this restoration because they can be affected by so many variables.
However, monitoring of these variables at this project level will be conducted to help improve the
understanding of detection of benefit. 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.
Additional benefits may also come from functional uplift of the lower level stream functions (hydraulics
and geomorphology), which will reduce sediment and nutrients in the system through bank stabilization
and reforesting. 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 dissolved oxygen is increased. Secondly, log structures placed
in the stream will create aeration zones where oxygen dissolves more readily than in a stagnant air -water
surface exchange. The processing of organic matter will improve once healthy riffles are shallow enough
to catch twigs and branches that then retain leaves. Many of these physiochemical benefits occur slowly
over time and are dependent on multiple variables within the stream ecosystem. Therefore, it is not practical
or feasible to directly measure these parameters within the monitoring time -frame of this project. With that
said, it is logical to use existing riparian buffer and visual performance standards to demonstrate the positive
correlation between geomorphic parameters and physicochemical parameters. For example, as riparian
buffer trees grow, as represented in annual monitoring reports, it is anticipated that canopy cover is actively
shading the stream channel and reducing water temperature. In order to determine whether there is any
detectable benefit to the water quality from this Project, monitoring of these variables will be conducted
with the understanding that these indicators are inherently sensitive to changes that occur anywhere within
the watershed draining to the mitigation project or detection of benefit could take longer than the required
monitoring period of the project.
5.2.5 Biology
The highest category of the Pyramid Framework is biology and is defined as the biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic and terrestrial life, specifically referring to animals. As mentioned for the
physiochemical stream function, it will be difficult to measure the functional uplift of the biological
functions at this site within the monitoring period of the project. However, since the life histories of many
species likely to benefit from stream and wetland restoration are depending on all the lower -level functions
(Hydrology, Hydraulics, Geomorphology, and Physicochemical), benefit to biology over time and in
combination with other projects within the watershed is anticipated. Some specific restoration and
enhancement activities will also benefit biology indirectly, such as the creation of riffles and pools. Riffles
provide habitat for all micro and macroscopic creatures, pools provide habitat for most larger aquatic
creatures. In order to determine whether there is any detectable benefit to the macroinvertebrates from this
Project, monitoring of the macroinvertebrates will be conducted with the understanding that these indicators
are inherently sensitive to changes that occur anywhere within the watershed draining to the mitigation
project or detection of benefit could take longer than the required monitoring period of the project.
6 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's maximum functional uplift using a Function Based
Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Site. 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. These goals clearly address the
degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors in
the 2010 Neuse RBRP.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 29 April 2018

Project goals include:
• Improve water quality within the restored channel reaches and downstream watercourses by
reducing sediment and nutrient loads, and increasing dissolved oxygen levels,
• Improve flood flow attenuation on-site and downstream by allowing for overbanks flows and
connection to the active floodplain,
• Improve ecological processes by reducing water temperature, improving terrestrial and aquatic
habitat, and restoring a native plant community, and
• Preserve high quality stream and wetland resources;
Project goals will be addressed through the following objectives:
• Design and construct stable stream channels with appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile based
on reference reach conditions.
• Exclude livestock permanently from streams and their associated buffers as well as surrounding
wetlands.
• Reduce bank height ratios to less than 1.2 and increase entrenchment ratio to greater than 2.2 in
accordance to the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update
Guidance.
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least fifty feet on both sides of the channel along the project
reaches with an appropriate riparian plant community.
• Re-establish, rehabilitate, and enhance riparian wetlands by raising stream bed elevations, plugging
surface ditches, and planting native wetland plant species in order to maintain appropriate soil series
saturation/hydroperiod thresholds during the growing season.
• Preserve and enhance of hydrology in existing riparian wetland seeps.
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Site.
• Remove invasive species from riparian buffer and wetland areas to support the colonization and
survival of native riparian buffer species.
The project goals are designed to support the watershed goals outlined in the 2010 Neuse RBRP but are
constrained to our project boundaries. While we are restoring habitat and streams to stable and effective
conditions that achieve our goals within the project parcels, we are unable to influence the effect of poor
riparian buffers and livestock impact in other areas within the watershed. However, through this Project's
connectivity with other projects in the watershed and responsible stewardship of current restoration
projects, overall watershed functionality and health will improve to meet the 2010 Neuse RBRP goals.
7 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 only be revised to be consistent
with the as -built condition if there is a large discrepancy. This will be approved by the USACE.
Table 11. Mitigation Credits
The Meadow Spring Site Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Totals
1 5,737
16.82
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 30 April 2018

Table 12a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation
* Additional credits generated based on the added stream water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring
Table 12b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation
Proposed
Stream Mitigation
Total
Mitigation
Proposed
Reach
Mitigation Type
Proposed
Length (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Additional
Base SMUs SMUs*
S1
Enhancement II
250
2.5:1
100
2
S2
Enhancement I
500
1.5:1
333
7
S5
P 1 / P2 Restoration
231
1:1
231
5
S6A
P1 Restoration
1,350
1:1
1,350
27
S613
P1 Restoration
1,176
1:1
1,176
24
S613
Enhancement I
167
1.5:1
111
2
S7
Enhancement I
990
1.5:1
660
13
S7
Enhancement 1
440
1.5:1
293
6
S9
Enhancement 111
675
7.5:1
90
2
S11
P1 Restoration
1,045
1:1
1,045
21
S12
Preservation
380
10:1
38
0
S13
Preservation
454
10:1
45
0
Total
7,658 1
5,473
1 109
Non -Standard Buffer Width
Adjustment
154
Total Adjusted SMUs
5,737
* Additional credits generated based on the added stream water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring
Table 12b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation
Proposed
Total
Mitigation
Mitigation Type
WMUs
Wetland
Acres
Ratio
WB
Rehabilitation
0.95
1.5:1
0.63
WD
Preservation
0.03
No Credit
No
Credit
WE
Preservation
0.09
No Credit
No
Credit
WF -A
Preservation
2.00
No Credit
No
Credit
WF -B
Enhancement
2.02
3:1
0.67
WG
Enhancement
21.71
3:1
7.24
WH
Re-establishment
6.84
1:1
6.84
WI
Re-establishment
2.87
2:1
1.44
Total
36.51
16.82
7.1 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths
Buffer measurements for additional credit were made horizontally, beginning from the edge of the wetted
perimeter and extending to the nearest edge of the wooded buffer in any direction. Due to the minimum
required widths, additional credit was not generated until a stream is at least 75 feet inside the edge of the
buffer. Areas within the project that are being used to generate additional credit are solely being used for
the generation of stream mitigation credits, and will not be used for the generation of any other credit type
(i.e., the same square foot of buffer cannot be used to generate wetland credit, nutrient offset credits or state
buffer credits). Area within a buffer may only be used to provide credit for one stream (i.e., where buffers
exist between two project streams, these areas may only be counted toward credit for only one of the
streams, and areas within the minimum required buffer of any creditable stream may not be used for
additional credit for any other stream).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 31 April 2018

hi order to calculate credit adjustments, each side of the stream was evaluated separately. The lengths of
individual reaches were multiplied by the mitigation ratio to yield stream credits, and the results were then
adjusted by the increase or decrease percentage indicated in Table 12. Finally, the resulting credit amounts
were totaled for each side of the stream and then divided by two to yield the final number of credits. Detailed
credit calculations are shown in Figure 11a and 11b.
Table 13. Stream Mitigation Credit Adjustments for Non-standard Buffer Widths
Mountain Counties
Piedmont and Coastal Plain Counties
Buffer Width
Adjustment to
Stream Credit
Buffer Width
Adjustment to
Stream Credit
Less than 15 feet
-100%
Less than 15 feet
-100%
15 to < 20 feet
-50%
15 to < 20 feet
-50%
20 to < 25 feet
-30%
20 to < 25 feet
-40%
25 to < 30 feet
-15%
25 to < 30 feet
-30%
30 to < 50 feet
0%
30 to < 35 feet
-20%
50 to < 75 feet
+9%
35 to < 40 feet
-15%
75 to < 100 feet
+16%
40 to < 45 feet
-10%
100 to < 125 feet
+22%
45 to < 50 feet
-5%
125 to < 150 feet
+27%
50 to < 75 feet
0%
150 feet or Greater
+30%
75 to < 100 feet
+7%
100 to < 125 feet
+12%
125 to < 150 feet
+16%
150 feet or greater
+20%
7.2 Credit Calculations for Macroinvertebrate and Water Quality Monitoring
Although water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring is not required, this project will be monitor both
in accordance with the protocols specified in the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update in order to generate an additional two percent credit. Credit will be
generated on all reaches since not only the restoration and enhancement treatments are expected to have
habitat uplift but also the preservation reaches due to the restoration and enhancement treatments occurring
upstream.
8 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the mitigation plan for the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
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 and Table 13b.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 32 April 2018

Table 14a. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Interim
Total
Release
Credit Release Activity
Release
Total Released
Milestone
I
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.
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
60%
performance standards are being met.
6*
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
65%
performance standards are being met.
(75%**)
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
°
10%
75%
erformance standards are beingmet.
85%**
g*
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
80%
performance standards are being met.
(90%**)
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
90%
9
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
(100%**)
has received close-out approval.
*Vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these years unless otherwise
required by the Mitigation Plan or the IRT
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Table 14b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Interim
Total
Release
Credit Release Activity
Release
Released
Milestone
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.
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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 33 April 2018

8.1 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 the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE
b) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
c) The mitigation bank site must be secured
d) Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan
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.
8.2 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.
9 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
9.1 Reference Stream Studies
9.1.1 Target Reference Conditions
The restoration portions of the project 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, 2012, Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region — Inner Coastal Plain,
• Similar drainage area,
• 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 streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 34 April 2018

9.1.1.1 Reference Site Search Methodology
All the parameters used in Section 4.2 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 on 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 located
near the intersection of Little Divine Road and Howard Road. Located approximately five miles northeast
of the project site the reference reach is in the wooded area east of Howard Road.
9.1.1.2 Reference Watershed Characterization
The reference stream flows west to east and is the most downstream portion of an unnamed tributary that
drains to Buffalo Creek. The reach that was surveyed and analyzed is approximately 375 feet long. The
drainage area for the unnamed tributary is 0.84 square miles (540 acres). The land use in the watershed is
characterized by mostly mixed pines and hardwoods (40 percent), cultivated row crops (29 percent),
residential (18 percent), and managed herbaceous cover/pasture land (eight percent), pine plantations (four
percent), and open water (one percent).
The current State classification for reference reach is undefined, but the tributary runs into Buffalo Creek.
Buffalo Creek is defined as Class C NSW (NCDENR 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. Buffalo Creek is listed on the 2012 303d list for impaired waters
(NCDENR 2012b). It is impaired for aquatic use, receiving a Fair Bioclassification rating for benthic
ecological/biological integrity.
9.1.1.3 Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for the reference site.
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
17 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). See Section 9.3.1.1 for a more detailed description of the hydrologic
analyses performed for this project.
9.1.1.4 Reference Channel Morphology
In comparison to the restoration reaches, the reference reach is approximately the same size to slightly
larger than Reaches S5, S6 and S11 when comparing pattern, dimension and profile, which is the reason
for using a scaling factor for the design. The scaling factor is based on the difference in bankfull width of
the reference channel. The new reach would then have the necessary dimensions of that of either a smaller
or larger stream corresponding to differences in drainage area. The stream was typically eight to ten feet
wide and one to two feet deep. The cross sectional area was typically around eleven square feet with a width
to depth ratio around eight.
9.1.1.5 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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 35 April 2018

ratings) for the reference reach are provided above in Table 7 (Section 4.2.5). The reference reach received
a "Good" rating as the channel demonstrates a stable meandering pattern and a well vegetated riparian
buffer.
9.1.1.6 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.
9.1.1.7 Reference Riparian Vegetation
The reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a bottomland hardwood forest community. This
community was determined to have had past disturbance altering the species composition. Common species
include red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styrac flua), and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora). Some invasive species are present, most notably Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
It is anticipated that a local seed source for high dispersal species is present at the Meadow Spring site and
will disperse across much of the project. 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 9.2.3). Hardwood species typical
of the target community were observed in adjacent and nearby communities, and were judged to be more
appropriate for this site.
9.2 Design Parameters
9.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach
Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along the tributaries at the Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation
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 a 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 Meadow Spring Site will include Priority I/Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement
Level II, Enhancement Level III and Buffer Enhancement. 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 impoundment 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 on both sides of the existing channel.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 36 April 2018

The Meadow Spring 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 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,
excavated floodplains, and in -stream structures such as rock a -vanes, log sills, brush toes, log j -hooks, log
toes, and 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), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum),
silky willow (Salix sericea), and Cottonwood (pupulus deltoides).
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.
The Meadow Spring Site has been broken into the following design reaches:
• Reach S1 (STA 03+50 to STA 06+00) — Reach beginning at northwestern limits of the project
flowing southeast to Reach S2 totaling 250 linear feet of Enhancement Level II. Row crops and
active pasture are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S2 (STA 06+00 to STA 11+00) — Reach begins at the downstream end of Reach Sl and
flows southeast through active pasture to Reach S6A. Reach S2 totals 500 linear feet of
Enhancement Level I. Active pasture and row crops surround this reach.
• Reach S5 (STA 00+76 to STA 03+07) —Reach begins north of Reach S6A and flows south through
active pasture to a confluence with Reach S6A totaling 231 linear feet of Priority I and II
Restoration. Active pasture and maintained lawn surround this reach.
• Reach S6A (STA 11+00 to STA 24+50) —Reach begins at the downstream end of Reach S2 and
flows east through active pasture, flows adjacent to a farm pond and ends at a confluence with
Reach S5. Reach S6A totals 1,350 linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 37 April 2018

• Reach SO — Section 1 (STA 24+50 to STA 36+26) — Reach begins at the confluence of Reach
S5 and S6A flowing east to the second section of Reach S6B. Reach SO -Section 1 totals 1,176
linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
• Reach SO — Section 2 (STA 36+26 to STA 37+93) — Reach begins at the downstream end of
Reach 6B -Section 1 and flows east to the Duke Energy right-of-way. Reach S6B-Section 2 totals
165 linear feet of Enhancement Level I.
• Reach S7 (STA 38+80 to STA 53+80) — Reach beginning downstream of the Duke Energy right-
of-way and flows south to Reach S9 totaling 1,430 linear feet of Enhancement Level I. A 70 -linear
foot easement break is located in this reach to accommodate a proposed farm crossing. Hardwood
forests and active pasture are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S9 (STA 53+80 to STA 60+55) — Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach S7 and
flowing south to Reach S 11 totaling 675 linear feet of Enhancement Level III. Hardwood forests
and active hog lagoons are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S11 (STA 60+55 to STA 71+00) — Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach S9
and flows southeast to Reach S12 totaling 1,045 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. Hardwood
forests and grassed fields are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S12 (STA 71+00 to STA 74+80) —Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach S11
and flows southeast toward the Neuse River floodway totaling 38 linear feet of Preservation.
Hardwood forests are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S13 (STA 9+69 to STA 14+23) -Reach beginning downstream of the large wetland slough
along the Neuse River floodplain totaling 45 of Preservation.
Reaches S1, S2, S6A, S6B, S7, S9, S11, S12 and S13
A combination of Priority I and Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II,
Enhancement Level III, and Preservation is proposed along the primary project channel to address existing
impairments, particularly floodplain dislocation, bank erosion, nutrient input and buffer degradation. The
watershed that drains to the upper end of the project is approximately 36 acres, and land use is primarily
agricultural.
Enhancement Level II is proposed for Reach Sl, beginning at the northern limits of the proposed
conservation easement. The channel is stable throughout, except for a few minor areas of erosion, and
provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian buffer is severely degraded with row crops and active
pasture directly adjacent to the channel. The project will involve revegetating the buffer with native
vegetation for a minimum 50 -foot width.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S2 which will include stabilization of localized erosion by
installing log cross vanes and sills. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along the reach and will
be 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
Priority I and II Restoration is proposed for Reach S5 to address historic straightening, buffer degradation
and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 38 April 2018

natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and restoring
hydrology to historically drained wetlands. 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. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 36 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S6A to address historic straightening, buffer degradation,
impoundment, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel
within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain,
removing the existing dam embankment and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. 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. The drainage area at the downstream end
of the reach is 97 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for the upstream portion of Reach S613 to address historic straightening,
buffer degradation, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed
channel within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain,
and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. 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. The drainage area at the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for the downstream portion of Reach 6B which will include stabilization
of localized erosion by installing log sills, increasing radius of curvature, regrading point bars, removal of
invasive vegetation and buffer restoration. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along the reach
and will be planted with native riparian vegetation. A 70 -foot easement break is proposed for an existing
utility easement at the end of S613. The drainage area at the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S7 to address channel entrenchment, bank -cutting, and invasive
vegetation. The design approach will include stabilization of localized erosion by installing log vanes, log
sills, brush toes, and regrading grading point bars. A well-established buffer already exists. A 68 -foot
easement break is proposed for an existing ford crossing. The drainage area at the downstream end of the
reach is 278 acres.
Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach S9 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
improvements, and channel preservation. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along the reach
and will be planted with native riparian vegetation. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach
is 337 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S 11 to address historic straightening, entrenchment and buffer
degradation. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley,
backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and improving hydrology to
historically impacted wetlands. 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.
The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 379 acres.
Preservation is proposed for Reach S12 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
preservation, and channel preservation. This channel will be protected from future impacts.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 39 April 2018

Preservation is proposed for Reach S13 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
preservation, and channel preservation. This channel will be protected from future impacts.
9.2.1.1 Design Discharge
Based upon the hydrologic analyses described below, design discharges were selected that fall between
model results for the 1.0 -year and 2.0 -year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis for each reach. The selected
flows for the restoration reaches are 4 ft3/s, 3 ft3/s, 7 ft3/s, 11 ft3/s, and 15 ft3/s for Reaches S2, S5, S6A,
S613, and S11, respectively. 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 1.0 -year and 2.0 -year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis,
• The results of the 1.0 -year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis are slightly higher than the NC
regional curve (Doll et al., 2003), and
• Selecting design discharges around the 1.5 -year storm events allows frequent inundation of the
adjacent floodplain.
9.2.1.2 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 Meadow Spring 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. Since
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.
1. The appropriate bankfull cross-sectional area (CSA) of each design reach was calculated using an
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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 40 April 2018

3. The scaling factor is determined from the ratio of the design top width to the analog top width
(Table 14). For this project, several cross-sections and planform geometry were measured at the
analog site, resulting in an average width of 9.9 feet.
4. 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.
Table 15. Scaling Factors
Reach
Drainage
Area (ac)
Proposed Bankfull
CSA (ft)
Design
Top Width (ft)
Analog Reach
Top Width (ft)
Scaling
Factor
S2
46
3.2
5.4
9.9
0.55
S5
36
2.6
4.8
9.9
0.48
S6A
97
5.3
7
9.9
0.71
S613
171
7.8
8.4
9.9
0.85
S11
379
10.2
9.6
9.9
0.97
9.2.1.3 Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for shallows and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix E. The
cross-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.
9.2.1.4 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.
9.2.1.5 Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix E. 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. A mix of rock and
log structures will be utilized in the design to control grade, divert flows, and provide additional habitat
diversity and stability.
9.2.1.6 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, log structures will be utilized intermittently along Reaches S5, S6A, 5613, and S 11
to provide increased stability and habitat. Other bank stability measures include the installation of live
stakes, log sills, brush toes, log vanes, and log toes. Typical details for proposed in -stream structures and
revetments are in Appendix E.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 41 April 2018

Woody debris will be placed throughout the channel at locations and at a frequency that is similar to those
observed in the analog reaches. Woody habitat features installed will include dead brush, 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.
9.2.2 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
The Meadow Spring 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 16.82 WMUs through a
combination of wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement.
Because of the sites observed soil characteristics and landscape position, a combination of wetland re-
establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement is proposed. In wetlands WH, the non jurisdictional area,
hydrologic restoration, at a credit ratio of 1:1, will be accomplished by plugging the existing incised channel
to restrict drainage and allowing a natural hydroperiod to return. In addition, re -constructing a stream
channel at a higher bed elevation in the natural valley, backfilling to create shallow depressions within the
old channel, and the removal of spoil from pond excavation along the floodplains will aid in the restoration
of a natural floodplain surface relative to the surrounding landscape. Due to compaction and long term
agricultural use, a shallow ripping of the surface along the contour to a depth of eight to ten inches is called
for to create adequate porosity for infiltration and storage, provide microtopographic relief, and improve
vegetative survival and growth.
As part of the wetland re-establishment in wetland WI, at a credit ratio of 2:1, the pond will be removed.
The construction of a farm pond has altered surface drainage and placed spoil across the floodplain. The
stream will be reconnected to the floodplain and in addition to out of bank events the large perennial spring
will serve as a source for hydrology for the re-established wetlands. Retention and storage within the
floodplain will be returned to a natural state having an increased hydroperiod.
In wetland WF -B, a credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for wetland enhancement. This wetland has been
impacted by channel incision and active management for agriculture in the past. The wetland mitigation
treatment will primarily be reconnection of the stream to the floodplain and replanting disturbed areas.
These activities should result in a much healthier, better functioning wetland.
In wetland WG, the large disturbed Neuse River floodplain area, a credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for wetland
enhancement. This wetland has been actively managed for agriculture and waterfowl through drainage
manipulations and tree clearing. The wetland mitigation treatment will primarily be re -planting the
disturbed areas, plugging the main ditch, and removing existing berms within the wetland. These activities
will result in a large floodplain slough with a diversity of microhabitats.
Given the observed soil characteristics indicating past wetland hydrology, and because of favorable
landscape position, the presence of a restrictive horizon, and the potential source for restoring hydrologic
inputs, this site appears suitable for successful hydrologic wetland restoration.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 42 April 2018

9.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration
9.2.3.1 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. Dominant species 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. 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 can be found in Table 15. In order
for restoration activities to occur, an estimated vegetation clearing of nine acres will occur, which is an
expected 150 trees to be removed. However, these trees will be replanted to restore the plant community.
The restoration of plant communities along the Site will provide stabilization and diversity. For rapid
stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), silky dogwood, cottonwood (Populus
deltoides), silky willow (Salix sericea), and black willow (Salix nigra) 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 and silky
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 from the top of bank, creating a three-foot section along the top of bank. The live stakes
will be spaced one per three linear foot 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 16a. Proposed Plant List
Planting Zone 1- Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Acres: 22.8
Species
Common Name
Spacing
(ft)
Unit Type
% of Total Species
Composition
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
9x6
Bare root
15
Taxodium distichum
Bald cypress
9x6
Bare root
15
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
9x6
Bare root
15
Betula nigra
River birch
9x6
Bare root
15
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
9x6
Bare root
15
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
9x6
Bare root
10
Quercus lyrata
Overcup oak
9x6
Bare root
10
Asimina triloba
Paw Paw
9x6
Bare root
5
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 43 April 2018

Table 16b. Proposed Plant List: Live Staking and Live Cuttings
On -Site Invasive Species Management
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 detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods will include mechanical
control (e.g. cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical control (e.g. 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.
9.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Diffuse flow structures will be applied at locations where ditches or other forms of concentrated flow enter
the conservation easement. 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.
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.
9.2.5 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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 44 April 2018
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Species
Common Name % of Total Species Composition
Salix nigra
Black willow 40
Salix sericea
Silky willow 20
Cornus ammomum
Silky dogwood 20
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood 20
On -Site Invasive Species Management
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 detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods will include mechanical
control (e.g. cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical control (e.g. 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.
9.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Diffuse flow structures will be applied at locations where ditches or other forms of concentrated flow enter
the conservation easement. 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.
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.
9.2.5 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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 44 April 2018

9.3 Data Analysis
9.3.1 Stream Data Analysis
9.3.1.1 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 16) 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 Frequency 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 mit) 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 watershed conditions. Rainfall data reflecting 100,
284 and 484 peak shape factors were used along with a standard Type II distribution, and NRCS hydrology
(time of concentrations and runoff curve numbers), to simulate the rainfall -runoff process. A 284 peak
shape factor was determined to be the most representative for this watershed.
Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina Coastal regional curves by Doll et al. (2003) and Sweet and Geratz (2003), and the
Virginia/Maryland (Krstolic and Chaplin, 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), Sweet and Geratz (2003) (2), and VA/MD (3) discharges are:
(1) QbkJ=16.56*(DA)0.72 (Doll et al., 2003)
(2) Qbkf=8.79*(DA)0-76 (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
(3) Qbkf= 28.3076*(DA)0.59111 (Krstolic and Chaplin, 2007)
Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (W/s) and DA=drainage area (mi2).
USGS Regional Regression Equations
USGS regression equations estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood -peak discharges (Weaver 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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 45 April 2018

Table 17. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach
Drainage
Area
(Ac)
Hydraflow
Qi
FFQ
Q�'�
FFQ
QA's
NC
Regional
Curve Q (1)
NC Regional
Curve Q (2)
VA/MD
Regional
Curve Q (3)
Regional
Regression
Eqns. Qz
Design/
Calculated
Q
S1, S2
46
3.6
2.4
8.8
2.5
1.2
5.9
11
4
S5
36
3.0
1.9
7.4
2.1
1.0
5.1
9
3
S6A
97
S613
4.4
14.3
4.6
2.1
9.2
17.7
7
S613
171
11.6
7.2
20.9
6.4
3.2
12.8
25.6
11
S7
278
11.6
10.8
28.8
9.1
4.7
17.2
35.1
S9
337
12.4
12.7
32.7
10.4
5.4
19.3
39.8
S11
379
16.2
14.0
35.3
11.4
5.9
20.7
43.0
15
9.3.1.2 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:
• Permissible Shear Stress Approach
• Permissible Velocity Approach
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 Meadow Spring 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 17. The results are acceptable and match closely
with the design reach parameters.
Table 18. Stable Channel Design Output
Reach
Q (ft/s3)
Bottom
Width (ft)
Depth (ft)
Energy
Slope (ft/ft)
Composite
n value
Velocity
(ft/s)
Shear Stress
(lbs/ft )
S2
4
1.8
0.9
0.0029
0.043
1.2
0.16
S5
3
1.6
0.8
0.0028
0.043
1.2
0.13
S6A
7
2.6
1.1
0.0027
0.043
1.4
0.17
S613
11
2.8
1.4
0.0027
0.044
1.5
0.21
S 11
15
3.2
1.6
0.0027
0.045
1.6
0.25
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 46 April 2018

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:
(5) i = 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 19. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
'(Fischenich, 2001
Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Meadow Spring 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
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 19 compares the proposed velocities calculated using Manning's
equation with the permissible velocities presented in the Stream Restoration Design Handbook (MRCS,
2007).
Table 20. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Reach
Proposed Shear Stress
Design Velocity (ft/s)
Allowable Shear Stress'
Allowable Velocity' (ft/s)
Coarse Sand Fine Gravel
S2
0.050
Critical Shear Stress
2.0
4.0 6.0
S5
Reach
at Bankfull Stage
(lbs/ft)
Sand/Silt/Clay
Gravel
Vegetation
1.3
z
(lbs/ft)
4.0 6.0
(lbs/ft')
(lbs/ft')
(lbs/ft')
S2
0.10
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S5
0.06
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S6A
0.13
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S613
0.16
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S 11
0.15
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
'(Fischenich, 2001
Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Meadow Spring 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
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 19 compares the proposed velocities calculated using Manning's
equation with the permissible velocities presented in the Stream Restoration Design Handbook (MRCS,
2007).
Table 20. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Reach
Manning's "n"
value
Design Velocity (ft/s)
Fine Sand
Allowable Velocity' (ft/s)
Coarse Sand Fine Gravel
S2
0.050
1.1
2.0
4.0 6.0
S5
0.045
0.9
2.0
4.0 6.0
S6A
0.050
1.3
2.0
4.0 6.0
S6B
0.050
1.5
2.0
4.0 6.0
S 11
0.045
1.6
2.0
4.0 6.0
'(MRCS, 2007
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 47 April 2018

9.3.2 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 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 wetland hydrology to the
overbank areas.
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 will be established to include a diverse mix of
species. Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted during construction.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 48 April 2018

10 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 21. 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 and reported 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 live stakes and
other 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 treated 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 period.
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. 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.
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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 49 April 2018

11 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the IRT monitoring template. A detailed monitoring plan is
provided in Figure 12. 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 and are described
in more detail in Section 12. Table 21 below outlines the links between project goals, objectives, and
treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards within the context of
functional uplift based on the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework. Monitoring reports will be prepared
annually and submitted to the IRT.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 50 April 2018

Table 22. MonitorinE Plan
Level
Goal
Treatment
Outcome
Monitoring Method
Performance Standard
To transport water
Convert land -use of Project
Improve the transport of water
1 c
from the watershed to
reaches from pasture to
from the watershed to the
NA
NA
the channel in a non-
riparian forest
Project reaches in a non-
x
erosive manner
erosive way
Crest gauges and/or pressure
Four bankfull events documented in the seven-year
transducers:
monitoring period
Surface water flow must be documented to occur every
Reduce bank height ratios
Improve flood bank
Inspected semiannually
2 �
To transport water in a
and increase entrenchment
b
connectivity by reducing bank
year for at least 30 consecutive days.
stable non-erosive
ratios reconstructing
Y g
height ratios and increase
Cross sections: Surveyed in
Entrenchment ratio no less than 1.4 on restored reaches
?.
x
manner
channels to mimic
reference reach conditions
entrenchment ratios
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2 on riffles
Wetland hydroperiod threshold
Maintain wetland saturation between 12-16 percent
during growing season
Establish a riparian buffer
Reduce erosion rates and
As -built stream profile
Perform stream profile post -construction
Cross sections
Entrenchment ratio no less than 1.4 on restored reaches
to reduce erosion and
channel stabilityto reference
o
To create a diverse
bedfonn
sediment transport into
reach conditions
Surveyed in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2 on riffles
3 4
o
project streams. Establish
stable banks with
Improve bedform diversity
p Y
Visual monitoring/stream walks:
Identify and document significant stream problem areas;
z
o
To achieve dynamic
livestakes, erosion control
(pool spacing, percent riffles,
performed at least semiannual)
i.e.erosion, degradation, a adation, etc.
Vegetation plots: Surveyed in
MY 1-3: 320 tress/acre
�
V
equilibrium
matting, and other in-
etc.
stream structures
Increase buffer width to 50 feet
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 2 re(7 ft. tall)
MY 7:: 2100 trees/acre
e 10 ft. tall
Improve stream temperature
Vegetation plots:
MY 1-3: 320 tress/acre
To achieve appropriate
regulation through introduction
Surveyed in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
olevels
�
for water
of canopy
indirect measurement
( )�
MY 7: 210 trees/acre 10 ft. tall
( )
temperature, dissolved
Exclude livestock from
Visual assessment
Inspect fencing and signage. Identify and document any
d
4
oxygen concentration
riparian areas with
Decrease nutrient loading
s
o
and other important
exclusion fence, and plant
through filtration of plantedis
indirect measurement)
damaged or missing fencing and/or signs. Ensure parcel
g g g
nutrients including but
a riparian buffer
riparian buffer, and removing
in perpetual conservation easement.
�
not limited to Nitrogen
livestock from the riparian
Continuous recording sampling
and Phosphorus
device: pre -construction through
NA
areas
all monitoring years
Vegetation plots: Surveyed in
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
To achieve
(indirect measurement)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
functionality
functionals in levels
1-4 to support the life
pp
Plant a riparian buffer,
p
install habitat features and
Improve aquatic habitat
through the installation of
Visual monitoring of in -stream
Identify and document significant stream problem areas;
5 y
o
histories of aquatic and
construct pools of varying
habitat features, construction of
habitat features: Performed at
least semiannual)
i.e. degradation, aggradation, stressed or failed structures,
�
riparian )ants and
p p
depths
p
pools at varying depths, and
planting the riparian buffer
Y
indirect measurement
etc.
Quality 4 macroinvertebrate
animals
sampling: Performed pre-
NA
construction and years 3, 5 and 7
° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 51 April 2018

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 as well as a centerline to calculate stream length. 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 stream walk 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. Visual assessment will include the assessment
of the project boundary and note any locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments.
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 Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology
All stream channels will be monitored to ensure they receive sufficient flow. Continuous surface water flow
within the tributaries must be documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days.
11.3.1 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.
11.3.2 Cross Sections
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.
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 during years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. 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).
11.3.3 Gauges
Crest gauges will be installed to document the occurrence of bankfull events. A minimum of one gauge will
be installed. Crest gauges and/or pressure transducers will be installed on site to monitor surface water
hydrology For at least 30 days of flow each year. The devices will be inspected on a semiannual basis to
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 52 April 2018

document the occurrence of bankfull events. Groundwater monitoring gauges with data recording devices
will be installed on site; the data will be downloaded on a quarterly basis during the growing season.
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.
11.5 Vegetative Monitoring Plots
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 18 plots within the planted area (22.8 acres). Planted area indicates all
area in the easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas are not included in the planted
area. A combination of permanent fixed plots and random plots will be used to demonstrate vegetation
cover. Random plots will not make up more than 50% of the required plots. The following data will be
recorded for all trees in the plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. Monitoring
will occur on years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and treated 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 Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Water quality and macroinvertebrate indicators will be monitored to document and measure any changes
to physical, chemical, and biological metrics within the project area. These metrics are sensitive to changes
in the project watershed (e.g. land use change and pollutant inputs) and more localized modifications, such
as in -stream habitat improvements and riparian buffer restoration. However, because results might not
demonstrate a measurable improvement over pre -construction conditions, or measurable improvements
may occur slowly, the success of the project will not be tied to these metrics. This data will be provided to
the NCIRT so that it may be used to support future guidance and aid in linking stream mitigation to
improvements in ecological function. While the success of the Site is not tied to water quality and
macroinvertebrate monitoring, the goals of the project are intended to improve water quality and the
biologic function of the project's stream channels. Objectives such as the permanent exclusion of livestock
and the restoration of stable stream channels, are intended to directly improve water quality through the
reduction of sediment and nutrient inputs to receiving waters. Objectives such as the installation of habitat
features and the constructing pools of varying depth are intended to improve aquatic habitat. Planting the
buffer with native tree and understory species will not only improve riparian and wetland habitats, but will
also shade project streams and reduce thermal loadings.
11.6.1 Water Quality
Sampling will be conducted prior to construction and for the duration of the monitoring period using a
continuous recording sampling device, and will include measurements of acidity (pH), temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and conductivity. Sampling points will be located as close as possible to the upper and
lower end of tributaries in order to detect any changes. Points will be located where water is freely flowing
and with sufficient depth to be conducted without disturbance to streambed sediments.
11.6.2 Macroinvertebrates
Sampling will be conducted prior to construction and once a year during monitoring years 3, 5, and 7.
Sampling points will be located on riffles, with the first sampling point located on the most downstream
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 53 April 2018

riffle on the tributary. Appropriate sampling locations will be based on riffle condition and best professional
judgement. Pre -construction sampling may occur in different locations than those outlined in the monitoring
period, but sampling conducted during the monitoring period will occur within the same riffle year-to-year,
when possible. A reference location will also be sampled for comparison purposes, located on a relatively
stable reach in an undisturbed setting, located as close to the mitigation site as possible, and within the same
watershed.
The sampling will be conducted in accordance with the DWR Qual 4 macroinvertebrate sampling protocol,
which is described in the most current version of the Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and
Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, February 2016 (Version 5.0). If the stream is large (greater than a
3 -square mile watershed), a mix of Qual 4 and the Standard Qualitative (Full Scale) methods may be
appropriate. Sampling will be conducted during the same time of year to minimize seasonal differences in
the data from year-to-year. Additionally, sampling will be conducted at the same time as water quality
monitoring, and within the index period referenced in the DWR document entitled Small Streams
Biocriteria Development, dated May 29, 2009. Macroinvertebrate samples will be identified to the lowest
practical taxonomic level (usually Genus) by a qualified taxonomist (this qualification can be demonstrated
by being a NCDWR certified laboratory for macroinvertebrates). Results presented will include a list of
taxa collected at each site for each sampling event, as well as an enumeration of the Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa and a Biotic Index (see the DWR Standard Operating Procedures
for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates). Each report should include a summary of the
current results and all past monitoring events in tabular format.
11.7 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.
12 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. Specific success criteria components are
presented below and based upon the October 2016 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Guidance. Table 21
shows how these performance standards are related to the goals and objectives of the project and the
monitoring method used to determine success.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 54 April 2018

12.1 Stream And Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
12.1.1 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. Channel stability should be demonstrated through a
minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period.
12.1.1 Surface Flow
Stream restoration reaches will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will
be accomplished through direct observation and the use of stream gauge transducers with data loggers.
Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow.
12.1.2 Bank Height Ratio and Entrenchment Ratio
At any measured riffle cross-section, bank height ratio should not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratio should
not be less than 1.4 and both should not change by more than 10% from the baseline condition during any
given monitoring intervals. These standards will only apply to reaches of the channel where bank height
ratio and enrichment ratio is adjusted to reference condition through design and construction.
12.1.3 Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The NRCS 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.
12.2 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 at least 320 planted
three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees that are at least 7 feet tall at the
end of Year 5, 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. 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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 55 April 2018

13 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the site will be transferred to the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat
Foundation (NCWHF):
North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation
[phone]
PO Box 29187
Greensboro, NC 27429
www.ncwhf org
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 six inches by six inches aluminum sign with contact
information. Signs are refreshed on an as needed basis. Typically a sign will last five to ten 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 five percent 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 Meadow Spring Site, and it will be updated once finalized.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 56 April 2018

14 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. Approve the Corrective Action Plan with the USACE
5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
6. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 57 April 2018

15 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $585,000 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 $585,000 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 $198,000 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 $198,000 amount includes contingency and estimated monitoring costs
from the Engineer. The Monitoring Performance Bond will be reduced by $ 27,500 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.
The Performance Bonds will be provided by a surety listed with the U.S. Treasury and has an A.M. Best
Rating of B or above. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the USACE in draft form for approval
prior to execution. In the event of Sponsor default, the NCWHF has agreed to act as the obligee and receive
the funds and ensure the work is successfully completed.
Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc)
$ 70,000
Sitework
$ 140,000
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs,logs, rocks, coir, etc
$ 190,000
Crossings
$ 20,000
Vegetation
$ 110,000
Miscellaneous
$ 55,000
Total
$ 585,000
Monitoring
Annual Monitoring and Reports
$ 135,000
Equipment e. au es, markers, etc
$ 13,000
Contingency (8%)
$ 50,000
Total
$ 198,000
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 58 April 2018

16 OTHER INFORMATION
16.1 References
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, V.T. (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, B.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.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, and 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.
Johnston County, North Carolina. Available online at htip://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. [Accessed 25 October
2011.1
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 Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (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).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 59 April 2018

NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). (2016). Standard Operating Procedures for the
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Division of Water Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina. February 2016.
NCDEQ. (2018). "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Classifications
and Standards. https://deq.nc.gov/. (April 2018).
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). (2009) Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). (2010). "Neuse River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2010."
NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (2010). "N.C. Wetland Assessment Method User Manual
Version 4.1."
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
Rosgen, D. (1996). Applied River Morphology, 2nd 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.
Schafale, M.P. (2012). Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR,
Raleigh, NC.
Skidmore, P.B, Shields, F., Doyle, M., and Miller, D. (2001). A Categorization of Approaches to
Natural Channel Design. Wetlands Engineering & River Restoration 2001: pp. 1-12.
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. (2008). 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.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wgjz/srp/2008conference/tweedy naner.pdf
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2002). Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2, December
24, 2002.
USACE. (2003). NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
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. (2016). Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 60 April 2018

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS).
(1986). Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.
USDA-NRCS. (1994). Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina.
USDA-NRCS. (2007). Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654).
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.
USDA-NRCS. (September 2014). Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). EPA Manual. Quantifying Physical Habitat in
Wadeable Streams.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (September 2014). "Threatened and Endangered Species in
North Carolina." North Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/.
Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J. (2009). Magnitude and frequency of rural floods in the
Southeastern United States, through 2006—Volume 2. North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2009-5158, 111 p.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 61 April 2018

Figures
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 - Historical Aerials Map
Figure 4 - Soils Map
Figure 5 - Landowner Map
Figure 6 - Land -use Map
Figure 7 - Existing Conditions Map
Figure 8 - FEMA Map
Figure 9 - National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 10 - Conceptual Plan Map
Figure l la and l lb - Non -Standard Buffer Width Calculations
Figure 12 - Monitoring Plan
Figure 13 - Conceptual Design for NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credits

d
�- Rd
1
Riverwood
Golf Club
ONy's `\
Clayton
.tet y
ay �
�a
4�
m
"3ckin,
Legend
- Proposed_Easement
TLW -03020201100050
N
W E
S
0 1 2
MMMMMSmommomil Miles
i
QLa
Covered Bridge
a
'34
NC 42�
z
L;
z
q
�+he Hd Brooms P
on y
Pd I C
or
c
d.
ti la �a
0
v
. Qc
Pine Level
uSh�Qhwdy;'0QusE Q�g
e
r�del Rd
\
Sources: Esri, HERE, Del-orme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
j T Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), Mapmylndia,
NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site res
Johnston County, North Carolina 0

�, � / •• OGS:>,-�/, ,. :.o
1e
let
Nr. iB3�.7 b
CD
I r
S5 _
• �{. 65 ac
'ter• Oen �' O y �. �� �,� Gravel jJ
\' • =gam=- s: I- .�� '/ \A�F�
Pits
�� ,
�u t p T • , nson �{mt %, .� Y.
f e
i= SO
so c=ems
b' Entire Site
-4584 ac /
c ••-<- m � y1 4
B a _ - j` i� `^Z
191
-eta �- •�• ! /. �\.. ,%' `&Q •\
- l74I. TJamL-� �.l • • _ ` n
- Pa: k
\C �t Ct .nrt •.. 'q d Y j (� fi<5 •J�' 1923; fl
cK
Legend _ ( 1 t
v
Rad,o ?ower Gravel o
..
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac. —= = = ::-� w "'I •• Pit
Drainage Areas
C7 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographi.cciety, i -cubed
N
Figure 2 - USGS Map
B W E
5 Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
0 1,000 2,000 res
Johnston County, North Carolina
Feet

1950 1962
Source: Johnston Co, Historical Aerial "Som ce: Johnston Co. Historical Aerial
"��4W
r
•I ` 4
t
Source: Johnston Co. HistoricaI" rial Source: USGS 1999 Aerial Photog►aphy
Le-gend N Figure 3 - Historical Aerial Photography
w E Meadow Spring Mitigation Site res
Proposed Easement p 9 9
0 S=Feet s Johnston County, NC

i
VrA
NoB
NoA
Ra
CoB
NoA
NoB
GeB
WaB Bb
W
NoB
GoA
Ra
NoA McB
Q \-j
Ra
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
0 Non -hydric Soil
Soil with Hydric Inclusions
Hydric Soil
- D
Water
NoA
Ro
Ra
NoA
Ra
GoA
NoA _Mq
NnD
GoA I WaB
NoA
NoB
[Chi
Ch I
/Ch
/
Vr
'CeB�
AaA W NoB
nAc-A /N7n
nD
/"
Symbol
Name
Symbol
Name
AaA
Altavista fine sandy loam, Oto 2 percent slopes, occasion aIIVflooded NoA
Norfolk loamysand, Oto 2 percents cpes
A&A
Augusta sandy loam, Oto 2 percentslopes,occasion aIlyflood ed
NoB
Norfolk loamy sand, 2 t 6 percent s cpes
Ob
Bibb sandy loam, Oto 2 perce nt slopes, frequentlyflaoded
Ra
Rains sandy loam, Oto 2 percent slopes
Ch
Cheviacialoam,0to2percentsiopes,frequentlyflooded
RG
Roanoke loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
GoA
6oldsborosandyIoam,0to2percent slopes
WaB
Wagramloamy sand, 1)to5percentslopes
McB
Marlboro-CeciIcompiex, 2to8percent slopes
N
W E
S
0 350 700
Feet
Figure 4 - Soils Map
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina

0 `
Ak. �
i
7
ri Landowner:
Stephenson 1997 FamilyLimited Partnership
\ Pin: 169500-74-6294

Iaw.'Ib
1
AV
_PFO1A
40
f i : ww;1 , �
_ ��
PUBHh a
s yII► ,� � �' ,
I
w Figure 9 - NWI Map
250 s 500 Stone Creek Mitigation Site
i
F® Johnston County, North Carolina
PSS1C / PFO1C
R2UBH
PFO1C
a�///I
GeoEye, Earthstar
IGN, and the GIS U.
Date: 4/2/2018
Drawn by: ATP
Checked by:
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
Existing Streams
® NWI Wetlands
0
1C
I
w Figure 9 - NWI Map
250 s 500 Stone Creek Mitigation Site
i
F® Johnston County, North Carolina
PSS1C / PFO1C
R2UBH
PFO1C
a�///I
GeoEye, Earthstar
IGN, and the GIS U.
Date: 4/2/2018
Drawn by: ATP
Checked by:

Legend
Proposed Streams
Wetland Mitigation
Proposed Easement
Ideal Buffer Zones
50-75 (178,272 sqft)
EA75-100 (176,507 sqft)
EA100-125 (177,287 sqft)
125-150 (179,252 sqft)
//
FIGURE 11 - Ideal Buffer Zones Date: 2/7/2018
w+ Non -Standard Buffer Width Calculations Drawn by: BPB
0 150 300 Meadow Spring Mitigation Site res
Feet JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Legend
Proposed Streams
Wetland Mitigation
Proposed Easement
Actual Buffer Zones
50-75 (114,372 sqft)
75-100 (65,323 sqft)
100-125 (29,036 sqft)
125-150 (7,350 sqft)
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Buffer Zones
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 feet
>125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)
197,350
197,350
197,350
197,350
Ideal Buffer (square feet)
178,272
176,507
177,287
179,252
Actual Buffer (square feet)
114,372
65,323
29,036
7,350
Zone Multiplier
7%
5%
4%
4%
Buffer Credit Equivalent
150
107
86
86
Percent of Ideal Buffer
64%
37%
16%
4%
Credit Adjustment
96
40
14
4
Credit Loss in
Credit Gain for
Net Change
in
Total Baseline Credit
Total Credit
Required Buffer
Additional Buffer
Credit from Buffers
2,146
0
154
154
2,300
FIGURE 11 B -Actual Buffer Zones
w+
Date: 2/7/2018
Drawn by: ATP
Non -Standard
Buffer Width Calculations
res
Spring Mitigation Meadow S
o tso soo p 9 Site
Feet JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Appendix A
Site Protection Instrument (s) and Longterm
Stewardship Program Overview and Monitoring
Report Template
Site Protection Instruments *
Model Conservation Easement
*Note: This appendix will be updated as the easement deeds and plats become
available.
Longterm Stewardship Program Overview and Monitoring Report
Template

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)

Kelly Harrill
Chairman
Greensboro, NC
Tenna Koury
Vice Chairman
Burlington, NC
John C. Hagan
Secretary
Greensboro, NC
W. Harrison Stewart
Treasurer
Greensboro, NC
Eddie C. Bridges
Executive Director
Greensboro, NC
Dan Barker
Greensboro, NC
Thomas A. Berry
Greensboro, NC
Samuel E. Bridges
Greensboro, NC
Tracy Brooks
Greensboro, NC
Tonnie E. Davis
Roxboro, NC
Johnny Dinkins
Greensboro, NC
William DuBose
Greensboro, NC
Gregory Erwin
Raleigh, NC
John D. Goins
Hendersonville, NC
Stewart Gordon
Winston-Salem, NC
Scott Heffernan
Greensboro, NC
Maurice S. Hull
High Point, NC
John Preyer
Chapel Hill, NC
Dr. Wes Perry
Kinston, NC
Mark Ruffin
Greensboro, NC
John Saslow
Greensboro, NC
Michelle Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Mark Toland
Asheville, NC
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is intended to provide a brief overview of the NCWHF Easement
Stewardship program. We currently hold over thirty individual conservation easements
across North Carolina, including over 2,000 acres of land. These perpetual easements
were mostly established through environmental mitigation projects which restored or
preserved important wildlife habitat along with ecological functions of streams and
wetlands. We continue to accept and hold easements that fit with our Mission Statement:
The purpose of the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation is to assist in the
acquisition, management and protection of wildlife habitat within the state of North
Carolina and promote conservation education for the benefit of future generations.
Easements held by the NCWHF are stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines
published by the National Land Trust Alliance. For each easement it accepts, the
NCWHF requires an endowment fee which is held in trust. The funds are used for
ongoing monitoring of the specific site as well as any legal costs which may arise.
Monitoring is conducted on an annual basis. This involves a preliminary review of
ownership via tax records and a GIS -based review of the site each year. After the file is
updated an on-site inspection is conducted to confirm that the terms of the easement are
being honored. Visits are coordinated with the landowner when possible. The visit is
recorded in a written report and with photographs that are then archived. Signs
identifying the boundary of the easement are refreshed as needed during these visits.
Each landowner associated with the site is contacted at least annually and updated on the
status of the easement, even when in full compliance. The aim is to prevent violations by
maintaining a working partnership with the landowners. Any violations of easement
terms are promptly communicated to the landowner. Minor violations are typically
resolved with clear communication and reminders of the easement terms. However, if a
violation occurs that is not resolved through cooperative means in a timely manner, the
NCWHF is prepared to draw on the endowment funds to initiate legal recourse.
For any questions about the Easement Stewardship Program at the NCWHF, please
contact Matthew Harrell, [phone] or Harrell.conservation&gmail.com
Sincerely,
��
Matthew Harrell
On Behalf of the NCWHF
P.O. Box 29187 - Greensboro, NC 27429-9187
[phone] . www.ncwhf.org

Site :
Address:
Monitor Name:
Conservation Easement Monitoring ReVort
Date:
Arrival Time:
Departure Time:
Weather Conditions:
Others Present: 1)
2)
3)
Circle appropriately Features Present in Easement?
Y or N 1. Landowner contacted prior to visit? Y or N Powerlines
Y or N 2. Landowner/representative present during visit? Y or N Fences
Y or N 3. Recorded easement reviewed prior to inspection? Y or N Stream Crossings
Y or N 4. Recorded plat reviewed prior to inspection? Y or N Deer Stands/ Duck Blinds
5. Indicate monitoring method: Walking ATV Air
6. Indicate observed disturbances to the site:
Y or N a. Beaver activity Explain:
Y or N b. Invasive Vegetation Privet Kudzu Bamboo Multifloral Rose
Y or N c. Other land management issues (Erosion, water quality, fire, etc)
Y or N d. Grading/ Excavation/ or Construction activities
Y or N e. Depositing or dumping (trash, dirt, yard debris, etc)
Y or N f. Vegetative damage, including mowing, trimming, or tree removal
Y or N g. Livestock (present or signs of recent presence)
Y or N h. Vehicle use within easement other than on designated paths
atv dirtbike truck machinery
Y or N Points of access located GPS:
Overview of Observations:
Wildlife:
Y or N i. Photo's taken?
Y or N j. Followup required/ Site under Review? List primary issue:
Other
Notes on Reverse

Appendix B
• USACE JD Submittal Package
• NC DWR Stream Determination Letter
• NC DWR Buffer/Nutrient Mitigation Viability Letter
• Agency Correspondence
• Letter to US Fish and Wildlife Service
• Response from US Fish and Wildlife Service
• Letter to NC State Historic Preservation Office
• Response from NC State Historic Preservation Office
• Letter to NC Wildlife Resources Commission

fires
January 23, 2017
RES completed its delineation of potentially jurisdictional areas on this property on November
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Ms. Samantha Dailey
Suite 130
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers
OwingsMills, MD
of Engineers Delineation Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain (Version
117
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
1371/2 East Main St.
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
412 N. 4th St.
documents are attached for your reference. Flags were numbered and placed onsite to mark the
Suite 300
limits of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. Wetland flags were
Baton Rouge, LA
located using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology with sub -meter accuracy and the
70802
Dear Ms. Samantha Dailey,
Suite 431
approximate size and location of these areas are depicted on the attached Waters of the U.S.
100 Calhoun St.
Resource Environmental Solutions RES is leased to resent this Request for a Preliminary
(RES) P p q rY
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
Jurisdictional Determination for the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site located in Smithfield,
29401
Johnston County, North Carolina. As part of this scope of work, RES is submitting this request to
Suite 110
the U.S. Arm Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a confirmation of the limits of Waters of the U.S.
Army � gneers ( �)
suite Montrose Bled.
and disturbed riparian forest. The site's streams and wetlands have been significantly impacted
Suite 650
on the subject site.
Houston, Tx
restore and enhance a stream/wetland comp lex located within the Neuse River Basin.
77006
RES completed its delineation of potentially jurisdictional areas on this property on November
16, 2016 in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
methodology (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as well as the Regional Supplement to the Corps
Lafayette, LA
of Engineers Delineation Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain (Version
70508
2.0). Stream determinations were verified during a site visit on September 1, 2016 by a North
1371/2 East Main St.
Carolina Division of Water Resources representative. Stream and buffer determination
Suite 210
documents are attached for your reference. Flags were numbered and placed onsite to mark the
Oak Hill, WV
limits of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. Wetland flags were
25901
located using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology with sub -meter accuracy and the
33 Terminal Way
streams were drawn using the available National Hydrography Dataset Flowlines. The
Suite 431
approximate size and location of these areas are depicted on the attached Waters of the U.S.
Pittsburgh' PA
Delineation Map. All wetland areas are shown on this figure, but only the ones within the
15219
easement limits need confirmation.
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site is located within a watershed dominated by agricultural land
Raleigh, NC
27605
and disturbed riparian forest. The site's streams and wetlands have been significantly impacted
by channelization, impoundment, and cattle access. The purpose of this mitigation site is to
1521 W. Main
restore and enhance a stream/wetland comp lex located within the Neuse River Basin.
Ri Floor
Rchmond, VA
23220
Attachments for Reference
- Project Summary Sheet (Pre -JD Form)
- Jurisdictional Determination Request Form
- Landowner Authorization Form
- Project Vicinity Map
- Project Location Map (with topography)
- National Wetlands Inventory Map
- Aerial Imagery
- Soils Map
- Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
- NCDWR Buffer Determination and
Viability Letters
- Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map

RES respectfully requests that the Corps confirm this delineation of Waters of the U.S. on this property. I
will contact you in the coming days to arrange a site visit for this purpose. Please contact me ((919) 345-
3034) if you have any additional questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Ecologist
Ryan Medric
Ecologist

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 12/28/2016
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Jeremy Schmid, PWS - RES, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NG 27605
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Johnston City: Smithfield
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.546580 °N; Long. -75.344386
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 1883
ow.
Name of nearest waterbody: Neuse River
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters:
6245 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class: R4 and R5
Stream Flow: Intermittent and Perennial
Wetlands: 2621 acres.
Cowardln Class: PEM and PFO
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non -Tidal

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s).-
SUPPORTING
ate(s):
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and,
where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.-
F-1
pplicant/consultant:
❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
app ' nt/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify): PFD forms
2
or

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre -construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.

This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later lurisdictional determinations.
L
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
4
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

__NameMn-Code
HGM_Code Meas -Ty
_Type
Latitude
Longitude Local -Waterway
Wetland A (WA)
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.12 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.549
-78.3424 Neuse River
Wetland B (WB) out of easement
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5479
-78.3412 Neuse River
Wetland C (WC) out of easement
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5487
-78.3352 Neuse River
Wetland D (WD)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.07 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.547
-78.3355 Neuse River
Wetland E (WE)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.11 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5459
-78.3357 Neuse River
Wetalnd F (WF)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
4.07 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5438
-78.3348 Neuse River
Wetland G (WG)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
21.83 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5436
-78.3304 Neuse River
Pond
NORTH CAROLINA
POW
Area
1.44 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5491
-78.3413 Neuse River
S1
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
128 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5505
-78.3435 Neuse River
S2
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
1090 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5492
-78.3423 Neuse River
S5
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
248 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.55
-78.3389 Neuse River
S6
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
1619 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5495
-78.3381 Neuse River
S7
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
1050 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5472
-78.3353 Neuse River
S9
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
558 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5444
-78.3356 Neuse River
S11
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
934 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5432
-78.334 Neuse River
S12
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
617 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5415
-78.3327 Neuse River

Jurisdictional Determination Request
0
EIS Army Corps
of Engineers
wiimington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
to the appropriate Corps Field Office (or project manager, if known) via mail, electronic mail, or
facsimile. A current list of county assignments by Field Office and project manager can be
found on-line at: http://www.saw.usace.ariny.iniI/Missions/Re1,ulator PcrinitPro ram.as x , by
telephoning: 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below:
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue. Room 208
Asheville. North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive. Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number, (919) 562-042I
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington. North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
Version: December 2013 - Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E and F
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part G.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that all JD
requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to proceed with the
determination, which may include inspection of the property when necessary. This form must be
signed by the current property owner to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS. Property owner authorization/notification for JD
requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects will be
conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD may not
be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or
your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you
should also request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: December 2013 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 2080 Wilsons Mill Road
City, State: Smithfield, NC
County: Johnston
Directions: Follow 1-40 E and US -70 E to Wilsons Mill Road
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 169500-74-6294
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Addressl:
Select one:
Jeremy Schmid, PWS - Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
[phone]
JSchmid@,AnglerEnvironmental.com
❑ I am the current property owner.
❑✓ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
Mailing Address: 2080 Wilsons Mill Road
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address':
❑ Proof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record data)
' If available
Z Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form
3 If available
Version: December 2013 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned. a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations
and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
See attached Landowner Authorization Form.
Property Owner (please print)
Property Owner Signature
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One:
Date
✓❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does include a delineation.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does NOT include a delineation.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property/project area for the presence or
absence of WoUS' and provide an approved JD for the property identified herein. This
request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of ail WoUS on a property/project
area and provide an approved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
I am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) on a property/ project area and provide an approved ved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat),
4 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
5 Waters of the United States
Version: December 2013 Page 4

F.
W
G.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
Size of Property or Project Area Easement= 78.5
acres
I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
3D REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
(l) Preliminary JD Requests:
Completed and signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Formb.
344386 546590
Project Coordinates: 35.Latitude -78-344386 Longitude
Maps (no larger than I I x 17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑✓ Aerial Photography of the project area
W1 USGS Topographic Map
W✓ Soil Survey Map
17 Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
6 See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02, dated June 26, 2008
Version: December 2013 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
0 Wetland Data Sheets
Tributaries:
❑ USACE Assessment Forms
5-71 Upland Data Sheets 7 Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑ Landscape Photos, if taken
❑ Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
■ All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
■ Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
■ Locations of photo stations
■ Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
(2) Approved JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
❑ Project Coordinates:
Latitude Longitude
Maps (no larger than 1 1 x 17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
❑ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑ Aerial Photography of the project area
❑ USGS Topographic Map
❑ Soil Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site Plan.
previous delineation maps)
1987 Manual Regional Supplements and Data forms can be found at:
httpf/www.usace.army.mii/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryPrpLramandPermits/reg supp.aspx
Wetland and Stream Assessment Methodologies can be found at:
htto.//portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/pet file? uuid=76fR58b-dab8-4960-ba43-45b7faf06f4c&P_roupld=38364 and,
htt www.saw.usace.arm .mil Portals 59 docs re ulator ublicnotices 2013 NCSAM Draft User Manual 130318. df
8 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/comm unity type.
Version: December 2013 Page 6

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
❑ Wetland Data Sheets9
Tributaries:
❑ USACE Assessment Forms
❑ Upland Data Sheets ❑ Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑ Landscape Photos, if taken
❑ Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
• Locations of photo stations
• Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Information (for Approved JDs only)
❑ Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form(s) (also known as "Rapanos
Form(s)")
❑ Map(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters.
13 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type
Version. December 2013 page 7

Jurisdictional Determination Request
REQUESTS FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT
Prior to final production of a Plat, the Wilmington District recommends that the Land
Surveyor electronically submit a draft of a Survey Plat to the Corps project manager for
review.
Due to storage limitations of our administrative records, the Corps requires that all hard-
copy submittals include at least one original PIat (to scale) that is no larger than I I "xl7"
(the use of match lines for larger tracts acceptable). Additional copies of a plat, including
those larger than 11 "xl7", may also be submitted for Corps signature as needed_ The
Corps also accepts electronic submittals of plats, such as those transmitted as a Portable
Document Format (PDF) file. Upon verification, the Corps can electronically sign these
plats and return them via e-mail to the requestor.
(1) PLATS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1-1 Must be sealed and signed by a licensed professional land surveyor
Must be to scale (all maps must include both a graphic scale and a verbal scale)
Must be legible
Must include a North Arrow, Scale(s), Title, Property information
F1Must include a legible WoUS Delineation Table of distances and bearings/metes
and bounds/GPS coordinates of all surveyed delineation points
Must clearly depict surveyed property or project boundaries
F1Must clearly identify the known surveyed point(s) used as reference (e.g. property
corner, USGS monument)
❑ When wetlands are depicted:
• Must include acreage (or square footage) of wetland polygons
• Must identify each wetland polygon using an alphanumeric system
Version: December 2013 Page 8

Jurisdictional Determination Request
1-1 When tributaries are depicted:
• Must include either a surveyed, approximate centerline of tributary with
approximate width of tributary OR surveyed Ordinary High Water Marks
(OH WM) of tributary
• Must identify each tributary using an alphanumeric system
• Must include linear footage of tributaries and calculated area (using approximate
widths or surveyed OHWM)
• Must include name of tributary (based on the most recent USGS topographic
map) or, when no USGS name exists, identify as "unnamed tributary"
all depicted WoUS (wetland polygons and tributary lines) must intersect or tie -to
surveyed project/property boundaries
Must include the location of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment
reaches
❑ Must include, label accordingly, and depict acreage of all waters not currently
subject to the requirements of the CWA (e.g. "isolated wetlands", "non -
jurisdictional waters"). NOTE: An approved JD must be conducted in order to
make an official Corps determination that a particular waterbody or wetland is not
jurisdictional.
Must include and survey all existing conveyances (pipes, culverts, etc.) that
transport WoUS
Version: December 2013 Page 9

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(2) CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE
❑ When the entire actual Jurisdictional Boundary is s depicted:
include the following Corps Certification language:
'This certifies that this copy of this plat accurately depicts the boundary of the jurisdiction
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, the determination of
Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five (5) years from
this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the appropriate Regional
Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Dote:
USAGE Action 1D No.:
❑ When uplands may be present within a depicted Jurisdictional Boundary
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat identifies all areas of waters of the United States
regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years from this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the
appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Dote:
USA CE Action 1D No.:
Version: December 2013 Page 10

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(3) GPS SURVEYS
For Surveys prepared using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the Survey must include
all of the above, as well as:
be at sub -meter accuracy at each survey point.
❑ include an accuracy verification:
One or more known points (property comer, monument) shall be located with the
GPS and cross-referenced with the existing traditional property survey (metes and
bounds).
❑ include a brief description of the GFS equipment utilized.
Version: December 2013 Page 11

Exhibit C
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
Site: Stephenson Smithfield (Homeplace)
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book Page County
1732 151 Johnston
Parcel ID Number: 169500-74-6294 in Johnston County North Carolina as shown on Exhibit A.
Street Address: Farm on Joyner Bridge Rd., Four Oaks, NC shown on Exhibit A
Property Owner (please print): Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
EBX, Neuse I, LLC, Resource Environmental Solutions ("RES"), the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, and the US Army Corps of Engineers, their employees,
agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above referenced property for the evaluation of
the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or riparian buffer mitigation project, including
conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and delineations.
Property Owners(s) Address: 2080 Wilsons Mills Rd
Smithfield, NC 27577
Property Owner Telephone Number: 919-631-1447
UWe hereby certify the abo a information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
By 'Vs
(Pr erty Owner thorized Signature) (Date)

WAP
�oas �s„a
Smithicld H
`� Mark.1
I
r LIS
y�9hw ay io Qv.
F
LEGEND
� = APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Street Map Source:
VICINITY MAP World Street Map
A tel ANGLER ESRI Arc615 Online
IRFAm.—NW ENVIRONMENTAL
a ]res Co -pang N
MEADOW SPRING
CORPORATE 15367 TELEPHONE ROAD, WARRENTON, VIRGINIA 2M7
P: 703.393.48" I F: 703.393.3930
www.AnglerEnvironm`ntal.com J O H N STO N COUNTY, NC
I inch = 700 feet
Document Path: C:\Users\rmearic\Dropbm (RE5)\@RE5 G15\pr sects\NC\Ml Glow 5pring (bank 5ite)\MXDUD_figure5\Meaaow5pring_Vicinity.mxa - Date 5a -a: 1212 1120 1 G

] a
r;. V11--.
164 r•
_ 6
a—_ Tom` ". .,� •� b.�
tiy] rr_[tt •�!
^a•" _ �} %` a Grave
RiiSy
�. •.�,g4 `moi----:.�� �r ` - --=x�- 1
��. . •
l
Cmitruo6r �'
=:
f.
' �❑
�M1 "N
...:. - .weit Smho ieid'—\ raj.
^s;.• — Rada Tower\1170
Grimm u
aha, !3�- - ' .... . ... •`'�'--�WMPM) ) ••pl[ Ixa ==
LEGEN D
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Street Map Source:
PROJECT LOCATION MAP USA Topo Maps
AtA ANGLER ESRI ArcGIS Online
qWAm.—NW ENVIRONMENTAL
a Pres company MEADOW SPRING N
CORPORATE 15367 TELEPHONE ROAD, WARRENTON, VIRGINIA 2M7
P: 703.393.48" I F: 703.393.3930
www.AnglerEnvironmental.com J O H N STO N COUNTY, NC
1 inch = 2,000 feet
11 "i,_ .- I .. 111 " )"oph,,. .. I. of ,:.f - 1,) , I. ,, (ba k site)\MXD\„D_` -u' AM—d-9 e,t Location.m a - 'I . 5 , .�

Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbm (RE5)\@RE5 G15\pr sects\NC\Ml Glow 5pring (bank 5ite)\MXDUD_Pigure5\Meaaow5pring_NWI.m a - Date 5a -a: 1212 1120 1 G

Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbm (RE5)\@RE5 G15\pr sects\NC\Ml Glow 5pring (bank 5ite)\MXDUD_figure5\Meaaow5pring_A—al_Ima jcry.m a - Date 5a -a: 1212 11201 G

r r� CoB'r Ra NnD r► r�
pip h
r 91 ,o Ro
,QoB�f �� ���y� �� � �. � yam.
.. ,� 91
GeB
i► Ra r i r�V.Ir
a �• t. �'
41111111" 0 'r
irdr
r 7� r i►
Ra
7` ► r r ,
Ra
i 41111111"
Ro r r r
)0 CeB
Bb..'
NnD ! 9
j. NnE
NnD
i ) ! Ra
Pit
LEGENDGOA %0rII-
DAPPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS f �� ALA 1
0 HYDRIC SOIL
® SOIL WITH HYDRIC INCLUSIONS ) Ra l
pf
� NON -HYDRIC SOIL � Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geograhics, CNE�S'/Airbus
DS�USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS }Us�e'r�C�1 m�u ty
Source:
501 L5 MAP U.S. Department of Agriculture
A tel ANGLED Natural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL
Conservation Service
a ]res Company MEADOW SPRING Soil Survey Geographic N
CORPORATE 15367 TELEPHONE ROAD, WARRENTON, VIRGINIA 2M7 (SSURGO)
P: 703.393.48" I F: 703.393.3930
www.AnglerEnvironmental.com J O H N STO N COUNTY, NC
I inch = 700 feet
Document Path: C:\User5\rmea—\DropI,m (RE5)\@RE5 G15\pr sects\NC\Ml alow 5pring (bank 5ite)\MXDUD_figure5\Meaalow5pr,ng_5o,15.mxal - Date 5a -al: 1/23/2017

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP -1
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.545178 Long.: -78.327477 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla loam NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (0% No O
O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Y
Yes ` No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No C
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: DP -1
7.
Absolute
Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
0
Cover
Status
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 32.5
20% of Total Cover: 13
65
=Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
Number of Dominant Species
❑ 0.0%
1 , Quercus nigra
50❑
1. Acer rubrum
76.9%
FAC
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
6 (A)
2. Carpinus caroliniana
15d❑
23.1%
FAC
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
❑
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
4.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 145 (A) 420 (B)
Species Across All Strata:
6 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
o
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
Ll
0.0
❑
0
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100.0% (A/B)
6.
o
o.o°ro
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
5
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
❑ 0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 32.5
20% of Total Cover: 13
65
=Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
FACW species 15 x 2 = 30
1. Acer rubrum
20❑
50% of Total Cover: 2.5 20% of Total Cover: 1
100.0% FAC
FAC species 130 x 3 = 390
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 145 (A) 420 (B)
5.
5.
o
Ll
o.o
-0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.897
0
Ll
0.0
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1. Ligustrum sinense
40❑
100.0% FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
E.
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
o
❑
o.o°ro
5.
0
❑
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 20
20% of Total Cover: 8
40
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 Arundinaria gigantea
15d❑
100.0% FACW
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
2.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
5.
0
❑
0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7,
0
❑
0.0%
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
Ll
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
1 Q.
0
0.0%
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 7.5
20% of Total Cover: 3
15
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 Smilax rotundifolia
5
0 100.0% FAC
2.
0
❑ 0.0%
3.
o
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
-
Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 2.5 20% of Total Cover: 1
5
= Total Cover
Present? Yes ` • No -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP -1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _10 _ Color (moist) % Tvne 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-18 7.5YR 5/3 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 02 -Dec -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP -2
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.548732 Long.: -78.341489 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (0% No O
* C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Y
Yes `- No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No C
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: DP -2
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 ,
)
% Cover
0 ❑
Cover
0.0%
Status
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
o
❑
o.o°r°
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4,
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7°x° (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
=Total Cover
OBL species 30 x 1 = 30
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135
2.
0
❑
0.o%
FACU species 35 x 4 = 140
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 110 (A) 305 (B)
5,
5.
o
Ll
o.o
0.0%
0
Ll
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.773
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > SO%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1.
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2,
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6,
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Eupatorium capillifolium
2. ]uncus effusus
35d❑
30d❑
31.8%
27.3%
FACU
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Andropogon virginicus
30d❑
27.3%
FAC
4, Festuca arundinacea
15
❑
13.6%
FAC
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
Ll
0.0°x°
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 55
20% of Total Cover: 22
110
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No ' -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP -2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features _
(inches) Color (moist) _ % Color (moist) % Tvoe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 4/1 70 10YR 5/8 30 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 1511
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 02 -Dec -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP -3
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.549077 Long.: -78.337161 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb sandy loam NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (0% No O
* C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Y
Yes `- No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No C
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: DP -3
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 ,
)
% Cover
0 ❑
Cover
0.0%
Status
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
o
❑
o.o°r°
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4,
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7°x° (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
=Total Cover
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 15 x 3 = 45
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 30 x 4 = 120
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 65 (A) 185 (B)
5,
5.
o
Ll
o.o
0.0%
0
Ll
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.846
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > SO%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1.
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2,
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6,
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Eupatorium capillifolium
2. ]uncus effusus
30d❑
20
W-30.8%
46.2%
FACU
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Festuca arundinacea
15
d❑
23.1%
FAC
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0°x°
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 32.5
20% of Total Cover: 13
65
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP -3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features _
(inches) Color (moist) _ % Color (moist) % Tvoe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 5/2 85 10YR 4/6 15 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WA WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 1.0 % / 0.6
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.549021 Long.: -78.342517 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
d❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)d❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WA WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 ,
)
% Cover
0 ❑
Cover
0.0%
Status
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
o
❑
o.o°r°
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4,
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
=Total Cover
OBL species 35 x 1 = 35
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1 ,
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 40 x 3 = 120
2.
0
❑
0.o%
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 85 (A) 195 (B)
5,
5.
o
Ll
o.o
0.0%
0
Ll
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.294
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > so%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1. Rubus argutus
10
❑
100.0%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2,
0
E.
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4,
o
❑
o.o°r°
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6,
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
10
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , ]uncus effusus
2. Andropogon virginicus
30d❑
20d❑
40.0%
26.7%
OBL
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Eupatorium capillifolium
10
❑
13.3%
FACU
4, Microstegium vimineum
10
❑
13.3%
FAC
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5. Carex stipata
5
❑
6.7%
OBL
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 37.5
20% of Total Cover: 15
75
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No ' -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WA WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features _
(inches) Color (moist) _ % Color (moist) % Tvoe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 4/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 1511
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WB WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.547912 Long.: -78.341262 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
d❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WB WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 ,
% Cover
0 ❑
Cover
0.0%
Status
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
o
❑
o.o%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4,
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
0
0
=Total Cover
OBL species 40 x 1 = 40
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 0 x 3= 0
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
3.
0
❑
0.o%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
o.o%
column Totals: 45 (A) 60 (B)
5,
5.
o
Ll
o.o
o.o%
0
Ll
o.o
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.333
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > SO%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 )❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1.
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2,
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4, _
o
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6,
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 , ]uncus effusus
2. Carex stipata
30d❑
10d❑
66.7%
22.2%
OBL
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Eupatorium capillifolium
5
❑
11.1%
FACU
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
o.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 22.5 20% of Total Cover:
9
45
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5,
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No ' -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WB WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features _
(inches) Color (moist) _ % Color (moist) % Tvoe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 4/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 1511
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WC WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.548811 Long.: -78.335309 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb sandy loam NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
d❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)d❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WC WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 ,
)
% Cover
0 ❑
Cover
0.0%
Status
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
o
❑
o.o°r°
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4,
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
$,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
=Total Cover
OBL species 30 x 1 = 30
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 20 x 2 = 40
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 60 x 3 = 180
2.
0
❑
0.o%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 110 (A) 250 (B)
5,
5.
o
Ll
o.o
0.0%
0
Ll
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.273
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1.
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2,
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6,
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Microstegium vimineum
2. Arundinaria gigantea
60d❑
20
[7118.2%
54.5%
FAC
FACW
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. ]uncus effusus
15
❑
13.6%
OBL
4, Carex stipata
10
❑
9.1%
OBL
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5. Ludwigia alternifnlia
5
❑
4.5%
OBL
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 55
20% of Total Cover: 22
110
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No ' -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WC WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features _
(inches) Color (moist) _ % Color (moist) % Tvoe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 1511
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 16 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WD WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Channel (abandoned) Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 1.0 % / 0.6
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: Long.: Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
d❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
d❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)d❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
d❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WD WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 . Acer rubrum
)
% Cover
30❑
Cover
60.0%
Status
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A)
2. Uriodendron tulipifera
15d❑
30.0%
FACU
3. Pinus taeda
5
❑
10.0%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 88.9% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
=Total Cover
OBL species 30 x 1 = 30
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 5 x 2 = 10
1. Acer rubrum
15❑
75.0%
FAC
FAC species 110 x 3 = 330
2. Magnolia virginiana
5❑
25.0%
FACW
FAcu species 15 x 4 = 60
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 160 (A) 430 (B)
5.
5.
o
Ll
o.o
o
Ll
-0.0%
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.688
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > SO%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1. Ligustrum sinense
20❑
100.0%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
E.
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
o
❑
o.o°r°
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Woodwardia areolata
2. Microstegium vimineum
30d❑
30d❑
50.0%
50.0%
OBL
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3,
o
❑
0.0%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 30
20% of Total Cover: 12
60
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Vitis rotundifolia 5d❑ 50.0% FAC
2. Smilax rotundifolia
5d❑
50.0%
FAC
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
0
-
10
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WD WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _ % Color (moist) % Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 5/1 90 10YR 3/6 10 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 16 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WE/WF WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: Long.: Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Augusta sandy loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)d❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches): 3
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WE/WF WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 . Acer rubrum
)
% Cover
50❑
Cover
71.4%
Status
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2. Betula nigra
15❑
21.4%
FACW
3. Ilex opaca
5
❑
7.1%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%That
Percent of dominant Species
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 35
20% of Total Cover: 14
70
=Total Cover
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 75 x 2 = 150
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
10❑
66.7%
FAC
FAC species 100 x 3 = 300
2. Carpinuscaroliniana
5
❑
33.3%
FAC
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 195 (A) 470 (B)
5.
5.
o
Ll
o.o
o
Ll
-0.0%
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.410
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 7.5
20% of Total Cover: 3
15
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > SO%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1. Ligustrum sinense
20❑
100.0%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
E.
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
o
❑
o.o°r°
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. 0 ❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Arundinaria gigantea
2. Woodwardia areolata
60d❑
20d❑
66.7%
22.2%
FACW
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Athyrium filix-femina
10
❑
11.1%
FAC
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 45
20% of Total Cover: 18
90
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No ' -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WEMF WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _ % _ Color (moist) % Tvoe 1 Locz Texture
0-18 2.5Y 4/1 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WG WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.544247 Long.: -78.329166 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Augusta sandy loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
d❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WG WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 . Carpinus caroliniana
)
% Cover
25 ❑
Cover
50.0%
Status
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
15d❑
30.0%
FAC
3. Quercus nigra
10
d❑
20.0%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
o
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
=Total Cover
OBL species 5 x 1 = 5
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 25 x 2 = 50
1. Acer rubrum
50❑
100.0%
FAC
FAC species 110 x 3 = 330
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 140 (A) 385 (B)
5.
5.
o
Ll
o.o
o
Ll
-0.0%
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.750
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4. _
o
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Arundinaria gigantea
2. Woodwardia areolata
25d❑
5
❑
83.3%
16.7%
FACW
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3,
o
❑
0.0%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 15
20% of Total Cover: 6
30
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Smilax rotundifolia 10 d❑ 100.0% FAC
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5.
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
0
-
10
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WG WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _ % Color (moist) % Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 4/2 90 10YR 4/6 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
September 1, 2016
Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
2080 Wilson Mills Road
Smithfield, NC 27577
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMME:RMAN
Director
Subject: Surface Water Determination Letter
NBRRO#16-259
Johnston County
Determination Type:
Buffer Call
Isolated or EIP Call
❑ Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
S2
I
® Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial Determination
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 213 .0259)
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 213.0267)
Project Name: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Location/Directions: The projected area is off 2080 Wilson Mills Road in Johnston County
Subject Stream: UT to Neuse River
Determination Date: 08/17/2016
Staff: Cheng Zhang
Feature
E/I/P*
Start@ Stop@
Soil USGS Topo
Survey
S2
I
DWR flag
X
S3
wetland
S4
E
S5
P
throughout
X
S8
E
S10
wetland
S12
P
End of culvert
S13
I
DWR flag
*EIIIP = Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
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 may be
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).
Division of Water Resources, Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Operations Section http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone: [phone]
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax: [phone]

Meadow aprmg Mitigation Site
Johnston County
08/17/2016
Page 2 of 2
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that
dispute a determination trade 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 A
Buffer Permitting Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx,
etc.) Karen Higgins DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit, 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27604
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, 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 4041401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be
directed to the Division of Water Resources (Central Office) at (919)-807-6344, and the US Army Corp of Engineers
(Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-5544884.
if you have questions regarding this etermination, please feel free to contact Cheng Zhang at [phone].
ince ly,
Danny Smi
Supervisor, ater Quality Regional Operations Center
cc: RRO DVIR File Copy

jr • .-.~ -
4
a
Cee Y �, � � � r ► ^ t� � ��� ��� r � �'
N
I
Basemap Source; Esti World Imageryy_y
A goA I&

Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\JD_Figures\MeadowSpring_WOUS_11x17.mxd - Date Saved: 1/23/2017

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
November 4, 2016
Daniel Ingram
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
(via electronic mail)
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Meadow Springs Site
2080 Wilson Mills Rd, Smithfield, NC
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Ingram,
On August 2, 2016, 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 to determine the potential for
riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset. On October 18, 2016, Ms. Merritt performed a site
assessment of the subject site, which is more accurately shown in the attached aerial initialed by Ms.
Merritt on November 2, 2016.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination is
provided in the table below and was assessed with the expectation of the site being constructed as a
stream and/or wetland mitigation site by RES. This determination is only provided for RES and may
need to be re-evaluated if the site does not get constructed as anticipated or involves another
mitigation provider. The evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB) out to 200' 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
Buffer
3Nutrient
Mitigation Type Determination
to Buffer
0-200'
Credit
Offset Viable
Rule
at 2,273
Viable
lbs acre
S2 (at the
Stream
Yes
Actively grazed
Yes
Yes
Restoration site per 15A NCAC 02B
DWR flag)
pasture w/ a few trees
.0295 (o)(3)
S3
Wetland
No
N/A
No
No
N/A
S4
Ephemeral
No
Actively grazed
Yes
Yes (non-
Non -Forested Riparian areas =
pasture and a pond
forested
Restoration site per 15A NCAC 02B
(pond is expected to
areas only)
.0295 (o)(7); must stabilize banks to
be drained as part of
maintain discernible banks; must
stream restoration
confirm that the riparian areas are
project)
within the contributing drainage area
to the feature;
Forested Areas - Enhancement Site
per 15A NCAC 02B.0295 (o)(7)
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Meadow Springs Mitigation Site (RES)
November 4, 2016
Feature
Classification
1Subiect
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
3Nutrient
Mitigation Type Determination
to Buffer
0-200'
Credit
Offset Viable
Rule
at 2.273
Viable
Ibs acre
S5
Stream
Yes
Actively grazed
Yes
Yes
Restoration site per 15A NCAC 02B
pasture
.0295 (n)
S6
Stream
Yes
Actively grazed w/
Yes
Yes
Privet is expected to be treated and
dense private
mostly removed as part of stream
providing full canopy
restoration work:
in most areas
Restoration site per 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (n) were privet is removed and
replanted w/ native trees/shrubs;
S7 (from
Stream
Yes
Mature natural forest
Yes
No
Forested Areas= Preservationz Site
pipeline
w/ a narrow non-
per 15A NCAC 02B.0295 (o)(5)
easement to
forested corridor
S12)
downstream (labeled
Non -forested areas = Restoration site
S11 on map)
per 15A NCAC 02B.0295 (n)
S8
Ephemeral
No
Mature natural forest
Yes
No
Forested Areas - Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7)
S10
Wetland
No
N/A
No
No
N/A
S12
Stream
No
Mature natural forest
Yes
No
Forested Areas= Preservationz Site
w/ non -forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
grassed road crossing
Non -forested areas = Restoration site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
S13
Stream
No
Within pipeline
No
No
N/A
conservation
easement
'Subjectivity calls were determined by DWR in correspondence dated September 1, 2016 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
215A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5) - The area ofpreservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more
than 25% of the total area of buffer mitigation. Therefore, where Preservation Sites were identified, this rule must be
applied to determine the potential creditable acreage.
NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with
Riparian Buffer Establishment
A map showing the project site and the features is provided and initialed by Ms. Merritt on
November 4, 2016. This letter should be provided in all future stream, wetland, buffer or nutrient
offset mitigation plans for this Site.
This letter does not constitute as an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to
15A NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWR for
written approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
23

Meadow Springs Mitigation Site (RES)
November 4, 2016
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient load -reducing measure
shall be submitted to DVWR for approval.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset according to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
KAH/km
Attachments: Site Aerial prepared by RES
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
3�3

r ��Rn rii+�R/�L► J'y ���
rif�llt��Z�0 450 ••. res

fires
May 5, 2017
100 Calhoun St.
Dear Mr. Benjamin,
� �
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Mr. Pete Benjamin
Suite 130
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Owings Mills, MD
to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the
21117
Raleigh Field Office
Suite 650
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
412 N. 4th St.
the Site. The proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,555
Suite 300
Subject: Project Scoping for Meadow Spring Mitigation Project in Johnston County.
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered 302 Jefferson St.
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the construction of a stream restoration Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
project on the subject property. Maps showing the location and approximate limits of the 27605
conservation easement are enclosed.
1521 W. Main
We thank you in advance for our timely response and cooperation. You may return the 2 Floor
Y Y Y p p Y Richmond, VA
comment to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at rmedric(cDres.us 23220
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with
this project.
Sincerely,
Ryan Medric
Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
100 Calhoun St.
Dear Mr. Benjamin,
� �
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401
The Meadow Spring Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES)
to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the
5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Neu -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank. EBX-Neuse I, LLC, a RES entity, is the bank sponsor for
Houston, TX
the Site. The proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,555
77006
linear feet of stream and 36.53 acres of wetland. The site is currently in agricultural use and the
1200 Camellia Blvd.
stream channels have been straightened and channelized.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (accessed 14 March 2017) lists four
70508
endangered species for Johnston County, North Carolina: Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
1371/2 East Main St.
borealis), Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio
Suite 210
steinstansana), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). No protected species or potential habitat
Oak Hill, WV
for protected species was observed during preliminary site evaluations. A review of The NHP
25901
database documented aquatic habitat of Neuse River Waterdog historically mapped in 1979
33 Terminal Way
within a one -mile radius of the project area. Based on initial site investigations, no impacts to
Suite 431
federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
Pittsburgh, PA
15219
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered 302 Jefferson St.
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the construction of a stream restoration Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
project on the subject property. Maps showing the location and approximate limits of the 27605
conservation easement are enclosed.
1521 W. Main
We thank you in advance for our timely response and cooperation. You may return the 2 Floor
Y Y Y p p Y Richmond, VA
comment to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at rmedric(cDres.us 23220
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with
this project.
Sincerely,
Ryan Medric
Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
RECEIVE®
November 3, 2016
Nov o s lois
Mr. John Thomas RALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICE
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Subject: Action ID # 2016-01989; Modification of the Neu -Con Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument
associated with the addition of the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Dear Mr. Thomas:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information concerning the above
referenced project. The project, based on the description in your letter to our office, the provided
Instrument Modification, and other information is expected to have minimal adverse impacts to
fish and wildlife resources.
The proposed Meadow Spring Mitigation Site is approximately 246 acres, and occurs near the
intersection of Wilson's Mills Road and Lee Youngblood. Road, adjacent to an unnamed;
tributary of the Neuse River, in Johnston County, North Carolina. The projectproposes to
restore 4,945 linear feet (LF) of stream channel and 14.15 acres of wetlands, and to enhance
3,555 LF of stream channel and 6.08 acres of wetlands, all of which will be included within the
conservation easement onsite.
We do not have any major concerns with the Mitigation site plan as currently proposed, and
think this project could greatly benefit the downstream water quality. Downstream water quality
in this watershed is greatly important to the Service since there have been records of the
following aquatic federal species of concern (FSC) in the recent years: Roanoke slabshell
(�;'lliptio roanokensis) found in 2015, 'triangle floater (Alasrnidonta undarlala) found in 2012, and .
the State threatened Eastern lampmussel (Lampsillis radiata) found in 2005. There have also
been records of the Neuse River Waterdog (Necturis lewisi), also a federal species of concern,
found approximately 4.5 miles downstream. The Service encourages mitigation efforts in
priority watersheds, or with work that drains to priority watersheds such as this one, that will
benefit federal and state listed species. The Service would encourage catching and removing any
non-native fish that currently reside in the pond onsite that is proposed for removal, prior to
breaching the dam and connecting this feature with the tributary system to reduce impacts to
native aquaticspecies downstream. We,will continue to beinvolvedin this project_ through
discussions with the IRT, and will provide additional, coin ments in the future if warranted.

The Service has reviewed available information on federally -threatened or endangered species
known to occur in Jolmson County, specifically within the proposed mitigation work area, and
downstream in the Neuse River from the unnamed tributaries of Meadow Spring. Federally
listed species in Johnston County, North Carolina include: Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), Tar River spinymussel (Eliptio steinstansana), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), in addition to many other federal species of
concern. We have also reviewed information from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database which contains excellent data on the special status species, both federal and
state, which can be found here: lrttps:/hrcnlide.natureserve.org/. Our review indicates that no
federally listed species under Service jurisdiction are likely to occur in the project area.
Therefore, the Service would concur with a determination that the action is not likely to
adversely affect species designated as threatened, endangered, or their designated critical habitat.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and based on the
information provided, and other available information, it appears the actions described in the
Mitigation Site plan for Meadow Spring are not likely to adversely affect federally listed species
or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. We believe that the requirements of Section 7
(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please remember that obligations under
the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information identifies impacts of this action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
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.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this Mitigation Site plan. If you have
questions regarding these comments, please contact Emily Wells at 919-856-4520, ext. 25 or by
e-mail at < [e-mail] >.
Sincerely,
i
Peter B njamin
Field Office Supervisor

fires
May 5, 2017
Ryan Medric
Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
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 Meadow Spring Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES)
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the
29401
Neu -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 7,555
5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
linear feet of stream and 36.53 acres of wetland.
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 Polecat site (a USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation easement is
Lafayette, LA
attached).
70508
1371/2 East Main St.
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
Suite 210
(blt 2:Hgis.ncdcr.goy/hpoweb/; accessed March 28, 2017) was performed as part of the site due
Oak Hill, WV
diligence evaluation. The results indicated that there are no historic sites located on or adjacent
25901
to the proposed project.
33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
15219
any historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You
may return the comment tom attention at the address belor via email. Please feel free to
�' y below,
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
contact me at rmedric(a,res.us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
Raleigh, NC
disturbance associated with this project.
27605
1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
Sincerely,
23220
Ryan Medric
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. Brutus, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Klullz
November 28, 2016
John Thomas
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Street, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Add Meadow Spring Mitigation Site to the New -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank,
SAW 2016-01989, Johnston County, ER 16-2083
Dear Mr. Thomas:
We have received a public notice 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.review2( ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
dv;
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone7Rax: [phone]/807-6599

fires
March 29, 2017
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Mr. Vann Stancil
Suite 130
Habitat Conservation Biologist
g
Owings Mills, MD
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 the Meadow Spring Mitigation Project in Johnston County.
100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
Dear Mr.Staneil,
29401
Thepurpose of this letter is to request, review, and comment on an possible issues that might
p� q y p g
5020 Montrose Blvd.
suite 650
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential stream restoration project on
Houston, TX
the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground
77006
disturbance are enclosed). The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site has been identified by Resource
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream
suite 220
and wetland impacts through the Neu -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The proposed project
Lafayette, LA
involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,555 linear feet of stream and 36.53
70508
acres of wetland. The site is currently in agricultural use and the stream channels have been
1371/2 East Main St.
straightened and channelized.
suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the
25901
comment to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at rmedric(abres.us
33 Terminal Way
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with
Suite 431
this project.
Pittsburgh, PA
15219
Sincerely yours,
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605
1521 W. Main
Ryan Medric
2nd Floor
Ecologist
Richmond, VA
23220
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

Appendix C
Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analysis
• Meadow Spring Morphological Parameters
• Channel Stability Assessment Blank Form
• Existing Cross Section Charts

Meadow Springs Morphological Parameters
Reference Existin Design
S1 S2 S2 Sd SS SS SGA SGA SGB SER SGH SGH S7 S7 S7 S9 S9 S11 -3-11--T-7-17-17--M S13 S2 SS S6A S6B S11
Feature I
Pool
I
Riffle
RUN
RIFFLE I
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
RIFFLE
I RIFFLE
RIFFLE
POOL RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL RIFFLE
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Dmina a Area ac
540
36
46
12
36
97
171
278
337
379
410
31
46
36
97
171
379
Drainaoe Area (mi�1
0.84
0.06
0.07
0.02
0.06
0.15
0.27
0.43
0.53
0.59
0.64
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.15
0.27
0.59
NC Reaional Curve Discharae (cfsl'
14.7
2.1
2.5
0.9
2.1
4.3
6.4
9.1
10.4
11.4
12.0
1.9
2.5
2.1
4.3
6.4
11.4
NC Reaional Curve Discharae fcfs)'l
7.7
1.0
1
1.2
0.4
1.0
2.1
3.2
4.7
5.4
5.9
6.3
0.9
1.2
1.0
2.1
3.2
5.9
Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)l
174
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
7
11
12
Dimension
BF Widthft
8.5
9.9
10.1
4.9
2.9
3.0
5.6
4.6
8.6
9.4
9.1
5.9
7.2
6.8
9.1
8.5 9.0
10.4
10.6
10.0
8.0
5.9
13.5
8.6
5.4
5.4
4.8
Flood tune Width ft
36
50
12
10
6
7
6
6
14
13
11
8
15
9
17
12 19
12
22
>30
>30
>30
18
10
>11
>11
>11
>11
>15
>15
>18
>18
>21
>21
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft�l
11.8
11.2
1.5
1.6
2.1
1.0
5.4
1.8
7.1
5.3
6.8
9.0
6.3
9.3
10.5
16.1 9.8
12.2
8.7
15.8
6.9
6.3
8.8
2.2
3.2
3.8
2.6
3.0
5.3
6.6
7.8
9.5
10.2
12.2
BF Mean De th ft
1.4
1.1
0.1
0.3
0.7
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.5
0.9
1.4
1.2
1.9
1.1
1.2
0.8
1.6
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.3
BF Max De th ff
2.2
1.7
0.3
0.5
1.0
0.6
1.5
0.7
1.6
0.8
1.1
1.9
1.1
1.7
1.6
2.5 1.6
1.6
1.1
2.6
1.5
1.7
0.8
0.4
0.9
1.2
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.6
1.4
2.0
1.6
2.2
Width/De th Ratio
6.2
8.7
70.9
15.1
4.0
9.3
5.8
11.6
10.5
16.8
12.2
3.9
8.1
5.0
7.9
4.5 8.2
8.9
13.0
6.4
9.2
5.5
20.7
33.4
9.0
7.7
9.0
7.6
9.3
7.4
9.0
7.4
9.0
7.6
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
1.2
2.0
2.0
2.2
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.4
2.0
1.3
1.9
1.4 2.2
1.2
2.0
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
0.9
1.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Wetted Perimeter ft
10.2
10.7
10.2
5.1
4.0
3.3
7.3
5.0
9.4
9.9
10.5
8.7
8.4
13.1
10.7
15.0 10.5
11.8
11.4
12.1
9.0
7.7
13.8
8.7
5.8
6.0
5.2
5.3
7.5
7.8
9.1
9.4
10.4
10.6
H mulic Radius ft
1.2
1.0
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.3
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1.3
4.8
1.8
1.5
2.9
3.4
2.3
2.2
3.1
2.4
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.7 1.6
1.9
2.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
3.5
7.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Substrate
Description (D50)
COARSE SAND
VERYCOARSE
SAND VERY COARSE SAND
VERYCOARSE
SAND
MEDIUM GRAVEL
FINE GRAVEL
FINE GRAVEL
VERY FINE GRAVEL
COARSE SAND
COARSE SAND
VERY
COARSE
SAND
VERY
COARSE
SAND
VERY COARSE SAND
MEDIUM GRAVEL
FINE GRAVEL
FINE GRAVEL
COARSE SAND
D16 mm
0.54
0.86
0.58
0.51
0.37
D50 mm
1.2
11
6.6
2.5
0.84
D84 (mm)
9
23
23
14
4.3
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
Channel Bellwidth ff
41.2
43.5
16
74
22
48
27
51
22
62
16
28
23
40
22
37
15
Radius of Curvature ft
13.11
24.6
11
35
8
26
10
27
6
19
9
14
14
19
i6
23
17
Radius of Curvature Ratio
1.2
2.3
1.2
3.9
1.0
3.2
1.1
3.0
0.6
1.8
1.9
2.9
2.0
2.7
1.9
2.7
1.8
224
Meander Wavelen th ft
49.5
64.9
65
130
32
90
24
132
19
75
21
40
35
78
42
81
43
Meander Width Ratio
3.8
4.0
1.8
8.2
2.7
5.9
3.0
5.6
2.1
5.8
3.3
5.8
3.3
5.7
26
44
16
Profile
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
Shallow Len th ft
4
19.9
6
16
2
9
2
11
1
9
5
23
2
10
3
14
3
17
4
19
Run Len th ft
7.8
23
3
13
2
8
3
64
1
14
2
44
4
11
6
16
7
20
8
22
Pool Len th ft
0.9
21.6
8
28
3
28
4
30
2
31
5
28
3
10
5
15
6
18
7
21
Pool -to -Pool Spacing (ft)
40.3
109.8
18
61
15
53
10
48
5
46
21
113
20
53
28
78
34
1
93
39
1
106
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
242
107
310
274
Channel Len th ft
375
250
500
111
215
1220
1315
1511
665
898
388
454
500
231
1280
1340
1036
Sinuosi
1.32
1.03
1.09
1.04
1.16
1.17
1.15
1.29
1.26
1.06
1.25
1.66
1.09
1.25
1.23
1.17
1.23
Water Surface Slo a fVft
0.0023
0.0110
0.0130
0.0057
0.0033
0.0041
Channel Slo a ff/ft
0.0025
0.0130
0.0110
0.0140
0.0130
0.0039
0.0060
0.0032
0.0033
0.0041
1 0.0030 1
0.0050
1
0.00300.0020
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
Rosgen Classification
E5
F5
C5
E5
F4
F4
F4 - E4
E4
E5
E5
FS
F5
E5
E4/5
E4/5
E4/5
E5
'Bankfull staae was estimated usina NC Reaional Curve eauations and existina conditions data
z NC Reaional Curve eauations source: Doll el al. (2003)
' NC Reaional Curve eauations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003)

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 HAV (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

Upstream Downstream
Reach S7 - XS1 (Riffle)
100
99.5
99
^. 98.5
0 98
w
y 97.5
W
97
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

j., 1.0

Upstream Downstream
Reach S7 - XS3 (Riffle)
100.5
100
99.5
99
p 98.5
Y
M
>y 98
W
97.5
97
96.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S11 - XS4 (Pool)
102
101
100
y
W
0 99
Y
i
W
98
97
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

100.5
100
99.5
_ 99
c
98.5
R
m
w 98
97.5
97
0
Upstream
Reach S11 - XS5 (Riffle)
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
35 40

Upstream
Downstream
Reach S11 - XS6 (Riffle)
101
100.5
100
99.5
_ 99
c
w2 98.5
�o
98
w
97.5
97
96.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
k.
Downstream
Reach S11 - XS6 (Riffle)
101
100.5
100
99.5
_ 99
c
w2 98.5
�o
98
w
97.5
97
96.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S6 - XS7 (Riffle)
99.5
99
98.5
98
w
c
97.5
0
'� 97
W
96.5
96
95.5
95
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
101
Reach S6 - XS8 (Pool)
100
99
w
98
C
0
97
M
m
U'
-
96
95
94
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
—*.—Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S5 - XS9 (Pool)
100
99
98
97
c
0
M 96
>
W
uJ 95
94
93
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S5 - XS10 (Riffle)
100
99
98
y
v
0 97
Y
M
i
m 96
W
95
94
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

•. n
�.�_
wry. •�
.yKF
•.: i
tis'• ..
��5'+'all
i'J
�;�,�y'•
•�
ifs
;i
�ty�
_'
_ }}
��
i'J

Upstream Downstream
Reach S2 - XS13 (Pool)
100
99
98 11000
97
C
0
w
> 96
d
W
95
94
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

100
99
98
y
Y
C 97
0
Y
y 96
W
95
94
0
Upstream
Reach S2 - XS14 (Riffle)
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
40 45

Upstream
Downstream
100
Reach S1 - XS15 (Shallow)
99.5
99
98.5
98
Y
W
C
97.5
0
R
97
96.5
W
96
95.5
95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
101
Reach S6 - XS16 (Pool)
100.5
100
99.5
99
Y
98.5
0
98
97.5
W
97
96.5
96
.
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Ft
..- ..-:,��':� fir. �'• i
:o -.yam
a
-.F •t•5- AP
��. � �� 16.f, �fy ...
Upstream
Downstream
Reach S6 - XS17 (Riffle)
101
100.5
100
_ 99.5
c
0 99
c�
lL 98.5
98
97.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
99.5
Reach S2 - XS18 (Run)
99
98.5
98
97.5
97
c
0
96.5
>
96
m
W
95.5
95
94.5
94
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

lie
G l cka
i .._

- '?jib:,
Upstream Downstream
Reach S2 - XS20 (Riffle)
100
99.5
99
_ 98.5
c
98
c�
W 97.5
97
96.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S4.5 - XS21 (Riffle)
99.5
99
98.5
Y
"000/v
98
0
c�
97.5
W
97
96.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Appendix D
Soil Scientist Reports

Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study - FINAL
Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
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
March 2017
Soil Scientist Seal
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Meadow Spring 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
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs 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 of soils for hydrologic restoration
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, 2017 for areas along an unnamed tributary
to the Neuse River located in Johnston County, North Carolina. This report presents an evaluation of the
subject property based upon a field evaluation the purpose of which is to confirm 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 2.5 miles north of Smithfield east of Wilsons Mills Road (SR 1913) within
an active livestock operation (Figure 1 -Appendix A). The project area is within a wide natural
topographic crenulation along an unnamed tributary that flows southward to the Neuse River. The
tributary is a 0 or 151 order channel draining agricultural uplands. A second small unnamed tributary enters
the site from the north. Several small farm ponds are located within the watershed. At the downstream
end of the area evaluated is a large overhead utility line.
Current land use is livestock grazing with access to all areas evaluated. Vegetation is heavily disturbed
due to the livestock. The surrounding land use is farm land, undeveloped land, and single-family homes.
A hog farm operation near the site to the and the upland adjacent is used as a spray area for the lagoon
waste. Livestock grazing has resulted in unstable stream banks and significant down cutting. The surface
soil layer and underlying subsoil are exposed by the channel eroding.
In the upper area of the drainage way an excavated pond is located. West of the pond dam extending
outward from the drain way up into a nearly level ridge summit is a shallow concave -linear depression in
the pasture. Jurisdictional wetlands have previously been delineated within this linear depression and
above the pond. A shallow ditch system has been constructed through this depression to enhance drainage
of surface water. Soils near the pond and dam show extensive earth work with fill with some areas having
deep disturbance of the soil. The pond dam extends across the natural drain way.
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
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
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
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 Meadow Springs site, more than 90 shallow borings from 12 to 24 inches were evaluated to
delineate the hydric soil boundary. An additional thirteen boings were described to document a
representative range of soil characteristics at this site (Appendix B). Characteristics evaluated include
texture, color, mottling, and saturation or 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 on the floodplain and terraces of the
Neuse River. The soils are moderately weathered derived from relatively recent deposit of sediments.
The soils mapped by the USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey of Johnston
County (USDA 1994) indicate the surrounding uplands are the Norfolk -Goldsboro -Rains map unit and
occur on nearly level to gently sloping upland interstream areas dissected by small drainageways. Soil of
the floodplain and terraces of the Neuse as well as the small drainage extending up into the uplands
having low relief are in the Wehadkee-Bibb-Chewacla map unit that is poorly drained and somewhat
poorly drained. Expected soil textures in this landscape and landscape position are a sandy or loamy
surface and a subsoil that is predominantly loamy. 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 a hydric soil
(Table 1). The NRCS has two series mapped within the project area, a well drained Norfolk sandy loam in
the higher convex to linear upland landscapes and a poorly drained Bibb in the lower concave to nearly
level landscape areas. Listed as a potential inclusion in the Bibb soil (10 percent) on the NRCS Web Soil
Survey website is the Johnston series but is not mapped in the County. In the published Soil Survey for
Johnston County (1994) the NRCS mapping unit includes small areas of Rains, Grantham, and Toisnot
soils. The Rains soil is found on flats and depressions, but can occur on floodplains. The Grantham soils
are typically on nearly level uplands. The Toisnot soils have a brittle sandy loam layer around 22 inches.
Rains and Grantham have more clay in the subsoil and the Toisnot has a dense restrictive horizon. The
Bibb soil is classified as hydric by the NRCS. The Norfolk soil is not hydric and is Prime Farmland.
Much of the site is within a natural drainage having a relatively level floodplain between the steeper
slopes below gently sloping uplands. The upper portion of the drainage extends into a concave flat and
seepages are located along the gently dissected slopes above an excavated pond. This area is mapped as
Norfolk but is in a concave landform and has characteristics comparable to a Rains soil that is mapped
nearby in the county.
Bibb sandy loam soils are mapped "on floodplain 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 map unit is shown along a narrow drainage way
throughout the length of the site, including the pond and dam. A Bibb soil typically has a thin dark sandy
textured surface layer underlain by a sandy or loamy textured subsoil. The inclusions of Johnston have a
2
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
deep organic surface. The Bibb series does not include sandy clay loam or other clayey textured horizons
within its textural range. Johnston soils have an organic surface.
Table 1. NRCS Soil Mapping Units at the Meadow Springs Site
Mapping
Drainage
Hydric
Seasonal
Farmland
Taxonomic
Unit/Series
Class
(NRCS)
High Water
classification
Class
Table
Bibb
poorly
Yes
0-8
Not
Typic
sand loam
6 to 11 months
prime farmland
Fluvaquents
Grantham
poorly
Yes
0-12
Prime farmland
Typic Paleaquults
silt loam
if drained
Johnston
very poorly
Yes
0-12
Not
Cumulic
prime farmland
Humaquept
Norfolk
well
No
40 to 72
All areas
Typic
loamy sand,
5% Rains
(Jan -Mar)
prime farmland
Kandiudults
Rains
poorly
Yes
surface -undrained
Prime farmland
Typic Paleaquults
sandy loam
12 to 36 if drainied
if drained
Roanoke
poorly
Yes
0-12
Farmland of
Typic
silt loam
statewide importance
Endoa uults
Toisnot loam
Poorly
Yes
0-12
Not
Typic Fragiaquults
rime farmland
Tomotley
poorly
Yes
0-12
Prime farmland
Typic Endoaquults
sandy loam
if drained
The pond in the upper area of the narrow drainage way was constructed through the Bibb soil map unit. It
is surrounded by gently sloping upland where the WB wetland was delineated, the soils are mapped as
Norfolk loamy sand, a non -hydric soil. Rains is a hydric soil associated with the general map unit
containing Norfolk. Rains soil typically has a gray sandy loam surface underlain by gray sandy clay loam
with mottles. The pond and immediately surrounding landscape has been altered by the earthwork of
excavation and spoil from pond construction.
Results and Discussion
Soil borings within the project boundary exhibited hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil
surface throughout the natural drain way (Figure). Outside of the NRCS map suitable hydric soil was
identified that that extend into the concave nearly level landform west of the pond dam. Around the pond
is evidence of disturbance and spoil over the natural soil surface extending beyond the limits of the pond
and dam. Where excavated spoil is not spread too thick hydric indicators within 13 inches are observed
like those found throughout the drainage way. The dam structure and inundated pond areas were not
investigated but because of the landscape position and presence of hydric soil above and below it is likely
that the pond and dam are underlain by a hydric soil.
Soils examined within the project area typically have thin dark sandy or loamy surface textures with a
gray subsoil ranging from sandy loam to sandy clay. Much of the variation across the site was determined
to be related to natural topography and existing land use. An organic surface or mucky mineral is absent.
This indicates the hydric soil at this site does not meet the definition of a Bibb soil. Based upon the
detailed study performed at the site, the representative soil has more similarity to the Roanoke or
Tomotely series and are Typic Endoaquults. The improved drainage from the incised channel has
disturbed hydric characteristics in the surface and modification of subsurface indicators was observed.
Many mottle features in the upper 10 inches appear to be relict having sharp boundaries at the edge of the
mottle instead of a diffuse boundary usually observed in active wetland process. The reduced hydroperiod
allows increased mineral oxidation to occur within the matric and blur some of the typical indicators
expected. Besides reduce organic matter, changes in matrix color can occur and any mottles that are
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
destroyed are not likely to reform until the long saturation periods are restored. Increases of red and
yellow color saturation of the matrix were observed. This occurs over time where the oxidation-reduction
process is not balanced by a normal reduction cycle. Surface disturbance may also have destroyed mottle
indicators. Hydric Soil Indicators are still present within most areas of the floodplain. The indicators
present are the F3 -Depleted Matrix, F6 -Redox Dark Surface, and F8 -Redox Depressions.
The F3 indicator is the most common indicator found across the site. The F3 indicator is present where
the reduction phase allows removal of iron minerals that give color to the soil resulting in gray color of
parent material. Often traces of the iron as reddish mottles are visible in soil conditions. The F6 indicator
is present where long term saturation at the surface has inhibited decomposition of organics that results in
the accumulation of dark organics. Iron minerals periodically introduced form characteristic dark red
mottles but are often nearly obscured by the high organic content. The F8 indicator occurs in depressions
and exhibits iron concentrations along pore linings and can occur as large masses.
Potential Hydroperiod of Restored Soils
Based upon field observation across the site, the NRCS mapped units lack strong correlation to actual site
conditions at the site. Soils across the site have clayey textures subsoil of a sandy clay loam or sandy
clay. The mapped soil series of Bibb is classified as a Typic Fluvaquents but field observations indicate a
more developed profile with a clayey subsoil more like a Typic Endoaquults may be present. In the upper
reaches, west of the pond, hydric indicators found extends from the pond and drainage way into the
upland field. Soils in this area have a more developed profile with a clayey subsoil that is most like the
Rains series, classified as a Typic Paleaquults.
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). Soils documented near the site that are more like Typic Endoaquults are
similar Roanoke loam and Tomotely sandy loam and found in similar landscapes. Both soils are
characterized by having a clayey (argillic) horizon. The guidance for this soil suggests a hydroperiod of
10 to 12 percent where the water table is within 12 inches of the surface.
Hydrologic success for these soils should be expected to range from 9 to 12 percent saturation during the
growing season. The hydroperiod suggested for the Rains series follows the guidance of 10 to 12 percent.
Table 2. Wetland Hydroperiod Table for Soil at the Meadow Springs Site
Mapping
Taxonomic Classification
Hydroperiod
Unit/Series
Range*
Bibb sandy loam
Coarse -loamy, siliceous, active, acid, thermic
12-16%
Frequently flooded
T is Fluva uents
Rains sandy loam
Fine -loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic
10-12%
Frequently flooded
T is Palea uults
Roanoke
Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic
9-12%
silt loam
T is Endoa uults
Coarse -loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic
Toisnot loam
T is Fra is uults
**
Tomotley
Fine -loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic
9-12%
sandy loam
Endoaquults
*Source: US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016
**No hydrologic criteria provided but likely similar to surrounding Endoaquults.
4
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
The site is currently in agricultural use that is different from the historic landscape and hydrologic regime.
Past landscape/land use changes at this site includes enhanced drainage, a deeply incised channel through
the floodplain, active livestock resulting in soil compaction and surface churning, a loss of surface
organic matter, and the change of the normal reduction cycle characteristic of wetlands to an oxidation
cycle. The construction of a farm pond within the narrow drainage way has severely altered the
surrounding landscape and drainage, creating a discontinuity of the natural drainage.
The observed soils over the site have different taxonomy from the mapped soil units. Much of the site has
a clayey subsoil that that is restrictive and would normally results in a perched water table condition. The
soils observed across the site appear to be Typic Endoaquults (Roanoke or Tomotley) and Typic
Paleaquults (Rains) are suitable for restoration having a hydroperiod of 10 to 12 percent in the upper
reaches of the drainage and 9 to 12 throughout the lower reaches drainage way. Natural variability across
the site should be expected with wetter areas ranging to 16 percent in the lower elevations and
depressions and 9 percent near the upland boundary.
Because of the sites observed soil characteristics and landscape position hydrologic restoration of the soil
may be accomplished by plugging the existing incised channel is to restrict drainage and allow a natural
hydroperiod to return. Additional backfilling that create shallow depressions throughout the old channel is
allowable if the plugging material and construction are adequate to protect erosion prior to vegetative
establishment. Surface roughening and enhancing shallow depressions across the restoration area will
provide an appropriate landscape for diverse microhabitats. Due to compaction and long term agricultural
use, a shallow ripping of the surface along the contour to a depth of 8 to 10 inches is called for shallow
decompaction and to create adequate porosity for infiltration and storage, provide microtopographic
relief, and improve vegetative survival and growth.
The Meadow Springs project is located within a landscape suitable for wetland restoration and has soil
exhibiting hydric indicators. An available water source for hydrology will be available when the pond is
removed and the stream is reconnected to the floodplain. Retention and storage within the floodplain will
be returned to a natural state having an increased hydroperiod. Given the observed soil characteristics
indicating past wetland hydrology, and because of favorable landscape positon, the presence of a
restrictive horizon, and the potential source for restoring hydrologic inputs, this site appears suitable for
successful hydrologic wetland restoration.
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Meadow Spring 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/RegulatoryPennitProgram/
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.
USDA 1994. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil
Survey of Johnston County North Carolina. October 1994)
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
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.
6
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
APPENDICE
Appendix 1 Figures
Appendix 2 Soil Boring Log
Appendix 3 Photo Log
7
April 2017

G�
rccn;
7
a co Q/ v C,
oD O
f LO7
cn co
t� o
v
. - O C7
00� C C')
R)7' N}N
01 {r ... m e^ -
C, O
N N
oc) 00
cD7 c'r] O r
J ch,)
Ln c+O ��
t(14
rn
CV)
Lr)Kr LO
V
cf! �
LO v Zm
C'4 U-)
co Cp
rn
LO
oV::,\
a_?21�)(D
o
.
c
m
r`
LO
'—' v<
cn
0
m
cow
N cn
t-- I
WA
ry
C
N
co
CD

u3
Cn
o /
rC)
~o O
0 Ca
o fl
CD
07 rnrO
CD
rn
cod ce)
rn7• N�r-
N
�N
041 / O
1y N
JfJ N o
00 00
M ce)
I N 0 -
Ca) ch c„y
M�
co 0 M
CN
C'? v
O
U) CO
U) CD�
L .N
N �
_
LO W
00
m C—
C:)
I.
-- t�
mLOD
Co J_ tL7
fp cn.GC�,
ti N (JD ,`O
o►—
r� oco
�-
co
N cn
co Oo

Appendix 2
Meadow Springs Site
Soil Boring Descriptions
March 2017
Table Representative Soil Profiles in Meadow SnrinQs Pronoced Wt -t and RPetAlp.tinn Av.
Depth
inches
Color
Mottle
Percents e
Texture*�
_ Notes
Matrix Mottle
SB 38 (3-2-17)
F3 -De leted Matrix
0-4 10 YR 413
SL
410 10 YR 4/1
10 YR 3/6
4%
SL
10-16 10 YR 4/1
10 YR 5/2
10 YR 4/6
25%
3%
SL
16-26 10 YR 6/2
10 YR 5/8
20%
SC
no ladrology observed
SB 39 (2-7-17)
F3 -Depleted Matrix
0-3 10 YR 3/3
--
--
SL
3-10 10 YR 4/1
10 YR 316
15%
SCL
10-15 10 YR 3/1
10 YR 3/4
5%
SL
15-32 T5YR 5i1
7.5YR 518
20%
S
water table at -20 inches
SB 40 (2-7-17)
F6 -Redox Dark Surface
FS -Redox Depressions
v
0-8 10 YR 4/2
10 YR 3/4
10 YR 4/6
3%
1%
SiCL
8-14 10 YR 3/1
10 YR 5/2
8%
SL
14-22 7.5YR 6/2
7.5YR 5/3
10%
LS
22-34 7.5YR 5/2
7.5YR 5/6
40%
SC
massive at -22 inches
SB 41(2-7-17)
F3 -Depleted Matrix
F8 -Redox Depressions
0-3 7.5YR 3/2
7.5YR 3/4
5°io
SL
relict mottles
3-6 7.5YR 4/2
7.SYR 4/6
5%
SL
relict mottles
6-10 7.5YR 5/2
7.5YR 4/6
10%
SL
10-17 7.5YR 612
7.5YR 5/8
10%
SL
17-33 75YR 5/2
7.5YR 4/6
25%
SC
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC -
-nI7

Appendix 2
Meadow Springs Site
Soil Boring Descriptions
March 2017
Depth
Inches)
Color
Mottle
Percentage
Texture*
Dotes
Matrlx Mottle
SB 55 (3-2-17)
F3 -De feted Matrix
0-4 10 YR 4/2
10 YR 3/6
5%
L
4-9 10 YR 5/1
10 YR 4/2
10%
LS
9-17 10 YR 4/6
10 YR 5/2
10%
SC
17-24 10 YR 4/6
10 YR 6/2
10%
SC
clay films in
pore linings
SB 87 (2-14-17) near pond dam
F3 -Depleted Matrix
0-3 10 YR 3/4
3-8 10 YR 4,14
SL
SL
may be fill material from pond
excavation
8-12 10 YR 4/3
10 YR 3/6
8%
SL
12-15 10 YR 6/2
10 YR 2/2
2%
SL
15-21 10 YR 6/2
10 YR 5/8
20%
SCL
21-31 1 10 YR 6/6
10 YR 5/8
25%
SC
no hydrology
observed
SB 88 (2-14-17)
F3-Dep]eted Matrix
F
0-4 10 YR 2/2
L
4-9 10 YR 6/2
7.5YR 4/6
15%
SL
9-23 10 YR 5/2
7.5YR 4/6
30%
SCL
no!LydTology
observed
SB 89 (3-2-17)
F6 -Redox Dark Surface
F8 -Redox Depressions
0-5
10YR 3/2
10 YR 5/4
10%
SL
appears depositional
5-15
10 YR 3/1
10 YR 3/4
8%
SiL
15-20
2.5YR 5/1
10 YR 4111
15%
SL
20-29
10 YR 5!1
10 YR Sfb
30%
gravel 10%
no hydrology
observed
SB 90 (3-2-17)
F3 -De leted Matrix
0-3 10 YR 2/2
SL
3-6 10YR 3/2
SL/LS
6-9 10YR 4/2
10 YR 3/6
2%
SL
9-17 10 YR 5/4
10 YR 4/3
5%
S
17-29 7.5YR 2.5/1
7.5YR 3/4
°
SiCL
no hydrology
observed
AN
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
"0" SCS
K lao��J�
� v
20(7
2

Appendix 2
Meadow Springs Site
Soil Boring Descriptions
March 2017
Depth
Color
Mottle
inches
Percentage
Tezture*
Notes
Matrix I Mottle
SB 91 (3-2-17)
F3 -De leted Matrix
0-3
10 YR 2/2 SiL
3-7
l OYR 4/2 10 YR 3/6 10% SL
7-12
10 YR 4/3 10 YR 4/3 10% SL
10 Y4 3/6 5%
12-15
10YR 4/2 10 YR 3/6 100/0 SL
15-30
10 YR 5/1 1 10 YR 3/6 8% SCL
water table at -20 inches
30-34
10 YR 6/1 10 YR 5/4 2% SL
10 YR 3/4 5%
SB 92 (3-2-17) pt below pond dam —T from ditch and near overflow from pond
173-D leted Matrix
04
10YR 2/2
SL
4-16
10YR 4/2
10 YR 3/3
5%
SL
16-26
l OYR 4/2
10 YR 6/4
10 YR 518
10%
10%
SC;
water table at -16 inches
SB 96 (3-2-17) cut stream bank near profile SB 40
F3 -Depleted Matrix (surface is disturbed with potential spoil adjacent to channel)
178 -Redox Depression
0-15 1OYR 4/2
1OYR 4/6
10%
fSL
15-18 10 YR 5/2
10 YR 4/2
15%
SL
10 Y4 416
5%
18-39 10 YR 6/1
10 YR 5/8
25%
SCL/ SL
massive, brittle/indurate
fra i an
39-44 1 1OYR 5/2
1 10 YR 6/1
15%
SL I
massive
SB 97 (3-2-17) cut stream bank
F3 -Depleted Matrix
F8 -Redox Depression
0-7
l OYR 4/2 1
10 YR 3/4 10%
SL
7-28
l OYR 4,/1
10 YR 3/4 10%
SCL saturated at -26 inches
stream elev at -32 inches
m iexture trollows UJA)A textural classification)
S W sand, L = loam, Si = silt, C = clay
f = textural modifier for fine
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix 3
Meadow Springs Site
Photo Log
March 2017
1. F3 Depleted Matrix with fill surface below pond dam (Profile # 87)
2. F3 Depleted Matrix and F8 Redox Depression Profile on incised stream bank with brittle shelf visible.
(Profile # 96)
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix 3
Meadow Springs Site
Photo Log
March 2017
3. F6 Redox Dark Surface. F8 Redox Depression (Profile # 40)
4. F3 Depleted Matrix. (Profile # 91)
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix 3
Meadow Springs Site
Photo Log
March 2017
5. F3 Dcplctcd Matrix and F8 Redox Depression. Stream bank profile (Profile # 96)
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 [e-mail]
Meadow Springs Site -Wetland Soil Assessment for Mitigation Enhancement
Provide for:
Mr. Daniel Ingram
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Re: Wetland Soil Assessment for Mitigation Enhancement
Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
Johnston County NC
The project is a limited hydric soil investigation and evaluation to determine the current soil conditions
and suitability for wetland enhancement. The site location is north of Smithfield on the east side of
Wilson Mills Road (SR 1913). The project is on the property of Spring Meadows Farm Inc. along the
floodplain of the Neuse River. The area is approximately 20 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.
This report provides a limited hydric soil evaluation to examine potential enhancement proposed in the
mitigation plan. The boundary extent of jurisdictional wetlands verified by the Corps of Engineers is the
limit of the evaluation.
Field evaluation of the current hydric soil suitable for wetland enhancement.
Description of current conditions within the landscape setting related to ditches, drainage
patterns, drainage modifications observed, and potential hydrologic restoration options.
Conclusions, supporting field data, and summary recommendations.
A hydric soil evaluation of approximately 20 acres of jurisdictional wetland was completed on October
26, 2017 for Meadow Springs Mitigation site located in Johnston County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The
site location is approximately 2.5 miles north of Smithfield east of Wilsons Mills Road (SR 1913) within
the active floodplain of the Neuse River. This report presents an evaluation of the subject property based
upon a short field evaluation with the purpose of assessing the suitability for wetland enhancement at the
site. All wetland boundaries shown have been determined by the US Army Corps of Engineers as
jurisdictional wetland. Past drainage modifications exist and a professional assessment of potential
drainage effect from these modifications on this wetland is the purpose of this evaluation and report.
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.
Project Information and Background
The purpose of the project was to determine the effects of drainage modification on existing jurisdictional
wetland proposed for enhancement. Enhancement of existing hydrology is considered as using practical
techniques of drainage modifications and microtopographic alteration such as plugging ditches and
limited surface roughening.
This soil evaluation focused upon approximately 20 acres of jurisdictional wetland. The site is on the
nearly level floodplain of the Neuse River. Currently shallow ditches are present extending from shallow
depressions that appear to limit ponding depths and increase overall drainage from the wetland (Figure 2).
The vegetation is a hardwood forest consisting of red maple (Acer rubrum) with scattered green ash
October 31, 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 [e-mail]
Meadow Springs Site -Wetland Soil Assessment for Mitigation Enhancement
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
The sparse understory is mostly seedlings of the canopy species. The depressions all contain areas of open
water surrounded by dense herbaceous fringe. Limited to the larger depressions, herbaceous vegetation
consists of common rush (Juncus effusus), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), beaked panicgrass (Panicum
anceps), and sedges (Carex sp.). Evidence of past beaver activity is in the lower reaches of the project.
The surrounding land use is rural consisting of farm land, undeveloped land, and single-family homes.
The site drains south along the floodplain into the Neuse River.
NRCS Soil Mapping
Topography of the site is a wide floodplain of the upper coastal plain. The project landscape of the project
and local area is in a moderately wide, nearly level floodplain with small depressions. Floodplain soils are
formed in stratified alluvium of the transported sediments from the watershed.
The Johnston County Soil Survey shows the project area is mapped as moderately to somewhat poorly
drained Altavista fine sandy loam and Augusta sandy loam (Table 1). These occasionally flooded stream
terraces with a number of hydric inclusions of Roanoke, Tomotley and Wehadkee. These inclusions are
found in back swamps, flats and depressions of stream terraces. The levee along the banks of the Neuse
are mapped as Chewacla.
Table 1. Meadow Springs Wetland Assessment NRCS Mapped Soil Mapping Units
Series
Taxonomic
Drainage
Seasonal High
Surface
Hydric
Class
Class
Water Table in
Runoff
inclusions
Altavista fine sandy
Aquic
moderately
18 to 30 inches,
No
toam
Hapludults
well
December to April
slow
(9%)
casionall flooded
Augusta sandy loam,
Aeric
somewhat
12 to 24 inches,
slow
No
occasionally flooded
End oa uults
oorl
December to May
7
Chewacla loam,
Fluvaquentic
somewhat
6 to 24 inches,
negligible
No
frequently flooded
D strude is
poorly
November to April
to low
5
Roanoke silt loam
Typic
poorly
0 to 12 November
slow
Yes
occasional) flooded
End oa uults
to May
to veryslow
Tomotley sandy loam,
Typic
poorly
0 to 12 November
slow
Yes
rare) flooded
Endoa uults
to April
Wehadkee fine sandy
Fluvaquentic
0 to 12 November
loam,
Endoaquepts
poorly
to May
very slow
Yes
frequently flooded
Methodology
Soil borings were performed at the project area to described and verify the presence and estimate the
extent and general indicators of hydric soils. 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 8.1). The boring observations do not
contain adequate detail to classify these soils to a series. Indicators valid for the Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Region (V2.0), Land Resource Region P, were used. Soil boring locations were approximately
located using the Terrain Navigator Pro smart phone application by Trimble. Wetland boundary flags
were still visible in some locations, but the boundary was not extensively searched.
October 31, 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 [e-mail]
Meadow Springs Site -Wetland Soil Assessment for Mitigation Enhancement
Results and Discussion
Soil borings verified the presence of hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface across the
project area (Figure 2). Soils were observed to have a range of characteristics similar to hydric inclusion
in the mapped NRCS soil units. The landscape is similar to a backwater on the floodplain with wetter
depressions ranging in size from 0.2 acres to 1.5 acres. The largest has been influenced by beaver activity
and consist of a large depression of over 8 acres. A connected network of shallow ditches has been
constructed connecting to the depressions that appear to effectively lower ponding in the depressions and
would rapidly drain surface water to prevent longer flooding conditions. The central ditch has a blocked
culvert at the lower end.
The wetland boundary follows a distinct topographic elevation throughout much of its length. The toe of
slope and levee provide distinct breaks for the boundary. The boundary was checked where topography
was not as prominent. Very limited indicators were observed along the boundary and just outside of the
wetland boundary that may be considered relict. The boundary was found to accurately represent the
wetland soil.
Table 2. Representative Soil Profiles at the Meadow Springs Wetland Assessment Site
Depth
Color
Co
Mottle Percentage
Texture **
Notes
Matrix
Mottle
(ih)
(inches)
SB 301
Hydric Indicators
forested floodplain -higher elevation
Fater stained leaves
F3 -Deplete Matrix
0-7
7.5YR 4/2
5YR 4/6
15% PL
CL
7-15
7.5YR 5/2
5YR 4/6
20%(PL/1\4)
CL/ SCL
Hydric Indicators WT -4
SB 304
water stained leaves, high water marks
floodplain depression
172 -Loamy Gleyed Matrix
173 -Depleted Matrix
F8 -Redox Depressions
0-2 7.5YR 4/4 7.5 YR 3/3
5% PL SiL
2-12 7.5YR 4/1 5YR 4/6
15%(M/PL) Sic
12-16 5 PB 5/1 5YR 3/4
7% PL Sic
Hydric Indicators
SB 312
water stained leaves, debris wrack lines
forested floodplain -lower elevation
173 -Depleted Matrix
176 -Redox Dark Surface
0-8
10 YR 4/3
7.5 YR 3/3
10% M
SL
8-21
7.5YR 5/2
7.5YR 4/8
30% (PL)
SCL
7.5YR 5/1
2% PL
WT = observed apparent water table S = sand, L = loam, Si = silt, C = clay
*PL =pore lining, M = matrix f = fine, c = coarse (textural modifiers for sand)
**Texture (follows USDA textural classification)
The soils are typical of the large alluvial floodplains. Soils have a brown, loamy surface less than 10
inches thick with redoximorphic mottles underlain by a gray or brown silty or clayey textured subsoil
with many concentrations (Table 2). The wettest soil is found within the depressions. Within the
depressions, a gley silt clay is found. A few redoximorphic concentrations along root channels was
observed, possibly indicating current saturation is less than historic. The indicators found are 172 -Loamy
October 31, 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 [e-mail]
Meadow Springs Site -Wetland Soil Assessment for Mitigation Enhancement
Gleyed Matrix, F3 -Depleted Matrix, F8 -Redox Depressions, and F6 -Redox Dark Surface. The range is
due high variability of parent material deposition, microtopography, and age that is typical of a large
alluvial system. Upland soils were not evaluated outside of the distinct topographic elevation of the
floodplain.
Potential Hydroperiod of Restored Soils
Based upon field observations across the site, the site soil correlate well with the NRCS map unit
inclusion. Soils across the site are variable, but most appear to have subsoil texture and depth within the
range of the Roanoke and Wehadkee soils. Mitigation guidance suggest these areas should have a
hydroperiod of 9-12 percent and 12 to 16 percent, respectively, with the shallow depressions likely to
have greater than 16 percent hydro period (Table 3). Due to the mosaic of soil textures and
microtopography, hydrologic success for these soils should be expected to range from 9 to 16 percent
saturation during the growing season.
Table 3. Wetland Hydroperiod Table for Soil at the Meadow Springs Site — Wetland Assessment
Mapping
Taxonomic Classification
Hydroperiod
Unit/Series
Range
Altavista fine sandy
Fine -loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic
loam, occasionally
Aquic Hapludults
06-08%
flooded
Augusta sandy loam,
Fine -loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic
07-09%
occasionally flooded
Aeric Endoa uults
Roanoke silt loam,
Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic
09-12%
occasionally flooded
Typic Endoa uults
Chewacla loam,
Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic
10-12%
frequently flooded
Fluva uentic D strude is
Tomotley sandy loam,
Fine -loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic
10-12%
rarely flooded
Typic Endoa uults
Wehadkee fine sandy
Fine -loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic
loam, frequently
Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
o
12-16-/0
flooded
Source: US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016
Conclusions
The site contains a contiguous area of hydric soil exhibiting a range of hydric indicators typical of large
alluvial systems. The network of ditches does drain surface water from the depressional features and
would be expected to impact hydrology of the surrounding floodplain also. The largest depression is
partially blocking the drainage ditch and culvert on the central ditch. Beaver activity has temporarily
created ephemerally longer periods of saturated conditions since construction of the ditch system, but the
ditch system still underlies the beaver activity with potential to negatively impact hydroperiod. Current
hydrology still appears to be reduced by the network of drainage ditches despite recent beaver activity.
Enhancement activities along with permanent protection will ensure enduring higher levels of saturation
and flooding.
Although this wetland is jurisdictional, the system has lost some of the natural functions from the loss of
extended flooding and ponding in the depressions. Plugging of the ditch system is recommended to return
the natural floodplain hydroperiod and restore functional loss. The observed soils over the site are similar
to hydric inclusions that can be found within the soil mapping units. Natural variability across the site
October 31, 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 gklankford91 @gmail.com
Meadow Springs Site -Wetland Soil Assessment for Mitigation Enhancement
should be expected with wetter areas ranging to 16 percent in the lower elevations and depressions and 9
percent.
Summary Table of Site Characteristics
Site characteristics present suitable for wetland restoration
• Jurisdictional wetlands are present
• Soils meet numerous hydric indicators typical of large floodplains.
• Potential land use modifications appear straightforward where plugging shallow ditches on the
nearly level floodplain will have a great extent of impact.
Limitations at this site are minor.
• Site evaluation was limited.
In general, this appears to be a site with appropriate conditions for wetland enhancement and
rehabilitation. The topographic setting, soils, and previous modifications are appropriate for a successful
hydrologic enhancement at the Meadow Springs site on the floodplain of the Neuse River. Enhancement
of these wetlands will reestablish the longer natural hydroperiod and function to this aquatic resource.
This report describes the results of this soil evaluation. 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.
Sincerely,
George Lankford
Soil Scientist, LSS #1223
Attachments
/ r SOI' SCz�'�\
�o�4sK.
onifo� �sf'
Soil Scientist Seal
October 31, 2017

o
lurham Rocky
r�Mount
► �---
Raleigh
o ,
a■ !
■ �� ��_
v �
Dnnr
yetteville
if
�� � � • � r.�\Eason ride •
oRoLM
an•
iso -
Stephens - D; ive
RA—
- - \
Declination BriveE -J0-1
\
N We ZZ. S �-8300ai ;
- rY-Roaq a
et%4v� `e �East_Booker=DaiRoad `� 1923
J r
GN 1.54° E
MN 9.36° W ay.
ar xv P
/ I � aDrive,
Legend <Hollarid.Qriue�' •�' \ ' 1 ��"` �,�
Soil Boundary U
e
Project Boundary
C coPY t Tri ble Navantion I A 0
Map Name: SELMA Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft.
Map Center: 035.545686' N, 078.339210' W
Horizontal Datum: WGS84
SCALE 1:24000
Meadow Springs Mitigation Site 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wetland Assessment Feet
Figure 1. Vicinity Map-USGS 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Miles

N
LJ
E
LEGEND
Wetland Boundary
Soil Profile Point
Depressions
Ditches
1223
Print Date: 10/31/17 Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Scale: 1 inch = 300 ft.
Map Center: 035.5435350 N, 078.3297380 W
Meadow Springs Mitigation Site SCALE 1:3600
Wetland Assessment o goo zoo soo aoo aoo soo goo
Figure 2. Aerial 0.0 Feet 0.11

Appendix E
Meadow Spring Design Plan Sheets

'rH
ahh y o
r MEADOW SPRINGS
MITIGATION SITE
2017 HERE © AND © 2017 Microsoft Corporation I> b1r)9
VICINITY MAP
NTS
.
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:
BY I DATE I DESCRIPTION
REV RECORD:
BY I DATE I DESCRIPTION
MEADOW SPRINGS MITIGATION PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NEUSE RIVER BASIN: HUC 03020201
APRIL 2018
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
302 JEFFERSON ST, SUITE 110
RALEIGH, NC 27605
PROFESSIONAL SEAL
0
On O
Oz4Woz
Oe
�Q
JE
Nim
0U g w
'
Z 0 0
ilaa
W
Z
a
a
w a
w
o a a
'moo
U U
a 0 0
F-
LU
Z
J
00
CEIn
a Q
Z (J
0 2
a�
�0
� z
2i
Q)�
z0
[C 0
CLz
U)O
0U)
6z
w O
Iii
z
U
W
a
LU
O
U
W
Q
0
a
w
00 T
z a
z w
z a
z
a �
Q o
o a
WKD PROJ. NO.: 2016021500
Sheet List Table
Sheet Number Sheet Title
1
COVER
Al
OVERALL AERIAL
E1
EXISTING CONDITIONS INDEX
E2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
E3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
E4
EXISTING CONDITIONS
E5
TREE TABLE
S1
REACH S1
S2
REACH S2
S3
REACHS S2 & S6
S4
REACH S6
S5
REACH S6
S6
REACH S6
S7
REACH S6
S8
REACH S6
S9
REACHS S6 & S7
S10
REACHS S7
S11
REACH S7
S12
REACH S7
S13
REACH S9
S14
REACHS S9 & S11
S15
REACH S11
S16
REACHS S11 & S12
S17
REACHS S11 & S12
S18
REACH S5
S19
REACH S13
F1
FENCING PLAN
P1
PLANTING PLAN
P2
PLANTING PLAN
P3
PLANTING PLAN
M1
MONITORING PLAN
W1
WETLAND
W2
WETLAND
W3
WETLAND
D1
DETAILS
D2
DETAILS
D3
DETAILS
D4
DETAILS
D5
DETAILS
D6
DETAILS
PROFESSIONAL SEAL
0
On O
Oz4Woz
Oe
�Q
JE
Nim
0U g w
'
Z 0 0
ilaa
W
Z
a
a
w a
w
o a a
'moo
U U
a 0 0
F-
LU
Z
J
00
CEIn
a Q
Z (J
0 2
a�
�0
� z
2i
Q)�
z0
[C 0
CLz
U)O
0U)
6z
w O
Iii
z
U
W
a
LU
O
U
W
Q
0
a
w
00 T
z a
z w
z a
z
a �
Q o
o a
WKD PROJ. NO.: 2016021500

DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=200'
0 200 400
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEfrLU (LrLlm 3-
LU Z
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
Al
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
ui
J
❑ o
�
� a
a
� Q
aU
r`°
Z
O
Q =
U
Q 2
J
Q
¢
(�0
�
Q
= Z
Q
Z
O
J
U
� Z
C7
Q
0 w
¢
Z O
W
O
LL
OCU
D_ Z
>
0
�t v
¢z >
�O
O
O�
O
Z
Lij Z
a
U
z��
(3
g
to
Z
—?�
ar
o ¢
a
O
¢
o
o
m �
aa�
U Q
w
o
J
�
�
N
� Q
aU
r`°
Z
z �
Q =
z z
Q 2
J
Q
¢
(�0
�
W
= Z
Q
¢w
U ¢
J
¢ o
� Z
C7
Q
0 w
¢
Z O
W
ti p
OCU
D_ Z
>
0
�t v
¢z >
�O
zN B
O�
oLL
Lij Z
LA
J
M
z��
(3
W
Z
—?�
Q lA ..
W W W �
Z oOm
O
¢
o
o
a
aa�

REACH S1
\ I�
REACH S2
SEE DWG E2
REACH SS
` \ /
56A 7 REACH SBB�
� i • � i / �v�_
I
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutlom\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT EX COND.dwg -April 6, 2018- Ben Carroll
/-REACH S7
�a v
SEE DWG E3
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR—
• li
EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR
----------
/
ti��
BOUNDARY LINE
I
/
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
-----Te-----re—
EXISTING BOTTOM OFBANK
----ee-------
REACH S8 / �m
/
100 -YR FEMA FLOODPLAIN -----+tea-----+�a-
I
FEMAFLOODWAV
J
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE -----
oxP----- oxP-
�r
EXISTING FENCE LINE
_.:
EXISTING TREE
C �r
O
I'- wur �. - wLp
EXISTING WETLAND
I I
Z 0
N
.'.f. 1.:...: ..... .. �.. /1
2U
z
0
O
y
(n
1Z
REACH S9
LU
u W
0
O
`
o
4 a/
4
I
N m d
LU
O
w
z
g
� I
o
REACH S10
a
1�4-
v '
REACH S11
¢LU
Im a
/
1
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR—
EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR
----------
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINE
ti��
BOUNDARY LINE
REACH SI2
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
-----Te-----re—
EXISTING BOTTOM OFBANK
----ee-------
EXISTING TREELINE
/
100 -YR FEMA FLOODPLAIN -----+tea-----+�a-
�' •� ,,e • 11 /
FEMAFLOODWAV
----P�000wnv
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE -----
oxP----- oxP-
EXIBTING GASUNE
EXISTING FENCE LINE
_.:
EXISTING TREE
C �r
O
I'- wur �. - wLp
EXISTING WETLAND
I I
Z 0
N
SEE DWG E4
I
11
ui
ti��
00
REACH SI2
../1' 1 /�
CC Q
X
1.4
Z U
/
O
�' •� ,,e • 11 /
/ / II l�'.'.'.':.. rf r ." :ice.:.\ � / _ �/ i
H
U
REACH S73
/
�/ I
..':... ..':
_./:..i ... .� /
��. .A\.���:.
I
_.:
O
,gyp/
USE RIVE
Q
U
Z 0
N
.'.f. 1.:...: ..... .. �.. /1
2U
z
0
O
y
(n
14,'�._:..'.':.......
OCO
p=
LU
u W
0
O
`
o
z
�
I
N m d
LU
O
w
z
g
o
O ¢
a
1�4-
m
J
¢LU
Im a
11
ui
ti��
00
REACH SI2
� a
a
CC Q
X
z
Z U
/
O
�' •� ,,e • 11 /
/ / II l�'.'.'.':.. rf r ." :ice.:.\ � / _ �/ i
H
U
REACH S73
/
�/ I
..':... ..':
_./:..i ... .� /
��. .A\.���:.
I
_.:
O
,gyp/
USE RIVE
Q
U
Z 0
N
rr
2U
z
0
O
3 1
(n
Z �
OCO
p=
LU
u W
0
O
`
o
z
�
I
N m d
�D CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.762.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NC. LICENSE No —74
FULL SCALE: 1"=200'
0 200 400
�2" = FULL SCALE
HAI F Rr.AI F
Z
ui
LU
o�
00
� a
a
CC Q
X
z
Z U
z
O
Q Fz
H
U
¢ 2
00
Z
Er
0_
Z
y
p
z
O
Z
Q
U
Z 0
U
rr
2U
z
0
O
3 1
(n
Z �
OCO
p=
LU
u W
0
O
2
o
z
Z
a
N m d
LU
O
w
z
g
o
O ¢
a
O
y
m
J
¢LU
Im a
Z
o
LU
00
N
CC Q
X
o
Z U
z
w
Q Fz
z
¢ 2
00
Z
¢ x
Z
y
p
ww
U
Z
Q
0 H
Z 0
U
. ti
2U
z
0
tOL o
3 1
(n
Z �
OCO
p=
LU
u W
O LL
U u
w
2
J
¢ M
Z
F
N m d
LU
O
Z
¢
w w L
zm
oO
o
o
a
ao
a
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA SHT IX COND.dwg -April B, 2018 -Ben Carroll
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEfrLU (LrLlm 3-
LU Z
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
ui
J
❑ o
�
� a
a
� Q
EL Q
r
Z U
U
O
U
Q 2
�
¢ x
(� 0
�
Q
H- Z
Z
O
Z
O
U
U
fA Z
Z
o
Q
Z�
O
LL
OL z
Cn
�
uJ
O
�
OU
O
Z
�U 2
a
U
z��
(7
g
to
Z
—?�
ar
o ¢
a
O
¢
o
o
m �
00 ao
U Q
w
o
J
�
�
N
� Q
EL Q
r
Z U
U
z i
z z
Q 2
�
¢ x
(� 0
�
ww
H- Z
Z
O
¢tea
U
fA Z
Z
o
Q
Z�
y o
OL z
Cn
�
uJ
w �
�
OU
Z
oLL
�U 2
J
M
z��
(7
aNlrn
W
Z
—?�
W W W �
Z oOm
O
¢
o
a
00 ao

I C/,CNlm
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
— — — 50 — — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINE
— — — —
LINE
BOUNDARY LINE
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----m-----rs
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — — ss — — — — —as—
EXISTING TREELINE
100 -YR FEMA FLOODPLAIN-----ioova-----�aova—
S
FEMA FLOODWAV
----a000wwv
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE
-----------oHv—
EXISTING GASLINE
—G—G—.—
c c cEXISTING
EXISTINGFENCE LINE
x x
EXISTING TREE
m 01'
/
EXISTING WETLAND
fix•----e�m --I
REACH
�130�vi
L
� I
`AWN, �'� �✓^ �-
M
�/l�� �o•OL I. AS
B fR l
FSFFO�G R/w
No F2
REACH S9—
? \ \
RIVER
tN.?s�'uplihl.I'n:
..
�� � •�. � l .moi �� )/ \ \\ �
^..-\. S\. – � _ate —•L
�;.C.':'�.'�a :' .' `• _ •✓'yam �� �- � / /
/
\ \\ � �� x'115. .!' g��• i
I
I
C \
–'/ •'• _ REACH S12
�i��� ice( .\• � � � /,,/®�
I RI
� I
� I ol
REACH S11
I .
.
y"
120
V REACH S10
\gyp, 3� ✓\ — / ./ \\ �• .,l �—�/���/ I �
r /
REACH S8
I IIv r. / Inu I❑ rle ,I e. Ir � � �" �\ �� � $ \ ��
/N \1
\
IX COND.dwg -April B, 2018 -Ben Carroll
c
0
REACH S13
u ul Ir._ 'lv
\
I
oo'\
N$
\
\
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + GI
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE
8�WQ❑Er
J IP--__`—
S
\\
xw,ti;miliA
_ 1
_
m 01'
/
116
T
c
0
REACH S13
u ul Ir._ 'lv
\
I
oo'\
N$
\
\
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + GI
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE
8�WQ❑Er
aa�
amNOUU�QZOOOzo rFrQ(fUL! Or
Im
)g
O
om
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT
xw,ti;miliA
rt5¢¢�NQvno
,i
W.
o
LU
00
EL Q r
Z wz� z
0Z w
ZoZZQ o
OCU t
EL z
Cn
�WZ°w�o(0 GE -w--
<
0
Z– 7 Iv�rn
W ZZW W
O oOm
Ir oaa0
PRO. DATE:
CJUNE 201
ODP
OC. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E3
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500N�
xw,ti;miliA

M4d01i11
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR — — — 50— — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINE — — — — —
BOUNDARY LINE
EXISTING TOP OF BANK----re-----ra
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK-----sa-----es—
EXISTING TREELINE
100 -YR FEMA FLOODPLAIN-----�ao•'R-----+oms—
FEMAFLOODWAV----a000wnv
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE-----o-P------ —
EXISTINGGASLINE —G—.—.—
EXISTING
c c c
EXISTING FENCE LINE x x
EXISTING TREE
EXISTING WETLAND
I
a� :r_—_�—
\ r '
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT IX COND.dwg -April B, 2018 -Ben Carroll
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NC. LICENSE NO. -74
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALErrOL zCn Lij tz
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E4
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
m
❑ R
� a
a O
U
0_
F
U
Z
O
U
O
F
O
O Z
a U
g
to ar
o ¢
a
Z
W Z
o
¢
a0[
EL Q
r
Z U
�
z N
z z
Q 2
�
¢ x
C70
p
ww
H- Z
Z
U
fA Z
Z
o
Q
Z�
y o
W
�
��
O�
Z�
oLL
Q
0
J
M
zW
­
(7
a m dr
aNlrn
W
Z
—?�
Q lA ..
W W W �
Z oOm
O
¢
o
m �
I
¢ W
� Q
W Z
o
¢
a0[
EL Q
r
Z U
�
z N
z z
Q 2
�
¢ x
C70
p
ww
H- Z
Z
U
fA Z
Z
o
Q
Z�
y o
W
�
��
O�
Z�
oLL
Q
0
J
M
zW
­
(7
a m dr
aNlrn
W
Z
—?�
Q lA ..
W W W �
Z oOm
O
¢
o
a
00 ao

FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA SHT IX COND.dwg -April B, 2018 -Ben Carroll
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.comfrLULU Z
NC. LICENSE —74
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E5
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
Qm
J
❑ o
�
� a
a
� Q
aU
j5 8
T7 14" GUM TREE
T701
12" MAPLE TREE
T1661
12" MAPLE TREE
T1861
18" POPLAR TREE
T2 30" OAK TREE
T102
18" MAPLE TREE
T1662
12" MAPLE TREE
T1862
12" POPLAR TREE
T3 14" GUM TREE
T703
14" MAPLE TREE
T7663
16" GUM TREE
T1863
14" TREE
T4 14" GUM TREE
T104
16" MAPLE TREE
T1664
12" TREE
T1864
14" POPLAR TREE
T5 16" GUM TREE
T105
18" MAPLE TREE
T1665
20" GUM TREE
T1865
20" TREE
T6 16" PECAN TREE
T106
16" TREE
T1666
16" GUM TREE
T1866
14" HOLLY TREE
T7 16" PECAN TREE
T107
12" TREE
T1667
12" TREE
T1867
20" OAK TREE
T8 18" TREE
T108
12" TREE
T1668
16" POPLAR TREE
T1868
14" MAPLE TREE
T9 12" GUM TREE
T109
20" MAPLE TREE
T1669
16" GUM TREE
T1869
14" GUM TREE
T10 12" GUM TREE
T110
20" MAPLE TREE
T1670
18" TREE
T1870
72" MAPLE TREE
7-11 36" GUM TREE
7-111
20" TREE
T1671
12" OAK TREE
T1871
T1872
16" GUM TREE
20" POPLAR TREE
T12 16" GUM TREE
T112
14" MAPLE TREE
T1672
14" GUM TREE
T13 18" TREE
T113
16" MAPLE TREE
T1673
14" BIRCH TREE
T1873
22" GUM TREE
T14 18" GUM TREE
T1517
14" MAPLE TREE
T1674
20" BIRCH TREE
T1874
16" GUM TREE
T15 20" OAK TREE
T1522
16" MAPLE TREE
T1675
14" MAPLE TREE
T1875
18" TREE
T16 20" OAK TREE
T1523
14" OAK TREE
T1676
12" TREE
T1876
16" TREE
T17 18" GUM TREE
T1524
16" OAK TREE
T7677
16" GUM TREE
T1877
14" GUM TREE
T18 12" OAK TREE
T1525
16" GUM TREE
T1678
16" TREE
T1878
14" GUM TREE
T19 12" TREE
T1526
16" TREE
T1679
16" MAPLE TREE
T1879
12" GUM TREE
T20 16" GUM TREE
T1527
14" TREE
T1680
12" MAPLE TREE
7-1880
14" GUM TREE
T21 14" GUM TREE
T1528
20" TREE
T1681
18" TREE
7-1881
18" TREE
T22 18" GUM TREE
T1529
22" OAK TREE
T1682
14" GUM TREE
T1882
20" MAPLE TREE
T23 18" GUM TREE
T1530
18" GUM TREE
T1683
12" TREE
T1883
18" GUM TREE
T24 14" GUM TREE
T1531
18" TREE
T1684
14" GUM TREE
T1884
14" GUM TREE
T25 18" GUM TREE
T1532
16" TREE
T1685
18" GUM TREE
T1885
12" TREE
T26 20" GUM TREE
T1555
16" TREE
T1686
18" GUM TREE
T1886
12" TREE
T27 16" GUM TREE
T1534
20" TREE
T1687
14" GUM TREE
T1887
12" OAK TREE
T28 18" GUM TREE
T1535
1 22" MAPLE TREE
T7688
12" MAPLE TREE
T1888
18" GUM TREE
T29 20" GUM TREE
T1536
1 14" MAPLE TREE
T1689
72" MAPLE TREE
T1889
16" TREE
T30 20" TREE
T1537
16" TREE
T1690
14" MAPLE TREE
T1890
12" GUM TREE
T31 22" GUM TREE
T1538
12" TREE
7-1691
20" MAPLE TREE
T1891
20" TREE
T32 24" OAK TREE
T1539
20" TREE
T1692
16" MAPLE TREE
T1892
12" GUM TREE
T33 42OAK TREE
T1540
12" OAK TREE
T1693
16" MAPLE TREE
T1893
14" GUM TREE
T34 14 GUM TREE
T1541
18" MAPLE TREE
T1694
16" MAPLE TREE
T1894
18" OAK TREE
T35 20" GUM TREE
T1542
18" BIRCH TREE
T1695
14" TREE
T1895
16" GUM TREE
T36 14" TREE
T1543
20" TREE
T1696
32" OAK TREE
T1896
18" TREE
T37 48" OAK TREE
T1544
18" TREE
T1697
24" OAK TREE
T1897
12" GUM TREE
T38 12" GUM TREE
T1545
12" GUM TREE
T1698
20" GUM TREE
T1898
16" TREE
T39 14" TREE
T1546
18" TREE
T1699
16"" GUM TREE
T1899
14" TREE
T40 36" MAPLE TREE
T1547
12" GUM TREE
T1700
12" GUM TREE
T1900
14" GUM TREE
T41 22" GUM TREE
T1548
22" OAK TREE
T1801
16" GUM TREE
T1901
12" TREE
T42 12" TREE
T1549
12" MAPLE TREE
T1802
16" TREE
T1902
12" TREE
T43 18" GUM TREE
T1550
16" OAK TREE
T1803
16" GUM TREE
T1903
14" TREE
T44 12" GUM TREE
T1551
12" MAPLE TREE
T1804
28" OAK TREE
T1904
12" TREE
T45 24" GUM TREE
T1552
16" TREE
T1805
16" GUM TREE
T1905
12" TREE
T46 18" GUM TREE
T1553
12" MAPLE TREE
T1806
16" MAPLE TREE
T1906
16" TREE
T47 22" GUM TREE
T1554
12" TREE
T1807
20" GUM TREE
T1907
12" TREE
T48 60" GUM TREE
T1555
16" MAPLE TREE
T7808
16" MAPLE TREE
T1908
12" TREE
T49 20" TREE
T1556
20" MAPLE TREE
T1809
16" OAK TREE
T1909
12" TREE
T50 16" GUM TREE
T1557
16" GUM TREE
T1810
18" GUM TREE
T1910
18" TREE
T51 22" OAK TREE
T1558
36" TREE
T1811
14" GUM TREE
T1911
14" TREE
T52 24" OAK TREE
T1559
12" MAPLE TREE
T1812
12" TREE
T1912
12" TREE
T53 30" OAK TREE
T1560
14" MAPLE TREE
T1813
18" GUM TREE
TI -913
12" TREE
T54 22" OAK TREE
T1561
20" TREE
T1814
16" GUMTREE
T1974
14" TREE
T55 22" OAK TREE
T1562
20" MAPLE TREE
T1815
30" MAPLE TREE
T1915
12 TREE
T56 36" OAK TREE
T1563
20" GUM TREE
T1816
18" TREE
T1916
14 TREE
T57 14" GUM TREE
T1564
20" MAPLE TREE
T1817
16" TREE
T1917
12" TREE
T58 24" GUM TREE
T1565
22" GUM TREE
T1818
12" MAPLE TREE
T1918
14" TREE
T59 12" TREE
T1566
12" MAPLE TREE
T1819
20" OAK TREE
T1919
12" TREE
T60 16" MAPLE TREE
T1567
22" TREE
T1820
12" GUM TREE
T1920
14" TREE
T61 20" BIRCH TREE
T1568
18" TREE
T1821
14" GUM TREE
T1921
18" OAK TREE
T62 12" MAPLE TREE
T1569
12" MAPLE TREE
T1822
18" GUM TREE
T1922
20" OAK TREE
T63 12" MAPLE TREE
T1570
18" TREE
T1823
14" BIRCH TREE
TI -923
22" OAK TREE
T64 18" MAPLE TREE
T1571
20" OAK TREE
T1824
12" GUM TREE
T1924
T1925
86" OAK TREE
24" POPLAR TREE
T65 12" MAPLE TREE
T1572
14" TREE
T1825
12" GUM TREE
T66 12" BIRCH TREE
T1573
18" TREE
T1826
18" GUM TREE
T1926
20" OAK TREE
T67 14" BIRCH TREE
T1574
16" TREE
T1827
18" GUM TREE
T1927
24" TREE
T68 18" BIRCH TREE
T1575
12" TREE
T7828
16" GUM TREE
T1928
18" TREE
T69 20" MAPLE TREE
T1576
26" TREE
T1829
18" GUM TREE
T1929
48" POPLAR TREE
T70 12" MAPLE TREE
T1577
18" TREE
T7830
T1831
12" TREE
20" POPLAR TREE
T1930
12" GUM TREE
T71 12" MAPLE TREE
T1578
1 18" MAPLE TREE
T1931
T1932
14" TREE
26" POPLAR TREE
T72 12" MAPLE TREE
T1579
14" MAPLE TREE
T1832
20" GUM TREE
T73 12" BIRCH TREE
T1580
1 18" GUM TREE
T1833
16" GUM TREE
T1933
16" TREE
T74 14" MAPLE TREE
T1581
16" MAPLE TREE
T1834
20" OAK TREE
T1934
20" TREE
T75 16" MAPLE TREE
T1582
1 26" OAK TREE
T1835
12" BIRCH TREE
T1935
12" MAPLE TREE
T76 14" GUM TREE
T1583
22" OAK TREE
T1836
T1837
20" GUM TREE
24" POPLAR TREE
TI -936
14" GUM TREE
T77 14" MAPLE TREE
T1584
20" OAK TREE
T1937
18" TREE
T78 16" OAK TREE
T1585
12" MAPLE TREE
T1838
18" OAK TREE
T1938
48" TREE
T79 14" GUM TREE
T1586
14" MAPLE TREE
T1839
14" BIRCH TREE
T1939
14" OAK TREE
T80 20" MAPLE TREE
T1587
12" MAPLE TREE
T7840
12" GUM TREE
T1940
12" GUM TREE
T81 12" GUM TREE
T1588
16"" MAPLE TREE
T1841
18" OAK TREE
T1941
14" GUM TREE
T82 12" GUM TREE
T1589
22" MAPLE TREE
T1842
12" POPLAR TREE
T1942
12" GUM TREE
T83 12" MAPLE TREE
T1590
16"" BIRCH TREE
T1843
12" POPLAR TREE
T1943
18" TREE
T84 20" OAK TREE
T1591
14" TREE
T1844
12" OAK TREE
T1944
14" TREE
T85 20" OAK TREE
T1592
14" MAPLE TREE
T1845
18" MAPLE TREE
TI -945
12" GUM TREE
T86 24" TREE
T1593
14" TREE
T1846
16" GUM TREE
T1946
12" GUM TREE
T87 12" GUM TREE
T1594
16" TREE
T1847
12" GUM TREE
T1947
16" OAK TREE
T88 20" MAPLE TREE
T1595
14" MAPLE TREE
T1848
18" TREE
T1948
14" OAK TREE
T89 20" MAPLE TREE
T1596
18" MAPLE TREE
T1849
12" OAK TREE
T1949
12" GUM TREE
T90 28" OAK TREE
T1597
18" MAPLE TREE
T1850
12" BIRCH TREE
T1950
12" GUM TREE
T91 16" TREE
T1598
20" MAPLE TREE
T1851
14" POPLAR TREE
T1951
12" OAK TREE
T92 12" TREE
T1599
20" MAPLE TREE
T1852
16" POPLAR TREE
T1952
16" OAK TREE
T93 16" TREE
T1600
18" MAPLE TREE
T1853
14"" POPLAR TREE
T1953
12" OAK TREE
T94 12" MAPLE TREE
T1654
20" MAPLE TREE
T1854
12" POPLAR TREE
T1954
20" OAK TREE
T95 12" MAPLE TREE
T1655
14" TREE
T1855
12" POPLAR TREE
TI -955
16" GUM TREE
T96 14" OAK TREE
T1656
14" MAPLE TREE
T1856
12" TREE
T7956
14" OAK TREE
T97 14" TREE
T1657
14" MAPLE TREE
T1857
14" MAPLE TREE
T1957
14" GUM TREE
T98 14" MAPLE TREE
T1658
16" TREE
T1858
12" POPLAR TREE
T99 12" GUM TREE
T1659
12" MAPLE TREE
T1859
16" POPLAR TREE
T100 16" MAPLE TREE
T1660
18" TREE
T1860
18" MAPLE TREE
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA SHT IX COND.dwg -April B, 2018 -Ben Carroll
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.comfrLULU Z
NC. LICENSE —74
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E5
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
ui
Qm
J
❑ o
�
� a
a
� Q
aU
j5 8
Z
O
Q F
U
Q �
¢cs_7
CrS Z
W
J
Q
~
m
Z
O
1T1Z
W
W
U
Z O
dU
Cr
~
¢ N o
v� o
Z
�O
O
LL
O�
oLL
z
QQ
w 0
di
J
O
z
O
Z
LU
O
a
U
m
g
a
O
Q
I
ro O
m �
U Q
w
o
J
�
�
N
� Q
aU
j5 8
Z
z r
Q F
z z
Q �
¢cs_7
CrS Z
W
J
w w
~
m
�
1T1Z
W
W
of
� �
Z O
dU
Cr
~
¢ N o
v� o
Z
�O
¢ z >
zN B
O�
oLL
z
QQ
w 0
di
J
M
z
(7
aNlrn
LU
O
z
3
¢ m ....
w www
z oOm
¢
o
o
a
aa0

183
180
177
174
171
168
165
162
160
LCE
REACH S1
/ ENHANCEMENT II
/ (STA 03+50 TO 06+00)
4+0o----- — -- +
-1+00 175 — -- 2+00----�� -- 3+00)- W
far �$�____
T\\\ T$__-------
-TB--=--TB--- _TB ------T6=
-175
STC -I ICV'ON '99- LIM -D \
/!
s
L_
v=zSI IIS J3 "732 PG 15"
Fp 2 FG ifiT W
\ s V
� J
clic �
tic
\ �9
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Protects\Resource Environmental SOlutlOns\2016021500RA- TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\QADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA SHT PROP S.dwg -April 16, 2018 -Kristen Navaroli
183
180
177
174
171
168
165
162
160
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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.
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consuitants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0 30 60
2" =FULL SCALE
HALF SCALcrIn crEL00
PRO: J. DATE: JUNE 2018
D.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50 — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR —
— — — 46 — — — —
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
�0
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
— r= W L�
EXISTING WETLAND
II
U
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
F �
Q �
CHANNEL
U
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
O
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
UZ
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
� Z
PROPOSEDUG
�
(SEE DETAILETAIL DWG DWG 32)
N
PROPOSED FILL AREA
I
DIFFUWSTRUCTURE
a
Y
O IY
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
BRUSH TOE
twit �
Q J
(SEE DETAIL DWG 33)
UULL
DOUBLE LOG DROP
W
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
Z W O
LOG TOE PROTECTION
a m
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
LOG SILL
U�
Jul
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
W � 2 I
Z
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
a
LOG VANE
¢ate
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG 35)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRACE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consuitants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0 30 60
2" =FULL SCALE
HALF SCALcrIn crEL00
PRO: J. DATE: JUNE 2018
D.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
F�
o �
W J
of
O
H
Q
a
Z
O
U
Z
wN
02
Z
O
F �
Q �
U
lY
Z
N
=
O
O
Z
� Z
a
i<
�
Z 0
N
g
I
o
a
Y
O IY
O
0
� O
y (n
twit �
Q J
UULL
6i 0
a =
W
= N N
Z W O
~
W J
of
O
N
Z
wN
02
M
F �
Q �
O Z
¢_ 2
> ID
W
Z
N
=
w
U ¢
� Z
Q
W
0 ul
rn �
Z 0
�
¢ ti o
OCU
Z
Ft o
0
Q O ¢
Z y �
O Z
UULL
6i 0
a =
LU
J
= N N
Z W O
~
a m
N f
m
U�
Jul
�
W � 2 I
Z
In
O
a
�
¢ate

17�
17'
16E
161
16:
15f
15E
15:
15(
/
LCEFPC,2, FJ -
n i /
--- L LCE
no RE X_X \ / j
x_
X3—X—X—X—�X--X—X—X\—
_ REACH S23—X X XIX X—X �X—
_ \ /
REACH S1 ENHANCEMENT I �Y—X—X � -X
ENHANCEMENT II (STA 06+00 TO 11+00) — — L Tfya3
/ ` K3
— — (STA 03+50 TO 06+00)
r-
<--�Fg
19w—_n\0' &/9oom_1s
deS_rn\ W
TTiHoCO
/ \ \ \
PC
160'
P,�/�1
-/--
x� \ 9 _301
3�l k\k k301�l �� , , \301 1 -
�x
CPIICN SON 117 LIM -D .,
PaRTNCRS IIP t�32, 1
z
Po Pc 161
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Protects\Resource Environmental SOlutlOns\2016021500RA- TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\QADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA SHT PROP S.dwg -April 16, 2018 -Kristen Navaroli
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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 Fr_Fnin
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR 50 — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR — — — — 46 — — — —
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING TREELINE Y1
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSEDUG
(SEE DETAILETAIL DWG DWG 32)
EXISTING WETLAND
I
�
DIFFUSE STRUCTURE
41M�
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
Z
O
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
—
— — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
DOUBLE LOG DROP
H
CHANNEL
LOG TOE PROTECTION
EXISTING FENCELINE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
X
EXISTING TREELINE Y1
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSEDUG
(SEE DETAILETAIL DWG DWG 32)
W J
PROPOSED FILL AREA
�
DIFFUSE STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
BRUSH TOE
Z
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
174
Z
DOUBLE LOG DROP
H
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
LOG TOE PROTECTION
Q �
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
U
171 LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG VANE
Cn Z
0
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
�
166
N
LOG J -HOOK
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
a
Y
O �
o
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
165
UULL
BRUSH BED SILL
W
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
Z W O
FLOODPLAIN SILL
� m
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
162
U�
W
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
159 (PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
156 (PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
153 (PROFILE)
150
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consuitants
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. UCENSE NO. -374
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0 30 60
2" =FULL SCALE
HALF SCALAcr66cr EL00Ir cr
PRO: J. DATE: JUNE 2018
D.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
F
O�
W J
�
H
Q
a
Z
O
U
Z
H
02
Z
O
Q �
U
0 Z
lY
�
=
O
O
Z
Cn Z
0
a
i<
�
Z O
N
g
I
o
a
Y
O �
o
0
y (n
Q J
UULL
6i 0
a =
W
03
= N N
Z W O
~
W J
of
O
N
Z
wN
02
M
Q �
¢ x
0 Z
W Ww¢
�
=
U o
Cn Z
0
Q
Lu
O w
Z O
�
� y o
OCU
Z
Ft o
0
Q O
Z y �
0 Z6i
UULL
6i 0
a =
J
03
= N N
Z W O
~
� m
N f
m
U�
W
�
W � III I
Z
In
O
a
�
¢ate

16:
16:
154
15E
15'
15(
147
14,
14'
14(
X10
/ 1922
61 / vvttaa /
CE
-- Xk-X jX�X� �--X�X-X-//}//
_REACH _/ Y
/ ENHANCEMENT I - ! -12+ 'i' / /'/� /
x I 160 (STA 06+00 TO 11+00) / - T�
r1927
10+00'
11+00
\I\1
1
I
LN, n I__L -IMI LI) V A
L
W
--'-
\ /
:jj
REACH S6A \
Pi RESTORATION ) \ Te \
(STA 11 +00 TO 24+50)
OG SILL
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR -
6-----
- - - 46 -----
TA C 02
�0
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
r =
- W1
LEV 158. 7 D UBL LOG DROP
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
S-A 9 4
---- BE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
LE . 156 61
OUB -EL G DROP
EXISTING TREELINE
Y1
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
D UBL LOG DR P
+
DOU 3LE I OG ORO
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
A 9 9
EL V 155.40
3TA 1+1
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
ELEI
EL G D OP
EI.EV 154.2
DO BLE LOG DRO
DOUBLE LOG DROP
S A 10-56
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
STA 12+55
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
EL E .155.90
OU LEL G CROP
E EV. 152.2
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
TA 11+05
OG ILL
DO BLE OG)ROW
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
ELE V. 1 4.75
STA 2+5
+63
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
EL E 15 .64
E EV 52.7
VA,1
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
HA EL RA
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
IOPOF NK
DOUBLE OG RO
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
L GSI L
EL EV. 58 2
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
El EV. 51.4
D UBL LO 3 DR P
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
ISTI G G
D ALONG
ELE 15 74
ST EAM CEN ER INE
CHANNEL GRADE: 0 50%
I
P OP SED
C AW EL BOTTOM
D UBL EL G DIF OP
STA 13 5
EL 15 .10
I
9+00 9+50
10+00
10+50
11+00 11+50
12+00 12+50
13+00 13+50 13+i
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\201 fi021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg -April 6, 2018 -Ben Carroll
165
162
159
156
153
150
147
144
141
140
0
S2 = 5.4
56A = 7.0
52=1.8 S2=0.9
S6A=2.2 S6A=1.3
Ir BANKFULL STAGE
S2 = 0.9
564
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
S2 = 5.4
S6A = 7.0
�i.o
S6A = 1.3
A
52 = 0.2
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION s6A=o.3
STRAIGHT REACH
S2 = 5.4
srw=7n
4
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
S2 = 5.4
S2- .2
SEA1= 1.6
SEAL
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 AROUN D ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN,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.
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. IN -STREAM 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.
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
T-sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF S.LLCC ir
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S3
L�ROJ
. NO.:
2016021500
W
Qm
❑ N
� a
a O
H
U
Q
Z
0
U
Q
F-
O
O Z
a U
gm
O ¢
Q
o m �
I ¢ W � Q
I � ¢ ¢ 3 -
LU
ui
U Q o
W Z
N
aU Cj r`°
Z w N
Q = Z Z
C7 0 ot$ w w
Z
fA Z 2 0
(� � U w �
Z Q Q¢ y O
W F Lij
OCO
t c0
EL Z � ¢ z >
�O zN B
QQ J M
zW O t,:: v m d
(0 aNlrn
LU z ¢ m ....
3 w www
O ¢ z oOm
a o 00
ao
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR -
6-----
- - - 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
�0
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
r =
- W1
EXISTING WETLAND
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCE LINE
- - - - X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y1
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
BRUSH TOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
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
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
T-sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF S.LLCC ir
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S3
L�ROJ
. NO.:
2016021500
W
Qm
❑ N
� a
a O
H
U
Q
Z
0
U
Q
F-
O
O Z
a U
gm
O ¢
Q
o m �
I ¢ W � Q
I � ¢ ¢ 3 -
LU
ui
U Q o
W Z
N
aU Cj r`°
Z w N
Q = Z Z
C7 0 ot$ w w
Z
fA Z 2 0
(� � U w �
Z Q Q¢ y O
W F Lij
OCO
t c0
EL Z � ¢ z >
�O zN B
QQ J M
zW O t,:: v m d
(0 aNlrn
LU z ¢ m ....
3 w www
O ¢ z oOm
a o 00
ao

IL
r
L
id
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\201 fi021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg -April 6, 2018 -Ben Carroll
7.0
2.2 1.3
}r BANKFULL STAGE
j\ --:::7I
1.1
E
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
70
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
7.0
4.2 1.2
BANKFULL STAGE
16
1.6
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
70
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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. INSTALL ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON ESC SHEETS.
2. UTILIZE A PUMP OR SIPHON TO COMPLETELY DRAIN THE EXISTING POND. DO NOT DRAIN
THE POND BY BREACHING THE DAM. DO NOT ALLOW DEWATERING RATE TO LOWER LAKE
MORE THAN 1 FOOT PER DAY.
3. BEGIN PROPOSED DAM REMOVAL. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM FREEBOARD OF 3.0 FEET UNTIL
POND IS COMPLETELY DRAINED.
4. MAINTAIN EXISTING FLOW PATTER AROUND THE POND UNTIL POND BED GRADING AND
STABILIZATION IS COMPLETE.
5. COMPLETE PROPOSED GRADING AND ROUTE MAIN CHANNEL THROUGH THE STABILIZED
POND BOTTOM. ALL CHANNEL GRADING SHOULD BE COMPLETED IN A DEWATERED
CONDITION.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
—5()—
50EXISTING
EXISTINGCONTOUR MINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
�y
165
5
F'_r WI.B
EXISTING WETLAND
165
� �
aU
BIM ---J
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
----- X —
162
Y\
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
162
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED PLUG
fA
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
o
159
�
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
dV
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
159
156
(SEE DETAIL DWG 33)
O�
DOUBLE LOG
156
153
W
J
tz
XIST NGRA E AL NG PROPOSED
zW
���
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
153
LOG SILL
�
ST EA CE TER INE OP F NK
�
DCJBLE LOC DROP
o
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG VANE
ST 18+ 6
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
LEV 146. 13
150
BRUSH BED SILL
DOPBLE LOC DROP
150
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
_LEY 147. 5
f
(PROFILE)
CF ANN L GRADE: 0.1
O
(PROFILE)
\I/1
147
S A 14 3
OG HI K
1Y
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
147
(PROFILE)
ELEV 14C.5— PR PO D
ST 18+
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
LEV 148. 0
D UBL LO P
LO SILL
ST 16+ 0
16
ST 17+ 0
LEV 149.5
E LEV 148A 5
144
144
141
141
140
140
13+70
14+00 14+50 15+00
15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00
17+50
18+00 18+50
18+90
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\201 fi021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg -April 6, 2018 -Ben Carroll
7.0
2.2 1.3
}r BANKFULL STAGE
j\ --:::7I
1.1
E
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
70
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
7.0
4.2 1.2
BANKFULL STAGE
16
1.6
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
70
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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. INSTALL ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON ESC SHEETS.
2. UTILIZE A PUMP OR SIPHON TO COMPLETELY DRAIN THE EXISTING POND. DO NOT DRAIN
THE POND BY BREACHING THE DAM. DO NOT ALLOW DEWATERING RATE TO LOWER LAKE
MORE THAN 1 FOOT PER DAY.
3. BEGIN PROPOSED DAM REMOVAL. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM FREEBOARD OF 3.0 FEET UNTIL
POND IS COMPLETELY DRAINED.
4. MAINTAIN EXISTING FLOW PATTER AROUND THE POND UNTIL POND BED GRADING AND
STABILIZATION IS COMPLETE.
5. COMPLETE PROPOSED GRADING AND ROUTE MAIN CHANNEL THROUGH THE STABILIZED
POND BOTTOM. ALL CHANNEL GRADING SHOULD BE COMPLETED IN A DEWATERED
CONDITION.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
—5()—
50EXISTING
EXISTINGCONTOUR MINOR
----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
�y
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
5
F'_r WI.B
EXISTING WETLAND
I
� �
aU
BIM ---J
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
¢w¢
U o
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED PLUG
fA
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
o
PROPOSED FILL AREA
�
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
dV
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
v� o
BRUSH TOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 33)
O�
DOUBLE LOG
oLL
(SEE DETAIL SHEET SHEETOPP
D
W
J
tz
LOG TO PROTECTION
zW
���
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
m dr
aNlrn
LOG SILL
�
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
�
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
o
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 33)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
\I/1
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
1Y
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NC. LICENSE NO. -74
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" =
FULLS
'ALF.LU00 0
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S4
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
Qm
❑ N
� a
a
0
H
U
Q
Z
O
U
O
LL
O
O Z
a U
gm
O
a
oLOU
U Q
ui
o
� ?
5
N
� �
aU
r`°
Z
Z r
Q F
Z Z
(� Z
W
�
¢w¢
U o
Z=
fA
Q
o
z
�
�y g
dV
v� o
Z
�O
¢ z >
zN B
O�
oLL
W
J
tz
¢ W M
zW
���
(7
m dr
aNlrn
W
�
W W W
Z oOm
�
¢
o
o
a
aa�
U Q
ui
o
� ?
5
N
� �
aU
r`°
Z
Z r
Q F
Z Z
(� Z
W
�
¢w¢
U o
Z=
fA
Q
o
z
�
�y g
dV
v� o
Z
�O
¢ z >
zN B
O�
oLL
W
J
tz
¢ W M
zW
���
(7
m dr
aNlrn
W
�
W W W
Z oOm
O
¢
o
o
a
aa�

15!
151
15:
151
14
14-
14
131
13!
1
C
E
' Tye 1,
/
I I^
/
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
SEE DWG D2
� l "W r18m
� ".a\
� nsaa \ r,94s
EL
T,908 T—
5 ry�
LCF
LCE
T1951 ' X /
—I. —1 UJ I
cr
( Ir
/
S 'l
743 T,995
i
9100 — — — _ R-' � ^O'
r �i
U REACH S6A
P1 RESTORATION X'
�S (STA 11+00 TO 24+50) I
i
I
X
:... _
=..Fi = -11
-----------------
J
/331 371 331 33l
Q
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\201 fi021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg -April 6, 2018 -Ben Carroll
7.0
2.2 1.3
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
4
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
70
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
za
4.2 1.2
BANKFULL STAGE
rL
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
70
E
59 TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
56
53
50
47
44
41
38
35
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
❑ N
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� a
a
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
Z
aU
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
Q Q
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y1
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
U
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
fn Z
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
o
PROPOSED FILL AREA
�
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
d0
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
O
BRUSH TOE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
O�
DOUBLE LOG DROP
U
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
W
J
LOG TO PROTECTION
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
Q }
a
LOG SILL
Z
—?�
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
m �
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
o
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG
(SEE DETAIL DWGWG D6) D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.762.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" =
FULLS
'ALF.BELUIm Im00 0cc ir
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S5
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
ui
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ N
LU
� a
a
Z
aU
r`°
Z
H
U
Q F
Z Z
Q Q
¢ 2
(� Z
Z
0
�
=
U
fn Z
Q
o
Z O
�
F-
d0
O
Z
�O
O
Z
O�
a
U
Lij
0
W
J
gm
I
O
Q }
a
W
Z
—?�
o
m �
¢
o
o
a
aao
U Q
Z
ui
o
LU
aU
r`°
Z
w N
Q F
Z Z
Q Q
¢ 2
(� Z
W
�
=
¢w¢
U ¢o
fn Z
Q
o
Z O
�
¢ y o
d0
�� o
Z
�O
Q z >
zN B
O�
oLL
Lij
0
W
J
¢ W M
zW
(7
aNlrn
W
Z
—?�
Q lA ..
W W W �
Z oOm
O
¢
o
o
a
aao

SCF
} ipoi %j f
/ A REACH S5 _
.49) A l( — Pt / P2 RESTORATION P F' �rF R
(STA 00+76 TO 03+07)
iW
61,
Te
15:
15(
14
14,
14
131
13!
13:
13(
T.
\
11\
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
JAI I� (
\)�I I
l I���A AA
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL
\ 140/
SEE DWG D2
� a
a
r =
— W1
X140—_
N
CC ir
EL
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
24+0p
— rsap `ti
B+ar REACH SIB
�¢'� Pi RESTORATION
rs — — — — _ _ (STA 24+50 TO 36+26) �
T46
•'•• .�.� � ��►moi
REMOVE EXISTING
BERM T42
140
REMOVE EXISTING
_ BERM
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
SEE DWG
IT- 111.1 -L] �\ \gyp\\ �� l T
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutiom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
53
50
47
44
41
38
35
32
30
S6A=7.0
SIB 8.4
S6A=2.2 S6A=1.3
S6B=2.8 S6B=1.4
BANKFULL STAGE
.1
N,
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
REACH S6A\�
Pi RESTORATION
(STA 11+00 TO 24+50) /
•'•• .�.� � ��►moi
REMOVE EXISTING
BERM T42
140
REMOVE EXISTING
_ BERM
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
SEE DWG
IT- 111.1 -L] �\ \gyp\\ �� l T
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutiom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
53
50
47
44
41
38
35
32
30
S6A=7.0
SIB 8.4
S6A=2.2 S6A=1.3
S6B=2.8 S6B=1.4
BANKFULL STAGE
.1
BANKFULL STAGE
SIA 1.3
SIB =1.6
S6A = 0.3
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION SIB 1.1
STRAIGHT REACH
c=-a'e
SIB = 2.0
IL.
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
S6A=7.0
SIR = 64
S
S61]
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
❑ o
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� a
a
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
N
CC ir
EL
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
SIA =1
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
IS
Q Q
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
S6A=7.0
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
SIB = 8.4
"A=2.2
S6A=2.6 S6A=2.2
SIB =2.8
SIB 2.8 SIB 2.8
BANKFULL STAGE
SIA 1.3
SIB =1.6
S6A = 0.3
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION SIB 1.1
STRAIGHT REACH
c=-a'e
SIB = 2.0
IL.
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
S6A=7.0
SIR = 64
S
S61]
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
❑ o
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� a
a
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
N
CC ir
EL
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
Q Q
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y1
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
U o
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Uz
PROPOSED
1n Z
0
(SEE DETAIL GWG D2)
0
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
aV
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
O
BRUSH TOE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
(1
DOUBLE LOG DROP
U
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
W
J
LOG TO PROTECTION
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
Q }
a
LOG SILL
Z
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
m
J
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
o
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LU
LOG VANE
m
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG DS)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
Trensponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.762.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALD
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S6
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
LU
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ o
LU
� a
a
00
N
CC ir
EL
O
Z 0
U
Q F
Er
0_
Q Q
F -
z
C7Z
Z
0
N
=
U o
rrU
1n Z
0
Q
LU
0
z0
F-
aV
O
Z
�O
O
Z
(1
a
U
Lij Q Z
W
W
J
gm
I
O
Q }
a
W
Z
o
y n
m
J
¢
o
o
2
LU
aa2
m
Q 3-
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S6
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ui
o
LU
00
N
CC ir
EL
F- m
Z 0
w N
Q F
Z Z
Q Q
¢ 2
C7Z
w¢w¢
N
=
U o
1n Z
0
Q
LU
O
z0
¢y o
aV
v� o
Z
�O
Q z >
zN B
(1
DULL
Lij Q Z
W
W
J
¢ W M
z �
-
C)
r m d
N 6i
W
Z
0 m ....
W W W
Z oam
O
¢
o
o
a
aa2
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S6
PROD. NO.:
2016021500

LCt -
�CE
SCE
nC
15:
151
14
14,
14
131
13;
13:
131
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental SOlutlom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
8.4
2.8 1.4
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
1.4
IL
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
84
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
84
5.1 1.4
BANKFULL STAGE
2.0
IL.
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
A4
E
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
53 SECTION
50
47
44
41
38
35
32
30
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
❑ N
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� a
a
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
N
cc ir
EL
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
Q Q
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
U o
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED PLUG
fA Z
0
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LL
PROPOSED FILL AREA
2
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
V
d
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
0
BRUSH TOE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
Q
DOUBLE LOG DROP
1n
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
W
J
LOG TO PROTECTION
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
Q }
li
a
LOG SILL
Z
�?�
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
m
J
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
o
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LLI
LU Er
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG DS)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DVK
KSON1
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
�2" = FULL SCALE
HAI F RC.AI F
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S7
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ N
LU
� a
a
00
N
cc ir
EL
0
Z 0
1 --
Q F
BE
Q Q
Q
(7Z
Z
O
N
=
U o
rrU
fA Z
0
Q
LU
O
LL
Z O
2
¢ y O
V
d
0
Z
CnO
O
Z
Q
a
1n
Lij Q Z
W
W
J
gm
I
O
Q }
li
a
W
Z
�?�
o
y n
m
J
¢
Ir
o
a o
LLI
LU Er
aa2
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S7
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ui
o
LU
00
N
cc ir
EL
F- m
Z 0
w N
Q F
Z Z
Q Q
¢ 2
(7Z
w¢w¢
N
=
U o
fA Z
0
Q
LU
O
Z O
2
¢ y O
V
d
vt o
Z
CnO
Q z >
N B
zO
Q
U LL
Lij Q Z
W
W
J
¢ W M
z �
-
0
r m d
a6i
W
Z
�?�
Q 0 ..
W W 6
Z oOm
O
¢
Ir
o
a o
aa2
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S7
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental SOlutlom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
8.4
2.8 1.4
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
4
1
4
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
84
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
2
2.0
ti
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
84
E
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
❑ N
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
150
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
N
cc ir
aU
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
150
147
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
Q Q
EXISTING FENCELINE
147
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
U o
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
144
(A Z
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LL
PROPOSED FILL AREA
CC
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
144
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
0
BRUSH TOE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
0 C
DOUBLE LOG DROP
1n
141
w
J
LOG TO PROTECTION
z
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
0 }
U ¢
a
LOG SILL
141
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
m
J
XIST NG RA E AL NG
o
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
¢LU
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
PRO OS D
TRE M C NT RLI
(SEE DETAIL DWGWGIDS) D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
TOP OF EANK
BRUSH BED SILL
DOUBLE LOG DRO
(SEE DETAIL DWG DS)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
-STA 34+ 6
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
138
o
LOG SILL
ELE 13 .55
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
138
(PROFILE)
O
STA 32+ 9
DO BLE LOG DR
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
ELE 134.70
STP 35+ 1
ELE 13 .19
LOG S ILL
LCG Sil L
A 3 +98
S 35 45
135
EV 11132.6
EL V 1 1.95
L G S LL
S 36 26
135
ELE 131 20
ROP SE
132
C ILL
132
TA 3 +8
EL V 114.08
129
129
t32150
126
126
125
125
32+00
33+00 33+50 34+00
34+50
35+00
35+50
36+00
36+30
SCALE: HOR 1"=30';
VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental SOlutlom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
8.4
2.8 1.4
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
4
1
4
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
84
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
2
2.0
ti
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
84
E
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
❑ N
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� a
a
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
N
cc ir
aU
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
Q Q
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
U o
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
(A Z
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LL
PROPOSED FILL AREA
CC
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
OLCn
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
0
BRUSH TOE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
0 C
DOUBLE LOG DROP
1n
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
w
J
LOG TO PROTECTION
z
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
0 }
U ¢
a
LOG SILL
z
3
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
m
J
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
o
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
¢LU
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG
(SEE DETAIL DWGWGIDS) D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG DS)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S8
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
LU
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ N
LU
� a
a
00
N
cc ir
aU
0
Z
1 --
Q F
BE
Q Q
Q
0Z
Z
O
C)
=
U o
rrU
(A Z
Q
O
LL
ZO
CC
¢y g
OLCn
0
Z
0
O
Z
0 C
a
1n
Z
Q
W
w
J
gm
z
O
0 }
U ¢
a
LU
z
3
o
y n
m
J
¢
o
o
a
aao
¢LU
Q 3-
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S8
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ui
o
LU
00
N
cc ir
aU
F -m
Z
w w
Q F
z z
Q Q
¢ 2
0Z
w¢w¢
C)
=
U o
(A Z
Q
o
ZO
CC
¢y g
OLCn
Z
0
¢ z >
y
Z o
0 C
oLL
Z
Q
W
w
J
¢' M
z
0
a m d
aNlrn
LU
z
3
¢ m ....
w www
z oOm
O
¢
o
o
a
aao
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S8
PROD. NO.:
2016021500

\
\ \
\jam QQ �� YJa�M�
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
NOTES:
— — — 46 -----
6-----
(,
5I IF lilit�
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
1.
IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
��
/
I
Q O\ O\ `ti/
-LCIS _
�hl �J L' LII Lam- I�=-, C _
b
8'4
Z
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
/
\
\ \ \ \
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
1.4 5.1
CHANNEL
2.
ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
66��.:��
/ T1B8] "W f�
\ \
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
LLCE
O
LL
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
a U
OL Z
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
3.
ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAV TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
O
BRUSH TOE
LCE4.
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
1n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
BANKFULL STAGE
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
I
LOG TO PROTECTION
Q }
IZ
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
Z
—?�
LOG SILL
m
J
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
Om
o �
CONTRACT OR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
j
O
¢
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANY WAV. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
SHALL NOT BE CED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
REACH S7 2.0
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
x�
ENHANCEMENT 1
/ = 38+80 TO 48+70 &
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
5.
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
47-> J
�^q\+�-L
(STA
STA 49+40 TO 53+80)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED ATAN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
BRUSH BED SILL
�}
11 /)
O
( J \\
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6.
REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
Q7^30 T18n
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL SECTIONS
_M6�'
\. <+S]O %� L.6 Y. S --------
__-------
ala
7.
IN -STREAM STRUCTURES PRO POSED 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.
14
14
13
13
13.
12
12
12'
12
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutiom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
44
41
38
35
32
29
26
23
20
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR —
— — — 46 -----
6-----
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
¢
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
O
Z
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
¢ 2
CHANNEL
Q
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
O
LL
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
a U
OL Z
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
0
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
O
BRUSH TOE
OCf)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
1n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
W
J
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
I
LOG TO PROTECTION
Q }
IZ
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
Z
—?�
LOG SILL
m
J
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
Om
o �
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)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�j
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S9
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ o
u!
� a
a
¢
Q
EL U
O
Z
1 --
Q =
BE
¢ 2
w
Q
C7o
adww
Z
O
Z
rrU
Z
0 7)
=
()
O
LL
z
o
a U
OL Z
w
0
Cn 0
O
Z
OCf)
a
1n
Lij
�Q =
W
W
J
gm
I
O
Q }
IZ
W
Z
—?�
O
y n
m
J
¢
Ir
Om
o �
a o
aa
¢
Im a-
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S9
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ui
o
u!
¢
Q
EL U
r m
Z
w N
Q =
Z Z
¢ 2
w
Q ZJ
C7o
adww
Z
Z
0 7)
=
()
o
w
z
o
a U
OL Z
w
Ft CD
¢z >
Cn 0
Z y
OCf)
oLL
Lij
�Q =
W
W
J
¢ W M
z
0
a m d
Nylrn
W
Z
—?�
2 0..
Z W WW o
O
¢
Ir
Om
o �
a o
aa
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S9
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

1 19
13
13
13,
12
12
12
12
11
11
GRADE & MAT
CHANNELBANKS
(MAX SLOPE 2:1)
T1869 —
—130-
4cF
\ pp
—130_
_ 'op
b _ _
1— ��^I 166
100Y� � /
REACH S7
ENHANCEMENT I
yR III (STA 38+80 TO 48+70 &
Hasa �pt5�' \ / \ STA 49+40 TO 53+80)
_�/ \_� GRADE POINT BAR
—N7 ��q' T1eaz \� (MAX SLOPE 3:1)
�� \ GRADE POINT BAR r�1 VA� �/�/ q r,efio
\ (MAX SLOPE 3:1) 1 / rless A 1A�
I
GRADE POINT BAR I
(MAX SLOPE 3:1)._
T18610
T1866\72 d'
11J
X25
G
T1667
\ GRADE POINT BAR \ \I
3��vb (MAX SLOPE 3:1)
J -1oa�\
\ 0
rr� ��av .ar i roT—
N 0
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: C AProjects\Resource Environmental SOlutlom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
38
35
32
29
26
23
20
17
15
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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.
DD CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR —
6-----
— — — 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
00
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
O
Z 0w
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q Q
CHANNEL
F -
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
0
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
Cr
PROPOSED FILL AREA
a 0
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
0
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
O
BRUSH TOE
O�
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
1n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
W
J
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
z �
LOG TO PROTECTION
li
Q
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
Z
�?�
LOG SILL
J
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
LU
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S10
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
w
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ N
LU
� a
a
00
N
cc ir
EL
O
Z 0w
H
U
Q F
BE
BE
Q Q
F -
00
Z
O
H Z
rrU
fA Z
(��
U
LU
0
z
Cr
¢y
a 0
0
O
Z
CnO
O
Z
O�
a
1n
Lij Q Z
W
W
J
gm
z �
-
0
li
Q
W
Z
�?�
y
J
¢
o
a
o
LU
aa�
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S10
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ui
o
LU
00
N
cc ir
EL
F- m
Z 0w
N
Q F
Z Z
Q Q
¢ 2
00
w
w�
H Z
fA Z
(��
U
LU
o
w�
z
Cr
¢y
a 0
v� ❑
Z
CnO
¢ z >
zN B
O�
oLL
Lij Q Z
W
W
J
¢ W M
z �
-
0
r m d
a 6i
W
Z
�?�
Q 0 ..
w www
ZoOm
O
¢
o
a
o
aa�
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S10
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

135
132
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR —
— — — 46 -----
6-----
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
r =
— W1
135
132
129
O
Z
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q Q
CHANNEL
Q
EXISTING FENCELINE
129
EXISTING TREELINE
L G S ILL
LOG ANE
¢w¢
U ¢o
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
O
LL
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
V
d
TA 4: i'31[-
iTA 4 +72
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
O
BRUSH TOE
0 C
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
1n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
w
J
tz
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
I
LOG TO PROTECTION
LEV 23.6
LEV 23. 4
z
3
LOG SILL
LUQ
m
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
o
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
LU ILYI
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK
LO SIL ISTIN G GF tADEALO
'4G_
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
126
_
T �T
-- — — —
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
STA 47,3 STREAM EN
ERLINE
OG ILL
PROPOSED 28
LF OF 126
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
L
— RT —
E EV 22.6
O
S A 4E+ 6
o
36" RCP (810.70%
L G V NE
(PROFILE)
of
LT
T
IRT
O
EL V 12 .00
(PROFILE)
S A 40+54
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
R —
LT —`
E EV 120.7
\
_
1+� R7
123
123
PR PO ED
120
CH NN LB TTO
120
117
117
114
114
111
111
110110
45+10
45+50
46+00
46+50
47+00 47+50
48+00
48+50
49+00
49+50
50+00
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutiom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - 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.
4. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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 -----
6-----
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
O
Z
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q Q
CHANNEL
Q
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
¢w¢
U ¢o
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
O
LL
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
V
d
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
0
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
O
BRUSH TOE
0 C
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
1n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
w
J
tz
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
I
LOG TO PROTECTION
Q }
li
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
z
3
LOG SILL
LUQ
m
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
o
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
LU ILYI
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�j
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S11
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
LU
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ o
U.I
� a
a
N
c Q
OL
O
Z
1 --
Q F
BE
Q Q
Q
(� Z
Z
O
U)
=
¢w¢
U ¢o
rrU
1n Z
Q
O
LL
z0
�y o
V
d
0
Z
�O
O
Z
0 C
a
1n
LAMQ Z
w
J
tz
gm
I
O
Q }
li
w
z
3
Oa]
LUQ
m
¢
o
o
a
LU ILYI
aa2
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S11
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ui
o
U.I
�
N
c Q
OL
F- m
Z
w w
Q F
z z
Q Q
Q 2
(� Z
W
U)
=
¢w¢
U ¢o
1n Z
Q
O
z0
�y o
V
d
v� o
Z
�O
¢ z >
zN B
0 C
oLL
LAMQ Z
w
J
tz
¢' M
z W
a m d
w
z
3
¢ m ....
LU www
z B, z
O
¢
o
o
a
aa2
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S11
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

121
121
12:
121
11
11
11
101
10:
301
331
301
0
GRADE POINT BAR _
+o REACH S7 (MAX SLOPE 3:1)
0
10 Do-- ENHANCEMENT I r+
LU — — — (STA 38+80 TO 48+70 & GRADE POINT BAR Ti816 Meds
SLOPE 3:1
�\\ STA 49+q0 TO 53+g0) (MAX( ) Tfafa = = Ut
Tfez4 GRADE POINT BAR A
(MAX SLOPE 3:1) reefs L — �Oo
Tfa, e
Tfaza
Tfaz1 �/4"p
Tfa3a
120� / T1—
T­
4
iazeneazi \
7 "0:
Tf
\ i \\�,\ I GRADE POINT BAR
\ (MAX SLOPE 3:1)
C r----
---
TI— O
— — — — —Tf82]
M - LCE LCE
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental SOlutlom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
29
26
23
20
17
14
11
08
05
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. CONTRACT OR 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
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. IN -STREAM 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
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
❑ o
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� a
a
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
Z
Q
EL
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
¢ Q
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
U o
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
fn Z
0
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LL
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
a 0
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
0
O
BRUSH TOE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
O�
DOUBLE LOG DROP
1n
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
W
J
LOG TO PROTECTION
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
Q }
Q
LOG SILL
Z
�?�
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
m
J
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LU
Ld
LOG VANE
¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE7J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NC. LICENSE No -74
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALL]
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S12
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
LU
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ o
LU
� a
a
¢
Z
Q
EL
0
Z 0
U
0 F
BE
BE
¢ Q
Q 2
0Z
Z
O
U)
=
U o
rrU
fn Z
0
Q
LU
O
LL
Z O
¢ y o
a 0
0
O
Z
CnO
O
Z
O�
a
1n
Lij
Q Z
W
J
gm
I
O
Q }
Q
W
Z
�?�
o
y n
m
J
¢
o
a
o
LU
Ld
aa�
¢
a
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S12
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ui
o
LU
¢
Q
EL
F- m
Z 0
w N
0 F
Z Z
¢ Q
Q 2
0Z
w¢w¢
U)
=
U o
fn Z
0
Q
LU
O
Z O
¢ y o
a 0
Urn o
Z
CnO
¢ z >
zN B
O�
oLL
Lij
Q Z
W
J
¢ W M
z W 0
�
-
0
r m d
a6i
W
Z
�?�
Q 0 ..
W W 6
ZoOm
O
¢
o
a
o
aa�
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S12
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

Q
r L'1„ II. I I,II LII
I I1_' -HI I _ I�
301 30l
301 30l _ _ WLB-
/ SN Ti91f
i/
REACH S9
ENHANCEMENT III/ \#— — — — — _ _
(STA 53+80 TO 60+55) # ea # 56+00
Tie0e _
120- �^ 55+DD WL
JL6- r # ..n
inoo o # # I anew /.
100 -120
# a # rlees a A T1asa a a Ili
T1802 a #
T1888 /yTfe12 /a --ate -' # # #
r1a1s�la _ `W,� a� -120
/ #
�v' a # a (�.� /�a a a a a a a a a #
T18f4 O 1 a #
#I I Tf907 Z�
3 t # a
a # # # a #
/ \
a # # ' #
a #
k'
iGI
10:
LCE LCE
LCE
=LCE L --L» 1,_, LI:I L I # a # a # #
#
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutiom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
29
26
23
20
17
14
11
08
05
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
❑ o
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� a
a
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
Z
Q
EL
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
¢ Q
EXISTING FENCE LINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y1
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
U o
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
uz
PROPOSED PLUG
1n Z
0
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
0
PROPOSED FILL AREA
2¢
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
O
d
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
U t v
BRUSH TOE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
�
O
DOUBLE LOG DROP
U
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
W
J
LOG TO PROTECTION
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
Q }
Q
LOG SILL
Z
�?�
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
m
J
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
o
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LU
Ld
LOG VANE
¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOG VANE IJ -HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
Trensponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.762.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
`I
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S13
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ o
LU
� a
a
¢
Z
Q
EL
F- m
Z 0
U
Q F
BE
Q
¢ Q
Q 2
(7Z
Z
O
U)
=
U o
rrU
1n Z
0
Q
LU
0
Z O
2¢
F-
O
d
U t v
Z
CnO
O
Z
�
O
a
U
Lij Z
0
W
J
gm
I
O
Q }
Q
W
Z
�?�
o
y n
m
J
¢
o
o
a
LU
Ld
aa�
¢
a
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S13
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ui
o
LU
¢
Q
EL
F- m
Z 0
w w
Q F
Z Z
¢ Q
Q 2
(7Z
w¢w¢
U)
=
U o
1n Z
0
Q
LU
O
Z O
2¢
y o
O
d
U t v
Z
CnO
¢ z >
zN B
�
O
oLL
Lij Z
0
W
J
¢ W M
z �
i-
0
r d
N6i
W
Z
�?�
Q 0 ..
W W 6
ZoOm
O
¢
o
o
a
aa�
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S13
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

�M
= E • � 3�A
EJ-,,,,
I�.;
ke–
a\ �`0'
\ r / J✓
r16as
1
REACH
P7 RESTORATION
(STA 60+55 TO 71+x000) r �.3 r r F \� y�\
Lu
Tifi]5 T1673
— — r — — r Tffi]0�'U� + r 161
Thi
' T�Ie9' T16rn
o \
%/ r r1661 r V A r weldr r / r r
IKh�CTi65],�r� \���j/ TifiT6 / �
115=
6040
Z_�Q
�T16 �$ll�i _���+•q*Np/ _1�'.. �`a.2N
7�0 —L
r16sT,c+� \ '97MT1
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL /
J — — / L
— =� _ — "\ _ _ SEE DWG D2 / /
r6u
REACH S9
\ ENHANCEMENTIII
(STA 53+80 TO 60+55)
�F \
_I CE
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
102
100
S1
L�
pr
L
md
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental SOlutlom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
9.6
3.2 1.6
BANKFULL STAGE
1 1
\i\—
1
4
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
96
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
5.8 1.6
BANKFULL STAGE
2
2.2
4
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
96
EL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
23 SECTION
20
17
14
11
08
05
02
00
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 AROUN D ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, 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.
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. IN -STREAM 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 -----
6-----
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
00
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
0
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q cc
0
CHANNEL
¢ 2
w
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
2
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
O
LL
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
w
PROPOSED FILL AREA
OL z
�O
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
0
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
O
BRUSH TOE
Lij
Q =
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
U
DOUBLE LOG DROP
­
0
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
W
LOG TO PROTECTION
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
¢
o
LOG SILL
m 2
J
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
aao
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
LU
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG
(SEE DETAIL DWGWG D6) D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
WD CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NC. LICENSE NO. -74
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S14
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
W
Qm
U z
❑ N
LUZ
� a
a
00
Z
cc ir
EL
0
Z 0
U
Q FZ
BE
BE
Q cc
0
6)
¢ 2
w
Z
~
off
z
O
11)Z
2
rrU
z0
a
O
LL
a0
w
�t o
OL z
�O
0
O
O�
O
Z
Lij
Q =
a
U
z W �
­
0
gm
W
Z
—?�
a
O
¢
o
o
y n
m 2
J
aao
LU
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S14
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
U z
ui
o
LUZ
�
00
N
cc ir
EL
F- m
Z 0
w N
Q FZ
Z
Q cc
0
6)
¢ 2
w
Z
~
off
w
qo
11)Z
2
yw
g
z0
a
¢y
a0
w
�t o
OL z
�O
¢z >
O�
N B
zLL
o
Lij
Q =
J W
tz
It W M
z W �
­
0
r m d
aNlrn
W
Z
—?�
Q A ..
W W6
Z
o
O
¢
o
Om
o
a
aao
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S14
PROD. NO.:
2016021500

12
12
11
11
11
10
10
10.
10
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental SOlutlom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
9.6
3.2 1.6
BANKFULL STAGE
16
\�--::7
1
4
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
96
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
96
5.8 6
BANKFULL STAGE
2
2.2
q
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
9fi
rL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
23 SECTION
20
17
14
11
08
05
02
00
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. CONTRACT OR 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
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. IN -STREAM 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
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
❑ N
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� a
a
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
N
cc ir
aU
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
Q Q
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
Z
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED PLUG
1n Z
07)
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LL
PROPOSED FILL AREA
Cr
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
aV
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
0
O
BRUSH TOE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
OCO
DOUBLE LOG DROP
1n
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
W
J
LOG TO PROTECTION
z W �
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
li
a
LOG SILL
Z
—?�
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
m
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
Om
o
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LU
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
�2" = FULL SCALE
HAI F
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S15
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ N
LU
� a
a
00
N
cc ir
aU
0
Z
H
U
Q F
BE
Q Q
Q
(�w
Z
O
Z
In
_
rrU
1n Z
07)
QUQ
W
O
LL
z
Cr
¢y o
aV
0
O
Z¢
CnO
O
Z
OCO
a
1n
Lij 0 Z
Q
W
J
gm
z W �
-
0
li
a
W
Z
—?�
o
m
¢
Ir
Om
o
a
LU
a
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S15
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ui
o
LU
00
N
cc ir
aU
F -m
Z
w N
Q F
Z Z
Q Q
¢ 2
(�w
w
Z
In
_
¢ o
1n Z
07)
QUQ
W
o
w�
z
Cr
¢y o
aV
vt o
Z¢
CnO
z >
zN B
OCO
oLL
Lij 0 Z
Q
W
J
¢ w
R
z W �
-
0
r m d
aNlrn
W
Z
—?�
2 W.
W
W W
Z oa5
O
¢
Ir
Om
o
a
a
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S15
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

120
117
114
111
108
105
102
99
96
95
6'
L4yJ I
/ T155T ) \ \ T—
T—
T96
15a0T1552
LCE LCE
C LCE LCE ,.
' FT—' Dl -- - i i
/ 17
120
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental SOlutlom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
9.6
3.2 i.fi
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
1.6
IL
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
96
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
96
5.8 1.6
BANKFULL STAGE
2
2.2
ti
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
96
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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
XISI ING RADE AL ONG
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
117
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� a
a
S7 REAI A CE QTEF LINE
EXISTING WETLAND
N
cc Q
aU
lM �
P OP SE
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
N
TOF OF AN
Q 2
EXISTING FENCELINE
114
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
\
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
qo
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
ZO
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
111
IIIA
QU
W
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
C NELGRADE:G.26V.
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
0
O
DOI JBLE LOG DRC P
OG HO K
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
didin
Q Z
DOUBLE LOG DROP
U
ST 69+ 11
0
LOG TO PROTECTION
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
108
EL V. 116.07
ELEV .
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
CHANNEL BOTTOM
Q)G SILL
aao
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LU
LOG VANE
Im
A 7C+38
OU ILEL G ROP
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
E EV 110.0
TA 7+2
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
LE 111. 7
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
105
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
102
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
99
96
95
1+00 67+50
68+00
68+50
69+00 69+50
70+00 70+50 71+00
71+50
SCALE: HOR 1"=30', VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental SOlutlom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
9.6
3.2 i.fi
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
1.6
IL
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
96
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
96
5.8 1.6
BANKFULL STAGE
2
2.2
ti
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
96
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
❑ N
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� a
a
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
N
cc Q
aU
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
N
CHANNEL
Q 2
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
=
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
qo
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
ZO
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LL
PROPOSED FILL AREA
QU
W
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
Z
1n 0
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
0
O
BRUSH TOE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
didin
Q Z
DOUBLE LOG DROP
U
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
0
LOG TO PROTECTION
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
Q }
li
a
LOG SILL
¢
o
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
m
J
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
aao
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LU
LOG VANE
Im
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
CIO .: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S16
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
LU
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ N
U.I
� a
a
00
N
cc Q
aU
0
Z
H
U
F
N
BE
Q
Q 2
(A
¢ x
(� Z
Z
z
O
=
qo
fnZ
07)
N
2
rrU
ZO
O
LL
d U
QU
W
Ut v
Z
1n 0
w
0
O
OCO
O
Z
didin
Q Z
a
U
z W 0
0
gm
I
O
Q }
li
a
O
¢
o
o
y n
m
J
aao
LU
Im
Im a-
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
CIO .: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S16
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ui
o
U.I
�
00
N
cc Q
aU
F -m
Z
w w
F
N
z z
Q 2
(A
¢ x
(� Z
w w
=
qo
fnZ
07)
N
2
Ow
w�
ZO
¢y o
d U
QU
W
Ut v
Z
1n 0
w
¢ z >
z N B
OCO
oLL
didin
Q Z
w
J
¢' M
z W 0
0
a m d
a6i
LU
z
3
¢ m ....
w www
z xam
O
¢
o
o
a
aao
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
CIO .: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S16
PROD. NO.:
2016021500

T1588
\ l I T-1 \ _J� \ /T-1
a-fir=��
REACH S13
^ PRESERVATION
/
STA 9+69 TO 14+23 ( u'
/ r
1
II „Fry -n' Hl- n AFFD
�, 7;.. 1 ��srnt��yyTsez
T—
\� A\ REACH S12
\ PRESERVATION
\ (STA 71+00 TO 74+80)
\
rlTfsas
\ \eaz
T"s /lip
7\T15se
v\V" /
T1 7 1
D`\11111\ I I
/ q \
1670
/ Tf571/_ cT-1 F'11— J-7 PAI -FD
T1565 ,
q
FF
q
Ti512
120
117
114
111
108
105
102
99
96
95
T
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
�A
I_ r ilm Lu ,.I Iv_._H1 HI u 1, i
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
OD
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
00
/ I
EXISTING WETLAND
O
lM �
T—
\� A\ REACH S12
\ PRESERVATION
\ (STA 71+00 TO 74+80)
\
rlTfsas
\ \eaz
T"s /lip
7\T15se
v\V" /
T1 7 1
D`\11111\ I I
/ q \
1670
/ Tf571/_ cT-1 F'11— J-7 PAI -FD
T1565 ,
q
FF
q
Ti512
120
117
114
111
108
105
102
99
96
95
T
--TB--� r
O�
V\
fF 71 FG
Y6
co
°o
J
1
1
ti
1
1
RT
1
EXI TIN G DE LO G
;0Kt�IMILNItt LINE
1
1
c
c
C
+50 72+00 72+50 73+00 73+50 74+00 74+50 174+10
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental SOlutlom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
20
17
14
11
)8
)5
)2
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 AROUN D ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN,AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANY WAV. 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. IN -STREAM 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
T1573
— — — 46 -----
6-----
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
OD
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
00
/ I
EXISTING WETLAND
O
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
III Y6
---- BB
+I
Q 2
l
Q
to
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y1
--TB--� r
O�
V\
fF 71 FG
Y6
co
°o
J
1
1
ti
1
1
RT
1
EXI TIN G DE LO G
;0Kt�IMILNItt LINE
1
1
c
c
C
+50 72+00 72+50 73+00 73+50 74+00 74+50 174+10
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental SOlutlom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP S.dwg - April 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
20
17
14
11
)8
)5
)2
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 AROUN D ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN,AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANY WAV. 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. IN -STREAM 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 -----
6-----
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
00
r =
— W1
EXISTING WETLAND
O
lM �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---- BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q 2
CHANNEL
Q
to
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Y1
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
U)
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSED PLUG
O
LL
(BEE DETAIL DWG D2)
QU
W
PROPOSED FILL AREA
Z
�O
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
O
BRUSH TOE
2Q 2
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
U
DOUBLE LOG DROP
0
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
I
LOG TO PROTECTION
Q }
IZ
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
¢
o
LOG SILL
LU zQ
m
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
aa2
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
ELLE,
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
I
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
j(
(PROFILE)
(Wy1
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
O
(PROFILE)
of
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DVK
KSON1
community infrastructure consultants
Trensponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(�
919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NC. LICENSE No —74
`I
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S17
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
LU
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ o
F N
U.I
� a
a
00
N
CC Q
aU
O
Z
1 --
Q F
N
BE
Q 2
(A
Q
to
0 Z
.6
Z
O
fnZ
0
U)
rrU
ZO
O
LL
d U
QU
W
F-
Z
�O
CC
O
OCOoLL
O
Z
2Q 2
a
U
z W 0
���
0
gm
I
0
Q }
IZ
O
¢
o
OLU
LU zQ
m
aa2
ELLE,
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S17
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ci
o
U.I
�
00
N
CC Q
aU
F -m
Z
w N
Q F
N
z z
Q 2
(A
¢ x
0 Z
.6
W w
fnZ
0
U)
Ow
ZO
�y o
d U
QU
W
Ut v
Z
�O
CC
Q z >
zN B
OCOoLL
2Q 2
J w
tz
¢' M
z W 0
���
0
a m d
aNlrn
wz
3
¢ m ....
w ww w
Z oOm
O
¢
o
o
a
aa2
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S17
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

152
15C
147
14Z
14'
13E
13E
13,
13C
nk l _ 1, 1-'
u�AL ll_ I e„ PL:_FI
PROPOSED FORD
SEE DWG DS
I
I /
REACH S6B
P1 RESTORATION
(STA 24+50 TO 36+26)
I I
b I
II rsa I l
REACH S6A
P1 RESTORATION
a I (STA 11+00 TO 24+50)
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutiom\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spnng Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT PROP TRIBS.dwg -Apnl 6, 2018 - Ben Carroll
153
150
147
144
141
138
135
132
130
4.8
1.6 0.8
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
IL
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
48
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
4
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
dA
ti
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. CONTRACT OR 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. IN -STREAM 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
6-----
— — — — 46 -----
PROPOSEDCONTOURMAJOR�
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
— — — — -- (�
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
(:42-
� a
a
r = WL -8
F'—
) -EXISTING WETLAND
N
CC ir
EL U
9lfJ��
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
Qcc
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
Yl
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
UZ
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSEDLP WG
fA Z
0
(SEE DETAILETAIL DWG UG
O
LL
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
V
d
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
1®yy^/1111
Y
BRUSH TOE
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG 33)
O�
OP
DOUBLE LOG P
1n
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
SHEET D
m
LOG TOE PROTECTION
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
Q }
O ti
Q
LOG SILL
Z
—?�
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
m
J
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LLI
LU Ir
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG 03)
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG DB)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG 136)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG 136)
FLOODPLAIN SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
A
(PROFILE)
e$
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D CKSON1
community infrastructure consultants
Trensponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
�2" = FULL SCALE
HAI F RC.AI F
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S18
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
Qm
U Q
Z
❑ o
F �
LU
� a
a
00
N
CC ir
EL U
0
Z
H
U
O F
BE
Qcc
Q
(7Z
Z
O
=
U ¢o
rrU
fA Z
0
Q
LU
O
LL
ZO
�y o
V
d
O
Z
�O
O
Z
O�
a
1n
Lij
Q =
m
g
I
O
Q }
O ti
Q
W
Z
—?�
o
y n
m
J
Q
o
a
LLI
LU Ir
00 ao
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S18
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
Z
ui
o
LU
00
N
CC ir
EL U
r m
Z
w N
O F
Z Z
Qcc
(7Z
w¢w¢
=
U ¢o
fA Z
0
Q
LU
O
ZO
�y o
V
d
vt o
Z
�O
Q z >
zN B
O�
oLL
Lij
Q =
W
J
tz
It W M
z W �
—
U'
r m d
Nrrj I rn
W
Z
—?�
m m ....
W W W
Z oOm
O
Q
o
a
00 ao
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S18
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

/ / / -Li v-sw ❑� is., i� / 1 301 V A A B v
301 \
T1514
1151e (/ /'�' Tl—
REACH I l
PRESERVATION l/ �lll
1 I 1 (STA 9+6/9'40 14+23) / / — Z VpA A\V Z/l i (I 1 111"11 11V'n�VA
T1sez /
— \ 1 T1593
o T159B
13+00
In T15ss
nye000l
I
w .ri i��/i`
w /9 � o ��
�
%\
74+80.38
W —10 Vvv\ — / ✓sl 1///�II �__ �/ /_ n5ae v�Cv—
0418--
—
��%�
T15e�
v/ w v I 1� / i o r15es 1 I V A
_ I I T1ssP A� rlsez r1.7
T156fi T1565
\ \ //\ `\\\
T1596 Epp { \ \\
REACHS12
Tl—
PRESERVATION
\ l Tueao_ 5 (STA 71+00 TO 74+80)
T15ro
w w w 'T— 1 nA FIs -r =�T lFD AA
, �� VAA I l\ \IAAFA\VA
FT1===HI2°'' ��' �u3 �1V
cr,Fi U �IIII�IIIII
v -ci LUI LD
I / I f /� / III I r.lva=III ❑T lis_ �_ 1I
Do
Ti5/$
120 120
117 117
114 114
EXI TIN G DEALONG
ST R M EN ERLNE
111 111
108 108
105 105
102 102
99 99
96 96
9595
9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+23
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'
m
I
I
I
I
— —m
I
/
/
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 ANY WAV. 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
PROPOSEDCHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. IN -STREAM 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 — —5Q—
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
5QEXISTINGCONTOURMINOR----46-----
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR �y
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINORy�
r
EXISTING WETLF'—W11AND � —
TM
EXISTING TOP OF BANK ----TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK ---- BE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE — — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UZ
PROPOSEDUG
LU Z
(SEE DETAILETAIL DWG DWG 32)
0
r N
m
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
�
(SEE DETAIL DWG 04)
�``��-QQqpyjjI'-��+ --�
BRUSH TOE
""/p Yd
(SEE DETAIL DWG 33)
I
DOUBLE LOG DROP
¢
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
LOG TOE PTECTION
re« n�reiiRODWG D2
Q ¢
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
LU Z
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
0
r N
m
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
�
LOG J -HOOK
�``��-QQqpyjjI'-��+ --�
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
""/p Yd
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
¢
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
Q ¢
FLOODPLAIN SILL
U
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
®�
LOG GRADE CONTROL
Z
F-
(PROFILE)
0
LOG SILL
O
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
U
Z
3
(PROFILE)
2
BRUSH BED SILL
oC U
PROFILE)
O O
y 55
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
¢
In ...... ..
FILE NAME016021500RAr...P 'IMitiGation Sie CADDr\PIan Setu016021500RA SHT PROP TRIBS.dw IA d16201uBCarrollvnuue unlry rnnl, Wllnuul vvnll lily wrvaervl ur vv.N. ulunaury a.w.,Irvu., Io rnurnolltu. urvur writs rnuNl lnt uniuilvHu ur lnlauwulvltivl, Mnnneu Wlln my unlulrvnuaiurvnlune Hrvu aen�anHu of wrvolutneu lune vnuu, Inut wrlea.
DD &SON
-mmunity infrastructure consultants
Trensportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 2-07
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9872
www.wkdi —n—nn
`I
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FUI I SCAI F
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S19
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
77-1
u
H �
4
LU Z
0
r N
m
a
�
z
O
¢
(L
U
0
7
Z
¢
OF-
Z
z
0
Q ¢
U
�p
cD
O
LL
Z
F-
(n
0
2
2
O
F
Z
(n Z
O Z)L-
Q
U
Z
3
Z O
2
P N O
oC U
O O
y 55
W
J
¢ z 5
y
¢
J W
W ¢
Z o
¢
¢ a
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S19
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
LU Z
y
o
�
0
w
¢
(L
� �
Z
wN
OF-
Q ¢
0z
¢
�p
cD
Z
F-
(n
w�
2
2
2
¢ o
(n Z
O Z)L-
Q
y W
Z O
2
P N O
oC U
(L Z
¢ z 5
y
Z o
QU)
Z
6i
OU LL
� Q =
aw O
= N [h
HC'
0
NN m
N
W
Z
W W W W
Z ¢zm
O
a
¢a�
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S19
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

REMOVE 216 LF,�
FENCE
� A
1
200 LF
/ REMOVE 244 LF
FENCE
\
ti•• l 1M\
/ INSTALL 3198 LF OF
WOVEN WIRE FENCE
' SEE DETAIL DWG D5
� C
oeee,, W e r$
O\ Ile
�l
BAOO V\\ /•- Pte\ ' $ elM �:._.�
J n I -v\
4 / .... 1 J \ OpyR
/.:.. . 1
\ r
-f f ,•
/
S
I
x(00
I
lDUYR j
/
I C(_'CN1 fl
EXISTING FENCE — X — X — X — X
PROPOSED FENCE X
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA SHT P EC F M.dwg - April 6, 2018 -Ben Carroll
k \
t
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=200'
0 200 400
2" =
FULL
SCALEA
HALF SCALErrrLU
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
F1
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
LU
Qm
wZ
i
❑ o
F N
00
� a
a
¢ oC
aU
REMOVE 1023 LF
Z
O
FENCE
U
cc
INSTALL 1345 LF OF
WOVEN WIRE FENCE
Q 2
f
g
SEE DETAIL DWG D5
:EI N
a
Z
O
U
� Z
U
Fw
z=p
d U
z
LU
�
�
z
�O
F
INSTALL 707 LF OF
WOVEN WIRE FENCE
O
wQ�Q z
W�
SEE DETAIL DWG D5
z
z
F��
�'� • i
REMOVE 216 LF,�
FENCE
� A
1
200 LF
/ REMOVE 244 LF
FENCE
\
ti•• l 1M\
/ INSTALL 3198 LF OF
WOVEN WIRE FENCE
' SEE DETAIL DWG D5
� C
oeee,, W e r$
O\ Ile
�l
BAOO V\\ /•- Pte\ ' $ elM �:._.�
J n I -v\
4 / .... 1 J \ OpyR
/.:.. . 1
\ r
-f f ,•
/
S
I
x(00
I
lDUYR j
/
I C(_'CN1 fl
EXISTING FENCE — X — X — X — X
PROPOSED FENCE X
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA SHT P EC F M.dwg - April 6, 2018 -Ben Carroll
k \
t
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=200'
0 200 400
2" =
FULL
SCALEA
HALF SCALErrrLU
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
F1
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
LU
U Q
Qm
wZ
❑ o
F N
00
� a
a
¢ oC
aU
r`°
Z
O
O F
U
cc
Z
Q 2
Z
g
`�
ww
�
a
Z
O
U
� Z
U
0 �
z=p
d U
z
LU
�
O
z
�O
F
O�
O
wQ�Q z
W�
o
z
z
F��
a
U
W
w
g
to
¢
o
ar
o
a
a
I
� o
m i
U Q
w
o
wZ
00
¢ oC
aU
r`°
Z
wN
O F
Z Z
cc
Z
Q 2
Z
g
`�
ww
�
a
U �
o
� Z
U
0 �
z=p
d U
z
LU
�
¢N 0
U � v
z
�O
¢ z >
zN B
O�
oLL
wQ�Q z
W�
iil
�
¢w
m
z
F��
(7
v d
aNlrn
W
—?�
W W W w
Z oOm
O
¢
o
o
a
aa0

er-rte v-rN,.�- irinn --1--r
- c�
rr F_
Ir
x
I �
I I
�t
I �
PLANTING LEGEND
RIPARIAN PLANTING
(TOTAL AREA: 22.8 AC)
a NA
A111, �4i!!�!�!ME40 !�!;!i`? �!+!c�i!�!�!�!�!�_ ��►_�_�
����N141
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT P EC F M.dwg - April 6, 2016 -Ben Carroll
PLANTING TABLE
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Mrginia Widrye
Elymus vlrg'mcus
25%
S it.hgnuo
Panicum virgatum
25%
Little Blue Stem
Schaachyrium scoparium
10%
Soft Rush
Juncus eHusus
10%
Bleckeyed Susan
Rudbeckia hies
10%
Deedongue
wchanthenum dandaslinum
10%
Veld senna
Senna herecarya
10%
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
ScientNic Name
Percent
Composition
Silky dogwood
C...Comam—
20%
Silky "I"
Salix sericeam
20%
Blackwillow
Salix nigm
40%
Cefterw,00d
Populus dettomes
20%
0
Lij
QQ =
W�
o
Riparian Planting
Common Name
ScieMNic Name
percent
Composition
River birch
Betula nigra
15%
Willowoak
Quercusphellos
15%
Svamp chestnut oak
Querw michauxii
10%
American symmore
Platanu occidentalis
15%
Black gum
Nyssa Nflora
15%
Paw Paw
Asim na 161.-5%
�Z
Over.poak
Quercus lyrata
10%
Bald cypress
Taxodium dW.hum
15%
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 DAV TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. // zV
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 _ ,'=O
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 O
IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.
4. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2. LNE STAKES SHALL Z ���^^c/
BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2. /�' G9
5. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN 6' DBH SHALL BE
PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA
S. 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. UNE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH BANKS OF
STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
S. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED ATA RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS NTH
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 ATA RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v)919.782.0495
(1) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEfrLL
PROD. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
P1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Q
iL
a m
J
❑ o
F �
�
� a
a
� Q
aU
r`°
Z
O
Q F
U
� 2
Z
3
¢ x
�Z
C3
Q
Z
0
� Z
~
z
U
ZO
g
¢y o
cc 0
OL Z
a
0
�O
zN B
Q �
0
Lij
QQ =
W�
o
Z
z
a
rn
W
m
g
l
o
t= r
o ¢
a
I
� o
m i
U Q
o
J
�
�
N
� Q
aU
r`°
Z
w w
Q F
Z Z
� 2
Z
3
¢ x
�Z
C3
w¢w¢
U ¢o
� Z
~
z
y w
ZO
g
¢y o
cc 0
OL Z
a
U z >
�O
zN B
Q �
Z.
LL
Lij
QQ =
W�
W
J
¢ W M
z
W
Z
2 N ....
�
Z oOm
O
I,
¢
o
o
aa�

PLANTING TABLE
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Virginia W1ldrye
Elymus virginicus
25%
Switchgrass
Panic virgstum
25%
Little Blue Stem
Schizachynum soopanum
10%
Soft Rush
Jun= of—
10%
Blackeyed suwn
Rudbockla hid.
10%
Deertongue
Dichantholium clandestinum10%
Asinina Mlobal
WW senna
Senna hebeca.a
I
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Silky dogwood
Comasm
20%
Silky willow
Salix serlcea
20%
Black willow
Salix nig.
40%
Cottonwood
Populus dettoides
27%
Riparian Planting
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
River birch
Betula nigra
15%
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
15%
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercu mwh-vf
10%
Arnsr—sycamore
Plotanu ccidentalis
15%
Black gum
Nyssa biflo.
15%
Paw Paw
Asinina Mlobal
5%
Overcup oak
Quercus ly.ta
10%
Bald cypress
Taxodium dlstichum
1 15%
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. 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 660 STEMS PER ACRE
7. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH BANKS OF STRAIGHT
REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
S. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF IW 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 ATA RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
10. PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT BREAKS ATA RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT P EC F M.dwg - April 6, 2016 -Ben Carroll
d�
\
\
\ NEUSE RIVER
\
'\ B
\
. I'ni: NI a �•�i ,, \ 1
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v)919.782.0495
(1) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALErra] LU iruLu
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
CC.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
P2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
¢ m
❑ o
F �
� a
a
O
U
Q
Z
O
U
O
O
o Z
a rn
gm
O ¢
Q
I ro O m �
y CO
w
o
J
�
�
N
Yb
r ro
�O
wN
°o
z z
J
Z
3
¢ x
0Z0
C3
w¢w¢
U ¢o
\
z
o�
c�nz
Go
zo
y\
o
cc 0
EL Z
a
U z
�O
\
zN B
O�
oLL
Lij
J
tz
¢ W N
ZOO
�
F
�b
W
O
Z
—?�
�O
¢
o
00
a
� J
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v)919.782.0495
(1) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALErra] LU iruLu
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
CC.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
P2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
¢ m
❑ o
F �
� a
a
O
U
Q
Z
O
U
O
O
o Z
a rn
gm
O ¢
Q
I ro O m �
y CO
U Q
w
o
J
�
�
N
� Q
EL U
r ro
Z
wN
Q F
z z
� 2
Z
3
¢ x
0Z0
C3
w¢w¢
U ¢o
z
o�
c�nz
Go
zo
o
cc 0
EL Z
a
U z
�O
zN B
O�
oLL
Lij
J
tz
¢ W N
ZOO
�
F
am
N
u)
W
O
Z
—?�
Q N ..
W W W �
Z oOm
¢
o
o
a
� J
U Q
w
o
J
�
�
N
� Q
EL U
r ro
Z
wN
Q F
z z
� 2
Z
3
¢ x
0Z0
C3
w¢w¢
U ¢o
z
o�
c�nz
Go
zo
o
cc 0
EL Z
a
U z
�O
zN B
O�
oLL
Lij
J
tz
¢ W N
ZOO
�
F
am
N
u)
W
O
Z
—?�
Q N ..
W W W �
Z oOm
¢
o
o
a
aa�

Riparian Planting
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
River birch
Betula nigra
15%
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
15%
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercu mwh—h
10%
Amencan sycamore
PWanu occidentalis
15%
Black gum
Nyss. bifiore
15%
Paw Paw
Asirmne Gilobal
5%
Ovemup oak
Quercus lyre[.
10%
Bald cypress
T—dium distichum
15%
A-
.... ' : .
......
\Tm \LCE yC)
'6).
Te h1B.
PLANTING NOTES \\\ 4-c :: ....:.:::.:.:.
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 ` CLQ
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 121NCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSS PLANTING AREAS WITH THE
IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.
PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBSIACRE.
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT P EC F M.dwg - April 6, 2016 -Ben Carroll
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v)919.782.0495
(7 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALLLU (LrLI00CC ir
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
P3
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
❑ o
� a
a
z
O
U
Q
F --
Q)
U Q
Z
w
o
Lu
aU
j5 8
Z
Z r
Q =
Z Z
Z
3
¢ 2
�Z
ww
Z
O
� Z
~
U
Z Q
g
o
EL Z
a
O
�O
F
O�
O
Z
Q
W 0
o
z
z
a
rn
W
w
g
O
¢
o
O ¢
Q
a
I
ro O
m �
U Q
Z
w
o
Lu
aU
j5 8
Z
Z r
Q =
Z Z
Z
3
¢ 2
�Z
ww
� Z
~
y w
Z Q
g
o
EL Z
a
U z
�O
zN B
O�
oLL
Z
Q
W 0
LA
J
tz
WE
M
z
-
CS
a m d
Nylm
W
Z
—?�
Q lA U.
W W W �
Z oOm
O
¢
o
a
00 ao

i
I
o v
P
v
VP
/o
v
P VP
P A
v VP
-_j
v '
v
•�� >M\
\ OoyR
c
o; a�a o9o°�
0
AD
Ile
14, 741
/ 00
HAOO V \ ". P S 9lM
i C7 Wim—
J —room
I
301
IYLS
..'.'f... .. .. .. r-
zaaa
'• i 0 /
r /
loorR
/
LEGEND
/
RIPARIAN PLANTING P :.. '."."..."..'.". _' ".'1
�USE RIVER
PROPOSED VEGETATION PLOT VP
(AREA: 0.02 AC)
PROPOSED MONITORING
CROSS-SECTION
PROPOSED STAGE RECORDER
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solu[ians\2016021500RA-TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA SHT P EC F M.dwg-April 6, 2016 -Ben Carroll
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
T—sponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v)919.782.0495
(7J 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=200'
0 200 400
2" =
FULLS
'ALF.ErLULU I rcc Ir
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
M1
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
ui
❑ o
� a
a O
U
z
0
U
Q
O
F
0
O Z
a U
g
to ar
o
a
I � o LOU
U Q
Z
o
Lu
J
00
0
aU
r`°
Z
W N
Q =
Z
Z Z
cc
0
!E .
C7 Z
t1
w w
H
C'3
�z
o
0w �
zo
d V
O
o
� ren o
Z
�O
�
¢ z >
zN B
O�
oLL
J
tz
¢ W N
Z 2 �
F
N m dr
N
W
O
�
W W W
Z oOm
¢
o
o
IL
aa�
i
U Q
Z
o
Lu
J
00
0
aU
r`°
Z
W N
Q =
Z
Z Z
cc
0
!E .
C7 Z
t1
w w
H
C'3
�z
o
0w �
zo
d V
O
o
� ren o
Z
�O
�
¢ z >
zN B
O�
oLL
J
tz
¢ W N
Z 2 �
F
N m dr
N
W
O
�
W W W
Z oOm
¢
o
o
IL
aa�

\
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consuftants
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. -374
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA- TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CARD\Plan Set\2016021500RA SHT WETLAND.dwg -April 16, 2018 - Kristen Navaroli
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL�
LU J
Lur -
o �
00
o�
J V
a
IL
a<
z
O
Z
U
cr
Ox
crF-
c')
¢ir
O
(D0
D
U
HZ
Z
lY
O
t'n Z
O
O
Z
OC U
Z
o
Z
a
<
U
z
OZ
N
E
DULL
I
o
66
a
O Y
Q
O
Z W
F
O
y 55Q
twit
J
Z
CC w
Z 2
W
m
O
¢
¢ a
LU J
O
00
m
IL
a<
r�
Z
z�
Ox
¢ir
o�
¢�
(D0
D
ww
HZ
Z
t'n Z
O
¢
Z
OC U
Z
y o
F. o
¢ o a
Zto
OZ
E
DULL
6j
m< m:
J
= N N
Z W
F
m d
L)
W
Z
CC w
Z 2
m
O
a
a
¢a2
PROJ.DATE: JUNE2018
Q.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
W1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

LEGEND \
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR 50 — —
r/
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR ------- C50)--
PROPOSED
50 PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR 1' . .I\ .\.\\ \\ NEUSE RIVER
EXISTING TOP OF BANK —
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK -----------ea— I� J•
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE --
EXISTING TREELINE
EXISTING WETLAND
'_I r' • >'1' �•
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK J , . .�"•``, , p \�' • � ��:� ;�\ \ \ �_
LIMITS OF PROPOSED � s\ \' • , • , • •�• •'\\ • \v\\
CONSERVATION EASEMENT LV/�G
PROPOSED WETLAND � ,I • �' � , ��� � \'� •
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG ® . ' �.�' ' . d3 , . • \ ^\ , \\ T Y\ \ \
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32) �• /� �`
'. . �' \ ?�. ' ' 'CJs . . y 1 J� • . . , . ,\ `.I \ . l . \
PROPOSED LOG OUTLET STRUCTURE • • '�. �: •`: x x •N•v. : • i_y4 �1 \ \
(SEE DETAIL DWG 35)
i.. - L—N,_nIk- unri--kIN_k54IL
I 1b
10
IT
a\�T
I 1/
/
L \
fK � _ ® R
� � 11 l I AI
/
es
3.ii /
125 ® I —� , .g
9Di
a�,� /.�.,,. ® • v / ' ® ✓ tr --- �_� �"'�"�' .® T– �' ® .moi . 99/
VimA 130 Jkry� lid' ®/' t�, v
\`� '' =� .� / –' � �_ �T�^ `'120` ��\�. Wil• '�' �G'� ^� /�/'`ry/ii/
•\R�/g j � �� — fie. m / � �3.\. .®'I✓ /`m 'er/�� 1
M LCE
>o. /
ICE
91
euro /rot,
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA- TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CARD\Plan Set\2016021500RA BHT WETLAND.dwg -April 16, 2018- Kristen Naveroli
\
Lu-
o �
0
I
IL cr
a
<
v
Z
O
Z
°O\
Ir
Q
yy�
Z
O
00
D
U
H z
z
lY
O
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consuftants
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. -374
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL
W J
Lu-
o �
H
o�
a
IL cr
a
<
Z
O
Z
U
cr
Ir
Q
Z
O
00
D
U
H z
z
lY
O
O
z0
OC U
Z
o
?
0
a
U)
O°LijLL
N
g
I
o
66
a
O Y
O
Z W O
~
O
y N
Q J
m
W 2
Z
W
m
O
¢
¢ a
W J
O
N
IL cr
a
<
j5
Z
w�
z
Q
0
¢ 2
00
D
ww
H z
z
¢y
z0
OC U
Z
o
Ft o
0
Q O ¢
z ' g
O°LijLL
a =Z
LU
J
= N N
Z W O
~
a m
W
m
W 2
Z
It
m
O
a
¢a2
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
W2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR — — —50—
EXISTING
0—EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR\
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING TOP OF BANK-----------Te—
EXISTING BOTTOM OFBANK -----ee-------- \
1
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF \
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE ----- x ----- x — \_
I
EXISTING TREELINE
EXISTING WETLAND
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK REMOVE CONCRETE \
CROSSING
LIMITS OF PROPOSED LCE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
/
PROPOSED WETLAND ``(�� �(' .
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG
(SEE DETAIL DWG UG
PROPOSEDLOG OUTLETSTRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D5)
REMOVE 15" PIPE
-'TE'
�
v �v
FILE NAME: O:\Protects\Resource Environmental SOlutlOns\2016021500RA- TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\QADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA SHT WETLAND.dwg -April 16, 2018 -Kristen Navaroli
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
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100'
0 100 200
2" =FULL SCALE
HALF SCALzzErCO66LU zLUcc Cr EL)00 0
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
D.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
W3
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W J
F
�
O
�
H
O
a
IL �
Z
O
Z
U
o�
Z
O
20
o
U
�z
z
lY
O
�z
W
O
zo
o
?
OCU
� Z
a
m
N
g
I
o
a
Y
O tY
o
a =
LU
J
y (n
Q J
w
NNm
U��
W
Z
�
W J
O
N
IL �
Z
w�
o�
oz
20
o
ww
�z
z
�
so
�z
W
�w �
zo
¢ti o
OCU
� Z
F� o
Q o a
Z y �
0 C/)
UULL
a =
LU
J
cc
= N N
Z W 0
NNm
U��
W
Z
�
W � Z' Z
Cr
m
O
�
¢ate

WHEN AND WHERE TO USE IT
SILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS: 1.25 LB./UNEAR FT. STEEL POSTS
FLOW
IL
~ m
�
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 B•
THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CFS FILTER FABRIC 4/,qX
NOT PLACE SILT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP. IH)�
MIDDLE LAVER
�� BOTTOM LAYER
L9�0
TOP LAYER
EARTH SURFACE
DO
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
A A
M=AB
O v
a
00
Z
O
1. USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OFATLEAST 95% BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR POLYESTER, �R7C
U
2
WHICH IS CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER
RER OR SUPPLIER AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS
B
TRENCH 0.25' DEEP ONLY WHEN
ASTM D 6461. SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND HEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TE
PLAN VIEW ENDS OF BAGS IN ADJACENT
PLACED ON EARTH SURFACE
STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT BACKFILL TRENCH WITH FOR STEEL POSTS
S
ROWS BUT SLIGHTLY
¢
O
A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF 0' TO 120' F. COMPACTED EARTH
SEE NOTE TOGETHER
H
2. ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LB/UNEAR FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM .� ` .� `
SEE NOTE
Z
LENGTH OF 5 FEET. MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE
FASTENING THE FABRIC. O�
/
./ // LOWE6T POINT f/GROUND
SECTION B -B
(LVA
LEVEL
Z
5
CONSTRUCTION:
w
o_
o Q
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
- - - - - -- -
O
GROUND SURFACE. (HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE OR V -BOTTOM TRENCH
ACE
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
a
NATES:
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
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
HIGHER THAN THE LOWEST POINT OF FLOW
ISOLATED SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.
SUPPORT FENCE. SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC
CHECK SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS ARE TO BE
SU
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 WIDEFILTER FABRIC FILTER FABRIC AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE PROPOSED
FROM STREAM FLOW.
UNE OF POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER.
6. PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH. COMPACTED ry COMPACTED 'v
SANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAVERS OF
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN
AC
7. BKFILL THE TRENCH NTH SOIL PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGH EARTH Q EARTH o
COMPACTION OF THE BACKFILL IS CRITICAL TO SILT FENCE PERFORMANCE.
SANDBAGS. THE BOTTOM LAVER SHALL CONSIST OF 3 ROWS 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 AT FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES. RUNOFF RUNOFF a'
CONSIST OF 1 ROW OF BAGS. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OFA FILLED
SANDBAG SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FTX0.5 FT X 1.5 FT.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING
MAINTENANCE \ � L - / �
PUMP SIZE SUFFICIENT TO PUMP BASE FLOW.
Ih,
5. DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON -ERODIBLE MATERIALS
INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED -_ Y -_ y
SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKE
SUCH AS SANDBAGS.
REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY.7,
NTS
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL PUMP AROUNDl
y`i
SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, FILTER y
REPLACE IT PROMPTLY.
P
1. INSTALL STIWNG BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLASS
FABRIC FILTER FABRIC
A RIP RAP AT 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 IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
aQ COARSE 3ATE-
AGGRESTONE
OPERATIONS ONSS ORA STREAM DIVERSION.
�aG SIZE
4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING
NTS
�VS
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"X2'5.
WOODEN STAKE MINIMUM 9' EROSION
CONTROL STRAW WATTLE f14IEL
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT
AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
WHEN DEWATERING AREA, ALL DIRTY WATER MUST BE PUMPED
GRADE OR COIR WATTLE/LOG EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIR LOGS/WATTLES MAY BE USED IN
EXISTING/\\\/
o
THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND
PLACE OF SILT FENCE.
sQ•M7N
TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING WITH THE
SLOPE
DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
\\\\\/\/����\\�\\��\//\��\\��\\��\\��
6 AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL RIP RAP
AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH
/ EROSION CONTROL WATTLE
SEED AND MURLCH.G
4
/�/• NTS
7. ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING
INSTALL WATTLE IN 3'
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 -
2.0' 1 OR FIG. 2
2.0'
1. CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE
FLOW
SITE PREPARATION MIN.
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 T.
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. ,s9\�
4. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS
SUBJECT TO SEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE.
STONE
PUMPAROUND
PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL GRADE. KEY -IN AND/OR
PUMP
TE ST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT SOIL TEST RESULTS TO THE STAKE MATTING
JUST ABOVE
MAINTENANCE-
AINTENANCEENGINEER.
WORK
ENGINEER.APPLY ANY 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 PUBUC
SEE SHEETS P1 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 e' WIDE X 8° DEEP 8' WIDE x 8' DEEP FROM TRENCH
NTS
SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FOR INFORMATION FROM TRENCH
REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE COIR MATTING. FLOW
�1
1'1
OVERLAP ADJACENT MATE ON DIRECTION PARALLEL FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERT 1Y I 8°
�
DISCHARGE HOSE
FLOW
MAROSS THE OVERLAP. THEE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BEE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAM FLOW L=W
GENERAL NOTES:
CLA66A
/ /� ./
\ \
�L
1. CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION B 5 WASHED
STONE
EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER. / \/\j \r� \/ / / \ / / \/%
CONTROL MANUAL. STONE
NOTE: HOSE SHOULD BE
LAV MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT. / �// // //� \l{�
2. ROCK DAM RIPRAP SHALL BE 50/50 MIX OF CLASS I AND
II. A A
OF WORK
SILT BAG
./i.✓i y\ 1 ROW OF STAPLES
ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINS. \ /%
3. PLACE ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ON PLANS. EXTEND CLASS
AAREATOUTSIDE
LOCATION
�"
\ / 1 ROW OF STAPLES \� OR STAKES, MIN. OF
B RIP RAP ROCK APRON 5 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE
CUTS"x8"TRENCH ALONG TOP OF BANK FORMAT TERMINATION AS SHOWN IN FIGURES 182. R\//�/ OR STAKES, MIN. OF 24' O.0
EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK. 24° O.0
OF ROCK DAM.
STEP 1
PLACE ADJACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH WITH A MINIMUM OF 4' OVERLAP. SECURE
STABILIZED OUTFALL FILTER FABRIC
CLASS A STONE
WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINES, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH, AND COMPACT SOIL. STEP 1
1.5' THICK I
STAPLE AT 12' INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP. 1 ROW OF STAPLES 1 ROW OF STAPLES
OR STAKES, MIN. OF OR STAKES, MIN. OF
STREAM BANK MATTING TO BE INSTALLED FROM TOE OF BANK TO A MINIMUM OF 2.0' PAST FLAW 18° O.0 12' O.0
5'-0° MIN. CLASS B B.J
ROCK APRON
PLAN
DISC
EXISTING HOSEHARGE
TOP OF BANK. SEE FIGURE 3 FOR TERMINATION AT TOP OF BANK. �-
/ // ' \ f�
IF MORE THAN ROLL IS REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWN TO \ \ \F`
THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF 1'. / //� //./, T
\/ ��` / i
SOIL FILLED
SPILLWAY 2:1
CREST - 1' MIN OF 5 W (SPILLWAY)
MIN 2/3 STREAM WIDTH
3:1 WASHED STONE
CUSS I AND
II RIP RAP aFLOW
GROUND
STABILIZED
OUTFALL CLASS 15' TO 20'
ASTONS 1
/ \\� \\/\\\�
/ FROM SOIL PILE, �\\/"\�
\ \"
\' COMPACT WITH FOOT "'� / SOIL FILLED
1.0 THICK
EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE •/ FROM SOIL PILE,
ROCK APRON 2 -2' MIN. BELOW
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: COMPACT WITH FOOT100
LOWEST fl4NK
LEVEL (MIN)
• COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO A
C�IISRIP
FILTER FABRIC
HIGH STRENGTH MATRIX STEP -2
HIGH MATRIX
CU70FF RAP FILTER
FILTER
8" OF CLASS A
• THICKNESS- 0.35 IN. MINIMUM.
TRENCH SECTION A-ASTONE
FABRIC FABRIC
• SHEARSTRESS-5LBSISQFT FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2
SECTION 13-13
EXISTING
• FLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED 16 FTISEC
WEIGHT• 29 SV
CHANNEL
SILT BAG PROFILE
• OPEN AREA -38%
OPEN EA -38
• SLOPES- UP TO A MAXIMUM OF I:1
COIR MATTING
TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
PUMP AROUND & DEWATERING DETAIL
NTS
NTS
NTS
FVD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
-.wkdickson.com
No.cc
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: JU
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
IL
~ m
�
U Z
o
F N
W
O v
a
00
Z
O
aQ
ZU
U
2
O �
H
Z
20
� Z
w
J
¢
O
H
y Z
('3�
O
Z
K
� U
F
�
Z
O
Z
5
!
w
o_
o Q
� D Z
2
�
�
Z
LU
� O
I
O
w �
I
¢
J W
2 d
U
U Z
N
z
o
W
Jo
00
"
aQ
ZU
�c1
O �
¢ 2
20
� Z
w
J
w
0 W
y Z
('3�
p
w �
xy o
K
� U
4 z s
Z
O
Z N O
�
Ill
0 LL o
� D Z
2
�
= a'
Z
LU
� O
Z
N � m
!m
y ,.
W
3
¢ ..
ELI
Z QZI=
�
a0
O
a
¢ate

NOTES:
FLOW
COIR FIBER
1. LOGS SHOULD BEAT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, 5.8 FEET LONG, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, AND
HARDWOOD.
PROPOSED REBAR OR DUCKBILL
STREAM BED ANCHOR
ATTING
2. CABLE ANCHORS SHOULD BE PLACED V TO 3' FROM EACH END OF LOG. REBAR (518" MINIMUM DIAMETER
FLAT TO
3' MIN. LENGTH TYPICAL) MAY BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR CABLE ANCHORS PER DIRECTION OF
ENGINEER.
CHANNEL FLOW MIN 6.0'
BOTTOM OF BANK -�
"
�g
3. IF REBAR IS USED, PRE -DRILL HOLES WITH 5/8" DRILL BIT.
MIN 3.0'
' TO 1.5'
02
-_
_
A
LATDETAIL
LIVESTAKES SHO LD BE
COARSE BACKFILL
THEGRONGENOUGH
TOTABLEACHBELOWTHEGROUND WATER
E. (GENERALLY, A LENGTH OF 2 TO
� p
� Z
COARBE AGGREGATE3
v BACKFILL 1"TO 4"
( )
FEET IS SUFFICIENT.) ADDI IONALLY,
THESTAKES SHOULD HAVE A DIAMETER
IN THE RANGEOF0.75TO2INCHES.
fE
� Z
(7�
�
SIDE BRANCH
Z 0
E U
REMOVTBANKFULL
ELEVATION
\\\\/\�MIN
BDIAMETERC1/4
15"
TO 1/3 OF LOG
CAN BE EXPOSED
B
a�COARSEAGGREGATEDIAMETER
O LL o
Q w'
PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
N FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II) TACK FABRIC 11 TO 4)
= a
ao
O
C
TO LOG
y N
�
� J
I
¢
PROPOSED BED
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK S.D' SECTION A -A
A MIN
COIR FIBER
45 DEGREE MATTING
\`/\\
PROPOSED
TAPERED BUTT END
STREAM BANK
/
�1
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
MI/MINIMUM OF 22 OF LOG
HEADER LOG
DIAMETER BEDDED BELOW
U
EXISTING CHANNEL INVERT
-
10" MINIMUM LOG
DIAMETER (TYP.)
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND
RECENTLY HARVESTED.
SECTION VIEW
LIVE STAKES SHALL BE
INSTALL CABLE ANCHOR AS SHOWN. DRILL (OR SAW
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
SPACED 3 FEET APART,
ALTERNATE SPACING.
CUT) PILOT HOLE THROUGH LOG )S TO Y4 THE WAY
MIN DIAM. = 10', MIN LENGTH =15'
DOWN SO THAT ANCHOR CABLE IS NOT EXPOSED.
3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3'10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL OG FOOTER L
EVERY 1.5' ALONG THE LOG
MIN 3•
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
(CALIX SERICEA), COTTONWOOD (POPULUS OELTOIDES) AND SILKY DOGWOOD
(CORNUS AS SHALL ).
PLANTED IN AN AREA EXTENDING FEET OUT FROM
2. LIVE OF BANK TO
TOP OF BANK TO JUBT BELOW BANKFULL.
BANKFULL ELEVATION
BACKFILL AREA BETWEEN BANK AND COIR FIBER
ROLL (APPLY PERMANENT SEED MIX 8 COIR MATING)
LIVE STAKE
114 TO 1/3 OF LOG
DIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSED
PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING
EXISTNG
PLANTED COIR BAN
FIBER ROLL
NORMAL WATERPLANTED COIR FLOW
NTS NTS
PROPOSED BED
EVEFIBER ROLL WOOD
STAKES
0.5' TO 1.25'
-
DENSE COIR MATTING J- ��
(R NKA BioD-MaMD OR
EQUIVALENT)
DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR
MINIM UM OF4T0}OF LOG DIAMETER
BEDDED BELOW CHANNEL INVERT
SwooD TAKES
WOOD STAKE
KEY IN UPSTREAM
PLAN VIEW END OF ROLL APPROX
~
-2 inch
12" LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)
NOTES, 2.4 FT INTO BANK
NOTE
SECTION VIEW 1. DESIGNER TO MARK LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF
SILLS IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
W W m m
m 8 81 m
1. INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL. TOP OF CTAS
SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.
2. INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL.
TI I TI I TI
W W - I W W - W - - - -
- -
2. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (DEPTH APPROX4 TO} OF LOG DM) FORDAM)
TOP OF STAKE SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.
SERT
1.INSERT 2. REMOVE 3.INTIN
PLACEMENTOFROLL.
3. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCHAPPROX tin DEEP FOR
( )
PLANTING BAR PLANTING BAR PLANTING BAR 2
3. COIR LOGS SHALL BE 10 FT LONG AND HAVE A DIAMETER OF 12 IN.
PLACEMENT OF ROLL
SHOWN HOWARD S EDINGCE INCHES PLANTER WAR
ND LL
PLANTER FROM
HANDLE TOWARD SEEDING FROM
D
PLANTER. CORRECT DEPTH. SEEDING.
COIR LOG (TOE PROTECTION)
NTS
VEGETATED SILL DEFLECTOR
NTS
,y
r`
NEW CHANNEL TO
CONSTRUCTEDTED
I I I
4. PULL HANDLE OF 5. PUSH 6. LEAVE
BAR TOWARD HANDLE COMPACTION
MIN. 25'
PLANTER, FIRMING FORWARD HOLE OPEN.
V
SOIL AT BOTTOM. FIRMING SOIL WATER
AT TOP. THOROUGHLY.
OLD CHANNEL TO !� CHANNEL PLUG
BE DIVERTED OR
MAX. 75'
ABANDONED
TOP OF
PLAN VIEW
BANK
_ ____ ______________ __
EXISTING / �/ \\'\
/
PLANTING NOTES:
BARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTED 6
PLANTING BAG FT. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER, RANDOM
F,('j CHANNEL / \ / /\/�\\�\/{\���� \ /�
0� BOTTOM �\ \" \�\\/\\
SHALL BE KEPDURING T IN PLANTING, MO ST CANVAS SEEDLINGS SPACING, AVERAGING 8 FT. ON
\\/\\�`�\�\
Z /\ �/\j \\/\\�
BAG OR SIMILAR CONTAINER TO CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 680
PLANTS PER ACRE.
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
THE ROOT SYSTEMS FROM
DRYING.
1.5' MINIMUM
BANKFULL ELEVATION
COMPACTED BACKFILL
(12' TO 18" LIFTS)
-
KBO PLANTING BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS
SECTION, AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES
LONG, 41NCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH
FINISHED GRADE NEW CHANNEL BANK SHALL
X
NOTES.
THICK AT CENTER.
ROOT PRUNING
COMPACTED BACKFILL 1 BE TREATED AS SPECIFIED
PLANS
1. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL TO BANKFULL ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE.
ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT
IF SO AT NO
(12' LIFTS) 1IN
- 2. CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 12" TO 18" LIFTS,
'
ROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 1O
10' M IN
3. IF CHANNEL CANNOT BE COMPLETELY FILLED TO TOP OF BANK, FILL
rA-
INCHES BELOWTHE ROOT COLLAR.
TO TOP OF BANK FOR 25' OUT OF EVERY 100' SEGMENT.
711,
PROPOSED
CHANNEL INVERT
106
CHANNEL BACKFILL
ROOT PLANTING
IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIALBARE
TYPICAL SECTION
(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER) LOG TOE OR COIR LOG
NTS
NTC
CHANNELPLUG
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
-.wkdickson.com
Nc. ucENsaNIraj
PROD. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
D.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
IL
~ m
� o
F N
Q m
a '
Z
O
F
U
2
Z
0
U
O
H
O ?
a U1
5 U
W
O 2 LL
I ❑ 0 CO)
U
U Z
N
z
o
W
Jo
00
o[x
"
�g
aQ
ZU
w^
�c1
02
oz
� p
� Z
w
J
w
� w
� Z
(7�
�
w F-
xy o
Z 0
E U
4 z s
� O
Z ¢ o
�
W O �
W
O LL o
Q w'
� p Z
z =
F
= a
ao
O
C
Z
y N
�
� J
I
¢
J W
2 d
U
U Z
N
z
o
W
Jo
00
o[x
"
�g
aQ
ZU
w^
�c1
02
oz
� p
� Z
w
J
w
� w
� Z
(7�
�
w F-
xy o
Z 0
E U
4 z s
� O
Z ¢ o
�
W O �
W
O LL o
Q w'
� p Z
z =
F
= a
ao
O
C
Z
N . I m
U-1 C
3
W W W W
Z 2zm
�
O
a
¢ate

1.5THICK CLASS I RIP RAP
DISSIPATER PAD
PFn-S
�FnnlnIN
s
cus_ I Fl- FAP _
�' fs W
F.. MIN." MIN,
�_ \IhICR III—III-
INSTALL COIR MATTING PER \ \\\
DETAIL DWG D1 \
EXCAVATE / GRADE UPPER BANK
III IIIIII-IV
INSTALL LIVE STAKES (SEE PLANTING PLAN)—III III I I
EXISTING CHANNEL BANK —III I I I III I —
/ /
TIE TO EXISTING GRADE
MIN SLOPE 2SH:1V SEE DWG ##
(DESIGNER TO MARKIN FIELD PFPSP-(;TI\F VFW
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION)
LILA' I ,:IP ,2A.=
h,5 WA``LTi"I-
'^P��FC
SLFIM-N S "1F^GL Z" NL
EXISTING SINFNW'I S ";F^LL L:;NL �I
10'T015' CHANNEL BED
NOTES: BENCH
1. TREES NOT INDICATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE F/L,I�
PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS. \ i' V I\
2. SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLING 'EFT- r.FANVFI
COIR MATTING.
MA.X. -FFINFNT 7 H •-•-• -W
!.'I -)AI FII -CHIT;
S F (-, TION THICK CLASS I
RIP
RIP RAP DISSIPATER PAD
(',- \F -,AI NC1 Fc: FILTER FABRIC
1. FLIM -4.`I SNS ,H AN ATF -hF NINIWJ\� A, --- 41 7-hFRWI' r OTFD
TYPICAL BANK GRADING RIPRAP FILTER BERM
NTS
NTS
PLAN VIEW -TRENCHING METHOD
IOULDER
AS DIRECTED
IY ENGINEER)
ROOT WAD
IF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVER
ENTIRE BANK & CONSTRUCTION
�o
9-
\ —ROOT WAD
PLAN VIEW- DRIVE POINT METHOD
BOULDER
(AS DIRECTED
BY ENGINEER)
ROOTWAD
NTS
TOE OF BANK 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
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE STREAM BANK STREAM BANK (ON ONE END) AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'. FLAT -SIDED BALLAST
FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II) 03Y BOULDERS SHALL BE OF SIZE 2'X2'X1.5'OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. MIN 2.0' COMPACTEDSOIL
2. THE VANE
HPSABTNBANKFULL LGE
AN ELEVATIONCONTROL PINT MAYBE TLISHED AT THE LEFT OR RIGHT STREAM BANKNANE INTERCEPT POINT. THE LIVE STAKES TOP OF BANK
/ VANE INTERCEPT LOCATION MAYBE 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. LIVE CUTTINGS
20• TO 30° % . T / 3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOGS AND UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL OF THE / SMALL BRANCHES \� NOTES:
//
BALLAST BOULDER �\ ' AND BRUSH
OR DUCK BILL ANCHORS
VANE. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED TUCKED, OR TRIMMED A6 — 1 OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE
NEEDED.
'i _.._. S7_ .._.__..__._.__
/ 1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH _ \ ' \\/\\'\\ LARGER BRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRISS-CROSS PATTERN.
q 4. LOG VANES SHALL BE BUILT TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS: _ - - \/ \/\\/\\/\ j LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING fi IN T0181N OF THE
A. OVERT EXCAVATE STREAM BED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE HEADER AND FOOTER IF
�\ LARGER BRANCHESISMALL LOGS.
COARSE ( 1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH - � � � � \ 2. PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGER
ECIES ONLY) AND
AGGREGATE I " ' B. PLACE ODOTER LOG OF THE VANE ARM IF SPECIFIED. THE SLOPE OF THE VANE ARM IS MEASURED ALONG THE VANE \ \I, �j\I� ��\ COMPACT GHTLV TBRANCHES/SlOO EGS ITHER. BACOKFILL AND COMPACT TO
BACKFILL / / / BANKFULL ARM WHICH IS INSTALLED AT AN ANGLE TO THE STREAM BANK AND PROFILE.
BANKFULL \�/
LOCK IN PLACE.
(1" TO S") -' ) D. NAILINSTFILTERRFFABR C TO THE HEADER LOG USINGER LOG OF THE VANE ARM ON POF AND A GALVANIZEDTLY NAIL NTH ARD OR BACK FROM THE FOO ER LOG.PLASTIC CAP. THE SIZE AND GAGE OF NAIL \ \ /\\ 3. ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES A INCLUDE BLACK
/ ANDNAIL SPACING SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. \\�\ \\�\ VI LLOW(SAUX NIGRA) AND SILKY WLLOW(SAUX SERICEA).
% I SMALL LOGS AND/OR WILLOW CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO
E. PLACE BALLAST BOULDERS OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR ON THE VANE. LARGE BRANCHES WITH
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 W1TH PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED MATERIAL. 4. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER
COMPACTED SOIL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
5. IF ATV EROSION CONTROL MATTING SPECIFIED FOR USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE STREAM BANKNANE INTERCEPT POINT THE
5. INSTALL 1 T03 ROWS OF LIVE STAKESABOVE THE LIVE
MATTING EDGER SHALL BE NEATEN SECURED AROUND THE LOGS. CUTTINGS LAVER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
/ POOL I LEFTRIGHTVANE ARMBANK
tI INTERCEPT CONTROL POINT
I
BALLAST BOULDER BANKFULL COIR MATTING
\ , OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS
I LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BANK
INTERCEPT CONTROL POINT
PLAN VIEW FLOW VARIES
V TO 0.8'
BANKFULL STREAM BANK z.� �- CHANNEL TOP
�._. >._. =SS FLOW OF BANK ))
COARSE AGGREGATE _ \
POOL
\\ BACKFILL (1"TO 5") FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG—
\'\�\//j HEADER LOG
TOE OF BANK FOOTER LOG
POOL OM BED PROFILE VIEW A
CHANNEL
BOTTOM OF BANK
NON-WOVENGEOTEXE 1) \ \ \ \
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE IO7 TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
Wn
VARIED v�/�/�/�/ LOG VANE
O'TO�OTH �A,vA,� -� NTS BRUSH TOE
NTS
SECTION A -A
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
—.wkdickson.com
Hc. ucervsauIrCC
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D3
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
IS BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TO
ru
~ m
�
U Z
MID MARCH, PROTECT BANK
DRIVE POINT METHOD:
SOD MATS
WITH BRUSH LAYER.
SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE
Q
TOP OF BANK
"DRIVI IT INTO THE BANK. ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO
FLOOD PLAIN
THAT THE STREAM FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90 -DEGREE
Q =
ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE WATER AWAY FROM THE BANK. A
BOULDER
BANKFULL STAGE
TRANSPLANT OR BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE
DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED
(AS DIRECTED BY
J
BY THE ROOT WAD. THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 3' X
ENGINEER)
BASEFLOW
3' X 2'.
BOULDER 24' MIN.
o
TRENCHING METHOD:
IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE
DIAMETER
FOOTER LOG>12'DIAMETER
17 DI METER
BANK NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD
� Z
MINIMUM OF I/
SHOULD BE USED. THIS METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE
10-15 FEET LONG
INSTALLED BELOW STREAM BED
EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD. IN THIS
>10" DIAMETER
F
CASE, A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNDERNEATH THE
ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THE BANK AND
�O
Z
WELL BELOW THE STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE ROOT WAD
ILL!
i
SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
CROSS SECTION VIEW
�
ROOTWAD
NTS
TOE OF BANK 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
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE STREAM BANK STREAM BANK (ON ONE END) AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'. FLAT -SIDED BALLAST
FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II) 03Y BOULDERS SHALL BE OF SIZE 2'X2'X1.5'OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. MIN 2.0' COMPACTEDSOIL
2. THE VANE
HPSABTNBANKFULL LGE
AN ELEVATIONCONTROL PINT MAYBE TLISHED AT THE LEFT OR RIGHT STREAM BANKNANE INTERCEPT POINT. THE LIVE STAKES TOP OF BANK
/ VANE INTERCEPT LOCATION MAYBE 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. LIVE CUTTINGS
20• TO 30° % . T / 3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOGS AND UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL OF THE / SMALL BRANCHES \� NOTES:
//
BALLAST BOULDER �\ ' AND BRUSH
OR DUCK BILL ANCHORS
VANE. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED TUCKED, OR TRIMMED A6 — 1 OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE
NEEDED.
'i _.._. S7_ .._.__..__._.__
/ 1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH _ \ ' \\/\\'\\ LARGER BRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRISS-CROSS PATTERN.
q 4. LOG VANES SHALL BE BUILT TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS: _ - - \/ \/\\/\\/\ j LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING fi IN T0181N OF THE
A. OVERT EXCAVATE STREAM BED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE HEADER AND FOOTER IF
�\ LARGER BRANCHESISMALL LOGS.
COARSE ( 1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH - � � � � \ 2. PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGER
ECIES ONLY) AND
AGGREGATE I " ' B. PLACE ODOTER LOG OF THE VANE ARM IF SPECIFIED. THE SLOPE OF THE VANE ARM IS MEASURED ALONG THE VANE \ \I, �j\I� ��\ COMPACT GHTLV TBRANCHES/SlOO EGS ITHER. BACOKFILL AND COMPACT TO
BACKFILL / / / BANKFULL ARM WHICH IS INSTALLED AT AN ANGLE TO THE STREAM BANK AND PROFILE.
BANKFULL \�/
LOCK IN PLACE.
(1" TO S") -' ) D. NAILINSTFILTERRFFABR C TO THE HEADER LOG USINGER LOG OF THE VANE ARM ON POF AND A GALVANIZEDTLY NAIL NTH ARD OR BACK FROM THE FOO ER LOG.PLASTIC CAP. THE SIZE AND GAGE OF NAIL \ \ /\\ 3. ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES A INCLUDE BLACK
/ ANDNAIL SPACING SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. \\�\ \\�\ VI LLOW(SAUX NIGRA) AND SILKY WLLOW(SAUX SERICEA).
% I SMALL LOGS AND/OR WILLOW CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO
E. PLACE BALLAST BOULDERS OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR ON THE VANE. LARGE BRANCHES WITH
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 W1TH PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED MATERIAL. 4. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER
COMPACTED SOIL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
5. IF ATV EROSION CONTROL MATTING SPECIFIED FOR USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE STREAM BANKNANE INTERCEPT POINT THE
5. INSTALL 1 T03 ROWS OF LIVE STAKESABOVE THE LIVE
MATTING EDGER SHALL BE NEATEN SECURED AROUND THE LOGS. CUTTINGS LAVER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
/ POOL I LEFTRIGHTVANE ARMBANK
tI INTERCEPT CONTROL POINT
I
BALLAST BOULDER BANKFULL COIR MATTING
\ , OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS
I LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BANK
INTERCEPT CONTROL POINT
PLAN VIEW FLOW VARIES
V TO 0.8'
BANKFULL STREAM BANK z.� �- CHANNEL TOP
�._. >._. =SS FLOW OF BANK ))
COARSE AGGREGATE _ \
POOL
\\ BACKFILL (1"TO 5") FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG—
\'\�\//j HEADER LOG
TOE OF BANK FOOTER LOG
POOL OM BED PROFILE VIEW A
CHANNEL
BOTTOM OF BANK
NON-WOVENGEOTEXE 1) \ \ \ \
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE IO7 TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
Wn
VARIED v�/�/�/�/ LOG VANE
O'TO�OTH �A,vA,� -� NTS BRUSH TOE
NTS
SECTION A -A
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
—.wkdickson.com
Hc. ucervsauIrCC
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D3
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ru
~ m
�
U Z
o
F N
W
O v
a
Q
z
0
aQ
Z U
U
2
Q =
V)
Z
O
U
� 0
� Z
J
O
LL
LU
O
o
Z
Z 0
� U
a
U1
� Z
Z
5
i
o
¢ o_
o QLL
� p Z
z =
F
= a
ao
�O
Z
N 66 . I m
,.
ILL!
i
¢
J W
¢ d
U
U Z
N
o
W
o
Q
aQ
Z U
w
� U
Q =
¢ Z
� 0
� Z
J
LU
0 w
Z 0
� U
4 z s
� Z
Z ¢
O
W Q �
W
o
O u
¢ w'
� p Z
z =
F
= a
ao
�O
Z
N 66 . I m
,.
ILL!
3
¢m..
www r=
Z
�
a0
O
a
¢ate

PLAN VIEW
NOTE:
REBAR (1/2' MINIMUM DIAMETER 3MIN. 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.
FLOODPLAIN SILL
NTS
SURFACE
DOWN VALLEY
F6' (TYP.)
5.0'
`5.R'REBPA
SECTIONAL VIEW A - A'
3
EXISTING DITCH �I
BANK 1i
PROPOSED CONSERVATION D f
EASEMENT LIMITS �
PROPOSED
OF LIMITS
OF GRADING
VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO
PLAN VIEW
MIN 5FT MIN 5FT
MIN.
s CF 1��
\ \ 4%TO 6% >\
HIGH
OVERLAP OF
DOWNSTREAM LOG
PROFILE B -B'
ERVED. REPRODUCTION OR
6021500RA-TO#10, Meadow
MIN 5FT MIN 5FT
\\ 77\ OVERLAP OF
UPSTREAM LOG
j4% To 6%
IGH U
OIT
-- Low
PROFILE C -C'
DOUBLE LOG DROP
NTS
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. =1 O', MIN LENGTH = 12'
3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
ALONG THE LOG
THIS DOLL
2018 - Ben
COARSEAGG REGATE
BACKFILL IT' TO 6")
HEADER LOG
LOG SILL EXISTING GRADE
(SEE DETAIL)
LOG STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL)
COARSE AGGREGATE
INVERT ELEVATION
BACKFILL IV TO 5")
PROPOSED GRADE
^y
B
--"'----
'i
____________ TIE-IN TO
COAR BACKFIUL TO STI
HEADERLOG
4'TO 8' INVERT ELEVATION
\\
MAX
___
- EXISTING
FILL DITCH SUCH THAT
EXISTING
< G�'/-�/
BANKFULL
POINT REFERENCED IN
MIN3.0'
F
ELEVATION
ELEVATION TIES INTO
O
STRUCTURE TABLE
_
a
w
EXISTING GRADE OF THE
FLOODPLAIN
MAX ALLOWABLE
CONSTRUCT
POOL
COARSE AGGREGATE
FILL DITCH AND
INSTALLCOIR
DROP OF ..SFT
Q
BACKFILL (2" TO 6'T
MATTING
- GRADE AREA SUCH THAT
MAX SLOPE BELOW LOG
EXISTING
GROUND
I
FOOTER
LOG
J�
/l11I
I///
MAX DEPTH OF LOG
DIAMETER(TYP) _
/
HEADER
OOARIEAGGREGATE
\
--_-_-_ --_--�
HIGH
LOG
BACKFILL(2"TO6") -
/;� COARSE AGGREGATE
_
FOOTER
J BACKA L(2 T06")
LOW
LOG BURIED IN
YA J' �C
LOG
MIN 2.0'
B'
BANK MIN 5FT"
31
NON-WOVEN
SLOPE
INSTALL COIR MATTING/\/
GEOTEXTILE
PER MANUFACTURE R'S
INSTRUCTIONS
LOG BURIED IN
FILL DITCH
FABRIC (NCDOT
POINT REFERENCED IN
BANK
TYPE 10
PROFILE A -A'
STRUCTURE TABLE
MIN 5FT
MIN 5FT MIN 5FT
MIN.
s CF 1��
\ \ 4%TO 6% >\
HIGH
OVERLAP OF
DOWNSTREAM LOG
PROFILE B -B'
ERVED. REPRODUCTION OR
6021500RA-TO#10, Meadow
MIN 5FT MIN 5FT
\\ 77\ OVERLAP OF
UPSTREAM LOG
j4% To 6%
IGH U
OIT
-- Low
PROFILE C -C'
DOUBLE LOG DROP
NTS
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. =1 O', MIN LENGTH = 12'
3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
ALONG THE LOG
THIS DOLL
2018 - Ben
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
NTS
CHANNEL BOTTOM OF
BANK
COARSE BACKFILL
NONWOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(NCDOT TYPE II) 1
B /
CHANNELTOPOF—
BANK
CHANNEL BOTTOM OF
BANK
COARSE BACKFILL
FILTER FABRIC
B
DTWAD OR
BRUSHTOE�
5.0
I MIN
I
I I
I
I I
A POC
I I
TYPICAL MEW (OPT 11
FLOW
I
I
\\l I
A I
I
I
\ I I
5.0'
II MIN
I
CHANNEL TOP OF A POO
BANK
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 21
PROPOSED STREAM
REBAR OR DUCKBILL
EXISTING DITCH
LOG SILL EXISTING GRADE
(SEE DETAIL)
LOG STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL)
COARSE AGGREGATE
TOP OF BANK
____
BACKFILL IV TO 5")
PROPOSED GRADE
L APPROX. 0.75'TO 1.5'
DEEP
--"'----
_ __ _ _______
0.5% SLOPE -
____________ TIE-IN TO
COAR BACKFIUL TO STI
0 F
_--__ __--
MAX
___
- EXISTING
FILL DITCH SUCH THAT
EXISTING
< G�'/-�/
_ ����,\\/\\
THE DOWNSTREAM
DITCH INVERT
F
ELEVATION
ELEVATION TIES INTO
O
FLOW
a
w
EXISTING GRADE OF THE
FLOODPLAIN
i
CONSTRUCT
POOL
� a
O�
LL
FILL DITCH AND
INSTALLCOIR
Z ¢ D
Q
SECTION A -A
MATTING
- GRADE AREA SUCH THAT
MAX SLOPE BELOW LOG
EXISTING
GROUND
I
>
Q
J W
� a
STRUCTURE151%
\
w��
CUT
w Q z
NOTES:
1. NO FLOODPLAIN GRADING IS ALLOWED WITHIN 10 FT
�
--_-_-_ --_--�
a
......
__--
OF THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TOP OF BANK.
2. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10'-20' LONG AND AT
H
LEAST B INCHES IDIAMETER, AND HARDWOOD.
31 MAXSLOPE
31
SLOPE
INSTALL COIR MATTING/\/
PER MANUFACTURE R'S
INSTRUCTIONS
SECTION B -B
FILL DITCH
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
NTS
CHANNEL BOTTOM OF
BANK
COARSE BACKFILL
NONWOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(NCDOT TYPE II) 1
B /
CHANNELTOPOF—
BANK
CHANNEL BOTTOM OF
BANK
COARSE BACKFILL
FILTER FABRIC
B
DTWAD OR
BRUSHTOE�
5.0
I MIN
I
I I
I
I I
A POC
I I
TYPICAL MEW (OPT 11
FLOW
I
I
\\l I
A I
I
I
\ I I
5.0'
II MIN
I
CHANNEL TOP OF A POO
BANK
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 21
PROPOSED STREAM
REBAR OR DUCKBILL
BED
ANCHOR
COARSE AGGREGATE
-_ MIN. 5.0'
BACKFILL IV TO 5")
O fO
J a
a
L APPROX. 0.75'TO 1.5'
DEEP
O
d
ZU
COAR BACKFIUL TO STI
0 F
B GEOTE%TILEFABRIC TACK FABRIC TO-/
(NCDOT TYPE IO LOG
SECTION A -A
B
LOG SILL
NTS
1, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS
INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
SECTION B -B (OPT 1)
HEADER LOG
1% TO 3%
L
J)
FOOTER LOG
REBAR (5/8" 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 DIAM. =10", MIN LENGTH = 12'
NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
ALONG THE LOG
3. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR.
DICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.762.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
c. LICENSE HOrrz LU 00
PROD. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D4
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
Qm
� Z
� o
F �
W
O fO
J a
a
�
O
d
ZU
H
U
7
Q
0 F
F
(n
Z
�
U
0
g
O
Z
H
F
F
(n Z
O
?
a
w
(n
3
i
❑
� a
O�
LL
(>� z
O
Z ¢ D
Q
I
Y
Z
F
~
I
>
Q
J W
� a
� Z
y
o
W
JO
�
d
ZU
w
�c2
0 F
¢ z
�
> K7
0
g
Z
H
F
¢ S
(n Z
p
0
w t
� O
Q Z >
(>� z
O
Z ¢ D
>
Ill O �%!
LLl
O LL
2
� Q z
Z Q=
F
~
2 N N
a M
LU 0
N
rn
w��
3
w Q z
�
3 m
a
D
O ¢ate

UNE
16 FT MAY
BARBED OR
ELECTRIC WIRE LINE POST ?
r �
4• TO 6"1
a
WOVEN WIRE o z_
GROUND UNE
n
� � m
NE POST
WOVEN WIRE:
ASTM CLASS 3 GALVANIZED.
TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN. 12 GAUGE.
INTERMEDIATE AND STAY WIRES MIN.
12 1/2 GAUGE
WOVEN WIRE WITH ONE BARB DETAIL
LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 41N. DIAM. OR 41N. 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
SPECIESANDTREATMENT 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
TOP OF BANK TOE OF BANK
RIP RAP APPROACH
S. MIN) TIMBER MAT CROSSING � TIMBER MAT APPROACH
CLASS B RIP RAP -
TIMBEER MAT INSTALLED
FLOW
I I
I I
11 I
I
PERPENDICULAR
I
ft ft x x
�
CARRIAGE BOLT,/-T1IMBER
...............
TYPICAL
PERPENDICULAR
CLASS B RIP RAP-\\�
ft Aft H IR
ft
H p M
H
ft ft ft ft
ft
I 1
`CARRIAGE BOLT
III
CHANNEL TOP OF BANK APPROX. 6'TO 8'
TIMBEER MAT INSTALLED
I
I I
I I
PERPENDICULAR
I
TIMBERMATINSTALLED
PARALLEL
PLAN VIEW
CARRIAGE BOLT,/-T1IMBER
MAT INSTALLED
TYPICAL
PERPENDICULAR
CLASS B RIP RAP-\\�
TOP OF BANK
TIMBER MAT
FILTER FABR
TOE OF
lRIGH-
NAME:
APPROXIMATE BASE FLOW
WATER SURFACE
SECTION VIEW
FLOW
PLAN VIEW
NOTE 6 & 11)
S, TYPICAL
T BOULDER
BED IN POOL
SECTION A -A'
TIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSING
NTS
FIC)
Meadow
THIS DOLL
2018 - Ben
f EXISTING STREAMBANK \
50/50 MIX OF \`
CLASS A AND B
RIPRAP
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE
WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT
EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING
ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4.INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A MAXIMUM 5:1.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD
DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL CLASS A STONE, 18 INCHES THICK,
LINED WITH FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND
ACCESS SLOPES.
8. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC
OR EQUIVALENT.
9. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (8' MIN.) TO
ACCOMMODATE THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE
ACCORDINGTO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
11. TEMPORARY CROSSINGS ARE TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE.
FORD CROSSING
NTS
PROFILE VIEW
CHANNELBED
0.2'-0.4'
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF I2'IN LENGTH AND 10" IN DIAMETER AND
RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. A SINGLE LOG MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A HEADER/FOOTER LOG COMBINATION, PER
DIRECTION OF DESIGNER.
3. FILTERFABRICSHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOG(S) AND THE
STREAM BED, UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER
FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK, EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED, TUCKED, OR
TRIMMED AS NEEDED.
4. COARSE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED TO ATHICKNESS EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OF THE
HEADER (AND ANY FOOTER) LOGS AND SHALL EXTEND OUT FROM THE VANE ARMS
TO THE STREAM BANK AND UPSTREAM.
5. AS AN OPTION, FLAT -SIDED BOULDERS MAYBE PLACED AS BALLAST ON TOP OF THE
STREAM BANK SIDE OF THE EMBEDDED VANE ARMS. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAYBE
USED IN LIEU OF BALLAST BOULDERS.
6. DUCKBILL ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAYBE USED TO SECURE
LOGS INTO THE STREAM BED AND/OR BANKS. FLAT SIDED BOULDERS CAN BE USED
IN LIEU OF THE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHOR SYSTEM.
FOR OUTLET STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED
WITH WETLANDS, GRADE FLOW PATH
FROM WETLAND TO RECEIVING CHANNEL
A MAX DEPTH OF 0.5' BELOW EXISTING
GRADE.
//\\ FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
LOG CROSS VANE
NTS
3' MAXIMUM STREAM CHANNEL
1. TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARY
TIMBERMATINSTALLED
PARALLEL
BANK HEIGHT I dl
u1, 14 lldu
LW
_-� _ 1(y,�lU4 y (dIiL IIII1 VIII /� Illi,I' SURFACE FLOW
PROFILE VIEW
DIVERSION
2. THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN FLOW IS
TIMBER MAT
LOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF
INSTALLED PARALLEL
THE CHANNEL BED AND BANKS ASA RESULT OF INSTALLING
THE APPROACHES OR CROSSING.
I 1
`CARRIAGE BOLT
II /
CHANNEL TOP OF BANK APPROX. 6'TO 8'
STONE APPROACH
J
SECTION: 5:1 MAX.
/
SLOPE ON ROAD
50150 MIX OF CLASSA
O w
"
AND B RIPRAP OVER
FILTER FABRIC
SURFACE FLOW
TIMBER MAT,
TYPICAL
DIVERSION
TIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSING
NTS
FIC)
Meadow
THIS DOLL
2018 - Ben
f EXISTING STREAMBANK \
50/50 MIX OF \`
CLASS A AND B
RIPRAP
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE
WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT
EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING
ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4.INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A MAXIMUM 5:1.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD
DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL CLASS A STONE, 18 INCHES THICK,
LINED WITH FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND
ACCESS SLOPES.
8. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC
OR EQUIVALENT.
9. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (8' MIN.) TO
ACCOMMODATE THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE
ACCORDINGTO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
11. TEMPORARY CROSSINGS ARE TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE.
FORD CROSSING
NTS
PROFILE VIEW
CHANNELBED
0.2'-0.4'
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF I2'IN LENGTH AND 10" IN DIAMETER AND
RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. A SINGLE LOG MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A HEADER/FOOTER LOG COMBINATION, PER
DIRECTION OF DESIGNER.
3. FILTERFABRICSHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOG(S) AND THE
STREAM BED, UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER
FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK, EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED, TUCKED, OR
TRIMMED AS NEEDED.
4. COARSE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED TO ATHICKNESS EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OF THE
HEADER (AND ANY FOOTER) LOGS AND SHALL EXTEND OUT FROM THE VANE ARMS
TO THE STREAM BANK AND UPSTREAM.
5. AS AN OPTION, FLAT -SIDED BOULDERS MAYBE PLACED AS BALLAST ON TOP OF THE
STREAM BANK SIDE OF THE EMBEDDED VANE ARMS. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAYBE
USED IN LIEU OF BALLAST BOULDERS.
6. DUCKBILL ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAYBE USED TO SECURE
LOGS INTO THE STREAM BED AND/OR BANKS. FLAT SIDED BOULDERS CAN BE USED
IN LIEU OF THE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHOR SYSTEM.
FOR OUTLET STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED
WITH WETLANDS, GRADE FLOW PATH
FROM WETLAND TO RECEIVING CHANNEL
A MAX DEPTH OF 0.5' BELOW EXISTING
GRADE.
//\\ FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
1. TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARY
\\ LOG GRADE CONTROL
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDY
ARES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AND TO CROSS THE
PROFILE VIEW
STREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS.
2. THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN FLOW IS
TIMBER MAT
LOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF
INSTALLED PARALLEL
THE CHANNEL BED AND BANKS ASA RESULT OF INSTALLING
THE APPROACHES OR CROSSING.
2. NAIL FABRIC USING 3" 10D
�
3. THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CROSS THE
CHANNEL TOP OF BANK APPROX. 6'TO 8'
STREAM OR CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCH
J
THATTHETIMBER MATEXTENDSPASTTHETOPOFBANKON
EACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO
SUPPORT THE MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT SIZE USING THE
O w
"
CROSSING.
-
4. STREAM CROSSINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER
ZQ
� U
MAT LENGTHS ORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO THE TOPS OF
Z
5
THESTREAMBANKS. TIMBER MAT STREAM APPROACHES
SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHS
T
ORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS.
O
5. STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALL
I
BE CONSTRUCTED USING CLASS B RIP RAP PLACED OVER
ItQlol �
FILTER FABRIC.
PROPOSED
WETLAND
6. ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAP SHALL BE
CHANNEL OLOG GRADE
UTLET
CONTROL
COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE SITE WHEN THE
SECTION VIEW
CROSSING IS REMOVED.
TIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSING
NTS
FIC)
Meadow
THIS DOLL
2018 - Ben
f EXISTING STREAMBANK \
50/50 MIX OF \`
CLASS A AND B
RIPRAP
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE
WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT
EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING
ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4.INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A MAXIMUM 5:1.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD
DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL CLASS A STONE, 18 INCHES THICK,
LINED WITH FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND
ACCESS SLOPES.
8. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC
OR EQUIVALENT.
9. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (8' MIN.) TO
ACCOMMODATE THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE
ACCORDINGTO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
11. TEMPORARY CROSSINGS ARE TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE.
FORD CROSSING
NTS
PROFILE VIEW
CHANNELBED
0.2'-0.4'
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF I2'IN LENGTH AND 10" IN DIAMETER AND
RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. A SINGLE LOG MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A HEADER/FOOTER LOG COMBINATION, PER
DIRECTION OF DESIGNER.
3. FILTERFABRICSHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOG(S) AND THE
STREAM BED, UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER
FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK, EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED, TUCKED, OR
TRIMMED AS NEEDED.
4. COARSE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED TO ATHICKNESS EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OF THE
HEADER (AND ANY FOOTER) LOGS AND SHALL EXTEND OUT FROM THE VANE ARMS
TO THE STREAM BANK AND UPSTREAM.
5. AS AN OPTION, FLAT -SIDED BOULDERS MAYBE PLACED AS BALLAST ON TOP OF THE
STREAM BANK SIDE OF THE EMBEDDED VANE ARMS. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAYBE
USED IN LIEU OF BALLAST BOULDERS.
6. DUCKBILL ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAYBE USED TO SECURE
LOGS INTO THE STREAM BED AND/OR BANKS. FLAT SIDED BOULDERS CAN BE USED
IN LIEU OF THE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHOR SYSTEM.
FOR OUTLET STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED
WITH WETLANDS, GRADE FLOW PATH
FROM WETLAND TO RECEIVING CHANNEL
A MAX DEPTH OF 0.5' BELOW EXISTING
GRADE.
//\\ FILTER FABRIC
WETLAND OR
CHANNEL
F
U z
\\ LOG GRADE CONTROL
Z
O
5
PROFILE VIEW
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES
IN DIAMETER, A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET IN
Z
LENGTH (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED), OAK
AND
SPECIES, AND RELATIVELY STRAIGHT.
2. NAIL FABRIC USING 3" 10D
�
GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 2'
CHANNEL TOP OF BANK APPROX. 6'TO 8'
ALONG THE LOG.
J
3. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT
LLLLI I
O w
"
TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR
-
U
ZQ
� U
EQUIVALENT.
Z
5
� Z
O
o QLL
T
Ill
O
z ¢
I
O
Y !n
ItQlol �
Z
PROPOSED
WETLAND
J W
CHANNEL OLOG GRADE
UTLET
CONTROL
W QZ�
Z
SECTION VIEW
�
LOG OUTLET STRUCTURE
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
NG. UGENSE NIrLU 00
PROD. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D5
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
LLl
Qm
o m
� a
a
Z
0
U
2
Z
O
U
O
LL
O
O ?
F
F
U z
Z
O
5
as
Q
Z�
Z
O F
¢ 2
�
S w
� Z
H
J
� �
LLLLI I
O w
"
(n Z
C7�
-
U
ZQ
� U
m
Z
5
� Z
O
o QLL
~
LLl Q �
Ill
O
z ¢
I
O
Y !n
ItQlol �
Z
N m I
J W
F
U z
Z
O
5
as
Q
Z�
Z
O F
¢ 2
�
S w
� Z
H
J
� �
LLLLI I
O w
"
(n Z
C7�
�
�
¢m O
ZQ
� U
FF cD
¢ z
� Z
O
z � o
w
~
LLl Q �
Ill
O LL
z ¢
U S O
Z
N m I
w
3
W QZ�
Z
CE
�
m
O
¢ate

LOG BURIED
IN STREAM
SECTION A -A'
BED
ON
=ILL MATERIAL
iSE AGGREGATE
E)
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS AS FOLLOWS:
MIN DIAM = 10"
MIN LENGTH =25'
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
LOGS/BOULDERS.
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 BANK AT A MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF}DMAX(MEASURED AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE) BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION AND A MINIMUM ELEVATION OF } 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 GAPSIVOIDS 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
i6. 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
TOAMINIMUM.
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.
LOG J -HOOK
NTS
GEOTE)
INC
STEP POOL- SECTION A -A'
NINT BED ROCKHEADER
\ PLANVIEW
FLOW -
0.5 MAX TYP.)
FOOTER ROCK
STEP POOL ROCKS MUST HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER OF 14" TO 18" FOR HEADERS AND 18"T022" FOR FOOTERS.
WELL GRADED MIX
W
OF #57 STONE,
FILTER FABRIC
CLASS A AND B
FOR DRAINAGE
RIPRAP
aQ
ZU
STEP POOL - PROFILE VIEW
SMALL POOL, TYP LARGE COBBLE/SMALL
\ PLANVIEW
IL
~ m
�
1.
STEP POOL ROCKS MUST HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER OF 14" TO 18" FOR HEADERS AND 18"T022" FOR FOOTERS.
o
F N
W
FLOW
2.
INSTALL FILTER FABRIC THE FULL LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE STARTING AT THE DOWNSTREAM END, AND THEN
4.0'
aQ
ZU
CHANNEL
UPSTREAM PAST THE LAST STEP POOL ROCK TO A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET.
Q �
BEGIN RIFFLE
3.
DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF STEP POOL ARM, BETWEEN
BOTTOM WIDTH
TVP
1.
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BY
THE ARM AND STREAM BANK.
F
H
NZ
(7�
4.
START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK.
THE DESIGNER.
F
TYP BOT TOM WIDTH TYP
5.
CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
LIVE STAKES
I
\
6.
USE CLASS A AND B RIPRAP TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF STEP POOL ROCKS.
(TVP)
BANKFULL
OBANK
F
0.5' MIN
0,1�MIN
7.
AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH CLASS A AND B RIPRAP TO
/
TOE OF BANK
I
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 ±02.
J W
2 d
THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK.
O
a
\' -PROPOSED
G
S.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS FOR GADOT WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
SOIL BACKFILL
lJ,�
4' IN 1.0' MIN
3.
SELECT
'� HEADERLOG
BACKFILL MATERIAL
lJ�� \'✓
CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLE
r�
STEP POOL
/XXX RIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUAL MIX
MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.
NON -WOVEN
4
RIFFLEOF ROCKS ANDWOOD. THECONSIST
NTS
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
AN EQUALRMIX OF #51957 STONE, SUURGE AND RATE MA ER AL. RIFFLE
SUBSTRATE
SMALL POOL V 'J
LOGS/VJOODY DEBRIS
(NCDOT TYPE II)
FOOTER LOG STREAMBED
MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL
RIF VARIES
GRADE CONTROL ROCK
SECTION B -B'
SECTIONS. OTHERWISE ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY
SMALL POOL, TYP LARGE COBBLE/SMALL
IL
~ m
�
U Q
Z
BOULDERS, NP
o
F N
W
FLOW
TOP OF BANK
NOTES:
4.0'
aQ
ZU
CHANNEL
q,0'
Q �
BEGIN RIFFLE
TYP
BOTTOM WIDTH
TVP
1.
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BY
4.0' CHANNEL 4,0 �/ / / / /
F
H
NZ
(7�
/\
Z
THE DESIGNER.
F
TYP BOT TOM WIDTH TYP
Z
O
\
\
Z
5
I
\
2.
ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS
RIFFLE MATERIALTOP
�
OBANK
F
0.5' MIN
0,1�MIN
I
O
N
/
TOE OF BANK
I
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 ±02.
J W
2 d
�
O
a
\' -PROPOSED
G
¢ate
OD E
4' IN 1.0' MIN
3.
GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 50/50 MIX OF CLASS AAND B RIPRAP. GRADE
CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLE
/XXX RIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUAL MIX
MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.
OSTONEAND
4
RIFFLEOF ROCKS ANDWOOD. THECONSIST
NATIVE
AN EQUALRMIX OF #51957 STONE, SUURGE AND RATE MA ER AL. RIFFLE
SUBSTRATE
SMALL POOL V 'J
LOGS/VJOODY DEBRIS
SUBSTRATE MATERIAL
MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL
RIF VARIES
GRADE CONTROL ROCK
SECTIONS. OTHERWISE ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY
50/50 MIX OF [LASS A AND B
ROUNDED, "RIVER -TYPE" ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
LARGE
CROSS
SECTION A -A' RIPRAP
CHANNEL. IN ADDITION, LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE INCLUDED WITH THE ROCK MATERIAL AS
BOULDERS
SMALL BOULDERS
SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
�)
RIFFLE MATERIAL
J
5.
THE PLACEMENT OF GRADE CONTROL ROCK AND/OR RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE INA MANNER
LOGS/WOODY-//RIFFLE
MATERIAL; EQUAL MIX OF
TO CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT "JUMP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM
DEBRIS
#5/#57STONE, SURGESTONEAND
POOL -GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT "DROP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE
-RUN -� V 4'
NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL
AND THE DOWNSTREAM RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL
IN
GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOME
TOP OF BANK
4
MIN
4
VARIES MIN
VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.
BEGIN RIFFLE
PROPOSED TOP
6.
THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER IN -STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL OR
END RIFFLE CONTROL POINT
OF BANK
J -HOOK).
TOE OF BANK
7.
THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED
PLAN VIEW FLOW
END R
FLE CONTROL POINT
BY THE DESIGNER. THE "KEY" SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANKAT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OF
FLOW
THE RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY"
THALWEG
o
MAY NOT BE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
NTS
LOGS/WOODY
DEBRIS
GRADECONTROLROCK
50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND B
RIPRAP
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
-.wkdickson.com
Nc. -Nsa NIrIr ccir
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D6
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
FF cD
IL
~ m
�
U Q
Z
o
F N
W
O `D
J a
a
OO
Z
O
aQ
ZU
U
2
Q �
U
Z
O
U
20
� Z
w
J
O
�
F
H
NZ
(7�
z
O
Z
Z 0
� U
F
,
U
Z
O
Z
5
I
w
o_
o Q
� p Z
z =
F
�
O
I
O
N
w �
� J
I
¢
J W
2 d
FF cD
U
U Q
Z
N
z
o
W
O
OO
"
aQ
ZU
w^
�c1
Q �
¢ 2
20
� Z
w
J
w
0.
�
F
� o
w
NZ
(7�
pO
�
xy o
Z 0
� U
4 z s
Z
O
Z N O
�
W Q �
W
O LL o
Cr w'
� p Z
z =
F
= a
ao
O
Z
W C
3
W W W W
z 2zm
�
O
a
¢ate

M E M O R A N D U M
fires
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: North Carolina Interagency Review Team
FROM: BRAD BRESLOW, DANIEL INGRAM- RES
DATE: APRIL 17, 2018
RE: Response to Meadow Springs Mitigation Site (Nue-Con UMBI) Draft Mitigation Plan
Comments
Listed below are comments provided by the NCIRT regarding the Meadow Springs Draft Mitigation Plan
and RES' responses:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments:
1. It appears that some stream reaches have been removed, re -labeled, or combined with other reaches
since the prospectus submittal and the site visit on October 18, 2016. The draft mitigation plan must
provide justification for the proposed changes.
SI limits were adjusted based on approach changes. The dividing point between Enhancement I and
Enhancement II shifted downstream so SI gained length and S2 was reduced. S3 and S4 were reaches
originally submitted in the prospectus but are not being pursued for stream credit. S6 was divided into
two different reaches, S6A and S6B, because of changes to the conceptual design. S8 and S10 were not
pursued for stream credit similar to S3 and S4. S13 was created so that one label was not used for two
streams as it was on the proposal document. S12 from the prospectus included two reaches but has been
split into S12 and S13 for the mitigation plan.
2. Page 33 states Priority I restoration is proposed for the lower reach of Reach S2. This is inconsistent
with Figure 10 and Table 1 on Page 7.
This text has been removed from the document and the paragraph reworded so it accurately describes the
treatment on Reach S2.
3. Table 1 on Page 7 of the mitigation plan indicates that additional credit is requested for wider buffers
on all stream reaches. The chart on Figure 10 indicates that additional credit is requested for wider
buffers on all stream reaches. However, Figure 11 depicts wider buffers on S7, S9, and SI I only. Please
clarify.
Figure 11 only depicts S7, S9, and S1 because these are the only streams that are generating additional
credits via the non-standard buffer width guidance. In areas where wetland credits are being generated,
no additional stream mitigation units are being generated for wider buffers. Table I has been corrected.

4. It is our understanding that this mitigation site may also generate credits under the state buffer nutrient
program. You must provide a map depicting all areas receiving credit for state buffer/nutrient program.
Also, please be aware that wetland areas receiving buffer or nutrient credits or additional buffer credits
may not generate 404 wetland credits and upland areas receiving buffer nutrient credits may not generate
additional 404 stream credits.
There are no overlapping areas being pursued for buffer credit and 404 wetland credit or 404 additional
stream credit. Attached to the mitigation plan is the conceptual for the state buffer credit area (Figure
13). The area being pursued for wetland credit is called out as proposed wetland mitigation and only
area outside of the proposed wetland is being pursued for buffer credit or additional 404 stream credits.
5. Wetlands are depicted adjacent to S2, S6A, S5, S6B, S11, and above S13 on Figure 10, however the
wetlands are not labeled. In addition, the wetland acreage has increased substantially since the prospectus
document was submitted and the proposed treatments have changed. You must provide justification for
all changes and you must provide a map with labeled resources and the acreage/linear feet of each
resource. The labels used on the map should match the labels for the approved JD (Table 8) with the
exception of any proposed wetland re-establishment areas. Also, the mitigation plan should identify each
wetland by its label and describe the proposed treatments to justify the proposed ratios.
Figure 10 has been corrected so that all the wetland resources are labeled with respect to the JD as well
as described in the mitigation plan. Changes were made from the proposal stage to the mitigation plan
phase due to the delineation of existing wetland features for the Jurisdictional Determination Request and
because of the hydric soil report by George K Lankford LLC showing a large potential for wetland re-
establishment. Wetlands on site were confirmed by Samantha Dailey, USA CE, during a site visit on June
22n 2017.
6. Please explain the discrepancies between the conservation easement boundaries depicted in the
prospectus document and the conservation easement boundaries depicted in the mitigation plan.
The discrepancies in the conservation easement between the prospectus document and mitigation plan
are due to conceptual adjustments to the project. Near South edge of the pond the easement was extended
to include a small wetland area. The easement was adjusted on the eastern portion of the project to match
the wetland delineation. Streams S8 and SIO from the prospectus were also taken out of the project so the
easement was trimmed accordingly.
7. Figure 12 depicts the location of vegetation plots, wetland gauges, and crest gauges. Please revise the
map to include proposed cross section locations.
Figure 12 has been updated to include cross sections.
8. Page 34 states that a 50 foot buffer will be established and planted along Reach 7, however Figure 12
does not identify any vegetation plots along Reach 7.
Page 34 has been updated to accurately describe the existing buffer as there is not any planned planting
along Reach 7.
9. A wetland gauge should be placed in the pond area proposed for wetland rehabilitation at a 1.5:1 ratio.
All wetland areas generating credits based on hydrologic improvements should have wetland gauges
installed to document the level of hydrologic improvement.
On figure 12 a wetland gauge is depicted where the pond will be removed and will be used to document
the level of hydrologic improvement.

10. Table 20 on Page 46 does not provide information on wetland monitoring requirements.
This table has been updated to relate to the Functional Uplift section and a wetland monitoring
performance standard has been added to this new table.
11. Long Term Management Plan (LTM): The Rule requires that the mitigation plan must provide a
LTM plan that includes an itemized list of long term management activities, an annual cost accounting,
the amount of funding (endowment) that will be provided, and the terms of the funding for these
activities. Please provide this information. Also, the plan indicates that the easement holder intends to
hold the funds in an investment account combined with other endowment funds. In order to ensure that
the LTM activities for the site have adequate funding, we discourage combining mitigation site
endowments in the same account.
The longterm management steward will be the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF).
They are in the process of compiling the requested information and it will be provided with the final
submittal of this mitigation plan.
12. Sections 11.7 and 13 both discuss adaptive management. This section should be combined, however
please delete the sentence regarding tree mortality. The Corps, in consultation with the IRT, will
determine when re -planting is required.
This oversight has been corrected. Now only Section 14 discusses the adaptive management and the
sentence regarding tree mortality has been removed.
13. Financial Assurances. This section must provide specific information regarding the process to be
followed in the event of default including who will serve as obligee (the Corps cannot direct the use of
funds), the party that will serve as standby trust or other designee, and this section should specify that all
proposed use of the funds and work plans must be reviewed and approved by the Corps and IRT. The
party agreeing to receive funds and ensure the work is done must provide a signed statement to this effect
and a copy of this statement should be included in the mitigation plan. Also, we recommend inclusion of
a draft copy of the performance bond(s) with the draft mitigation plan.
The party that will ensure the work is done is the NCWHF All of the proposed use of funds and
workplans are in the process of being worked through and will be provided with the final of this this
mitigation plan.
14. Please use the attached conservation easement template for mitigation sites that will generate both 404
and DWR buffer nutrient credits.
The attached conservation easement was placed in Appendix A to replace the previous version.
15. The chart on Figure 10, Table 1 and Table 2 on page 8 both indicate 2.13 acres of preservation,
however these areas are not depicted on Figure 10.
That area was not depicted because no credit was being pursued. However, it has been added to figure
10. It is located around stream S9.
16. Page 23, Threatened and Endangered Species: Please provide an estimate of vegetation clearing for
the project in acres. Also, please provide the number of trees that will be removed for the restoration and
enhancement activities. This information must be submitted with the permit application.

The estimated vegetation clearing for the project is nine acres, there are 150 trees expected the be
removed. This information will be provided in the 4041401 permit application as well.
17. Please revise Section 7.1 according to the October 2016 guidance.
This section was changed to Section 8.1 due to an additional Functional Uplift Potential section being
added and has been revised according to the October 2016 guidance.
18. Performance Standards must follow the October 2016 guidance.
The performance standards follow the October 2016 guidance.
19. The mitigation plan states the total credits generated will be based on the as-built survey. Please be
aware that the total credits generated will be based on the approved mitigation plan with the exception of
the existing pond below S2. Stream surveys for this area should follow the October 2016 guidance.
The determination of credits paragraph has been updated to confirm that the credits generated will be
based upon the Mitigation Plan and not the As-Built conditions.
20. Regarding proposed credits, please explain/correct:
a. Tale 11 indicates 253 LF of E1 with stationing from 3+47 to 6+00. Page 32 and the design plans
indicate 250 LF of EI with stationing from 3+50 to 6+00.
Table 11 has been updated.
b. Table 11 indicates EI restoration along S2 from 6+00 to 11+00 and P1 restoration from 11+00 to
23+80. According to the design plans, the El activities appear to extend beyond 11+00 with the P1
restoration activities beginning around 12+00.
The plan set and the mitigation plan has been updated to be consistent.
c. Table I I indicates Enhancement I activities along S6B from 35+55 to 37+22. Page 32 and the design
plans state EI from 35+55 to 37+20.
Table 11 has been updated.
d. Page 32 and the design plans depict S7 beginning at 38+09 and Table 11 states S7 begins at 38+08.
Table 11 has been updated.
e. Page 33 states S9 is 665 LF of EIII. Page 34 states removal of invasive species, buffer improvements,
and channel preservation. Treatment of invasive species are expected on all mitigation sites throughout
the monitoring period. The planting plan does not depict planting for this reach, the aerials indicate the
area is forested, and the monitoring map does not depict vegetation plots in this area. Therefore, it appear
that preservation at a 10:1 ratio is more appropriate for S9.
While treatment of invasive species is expected on mitigation sites, the dominance of invasive species on
S9 will require extensive work due to a well-established privet population and will also be planted after
privet removal. Therefore, the EIII designation at a ratio of 7.5 to I was deemed more appropriate for
this reach.
f. Page 33 states S12 is 388 LF of EIII and hardwood forests are adjacent to the reach. While Page 34 lists
S12 under the header, no information is provided on proposed work. In addition, the planting plan does

not depict planting for this reach and the monitoring map does not depict vegetation plots in this area.
Therefore, it appear that preservation at a 10:1 ratio is more appropriate for 512.
Reach S12 has been changed to a Preservation 10:1 Reach.
g. Table 11 lists 452 LF of Reach S 13 as EIII at a 5:1 ratio. Other than Figure 10, the plan does not
provide any information regarding this reach or proposed treatments and it is not depicted on the design
plans with stationing. The design plans do not identify S 13 and it is not shown on Figure 12. If this reach
is proposed for stream credit, then it must be surveyed and depicted/labeled on all maps. Similar to S 12,
an appropriate ratio would be 10:1.
Reach S13 has been changed to a Preservation 10:1 Reach.
NC Division of Water Resources Comments:
1. Did not discuss Reach S 13 in Section 4.2.4 (Channel Morphology)
Reach S13 has been added to the Channel Morphology Section. (Section 4.2.4)
2. According to my field notes, RES stated they were not going to include Reaches S 12 and S 13 for
credit.
RES wanted to promote continuity of protected area for the betterment of the ecosystem and to offset the
costs of placing that area inside of the easement RES decided to pursue Reaches S12 and S13 for
preservation credit.
3. DWR would like to see some cross sections of the ditches in the large proposed wetland enhancement
area, particularly the ditch draining at the outlet of the large area. An overarching question remains as to
the level of uplift and credit appropriate for that area.
The ditch does not have much impact on the uplift as this area is jurisdictional wetland. The main uplift is
not hydrologic for WG, but rather vegetative. Some aerial imagery may be misleading, but the majority of
WG is not forested due to disturbance to support waterfowl habitat. The main uplift that RES is
proposing for WG is planting it with trees from the target community of Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp. The plugging of the ditches and removing of berms is to enhance the ability of the wetland to
function more naturally.
4. Section 10 Performance Standards- needs to reference the current Mitigation Guidance
The performance standards section is now section 12 and now references the October 2016 Stream and
Wetland Guidance.
5. Section 10.1.1- The wetland performance criteria for wetland hydrology will be as stated in the October
2016 Mitigation Guidance (Bibb- 12% of the growing season), the IRT will consider a year 1 and/or 2
exception as noted in the current Guidance.
Section 12.1.3 is in agreement with the October 2016 Mitigation Guidance.
6. Section 11- table needs to reference the October 2016 Mitigation Guidance
Section 11 and 12 have been updated.
7. Section 11.1 As -Built Survey- include language @ centerline as defined by IRT in Guidance

Section 11.1 has been updated to address the centerline of the channel being measured for stream length.
8. All Monitoring requirements should follow most recent guidance (October 2016), including vegetation
plots (fixed and random).
All monitoring requirements have been updated as well as specifically the vegetation monitoring
requirements has been rewritten to include the random and fixed plots.
9. Figure 12 does not show any groundwater gauges in the large proposed wetland enhancement area. If
any credit is to be given in these areas, gauges will need to be installed.
There are no gauges in the wetland enhancement area because the enhancement proposed is not
hydrologic. The enhancement includes planting of the wetland as well as the removal of disturbance. The
area has been historically manipulated for waterfowl habitat. Vegetative enhancement andplacing the
area in easement will allow wetland flora and fauna to naturalize without routine clearing to keep
waterfowl present. A wetland gauge placed in both areas of the enhancement to monitor the effect
plugging the ditches will have on the existing wetlands.
10. The Soil Scientist report did not show any work in the large proposed wetland enhancement area.
This area does show areas of non -hydric soils mapped within the project area (Altavista and Chewacla).
DWR requests some soil transects in representative areas so show the extent of hydric and non -hydric
soils. Once the cross sections from the ditching is performed as well as the soil work for this area, DWR
will then consider the appropriate mitigation credit for the large wetland enhancement area. Another site
visit for this area may be necessary for verification and review.
George Lankford, a licensed soil scientist, completed a report on the large wetland enhancement area. It
is now in Appendix D with his previous soil report.
11. Figure 11- Non standard Buffer Width Calculations -shows buffer width calculations for only few
reaches. Are the other reaches not considered in the calculations? In addition, Reach S9 which was
initially proposed as preservation would not be eligible for extra credit since preservation should have
wider buffers.
Other reaches are not eligible for non-standard buffer width calculations because of the riparian
wetlands surrounding them that credit is being pursued for. Therefore Figure 11 is zoomed in to the
applicable reaches. Reach S9 is no longer proposed as Preservation but as Enhancement III.
12. Reach S9 was proposed as preservation in the field (as per my field notes) and now is proposed as
EIII (no planting planned on P2, so what is the enhancement?).
Reach S9 is being proposed now as a 7.5 to I enhancement III reach due to the overwhelming presence of
invasive species specifically privet. We believe that due to the amount of work removing the privet will
require enhancement III is an applicable crediting category, no planting will be conducted.
13. Design sheets S3 and S4. For the pond removal portion, the designed channel is very straight. The
rest of the stream shows a much different sinuosity than the proposed pond bottom channel. As in
previous comments about these type of reaches (pond removal), DWR would like to see a construction
sequence specifically targeted to pond removal. Including the steps for dam removal and pond bottom
sediment removal/reworking. Also, DWR/IRT would like to see as much of the dam removed as possible.
DWR expects the channel to be reworked in the channel bottom to increase the probability for
maintaining a channel and not developing into a wetland.

Based on IRT input related to dam removal, RES has updated its restoration approach for the site. RES
has abandoned a 'passive restoration " approach through the pond beds and has updated the design to
including draining the pond, a dam breach, ensuring stabilization of the old pond footprint before the
installation of structures and then will finalize the Priority I stream restoration design adjacent to the old
pond beds.
14. Reach S6b will be restored and have adjacent wetland restoration proposed. However, the reach is
currently projected to be 2 feet lower than the existing channel bottom, so how will the adjacent proposed
wetland restoration areas be affected?
Currently the channel is ditched above the natural low point or valley of the landscape and the water
does not reach the floodplain due to the oversized dimensions of the channel. Despite the lowering of the
channel to its natural valley which is approximately two feet lower, the wetland restoration surrounding
the channel will be positively affected. The effective sizing of the channel will increase floodplain access
during precipitation events onto the floodplain providing hydrology for those riparian wetlands. The
proposed channel elevation is appropriate for the valley and adjacent wetlands.
15. Design sheets S 15 and S 16 show reach S I I being built through wetlands. These wetland areas are
also proposed for enhancement credit at 3:1, however, the proposed channel bottom is 1.5-2 feet below
the existing channel, so how will these adjacent wetlands be hydrologically enhanced?
Please refer to the response to the previous comment as it applies to this situation as well.
16. Design sheet S 18 needs to be identified on the Cover for the design drawings.
The table of contents has been revised to reflect all plan sheets.
17. Design sheet W2 shows a several ditch plugs, however, there is not a plug at the end of wetland
before it empties into the channel. Also, it would seem this area would need stabilization to maintain
"upstream" wetland hydrology and step down the flow coming from the wetland to the channel. DWR
recommends a plug/step down structure to protect wetland hydrology and prevent a headcut.
Per National Flood Insurance Program requirements impacts and fill in the FEMA floodway should be
avoided if other feasible alternatives exist. The channel obstructions were placed outside of the FEMA
floodway to minimize impacts within the floodway. A log outlet structure (See Sheets W2 and D5) will be
added to the proposed improvements outside of the FEMA regulated floodway to protect wetland
hydrology, to provide a step down, and reduce the potential for a headcut. "
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comments:
Section 2 Watershed Approach/p. 8: The project goals are, in general, poor examples of statements that
justify the project need and effort required to restore the lack of stream function that the project is
designed to provide. For example, the goal of "Invasive species treatment" is an action that would support
a goal of "Increase plant species diversity and eradicate invasive exotic species within the project
boundaries" which addresses the function of a properly vegetated riparian buffer. This is further
exemplified with the objective "Treatment of exotic invasive species" that is just restating the (albeit
poor) goal stated above.
The goal of "improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat" is too vague and does not address any particular
species that an objective would work towards. Are fish, mussel or macroinvertebrate species of interest?

This should be stated so that objectives can be applied to meet the goal of improving habitat for a
particular species or suite of species. The objective of "addition of large woody debris, etc" is appropriate
for such a goal that would desire to improve macroinvertebrate habitat. If the goal is improved habitat for
mussels, this objective may not be suitable and should be omitted.
Goals should be general enough to describe the impairment/impairment or end-point functional lift that
successful project implementation will provide. For example, a functional lift goal of "Increase water
quality (list specific parameters to improve or minimize nutrient/sediment/pollution runoff) discharged
from the streams leaving the site" would be supported by objectives such as "stabilizing streambanks and
restoration of riparian vegetation to provide a suitably wide buffer to filter runoff'. Objectives should
explain how the project will be completed to meet the stated goals and improving target functions.
Objectives should be quantifiable and tied to performance standards. Be sure to also tie in how
preservation objectives will address project goals.
The project goals and objectives have been updated to reflect more accurately upon the project and why
it is being completed.
2. Section 4. 1.1 Drainage Area/p. 16: Project includes one unnamed tributary to the Neuse River.
Recommend naming the tributary (e.g. "Meadow Spring").
Our naming standard at this time is just to use the Reach Labels.
3. Section 4.2/p. 16: Reference is made to Figure 7 which does not illustrate the stream channel Reaches.
Recommend adding existing reaches to Figure 7.
Stream labels have been added to Figure 7.
4. Table 6/p. 17: Reach S4 is listed in Table 6 with no supporting information in the text. S 13 is missing
from list.
S4 was a reach initially proposed but deemed a ditch and therefore was no longer pursued. It has been
removed from the table. S13 was added to the table.
5. Section 4.2.4/p. 18: Recommend changing "dominate" to "dominant" where used. It also appears that
the description of channel morphology is missing for Reach 513.
Wording has been updated. Reach 13 has been added.
6. Section 4.2.4.8/p. 19: Reach 1 should read "Reach 11"
It now reads Reach 11.
7. Section 4.2.5/p. 20: Is Reach S12 missing from the CSA Results Table 7?
Reach 12 and 13 were intentionally left off the CSA table as they are only being pursued for preservation
credit.
8. Section 4.2.1 Existing Wetlands/p.21: Wetland monikers are not shown in Figure 7 as claimed.
The wetland labels have been added.
9. Section 5 Functional Uplift Potential/p. 25: I can appreciate the sponsor's willingness to provide an
analysis of the restoration site potential for providing functional uplift to the currently impaired aquatic
resources. However, Table 10 does little to provide any new information as to the current functional state

of each reach and the potential lift or functional improvement to each reach. Some of the objectives listed
are actually goals (nutrient removal, water storage, sediment transport equilibrium) and the descriptions
are the objectives. If the intention with Section 5 is to show the Functional Uplift Potential, then I
recommend choosing a parameter or function (e.g. floodplain connectivity), list the current parameter
status (Not Functioning, Functioning -at -Risk, or Functioning) for a particular reach and then list the
endpoint status (NF, FAR, F) to demonstrate the desired lift in function. For instance, if habitat
improvement is a goal, objectives to improve benthic invertebrate habitat could be addition of large
woody debris, providing riffles and pools (substrate diversity), and increasing riparian vegetation (organic
material influx). The habitat function would currently be considered "Not Functioning" and the desired
improvement would be "Functioning" assuming this could be reasonably achieved by the objectives. It is
the difference between NF and F that is the uplift potential and a demonstration of restored function.
The table has been replaced with a more appropriate table in an effort to provide more information on
the functional uplift of the stream.
10. Section 6/p. 26: Include some discussion as to how the non-standard buffer guidance is used to
increase or decrease the Base SMUs and justify why the wetland acreage under preservation is not
generating credits.
Section 6.1 was added to address non-standard buffer width calculations. The wetland preservation is not
generating credit because in that area the non-standard buffer width calculations were applied.
Therefore, no other credit could be pursued.
11. Section 7/Table 12b./p. 28: "Monitoring Year' should be replaced with "Release Milestone".
It has been replaced.
12. Section 8.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach/p. 32: Many of the Reach descriptions do not match those
provided in the tables of Figure 10 and Table 1 on p. 7.
They have been updated.
13. Section 8.2.1/p. 33: "Priority I Restoration is proposed for the downstream portion of Reach S2." This
is not reflected in statements made earlier in this Section and does not match approach outlined in Table 1
and Figure 10. Recommend removing.
It has been removed.
14. Section 8.2.1/p. 34: Reach 5 is listed for PUPII Restoration elsewhere except for here. Recommend
correcting discrepancy.
This discrepancy was corrected.
15. Section 8.2.1.6/p. 36: Will in -stream rock structure also be utilized in Reach 5 for its PUPII approach
similar to Reaches 6 and 11?
This section has been updated (now section 9.2.1.6). Instead of in -stream rock structures, the current
design will use log structures for Reach 6 and 11, as well as Reach 5.
16. Section 8.2.3/p. 38: Make sure nomenclature for swamp tupelo is consistent throughout plan. Nyssa
biflora is frequently used but planting plan (P1-3 Planting Tables) has N. sylvatica. I understand the exact
name can depend highly on source as swamp tupelo is also known as N. sylvatica var. biflora. I just don't
want the upland version (var. sylvatica) to be mistakenly planted.

The planting plan has been updated and proper precautions will be taken to ensure that correct tree
species will be planted and the plans were updated.
17. Section 8.2.3/p. 38: Live stake planting strategy does not match the plan of Appendix E Sheet D2
Live Stakes. Spacing is different (1' v. 3') and Populus deltoides is not listed as an acceptable species for
live stakes.
The plans have been updated to include Populus deltoides and the spacing has been rectified.
18. Table 14/p. 39: Acres for Planting Zone 1 is shown as 32.6 acres. Planting Plan has 22.8 acres. Please
correct discrepancy.
The discrepancy has been corrected.