20160980 Ver 1_reduced_FINAL_Mitigation_Plan_20180921

fires
September 21, 2018
Ms. Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Meadow Spring Final Mitigation Plan
Dear Ms. Dailey,
302 Jefferson Street Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520 5400
Resource Environmental Solutions is pleased to submit the NeuCon UMBI Meadow Spring Final
Mitigation Plan and Nationwide Permit 27 Pre -Construction Notification (PCN). The Mitigation Plan
submittal includes a response memo to IRT comments on the draft plan. All IRT comments were addressed
and verified with direct communication with Mac Haupt and yourself. The attached PCN package includes
PCN Form, PCN supplemental information, supporting figures, and an updated JD with an updated aquatic
resource inventory table and Waters of the US Map. The PCN has also been submitted to NCDWR and
USACE via the j oint online submission tool.
The conservation easement for the project has been recorded and is included in the plan appendices.
Following approval of the mitigation plan, 404/401 NWP acceptance, and performance bonding RES is
requesting the initial credit release of 899 SMUs and 2.16 WMUs. These credits represent 15 percent of
the restoration/enhancement credits and 100 percent of the stream preservation credits.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important project. Please contact me at 919-209-1056 or
dingram6v,res.us if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely yours,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Daniel Ingram
Project Manager
CC: NC IRT Members
res. us

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
USACE Corps Action ID Number: SAW -2016-01989
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
September 2018

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: DANIEL INGRAM- RES
DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2018
RE: IRT Comments on the Neu -Con UMB: Meadow Spring (SAW -2016-01989) Draft
Mitigation Plan in preparation for the Final Mitigation Plan
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:
USACE Comments
1. Please provide a complete long term management plan and financial assurances. These should be
provided in the draft mitigation plan.
Updated information on the Longterm Management plan, specifically the engagement letter with the
longterm steward is provided in Appendix A. The Financial Assurances details are found in Section 15.
2. In order to change the treatment for S9 from preservation to EIII, the sponsor should provide a
percentage of the area that will be treated for privet and replanted. The current plans do not indicate
planting.
The areas in which supplemental planting will occur after the invasive species are treated and manually
removed has been added to the Planting Plan found in Appendix E. Additional language to clarify the
invasive species treatment and supplemental planting has been added to section 9.2.1 Stream Mitigation
Approach.
The response states that the main uplift for wetland WG is vegetative but the aerials depict the majority
of this area as forested. In addition, the design plans indicate that only a small portion of this area is
proposed for planting. The ratio of 3:1 is appropriate for those areas proposed for planting. The
remainder of WG should be preservation at 5:1.
The ratio for WG has been modified to reflect this comment and can be found in Section 7 and in Figure
10. The areas of WG that will be planted remain enhancement (enhancement -high) at a 3:1 ratio. Areas
that are not being planted will be enhancement -low at a 5:1 ratio as they will still be positively affected
by the plugging of the main ditch and the removal of existing berms within the wetlands.
4. Stream performance standards: For C and E channels, the ER should be > 2.2. This applies to all stream
reaches receiving restoration credit.
The entrenchment ratio performance standard has been updated in response to this comment.

NC Division of Water Resources Comments:
Section 1.2 states the intention of obtaining extra stream credit for Non -Standard Buffer Width
Adjustments. Later in the document, Figure 13 shows the Conceptual Design for NCDWR Riparian
Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credit. Please realize that as per the October 2016 Guidance, you may either
choose extra stream credit or the Buffer and Nutrient Offset credit, not both.
This is understood and was not clearly articulated, we have added further explanation in section 7.1.
We have updated Figure 11 a and b to be one figure (Figure 11) and have included descriptions to
clarify which reaches this was performed on. We have also made sure to include the excel document
and GIS with our final submission.
We included Figure 13 to demonstrate that we do not intend to overlay both NCDWR Riparian Buffer
and Nutrient Offset Credit and the Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustments but have divided sections
of our easement to be used differently. Areas along S7 and S9 are being used to generate additional
stream credit using the Non-standard buffer widths calculation and therefore will not generate any
NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credit. Whereas along Reaches S 1, S2, S6A, S6B, and
S5 NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credit is being generated and therefore is not
generating any credit using the Non -Standard Buffer Widths Adjustment.
2. When macrobenthic and water quality monitoring are to be performed on site, the October 2016
Guidance requires monitoring before construction. Is the automatic recording station currently in place?
When macrobenthic and water quality monitoring are planned, the IRT would prefer notice as soon as
possible so approval of the monitoring plan can be completed and the pre -construction monitoring can
initiate. DWR recommends installation of the auto recording stations as soon as possible in order to
monitor as many storm events as possible (a minimum of 4-6 months, preferably longer).
Due to the schedule of construction there is not adequate time to collect pre -construction data. RES has
therefore determined that it will not be possible to conduct the macroinvertebrate and water quality
monitoring adequately for this site and will not be generating the additional two percent SMU credit at
this Site. The Mitigation Plan has been revised to reflect the removal of the water quality and
macroinvertebrate monitoring in the Determination of Credits section (Section 7. 1), as well as in the
Monitoring Plan section (Section 11).
3. Section 12.1.3- As per the October 2016 Guidance, the wetland performance criteria may be adjusted
up to 2% for the couple of years. Given the soil series in this case (Bibb), with the wetland hydrologic
criteria set at 12%, the IRT may consider 10% in the first couple of years.
The performance criteria for the wetland hydrologic criteria has been revised based on this comment
from 9% to 10% for the first two years of monitoring (Section 12.1.3 Wetland Hydrology Criteria).
4. Reach S9- comments were made in the field that this reach should be preservation. While DWR realizes
some privet may be removed, DWR believes the appropriate ratio (whether it is called enhancement or
preservation) for this reach is 10:1.
Further description of the supplemental planting and invasive species treatment that will occur has been
added to section 9.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach of the Mitigation Plan and the Planting Plan found
in Appendix E in response to comment number two from the USACE and therefore the 7.5:1 ratio was
deemed appropriate for this reach. The 7.5:1 ratio was confirmed by Mac Haupt on a September 19t'',
2018 phone call.
5. Wetland WG- DWR believes the functional uplift of this wetland will be minimal, therefore, the
minimum appropriate ratio for this wetland enhancement should be 5:1.

As reflected in the response to the USACE comment number three, the ratio for WG has been modified
to reflect this comment and can be found in Section 7 and in Figure 10. The areas of WG that will be
planted remain enhancement (enhancement -high) at a 3:1 ratio. Areas that are not being planted will be
enhancement -low at a 5:1 ratio as they will still be affected by the plugging of the main ditch and the
removal of existing berms within the wetlands. This has changed the overall ratio of the Wetland
Mitigation from 16.82 to 14.41 WMUs. This has been changed in the document to reflect this. This
crediting approach was confirmed by Mac Haupt on a September 19th, 2018 phone call.
6. DWR recommends introducing some wood into riffle -like areas (realizing it is a sand bed stream) in
the restoration reaches (S6 and S11).
In response to this comment, RES has added some wood into riffle -like areas in restoration reaches S6
and S11. A wood/brush riffle detail was added to the plans and will be installed on at least 30 percent
of all riffles per the construction costs. The updated plans are found in Appendix E.

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. 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 5,523 Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and 36.51
acres of wetland re-establishment, re and enhancement generating 14.41 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.
The Meadow Spring Site will include Priority 1/1I restoration, Enhancement Levels I 11 and 11I,
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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan ii April 2018

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 S12 and S13 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...............................................................
8
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............................................................
25
5.1.1 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................25
5.1.2 Hydraulic......................................................................................................................
25
5.1.3 Geomorphology............................................................................................................25
5.1.4 Physiochemical.............................................................................................................25
5.1.5 Biology.........................................................................................................................
26
6 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................
28
7 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS.............................................................................................
29
7.1 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths..........................................................
30
8 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE...............................................................................................
31
8.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits..................................................................................
32
8.2 Subsequent Credit Releases..................................................................................................
32
9 MITIGATION WORK PLAN.....................................................................................................
32
9.1 Reference Stream Studies.....................................................................................................
32
9.1.1 Target Reference Conditions........................................................................................
32
9.2 Design Parameters................................................................................................................
34
9.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach........................................................................................
34
9.2.2 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement........................................................................
40
9.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration.........................................................................
41
9.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)............................................................................
42
9.2.5 Soil Restoration............................................................................................................
43
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan iv September 2018

9.3 Data Analysis........................................................................................................................
43
9.3.1 Stream Data Analysis...................................................................................................
43
9.3.2 Mitigation Summary.....................................................................................................46
Table3. Mapped Soil Series.................................................................................................................
10 MAINTENANCE PLAN.............................................................................................................
47
11 MONITORING PLAN.................................................................................................................
48
11.1 As -Built Survey....................................................................................................................
50
11.2 Visual Monitoring................................................................................................................
50
11.3 Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology.................................................................
50
11.3.1 Digital Image Stations..................................................................................................
50
11.3.2 Cross Sections..............................................................................................................
50
11.3.3 Gauges..........................................................................................................................
50
11.4 Wetland Hydrology..............................................................................................................
51
11.5 Vegetative Monitoring Plots.................................................................................................
51
11.6 Scheduling/Reporting...........................................................................................................
51
12 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................
51
12.1 Stream And Wetland Restoration Success Criteria..............................................................
51
12.1.1 Bankfull Events............................................................................................................
51
12.1.1 Surface Flow.................................................................................................................
52
12.1.2 Bank Height Ratio and Entrenchment Ratio................................................................
52
12.1.3 Wetland Hydrology Criteria.........................................................................................
52
12.2 Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................
52
13 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................
53
14 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.........................................................................................
54
15 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES......................................................................................................
55
16 OTHER INFORMATION............................................................................................................
56
16.1 References............................................................................................................................
56
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Meadow Spring Site Project Components...........................................................7
Table 2a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components - Stream Mitigation .............................................
7
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
Table 11. Mitigation Credits.................................................................................................................
29
Table 12a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components - Stream Mitigation .........................................
29
Table 12b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components - Wetland Mitigation ......................................
29
Table 13a. Stream Credit Release Schedule.........................................................................................
31
Table 13b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule......................................................................................
31
Table14. Scaling Factors.....................................................................................................................
39
Table15. Proposed Plant List...............................................................................................................42
Table 16. Peak Flow Comparison........................................................................................................
44
Table 17. Stable Channel Design Output.............................................................................................
45
Table 18. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses......................................................
45
Table 19. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities.............................................................
46
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan v September 2018

Table 20. Maintenance Plan ..............................
Table 21. Monitoring Plan .................................
List of Figures
............................................................................. 47
............................................................................. 49
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 - Conceptual Design for NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credits
Figure 12 — Buffer Width Zones
Figure 13 - Monitoring Plan
Appendices
Appendix A — Site Protection Instrument 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"x17")
Appendix F — Stream Buffer Credit Calculation
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan vi
September 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# 2016-01989). 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 (a Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW)). 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).
1.2 Project Components
The project area totals 60.9 acres and is comprised of one primary perennial stream that flows west to east
to a confluence with the Neuse River. The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in
Tables 1, 2a and 2b, as well as Figure 10. An additional 50 SMUs were generated based on the Non -
Standard Buffer Width Adjustment and described in more detail in Section 7.1.
Table 1. Summary of Meadow Spring Site Project Components
The Meadow Spring Site Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland
Totals 1 5,523 14.41
Table 2a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 7 September 2018
Stream Mitigation
Proposed Reach
Mitigation Type
Proposed Length (LF)
Mitigation Ratio
Base SMUs
Sl
Enhancement II
250
2.5:1
100
S2
Enhancement I
500
1.5:1
333
S5
P1 / P2 Restoration
231
1:1
231
S6A
P1 Restoration
1,350
1:1
1,350
S6B
P1 Restoration
1,176
1:1
1,176
S6B
Enhancement I
167
1.5:1
111
S7
Enhancement I
990
1.5:1
660
S7
Enhancement I
440
1.5:1
293
S9
Enhancement III
675
7.5:1
90
S11
P1 Restoration
1,045
1:1
1,045
S12
Preservation
380
10:1
38
S13
Preservation
454
10:1
45
Total
7,658
5,473
Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment
50
Total Adjusted SMUs
5,523
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 7 September 2018

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). Impervious surface near the town of Smithfield is increasing and set to surpass the critical seven
percent benchmark (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
HUC 03020201 and includes an unnamed tributary that directly discharges 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 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). But that this use is different than
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.
Since the early 1990s little has changed in the project area. Current land use is livestock grazing with access
to all of the stream reaches and wetlands. Vegetation is heavily disturbed due to the livestock. The
surrounding land use is farm land, undeveloped land, and single-family homes. Livestock grazing has
resulted in unstable stream banks and significant down cutting. Several watershed characteristics, such as
groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. The surface
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 8 September 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 -B
Enhancement
2.02
3:1
0.67
WG
Enhancement
3.68
3:1
1.23
WG
Enhancement
18.03
5:1
3.61
WH
Re-establishment
6.84
1:1
6.84
WI
Re-establishment
2.87
2:1
1.44
Total
36.51
14.41
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). Impervious surface near the town of Smithfield is increasing and set to surpass the critical seven
percent benchmark (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
HUC 03020201 and includes an unnamed tributary that directly discharges 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 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). But that this use is different than
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.
Since the early 1990s little has changed in the project area. Current land use is livestock grazing with access
to all of the stream reaches and wetlands. Vegetation is heavily disturbed due to the livestock. The
surrounding land use is farm land, undeveloped land, and single-family homes. Livestock grazing has
resulted in unstable stream banks and significant down cutting. Several watershed characteristics, such as
groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. The surface
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 8 September 2018

soil layer and underlying subsoil are exposed by the channel eroding. 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 the Norfolk -Goldsboro -Rains map unit and occur on nearly level to gently
sloping upland interstream areas dissected by small drainageways. Mapped units include 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.
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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 9 September 2018

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 September 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
Goldsboro sandy
Moderately
Flats on marine terraces,
GoA
loam, 0-2% slopes
2%
well
B
broad interstream divides
on marine terraces
Marlboro -Cecil
Broad interstream divides
McB
complex, 2-8/o ° slopes
0%
Well
B
on marine terraces, ridges
on marine terraces
Norfolk loamy sand,°
Flats on marine terraces,
NoA
0-2%
5%
Well
A
broad interstream divides
slopes
on marine terraces
Norfolk loamy sand,°
Flats on marine terraces,
NoB
2-6%
5%
Well
A
broad interstream divides
slopes
on marine terraces
Carolina bays on marine
Ra
Rains sandy loam, 0-
90%
Poorly
B
terraces, broad interstream
2% slopes
divides on marine terraces,
flats on marine terraces
°
Roanoke loam, 0-2 /0
Depressions on stream
Ro
slopes
100%
Poorly
C/D
terraces, backswamps on
stream terraces
Wagram loamy sand,
Broad interstream divides
WaB
0-6%
°
5%
Well
A
on marine terraces' ridges
slopes
on marine terraces
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 11 September 2018

2.3 Site Photographs
Reach SI. 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 September 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 September 2018

Reach S9. 10/06/2015
Reach S9. 10/06/2015
Reach S10. 10/06/2015
Reach S11. 10/06/2015
Reach S12. 05/10/2016
Reach S13. 10/06/2015
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 14 September 2018

3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Site includes portions of the
following parcel (Table 4 & Figure 5). A copy of the land protection instrument is 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. A copy of the final recorded easement is 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. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and,
if necessary, maintenance of the Site during the initial monitoring phase. 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). 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 1, LLC, US Army Corps of
Engineers, and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR).
Upon approval of the Site by the 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 (an overview of NCWHF program and the engagement letter is found in Appendix
A).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 15 September 2018
Deed Book and Page
Parcel
Protected
Landowner
Pin
County
Number
Acreage
Acreage
Stephenson 1997 Family
169500-74-
Johnston
01732-0151
246.34
60.93
Limited Partnership
6294
The Wilmington District Conservation Easement model template was utilized to draft the site protection
instrument. A copy of the final recorded easement is 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. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and,
if necessary, maintenance of the Site during the initial monitoring phase. 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). 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 1, LLC, US Army Corps of
Engineers, and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR).
Upon approval of the Site by the 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 (an overview of NCWHF program and the engagement letter is found in Appendix
A).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 15 September 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 main unnamed tributary that flows directly to
the Neuse River and two smaller tributaries that flow into the main channel. The total drainage area at the
downstream limits of the main project area is approximately 379 acres (0.59 mi2). The land use in the Site
drainage area 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 -IV 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). 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 S 1, S2, S5, S6, S7, S9, and S 11 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 September 2018

Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach
Drainage
Area (ac)
ABKF 1
(ft)
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth (ft)
Width:Depth
Ratio
Bank Height
Ratio
Sinuosity
Slope
(ft/ft)
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
'ABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfull stage as estimated using existing conditions data
and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
4.2.1 Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the 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
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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 17 September 2018

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 0.0 110 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, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), is present throughout the reach.
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 SI 1. This E-type channel has a sinuosity of 0.87 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.0. The
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 18 September 2018

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; however, significant Chinese privet is present
throughout the reach.
4.2.4.8 Reach S11
Reach S11 has a drainage area of 0.59 square miles (379 acres), and flows south from Reach S9 through
mature forest and grassed fields to 512. 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 S 11 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 SI I 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 S 13 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
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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 19 September 2018

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 site 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 Stabilitv Assessment Results
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). Along Reaches S7 and S9 there are dense
populations of the invasive species Chinese privet and scattered less dense populations within the Wetland
WG.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 20 September 2018
S2
S5
S6
S7
S9
Sll
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). Along Reaches S7 and S9 there are dense
populations of the invasive species Chinese privet and scattered less dense populations within the Wetland
WG.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 20 September 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 IC (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
1.24
0.22
0.11
4.83
23.09
acres
Wetland Type
PEM
PEM
PFO
PFO
PFO
PEM/PSS/PFO
Mapped Soil
Norfolk sandy
Norfolk sandy
Marlboro -Cecil
Marlboro-
Augusta
Augusta sandy
Series
loam
loam
complex
Cecil
sandy loam
loam
complex
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
through the floodplain, active livestock resulting in soil compaction and surface churning, a loss of surface
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 21 September 2018

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 F3 -Depleted Matrix, F6 -Redox Dark Surface, and F8 -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, SI I 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
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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 22 September 2018

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 nine 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 September 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 September 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 intends 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
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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 25 September 2018

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. This is not a substitute for direct
physicochemical monitoring, but it is a useful tool to help project the long-term benefits of the Project in
terms of the functional uplift.
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. Again, there is no substitute for direct biological monitoring, but it is important to understand the
hierarchy of the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework in order to help project long-term benefits of the
Project though only categories two and three (hydraulics and geomorphology) will be directly measured
during the seven-year monitoring period.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 26 September 2018

Table 10. Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 27 September 2018
Existing Rating /
Level
Function
Goal
Functional Parameter
Projected Rating
Objective
Measurement Method
Reach
Channel -Forming Discharge
Hydro loQv
to transport water from
Flow Duration
1
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
y
FAR/F
and increase entrenchment ratios
Wetland gauges
the floodplain, and
stable non-erosive
(SI, S2, S5, S6A,
through the
manner
Groundwater/Surface water
B, S7, S9, S 11
S6 )
rove wetland saturation
Improve
Bank Height Ratio
sediments
exchange
F/F (S 12, 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
Geomorphology
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
FAR/HF (S1S11)
,
Visual monitoring
create diverse
provide suitable habitat
Riparian Vegetation
Improve bedform diversity (pool
bedforms and
for life
Bedform Diversity
F/F (S 12 S13)
spacing, percent riffles etc)
Stream walks
dynamic equilibrium
Bed Material Characterization
F/HF (S7, S9)
Increase buffer width to 50 feet
Vegetation plots
Sinuosity
Unmeasured Objectives
Vegetation plots
Physiochemical
to achieve appropriate
Water Temperature
Improve stream temperature
(indirect measurement)
Temperature and
levels for water
regulation through introduction of
oxygen regulation;
temperature, dissolved
Nutrient load
NF/FAR
canopy
Visual monitoring to ensure
4
processing of
oxygen, and other
nutrients including but
Dissolved Oxygen
(All Reaches)
Decrease nutrient loading through
established fencing and
organic matter and
not limited to Nitrogen
Water Quality
filtration of planted riparian
perpetual conservation
nutrients
and Phosphorus
buffer, and removing livestock
easement
(indirect measurement)
from the riparian areas
Microbial Communities
Biology
to achieve functionality
Macro h to Communities
p y
Unmeasured Objectives
Improve aquatic habitat through
Vegetation plots
Biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic
in levels 1-4 to support
the life histories of
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
NF/FAR
the installation of habitat features,
histories and
lifeqFish
aquatic and riparian
Communities
(All Reaches)
construction of pools at varying
Visual monitoring of in-
riparian life
plants and animals
depths, and planting the riparian
stream habitat features
Landscape Connectivity
buffer
Not Measured (NM); Not Functioning (NF); Functioning -at -risk (FAR); Functioning (F); Highly Functioning (HF)
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 27 September 2018

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 and is aligned with the Neuse River TLW priorities of buffer and wetland restoration
needs.
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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 28 September 2018

7 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon site design (Figure 10 and
Appendix E). 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 USAGE.
Table 11. Mitigation Credits
The Meadow Spring Site Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland
Totals 1 5,523 14.41
Table 12a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation
*The non-standard buffer width adjustment was only performed for reaches S7, S9, 512, S13
Table 12b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation
Stream Mitigation
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
Mitigation Ratio
Proposed
Reach
Mitigation Type
Stationing
Existing
Length
LF
Proposed
Length
LF
Mitigation
Ratio
Base
SMUs
S1
Enhancement II
3+50
to
6+00
250
250
2.5:1
100
S2
Enhancement I
6+00
to
11+00
500
500
1.5:1
333
S5
P1 / P2 Restoration
0+76
to
3+07
215
231
1:1
231
S6A
P1 Restoration
11+00
to
24+50
1,220
1,350
1:1
1,350
S613
P1 Restoration
24+50
to
36+26
1,150
1,176
1:1
1,176
S6B
Enhancement I
36+26
to
37+93
165
167
1.5:1
111
S7
Enhancement I
38+80
to
48+70
1,035
990
1.5:1
660
S7
Enhancement I
49+40
to
53+80
452
440
1.5:1
293
S9
Enhancement III
53+80
to
60+55
665
675
7.5:1
90
S11
P1 Restoration
60+55
to
71+00
906
1,045
1:1
1,045
S12
Preservation
71+00
to
74+80
380
380
10:1
38
S13
Preservation
9+69
to
14+23
454
454
10:1
45
Total
7,392
7,658
5,473
Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment*
50
Grand Total Adjusted SMUs
5,523
*The non-standard buffer width adjustment was only performed for reaches S7, S9, 512, S13
Table 12b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 29 September 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 -B
Enhancement
2.02
3:1
0.67
WG -A
Enhancement
3.68
3:1
1.23
WG -13
Enhancement
18.03
5:1
3.61
WH
Re-establishment
6.84
1:1
6.84
WI
Re-establishment
2.87
2:1
1.44
Total
36.51
14.41
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 29 September 2018

7.1 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths
To calculate functional uplift credit adjustments, the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
from the USACE in January 2018 was utilized. To perform this calculation, GIS analysis was performed to
determine the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones and actual buffer zones around all streams within
the project. Minimum standard buffer widths are measured from the top of bank (50 feet in Piedmont and
Coastal Plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties). The ideal buffers are the maximum potential size
(in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS,
including areas outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the square feet in each buffer zone, as measured
by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement
exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. NCDWR Riparian
Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credit is being generated along Reaches S 1, S2, S6A, S6B, and S5 and therefore
is not generating any credit using the Non-standard Buffer Widths adjustment (Figure 11). Areas along S7,
S9, S 12, and S 13 are being used to generate additional stream credit using the Non-standard buffer widths
calculation and therefore will not generate any NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credit.
Furthermore, additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams were not included in this measurement. Non -creditable stream
reaches within the easement are removed prior to calculating this area with GIS (for both ideal and actual).
The stream lengths, mitigation type, ideal buffer, and actual buffer are all entered into the calculator. This
data is processed, and the resulting credit amounts are totaled for the whole project (Table 12a, Figure 12).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 30 September 2018

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.
Table 13a. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Interim
Total
Release
Credit Release Activity
Interim Release
Total Released
Milestone
1
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
15%
15%
I
stated above
15%
15%
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%**)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
o
10%
75%
erformance standards are beingmet.
85%**
8*
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
80%
performance standards are being met.
(90%**)
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
90%
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
(100%**)
has received close-out approval.
*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 13b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Interim
Total
Release
Credit Release Activity
Release
Released
Milestone
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated
I
above
15%
15%
2
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
3
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
40%
standards are being met.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 31 September 2018

Credit
Interim
Total
Release
Credit Release Activity
Release
Released
Milestone
4
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
50%
standards are being met.
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
60%
standards are being met.
6*
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
70%
standards are being met.
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
80%
standards are being met.
8*
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
90%
standards are being met.
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
9
standards are being met, and project has received close-out
10%
100%
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.
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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 32 September 2018

"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.
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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 33 September 2018

17 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). See Section 9.3.1 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
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, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum, and swamp tupelo. 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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 34 September 2018

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 1, Enhancement
Level ll, 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.
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 (populus 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:
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 35 September 2018

• Reach Sl (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 Il. 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 S 1 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 11
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.
• Reach S6B — 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 S6B-Section 1 totals 1,176
linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
• Reach S6B — 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 S613 -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 1. 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 SI I
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 11,
Enhancement Level 1I1, 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 S1, 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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 36 September 2018

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
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 S6B 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, but in the areas
where dense Chinese Privet is found, the Chinese privet will be treated, the large stems manually removed,
and supplemental planting will occur. The invasive treatment will be conducted throughout monitoring. 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. As in Reach S7, the Chinese privet will be treated, large stems
manually removed, and then supplemental planting will be done in these areas. The invasive treatment will
be conducted throughout monitoring. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along the reach and
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 37 September 2018

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.
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,
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 38 September 2018

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.
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 14. 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
S 11
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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 39 September 2018

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, S6B, 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.
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 in the areas that will be planted (WG -A) and an enhancement credit ratio of 5:1 in the areas
not being planted (WG -B). 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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 40 September 2018

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.
9.2.3 Natural 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, 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. Some areas in which
invasive species will be treated and removed manually will need supplemental planting to replace the
biomass that was removed. The plant species list for this supplemental planting can be found in Table 15.
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, silky willow,
and black willow were chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth
patterns and high success rates. Willows grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, and
they stabilize the stream banks. Willows will also be quicker to contribute organic matter to the channel.
When the other species are bigger, the black willows 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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 41 September 2018

Table 15. 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
Supplemental Planting - Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam
Acres: 8.6
Species
Common Name
Spacing (ft)
Unit Type
% of Total Species
Composition
Betula nigra
River birch
12x12
Bare root
40
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
12x12
Bare root
30
Asimina triloba
Paw Paw
12x12
Bare root
30
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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 42 September 2018

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.
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 mi) 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 Il 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:
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 43 September 2018

(1) Qbkj;:=I6.56*(DA)0.72 (Doll et al., 2003)
(2) Qbkja=8.79*(DA)0.76 (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
(3) Qbkj=- 28.3076*(DA)o.59114 (Krstolic and Chaplin, 2007)
Where Qbkf`bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mit
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
Table 16. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach
Drainage
Area
(Ac)
Hydraflow Ql
FFQ
Qi .i
FFQ
Q1.5
NC
Regional
Regional
Q (1)
Cu 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
4.4
14.3
4.6
2.1
9.2
17.7
7
S6B
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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 44 September 2018

The stable design output parameters are listed in Table 17. The results are acceptable and match closely
with the design reach parameters.
Table 17. Stable Channel Design Output
Reach
Q (ft/s)
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
S6B
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
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
T = shear stress (lb/ft)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
Table 18. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
1(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).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 45 September 2018
Proposed Shear Stress
Allowable Shear Stress'
Reach
at Bankfull Stage
Critical Shear Stress
(lbs/ft)
Sand/Silt/Clay
Gravel
Vegetation
2
(lbs/ft)
(lbs/ft')
(lbs/ft2)
(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
S6B
0.16
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S11
0.15
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
1(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).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 45 September 2018

Table 19. 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
S613
0.050
1.5
2.0
4.0 6.0
S 11
0.045
1.6
2.0
4.0 6.0
'(MRCS, 2007)
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 46 September 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 20. 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 47 September 2018

11 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the IRT monitoring template. A detailed monitoring plan is
provided in Figure 13. 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 48 September 2018

Table 21. Monitoring Plan
Level
Goal
Treatment
Outcome
Monitoring Method
Performance Standard
To transport water
Convert land -use of Project
Improve the transport of water
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-erosive
erosive manner
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
To transport water in a
and increase entrenchment
connectivity by reducing bank
year for at least 30 consecutive days.
Cross sections: Surveyed in
Entrenchment ratio no less than 2.2 on restored reaches
i
stable non-erosive
ratios b reconstructing
y g
height ratios and increase
a
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
durinR arowinaseason
_
Establish a riparian buffer
Reduce erosion rates and
As -built stream profile
Perform stream profile post -construction
Cross sections
Entrenchment ratio no less than 2.2 on restored reaches
to reduce erosion and
channel stability to reference
°
To create a diverse
bedform
sediment transport into
reach conditions
Surveyed in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2 on riffles
a
3
project streams. Establish
stable banks with
Improve bedforn diversity
p
Visual monitoring/stream walks:
Identify and document significant stream problem areas;
To achieve dynamic
livestakes, erosion control
(pool spacing, percent riffles,
performed at least semiannually
i.e. erosion, degradation, aggradation, etc.
Vegetation plots: Surveyed in
MY 1-3: 320 tress/acre
'E
equilibrium
q
matting, other in-
g
etc.
stream structures
Increase buffer width to 50 feet
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre 10 ft. tall
Improve stream temperature
Vegetation plots:
MY 1-3: 320 tress/acre
To achieve appropriate
regulation through introduction
Surveyed in ears 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
y y
MY 5: 260 trees/acre 7 ft. tall
( )
�
0
levels for water
of canopy
(indirect measurement))
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
temperature, dissolved
Exclude livestock from
4 s
oxygen concentration
riparian areas with
p
Decrease nutrient loading
g
Visual assessment
Inspect fencing and signage. Identify and document any
o
and
and other important
p
exclusion fence and )ant
p
through filtration of planted
(indirect measurement)
damaged or missing fencing and/or signs. Ensure parcel
s>
nutrients including but
a riparian buffer
riparian buffer, and removing
is in perpetual conservation easement.
a
�L
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 in levels
1-4 to support the life
pp
Plant a riparian buffer,
install habitat features, and
Improve aquatic habitat
through the installation of
g
Visual monitoring of in -stream
Identify and document significant stream problem areas;
5
histories of aquatic and
construct pools of varying
habitat features, construction of
habitat features: Performed at
least semiannuallyi.e.
degradation, aggradation, stressed or failed structures,
CC
riparian plants and
ri p p
depths
p
pools at varying depths, and
planting the riparian buffer
indirect measurement
etc.
Quality 4 macroinvertebrate
animals
sampling: Performed pre-
NA
constriction and years 3, 5 and 7
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 49 September 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
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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 50 September 2018

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 23 plots within the planted area (22.8 acres). Three additional random
plots will be added to the 8.6 acres of supplemental planting area. 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 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 USAGE.
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.
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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 51 September 2018

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 for C/E channels, bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the
entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches. Both measurements should not change
by more than 10 percent from the baseline condition during any given monitoring intervals. These standards
will only apply to reaches of the channel where bank height ratio and entrenchment 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 ten
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 52 September 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 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 and the engagement
letter is included in Appendix A.
NCWHF requires an 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 engagement letter with the
endowment fee offer 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 53 September 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 54 September 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 55 September 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.
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 http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. [Accessed 25 October
2011.]
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 htt2://pubs.water.usas.jzov/sir2007-5162)
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).
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:Hdeq.nc.gov/. (April 2018).
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). (2009) Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 56 September 2018

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.
httn://www.bae.ncsu.edu/nroizrams/extension/waiz/sra/2008conference/tweedv naner.ndf
US Army Corps of Engineers (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.
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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 57 September 2018

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. hqp://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 58 September 2018

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 - Conceptual Design for NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credits
Figure 12 — Buffer Width Zones
Figure 13 - Monitoring Plan

' 17
r ;
r g
1
a
Ra
I
\ Rive iwood
Golf Chub
-01
Clayton � ■1
way
cl Y'v"
aRa
t7r�A�'r Gdlrltl.
0�4 �tl
c. iclrin.,
S
QLa
Cove+ed Bridge
��fi1y �iY
�hekd Browns p
°"a
S Ila �a
o
L
QC
r Pine Level
t!g �r�hweY 70�r's� Qtr
Pd i CI
Legend ��O9aB„ Rd
- Proposed_Easement
TLW -03020201100050 — Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
1 Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), Mapmylndia,
NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors.. and the GIS User Community
N
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
W E
i S
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
res
0 1 2
MMMMMSmommmmil Miles Johnston County, North Carolina
i

c s
� .t•+ i k.� �� , a �i � T 'ice _ �a@�`o
X
S5 r
• 65 ac .,69
-...... � f• y .. �.•� _ter
`•o ❑ f J Graver ✓
2r4 ° trSon ur ', E •1� WSJ Y+ _
. - • _ ` ; . �: �---_ � �+' � iso ''
k� • Entire Site / sa •'-
tt
584 ac
0
f4Sa o � Y l
Le-gen d ' %�1 s 1
Radro iowef\ r B
Gravel
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac. ..: -: t"'MP"'l o •-ss+i �• :_, . _
Drainage Areas �� -
{7 Copyright:© 2,013 Nati nal Geographi.cncietyFi cubed
N
Figure 2 - USGS Map
B W E
5 Meadow Spring Mitigation Siteres
0 1,000 2,000
Johnston County, North Carolina
Feet 0

1962
,sou�r*hnston Co. Historical Aerial
Le-gend N Figure 3 - Historical Aerial Photography
Proposed Easement E Meadow Spring Mitigation Site res
0 500 Feet S Johnston County, NC

Ra
CoB
NoB
NoA
NoA NoB
GeB
WaB Bb
W
NoB
GoA
Ra
NoA McB
Q �_j
Ra
Legend
MProposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
0 Non -hydric Soil
0 Soil with Hydric Inclusions
0 Hydric Soil
- Water D
NoA
Ro
Ra
NoA
Ra
GoA
NoAj loww�q
NnD
GoA 1 WaB
NoA
NoB
[Chi
Ch I
AVCh
N /CeB/
AaA W NoB
NnE
NnD
AaA
Symbol
Name
Symbol
Name
AaA
Altavista finesandy loam, Oto 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NoA
NorfoIkIoamysand, 0to2percent slopes
A&A
Augusta sandy loam, Oto 2 percents I opes, occasion ally flooded
NoB
Norfolk Ioamysand, 2to 5 percent slopes
Ob
Bibb sandy loam, Oto 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Ra
Ra ins sandy loam, Oto 2 percent slopes
Ch
Chewacla loam, Oto 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Re
Roanoke loam, Oto 2 percent slopes, occasionaIlyflooded
GoA
Goldsboro sandy loam, ato 2 percent slopes
WaB
kagram loamy sand, ato 6 percent slopes
McB
Marlboro -Cecil complex, 2to 9 percentslopes
N
W_ E
s
0 350 700
Feet
Figure 4 - Soils Map
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina

1,
.i$. -
:.•.:jam i
s.
VR
4 L
Landowner:
Stephenson 1997 FamilyLimited Partnership
Pin: 169500-74-6294
I
r
r i -
r'
� s
a �

Remove
Pond
Existing Utility
Easement
Legen
r_1 Proposed Easement (60.93 acres)
Stream Treatment
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Enhancement III
Preservation
Wetland Mitigation
Re-establishment, 1:1
Re-establishment, 2:1
Rehabilitation, 1.5:1
Enhancement, 3:1
Enhancement, 5:1
Preservation, No Credit
N
0 300 600
;. "V
Figure 10
Conceptual Design
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
The Meadow Spring Site Mitigation Credits
�1_1117 I Riparian Wetland
Totals 14A1
Stream Mitigation
Proposed Mitigation Type I F.Istin ig�atl*" � Bas
I.Pr.p,!d
Mit
S13 I
Preservation
1 454 1
454 1
10:1 1 45
Total
7,392 1
7,658 1
5,473
Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment SO
Total Adjusted SMUs 5,523
Wetland Mitigation
Proposed
gati n
M`Radio*
W.tl.nd
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
I I
WMus
WB
Rehabilitation
0 1
HE
1.5.1
0.63
WD
Preserv:,t:.,,n
No Credit
No Credit
WE
Pr_ry
0.09
No Credit
No Credit
WF -A
Pr.­rv.ti.n
200
N. C-dit
No Credit
Wl I Re-establishment 1 2.87 1 2:1 1 1.44
Total 1 36.51 1 1 14A1
JL�
"W
!E
pres

el �
' �'.iv,
Bill
f
l
BPDP Crediting Area
w�e
0 150 300
Feet
1
Legend
Q Proposed Easement
Top of Bank
50
100
200
Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Buffer Crediting
Buffer Restoration (0-50')
Buffer Restoration (51-100')
Buffer Enhancement (0-50')
Buffer Enhancement (51-100')
Buffer Enhancement (101-200')
Nutrient Offset (101-200')
fires
Riparian
Buffer
Credit
Riparian
Credit
Existing
Credit Per
% Full
. Zone
Type
Mitigation Type
Acreage
Acre (ft')
Ratio
Credit
Mitigation Assets
Riparian
Restoration
1.84
43,560
LI
100%
80,150 Ill (1.84 ac)
0-50'
Buffer
Riparian
Enhancement via Cattle
P
Buffer
Exclusion
0.74
43,560
2:1
100%
16,117 ft (0.37 ac)
Riparian
Restoration
2.51
43,560
1:1
100%
109,336 t12 (2.51 ac)
51-100'
Buffer
Riparian
Enhancement via Cattle
0.32
43,560
2:1
100%
6,970 ft (0.16 ac)
Buffer
Exclusion
Riparian
Enhancement via Cattle
101-200'
0.91
43,560
2:1
33%
6,541 f[ (0.15 ac)
Buffer
Exclusion
Total Restoration
4.35
189,486 ft' (4.35 ac)
,r
Total Enhancements
1.97
29,627 fl2 (0.68 ac)
-lad-n- & reducnons
Nutrient
Offset
Credit
Credit Credit Per
Zone
Mitigation Type Acreage
Ratio Mitigation Assets (lbs)
Type Acre (lbs)
101-200'
Nitrogen Restoration 1.81 2,273.02
N/A 4,114lbs (1.81 ac)
TOTAL 1.81
4,114lbs (1.81 ac)
Figure 11 - Conceptual Design for Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credits
Meadow Spring Mitigation
Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Q Proposed Easement
Top of Bank
50
100
200
Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Buffer Crediting
Buffer Restoration (0-50')
Buffer Restoration (51-100')
Buffer Enhancement (0-50')
Buffer Enhancement (51-100')
Buffer Enhancement (101-200')
Nutrient Offset (101-200')
fires

Ideal Buffers
Actual Buffers
\1.
ores
s�
s�/V
w
�
F
S
0 200 400
Feet
c�1
Figure 12 - Non -Standard
Buffer Zones
Meadow Spring
Mitigation Site
Johnston County,
North Carolina
Date: 9/19/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
1 in = 400 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
Exclusions
ActualBuffer
_ 0-15 feet
_ 15-20 feet
N
N
20-25 feet
25-30 feet
_ 30-35 feet
_ 35-40 feet
_ 40-45 feet
_ 45-50 feet
_ 50-75 feet
_ 75-100 feet
100-125 feet
_Buffer
Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark) -For Reaches S7, S9, S12, & S13
Buffer Zones
less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet
>25 to 30 feet
>30 to 35 feet
>35 to 40 feet
>40 to 45 feet
>45 to 50 feet
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 feet
>125 to 150 feet
125-150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)
119,520
39,840
39,840
39,840
39,840
39,840
39,840
39,840
199,200
199,200
199,200
199,200
Ideal Buffer (square feet)
118,508
38,857
38,486
37,934
37,081
36,590
36,311
36,031
178,127
176,133
176,954
178,603
Actual Buffer (square feet)
114,185
36,970
36,194
35,260
34,583
34,101
33,734
33,012
115,893
66,485
30,702
9,358
Zone Multiplier
50%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
7%
5%
4%
4%
Buffer Credit Equivalent
1,086
1 217 1
217
217
109 1
109
109 1
109
152
109
87
1 87
Percent of Ideal Buffer
96%
1 95% 1
94%
93%
93% 1
93%
93% 1
92%
65%
38%
17%
1 5%
MOW
CreditAdjustment
-40
1-11 1
-13
-15
-7 1
-7
-8 1-9
99
41
15
5
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required Buffer Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
Net Change inCredit from Buffers
Total Credit
2,171
-109
159
50
2,221

anting Area: 22.7 ac
I Planting Area: 8.6 ac
pres
N
W E
S
0 200 400
Feet
Figure 13 - Monitoring Plan
Meadow Spring
Mitigation Site
nston County, North Carolin
Date: 9/21/2018 1 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM 1 1 in = 400 feet
Legend
® Proposed Easement
Proposed Cross Section
— Stream
® Re-establishment, 1:1
® Re-establishment, 2:1
D Rehabilitation, 1.5:1
0 Enhancement, 3:1
® Enhancement,5:1
Preservation, 10:1
D Supplemental Planting
Riparian Planting
Veg Plots
Crest Gauge
Wetland Gauge

Appendix A
Site Protection Instrument (s) and Longterm
Stewardship Program Overview
Site Protection Instruments
Permanent Conservation Easement
Conservation Easement Plat
Owners's Policy of Title Insurance
Longterm Stewardship
North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation Program Overview
EndowmentFee Letter

Filed in JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC CRAIG OLIVE, Register of Deeds Filed 01/11/2018 02:16:57 PM
DEED BOOK: 5087 PAGE: 156-172 INSTRUMENT # 2018557408
Real Estate Excise Tax: $1,190.00 Deputy/Assistant Register of Deeds: Pauline Sanders
Excise Tax: $1,190.00
Prepared by and return to: Jason W. Wenzel, P.O. Box 1567, Smithfield, NC 27577
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
JOHNSTON COUNTY
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made this 3 d
day of January 2018 by and between STEPHENSON 1997 FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a North Carolina limited partnership (the "Grantor") and THE
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE HABITAT FOUNDATION, INC., a North Carolina
non-profit corporation with a principal office location of 300 North Greens Street,
Greensboro, NC 27429 ("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 Johnston 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.
{N0108746.DOCX; 11 1
submitted electronically by "Harron, o'Hale and Whittington PA"
in compliance with North Carolina statutes governing recordable documents
and the terms of the submitter agreement with the Johnston county Register of Deeds.

DEED B: 5087 P: 157
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
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: 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 60.942 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 Plan for the Meadow
Springs Mitigation Site, Department of the Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW -2016-
01989. The Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps) in consultation with the North
Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT) has approved the modification of the Neu -Con
Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (LIMBI), Department of the Army Action ID
19910477, to include The Meadow Springs Mitigation Site. The Meadow Springs
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 RES Neuse Umbrella Mitigation
Banking Instrument (Res Neuse LIMBI) having a North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR) file number 2016-0978v2 and a Bank Parcel Development Package
(BPDP) for the Meadow Springs Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank,
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Project ID# 2016-0980v2, which
was approved by the NCDWR, and will be made and entered into by and between EBX
Neuse I, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company (`EBX"), acting as the Bank Sponsor,
and the NCDWR. The Meadow Springs 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 EBX, 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 RES Neuse UMBI NCDWR Project ID#
2016-0978v2, the BPDP NCDWR Project ID# 2016-0980v2, and the Department of the
Army instrument number SAW -2016-01989, or any permit or certification issued by the
Third Parties.
{N0108746.DOCX; 1} 2

DEED B: 5087 P: 158
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
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.
{N0108746.DOCX; 11 3

DEED B: 5087 P: 159
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
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 1 of this Conservation
Easement, except where mowing will negatively impact vegetation or disturb soils.
Mowing activities shall only be performed by EBX, its employees and agents 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. Si nage_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, EBX, its agents or employees 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 Grantee and the Third Parties, and their respective
f N0108746.DOCX; 1} 4

DEED B: 5087 P: 160
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
employees and agents, successors, and assigns, 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 EBX 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 Meadow Springs Mitigation Plan, the Meadow Springs 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 and the Third Parties, and their respective authorized representatives,
successors and assigns, shall have a perpetual right to enter the Property at reasonable
times to undertake any activities to restore, manage, maintain, enhance and monitor the
stream, wetland and riparian resources of the Conservation Easement in accordance with
its construction of the Conservation Easement, restoration activities, or long term
management plan. The Grantee and the Third Parties, and their respective authorized
representatives, successors and assigns, 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 and the Third Parties, and their
respective authorized representatives, successors and assigns, 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.
{N0108746.DOCX; 11 5

DEED B: 5087 P: 161
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee and the Third Parties 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 Third Parties 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
{N0108746.DOCX; 11 6

DEED B: 5087 P: 162
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
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 Conservation Easement Area are sustained.
f N0108746.DOCX; 1} 7

DEED B: 5087 P: 163
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
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:
Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
2350 Wilsons Mills Road
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
To Grantee:
North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation
300 North Greene Street
Greensboro, NC 27429
To Sponsor:
EBX-Neuse I, LLC
Post Office Box 1475
Kinston, NC 28503
To the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
{N0108746.DOCX; 1) 8

DEED B: 5087 P: 164
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
To NCDEO -DNVR:
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
To EBX:
EBX-Neuse I, LLC
Post Office Box 1475
Kinston, NC 28503
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 4
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.
REMANINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK;
SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW
{N0108746.DOCX; 1} 9

DEED B: 5087 P: 165
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
GRANTOR:
Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership,
a North Carolina limited partnership
By:(Seal)
ley Wk4pDhSen;;s�on, General Partner
NORTH CAROLINA
JOHNSTON COUNTY
I, Mart on A\ -I Qu(cq , a Notary Public, in and for said County and State do
certify that Whitley W. St phenson, a person known to me or whose identity was proven by
satisfactory evidence, as a the General Partner of Stephenson 1997 Family Limited
Partnership, a North Carolina limited partnership, personally appeared before me this day
and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument on behalf of the
partnership.
7
Witness my hand and notarial seal/stamp, this %i- day of January 2018.
,���oo No,�S2
Not y0
Pu4c � r,
My Commission expires: a-(� - (9 onond
A'VION 3
.a
V
[Signature Page to Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership Easement]
Meadow Springs Site
{N0108746.DOCX; 11 10

DEED B: 5087 P: 166
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership,
a North Carolina limited partnership
By: 4weal)
B' y Stephens, eneral Partner
NORTH CAROLINA
JOHNSTON COUNTY
I, V0Tl C)rt - Cc.La (m , a Notary Public, in and for said County and State do
certify that Billy Stephenson, a person known to me or whose identity was proven by
satisfactory evidence, as a the General Partner of Stephenson 1997 Family Limited
Partnership, a North Carolina limited partnership, personally appeared before me this day
and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument on behalf of the
partnership.
Witness my hand and notarial seal/stamp, this �' day of January 2018.
Notary Oublic 2
0
C7 `�l� min
My Commission expires:
O
b
[Signature Page to Stephenson 1997 Family Limite Eas
Meadow Springs Site
{N0108746.DOCX; 11 11

DEED B: 5087 P: 167
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership,
a North Carolina limited partnership
By: Aa4, A eal)
Travis Stephen n, General Partner
NORTH CAROLINA
JOHNSTON COUNTY
I, War( o rA.A q cu m , a Notary Public, in and for said County and State do
certify that Travis Stephenso , a person known to me or whose identity was proven by
satisfactory evidence, as a the General Partner of Stephenson 1997 Family Limited
Partnership, a North Carolina limited partnership, personally appeared before me this day
and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument on behalf of the
partnership.
Witness my hand and notarial seal/stamp, this day of January 2018.
Notary tublicO yINnoj
ti
My Commission expires: 9-6. 1? 0
Z
z
ON
[Signature Page to Stephenson 1997 Family L d Partnersh' E
Meadow Springs Sit .dam
be NO
{N0108746.DOCX; 1} 12

DEED B: 5087 P: 168
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
NORTH CA INA WILDLIFE HABITAT FOUNDATION, INC.
By:
Print Name: Gregory A. Erwin
Print Title: Chairman
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY
W6�gC. , a Notary Public, in and for said County and
State, do h reby certify that Gregory A. Erwin, personally came before me this day and
acknowledged that he is the Chairman of the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation,
Inc., a North Carolina non-profit corporation, and being authorized to do so, executed the
foregoing on behalf of the corporation as its act and deed.
f/1 -
Witness my hand and notarial seal/stamp, this 3 day of January 2018.
Notary Public �� a? a + ► ;�;:
My Commission expires:
►` I Q'' _
rv
10USLIc =
[Signature Page to Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership E ' p ,C
Meadow Springs Site
(N0108746.DOCX;1) 13

DEED B: 5087 P: 169
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
.411111110.,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - MEADOW SPRING SITE
Parcel ID No.: 169500-74-6294 (Tax Identification No.: 17K09004C)
Being that part of the lands described in Book 1732, page 151, which lies east of SR 1913, less and
except Book 2698, page 355 (Plat Book 63, page 333) and Book 3750 page 693 (Plat Book 72, page
415) Johnston County Registry, to include specifically but not to be limited to the following:
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 1
LYING IN WILSON MILLS TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A NEW IRON STAKE, SAID IRON STAKE BEING LOCATED N 12°21'17" E 720.03 FEET FROM
NORTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "HOG 1986"; SAID MONUMENT "HOG 1986" HAVING
NAD 83/2011 GRID COORDINATES, N=655,236.9933 FEET, E=2,194,995.5017 FEET;
THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING SO LOCATED; RUNNING N 52"50'42" E 150.17 FEET TO A NEW
IRON STAKE; THENCE S 38"35'33" E 286.47 FEET TO ANEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 20"31'20" E 235.95
FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 66°32'58" E 165.78 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N
70"50'26" E 416.84 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 76"28'25" E 151.42 FEET TO A NEW IRON
STAKE; THENCE N 56"43'22" E 155.88 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 83°37'42" E 77.29 FEET TO
A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 71"20'24" E 55.36 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON STAKE; THENCE N 22"47'26"
E 179.99 FEETTO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 67°12'38" E 1261.50 FEETTO A NEW IRON STAKE
LOCATED ON THE WESTERN LINE OF A 70 FOOT WIDE DUKE ENERGY RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE RUNNING
ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S 24°47'42" W 383.46 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE LEAVING
SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND RUNNING N 70"57'23" W 257.41 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N
53°20'00" W 551.63 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 76"25'27" W 235.63 FEET TO A NEW IRON
STAKE; THENCE S 66'40'23" W 394.87 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 30'52'00" W 369.41 FEET
TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 13`48'08" W 237.04 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 84"40'43"
W 195.46 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 09°24'26" E 456.83 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE;
THENCE N 81"54'03" W 375.92 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 10"20'25" E 46.49 FEET TO A NEW
IRON STAKE; THENCE N 78"36'10" W 79.19 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 31°12'15" W 619.10
FEET TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 20.687 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED
BOOK 1732, PAGE 151 AND DEPICTED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 167, BOTH IN THE JOHNSTON COUNTY
REGISTRY.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 2
LYING IN WILSON MILLS TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A NEW IRON STAKE LOCATED ON THE EASTERN LINE OF A 70 FOOT WIDE DUKE ENERGY
RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID IRON STAKE BEING FURTHER LOCATED S 85"41'49" E 2633.54 FEET FROM NORTH
CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "HOG 1986"; SAID MONUMENT "HOG 1986" HAVING NAD
83/2011 GRID COORDINATES, N=655,236.9933 FEET, E=2,194,995.5017 FEET;
{N0108746.DOCX; 11 14

DEED B: 5087 P: 170
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING SO LOCATED; RUNNING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE N
24`47'42" E 167.51 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND
RUNNING S 42°45'30" E 332.18 FEET TO ANEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 10'50'10" W 610.13 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 44"59'45" W 140.17 FEETTO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 80'30'17" W
70.64 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 08°48'25" E 427.14 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N
26'09'10" W 176.24 FEET TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING,-
CONTAINING
EGINNING;
CONTAINING 3.293 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED
BOOK 1732, PAGE 151 AND DEPICTED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 167, BOTH IN THE JOHNSTON COUNTY
REGISTRY.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 3
LYING IN WILSON MILLS TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING ATA NEW IRON STAKE; SAID IRON STAKE BEING LOCATED S 71"04'44" E 2949.44 FEET FROM
NORTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "HOG 1986"; SAID MONUMENT "HOG 1986" HAVING
NAD 83/2011 GRID COORDINATES, N=655,236.9933 FEET, E=2,194,995.5017 FEET;
THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING SO LOCATED; RUNNING S 03"50'09" W 609.66 FEETTO A NEW
IRON STAKE; THENCE S 82'37'14" E 395.72 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 29'55'31" E 595.27
FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 56°29'21" E 48.24 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S
27"13'36" E 172.52 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 40°30'07" E 142.70 FEET TO A NEW IRON
STAKE; THENCE S 43"31'14" W 381.02 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE IN LOCATED IN THE CENTERLINE OF A
CREEK; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID CREEK THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES; N
65'12'51" W 18.34 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 31°43'07" W 13.87 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N
24°06'23" W 68.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 36°51'05" W 66.84 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N
08°37'39" W 14.64 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 15"19'34" E 18.09 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING
SAID CREEK CENTERLINE AND RUNNING N 64'44'14" W 16.23 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON STAKE; THENCE
CONTINUING N 64"44'14" W 48.05 FEET TO ANEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 21'30'56" W 613.98 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 79'08'47" W 350.70 FEETTO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 32'56'16" W
254.26 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 04'39'31" E 613.76 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N
15'50'01" E 155.13 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 80'26'04" E 55.15 FEET TO A NEW IRON
STAKE; THENCE S 45"00'04" E 156.75 FEET TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 12.389 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED
BOOK 1732, PAGE 151 AND DEPICTED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 167, BOTH IN THE JOHNSTON COUNTY
REGISTRY.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 4
LYING IN WILSON MILLS TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
{N0108746.DOCX; 11 15

DEED B: 5087 P: 171
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
BEGINNING AT A NEW IRON STAKE; SAID IRON STAKE BEING LOCATED S 59'22'27" E 4060.29 FEET FROM
NORTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "HOG 1986"; SAID MONUMENT "HOG 1986" HAVING
NAD 83/2011 GRID COORDINATES, N=655,236.9933 FEET, E=2,194,995.5017 FEET;
THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING SO LOCATED; RUNNING N 43"37'22" E 581.81 FEET TO A NEW
IRON STAKE; THENCE N 50'34'25" E 272.15 FEETTO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 39"29'20" E 129.08
FEETTO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 53`14'58" E 208.20 FEETTO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S
11°34'26" E 358.86 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 46°44'18" E 81.60 FEET TO A NEW IRON
STAKE; THENCE S 17'36'09" W 205.91 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 33`07'42" W 210.79 FEET
TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 48°20'35" W 690.62 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 50°54'12"
W 101.74 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 14°14'56" E 106.66 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE;
THENCE N 37`12'08" W 96.77 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 01*28'00" W 141.97 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 40°30'49" W 145.72 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 27"13'36" W
194.49 FEET TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 16.534 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED
BOOK 1732, PAGE 151 AND DEPICTED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 167, BOTH IN THE JOHNSTON COUNTY
REGISTRY.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 5
LYING IN WILSON MILLS TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A NEW IRON STAKE; SAID IRON STAKE BEING LOCATED S 72"15'18" E 4418.81 FEET FROM
NORTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "HOG 1986"; SAID MONUMENT "HOG 1986" HAVING
NAD 83/2011 GRID COORDINATES, N=655,236.9933 FEET, E=2,194,995.5017 FEET;
THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING SO LOCATED; RUNNING N 38`54'18" E 375.80 FEETTO A NEW
IRON STAKE; THENCE N 31`45'35" E 439.74 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 67°13'06" E 247.69
FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 18"52'15" W 382.19 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S
70"10'31" E 199.11 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 23"40'57" W 398.37 FEET TO A NEW IRON
STAKE; THENCE N 60°55'52" W 209.82 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 89"53'20" W 253.93 FEET
TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 53`14'58" W 202.45 FEET TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 8.039 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED
BOOK 1732, PAGE 151 AND DEPICTED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 167, BOTH IN THE JOHNSTON COUNTY
REGISTRY.
THE COMBINED ACREAGE OF ALL FIVE AREAS DESCRIBED ABOVE IS 60.942 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
For chain of title, see Deed Book 1732, page 151, Johnston County Registry.
{N0108746.DOCX; 11 16

DEED B: 5087 P: 172 END OF DOCUMENT
Meadow Springs Site: Stephenson 1997 Family LP Tract
10.94 Wo IIC S
TO PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT by and among
STEPHENSON 1997 FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a North Carolina
limited partnership ("Grantor") and THE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
HABITAT FOUNDATION, INC., a North Carolina non-profit corporation ("Grantee7%
dated the 3rd day of January 2018.
"Conservation Easement Property"
Being all of that 60.942 acres, more or less, and being more particularly
described in a plat entitled "Conservation Easement Survey for EBX-NEUSE I,
LLC" of the Meadow Springs Site, dated March 12, 2017, as drawn by Christopher
K. Paderick, PLS, of Matrix East, PLLC, Professional Land Surveyors, and
recorded in Plat Book 86, page 131, Johnston County Registry.
{N0108746.DOCX; 11 17

EASEMENT CORNER COORDINATE TABLE
#
NORTHING
EAST/NG
1
655,940.3497'
2,195, 149.5607'
2
656,031.0502'
Z 195,269.2492'
3
655,807.1453'
2,195,447.9426'
4
65,5,586.1697'
Z 195, 530.6596'
5
655,520.1,977'
2,195, 682.7429'
6
655, 657.0032'
Z 196,076.49,31'
7
655,621.5866'
2,196,223.7153'
8
655,707.175J'
2,196, 354.0352'
9
655,715.6939'
2, 196, 430.8488'
10
655, 733.4069'
2,196, 483.2998'
11
655,899.3450'
2,196,553.0212'
12
655,410.7075'
2,197,716.0420'
13
655,062,5976'
2,19 7, 555.2301 '
14
655,146.5866'
2, 197,311.9096'
15
655,475.9980'
Z 1.96,869.4327-
16
655,531.3086'
2,196,640.3817'
77
655,374.9487'
2,196,277.7869'
18
655,057.860 1 '
2, 196,088,2629'
19
654,827.6632'
2,196,031.7120'
20
654,845.7913'
2,195,8370972'
21
655,296.4746'
2,795,911.7600'
22
655,349.4356'
2,195,539.5923'
23
655,395.1716'
Z 195,547.9371'
24
655,410.8207'
2,195,470-3068'
25
655, 039.3898'
Z 197,621.6173'
26
655,191.45_98'
2,197,69 L8672'
27
654,947.5646'
2,197, 9173863'
28
654,348.3100'
2,197,802.6795'
F3O
654, 447.4332'
2,197, 703.5706'
L-29
654,459.086J'
2,197,63J.8996'
31
654,881.7947'
2,197,699.297J'
32
654,280.5876'
2,197,785.5654'
33
553,672.2940'
2,197,744.7798'
34
653,621.4683'
2,198, 137.2187'
35
653,105.5592'
Z 198,434.1824'
36
653, 132. 1914'
Z 198,4 74.403 1 '
37
65Z978.7866'
Z 198, 553.3327'
38
652,870.2780'
2,198,646.0143'
39
652,59J. 9894'
Z 198,J83.6381'
40
652, 601.6777 '
2,198,366.9895'
41
65Z 613.4775'
Z 198,J59.6961'
42
652,676.1430'
2,198,331.6560'
43
652,729.6297'
2,198, 291.5681 '
44
652,744.1022'
Z 198,289.3722'
45
652,761.5494'
2,198,294.1538'
46
652,768.4766'
2,198,279.4745'
47
652,788.9831'
2,198,236 0 194'
48
653,360.1844'
2,198,010.8388'
49
653,426.2206'
Z 197,656.4752'
50
653,639.6137'
Z 197,528.1646'
51
654,251.3443'
2,197,578.0127'
52
654,400.5895'
Z 197, 620.3392'
53
654,391.4245'
2,197,674.7246'
54
653,168.5567'
Z 198,489.4305'
55
653,589.7250'
2,198,890.8226'
56
653, 762.5667'
2,199,101.046 1 '
57
65J,862.1865'
Z 199, 183. 1341'
58
653, 7J7.6123'
Z 199,349.9552'
59
653, 386.0498'
2,199,421.95J9'
60
653, 330. 1243'
Z 199,481.3801'
61
653, 133.8538' F
2,19.9,41,9.1104'
62
652,957.3263' i
2, 199, 303.9094 '
63
65Z498. 2946' i
2, 198, 787.9254'
64
652,562.4580'
Z 198,708.9630'
65
652,665.8J47'
2,198, 735.2152'
66
652,742.9111'
2,198,676.7066'
67
652,884.8369'
2,198,6 7J. 0 730'
68
652, 995.67 90'
Z 198,578.4102'
69
65J,890.2301'
Z 199,204.0758'
70
654,182.6765'
2, 199, 440.0932'
71
654,556,5692'
2,199, 671.5523'
72
654,460.6590' 12,
199, 899.9189'
73
654,099.0097'
Z 199,776.J042'
74
654, 031.4818'
2,199, 963.6154'
75
653,666.6646'
2,199,803.6038'
76
653,768.6066'
2,199,620-2158'
77
653,769.0,988'
2,199,,365.2864'
(COORDINATES ARE GROUND COORDINATES
RELATIVE TO NCGSM HOG 1986')
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
n
THIS PLAT /S EXEMPT FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATION
WITHIN THE JOHNSTOPI COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION.
(I SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR
DATE
21 I ..
2
O I I \-1, STEPHENSONOB7997 2 1 PIT D 5 PARTNERSHIP
PB 2, PG 167
(D
\L -10-
1r -
�I I Ir 7 (�
, r r7 _
VICINITY MAP
(NOT r0 SCALE)
I i 24 /�..
L -24
I I L-2322
-- -- 21/
26
i
I I BILLY W. STEPHENSON
I i I DB 4424, PG 47
/v
I I NCGSM HOG 1986" STEPHENSON 1997 UNITED PARTNERSHIP �f 25 as
r 25
N=655,236.9933' DB1732,
2 2PG PG 151
1 ACCESS AREA ,i 27
E-2 194 995 5017'
NOTES:
i. COMBINED FACTOR /S 0.9998829.
2. ALL DISTANCES ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND
MEASUREMENTS IN FEET & DECIMALS THEREOF,
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
J. ALL UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS MAY NOT BE
SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY.
4. ACCESS TO EASEMENT SHALL BE THROUGH
NEIGHBORING TRACTS.
5. ACCESS AREAS SHOWN ARE 30 FEET WIDE.
WHITLEY W. STEPHENSON
DB 1062, PG 335
OR 3750, PG 693
P8 72, PG 415
lk
I °°pili► ...", REVIEW OFFICER
JOHNSTON COUNTY C T/FY THAT THE MAP OR PLAT 7
WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED MEETS ALL STATU
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDING.
f
REVIEW OFFICER
$F
1 ail 'Arf 117
DATE
EASEMENT LINE IS 20' FILED FOR REGISTRATION . %- , ,1 C F
FROM BOUNDARY LINE 2017. : /V : 0 J'r 1 4 r" �r �
PLAT4t- , PAGE 13 1'o"0,3,
WILSON 7995 FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP l k�,W�--jf
'�. DB 1847, PG 299
oralf 7S
REGISTER OF DEEDSr
�7� r JOHNSTON COUNTY
L d
NC GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT
REFERENCE TABLE
FROM: "WILSON 1986"
TO: "HOG 1986"
N=653,066.7418'
N=655,236.9933'
E=2,194,708.7077'
E=2,194,995.5017'
GRID BEARING
'40"
GRID DISTANCE
2189.12' (GRID)
N 07'31 F
2189.41 ' (MEASURED)
J
�\n (NAD 83j2001) sf //// fI l % V-1 \ \,
s` +• j ` 371 ! '�� WILSON 1995 FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
20 L-20 19 4\ ` f f DB 1847, PG 299
JOHNSTON COUNTY
11 CHRISTOPHER K. PADERICK CERTIFY THAT THIS
PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL
SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION; (DEED DESCRIPTION
RECORDED /N MAP & DEED BOOKS NOTED); THAT THE
BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY INDICATED AS DRAWN
FROM INFORMATION REFERENCED HEREON; THAT THE RATIO
OF PRECISION AS CALCULATED IS 1: 10,000+; THAT THIS PLAT
WAS PREPARED /N ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30 AS
AMENDED. WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER AND SEAL THIS 12TH DAY OF MARCH A. D.,
2017.
Z944
L-4789
LINE TABLE
LINE
BEARING
LENGTH
L-1
N 12'21 ' 17" E
720.03
L-2
N 52'50'42" E
150.17
L-3
S 38'35'33" E
286.47
L-4
S 20'31 20" E
235.95
L-5
S 66'3258" E
165.78
L-6
N 70'50'26" E
416.84
L-7
S 76'28 25" E
151.42
L-8
N 56'4322" E
155.88
L-9
N 83'37'42" E
77.29
L-10
N 71'20'24" E
55.36
L-17
N 22'4726" E
179.99
L-12
S 671238" E
1267.50
L-13
S 24'4742" W
383.46
L-14
N 70'57'23" W
257.41
L-15
N 53'20'00" W
551.63
L-16
N 76-2527- W
235.63
L-17
S 66'40'23" W
394.87
L-18
S 30'52'00" W
369.41
L-19
S 13'48'08" W
23704
L-20
N 84'40'43" W
195.46
L-21
N 09'2426" E
456.83
L-22
N 81'54'03" W
375.92
L-23
N 10'20'25" E
46.49
L-24
N 78'36'10" W
79.19
L-25
N 31'12'15" W
519.10
L-26
S 70'4353" E
70.33
L-27
N 24'4742" E
167.51
L-28
S 42'45'30" E
332.18
L-29
S 10'50'10" W
670.13
L-30
N 44'5945" W
140.17
L -31
N 80'30' 17" W
70.64
L-32
N 08'48'25" E
427.14
L-33
N 26'09'10" W
176.24
L-34
S 14'10'56" W
69.85
L-35
S 03'50'09" W
609.66
L-36
S 82'37' 14 " E
395.72
L -37
S 29'55'31 " E
595.27
L-38
I N 562921" E
48.24
L-39
S 2713'36" E
172.52
L-40
S 40'30'07" E
142.70
L-41
S 4331'14" W
381.02
JOHNSTON COUNTY
11 CHRISTOPHER K. PADERICK CERTIFY THAT THIS
PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL
SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION; (DEED DESCRIPTION
RECORDED /N MAP & DEED BOOKS NOTED); THAT THE
BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY INDICATED AS DRAWN
FROM INFORMATION REFERENCED HEREON; THAT THE RATIO
OF PRECISION AS CALCULATED IS 1: 10,000+; THAT THIS PLAT
WAS PREPARED /N ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30 AS
AMENDED. WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER AND SEAL THIS 12TH DAY OF MARCH A. D.,
2017.
Z944
L-4789
1, CHRISTOPHER K. PADF.RICK, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
NO. 4189, CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY /S OF ANOTHER
CATEGORY. TO WIT; AN EASEMENT SURVEY.
L-4189
EASEMENT LINE /S 50'
FROM BOUNDARY LINE
30 29
J '
L -55 -
AZ
-55 1ZL3(TL) STEPHENSON 1997 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP %jN
ACCESS AREA OB 1732, PG 151 Ir�
�f 51 ( 32 �� PB 2, PG 167 70 I
L-73(TL)Aae
# ACCESS AREA f /
LEGEND � � �/ 57 � �'�`. 77
f6 L-81
t-
R/W = RIGHT OF WAY + 3 /fig / 588
CIL = CENTERLINE L 3650 34 /��,/
• = NEW IRON STAKE
EIS = EXISTING IRON STAKE 154 i 55
EIP = EXISTING IRON PIPE 1
BB = BLOCK BUILDING
0 = NO POINT SET
(TL) = TIE LINE1
(CC) = CONTROL CORNER 58
NCGSM = NC GRID SURVEY MONUMENT
- - - = ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE 1 �j
-- - - = EASEMENT LINE 48 1 L- 38 / 60
= EASEMENT/BOUNDARY LINE /l
STEPHENSON 1997 LIMITED PARTNERSHIPi L-57(TL)/
=ACCESS AREADB 1732, PG 151 p 54 /
PB 2, PG 167 �I
\ 1 ACCESSa AREA 6 t
68 �\A N 0
f _ SOURCE OF TITLE
D8 1 i
{\ 7 P 1
,\ \ 32, G 51
EIS Il4537
46 , �� \ / 62 PB 2, PC 167
L-48 4�� � 67 ✓
/
47 / �Q) /
44 L
L-49 �f 42 41 rn\ 466 �1,V
-46 /�/ s /� .� ACREAGE DATA
43 86
L-45- /��y 65 / (BY COMPUTER)
L-43- 39� AREA 1 = 20.687 ACfr
40 L- 42 / 64 ! / AREA 2 = 3.293 ACt
i
�� AREA 3 = 12.389 ACt
MELD/PH, LLC. AREA 4 = 16.534 ACJ
., 6]
DB 4573, PG 446 AREA 5 = &039 ACS
PB 81, PG 92 J 1 / 5 ��/ 63 /
CONSERVATION EASEMENT (�
SURVEY FOR
EBX--NEUSE i, LLC.
OF THE MEADOW SPRING SITE
WILSON'S MILLS TOWNSHIP MARCH 12, 2017
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC 1 " = 300'
300' 150' 0 300' 600'
GRAPHIC SCALE
TOTAL = 60.942 ACj-
LINE TABLE
LINE
BEARING
LENGTH
L-42
N 65'1251 " W
18.34
L-43
N 31'43'07" W
13.87
L-44
N 24'0623" W
68.65
L-45
N 36'51'05" W
66.84
L-46
N 08'37'39" W
14.64
L-47
N 15'1934" E
18.09
L-48
N 64'44'14" W
16.23
L-49
N 64'44'14" W
48.05
L-50
N 21'30'56" W
613.98
L-51
N 79'08'47" W
350.70
L-52
N 32'56'16" W
254.26
L-53
N 04'3931 " E
613.76
L-54
N 1550'01 " E
155. 13
L-55
S 80'26'04" E
55.15
L-56
S 45'00'04" E
156.75
L-57
N 22'27'08" E
39.35
L-58
N 43'37 22" E
581.81
L-59
N 50'34 25" E
272.15
L-60
N 39'29 20" E
129.08
L-61
S 53'1458" E
208.20
L-62
S 11'3426" E
358.86
L-63
S 46'44'18" E
81.60
L-64
S 17'36'09" W
205.91
L-65
S 33'07'42" W
210.79
L-56
S 48'20'35" W
690.62
L-67
N 50'54'12" W
107.74
L-68
N 14'1456" E
106.66
L-69
N 37'12'08" W
96.77
L-70
N 01'28'00" W
141.97
L-71
N 40'30'49" W
145.72
L-72
N 27'1336" W
194.49
L-73
N 36'45'02" E
35.00
L-74
N 38'54'18" E
375.80
L-75
N 31'4535" E
439.74
L-76
S 6713'06" E
247.69
L-77
S 18'52'15" W
J82.19
L-78
S 70'10,3 1 " E
199.11
L-79
S 23'40 57" W
398.37
L-80
N 60'5552" W
209.82
L-81
N 89'53'20" W
253.93
L-82
I N 53' 14'58 " W
202.45
1, CHRISTOPHER K. PADF.RICK, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
NO. 4189, CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY /S OF ANOTHER
CATEGORY. TO WIT; AN EASEMENT SURVEY.
L-4189
EASEMENT LINE /S 50'
FROM BOUNDARY LINE
30 29
J '
L -55 -
AZ
-55 1ZL3(TL) STEPHENSON 1997 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP %jN
ACCESS AREA OB 1732, PG 151 Ir�
�f 51 ( 32 �� PB 2, PG 167 70 I
L-73(TL)Aae
# ACCESS AREA f /
LEGEND � � �/ 57 � �'�`. 77
f6 L-81
t-
R/W = RIGHT OF WAY + 3 /fig / 588
CIL = CENTERLINE L 3650 34 /��,/
• = NEW IRON STAKE
EIS = EXISTING IRON STAKE 154 i 55
EIP = EXISTING IRON PIPE 1
BB = BLOCK BUILDING
0 = NO POINT SET
(TL) = TIE LINE1
(CC) = CONTROL CORNER 58
NCGSM = NC GRID SURVEY MONUMENT
- - - = ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE 1 �j
-- - - = EASEMENT LINE 48 1 L- 38 / 60
= EASEMENT/BOUNDARY LINE /l
STEPHENSON 1997 LIMITED PARTNERSHIPi L-57(TL)/
=ACCESS AREADB 1732, PG 151 p 54 /
PB 2, PG 167 �I
\ 1 ACCESSa AREA 6 t
68 �\A N 0
f _ SOURCE OF TITLE
D8 1 i
{\ 7 P 1
,\ \ 32, G 51
EIS Il4537
46 , �� \ / 62 PB 2, PC 167
L-48 4�� � 67 ✓
/
47 / �Q) /
44 L
L-49 �f 42 41 rn\ 466 �1,V
-46 /�/ s /� .� ACREAGE DATA
43 86
L-45- /��y 65 / (BY COMPUTER)
L-43- 39� AREA 1 = 20.687 ACfr
40 L- 42 / 64 ! / AREA 2 = 3.293 ACt
i
�� AREA 3 = 12.389 ACt
MELD/PH, LLC. AREA 4 = 16.534 ACJ
., 6]
DB 4573, PG 446 AREA 5 = &039 ACS
PB 81, PG 92 J 1 / 5 ��/ 63 /
CONSERVATION EASEMENT (�
SURVEY FOR
EBX--NEUSE i, LLC.
OF THE MEADOW SPRING SITE
WILSON'S MILLS TOWNSHIP MARCH 12, 2017
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC 1 " = 300'
300' 150' 0 300' 600'
GRAPHIC SCALE
TOTAL = 60.942 ACj-

Investors Title Insurance Company
P.O. Drawer 2687, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515-2687
919.968.2200 ( inAitle.com
OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (06-17-06)
This Policy is not complete without appropriate Schedules and corresponding Jacket unless otherwise
agreed in writing.
SCHEDULE A
Policy No.: 201852359NO14 Date of Policy: January 11, 2018 at 02:16 PM
Amount of Insurance: $595,000.00 Premium: $1,142.75
Address Reference: Meadow Spring Site, NC
1. Name of Insured:
THE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE HABITAT FOUNDATION, INC.
2. The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy is:
Conservation Easement
3. Title is vested in:
THE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE HABITAT FOUNDATION, INC.
4. The Land referred to in this policy is in the State of North Carolina, County of Johnston and is described as
follows:
SEE SCHEDULE C ATTACHED HERETO
Issued through the Office of:
Key Title
P.O. Box 97937
Raleigh, NC 27690-2425
Tel. [phone] Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Authorized Countersignature
Form No. 109-06-A ALTA Owner's Policy (06-17-06)
Schedule A
Page 1

Investors Title Insurance Company
P.O. Drawer 2687, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515-2687
919.968.2200 1 invtitle.com
Policy No.: 201852359NO14
SCHEDULE B
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees, or
expenses that arise by reason of:
I. The dower, curtesy, homestead, community property, or other statutory marital rights, if any, of the
spouse of any individual insured.
1. Taxes for the year 2018, and subsequent years, not yet due and payable.
2. Subject to matters shown on recorded Plat Book 86 at Page 131. SEe also Plat Book 2, Page 167: Plat
Book 63, Page 333 and Plat Book 72, Page 415.
3. Right of way to Carolina Power and Light Company recorded in Book 1064 at Page 798.
4. Easement(s) to Spring Meadow Farm of Johnston County, Inc (for dissemination of swine waste)
recorded in Book 3722 at Page 366.
5. Easement(s) to Whitley W. Stephenson recorded in Book 1062 at Page 337.
6. 1 st Amended Memorandum of Option to purchase real estate as recorded in Book 4943 at Page 639.
7. Obligations of the insured under the terms of the Conservation Easement as recorded in Book 5087 at
Page 156.
8. Rights of others in and to the use of the Conservation Easement.
9. Title to the fee simple interest underlying the Conservation Easement
10. Plat of survey by Matrix East PLC, PLS, dated 03/12/17, shows a seventy (70) foot Duke Energy right of
way located on the Land.
11. Rights of others thereto entitled in and to the continued uninterrupted flow of creek, located on the Land.
12. Riparian rights incident to the Land.
13. Rights, if any, of the property owners abutting the pond, in and to the waters of the pond and in and to
the bed thereof: also, boating and fishing rights of property owners abutting the pond or the stream of
water leading therefrom.
NOTE: Item I printed above is hereby deleted.
Form No. 109-06-A ALTA Owner's Policy (06-17-06)
Schedule B
Page 2

Investors Title Insurance Company
P.O. Drawer 2687, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515-2687
919.968.22001 invtitle.com
Policy No.: 201852359NO14
NO INSURED CLOSING PROTECTION COVERAGE PROVIDED - As to the transaction for which this
binder and/or policy is issued, the Company specifically excludes this transaction from any closing
protection services.
The Land described in Schedule A number 4 is encumbered by the following mortgage(s), if any:
NONE
Form No. 109-06-A ALTA Owner's Policy (06-17-06)
Schedule B
Page 3

Investors Title Insurance Company
P.O. Drawer 2687, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515-2687
919.968.22001 invtitle.com
Policy No.: 201852359NO14
SCHEDULE C
Being that part of the lands described in Book 1732, page 151, which lies east of SR 1913, less and except Book
2698, page 355 (Plat Book 63, page 333) and Book 3750 page 693 (Plat Book 72, page 415) Johnston County
Registry, to include specifically but not to be limited to the following:
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 1
LYING IN WILSON MILLS TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A NEW IRON STAKE, SAID IRON STAKE BEING LOCATED N 12°2117" E 720.03 FEET
FROM NORTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "HOG 1986"; SAID MONUMENT "HOG 1986"
HAVING NAD 83/2011 GRID COORDINATES, N=655,236.9933 FEET. E=2,194,995.5017 FEET;
THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING SO LOCATED; RUNNING N 52`50'42" E 150.17 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 3835'33" E 286.47 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 20°31'20" E
235.95 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 66°32'58" E 165.78 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE;
THENCE N 70°50'26" E 416.84 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 76°28'25" E 151.42 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 56°43'22" E 155.88 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 83°37'42" E
77.29 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE, THENCE N 71'20'24" E 55.36 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON STAKE;
THENCE N 22°47'26" E 179.99 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE: THENCE S 67'12'38" E 126130 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE LOCATED ON THE WESTERN LINE OF A 70 FOOT WIDE DUKE ENERGY
RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE RUNNING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES 24`47'42" W 383.46 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND RUNNING N 70°57'23" W 257.41
FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 53°20'00" W 551.63 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N
7625'27" W 235.63 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 66°40'23" W 394.87 FEET TO A NEW IRON
STAKE; THENCE S 30°52'00" W 369.41 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 13°48'08" W 237.04
FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 84°40'43" W 195.46 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N
0924'26" E 456.83 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 8154'03" W 375.92 FEET TO A NEW IRON
STAKE; THENCE N 10°20'25" E 46.49 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 7836'10" W 79.19 FEET
TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 31012'15" W 619.10 FEET TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 20.687 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
DEED BOOK 1732, PAGE 151 AND DEPICTED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 167, BOTH IN THE JOHNSTON
COUNTY REGISTRY.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 2
LYING IN WILSON MILLS TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING ATA NEW IRON STAKE LOCATED ON THE EASTERN LINE OF A 70 FOOT WIDE DUKE
ENERGY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID IRON STAKE BEING FURTHER LOCATED S 85°41'49" E 2633.54 FEET
FROM NORTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "HOG 1986"; SAID MONUMENT "HOG 1986"
HAVING NAD 83/2011 GRID COORDINATES, N=655,236.9933 FEET, E=2,194,995.5017 FEET; THENCE
FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING SO LOCATED; RUNNING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE N
24°47'42" E 167.51 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND
RUNNING S 42°45'30" E 332.18 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 10°50'10" W 610.13 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 44059'45" W 140.17 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 80°30'17" W
70.64 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 08°48'25" E 427.14 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE;
THENCE N 26°09'10" W 176.24 FEET TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 3.293
Form No. 100-06-A ALTA Owner's Policy (06-17-06)
Schedule A
Page 1

ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 1732,
PAGE 151 AND DEPICTED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 167, BOTH IN THE JOHNSTON COUNTY REGISTRY.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 3
LYING IN WILSON MILLS TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A NEW IRON STAKE; SAID IRON STAKE BEING LOCATED S 71'04'44" E 2949.44 FEET
FROM NORTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "HOG 1986"; SAID MONUMENT "HOG 1986"
HAVING NAD 83/2011 GRID COORDINATES, N=655,236.9933 FEET, E=2,194,995.5017 FEET; THENCE
FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING SO LOCATED; RUNNING S 03°50'09" W 609.66 FEET TO A NEW IRON
STAKE; THENCE S 82°37'14" E 395.72 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE 5 29°55'31" E 595.27 FEET
TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 56°29'21" E 48.24 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE: THENCE S 27'13'36"
E 172.52 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 40°30'07" E 142.70 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE;
THENCE 5 43031'14" W 381.02 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE IN LOCATED IN THE CENTERLINE OF A
CREEK: THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID CREEK THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
DISTANCES; N 65°12'51" W 18.34 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 31'43'07" W 13.87 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE N 24°06'23" W 68.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 36°51'05" W 66.84 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE N 08037'39" W 14.64 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 15019'34" E 18.09 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE
LEAVING SAID CREEK CENTERLINE AND RUNNING N 64°44'14" W 16.23 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON
STAKE; THENCE CONTINUING N 64°44114" W 48.05 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 21030'56"
W 613.98 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 79°08'47" W 350.70 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE;
THENCE N 32056'16" W 254.26 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 04°39'31" E 613.76 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 15'50'01" E 155.13 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 8026'04" E
55.15 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 45°00'04" E 156.75 FEET TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF
BEGINNING; CONTAINING 12.389 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 1732, PAGE 151 AND DEPICTED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 167, BOTH IN THE
JOHNSTON COUNTY REGISTRY.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 4
LYING IN WILSON MILLS TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A NEW IRON STAKE: SAID IRON STAKE BEING LOCATED S 59'22'27" E 4060.29 FEET
FROM NORTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "HOG 1986"; SAID MONUMENT "HOG 1986"
HAVING NAD 83/2011 GRID COORDINATES, N=655,236.9933 FEET, E=2,194,995.5017 FEET;
THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING SO LOCATED; RUNNING N 43°37'22" E 581.81 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 50'34'25" E 272.15 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 39°29'20" E
129.08 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 53`14'58" E 208.20 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE;
THENCE S 11'34'26" E 358.86 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 46044'18" E 81.60 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 17°36'09" W 205.91 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 33007'42" W
210.79 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 48'20'35" W 690.62 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE;
THENCE N 50054'12" W 101.74 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 14'14'56" E 106.66 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 37°12'08" W 96.77 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 01°28'00" W
141.97 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 40°30'49" W 145.72 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE;
THENCE N 27013'36" W 194.49 FEET TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 16.534 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
DEED BOOK 1732, PAGE 151 AND DEPICTED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 167, BOTH IN THE JOHNSTON
COUNTY REGISTRY.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 5
LYING IN WILSON MILLS TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.-
BEGINNING
OLLOWS:BEGINNING AT A NEW IRON STAKE; SAID IRON STAKE BEING LOCATED S 72`1618" E 4418.81 FEET
FROM NORTH CAROLINA GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "HOG 1986"; SAID MONUMENT "HOG 1986"
HAVING NAD 83/2011 GRID COORDINATES, N=655,236.9933 FEET, E=2,194,995.5017 FEET;
THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING SO LOCATED; RUNNING N 38°54'18" E 375.80 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 31'45'35" E 439.74 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 67°13'06" E
247.69 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 18°52'15" W 382.19 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE;
Form No. 109-06-A ALTA Owner's Policy (06-17-06)
Schedule C
Page 2

THENCE S 70010'31" E 199.11 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE S 23°40'57" W 398.37 FEET TO A
NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 6055'52" W 209.82 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE; THENCE N 89°53120" W
253.93 FEET TO A NEW IRON STAKE: THENCE N 53°14'58" W 202.45 FEET TO THE POINT AND PLACE
OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 8.039 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
DEED BOOK 1732, PAGE 151 AND DEPICTED IN PLAT BOOK 2; PAGE 167, BOTH IN THE JOHNSTON
COUNTY REGISTRY.
THE COMBINED ACREAGE OF ALL FIVE AREAS DESCRIBED ABOVE IS 60.942 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
For chain of title, see Deed Book 1732, page 151, Johnston County Registry.
EXHIBIT B
TO PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT by and among STEPHENSON 1997 FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a North Carolina limited partnership ("Grantor") and THE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
HABITAT FOUNDATION, INC., a North Carolina non-profit corporation ("Crantee"), dated the 3rd day of January
2018.
"Conservation Easement Property"
Being all of that 60.942 acres, more or less, and being more particularly described in a plat entitled
"Conservation Easement Survey for EBX-NEUSE 1, LLC" of the Meadow Springs Site, dated March 12, 2017, as
drawn by Christopher K. Paderick, PLS, of Matrix East, PLLC, Professional Land Surveyors, and recorded in Plat
Book 86, page 131, Johnston County Registry.
Form No. 109-06-A ALTA Owner's Policy (06-17-06)
Schedule C
Page 3

Investors Title Insurance Company
P.O. Drawer 2687, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515-2687
[phone] - www.invtitle.com
OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
Any notice of claim and any other notice or statement in writing required to be given to the Company under this
Policy must be given to the Company at the address shown in Section 18 of the Conditions.
COVERED RISKS
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN
SCHEDULE B, AND THE CONDITIONS, INVESTORS TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a North Carolina corporation (the
"Company") insures, as of Date of Policy and, to the extent stated in Covered Risks 9 and 10, after Date of Policy, against loss
or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance, sustained or incurred by the Insured by reason of:
1. Title being vested other than as stated in Schedule A.
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the Title. This Covered Risk includes but is not limited to insurance against loss
from
(a) A defect in the Title caused by
(i) forgery, fraud, undue influence, duress, incompetency, incapacity, or impersonation;
(ii) failure of any person or Entity to have authorized a transfer or conveyance;
(iii) a document affecting Title not properly created, executed, witnessed, sealed, acknowledged, notarized, or
delivered;
(iv) failure to perform those acts necessary to create a document by electronic means authorized by law;
(v) a document executed under a falsified, expired, or otherwise invalid power of attorney;
(vi) a document not properly filed, recorded, or indexed in the Public Records including failure to perform those acts by
electronic means authorized by law; or
(vii)a defective judicial or administrative proceeding.
(b) The lien of real estate taxes or assessments imposed on the Title by a governmental authority due or payable, but
unpaid.
(c) Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be
disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land. The term "encroachment' includes encroachments of
existing improvements located on the Land onto adjoining land, and encroachments onto the Land of existing,
improvements located on adjoining land.
3. Unmarketable Title.
4. No right of access to and from the Land.
5. The violation or enforcement of any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building
and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(a) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land:
(b) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land;
(c) the subdivision of land; or
(d) environmental protection
if a notice, describing any part of the Land, is recorded in the Public Records setting forth the violation or intention to
enforce, but only to the extent of the violation or enforcement referred to in that notice.
(continued on next page)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Investors Title Insurance Company has caused this Policy to be signed and sealed, to be valid
when Schedule A is countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company.
The use of this form is restricted to ALTA
AMERICAN licensees and ALTA members in good 3' -
LAND TITLE standing as of the date of use. All other uses President
ASSOCIATION are prohibited. Reprinted under license from
the American Land Title Association.
- n, secretary
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association.
Form No. 109-06-J ALTA Owner's Policy (06-17-06)

All rights reserved.
Form No. 109-06-J 2 ALTA Owier's Policy (06-17-06)

COVERED RISKS (continued)
6. An enforcement action based on the exercise of a governmental police
Schedule A constitutes a preferential transfer under federal
power not covered by Covered Risk 5 if a notice of the enforcement action,
bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws by reason of the
describing any part of the Land, is recorded in the Public Records, but only
failure of its recording in the Public Records
to the extent of the enforcement referred to in that notice.
(i) to be timely, or
7. The exercise of the rights of eminent domain if a notice of the exercise,
(ii) to impart notice of its existence to a purchaser for value or to a
describing any part of the Land; is recorded in the Public Records.
judgment or lien creditor.
8. Any taking by a governmental body that has occurred and is binding on
10. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the Title or other matter included
the rights of a purchaser for value without Knowledge.
in Covered Risks 1 through 9 that has been created or attached or has been
9. Title being vested other than as stated in Schedule A or being defective
filed or recorded in the Public Records subsequent to Date of Policy and prior
(a) as a result of the avoidance in whole or in part, or from a court order
to the recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public
providing an alternative remedy, of a transfer of all or any part of the title to or
Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.
any interest in the Land occurring prior to the transaction vesting Title as
shown in Schedule A because that prior transfer constituted a fraudulent or
The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred in
preferential transfer under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar
defense of any matter insured against by this Policy, but only to the extent
creditors' rights laws; or
provided in the Conditions.
(b) because the instrument of transfer vesting Title as shown in
EXCLUSIONS FROM
COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at
policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees,
Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing
or expenses that arise by reason of:
to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant
1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including
became an Insured under this policy;
those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;
relating to
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10);
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement
or
erected on the Land;
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the
(iii) the subdivision of land; or
Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title.
(iv) environmental protection;
4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or
insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the
governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the
Title as shown in Schedule A, is
coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of
modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.
this policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the
5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by
coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.
governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant;
Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.
CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITION OF TERMS
(ii) With regard to (A), (B), (C), and (D) reserving, however, all
The following terms when used in this policy mean:
rights and defenses as to any successor that the Company would have had
(a) "Amount of Insurance": The amount stated in Schedule A, as may be
against any predecessor Insured.
increased or decreased by endorsement to this policy, increased by Section
(e) "Insured Claimant": An Insured claiming loss or damage.
8(b), or decreased by Sections 11 and 12 of these Conditions.
(f) "Knowledge" or "Known": Actual knowledge, not constructive
(b) "Date of Policy": The date designated as "Date of Policy" in Schedule
knowledge or notice that may be imputed to an Insured by reason of the Public
A.
Records or any other records that impart constructive notice of matters
(c) "Entity": A corporation, partnership, trust, limited liability company, or
affecting the Title,
other similar legal entity.
(g) "Land": The land described in Schedule A, and affixed improvements
(d) "Insured": The Insured named in Schedule A.
that by law constitute real property. The term "Land' does not include any
(i) The term "Insured" also includes
property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right,
(A) successors to the Title of the Insured by operation of law as
title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys,
distinguished from purchase, including heirs, devisees, survivors, personal
lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a
representatives, or next of kin;
right of access to and from the Land is insured by this policy.
(B) successors to an Insured by dissolution, merger,
(h) "Mortgage": Mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security
consolidation, distribution, or reorganization;
instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.
(C) successors to an Insured by its conversion to another kind
(i) "Public Records": Records established under state statutes at Date
of Entity;
of Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to
(D) a grantee of an Insured under a deed delivered without
real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. With respect to
payment of actual valuable consideration conveying the Title
Covered Risk 5(d), "Public Records" shall also include environmental protection
(1) if the stock, shares: memberships, or other equity
liens filed in the records of the clerk of the United States District Court for the
interests of the grantee are wholly-owned by the named Insured,
district where the Land is located.
(2) if the grantee wholly owns the named Insured;
(j) "Title": The estate or interest described in Schedule A.
(3) if the grantee is wholly-owned by an affiliated Entity of
(k) "Unmarketable Title": Title affected by an alleged or apparent matter
the named Insured, provided the affiliated Entity and the named Insured are
that would permit a prospective purchaser or lessee of the Title or lender on the
both wholly-owned by the same person or Entity, or
Title to be released from the obligation to purchase, lease, or lend if there is a
(4) if the grantee is a trustee or beneficiary of a trust created
contractual condition requiring the delivery of marketable title.
by a written instrument established by the Insured named in Schedule A for
estate planning purposes.
Form No. 109-06-J 3 ALTA Owner's Policy (06-17-06)

CONDITIONS (continued)
2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE
submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the
The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in
Company and to produce for examination, inspection, and copying, at such
favor of an Insured, but only so long as the Insured retains an estate or
reasonable times and places as may be designated by the authorized
interest in the Land, or holds an obligation secured by a purchase money
representative of the Company, all records, in whatever medium maintained,
Mortgage given by a purchaser from the Insured: or only so long as the
including books, ledgers, checks, memoranda, correspondence, reports,
Insured shall have liability by reason of warranties in any transfer or
e-mails, disks, tapes, and videos whether bearing a date before or after Date of
conveyance of the Title. This policy shall not continue in force in favor of any
Policy, that reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, if requested by
purchaser from the Insured of either (i) an estate or interest in the Land. or
any authorized representative of the Company, the Insured Claimant shall grant
(ii) an obligation secured by a purchase money Mortgage given to the
its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to
Insured.
examine, inspect, and copy all of these records in the custody or control of a
3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY INSURED CLAIMANT
third party that reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information
The Insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing (i) in case of
designated as confidential by the Insured Claimant provided to the Company
any litigation as set forth in Section 5(a) of these Conditions, (ii) in case
pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the
Knowledge shall come to an Insured hereunder of any claim of title or
reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary in the administration of
interest that is adverse to the Title, as insured, and that might cause loss or
the claim. Failure of the Insured Claimant to submit for examination under oath,
damage for which the Company may be liable by virtue of this policy, or (iii) if
produce any reasonably requested information, or grant permission to secure
the Title, as insured, is rejected as Unmarketable Title. If the Company is
reasonably necessary information from third parties as required in this
prejudiced by the failure of the Insured Claimant to provide prompt notice,
subsection, unless prohibited by law or governmental regulation, shall terminate
the Company's liability to the Insured Claimant under the policy shall be
any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim,
reduced to the extent of the prejudice.
7. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS; TERMINATION
4. PROOF OF LOSS
OF LIABILITY
In the event the Company is unable to determine the amount of loss or
In case of a claim under this policy, the Company shall have the following
damage, the Company may, at its option, require as a condition of payment
additional options:
that the Insured Claimant furnish a signed proof of loss. The proof of loss
(a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Insurance.
must describe the defect, lien, encumbrance, or other matter insured against
To pay or tender payment of the Amount of Insurance under this
by this policy that constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall state, to
policy together with any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred by the
the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or
Insured Claimant that were authorized by the Company up to the time of
damage.
payment or tender of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay.
5. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS
Upon the exercise by the Company of this option; all liability and
(a) Upon written request by the Insured, and subject to the options
obligations of the Company to the Insured under this policy, other than to make
contained in Section 7 of these Conditions, the Company, at its own cost and
the payment required in this subsection, shall terminate, including any liability
without unreasonable delay, shall provide for the defense of an Insured in
or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation.
litigation in which any third party asserts a claim covered by this policy
(b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other Than the Insured
adverse to the Insured. This obligation is limited to only those stated causes
or With the Insured Claimant.
of action alleging matters insured against by this policy. The Company shall
(i) To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of
have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the right of the
an Insured Claimant any claim insured against under this policy. In addition, the
Insured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the Insured as to those
Company will pay any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred by the
stated causes of action. It shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of
Insured Claimant that were authorized by the Company up to the time of
any other counsel. The Company will not pay any fees, costs, or expenses
payment and that the Company is obligated to pay; or
incurred by the Insured in the defense of those causes of action that allege
(ii) To pay or otherwise settle with the Insured Claimant the loss or
matters not insured against by this policy.
damage provided for under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' fees,
(b) The Company shall have the right, in addition to the options
and expenses incurred by the Insured Claimant that were authorized by the
contained in Section 7 of these Conditions, at its own cost, to institute and
Company up to the time of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay.
prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act that in its opinion
Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the options provided
may be necessary or desirable to establish the Title, as insured, or to
for in subsections (b)(i) or (ii), the Company's obligations to the Insured under
prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Insured. The Company may take
this policy for the claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required to
any appropriate action under the terms of this policy, whether or not it shall
be made, shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend,
be liable to the Insured. The exercise of these rights shall not be an
prosecute, or continue any litigation.
admission of liability or waiver of any provision of this policy. If the Company
8. DETERMINATION AND EXTENT OF LIABILITY
exercises its rights under this subsection, it must do so diligently.
This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or
(c) Whenever the Company brings an action or asserts a defense as
damage sustained or incurred by the Insured Claimant who has suffered loss
required or permitted by this policy, the Company may pursue the litigation to
or damage by reason of matters insured against by this policy.
a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and it expressly
(a) The extent of liability of the Company for loss or damage under this
reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal any adverse judgment or
policy shall not exceed the lesser of
order.
(i) the Amount of Insurance; or
6. DUTY OF INSURED CLAIMANT TO COOPERATE
(ii) the difference between the value of the Title as insured and the
(a) In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to
value of the Title subject to the risk insured against by this policy.
prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding and any
(b) If the Company pursues its rights under Section 5 of these
appeals, the Insured shall secure to the Company the right to so prosecute
Conditions and is unsuccessful in establishing the Title, as insured,
or provide defense in the action or proceeding, including the right to use, at
(i) the Amount of Insurance shall be increased by 10%, and
its option, the name of the Insured for this purpose. Whenever requested by
(ii) the Insured Claimant shall have the right to have the loss or
the Company, the Insured, at the Company's expense, shall give the
damage determined either as of the date the claim was made by the Insured
Company all reasonable aid (i) in securing evidence, obtaining witnesses,
Claimant or as of the date it is settled and paid.
prosecuting or defending the action or proceeding, or effecting settlement,
(c) In addition to the extent of liability under (a) and (b), the Company will
and (ii) in any other lawful act that in the opinion of the Company may be
also pay those costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred in accordance
necessary or desirable to establish the Title or any other matter as insured. If
with Sections 5 and 7 of these Conditions.
the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Insured to furnish the
9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the Insured under the
(a) If the Company establishes the Title, or removes the alleged defect,
policy shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend,
lien, or encumbrance, or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the Land,
prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the matter or matters
or cures the claim of Unmarketable Title, all as insured, in a reasonably diligent
requiring such cooperation.
manner by any method, including litigation and the
(b) The Company may reasonably require the Insured Claimant to
Form No. 109-06-J
4 ALTA Owner's Policy (06-17-06)

CONDITIONS (continued)
completion of any appeals: it shall have fully performed its obligations
with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or
damage caused to the Insured.
(b) In the event of any litigation, including litigation by the
Company or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have
no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final
determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of
all appeals, adverse to the Title, as insured.
(c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to the
Insured for liability voluntarily assumed by the Insured in settling any
claim or suit without the prior written consent of the Company.
10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR
TERMINATION OF LIABILITY
All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs,
attorneys' fees, and expenses, shall reduce the Amount of Insurance
by the amount of the payment.
11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE
The Amount of Insurance shall be reduced by any amount the
Company pays under any policy insuring a Mortgage to which
exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the Insured has agreed,
assumed, or taken subject, or which is executed by an Insured after
Date of Policy and which is a charge or lien on the Title, and the
amount so paid shall be deemed a payment to the Insured under this
policy.
12. PAYMENT OF LOSS
When liability and the extent of loss or damage have been
definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions, the payment
shall be made within 30 days.
13. RIGHTS OF RECOVERY UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT
(a) Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim
under this policy, it shall be subrogated and entitled to the rights of
the Insured Claimant in the Title and all other rights and remedies in
respect to the claim that the Insured Claimant has against any
person or property, to the extent of the amount of any loss, costs,
attorneys' fees, and expenses paid by the Company. If requested by
the Company, the Insured Claimant shall execute documents to
evidence the transfer to the Company of these rights and remedies.
The Insured Claimant shall permit the Company to sue,
compromise, or settle in the name of the Insured Claimant and to
use the name of the Insured Claimant in any transaction or litigation
involving these rights and remedies.
If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the
loss of the Insured Claimant, the Company shall defer the exercise of
its right to recover until after the Insured Claimant shall have
recovered its loss.
(b) The Company's right of subrogation includes the rights of
the Insured to indemnities, guaranties, other policies of insurance, or
bonds, notwithstanding any terms or conditions contained in those
instruments that address subrogation rights.
14. ARBITRATION
Either the Company or the Insured may demand that the claim
or controversy shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the Title
Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Land Title Association
("Rules"). Except as provided in the Rules, there shall be no joinder
or consolidation with claims or controversies of other persons.
Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to: any
controversy or claim between the Company and the Insured arising
out of or relating to this policy, any service in connection with its
issuance or the breach of a policy provision, or to any other
controversy or claim arising out of the transaction giving rise to this
policy. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is
$2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the
Company or the Insured. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of
Insurance is in excess of $2,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when
agreed to by both the Company and the Insured. Arbitration pursuant
to this policy and under the Rules shall be binding upon the parties.
Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be
entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
15. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY: POLICY ENTIRE
CONTRACT
(a) This policy together with all endorsements, if any; attached to
it by the Company is the entire policy and contract between the Insured
and the Company. In interpreting any provision of this policy, this
policy shall be construed as a whole.
(b) Any claim of loss or damage that arises out of the status of
the Title or by any action asserting such claim shall be restricted to this
policy.
(c) Any amendment of or endorsement to this policy must be in
writing and authenticated by an authorized person; or expressly
incorporated by Schedule A of this policy.
(d) Each endorsement to this policy issued at any time is made a
part of this policy and is subject to all of its terms and provisions.
Except as the endorsement expressly states, it does not (i) modify any
of the terms and provisions of the policy: (ii) modify any prior
endorsement, (iii) extend the Date of Policy, or (iv) increase the
Amount of Insurance.
16. SEVERABILITY
In the event any provision of this policy, in whole or in part, is held
invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the policy shall be
deemed not to include that provision or such part held to be invalid, but
all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
17. CHOICE OF LAW; FORUM
(a) Choice of Law: The Insured acknowledges the Company has
underwritten the risks covered by this policy and determined the
premium charged therefor in reliance upon the law affecting interests in
real property and applicable to the interpretation, rights, remedies, or
enforcement of policies of title insurance of the jurisdiction where the
Land is located.
Therefore. the court or an arbitrator shall apply the law of the
jurisdiction where the Land is located to determine the validity of
claims against the Title that are adverse to the Insured and to interpret
and enforce the terms of this policy. In neither case shall the court or
arbitrator apply its conflicts of law principles to determine the
applicable law.
(b) Choice of Forum: Any litigation or other proceeding brought
by the Insured against the Company must be filed only in a state or
federal court within the United States of America or its territories
having appropriate jurisdiction.
18. NOTICES, WHERE SENT
Any notice of claim and any other notice or statement in writing
required to be given to the Company under this policy must be given to
the Company at Investors Title Insurance Company, P.O. Drawer
2687, Chapel Hill, NC 27515-2687.
Form No. 109-06-J 5 ALTA Owner's Policy (06-17-06)

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, IVC
John D. Goins
Hendersonville, NC
Stewart Gordon
Winston-Salem, NC
Scott Heffernan
Greensboro, NC
Maurice S. Hull
High Point, NC
John Dreyer
Chapel Hill, NC
Dr. Wes Perry
Kinston, NC
Marie Ruffin
Greensboro, NC
John Saslow
Greensboro, NIC
Michelle Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Mark Toiand
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 2,004 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 Iegal 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 [e-mail]
Sincerely,
wa't"
Matthew Harrell
On Behalf of the NCWHF
P.O. Box 29187 • Greensboro, NC 27429-9187
[phone] 0 www.ncwhf.org

Tracy Brooks
Chairman
Greensboro, NC
7eena Koury
Vice Chairman
Burlington, NC
John Iiagan
Secretary
Greensboro. NC
David Murphy It
"Treasurer
Greensboro, NC
Eddie Bridues
Executive Director
Greensboro, NC
Torn Berry
Greensboro. NC
Sandy Brady
Greensboro, NC
Rockv Carter
Swansboro, NC
Tonnic Davis
Climax, NC
Johnny Dinkins
Greensboro, NC
Greg Erwin
Raleigh, NC
Gary Graham
Summerfield, NC
Greg I Jarrell
Reidsville, NC
Kelly Harrill
Greensboro, NC
Scott I lefTernan
Greensboro, NC
Maurice Hall
High Point, NC
Je 17' Montgomery
Greensboro, NC
Mark Rollin
Greensboro, NC
Allen Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Michelle Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
'robe Sherrill
Greensboro, NC
Harrison Stewart
Reidsville, NC 27320
Will Stewart
Greensboro, NC
Richard Vanore,Jr.
Greensboro, NC
March 24, 2017
EBX Neuse I, LLC
Ely J Perry, III
P.O. Drawer 1475
Kinston, NC 28503
Re: Meadow Springs Site
This letter on behalf of the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation is in regards to
the Meadow Springs project in Johnston County. We have reviewed the provided project
documents for this site and believe that the completed project will provide real and
lasting benefits to wildlife habitat. Since the project aligns with the mission and interests
of the NCWHF, our organization is willing to serve in the following roles:
Easement Holder for a perpetual conservation easement on this site. This offer is
subject to final review and acceptance of easement terms. The required
endowment fee is $25,000.
Long Term Steward of the conservation easement on this site, This offer is subject
to final review and acceptance of easement terms. The required endowment fee is
$25,000.
• Bond Holder for the Construction and Monitoring Bonds required and discussed
for this project. The required endowment fee is $5,000.
The NCWHF appreciates the opportunity to serve in this way, which is consistent with
both our existing easement stewardship program and our broader mission. This proposal
is with the understanding that the current monitoring and reporting efforts of the
NCWHF easement holding program meet the standards required by USACE for serving
as Easement Holder and Long Term Steward. As always, the endowment fees required for
this site will be held and invested according to best practices for stewardship funds. The
funds will be used for ongoing monitoring of this specific site as well as any legal costs
which may arise from efforts to resolve specific violations of the easement terms.
P.O. Box 29187 • Greensboro, NC 27429-9187
[phone] • www.ncwhf.org

r
Tracy Brooks
Chairman
Greensboro, NC
Teena Koury
Vice Chairman
Burlington, NC
John Hagan
Secretary
Greensboro, NC
David Murphy it
Treasurer
Greensboro, NC
Eddie Bridges The fees listed here are subject to a favorable review of the final conservation easement
Executive Director
document, boundaries, and details. There are a few other standard requirements as well.
Greensboro, NC
�qqq�
Y 4 W
Greg Erwin
The Developer will be responsible for installing standard NCWHF easement signage at
Tom Bcrry
Greensboro, NC
the site. The Developer must also keep NCWHF informed of progress on the project,
Sandv Brady
both in construction and monitoring phases. At closeout, Developer must provide
Greensboro. NC
handoff details to facilitate continued NCWHF monitoring of the easement.
Rocky Carter
Swansboro, NC
Tonic Davis
Climax, NC Sincerely,
Johnny Dinkins
Greensboro, NC
(�
+ i
�qqq�
Y 4 W
Greg Erwin
f
Raleigh, NC
W Harrison Stewart, Jr,
Gary Graham
NCWHF, Conservation Easement Committee Chair
Summerfield, NC
Greg Ilarrell
Reidsville, NC
Kelly Harrill
Greensboro, NC
Scott Heffernan
Greensboro, NC
Maurice Hull
High Point, NC
Jeff Montgomery
Greensboro, NC
Mark Ruffin
Greensboro, NC
Allen Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Michelle Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Tobe Sherrill
Greensboro, NC
Harrison Stewart
Reidsville, NC 27320
Will Stewart
Greensboro, NC
Richard Vanorc,Jr.
Greensboro, NC
P.O. Box 29187 • Greensboro, NC 27429-9187
[phone] • www.newhi:org

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
EPJVIRON14EWTAIL OUAOTY
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
secrerary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Direclor
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 0302020I 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
'Sub es*
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
3Nutrient
Miti>?ation Tyne Determination
0-200'
to Buffer
Credit
Offset Viable
Rule
at 2,273
Viable
lbs acre
52 (at the
Stream
Yes
Actively grated
Yes
Yes
Restoration site per 15A NCAC 026
aWR flag)
pasture w/ a few trees
.0295 (a)(3)
53
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
hE 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 026 .0295 (0)(7)
Slate of North Carolina . Environmental Quality . Water RLsuurces
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh. ?+forth Carolirw 27699.1617
919 807 8301

Meadow Springs Mitigation Site (RES)
November 4, 2016
Feature
Classification
3Subiett
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
3Nutrient
Tyne Determination
to Buffer
f G-200'1
_Mitigation ^
Credit
Offset Viable
Rule
at 2,273
Viable
Ibs acre
55
Stream
Yes
Actively graced
Yes
Yes
Restoration site per 15A NCAC 028
pasture
.0295 (n)
S6
Stream
Yes
Actively grazed wl
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
.4295 (n) were privet is removed and
replanted wJ native trees shrubs;
57 (from
Stream
Yes
Mature natural forest
Yes
No
Forested Areas= Preservation2 Site
pipeline
wl a narrow non-
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (0)(5)
easementto
forested corridor
512)
downstream (labeled
Non -forested areas = Restoration site
S11 on map)
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
58
Ephemeral
No
Mature natural forest
Yes
No
Forested Areas - Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (0)(7)
S10
Wetland
No
N/A
No
No
N/A
512
Stream
No
Mature natural forest
Yes
No
Forested Areas= Preservation2 Site
wl non -forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (0)(4)
grassed road crossing
Non -forested areas = Restoration site
per 15A NCAC 02B.0295 (0)(3)
513
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 MRCS
'15 A NCAC 02B .0295 (0)(5) - Tire area of pr-esenatron credit within u buftr mitigation .site shaft comprise of no more
than 25% oj'the total area of buffer mitigation. Therefore, where Preservation Sites were identified. this rule must be
applied to determine the potential creditable acreage.
3 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 pian shall be submitted to SWR for
written approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
�I�

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 DWR 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

Figure 7.
onceptualDesign
dow Spring Mitigation Site res�
._�4■ *ars►1���1�0 450 900
Feet
�w
0D ft. 0

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]

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 3, 2016
Mr. John Thomas
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
RECEIVED
NOV 09 2016
RALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICE
Subject: Action ID # 2016-01989; Modification of the Neti-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 Qf.Wilson's Mills Voadand -:Lee:Youngblood%Road, adjacent to,an,unnamed4.
tributary of the Neuse River, in Johnston. County, North Carolina. The project proposes 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 duality. 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
(Llliptio roanokensis) found in 2015, Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulala) 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 aquatic species downstream., Wemill continue, to be -involved in this project through
discussions with the. IRT, and will provide additional,comrrrents in the fature:if warranted.

2
The Service has reviewed available information on federally -threatened or endangered species
known to occur in Johnson 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 inichauxii), 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: https:/hicnlide.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 919-856-452.0, ext. 25 or by
e-mail at < emily__:[e-mail] fws.gov >.
Sincerely,
Peter B njamin
Field Office Supervisor

fires
May 5, 2017
rlg­(_Alt�
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
rlg­(_Alt�
Ryan Medric
Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

North Carolina Department of Natural and CuIturaI Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Govemor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan KluttZ
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 Chcrry
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.review2ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
cz��
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Janes Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: t919) 807-6570!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
614�1161WIIL
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 (min)
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
4.8
7
7
8.4
8.4
9.6
9.6
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 fe)
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 ft
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 lh 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 raulic 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
0.9
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
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
1
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
MAX
Channel Bellwidth ff
41.2
43.5
16
74
22
48
27
51
22
62
16
28
23
40
22
37
15
56
Radius of Curvature ft
13.11
24.6
11
35
8
26
10
27
6
19
9
14
14
19
16
23
17
23
Radius of Curvatua Raltiol
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
2.4
Meander Wavelength ft
49.5
64.9
65
130
32
90
24
132
19
75
21
40
35
78
42
81
43
82
Meander Width Ratiol
3.8
1
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
2.6
11
1.6
5.8
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
84
1
14
2
44
4
11
6
16
7
20
8
22
POOI Len th ft
6.9
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
1
113
20
53
28
78
34
93
39
1
106
Additional Reach Parameters
Valle Len th ft
242
107
310
274
Channel Len th ff
375
250500
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 "t
0.0023
0.0110
0.0130
0.0057
0.0033
0.0041
Channel Slo a(ft/ft
0.0025
0.0130
0.0110
0.0140
0.0130
0.0039
0.0060
0.0032
0.0033
0.0041
0.0030
.00
050
0.0030
0.0020
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
Rosgen Classification
E5
I F5
C5
1 ES I
F4
I
F4
I
F4 - E4
E4
E5
E5
F5
FS
I
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 (20031

CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT FORM
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor 00 - 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

7sl4 r.15aK
_ - ..7

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
3"
•�M�, ,S vis r'..�_+:[b
iSO
' • ,'i4`�� "II . Y .yrs
t 5.A6
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
m 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

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

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

-. � - �,�- �►.�.;.: - ,.. :sem"
_ - _ LL
• _il 11A
_ - _ LL

,i.
:q� F
� Zr
•� R
Upstream
Downstream
Reach S9 - XS12 (Shallow)
100
99.5
99
98.5
y
v
98
0
Y
M
97.5
m
W
97
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S2 - XS13 (Pool)
100
99
98
c
97 - 00000
0
> 96
am
W
95
94
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

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

Upstream
Downstream
100
Reach S1 - XS15 (Shallow)
99.5
99
98.5
98
Y
W
C
97.5
0
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

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

Upstream Downstream
Reach S4 - XS19 (Riffle)
100.5
100
99.5
_ 99
C
98.5
R
LU 98
97.5
97
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
�iih
r �
_ �Y f . •. _
Upstream Downstream
Reach S4 - XS19 (Riffle)
100.5
100
99.5
_ 99
C
98.5
R
LU 98
97.5
97
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

��_ .���•�r+�:t"-�,`:`- ter.' - '.:7. ��:
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
IN
1823
� 1
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

E.
I
r N cr] °D
T
T
0
a)
oa r- Q
C3 o
CD f ►rs7
o� r-)
CD
m
C7 M
ti j O
r N ,It
r Q Q
Q7
Po7 Q Cl)
T
CD
id ( m T
—N N,
oD �
N
n o
N Cl)
ao co
C4')
of
ce) cn
�J
ti r�7
is O
6 N
07
C41 '¢
r- 0 �\
co rrr
Ln
`n v :aa
N Ln _
LOCK) N
73 a
V7 � 00
CO, oo
a to
' n t(D Cfl
�W
a
ern
'CD -¢
co
c
00
co
61--lI
CD
CD_..
ock
LIE

I
r
U�
r
r
Q
0o ', D w
CD Un7
C3) M �0
is
til
r ( o
ooh C t"'
N
�CID M
N COp
9D OD
in M
o r
co co
�J
ti c�7
0
;v N
rn
m
LO co
LO
L� dKr
LO qr
N r _
coao
cLO iv r
I,-
0 v� i
to
(t—
LO
C14�
ca
D
rn
U�
cn Q
r�^ n s #—
vI co
00
N m
Go tD

Jet
I
4V!4S06-
-
m
cl-
hl z y E
L
❑
� r C
CD
V
L)
_ V 2
n�
�
o
Z
Lu
E
LU
■ �
G
-
LL
cn .v
s_ c�
d p a
W u W, D
C
7
N p
0
a
r N m
O
-0 mco
U
Q
'+ U
0'7-
N Lo
T
Z3
y -0
-T
as
�
a N
COq*
a
co
Q Y
Ci
--
II II
li
O
c:�
O y
LA
d
y
,o
LL;
Q D7
6 Li
44
�
CV rQ
r~
C3 a
hl z y E
❑
V
L)
_ V 2
n�
�
o
Z
Lu
E
LU
-
-
LL
m
Z`m mnmm
Lu
y
d p a
W u W, D
c
a
r N m
D O
Q
E U V
N Lo
Z3
y -0
-T
1.
a N
cin

Appendix 2
'Meadow Springs Site
Soil Boring Descriptions
March 2017
Table Representative Soil Profiles in 14rarinw Cnrinoc Prnnncarl Wafl.-A 17ar
Depth
Color
Mottle
inches
Percentage
Texture*
Notes
Man'ix Mottle
SB 38 (3-2-17)
B -Depleted Matrix
04 10 YR 4/3
SI,
4-10 10 YR 411
10 YR 3/6
4%
SL
10-16 10 YR 4/1
10 YR 512
25%
SL
10YR4/6
3%
16-26 10 YR 6/2
10 YR 5/8
20%
SC
no h drolo ohsez�ed
SII 39 (2-7-17)
F3 -De leted Matrix
0-3 10 YR 3/3
--
--
SL
3-10 14 YR 4/1
10 YR 3/6
15%
SCL
10-15 10 YR 3/1
10 YR 314
5%
SL
15-32 7.5YR 511
7.5YR 5/8
2vo% I
S
water table at -20 inches
SB 40 (2-7-17)
F6 -Redox Dark Surface
H -Redox Depressions
0-8 10 YR 412
10 YR 314
3%
SiCL
10 YR 416
1%
8-14 10 YR 3/1
10 YR 5/2
9%
SL
14-22 7.5YR 6/2
7.5YR 5/3
10%
LS
22-34 T5YR 512
7.5YR 5!6
40%
SC
I massive at -22 inches
SB 41 (2-7-17)
F3 -Depleted Matrix
F8 -Redox De essions
0-3 7.5YR 3/2
7.5YR 3/4
5%
SL
relict mottles
3-6 T5YR 4/2
7.5YR 416
5%
SL
relict mottles
6-10 7.5YR 5/2
T5YR 4/6
100/0
S1,
10-17 7.5YR 6/2
7.5YR 5/8
10%
SL
17-33 7.5YR 5/2
7.5YR 4/6
25%
SC
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
-0

Appendix 2
Meadow Springs Site
Soil Boring Descriptions
March 2017
Depth
inches
Color
Mottle
Percentage
Textui�*
Notes
Matrix Mottle
SB 55 (3-2-17)
F3 -Dept d Matrix
0-4
10 YR 412
10 YR 3./6
5%
L
4-9
10 YR 511
10 YR 4i2
10%
LS
9-17
10 YR 416
10 YR 512
10%
SC
17-24
10 YR 416
10 YR 6i2
10%
SC
clay films in
pore linings
SB 87 (2-14-17) near pond dam
F3 -Depleted Matrix
0-3
3-8
10 YR 314
10 YR 414
SL
SL
may be fill material from pond
excavation
8-12
10YR413
10YR316
8%
SL
12-15
10 YR 612
10 YR 212
2%
SL
15-21
10 YR 612
10 YR 5i8
20%
SCL
21-31
10 YR 6!6
1 10 YR 518 1
25%
1 SC
no hydrology
observed
SB 88 (2-14-17)
F3 -Depleted Matrix
0-4
10 YR 212
LA'
4-9
10 YR 612
7.5YR 4./6
15%
SL
9-23
10 YR 512
7.5YR 4/6
30%
SC'L
no hydrology
observed
SB 89 (3-2-17)
F6 -Redox Dark Surface
F8 -Redox Depressions
0-5
10YR 312
10 YR 514
10%
SL
appears depositional
5-15
10 YR 3l1
10 YR 314
8%
SIL
15-20
2.5YR 511
10 YR 411
15%
SL
20-29
10 YR 511
10 YR 516
300/0
gavel 10%
no h drolo
observed
SB 90 (3-2-17)
F3 -De leted Matrix
0-3
10 YR 212
SL
3-6
10YR 312
SULS
6-9
10YR 412
10 YR 316
2%
SL
9-17
14 YR 514
10 YR 413
5%
S
17-29
7.5YR 2.511
7.5YR 314
°
SiCL
no hydrology
observed
�0SOILS
122 X2.0(7
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix 2
Meadow Springs Site
Soil Boring Descriptions
March 2017
Depth
Color
Mottle
inches
Pereenta e
Texture*
Noses
Matrix Mottle
SB 91 (3-2-17)
F3 -De feted Matrix
0-3
10 YR 212
SiL
3-7
l OYR 412
10 YR 316
10%
SL
7-12
10 YR 413
10 YR 413
10%
SL
10 Y4 316
5%
12-15
l OYR 412
10 YR 316
101%
SI..
15-30
1 10YR 511
10 YR 316
8%
SCL
water table at -20 inches
30-34
10 YR 611
10 YR 514
2%
SL
10 YR 314
5%
SB 92 (3-2-17) pt below pond dam, —7' from ditch and near overflow from pond
F3 -De leted Matrix
0-4
1 OYR 212
SL
4-16
10YR 412
10 YR 313
5%
SL
16-26
l OYR 412
10 YR 614
10%
Sc"
water table at -16 inches
10 YR 518
10%
SB 96 (3-2-17) cut stream bank near profile SB 40
F3 -Depleted Matrix (surface is disturbed with potential
spoil adjacent to channel)
F8 -Redox Depression
0-15
l OYR 412
1OYR 416
10%
fSL
15-18
10 YR 512
10 YR 412
15%
SL
10 Y4 416
5%
18-39
1 O YR 611
10 YR 518
25%
SCLI S1
massive, brittle/indurate
tra i an
39-44 1
10YR 512
1 10 YR 611
15To
SL
massive
SB 97 (3-2-17) cut stream bank
F3 -Depleted Matrix
F8 -Redox Depression
0-7
10YR 4./2
10 YR 314 I
10° u
SL
7-28
10YR 411
10 YR 314
10%
SCL
saturated at -26 inches
stream elev at -32 inches
Iexture [rollouts UNUA textural classibcation)
S = 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
IN
3. F6 Redox Dark Surface. F8 Redox Depression (Profile # 40)
4. F3 Depleted Matrix. (Profile # 91)
2
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
March 2017

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
14
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
(inches)
(Location*)
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 LANKFOR©, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 [e-mail]
Meadow Springs Site -Wetland Soil Assessment for Mitigation Enhancement
should be expected with wetter areas ranging to lb 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.
r 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
5o I' SCII
�%e L
Soil Scientist Seal
October 31, 2017

-L E11
Durham � ' � � g •ti �■
9 � 111
Raleigh. u- o�� • ; JIM
�„
C IA, I, , (D ati _ fl
s ��N m
jrjll ni,Cl(1 f �� .. 7O ) . �e�.
Go�cisUoru D v;
1
Dunn I
yetieville211111
" M)O - 1 41 �O
00
OLon
rive _
r
Stephenson ID
rive
e-[3r+v4e
Declination E•
Y r
N ive .a/B°oker'pal
rL - oa�r��o
Eas#-8064-r-: airy -Road
nus J u 6 r i9t31
GN 1.54° E Ever.Ot#e an'e - ,• G �'
MN 9.36° W a
{� Y� Par Way.rive
Legend �Hallarid 1
Soil Boundary r het U
Project Boundary eat
`i • (C) coPY ht 1. , Tri 61e�Na IV ,tion Epi. � Q
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
I9
N
E
Date: 10/31/17
1 inch = 300 ft.
Center: 035.543535' N, 078.329738° W
Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
Wetland Assessment
Figure 2. Aerial
LEGEND
Wetfand Boundary
Soil Profile Point
Depressions
Ditches
orizontal Datum: WGS84
SCALE 1:3600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Feet
0.0 0.1

Appendix E
Meadow Spring Design Plan Sheets

3131-, HERE [ AND paorr MICW-041 V r--)
VICINITY MAP
NTS
811,....
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
Uo O
o= o=
ow4zW
Iugm
09
U
Mf
�E
Nim
0Z
a g w
U
a s s
a a a
s
N
W N
Z
Of
a
ui 3
r w
o a
2 U U
a Ci O
C)¢
U Z
LU _
00
Mcr
a¢
Z C..)
O z
¢o
�z
U) Z
zO
U
�z
� O
o�
o z
w0
W
z
r
U
0
2
a
Lu
O
U
Z
❑
a
w
m T R
Z W
is Q
Z ❑
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
D7
DETAILS
D8
DETAILS
PROFESSIONAL SEAL
0
Uo O
o= o=
ow4zW
Iugm
09
U
Mf
�E
Nim
0Z
a g w
U
a s s
a a a
s
N
W N
Z
Of
a
ui 3
r w
o a
2 U U
a Ci O
C)¢
U Z
LU _
00
Mcr
a¢
Z C..)
O z
¢o
�z
U) Z
zO
U
�z
� O
o�
o z
w0
W
z
r
U
0
2
a
Lu
O
U
Z
❑
a
w
m T R
Z W
is Q
Z ❑
O
❑ a
WKD PROJ. NO.: 2016021500

_�►' —`cr.
I
© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 Digita[Globe ©ONES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS
W�ICKSON
commurMy klfreslmc[ure corwWleMe
Trenepo lim • W" Resources
Vrbm V9 IDpmeM + Gewrlauce
720 Corporals Drive
Raleigh. NC 27607
Irk 919.782.D495
IQ 919.782.9672
w .wkdjek60n.om
FULL SCALA: 1'-ZW
0 200 400
FULL SCALE
HALF SCALESLU -,) --I00= ccCL <
0
00
LU
Z)
K 0 LIJ
m 0
IL
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T--"
D.C. DP
O -C. DATE: APRIL 20V
DRAWING NUMBER:
Al
PA01 NO.:
2016021500
o
F ¢
U Z
�W
Q
0.
Z U
L]
F Z
7
a
Q
w
z
LL
a
0
�O
�� S
o
?
U
C
�yLLg
��
I
g o
N
s
� J
¢ a
I
o
F ¢
U Z
Z U
F Z
won
Q
LL
�O
�� S

REACH S1
l\
I I /
ill f I
/l
SEE DWG E2
/ REACH S5
7
` \ / REACH S6B -
I
\
I
r �r-^1mY1+
1
1
�V
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_EX_COND.dwg - September 20, 2018 - Kim Marsh
y_
S7
SEE DWG E4
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50— —
f
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
Qm
SEE DWG E3
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINE
BOUNDARY LINE
O
¢ CCx
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
----
REACH S10
0
a
�v
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
----ee----- e
Q IY
EXISTING TREELINE
0
C7Q
100 -VR FEMA FLOODPLAIN --
�aova— �oova—
F Z
FEMA FLOODWAV
rL000wnv
. � g
s
,'I )\I IIII
(qZ
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE
oHa
0�
Z Q
EXISTING GASLINE
c c
%
/
EXISTING FENCE LINE
x
EXISTING TREE
i� t
woz
ww sw
ccU
max
aWQ
0-
O
Z
EXISTING WETLAND
H S9
�r0p -s—moor(
3
h.____-AM—_I
S7
SEE DWG E4
.
m
O
f
Qm
SEE DWG E3
O
¢ CCx
J �
REACH S10
0
a
Q 2
`\K'
Z
Q IY
Z
0
C7Q
REACH S11
5;
ww
F Z
F
. � g
s
,'I )\I IIII
(qZ
ZO
��J I
0�
Z Q
U
a, o
Cc U
C7
O
co
Z ¢ D
woz
ww sw
ccU
max
aWQ
0-
O
Z
WISE RIVER
H S9
�r0p -s—moor(
3
-'.'.1. -. �."1".....
1.."..
.
m
O
f
Qm
0 J 00
O
¢ CCx
J �
REACH S10
0
a
Q 2
`\K'
Z
Q IY
Z
0
C7Q
REACH S11
5;
ww
F Z
F
. � g
s
,'I )\I IIII
(qZ
ZO
��J I
0�
Z Q
U
a, o
REACH:
REACH
v
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
L J
FULL SCALE: 1'=200'
0 200 400
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
m
O
Qm
0 J 00
O
¢ CCx
J �
Z U
0
a
Q 2
Z
Z
Q IY
Z
0
C7Q
F f
5;
ww
F Z
F
cc
ccU
(qZ
ZO
z
0�
Z Q
U
a, o
Cc U
C7
O
co
Z ¢ D
woz
ww sw
ccU
max
aWQ
0-
O
Z
WISE RIVER
�A
C)
3
O
-1 \
z
a
PJB
U
/
3
If
I
a
v
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
L J
FULL SCALE: 1'=200'
0 200 400
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
W Z
m
O
Qm
0 J 00
O
¢ CCx
J �
Z U
0
a
Q 2
Z
Z
Q IY
Z
0
C7Q
Q
5;
ww
F Z
F
cc
ccU
(qZ
ZO
z
0�
Z Q
U
a, o
Cc U
C7
O
co
Z ¢ D
woz
ww sw
ccU
max
aWQ
O
Z
z
N m
C)
3
O
o
z
a
I
U
N
3
o
a
W
¢ }
O ¢
LL Q
N
Q
O
>
co g
W J
I
QLd
WW
¢
¢
¢ a
W Z
m
O
0 J 00
O
¢ CCx
< o
Z U
0
w
Q 2
Z
Q IY
Z
C7Q
Q
5;
ww
F Z
F
(qZ
ZO
of J
0�
Z Q
U
a, o
Cc U
C7
r N o
co
Z ¢ D
woz
ww sw
max
aWQ
vm
Z
z
N m
C)
3
¢ 0 w
W¢zd
Zm
0 0
04az
a
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_EX_COND.tlwg - September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
I. HALF SCALEScc00 20
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
F m_
v�
J Oji
a
Z
O
I. -
cc
w Z
u,
o
� J
N
Z()
�
zn
O 2
Z
F H
<
O
H
o �
0
z
~ Z
Z
W �
g �
O
2
N Z
U
o� w
C7 D
C7
=
Z O
?
O
(q
U
w0
w
rN g
OU
z
Lij
O
a =
<W0
J
=
LL
Z
C
Z
O
W
o
Z
a
U
a
N
3
o
a
W N
O ¢
LL Q
p Z
Q
W =
O
rn g
Q W
W Q
� ¢
¢ a
w Z
u,
o
� J
N
Z()
�
zn
O 2
Z
F H
<
O
H
o �
0
z
~ Z
Z
W �
g �
O
� g
N Z
U
o� w
C7 D
C7
=
Z O
?
o -N o
(q
w0
w
rN g
OU
z
Lij
o�LL
a =
<W0
J
=
= N
Z
C
Z
� � I �
W
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
Z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
— — —50 - — — -
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
--------------
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINE
- - - - —
BOUNDARY LINE
I
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
-----ra-----1e—
EXISTING BOTTOM OFBANK
--------------
EXISTING TREELINE
.
100 -YR FEMA FLOODPLAIN-----I-r'a-----+�w+-
FEMA FLOODWAY
----r�000wnv
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE
-----oxo-----oHa-
EXISTING GASLINE
EXISTING FENCE LINE
x x
EXISTING TREE
W'
EXISTING WETLAND
8
1
�1
�4
11
s
I
I
S
I
I
R
r�
C
/
REACH S7–\
0..130
( / \\
126\IS 1
7 r
ell
qTc
y °AFF
w� No F2
®� REACH S9-
1^1 O�� '\y; � Ems= I.IS� /3__•4'41 CG SART IsA��F. \'\. .\'� � \\ \\
�'/•'•1�.� \'lam \ \ ,1���
o---- V
• i 3
IS
/. .
REACH S8–_ ' : `:
-Kim Marsh
I,
REACH S10
wml–� .–aro
8
.4 1%
/
�Po>A
�V I \
�v
�
r
\_-� �w.•IY-� m
I
r rr�
NEUSE RIVER
1^1 O�� '\y; � Ems= I.IS� /3__•4'41 CG SART IsA��F. \'\. .\'� � \\ \\
�'/•'•1�.� \'lam \ \ ,1���
o---- V
• i 3
IS
/. .
REACH S8–_ ' : `:
-Kim Marsh
I,
REACH S10
wml–� .–aro
8
.4 1%
/
�Po>A
\
REACH S13 ,y$
VLL—
. o
\
BOJ\
\
\
\
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 NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE('
J~H3
cc
co I
00
cr CC
20
l
zOZOU¢OO
o zU3
ZQW
O rn
ww Q
¢ ¢ o-
< Z OWZ w
O2 Z
0~wZw
O Lij
0
NZ
7O Z
UOUU�aNoWpa�
�V I \
�v
�
r
\_-� �w.•IY-� m
I
r rr�
Vf
'
a
\\�--TBr
r\
�,IS
\
REACH S13 ,y$
VLL—
. o
\
BOJ\
\
\
\
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 NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE('
J~H3
cc
co I
00
cr CC
20
l
zOZOU¢OO
o zU3
ZQW
O rn
ww Q
¢ ¢ o-
< Z OWZ w
O2 Z
0~wZw
O Lij
0
NZ
7O Z
UOUU�aNoWpa�
'
II
o
CCU
w0 Nwog
Oz
ZwO 66cw Zz¢zmtead
0 O¢
PROJ.DATE: �JUNE201T---�
OCDP
O.C. APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E3
PROJ, NO.:
2016021500Jm
'

LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
— — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINE
BOUNDARY LINE
O
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
-----------ra—
EXISTING BOTTOM OFBANK
————— ee—— — — —ee—
EXISTING TREELINE
a
100 -YR FEMA FLOODPLAIN -----I------iaovR—
Z
FEMA FLOODWAY
----FWoawnr
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE ------
-----oHr—
EXISTING GASLINE
e a
EXISTING FENCE LINE
x x
EXISTING TREE
s V 4
g �
O
EXISTING WETLAND
N Z
\\lk
O
VN_ \a \
\F
. •a\ � \\\
`. \
<
X. 'I
\ vv �U�q�---�1��;
v v . . -�v
` ------ i 41�
vv A \vv l I A1111. Tr\� v
�1
mak'.. ?\
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions12016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_BHT _EX_COND.tlwg - September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" =FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE��'cc00 cr 20
PROD. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E4
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
\
ui
¢ m
v n
O
\
\
Z U
U
a
O 2
Z
Z
<
H
O
0
z
~ Z
Z
U
g �
O
0 g
N Z
U
o� w
–I
C7
=
Z O
Z
O
[c U
(q
U
w0
w
¢
OU
Z
O
a =
<w O
I
= N
Z
C
Z
O
W
o
z
a
U
a
N
3
o
1
W N
O ¢
LL Q
m
Q
I
O
Y �
yQ �
W J
I
a w
w Q
I
l
¢ a
\l
3 \
0�
f\
Y
\ vv �U�q�---�1��;
v v . . -�v
` ------ i 41�
vv A \vv l I A1111. Tr\� v
�1
mak'.. ?\
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions12016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_BHT _EX_COND.tlwg - September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" =FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE��'cc00 cr 20
PROD. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E4
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W J
ui
¢ m
v n
O
\
Z U
U
a
O 2
Z
Z
<
H
O
0
z
~ Z
Z
U
g �
O
0 g
N Z
U
o� w
C7 �
C7
=
Z O
Z
O
[c U
(q
U
w0
w
¢
OU
Z
O
a =
<w O
J
=
= N
Z
C
Z
O
W
o
z
a
U
a
N
3
o
a
W N
O ¢
LL Q
m
Q
I
O
Y �
yQ �
W J
I
a w
w Q
I
� ¢
¢ a
W J
O
N
Z U
U
w N
O 2
Z
<
H
0
z
~ Z
Z
W �
g �
O
0 g
N Z
U
o� w
C7 �
C7
=
Z O
Z
o -N o
[c U
(q
w0
w
rN g
OU
Z
o�LL
a =
<w O
J
=
= N
Z
C
Z
� � I �
W
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
Z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_EX_COND.tlwg - September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.comcc00 cc wwLU FF
NG. UGENSE NO.
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E5
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
F m_
LU
J Oji
a
� J
Z
aU
T1 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
T1663
16" GUM TREE
11863 14" TREE
T4 14" GUM TREE
T104
16" MAPLE TREE
T1664
12" TREE
T1864 14" POPLAR TREE
T5 76" 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 1 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 12" MAPLE TREE
T11 36 GUM TREE
T111
20" TREE
T1671
12" OAK TREE
T1871 16" GUM TREE
T1872 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 78" GUM TREE
T1524
16" OAK TREE
T1677
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 16GUM TREE
T1527
14" TREE
T1680
12" MAPLE TREE
11880 14" GUM TREE
T21 14 GUM TREE
T1528
20" TREE
T1681
18" TREE
T1881 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
T1533
16" TREE
T1686
18" GUM TREE
T1886 12" TREE
T27 76" GUM TREE
T1534
20" TREE
T1687
14" GUM TREE
T1887 72" OAK TREE
T28 78" GUM TREE
T1535
22" MAPLE TREE
T1688
12" MAPLE TREE
T1888 18" GUM TREE
T29 20" GUM TREE
T1536
14" MAPLE TREE
T1689
12" 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
T1691
20" MAPLE TREE
T1891 20" TREE
T32 24" OAK TREE
T1539
20" TREE
T1692
16" MAPLE TREE
T1892 12" GUM TREE
T33 42 OAK 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 72" 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
12GUM TREE
T1900 14" GUM TREE
T41 22" GUM TREE
T1548
22" OAK TREE
T18011
16GUM TREE
T1901 1 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
11551
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 18GUM TREE
T1553
12" MAPLE TREE
T1806
16" MAPLE TREE
11906 16" TREE
T47 22GUM TREE
T1554
12" TREE
T1807
20" GUM TREE
T1907 12" TREE
T48 60" GUM TREE
T1555
16" MAPLE TREE
T1808
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
11910 18" TREE
T51 22" OAK TREE
T1558
11111 36 TREE
T1811
14GUM 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
T1913 12" TREE
T54 22" OAK TREE
T1561
20" TREE
T1814
16" GUMTREE
T1914 14" TREE
T55 22" OAK TREE
T1562
20" MAPLE TREE
T1815
30" MAPLE TREE
11915 12" TREE
T56 36 OAK TREE
T1563
20" GUM TREE
T1816
18" TREE
11916 14" TREE
T57 14 GUM TREE
T1564
20" MAPLE TREE
T1817
16" TREE
11917 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
1 18" TREE
T1821
14" GUM TREE
T1921 78" OAK TREE
T62 12" MAPLE TREE
T1569
12" MAPLE TREE
T1822
18GUM TREE
11922 20" OAK TREE
T63 12" MAPLE TREE
T1570
18" TREE
T1823
14" BIRCH TREE
T1923 22" OAK TREE
T64 18" MAPLE TREE
T1571
20"" OAK TREE
T1824
12 GUM TREE
T1924 86" OAK TREE
T1925 24" POPLAR TREE
T65 12" MAPLE TREE
T1572
1 14" TREE
T1825
12 GUM TREE
T66 12BIRCH TREE
T1573
18" TREE
T1826
18GUM TREE
T1926 20" OAK TREE
T67 14BIRCH TREE
T1574
16" TREE
T1827
18" GUM TREE
11927 24" TREE
T68 18BIRCH TREE
T1575
12" TREE
T1828
16" GUM TREE
T1928 18"" TREE
T1929 48"" POPLAR TREE
T69 20" MAPLE TREE
T1576
26" TREE
T1829
18" GUM TREE
T70 12" MAPLE TREE
T1577
18" TREE
T1830
T1831
12" TREE
20" POPLAR TREE
T1930 12" GUM TREE
T71 12" MAPLE TREE
T1578
18" MAPLE TREE
T1937 14" TREE
T1932 26" POPLAR TREE
T72 12" MAPLE TREE
T1579
14" MAPLE TREE
T1832
20" GUM TREE
T73 12" BIRCH TREE
T1580
18" GUM TREE
T1855
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
11582
26"" OAK TREE
T1835
12" BIRCH TREE
T1935 12" MAPLE TREE
T76 14GUM TREE
T1583
22" OAK TREE
T1836
T1837
20" GUM TREE
24" POPLAR TREE
11936 14" GUM TREE
T77 14" MAPLE TREE
T1584
1 20- OAK TREE
11937 18" TREE
T78 16" OAK TREE
T1585
12" MAPLE TREE
T1838
18" OAK TREE
11938 48" TREE
T79 74" GUM TREE
T1586
14" MAPLE TREE
T1839
14" BIRCH TREE
T1939 74" OAK TREE
T80 20" MAPLE TREE
T1587
12" MAPLE TREE
T1840
12" GUM TREE
T1940 12" GUM TREE
T81 72" GUM TREE
T1588
16" MAPLE TREE
T1841
18" OAK TREE
T1941 14" GUM TREE
T82 72" 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
T1945 12" GUM TREE
T86 24" TREE
T1593
14" TREE
T1846
16" GUM TREE
11946 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
11948 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 72" OAK TREE
T92 12 TREE
T1599
20" MAPLE TREE
T1852
16" POPLAR TREE
T1952 76" OAK TREE
T93 16" TREE
T1600
18" MAPLE TREE
T1853
14" POPLAR TREE
T1953 72" 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
T1955 16" GUM TREE
196 14" OAK TREE
11656
14 MAPLE TREE
11856
72" TREE
T1956 14" OAK TREE
T97 14" TREE
11657
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
I T1659
12" MAPLE TREE
T1859
16" POPLAR TREE
T100 16" MAPLE TREE
I T1660
1 18" TREE
T1860
18" MAPLE TREE
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_EX_COND.tlwg - September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.comcc00 cc wwLU FF
NG. UGENSE NO.
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
E5
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
Z
ui
F m_
LU
J Oji
a
� J
Z
aU
O
Z
U
O
2
�
o
� �
W
O
F Z
m
U
(nZ
W
O
LL
Z O
�
o -N o
CC U
O
� Z
o
z
OO
a
U
Z
a =
N
3
<w O
o
W N
a
O ¢
LL Q
Q
Z
C
Z
o z
O
w ?
rn �
3
I
a w
w aw[
m
O
� ¢
¢ a
Z
ur
o
LU
� J
N
aU
��
Z
z n
O
z
�
o
� �
W
z w
F Z
m
(nZ
W
of w
Z O
�
o -N o
CC U
� Z
¢ z >
OO
o�LL
Z
a =
J
= N
<w O
~
Z
C
Z
� � I �
W
3
¢ m w
w ¢zd
Z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

183
18C
177
174
171
168
165
162
16C
LCE
REACH S1
/ ENHANCEMENTII
/ (STA 03+50 TO 06+00)
—8�''— — _�--- --_�---4+00---------
5'
----1+00 175 ----- 2+00--- ---�-- -- 3+OOY _ � ------ 111
10-9
---- 175 _ — — i7o _ _----- _
---TB--='TB--- =T��
s17. N Ili t11I' It:.
ti
\ �9
\ 73
\ \
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT 1'1
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.tlwg -September 20, 2016 -Kim Marsh
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. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Qm
o�
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
5Q
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
F --r s WUg
EXISTING WETLAND
II
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OFBANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q �
CHANNEL
¢
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
W a
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
Z
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
�
PROPOSED FILL AREA
CCU
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
Q O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
Z
� LL
DOUBLE LOG P
LU
J
SHEET D
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
Q LIJ �
LOG TO PROTECTION
m
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
W
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
�
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
a
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
(n
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn �
� J
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
W Q
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
� ¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
�>�s
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
t�
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Trani nation + 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 SCALEcccc LU00
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
w
W J
Qm
o�
J Oji
aU
a
Z
Z
(]
Q �
¢
U
F Z
In
W a
o
CnZ
W
Z
Z 0
�
W. y O
CCU
U
� Z
a z
m D
Q O
Z
� LL
Z
a =
LU
J
= N
Q LIJ �
=
m
Z
O
Z
W
a
�
N
3
a
o
a
W
}
O �
LL ¢
(n
p Z
Q
W =
O
y (n
rn �
� J
Q W
W Q
� ¢
¢ a
W J
vi
O
N
aU
g�
Z
wN
(]
Q �
¢
w
F Z
In
W a
o
CnZ
W
omF w
Z 0
�
W. y O
CCU
� Z
a z
m D
Q O
Z
� LL
Z
a =
LU
J
= N
Q LIJ �
=
m
Z
de
\ � m
W
Z
3
2 m w
W ¢zd
Z
m
O
a
0
¢ate

/
/1 s- _ �g G
- -SCE LCE -� �PG S:F7
=__ 1 0E -- i LCE
-----
—
X—XIX—X�_3�
REACH S2 X—X—X �X x —X =Y—X—X —"X�/
/ yt REACH S1 — ENHANCEMENTIENHANCEMENTII (STA 06+00 TO 11+00)(STA 03+50 TO 06+00)----sB-�..— 6+00 —�o165—_�-_ _— -- —�—�.—_/—i.-- \ T1931 / O
OD
LU
T193T T-1r1e3s�0160
0 /r \\ / (-
-c��e'
--------------
S /
dhm
174
171
168
165
162
159
156
153
150
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT 1"=3'
-Kim Marsh
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
6. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
O
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
IIIII
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
F--
- — — — — TB
------TB
----- BB
X
EXISTING TREELINE .
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT UE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
WJ
PROPOSED FILL AREA
O
DIFFUSEFLOWSTRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
�m�ULZU
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
174
zU
DOUBLE LOG DROP
w
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
LOG TO PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
171 LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
Z
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
c/) Z
7
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
168
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
165
BRUSHBED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
��s
162
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
159 (PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
t�
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
ZO
156 (PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
rn
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
153 (PROFILE)
¢
150
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" =FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE��'
J=H3
=QaNoWpyQ�
zNNm�Nx�LLNmWQoJcc
cc
jr
PROJ.DATE: �JUNE201T---�
OCDP
O.C. APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
00
WJ
O
�m�ULZU
(L
aOLLQW�
zU
w
Om:0Nww
Z
(O
c/) Z
7
WoO
OULU
)3aQ
ZO
rn
WWQ
¢
¢
o
CCU
(LZO 0-
0z oZ
OZ (5
LUO
ZW m66 de
om
W Z zZ¢ted
0 O ¢a
WJ
O
(L
g
zU
w
Om:0Nww
Z
(O
c/) Z
7
WoO

/ /
' 1922
6'
\ _I T-
-
/ 0 /
-_- -- / -16a T1924
/ REACH S2
VOe _ _ _v� --�� / ENHANCEMENTI
c; c" (STA 06+00 TO 11+00)�j�
81 T1927- - - ---
n
5
_ J q
______ j 'Q 5 -/
REACH
P1 RESTORATION
(STA 11+00 TO 24+50) /
165
162
159
156
153
15C
147
144
141
14C
/ / an= II==sHT ❑T "�2.
a,
30
G \� /1928 -WLB��/1`-
+ 301 /
INv'
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.tlwg -September 20, 2016 -Kim Marsh
165
162
159
156
153
150
147
144
141
140
r0
S2 = 5.4
SBA = 7.0
52=1.R 52=0.9
86A=2.2 S6A=1.3
BANKFULL STAGE
9
\
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR -
-50 - - -
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Qm
v N
\
\
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
1
\
F --
r s W1EXISTING
WETLAND
1
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
S2-0.::7
/ / an= II==sHT ❑T "�2.
a,
30
G \� /1928 -WLB��/1`-
+ 301 /
INv'
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.tlwg -September 20, 2016 -Kim Marsh
165
162
159
156
153
150
147
144
141
140
r0
S2 = 5.4
SBA = 7.0
52=1.R 52=0.9
86A=2.2 S6A=1.3
BANKFULL STAGE
9
BANKFULL STAGE
1.0
SRA =1.3
S2-0.2
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION SIA =0.3
STRAIGHT REACH
S2 = 5.4
SRA=Tn
S2-1.2SBA = 1.6
III
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
S2 = 5.4
S2
56A
EL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR -
-50 - - -
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Qm
v N
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
F --
r s W1EXISTING
WETLAND
II
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
S2-0.::7
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
- - - - BB
S6A = 1
CHANNEL
CL
TYPICAL SHALLOW
CROSS SECTION
.
S2-5.4
SRA = 7.0
S2=1.8
S2=1.8 S2=1.8
SRA -2.2
S6A=2.6 S6A=2.2
BANKFULL STAGE
1.0
SRA =1.3
S2-0.2
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION SIA =0.3
STRAIGHT REACH
S2 = 5.4
SRA=Tn
S2-1.2SBA = 1.6
III
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
S2 = 5.4
S2
56A
EL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR -
-50 - - -
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Qm
v N
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
F --
r s W1EXISTING
WETLAND
II
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
- - - - TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
- - - - BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
- - - - X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
go
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
m D
DOUBLE LOG P
SHEET D
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
Z
a =
LOG TO PROTECTION
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
Z 2
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
�
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
N
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
oW
z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn �
� J
BRUSH BED SILL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
w aW[
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
� ¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
�>�s
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
t�
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D IK
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NO 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" =FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEScccc006i 0
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
G.C.: DP
G.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S3
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
W J
Qm
v N
O �J �
aU
a
Z
Z
Z Z
(} O
ui
U
Z
cnFTZ
O
go
Q
U
[c U
� Z
uJ
�
I= �
a z
m D
OO
Z
o�LL
Z
a =
J
O
<w O
O
Z
Z 2
a
�
W
N
3
o
a
a
N
O ¢
LL Q
oW
z
o
w ?
O
y y
rn �
� J
I
a w
w aW[
� ¢
¢ a
W J
vi
O
N
aU
��
Z
wN
Z Z
(} O
ui
w w
Z
cnFTZ
go
Q
m N o
[c U
� Z
uJ
�
I= �
a z
m D
OO
Z
o�LL
Z
a =
J
= N
<w O
=
Z 2
\ � m
W
Z
3
¢ m w
w ¢zd
z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.tlwg -September 20, 2016 -Kim Marsh
35
32
59
56
i3
50
$7
$4
t1
to
7.0
2.2 1.3
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
70
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
7.0
4.2 1.2
BANKFULL STAGE
1.6
E
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
I
4
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
6. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG 36) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30%OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE NOTES FOR BREACH:
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 —
—50— — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR —
— — — 46 — — — — —
165
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� J
1
WETLAND
a
`3Tlv1 �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
162
— — — — Be
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
�
CHANNEL
1
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE il/1
F
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
2
159
=
Q
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Lz
PROPOSED CHANNELDG
1
156
�
PROPOSED FILL AREA
d
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
1
153
XIST NG GRAE E AL DING PROPOSED
OO
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
1
DOUBLE LOG DROP
OP
Lij
J
STREAM CENTER -INE IOPCFBANK
<w O
DOUBLE LOC DROP
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
W
STI 18+ 6
�
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
a
LEV. 146. 3
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG 33)
W N
LOG J -HOOK
DOUBLE LOC DROP
p Z
150
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn �
� J
+
1
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
w aW[
FLOODPLAIN SILL
� ¢
LE 147. 5
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f(
C ANN EL GRADE: 0.1 %
—
147
D(WU 10 SDROP
S A 14 3
OG HOOK
(PROFILE)
1
LOG VANE / J -HOOK
PROPOSED
ST 16+
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
LEV 148. 0
(PROFILE)
D UBL LO DR P
LO SILL
ST 16+ 40STA
17+
LEV 149.5E
LEV 148.C5
144
1
141
1
140
1
13+70
14+00 14+50 15+00
15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00
17+50
18+00 18+50
18+g0
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.tlwg -September 20, 2016 -Kim Marsh
35
32
59
56
i3
50
$7
$4
t1
to
7.0
2.2 1.3
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
70
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
7.0
4.2 1.2
BANKFULL STAGE
1.6
E
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
I
4
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
6. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG 36) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30%OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE NOTES FOR BREACH:
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 —
—50— — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR —
— — — 46 — — — — —
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� J
r T
W1.1EXISTING
WETLAND
a
`3Tlv1 �
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — Be
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
�
CHANNEL
O
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE il/1
F
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
2
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
=
Q
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Lz
PROPOSED CHANNELDG
w
(SEE DETAILLDWG DWG D2)
�
PROPOSED FILL AREA
d
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
U
(SEE DETAIL DWG 04)
BRUSH TOE
OO
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
Z
ooLL
DOUBLE LOG DROP
OP
Lij
J
(SEE DETAIL SHEET
<w O
LOG TOE PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
W
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
�
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
a
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG 33)
W N
LOG J -HOOK
(SEE DETAIL DWG Dfi)
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn �
� J
BRUSH BED SILL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
w aW[
FLOODPLAIN SILL
� ¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f(
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
LOG VANE / J -HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NO 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEScc00
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S4
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
W Z
Qm
� N
� J
C1 �
J Oji
aU
a
Z
z
0
�
O
Z
U
F
�
2
=
Q
N
('qZ
C7 �
W
w
Z O
�
a -N o
d
U
� Z
¢ z >
y `?
OO
Z
ooLL
Z
a =
Lij
J
LL
<w O
~
Z
C
O
Z
W
a
�
N
3
a
o
a
W N
o �
LL Q
p Z
Q
W =
o
y (n
rn �
� J
I
a w
w aW[
� ¢
¢ a
W Z
Vl
O
� J
N
aU
g�
Z
z n
Z
�
O
Z
w w
F
�
=
Q
U
o�
('qZ
C7 �
W
w
Z O
�
a -N o
d
� Z
¢ z >
y `?
OO
Z
ooLL
Z
a =
Lij
J
= N
<w O
~
Z
C
Z
� � I �
W
3
¢m..w
W ¢zd
Z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

15!
151
15:
151
14'
14-
14
131
13!
SCALE: HOR V=30': VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.tlwg -September 20, 2016 -Kim Marsh
r—
L
J
59
56
53
50
47
44
41
38
35
7.0
2.2 1.3
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
1.1
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
70
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
7.0
4.2 1.2
BANKFULL STAGE
1.6
I
4
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
zn
It.
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2, ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS,
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
6. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Q m_
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
r s W61
EXISTING WETLAND
IrI`
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — 313—
BPROPOSED
PROPOSEDCENTERLINE OF
�
CHANNEL
o
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
=
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
O
w
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
�
PROPOSED FILL AREA
CCU
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
OO
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
Z
o�LL
DOUBLE LOG P
Lij
J
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
SHEET D
<W0
LOG TO PROTECTION
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
W
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
�
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
a
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W N
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn �
� J
BRUSHBED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
W Q
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
� ¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
N
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" =FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE��'cccc LU00
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S5
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
Ill
W J
Q m_
J Oji
aU
a
Z
z
O
z
�
o
00
U
�
=
U
�
Cn Z
C7 �
Q
W
O
w
Z O
�
O
CCU
U
� Z
a z
m D
OO
Z
o�LL
Z
Q =
Lij
J
LL
<W0
=
O
Z 2
O
Z
W
a
�
N
3
a
o
a
W N
O ¢
LL Q
p Z
Q
W =
o
y (n
rn �
� J
Q W
W Q
� ¢
¢ a
W J
vi
O
N
aU
g�
Z
wN
O
z
�
o
00
w w
�
=
U
�
Cn Z
C7 �
Q
W
O
w
Z O
�
m N o
CCU
� Z
a z
m D
OO
Z
o�LL
Z
Q =
Lij
J
= N
<W0
=
Z 2
fj
\ � m
W
Z
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

ce
REACH SS /�F
®I'll1$ ` Pi / P2 RESTORATION 1.
Of
).- ❑� //AOA ,A \\\ // (STA 00+76 TO 03+07)
48 \
FILL EXISTING
A�\VA AAV CHANNEL
)/ -140 f � �\�\ SEE DWG D2
X140-_
15:
151
14',
14,
14
131
13;
13;
131
REACH S6B
�a P1 RESTORATION
(STA 24+50 TO 36+26)
25+00 --ftalk, \ -"
X \
Np-
z. T59
REACH S6A ���� � vv�t \ v
P1 RESTORATION
(STA 11+00 TO 24+50)
\\ 7 \
\\
� REMOVE EXISTING
BERM \ j 1 i\ ��A� A T42 \ /
�) v�140
i41\ / / REMOVE EXISTING
BERM
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
.337SEE DWG D2 // c �'
SCALE: HOR V=30': VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.dwg - September 20, 2016 - Kim Marsh
53
50
47
44
41
38
35
32
30
56A = 7.0
S6B 8.4
S6A=2.2 SfiA=1.3
S6B=2.8 SfiB=1.4
BANKFULL STAGE
7
BANKFULL STAGE
S 1.3
S6B=1.fi
S6A = 0.3
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION S6B=0.4
STRAIGHT REACH
S6A = 7.0
S6B = 8.4
SBA=4.2 S6A=1.2
SBB=5.1 S6B=1.4
S6A = 1.6
S6B = 2.0
4
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
S6A = 7.0
F.-4
S6/
86E
4
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR -
-50 - - -
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Qm
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
cr CC
F --r s WUg
EXISTING WETLAND
II
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OFBANK
SBAf-1
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
- - - - BB
S6B=1
Q¢
CHANNEL
o
2
FL
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
EXISTING TREELINE
S6A -7.0
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
S613 8.4
S'A=2.2
SBA=2.6 S6A 22
S6B=2.8
S6B 2.8 S6B 2.8
BANKFULL STAGE
S 1.3
S6B=1.fi
S6A = 0.3
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION S6B=0.4
STRAIGHT REACH
S6A = 7.0
S6B = 8.4
SBA=4.2 S6A=1.2
SBB=5.1 S6B=1.4
S6A = 1.6
S6B = 2.0
4
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
S6A = 7.0
F.-4
S6/
86E
4
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR -
-50 - - -
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Qm
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
cr CC
F --r s WUg
EXISTING WETLAND
II
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OFBANK
- - - - TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
- - - - BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q¢
CHANNEL
o
2
EXISTING FENCELINE
- - - - X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
cc
ccU
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
=
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Cn z
0
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
Z
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
CC U
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
Z
OOo0LL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
Z
DOUBLE LOG P
LU
LU
SHEET D
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
QDJ O
LOG TO PROTECTION
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
W
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
U)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
a
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
N
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn 2
J
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG DB)
W 0-
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
2 ¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
tE
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
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
J
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S6
PROJ. No.:
2016021500
Ill
W -Z
Qm
O
cr CC
J
aU
a
Z
Z
O
O
Q¢
o
2
Z
CD
w w
F
cc
ccU
=
to
Cn z
0
Q
W
Z
Z O
O
CC U
U
(L Z
cccc
Z
OOo0LL
Z
a =
LU
LU
= N
QDJ O
=
H
O
Z
O
Z
W
a
U)
N
3
a
o
a
W
O ¢
LL Q
N
p Z
Q
W
O
y n
rn 2
J
Q W
W 0-
2 ¢
¢ a
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S6
PROJ. No.:
2016021500
W -Z
v
O
cr CC
N
aU
gg
Z
wN
O
z
Q¢
o
2
Z
CD
w w
F
=
U
Cn z
0
Q
W
O w
t
Z O
N o
CC U
N o
(L Z
a z
m D
Z
OOo0LL
Z
a =
LU
LU
= N
QDJ O
=
H
mde
Z
N
\ m
66
W
Z
3
¢ W
W ¢z
Z
0
m
O
a
Qatd
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S6
PROJ. No.:
2016021500

S Lt/i�
It--FI-
t SCE
SCE
','LCEP �a � '
-_cr,
15:
151
14'
14,
14
13
13
13:
131
REACH S6B /
P1 RESTORATION
(STA 24+50 TO 36+26) -- _- -- — Apo — — — — —
\
29+00
u'
` \ I
a I FILL EXISTING CHANNEL �
n3 SEE DWG D2 /
T37 3B /
1
T18 T15 ��✓
e— /y. T1a T17 ( 0
_e .z lI _i )
SCALE: HOR V=30': VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.tlwg -September 20, 2016 -Kim Marsh
53
50
47
44
41
38
35
32
30
a
m
8.4
2.8 1.4
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
1.a 7
FL
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
a4
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
1L
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
Bd
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Qm
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
F --r s WUg
EXISTING WETLAND
II
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
�
CHANNEL
o
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
=
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UE -
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
O
w
t
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
�
PROPOSED FILL AREA
CCU
DIFFUSEFLOWSTRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
OO
0
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
Z
o�LL
DOUBLE LOG P
Lij
J
SHEET D
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
<W0
LOG TO PROTECTION
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
W
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
�
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
a
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W N
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn �
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG DS)
W Q
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
� ¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
�>�s
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
t�
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + 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 SCALE��'ccccLU00
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S7
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
W J
Qm
N
aU
a
Z
Z
O
z
�
o
00
U
�
=
Ln
Cn Z
C7 �
Q
W
O
w
t
Z O
�
O
CCU
U
� Z
a 0-
m D
OO
0
Z
o�LL
Z
Q =
Lij
J
LL
<W0
=
O
Z 2
O
Z
W
a
�
N
3
a
o
a
W N
O ¢
LL Q
p Z
Q
W =
O
rn �
Q W
W Q
� ¢
¢ a
W J
vi
O
N
aU
g�
Z
wN
O
z
�
o
00
w w
�
=
U
�
Cn Z
C7 �
Q
W
O
w
t
Z O
�
o -N o
CCU
� Z
a 0-
m D
OO
0
Z
o�LL
Z
Q =
Lij
J
= N
<W0
=
Z 2
Ce
\ � m
W
Z
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

<A Paj
�1 /
T1880
o . / REACH S6B—_��t7�
p0 A P1 RESTORATION
\ (STA 24+50 TO 36+26) T
2 ) \ 33+00 \ rivoo (\
J \ REACH S6B
S ENHANCEMENTI u36i
U I (STA 36+26 TO 37+93) l �r18z'5,1
r18se
T1896
n —_TS NT4 �q Z_ 7,?
T6112
T� ����% _—/��✓ y%ice �S C \ �p,� /� / f9/
r188
J r11
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL GRADE POINT BAR
SEE DWG D2 (MAX SLOPE 3:1)
\—ST
P3 2. J1
3
3�1
331 33l
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.tlwg -September 20, 2016 -Kim Marsh
i
8.4
2.8 1.4
BANKFULL STAGE
1.4
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
A4
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
1
L.
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Qm
� n
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
150
F --r s WUg
EXISTING WETLAND
II
a
150
147
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
�
Q
CHANNEL
147
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
=
144
UE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
O
w
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
�
PROPOSED FILL AREA
144
141
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
OO
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
141
DOUBLE LOG P
LU
J
-IST NG SRAE E AL DING
QW O
LOG TO PROTECTION
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
PRO OS D4ELE/134.70
M C NT RUNE
�
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
a
LOG VANE
TOP OF NK
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W
DOUBLE LOG DRO
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
fn
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn �
� J
ST 34+ 6
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG DB)
w aW[
138
� ¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
FELE 13 .55
f j
(PROFILE)
138
LOG SILL
SIL
DOUBLE LOG DROP
t�
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
32+ 9
O
DOUBLE LOG DRO
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
ST 35+11
EL .133.19
L G ILL
LCG SIL L
—
A 34+98
S 35 45
135ANIINPI
E EV'132.16)
EL Zv 1 1.95
L DG S LL 135
STA 36 2
El FV 131 gn
RO SE
IL—
132'ID
OINIL.OG
SILL
132
TA 3 +8
EL V 1 4.08
129
129
126
126
125
125
32+00
32+50
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 Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.tlwg -September 20, 2016 -Kim Marsh
i
8.4
2.8 1.4
BANKFULL STAGE
1.4
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
A4
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
1
L.
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Qm
� n
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
F --r s WUg
EXISTING WETLAND
II
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
�
Q
CHANNEL
o
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
=
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
O
w
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
�
PROPOSED FILL AREA
CCU
DIFFUSEFLOWSTRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
OO
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
0
DOUBLE LOG P
LU
J
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
SHEET D
QW O
LOG TO PROTECTION
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
W
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
�
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
a
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
fn
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn �
� J
BRUSHBED SILL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG DB)
w aW[
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
� ¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
(V(f�J�
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)01
DOUBLE LOG DROP
t�
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D IK
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" =FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEcc00
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S8
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
W
W J
Qm
� n
O�J
aU
a
Z
Z
O
z
�
Q
o
00
U
�
=
U
�
Cn z
C7 �
Q
W
O
w
Z O
�
O
CCU
U
� Z
¢ z >
m D
OO
0
z
Q =
LU
J
LL
QW O
=
O
Z
O
Z
W
a
�
N
3
a
i?
a
W
O ¢
LL Q
fn
p Z
Q
W =
o
y (n
rn �
� J
I
a w
w aW[
� ¢
¢ a
W J
vi
O
N
aU
g s
Z
wN
O
z
�
Q
o
00
w w
�
=
U
�
Cn z
C7 �
Q
W
O
w
Z O
�
o -N o
CCU
� N o
� Z
¢ z >
m D
OO
Z
o�LL
z
Q =
LU
J
= N
QW O
=
m
Z
On
\ � m
W
Z
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
Z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

NOTES:
/ 1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
{ v %io
1.4 5.1 2, ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
LLCE BANKFULL STAGE END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
C d = LCE 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
/ \ S O 0 SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANY WAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
/ 0 \ SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
REACH S7 2.0 THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
/ Tfa9a / / \ \ \ ENHANCEMENT I 5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
(STA 38+80 TO 48+7; & AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
STA 49+40 TO 53+60 ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
Wase / rleas---npppa 1 i o 0 I I I I \\
9 /� 1L 8. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
\, TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTION
T1872
SECTIONS.
r1e]s
]. IN -STREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
\REMOVE &REPLACE 0\ INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER
l f—
�\ Tl—
EXISTING FENCE\ SO O \�"I\\i \\� ). \ 1 6. CONTRACTORTOUTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
\ GRADE POINT BARS J�,.�. I/I �� ��/�- AMINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
14
14
13
13
13.
12'
12
12
12
SCALE: HOR V=30': VERT V=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.dwg - September 20, 2016 - Kim Marsh
44
41
38
35
32
29
26
23
20
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Q m_
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
cr CC
F --r s W1
EXISTING WETLAND
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q 0
CHANNEL
¢
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
¢
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT—UE
1n Z
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
z
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
Z O
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
m D
DOUBLE LOG P
SHEET D
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
Z
a =
LOG TO PROTECTION
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
Z
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
N de
\ m
66
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 06)
NQ
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn 2
J
BRUSHBED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG DB)
LU
W Q
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
B
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D IK
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
J
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S9
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
-Z
W
Q m_
cr CC
O "I
J Oji
aU
a
Z
Z
0
Q 0
U
¢
(} O
otS
U
Z
¢
1n Z
=
z
O
O
Z O
Q
U
[c U
(L Z
LU
ir
cccc
m D
OO
LL
Z
a =
LU
O
<w O
O
Z
Z
a
N de
\ m
66
W
N
z
3
o
a
a
W
O tr
LL Q
NQ
p Z
W
O
y n
rn 2
J
Q W
LU
W Q
¢
¢ a
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S9
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
-Z
W
v
O
cr CC
N
aU
gg
Z
wN
Z Z
Q 0
U
¢
(} O
otS
w CD
w
Z
1n Z
=
O w
O
Z O
Q
o N o
[c U
(L Z
LU
ir
az
m D
OO
Z
o0LULL
Z
a =
LU
= N
<w O
=
H
m
Z
N de
\ m
66
W
Z
3
¢ W
W z'
Z=
0
m
O
a
Qat
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S9
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

13
13
13
12
12
12
12
11
11
rr 4�F
GRADE & MAT R,
CHANNELBANKS /� )
(MAX SLOPE 2:1)
T18B8 J
REACH S7
ENHANCEMENT I
(STA 38+80 TO 48+70 &
STA 49+40 TO 53+80)
GRADE POINT BAR
-G�r'1
967 ,S"i'1,rr— X\1A\ �� (MAX SLOPE 3:1)
GRADE POINT BAR
�� \d (MAX SLOPE 3:1) I / rleas A AAA
GRADE POINT BAR \�I
(MAX SLOPE 3:1)__
/f/ \ T18ss
44,
00
ra
\
\b
ip0
30
3��^^
b1Pot V
\
"'00<
0-1
z
in
U
TorT-7 /
GRADE POINT BAR
(MAX SLOPE 3:1)
Am
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.dwg - September 20, 2016 - Kim Marsh
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. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
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
6. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Q m_
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
cr CC
r s W61
EXISTING WETLAND
IrI`
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q ([
CHANNEL
O
¢ 2
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
¢
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
-
UE -PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
Z
z
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
2
PROPOSED FILL AREA
(L Z
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
Z
a =
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
= N
DOUBLE LOG P
=
H
SHEET D
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
Z w o
LOG TO PROTECTION
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
m
O
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
It.
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
NQ
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
co g
J
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
W ¢
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
tI
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�A IK
KSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
J
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S10
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
Ill
LU -Z
Q m_
cr CC
J Oji
aU
a
Z
Z
0
Q ([
O
¢ 2
00
1,
U
Z
F
¢
In Z
0 Z
Z
z
Z O
CC U
2
O
(L Z
U
J
Q O
cccc
Z
a =
= N
QLIJ
=
H
m
Z w o
O
W
O
Z
a
m
O
a
N
3
o
It.
W
¢ }
O ¢
LL Q
NQ
p Z
W =
O
y y
co g
J
Q W
W ¢
¢
¢ a
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S10
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
LU -Z
v
O
cr CC
N
aU
g
Z
wN
Z
Q ([
O
¢ 2
00
1,
5; CD
Z
F
In Z
0 Z
O w
=
Z O
CC U
2
m N o
N o
(L Z
az
m D
J
Q O
Z
0 LL
Z
a =
= N
QLIJ
=
H
m
Z w o
N
\¢ m
W
Z
3
m
Wz ¢zwd
m
O
a
Qat
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S10
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

/ A-----100YR1—�rpOyR/
8 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.
H�
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.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
CA 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
GRADE POINT BAR
LCLCE SLOPE 3:1E (MAX ) /�-+ THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
• .'
---100YR-- LCE
LCL.OYR 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.
\ \ I pO 6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
\ THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
\ T 34 50 SECTIONS.
V GRADE POINT BAR GRADE POINT BAR // /�\ Tfe4av \ \ _ W
\ n�a\ 7. IN -STREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
\ / (MAX SLOPE 3:1) (MAX SLOPE 3:1) \ �,� _ — Z
( / ' 9 3t(�1 \ i Tl -(BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAV BE USED
Ti 6
\ � � J N INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER
Tf84�
Ti854 \ \ I — �— —
�(q 1 - / \FU') 6. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
nasz
��qqgg � I ii
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR — —50— — —
fj���ry,z—`��� 72`S� T1842 EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR ----46-----
r 5 _
i1845ii843 ` PROPOSED 28 LF OF w<& PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR �0
36" RCP PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
_q
W B
Iy 1/ T1949
^J� " // � � � � ! 9JM, .. ... EXISTING WETLAND IL6 .. r -e J
REACH S7 1(� /r^-�
ENHANCEMENTI m l/ EXISTING TOP OF BANK ----TB
(STA 38+80 TO 48+70 8 jT1 — — —
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK — BB
STA 49+40 TO 53+80) 1�
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
L CHANNEL ---
EXISTING FENCELINE — X
3/��1 EXISTING TREELINE
3/�\/l 1aA00[� PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
--9Aam— \ LIMITS OF PROPOSED
— CONSERVATION EASEMENT—LCE
AOOI—
fII-�-[N PROPOSED T
''1-; Ind � --- DETAIL
DWG D2)
+IT'
' 1 T (SEE CHANNEL
EL P UG
r n - I e' 01 840D x&40 — � �
�
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4) IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
135 135 (SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
DOUBLE LOG P
SHEET D
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
LOG TO PROTECTION
132 132
(SEE DETAIL DWG 02)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
129 129 LOG (SEE DETAIL DWGANE
L G ILL OG ANE
A 4 +31 TA 4 +72 LOG J -HOOK _
LEV 23.6 LEV 123.4 (SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
_ LO SIL E ISTI G GRADE ALO G
126 T -- — -- STA 7+3 STR AM EN ERLINE OG ILL PROPOSED 28 LF OF 126 RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
L — RT — E EV 22.6 S A 4 +6 36" RCP @ 0.70% L G V NE (SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
LT — IRT ELEV 12 .00 S FA 40+54
R
EILEV 120.7
T-- — RT --LT \ BRUSH BED SILL
— (SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
IS
123 J 1� RT 123 FLOODPLAIN SILL}
T (SEE DETAIL DWG D4) �>�s
\ LOG GRADE CONTROL f j
PR PG ED (PROFILE) (VfJ)
120 CH NN L BC TTO 120
LOG SILL
(PROFILE) 0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP 0
117 117 (PROFILE) $o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK O
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
114 114
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
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 Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.dwg - September 20, 2016 - Kim Marsh
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
J
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
PRO). DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S11
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
W Z
Q m_
� J
J Oji
cr CC
aU
a
Z
z
O
O
Q2
o
w
FZ
a)w
cc
ccU
=
Q
U
o �
c/)
C7
W
Z
Z O
cc
O
CCU
U
(L Z¢
cccc
OOo0LL
z
Z
a =
J
= N
<UU O
=
H
O
zfj
O
Z
w
a
¢ m
d
W ¢zw
Z
N
z
3
a
o
It.
W
¢ }
O ¢
LL Q
N
p Z
Q
W =
O
y
rn
LU
a>
cc
cc [L
2 ¢
¢ a
PRO). DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S11
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
S3
W Z
v
o
� J
N
cr CC
aU
gg
Z
w N
O
z
Q2
o
w
FZ
a)w
=
Q
U
o �
c/)
C7
W
w
t
Z O
cc
m N o
CCU
N o
(L Z¢
z >
m D
OOo0LL
z
Z
a =
J
= N
<UU O
=
H
m
zfj
N
\ m m
w
z
3
¢ m
d
W ¢zw
Z
m
O
a
<a-2
PRO). DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S11
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

12!
121
12:
121
11'
11�
11
101
10!
301
/2S
s=cH= =niI .ca_ I ITF-
-i - -R -.:J. Fs '=1
Pa i' 1;-
33l 301
o
GRADE POINT BAR _
REACH S7 (MAX SLOPE 3:1)
r" 00� ENHANCEMENT I \ 1+
W— — — — _ (STA 38+80 TO 48+70 & GRADE POINT BAR T1e1s riso's
? — \-\,0] — STA 49+40 TO 53+80) (MAX SLOPE 3:1) W
co
Tl—
GRADE POINT BAR
(MAX SLOPE 3:1) / / Mels ' �$ / H
\ / /
K / ��vv�`►bo jl 1zo�il�� Bee
/ Tfa32 �q
IN
T1831
\ # >I GRADE POINT BAR
{ \ (MAX SLOPE 3:1)
\ W�
TiB29 q
_----Tiffi7 _---_ Tl—
CE e �
LCE
T1933
9
SCALE: HOR V=30': VERT 1 "=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.cwg - September 20, 2016 - Kim Marsh
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. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Qm
� n
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
cr CC
F --r s WUg
EXISTING WETLAND
II
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
O
¢ x
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE /"YWYWYI
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
¢
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
=
CONSERVATION EASEMENT—UE
iqz
0 Z)
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
z
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
CC U
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
0O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
Z
o�LL
DOUBLE LOG P
LU
LU
SHEET D
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
QDJ 0
LOG TO PROTECTION
0
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
W
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
¢ W
W ¢zd
Z
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
a
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
z
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn 2
J
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
W Q
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
�>�s
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
t�
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
J
r �
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S12
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
W J
Qm
� n
cr CC
\
aU
a
Z
Z
0
O
¢ x
0 0
Z
U
F
¢
=
U
iqz
0 Z)
Q
W
z
z 0
0
CC U
U
Z
cccc
0O
Z
o�LL
Z
a =
LU
LU
LL
QDJ 0
=
H
0
Z
O
Z
W
a
¢ W
W ¢zd
Z
N
3
a
o
a
W
O tr
LL Q
z
p Z
Q
W
O
y y
rn 2
J
Q W
W Q
¢
¢ a
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S12
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W J
v
O
cr CC
N
aU
gg
Z
wN
Z
O
¢ x
0 0
Z
CD
w w
F
=
U
iqz
0 Z)
Q
W
0� w
z 0
¢ Co
CC U
t N0.
Z
az
m 0
0O
Z
o�LL
Z
a =
LU
LU
= N
QDJ 0
=
H
mde
Z
N
\ m
66
W
Z
3
¢ W
W ¢zd
Z
0
m
O
a
Qat
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S12
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

4)
W
zcm
—
J co
U
I
/
S FP1=`P -
301
331 3�l
#
RV /
REACH S9
ENHANCEMENT III / / \'— — — — _ — _ —
(STA 53+80 TO 60+55)
T18a6
T18a8
120— x-55 WL ° T1805# I _ _
100 =120
T1:-�� \\ / +' / — J 1 a / (\ I!'3r \ T1ea4 # # (t✓/
#T1801
112
#
#T1888 T1812--#�
14
6 a, I T1987 %} # # # # #
# + # # # # # # # # # # #
STM
121
121
12:
121
11�
11
101
10
14, # #
LCE
.LCE
LCEi#
=LCE '-Fl- I-
FR - I6' # # /�iM # #
SCALE: HOR V=30': VERT 1 "=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.cwg - September 20, 2016 - Kim Marsh
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. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
F m_
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
cr CC
r s W1
EXISTING WETLAND
IFI-
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
O
¢ x
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE /"YWYWYI
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
cc
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
=
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UE -
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
0
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
CC U
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
0O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
Z
oLL
DOUBLE LOG P
LU
SHEET D
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
QW 0
LOG TO PROTECTION
0
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
W
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
z
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
a
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
66
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
co
n
W J
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
W LU
Q
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
t�
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
J
FULL SCALE 1 =30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S13
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W J
F m_
cr CC
\
aU
a
z
z
LDccU
O
¢ x
0 0
Z
CD
w w
F
cc
=
U
1nz
0
Q
W
0
z 0
¢ Co
CC U
U
Z
cccc
0O
Z
oLL
Z
a =
LU
0LU
= N
QW 0
=
H
0
Z
O
z
W
a
z
N
3
a
o
a
W
O ¢
LL Q
66
p Z
Q
W
O
y U)
co
n
W J
Q W
W LU
Q
¢
¢ a
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S13
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W J
v
O
cr CC
N
aU
gg
z
wN
Z
O
¢ x
0 0
Z
CD
w w
F
=
U
1nz
0
Q
W
0� w
z 0
¢ Co
CC U
N o
Z
az
W 0
0O
Z
oLL
Z
a =
LU
0LU
= N
QW 0
=
H
m
Z
N de
\ 66 Ce
W
z
3
¢ W
W =z'
Z
0
0
a
Qat
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S13
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

�r ,
r.N ; F - , I
vvLB-
--- VL
— WLB- —•
'14 -,
` 01
P I �— WLB---
nese
REACH S11
P1 RESTORATION
�� r oleos j/y (STA 60+55 TO 71+00) \ N
\ w
T1615 Tifi]3
T r16
C 2' �N?��, �B9x r1s]s T� T
Tififiir \q x0
+ / rtes] TKAr T,a]a
naafi . 115= —
C1161 1\ 180
Graz
�\MT\sss FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
\/
— — Tfb6b Ln\ SEE DWG D2
1.6 r
Ta7
— -- — — _ \REACH S9
ENHANCEMENTIII
(STA 53+80 TO 60+55)
c
F
,TN T 1 CE
r ) r; 17
_� CE
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
102
100
51,
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.dwg - September 20, 2016 - Kim Marsh
9.6
3.2 1.6
}r BANKFULL STAGE
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
96
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
4
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
L.
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 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
6. CONTRACTORTOUTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Q m_
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
cr CC
F --
r s W1EXISTING
WETLAND
II
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q
(}
CHANNEL
¢ 2
CD
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
cc
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
U)
CONSERVATION EASEMENT—UE
O
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
¢ - O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
Z
DIFFUSEFLOWSTRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
OO
Z
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
oLL
DOUBLE LOG P
LU
=
H
SHEET D
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
Z
LOG TO PROTECTION
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
U)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
p Z
z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn �
J
BRUSHBED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
W 0-
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
2 ¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
t�
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D IK
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
J
r �
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S14
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
W
W J
Q m_
O
cr CC
�J �
aU
a
z
z
Oo
O
Q
(}
17
¢ 2
CD
Z
~
p�
U
C
cc
lnz
U)
z
O
Q11J
¢ - O
E
O
Z
U
ccO
OO
Z
LU
oLL
a =
QDJ O
LU
=
H
LL
Z
O
W
O
Z
a
U)
a
N
z
o
a
W
O ¢
LL Q
p Z
z
Q
W =
y n
OLU
rn �
J
Q W
W 0-
2 ¢
¢ a
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S14
PROD. NO.:
2016021500
W J
v
O
cr CC
N
aU
gg
z
wN
Oo
z
Q
(}
17
¢ 2
CD
Z
~
p�
w ¢w
Y
C
o
lnz
U)
0� w
O
Q11J
¢ - O
E
0
Z
az
Z m 0
OO
Z
LU
oLL
a =
QDJ O
LU
=
H
= N
mde
Z
N
\ m
66
W
z
3
¢ W
W ¢zd
Z
0
m
O
a
Qat
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S14
PROD. NO.:
2016021500

12
12
11
11
11
10
10
10.
10
cT_=FF IQ-' __
RT=�SH -, p
=F Fr
REACH S11
PIRESTORATION — _ — — — — _
(STA 60+55 TO 71+00) FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
— w _ WL$L`.'.1 — SEE DWG D2
LQ- — —
— WLB-- — \Tfao r� \ \ \
115 / Tf5i7 115 _ n523 — _ r15se
r1522
Ti542_-
115
—71s�
m _
z _
"181M_—
175
-7 r _
r1537
/ \ +
,N y ���//� // / _---_ A� A\<AVA 67LU
coo
Z f0
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
SEE DWG D2/ V t y U
�111
rrsri T15za V A 2p A V A A
` r15d5 rtisaaV A'vs vv A
r lA
9 / ani iiF=��i� ,A ac
T15zs Fa �.-=s
SCALE: HOR 1"=30': VERT VI
FILE NAME: OAProjecte\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.cwg - September 20, 2016 - Kim Marsh
9.6
3.2 1.6
BANKFULL STAGE
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
96
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
E
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
L.
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 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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Qm
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
cr cc
r s W1
EXISTING WETLAND
IrI`
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q
CHANNEL
o
¢ CD
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
cc
ccU
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
_
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UE
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
Z
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
D2)
w
PROPOSED FILL AREA
z O
DIFFUSEFLOWSTRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
COZ
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
az
m 0
DOUBLE LOG P
SHEET D
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
Z
a =
LOG TO PROTECTION
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
Z
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
U)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
z
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn �
J
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
W Q
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
�>�s
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)
0n
DOUBLE LOG DROP
t�
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�WIC
DICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
J
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
y PRO). DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S15
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
W J
Qm
cr cc
OrnJ �
aU
a
Z
Z
O
0
Q
o
¢ CD
0 Z
CD
w
F
C
cc
ccU
_
z
Z
C7�
w
O
z O
cc
U
CC U
cccc
COZ
az
m 0
OO
Z
o�LL
Z
a =
LU
LU
O
<w O
O
Z
Z
a
U)
W
N
3
o
a
a
W
O Cc
ILL
Q
z
p Z
Q
W =
y y
OLU
rn �
J
Q W
W Q
¢
¢ a
y PRO). DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S15
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W J
v
O
cr cc
N
aU
�g
Z
wN
O
z
Q
o
¢ CD
0 Z
CD
w
F
C
¢w
_
Y
o
^ w
C7�
w
z O
cc
¢ 'n o
CC U
N o
COZ
az
m 0
OO
Z
o�LL
Z
a =
LU
LU
= N
<w O
=
H
FF
mOn
Z
N
\ 66 m
W
Z
3
¢ n L
W ¢zd
Z
0
m
O
a
Qat
y PRO). DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S15
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

9.6
3.2 1.6
}r BANKFULL STAGE
1.6
1:::7
FL
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
9fi
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
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
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DB) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
T LEGEND
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR — —50— — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR ----46-----
9.6
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR 50
5.8 1.6 PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
BANKFULL STAGE EXISTING WETLAND IrI` r s W61
EXISTING TOP OF BANK — To
2.2 EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
CHANNEL
NEL ---
EXISTING FENCELINE — X
FL EXISTING TREELINE .
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
96 LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT—LCE
1.6 5.8 PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
BANKFULL STAGE
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE IIIII
2.2 (SEE DETAIL DWG D4) IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
120 120 (SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
It.
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS DOUBLE LOG DROP
SECTION (SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
LOG TO PROTECTION
117 XI$ ING 3RADEALONG 117 (SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
ST REAI A CE qTEF LINE
OG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG 04)
PROPOSEE LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
114 TO OF AN 114 (SEE DETAIL LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
LOG J -HOOK _
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
\ RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
111 111 (SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
C NN L G DE: 5 0 '�/
BRUSH BED SILL
DO BLE LOG DRCP OG HO K (SEE DETAIL DWG De)
108 ST 69+ 1 108 FLOODPLAIN SILL}
EL V. 116.07 LEV 110.0 CHA NE BOTTOM L G SILL (SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
\—. TA 7 +38
OULEL G E ROP EILEV 110.0
TA 7+2 LOG GRADE CONTROL
LE 111. 7
(PROFILE)
105 105
OG SILL
(PROFILE)01
DOUBLE LOG DROP N
102 102 (PROFILE) $o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK O
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
99 99
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
96 96
9595
67+00 67+50 68+00 68+50 69+00 69+50 70+00 70+50 71+00 71+50
SCALE: HOR V=30': VERT V=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.cwg - September 20, 2016 - Kim Marsh
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NO 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
J
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
Of
DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S16
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
W Z
Qm
� J
J Oji
cr CC
aU
a
Z
z
N
0
0 H
a 0[
I= x
(_} Z
o6
off
U
¢
U Z
to
z
0 ::)
m
0
go
U
0
U
a Z
w
2
¢
U
0
OOo8LL
z
Z
gam
Lij
0
O
O
z
Z
z
P:
\ m
W
N
z
o
a
a
W
¢ }
O ¢
LL
N
p Z
Q
W =Q
o
y n
�
rnLU
J
Q W
W ¢
2 ¢
¢ a
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
Of
DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S16
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
S3
W Z
v
O
� J
N
cr CC
aU
�g
Z
wN
N
z
0 H
a 0[
I= x
(_} Z
o6
off
CD
w w
U Z
to
o w
0 ::)
m
t
o
go
U
m o
U
a Z
w
2
o
z
U
¢
m D
OOo8LL
z
Z
gam
Lij
x
O
=
w'
m
Z
z
\ m
W
z
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
z
m
O
a
<a-2
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
Of
DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S16
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

,-
/
sFP­so\sa I ir `
P3 2. 1� /
r1575\\�--- l
\ T1597 \ \/J /r15sa l IIV/ llll \> ----
��r lI/ J�
V/
REACH S13�/ \ T1574 AV I
PRESERVATION
I (STA 9+69 TO 14+23)
15e2AI�I�IIIj
REACH S12 \ Tues � � l/� ns7s
\� \v PRESERVATION
V (STA 71+00 TO 74+80)
15-\\ 1576 % /i/1 _
\ ' T1551
A r18 v ///// I / / / J v A �a./tel/I /--�/
\T15sz // l I (�\IlI(�
\ l✓,J /j/ 72+60\'\ \ /ng �//
T1561 I /
/ y _
`17
. obi
/ ` �i 7
77
0 v0 vv A v
Tu
\ / T1555
T16/i tSY'1� ' P„ N,�\'\ILII [" ,I. VII .,I
�G.AVY� '.S
T1571 1 Y6�O
IL
y6
X00
Ok
\
121
11
11.
11
M
10:
10:
9'
91
9
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _S.dwg - September 20, 2016 - Kim Marsh
20
17
14
11
08
05
02
19
16
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. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
PROPOSED CHANNEL.
6. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
SECTIONS.
7. 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
6. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL ON DWG DS) ON
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Q m_
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
cr CC
F --
r s W1EXISTING
WETLAND
II
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
0 H
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
¢
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
l
PROPOSED CHANNELDWG UG
0 w
D2)
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
2=
PROPOSED FILL AREA
Z O
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
IIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
BRUSH TOE
U
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
¢
m 0
DOUBLE LOG P
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
SHEET D
Z
a =
LOG TO PROTECTION
O
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
O
LOG SILL
Z
(SEE DETAIL DWG 34)
W
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
W
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
NQ
p Z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
(n 2
LU
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
cc Q
FLOODPLAIN SILL}
¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
f j
(PROFILE)
LOG SILL
(PROFILE)01
DOUBLE LOG DROP
t�
(PROFILE)
$o
LOGVANE/J-HOOK
(PROFILE)
O
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�A K
DICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, INC 27607
v 919.782.0495
O
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO. -
J
r �
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S17
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
W J
Q m_
cr CC
J Oji
aU
a
Z
Z
N
0
0 H
(_} Z
U
=
¢
z
U Z
to
0 w
0 Z)
2=
O
Z O
U
U
a U
Z
w
2
cccc
U
¢
m 0
OO
LL
Z
a =
J
O
<w O
O
Z
Z
a
W
W
N
3
o
a
a
W
¢ >
O ¢
LL Q
NQ
p Z
W
O
y n
(n 2
LU
a cc
cc Q
¢
¢ a
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S17
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W J
v
O
cr CC
N
aU
g
Z
wN
N
z
0 H
(_} Z
CD
w
=
¢w
Y
U Z
to
0 w
0 Z)
2=
o
Z O
U
¢m o
a U
Z
w
2
o
z
U
¢
m 0
OO
Z
0w
Z
a =
J
= N
<w O
=
H
m
Z
N
\ 66 m
W
Z
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
Z
m
O
a
¢ate
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S17
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

15c
15(
141
144
14'
13E
13E
13:
13(
V
X01inrFn =-ar
P-
PROPOSED FORD
SEE DWG D5
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'
FILE NAME: O:\Projecta\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_PROP _TRIBS.dwg - September 20, 2018 - Km Marsh
153
150
147
144
141
138
135
132
130
REACH S6A
P1 RESTORATION
(STA 11+00 TO 24+50)
ACJ
4.8
1.6 0.8
}r BANKFULL STAGE
I
B.e
1_
TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
4R
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
STRAIGHT REACH
4_
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
dA
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS
SECTION
NOTES:
1. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
2. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
3. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND BYPASS PUMPING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MODIFIED AT THE
END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
THE TREES TO BE SAVED.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
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.
8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL DWG 38) ON
MINIMUM OF 30% OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR —
—50 — — —
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR----46-----
Q m_
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
� J
cr CC
r 4 W1
EXISTING WETLAND
IrI`
a
41M�
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
— — — — TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
— — — — BB
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
Q¢
CHANNEL
o
0
EXISTING FENCELINE
— — — — X
EXISTING TREELINE
.
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
cc
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UK
PROPOSEDUG
O w
t
o N O
(SEE DETAILETAIL DWG DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
coZ
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
1111111
BRUSHTOE
a =J
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
= N
DOUBLE LOG DROP
~
(SEE DETAIL SHEET 34)
Z �
z
LOG TO PROTECTION
0 O
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
O
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
U)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
N
(SEE DETAIL DWG 32)
LOG VANE
a
(SEE DETAIL DWG 33)
W
LOG J -HOOK
_
(SEE DETAIL DWG 38)
p Z
z
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
rn �
J
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG 36)
W 0-
FLOODPLAIN SILL
2 ¢
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(�
(PROFILE)
(U7I)
LOG SILL
0
(PROFILE)
o
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFILE)
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
�D IK
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
J
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S18
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
W Z
Q m_
� J
cr CC
O L1
J Oji
aU
a
Z
z
O
0
Q¢
o
0
(}O
to
U
F Z
(n
cc
z
i/) Z
0
go
Q
W
O w
t
o N O
CC U
O
coZ
O
OOZ
ccO
a =J
Lij
= N
O
~
U-
Z �
z
Z
0 O
w
O
Z
P:
U)
0-
N
z
o
a
W
O ¢
LL Q
p Z
z
tu
W =
o
y
rn �
J
Q >
W
W 0-
2 ¢
¢ 0-
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S18
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
S3 S3
W Z
v
o
� J
cr CC
N
aU
�g
Z
w N
O
z
Q¢
o
0
(}O
to
w w
F Z
(n
U
i/) Z
0
go
Q
W
O w
t
o N O
CC U
N o
coZ
Q z >
Z m O
OOZ
o�LL
a =J
Lij
= N
O
~
m
Z �
z
Z
N
y rn
w
3
¢ n j W
W ¢zd
Z
0
m
O
0-
Qat
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S18
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

/ / \ \ \ \\_ _ NOTES:
l�'jlJ w w v _'_ r��a� '.ate .sir V A
rA: �F'."' „F� '-_�_ f G ' =1 I 1 0 \ \ \ \ re 1. D WNSTRGENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO
r- 9 // \ ,. �J1 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
w ' / / / / / / END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
"x— 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND
7M / / .� I / I SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANYWAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL
"�/30`1/ // /// \\ II I/ Q7
SHALL
NOO BE
T PLACED,
PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF
H
m
/�� 5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION
o w J / / AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE
3 I ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE
T1579 / Ta x1574 / j� PROPOSED CHANNEL.
r1578 / /� / j = ruT3 I / I
fi. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS.
THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL
/ I REACHS13 _ = — _mow / /////�/I—� I� SECTIONS.
PRESEERVATION / �gA� / / / I I A \ \ V \v )
/ \ \ (STA 0+6/Q I O 14+23)% / _ \ \c —I 7. IN -STREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS
T1592 / q� \ \ \ / / i I I \�\ /LD
/ j /III I I Im II \�++ \�\ I (BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, ROOT WADS, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED
/T \ T1593 / / I I // s \ \ \\\ / / J I III r1 \ O \ C / I INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
M rm9e VIII I I/I/moi \�Vv13+00/� \// //�I� V1�11 �OA�\0 v
Ti-�p.�'"+ I I /\ \\ \ \�\ — — l f I ( \ \I q �\\ \\\ \ / I 8. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL DWG DB) ON A
`�J-""�1 MINIMUM OF 30%OF PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.
" /i m
\ l rf595 \ �- III I I \ / 1—
%/ QooTa—
' //�/rf
LEGEND
/
-
• i \\ JEXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR 50
W V A- PM �q�74+80.38 Q7
_ l 1 III �_�__ l _ rfws �v -- --
\ �µM� `per \ I I - 46 -----
/�/// 0�1 — Tf5H1. \` EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR V
f __ _ / PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
I VIII I / / vv
AA
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR 42
�kpo /
��--WLI
— --
EXISTING WETLAND
rizas-1 (I V AV l 'nsfi5
Tl— �\ \ \ x156
\\` EXISTING TOP OF BANK lM TB
\ \\ \ I \
`� " \ " "�I / / //� �f•,�'S T- REACHS12 \\\\\\ ' \\x0p \\\\\ I / EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK ----BB
T
CHANNEL
\ \\ PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
✓"� F / r�z� PRESERVATION \ \\\ \\\\ I
\ / Ti589 �oq (STA 71+00 T074+$0) \\\ \\\\\\ INE X -----
`zs3 T1.1T1.1T
EXISTING FENCE
Tr
J U
EXISTING TREELINE X11
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
LiT
"-z Fc
P3 I _ LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT LCE
x15]2
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG
T-1/ (SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED FILL AREA
DIFFUSE URE
(SEE DETAIL DWG
D4)
BRUSHTOE
120 120 (SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(SEE DETAIL SHEET D4)
LOG TO PROTECTION
117 117 (SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4)
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
114 114 LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D3)
EXIETINC G DE LON
OG J -HOOK
STIR M EN ERL NE (SEE DETAIL DWG O6)
111 111 RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL I
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
BRUSH BED SILL
(SEE DETAIL DWG D6)
108 108 FLooDPLAIN SILL ��
(SEE DETAIL DWG D4) (((
LOG GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE) I1A'/1
105 105
LOG SILL
(PROFILE) op
DOUBLE LOG DROP 11
102 102 (PROFILE) jo
BRUSH BED SILL
(PROFILE)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(PROFILE)
99 99
96 96
95 95
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'
DICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NO 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO uCENSE 10. 10374
FULL SCALE: 1
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
y 1. = HALF SCALE
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S19
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
Hm
U Z
N
o
Ui
CI R
~ R
J
00
a
cc Q
CIE
Z
Z U
O
O x
z z
a cc:¢
U
C7 0
c4)
S
cc
~ Z
GO
Z
O
0 Z
0 n
Q
uJ
u'0i 1�,
ZO
pC
ccU
Cc U
O
OL Z
O
F
O_
?
w0Zw
L
rn
Q4 O
r 7
IS
gm
I
o
¢ a
O s
U. Q
o O
y n
rn
J
¢ai
¢
¢ a
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S19
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
U Z
N
o
Ui
J0
J
00
0
m
cc Q
CIE
zg
Z U
w a
O x
z z
a cc:¢
2
C7 0
c4)
w w
~ Z
W
0 Z
0 n
Q
uJ
u'0i 1�,
ZO
pC
¢N p
Cc U
F y o
OL Z
O
¢ z >
N 0
Z
Ow
w0Zw
J
F
(5
N
Q4 O
r 7
N
On
LU
LU
Z
3
v .w
Z azm
O no
a
¢ai
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
S19
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

IIIIIINTrNwil\IW
I
REMOVE 218 LF�
FENCE
I
� A
1 1
200 LF
ui
I
Q01
� N
� J
N
aU
REMOVE 1023 LF
J
a
O
Z
ZFENCE
INSTALL 1345 LF OF
a \1
REMOVE 244 LF
FENCE
•
WOVEN WIRE FENCE
o
f
U
SEE DETAIL DWG D5
cqz
O�
/
of J
Z O
t'®
Z
/
INSTALL 3198 LF OF
O
INSTALL 707 LF OF /
WOVEN WIRE FENCE-'
h
OO
SEE DETAIL DWG D5
0z
o�LL
SEE DETAIL DWG D5
L.U.
IIIIIINTrNwil\IW
I
REMOVE 218 LF�
FENCE
I
� A
1 1
200 LF
\ r00 YR
�\ w r
00
a> ku I— o
2 0°-1 r i
o
Ld —loom
� / F
o Y )
1
.. ....r.. -n . . .....:I
J X0,001" \
1\001'R J
/ o
0
00� _
/
� f J
� 0 �
..
........... .
�..."..'. "..'. .
i
/
1
EXISTING FENCE—X—X—X—X— �P
�p0
PROPOSED FENCE X
�P
O�
4�0
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_P_EC_F_M.dwg -September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
�D IK
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatice
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO. -
FULL SCALE: 1'=200'
0 200 400
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEScccc ULI00 cr
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
D.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
F1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
Q01
� N
� J
N
aU
O�J
J
a
O
Z
�
�
<Z
Z
/
REMOVE 244 LF
FENCE
•
//-
a
U
cqz
O�
/
of J
Z O
t'®
Z
/
INSTALL 3198 LF OF
O
� Z
WOVEN WIRE FENCE
OO
0z
o�LL
SEE DETAIL DWG D5
L.U.
O
\ r00 YR
�\ w r
00
a> ku I— o
2 0°-1 r i
o
Ld —loom
� / F
o Y )
1
.. ....r.. -n . . .....:I
J X0,001" \
1\001'R J
/ o
0
00� _
/
� f J
� 0 �
..
........... .
�..."..'. "..'. .
i
/
1
EXISTING FENCE—X—X—X—X— �P
�p0
PROPOSED FENCE X
�P
O�
4�0
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_P_EC_F_M.dwg -September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
�D IK
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatice
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO. -
FULL SCALE: 1'=200'
0 200 400
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEScccc ULI00 cr
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
D.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
F1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
WZ
ui
Q01
� N
� J
N
aU
O�J
Z
a
O
Z
�
�
<Z
Z
O
g
>w
a
U
cqz
O�
U
of J
Z O
W
Z
CCU
O
� Z
U
OO
0z
o�LL
Lij z
�Q2
L.U.
O
<w O
LL
Z
C
Z
O
W
o
z
a
�
a
N
3
o
a
W N
O ¢
LL Q
p Z
Q
W =
O
y (n
rn g
� J
I
W
W Q
� ¢
¢ a
WZ
o
� J
N
aU
g�
Z
wN
O
z
�
�
<Z
Z
o
i
g
>w
a
w
cqz
O�
U
of J
Z O
W
W. o
CCU
� Z
¢ 0->
z
OO
0z
o�LL
Lij z
�Q2
L.U.
=N
<w O
Z
C
Z
W
3
W ¢z-
z
�
3w:m
a
¢ate

SII
I n I r —rr r�rn.
PLANTING LEGEND
RIPARIAN PLANTING
(TOTAL AREA: 22.8 AC)
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_P_EC_F_M.dwg -September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
}
k�
k�
S -ill-
i
PLANTING TABLE
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Virginia Wldrye
Ely.- wirginicus
25%
SwiWhgmss
Panicum Nrgarum
25%
Little Blue Stem
Sch—chynum scepanum
10%
Son Rush
Jun— flu—
10%
Blackey.d.... n
Rudbeckia hins
10%
Deertongue
Dichanthelium clandestinum
10%
Wild senna
Senna hebecarpa
10%
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Nam.
Scientific Nam.
CoPercenlon
Silky d gwood
C.—nnomum
20%
Silkywillow
Salix sena.
20%
Black willow
Salix nigra
40%
Cottonwood
Populus deQoides
20%
5.
TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN 6-DBH SHALL BE
/// 40
Riparian Planting
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
River birch
Befula nigra
15%
Willowoak
Quercus phellos
15%
Swamp chestnut oak
Querc mxhauxll
10%
Amen.. sycamore
Plalanus occidentalis
15%
Blade gum
Nyssa Nficm
15%
Paw Paw
Asimina Irilobel
5%
Ovemup oak
Quercus lymra
10%
Bald cypress
Taxodium disdchum
15%
4 cF
1w
PLANTING NOTES
ALL
PLANTING AREAS
1.
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION IS
} //
N
ESTABLISHED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH
g�
WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.
w N
O _
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
Z
g
�¢2
DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL
/
ww
a
PLAN.
3.
ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISCO SPRING -TOOTH CHISEL PLOW TO
F
O w
MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSS PLANTING AREAS WITH THE
// Q
=
¢�
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
''�•
r7
U
>
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
/// 40
0z
� LL
PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
<w O
,
5.
SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO 8 PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE GROUPED TOGETHER.
Z
N de
� y i rn
W�
3
6.
BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 680 STEMS PER ACRE
�v
m
O
LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH BANKS OF
7.
STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
8.
TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED ATA RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH
SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1.
9.
PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
I
EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
W Q
10.
PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
¢ a
EASEMENT BREAKS ATA RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + 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 SCALESccLLI00 Cr
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
P1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
Q m_
a \
Z
O
U
2
O
U
O
LL
O
o Z
a U
N
3
o a
O ¢
LL Q
W N Q
p Z W =
O Co
Z
u,
o
LU
� J
N
aU
g�
Z
w N
O _
F �
�o
Z
g
�¢2
F Z
d
ww
a
Cn Z
F
O w
c� �
z
=
¢�
Zo
g
o
cc 0
� Z
d
r7
U
>
0-
Z W 0
O O
0z
� LL
ZLU
<w O
,
m
Z �
Z
N de
� y i rn
W�
3
¢ m IL
W ¢zd
Z
�
m
O
a
¢ate
g
I
Q W
W Q
I
� ¢
¢ a
Z
u,
o
LU
� J
N
aU
g�
Z
w N
O _
F �
�o
Z
g
�¢2
F Z
d
ww
a
Cn Z
F
O w
c� �
z
=
¢�
Zo
g
o
cc 0
� Z
d
r7
U
>
0-
Z W 0
O O
0z
� LL
ZLU
<w O
,
m
Z �
Z
N de
� y i rn
W�
3
¢ m IL
W ¢zd
Z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

PLANTING TABLE
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Lomposi9on
Virginia Wildrye
Elymus N,gevc..
25%
Switchmesc
Panic m Nrgatum
25%
Little Blue Stem
Schi—hymen scopsdum
10%
Soft Rush
Juncus eRusus
10%
Blackeyed susan
Rudbeckia hina
10%
Deedongue
Dichanthelium Gandesanum
10%
Wild senna
Senna heb.-M.
1 10%
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Silky d.g—d
Cornusm
2 0%
Silky willow
Sell. sedcea
20%
Black willow
Salix nig.
40%
Cottonwood
Papulus d.1mides
27-A
Rlparlan Planting
Common Name Scientific Name ^ Percent__
Supplemental Planting
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
River Birch
Betula nigra
40%
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quem micha—i
30%
Paw -Paw
Asimna bllobe
30%
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.
S. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE GROUPED TOGETHER.
6. RIPARIAN BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 680 STEMS PER ACRE.
7. SUPPLEMENTAL BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 302 STEMS PER ACRE.
8. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH BANKS OF STRAIGHT
REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
9. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH SLOPES
EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1.
10. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
It. PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT BREAKS ATA RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
\ \
' � \ NEUSE RIVER
Q \
e C. jAFiTI rsS F. \\ \\
I
a,
-anoot- v dp wJ 1 v
\� n nIF'-1I, I� TF- rn: nr�- F` ® � 611,
I� :, F F
f ®
1 ^ ®6 6 / �( / /may L ex /
/ \
STB-�
[9 ® o
IS
Jcr6l
M.
a
° ':�`;'+® ..:.• BOO
j 7;::.; ,./• til
f
'::: .... 'j®®::�,,... \
...�.... \.............•::.�,:`•. is :•®®::: �� •��• :�:4;•;•:�:;;;;;;;;;;: ,6::'�:':`�:_::.®•:' :••®:;:::•,••V
,•, :'.`:, �:':. `:.':•�• 'zYADDI,-�:: "•',�3�1 '� �:-- / /., l .�. •: moo-®:—®T..�—__ .;�� •'•.: •:::'. �:'. ,r' �i........
PLANTING LEGEND
`zuoo �, °`�-'���
/ / .: ..(::....:� .::::. ' .• :':, ::.:': ; ? �..... RIPARIAN PLANTING
/�n TC � L � 1M � , L l� — � :::::::::. Yv' : i ::::::........: • �...:: " (TOTAL AREA: 22.8 AC)
(OB 6 SEryFryCY 1 '/ y ti�(r>o2\ L• : + SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING
(TOTAL AREA: 8.6 AC)
FSFFP'' __ (DDI--_ M\. °O
i \ \ �* �NQ DD7 oo \V
v� aAoot-��
00`v ! /
�\�` bio 1 \\
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_BHT _P_EC_F_M.dwg -September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + 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
SCALE 7j
cc LUcr CC6i 0 z 6iFF
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
P2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
¢ m_
v �
o�
a \
z
O
U
z
0
U
¢
O
O
o z
P: U
N
3
o
a-
<
w Z
u,
o
� J
00
N
aU
��
Z
wN
O_2
FIY
�o
Z
g
o¢i
Fz
a
ww
Cn Z
F
O �
z
¢�
9
g
o
� Z
ll
cD
U z >
zN
OO
o�LL
aw0
am
Z �
Z
m
W
3
¢ !n � IL
W ¢zd
z
�
m
O
a
¢ate
W
O ¢
LL a
In
�
Q
'
O
y rY1
rn g
� J
I
Q W
W fi
I
� ¢
¢ a
w Z
u,
o
� J
00
N
aU
��
Z
wN
O_2
FIY
�o
Z
g
o¢i
Fz
a
ww
Cn Z
F
O �
z
¢�
9
g
o
� Z
ll
cD
U z >
zN
OO
o�LL
aw0
am
Z �
Z
m
W
3
¢ !n � IL
W ¢zd
z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

V
�C.)
O `
�.. .. .�
\
vv dry,v �'S�
�C)
B
\
\
T�
T�
Te
\
\
Te
PLANTING NOTES \\
ALL PLANTING AREAS` • j
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.
2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. UPON `CC
COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS
WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN.
3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BV DISC OR SPRING -TOOTH CHISEL PLOW TO
MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSS PLANTING AREAS WITH THE
IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_BHT _P_EC_F_M.dwg -September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
\
\o
` -10
oy7�—
DD CKSON
community infrastructure wirsultants
Trans
"
nation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEScc00cr CC
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
P3
PROJ. No,:
2016021500
Riparian Planting
Iii
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
River birch
Betula nigra
15%
Willow oak
Quercus phallos
15%
Swamp chestnut oak
Quarc miohaudi
10%
American sycamore
Platanu occidentalis
15%
Black gum
Nyasa bigots
15%
Paw Paw
Asim- Mlobal
5%
Overcup oakQ—lyrata
10%
Baltl cypressI
To odium distichum
15%
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_BHT _P_EC_F_M.dwg -September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
\
\o
` -10
oy7�—
DD CKSON
community infrastructure wirsultants
Trans
"
nation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEScc00cr CC
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
P3
PROJ. No,:
2016021500
Z
Iii
LU
F m_
v�
� J
N
aU
O "I
J Oji
Z
a
Z
<o
Z
g
O
Fz
a
ww
a
U
Cn Z
F
2
c� �
z
=
¢�
z
g
o
� Z
d
0
U
OO
0z
o�LL
z
a =
LU
J
O
Q LIJ o
=
LL
Z
C
Z
O
W
o
z
a
rn
a
N
3
i?
a
W N
O ¢
LL Q
o z
Q
w ?
O
rn �
Q W
W Q
� ¢
¢ a
Z
u,
o
LU
� J
N
aU
��
Z
Z n
<o
Z
g
CC) 2
Fz
a
ww
a
Cn Z
F
O w
c� �
z
=
¢�
z
g
o
� Z
d
(D
U
>
0-
z
OO
0z
o�LL
z
a =
LU
J
= N
Q LIJ o
=
Z
C
Z
� � I �
W
3
¢ m w
w ¢zd
Z
m
O
a
0
¢ate

FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_P_EC_F_M.dwg -September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=200'
0 200 400
2" = FULL SCALE
I. HALF SCALEScc00
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
M1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
F m_
v�
J Oji
a
Z
O
I.—
cc
w Z
u,
o
� J
N
aU
g�
Z
z^
0 2
Z
z c'
a�
g
Z
�_
C70
a
ww
Z
z
¢�
2
cqZ
�
o� w
Z O
Z
o -N o
0
O
� Z
U
OO
o�LL
z
a =
Lij
J
O
<w O
=
LL
Z
C
Z
O
W
o
Z
a
U
a
N
3
o
a
W N
O ¢
LL Q
p Z
Q
W =
O
rn g
Q W
W Q
� ¢
¢ a
w Z
u,
o
� J
N
aU
g�
Z
z^
0 2
Z
z c'
a�
g
Z
�_
C70
a
ww
Z
z
¢�
cqZ
�
o� w
Z O
Z
o -N o
0
� Z
¢ z
z
OO
o�LL
z
a =
Lij
J
= N
<w O
=
m
Z
C
Z
� � I �
W
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
Z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_WETLAND.tlwg -September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NG. UGENSE NO.
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
I. HALF SCALEScc00
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
W1
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
F m_
v�
J Oji
a
Z
O
I.—
cc
w Z
u,
o
� J
N
aU
g�
Z
z�
O
o z
�
C70
p
CD
ww
Z
z
�
wo
2
�z
W
o� w
Zo
�
¢� S
CCU
O
� Z
U
OO
o�LL
6i 0 z
a =
J
O
Q LIJ �
=
H
LL
Z �
C
Z
O
W
o
Z
a
U
a
N
3
o
a
W N
O ¢
LL Q
p Z
Q
W =
O
rn g
Q W
W Q
� ¢
¢ a
w Z
u,
o
� J
N
aU
g�
Z
z�
O
o z
�
C70
p
CD
ww
Z
z
�
wo
�z
W
o� w
Zo
�
¢� S
CCU
� N o
� Z
¢ z >
z
OO
o�LL
6i 0 z
a =
J
= N
Q LIJ �
=
H
m
Z �
C
Z
N
� � I �
W
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
Z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
— — —50 -
0-EXISTINGCONTOURMINOR
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR--------------
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
\
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
N
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
-----ie-----Te—
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
---------------
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
a
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE
----- x ----- x —
EXISTING TREELINE
.
0
C70
D
EXISTING WETLAND
II
z
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
\
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
LCE
EASEMENT
o� J
PROPOSED WETLAND
PROPOSED CHANNEL
CC C)
G D2)UG
(SEE DETAILTAIL DWG
O
PROPOSED LOG OUTLET STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL DWG D5)
�O
Oz
v
NEUSE RIVER
`V •o', ,'.'.'..ate'" � \ .\\.\ \� \ \
IsAs.�F.
All
_. � t: •tip•`v • :v
v �Z�
sr -n lr .-rrl -'I NTF- r�rr
-F1 o
r-:17,
Y�� I
0"NA _ M
W 130 / LK
126 A / A ® i _/•� •, i I /
®� 130 �1 3J7 171/ v 12 �� . ,'• n : a/° ° �� �,
y�. 1•'
-� .'bl -e'r0 tea+„
g Tcy s LCE �,
T�-:We.
.
�/ Lw -soy -aa/ Lv P, Imo-
I
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#10, Meadm Spring Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_BHT _WETLAND.dwg - September 20, 2018 - Kim Marsh
\ \
Ill
LU
Yo
00
N
cr CC
aU
O�J �
Z
a
O
\
\
\
Q
O
0
C70
D
ww
F_ z
z
\
cc
ccU
anZ
W
o� J
0
Z O
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh,NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.coDO
L J
r �
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
-- HALF SCALE���
J
Ill
LU
Qm
� N
00
N
cr CC
aU
O�J �
Z
a
O
Z
Q
O
0
C70
D
ww
F_ z
z
cc
ccU
anZ
W
o� J
0
Z O
=
o
CC C)
O
(Lz
U
�O
Oz
¢
m
O
awa0x
am
Z 2
z
O
W
o
z
a
U)
a0
N
3
o
a
W
O tr
LL Q
N-.
p Z
W =
O
to
UQ) g
W J
QY
W
LU
W Q
2 ¢
¢ a
J
u,
O
LU
00
N
cr CC
aU
g
Z
wN
O
z
Q
o
s
0
C70
D
ww
F_ z
z
anZ
W
o� J
0
Z O
=
o
CC C)
N o
(Lz
¢z >
Z¢ o
�O
Oz
°LL
m
awa0x
am
Z 2
z
N rn
W
3
¢ 0 W
W ¢zd
z
m
O
a0
¢ate
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
W2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500

LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR — — —50—
EXISTING
50—EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING TOP OF BANK-----------Te—
EXISTINGBOTTOM OFBANK ------------
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF
CHANNEL
EXISTING FENCELINE ----- x ----- x —
EXISTING TREELINE
EXISTING WETLAND I \\�
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK �\ REMOVE CONCRETE
�Q' v CROSSING
LIMITS OF PROPOSED ��
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED WETLAND
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG ®' \
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
PROPOSED LOG OUTLET STRUCTURE , • • \I '
(SEE DETAIL DWG DS) �/'� • \� ! ' ' .� '
P
REMOVE 15" PIPE
j�'\ tea. •® ��„~\7%
21
e \
V A �.�
_ — PI• �v,A-
\ \Lqt-
. . v
tj
—
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_WETLAND.tlwg -September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
`I
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Tmnsponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NO 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEScc00
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
W3
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
Qm
� n
O
a Z
0
U
to
z
0
U
¢
O
O
o z
a U
N
3
o
a-
<
\
to
O
� J
0
1
g�
Z
wN
o�
a�
oz
�0
o
ww
Ez
z
�
wo
�z
ILL
o� w
—I
�
¢� S
CCU
� N o
� Z
¢ z >
z
OO
o
6i 0 z
a =
J
0LL
= N
ILL O
I
\1
m
Z
C
Z
de
� � I �
W
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
z
�
m
O
a
¢ate
�I
W N
O ¢
LL Q
p Z
Q
W =
I
O
y (n
rn �
� J
I
a w
w Q
I
l
¢ a
\
3
\\
Y
\
Y�
3
I,
I
\
V A �.�
_ — PI• �v,A-
\ \Lqt-
. . v
tj
—
FILE NAME: O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2016021500RA - TO#1 0, Meadow Spring Mitigation Sde\GADD\Plan Set\2016021500RA_SHT_WETLAND.tlwg -September 20, 2018 -Kim Marsh
`I
WD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Tmnsponation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NO 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
FULL SCALE: 1"=100'
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALEScc00
PROJ. DATE: �JUNE201T---�
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
W3
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
ui
Qm
� n
O
a Z
0
U
to
z
0
U
¢
O
O
o z
a U
N
3
o
a-
<
W Z
to
O
� J
0
crN
aU
g�
Z
wN
o�
a�
oz
�0
o
ww
Ez
z
�
wo
�z
ILL
o� w
z
�
¢� S
CCU
� N o
� Z
¢ z >
z
OO
o
6i 0 z
a =
J
0LL
= N
ILL O
=
m
Z
C
Z
de
� � I �
W
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
z
�
m
O
a
¢ate
W N
O ¢
LL Q
p Z
Q
W =
O
y (n
rn �
� J
I
a w
w Q
I
� ¢
¢ a
W Z
to
O
� J
0
crN
aU
g�
Z
wN
o�
a�
oz
�0
o
ww
Ez
z
�
wo
�z
ILL
o� w
z
�
¢� S
CCU
� N o
� Z
¢ z >
z
OO
o
6i 0 z
a =
J
0LL
= N
ILL O
=
m
Z
C
Z
de
� � I �
W
3
¢ m w
W ¢zd
z
�
m
O
a
¢ate

WHEN AND WHERE TO USEIT
SILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS: 1.25 LB./UNEAR FT. STEEL POSTS
FLOW
UzWOO
z
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE IS 100 -FEET.
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE UNE) IS 2H: IV. EXTRA STRENGTH B,
THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CFS. FILTER FABRIC M
B MIDDLE LAVER
BOTTOM LAVER
TOP LAYER
EARTH SURFACE
DO NOT PLACE SILT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP.' ST
4MagR0
A A
W
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
1. USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 959 BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR POLYESTER, � � `` � : .
TRENCH ONLY WHEN
WHICH IS CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS
\\ ` HEAVY DUN PLASTIC TIE
B
PLACED ON EARTH SURFACE
ON
IN ASTM D 6461. SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND :�
STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT FOR STEEL POSTS
BACKFILL TRENCH WITH
ENDS OF BAGS IN ADJACENT
PLAN VIEW SLIGHTLY
ROWS BUTTEDOGETHER
A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF 0' TO 120' F. COMPACTED EARTH
SEE NOTE TOGETHER
j
FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM
2. ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 HAVE
LENGTH OF 5 FEET. MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE
SEE NOTE
/I" LOWEST POINT
SECTION B -B
FASTENING THE FABRIC.
✓//
/// /GROUND
/ / LEVEL
p
CONSTRUCTION: \ \ :�;
/✓ '`
1. CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS. BURY FABRIC
2. ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE THE USE EITHER FLAT -BOTTOM
GROUND SURFACE. (HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE OR V -BOTTOM TRENCH
"/ - - EARTH SURFACE
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
NOTES;_
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
AT GROUNDVELOF
ENDO DIKETHE
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
HIGHE EST POINT OW
ISOLATED SECTIONS OF CHANNEL
SUPPORT FENCE. SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC
CHECK. A
SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS RE TO BE
SUSU
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
UNE OF POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER. 11
FROM STREAM FLOW.
6. PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH. COMPACTED '< COMPACTED <
SANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAYERS OF
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN
7. BACKFILL THE TRENCH NTH SOIL PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGHEARTH p EARTH p
COMPACTION OF THE BACKFILL IS CRITICAL TO SILT FENCE PERFORMANCE.
SANDBAGS. THE BOTTOM LAVER SHALL CONSIST OF 3 ROWS OF RAGS, THE
MIDDLE LAVER SHALL CONSIST OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS AND THE TOP LAVER SHALL
BE STABIUZED IN ONE WORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET
MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.
8. DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES. RUNOFF RUNOFF
CONSIST OF 1 ROW OF BAGS. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OFA FILLED
SANDBAG SHALL BEAPPROXIMATELY0.5 FTX0.5 FTX 1.5 FT.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING
MAINTENANCE: \ III Y III
PUMP SIZE SUFFICIENT TO PUMP BASE FLOW.
I' I�I
5 MUST BE OF NON -ERODIBLE MATERIALS
INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL MAKE ANY REQUIRED - Y, y
REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY. � 1 -
SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKE
SUCH AS SANDBAGSDIKE
.
NTS
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL PUMP AROUND
SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, � y 4�1
REPLACE IT PROMPTLY. FILTER
FILTER FABRIC
1. INSTALL STILUNG BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLASS
FABRIC 4'
A RIP RAPTHE 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 STABIUZED.
OUTFALL.
3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING
OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION.
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
KOPO COARSE AGGREGATE-
NITS
�S�LG STONE SIZE 2"-3"
4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING
PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED
AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF
SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THIS WATER
WILL ALSO BE PUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABIUZED WITH CLASS
A RIP RAP.
2"X1" OR 2"X2" MINIMUM 9" EROSION
WOODEN STAKE CONTROL STRAW WATTLE NOTE:
STRAW WATTLE
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT
AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
WHEN DEWATERING AREA, ALL DIRTY WATER MUST BE PUMPED
EXISTING OR COIR EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIR LOGS/WATTLES MAY BE USED IN
GRADE PLACE OF SILT FENCE.
THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND
TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING 'NTH THE
DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
SLOPE
'
/\
6 THE
AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL
EAND
STABIL ZE DISTURBED ARE ASNTH
EROSION CONTROL WATTLE
SANDEEDI AND M�LCH.GKES
NTS
INSTALL WATTLE IN 3"
7. ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING
IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
TO 5" TRENCH
PURPOSE:
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AT ALL POINTS WERE TRAFFIC WILL BE
LEAVING A CONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD.
INSTALLATION NOTES: KEY -IN MATTING PER
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
FIG. 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 IT.
INTAKE HOSE
3. PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET.
CLASSA
REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS SO THAT MATTING WILL HAVE
DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL.
4. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS
SUBJECT TO SEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE.
STONE
PUMP AROUND
PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL GRADE. KEY -IN AND/OR
PUMP
TEST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT SOIL TEST RESULTS TO THE STAKE MATTING
JUST ABOVE
MAINTENANCE:
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 PUBLIC
SEE SHEETS PI AND P2 FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.
ROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS.
IMPERVIOUS
APPLY SEED TO SOIL BEFORE PLACING MATTING.
DIKE
INSTALLATION - STREAM BANK TRENCH APPROX. TRENCH APPROX. SOIL PILE
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FOR INFORMATION SOIL PILE 8" WIDE X 8" DEEP 8" WIDE x 8" DEEP FROM TRENCH
FROM TRENCH
REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE COIR MATTING. FLOW .�
NTS
8"
FLOW
OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS 3' (INDIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW)AND ANCHOR EVERY 12' 1
I
DISCHARGE HOSE
ACROSS THE OVERLAP THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAM FLOW \ \ �\ `/
MAT. / /
/`/
GENERAL NOTES:
CLASS
STONE
//
1. CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION B 5 WASHED
EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER. \\` / /
//. \.a \i\\ \ \\/\\
\ \\// / /
LAV MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT. �\ \� \\/� \/\* '\�/ /\
CONTROL MANUAL. STONE
2. ROCK DAM RIPRAP SHALL BE 50/50 MIX OF CLASS I AND
II. A A
NOTE. HOSE SHOULD BE
KEPT OUTSIDE OF WORK
SILT BAG AREA
STAKES OR �jN/\\/ 1 ROW OF STAPLES
3 PLANS EXTEND CLASS
ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ET L
LOCATION
ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE PINS.
1 ROW OF STAPLES OR STAKES, MIN. OF
BLR PE RAP ROCK APRON 5 FEDOWNSTREAM FROM TOE
CUT 8' z 8' TRENCH ALONG TOP OF BANK FOR MAT TERMINATION AS SHOWN IN FIGURES 1 & 2. '� OR STAKES, MIN. OF 24" O.0
OF ROCK DAM.
EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK. � 24" O.0
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 II
CLASS B
STAPLE AT 12' INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP. 1ROW OF STAPLES 1 ROW OF STAPLES
OSTAKES, MIN. OF R ST, OR STAKES, MIN. OF
STREAM BANK MATTING TO BE INSTALLED FROM TOE OF BANK TOA MINIMUM OF 2.0' PAST �W 0 TA 0 TAO.0
5'-0" MIN. B.J
ROCK APRON
PLAN
DISCHARGE
EXISTING HOSE
TOP OF BANK. SEE FIGURE 3 FOR TERMINATION AT TOP OF BANK.
IF MORE THAN ROLL IS REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWN TO / /i✓T \ f��W
THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BYA MINIMUM OF 1'. / /,/��
�\ \/ /\ \/�\v ��
FILLED \ /\/
FROM SOIL PILE,
SPILLWAY 2;1
CREST - W (SPILLWAY)
1 MIN OF # 5 MIN 2/3 STREAM WIDTH
3:1 WASHED STONE
CLASS I AND
II RIP RAP aFLOW
GROUND
STABILIZED
1STO 20'
OUTFALLSOIL
COMPACT WITH FOOT
1.5' THICKCLASS
SOIL FILLED
EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE =�\/ FROM SOIL PILE,
_
B
ROCK APRON 2' -2' MIN. BELOW
\
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: \�/ \ COMPACT WITH FOOT
LOWEST BANK
SSP 2
LEVEL (MIN)
• 100 COCONUT FIBER COIR) TYVINE WOVEN INTO A
��� CLASS AND
FILTER FABRIC
HIGH STRENGTH MATRIX. STEP 2
HIGH MATRIX.
CUTOFF II RIP RAP FILTER
FILTER
8' OF CLASS A
• THICKNESS -0.351N. MINIMUM.
TRENCH SECTION A -A
FABRIC FABRIC
STONE
• SHEARSTRESS-5LBS/SQFT FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2
SECTION 13-13
EXISTING
• FLOW VELOCITY -OBSERVED 16 FT/SEC
CHANNEL
• WEIGHTE OZJSY
SILT BAG PROFILE
OPENA• EA -36%
• SLOPES - UP TOA MAXIMUM OF I:1
SLOPES
COIR MATTING
PUMP AROUND & DEWATERING DETAIL
NTS
TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
NTS
NTS
WDICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkcickson.com
NC. LICENSE NO. FO3]4
vS�Q�y¢Q�OQ=NlZOY
IN8cc
3
UzWOO
z
dQ
W
Z
OFcc>
00Jw4Z
j
W
Co Z
sm
p
O
�Z(
IllQCn=l
ZOZW
)
yaw
a
¢ate
PROJ. DATE JDUNE 2018
OCP
2016021500>Dmonmm
O.C. DATE: APRIL2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D1
PROJ. NO.:
UzWOO
z
dQ
W
Z
OFcc>
00Jw4Z
j
W
Co Z
sm
p
O
�Z(
IllQCn=l
ZOZW
wz�Q
a
¢ate

DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NC. LICENSE NO. FO3]4cccrCOLU
PROD. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
FLOW
W
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, 5-8 FEET LONG, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, AND
HARDWOOD.
PROPOSED REBAR OR DUCKBILL
STREAM BED ANCHOR
COIR FIBER
ATTING
2. CABLE ANCHORS SHOULD BE PLACED V TO Y FROM EACH END OF LOG. REBAR (5/8" MINIMUM DIAMETER
J W
a
3' MIN. LENGTH TYPICAL) MAY BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR CABLE ANCHORS PER DIRECTION OF
ENGINEER.
CHANNEL MIN 6.0'
BOTTOM OF BANK -� MIN 3.0'
FLATTO
3. IF REBAR IS USED, PRE -DRILL HOLES WITH 5/8" DRILL BIT.
5' TO15'LATGH
DETAIL
Z U
Ajp�CT� \CLIVESACH
REACH BELOW THE GROUNDWATERFill'
BELOW THELD G LOUNDWATNG RCOARSE
O 2
BACKFILLTO
1COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL(1"TO4")
TABLE. (GENERALLYALENGTH OF2T0
�
, \
THE STAKES SHOULD HAVE A DIAMEER
� 0
J
SIDE NTHERANE OF 0.T5T021NCHES.
fTABLE
� Z
ATSLIGHT
SLIGHT
ELEVATION
TO 1/3 OF LOG
B \REMOVED
�1/4
nGGREGATE
MIN 1BANKFULL
DIAMETER CAN G EXPOSED
TO FINAL GRADING
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE (1• TO 4•)PRIOR
TACK FAFABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)
� O
TO LOG
F
PROPOSEDBED
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK 5.6' SECTION A -A
COIR FIBER
45DEGREE MATTING
F-
ui � �
0
Iii
TAPERED BUTT END
Z � O
gV)
W��
PROPOSED
STREAM BANK
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
4
3
�
/
MINIMUM OF 2/3 OF LOG
HEADER LOG
¢ate
DIAMETER BEDDED BELOW
EXISTING CHANNEL INVERT
10" MINIMUM LOG
NOTES:
DIAMETER (TYP.)
1. LOGSSHOULDBE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND
SECTION VIEW
RECENTLY HARVESTED.
LIVE STAKES SHALL BE
SPACED 3 FEET APART,
INSTALL CABLE ANCHOR AS SHOWN. DRILL (OR SAW
Y4 X
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. = 10', MIN LENGTH = 15'
ALTERNATE SPACING.
CUT) PILOT HOLE THROUGH LOG TO OF THE WAY
DOWN SO THAT ANCHOR CABLE IS NOT EXPOSED.
3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3' 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL FOOTER LOG
EVERY 1.5ALONG THE LOG\Ylll
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 (SALIX NIGRA), SILKY WILLOW
NTS
(SALIX SERICEA), COTTONWOOD (POPU WS DELTOIDES) AND SILKY DOGWOOD
(CORNUS AMMOMUM).
2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED IN AN AREA EXTENDING 3 FEET OUT FROM
TOP OF BANK TO JUST BELOW BANKFULL.
BANKFULL ELEVATION
BACKFILL AREA BETWEEN BANK AND COIR FIBER
ROLL (APPLY PERMANENT SEED MIX 8 COIR MATING)
LIVE STAKE
\\
EXISTING
1/4 TO 1/3 OF LOG
DIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSED
Zy� PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING
PLANTED COIR BANK
FIBER ROLL
NORMAL WATER PLANTED COIR FLOW
NTS
PROPOSED BED
LEVEL / FIBER ROLL WOOD
STAKES
.5' TO 1.25'
DENSE COIR MATTING�I �� `
DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
(ROLANKA BioD-Mal®90 OR
EQUIVALENT)
USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR
IF TO OF LOG DIAMETER
' BEDDED BELOW OFINVERT
WOOD
STAKES
WOOD STAKE
KEVIN UPSTREAM
PLAN VIEW END OFROLLAPPROX
r
12" LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)
NOTES
• 2-4 FT INTO BANK
�2i^�
SECTION VIEW 1. DESIGNERTO MARK LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF
NOES'
SILLS IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
m 81- 81 I I I I I I
1. INSTALL STAKES ON T CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL. TOP OF STAKE
2. INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL.
SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.
TOP OF STAKE SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.
2. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH APPROX j TO LOG DIAM)FOR
1. INSERT 2. REMOVE 3. INSERT
PLACEMENT OF ROLL.
3. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH tin DEEP) FOR
PLANTINGBARAS PLANTING BAR PLANTING BAR
3. COIR LOGS SHALL BE 10 FT LONG AND HAVE A DIAMETER OF 12 IN.
PLACEMENT OF ROLL.
SHOWN AND PULL AND PLACE INCHES TOWARD
HANDLETOWARD SEEDING AT PLANTER FROM
PLANTER. CORRECT DEPTH. SEEDING.
COIR LOG (TOE PROTECTION)
NTS
VEGETATED SILL DEFLECTOR
NTS
r '�
NEW CHANNEL TO BE O1Y
CONSTRUCTED
LL JI Tj
4. PULL HANDLE OF 5. PUSH 6. LEAVE
MIN. 25'
BAR TOWARDHANDLE COMPACTION
PLANTER, FIRM ING FORWARD HOLE OPEN.
EL TO -CHANNEL PLUG
BE
BE DIVERTIVERTED
MAX. 75'
SOIL AT BOTTOM. FIRMING SOIL WATER
AT TOP. THOROUGHLY.
ABANDONED
TOP OF
BANK
PLANTING NOTES: NOTES:
PLAN VIEW
EXISTING _9
\/\ \ \ \ j
- CHANNEL y\ \\�//\j�/ \ \// \\/ \ \
\ / \
\\ \\
BARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTED 6
PLANTING BAG FT. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER, RANDOM
DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SPACING, AVERAGING a FT. ON
0 BOTTOM \ \� \/
SHALL BE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS
BAG OR SIMILAR CONTAINER TO CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 680
DRY ENT THE ROOT SYSTEMS FROM PLANTSPER ACRE.
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
COMPACTED BACKFILL
KBC PLANTING BAR
1.5' MINIMUM
BANKFULL ELEVATION
(12' TO 18' LIFTS)
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS
SECTION, AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES
30'
LONG, 4 INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH
L
THICK AT CENTER.
FINISHED GRADE NEW CHANNEL BANK SHALL
NOTES:
ROOT PRUNING
COMPACTED BACKFILL 1 BE TREATED AS SPECIFIED
IN PLANS
1. RLL EXISTING CHANNEL TO BANKFULL ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE.
ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT
IF THAT NO
PRUNEDROOTS
(12' LIFTS) 1
2. CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 12" TO 18" UFTS,
EXTEND MORE THAN
to, MIN
3. IF CHANNEL CANNOT BE COMPLETELY FILLED TO TOP OF BANK, PLL
"'ZK
INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.
TO TOP OF BANK FOR 25' OUT OF EVERY 100' SEGMENT.
Zai
Lffl�
c+
PROPOSED
CHANNEL INVERT
CHANNEL BACKFILL
BARE ROOT PLANTING
IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL TYPICAL SECTION
(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER) LOG TOE OR COIR LOG
NTS
NTS
CHANNELPLUG
NTS
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NC. LICENSE NO. FO3]4cccrCOLU
PROD. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D2
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
O Z
z
�
W
J W
a
00
Z
aQ
O
Z U
U
O 2
o z
�
> f7
� 0
J
Z
O
� Z
U
Iw
0.
w
(n Z
O
� O
F
CL z
�O
O
?
F-
ui � �
0
Iii
O w o
w `�
Z � O
gV)
W��
Z
O �
LL Q
O
3
�
O
Y y
taao �
W J
¢ate
awe
awe a
O Z
z
�
W
0
00
Q
aQ
w�
Z U
� w
O 2
o z
�
> f7
� 0
J
w �
� Z
Iw
0.
w
(n Z
r
� O
Q z >
CL z
�O
Z¢
F-
ui � �
0
Iii
O w o
w `�
Z � O
m
W��
Z
5 y I� m
3
�
w Qz�
Z m
O
a
¢ate

INSTALL COIR MATTING PER
DETAIL DWG D1
EXCAVATE/ GRADE UPPER BANK
INSTALL LIVE STAKES (SEE PLANTING PLAN)
EXISTING CHANNEL BANK
TIE TO EXISTING GRADE
MIN SLOPE 2.5H:1 V SEE DWG ##
(DESIGNER TO MARK IN FIELD
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION)
EXISTING
10'T015' CHANNELBED
NOTES. BENCH
1. TREES NOT INDICATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE
PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS.
2. SEEDANDMULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLING
COIR MATTING.
TOE OF BANK
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE IU
COARSE
AGGREGATE
BACKFILL
(1' TO 5')
TOE OF BANK —
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)
TYPICAL BANK GRADING
NTS
y� STREAM BANK
o
BALLAST BOULDER
OR DUCK BILL ANCHORS
LOG VANE
POOL ( LEFTORRIGHTVANE ARMBANK
INTERCEPT CONTROL POINT
\1OW
PLAN VIEW
- STREAM BANK
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (1"TO5")
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
STREAW POOL BED
VARIES
0' TOJ WIDTH
SECTION A -A
1. :IVFNSI)NQ. SH::WN AR- IH- MINIMUM `..::FPI FII I,NIFS� c)IH-:NISF N:' ..
RIPRAP FILTER BERM
NTS
NOTES:
1. LOG VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE OR MORE LOGS HELD IN PLACE BY EITHER BALLAST BOULDERS, DUCKBILL
ANCHORS, OR REBAR. LOGS SHALL BE OF A LENGTH AND DIAMETER SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER AND BE RELATIVELY
STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED. THE LENGTH SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE LOG IS BURIED INTO THE SOIL OF THE
STREAM BANK (ON ONE END)AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'. FLAT -SIDED BALLAST
BOULDERS SHALL BE OF SIZE 2' X 2' X 1.5' OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
2. THEVANESHALL INTERCEPT THE STREAM BANK AT A HEIGHT EQUAL TO BETWEEN% BANKFULL STAGE AND BANKFULL STAGE.
AN ELEVATION CONTROL POINT MAY BE ESTABLISHED AT THE LEFT OR RIGHT STREAM BANKNANE INTERCEPT POINT. THE
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.
3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOGS AND UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL OF THE
VANE. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK: EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS
NEEDED.
4. LOG VANES SHALL BE BUILT TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS:
A. OVER -EXCAVATE STREAM BED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE HEADER (AND FOOTER IF
SPECIFIED) LOGS.
B. PLACE FOOTER LOG OF THE VANE ARM IF SPECIFIED. THE SLOPE OF THE VANE ARM IS MEASURED ALONG THE VANE
ARM WHICH IS INSTALLED AT AN ANGLE TO THE STREAM BANK AND PROFILE.
C. INSTALL HEADER LOG OF THE VANE ARM ON TOP OF AND SLIGHTLY FORWARD OR BACK FROM THE FOOTER LOG.
D. NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO THE HEADER LOG USING A GALVANIZED NAIL WITH A PLASTIC CAP. THE SIZE AND CAGE OF NAIL
AND NAIL SPACING SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
E. PLACE BALLAST BOULDERS OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR ON THE VANE.
F. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND LOGS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS BETWEEN THE LOGS ARE FILLED.
G. BACKFILL REMAINDER OF VANE WITH PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED MATERIAL.
5. IF ANY EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS SPECIFIED FOR USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE STREAM BANKNANE INTERCEPT POINT THE
MATTING EDGES SHALL BE NEATLY SECURED AROUND THE LOGS.
1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH
1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH
'20� `O7i
\ \ —ROOT WAD
PLAN VIEW -TRENCHING METHOD
IOULDER
AS DIRECTED
1Y ENGINEER)
ROOT WAD
IF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVER
ENTIRE BANK & CONSTRUCTION
PLAN VIEW - DRIVE POINT METHOD
BOULDER
(AS DIRECTED
BY ENGINEER)
IS BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TO
U Q
Z
MID MARCH, PROTECT BANK
DRIVE POINT METHOD:
SOD MATS
NTH BRUSH LAYER.
SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE
OO
F—RSIECTIV- VI -W
DRIVING" IT INTO THE BANK. ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO
FLOOD PLAIN
W
I RI' RAP
a!: W" Hl
";NF
ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE WATER AWAY FROM THE BANK. A
oz
� F
cc
BANKFULL STAGE
TRANSPLANT OR BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE
-=-WENT
_TO',A�=
ZON=
'RADING
_ FIVIVATER
TOIA�
ZON=
BOULDER 24 MIN
y r
IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE
I,I
II
BANK NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD
MINIMUM OF 11212"OF DIAMETER
=:'P -NN-
10-15 FEET LONG
INSTALLED BELOW STREAM BED
EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD. IN THIS
110" DIAMETER
O w o
CASE, A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNDERNEATH THE
R00T WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THE BANK AND
VAX '"IMILLPIII `:.:..... ............. .........:
N�
WELL BELOW THE STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE ROOT WAD
�C AN ;:III 4'::IV 1
W W W
SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
CROSS SECTION VIEW
SECTION
PTHICKCLASS I
¢ate
RIP RAP DISSIPATER PAD
rFN_Rl NOT
Q
Q a
FIL TER FABRIC
1. :IVFNSI)NQ. SH::WN AR- IH- MINIMUM `..::FPI FII I,NIFS� c)IH-:NISF N:' ..
RIPRAP FILTER BERM
NTS
NOTES:
1. LOG VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE OR MORE LOGS HELD IN PLACE BY EITHER BALLAST BOULDERS, DUCKBILL
ANCHORS, OR REBAR. LOGS SHALL BE OF A LENGTH AND DIAMETER SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER AND BE RELATIVELY
STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED. THE LENGTH SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE LOG IS BURIED INTO THE SOIL OF THE
STREAM BANK (ON ONE END)AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'. FLAT -SIDED BALLAST
BOULDERS SHALL BE OF SIZE 2' X 2' X 1.5' OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
2. THEVANESHALL INTERCEPT THE STREAM BANK AT A HEIGHT EQUAL TO BETWEEN% BANKFULL STAGE AND BANKFULL STAGE.
AN ELEVATION CONTROL POINT MAY BE ESTABLISHED AT THE LEFT OR RIGHT STREAM BANKNANE INTERCEPT POINT. THE
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.
3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOGS AND UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL OF THE
VANE. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK: EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS
NEEDED.
4. LOG VANES SHALL BE BUILT TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS:
A. OVER -EXCAVATE STREAM BED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE HEADER (AND FOOTER IF
SPECIFIED) LOGS.
B. PLACE FOOTER LOG OF THE VANE ARM IF SPECIFIED. THE SLOPE OF THE VANE ARM IS MEASURED ALONG THE VANE
ARM WHICH IS INSTALLED AT AN ANGLE TO THE STREAM BANK AND PROFILE.
C. INSTALL HEADER LOG OF THE VANE ARM ON TOP OF AND SLIGHTLY FORWARD OR BACK FROM THE FOOTER LOG.
D. NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO THE HEADER LOG USING A GALVANIZED NAIL WITH A PLASTIC CAP. THE SIZE AND CAGE OF NAIL
AND NAIL SPACING SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
E. PLACE BALLAST BOULDERS OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR ON THE VANE.
F. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND LOGS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS BETWEEN THE LOGS ARE FILLED.
G. BACKFILL REMAINDER OF VANE WITH PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED MATERIAL.
5. IF ANY EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS SPECIFIED FOR USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE STREAM BANKNANE INTERCEPT POINT THE
MATTING EDGES SHALL BE NEATLY SECURED AROUND THE LOGS.
1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH
1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH
'20� `O7i
\ \ —ROOT WAD
PLAN VIEW -TRENCHING METHOD
IOULDER
AS DIRECTED
1Y ENGINEER)
ROOT WAD
IF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVER
ENTIRE BANK & CONSTRUCTION
PLAN VIEW - DRIVE POINT METHOD
BOULDER
(AS DIRECTED
BY ENGINEER)
MIN 2.0'
SMALL LOGS Al
LARGE BRANCHES WITH
A MIN DIAMETER OF 4-.
_ INSTALL COIR MATTING PER
DETAIL DWG D1
COMPACTED SOIL
LIVE STAKES
LIVE CUTTINGS
SMALLBRANCHES
AND BRUSH
SECTION A -A
ROOTWAD
NTS
TOP OF BANK
NOTES
1. OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE
LARGER BRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRISSCROSS PATTERN.
LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING 61N TO 181N OF THE
LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.
2. PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGER
BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) AND
COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO
LOCK IN PLACE.
3. ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES A INCLUDE BLACK
WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA) AND SILKY WILLOW (SALIX SERICEA).
WILLOW CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO
ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.
4. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER
COMPACTED SOIL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
5. INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE
CUTTINGS LAYER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
BANKFULL A
BALLAST BOULDER COIR MATTING
OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BANK \ \ 1 I l u l
INTERCEPT CONTROL POINT
FL-'yVARIES
CHANNELTOP
_ S
/Ptovv OF BANK
POOL\\%
\\ C`
FOOTER LOG �\\T '\7 7
HEADER LOG 4
PROFILE VIEW A
CHANNEL
BOTTOM OF BANK
LOG VANE TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
BRUSH TOE
NTS
NTS
DD CKSON
Community Infrastructure Consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatice
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
Nc. LICENSE No. Fmra
N
°'ccCOCccoEC
PROD. DATE: JUNE 201(1
O.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D3
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
Q �
�
a
Z
O
U
Z
O
U
O
O
_o Z g
O
w
�
LL Q
O
O Z LU
0CE LEI
)
IS BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TO
U Q
Z
MID MARCH, PROTECT BANK
DRIVE POINT METHOD:
SOD MATS
NTH BRUSH LAYER.
SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE
OO
TOP OF BANK
DRIVING" IT INTO THE BANK. ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO
FLOOD PLAIN
W
THAT THE STREAM FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90 -DEGREE
� w
Ox
ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE WATER AWAY FROM THE BANK. A
oz
� F
cc
BANKFULL STAGE
TRANSPLANT OR BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE
BOULDER
(AS DIRECTED BY
J
- ---DOWN
STR EAM SIDE OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED
BY THE ROOT WAD. THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 3' X
ENGINEER)
BASEFLOW -
3' X 2'.
BOULDER 24 MIN
y r
IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE
DIAMETER
L>
FOOTER OG 1z°DIAMETER
BANK NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD
MINIMUM OF 11212"OF DIAMETER
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
110" DIAMETER
O w o
CASE, A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNDERNEATH THE
R00T WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THE BANK AND
�
N�
WELL BELOW THE STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE ROOT WAD
Z
W W W
SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
CROSS SECTION VIEW
Y y
MIN 2.0'
SMALL LOGS Al
LARGE BRANCHES WITH
A MIN DIAMETER OF 4-.
_ INSTALL COIR MATTING PER
DETAIL DWG D1
COMPACTED SOIL
LIVE STAKES
LIVE CUTTINGS
SMALLBRANCHES
AND BRUSH
SECTION A -A
ROOTWAD
NTS
TOP OF BANK
NOTES
1. OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE
LARGER BRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRISSCROSS PATTERN.
LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING 61N TO 181N OF THE
LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.
2. PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGER
BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) AND
COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO
LOCK IN PLACE.
3. ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES A INCLUDE BLACK
WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA) AND SILKY WILLOW (SALIX SERICEA).
WILLOW CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO
ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.
4. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER
COMPACTED SOIL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
5. INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE
CUTTINGS LAYER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
BANKFULL A
BALLAST BOULDER COIR MATTING
OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BANK \ \ 1 I l u l
INTERCEPT CONTROL POINT
FL-'yVARIES
CHANNELTOP
_ S
/Ptovv OF BANK
POOL\\%
\\ C`
FOOTER LOG �\\T '\7 7
HEADER LOG 4
PROFILE VIEW A
CHANNEL
BOTTOM OF BANK
LOG VANE TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
BRUSH TOE
NTS
NTS
DD CKSON
Community Infrastructure Consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatice
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
Nc. LICENSE No. Fmra
N
°'ccCOCccoEC
PROD. DATE: JUNE 201(1
O.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D3
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
Q �
�
a
Z
O
U
Z
O
U
O
O
_o Z g
O
w
�
LL Q
O
O Z LU
0CE LEI
)
U Q
Z
u)
Z
�
W
OO
Q
CL Q
W
Z U
� w
Ox
oz
� F
cc
¢
> f7
G70
J
w�
Z
W
y r
CO
ism
p
¢y p
� O
Q Z >
CL z
�O
z¢
C/)Iii
ui ��
O w o
z u�0
�
N�
W�'
Z
W W W
3
�
Y y
�
W J
¢ate
Q
Q a
U Q
Z
u)
Z
�
W
OO
Q
CL Q
W
Z U
� w
Ox
oz
� F
cc
¢
> f7
G70
J
w�
Z
W
y r
CO
ism
p
¢y p
� O
Q Z >
CL z
�O
z¢
C/)Iii
ui ��
O w o
z u�0
�
N�
W�'
Z
W W W
3
�
Z ¢zm
O
a
¢ate

BANKFULL
PLAN VIEW
NOTE:
REBAR (112" MINIMUM DIAMETER T MIN. LENGTH
TYPICAL) SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3' FROM END OF
LOG. ADDITIONAL REBAR TO BE PLACED AT 6'
OFFSETS. LAST REBAR SHOULD BE PLACED V TO 3'
FROM END OF LOG. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BE
USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR REBAR, 2 PER LOG.
FLOODPLAIN SILL
NTS
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN
SURFACE
DOWN VALLEY
6' (TYP.)
`\\\\\ S.D.
`SW REBAR
SECTIONAL VIEW A- A'
3F
EXISTING DITCH G
BANK 1i
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
EASEMENT LIMIT
—1\—�
PROPOSED
LIMITS
OF GRADING
N B
COARSE AGGREGATE HEADER LOG
BACKFILL (2" TO 6")
%INVERT ELEVATION
�L
/ B
HEADE4'T08'
INVERT LELEVATION
ATION
POINT REFERENCED IN MIN 3.0'
MIN SET MIN SET
VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO
PLAN VIEW
`
LOG BURIED IN
o `
BANK MIN SFT U'
DROP OF 0.5 FF
POINT REFERENCED IN
BACKFILL (2" TO 6")
DIAMETER(}OF LOG
DIAMETER (NP)
STRUCTURE TABLE
FOOTER
LOG
MIN SET MIN SET
VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO
PLAN VIEW
STRUCTURE TABLE
MAX ALLOWABLE
n
COARSEAGGREGATE
DROP OF 0.5 FF
HEADER LOG
1%T03%
BACKFILL (2" TO 6")
DIAMETER(}OF LOG
DIAMETER (NP)
VI
FOOTER
LOG
LOOTER
7
t'�
_--
HEADER
LOG
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (2" TO 6")
�C
—NON -WOVEN
__
MAX "---
GEOTEXTILE
FILL DITCH SUCH THAT
FABRIC IN DOT
J
LOG BURIED IN
BANK
PROFILEA-A'
THE DOWNSTREAM
MIN SET MIN SET
VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO
PLAN VIEW
I �J 5.0'
MIN
I I
I
[HANNELTOP OF A POO
BANK I
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 1)
FLOW
CHANNELBOTTOM OF
BANK I
I
OG COARSE BACKFILL
FILTER FABRIC A
I
I
B
B NON -WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TACKFABRICTO
(NCDOT TYPE II) LOG
SECTION A -A
I, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS
INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
SECTION B -B (OPT 1)
FREAM BANK
MAX ALLOWABLE
n
DROP OF 0.5 FF
HEADER LOG
1%T03%
JI
DIAMETER(}OF LOG
DIAMETER (NP)
VI
/n1 COARSE AGGREGATE
LOOTER
l°J'I BACKFILL (2" TO 6")
V/
0.5% SLOPE --------
TIE-IN TO
MIN
—NON -WOVEN
__
MAX "---
GEOTEXTILE
FILL DITCH SUCH THAT
FABRIC IN DOT
J
TYPE II)
PROFILEA-A'
I �J 5.0'
MIN
I I
I
[HANNELTOP OF A POO
BANK I
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 1)
FLOW
CHANNELBOTTOM OF
BANK I
I
OG COARSE BACKFILL
FILTER FABRIC A
I
I
B
B NON -WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TACKFABRICTO
(NCDOT TYPE II) LOG
SECTION A -A
I, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS
INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
SECTION B -B (OPT 1)
FREAM BANK
EXISTING DITCH
LOG SILL DETAIL EXISTING GRADE
(SIE
LOG STRUCTURE
(SEE DETAIL)
HEADER LOG
1%T03%
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED GRADE
BRUSHTOE�
?-
C
__
0.5% SLOPE --------
TIE-IN TO
_---__---_
__
MAX "---
EXISTING
FILL DITCH SUCH THAT
EXISTING
J
_
G �_� /,��
G-��1��y
FLOODPLAIN
THE DOWNSTREAM
DITCH INVERT
\\�\\
ELEVATION
ELEVATION TIES INTO
EXISTING GRADE OF THE
CONSTRUCT FLOW
FILL DITCH AND
E O
FLOODPLAIN
0
POOL
INSTALL COIR
Z >
z ¢ o
r 1441
O
FOOTER LOG
MATTING
SECTION A -A
a
- GRADE AREA SUCH THATEXISTING
MAX SLOPE BE OW LOG
GROUND
5.0'
5
REBAR 15/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR
STRUCTURE IS I%
a
NOTES:
MIN
y �
Idyl J
DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER MAN U FACTURERS
CUT
1. NO FLOODPLAIN
GRADING IS ALLOWED WITHIN 10 FT
_---
------OF THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TOP OF BANK.
2. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10'-20' LONG AND AT
PROFILE B -B'
NOTES:
3:1 MAX LEAST 8 INCHES
IN DIAMETER, AND HARDWOOD.
3:1 MAX J
\�\�\/���
\
SLOPE
SLOPE
\\ \\ \\
HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
INSTALL COIR MATTING/v���'y
L�
A
POOL
SECTION B -B (OPT 2)
PERMANUFACTURER'S
SECTION B -B
FILL DITCH
INSTRUCTIONS
3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
NTS
ALONG THE LOG
FLOW
2)
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
PROPOSED STREAM
REBAR OR DUCKBILL
CHANNEL BOTTOM OF
HARVESTED.
BED
ANCHOR
BANK
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (I" TO 5")
COARSE BACKFILL
—� MIN. 5.0'
NON -WOVEN
NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
_
POOL APPROX. 0.75'TO 1.5'
DEEP
GEO(NCDOT TYPE II)
A
%�
—
COARSE AGGREGATE
LOG SILL
\
V vy/vv
BACKFI LL(1"TO 5")
NTS
I �J 5.0'
MIN
I I
I
[HANNELTOP OF A POO
BANK I
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 1)
FLOW
CHANNELBOTTOM OF
BANK I
I
OG COARSE BACKFILL
FILTER FABRIC A
I
I
B
B NON -WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TACKFABRICTO
(NCDOT TYPE II) LOG
SECTION A -A
I, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS
INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
SECTION B -B (OPT 1)
FREAM BANK
ENT,
-Kim
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 Lu Lu cc00fr cc
NC. JCENSE NO.
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: DP
Q.C. DA7E: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D4
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
Ill
F m
� o
H o
O
IL
ROOTWAD OR
U Z
V1
Z
o
HEADER LOG
1%T03%
C
\
BRUSHTOE�
?-
C
a¢
4%TO6%
U
O
Q
�
aQ
PROFILE C -C'
VJ
J
B
W
U
� Z
x
E O
0
CIL Z
Z >
z ¢ o
r 1441
O
FOOTER LOG
2 ❑ Z
Z Q=
a
y
F W O
W
5.0'
5
REBAR 15/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR
OVERLAP OF
a
MIN
y �
Idyl J
DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER MAN U FACTURERS
DOWNSTREAM LOG
Q
OVERLAP OF INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
PROFILE B -B'
NOTES:
DOWNSTREAM LOG
1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
CHANNEL TOP OF
L�
A
POOL
SECTION B -B (OPT 2)
MIN DIAM. - 10', MIN LENGTH = 12'
BANK
3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
ALONG THE LOG
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT
2)
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
DOUBLE LOG DROP
MIN DIM. =10", MIN LENGTH =12'
NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
NTS
ALONG THE LOG
LOG SILL
3. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR.
NTS
ENT,
-Kim
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 Lu Lu cc00fr cc
NC. JCENSE NO.
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: DP
Q.C. DA7E: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D4
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
Ill
F m
� o
H o
O
IL
U Z
V1
Z
o
LU
J
7
y
a¢
U
Z U
U
O
Q
�
aQ
VJ
J
Z
W
U
� Z
x
E O
0
CIL Z
Z >
z ¢ o
O �
O
?
2 ❑ Z
Z Q=
a
y
F W O
W
w
5
o
¢ a
O �
LL Q
D
a
� _O
S_ y
y �
Idyl J
Q
U Z
V1
Z
o
LU
J
o
7
y
a¢
w�
Z U
� v
O
o
�
aQ
VJ
J
wu'
W
y
� Z
�
O
E O
Q
CIL Z
Z >
z ¢ o
O �
�
O LLl
2 ❑ Z
Z Q=
F
~
= N N
N m
F W O
W
�
N I rn
V) ..
3
�
W Qz�
Z m
O
a
¢ate

:NT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF W.K DICKSON & CO., INC., IS PROHIBITED. ONLY COPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID, TRUE COPIES.
Kim Marsh
DD WK
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Developmem + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, INC 27607
(v) 919.762.0495
(t) 919.782.9672
www.wkcilckson.comCrELL
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D5
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
lL
Q�
0 O
F N
a
Z
0
U
F
CO
Z
O
U
O ?
a CO
BANKFULL STREAM BANK
NOTES:
Z
o
W
FLOW
o
00
a°C
16 FT MAX
LINE POST -,BARBED OR UNE POST
WOVEN WIRE ELECTRIC
TOE OF BANK, TYPICAL
STREAM BANKS,
TYPICAL \
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL I? TO 6")
1. LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF ITIN LENGTH AND 10" IN DIAMETER AND
RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. A SINGLE LOG MAV BE USED IN LIEU OFA HEADER/FOOTER LOG COMBINATION, PER
WIRE
O
/\\
HEADER LOG
DIRECTION OF DESIGNER.
3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOG(S) AND THE
(n
J
CROSS VANE INVERT
E
FOOTR LOG, IF
STREAM BED, UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER
FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED, TUCKED, OR
rn w
� Z
U �
�
O
SPECIFIED
TRIMMED AS NEEDED.
< z >
(� O
\
/
4. COARSE BACKFILL PIACEDTOATHI HE OFTHE
w
Q � =
Z
F
BANKFULL �\
TOOTESHALL R)
OUTFROMN ARMS
HEADER (AND ANY FOOTER) LOGS AND SHALL EXTEND OUT FROM THE VANE ARMS
EXTENDTHE
LINE PANEL
COARSE AGGREGATE
N
\
\ \ STREAM BED IN POOL
\\//\/\\/
TO THE STREAM BANKAND UPSTREAM.
5. AS AN OPTION, FLAT BOULDERS MAY BE PLACED AS BALLAST ON TOP OF THE
¢ a
O �
LL Q
BACKFILL(2"TO6")
FILTER FABRIC
/\\/\
/
-SIDED
STREAM BANK SIDE OF THE EMBEDDED VANE ARMS. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAYBE
I
Q
I
� Q
USED IN LIEU OF BALLAST BOULDERS.
r 0' TO W
6. DUCKBILL ANCHORSWITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAYBE US SECURE
\ \ \ \
AMBED CAN
LOGS INTO THE STRLOG INV BT/DUCK IL BANKS. SYSTELAT M, BOULDERS CAN BE USED
IN LIEU OF THE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHOR SYSTEM.
BARBED OR
ELECTRIC WIRE POST
LINE
�
A
INVERT LOG (SEE NOTE6& & 11)
SECTION
4" TO 6"1 WOVEN WIRE:
FILTER FABRIC
a ASTM CLASS 3 GALVANIZED.
TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN. 12 GAUGE.
'
WOVEN WIRE � �_ INTERMEDIATE AND STAY WIRES MIN.
'
GROUND UNE 12 1/2 GAUGE.
�
A'
MIN
M 4
3
S'
INVERT LOG
4 ?
Ci
POOL
VANE ARM LOG, TYPICAL COARSEAGGREGATE
BACKFILL (2"T06")
- -BANKFULL
--
OPTIONAL BALLAST BOULDER
- '
FLOWHEADER
LOG _----
WOVEN WIRE W1TH ONE BARB DETAIL
3%TO 8%
r
STREAM BED
HEADER LOG
LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 4IN. DIAM. OR 4 IN. SQUARE.\\/�\\
�\
FLOW
LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U. OR V 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
FILTER FABRIC
/
SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLE POSTS OF SPECIES SUCH AS RED CEDAR,
FOOTER LOG
DOTER/G
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.
DUCKBILL ANCHOR
PLAN VIEW
WOVEN WIRE FENCE (NRCS DETAIL 382A)
PROFILEVIEW
NTS
LOG CROSS VANE
NTS
TOP OF BANK TOE OF BANK
RIP RAP APPROACH
(5 -MIN) TIMBER MAT CROSSING TIMBER MAT APPROACH
3' MAXIMUM STREAM CHANNEL
TIMBER MAT INSTALLED
BANK HEIGHT
I V I
FLOW PARALLEL
I
VII W IllL'l) , I
CIASS B RIP RAP
1 1l.' �.4 L (�i I I II I
=_ = SURFACE FLOW
ILII N� DIVERISSION
_
A.
--
IIII-
i
JIu
__ __- ___ __ R ::................. ::::::::::::::::: CARRIAGE BOLT
STONE APPROACH
u k k
f SECTION: 5:1 MAX. I
FOR OUTLET STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED
tl e
ii ii................._,, p.
SLOPE ON ROAD
WITH WETLANDS, GRADE FLOW PATH
50/50 MIX OF CLASS A
FROM WETLAND TO RECEIVING CHANNEL
AND B RIPRAP OVER
A MAX DEPTH OF 0.5' BELOW EXISTING
FILTER FABRIC
GRADE.
CHANNEL BED
3.0'-5.0'
tl TYPICAL
TIMBERMAT,
SURFACE FLOW
DIVERSION
I
,/E
TIMBER MAT INSTALLEDZ
EXISTING STREAMBANK
\�/�\\
WETLAND OR
PERPENDICULAR
/\\
FILTER FABRIC CHANNEL
NOTES:
\�\' \��'/.-
LOG GRADE CONTROL
PLAN VIEW
1. TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDY
ARES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AND TO CROSS THE
50/50 MIX OF
CLASSAANDB
PROFILE VIEW
NOES.
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES
STREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS.
RIPRAP
IN DIAMETER, A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET IN
TIM BERMATINSTALLED
CARRIAGE BOLT, 2. THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN FLOW I6
FILTER FABRIC
LENGTH (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED), OAK
SPECIES, AND RELATIVELY STRAIGHT.
PERPENDICULAR
TYPICAL TIMBER MAT LOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF
2. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D
CLASS B RIP RAP THE CHANNEL BED AND BANKS AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING
TOPOFBANK INSTALLED PARALLEL
NOES.
1. CgJSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 2'
THE APPROACHES OR CROSSING.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE
CHANNEL TOP OF BANK APPROX. 6' TO IF
ALONG THE LOG.
3. THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CROSS THE
WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT
3. RLTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT
TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR
STREAM OR CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCH
SHALLTOP BANK ON
\ \ \ \ \ THATTHETIMBECENTRAT TEDFL FLOWPASTTH
EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING
EQUIVALENT.
EACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO
ON THE OTHER SI
4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.
>
SUPPORT THE MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT SIZE USING THE
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A MAXIMUM 5:1.
07i
\\\\ \�\\\�\� CROSSING.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD
DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
4. STREAM CROSSINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER
FILTER FABRIC
TOE OF BANK,
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL CLASS A STONE, 1H INCHES THICK,
UNED SLOPES.R FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND
PROPDS
THE STREAM BANKS.TTIMBERPMAT STREAM APPROACHES
TYPICAL APPROXIMATE BASE FLOW
ACCESS
WETLAND OR�\\
��'� LOG GRADE
SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHS
WATER SURFACE ORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS.
8. NLTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC
OR EQUIVALENT.
CHANNEL OUTLET
CONTROL
5. STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRV AREAS SHALL
9. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (8' MIN.) TO
ACCOMMODATE THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
SECTION VIEW
BE CONSTRUCTED USING CLASS B RIP RAP PLACED OVER
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE
SECTION VIEW FILTER FABRIC.ACCORDING
TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
11. TEMPORARY CROSSINGS ARE TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE.
B. ALL TIMBCOMPLE ELLYREMOVEDFROMFABRIC,
HESITEWHD RIP ENT HESHALL BE
LOG OUTLET STRUCTURE
CROSSING IS REMOVED.
FORD CROSSING
NTS
NTS
TIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSING
NTS
:NT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF W.K DICKSON & CO., INC., IS PROHIBITED. ONLY COPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID, TRUE COPIES.
Kim Marsh
DD WK
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Developmem + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, INC 27607
(v) 919.762.0495
(t) 919.782.9672
www.wkcilckson.comCrELL
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D5
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
lL
Q�
0 O
F N
a
Z
0
U
F
CO
Z
O
U
O ?
a CO
� Z
Z
o
W
o
00
a°C
y
z�
Z U
O
o
�
¢
(n
J
w J
U
�Z
Wo
rn w
� Z
U �
�
O
Z O
OE U
< z >
(� O
Z h
W O V%
IL
w
Q � =
Z
F
�
= N N
�
O
N
5
a
o
¢ a
O �
LL Q
y N
W J
I
Q
I
� Q
Q a
� Z
Z
o
W
o
00
a°C
y
z�
Z U
O
o
�
¢
(n
J
w J
U
�Z
Wo
rn w
� Z
U �
�
O
Z O
OE U
< z >
(� O
Z h
W O V%
IL
w
Q � =
Z
F
�
= N N
�
m
y �...
O
3
¢
W Qz�
Z mom
O
a
0
¢ate

LOG BURIED
IN STREAM
BANK VANELENGTH
OFFS TFROM
T F K
? MAX DEPTH OF NEAREST
RIFFLE
C
R/00% W/
HE IF
OOT
�i�T�T� `yT�T�`Tv/T✓i�
SECTION A -A'
ED BURIED
IN STREAM
BANK STREAM BED
MINMIN. SFS- ELEVATION
7ERL.(MIX O COARSE
MATERIAL
L06�%%✓�\/%\// /// AND#5F5
ST AGGREGATEDmo
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 LOGS/BOULDERS 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 OFa 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 GAPSNOIDS LARGER THAN 1 INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING BOULDERS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH GRAVEL AND
COBBLES.
15. ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE LOGS AND/OR BOULDERS, NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN IN
PLANVIEW AND IN SECTION B -B'. PLACE SELECT BACKFILL FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOG AND BOULDER HOOK.
16. BACKFILL STRUCTURE WITH SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL AS SHOWN SHOWN IN PLANVIEW AND IN SECTION B -B'.
17. SELECT BACKFILL AND SOIL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENT OF THE MATERIAL IS KEPT
TOA MINIMUM.
18. NAIL NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE USING 3"10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL AS SHOWN IN THE
GEOTEXTILE PLACEMENT AND SELECT BACKFILL DETAIL.
FLOW
PLAN VIEW
GEOTE)
(NC
LOG J -HOOK
NTS
SMALL POOL, TVP
4.0' CHANNEL
TVP BOTTOM WIDTH
0.5' MIN
LOGS/WOODY DEBRIS
CROSS SECTION A -A'
MATERIAL
RIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUAL MIX OF
#5/#57 STONE, SURGE STONE AN74- NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL
VARIES -
BEGIN RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
FLOW
FLOW
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
NTS
LOGS/WOODY
DEBRIS
OF BANK 2
COIR FIBER MAT
1
-BANKFULL ELEVATION
FILTER FABRIC j
STEP POOL - SECTION A -A'
STREAM BED
HEADERa
ROCK
zmtc)
1.
STEP POOL ROCKS MUST HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER OF 14" TO 18" FOR HEADERS AND 18" TO 22" FOR FOOTERS.
mINVERT
TYP
FLOW
Ccx
2.
INSTALL FILTER FABRIC THE FULL LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE STARTING AT THE DOWNSTREAM END, AND THEN
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS
�\
0.5 MAX TYP.)
STEP POOL - PLAN VIEW
FOOTER ROCK
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
WELL GRADED MIX
� w
OF //57 STONE,
FILTER FABRIC
CLASS A AND B
FOR DRAINAGE
RIPRAP
STEP POOL - PROFILE VIEW
COBBLE/SMALL
\ PLANVIEW
rLNRGE
BOULDERS, TYP
1.
STEP POOL ROCKS MUST HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER OF 14" TO 18" FOR HEADERS AND 18" TO 22" FOR FOOTERS.
NOTES:
TYP
1. CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BY
2.
INSTALL FILTER FABRIC THE FULL LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE STARTING AT THE DOWNSTREAM END, AND THEN
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS
�\
TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE
UPSTREAM PAST THE LAST STEP POOL ROCK TO A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET.
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
� w
3.
DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF STEP POOL ARM, BETWEEN
CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLE
MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.
RIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUAL MIX
THE ARM AND STREAM BANK.
4, RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND WOOD. THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST
SOF
ATIVE
OF AN EQUAL MIX OF #5/#57 STONE, SURGE STONE AND NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL. RIFFLE
4.
START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK.
GRADE CONTROL ROCK
SECTIONS. OTHERWISE ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY
50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND B
5.
CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
LIVE STAKES
� O
SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
6.
USE CLASS AAND B RIPRAP TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF STEP POOL ROCKS.
(TYP
BANKFULL
BANKFULL
�
ui 0 �
7.
AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH CLASS A AND B RIPRAP TO
Z � O
gV)
W��
THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK.
o �
LL Q
O
3
�
8.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS FOR GADOT WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
SOIL BACKFILL
`) -�
SELEC
^ HEADER LOG
BACKFILL MATERIAL
CJI)
STEP POOL
NON -WOVEN
NTS
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(NCDOT TYPE II)
FOOTERLOG STREAMBED
SECTION B -B'
COBBLE/SMALL
rLNRGE
BOULDERS, TYP
U Q
Z
TOP OF BANK
4.0'
NOTES:
TYP
1. CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BY
\ \ x \�
THE DESIGNER.
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS
�\
TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE
PROPOSED TOE OF BANK
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
� w
O F
3. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND B RIPRAP. GRADE
CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLE
MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.
RIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUAL MIX
#5/#57STONE, SURGE
4, RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND WOOD. THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST
SOF
ATIVE
OF AN EQUAL MIX OF #5/#57 STONE, SURGE STONE AND NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL. RIFFLE
SUBSTRATE MATERIAL
MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL
GRADE CONTROL ROCK
SECTIONS. OTHERWISE ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY
50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND B
ROUNDED, "RIVER -TYPE" ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
RIPRAP
CHANNEL. IN ADDITION, LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE INCLUDED WITH THE ROCK MATERIAL AS
� O
SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
4'
AIN
PROPOSED TOP
OF BANK
-ENDR FFILE CONTROL POINT
TF
x:\ z
-GRADE CONTROLROCK
50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND B
RIPRAP
5. THE PLACEMENT OF GRADE CONTROL ROCK AND/OR RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER
TO CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT "JUMP- (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM
POOL -GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT "DROP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE
AND THE DOWNSTREAM RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL
GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOME
VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.
6. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER IN -STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL OR
J -HOOK).
7. THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED INTO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED
BY THE DESIGNER. THE "KEY" SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OF
THE RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY"
MAY NOT BE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.
ROCKS FOR
CHANNEL
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.wkcickson.com
NC. LICENSE No. FOs]4ccCcLU
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D6
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
H
a °'
Z
O
U
U)
U Q
Z
u)
Z
�
W
00
CL Q
w
Z U
� w
O F
�
� 0
J
Z
Z
U
W
y r
� Z
ism
p
0
� O
0
� Z
0
Z
�
ui 0 �
_O
U
Z � O
gV)
W��
(!)
o �
LL Q
O
3
�
Y y
W J
¢ate
awe
awe a
U Q
Z
u)
Z
�
W
00
CL Q
w
Z U
� w
O F
�
> C7
� 0
J
w �
Z
W
y r
� Z
ism
p
¢y p
� O
Q z >
� Z
0
Z ¢
�
ui 0 �
Iii
O w
Z � O
W��
(!)
5 y I� m
3
�
w Qz�
Z m
O
a
¢ate

FLOW
DIRECTION
A
C B
WEIR HEADER ELEVATION AS
SPECIFIED ON PROFILE AND B
TABLE 1. (TYP) I C
FILL POOL BED 'NTH 18" OF EVEN MIXTURE OF SC
CLASS A AND CLASS B RIP -RAP, NO. 57 / N0. 5 A
STONE, AND NATIVE MATERIAL ON TOP OF TYPE II
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC. COMPACT IN 6 INCH LIFTS.
BENTONITE CLAY MAY BE USED IF VOIDS EXIST WITH
CLASS A RIP -RAP AND HEADER BOULDERS
NON WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II) D
HEADER ROCK
(VANE ARM) (TYP)
NON WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)�
D
SILL ROCK,
FOR PROPOSED HB -2 A -VANES: FOR PROPOSED UT -2 A -VANES:
DIMENSION A = 10.9' DIMENSION A = 9.0'
DIMENSION B = 3.0' DIMENSION B = 2.0'
DIMENSION C = 3.95' DIMENSION C = 3.5'
:TILE FABRIC
TYPE II)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I o
I
I
I
I
I
FOOTER ROCK I _ - G 5.0'
(TYP)
]
TOP OF BANK
HB -2 = 5.5'
z
S
(BANKFULL ELEVATION)
UT -2 = 5.0'
--__--
0
TOP OF BANK (G)
I
I I
(BANKFULL ELEVATION) (TYP)
-
1.
1. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION OF MODIFIED A -VANE SHOULD INCLUDE ENGINEER OR DESIGNER WITH STREAM
FILL DOWNSTREAM POOL BED AND
THAN 2 INCHES) BETWEEN ADJOINING ROCKS. A COMPLETED ROCK VANE ARM HAS A SMOOTH, CONTINUOUS FINISH
,=(
ADJACENT AREAS WITH 24" OF EVEN
BOTTOM OF BANK
2. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF DROP STRUCTURE
MIXTURE OF CLASS A, B AND CLASS
(STREAMBED ELEVATION)
1 _
C RIP -RAP, NO. 57 / NO. 5 STONE,
()
3. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC THE FULL LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE STARTING AT THE UPSTREAM END, AND THEN
AND NATIVE MATERIAL ON TOP OF
24"OF EVEN MIXTURE OF CLASS A, B
TYPE II GEOTEXTILE FABRIC. COMPACT
UNDISTURBED SOIL
AND CLASS C RIP -RAP, NO. 57 STONE,
IN 6 INCH LIFTS.
CONSTRUCTED POOL
�T
RIPRAP
ROW OF CLASS B RIPRAP,
SET 2" ABOVE GRADE
PLAN VIEW
HEADER ROCK
() SECTION B -B INSET
CENTERLINE OF- (SEE ABOVE)
STREAMBED
SECTION B
3 PRIMARY ROCK DIMENSIONS:
X. LONGEST DIMENSION
Y. SHORTEST DIMENSION
Z. INTERMEDIATE DIMENSION
THIS SYMBOL DENOTES CRITICAL
ELEVATION ON STRUCTURE.
CHECK DIMENSION AND CRITICAL
ELEVATION TABLE 1 BELOW OR
PROFILE FOR EXACT ELEVATION
CALLOUT DESIGNATIONS:
A. BANKFULL WIDTH
B. STREAMBED WIDTH
C. DISTANCE FROM BOTTOM OF BANK
TO TOP OF BANK
ROCK A -VANE DETAIL
�CENTERLINE OF
STREAMBED
-- TOP OF BANK
FOR PROPOSED:
5. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS
TOP OF BANK
HB -2 = 5.5'
z
S
(BANKFULL ELEVATION)
UT -2 = 5.0'
--__--
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
FL
0.5%
-------
-
1.
1. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION OF MODIFIED A -VANE SHOULD INCLUDE ENGINEER OR DESIGNER WITH STREAM
i
THAN 2 INCHES) BETWEEN ADJOINING ROCKS. A COMPLETED ROCK VANE ARM HAS A SMOOTH, CONTINUOUS FINISH
RESTORATION EXPERIENCE.
Ox
_
2. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF DROP STRUCTURE
HEADER ROCK
FOOTER ROCK
ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAM BANK
(TYP)
()
3. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC THE FULL LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE STARTING AT THE UPSTREAM END, AND THEN
FOOTER ROCK
24"OF EVEN MIXTURE OF CLASS A, B
()
UNDISTURBED SOIL
AND CLASS C RIP -RAP, NO. 57 STONE,
ROW OF CLASS B
CONSTRUCTED POOL )
AND NATIVE MATERIAL ON TOP OF
NCDOT TYPE II GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
RIPRAP
SECTION B
3 PRIMARY ROCK DIMENSIONS:
X. LONGEST DIMENSION
Y. SHORTEST DIMENSION
Z. INTERMEDIATE DIMENSION
THIS SYMBOL DENOTES CRITICAL
ELEVATION ON STRUCTURE.
CHECK DIMENSION AND CRITICAL
ELEVATION TABLE 1 BELOW OR
PROFILE FOR EXACT ELEVATION
CALLOUT DESIGNATIONS:
A. BANKFULL WIDTH
B. STREAMBED WIDTH
C. DISTANCE FROM BOTTOM OF BANK
TO TOP OF BANK
ROCK A -VANE DETAIL
�CENTERLINE OF
STREAMBED
-- TOP OF BANK
VARIES
5. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS
BANKFULL EL�VAl10N)
----------------------------
z
S
W
TO 2% (INCLINE SLOPE OF VANE ARM)
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
� i
0.5%
-------
-
1.
1. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION OF MODIFIED A -VANE SHOULD INCLUDE ENGINEER OR DESIGNER WITH STREAM
Z U
THAN 2 INCHES) BETWEEN ADJOINING ROCKS. A COMPLETED ROCK VANE ARM HAS A SMOOTH, CONTINUOUS FINISH
RESTORATION EXPERIENCE.
Ox
_
2. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF DROP STRUCTURE
HEADER ROCK
---
ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAM BANK
(TYP)
J
3. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC THE FULL LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE STARTING AT THE UPSTREAM END, AND THEN
FOOTER ROCK
DOWNSTREAM PAST THE LAST DROP STRUCTURE POOL TO A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET
()
w
yF �
WEIR HEADER ELEVATION
CONSTRUCTED POOL )
4. PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK. FOOTER ROCKS SHALL BE FIRMLY KEYED INTO THE
� O
JUST DOWNSTREAM
STREAMBED. TOP OF HEADER CROSS ROCK(S) SHALL BE PLACED 0.2' ABOVE PROPOSED STREAM BED ELEVATION
AS SPECIFIED ONROFILE
AND TABLE THISS SHEET.
SECTION C -C OF A -VANE ARM
WITH THE WEIR HEADER ROCK PLACED AT PROPOSED STREAMBED ELEVATION
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
W W W. Wkc ickson.com
NC. LICENSE NO. FO3]4ccCc
LU
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D7
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
Q �
� N
F N
O �
a Z
O
U
0J
Z
O
U
0
O
O ?
� CO
gV)
O �
LL Q
Lou
O taao �
Y y W J
awe awe LOU
5. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS
Uz
BANKFULL ELEVATION
z
S
W
6. ROCKS SHALL BE PLACED IN A LINEAR FASHION, AND SHALL BE PLACED WITH TIGHT, CONTINUOUS SURFACE
O O
CONTACT BETWEEN ADJOINING ROCKS. ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SO AS TO HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT GAP (NO MORE
HEADER
Z U
THAN 2 INCHES) BETWEEN ADJOINING ROCKS. A COMPLETED ROCK VANE ARM HAS A SMOOTH, CONTINUOUS FINISH
Ox
ROCK
� F
�
GRADE RUNNING IN AN UPSTREAM DIRECTION FROM THE BANKFULL ELEVATION TO THE STREAMBED
HEADER ROCK
G70
J
w�
Z
(VANE ARM)
�
w
yF �
WEIR HEADER ELEVATION
7. KEY SILL ROCKS INTO THE BANK A MINIMUM OF 5'
� O
Q z >
AS SPECIFIED ONROFILE
AND TABLE THISS SHEET.
8 USE COBBLE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM CHANNEL BED TO FILL GAPS BETWEEN AND ON THE
UPSTREAM SIDE OF ROCKS AND TO LINE POOL BEDS. IF ADEQUATE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL IS NOT AVAILABLE, USE A
FOOTER ROCK
W
ui Q�
tii
O w o
Q w
50/50 MIXTURE OF CLASS A AND CLASS B STONE. SEALING WEIR ROCK(S) IS CRITICAL TO SUCCESS OF STRUCTURE.
(VANE ARM)
N�
W
Z
¢ y I� m
3
�
9. AFTER ALL HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS HAVE BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH
a
MIX OF CLASS A, B RIP -RAP, NO. 57 STONE, AND SUBSTRATE MATERIAL TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE
HEADER ROCK. COMPACT IN 6 INCH LIFTS. BENTONITE CLAY MAY BE USED AT FACE OF HEADER BOULDERS IF
FOOTER ROCK
SEE MATERIAL NOTES
VOIDS EXIST WITH HEADER BOULDERS AND THE CLASS A AND B RIP -RAP
FOR ROCK SIZES
FIVE BOULDERS MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO SPAN CHANNEL
10. AFTER INSTALLATION OF ALL ROCK IS COMPLETE, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESHAPE THE BANK SLOPES AND STREAM
BED TO THE SPECIFIED ELEVATIONS. ALL UNSUITABLE AND SURPLUS ROCK WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE
DEPENDING ON SIZE OF BOULDERS SELECTED. FLANKING
NON WOVEN
BOULDERS TO CENTER BOULDER SHOULD HAVE A TOP
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
11. UPON COMPLETION OF THE ROCK A -VANE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE STABILIZING VEGETATION AS SHOWN IN
ELEVATION 0.3 FEET HIGHER THAN CENTER BOULDER.
(NCDOT TYPE II)
THE PLANTING PLAN
SECTION D
MATERIALS NOTES (SEE ABOVE ROCK DIMENSIONS DETAIL)
1. ROCKS MUST HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIMENSION (Z) OF AT LEAST 18- FOR HEADERS AND 20-26" FOR FOOTERS.
SILL ROCKS SHALL HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER OF AT LEAST 18". ALL ROCKS SHALL BE APPROVED BY
ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
2. LENGTH OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS (LONGEST DIMENSION), (X) MUST BE AT LEAST 24". DEPTH OF HEADER
AND FOOTER ROCKS (SHORTEST DIMENSION), (Y) MUST BE AT LEAST 18". WIDTH AND DEPTH OF SILL ROCKS MUST
BE AT LEAST 12"
A
3. ROCKS SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ANGULAR, FLAT OR CUBED ROCK OBTAINED FROM A SOURCE THAT IS APPROVED
FOR PROPOSED HB -2 A -VANES:
FOR PROPOSED UT -2 A -VANES:
BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
DIMENSION A- 10.9'
C B
C
DIMENSION A= 9.0'
DIMENSION B = 3.0'
DIMENSION B = 2.0'
4. ROCK SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT HARDNESS TO RESIST WEATHERING AND SHALL BE FREE OF CRACKS AND OTHER
DIMENSION C = 3.95'
DIMENSION C = 3.5'
STRUCTURAL FAULTS. IN NO INSTANCE SHALL CONCRETE BE ALLOWED
5. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS FOR TYPE 2 NCDOT GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ACCORDING TO NCDOT
(BANKFULL
STANDARD SPECIFICATION 1056
ELEVATION)
/
WEIR HEADER ELEVATION
D
TABLE THIS SHEET.
SEE MATERIAL NOTES
HEADER ROCK
FOR ROCK SIZES
(T�)
FOOTER ROCK
NON WOVEN TYPE 11
O SECTION A -A
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(TYP.)
DD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V)919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
W W W. Wkc ickson.com
NC. LICENSE NO. FO3]4ccCc
LU
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
O.C.: DP
O.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D7
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
Q �
� N
F N
O �
a Z
O
U
0J
Z
O
U
0
O
O ?
� CO
gV)
O �
LL Q
Lou
O taao �
Y y W J
awe awe LOU
Uz
z
S
W
0
O O
!L Q
w
Z U
Ox
oz
� F
�
¢
> f7
G70
J
w�
Z
�
w
yF �
�Z
o
� O
Q z >
� Z
O
w
W
ui Q�
tii
O w o
Q w
z u�0
�
N�
W
Z
¢ y I� m
3
�
w Qz�
z m
O
a
¢ate
Uz
z
S
W
0
O O
!L Q
w
Z U
Ox
oz
� F
�
¢
> f7
G70
J
w�
Z
�
w
yF �
�Z
o
� O
Q z >
� Z
O
w
W
ui Q�
tii
O w o
Q w
z u�0
�
N�
W
Z
¢ y I� m
3
�
w Qz�
z m
O
a
¢ate

FLOW
I
4.0' CHANNEL 4.0-
r1'P _ BOTTOM WIDTH
CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE PROFILE
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
W W W. Wkc ickson.com
NC. LICENSE NO. Fm�acrz LULU
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D8
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
J W
a Z
O
U
U)
ti
PROPOSED TOE OF BANK
z
S
0
/
Q
GLI E
w
W
Z U
A
O 2
O WOODY
MABRUSH)
Cc
� �
DRIFFLE EBRIS BRANCHESAND
NOTES :
Z
U
ATTERIAL
ATI
W
y r
� Z
ism
p
SUBSTRATE MATERIAL 40%
1. CONSTRUCTED WOOD RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS
O
� Z
O
SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
RIF LE a
_O
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS
Z� O
H
TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE
W
CROSS SECTION A -A'
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITH
1
RIFFLE MATERIAL RIFFLE MATERIAL: MIX OF WOODY
3. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 60/40 MIX OF WOODY MATERIAL AND ROCKS. WOODY
CJ
DEBRIS (LOGS, BRANCHES, AND
MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF LOGS, BRANCHES, AND BRUSH NO GREATER THAN 4., IN DIAMETER. THE
BRUSH) AT 60%, AND NATIVE
ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL WHEN POSSIBLE.
awe
SUBSTRATE MATERIAL AT 40%
MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS.
w
IF A SUITABLE QUANTITY OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL CANNOT BE HARVESTED, CONTRACTOR MAY
RUN a
SUBSTITUTE AN EQUAL MIX OF #5 /#57 STONE AND SURGE STONE.
4. THE PLACEMENT OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTH
TOP OF BANK
VARIES VARIES VARIES
PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT "JUMP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM POOL -GLIDE AND THE
BEGIN RIFFLE
PROPOSED TOP
RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT -DROP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THE DOWNSTREAM
END RIFFLE CONTROL POINT
OF BANK
RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE
SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION.
TOE OF BANK
5. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE INTO ANOTHER IN -STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL OR
FLOWEND
RIFFLE
J -HOOK).
FLOW
CONTROL POINT
6. THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED
THALWEG
BY THE DESIGNER. THE "KEY' SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OF
PLAN VIEW
THE RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK VEGETATION ISA PRIORITY A'KEY"
-
MAY NOT BE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.
CONSTRUCTED WOODY RIFFLE PROFILE
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
W W W. Wkc ickson.com
NC. LICENSE NO. Fm�acrz LULU
PROJ. DATE: JUNE 2018
Q.C.: DP
Q.C. DATE: APRIL 2017
DRAWING NUMBER:
D8
PROJ. NO.:
2016021500
W
J W
a Z
O
U
U)
ti
Uz
z
S
0
OpW ir
Q
CL Q
W
Z U
� U
O 2
o z
Cc
� �
J
Z
O
Z
U
W
y r
� Z
ism
p
0
� O
O
� Z
O
Z
�
ui ��
_O
U
Z� O
H
gy
W
Z
o �
LL Q
O
3
�
Y y
W J
¢ate
awe
awe a
ti
Uz
z
S
0
OpW ir
Q
CL Q
W
Z U
� U
O 2
o z
Cc
� �
J
w �
Z
W
y r
� Z
ism
p
¢y p
� O
Q z >
� Z
O
w
�
ui ��
Iii
O w o
� w
Z� O
H
N M
W
Z
rY y Im
3
�
w Qz�
z m
O
a
¢ate

Appendix F
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit
Calculator

Site Name: Meadow Spring
USACE Action ID: SAW# 2016-01986
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor: RES
County: Johnston
Minimum Required Buffer Width': 50
Mitigation Type
Restoration (1:1)
Enhancement 1(1.5:1)
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Preservation (5:1)
Other (7.5:1)
Other (10:1)
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals
Buffer Zones
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)°
Ideal Buffer (square feet)'
Actual Buffer (square feet)'
Zone Multiplier
Buffer Credit Equivalent
Percent of Ideal Buffer
Credit Adjustment
Total Baseline Credit
2171.73
Mitigation Ratio Creditable Stream
' Baseline Stream Credit
Multiplier' Length
1 1045 1045.00
1.5 1430 953.33
2.5
5
7.5 675 90.00
10 834 83.40
3984.00 2171.73
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
less than 15 feet
>35 to 20 feet
>20 to 25 feet
>25 to 30 feet
>30 to 35 feet
>35 to 40 feet
>40 to 45 feet
>45 to 50 feet
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 feet
>125 to 150 feet
119520
39840
39840
39840
39840
39840
39840
39840
199200
199200
199200
199200
118507.99
38856.93
38485.9
37934.42
37080.98
36589.56
36311.42
36030.5
178127.22
176133.13
176953.53
178602.88
114185.432
36969.70218
36194.43367
35259.55891
34583.16094
34100.99044
33733.65527
33012.24243
115892.8709
66484.9045
30701.91747
9358.160422
50%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
7%
5%
4%
4%
1085.87
217.17
217.17
217.17
108.59
108.59
108.59
108.59
152.02
108.59
86.87
86.87
96%
95%
94%
93%
93%
93%
93%
92%
65%
38%
17%
5%
-39.61
-10.55
-12.93
-15.31
-7.31
-7.39
-7.71
-9.10
98.91
40.99
15.07
4.55
Credit Loss in Required Credit Gain for Net Change in Total Credit
Buffer Additional Buffer Credit from Buffers
-109.90 159.52 49.62 2221.35
'Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
2Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet -to -credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
'Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
°This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
'Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OH WM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non -creditable stream
reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
'Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non -creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.